General UK Defence Discussion

[Tempest414]

Who put double glazing in that house without retrofitting lintels?

Most likely the same shit company that turned up at my old unit and charged 10K to do 1K's work

[SW1]

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... ruary-2024

With your permission Mr Speaker I would like to make a statement on our plans for reform of MOD’s Acquisition system:

…Nimrod

…snatch land rovers.

…Ajax

…Crowsnest

…Morpheus.

The narrative of our acquisition system has long been dogged by major programmes that were variously: over-complex; over-budget; over time.

Of course, military procurement is complex. And external factors, particularly supply chain disruption, have caused delays across the board – which are likely to continue hitting programmes for the time being.

Secondly, we will have new checks and balances, to challenge assumptions at the outset of programmes.

Specifically, our new Integration Design Authority, based within Strategic Command, will be empowered to ensure our new approach is adopted in practice. If requirements lack a plan for data integration or accompanying enablers, the proposal will be sent back.

But they will also be able to monitor programmes for where opportunities may arise for example to better harness AI or novel technologies.

Meanwhile, in the MOD’s largely civilian sphere, a defence wide portfolio approach will bring together all the expertise at our disposal to enable properly informed choices and decisions on priorities.

Fifthly and finally, we will pursue spiral development by default.

Seeking 60%-80% of the possible, rather than striving for perfection.

For such spiral programmes we will abolish Initial Operating Capability and Full Operating Capability.

Instead of IOC or FOC…there will be MDC…the Minimum Deployable Capability.

And whilst there will have to be exceptions, we have set new default time targets for programmes: three years for digital; five for platforms.

I said to the HCDC that our plan was to launch our new model in the next financial year.

So from the second week of April, the Integration Design Authority will be formally delivering its new oversight function in support of the Integrated Procurement Model.

For major new programmes starting after that date, newly formed expert advice will be made available to Ministers – ensuring we thrash out all the hard issues at the beginning of a major procurement, locking down the key policy decisions so that our SROs and commercial functions can deliver at pace from thereon in.

Although for contractual reasons existing programmes will continue under their current procurement mode, on 8th April we will publish our new Spiral Development Playbook so that extant programmes which can adopt Spiral features will be empowered to do so.

On exportability, yesterday I published the next stage of our New Medium Helicopter competition – this includes a strong weighting for exports to ensure the high quality rotary work it will support in the UK is sustainable over the long-term.

Such an approach to weighting exportability, where appropriate, will become the default from April 8th.

[Poiuytrewq]

Illuminating.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/0 ... ding-nato/.

Defence has to be a general election issue
War is coming. If Britain is to stand a chance, we must spend 3 per cent of GDP on the Armed Forces

Britain needs a robust defence strategy to defend her interests
Do you think in No 10 that the penny has dropped? Do you think in the offices of Sir Keir Starmer that they are aware of the world they may face? We are witnessing a world in conflict: Ukraine, Gaza, the Red Sea and Iran. And storm clouds are gathering in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea. In this globalised age, there is no escaping the consequences of war and it is getting harder and harder to contain flash points.

Even before the Hamas attacks and Houthi missile strikes, I warned that conflict was coming and that we must be ready. If Britain is to be safe, it needs to be able to deter her adversaries and support her allies. To do that, we need to put our hands in our pockets and sustainably fund our Armed Forces.

When I took over at Defence in 2019, I inherited a department that had suffered 30 years of cuts. Labour reduced defence spending from 3 per cent of GDP to around 2.6 per cent and we kept going. Imagine what that does to the people in a department. Imagine the effect it has on the culture of the Armed Forces. No other department in Whitehall has suffered like this. Not our friends in the NHS, who sometimes got twice yearly increases despite failing to boost productivity.

So I was pleased that, in 2019, Boris Johnson gave me a real defence funding increase and, by the time I left, I had secured £31 billion more for defence between 2021 and 2028. I had also, I thought, persuaded the government of the need to put defence back into the mainstream of politics and spending.

Remember the promise offered by Jeremy Hunt to spend 3 per cent of GDP “whatever other pressures we face”, his claim in the 2022 Autumn Statement that “the Prime Minister and I both recognise the need to increase defence spending” and the pledge to spend 2.5 per cent “when economic conditions” allow. All sounded promising.

Curiously there is now silence and, as the election approaches, the Treasury is up to its usual trick of “tucking under”: inflating budgets with dollops of other departments’ capital underspends or even artificially inflating the defence budget with £1.6 billion of VAT receipts. That is not a sustainable way to invest and plan defence policy.

I fear that both parties will do the usual thing and say “we don’t want defence to become an election issue”. Well it must and it should be. No other department suffers stop-start, almost annual, fingers-crossed budgets. And few departments commission billions of pounds of projects that take years to come online. But unlike other departments, Defence has enemies who spout regular misleading claims and yesterday’s strategy. Take a glance across the media and you will see “rent a quote” former admirals and colonels who left the Armed Forces 20 to 30 years ago. They fight yesterday’s wars and pretend they had nothing to do with the MoD I inherited.

There are also the misleading allegations of “waste”. Let me put some facts out there. At any one time, Defence Equipment & Support manages about 2,600 contracts and 550 programmes. It delivers 98 per cent of key user requirements and 89 per cent of contractual milestones to plan. When I was defence secretary, we balanced the budget three years in a row.

Big programmes do go wrong. In my experience there are a number of drivers of that. One is inflation. Obviously a project that takes years is vulnerable to commodity price and wage growth. Another is No 10 and Treasury pressure to “delay” contracts. But “delaying” costs hundreds of millions of pounds. Labour did it and previous Tory governments did it. I had a rule: deliver or delete but don’t delay – unless of course the Treasury is prepared to fund the delay costs.

And then we have that ignorant question: “why can’t you buy off the shelf?”. As if there is a supermarket for nuclear weapons or submarines. And how many nations are prepared to delay their own programmes to let you jump the queue? Or how do you ensure that your supply chain and your competitors allow your choice of missile on their platform? They have no answers.

War is coming. It might be a cold war or it might be a hot one, but by the end of the decade, if we are to defend this nation, we need to be match fit and modern. We will need 3 per cent of GDP to do what we need to do and to lead in Nato and in Europe. We will need 3 per cent to make sure the men and women of the Armed Forces are lethal but also protected.

I am sorry to disappoint the armchair admirals, but the new Armed Forces will also look different and much of the money may not go where they expect. We must not let force structure trump innovation and we must expect our new generation of chiefs to shape an Armed Forces for tomorrow’s war not yesterday’s.

At the general election, defence must be a priority for all the parties. If it is not, know that in four to five years’ time, when we are not ready and more vulnerable, it was in 2024 when the government of the day, be that Conservative or Labour, failed to invest in the safety of the UK.

[Poiuytrewq]

Shapps demanding an extra £9bn per annum to raise defense spending to 2.5% GDP.

Pigs might fly!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... pc-of-gdp/.

Defence spending in Budget must rise to 2.5pc of GDP, Shapps tells Hunt……..Minister piles pressure on Chancellor by warning that Britain faces growing threats

Grant Shapps, the Defence Secretary, gives a speech at Lancaster House in London
Grant Shapps is demanding that Jeremy Hunt raise defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP in the Budget amid growing threats to Britain, The Telegraph can reveal.

The Defence Secretary sent a letter to the Chancellor formally making the request on Jan 24, in which he warned that the UK needed to “re-establish our leadership in Europe”.

The Cabinet split piles further pressure on Mr Hunt, who is already facing a Tory backlash after this newspaper reported that no new money is set to be announced for the Ministry of Defence [MoD] in Wednesday’s Budget.

Increasing next year’s defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP would cost about £9 billion, according to a security think tank. It currently stands at about 2.2 per cent.

Mr Shapps is understood to have written in the letter to My Hunt: “I believe we must take bold action in your Budget in March to commit to defence spending increasing to 2.5 per cent in 2024.

“This will resonate with our allies and adversaries. It would re-establish our leadership in Europe.”

Another section read: “I recognise this may mean hard choices elsewhere, but we should seek to reap the benefits of your successful management of inflation and the economy.”

Mr Shapps continued: “The threats we are facing are growing and so defence spending is only going to go one way. We should seize the initiative for your Budget.”

His warning that the UK needs to re-establish its leadership in Europe has emerged in the week that Emmanuel Macron, the French president, attempted to position himself as Ukraine’s champion, floating the idea of sending troops to the country.

The idea was dismissed by Nato allies. London and Washington have offered significant support to Kyiv since the start of the war, while French pledges of financial and military support have been among the lowest in Europe.

Germany has markedly increased defence spending since Russia invaded Ukraine, but on Friday Berlin ruled out sending powerful Taurus missiles to Ukraine amid fears that they could be used to strike Moscow.

Mr Shapps’s words also suggest that he believes Britain will be less well prepared to counter the threats it faces if defence spending does not rise.

Government figures moved to play down the row last night, with an MoD source saying that Mr Shapps would ultimately accept what was decided.

The MoD source said: “The Defence Secretary, like every secretary of state, has been pushing for more money for his department.

“He doesn’t want to debate it in public, but has been working behind the scenes. He fully supports the Chancellor and the Prime Minister and will support their final decision given the financial constraints.”

‘Focus on economic growth’
A Treasury source said: “A strong Armed Forces requires a strong economy. We need to focus on economic growth so we can raise living standards and raise the revenue necessary to invest in our defence.”

There have been repeated splits within the Conservative Party over defence spending in recent years. Many Tory MPs want a rise, but some of those in government are also mindful of budget limitations.

Rishi Sunak’s public position is that Britain should at some point raise defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP, but he has set no specific time frame for when that should happen.

Mr Shapps in his run for the Tory leadership in 2022 called for 3 per cent defence spending, a figure that Liz Truss in her brief premiership made official policy to hit by 2030.

Mr Hunt put spending 4 per cent on defence combined with foreign aid and “soft power” at the centre of his own Tory leadership bid in 2022.

On Wednesday, Mr Hunt was photographed meeting Commons Leader and former defence secretary Penny Mordaunt, who has championed defence spending and represents Portsmouth North.

Ms Mordaunt posted on social media that she had told the Chancellor that the Government’s “first duty” was to protect the country and spoke about the work she had done to get the best return from the current defence budgets.

Economic forecasts, which Treasury insiders say have left the Chancellor with less money to play with for the Budget on March 6, mean less generous public spending plans than were once under consideration are expected to be unveiled.

The tight public finances have seen the Treasury look at scrapping non-domiciled tax status and expanding the oil and gas windfall tax to bring in extra money for tax cuts.

Mr Hunt is also understood to have been forced to abandon plans for a package of support for first-time buyers, including a shake up of the Lifetime ISA savings product to reflect the rise in house prices and offering Government-backed 99 per cent mortgages.

There had also been speculation that the Chancellor could make an announcement on stamp duty, which is set to rise substantially when a temporary cut ends in 2025. Treasury insiders said new support for first-time buyers in the Budget was now “unlikely”.

No extra money
However, Mr Sunak appeared to hint that a cut to National Insurance is planned when speaking to reporters at the Scottish Tory conference on Friday, though some well-placed Tories predict a cut to the basic rate of income tax will be announced instead.

The Telegraph’s revelation on Monday that no extra money is being planned for the MoD triggered Conservative anger, with former defence secretaries Sir Gavin Williamson and Ben Wallace speaking out.

Some figures in Whitehall are hopeful that a surprise package for the MoD could yet be agreed given the pressure, but Treasury sources have dismissed the idea.

It is unclear exactly how much extra money would be needed to hit a defence budget of 2.5 per cent of GDP.

Nato, which demands members spend 2 per cent of GDP on defence, has its own definition for what counts as defence spending.

British spending that counts towards the target goes beyond just the MoD budget and includes relevant funding in other departments such as for the intelligence services.

Fluctuating figures
The other complication is that forecasts about the size of the economy can fluctuate, making it uncertain exactly what the UK’s GDP will be in the 2024-25 financial year.

Prof Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director-general at the Royal United Services Institute, said to spend 2.5 per cent on defence under the Nato definition next year would require about an extra £9 billion.

There have been recent defence spending increases, as Treasury insiders note when challenged on their current plans.

An increase in defence spending was announced last spring, with £4.95 billion extra given to the MoD across this year and next year.

An additional £2 billion was pledged each year after that for much of the remaining decade, in part to help pay for the Trident nuclear deterrent.

[Repulse]

The Chancellor is doing TV interviews this morning - two things that I’ve heard:
- HMG gave defence a big increase last year
- He wants to grow the economy so we can give defence more money

Equals - no new money in short term and the recommitment of increasing spending in the future (for what that is worth).

[Poiuytrewq]

The Chancellor is doing TV interviews this morning - two things that I’ve heard:
- HMG gave defence a big increase last year

The increase has been gobbled up by inflation and weapons supplied to Ukraine. HMG is actively cutting again in real terms.

- He wants to grow the economy so we can give defence more money

Meaning HMT is unwilling to commit to a higher percentage of GDP.

Equals - no new money in short term and the recommitment of increasing spending in the future (for what that is worth).

It’s hardly surprising as absolutely no one appears to be able to articulate what the increase would be spent on.

Certainly no MPs or commentators in the media are proposing anything specific but lots of complaining about how terrible everything is in defence.

[Jdam]

It’s hardly surprising as absolutely no one appears to be able to articulate what the increase would be spent on.

Certainly no MPs or commentators in the media are proposing anything specific but lots of complaining about how terrible everything is in defence.

Because that would be highlighting problems they created as they cut things that they claimed we didn't need anymore or could live without till the replacement arrived

Image they said we needed more ships, the comments would be (and rightly so) "Why have you been cutting ships left, right and center over the last 14 years, we have known about Russia aggression for that long, so why did you do it?" same can be said for the Air force and the Army assets.

The politicians have backed themselves into a corner and they will see the world go down in flames and do nothing rather than admit mistakes in an election year.

[Poiuytrewq]

The politicians have backed themselves into a corner and they will see the world go down in flames and do nothing rather than admit mistakes in an election year.

Agreed.

Attention must turn to SDSR25 now.

[Repulse]

Equals - no new money in short term and the recommitment of increasing spending in the future (for what that is worth).

It’s hardly surprising as absolutely no one appears to be able to articulate what the increase would be spent on.

In fact I heard recently the Defence Secretary saying that if the 3% was given tomorrow, the MOD wouldn’t be able to spend it.

I can understand the comment, but the reason is because there is no long term strategic plan - defence procurement is not something that can be easily turned on and off, and it’s not something that money should just be thrown at just on the off chance it delivers something useful.

[Repulse]

Moving the “what to do if we got 3%” discussion from the Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion thread.

IMO there are a few directions to go on this - none are mutually exclusive, the common thoughts are:
- Expand the UKs ability for global impact
- Increasing mass and the size of UKs contribution to NATO
- Increasing the UK’s tier one capabilities to help fill any gap from a reluctant US

My view is that the first and last of these have merit.

Thinking it through however, there is a fourth. It’s perhaps not one that the Government will talk about, but in the age of self interest from the US and EU, we should be talking about how we can increase our ability to independently defend our interests.

National resilience of energy and food is a key part of this, but from a military standpoint should we be looking at some the following above all else?
- Further increasing the number of nuclear warheads and an independent missile programme
- Development of tactical nuclear missiles with land / sea / air launch capabilities
- Medium range bomber
- Independent BDM
- A2AD and sea control capabilities for the North Atlantic, North Sea and Channel
- Increased satellite and anti satellite capabilities

Sounds extreme, but I can’t help but think some of these are more important than the traditional add x frigates / jets / brigades.

[Poiuytrewq]

Equals - no new money in short term and the recommitment of increasing spending in the future (for what that is worth).

It’s hardly surprising as absolutely no one appears to be able to articulate what the increase would be spent on.

In fact I heard recently the Defence Secretary saying that if the 3% was given tomorrow, the MOD wouldn’t be able to spend it.

I can understand the comment, but the reason is because there is no long term strategic plan - defence procurement is not something that can be easily turned on and off, and it’s not something that money should just be thrown at just on the off chance it delivers something useful.

Completey agree. Just saying “let’s buy more stuff” is completely counterproductive.

IMO a small increase in certain areas could unlock enormous strategic gains from existing forces.

However it’s all the mundane things like wage rises, improved housing, stockpiles and maximising what the U.K. already possesses that would make the biggest difference.

[Repulse]

However it’s all the mundane things like wage rises, improved housing, stockpiles and maximising what the U.K. already possesses that would make the biggest difference.

Agree and they definitely resonate, but that’s a reason for inflationary increases combined with a reprioritisation of resources / better management, not for 3%.

[Poiuytrewq]

However it’s all the mundane things like wage rises, improved housing, stockpiles and maximising what the U.K. already possesses that would make the biggest difference.

Agree and they definitely resonate, but that’s a reason for inflationary increases combined with a reprioritisation of resources / better management, not for 3%.

It’s totally the wrong way around.

The case for extra funding must be linked to a fully costed proposal to confront a tangible threat or simply shoulder more of the burden going forward.

SDSR25 is the perfect opportunity to make the case for a sustained increase and a reprioritisation of resources.

IMO 3% is simply not realistic in an election year but an increase to 2.5% is becoming increasingly unavoidable so where that funding is allocated is the top priority now. That amounts to an increase of at least £6bn per annum. Enough to solve all the current problems, ease the bottlenecks, reverse the bad decisions brought about by a lack of funding, reset the stockpiles and upgrade and maximise existing platforms.

Allowing SDSR25 to be drawn up within a 2.5% fiscal envelope raising incrementally to around 3% by 2030 would be an interesting read but it really should be based on perceived threats and burden sharing rather than a percentage based calculation.

[Repulse]

However it’s all the mundane things like wage rises, improved housing, stockpiles and maximising what the U.K. already possesses that would make the biggest difference.

Agree and they definitely resonate, but that’s a reason for inflationary increases combined with a reprioritisation of resources / better management, not for 3%.

It’s totally the wrong way around.

The case for extra funding must be linked to a fully costed proposal to confront a tangible threat or simply shoulder more of the burden going forward.

SDSR25 is the perfect opportunity to make the case for a sustained increase and a reprioritisation of resources.

Not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing? IMO things will never change, regardless of the budget, if the MOD cannot operate properly within that budget. A large part of the reason why it’s difficult to argue for more money is because the MOD is pretending it can do more with its current budget - paying personnel enough and providing the right conditions for a contented / stable force is basic, as is ensuring there is enough ammunition/ supplies, maintenance and training.

Unless these things are addressed, the forces may get larger with a larger budget, but will be just as fragile.

[Poiuytrewq]

Not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing?

My view is very clear. The U.K. needs to articulate a long term strategic vision based on risk and burden sharing rather than on how much cash is left over after the political giveaways have been funded.

Regardless of any election results this year the U.K. must start to fund more of the Euro Atlantic security burden along with the rest of Euro NATO.

After that vision is articulated and the priorities identified only then can a force structure be settled upon and the costs established.

IMO things will never change, regardless of the budget, if the MOD cannot operate properly within that budget. A large part of the reason why it’s difficult to argue for more money is because the MOD is pretending it can do more with its current budget - paying personnel enough and providing the right conditions for a contented / stable force is basic, as is ensuring there is enough ammunition/ supplies, maintenance and training.

Unless these things are addressed, the forces may get larger with a larger budget, but will be just as fragile.

The previous DS achieved one major success.

He shrank the forces to a level where the funding provided was adequate to maintain that force. Unfortunately the political establishment aren’t happy with the capability gaps and lack of mass that is inherent with such a small force which is massively narrowing options for policy makers.

IMO that was the right call. It’s highlighted the hollowing-out to a national audience which does not appear to appreciate the state of the forces.

[Repulse]

He shrank the forces to a level where the funding provided was adequate to maintain that force.

He went in the right direction, but no way is the budget in equilibrium. If no new money, then further cuts are required to ensure we have a sustainable force, especially given inflation.

[Poiuytrewq]

He went in the right direction, but no way is the budget in equilibrium. If no new money, then further cuts are required to ensure we have a sustainable force, especially given inflation.

It was a case of unfinished business but the primary objective was successful.

The U.K. needs to be proactive now and there is no reason why a process of increased burden sharing by the U.K. cannot start in the JEF area immediately without getting bogged down in a continental land army.

It’s a pretty straightforward strategy and may not cost the earth if properly organised.

Simultaneously, AUKUS needs to be explored fully to expose the true level of ambition.

[Jdam]

In fact I heard recently the Defence Secretary saying that if the 3% was given tomorrow, the MOD wouldn’t be able to spend it.

Sorry but he is out right lying.

There are cuts planned across all 3 services that could be stopped with more funding but that would be admitting mistakes in an election year.

Current cuts they could role back may, upgrading all our tanks to the Challenger 3 configuration instead of only doing 150, going back to the original buy of 5 E-7's, keeping our mine sweepers. I think you could make a case for all in the current situation.

[Scimitar54]

Continued retention of Tranche 1 Typhoons?

[Poiuytrewq]

Current cuts they could role back may, upgrading all our tanks to the Challenger 3 configuration instead of only doing 150, going back to the original buy of 5 E-7's, keeping our mine sweepers. I think you could make a case for all in the current situation.

To achieve what exactly?

That is why U.K. defence is in such disrepair.

Does UK need 200x CH3 or 300x CH3 or no CH3 and 1000x AJAX? If so: what for?

Is 5x E-7’s enough or should it be 6 or 7 or 8? If so: what for?

Where is the future plan for the MCM fleet before deciding if the MCMV’s should be retained?

Is 9x P8 enough or should it be 18x or should it be 9x P8 plus 12x or 15x Sea Guardian? If so: to achieve what exactly?

What are the true requirements?

It appears nobody knows and therefore HMT simply won’t release the funds.

[Jdam]

And if they keep cutting before this master plan is achieved? Wont that leave us in a spot needing to spend more money trying to get what ever capability we need back?

Taking a breath with the hatchet while all that is figured out surely much be the first step.

[Poiuytrewq]

Taking a breath with the hatchet while all that is figured out surely much be the first step.

I am not suggesting anything further should be cut. I fully expect another couple of £bn applied as a sticking plaster tomorrow which is the most that can be expected in an election year.

I am suggesting that instead of endless media commentators queuing up to criticise the state of UK defence and procurement it would be more productive to articulate a clear path forward.

For example:

Should the U.K. have a deployable Armoured Division?

Should the U.K. have a deployable Mechanised Division?

Does the U.K. need a deployable Expeditionary Division more than a deployable Armoured or Mechanised Division?

If the Army is concentrating primarily on JEF what is needed to fight and win in the Arctic and Sub-Arctic? How would this impact RM in Norway?

If the answer is that 3 deployable Divisions are required is it realistic to expected Boxer, Ajax and CH3 to be funded to enable it? If not, what are the more cost effective alternatives?

If the U.K. invests heavily in securing and supporting the JEF region is LRG(N) required? If not, how does that affect the MRSS and T32 programs?

If the U.K. becomes the main provider of MPAs in the region how many are required? That would be a huge commitment and how would that affect the RAF in other areas?

With Sweden and Finland joining NATO how many front line squadrons do the RAF actually need now? What is the optimal ratio or Tempest, F35b and drones?

How many A400M are required if the Army is going to be enlarged and be expected to deploy with much more mass? How many E-7 would be required to allow for a realistic rate of attrition against a peer? Likely many more than five.

The list is endless and one decision knocks on to the next.

SDSR25 isn’t far away but the debate hasn’t even started yet.

[Repulse]

Should the U.K. have a deployable Armoured Division?

Should the U.K. have a deployable Mechanised Division?

Does the U.K. need a deployable Expeditionary Division more than a deployable Armoured or Mechanised Division?

If the Army is concentrating primarily on JEF what is needed to fight and win in the Arctic and Sub-Arctic? How would this impact RM in Norway?

If the answer is that 3 deployable Divisions are required is it realistic to expected Boxer, Ajax and CH3 to be funded to enable it? If not, what are the more cost effective alternatives?

If the U.K. invests heavily in securing and supporting the JEF region is LRG(N) required? If not, how does that affect the MRSS and T32 programs?

If the U.K. becomes the main provider of MPAs in the region how many are required? That would be a huge commitment and how would that affect the RAF in other areas?

With Sweden and Finland joining NATO how many front line squadrons do the RAF actually need now? What is the optimal ratio or Tempest, F35b and drones?

How many A400M are required if the Army is going to be enlarged and be expected to deploy with much more mass? How many E-7 would be required to allow for a realistic rate of attrition against a peer? Likely many more than five.

The list is endless and one decision knocks on to the next.

None of that can be answered until the basic question of what role in the world the UK intends to fulfil is answered. The problem with that is it’s either a role we can’t afford, or a role that doesn’t match the grandstanding.

[Tempest414]

Current cuts they could role back may, upgrading all our tanks to the Challenger 3 configuration instead of only doing 150, going back to the original buy of 5 E-7's, keeping our mine sweepers. I think you could make a case for all in the current situation.

To achieve what exactly?

That is why U.K. defence is in such disrepair.

Does UK need 200x CH3 or 300x CH3 or no CH3 and 1000x AJAX? If so: what for?

Is 5x E-7’s enough or should it be 6 or 7 or 8? If so: what for?

Where is the future plan for the MCM fleet before deciding if the MCMV’s should be retained?

Is 9x P8 enough or should it be 18x or should it be 9x P8 plus 12x or 15x Sea Guardian? If so: to achieve what exactly?

What are the true requirements?

It appears nobody knows and therefore HMT simply won’t release the funds.

So the Army it self said it has a need for 190 CH3 but HMT will not fund them in the same way that they have a need for 90 M270a2 but will get 76

[Poiuytrewq]

None of that can be answered until the basic question of what role in the world the UK intends to fulfil is answered. The problem with that is it’s either a role we can’t afford, or a role that doesn’t match the grandstanding.

What comes first, the chicken or the egg?

If HMGs ambition is to have one deployable Division that’s not always reliably guaranteed to be deployable then the U.K. role in Euro NATO is going to continue to diminish especially if other members really start to step up.

When it comes down to it I think HMG will step up and do more but it will be tough love from the US that will eventually kick start the process.

Much better to be proactive and start now before the rug gets pulled.