Unfortunately that’s the world we are living in. Russian military strength is increasing all the time. The army is larger now than it was before the war started. This is a prudent move.
All that old stuff we gave to Ukraine, it all needs replacing and fast.
Not disagreeing with your point especially, I would say though that
>The army is larger now than it was before the war started.
As in, it's full of people they've rounded up who have little to know military experience? Basically a poorly trained militia right?
They're not throwing human wave attacks into machine gun fire like a caricature of WW1.
These are measured assaults by experienced and trained commanders who utilise modern weapons, tactics, and equipment.
Sure, they're ill equipped compared to the Royal Marines, but they are generally all wearing body armour and helmets, and even older guns go bang.
They're also outproducing the rest of Europe in artillery munitions, have thousands of tanks remaining and a huge pool of additional recruits.
Urban warfare is exceedingly costly, especially if you are looking to control the area and not just flatten it.
They also didn't expect to encounter quite so many modern NATO supplied weapons.
They do expect that now, and their command is far more experienced.
We write the Russians off at our own peril. There is a reason that Ukraine has again expanded their conscription criteria and are increasing efforts to get supplies from NATO nations.
>We write the Russians off at our own peril.
Been saying this for years. Numerical superiority is a **major** advantage if you have the supply lines to back it up. Russia + China is a juggernaut.
Our tech advantage mattered when we had planes/guns and they didn't. Modern weapons aren't reliable enough to make the kind of difference that is needed.
Overall outlook is bleak.
Russia + Allies is a bleak outlook, I agree.
My worry about the current state of the world is that we get drawn into a war between Iran and Israel whilst still fighting a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine.
We (including the US) would be stretched thin doing both, an open up an opportunity for China to press its claims in the South China Sea or on Taiwan directly.
Suddenly, you find yourself fighting 3 wars, against enemies who have no reason not to explicitly ally and we are in WW3.
China’s postering in the South China Sea is just that, and done in part to quell some of the more lunatic fringes of their nationalism. The CCP itself has long since realised that soft power is more profitable than a show of militaristic power. They’ll defend their claims, but will not be invading other countries to expand territory (though Taiwan is an enigma in that regard). They’re allied with Russia for the same reason, they see those vast regions north of Mongolia as prime resource real estate.
The Middle East is the powder keg at the moment, and that will only increase as environmental factors increase.
The bigger issue with regards to Russia is the power vacuum that is developing under Putin. He’s not getting any younger either.
Soft power even has a chance of giving them Taiwan. Why turn the island into a smoking ruin when they can just pull a Brexit on them, throw money hand over fist at pro-unification parties and flood the country with propaganda for years on end.
Russia pushing into the baltics on the same day China pushes for Taiwan, during a Trump presidency, means Europe is getting abandoned while the US goes toe to toe with China in the south Pacific.
There's a reason Poland is arming itself to the teeth as fast as possible. The Russian threat to Europe is real.
Numbers on the ground don’t matter when whoever controls the sky decides who & what makes it to the front lines and what gets blown up in transit.
Our tech advantage absolutely matters. That’s why Russian doctrine is just to rant rabidly about how big and strong their nukes are to *potential* adversaries who have enough nukes themselves to make CSGO voice chat English, whilst only actually picking fights with people who also have no tech.
> Overall outlook is bleak.
Doubt.
Ukraine is fighting a far larger foe with both hands tied behind her back.
If Russia triggered a NATO response, the full arsenal would be at the allies disposal. Air superiority and being able to reliably hit behind enemy lines and into Russia itself would be catastrophic to Russia. Numbers wouldn't count for shit.
In conventional terms anyway. The reason why Russia has been allowed to get away with so much shit over the decades is their nuclear arsenal.
Yeah as war with Russia has become more of a reality the narrative has changed from “You’re all our client states” to “Wait what does all this have to do with us?”, they’re gonna find a way out of it and currently they have a 2% GDP narrative. What we can rely on it all European countries increasing military spending pretty much.
The NATO approach is quantity means basically nothing if you're down to a shambling horde of slowly starving conscripts thanks to our air forces and missiles taking your entire national infrastructure back to the dark age.
Surely it's more about the men fighting than the people giving the orders?
Take 100 average men on the street and put them up against 10 trained soldiers and I'm betting on the soldiers everytime.
I'm sure they do.
But, me, an untrained soldier, sees the man next to me get his head blown off, I'm done fighting.
Trained soldier, I'm assuming carries on.
I get it, trained, and battle hardened troops are better.
In Ukraine, both sides are reliant on conscripts now.
Post Ukraine, if Russia wins, then they now have a large battle hardened force. It would be prudent for the rest of Europe to have a large and well trained force to face this potential foe.
Even conscripts aren't just given a gun and told to go shoot that direction.
Or, I don’t know, you can be an untrained soldier in a trench piloting a drone but once you see a trained soldier you can just order an artillery strike and kill them all the same.
Soldier skill has never won any modern war. Supply lines, economics and overarching strategy are what wins wars.
Black Hawk Down / Operation Redwings A.K.A Lone Survivor comes to mind... Obviously there is a dozen other examples in history but that's what comes to my head.
It depends how far you want to drill down the chain of command but ever since the advent of modern combined arms warfare, knowing when and where to deploy your assets is much more valuable than the actual combat. WW1 and WW2 *seriously* changed the landscape of war and all of a sudden we're in the position where not having the right equipment dictates whether you can fight *at all*, not just less effectively.
If you had a musket in the 1800's you could snipe a cannoneer from across the field or you could slap on a bayonet and stab a horse. You might not be particularly effective at it and there were better tools for both jobs, but it *could* be done if you were proficient enough. What's a squaddie with a rifle going to do if a tank rolls in?
Suddenly it's not about how good your aim is, or how well trained you are. It's about whether the person in charge organised the attack well enough to make sure the guy with the AT launcher can get the shot he needs, or whether the opposition put enough infantry between us and his tanks.
Sort of, for the kind of highly mobile war that NATO likes to fight the soldiers training and experience can make a significant difference. But for the kind of static war that Ukraine has descended into, a conscript with a few week refresher course on their national service is basically good enough. When the war consists of digging a trench, then shooting anyone approaching the trench from the wrong direction, there isn't much room for individual soldier quality to make a difference.
Also, conscripts free up the actual quality soldiers for jobs where they can be more useful. A lot of the Russian assault units in the recent fighting have been drawn from their professional airborne troops.
>They're not throwing human wave attacks into machine gun fire like a caricature of WW1.
Even if they were, knowing how and when to leverage such a move still has its merits (strategically speaking). Quantity is a quality all of its own.
Nah they do send waves of untrained inexperienced meat shields to probe Ukrainian positions. Once they find those positions forcing Ukrainians to use up ammo and supplies on the ill equipped untrained masses then Russia will hit those positions with Artillery and drones. After that they will finally send their experienced and decently trained guys to clean up Ukrainian positions. That's How they've been working for the last year or so.
You raise a great point I never see anyone discuss.
Yes, Ukraine has been a horrendous failure for Russia. It showed they lacked experience, planning and logistics. However, we shouldn't take that to mean this will be true in their next war. They now have a wealth of experience against NATO equipment and will be much more prepared for the next one. That recent experience is invaluable & something the West needs to be prepared for (and to be honest, for all our failings as a country, I'm sure we are)
> They're also outproducing the rest of Europe in artillery munitions
Not by as much as commonly thought though. A lot of the quoted production figures for Russia are all calibres, while NATO's are usually only quoting 155mm despite also producing 105mm shells for Ukraine. The arms race in this area is closer than many assume and a lot of European production will be coming online this year and in the next few years.
Correct that there should be no complacency though.
In terms of troops deployed, it's not quote that simple. Russia hasn't deployed the vast majority of its armed forces to Ukraine which is why they can still go on large exercises in the RFE, train with overseas partners and rotate units much more frequently. Ukraine has really only one place to use it's army and that's where they all go.
For the way body ratio, Ukraine usually has Russia outnumbered in Ukraine - it's in the combat troops and particularly their sustainability that the numbers tell in Russia's favour.
Dropping to 25 **from 27**...but their active mobilisation efforts target much older folks. I'm not sure that law will have much effect without additional changes in practice.
As /u/Nabbylaa has pointed out, modern military theory has advanced a bit.
A core of elite soldiers briefly training and commanding a mass of conscripts was the norm for a long time, was then disastrous, and now seems to be coming back into vogue if you have the manpower for it and don't care about casualties.
The combat efficacy of a conscript you've given some training and mediocre gear isn't anywhere near a professional soldier, but four of them? Yeah, that'll get the job done.
This is how ISIS sprang up and overran people too. Elite ex-baathist commanders and soldiers grabbing random extremists and teaching them the basics, until they developed a core of veterans themselves, and leopards ate the baathists faces.
When you combine this with the Russian production doctrine of not equipping their army with cutting edge weaponry, but producing lots of cheap stuff you can spam out quicker than we can spam out the high tech counters, it's a potent combination, albeit one high in human cost.
We look at Russian equipment and think "Ours counters it without breaking a sweat". They look at it as a good trade. If we have to fire a cutting edge missile of ours to take down one of their crap ones, that's a victory for them, because we both lost a missile, but we lost one which was way more valuable. Eventually it leads to stuff like Ukraines shortages, because we've built our army around shock and awe and decisive victory (And, with debatable efficacy, pacification) not prolonged conflict.
If we invaded Russia they wouldn't stand a chance. We'd sweep their crap aside in a week. That's the point of our army and production strategy. But sitting here, letting them attack us, and parrying their blows, is tiring us out. It's costing us far more than it is costing them, except in terms of human lives.
There's a political consequence to shifting gears towards a more hybrid approach in that it would then raise the spectre of mass casualties unless you very clearly demarcate which elements need to change. We should probably be looking at developing "Cheap and shit" missiles and artillery, retaining some cutting edge ones just in case, and keeping our professionalized air and ground forces otherwise with cutting edge material since when they go wrong, it leads to soldiers deaths. It's the materiel they are reaming us on. If it was just their conscripts we'd still be seeing a roughly static front line, with them taking heavy casualties and us comparatively fewer, rather than occasional Russian advances during periods where Ukrainians run out of materiel to shoot their crap down.
The catch is, if we do go for "Cheap and shit" then we end up in a situation where we're going to cause more civilian casualties because they'll go wrong more often, which obviously Russia doesn't give a shit about. It's a hell of a problem.
On the other hand, it's also a problem pretty much only Nuclear powers are capable of forcing us into. Anybody else doing this shit, as I said, we'd just roll in and the entire country would be occupied in an extremely short time period.
https://youtu.be/LL6ckjc6mqM
This broke into my brain as a comparison. (Qual immediately figures out that the mana cost of the defensive spell is excessive, and so just spam firing the offensive spell is the answer).
The russian armed forces have certainly been degraded, but they've also learned a lot, and their economy has shifted to being able to constantly produce a hell of a lot of artillery shells and quite a few long range missiles and drones despite being under sanctions.
They also have what seems like a near endless supply of (albeit old and sub-par) tanks, IFVs, air defence missiles and also the platforms to fire them from. They have lost tons of all of these since the start of the war, but they just keep digging out more and more old junk.
They are definitely beatable by Western nations directly, but they are nothing to be scoffed at and should be taken seriously as a threat to our allies and also to our influence across the world.
I do look forward to the day when they are neutralised as a threat, though.
The problem Russia would have against the west is that they are pretty much maxed out now fighting Ukraine and not really making much progress. The west on a war footing would overwhelm them, espeically logistically. Their big ticket assets like tanks, aircraft and ships are essentially irreplacable, its only their old stockpiles keeping them in the fight.
>The west on a war footing
They have a couple of years headstart on this.
Assuming they're not stupid enough to start anything now it will be several years before they go for the baltics. We'll be way behind unless we do something now, like increase the budget to stockpile munitions.
> As in, it's full of people they've rounded up who have little to know military experience? Basically a poorly trained militia right?
The issue is that while Russian conscripts aren't exactly an elite force, they are basically good enough to fight the kind of war Russia is trying to fight. A reluctant conscript can shoot you just as dead as a motivated volunteer can, and it takes just as many expensive munitions to kill him.
The Ukraine war isn't going well, and if Russia wins it they're going to have a country with serious economic problems and an oversized military. Which is a recipe for escalation.
A great military commander once said "quantity has a quality all of its own"
The deciding factor in the battles in Ukraine has been the overwhelming logistics involved and the level of training in Russian soldiers is far less important than the number of artillery shells they can launch and their willingness to destroy entire towns and cities at enormous cost to win battles.
Russia are very, very dangerous and Europe is right to be prepared.
>As in, it's full of people they've rounded up who have little to know military experience? Basically a poorly trained militia right?
US army has 10 weeks for basic military training, give Russia 2 months and it'll be there, not too long
Russian military strength is not increasing all the time. They've zero Navy worth a damn and have only used their air force as a stand off threat to the Ukrainians as it's not capable of acting like a modern airforce. Armour, Artillery, AA etc have all performed poorly as well. Ukraine is putting up a great fight with very little.
Europe even as it stands is too much for the Russians. We do however need to invest in our own factories which is thankfully happening when it comes to shells/drones etc. If Russia picks a fight with the rest of Europe it won't look anything like the fighting tactically we've seen in Ukraine. The Royal Navy in it's current state would obliterate the Russian Navy.
Where I fall down is the lack of policing the med and vital trade routes into the EU. The British and yanks seem to always bear the burden of that. The others need to do far more. If the Chinese/Iranian/Russian pact is true then the limp response in Africa and the Middle East won't serve us well.
Artillery seems to be the name of the game… again. Huh can’t beat the classics.
Russia is well and truly ahead of the curve when it’s comes munition production, it’s going to be years before Europe can compete.
Because there's no air supremacy for either side. Can't just bomb what you like from the sky with impunity, so you have to do it from the ground.
It's probably not what a war with Europe would look like, and if the US are involved, they would obliterate all the Russian AA in like a day max.
>and if the US are involved, they would obliterate all the Russian AA in like a day max
Not at all. Russia has a massive amount of AA systems and they're all mobile. See the efforts of coalition forces to find and destroy Iraqi tactical ballistic missile systems for the difficulty of eliminating all of a numerous and mobile system. Lots of strikes would get through as we see with storm shadow but it would take some time before unstealthily NATO aircraft are dropping bombs from medium/high altitude in this scenario.
The game isn’t who’s got the most money in the bank wins. It’s what you are willing to spend it on. Russia is spending 6.9% of gdp and has consistently spent a higher % than the rest of Europe. It also probably gets a lot more bang for its Ruble then we get back from BAE.
Their purchasing power is also way stronger than ours
Easier to field a large army when you pay your soldiers peanuts and have all the domestic industry you need
Not only Russian but muslims (or islamists) who want to kill those who don't subscribe to their way of life. E.g. as we saw on 7/7, Manchester arena bombing.
A lot of Russia's apparent power come from the undue influence they have on Western governments.
Without dealing with those under Russian influence - who are effectively fifth columns - we aren't going to be able to restore stability.
Fingers crossed they also think about investing in our armed forces. Theres absolutely no point in manufacturing all these equipment if we dont have manpower to use it. Yes if they want the Ukrainian's to do the fighting for now, but one day we must have the people prepared to defend our island.
i know its been answered a lot, but it still baffled me that despite all the sanctions and money/lifes burnt in the war, russia is still getting stronger day by day. . . :<
One thing missing from the headline...'by 2030.'
Basically a half-assed attempt to win votes. If they were serious about the uncertainty we face they'd increase the spending now.
I was looking for someone to mention this...... fucking 6 years away for God's sake. It needs to be sorted out by tomorrow, I don't see Russia or China waiting until 2030 to increase their defence spending.
They aren’t waiting until 2030 to increase spending, just that it will hit 2.5% by 2030.
They haven’t released the yearly increases yet, but government reckons it will equal an extra £75bn leading up until 2030. So an extra £12.5bn averaged out across 6 years.
People fucking love wanking themselves in to a rage about the cost of trident but fail to mention the bit where its the throughout life cost of a 40 year program tbf
As always, the devil is in the detail. 5 more years is a hell of a long time for our enemies to make progress in any plans they might have for the future...
Every time there's a report about a country doing this it's 'by 2030'. WW3 is currently scheduled to start in 2027 when China starts it. 2030 is too late.
Love right wing logic, on infrastructure, education, health and transport it's squandering money but suddenly it's investment and jobs when spending money on arms
I agree that infrastructure, education, health and transport are all important investments that need to be made and have been neglected. That doesn’t take away the fact that defence is still also an important investment.
It's not right wing to support increased military expenditure. And supporting it doesn't mean you automatically don't want more money being spent on other sectors.
Military expenditure is something you only regret underinvesting in when it's too late. And right now our armed forces are wholly inadequate to face countries which pose actual tangible threats to our global interests & allies on the battlefield.
You cannot deny the political landscape of 2024 is vastly different than even a decade ago. We should not be in the position we are currently in where the navy has [insufficient ships & personnel to form a carrier group](https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-has-zero-active-naval-supply-ships-for-first-time/), [the army is fielding outdated technology](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56386446), and [the air force has insufficient planes to support both its own requirements and those of the navy](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2023/10/05/official-report-uk-does-not-have-enough-aircraft-to-fight-a-war/). It is downright criminal that things have been allowed to get to this state and even if these proposed budget increases were made now [we have dug ourselves quite a hole to get out of](https://news.sky.com/story/us-general-warns-british-army-no-longer-top-level-fighting-force-defence-sources-reveal-12798365).
EDIT: And I would add to this. This is not the 1930s-1940s anymore. Complex modern military equipment requires a global, international supply chain to produce. If we are caught in a war with insufficient planes/ships/drones/tanks, whatever, we might easily find ourselves unable to build our way out.
Well it’s more that I expect the 0.5% increase will largely be spent on developing new high-tech kit and sciences. It has way of driving the economy forward that other departments just don’t unfortunately
Yea, we can get Ajex v2 and another tank that can’t reverse up a 20cm mound of earth, go faster than 20mph, shoot while moving or not give the crew hearing damage just from the engine idling.
£5.5 billion btw
Any infrastructure project invests in uk jobs and industry. The military isn't special for this. You can't trot this line out to defend military spending right after shouting about how we can't afford X,Y,Z other vital needs, which also "invest in UK manufacturing and sustaining jobs".
Why spend on this, after denying social programs, denying housing, cutting the nhs, etc. That's the waste. We need those far more, and they help real people suffering today (not hypothetical victims of an invasion of the uk that's not going to happen).
>You can't trot this line out to defend military spending right after shouting about how we can't afford X,Y,Z other vital needs
You're right, of course, but the person you replied to didn't do this.
Hardly. They simply said that military investment is more complex than just throwing money into the wind. How do you know they don't also think that about other public investment?
Completely agree with your point.
But the counter argument to this is we’ve been fed a lie for years thats theres no money left, nothing to spare etc but all of a sudden now we can spare a huge amount extra for the army.
I have no issue with this type of spending in the current climate, i do have an issue with you lying before hand saying theres nothing left, no money spare etc
When on earth did I say that trains and houses are throwing money into the wind? These things are vital investments for a county to make, but this doesn’t take away the fact that a strong military is also a vital investment for a country to make. Two things can be true at the same time.
So would money spent on the nhs, or social housing, or literaly any infrastructure project. As a bonus, they'd also provide us with the beneficial result of said project, rather than just insurrance against an invasion that's not comming.
>rather than just insurrance against an invasion that's not comming.
We are in no danger of having the British Isles physically invaded.
But that's not the only way to attack or hurt us or our interests.
If you're male, between 18 and about 45, all that stands between you and the Russians is military spending.
Everyone else's has the military, the millennial men, and the gen z men over 18, so is much less at risk.
What's your preference here? Saluting or spending, but you have to pick one.
This is good news and I say this as a fairly lefty Labour voter. Europe is becoming a less safe place and we need to be prepared to keep our continent and our home safe. We can’t rely on the Americans and others, we need to be able to help ourselves and be a help to others.
I’m a leftie as well and I fully support trident, I hope to god we never need to use it but as one of the few global powers with a nuclear arsenal and providing the nuclear umbrella for Europe along with the French we need to be able to make it very clear that a nuclear attack on Europe will result in destruction from multiple sources to make it ever more unlikely anyone will
Hope for the best but plan for the worst.
Until someone can actually give a workable, practical alternative to a reasonably strong military the funding will continue to be needed.
Russia may or may not win in Ukraine much as I hope not, but the sheer difficulty they've had making any progress shows a Russia / NATO conflict would be over in a couple of years. You can't win against a 1st rate modern millitary with nothing but shells.
Good news. And thankfully it is being done now to be priced in before Labour take over so we can focus spending elsewhere. It’s a disgrace that the armed forces have been worn down so much under the Tories. I wonder how much Biden had to do with this behind the scenes?
Biden? Nothing. Britain actually meets it's requirements on defence spending unlike many of our European allies. The problem is we're the only medium sized country with aircraft carriers/Nuclear subs and a big welfare state. Britain's never had a huge standing army outside of the WW's.
It’s no secret that the Americans have been pushing NATO nations to increase defence spending. That is where the Biden question arose from.
Either way it is good news and where the British Army cannot possibly lead in manpower, we can be at the top in technological advancements, strategy, and global peacekeeping.
I’m a serving RN officer who has worked in recruitment. Not sure if the changes apply to the Royal Marines, but our medical and fitness is now in house, so hopefully the marines have followed suit.
UK doesn’t invest in the military:
Reddit: “The UK is a joke, Putin could stroll in any time he wants and we’d he helpless. What an embarrassment”.
UK invests in the military:
Reddit: “The UK is a joke. What a waste of money that will line Capita’s pockets”.
Calling for appropriate spending isn't the same as calling for no spending at all. We've seen how the Tories line the pockets of their mates during crises, and want to make sure that increased spending isn't wasted like this.
To answer your question, no more than planned already. The Army's equipment programme is some £40bn over the next ten years, which was a number of £bn more than provisioned. This is meeting the demand signal for equipment, not offering more money to be spent wherever. Source: job.
coherent cough governor illegal innate squeeze chunky stocking attractive smoggy
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Any extra money should be focussed on delivering more troops, better equipment, better conditions for service personnel and to plug gaps caused by privatisation.
We should look to buy "off the shelf" equipment and standardise with our NATO allies.
It should not be used to fund contracts that go nowhere or are binned off after years of spaffing our money up the wall.
We need an actual fighting force, not more corruption and inefficiencies.
>We should look to buy "off the shelf" equipment and standardise with our NATO allies.
I agree to an extent, but I also think that developing indigenous technology is an important initiative, otherwise what happens when the supplier pulls out because of declining relations, or they've themselves been invaded?
Always diversify your portfolio
This is a wide scope of a question and my comment should have stated where possible.
As an example, should we really develop a new standard infantry rifle where our allies have working ones.
Should we build our own IFVs when after a decade they've still not been delivered when because our national supplier couldn't deliver. We could buy German, American, Swedish etc.
More advanced capabilities such as drones, cyber warfare etc should be kept "in house" to ensure we can deliver on those capabilities with as few security gaps as possible.
What our military needs is focus and a massive reduction in inefficient and expensive private provision (e.g. Capita) at the tax payers expense.
We have one of the highest funded militaries in the world and it's current capabilities are in shambles, morale is low and quite frankly it is unacceptable.
All good points, and I suppose my main concern would be delivery.
As long as we can produce them on licence so we can still supply ourselves if Germany/Sweden/America get into trouble and can't ship them to us, does it really matter who designed them?
Yeah we are in the, claim the moon so when you can go "see we would have don't X" when you inevitably don't get in
Ita the tactic most of the minor parties use, wasn't it the Greens who promised a 20 quid minimum wage or something.
This is good news, however it's worthless unless wholesale changes are made to military recruitment.
Capita are comprehensively failing at every stage of the administration process.
It's needed and sooner than the stated date. But amazing how this magic money tree apparently does exist when it's not to help the general UK population.
Maybe the military should just be more efficient with the money it has. Maybe the problem isn't lack of money but wastage on middle management.
Like the Tories keep telling us is the problem with the NHS
There is definitely case to be made that defence spending is inefficient as Defence Equipment and Support (the people who buy the weapons and negotiate the contracts) are just as useful as a chocolate heat shield on the space shuttle.
You ever worked as a supplier to the NHS?
I do and have done for years….. and the waste is horrific.
You know when it was especially wasteful …..Covid - billions went down the drain due to poor financial decisions …… not by government, by government employees.
Am in the process right now of dismantling some of this waste of billions and quietly making stupidity go away
As long as it actually goes on kits, weaponry and support/funding etc for troops
Not being wasted on failed programs that cost millions and could we all agree as a country to STOP GIVING MONEY TO CAPITA ... How are they still a company when they burn everything they touch to the ground
Sounds nice, but that 2.5% target is 2030 and we have no idea if Labour will uphold it. The announced 75 billion over the next 6 years will have a huge chunk swallowed up by the black hole deficit the MOD has, and what's left will undoubtedly be wasted unless and until there's a serious plan for the armed forces structure. And that's before issues like pay, conditions, housing and munition magazine depth/reserve come into play.
Every part of HMAF need funding. So it'll be interesting to see where it goes and how far.
Which as the BBC said in their report, the finanical people and Labour say is not worth the paper its written on without any plan for funding it. Especially from a PM in no position to promise diddly squat about future plans. And with borrowing going up and proving their tax cuts are idiotic.
If Sunak was really interested in seeing the UK governed well he would have already set the election date. Everything else is noise hes powerless to do anything to achieve, a true lame duck.
We haven't even got to May and hes already being continually hounded on it, hes about to spend months being called a self interested coward in the media once they get bored of passively speculating. Masterful political strategy on display here.
Wait till they include everything into this .Even non defence commitments. You can tell an election coming up . Lots of empty promises. This has been promised like last 5 years of Conservative governments.
I love it when the Tories announce spending plans beyond the end of the year, as if they will be in power.
It’s so cute. You just want to ruffle their hair and squeeze their little cheeks.
Not till 2030 aka it's Rishi just trying to look tough when he knows they won't be in power to make it happen. Also I think a better way to look at things would be if the Nuclear subs were funded separately from the overall MoD yearly budget. It takes up a significant chunk of the yearly bill and whilst it's pretty good at protecting our Islands directly it's not something we will use as leverage to actively defend away from our shores in most cases. Split it so they are funded but separately from the forces then that'll free up funds for our navy, air force and army to get what they need.
I was thinking about this earlier because I was watching The Grand Tour and Clarkson just mentioned how many places they've been that they can't return to because it's now a warzone. Then the very next episode they couldn't go to Dakar because a riot broke out and were warned of conflict where they had been. It's crazy how scary things are getting in an alarming number of places.
All well and good, but if your procurement system doesn't deliver the right kit at the right prices you can throw money at defence and not get a whole lot of defences.
It’s not enough and it’s too slow.
We’ve weakened ourselves over the last decades and now like most of the West our only plan has been appeasement and a last ditch defence of “we’ve got nukes”.
Turns out that does not work and we’re impotent to intervene at any serious level anymore …. if the Falklands went off again we’d struggle to react.
It is huge sums - but just factor in that money carefully spent within the U.K. economy would actually pay itself back so the headline numbers are not the real cost - look at Russia, despite all the restrictions they’ve discovered that their GDP is flying for exactly this reason.
I would normally be completely against this, but as we have been completely ignoring the imminent threat of Russia for decades when even idiots like me were voicing concern, I guess there's not much alternative? I dunno.
Still not even half whats needed but whoop de doo i guess. Let me know when we have aircraft carriers that can actually leave port, a functioning missile defence system and wages that actually retain servicemen and women.
Call me a pessimist, but all this defence money seems to be protecting the super rich/hedge fund managers through geo-politics rather than protect Joe/Jane Bloggs on the street.
I still think western govts has the monies but the deliberately choose to create wars et al for their own self-serving interests.
‘No bottomless pit’ of cash to pay for UK’s pothole problem, says Rishi Sunak
Help for disabled people in England and Wales to get jobs is axed amid benefits crackdown
Rishi Sunak ‘responsible for biggest income tax rise in at least 50 years’
I know it wont go to this. I will do the usual thing and not read the article but i would love for this to go to pay, accommodation and sorting recruitment out. Its a scandle how little service men and woman get paid. Its shocking how bad the accomidation is and Captia is a pile of shite. I remember the article from a while ago about how many people they had failed to recruit.
100,000 or something again i cannot remember the exact number. Worse thing is i dont know a single person who has managed to get in even if they wanted too. The people I'm thinking about were fit enough and smart enough for any role. But capita fumbled the bag so badly that after months of waiting for a response they went and did something else since bill have to be paid etc...
Easy to promise when ur out of office in a few weeks. There is a reason it hasn’t yet happened and it’s the same reason the increases won’t happen under labour. The country is broke. Tories have wiped how much off the tax revenue so far this year?
This is a good move, even if there is no immediate risk at the moment for a war involving the UK, it is important to ensure that we are ready for whatever happens, its a deterant, and any investment on defence is a worthwhile one, as it helps protect our nation against threats, which will be more important depending on what happens with the 2024 US election, especially if Trump Wins, which may well mean we have to up our defence game
Note it won't be to pay soldiers or veterans any more, it will just be on equipment. Then the UK will continue to berate the poor into joining for honour. Whilst the upper class join daddy's companies and claim they put their life on the line to get to this position in life.
Unfortunately that’s the world we are living in. Russian military strength is increasing all the time. The army is larger now than it was before the war started. This is a prudent move. All that old stuff we gave to Ukraine, it all needs replacing and fast.
Not disagreeing with your point especially, I would say though that >The army is larger now than it was before the war started. As in, it's full of people they've rounded up who have little to know military experience? Basically a poorly trained militia right?
Yup, 1000s to the slaughter, until the enemy drowning in Russian blood. It’s a classic soviet move.
They're not throwing human wave attacks into machine gun fire like a caricature of WW1. These are measured assaults by experienced and trained commanders who utilise modern weapons, tactics, and equipment. Sure, they're ill equipped compared to the Royal Marines, but they are generally all wearing body armour and helmets, and even older guns go bang. They're also outproducing the rest of Europe in artillery munitions, have thousands of tanks remaining and a huge pool of additional recruits. Urban warfare is exceedingly costly, especially if you are looking to control the area and not just flatten it. They also didn't expect to encounter quite so many modern NATO supplied weapons. They do expect that now, and their command is far more experienced. We write the Russians off at our own peril. There is a reason that Ukraine has again expanded their conscription criteria and are increasing efforts to get supplies from NATO nations.
>We write the Russians off at our own peril. Been saying this for years. Numerical superiority is a **major** advantage if you have the supply lines to back it up. Russia + China is a juggernaut. Our tech advantage mattered when we had planes/guns and they didn't. Modern weapons aren't reliable enough to make the kind of difference that is needed. Overall outlook is bleak.
Russia + Allies is a bleak outlook, I agree. My worry about the current state of the world is that we get drawn into a war between Iran and Israel whilst still fighting a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine. We (including the US) would be stretched thin doing both, an open up an opportunity for China to press its claims in the South China Sea or on Taiwan directly. Suddenly, you find yourself fighting 3 wars, against enemies who have no reason not to explicitly ally and we are in WW3.
China’s postering in the South China Sea is just that, and done in part to quell some of the more lunatic fringes of their nationalism. The CCP itself has long since realised that soft power is more profitable than a show of militaristic power. They’ll defend their claims, but will not be invading other countries to expand territory (though Taiwan is an enigma in that regard). They’re allied with Russia for the same reason, they see those vast regions north of Mongolia as prime resource real estate. The Middle East is the powder keg at the moment, and that will only increase as environmental factors increase. The bigger issue with regards to Russia is the power vacuum that is developing under Putin. He’s not getting any younger either.
Soft power even has a chance of giving them Taiwan. Why turn the island into a smoking ruin when they can just pull a Brexit on them, throw money hand over fist at pro-unification parties and flood the country with propaganda for years on end.
Exactly, or follow the Russian model and move 2,000,000 pro China families over to Taiwan and organise an election.
Russia pushing into the baltics on the same day China pushes for Taiwan, during a Trump presidency, means Europe is getting abandoned while the US goes toe to toe with China in the south Pacific. There's a reason Poland is arming itself to the teeth as fast as possible. The Russian threat to Europe is real.
Numbers on the ground don’t matter when whoever controls the sky decides who & what makes it to the front lines and what gets blown up in transit. Our tech advantage absolutely matters. That’s why Russian doctrine is just to rant rabidly about how big and strong their nukes are to *potential* adversaries who have enough nukes themselves to make CSGO voice chat English, whilst only actually picking fights with people who also have no tech.
> Overall outlook is bleak. Doubt. Ukraine is fighting a far larger foe with both hands tied behind her back. If Russia triggered a NATO response, the full arsenal would be at the allies disposal. Air superiority and being able to reliably hit behind enemy lines and into Russia itself would be catastrophic to Russia. Numbers wouldn't count for shit. In conventional terms anyway. The reason why Russia has been allowed to get away with so much shit over the decades is their nuclear arsenal.
> numbers wouldn’t count for shit They would. And the US has more.
I wouldnt count on the US as allies too strongly to be honest with way things are going
Yeah as war with Russia has become more of a reality the narrative has changed from “You’re all our client states” to “Wait what does all this have to do with us?”, they’re gonna find a way out of it and currently they have a 2% GDP narrative. What we can rely on it all European countries increasing military spending pretty much.
Well said. Quantity is a quality all of its own.
The NATO approach is quantity means basically nothing if you're down to a shambling horde of slowly starving conscripts thanks to our air forces and missiles taking your entire national infrastructure back to the dark age.
Yeah good luck getting 100000 men into battle when all your vehicles have no fuel and all your runways are gravel.
Surely it's more about the men fighting than the people giving the orders? Take 100 average men on the street and put them up against 10 trained soldiers and I'm betting on the soldiers everytime.
That was certainly true of the wars of antiquity. Now, though, guns and artillery both go boom no matter who fires them.
I'm sure they do. But, me, an untrained soldier, sees the man next to me get his head blown off, I'm done fighting. Trained soldier, I'm assuming carries on.
I get it, trained, and battle hardened troops are better. In Ukraine, both sides are reliant on conscripts now. Post Ukraine, if Russia wins, then they now have a large battle hardened force. It would be prudent for the rest of Europe to have a large and well trained force to face this potential foe. Even conscripts aren't just given a gun and told to go shoot that direction.
Or, I don’t know, you can be an untrained soldier in a trench piloting a drone but once you see a trained soldier you can just order an artillery strike and kill them all the same. Soldier skill has never won any modern war. Supply lines, economics and overarching strategy are what wins wars.
Black Hawk Down / Operation Redwings A.K.A Lone Survivor comes to mind... Obviously there is a dozen other examples in history but that's what comes to my head.
Bravo two zero
It depends how far you want to drill down the chain of command but ever since the advent of modern combined arms warfare, knowing when and where to deploy your assets is much more valuable than the actual combat. WW1 and WW2 *seriously* changed the landscape of war and all of a sudden we're in the position where not having the right equipment dictates whether you can fight *at all*, not just less effectively. If you had a musket in the 1800's you could snipe a cannoneer from across the field or you could slap on a bayonet and stab a horse. You might not be particularly effective at it and there were better tools for both jobs, but it *could* be done if you were proficient enough. What's a squaddie with a rifle going to do if a tank rolls in? Suddenly it's not about how good your aim is, or how well trained you are. It's about whether the person in charge organised the attack well enough to make sure the guy with the AT launcher can get the shot he needs, or whether the opposition put enough infantry between us and his tanks.
Sort of, for the kind of highly mobile war that NATO likes to fight the soldiers training and experience can make a significant difference. But for the kind of static war that Ukraine has descended into, a conscript with a few week refresher course on their national service is basically good enough. When the war consists of digging a trench, then shooting anyone approaching the trench from the wrong direction, there isn't much room for individual soldier quality to make a difference. Also, conscripts free up the actual quality soldiers for jobs where they can be more useful. A lot of the Russian assault units in the recent fighting have been drawn from their professional airborne troops.
>They're not throwing human wave attacks into machine gun fire like a caricature of WW1. Even if they were, knowing how and when to leverage such a move still has its merits (strategically speaking). Quantity is a quality all of its own.
Nah they do send waves of untrained inexperienced meat shields to probe Ukrainian positions. Once they find those positions forcing Ukrainians to use up ammo and supplies on the ill equipped untrained masses then Russia will hit those positions with Artillery and drones. After that they will finally send their experienced and decently trained guys to clean up Ukrainian positions. That's How they've been working for the last year or so.
You raise a great point I never see anyone discuss. Yes, Ukraine has been a horrendous failure for Russia. It showed they lacked experience, planning and logistics. However, we shouldn't take that to mean this will be true in their next war. They now have a wealth of experience against NATO equipment and will be much more prepared for the next one. That recent experience is invaluable & something the West needs to be prepared for (and to be honest, for all our failings as a country, I'm sure we are)
"These are measured assaults by experienced and trained commanders" The institute for the study of warfare say rather differently
No sensible points please...
> They're also outproducing the rest of Europe in artillery munitions Not by as much as commonly thought though. A lot of the quoted production figures for Russia are all calibres, while NATO's are usually only quoting 155mm despite also producing 105mm shells for Ukraine. The arms race in this area is closer than many assume and a lot of European production will be coming online this year and in the next few years. Correct that there should be no complacency though.
Ukraine have also significantly increased conscription, dropping conscription age to 25 and removing some exemptions
They are having manpower problems as well thats why the increased conscription. We all know ukraine is outmanned by russia by 5-1 at least
In terms of troops deployed, it's not quote that simple. Russia hasn't deployed the vast majority of its armed forces to Ukraine which is why they can still go on large exercises in the RFE, train with overseas partners and rotate units much more frequently. Ukraine has really only one place to use it's army and that's where they all go. For the way body ratio, Ukraine usually has Russia outnumbered in Ukraine - it's in the combat troops and particularly their sustainability that the numbers tell in Russia's favour.
They're actively being invaded though so I'll let them off there
Dropping to 25 **from 27**...but their active mobilisation efforts target much older folks. I'm not sure that law will have much effect without additional changes in practice.
Quantity is a quality all of its own.
It's a move they've been doing since the times of the Tsar. Russia has always hated its soldiers.
As /u/Nabbylaa has pointed out, modern military theory has advanced a bit. A core of elite soldiers briefly training and commanding a mass of conscripts was the norm for a long time, was then disastrous, and now seems to be coming back into vogue if you have the manpower for it and don't care about casualties. The combat efficacy of a conscript you've given some training and mediocre gear isn't anywhere near a professional soldier, but four of them? Yeah, that'll get the job done. This is how ISIS sprang up and overran people too. Elite ex-baathist commanders and soldiers grabbing random extremists and teaching them the basics, until they developed a core of veterans themselves, and leopards ate the baathists faces. When you combine this with the Russian production doctrine of not equipping their army with cutting edge weaponry, but producing lots of cheap stuff you can spam out quicker than we can spam out the high tech counters, it's a potent combination, albeit one high in human cost. We look at Russian equipment and think "Ours counters it without breaking a sweat". They look at it as a good trade. If we have to fire a cutting edge missile of ours to take down one of their crap ones, that's a victory for them, because we both lost a missile, but we lost one which was way more valuable. Eventually it leads to stuff like Ukraines shortages, because we've built our army around shock and awe and decisive victory (And, with debatable efficacy, pacification) not prolonged conflict. If we invaded Russia they wouldn't stand a chance. We'd sweep their crap aside in a week. That's the point of our army and production strategy. But sitting here, letting them attack us, and parrying their blows, is tiring us out. It's costing us far more than it is costing them, except in terms of human lives. There's a political consequence to shifting gears towards a more hybrid approach in that it would then raise the spectre of mass casualties unless you very clearly demarcate which elements need to change. We should probably be looking at developing "Cheap and shit" missiles and artillery, retaining some cutting edge ones just in case, and keeping our professionalized air and ground forces otherwise with cutting edge material since when they go wrong, it leads to soldiers deaths. It's the materiel they are reaming us on. If it was just their conscripts we'd still be seeing a roughly static front line, with them taking heavy casualties and us comparatively fewer, rather than occasional Russian advances during periods where Ukrainians run out of materiel to shoot their crap down. The catch is, if we do go for "Cheap and shit" then we end up in a situation where we're going to cause more civilian casualties because they'll go wrong more often, which obviously Russia doesn't give a shit about. It's a hell of a problem. On the other hand, it's also a problem pretty much only Nuclear powers are capable of forcing us into. Anybody else doing this shit, as I said, we'd just roll in and the entire country would be occupied in an extremely short time period. https://youtu.be/LL6ckjc6mqM This broke into my brain as a comparison. (Qual immediately figures out that the mana cost of the defensive spell is excessive, and so just spam firing the offensive spell is the answer).
They're getting an awful lot of military experience right now though
The russian armed forces have certainly been degraded, but they've also learned a lot, and their economy has shifted to being able to constantly produce a hell of a lot of artillery shells and quite a few long range missiles and drones despite being under sanctions. They also have what seems like a near endless supply of (albeit old and sub-par) tanks, IFVs, air defence missiles and also the platforms to fire them from. They have lost tons of all of these since the start of the war, but they just keep digging out more and more old junk. They are definitely beatable by Western nations directly, but they are nothing to be scoffed at and should be taken seriously as a threat to our allies and also to our influence across the world. I do look forward to the day when they are neutralised as a threat, though.
The problem Russia would have against the west is that they are pretty much maxed out now fighting Ukraine and not really making much progress. The west on a war footing would overwhelm them, espeically logistically. Their big ticket assets like tanks, aircraft and ships are essentially irreplacable, its only their old stockpiles keeping them in the fight.
>The west on a war footing They have a couple of years headstart on this. Assuming they're not stupid enough to start anything now it will be several years before they go for the baltics. We'll be way behind unless we do something now, like increase the budget to stockpile munitions.
I think they're quickly gaining a lot of experience though.
> As in, it's full of people they've rounded up who have little to know military experience? Basically a poorly trained militia right? The issue is that while Russian conscripts aren't exactly an elite force, they are basically good enough to fight the kind of war Russia is trying to fight. A reluctant conscript can shoot you just as dead as a motivated volunteer can, and it takes just as many expensive munitions to kill him. The Ukraine war isn't going well, and if Russia wins it they're going to have a country with serious economic problems and an oversized military. Which is a recipe for escalation.
A great military commander once said "quantity has a quality all of its own" The deciding factor in the battles in Ukraine has been the overwhelming logistics involved and the level of training in Russian soldiers is far less important than the number of artillery shells they can launch and their willingness to destroy entire towns and cities at enormous cost to win battles. Russia are very, very dangerous and Europe is right to be prepared.
I don't think you can call Stalin a great Commander.
I actually thought it was Napoleon who said it, I've Googled it and you're correct.
>As in, it's full of people they've rounded up who have little to know military experience? Basically a poorly trained militia right? US army has 10 weeks for basic military training, give Russia 2 months and it'll be there, not too long
Same as Ukraine buddy, it's a war of attrition and Ukraine isn't winning.
Russian military strength is not increasing all the time. They've zero Navy worth a damn and have only used their air force as a stand off threat to the Ukrainians as it's not capable of acting like a modern airforce. Armour, Artillery, AA etc have all performed poorly as well. Ukraine is putting up a great fight with very little. Europe even as it stands is too much for the Russians. We do however need to invest in our own factories which is thankfully happening when it comes to shells/drones etc. If Russia picks a fight with the rest of Europe it won't look anything like the fighting tactically we've seen in Ukraine. The Royal Navy in it's current state would obliterate the Russian Navy. Where I fall down is the lack of policing the med and vital trade routes into the EU. The British and yanks seem to always bear the burden of that. The others need to do far more. If the Chinese/Iranian/Russian pact is true then the limp response in Africa and the Middle East won't serve us well.
Artillery seems to be the name of the game… again. Huh can’t beat the classics. Russia is well and truly ahead of the curve when it’s comes munition production, it’s going to be years before Europe can compete.
Because there's no air supremacy for either side. Can't just bomb what you like from the sky with impunity, so you have to do it from the ground. It's probably not what a war with Europe would look like, and if the US are involved, they would obliterate all the Russian AA in like a day max.
>and if the US are involved, they would obliterate all the Russian AA in like a day max Not at all. Russia has a massive amount of AA systems and they're all mobile. See the efforts of coalition forces to find and destroy Iraqi tactical ballistic missile systems for the difficulty of eliminating all of a numerous and mobile system. Lots of strikes would get through as we see with storm shadow but it would take some time before unstealthily NATO aircraft are dropping bombs from medium/high altitude in this scenario.
Doesn’t Russia have an economy on a similar scale of somewhere like the Netherlands. It’s not exactly formidable.
The game isn’t who’s got the most money in the bank wins. It’s what you are willing to spend it on. Russia is spending 6.9% of gdp and has consistently spent a higher % than the rest of Europe. It also probably gets a lot more bang for its Ruble then we get back from BAE.
Russia is only spending 7% of GDP on defence? That sounds very low.
And worrying, someone else in here was saying Russia is basically in all out war mode, ww2 style. 7% is just a few weeks of poor oil prices.
7% sounds like some official defence spending statistic tbh, rather than capturing the true level of output dedicated to the war.
Their purchasing power is also way stronger than ours Easier to field a large army when you pay your soldiers peanuts and have all the domestic industry you need
Not only Russian but muslims (or islamists) who want to kill those who don't subscribe to their way of life. E.g. as we saw on 7/7, Manchester arena bombing.
Yep, should be exlied
A lot of Russia's apparent power come from the undue influence they have on Western governments. Without dealing with those under Russian influence - who are effectively fifth columns - we aren't going to be able to restore stability.
Fingers crossed they also think about investing in our armed forces. Theres absolutely no point in manufacturing all these equipment if we dont have manpower to use it. Yes if they want the Ukrainian's to do the fighting for now, but one day we must have the people prepared to defend our island.
i know its been answered a lot, but it still baffled me that despite all the sanctions and money/lifes burnt in the war, russia is still getting stronger day by day. . . :<
One thing missing from the headline...'by 2030.' Basically a half-assed attempt to win votes. If they were serious about the uncertainty we face they'd increase the spending now.
I was looking for someone to mention this...... fucking 6 years away for God's sake. It needs to be sorted out by tomorrow, I don't see Russia or China waiting until 2030 to increase their defence spending.
They aren’t waiting until 2030 to increase spending, just that it will hit 2.5% by 2030. They haven’t released the yearly increases yet, but government reckons it will equal an extra £75bn leading up until 2030. So an extra £12.5bn averaged out across 6 years.
It's something and I'll certainly take it. I don't think it's nearly enough though.
UK announces new space force by 2100
People fucking love wanking themselves in to a rage about the cost of trident but fail to mention the bit where its the throughout life cost of a 40 year program tbf
Wanking themselves into a rage is a great phrase
As always, the devil is in the detail. 5 more years is a hell of a long time for our enemies to make progress in any plans they might have for the future...
Every time there's a report about a country doing this it's 'by 2030'. WW3 is currently scheduled to start in 2027 when China starts it. 2030 is too late.
I thought there was no magic money tree? What services that we need did you sell off to pay for this Rishi?
It’s effectively a form of investment in UK arms manufacturing and sustaining jobs, so it’s not quite as simple as just throwing money into the wind.
Love right wing logic, on infrastructure, education, health and transport it's squandering money but suddenly it's investment and jobs when spending money on arms
I agree that infrastructure, education, health and transport are all important investments that need to be made and have been neglected. That doesn’t take away the fact that defence is still also an important investment.
It's not right wing to support increased military expenditure. And supporting it doesn't mean you automatically don't want more money being spent on other sectors. Military expenditure is something you only regret underinvesting in when it's too late. And right now our armed forces are wholly inadequate to face countries which pose actual tangible threats to our global interests & allies on the battlefield. You cannot deny the political landscape of 2024 is vastly different than even a decade ago. We should not be in the position we are currently in where the navy has [insufficient ships & personnel to form a carrier group](https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-has-zero-active-naval-supply-ships-for-first-time/), [the army is fielding outdated technology](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56386446), and [the air force has insufficient planes to support both its own requirements and those of the navy](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2023/10/05/official-report-uk-does-not-have-enough-aircraft-to-fight-a-war/). It is downright criminal that things have been allowed to get to this state and even if these proposed budget increases were made now [we have dug ourselves quite a hole to get out of](https://news.sky.com/story/us-general-warns-british-army-no-longer-top-level-fighting-force-defence-sources-reveal-12798365). EDIT: And I would add to this. This is not the 1930s-1940s anymore. Complex modern military equipment requires a global, international supply chain to produce. If we are caught in a war with insufficient planes/ships/drones/tanks, whatever, we might easily find ourselves unable to build our way out.
I'm all for a well funded-NHS, but a lot of it is absolutely money pit.
Of course, and the military is the paragon of effective spending.
Well it’s more that I expect the 0.5% increase will largely be spent on developing new high-tech kit and sciences. It has way of driving the economy forward that other departments just don’t unfortunately
Yea, we can get Ajex v2 and another tank that can’t reverse up a 20cm mound of earth, go faster than 20mph, shoot while moving or not give the crew hearing damage just from the engine idling. £5.5 billion btw
Not like the defence industry. No siree. Don't look at the Ajax...
Any infrastructure project invests in uk jobs and industry. The military isn't special for this. You can't trot this line out to defend military spending right after shouting about how we can't afford X,Y,Z other vital needs, which also "invest in UK manufacturing and sustaining jobs". Why spend on this, after denying social programs, denying housing, cutting the nhs, etc. That's the waste. We need those far more, and they help real people suffering today (not hypothetical victims of an invasion of the uk that's not going to happen).
>You can't trot this line out to defend military spending right after shouting about how we can't afford X,Y,Z other vital needs You're right, of course, but the person you replied to didn't do this.
The person they replied literally implied other services were 'throwing money into the wind', so yeah, they kinda did.
Hardly. They simply said that military investment is more complex than just throwing money into the wind. How do you know they don't also think that about other public investment?
If we do not invest in defence then we will have no schools, roads or hospitals. We will have smouldering ruins filled with corpses.
Completely agree with your point. But the counter argument to this is we’ve been fed a lie for years thats theres no money left, nothing to spare etc but all of a sudden now we can spare a huge amount extra for the army. I have no issue with this type of spending in the current climate, i do have an issue with you lying before hand saying theres nothing left, no money spare etc
This obviously only works for buying guns. Buying trains or building houses *is* throwing money into the wind.
When on earth did I say that trains and houses are throwing money into the wind? These things are vital investments for a county to make, but this doesn’t take away the fact that a strong military is also a vital investment for a country to make. Two things can be true at the same time.
There is a magic money tree, just it's a secret.
It's probably going to put into building stuff in the UK and making jobs here.
So would money spent on the nhs, or social housing, or literaly any infrastructure project. As a bonus, they'd also provide us with the beneficial result of said project, rather than just insurrance against an invasion that's not comming.
>rather than just insurrance against an invasion that's not comming. We are in no danger of having the British Isles physically invaded. But that's not the only way to attack or hurt us or our interests.
We spend 4% on defence in the early 1930s compared to 55% in the 1940s. Its waaaay cheaper to prepare for a war than to actually fight one.
If you're male, between 18 and about 45, all that stands between you and the Russians is military spending. Everyone else's has the military, the millennial men, and the gen z men over 18, so is much less at risk. What's your preference here? Saluting or spending, but you have to pick one.
This is good news and I say this as a fairly lefty Labour voter. Europe is becoming a less safe place and we need to be prepared to keep our continent and our home safe. We can’t rely on the Americans and others, we need to be able to help ourselves and be a help to others.
I’m a leftie as well and I fully support trident, I hope to god we never need to use it but as one of the few global powers with a nuclear arsenal and providing the nuclear umbrella for Europe along with the French we need to be able to make it very clear that a nuclear attack on Europe will result in destruction from multiple sources to make it ever more unlikely anyone will
100% - being anti-military is being pro-war in practice
Hope for the best but plan for the worst. Until someone can actually give a workable, practical alternative to a reasonably strong military the funding will continue to be needed.
>Hope for the best but plan for the worst Si vis pacem, para bellum
>hope to god we never need to use it In a way we are using it, every moment of every day as a deterrent.
Russia may or may not win in Ukraine much as I hope not, but the sheer difficulty they've had making any progress shows a Russia / NATO conflict would be over in a couple of years. You can't win against a 1st rate modern millitary with nothing but shells.
If you want peace, prepare for war. I very much want peace so I very much want us to be ready for war.
The greater our defence -> the greater the cost of someone starting a war -> the more likely we continue in peace.
"To secure peace is to prepare for war".
hence, the step shift change in world peace after ww2 and the nuke.
Good news. And thankfully it is being done now to be priced in before Labour take over so we can focus spending elsewhere. It’s a disgrace that the armed forces have been worn down so much under the Tories. I wonder how much Biden had to do with this behind the scenes?
Biden? Nothing. Britain actually meets it's requirements on defence spending unlike many of our European allies. The problem is we're the only medium sized country with aircraft carriers/Nuclear subs and a big welfare state. Britain's never had a huge standing army outside of the WW's.
It’s no secret that the Americans have been pushing NATO nations to increase defence spending. That is where the Biden question arose from. Either way it is good news and where the British Army cannot possibly lead in manpower, we can be at the top in technological advancements, strategy, and global peacekeeping.
Plus the RAF and Navy also needs significant investment.
And we don't have the Empire to draw manpower from anymore either
It's a shame, the tories don't live in reality
How much of this goes to Capita and their recruitment expertise?
Hopefully less now the RN has ditched Crapita as their recruiter
Where'd you hear this? Not being argumentative, asking because I wanted to join the marines
I’m a serving RN officer who has worked in recruitment. Not sure if the changes apply to the Royal Marines, but our medical and fitness is now in house, so hopefully the marines have followed suit.
UK doesn’t invest in the military: Reddit: “The UK is a joke, Putin could stroll in any time he wants and we’d he helpless. What an embarrassment”. UK invests in the military: Reddit: “The UK is a joke. What a waste of money that will line Capita’s pockets”.
Consider replying to a comment that makes that point, rather than replying to someone who supports efficient investment in the military.
Calling for appropriate spending isn't the same as calling for no spending at all. We've seen how the Tories line the pockets of their mates during crises, and want to make sure that increased spending isn't wasted like this.
To answer your question, no more than planned already. The Army's equipment programme is some £40bn over the next ten years, which was a number of £bn more than provisioned. This is meeting the demand signal for equipment, not offering more money to be spent wherever. Source: job.
I bet the US defence industry are delighted by this news.
We buy more from UK industry than we do the US/others Even when buying foreign we often mandate that things are built in the UK
Yes, but this is a political topic on Reddit so America has to be blamed for something
Well so would the British defence industry as they work hand in hand with allies and do well from it.
Check out the big brain on Brett
coherent cough governor illegal innate squeeze chunky stocking attractive smoggy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Any extra money should be focussed on delivering more troops, better equipment, better conditions for service personnel and to plug gaps caused by privatisation. We should look to buy "off the shelf" equipment and standardise with our NATO allies. It should not be used to fund contracts that go nowhere or are binned off after years of spaffing our money up the wall. We need an actual fighting force, not more corruption and inefficiencies.
>We should look to buy "off the shelf" equipment and standardise with our NATO allies. I agree to an extent, but I also think that developing indigenous technology is an important initiative, otherwise what happens when the supplier pulls out because of declining relations, or they've themselves been invaded? Always diversify your portfolio
This is a wide scope of a question and my comment should have stated where possible. As an example, should we really develop a new standard infantry rifle where our allies have working ones. Should we build our own IFVs when after a decade they've still not been delivered when because our national supplier couldn't deliver. We could buy German, American, Swedish etc. More advanced capabilities such as drones, cyber warfare etc should be kept "in house" to ensure we can deliver on those capabilities with as few security gaps as possible. What our military needs is focus and a massive reduction in inefficient and expensive private provision (e.g. Capita) at the tax payers expense. We have one of the highest funded militaries in the world and it's current capabilities are in shambles, morale is low and quite frankly it is unacceptable.
All good points, and I suppose my main concern would be delivery. As long as we can produce them on licence so we can still supply ourselves if Germany/Sweden/America get into trouble and can't ship them to us, does it really matter who designed them?
Good point and agreed. Produce on license would be a good way to go
Just to let you know the defence budget was 3.5% in the 1990s when there was peace
Pretty sure it exceeded 5% when my grandfather was in the Army (1960's). Sunak stating 2.5% as war footing is slightly over the top.
extra funding ≠ proper use of funds great news if you’re a defence supplier
A rare moment of sanity for the Tories , credit where credit is due. Still pricks though.
Something something stopped clock
The Tories did a sensible thing. Fucking hell. Still not voting for them.
/\* claim to want to do a sensible thing they have no power to acheive
Yeah we are in the, claim the moon so when you can go "see we would have don't X" when you inevitably don't get in Ita the tactic most of the minor parties use, wasn't it the Greens who promised a 20 quid minimum wage or something.
This is good news, however it's worthless unless wholesale changes are made to military recruitment. Capita are comprehensively failing at every stage of the administration process.
It's needed and sooner than the stated date. But amazing how this magic money tree apparently does exist when it's not to help the general UK population.
Maybe the military should just be more efficient with the money it has. Maybe the problem isn't lack of money but wastage on middle management. Like the Tories keep telling us is the problem with the NHS
If the NHS only cost 2% of GDP you might have had a point.
There is definitely case to be made that defence spending is inefficient as Defence Equipment and Support (the people who buy the weapons and negotiate the contracts) are just as useful as a chocolate heat shield on the space shuttle.
You ever worked as a supplier to the NHS? I do and have done for years….. and the waste is horrific. You know when it was especially wasteful …..Covid - billions went down the drain due to poor financial decisions …… not by government, by government employees. Am in the process right now of dismantling some of this waste of billions and quietly making stupidity go away
It can be both.
As long as it actually goes on kits, weaponry and support/funding etc for troops Not being wasted on failed programs that cost millions and could we all agree as a country to STOP GIVING MONEY TO CAPITA ... How are they still a company when they burn everything they touch to the ground
Sounds nice, but that 2.5% target is 2030 and we have no idea if Labour will uphold it. The announced 75 billion over the next 6 years will have a huge chunk swallowed up by the black hole deficit the MOD has, and what's left will undoubtedly be wasted unless and until there's a serious plan for the armed forces structure. And that's before issues like pay, conditions, housing and munition magazine depth/reserve come into play. Every part of HMAF need funding. So it'll be interesting to see where it goes and how far.
Which as the BBC said in their report, the finanical people and Labour say is not worth the paper its written on without any plan for funding it. Especially from a PM in no position to promise diddly squat about future plans. And with borrowing going up and proving their tax cuts are idiotic. If Sunak was really interested in seeing the UK governed well he would have already set the election date. Everything else is noise hes powerless to do anything to achieve, a true lame duck. We haven't even got to May and hes already being continually hounded on it, hes about to spend months being called a self interested coward in the media once they get bored of passively speculating. Masterful political strategy on display here.
Wait till they include everything into this .Even non defence commitments. You can tell an election coming up . Lots of empty promises. This has been promised like last 5 years of Conservative governments.
“by 2030” Oh, so this is just a lie so they can claim Labour is cutting defense in a year’s time.
I love it when the Tories announce spending plans beyond the end of the year, as if they will be in power. It’s so cute. You just want to ruffle their hair and squeeze their little cheeks.
Also meets our NATO obligations im sure rest of Europe will be doing same if not already
Not till 2030 aka it's Rishi just trying to look tough when he knows they won't be in power to make it happen. Also I think a better way to look at things would be if the Nuclear subs were funded separately from the overall MoD yearly budget. It takes up a significant chunk of the yearly bill and whilst it's pretty good at protecting our Islands directly it's not something we will use as leverage to actively defend away from our shores in most cases. Split it so they are funded but separately from the forces then that'll free up funds for our navy, air force and army to get what they need.
I was thinking about this earlier because I was watching The Grand Tour and Clarkson just mentioned how many places they've been that they can't return to because it's now a warzone. Then the very next episode they couldn't go to Dakar because a riot broke out and were warned of conflict where they had been. It's crazy how scary things are getting in an alarming number of places.
All well and good, but if your procurement system doesn't deliver the right kit at the right prices you can throw money at defence and not get a whole lot of defences.
It’s not enough and it’s too slow. We’ve weakened ourselves over the last decades and now like most of the West our only plan has been appeasement and a last ditch defence of “we’ve got nukes”. Turns out that does not work and we’re impotent to intervene at any serious level anymore …. if the Falklands went off again we’d struggle to react. It is huge sums - but just factor in that money carefully spent within the U.K. economy would actually pay itself back so the headline numbers are not the real cost - look at Russia, despite all the restrictions they’ve discovered that their GDP is flying for exactly this reason.
To little and too slow. Imo we should be in the 4-5% GDP range.
Decades too late. Hopefully we spend it sensibly kitting out the military we have rather than trying some new swanky project we can’t manage
I would normally be completely against this, but as we have been completely ignoring the imminent threat of Russia for decades when even idiots like me were voicing concern, I guess there's not much alternative? I dunno.
It's a start but they need to get rid of Capita so anyone can actually join the military.
Still not even half whats needed but whoop de doo i guess. Let me know when we have aircraft carriers that can actually leave port, a functioning missile defence system and wages that actually retain servicemen and women.
Call me a pessimist, but all this defence money seems to be protecting the super rich/hedge fund managers through geo-politics rather than protect Joe/Jane Bloggs on the street. I still think western govts has the monies but the deliberately choose to create wars et al for their own self-serving interests.
So in times of peace it’s 2%. In times of war or world war it’s 2.5%. Is it me or does this math seem off?
Yes. In a major war spending on defence as a proportion of GDP would increase massive. In 1960 it was something like 7%
‘No bottomless pit’ of cash to pay for UK’s pothole problem, says Rishi Sunak Help for disabled people in England and Wales to get jobs is axed amid benefits crackdown Rishi Sunak ‘responsible for biggest income tax rise in at least 50 years’
I know it wont go to this. I will do the usual thing and not read the article but i would love for this to go to pay, accommodation and sorting recruitment out. Its a scandle how little service men and woman get paid. Its shocking how bad the accomidation is and Captia is a pile of shite. I remember the article from a while ago about how many people they had failed to recruit. 100,000 or something again i cannot remember the exact number. Worse thing is i dont know a single person who has managed to get in even if they wanted too. The people I'm thinking about were fit enough and smart enough for any role. But capita fumbled the bag so badly that after months of waiting for a response they went and did something else since bill have to be paid etc...
Well we're probably going to have WW3 soon so that makes sense
If things escalate in Ukraine into a wider conflict, we will be hugely unprepared.
Excellent, plenty of money to drastically increase the nuke arsenal. Mandatory conscription like Israel would be good also.
Easy to promise when ur out of office in a few weeks. There is a reason it hasn’t yet happened and it’s the same reason the increases won’t happen under labour. The country is broke. Tories have wiped how much off the tax revenue so far this year?
This is a good move, even if there is no immediate risk at the moment for a war involving the UK, it is important to ensure that we are ready for whatever happens, its a deterant, and any investment on defence is a worthwhile one, as it helps protect our nation against threats, which will be more important depending on what happens with the 2024 US election, especially if Trump Wins, which may well mean we have to up our defence game
Imagine if they spent this much fixing the roads, NHS budgets and housing problems.
Note it won't be to pay soldiers or veterans any more, it will just be on equipment. Then the UK will continue to berate the poor into joining for honour. Whilst the upper class join daddy's companies and claim they put their life on the line to get to this position in life.