Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has called for increased investment in Britain’s forces
 

All well and good, but if you turn on the taps now, you will still be years down the line before anything equipment wise is available or has the trained manpower for them unless you aim to recruit those that have recently left, mind you cancelling some of the out of service dates might help, such as the Herc's and the recently retired nuclear submarines.,.

Wallace warns Russia may ‘lash out’ as he calls for rise in defence spending (msn.com)

And STOP doing stupid things like the selling of this.

UK set to lose biggest microchip factory over ‘direct threat' from China: ‘It's madness' (msn.com)

Agreed, Nutty, but you have to start somewhere. Recruiting recent leavers has been done before, and would fill a gap.

Agreed about the factory. If it needs a buyer to remain viable, Nationalise it, even if only as a temporary measure.

Playing catch-up with an active scenario on NATO’s Eastern flank makes for good Media coverage.

As Putin seems to be discovering, real conflict consumes personnel and materiel at a very high rate. Opening manufacturing or recruiting facilities, with their respective ponderous time-lines, only provides an answer many years down the line. UK and NATO are in a ‘NOW’ scenario, and reaping the rewards of years of neglect and contraction. Horses and Stable Doors time, chaps, and yet Vlad the Mad has been waving his Red Flags vigorously for ages … or did nobody think he was serious?

Nobody wanted to believe it is probably closer to the truth.

Because it would also force some very hard choices on whichever government had to make them. With the tax burden at record levels, in order to pay for the extra defence budget, something has to give - remember how popular that pretend austerity was?

The glib answer is to chin off foreign aid, but that has some very real consequences and doesn't fit with the newly announced G7 equivalent to Belt and Road. Welfare budget? Who's going to tell the pensioners? Transform the National Religion? Good luck with that.

No easy options.

Yep, the problem with a war is that it always a 'comes as you are' deal. The only thing a nation may be able to negotiate is the date of the party or the time..and perhaps decide to show up fashionably late.

The defence cuts were short sighted and stupid, but that is irrelevant in this time and place, because they have happened. What is in the cupboard is all we have to play with, and this obviously goes for every nation, not just the UK. That said, the planned cuts of more troops, C130's etc should probably be halted immediately as they were done with a view to saving money and loss of capability was inadequately considered, or just outright ignored.

I see that Boris has already refused to agree with the Sec Def's statement today, instead saying a bunch of gibberish about defence budgets over the years etc and deflecting the question. I would not hold my breath for a ton more cash - maybe just enough so he can use the optics of it to show he is doing something. We reap what we sow, and the UK has put itself in it's current predicament, but I think it may not be as bad as some think. What would really happen if we unleashed what combat power the UK does have, against the Russians (I am not thinking 'Nuclear' - that is a game changer)? I suspect we would annihilate their air force and slaughter their artillery - it would almost be like fish in a barrel. Add in the Yanks and the rest of NATO and Russia would be eviscerated in short order, based on their performance thus far in Ukraine. But here is the thing...does anyone really believe that Russia does not know this? This is why I believe Russia will not risk a conventional war with NATO.

If a NATO/Russia war was to materialize, then I believe it inevitable that as soon as Russia started to lose decisively - the sort of loss that could not even be spun as a 'victory' by Putin himself - then he would go nuclear. If that happens, then no amount of spending will help to avert the consequences. His FM has stated in the last few days that in the event of Nato intervention this would lead to WWIII and the first place to be removed from the planet would be London.

Putin will not want to go nuclear because he is losing his forces in a conventional war - he needs a military to support his power base. Instead, he would rather jump first, nuke London (or wherever) and then immediately (perhaps whilst the missile is in the air) say 'that's it, no more will fly if you all back off and let me have what I want, and if you don't then the rest of you get it'.

I genuinely believe he is deluded enough to think he could get away with it.

Not a Boffin,

Aid wise the 50 mil to India would be a good start, especially as they are busting the sanctions over Ukraine by buying Russian fuel.

Fully agree. Its bizarre that the UK continues to provide aid to a country with both nuclear weapon and space programs. It's likely more about buying the votes of British Indian voters though.

Oh I don't disagree. Ditto anything still going to China or even Nigeria. But £50m is literally a drop in the ocean. Less than 1% of the budget. Might buy you half an airframe or ten tanks.

But pennies make pounds, it’s alright saying it only chump change, but it all adds up at the end of the day.

The Gov't says the exhorbitant price of fuel is driven by the war in Ukraine. Perfect! We have a delicious scenario in which the problem can be it's own solution...
Gas/Oil/Petrol/Diesel prices have gone through the roof - the Gov't says 'because of the war in Ukraine'. This means the Government is unexpectedly raking in a huge dividend in taxes. I submit that they should give this windfall, in it's entirety, to Defence. This may help to end the war more quickly, thus reducing the price of fossil fuel once again, and it's 'free' money as it was never planned for in the budget. Am I missing something?

Oh, and Brent Crude is $117 a barrel today and petrol is over 1.90 per litre. The last time it was $117 a barrel, petrol rose to 1.25 per litre but no higher. Someone is lying to us.

For fear of turning this into a price of fuel thread. Headcorn on Sunday. Small independent garage diesel £1.98.9. Large multinational service station £2.01.9.
So if it's the war causing this it seems to affect the big money makers more than the little guys?
They used to call it profiteering.

They did say that although they are making more tax it is being offset by the extra costs to them in both fuel and other commodities they purchase. The fuel price is down due to them cutting refining capability, so although oil is cheaper, refining it is the problem and supply shortages drives up the price.

read

https://www.reuters.com/markets/comm...ch-2022-06-22/

..

It's not a date, it's money therefore a simple decimal. £ 2. 019

The trouble with Wallace's statement is of course he hasn't suggested where the money will come from. NHS? Pensioners?? Taxes???

Nobody ever explains where the money will come from when the case is made for expenditure increases anywhere. There is, however, the sweeping claims made by Labour and the Greens etc when demanding more for public services the NHS, Education and so on. Its always talk about punitive taxes on the rich, that won't happen without draconian measures imposed on everyone to ensure Business owners (and I mean the very rich) have very severe restrictions preventing them from circumnavigating any new tax laws forcing what? Never ending rounds of windfall taxes, massive levies and so on. We would need to be more like the Marxist state which the British left still seem to crave but without a thought for how that will affect us all generally.

FB

An individual minister would never talk about such a thing: that would be interfering in the affairs of government outside his/her specific area of responsibility and would be very badly viewed by the Prime Minister and Chancellor. That is their turf and they would not tolerate a simple minister trampling on it.

In the current climate, where the money is going to come from is somewhat academic.

The cost, collectively to Western nations, of putting the brakes on Putin's ambitions would (and, sadly, probably will) be dwarfed by the ultimate cost of not doing so.

The trouble is at the end of the Cold War, the Treasury took the so called Peace Dividend but then took it again, year after year rather than the once. Presumably, they crossed their fingers hoping there would never be another war. History shows such a hope is forlorn.

Absolutely right. Not putting the brakes on Putin’s ambitions will come at a far higher price.

Yes, you need to nip it in bud now once and for all, because if you don't, you will end up back at the coldwar situation, masses of troops stationed overseas for years at a time.

The problem is getting that over to Joe public as the knee jerk reaction will be" you could plow that money into the NHS" etc.
The trouble is they will not see it as spend now on the military to save spending even more on it later.
Putins army needs to be well and truly routed with his major equipment depleted or destroyed on the fields of Ukraine, to such an extent it will not be fit for a generation or more to attempt anything like this again, we need to support them NOW and in sufficent quantities, both in time and sustained replenishment, only then will there be a chance of peace.

Not trying to steal the thread....but see this as a related issue. being reported on in the USA.

Recruitment this year by the Military is a failure....with varying shortfalls in the various Services.

Does our problems sound similar to those in the UK?

We are two societies that have some commonalities but also have some differences.

One thing we do share is the need to be capable of manning and sustaining a viable and effective military fit to meet our self defense needs at a minimum and to be able to field forces in mutual support when required.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...orm-of-events/

What we should be asking is how are we going to fight once the initial stages have finished and all the expensive weapons and equipment have been used or destroyed.

There is no way that replacement aircraft, ships, tanks etc. will be manufactured in quick time (like what happened in WW2). We no longer have the factories, infrastructure and skills to produce them in large numbers. Besides, it often takes several weeks just to get a washer...

Unless we can out-produce the opposition, we are likely to lose (especially as the likely candidates don't really care about their manpower).

Of course, that's for a conventional war. Once it goes the other way, all bets are off anyway.

If only we could be nice to each other...

You think that's bad, where are we going to house all the Russian prisoners? there are millions of them..:rolleyes:

Back in Russia, at their homes and farms. Probably where they were before being called up.

Todays "Times" says that BoJo has told Wallace there is no more money this year :(

Herod.....hang on a mo' will you? Would sending them back home like that be considered a Crime Against Humanity?

If large numbers of them refuse to be repatriated....what would we have to do in that case....keep them?

We’ll post WW2 they handed out a suit, perhaps give them a toilet as an incentive and send them home.

The massive difference there is…. An attacking force needs troops and to be able to recruit more troops quickly. A defending force needs less troops early on and let’s face it will get enormous troop strength quickly.

Russia can’t take Ukraine in a year. Does anyone seriously believe they have any further ambitions!? Their generals would be ****ting themselves with any escalation.

I would say if anything has been shown during this episode is that we overestimated our adversary.

I think we are passed the time when one country can militarily hold other western countries to ransom. I also think any pacts would not work as well. I can’t see any western pact forming for aggression on a superpower. I also can’t see a joint pact between China and Russia. They would rather fight each other than the west.

What the west does to non first world countries is a conversation for another thread.

You do need to balance an effective “defence force” against the economic reality. I think the US has got this wrong over the past couple of decades. They have funded an effective aggressive force and so found the means to validate this.

All those trillions, yes trillions of dollars spent
(2.3 trillion at last count) worldwide on Afghanistan over the past 2 decades would have been better spent on CIA operations to route out terror groups. Those actually responsible and planning rather than just sympathetic.

I would say Russia is screwed either way.
The west will keep pumping in what has now been shown to be vastly superior weapons and if things carry on as they have been, even more effective weaponry that Russia simply cannot match.

I can see the west supplying weaponry with even longer reach that can take the fight to the likes of the bridge and the fleet in Servastapol.

Even if Russia does advance, stretched out supply lines will be their death, just as they were for Germany at Leningrad and Russia at Kyiv.

And if that wasn’t bad enough, even if they took the whole Country they would never hold it, they would need in excess of half of a million troops and the west would hopefully keep supporting Ukraine and Russia would lose thousands upon thousands of troops through resistance.

Even the supply of munitions from Belarus shows a falling in the Russian system, these are not new munitions but existing stocks thus showing the Country’s inability to replenish their own supplies.

The Soviet Union eventually went bust over their ability to fund their military to equal the west, even allowing for oil, with the sanctions in place I can see Russia sipuffering the same fate.

I suggest that you expand your field of view. The Russians are already doing bigger energy business with China since a few years ago (see that pipline from the frozen north)
The Chinese will be the senior partner in any such partnership, yes, but Putin has been laying the pavement for that kind of thing, as has Xi, for about a decade.
Although they do have their differences.

There is a lot of talk about the impact of inflation on spending everywhere at present. This is a problem, however, if I recall early 1979 during the run up to the General Election which saw Labour and Mr Jim Callaghan replaced by the Conservatives and Mrs Margaret Thatcher, inflation was running at between 13 and 14%. I thought it was higher, I do recall Labour offering a 24% pay rise for HM Forces during the election run up.

FB

SASless,
my impression from the outside is recruitment numbers have improved but aren't high enough, the Covid year and IT problems may have had some impact. Finding people to recruit is an issue throughout the UK economy - the reassessment of what one wants from a job and work life balance etc. Those still in will obviously have a better and more informed view than mine.

I do wonder if the shrunken armed forces mean there is so little exposure in most of the country that young men and women don't even consider it as a career; and also the opportunities are much fewer than historically - stories about long holds for aircrew training can't help it that specialism. However, I think the UK would struggle to get the recruits to meet any substantial expansion; as for getting those who have left to go back, I'm sure some would but no where near enough. Surely, to be effective any large expansion needs large numbers of experienced NCOs and officers especially in the increasingly technical environment.

Figures for full time trained strength on 1 Jul 21 as published last October:
1 Apr 21 Navy/Marines 4.7% under strength (an improvement on -5.9% 1 Jul 20)
Army 5.9% under strength (an improvement on -10.1% 1 Jul 20) (the Army's strength is planned to reduce strength by 11% by 2025)
Air Force 6.2% under strength (an improvement on -7.1% 1 Jul 20)

There was a recovery in inflow in 2021 v 2020.

Of note is the fact that the Naval Service and the Army are far more understrength in ORs than OFs. The Air Force figures are pretty much even.

Nutty....Russia borders Ukraine....Germany was a very long way from Russia and in turn the Russian Supply lines were as long as the Germans but ran in the opposite direction.

The Russians received 400,000 Trucks and Jeeps from the United States....which allowed the Russians to supply its troops and move artillery.

I understand that, but the further they advance the problem compounds itself.
Kyiv isn't that far from the Belarus border, but their supply line struggled over that short distance, hence the deeper the go the bigger the problem.

Looks like 2.5% of GDP by 2030

Let's hope we are not speaking Russian by then Comrade.
The technical description is making a big show of it, all bluster and bullsh*t, BUT kicking the can down the road for whoever is in power then, and the chances are that will go straight out of the window, he is making promises he cannot keep.

As GDP is going south this might not be much or indeed anything at all.

Have a look at the sterling/dollar exchange rate then and now then do the maths again.

What is the conventional threat? If it is Russsia, haven't they just shown they are not quite the threat we thought they were? Do we really think they are capable of pushing further West?

With the best will in the world, and I'm sure nobody on pprune will be startled by my revelation, however, I doubt that Boris Johnson will still be PM anywhere near 2030. If we have any other government, unless we are blessed with a Tom Tugenhat, Oliver Tobias or Johnny Mercer type of PM, we will see defence spending fudged at best. That's imagining that the climate of a second cold war continues to prevail. If Putin is no longer President of Russia, his replacement will have to be particularly outwardly aggressive, with threats etc, to see western countries maintain any kind of pledge to a more realistic defence posture. We can be sure Boris and everyone else are sold on the panacea of cibre, AI etc rather than actual force expansion. Oh, and replacing Trident.

FB