Public opinion on the UK's Strategic Defence Review 2025 is mostly negative, characterized by skepticism and distrust toward the government's motives and priorities. Many express dissatisfaction with the perceived inefficacy and misplaced focus on international alliances over domestic issues like border security and social welfare. Critics highlight concerns over the economic impact and question the effectiveness of proposed strategies and spending, doubting significant improvement due to historical inefficiencies. However, there are also calls for increased military investment and improved naval capabilities, with some support for stronger alignment with NATO and AUKUS, showcasing a diverse range of opinions on national defense and international relations.

UK Government

British Armed Forces

NATO

AUKUS

&gt;\- (RAF) I expect plans for the F-35 fleet to be better detailed; As noted, 74 airframes are to be procured though it has grown recently, more likely for numbers to exceed that. Expect a final procurement number closer to 138 airframes. Expect news on the New Medium Helicopter and whether it will be cancelled or not. I also speculate the ALARM or HARM or similar missile development to be of interest.

&gt;\- (RAF) Expect news on the Eurofighter, a potential buy of 5 Wedgetails, perhaps a handful of additional A400Ms, and potentially, plans to replace the Merlin/Chinook. Otherwise, expect a future plan for the drone fleet to be detailed. 

F35s cost too much. Maybe we'll get a few more, but I don't we'll break 100.

We need a replacement for ALARM, and something that's compatible with both F35 and Typhoon would be good. 

The RAF hasn't operated the Merlin for over a decade. The Puma badly needs retiring and replacing. Merlin would be ideal for this, but it's more likely to the Aw149.

Chinook won't be retired, but the fleet needs more aircraft to supplement it. There's no replacement available, nothing does a similar job. 

5 Wedgetails are an absolute minimum requirement. More Poseidons are needed too.

Fixing the saga that is Protector also needs to happen.

I expect about 2% of that to *actually* happen

Drewski811

&gt;I'm expecting much of the Strategic Defence Review.

Prepare for disappointment

Reverse_Quikeh

[deleted]

For the Army, they can procure all the kit they want. Without structural changes to Fd Army (read: increase in numbers) we simply don't have the workforce to both modernise and service the current Op &amp; non-Op tempo. Kit doesn't retain troops. Money needs to be spent on both improving the offer to get people in the door (incl fixing the recruitment pipeline) and keeping them past 8 years.

Mordechiwolfe

I don't know enough about the RN or RAF so I will refrain from commenting there. Suffice to say, we should ensure that we can field a significant force that is self-sufficient and does not require allies. All this, operating with others' pish, is just code for defence on the cheap. Allies are nice to have but should not be the go to - you never know when they won't be there.

For the BA, they can buy all the kit they want, unless they are adding a significant uplift of manpower, it will be entirely pointless. Personally, I think we need an extra 100,000 personnel as a minimum if we want a force that has the mass to fighting in a conventional war, or provide sustainable presence on a variety of taskings around the world. I don't think we will get anywhere near that number.

Personally, I think it will be all mouth no trousers but let's see what happens.

Capt_Zapp_Brann1gan

I’ll focus on what I know/have knowledge on.

L85 replacement *should* be formally announced by the end of the year barring any delays in trials. The announced procurement of holo and magnified sights for GPMG has yet to materialise at field units yet. 

Virtus has undergone some substantial revisions over the years and new multi size ballistic plates are due soon (public information, program is fully costed). This should usher in some additional design changes to the STV, probably something closer to what we see on the MOTS market. Some other stuff still TBC and not publicly announced, so no further comment. Nothing life changing, just an evolution. The inclusion of PDS in the Virtus contract was an unusually good idea by the MoD. 

No way on gods earth will HX3 replace our current stock of SV, which are only just hitting their midlife and statistically represent one of our most reliable vehicles by MTBF. Potential for a “rolling” refit/rebuild to near new of a select amount of the current stock depending on need. We should procure additional appliqué armour kits for SV though, there are far too many cutting around in Light Mech and Mech infantry units that aren’t armoured. 

500 new PLS have entered service and will be fully issued out by the end of the year. PLS/EPLS are our biggest deficiencies currently by several hundred vehicles. COTS (think standard arctics) are being seriously considered for 3rd line use. 

We should however look to mount Archer on a Man 8x8 chassis to provide 1 Div with SPG’s. 

Oshkosh is approaching OSD so question mark as to what will replace that, my money is extend the contract further and supplement with COTS 6x6 like everyone else seems to. That or HX based 6x6 and 8x8 tractor units for CST/MLET and HET use respectively.

If the MoD splurges for Babcock GLV they’re idiots. All a Landy replacement has to do it be a 4x4 GS bod wagon, nothing fancy. Literally a green Hilux. Leave FFR/C2 and BFA to the PM fleet,  where realistically they should all be. No use for soft skinned C2 or BFA’s in the fighting area, nor has there been for decades. 


Foxhound Mk2 is under development with 3 trial vehicles already paid for. They should procure more (with revisions) but even with steel pods they will likely be too expensive to meet our PM light needs in full. Something simple and cheap is needed for an armoured taxi. 

Ajax is several X too expensive and 20 tons~ too heavy to be a realistic Bulldog replacement, which is fundamentally just a tracked armoured taxi. If you mount people in Ajax you may as well bin the armoured taxi mindset and go full send on IFV’s. Still TBC how Ajax actually does after a few years getting hammered by squaddies.

Ill_Mistake5925

I'm expecting more money to be spent on research that will lead to nothing

Imsuchazwodder

Your F35 numbers are exotic to say the least.

PapaWhisky7

Seriously, NATO is getting twitchy around the F35, a ton of money invested in a platform we don’t fully control. 
Ajax too big too expensive. CVRT you can hide behind a bush. Ajax you might hide it behind a house…
For gods sake retire the bloody Land Rovers….. they’re nearly 30 year old vehicles…
We need to build more in this country and stop buying off the yanks. 
I went through Options for Change and the subsequent SDR. No I haven’t died yet….

Flaky-Grapefruit9017

Labour are desperately trying to put a block on military chiefs briefing to the press.....why because it's going to be an ABSOLUTE SHOCKER!! 

Already there's mumblings in the press from former senior chefs indicating just how BAD it's going to be.

HM Forces are in a complete mess and Labout aren't going to fix it.

Jay_6125

Bulldog replacement…… hahaha — the same one we got threatened with in 1991….. pretty sure Boxer got mentioned at the same time..

Empty promises and an increase in spending that barely covers inflation.


*
Also


&gt;FSSS programmes of the Royal Navy to be pushed forward for entry into service...

&gt;...and maybe even 4 FSSS vessels procured if the frigate fleet is to be expanded. That is up from a stated 3 maximum.

Expected service date for all three is 2032, if anything I imagine they will be delayed considering they haven't even cut the first steel yet. And I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't even get all three.

Free_PalletLine

What news on the typhoon are you expecting? 

From the RAF side of things, 5x wedgetail would be very welcome. It’s a very powerful tool that is severely limited by only having 3x airframes.

I’d like to see a switch to F-35A too. Let the navy keep the F-35B. They simply don’t have the range or the payload to be particularly useful.  Either that or develop/acquire a carrier capable A2A refuelling drone.

CH-47 won’t be replaced for some time yet. The investment in the H-ER model will endure, and will replace the older 6A models on the fleet.

Across all three services, I’d also like to see additional personnel. The navy in particular are crying out for people - invest in the people! Fill all the gaps across the board and do what we’re doing now, but actually staffed at the appropriate level, and that should steer us through the short term instability until Trump is out of the white house.

biggups

More money and yet somehow still further cuts to the infantry

irishmickguard

The one thing it will not do is increase the number of troops.

pocketdisco

&gt;I hope for additional Supacat HMTs

Oh, and I wouldn't hang on this too much. Until HMTVs "little" problem can be solved, it'll be heading nowhere.

NotAlpharious-Honest

I think the time frame you're looking at appears to be a tad more distant than the mutterings around the SDR seem to indicate?

From what I've seen and heard (which admittedly could all be bollocks), there seem to be a real emphasis on building up immediate capability in response to the looming Russian threat, and plugging holes in what we have more than stretching for new capabilities or long-term replacements, where those are less-than-pressing. 2030-2035 seems to be the critical time frame driving a lot of calculations at the moment.

As a result, I'd expect a lot of the longer-term replacements and capabilities you outline, like the Chinook and HX2 replacements, will probably be pushed back to subsequent reviews, in favour of either bolstering the existing fleets or at most a gradual modernisation to extend what there is in a timely manner (eg up-armouring more HX2s).

With the US being politically shaky, there also seems to be a real push for a rigid focus on European deterrence, with more expeditionary-minded capabilities like A400 or expanded support ship fleets probably taking a back seat for the moment. The flipside it expanding a lot of those enabling capabilities previously provided by the US like AWACS or Maritime patrol are likely to be pushed forward in the queue. 

Despite the increase in spending, I'd expect more plugging gaps and evolving capabilities than any radical development or shake-up of what's already there.

Corvid187

I personally think that a move to fighter catapults, and therefore away from STOVL, is the most important move. Obviously in the medium term we are pinned to the F35, but in the longer term, a move away from foreign (particularly American) and towards a jointly developed domestic carrier capable fighter would be great. Picture a post-Tempest navy aircraft, to replace the F35 in 15 or 20 years. This is a pretty enormous step towards better strategic autonomy and improved capabilities.

  
I don't want to get blinded by current events too much and I would welcome discussion, but in general I think this seems like a logical step to take a bit more control into the future of arguably the most important part of British defence.

ExoticMangoz

Joric1690

I expect, I expect, I expect.

Blah blah blah.

Mate, I've said this before.

3% takes us back to the 1990s. We were still in shitstate then, and nothing cost 10bn dollars at the time either.

That extra percent is barely going to cover replacements for javelin, storm shadow etc, etc etc. Let's not get carried away thinking it's going to cover a pair of working aircraft carriers, replacement strike aircraft in generation 4+, 5 and 6, a new medium lift helicopter, more strategic fixed wing airlift, a new light, medium and heavy unprotected wheeled, light and medium protected wheeled, "light" tracked (ajax is nearly the same weight as a WWII panther) family of vehicles, replacement warship of the frigate, destroyer, patrol, port transport, tanker and amphibious landing type, a new rifle and body armour, renovated accommodation, a 400% increase in manpower and the transport / infrastructure required to support a permanently deployed division on the Ukraine Russian border, directed energy anti-drone weapons, replacement ASM ammunition for the RN destroyers, upgrades for the ASM on the RN destroyers, a home located and deployable land based short, medium and long range air defence network, particularly an ABM system.

Oh, and what else...?

Here we go, more ISTAR aircraft, a carrier based A2A refuelling system, new SEAD missiles, light gun armed jackals.

Did I miss anything on this shopping list? A Death Star?

Can't see a big increase in F-35 orders. If there is any spare change to go around, and we are gearing our military towards working the threat Russia poses to Europe (and without completely discarding the possibility of the US not being involved) then that money needs to go towards massively increasing munitions stockpiles and increasing readiness before procurement of new platforms. All those F-35s (and typhoons) wont be much use if there is nowhere near enough munitions to take apart Russian ground based air defences. F-35s wont be able to do that job with only glide bombs.

SPEAR 3 needs to be integrated quickly and bought in big numbers. Lots more Storm Shadow. Lots more Meteor. Then increasing E-7 to five. Then the possibility of ground based air defence for the UK which would be a big investment which begs the question of what do you cut to make room to invest in that direction.

Navy is likely to come out worst of the three services as its seems you point out.

B0b3r4urwa


Comment guidelines:

Please do:

    * Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles, 
    * Leave a submission statement that justifies the legitimacy or importance of what you are submitting,
    * Be polite and civil, curious not judgmental
    * Link to the article or source you are referring to,
    * Make it clear what your opinion is vs. what the source actually says,
    * Ask questions in the megathread, and not as a self post,
    * Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,
    * Write posts and comments with some decorum.

 Please do not:

    * Use memes, emojis or swearing excessively. This is not NCD,
    * Start fights with other commenters nor make it personal,
    * Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section,
    * Answer or respond directly to the title of an article,
    * Submit news updates, or procurement events/sales of defense equipment. Those belong in the MegaThread

    Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules. 
    
 Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, 
 leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

Sidenote: I'm starting to have a lot of sympathy for [mid-1930s defence planners](https://www.jstor.org/stable/3489289), when the UK's budget [rose from 2.2% to 6.9%](https://www.geostrategy.org.uk/britains-world/lessons-from-the-1930s-rearm-according-to-the-threat-not-the-fiscal-rules/) in five years.

-smartcasual-

I think delaying the review would do more harm than good, especially given the fairly dire state of the army in particular, and the need to commit to a clear strategic vision for defence. All else flows from there; a  lot of the difficulties the UK currently faces stem from the government refusing to articulate and wholeheartedly commit to a clear vision for defence since at least 2014, leading to a decade+ of indecision, half-hearted efforts, and spinning wheels, all while the threats the UK faces only became larger and more proximate. I think further delays risk making the perfect the fatal enemy of the good, and prevent the initial work to seriously rearm and properly restructure our existing forces from getting started.

I'd also argue that, even in the worst case scenario, much of the work of the SDR will still likely be valid, and while the loss of US support is potentially highly significant, neither is it necessarily 100% devastating. The overarching threat picture won't change, our alliances with our European partners through NATO will still be essential to our security, and the areas of weakness currently present in our own forces for facing that threat will still be as present as they previously were.

Hedging against potential US absence will require some adjustment, but I'd argue that'd look more like an evolution/expansion of our existing roles/capabilities, rather than a complete rethinking of our contribution to the alliance. As you note. the burden of potentially replacing the US would be taken up by Europe as a whole. The UK by itself wouldn't have to take on the full spectrum of US enabling capabilities/contributions, only those it is already most suited to provide. Obviously it'll depend on what the review already recommends, and what our European allies agree/propose, but expanding our existing AWACS and MSR orders, for example, would go a long way towards duplicating key US capabilities without having to tear up the entire SDR.

Imo at most, a supplemental review next year to fine-tune things, and enthusiastic participation in any joint European initiatives would be sufficient to cover off that potential. While sub-optimal, it would be better than yet again disrupting the whole process in search of a perfect solution.

Fwiw I'd argue talk about moving away from NATO elsewhere is more to do with domestic/industrial politics within the EU, combined with a bit of tubthumping than any genuine move to ditch or replace the alliance. While US flakiness might require significant reform to the Alliance as an organisation, trying to replace it outright quickly is going to be more difficult than some continentalist sloganeering. An EU-derived force runs into all the same issues an EU army does. Either way though, I'd argue our role in such an alliance would still be *broadly* the same as it is in NATO, and we're too much of a linchpin to be cut out.

It needs to be published. The forces need a vision, something to work towards. As someone else has said, much of the report will be valid regardless. We've always known we have gaps in our defence and we have an overreliance on the United States, so it won't exactly come as a surprise that we need to improve our air &amp; missile defence capabilities, for example.

Ultimately, this review will always push the UK towards enhancing its warfighting capabilities, taking lessons from Ukraine. The interesting part will be how the UK fits within European defence as a whole. I believe Europe &amp; Canada need to 'delegate' areas of responsibility. E.g. Italy &amp; Spain focus on the Mediterranean &amp; southern Europe, Turkey focus on the Middle East &amp; Black Sea, Canada &amp; Scandinavia focus on the arctic &amp; northern Europe, Poland &amp; Germany build large land armies for Eastern Europe, France build another large force with substantial expeditionary capability, UK build a sizeable naval forces, with substantial expeditionary capability.

Obviously, not that simple. But my point is, the UK will never replace the US in Europe. No country can, so we need to look at who has the best institutional knowledge &amp; training in a paticular element of war, and push them towards enhancing that. Additionally, Trump is pushing us to take leadership of NATO in Europe, it'll be interesting to see how we take that. We could go all in with the navy, could see us take full leadership of the Baltics, could see us rebuild another large land army (foolish idea anyway).

Mediocre_Painting263

This is the same problem this sub faces, but with actual stakes. How can you analyze, forecast etc. when the structures it all rests on, are flailing around and collapsing?

For overall planning in such an environment, releasing a higher level view with slots for specifics later can work well (being mindful to avoid coupling things across shearing layers) for standards. Invariably, some specifics are never quite determined, but the overall structure suffices. *The more specific, the more brittle.*

In some cases, instead of implementations waiting for the completed standard, further specification follows/averages implementations of the broader standard etc. I believe this model is similar to such broad policy setting (which, in Western countries, will not specify specifics like procurement contracts).

I look at this from a software lens (cf. Scheme and Common Lisp standardization processes, design of Rust and Zig vs. wider concepts like Forth, APL or Lisp overall.) In software:

&gt; no ethically-trained software engineer would ever consent to write a DestroyBaghdad procedure. Basic professional ethics would instead require him to write a DestroyCity procedure, to which Baghdad could be given as a parameter.

Were I drafting the SDR, I'd try to abstract NATO away, using a concept like "our allies in the N. Atlantic region" but I don't think that's possible. Friendly, belligerent or apathetic US postures change the picture across all shearing layers to the point where I would pause the process and try to escalate to political soul searching. Some further [thoughts](https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/1ij1yvy/active_conflicts_news_megathread_february_06_2025/mbbgxm7/).

Veqq

The UK is unusually closely tied to the USA, because at least the maintenance of its strategic deterrent requires the co-operation of the USA, and because of its intelligence-sharing arrangements. It is no longer a member of the EU, and there are still people on both sides with memories of Brexit. Unlike some other members of the British left, Starmer seems to have noticed that gratuitous insults are not a good way of introducing yourself to Trump, who I suspect would quite like to be an anglophile, if he is allowed to be. I think the SDR would do well to underline the assumption of US alignment several times in red, for the politicians to see, and then carry on as before.

mcdowellag

&gt;On the other, there have been indications from the new US leadership of variable commitment to its Art. 5 obligations (eg explicitly restating guarantees to the UK, but not the Baltics).

Just the other day, in the meeting with Zelensky:

&gt;President Trump: I'm very committed to Poland. I think Poland has really stepped up and done a great job for NATO. As you know, they paid more than they had to. They are one of the finest groups of people I've ever known. I'm very committed to Poland.

&gt;The Press: What about Baltics?

&gt;President Trump: Poland's in a tough neighborhood you know?

&gt;The Press: What about Baltics— the Baltics?

&gt;President Trump: The Baltics, they got a lot of— it's a tough neighborhood too, but we're committed. We're going to be very committed and we're committed to NATO, but NATO has to step up and the Europeans have to step up more than they have and I want to see them equalize because they are in for far less than we're in and they should be at least equal.

Of course, the Baltics are already spending about as much as the US.

WulfTheSaxon

I am amazed at the apparent surprise displayed at Russian sub surface monitoring of our nuclear submarines .Perhaps the MoD and Government should be reminded that the Russians spend billions on espionage, so why on earth would they think that our nuclear subs are somehow not included in these Russian activities. Another potential surprise, awaiting. is should a nuclear war ever break out, it would be to learnthat the first nuclear bomb to land would be within 5 minutes of war being declared or maybe even five minutes befor war is declared and it would be on Faslane where 75% of our nuclear response capability sewings on its anchor chains .

We should not be surprised, too, if a war between the UK and Russia maybe desribed by Russia as merely a war between those two countries, and they have no intention to extend the war. Does the MoD and Government really think that all America would wish to sacrifice itself to join in . That must be very much in doubt. Therefore, for the UK to have a credible nucleear deterent which is sufficient to deter it must be able to totaly destroy Russia. For this then we need at least nine nuclear submarines with three on patrol at any given time and the remaining six at dispersed non specific locations .

The threat of engaging in nuclear war is so horrific, too, that you simply cannot trust your friends to help defend you. Thus to be credible the UK must have sufficicent , stand alone, capability, to make war against us as unthinkable by at potential aggressor. What every you do, though, do not group your nuclear assets together in one place !

Just-Yogurt5020

Snapshot of _The Strategic Defence Review, Britain and sea power_ :

An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&amp;url=https://www.geostrategy.org.uk/app/uploads/2024/11/No-2024_35-The-Strategic-Defence-Review-Britain-and-sea-power.pdf)  or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&amp;url=https://www.geostrategy.org.uk/app/uploads/2024/11/No-2024_35-The-Strategic-Defence-Review-Britain-and-sea-power.pdf)         


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*

The crux of the report's suggestion is this section:

&gt; This means it makes no sense for HM Government to duplicate eorts being taken by key European NATO allies, such as Poland, Germany and the Nordic and Baltic states. These allies have underway substantial land-based military modernisation programmes of their own; Poland alone has ordered over 1,000 South Korean K2 main battle tanks, while Germany plans to invest over €100 billion (£84 billion) into the Bundeswehr over the next few years.

While they (oddly, imo) stop short of outright saying it, they're suggesting the Royal Navy receive the lion's share of any extra defence spending, and that the UK should focus primarily on delivering a maritime capability to NATO, because there are already other NATO countries going all-in on their armies.

PoachTWC

Executive Summary:

&gt; Similarly to the previous administration, the new Labour government has pledged to embrace a ‘North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)-first’ defence posture. A Strategic Defence Review is now underway to reappraise and determine the shape of the United Kingdom’s (UK) future defences.      
&gt;    
&gt; Given British dependence on the sea for economic growth and  prosperity, as well as the Net Zero agenda, the sea power remains central  to the national effort. Britain is situated at the centre of the Euro-Atlantic world, a perspective it should embrace and promote. 
&gt;     
&gt; As it looks to boost investment in defence to 2.5% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and move towards greater integration between the armed forces, the new government should place sea power at the heart of its agenda. The Council on Geostrategy is delighted to aid such thinking with the founding of its Sea Power Laboratory.

One particularly nice graphic from the report is [this map](https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGbssiOtbYAA4s1B.jpg), which I think makes it much clearer what the UK's strategic priorities need to be for our armed forces. Apart from the critical fact that well over 90% of our trade is maritime and the need to protect that trade abroad; at a fundamental level the UK's primary theatre in any major war (and therefore the theatre we need to be ready to fight in to deter that war) is the waters to the north of the UK.

tree_boom

Honestly I think we should spend 2% of GDP minimum on just the navy, not including the nuclear deterant or pensions. 

Far-Requirement1125

Excellent suggestion.

Geostrategy.org.uk has always understood that the UK's foriegn policy problems are fundamentally [maritime] in a post cold-war world.

Jedibeeftrix

The only way forward that makes sense for the UK, and most European countries, is significantly greater cooperation and integration of armed forces.

Whilst the UK doesn't have enough of... Most things, it seems fairly obvious that it should focus on its navy, air force,, cyber, logistics, etc. rather than land forces. We should be spending an awful lot more on R&amp;D (and this doesn't just apply to defence R&amp;D).

There's no good reason for the UK to have the numbers of tanks, infantry, etc. that do make sense if you are, say, Poland. 

We are an island. We depend upon trade and, for many things, imports. These come, overwhelmingly, via the sea. 

As is the case in most developed countries, we have an aging population. Resources are increasingly stretched. We have to prioritise and, to an extent, gamble on likely future events. 

The likelihood that we'll be going to war with Germany or Poland over the next 50 years, and that we'd feel the need to comit large numbers to the continent towards such a war? Pretty minimal. 

The likelihood that we'll suffer an invasion that warrants maintaining large numbers of infantry and tanks? Again, minimal.

_abstrusus

I’m not an expert so open to correction, but haven’t navies proven to be a bit useless recently? The Russian Black Sea fleet has been taken out by some 3d printed drones and the US trillion dollar carrier group can’t stop the Houthis?

legendary_m

Anyone who thinks they can win wars without a large well equipped standing army is deluded and I have a bridge to sell you.

Saying...oh well our colleagues are heavily investing in their armies and they'll help us is utterly deranged and is quite frankly outright lies to fool the public so they don't have to invest.

Somebody said the Royal Navy is 40 ships short to properly patrol the Greenland - Iceland - UK gap

Might have been that bloke who does Pax Americana on YouTube

No_Valuable_6179

A key Irish meeting in the budgetary process has yet to be held in 2025. 

The National Economic Dialogue for 2025 has not yet taken place. Planning is underway for the event to be held in summer 2025, with the exact date and themes to be announced shortly[1]. The 2024 Dialogue occurred on 27 May 2024, but as of late April 2025, the 2025 event remains scheduled for the coming months[1][3].

Sources
[1] National Economic Dialogue – Tuesday, 8 Apr 2025 - Oireachtas https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2025-04-08/352/
[2] Budget 2025 https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-finance/campaigns/budget-2025/
[3] National Economic Dialogue 2024 - Government of Ireland https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-finance/publications/national-economic-dialogue-2024/
[4] Budget https://www.budget.gov.ie
[5] 2024 National Economic Dialogue takes place today https://www.charteredaccountants.ie/News/2024-national-economic-dialogue-takes-place-today
[6] Cost-of-living 'must be a focus' of Budget 2025 - Harris - RTE https://www.rte.ie/news/2024/0527/1451374-cost-of-living-budget/
[7] Government launch the National Economic Dialogue 2024 https://paschaldonohoe.ie/government-launch-the-national-economic-dialogue-2024/
[8] NESC Publishes Its Statement of Strategy for 2025-2028 https://www.nesc.ie/?p=7223

gadarnol

“Defence has been mentioned in the context of the National Economic Dialogue (NED), particularly in relation to Ireland’s broader security and economic resilience. For example, in the 2023 Dialogue, Tánaiste Micheál Martin highlighted the need for a national conversation on foreign, security, and defence policies, linking these to economic security and the protection of critical infrastructure amid global instability and hybrid threats[4]. “

However, Defence is not a primary thematic breakout session topic in the recent NED agendas, which focus more on public finances, public services, climate action, digital transition, housing, agriculture, and social protection[1][2]. Defence-related issues tend to be discussed within wider themes of economic security and resilience rather than as a standalone subject.

In summary, while Defence has been acknowledged as part of Ireland's economic and security considerations in the National Economic Dialogue, it has not been a central or separately dedicated theme in the official NED sessions[1][4][5].

Sources
[1] National Economic Dialogue 2024 - Government of Ireland https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-finance/publications/national-economic-dialogue-2024/
[2] National Economic Dialogue 2023 https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-finance/publications/national-economic-dialogue-2023/
[3] National Economic Dialogue – Tuesday, 8 Apr 2025 - Oireachtas https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2025-04-08/352/
[4] Speech by Tánaiste Micheál Martin at the National Economic ... https://gov.ie/en/department-of-foreign-affairs/speeches/speech-by-t%C3%A1naiste-miche%C3%A1l-martin-at-the-national-economic-dialogue-ned-2023/
[5] National Economic Dialogue, - Chartered Accountants Ireland https://www.charteredaccountants.ie/taxsourcetotal/taxpoint/newdev/2018/08/ireland/2018-08-ireland-10.html
[6] Speech by the Taoiseach, National Economic Dialogue, Dublin ... https://gov.ie/en/department-of-the-taoiseach/speeches/speech-by-the-taoiseach-national-economic-dialogue-dublin-castle-wednesday/
[7] Government launch the National Economic Dialogue 2024 https://paschaldonohoe.ie/government-launch-the-national-economic-dialogue-2024/
[8] National Economic Dialogue | Deloitte Ireland https://www.deloitte.com/ie/en/services/tax/blogs/national-economic-dialogue.html

[Publication a fortnight away](https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/uk-to-publish-strategic-defence-review-within-fortnight-key-contributor-says/163078.article)

Snapshot of _How does the deployment of Carrier Strike Group 2025 benefit Britain?_ :

An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&amp;url=https://www.britainsworld.org.uk/p/the-big-ask-17-2025)  or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&amp;url=https://www.britainsworld.org.uk/p/the-big-ask-17-2025)         


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I would suggests the question of *whether* CSG 2025 benefits Britain might be a better and more informative starting point, but overall I think the quality of responses and thinking here is generally pretty sound.

In particular, I though this section from William Freer was important:

&gt;European security would be heavily undermined by a large-scale conflict in the Indo-Pacific; the only more damaging event would be a direct conflict between NATO and Russia. Efforts to bolster deterrence in the region have direct benefit, which is one of the reasons European CSG deployments to the Indo-Pacific are now a regular occurrence, even after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

&gt;Secondly, Operation HIGHMAST will include exercises in the NATO area of responsibility. The CSG will, for the first part of its deployment, be placed under NATO command and participate in NATO’s Exercise Neptune Strike, designed to test maritime strike capabilities.

&gt;The US absence in the CSG is notable (although there will likely be collaboration at various stages), meaning the deployment provides an excellent opportunity to practise UK leadership in action, in preparation for a potential reduced American presence in Europe.

With a heavy pivot towards strict European deterrence and proximate defence signaled for the upcoming strategic defence review, I think it's important not to lose sight of the interconnected nature of our security environment, and avoid becoming to narrowly regionalist in our capabilities and outlook. We cannot ignore the rest of the world entirely, as 1981 showed us, even if we might have to put it on the back-burner for the immediate future.

In this regard, I'd argue the Carriers represent a particularly valuable capability, since their size and prestige make them too significant a commitment to entirely divest from. This gives a baseline of flexible capability that insures against us developing an overly-myopic eurocentrism as we have done in the past, while still allowing the government to heavily prioritise new investment towards a eurocentric recapitalisation in the nearer term. Additionally, as the above comment notes, carrier strike should not be seen as an exclusively global expeditionary capability, and in many ways in complements the backstop leadership role we're trying to take up in the face of US flakiness.

Much as I despise a lot off the commentary around defence issues in this country, this is significantly better than most, and a valuable contribution to our ongoing debates around what the defence future of Britain should look like. Thanks MGC!

It means they can sail to Mauritius with a show of military force in preparation for the signing ceremony of the reparations deal to pay to give them our sovereign territory - errr hang on

As well as power ptojection that we can deploy so far away (look at Falklands for a similar statement) it also is valuable training/experience in such operations

popeter45

There's a benefit if everything goes well. The UK has been under America's shadow so long that some countries might question its ability to operate its navy independently. As China has undertaken naval operations near Australia in the last year, it's important to reiterate the UK's ability to operate its navy in the region even without US participation.

Littlepage3130

The UK is set to invest £1.5 billion in building new munitions factories as part of a strategic defense review. The review focuses on threats from Russia and China, aiming to bolster military readiness.

UK Strategic Defence Review 2025

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want