UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents
Some people don't like the thought of mixing light and heavy but realistically a blend is needed in order to provide flexibility depending on the threat.
I'm guessing there's a battle royal going on in Whitehall atm in relation to the Chancellor's Spring Statement. Treasury line will be "you had your big increase in 2020 so sod off" and their fallback position may be a one-off extra amount this year that doesn't further hike the Mod's baseline. The counter argument will point to the changed set of circumstances we now face plus all the big increases elsewhere in Europe (most notably Germany) and pointing out that the UK needs to follow suit if it wants to maintain its position as a leading European power.
And of course most of the last increase was swallowed up by the black hole. We have to hope that if there ARE any increases announced in the near future, they are clearly badged to specific measures/acquisitions, ie it needs to be very clear what any extra is actually going to provide.
And of course most of the last increase was swallowed up by the black hole. We have to hope that if there ARE any increases announced in the near future, they are clearly badged to specific measures/acquisitions, ie it needs to be very clear what any extra is actually going to provide.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,819
Received 2,795 Likes
on
1,190 Posts
I assume all the replacement weaponary to replace that sent to Ukraine will be coming out of someone elses budget?
What about NATO funding, or is that a distant memory?
What about NATO funding, or is that a distant memory?
Thread Starter
Some of the press have been saying the Treasury are saying you can have as many Javelins etc as you want at £ 200k but forget any new tanks or aircraft as the Ukrainians have shown they're a bit of a target
pity the Treasury have little to no interest in that level of detail.
Thread Starter
"need to know? NEED to know?? I NEED TO KNOW EVEYTHING Prime Minister" - Sir Humphrey Appleby
No increase in defence spending in the Chancellor's Spring statement, just a tax give away in 2 years time. That sums up the Tories priorities, ensure that they'll get re-elected and to hell with the countries defence!
Germany, Sweden, Finland, France and Italy have all stepped up to the plate.
The Tories? pathetic!
Germany, Sweden, Finland, France and Italy have all stepped up to the plate.
The Tories? pathetic!
No increase in defence spending in the Chancellor's Spring statement, just a tax give away in 2 years time. That sums up the Tories priorities, ensure that they'll get re-elected and to hell with the countries defence!
Germany, Sweden, Finland, France and Italy have all stepped up to the plate.
The Tories? pathetic!
Germany, Sweden, Finland, France and Italy have all stepped up to the plate.
The Tories? pathetic!
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: south of the m4
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is that the Integrated Review called Russia as a threat to the UK so in Sunack 's view that's all being taken care of in the settlement . There will be those who say change the priority for spending ( to the Army) at the expense of the other 2 services. Boris - a lover of big boys toys will want to keep his Carriers and all the ships necessary for their proper defence "to fly the flag" around the World so It could result in even more cuts to the RAF (if that's possible).
No increase in defence spending in the Chancellor's Spring statement, just a tax give away in 2 years time. That sums up the Tories priorities, ensure that they'll get re-elected and to hell with the countries defence!
Germany, Sweden, Finland, France and Italy have all stepped up to the plate.
The Tories? pathetic!
Germany, Sweden, Finland, France and Italy have all stepped up to the plate.
The Tories? pathetic!
The existential threat to the UK is currently inflation, debt interest repayment and cost of living. While more defence spending would be welcome, it would be building on a large settlement last year and has to be paid for in the round.
Thread Starter
"No increase in defence spending in the Chancellor's Spring statement, just a tax give away in 2 years time. That sums up the Tories priorities, "
According to Laura Kuenssberg on teh BBC the MoD didn't actually ask for any more money....................
According to Laura Kuenssberg on teh BBC the MoD didn't actually ask for any more money....................
As pointed out above, those Europeans you mention are not stepping up to the plate. They're just committing to fixing years of neglect.
The existential threat to the UK is currently inflation, debt interest repayment and cost of living. While more defence spending would be welcome, it would be building on a large settlement last year and has to be paid for in the round.
The existential threat to the UK is currently inflation, debt interest repayment and cost of living. While more defence spending would be welcome, it would be building on a large settlement last year and has to be paid for in the round.
What "these Europeans" are NOT doing however, is disbanding squadrons, retiring entire fleets without replacement, cutting capabilities, closing stations and retiring entire classes of weapon systems with replacements slated for the 2030's, which is exactly what the Tories are doing right now!
Many of us may hold views on such things. Any ladies or gentlemen wishing to air those views to the relevant bodies may find this of benefit.
https://committees.parliament.uk/wor...n-procurement/
Clearly, it's impossible to know whether the time will be well spent or not, but Tobias Ellwood seems like something of a decent egg so perhaps worth a punt.
https://committees.parliament.uk/wor...n-procurement/
Clearly, it's impossible to know whether the time will be well spent or not, but Tobias Ellwood seems like something of a decent egg so perhaps worth a punt.
The point is that "those Europeans" are not doing it now, and are not doing it after a £24 Billion funding increase!
I was among those hoping to see an increase, but on reflection maybe now isn't quite the right time. Bearing in mind that much of the last £4bn a year uplift was swallowed up by servicing the black hole and "stabilising" the existing programme (or rather stabilising the remaining elements that weren't cut) then you can see why simply saying now "Here is £x bn more for defence because we need to spend more on defence, go away and think what you're going to do with it" may not be the best approach.
Also, there was a strategy set out in the last review that needs to be implemented but also potentially reassessed in the light of current events. Implementing the existing approach is already a delicate balancing act, so tweaking it in the light of Ukraine needs to be done thoughtfully and properly, not with a knee-jerk. And in any case the war is still happening and any lessons from it are presumably still being assessed. I suspect most of us would be happy to offer an initial prescription right now, but a proper assessment with any further spend hardwired to the outcome of that assessment sounds a better way to go. Hopefully that's what we'll see, but who knows...
Also, there was a strategy set out in the last review that needs to be implemented but also potentially reassessed in the light of current events. Implementing the existing approach is already a delicate balancing act, so tweaking it in the light of Ukraine needs to be done thoughtfully and properly, not with a knee-jerk. And in any case the war is still happening and any lessons from it are presumably still being assessed. I suspect most of us would be happy to offer an initial prescription right now, but a proper assessment with any further spend hardwired to the outcome of that assessment sounds a better way to go. Hopefully that's what we'll see, but who knows...
Last edited by Frostchamber; 24th Mar 2022 at 22:55.
That's my point, until "about a month ago!" There was quite a significant event "about a month ago" that should have altered all thoughts about European security, and for most European nations, it has. But the UK? Still we carry on axing squadrons, gapping capabilities, closing stations and removing fleets and entire weapon capabilities from service without replacement and reducing manpower numbers.
I doubt that hanging onto the T1s of 736 and 100 would bring much to the party.
As Frostchamber points out, you need to understand what you're trying to achieve. Arguably, by shifting investment towards uncrewed and achieving mass that way it's a more achievable option in the medium term.