The UK needs to bake in time to build up the armed forces. Pushing Putin back behind his borders and at the same time deterring Xi will be a start. Pan-European unity will also help even if Trump fails us. Ukraine has shown us all what can be done strategically if we think outside the box. Wow, is this misplaced optimism?
Real problem here is the MoD's fiscal incontinence and incompetence. It's an inefficient money pit. No wonder the Treasury is leery about offering up more monies to be frittered away!
HM Treasury orthodoxy is that *any* money spent on Defence is wasted because they consider it could be more gainfully spent in other, more productive parts of the economy. They have often been a supporter of buying off-the-shelf US kit because its performance/cost/time is usually predictable. However, given that our priority is maintaining sovereign industrial capacity, some degree of inefficiency is inevitable, even necessary for resilience. How can we publicly measure and account for that resilience, when stockpiles and readiness states are military secrets?
Countries held up as delivering more bang for their buck are often highly discerning customers of others' industries rather than enthusiastic subsidisers of their own. Finland, Poland and the Netherlands come to mind. Good luck finding a British politician of any stripe who'll sign up to that model.
I'm curious as to whether you sense there's any coordination taking place between countries? In the resource constrained world we live in it would make sense to coordinate.
This is a vital point. Let’s drop the pretence that U.K. defence stands alone. It is a joint enterprise now it’s Europe. The Government and others should be explicit as to how this joint enterprise will be developed and sustained. This includes bringing the industrial base within the boundary of military capability.
Are the two actual RN aircraft carriers unsinkable, or they rather astronomical white elephants designed for a world policing role focused on the Middle east and Indo-Pacific - think South China Sea - rather than a cost effective defence of the Home Islands role?
Just asking the question as an interested non-expert citizen.
I think I disagree, wasnt the real winner Defence Industry itself with a recognition that you need to build systems that can sustain platforms Vs just focusing on the platforms?
My take was in 2030 the UK isn't significantly better armed than now in terms of kit in service volumes but it will have a lot more ammo and spares in the cupboards and far more productive capacity for munitions and spares meaning if a war did kick off it would be much better placed to ramp up.
12 to 36 New F35s isn't a strategic change. The ability to make hundreds of thousands more shells, make hundreds of more missiles and barrels per annum with skilled staff and extra flex in the factory floor plans for all these is.
This was a good outcome. Not perfect but UK is a lot tougher for it.
And they can sell more weapons abroad from that, it's productive defence spending from a Treasury perspective.
It’s crucial for Britain’s military, and indeed the associated military industrial complex, to learn from the Ukraine conflict. The older NATO weapons supplied to the Ukrainians have been successfully adapted. The UK has also adapted surplus air-to-air missiles for ground-based launch, creating systems like Gravehawk and Raven to meet urgent air defence needs, particularly against drones and cruise missiles. These systems leverage existing technologies in innovative ways, offering faster delivery, lower costs, and tactical flexibility, as demonstrated by the Raven system deployed to Ukraine. This demonstrates the “Better is the enemy of good” strategy that was employed 85 years ago. Also the lightweight drone development and technology has been a revelation.
Frankly, the most interesting part of the Review (as a someone within Defence) was the reform of the defence enterprise itself. Lots of good practical solutions, if light on funding. I saw it somewhat lacking in wider strategic vision, but as a reform of defence as an insititution, pretty damn good - if the recommendations are executed properly.
Makes good sense to reinforce the mantle of major non-US NATO Naval element. Leave the land to Germany/Poland/Ukraine and Air to France/Italy/Benelux/Nordics
Exactly- the line I’ve been hearing for some time in Whitehall is the Poles, Finns and Balts can do the land bit, and the US quickly reinforce its AirPower in the UK if needed, whereas the US Navy is increasingly Pacific focused
The problem with that model is many of the nations mentioned as having land & air roles (the Poles, Finns, Balts, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Benelux) also have significant maritime exposure as we've seen with all of the recent cable and pipeline cuts.
The UK needs to bake in time to build up the armed forces. Pushing Putin back behind his borders and at the same time deterring Xi will be a start. Pan-European unity will also help even if Trump fails us. Ukraine has shown us all what can be done strategically if we think outside the box. Wow, is this misplaced optimism?
Real problem here is the MoD's fiscal incontinence and incompetence. It's an inefficient money pit. No wonder the Treasury is leery about offering up more monies to be frittered away!
HM Treasury orthodoxy is that *any* money spent on Defence is wasted because they consider it could be more gainfully spent in other, more productive parts of the economy. They have often been a supporter of buying off-the-shelf US kit because its performance/cost/time is usually predictable. However, given that our priority is maintaining sovereign industrial capacity, some degree of inefficiency is inevitable, even necessary for resilience. How can we publicly measure and account for that resilience, when stockpiles and readiness states are military secrets?
Countries held up as delivering more bang for their buck are often highly discerning customers of others' industries rather than enthusiastic subsidisers of their own. Finland, Poland and the Netherlands come to mind. Good luck finding a British politician of any stripe who'll sign up to that model.
"Some degree of inefficiency" is a masterful understatement!
I'm curious as to whether you sense there's any coordination taking place between countries? In the resource constrained world we live in it would make sense to coordinate.
This is a vital point. Let’s drop the pretence that U.K. defence stands alone. It is a joint enterprise now it’s Europe. The Government and others should be explicit as to how this joint enterprise will be developed and sustained. This includes bringing the industrial base within the boundary of military capability.
Are the two actual RN aircraft carriers unsinkable, or they rather astronomical white elephants designed for a world policing role focused on the Middle east and Indo-Pacific - think South China Sea - rather than a cost effective defence of the Home Islands role?
Just asking the question as an interested non-expert citizen.
I think I disagree, wasnt the real winner Defence Industry itself with a recognition that you need to build systems that can sustain platforms Vs just focusing on the platforms?
My take was in 2030 the UK isn't significantly better armed than now in terms of kit in service volumes but it will have a lot more ammo and spares in the cupboards and far more productive capacity for munitions and spares meaning if a war did kick off it would be much better placed to ramp up.
12 to 36 New F35s isn't a strategic change. The ability to make hundreds of thousands more shells, make hundreds of more missiles and barrels per annum with skilled staff and extra flex in the factory floor plans for all these is.
This was a good outcome. Not perfect but UK is a lot tougher for it.
And they can sell more weapons abroad from that, it's productive defence spending from a Treasury perspective.
It’s crucial for Britain’s military, and indeed the associated military industrial complex, to learn from the Ukraine conflict. The older NATO weapons supplied to the Ukrainians have been successfully adapted. The UK has also adapted surplus air-to-air missiles for ground-based launch, creating systems like Gravehawk and Raven to meet urgent air defence needs, particularly against drones and cruise missiles. These systems leverage existing technologies in innovative ways, offering faster delivery, lower costs, and tactical flexibility, as demonstrated by the Raven system deployed to Ukraine. This demonstrates the “Better is the enemy of good” strategy that was employed 85 years ago. Also the lightweight drone development and technology has been a revelation.
Frankly, the most interesting part of the Review (as a someone within Defence) was the reform of the defence enterprise itself. Lots of good practical solutions, if light on funding. I saw it somewhat lacking in wider strategic vision, but as a reform of defence as an insititution, pretty damn good - if the recommendations are executed properly.
Makes good sense to reinforce the mantle of major non-US NATO Naval element. Leave the land to Germany/Poland/Ukraine and Air to France/Italy/Benelux/Nordics
Exactly- the line I’ve been hearing for some time in Whitehall is the Poles, Finns and Balts can do the land bit, and the US quickly reinforce its AirPower in the UK if needed, whereas the US Navy is increasingly Pacific focused
The problem with that model is many of the nations mentioned as having land & air roles (the Poles, Finns, Balts, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Benelux) also have significant maritime exposure as we've seen with all of the recent cable and pipeline cuts.