The Future of UK Defence- 2.5% of GDP, 3%, 5%+?
Discussion
In 2024, the UK spent around 2.3% of GDP on defence- £53.9 billion in 23/24 (https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8175/).
As we often hear, we've set an "aim" of 2.5%, with no time frame. In reality, is this likely to be enough? There's talk of possibly sending troops to Ukraine as part of a peacekeeping mission, one commentator saying that around 100,000 troops would be needed, with the UK possibly supplying 30/40,000, which just isn't feasible with the current size of our army.
In a much more dangerous world than that of recent decades, do we need to be thinking about a substantial revision of our capabilities (particularly with Trump and Vance at the helm)?
What figure would you like to see, and where would you like to see the money spent? How would you like to see any increase paid for- what areas would you cut/freeze, or would you look at tax increases?
Have posted the following image for context- spending since 1980. UK spending in the 80-91 period never dipped below 4%, with a peak of 5.3/5.4% in 84/85?
Should we be looking at equivalent spending levels now?
As we often hear, we've set an "aim" of 2.5%, with no time frame. In reality, is this likely to be enough? There's talk of possibly sending troops to Ukraine as part of a peacekeeping mission, one commentator saying that around 100,000 troops would be needed, with the UK possibly supplying 30/40,000, which just isn't feasible with the current size of our army.
In a much more dangerous world than that of recent decades, do we need to be thinking about a substantial revision of our capabilities (particularly with Trump and Vance at the helm)?
What figure would you like to see, and where would you like to see the money spent? How would you like to see any increase paid for- what areas would you cut/freeze, or would you look at tax increases?
Have posted the following image for context- spending since 1980. UK spending in the 80-91 period never dipped below 4%, with a peak of 5.3/5.4% in 84/85?
Should we be looking at equivalent spending levels now?
Edited by Fusion777 on Monday 17th February 11:21
Spending in the range of 5% is probably what is needed to actually meet the expectations/desires put on the British military by politicians and the electorate. We can't have a blue water navy, an expeditionary self-sufficient field army and a stop-and-strike air force on our current level of spending. Those are our current ambitions - and, on paper, our declared capabilities - but many of these capabilities exist largely on paper and the ones that do exist have extremely low sustainability (i.e. yes, we could deploy an armoured brigade somewhere on the European mainland, but we don't have the 'deep' support and resources to actually keep it operational for a useful amount of time. Yes, we can put a carrier to sea but it is reliant on allies for escort and logistical support etc.)
If we can't stomach 5%GDP spending, then we - our leaders and ourselves as the British public and electorate - need to realise that we can't be a major global power in all three domains. It is better to do some things very well - or, better yet, one thing exceptionally well - than do everything badly. Or everything so under-resourced that you end up not being able to do anything.
Politicians need to realise that, as with so many types of public spending, military expenditure does not scale. You do not get half the capability for half the cost. You often don't even get 90% of the capability for 90% of the cost. In many cases, you either do it properly (100%) or it's not worth doing at all. For instance, in an ideal world you need four ships to guarantee the availability of one (one active, one in work-up, on in refit and one at standby). That's why we have four Trident submarines. At a pinch you can do without the standby ship so you need three platforms (hence why the RN used to have three Invincible-class carriers and why there were 12 T42 destroyers, thus providing three rotating groups of 1x carrier and 4x destroyers). But now we have two carriers. In theory they run sequentially, so one refits and works up while the other is in extended commission but that is entirely dependent on everything working perfectly and always going to plan. Can the RN guarantee that a carrier will always be available to bring death and destruction to the King's enemies? No, not with only two on the books. And a 'cheap' carrier strike group with insufficient escorts and auxiliaries is not just less capable than one done properly - it's virtually useless. So it's actually much more wasteful to spend less.
If we can't afford to sit at the Big Boys With Big Swinging Dicks Table, then we need to decide on what small thing(s) we can do very well that serves our national requirements on 2-3% GDP spending. And it needs to be matched with the political courage and public appreciation that, as much as it might rankle our national sense of pride and closing the book on centuries of tradition and excellence, some or all of the armed forces branches will effectively cease to exist.
If we can't stomach 5%GDP spending, then we - our leaders and ourselves as the British public and electorate - need to realise that we can't be a major global power in all three domains. It is better to do some things very well - or, better yet, one thing exceptionally well - than do everything badly. Or everything so under-resourced that you end up not being able to do anything.
Politicians need to realise that, as with so many types of public spending, military expenditure does not scale. You do not get half the capability for half the cost. You often don't even get 90% of the capability for 90% of the cost. In many cases, you either do it properly (100%) or it's not worth doing at all. For instance, in an ideal world you need four ships to guarantee the availability of one (one active, one in work-up, on in refit and one at standby). That's why we have four Trident submarines. At a pinch you can do without the standby ship so you need three platforms (hence why the RN used to have three Invincible-class carriers and why there were 12 T42 destroyers, thus providing three rotating groups of 1x carrier and 4x destroyers). But now we have two carriers. In theory they run sequentially, so one refits and works up while the other is in extended commission but that is entirely dependent on everything working perfectly and always going to plan. Can the RN guarantee that a carrier will always be available to bring death and destruction to the King's enemies? No, not with only two on the books. And a 'cheap' carrier strike group with insufficient escorts and auxiliaries is not just less capable than one done properly - it's virtually useless. So it's actually much more wasteful to spend less.
If we can't afford to sit at the Big Boys With Big Swinging Dicks Table, then we need to decide on what small thing(s) we can do very well that serves our national requirements on 2-3% GDP spending. And it needs to be matched with the political courage and public appreciation that, as much as it might rankle our national sense of pride and closing the book on centuries of tradition and excellence, some or all of the armed forces branches will effectively cease to exist.
I dont think it is about swinging dicks. It's about survival. We live next to a continent that saw hot war only 80 years ago (ignoring the Balkans), that has fractioning alliances due to domestic issues, that has an aggressor to the east who has already taken 600 sq miles of sovereign territory and wants all cold war territories back. The dream of peace and prosperity holding Europe together is fading as the Euro experiment unravels. It's not a stretch to presume another hot war beyond Ukraine is incoming. I have heard from a few sources now that military planning for this is already well underway. Not having war for the last several decades is the outlier, not the norm, and we should be addressing it now.
2xChevrons said:
Spending in the range of 5% is probably what is needed to actually meet the expectations/desires put on the British military by politicians and the electorate. We can't have a blue water navy, an expeditionary self-sufficient field army and a stop-and-strike air force on our current level of spending. Those are our current ambitions - and, on paper, our declared capabilities - but many of these capabilities exist largely on paper and the ones that do exist have extremely low sustainability (i.e. yes, we could deploy an armoured brigade somewhere on the European mainland, but we don't have the 'deep' support and resources to actually keep it operational for a useful amount of time. Yes, we can put a carrier to sea but it is reliant on allies for escort and logistical support etc.)
If we can't stomach 5%GDP spending, then we - our leaders and ourselves as the British public and electorate - need to realise that we can't be a major global power in all three domains. It is better to do some things very well - or, better yet, one thing exceptionally well - than do everything badly. Or everything so under-resourced that you end up not being able to do anything.
Politicians need to realise that, as with so many types of public spending, military expenditure does not scale. You do not get half the capability for half the cost. You often don't even get 90% of the capability for 90% of the cost. In many cases, you either do it properly (100%) or it's not worth doing at all. For instance, in an ideal world you need four ships to guarantee the availability of one (one active, one in work-up, on in refit and one at standby). That's why we have four Trident submarines. At a pinch you can do without the standby ship so you need three platforms (hence why the RN used to have three Invincible-class carriers and why there were 12 T42 destroyers, thus providing three rotating groups of 1x carrier and 4x destroyers). But now we have two carriers. In theory they run sequentially, so one refits and works up while the other is in extended commission but that is entirely dependent on everything working perfectly and always going to plan. Can the RN guarantee that a carrier will always be available to bring death and destruction to the King's enemies? No, not with only two on the books. And a 'cheap' carrier strike group with insufficient escorts and auxiliaries is not just less capable than one done properly - it's virtually useless. So it's actually much more wasteful to spend less.
If we can't afford to sit at the Big Boys With Big Swinging Dicks Table, then we need to decide on what small thing(s) we can do very well that serves our national requirements on 2-3% GDP spending. And it needs to be matched with the political courage and public appreciation that, as much as it might rankle our national sense of pride and closing the book on centuries of tradition and excellence, some or all of the armed forces branches will effectively cease to exist.
Interesting- agree with a lot of this. Do you feel the extra spending should be split broadly between the three forces, or is it more beneficial for us for one/two of them to get the lion's share?If we can't stomach 5%GDP spending, then we - our leaders and ourselves as the British public and electorate - need to realise that we can't be a major global power in all three domains. It is better to do some things very well - or, better yet, one thing exceptionally well - than do everything badly. Or everything so under-resourced that you end up not being able to do anything.
Politicians need to realise that, as with so many types of public spending, military expenditure does not scale. You do not get half the capability for half the cost. You often don't even get 90% of the capability for 90% of the cost. In many cases, you either do it properly (100%) or it's not worth doing at all. For instance, in an ideal world you need four ships to guarantee the availability of one (one active, one in work-up, on in refit and one at standby). That's why we have four Trident submarines. At a pinch you can do without the standby ship so you need three platforms (hence why the RN used to have three Invincible-class carriers and why there were 12 T42 destroyers, thus providing three rotating groups of 1x carrier and 4x destroyers). But now we have two carriers. In theory they run sequentially, so one refits and works up while the other is in extended commission but that is entirely dependent on everything working perfectly and always going to plan. Can the RN guarantee that a carrier will always be available to bring death and destruction to the King's enemies? No, not with only two on the books. And a 'cheap' carrier strike group with insufficient escorts and auxiliaries is not just less capable than one done properly - it's virtually useless. So it's actually much more wasteful to spend less.
If we can't afford to sit at the Big Boys With Big Swinging Dicks Table, then we need to decide on what small thing(s) we can do very well that serves our national requirements on 2-3% GDP spending. And it needs to be matched with the political courage and public appreciation that, as much as it might rankle our national sense of pride and closing the book on centuries of tradition and excellence, some or all of the armed forces branches will effectively cease to exist.
I'm trying to think of something we currently do "well/very well". Nice to think we've nuclear capability, even though we're hopelessly mis-matched against Russia on our own (though who isn't besides Uncle Sam).
Our submarine capability is decent given our size. We have great technological capability with our equipment, there just doesn't seem enough of it.
We've got 6 Type 45's. The original requirement was for 12. That would probably put us more in line with your thinking of what a 5% GDP Navy might look like.
At the moment it looks like 2 out of those 6 are in active service, which obviously isn't much of a deterent on a global level, or even European level. At the very least it would be nice to have another 2 or 3.
7 Astute-class subs- replaced the Trafalgar class on a one-for one basis, but prior to 2010 we also had 6 Swiftsures, so 13 nuclear attack subs in total. Would benefit from another 2 or 3 subs here too, plus an extra carrier as you allude to earlier.
Probably an over simiplification on my part, but hopefully people get the idea.
Hardly like 3 carriers, 10 attack subs and 9 destroyers is going to make us part of the global elite, though. Would be a start in aiming to shore up Europe, though.
Fusion777 said:
Do you feel the extra spending should be split broadly between the three forces, or is it more beneficial for us for one/two of them to get the lion's share?
I think we need to look at where threats are likely to come from and spend on what would counter those threats.Currently, that looks like an expansionist Russia and Middle-Eastern terrorist groups and the odd 'rogue state'.
Therefore, i think the the Navy and Air Force should be priority, particularly attack drones and defence again enemy drones.
I don't think were likely to get into another major land war in the foreseeable future and if Russian tanks did roll into Western Europe, it would we the likes of Germany & Poland to stop them on the ground with tanks etc. We'd be better placed to provide air support.
We still need an army with tanks & APCs but not, IMHO, to the extent we did in the 1960s-1980s.
Trump is a random number generator. We have no idea at all what the US's attitude to NATO will be in 4 years time. And 4 years is virtually no time at all in terms of military preparation except in times of war. We may find ourselves with a strong US partner in a few years time, or we may find the US has become isolationist. Whatever we do now has to work in both those futures.
France and the UK can just about both try to do a bit of everything. We are capable of having a useful navy, a useful air force, armour, infantry, and more or less self supporting expeditionary forces, etc, ... but only just ... and an awful lot of our NATO partners can't, regardless of what they spend. They're just too small.
When Zelensky says "you need a European army", he's very close to being right. What we really need is for NATO members without the US to be able to field credible military power anywhere, and that requires much closer integration between NATO members. Does this happen within NATO or do we need to merge our armed forces into some new organisation that in turn makes forces available to NATO? Zelensky is effectively suggesting the latter. From his perspective as an outsider, this appears obvious.
If we were putting ourselves on a genuine war-footing in the absence of the US, I think we'd pool our armed forces with our allies as it is clearly the most efficient way to achieve scale, broad capabilities and interoperability. It would require a radical change in cooperation between nations, but if they were being faced with an imminent, existential crisis, politics can quickly become pragmatic. We still have the luxury of pissing about with national pride and a narrow view of self-interest. Ukraine is in pragmatic survival mode and wishes we'd stop tarting around.
France and the UK can just about both try to do a bit of everything. We are capable of having a useful navy, a useful air force, armour, infantry, and more or less self supporting expeditionary forces, etc, ... but only just ... and an awful lot of our NATO partners can't, regardless of what they spend. They're just too small.
When Zelensky says "you need a European army", he's very close to being right. What we really need is for NATO members without the US to be able to field credible military power anywhere, and that requires much closer integration between NATO members. Does this happen within NATO or do we need to merge our armed forces into some new organisation that in turn makes forces available to NATO? Zelensky is effectively suggesting the latter. From his perspective as an outsider, this appears obvious.
If we were putting ourselves on a genuine war-footing in the absence of the US, I think we'd pool our armed forces with our allies as it is clearly the most efficient way to achieve scale, broad capabilities and interoperability. It would require a radical change in cooperation between nations, but if they were being faced with an imminent, existential crisis, politics can quickly become pragmatic. We still have the luxury of pissing about with national pride and a narrow view of self-interest. Ukraine is in pragmatic survival mode and wishes we'd stop tarting around.
Fusion777 said:
Interesting- agree with a lot of this. Do you feel the extra spending should be split broadly between the three forces, or is it more beneficial for us for one/two of them to get the lion's share?
I'm trying to think of something we currently do "well/very well". Nice to think we've nuclear capability, even though we're hopelessly mis-matched against Russia on our own (though who isn't besides Uncle Sam).
It's not just about what we currently do well, it is also about what type of defence we need. As we're an island that isn't self-sufficient in food etc, I think we need to give the navy priority, though probably not some carrier groups run on a shoestring. I can't really see what role the carriers would have in the defence of the UK itself, as opposed to trying to project force thousands of miles away. Perhaps we have to give priority to stuff that will actually defend the UK and its European allies and regard projecting force halfway round the world as a luxury we can no longer afford?I'm trying to think of something we currently do "well/very well". Nice to think we've nuclear capability, even though we're hopelessly mis-matched against Russia on our own (though who isn't besides Uncle Sam).
M1AGM said:
I dont think it is about swinging dicks. It's about survival. We live next to a continent that saw hot war only 80 years ago (ignoring the Balkans), that has fractioning alliances due to domestic issues, that has an aggressor to the east who has already taken 600 sq miles of sovereign territory and wants all cold war territories back. The dream of peace and prosperity holding Europe together is fading as the Euro experiment unravels. It's not a stretch to presume another hot war beyond Ukraine is incoming. I have heard from a few sources now that military planning for this is already well underway. Not having war for the last several decades is the outlier, not the norm, and we should be addressing it now.
I don't disagree. But accepting and adapting to that geopolitical reality would require spending in the 5%GDP range, which by itself would be a political s
tstorm requiring far more courage, nerve and integrity (and, to be fair, a level of sang-froid and self-awareness from the electorate) than has ever been on display in this country this century. Not to mention massive realignments in economic policy, industrial strategy and our diplomatic relationships. If we decide that 5%GDP defence spending isn't feasible, then we have to change from our current way of going a lot of big things badly to doing a few small things very well. And deciding what those things are in an atmosphere of cooperation, allegiance and mutual support with our European neighbours so that we can, together, build, develop, field and support a fully effective force.
For the UK it could be a case of "Well, given that we're an archipelago in the northeast Atlantic with a key geographic position controlling the main access routes to Europe's ports via the Channel and North Sea (and to the Mediterranean since we also have Gibraltar), we orm one side of the GIUK gap by which naval vessels can pass too/from the High Arctic and we're entirely dependent on overseas trade for our national survival, we are going to be The European Naval Power."
That could be in the form of a commitment to keep an independent carrier strike group at sea 24/7/365 - which would need three carriers, nine destroyers, nine frigates and three attack submarines plus three solid-state support ships and six fleet tankers. It would need independent ocean survey/hydrographic capability and some form of minehunting/countermeasures to sweep straits and harbours ahead of the carrier (probably deliverable by autonomous vehicle from a frigate these days). It would need a fully-stocked air group and a small (almost special-forces level) marine commando with insertion/extraction abilities for recon, eliminating shore defences and recovering downed aircrew. If we have all that, then it's goodbye to the RN doing coastal patrol, fishery protection, undersea security etc. That can all be done by Blue Ensign government agencies - border force, the environment agency, the MCA etc.
Or we could decide that there's no purpose to being a blue-water navy or that the French (with their more extensive series of overseas territories in the Indo-Pacific and a superior domestic shipbuilding and aerospace industry) can do that better. So the RN waves goodbye to its carriers, frigates, destroyers and subs and becomes Europe's premier littoral/coastal security force. Fast high-tech coastal patrol vessels, motherships for UAVs, USVs and AUVs, mine hunter/killer drone squadrons, maritime patrol by aircraft and drone, underwater pipe/cable protection platforms, coastal radar stations and a dozen corvettes (of a type shared with the Norwegians) to maintain a round-the-clock patrol presence of three ships in various places off the British coast. Nothing can enter the UK EEZ above, on or under the water without being detected, tracked, monitored and appropriately dealt with, but goodbye to the RN presence in the Gulf, the Indo-Pacific and the South Atlantic.
And either of those options would come at the cost of the Army and the RAF being stripped right back to the barest of local defence/territorial forces. The Army becomes a couple of infantry brigades and a single armour brigade, able to slot into larger NATO/UNFOR deployments. The RAF becomes a local patrol/security force with - at best - enough fast-jet capability to maintain a QRA presence (but could that be done by the naval aviation between carrier deployments??).
I'm majoring on the navy as the 'winner' because it's the one I'm most familiar with but it could go the other ways. We could decide to go back to the days of the BAOR, with the stated and maintained capability to deploy an entire Army Group, with self-sufficient armour, artillery, logistics, command, signals, transport and medical support, to eastern Europe in five days. But to afford that at 2.5-3.0% GDP then the RN has nothing bigger than OPVs and becomes a local patrol/enforcement service and the RAF becomes effectively a transport and recon service for the Army.
Or we could decide that air power is the way to go and build up a massive RAF with hundreds of Typhoons and Lightnings for multi-level 'seek and strike' capability, squadrons of maritime patrol aircraft sweeping our EEZ, radar stations blossoming along the coast, satellites and UAVs gathering long-range intel and so on and so on. But that's with a territorial army and a coastal patrol RN.
If we can't afford to do everything well, it makes no sense to do everything badly. Pick one thing and do it really, really well. So we have something to contribute and offer in the world.
But the problems with this aren't military or technical or industrial. They're political. No party or government will, however frank it tries to be and however optimistically it makes its case, win votes by planning to effectively abolish two of the services. Decide to have a world-class navy and The Sun will scream blue murder about betraying 'Our Boys' and the legacy of Tommy Atkins. Stand down the RN and the Mail on Sunday will go puce about the end of Rule, Britannia and Hearts of Oak and Nelson. Turn the RAF into a force of helicopters, King Airs and A330s and the Telegraph will accuse you of stamping on the graves of The Few.
There is no politician that courageous anywhere near the top levels of British politics now. Given how these issues have been can-kicked since at least the collapse of the USSR, if not all the way back to Suez and Sandys, I'm not sure there ever was.
Edit:
I wrote all that while Fusion777 replied thus:
Fusion777 said:
Interesting- agree with a lot of this. Do you feel the extra spending should be split broadly between the three forces, or is it more beneficial for us for one/two of them to get the lion's share?
I think that should answer the question! trevalvole said:
It's not just about what we currently do well, it is also about what type of defence we need. As we're an island that isn't self-sufficient in food etc, I think we need to give the navy priority, though probably not some carrier groups run on a shoestring. I can't really see what role the carriers would have in the defence of the UK itself, as opposed to trying to project force thousands of miles away. Perhaps we have to give priority to stuff that will actually defend the UK and its European allies and regard projecting force halfway round the world as a luxury we can no longer afford?
The UK's core naval strategy for at least 300 years has been 'defence by distance' - the idea being that you don't allow a naval threat to come anywhere near the UK home waters in the first place. You use a blue water navy to project force somewhere else, forcing the enemy to attack you at a place of your choosing, not theirs. The classic RN battle strategy is to roam about the seas either keeping the enemy bottles up in port or blockading their trade - either way they are forced to come to you. The British have always spurned the idea of a purely defensive coastal force because, absent of international allies, it means the UK gives up control of the seas (on which we are reliant for the flow of goods and the projection of power). In the modern context the carriers would roam around Atlantic or the High Arctic (or the South Atlantic or the Pacific), forcing the enemy to deal with them as huge mobile, hidden force threats before any move could actually be made against the UK islands themselves. The big question hanging over the RN is whether that is a) affordable and b) necessary when the UK will almost certainly never be finding itself in a large-scale conflict without allies.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Monday 17th February 14:45
Strikes me that you either spend a lot and do everything adequately (not 'well, or 'brilliantly', but enough to get by) or absolutely align with our European neighbours and agree among ourselves who's best placed to deliver what, each focus on that and perhaps spend a bit less. It does seem mad that every country would stand up a full 3-force capability none of us could really afford. I'm in the camp that frankly, the UK isn't wealthy enough to make good on the image it has of itself and has gotten this far mostly trading on past glories from a period thats never coming back. As the US has backed away, its exposed us as wearing no trousers.
It has become painfully obvious that the UK has probably been leaning too much on America, which at times of financial difficulty has enables the UK military to be victim of death by 1000 cuts. Now the US has pivoted to become somewhat an unreliable and unpredictable ally, we maybe do need to invest more. As above though, there are maybe smarter ways of doing it collectively across Europe than thinking we can stand alone and rebuild everything.
It has become painfully obvious that the UK has probably been leaning too much on America, which at times of financial difficulty has enables the UK military to be victim of death by 1000 cuts. Now the US has pivoted to become somewhat an unreliable and unpredictable ally, we maybe do need to invest more. As above though, there are maybe smarter ways of doing it collectively across Europe than thinking we can stand alone and rebuild everything.
US Defence spending is a much about feeding a weapons industry as much as it is about Defence. They boast spending 3.3% of their massive GDP on defence, whilst carrying around a national debt of 122% of their GDP, and no Musk isn't going to fix that.
Russia is still the big bad Wolf, they invaded Ukraine 3 years ago. They've supposedly had 700k Military Personnel either killed or wounded and their economy faces the real risk of collapse. With or without US Aid, is Russia can't take Ukraine throwing everything including the kitchen sink (and Korean 'Special Forces') they're not going to be able to Invade the NATO elements of Europe successfully.
If the Government and Voters want fleets of massive Aircraft Carriers, tens of thousands of Tanks, a million well trained and prepared troops etc, then as unpalatable as it might seem to some, we might have to throw in with the rest of Western Europe to cover all the bases.
Russia is still the big bad Wolf, they invaded Ukraine 3 years ago. They've supposedly had 700k Military Personnel either killed or wounded and their economy faces the real risk of collapse. With or without US Aid, is Russia can't take Ukraine throwing everything including the kitchen sink (and Korean 'Special Forces') they're not going to be able to Invade the NATO elements of Europe successfully.
If the Government and Voters want fleets of massive Aircraft Carriers, tens of thousands of Tanks, a million well trained and prepared troops etc, then as unpalatable as it might seem to some, we might have to throw in with the rest of Western Europe to cover all the bases.
I have zero knowledge of the armed forces.
And really appreciate the info upthread.
Maybe a bit wider. As a taxpayer. If the UK decided to double spending to 5%, how might that affect growth?
I ask because
1/ The idea that GDP grows every year seems unsustainable, by continuing to sell things to each other, but at a higher rate. Housing, property, services, merry-go-round. Especially financial services (which is not 'new growth' really).
2/ Britain has pretty much ignored industrial growth; the making of things.
3/ US has a huge 'defence' industry, and while it consumes a big % of GDP, the sustained investment has helped build leadership in tech and other 'making things' (including software) industries.
4/ If the UK set a path away from services, and chose an industrial strategy (around power, defence, AI, robotics, drones, quick-build buildings, vehicles, arms etc) -
would the doubling of spend on defence actually generate a bigger return than at present?
(The points above - about choosing mindfully and doing a few things well are what kicked off this question).
And really appreciate the info upthread.
Maybe a bit wider. As a taxpayer. If the UK decided to double spending to 5%, how might that affect growth?
I ask because
1/ The idea that GDP grows every year seems unsustainable, by continuing to sell things to each other, but at a higher rate. Housing, property, services, merry-go-round. Especially financial services (which is not 'new growth' really).
2/ Britain has pretty much ignored industrial growth; the making of things.
3/ US has a huge 'defence' industry, and while it consumes a big % of GDP, the sustained investment has helped build leadership in tech and other 'making things' (including software) industries.
4/ If the UK set a path away from services, and chose an industrial strategy (around power, defence, AI, robotics, drones, quick-build buildings, vehicles, arms etc) -
would the doubling of spend on defence actually generate a bigger return than at present?
(The points above - about choosing mindfully and doing a few things well are what kicked off this question).
kevinon said:
I have zero knowledge of the armed forces.
And really appreciate the info upthread.
Maybe a bit wider. As a taxpayer. If the UK decided to double spending to 5%, how might that affect growth?
I ask because
1/ The idea that GDP grows every year seems unsustainable, by continuing to sell things to each other, but at a higher rate. Housing, property, services, merry-go-round. Especially financial services (which is not 'new growth' really).
2/ Britain has pretty much ignored industrial growth; the making of things.
3/ US has a huge 'defence' industry, and while it consumes a big % of GDP, the sustained investment has helped build leadership in tech and other 'making things' (including software) industries.
4/ If the UK set a path away from services, and chose an industrial strategy (around power, defence, AI, robotics, drones, quick-build buildings, vehicles, arms etc) -
would the doubling of spend on defence actually generate a bigger return than at present?
(The points above - about choosing mindfully and doing a few things well are what kicked off this question).
I'm not an economist, and even economists (the good ones, at least) will admit that it's a dark art rather than a science, so firm answers are always hard to give. And really appreciate the info upthread.
Maybe a bit wider. As a taxpayer. If the UK decided to double spending to 5%, how might that affect growth?
I ask because
1/ The idea that GDP grows every year seems unsustainable, by continuing to sell things to each other, but at a higher rate. Housing, property, services, merry-go-round. Especially financial services (which is not 'new growth' really).
2/ Britain has pretty much ignored industrial growth; the making of things.
3/ US has a huge 'defence' industry, and while it consumes a big % of GDP, the sustained investment has helped build leadership in tech and other 'making things' (including software) industries.
4/ If the UK set a path away from services, and chose an industrial strategy (around power, defence, AI, robotics, drones, quick-build buildings, vehicles, arms etc) -
would the doubling of spend on defence actually generate a bigger return than at present?
(The points above - about choosing mindfully and doing a few things well are what kicked off this question).
But I think you're probably right - if the UK actually formed and implemented (and, crucially, sustained for longer than a single parliamentary term) a holistic industrial strategy with enlarged armed forces at the core then it could very much be the key to finding the elusive growth.
It's basically what jolted the UK and the USA (and, less positively, Germany and Italy) out of the rut of the Great Depression - the markets and private consumer industry couldn't do it (trapped in a cycle of lack of capital, financial sectors being extremely cautious and no growth or returns forecast to tempt them to open their piggy banks) so it was done by massive 'pump priming' of industry by defence/military spending.
The difference then being that in the 1930s the UK had an industrial base to lean on, which we don't really have now in the same way. Credit where it's due, the last government made some small but vital (and, seemingly ,successful) steps to addressing this with things like the National Shipbuilding Strategy (which ensures rolling procurement programmes for RN/RFA ships to avoid the famine/feast problem of the 2000s where yards would downsize and de-skill in between contracts) and the takeover of Forgemasters. But these are very small fry when compared to the way France does things, let alone the USA.
As you say, it wouldn't have to be an industrial strategy purely based around building weapons and other 'military stuff'. Energy, engineering, tech, AI, logistics, manufacturing etc. can all serve to make ploughshares as much as swords. But if the government commits to buying a lot of swords it helps attract, train, employ and develop the people and businesses that can also make ploughshares.
Dont be suprised if the Falklands are invaded in the next four years.
Any country with a working nuclear arsenal (under its own control) is safe, so in Europe that is basically France and the UK. The UK should look to build out it's missile system that isn't reliant on a large orange turd in the white house.
The UK and France could form it's own "european defence initiative" and charge other countries to be part of a nuclear pact. The main reason Ukraine was invaded was their decision to give up the very thing that would have stopped Russia.
Never forget that it was the US that encouraged Ukraine to give up it's weapons.
"Ukraine committed to full disarmament, including strategic weapons, in exchange for economic support and security assurances from the United States and Russia" - that ended well.
Any country with a working nuclear arsenal (under its own control) is safe, so in Europe that is basically France and the UK. The UK should look to build out it's missile system that isn't reliant on a large orange turd in the white house.
The UK and France could form it's own "european defence initiative" and charge other countries to be part of a nuclear pact. The main reason Ukraine was invaded was their decision to give up the very thing that would have stopped Russia.
Never forget that it was the US that encouraged Ukraine to give up it's weapons.
"Ukraine committed to full disarmament, including strategic weapons, in exchange for economic support and security assurances from the United States and Russia" - that ended well.
Puddenchucker said:
Therefore, i think the the Navy and Air Force should be priority, particularly attack drones and defence again enemy drones.
I don't think were likely to get into another major land war in the foreseeable future and if Russian tanks did roll into Western Europe, it would we the likes of Germany & Poland to stop them on the ground with tanks etc. We'd be better placed to provide air support.
We still need an army with tanks & APCs but not, IMHO, to the extent we did in the 1960s-1980s.
Agree.I don't think were likely to get into another major land war in the foreseeable future and if Russian tanks did roll into Western Europe, it would we the likes of Germany & Poland to stop them on the ground with tanks etc. We'd be better placed to provide air support.
We still need an army with tanks & APCs but not, IMHO, to the extent we did in the 1960s-1980s.
We're an island off the north-west coast of the Euro mainland, priority should be defending that NATO north-west martime and airspace area.
For ground forces, Para/Air-Landing forces to assist/reinforce Norway/Sweden/Finland, and Special Forces of which we can do well can be part of land warfare component, but massed ground Army divisions/brigades etc., should be left to the mainland Euro countries like Poland, Germany and France.
Likewise, Italy, France, Greece, Turkey etc., can do same martitime/airspace protection of the Med area, and Denmark/Germany/Sweden/Finland etc the Baltic.
We need to go back to pre-1990 'cold war' levels of spend, so min 4% to 5%.
It was over 6% in the 1960's, and up to 9% in the 1950's (but that was because as well as NATO, we had 'Empire' commitments in Far East and elsewhere to defend up to the withdrawl from most of those areas by 1970)
Edited by aeropilot on Monday 17th February 15:50
2xChevrons said:
.... Energy, engineering, tech, AI, logistics, manufacturing etc. can all serve to make ploughshares as much as swords. But if the government commits to buying a lot of swords it helps attract, train, employ and develop the people and businesses that can also make ploughshares.
A useful side-effect of committing to buy lots of swords is that - it is quite likely to result in the people selling the swords and getting paid to hold the swords (and by extension the politicians agreeing to do so) all become very incentivised to ensure that their existence is continues to be justified. engaging in a regular bit of light military action (ideally against soft easy targets) becomes a regular occurrence (ideally self-fulfilling as well) so the gravy train can continue. Everyone benefits.....Edited by isaldiri on Monday 17th February 15:55
ATG said:
When Zelensky says "you need a European army", he's very close to being right.
The problem with that is that its been talked about for decades on and off, its not a new thing by any means, but the problem comes down to France always say "We'll only be part of it if we're in charge of it" and thus it falls apart, as when other countries say 'Non' France takes its ball away and goes home in a huff.That ignores the equipment disparty between countries etc., so its rather a pointless discussion.
We already have it with NATO, but, NATO relies on the US for a lot of its comms and other organisation elements, and so its much more than just an Army you need if you are going to operate without the US.....and then things get difficult.
Its actually going to be much cheaper for EU members of NATO to actually increase their financial commitment to NATO to be back to pre-cold war levels and keep US onside than any of the other options which will cost considerable more than that.
EU countries (incl UK) need to re-establish a lot of munitions and logistics supply that has long gone with the peace dividend of mid 90's. That's gonna take 5-10 years to re-establish though....either with long term contracts to commercial companies or some of it has to be Govt owned, as it used to be before all being sold off in the 90's.
Fusion777 said:
In a much more dangerous world than that of recent decades, do we need to be thinking about a substantial revision of our capabilities (particularly with Trump and Vance at the helm)?
I think Europe is less dangerous since 1945. Ukraine is a very long wayfrom the UK and is not UK's responsibility.
I think the UK only does the nuclear stuff because France does.
I'd be happy to withdraw from the nuclear club. Japan and Germany
aren't in it, but they could do so easily.
The graph you present shows that France and Germany both spend
less per head than the UK does. I think the UK should spend *less* than
France and Germany. Around 1% looks good to me.
I see no reason to justify a UK military presence outside Europe.
The UK isn't the policeman of the world anymore.
All the money saved can be spent on UK home concerns, like more roads,
railways and better hospitals.
Interestingly, many posters want to spend more on the military, but none
can identify other non-military areas where the money will come from.
Seems to me a lot of proposals with lots lots of different numbers and prospective capabilities without reference to what our objectives are.
The 2015 review (wiki page) makes for some ‘interesting’ reading: very much a product of time and place.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defence_...
Post 1945, based on assumptions pretty much trashed by Hegseth and Vance the other day, there was some base assumptions that held true and shaped our capabailities.
That a continental war would necessitate a holding action to stall a large scale USSR tank attack across the Northern German plain. Thus the large commitment of the BAOR - around 50,000 troops.
This would, with other allied forces, allow for the time to transfer significant US assets into play, which in itself required a large submarine force to keep the Atlantic open.
Pretty much everything else got sacrificed. The fleet was gutted.
And that was with a spend of approximately 7% GDP.
What would our objective be in 2025 if we were calibrating for an European war? With no yanks on the horizon?
Is it to field BEF capability as per 1939? 13 odd divisions of a land army?
Is it control the seas and let the continental nations deal with land war?
Do we need any non European force projection? Something that the 2015 and previous reviews post 911 took (relatively) seriously? Who knows if we may need it again? One point about SDRs are they always risk planning for the last war.
What would be the plan? Once you answer that you can start suggesting numbers and the probably massive shortfall in money and capacity.
The 2015 review (wiki page) makes for some ‘interesting’ reading: very much a product of time and place.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defence_...
Post 1945, based on assumptions pretty much trashed by Hegseth and Vance the other day, there was some base assumptions that held true and shaped our capabailities.
That a continental war would necessitate a holding action to stall a large scale USSR tank attack across the Northern German plain. Thus the large commitment of the BAOR - around 50,000 troops.
This would, with other allied forces, allow for the time to transfer significant US assets into play, which in itself required a large submarine force to keep the Atlantic open.
Pretty much everything else got sacrificed. The fleet was gutted.
And that was with a spend of approximately 7% GDP.
What would our objective be in 2025 if we were calibrating for an European war? With no yanks on the horizon?
Is it to field BEF capability as per 1939? 13 odd divisions of a land army?
Is it control the seas and let the continental nations deal with land war?
Do we need any non European force projection? Something that the 2015 and previous reviews post 911 took (relatively) seriously? Who knows if we may need it again? One point about SDRs are they always risk planning for the last war.
What would be the plan? Once you answer that you can start suggesting numbers and the probably massive shortfall in money and capacity.
Edited by Ridgemont on Monday 17th February 17:02
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff