UK defence budget
Discussion
There are suggestions in some quarters that the UK should try and increase the defence budget, maybe by as much as 50%. Don't see how we could afford it, but if we could, what do the armchair warriors (plus a few genuinely knowledgeable people) on PH think the priorities should be?
More troops for the Army presumably. But would more ships or aircraft also be relevant? If so what type?
Does the Ukraine experience imply the 'quantity has a quality all of it's own' approach has something to be said for it?
Should any Army expansion be purely regulars or would an expansion of reserves be more cost effective?
More troops for the Army presumably. But would more ships or aircraft also be relevant? If so what type?
Does the Ukraine experience imply the 'quantity has a quality all of it's own' approach has something to be said for it?
Should any Army expansion be purely regulars or would an expansion of reserves be more cost effective?
Dr Jekyll said:
There are suggestions in some quarters that the UK should try and increase the defence budget, maybe by as much as 50%. Don't see how we could afford it, but if we could, what do the armchair warriors (plus a few genuinely knowledgeable people) on PH think the priorities should be?
More troops for the Army presumably. But would more ships or aircraft also be relevant? If so what type?
Does the Ukraine experience imply the 'quantity has a quality all of it's own' approach has something to be said for it?
Should any Army expansion be purely regulars or would an expansion of reserves be more cost effective?
WRT Navy, we currently have 2 aircraft carriers, 6 T45 AAW Destroyers (although they're not all working properly at the moment and are being upgraded)More troops for the Army presumably. But would more ships or aircraft also be relevant? If so what type?
Does the Ukraine experience imply the 'quantity has a quality all of it's own' approach has something to be said for it?
Should any Army expansion be purely regulars or would an expansion of reserves be more cost effective?
We're building 6 off T26 ASW Frigates, 5 general purpose T31 frigates, to be followed by 5 (I think) T32 GP Frigates, and design work has started on T83 which will replace T45.
Along with the OPVs, 7 A-class boats, 4 V-class boats to be replaced by Dreadnought, mine hunters etc. we'll soon have a bigger Navy that we've had for a very long time.
I was listening to the radio the other day and a very intelligent chap who specialises in international affairs thought that this crisis will be a watershed moment in how we perceive and fund our armed forces.
He reckoned that all NATO countries will have up their game and that we don’t continue to shrink our forces and rely on clever weapons or ‘stand off’ type weapons and actually invest in boots on the ground and traditional weapons (tanks, etc) as the clever stuff will only get you so far.
How we fund it? I’ve no idea but as many here see the NHS as a black hole in funding, the MOD seem to put the rest to shame in budgeting for particular weapon systems, over large management structures and political interference and meddling.
Or just outsource the lot the Serco….
He reckoned that all NATO countries will have up their game and that we don’t continue to shrink our forces and rely on clever weapons or ‘stand off’ type weapons and actually invest in boots on the ground and traditional weapons (tanks, etc) as the clever stuff will only get you so far.
How we fund it? I’ve no idea but as many here see the NHS as a black hole in funding, the MOD seem to put the rest to shame in budgeting for particular weapon systems, over large management structures and political interference and meddling.
Or just outsource the lot the Serco….
John145 said:
Aircraft, boats, submarines, tanks, men, satellites, artillery, ammunition, bombs.
We need it all to build a rounded and complete armed force.
Suggesting now is the time to cut the nuclear deterrence is absurd as it’s literally the only thing stopping us stopping this war in Ukraine.
For clarity I'm not suggesting that - I am interested in the figure as part of the comparison for defence spending by non nuclear powers.We need it all to build a rounded and complete armed force.
Suggesting now is the time to cut the nuclear deterrence is absurd as it’s literally the only thing stopping us stopping this war in Ukraine.
98elise said:
What are we willing to cut to pay for it, or alternatively how much extra are people willing to pay?
We can't keep paying for more stuff and expecting our kids and grandkids to pay for it.
We've been paying less than we ever have for the past couple of decades:We can't keep paying for more stuff and expecting our kids and grandkids to pay for it.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.G...
US for comparison:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.G...
Russia:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.G...
XCP said:
I think that the choice of an Army career needs to be made more attractive. Decent pay, living quarters, medical services and kit would be a start. Otherwise where are these increased numbers going to come from?
I'm not convinced we need a larger army, but we do need to be more efficient in our use of them.And part of that will come from investment in equipment. For example, the new 155mm artillery system could be the BOXER, which uses a crew of 2. As opposed to the existing AS90 system which is 6(+1...). Similarly, our CR3 will remain a 4-person crew, because we won't utilise an autoloader.
But there are also logistics options. Use of automated systems for convoys and last-mile delivery reduce the need in this quarters.
Air Force, already a decent lifestyle. Navy, as long as we can continue to sell the "travel" aspect for the surface fleet (QE2 cruise would have enhanced that nicely) and finding the odd-balls for the Subs (can't imagine too many social media addicts...), Then Navy won't be so bad.
But let's not talk about beards in the Army...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff