I dislike the way the UK and NATO discuss defence. Arguing over a percentage of GDP for spending has not and will not guarantee sufficient and correct forces. Lots of spending is lumped into the defence budget that buys no defence, from service pensions onwards. Current levels of active service personnel and weaponry in the UK are not sufficient for our operational needs and security.Linking spend to the no growth economy Rachel Reeves dishes up means an underfunded army.
The current defence review needs to set out what we expect of our armed forces and what is then required. There should be two prime tasks. The priority must be the forces to defend our islands from invasion and attack by sea and air. The second is to give us an expeditionary force capability to fulfil our role as a member of the UN Security Council.
For home defence we should be installing an Iron Dome type shield to deal with all incoming aircraft, drones and missiles, backed with powerful surveillance and warning systems. There need to be ground installations of weaponry to intercept and destroy, and fighter and drone squadrons. Our current systems need updating for hyperfast long range missiles. We need a strong navy to be able to guard and hold the Channel against an incoming force.
We have an expeditionary capability with two aircraft carriers and planes stationed abroad. There needs to be more support vessels and more planes for the carriers.
The army is too small and needs to be trained in island defence and in multi service actions abroad.
It also requires a much enhanced domestic industrial capability. All this needs to be provided at least cost.
We must not offer personnel to defend the EU/Russia border as we cannot afford that. The EU must defend its own borders as it seeks to take on Ukraine as a member.
February 16, 2025
Good morning.
I agree that defence spending should not be governed by percentages, it should be based on what threats there are to His Majesties Realm and what international commitments and interests we have.
So before we start demanding how much to spend, let us ask ourselves how much we need for the aforementioned commitments and who are the threats to them ?
February 16, 2025
The rot started with the Cameron/Clegg review when they decimated the military to increase welfare spending.
We have two carriers without planes and not enough support vessels.
Our deterent submariners are doing extended patrols because of breakdowns and shortage of crew.
We are invaded on a daily basis and absolutely nothing is being done to reverse this.
The government is anti British starting with 2TK down.
Putin could neuter us in days except for our SSBNs
February 16, 2025
If our enemy was Russia or the USA, which thank God it is NOT, I have to tell you that our SSBNs are tracked and there would be preemptive strikes. Might be the first indication that we were about to be attacked.
February 16, 2025
Indeed, but the history of our defence procurement and the MoD is gross incompetence, politics over function it has been a sick joke for years. Politically also a battle between the EU’s Heseltine types and the Brexit independent ones. Look at the sick joke of our two white elephant aircraft carriers without suitable aircraft. Before spending any more get some basic competence at the MoD.
John Healey does not sound like the right person to be Defence Secretary son of Aidan Healey OBE educated at the Lady Lumley’s School in Pickering before attending the independent St Peter’s School, York for sixth form. He reas Social and Political Science at Christ’s College, Cambridge. A sort of Cambridge PPE. Doubtless the idiot Ed Miliband will want the forces to have battery tanks, aircraft, rockets, ships and be net zero. Or perhaps the Navy will have to go back to sailing ships or steam ships fired by chopped down wood pellets.
A good article in the Mail I think yesterday about the total insanity, vandalism of Drax buring of imported US “young coal/wood”
February 16, 2025
John Healey also served as Shadow Secretary of State for Housing from 2016 to 2020 under Jeremy Corbyn, and worked alongside Andrew Gwynne, the now defunct Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.
Not someone I would trust to walk the dog. The I heard somewhere that dog walkers are a skilled profession for immigration qualification under Starmer!
February 16, 2025
Though I heard rather!
February 16, 2025
Army chief Lord Dannatt warns Keir Starmer his Premiership is heading for the ‘dustbin of history’ as he slams ’embarrassing’ neglect of UK’s armed forces amid growing threat from Putin”
Well the road to the dustbin is a very well trodden path uni-party PMs Major, Bliar, Brown, Cameron, May. Boris, Sunak, Starmer… and before that Wilson, Heath…
February 16, 2025
Wilson had the courage to scrap the UK’s “East of Suez” delusions. He also had the common sense to keep the UK out of Vietnam.
So, despite his many flaws he understood the reality of the UK’s actual loss of power.
February 16, 2025
I agree – and the sense to retire when he felt his time was up and grant a Common Market referendum. Far from the worst. In my view the ones who did the worse damage were Heath, ERM and bury the Tories Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, Net Zero May and throw the towel in early net zero and duff “vaccine” pusher Sunak.
February 17, 2025
Wilson had every intention of staying east of Suez. To this end, he planned to buy 50 F111 bombers from the USA, after cancelling our own TSR2. This only changed in 1968 when the pound was devalued against the dollar. It was Britain’s economic failure which led to the ignominious end of our east of Suez policy, there was no sort of strategic thought behind it.
February 16, 2025
Over qualified binmen? Oh! maybe not.
February 16, 2025
Why can’t you say ‘our country’? It’s not his country – not all of it, anyway! And what’s ‘majestic’ got to do with it. Surely we’re all ‘ majestic’ or none of us are.
February 16, 2025
Because it includes the other places – did you not know?
February 16, 2025
You forelock tiggers always amuse me. I bet your loftiest ambition in life would be to make it to ‘lady in waiting’, so you could really be of service.
February 16, 2025
February 16, 2025
@Mike Wilson +1
there lays the UK’s problem the people making the noise that we empower keep for getting they don’t pay for anything or it least they don’t individually pay more than any other individual. When it comes to our defence we pay those that put their lives at risk even less.
February 16, 2025
Mike
Whatever one feels about our nation, we cannot escape the fact that we are a ‘Kingdom’ and not a Republic. I use what I believe is the correct term although I get your point. After all, Kingdom or not, This Sceptred Isle is nothing without its people.
February 16, 2025
Well it will be eventually as Charlie and his mum pay/payed no IHT and every one else does at 20% or 40% so after a few generations!
February 16, 2025
Well defence should be quantified by capability, period.
Then capabilities need to match the incipient threat to these islands, whatever that might be. Ireland has to pay a considerable amount of its GDP, contribute substantially, or risk its sovereignty being threatened by us stationing whatever we need to station on its soil to protect NI.
February 16, 2025
I agree the focus is all wrong. We should identify where the threats are coming from and how detected.
The Channel regularly has shipping that carries weaponry, spying equipment and rogue craft with cable detection and damage facilities. An invasion of sorts comes in smaller boats. What air defence systems protect or detect possible threats? Determining cause and reaction to activity we will not tolerate needs a financial measure and implied orders for safety measures plus qualified staffing.
Pretending protection encourages ever more threat taking to our islands.
February 16, 2025
The threat comes in rubber dingies across the channel we need bows and arrows! Cheap!
February 16, 2025
…and a party/govt willing to fire them
February 16, 2025
The irony of today is, we had better defences against invasion via the Channel between 1939 – 1945 than we do today. Maybe because back then, those who were in charge took their duty to King and Country more seriously.
February 16, 2025
The two aircraft acrriers are reportedly always sunk in any war gaming exercise so might be fairly useless.
Provision ..”at least cost” would of course be facilitated by doing away with any need for “… an expeditionary force capability to fulfil our role as a member of the UN Security Council”. Many other benefits beckon too, all available by relinquishing a role we now have no need of nor to which can we lay any strong claim.
We will need to make very extensive use of drones for all the times any generation Z military personnel are too stressed to get out of bed.
February 16, 2025
They might be fairly useless but do they stop something else being sunk?
February 16, 2025
Perhaps best if sunk without aircraft then!
February 16, 2025
If we are talking defence of the UK we first need to assess what our potential enemies can deploy against us. So intelligence and therebye understanding the threat is paramount.
For it to be effective we need our energy sources based here in the UK. To be dependent on umbelicals from France and Norway when we have our own gas coal and oil within the UK is insanity, if not treachory.
Lessons from WW1 and WW2 tell us that we need to maximise home grown food supply. What we are currently doing to our farming industry in terms of tax and rewilding is again insane and treachorous.
The first priority is the defence of the realm, so a study of how Israel achieves this may well be significant. Having a well trained reserve force in the form of well armed territorials is important. To cease importing a serious threat to our security in the form of totally alien immigrants is another essential step.
For defense to be effective we need a very strong industrial base. Not possible when we have too many politicians intent on destroying it. We cannot project power until we have it at home. The two carriers we have are better described as targets until we have sufficient task force ships to protect them. Currently we do not.
One hopes that our government pays heed to the words of Vice President Vance and cleans up its schoolboy act of running the UK, but I am not holding my breath.
February 16, 2025
@Agricola. I don’t think our government would trust a well trained reserve force.
February 16, 2025
Spot on Agricola.
February 16, 2025
Dear Sir John,
Sound words of wisdom with historical experience in mind rarely seen or observed today.
February 16, 2025
We need to “defend our islands from invasion and attack by sea and air” AND LAND! The number of enemies growing here may soon need more than a police service that cannot even deal with burglaries.
February 16, 2025
Yep! Failure to defend the sea.
February 16, 2025
@Bloke – the enemy within?
February 16, 2025
What was once numbered in barely 3 figures and unarmed, is probably now well into 6 figures and can be armed to the teeth.
February 16, 2025
+1
February 16, 2025
We need properly calibrated defences against enemies foreign … and domestic.
February 16, 2025
The notion of Ukraine not being allowed to join NATO in compliance with a deal between what the USA & Russia prefer for themselves is errant.
If Ukraine is to be a free country, it should be free to make its own decisions, as are the countries that form NATO and want it to join in securing its protection as one of ours on our own continent.
February 16, 2025
You think Cuba, a free country, should be able to host Russian Nukes? That is what Zelensky is demanding – nukes on the Russian border.
February 16, 2025
Well Russia has nukes on the Ukraine border, and quite a number of other borders!
How do you see that?
February 16, 2025
I see what you did there; you brought logic into the game ….that’s your first yellow card
February 17, 2025
The Russian nukes are NOT targeting anything within Ukraine, NATO wants its nukes on the Russian border targeting Moscow.
In addition they want storm shadows there to knock out the Russian Nuclear early warning system. They have targeted that already.
You think this is illogical?
February 16, 2025
China has nukes on russia border, the USA has nukes on the maritime border ….russia never complain about them?
February 16, 2025
BTW – you should know that Zelensky, or whoever is aiming the Storm Shadows – have been targeting the Nuclear Early Warning System. They have hit a couple. So don’t tell me that ‘we would never do that!’.
Just get on your knees every night and thank God that Putin knew that the west was temporarily in the hands of imbeciles. We the EU and the U.K. remain so.
February 17, 2025
Ukraine is expendable to the USA.
February 16, 2025
What possible benefits do NATO countries gain by admitting Ukraine as a member?
None that I can see.
February 16, 2025
Nor me. Unless it was to act as a bridgehead to undermine and then overthrow Russia.
Now there’s a thought….
February 17, 2025
mick c:
Maybe NATO countries would derive no benefit in admitting Ukraine as you indicate.
However, if Ukraine is to be a free country, it should have freedom of choice to apply for NATO membership, without seeking Russia’s prior permission.
Similarly NATO as the group of other free countries has freedom of choice to reject Ukraine’s application.
February 16, 2025
Lesson from history – when the Crimea War broke out circa 1854 there was a panic on as we had not seen hostilities since Napoleon 1815 and were taken completely by surprise – the old warships were still there intact mothballed and maintained but with no sailors – at least not enough – the naval strength had been allowed to run down – yes there were seamen in merchant ships but they were not trained for naval warfare and likewise the army strength was largely not up to it either. So even though that was nearly two hundred years ago it might be a worthwhile exercise now looking back for the powers that be to see what needed to be done at the time.
February 16, 2025
We need to be able to shoot hypersonic missiles out of the sky. It will be a first. And they need to be differentiated from the thousands of drones which will be sent as cover, did you pay attention to the attacks on Israel? That is what is needed because let’s hope even Starmer is not so stupid as to contemplate deploying the nukes.
February 16, 2025
First point – drones are pretty slow moving, second ICBM and Hypersonic are not!
February 16, 2025
That’s why they send the drones up to 7 hours before the hypersonics. Bit like making Sunday lunch. Not everything cooks in the same duration, so you set them away at different times so they all cross the finishing line together.
Did you not see the bombardment of Israel?
February 16, 2025
Need to add in a massive cyber capability nowadays as well.
Absolutely correct that defence should be designed around what is required.
February 16, 2025
Pretty much spot on John. It also needs to be integrated with security services to prevent under-the-radar threats from illegal immigration and potential insurgency from the enemy within.
February 16, 2025
If the Defence Budget was spent on DEFENCE it would help.
We should not get involved in wars of aggression with countries which have not directly attacked us, or a NATO member. ie Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria or Ukraine.
Thanks to the destructive policies the Establishment has inflicted on us post WW2 we are no longer a great power. They should stop pretending we still are. And under no account should we get involved in “an EU/European Army.”
February 16, 2025
@Donna +1. I can’t see who would want to invade us, other than third world migrants. As for expansionist nations, we have some hydrocarbons and minerals, but not much else of interest.
February 16, 2025
+1
February 16, 2025
@Donna +1
February 16, 2025
Good article as usual, Mr Redwood. Defence projects take years to be realised, getting it right is very important. My only concern is that younger people have become so indoctrinated into disliking our country, we will not have enough personal to actually man and operate all the various services/systems. The ones who might step forward would have to ask themselves (having seen everything of value slowly undermined or destroyed), what am I actually fighting to defend. Just my humble opinion of course.
February 16, 2025
We can’t let Labour drag us back into the shrinking orbit of the anti-Trump Eurosphere
J D Vance’s speech in Munich just confirmed the obvious: Britain can no longer avoid the choice between the EU and US
Daniel Hannan
This alas will be the result of the 14 years of Conservative betrayal by Cameron, May, Boris and especially throw the towel in early net harm vaccine and net zero zealot Suank. How is it to be stopped now Daniel? Trump is the only hope of some mitigation.
February 16, 2025
Even the relatively sensible Dan Hannan was a deluded net zero believer last time I saw him!
February 17, 2025
What do you mean ‘was’? Hannon is hopeless.
If Ben Habib joins with him, Habib is finished.
February 16, 2025
Sir John,
I completely agree that percentages are not the best way to decide a budget, especially for something as important as defence.
It is not just our army that is too small, so is our navy and airforce. Britain no longer rules the waves.
You are correct regarding our ability to make our own defence products and it is folly to rely on others to supply such items.
When I travel through Western Road in Bracknell, I mourn the world class defence companies that are now absent from the area. Racal, Ferrantii and Sperry to name but a few.
We must not be part of an EU military Force, nor allow ourselves to get sucked in to getting involved with their plans.
Finally, we must grow our own food and generate our own power, as well as make our own military equipment.
February 16, 2025
Responsibility for the dire state of UK defences rests with 14 years of systematic Conservative cuts to the capability of the armed forces, beginning with the malign 2010 SDSR organised by Cameron, Fox and Osborne – which eviscerated the British Army in particular.
The new Labour government is undertaking an SDSR which is due to be published in 2025; this will take into account lessons learned from the Ukraine war. As Sir John points out, there are many gaps in British defence capabilities which must be filled.
The Ministry of Defence has a long and sorry history of mismanaging defence contracts which has cost the taxpayer countless £billions. To which we could add that we have three times as many Admirals than RN warships, four times as many Generals than tanks and twice as many Air Vice Marshals than RAF warplanes. Apparently the excessive number of these high level “ranks” are needed to manage the orderly decline of Britain’s armed forces
February 16, 2025
Responsibility for the dire state of British defences started with the warmonger Blair, who took the country to war with Iraq based on a tissue of lies. Never forget that he sent poorly equipped British soldiers into Iraq to be killed and maimed … and then did the same in Afghanistan.
February 16, 2025
“The Ministry of Defence has a long and sorry history of mismanaging defence contracts which has cost the taxpayer countless £billions.” Not jus the MoD the treasury (ERM), NHS almost everything, transport, Energy, FO, BoE, Housing, Education … the whole lot of them
February 16, 2025
Dear Boy, In any other walk of life mass redundancies would have taken place several times to meet declining needs for staffing. Makes you wonder what they do with their time?
February 16, 2025
I assume our brilliant MOD under John Healey is still recruiting inferior employees due to their diversity grounds religion – you either recruit the best you can find or you recruit on diversity grounds both is not possible!
February 16, 2025
A friend of mine works in the MoD. He tells me that they employ a woman who sends documents about DEI and critical race theory for staff to study.
February 16, 2025
So as to distract them from productive activity I assume? Same with the NHS etc. Diversity staff paid double junior doctors it seems and they have little student debts as no qualifications needed!
February 16, 2025
What! Only one?
February 16, 2025
Agree that the EU-Russia-Ukraine border is not our problem
February 16, 2025
+1
February 16, 2025
What if they come using dinghies?
February 16, 2025
easy to deflate!
February 16, 2025
Then we taxi them over using border force and THE RNLI
February 16, 2025
I don’t think we will get away with that. UK PMs from Boris Johnson onwards – especially in fact liz truss during her 5 mins – have been loud in their Churchillian rhetoric about how Ukraine must fight on and we must stand with them etc. if there is a peace settlement it might be difficult for us to get out of helping out with maintaining it, though it would be better if we could.
February 16, 2025
Why would Russia allow one of the protagonists to ‘help maintain the peace’?
February 16, 2025
What on earth makes you think Britain will be consulted, let alone wanted, as part of Russia-Ukraine-US peace negotiations, Richard1?
The Ukraine war is being settled on the battlefield. All we can sensibly do is learn some lessons from it, which I trust our military bods are doing.
February 16, 2025
And the ukraine are weakening the russian army every day …..1,000+ loses every day …thats 2 british army infantry regiments every day lost
https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/war-in-ukraine.304396/page-16911
February 16, 2025
You should look at the institute for the Study of War, Nuland family owned. Their numbers don’t correlate with yours, mind you yours don’t correlate with any other quoted.
February 16, 2025
You are dead right about the absurdity of this % of GDP focus. Especially as we know how useless and incompetent defence procurement is. We’ve spent a fortune on 2 aircraft carriers, one of which seems to be permanently in dock having parts jobbed off it for the other. Neither has anything close to a proper complement of aircraft – the whole point of an aircraft carrier. And as I understand it the design (no catapult) means there is a severe limitation on which aircraft can be deployed. Most of the rest of the Navy is required to support them. Thanks Brown. Meanwhile the army is now so small it should really be classified as a ‘defence force’ not an ‘army’. But as you might have guessed there has been a huge expansion in civilian pen pushers at the MoD.
If one good thing is to come out of Trump’s wild negotiating strategy on Ukraine (which, strangely, isn’t getting much comment on the centre-right) it will be a massive kick up the backside for the UK and other European countries to ensure adequate defence.
February 16, 2025
The absurdity of a %age of GDP budget is illustrated in foreign aid. Money is spent on nonsense causes just to use up the budget.
February 16, 2025
Money does not buy ‘adequate defence’. Think about the war. What price to invent the first valve programmable computer? The speed of the punched tape was 60 miles an hour! That’s what it took and more to win the battle of the Atlantic.
The currency is brains, initiative, appointing the right people and having them to appoint. In addition of course we had the training ships turning out naval officers, we built on our invention of fighter planes – Leaf Robinson (graduate St Bees School) being our first successful fighter pilot, and that’s what it took to win the Battle of Britain – straining every sinue.
You have to have people who love their country because it is the home of their people. That is what Russians are demonstrating yet again – if you care to look.
February 16, 2025
If we listen to the new NATO commander we can get a clearer idea of who the aggressor is in regards to Ukraine. This man wants to take on and destroy Russia – why are the Europeans so keen to keep this war going?
We should have no part of it – Boris was well out of line with his warmongering comments. What we need to do is have enough force to protect ourselves, and let’s get out of the habit of joining other wars because it is clear that NATO wants to justify it’s existence by escalating the Ukraine war.
Our host has a better idea on how we should be defending ourselves than the MoD, but that will be costly and impossible while netzero destroys our industrial base.
We used to have a military force and navy to be proud of, so why did successive governments trim it to the bone? To save a few pennies they said. We need to reverse this and understand that this planet will go through more troubled times and we need to be strong.
This universe doesn’t go along with the idea of a gradual decline being a way to live well or be optimum survival, something like our armed services either grows and becomes world class or it dies a death along with our industry.
February 16, 2025
What has Gen. Chris Cavoli (Supreme Allied Commander of NATO Europe) recently said?
February 16, 2025
New NATO military chief Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone.
“Nato is ready for conflict and would outmatch Russia’s conventional defence capabilities and its nuclear weapons stockpile should tensions escalate, he said.
In an interview with The Times, he said defence firms needed to stop thinking about profits and instead switch to a wartime mentality.”
February 16, 2025
That NATO must defeat Russia
February 16, 2025
Can we take out any foe’s IT and communications systems remotely?
If not that is where to focus spend. Gen Z and millenials should be ideal for this.
We do not need to spend money defending the EU we can help them if requested but at a margin of return costs plus at least 10% seems reasonable. Similarly our UN responsibilities. Too many freeloaders asking for help or causing trouble.
So any defence review should include a sales analysis for foreign incursions, a huge cyber budget and a large force ( including reservists) for defence. All forces should have the right equipment for the job.
The net figure we come up with is the figure. Percentages be dammed.
February 16, 2025
Now, which EU countries might buck the trend and physically support a threatened UK?
So it follows with why would UK support any of them?
February 16, 2025
To answer, no we can’t. But the Russians have now developed a lot of very sophisticated ‘jamming’ and can drop our missiles that they have experience of.
One of the reasons the west has been loath to give Ukraine our most modern equipment. Once Russia has an example it is deconstructed and studied and thwarted thereafter.
February 17, 2025
And/Or handed over to the Iranians to make cheap,effective copies.
February 16, 2025
I agree with much of what you say, except for international commitments. I think our armed services should be defensive ones, and not get involved in foreigners’ wars.
We should also recognise that we are not a great power and stop our politicians from having grandiose pretentions. So we should give up our seat on the security council and other such bodies, and focus on fortress Britain: defending it, and making it a place worthwhile to defend.
February 16, 2025
+1 For defence, we should focus on the 5 Eyes.
February 16, 2025
But what value do Canada and Australia bring to the party?
Just asking.
February 16, 2025
What money, taxpayers’ money that is spent on Defence needs to be spent on effective defence. A surface fleet is not effective defence. Even in 1982 a medium sized power, Argentina wreaked havoc on our fleet from their aircraft operating from over 700 miles away. Even tanks are too vulnerable, let alone massive, slow moving ships.Nowadays cheap drones and missiles can destroy very expensive ships. Because of that the Russian fleet in the Black Sea has suffered heavy losses and has had to be withdrawn from anywhere near Ukraine. There is no realistic threat to Taiwan as due to cheapish missiles and drones China cannot cross 100 miles of water to land there. We must accept reality and not waste our money on useless ships in terms of defence; the most that ships can do is help keep out illegal migrants in the English channel.
Reply We needed ships to get troops to the Falklands and to support their advance!
February 16, 2025
That was over 40 years ago before drones – the Falklands operation probably would not be feasible today, certainly against a major power because of modern drone trechnology
February 16, 2025
The Black Sea fleet is intact.
We need sophisticated defence of our outlying realm, one the can be deployed by personnel in the U.K. at a moments notice. No Argentinian should be allowed to land at all, for instance. We need to ask Musk for ‘tech support’ to that end.
February 16, 2025
Newsweek.com 03/01/2025 ‘Russia’s Black Sea problems are getting worse’.
Blackseanews.net 17/01/2025 ‘Russia is developing a new strategy to increase security risks in the Black Sea in response to the defeat of the Black Sea Fleet’.
That’s part 4, all first three parts can be accessed from part 4.
Caution: this last one is a Ukrainian site.
February 16, 2025
You do know that DOGE has revealed that USAID funds almost all the MSM? The objective is to seed inaccurate, wishful information to fool people like you.
It has succeeded.
February 17, 2025
Whatismore,Turkey is rigorously upholding the terms of the Montreux Convention and turning down UK requests for military access to the Black Sea through the Bosphorus.
Why does the UK want a “permanent naval presence in the Black Sea”?
February 16, 2025
A non negligible number of merchant ships were used during the Falkland war to transport troops and material, about 40 of them according to naval-history.net ‘Merchant Navy Ships’ 31/05/2013.
Reply Yes, supported by Royal naval vessels in the war zone.
February 16, 2025
Rodney’s uncle, Commander Wippell, was on board HMS Hermes installing computerised armaments when they were ordered to sail. They left so quickly he was unable to disembark, and ended up in the Faulklands. Wippell was able to see our system outshoot the French Exocet first hand.
The RN was an athletic, tight ship in those days.
February 16, 2025
I am surprised you would want to bring Exocet into the discussion.
Indeed the French willingness to sell them to an unstable regime.
February 16, 2025
Exocet is famous for sinking one of our ships. The French refused to tell us of the ‘kill switch’. (And Starmer says we should not have to choose between allies – Churchill didn’t have to – well no, but the choice between our eternal Continental enemies and the countries seeded by us is surely an easy one?). But I am told (by Commander Wippell) that Sea Cat, Sea Dart, Sea Wolf and Sea Slug outdid the Exocet.
I believe one is ship to air, one is ship to ship – and others changed as dictated by the target.
Peter Wippell was installing same when the ship sailed. So it was, I believe, brand new and they perfected it en route.
Reply Churchill had to make the difficult decision to scuttle the French fleet when they surrendered to the Germans.
February 16, 2025
JR scuttling the French fleet which was about to be surrendered to the Germans was an easy decision.
February 16, 2025
Sir John
Agreed there is a lot of political double speak when it comes to defence. What does the defence budget pay for currently there are 60,000 civilians employed as staff at the MOD. The Army is manned by 72,000 personnel, to get that in perspective that is not 72,000 that could be put on the front line. I would be surprised if we could find 40,000 for the front line, and that would be without rotation. The frontline is a 24-7 168hour week without a break.
February 16, 2025
To start with, we will need to spend to recoup the assets we have squandered in Ukraine; where does that appear in any budget?
February 16, 2025
Sir John
You mention Aircraft Carriers as if the have a purpose above big ‘white elephant’ flag wavers. It is said the MOD cut back on their ability/capability by putting short term cost saving above purpose.
The problem these carriers have they have a limited range, the need replenishment every 6 days. Doesn’t sound much, but it means an adversary only needs to knock out the supply ships and these carriers are dead in the water.
Then you have the issue the aircraft flying from them have the shortest combat range possible meaning to support troops on the ground the carrier needs to be very close to hostile territory. At best the version of the very few F35b(and it is a very few, and the only fixed wing capable of operating from them) planes stationed on board could do is just defend the airspace around the carrier. These carriers cannot use the more effective US Naval versions or any other combat plane as the carriers have been made incapable – to save money!.
For comparison the smaller French aircraft carrier has a massive range and capability. It doesn’t need any sort of supplies for at least 45 days, it can carry any known maritime aircraft – all with twice the range of the F35B. In short the French carrier could be out of range of the UK versions cripple and sink them without coming under attack.
So in true UK Government form along with their Ministry of Defence, they have done what was needed to grow and fund their department at the expense of the UK’s Defence capability. They have wasted money and keep wasting money and the management of the day has the gall to talk percentage of GDP when the real question is defence
February 16, 2025
DJT and Pete Hegseth are now calling for 5% in defence spending. Before that it was 3% called for by Grant Shapps in March 2024. Recently various admirals and chiefs of defence staff had been calling for 2.65%. The PM this morning (16/02) confirmed 2.5%.
It is clear that percentages might be easier for the public to understand than telling them some millions or billions are to be spent on this or that weapon system.
But the waste of resources in the MoD has been in and out and in again on the news for at least twenty years. What have the successive MoD ministers and Parliament done about it?
defenceprocurementinternational.com 05/01/2022 ‘UK MoD is wasting billions of dollars in taxpayer money’.
labour.org.uk 01/2022 ‘Dossier of waste in the Ministry of Defence, 2010-2021’.
£5,665 m Overspent procurement, £4,875 m Contract cancellation, £2,632 m Write-off.
February 16, 2025
lordashcroftpolls.com 28/01/2025, 5000 interviews, ‘Net Zero, votes at 16, who is the opposition, and how long will Labour last?’
February 16, 2025
Although it would still fall short. If the defence budget was the actual spending on those doing the job and their equipment the UK would be in an infinitely better position.
February 16, 2025
Politicians and the media love shouting about and comparing defence spend percentages; they’re meaningless. Total budget £52billion (Service Personnel £11billion)
What we need is an increase in the number of boots on the ground. Stop spending billions upon billions on nuclear weapons, aircraft carries and F35 jet fighters (70% of budget; page 15 UK defence in number 2023) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/660d4b5197e60600112b2218/MOD_Defence_in_Numbers_2023.pdf
….and spend it on our conventional armed forces
February 16, 2025
Boots on the ground make very little difference. Ukraine have fielded greater number than Russia throughout the war. They are not taken down in hand to hand fighting, they are stalked by drones and the operator is usually far away and safe. That’s why the losses between the two protagonists are so stark.
February 16, 2025
Sir John
“Iron Dome type shield” in today’s technological world makes good sense, we have a problem called NetZero.
All the required windmills in the North Sea for NetZero, many of them of Chinese origin – render early warning systems redundant
February 16, 2025
By 2030 the estimated cost of net-zero is £300 billion …..and our defence budget is currently £52 billion ……but we’re saving the planet ‘for russia & china’
February 16, 2025
The windmills in the North Sea are likely to be an early warning system.
February 16, 2025
The UK Royal navy excluding the carriers and submarines is just 24 combat ships when they are all fit for sea.
Carrier protection of course reduces that number.
There are also 8 offshore patrol boats.
Would that be enough to protect UK interests, being an island we need all major sea routes kept clear.
February 16, 2025
In 2013 there was an international fleet review at Sydney …..the Royal Navy sent one ship, I was embarrassed watching the review
February 16, 2025
‘International fleet review’. Why send working ships to a review that was not at Spithead?
February 16, 2025
240 criminals arrived in the UK yesterday; from the safe country of France …and the defence budget can’t help stop them !
240 ….240 and we didn’t see them coming, what of military surveillance
February 16, 2025
Thats shocking. Didn’t our floating taxi service know they wanted picking up?
February 16, 2025
It was David Cameron first added pensions and other cost to UK’s defence spending si he could claim UK met the NATO benchmark and to disguise his reductions which he intended to reduce UK’s true % of GDP on defence to then risible level of Germany. He then indulged in a bout of willy waving by declaring he woukd like see NATO’s borders pushed eastwards to tge Urals. He is what’s known in the trade as a plonker.
BTW Germany’s defence budget is increasing rapidly. It surpassed UK’s last year and is planned to have doubled by 2030.
February 16, 2025
Are they going to buy armaments from Russia? Money brings down very few missiles.
February 16, 2025
A combination of incompetence in the MOD and our NATO membership means that we are either used as as a cash cow by US weapons manufacturers with weapons systems such as the unsuitable F35B or the unusable General Dynamics Ajax or we make our own catastrophic procurements.
We have two aircraft carriers with the longest flight decks of any previous craft yet we are deploying F35Bs which are STOVL variants on them which are compromised in terms of weapons carrying capability and range as against the F35A and F35C which are designed for airfield and ship deployment. The Ajax makes its crews sick from vibration and noise and represents are class of weapon which has been obsoleted by drones.
If Trump follows through with his decision to leave NATO to Europeans, how will our MOD react in terms of procurement? It would be a good idea if they supported British manufacturers for a change.
Reply The F35B is a formidable stealth fighter with a range of 1700 km and substantial weapons pay load. The UK plans 138, and has more than 40 today to fill one of our carriers. The carriers also take helicopters and drones.
February 16, 2025
@Reply
F35a (not a maritime plane) range: 1,500 nmi (1,700 mi, 2,800 km)$82.5 million
F35c the purpose built maritime version range 1,200 nmi (2,200 km) cost $102.1 million
As you suggest the F35b has a range of 900 nmi (1,667 km), or as the RAF states a combat radius: of more than 450nm (833km) and they cost $109 million.
This dependency on the one plane(and the only plane possible for these carriers) has crippled the carriers and their role in maritime defence. In this crippled format they can’t carry early warning and surveillance aircraft, they cant carry electronic defence aircraft, they cant carry refuelling aircraft. Air combat is about fulfilling all the roles needed to dominate – not tokenism
The Government and its MOD didn’t save a single penny by is penny pinching. In fact every single pound of the Taxpayers money they sunk into these carriers was wasted money. If the spent maybe just a measly 5% more this would have been a project that would have put fear into adversaries
The plane can do a lot of damage to adversaries. The carriers can take other planes and drones to fly as well.
February 16, 2025
Wasted money? Do you forget Mr Brown’s intention to provide jobs for Scotland? *sarc*
February 16, 2025
Good analysis
February 17, 2025
Yet another F35 fell out of the sky two weeks ago in the USA.
The Iranians have just launched what I believe is the world’s first drone carrier
February 16, 2025
The F35B is compromised in both range and weapons payload compared to the F35C which is the version designed for aircraft carrier deployment. Unfortunately, our aircraft carriers are not equipped for catapult-assisted launch or arrester-wire landing. Because of the latter limitations, we are severely compromised over which aircraft can be deployed on them.
February 17, 2025
@forthurst – the smaller French Aircraft carrier which involved in part the same builder as the UK’s version (the French Government) carries food for 45 days and has a range of 25Years(its nuclear as the UK were intend to be). As it has ‘cats & traps’ it can home all the current crop of available air power and on that basis possibly the future crop.
The UK version and its planes have a limited range and needs replenishment every 6 days, in practical terms the French Carrier could sit out of range to the UK’s version, attack them, take them out, then carry on, without being threatened.
Crippled ‘White Elephants’ possible as all things UK based on someone’s personal ego that think they know better than the professionals.
February 16, 2025
From the BBC
“The government has announced plans to protect the UK’s steel industry in a bid to secure its long-term future, as it faces the impact of potential tariffs.”
“The Plan for Steel will include measures that seek to bring down the cost of production and encourage the use of domestic steel in infrastructure projects.”
Who’s long term future?
For the most part this is the Chinese and Indian steel companies we are talking about, who are quite comfortable bring in steel from their home facilities, (they are protected at home from competition by law) since the UK Government banned producing quality steel in the UK. Steel from China and India is cheaper by a long way than it is possible for these Chinese and Indian plants in the UK to produce. NetZero and high energy cost have ensured that. It’s a win, win for China and India what ever the government does.
The big take away is handing over UK industries that that are much needed to help protect and keep us secure, to foreign sources is again the abandonment of the ability of the UK being able to defend itself.
Look at it from the perspective of a UK Defence. Due to government giving things away. Refurbishment of UK Tanks, is now up to Germany. The Royal Navy ships are coming from Spain and Poland. They all have steel production capability. Then again our once great and capable submarine fleet can’t leave harbour without the French Government they own the command and control of the fleet systems.
Reply If they removed carbon taxes and emissions trading and allowed the exploitation of our own domestic gas we could have cheaper energy, key to having a steel industry. The £2.5 bn subsidy is needed to offset high energy prices and taxes, and to reward foreign owners of production. Of course having a strong steel industry with blast furnaces is essential for national security.
February 16, 2025
@Reply, yes agreed. How come all those that are used to spending their own money and managing outcomes see the reality. Is is incompetence on the part of some or just the seeking of malicious damage through personal ideology and the hate of the UK and its People?
February 16, 2025
O/T very interesting but likely to be behind a paywall (possibly on Substack): 16/02/2025 Paul Krugman ‘More than you wanted to know about tariffs’.
Interesting because of 1/ a survey of actual present-day actual tariffs around the world, 2/ some (rapid) historical summary of how advanced economies went from protectionism in the 1930s to (nearly) free trade in manufacturing goods, 3/ an overview of the tariffs in emerging economies from the ‘60s and their variations over the years, 4/ a quick look at how VAT (or similar taxes) are or not within ‘tariffs’.
Well worth reading.
February 16, 2025
@Hef
Interesting that Paul Krugman felt he had to leave the New York Times who wanted to force their own views on his column. It helps explain a headline calling Reform “Britain’s Hard-Right Reform U.K. Party Wins Over Some Labour Voters”.
February 16, 2025
“We need strong navy to defend us from invasion across the Channel”
I had a wry smile when i read that line Sir John,
How many thousands coming across counts as an invasion?
February 16, 2025
Ukraine has demonstrated admirably old fashioned military thinking and older hardware can be useless against a smaller, agile and determined force. Israel too has demonstrated Dome technology but hypersonic missiles need more advanced solutions as do glide bombs used by Russia in Ukraine.
The MOD needs to be reorganised from the ground up with Zero Budgeting just like Ukraine has achieved through the rethink and fast too.
February 16, 2025
Is the Government and the department they manage the MOD’s spending on DEI really defence?
February 16, 2025
Defence of what our border from rubber dinghies should be priority as well as not surrendering strategic assets land. Just simple love your country stuff.
“When there is no enemy within, the enemy outside can do you no harm.”
February 16, 2025
Sir John
Reading you Diary and in the media today, the overriding view is the parameters to keep us safe, our sea lanes open is not a percentage of GDP – it is what is necessary really necessary.
If we are not safe then we have no GDP how do square that circle?
The spending on NetZero(the OBR, says equivalent to adding 21 per cent of GDP to debt, or around £1.4trn in costs by 2050) by Government. Spending on defence £54billion a years, but it is not spent on defence is it?
There is no case for NetZero and its costs in the UK, none of our competitors or our potential adversaries are even chasing the concept.
February 16, 2025
Today Lammy & Healey “They said the UK and Europe now needed to “do more together” to “share the burden” of security across the continent.”
A Euro Army seems to be the push – Bad idea all round. The UK would then have no defence, it would be up to the bureaucrats, but they will pay
February 17, 2025
Just been reminded elsewhere our air craft carriers are promised F35 still awaiting delivery. In the meantime they go to sea care of the US Marines who provide the bulk of the planes and pilots
February 17, 2025
British soldiers who commit violence while defending Europe? March them before the International Court of Justice for prosecution! More fees for human rights sleaze.
TwoTierKier has that down as right-wing terror and it must be stopped