UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents
Thread Starter
yes they did - before it sort of came out of the general pot . The Treasury hated it as they felt it was mis-representing the amount of cash flowing through the MoD, industry and the Services.
Genuine Question. Some years ago, but since the end of the cold war, didn’t the government include (for the first time) into the defence budget the costs of the UK nuclear deterrent force (Trident) and HM forces pensions costs? If I remember correctly this “fiddling of the books” enabled the government to continue to claim that the defence bill was still at 2% of GNP.
While I'm not particularly happy with only £5Bn, the confected nonsense from the opposition is risible. I would remind those foaming at the mouth over Nott 1981 and SDSR2010 to cast their minds back as to the circumstances. Nott 1981 was constrained as direct result of a certain previous government having to go cap in hand to the IMF IIRC? The precursor to the SDSR 2010 review was a certain Chief Secretary to the Treasury - one Liam Byrne MP - leaving a note to his coalition successor that read "I'm sorry there is no money left".
Now - credit where it's due. Robertson's SDR98 was a very good review, good analysis decent looking force structure. Unfortunately, it was never fully-funded courtesy of a certain one-eyed "financial genius" who hated defence with a passion. As exemplified by his refusal to provide the required funds when we were operating way above the planning assumptions behind that review in terms of both scale and duration.
Glass houses and all that.....
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 13th Mar 2023 at 11:24.
The following 3 users liked this post by Not_a_boffin:
£1.98 this year & £2.97bn next. Most of that (£3bn) is for defence nuclear enterprise, including industrial infrastructure, support to current subs and AUKUS. The rest (£1.9bn) is for munitions stockpiles.
Thread Starter
"The ‘Integrated Review Refresh 2023: Responding to a More Contested and Volatile World’ will be presented to Parliament by the Foreign Secretary James Cleverly later today [Monday], and then published in full on gov.uk"
Thank you Boffin, Doing a bit of digging I found this "https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8166/CBP-8166.pdf". Well worth a read. If I have read the 1st para under Acquisition costs (page 10) correctly the original capitol cost of Trident came from central funds with defence picking up the running costs. As for the Trident replacement "Para 4.4 Who will pay for it" page 19 is an interesting read.
Thank you Boffin, Doing a bit of digging I found this "https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8166/CBP-8166.pdf". Well worth a read. If I have read the 1st para under Acquisition costs (page 10) correctly the original capitol cost of Trident came from central funds with defence picking up the running costs. As for the Trident replacement "Para 4.4 Who will pay for it" page 19 is an interesting read.
I think you've misconstrued the term "out of the defence budget" as being some form of mystical capital pot. It should probably have read "from the defence budget".
Mickj3 , N_a_B is as usual correct. If you read 3.1:
'We estimate the capital cost of a four-boat force, at today's prices, as up to £5 billion, spread over 15 years. We expect rather over half of the expenditure to fall in the 1980s. We intend to accommodate this within the defence budget in the normal way, alongside our other major force improvements […]
...
It is a weapons system, like any other weapons system – ships, tanks, or whatever it may be. Within the defence budget this can and will be accommodated in the same way as Polaris was accommodated 10 to 20 years ago ...
Overall this expensive weapons system will take between 3 per cent and 4 per cent over the 15-year period, but at its peak years it will be about 5 per cent of the whole defence budget and 8 per cent of the equipment part of the budget.'
(Funny thing memory - I was convinced the costs were ring-fenced from the main budget)
'We estimate the capital cost of a four-boat force, at today's prices, as up to £5 billion, spread over 15 years. We expect rather over half of the expenditure to fall in the 1980s. We intend to accommodate this within the defence budget in the normal way, alongside our other major force improvements […]
...
It is a weapons system, like any other weapons system – ships, tanks, or whatever it may be. Within the defence budget this can and will be accommodated in the same way as Polaris was accommodated 10 to 20 years ago ...
Overall this expensive weapons system will take between 3 per cent and 4 per cent over the 15-year period, but at its peak years it will be about 5 per cent of the whole defence budget and 8 per cent of the equipment part of the budget.'
(Funny thing memory - I was convinced the costs were ring-fenced from the main budget)
Last edited by SLXOwft; 13th Mar 2023 at 12:58. Reason: Hadn't read far enough back
What I forgot to mention was that the late Lord Pym MC PC DL's statement was set against a 5.02% of GDP Defence budget (not including pensions). AFPS expenditure, I believe, accounts for c.3% of the current defence budget.
There is of course also the anomaly between what MOD says the budget is and the bigger amount reported to NATO as defence related expenditure (CSSF, JSF, civilian pensions etc.).
There is of course also the anomaly between what MOD says the budget is and the bigger amount reported to NATO as defence related expenditure (CSSF, JSF, civilian pensions etc.).
Corbyn! Corbyn? CORBYN????? Is that the best you can do? Honestly? Corbyn! If you really do think that the most vexing question on defence policy of all time is what would have happened if Corbyn was in power then I feel SO sorry for you and your total lack of even a toehold grasp on reality! Corbyn is not in power. Corbyn has never been in power, Corbyn will never be in power, now get a grip!
As to the Tories never being a banana skin on defence before, then I am afraid that you are again totally deluded! Try 1956, Suez and the greatest foreign policy disaster in British history. Swiftly followed by the 1957 Defence White paper, the worst defence white paper in history with ramifications echoing on down the years. Then there was 'Options for change', 'front line first', 'defence costs study,' the 2010 Defence White paper, selling of the MoD married quarters stock to a Japanese Bank, the closure of Military hospitals, MFTS, the carrier nonsense over CTOL/VSTOL, and before that, way before that, the halving of the aircraft establishment of 8 Sqn TEN years before their replacements were in service, the premature retirement of the Vulcan and Recce Canberra squadrons before the Tornado was anywhere near in service, The John Nott Defence White paper of 1981 gutting the Royal Navy; ALL of these fopas were carried out by Tory Governments. I am cross with you for making me go all Jonathan Pie!
As to the Tories never being a banana skin on defence before, then I am afraid that you are again totally deluded! Try 1956, Suez and the greatest foreign policy disaster in British history. Swiftly followed by the 1957 Defence White paper, the worst defence white paper in history with ramifications echoing on down the years. Then there was 'Options for change', 'front line first', 'defence costs study,' the 2010 Defence White paper, selling of the MoD married quarters stock to a Japanese Bank, the closure of Military hospitals, MFTS, the carrier nonsense over CTOL/VSTOL, and before that, way before that, the halving of the aircraft establishment of 8 Sqn TEN years before their replacements were in service, the premature retirement of the Vulcan and Recce Canberra squadrons before the Tornado was anywhere near in service, The John Nott Defence White paper of 1981 gutting the Royal Navy; ALL of these fopas were carried out by Tory Governments. I am cross with you for making me go all Jonathan Pie!
FB
Thread Starter
"Can you remember the position of the Labour Party in the 1930s, since proud of their anti-appeasement position."
That's nearly 90 years ago - that's like Churchill hammering the Govt in 1938 for their failings in the Crimea
That's nearly 90 years ago - that's like Churchill hammering the Govt in 1938 for their failings in the Crimea
Not a chance! Of that £5bn there is a total of £2.97bn allocated to the AUKUS industrial strategy and £1.93bn on replacing stockpiles transferred to Ukraine. So that leaves a fraction for everything else. As just pointed out in the House of Commons Defence questions (by a Tory!) that £5bn increase actually amounts to a cut in the money available to the armed forces over the next 2 years...
Wallace said last October that he needed between 8 and 11 Bn just to stand still, he has got about half of that, so no standing still, more going backwards and the Army keeps getting smaller and more hollowed out, the RAF retire aircraft without replacement and the RN retire Frigates....
Have any of these clowns heard of a place called Ukraine and a guy called Putin?
You are right, MFTS started in 2008 so must have been kicked off a good few years before then, so that does lie under the Labour Govt of the day, that Labour Gov't who spent 2.5% of GDP on defence, a figure never yet reached by this Tory administration. (sorry, not taking away from your correction!)
KIcked off by the Tories, but boy did Labour pick it up and run with it whilst in power!
Ok, take it easy Sir, or court will be adjourned and you'll have to see the Judge in his Chambers, or whatever it is. Yes indeed I'm not overlooking the disastrous defence decisions of many a post-war tory government. However, some of your examples are a little disingenuous. Options for Change was unavoidable following the Conventional Arms in Europe Treaty, I will give the Front Line First asset reduction exercise in 1994. The next big budget cuts were under Labour, SDR and the unwieldy titled Delivering Security in an ever changing World, translation, more heavy cuts. 1957 was the other great tory defence disaster, I understand Mr Sandys had a particular soft spot for the Navy and Marines, he though the Army and the RAF were only good for soaking up the National Service flotsam and jetsam. He was certainly wrong about the manned fighter. Even when we had about 12 Squadrons of Bloodhounds fully deployed about 1963, luckily, Lightnings and Javelins mks 8 and 9, still equipped about eight squadrons in Fighter Command, but were to lose more. The biggest sin was that the Bloodhounds were reduce to two squadrons over the next two years or so. The hidden devil in the detail is largely, both tory and labour have acted with a bare minimum approach. However, it is Labour which has had to fight off a prominent left-wing, which have always given the unmistakable impression that they would be utterly reckless with the nation's military posture. That's why I mention Corbyn, this is the same chap who had too close a relationship with people fronting the murder of British Servicemen in the 1980s. He has revealed how he would have reacted recently over Ukraine, opposing the supply of British, or any other arms and munition to Ukraine, he thinks as Bean Counter Sunak, I always suspected he thought deep down, that there is a negotiating point to be pursued. Only difference, Corbyn would have, through his stance, seen Ukraine over run by Russians by now. Can you remember the position of the Labour Party in the 1930s, since proud of their anti-appeasement position. If this was some kind of award, they should have handed it to Neville Chamberlain, the true recipient. I can explain this assessment.
FB
FB
Your description of the 1957 white paper is an exercise in sheer reductionism and generalisations, the Army and the RN took equally large cuts in the white paper and many of the planned RAF cuts never actually happened, apart from the overnight disbandment of a large percentage of the RAFG Hunter and Venom force. The Mark one Bloodhound force was deployed in the late 50's and withdrawal began in 1963 at the same time as the Thor force was withdrawn. The reason for the cuts in RAFG and Fighter Command were actually recommended by the Air Staff who saw the complete futility of the manned fighter against the ICBM, don't forget this was before the era of flexible response, the main threat was a missile threat, and against that we had NO defence at all, so 20 to 30 odd fighter squadrons were a waste of money. And please leave Corbyn out of this! He is an irrelevance and not even a member of the Labour Party! He didn't get into power, he never even came close, and all you do is demean your position if that is all you can argue with. The Tories have been a disaster without precedent for defence over the last 13 years, dogma driven idiots who hate public expenditure and public services.
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
Thread Starter
63 pages but very hard to see what the hell is changing - only about £ 2Bn for replacement ammo, the rest £ 3 Bn for AUSUS
I must have misunderstood. I thought this “refresh” was something to do with, you know, a war going on in Europe but apparently not. Lots of words. Lots of new offices in MI5 and elsewhere, more teaching of Mandarin and a National Security College but nothing new that is anything to do with actually fighting a war.
Thread Starter
quite a few "aspirations" as well. Long on analysis and very short on real actions