Since it was signed in 1971 I'd say its been around through all sorts of iterations of UK defence "policy" - UK Govts can and have done what the hell they like

According to Wiki it's surely consultative:-"Signed in 1971, the FPDA consists of the five powers consulting each other "immediately" in the event or threat of an armed attack on any of the FDPA members for the purpose of deciding what measures should be taken jointly or separately in response. There is no specific commitment to intervene militarily, and the agreement is merely consultative. The Five Powers Defence Arrangements do not refer to exclusive economic zones (EEZ), and the enforcement of a state's EEZ rights is a matter for that state, which may request the assistance of other states in so doing.[3]

Today Mr Wallace seems to have said he can "live with an extra £5BN - the real push will be required in future years" conveniently after the next election...........

I heard the other day that we will send more Challengers to Ukraine. So are we going to get some more for the Army or does the on going theory that the age of the Tank is over still persist in some way? Given that all the tanks we're sending are from the army's inventory.

FB

Well, seeing as he continues to preside over the down sizing of the UK armed forces (just announced that HMS Enterprise is to decommission at the end of this month, which seemingly came as a surprise to her crew on Twitter and Facebook!) he doesn't really need any more money for the ever shrinking forces under his command does he? Such a contrast to what virtually the rest of the entire world is doing on defence post Ukraine.

What a clueless inept bunch!

MoD has denied it, still only 16.

Her sister Echo was effectively canned last year, I think the end of their planned service life was 2028. The fact that the once 2* post of Hydrographer of the Navy is now just part of a Commander's role presumably reflects successive governments' attitudes to the need to fund the droggie mission.
Probably all part of the ongoing plan to replace specialist people like aircrew with UAVs, UUVs, and USVs.

Rumors are saying that there will be an announcement on monday that UK will be procuring Archers to replace the AS-90's

Never forget. It isn't the government that directs that sort of choice. It is the RN itself making choices - in this case, a big bet on autonomy.

PM announces a 25% defence spending increase.

https://www.itv.com/news/2023-03-12/...x=1678660381-1

Note the weasal words 'in longer term'

Er, an increase of just under £5Bn over TWO YEARS is nowhere near 25%! All the rest is aspirational rubbish, and irrelevant as they will not be in power after 2025. Once again we learn that this shower cannot be trusted with any aspect of public spending or public service. Compared to what the rest of Europe, and many other countries outside of Europe are doing, it is pathetic!

£2.97Bn of the total is to be spent on nuclear infrastructure expenditure, so that is funding to help the Australians build nuclear submarine tech, and £1.98Bn to replace weapons transferred to Ukraine. The rest is a derisory increase in "language skills" "security advice on the Chinese to UK businesses" and a "College for national security curriculum."

Meanwhile, Tranche 1 Typhoons will still be retired without replacement, the C-130J fleet will be retired without replacement, Frigates and Hydrographic vessels will still be retired without replacement, no sign of Ajax entering service, no replacement for the Warrior CSV programme, leaving the British Army as the only major Army that will not have a single Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV), but never mind, they have preserved cap badges in the 36 infantry battalions who will be fine walking into battle without any mechanised capability in battle whatsoever, no increase in the miniscule Surface to Air missile capability, oh, and the 3rd front line F-35B Lightning squadron is "expected to form in 2033!" Tories are an embarrassing joke in the current world environment and anyone who voted for them should be ashamed.

C-130K fleet? That went YEARS ago!

Thank you! Post suitably amended.

The Tories certainly are blighted with Banana skin homing feet on many issues. Defence never was one before, but it is now. I hear Sunak's mask has slipped at last and he's mentioned that ultimately, the Ukrainian conflict will end in a negotiated settlement, "as they always do". It would appear he has the same History Degree as Gary Lineker. WW2, WW1, the Falklands, Gulf War 1 and 2 all ended with defeat of one side and terms dictated. Korea, a permanent ceasefire, is one such conflict but remains unresolved to this day. Vietnam was a negotiated ceasefire which lasted as long as it took the North to realise the Americans were sloping off and leaving the South to it. Result, same as Afghanistan, a complete take over. Sunak is a bean counter and no more.

FB

PS The most vexing question, on defence policy, of all time, what would have happened to UK Foreign and Defence policy and military structure/posture, if it had been PM Corbyn?

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!

Proone
 

I’m not disagreeing with your post, but MFTS? Maybe check your timelines on that one. Unless the Conservatives started the idea in 1997 before Tony Blair took over I think you’ll need to remove that one from your list.

BV

Most people here are interested in equipment, which is a fraction of the Defence budget. The equipment budget is around £240Bn over the next 10 years. £5Bn over two years?

But far far worse is the real cost outstripping inflation. We used to get DTI Indices, which was very often twice the inflation rate for aviation. 25 years of not getting that in the equipment budget has done enormous damage.

Add PFI to your list!

£5bn might go some way to bringing accommodation and housing back up to a minimum acceptable standard.

pr00ne, yes, add the nonsense of PFI. I understand that the current AAR aircraft operated by the RAF costs the defence budget in excess of £1M per day?

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.