The public sentiment towards the UK's proposed increase in defense spending is largely negative. Many express skepticism, viewing it as a misprioritization amid economic struggles, open borders, and inadequately funded public services. There are concerns about inefficiencies, mismanagement, and that funds won't translate to tangible improvements. While some acknowledge the need for modernizing defense tactics, the prevailing sentiment is frustration over domestic priorities being overlooked.

UK Government

Labour Party

British Army

Ministry of Defence

This is an interesting article providing a fresh perspective and critique of what seems to be the novel 'accepted wisdom' regarding drone warfare. Even if it's wrong, it's always useful to interrogate oppposing perspectives.

&gt;&gt; **"...far from aiding security, increased spending on drones, autonomous weapons and other emerging military technology will simply lead to a further degrading of UK and global security. Remote and autonomous military systems lower the threshold for the use of armed force, making it much easier for state and non-state groups alike to engage in armed attack. Such systems encourage war as the *first* rather than the *last* option."**

- while drones are being used extensively by both Russia and Ukraine – and causing very substantial numbers of casualties – it is far from clear that they are having any *strategic* impact.

- "drone warfare in Ukraine has become a long-term ‘cat and mouse’ fight between drones and counter-drone measures and this is only likely to continue."

&gt; "Drone Wars UK argues that the real way to increase security for both people in the UK and around the globe is to work with other states to uphold international law, build support for international dispute resolving mechanisms and address the underlying causes of enduring violent conflict.  Building and strengthening effective diplomatic capabilities would help rebuild relationships at the international, regional and local level.  Investing in Diplomacy, rather then drones, at this time of international tension would really help to build  international cooperation and ensure a basis for long-term peace and security."

BarnabusTheBold

Bet that thought never crossed his mind while Obama was on his drone killings.

leeyiankun

Blitzkrieg was just a tactical-operational concept yet ended up having massive strategic consequences. 

oldjar747

With the events of today, this article surely aged like a corpse.

I'm assuming this "article" was sponsored by the established British defense industry that doesn't want anyone to compete with their profit margins. That or the Russian MoD, otherwise this makes no sense.

Ok_Sea_6214

&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

Let's hope nothing happens in the next 9 years.

KingoftheOrdovices95

Responsible-Kiwi870

And it still won't be enough due to neglect and people not believing in the country any more.

GreaterGoodIreland

Britain will spend 3 per cent of GDP on defence by 2034 without a doubt, John Healey, the defence secretary, has said.     

The government’s ten-year defence plan, which is due to be announced on Monday, is “unaffordable” without the commitment, it is understood.      

Healey said spending 3 per cent on defence during the next parliament was no longer an “ambition”, as Sir Keir Starmer previously outlined, but a certainty.     

On Wednesday defence sources said the target was still an “ambition”. But less than 24 hours later, Healey told The Times: “In the next parliament this country will spend 3 per cent of our GDP on defence.”     

Pressed again about whether this was a firm commitment, he said he had “no doubt” Britain would be spending 3 per cent “in the next parliament”.
He said there was a “certain decade of rising defence spending”, adding: “It allows us to plan for the long term. It allows us to deal with the pressures.”      

It was unclear whether Healey was trying to bounce the Treasury into approving the spending or if it was a commitment that has been agreed across Whitehall.     

One well-placed military source said the review, which was due to be published during VE Day week this month, had been delayed because of rows with the Treasury. They said there had been “discontent that the Ministry of Defence is using it to push for more defence spending”.
Healey’s comments commit the government to spending more than £10 billion extra on defence every year despite rows over proposed cuts to public services, including policing and social housing.     

In February, the prime minister announced that the UK would spend 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence by April 2027, in part by taking money out of the aid budget. Starmer also outlined an “ambition” to reach 3 per cent by 2034.     
     
Yet military chiefs believe the UK could be just a few years away from a war with Russia and the armed forces, as it stands, are not equipped to fight, let alone win.     

At the moment the UK is spending 2.3 per cent on defence, which the US has described as an “irritant”. President Trump’s administration has been privately urging the UK to look at spending 3 per cent during this parliament. Nato member states are expected to agree to a defence spending target — which may be as high as 3.5 per cent — during a summit in June, although it is not clear by which date the target will have to be met.     

The Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated that reaching 3 per cent of GDP by the next parliament would cost the UK an additional £17.3 billion in 2029-30.     

The strategic defence review assumes that the 3 per cent target will definitely be met by 2034, sources told The Times. If it isn’t, Britain’s modernisation plan for the next decade will not have all the funding it needs.     

A senior defence source said: “Obviously not all the recommendations are affordable if less (money) is provided.”     

The review, which will be published after nearly a year, consists of 48,000 words and is about 130 pages long. It will be an extensive and “transformative” document that will address defence and its structures. Troops from the American, French and German militaries were embedded inside the UK defence review team to ensure Britain’s closest allies had a joined-up approach.     

There will be no plans to cut armed forces numbers. Healey is passionate about trying to fix major problems with recruitment and retention.
The review is designed to be scalable so if Starmer suddenly decides to spend more on defence, programmes can be sped up. As it stands, some major projects will take years under present pending assumptions.

The source said the programme was “really slow” in order to make it affordable over a long time, adding: “The transformation is there but the peril is it’s expensive. We may need to contemplate going faster sooner, and maybe bigger, and that will cost more money.”

Unlike in the lead-up to previous defence reviews, Healey chose to focus on housing for personnel rather than gadgets and new kit.

A showcase day demonstrating state-of-the-art weapons was decided against because it was deemed to be too expensive.

On a visit to RAF Wittering near Peterborough on Thursday, Healey toured military housing as he laid out plans to increase the size of the armed forces so it meets its present targets.

The military is losing hundreds of personnel every month, many of whom are fed up with being forced to live in dire accommodation.
He announced an extra £1.5 billion investment in military housing in an effort to eradicate mould and damp problems and persuade service personnel to stay.

After meeting a military family at their home on the base, he said: “Our forces make extraordinary sacrifices to serve the country and keep us safe. And yet for years, we’ve forced their families to live in substandard homes. The sorts of homes that you and I just wouldn’t want for themselves. That is not good enough. That ends now, with this government.”

John Healey, Secretary of State for Defence, leaving a building at RAF Wittering.

General Sir Roly Walker, the chief of the general staff, said on Thursday: “The biggest challenge we face is a lack of time.”

In a speech at the Royal United Services Institute to the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, which exists to defend Nato from Russia, he said: “A sense of urgency is needed to face the threats we face… and deliver that unfair advantage that our forces in the most dangerous of circumstance to deter and ultimately win.”

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: “This government has announced the largest sustained increase to defence spending since the end of the Cold War — 2.5 per cent by 2027 and 3 per cent in the next parliament when fiscal and economic conditions allow, including an extra £5 billion this financial year.

“The review will rightly set the vision for how that uplift will be spent, including new capabilities to put us at the leading edge of innovation in Nato, investment in our people and making defence an engine for growth across the UK — making Britain more secure at home and strong abroad.”

tree_boom

jaaaa666

Mini Trump will be prime minister by then and Farage will destroy our intelligence services like Trump has.

Additional-Map-2808

I'm glad UK taking up some responsibility.

Canada for example recently revealed it has 10 operational tanks in the entire country and something like 50 operational artillery pieces in the entire country. Recently during the whole Chinese balloon thing it was a US jet that shot down the Chinese balloon over Canadian territory.

I mean this isn't just a US thing. I have no idea what NATO are supposed to do with a country like Canada. Can't defend itself (look at those numbers), can't contribute meaningfully to collective defense of another country. What are other NATO countries supposed to do with that.

Aware-Computer4550

This just lends credence to Trump’s view

SwissBliss

Not spending it to improve infrastructure &amp; civilians lives, then.

Ready_Wishbone_7197

08148694

flyingdutchmnn

King_Chad_The_69th

differentshade

cairnrock1

The SDR leaks begin - there's a (small) chance it could be released today, necessary if we are to meet the government's self-imposed deadline of "spring" as Parliament is in recess for the rest of it.

&gt; Tanks, armoured vehicles and attack helicopters will go into battle after sending a swarm of drones at the enemy under plans to reform how the British Army fights.      
&gt;       
&gt; The strategic defence review will set out a new way of fighting known as “20-40-40”, which aims to reduce troop casualties. This “autonomy drive” is part of innovation plans that will form a chunk of the review, which has been worked on for nearly a year.      
&gt;       
&gt; “It is about pairing the old existing heavy metal with the new and making the army more lethal,” a Ministry of Defence source involved in drawing it up said.      
&gt;       
&gt; Expensive, heavy equipment such as tanks will make up roughly 20 per cent of fighting capability, positioned further from the front line until a later stage of battle.      
&gt;       
&gt; Soldiers in Challenger 3 tanks will deploy kamikaze drones and others will fire long-range precision missiles at the enemy. “Single-use” items such as drones that explode on impact and shells make up this “40” element.      
&gt;       
&gt; Reusable drones, typically costlier and more durable reconnaissance or attack drones such as the MQ-9 Reaper, will make up the remaining “40”.      
&gt;       
&gt; Russia has shifted to using motorbikes on the battlefield rather than heavy armour because the Ukrainians have become so effective in taking out their equipment with drones, according to the MoD’s intelligence unit.      
&gt;       
&gt; Andriy Zagorodnyuk, a former Ukrainian defence minister, told The Times this month that the first 10-30km of Ukraine’s front line against Russia were “completely transparent and completely controlled by drones on both sides”.      
&gt;       
&gt; The strategic defence review is understood to be less about cuts, because those announcements have already been made, and more about bolstering the power of existing equipment by focusing on autonomy, drones and artificial intelligence.      
&gt;       
&gt; It has been shaped by the war in Ukraine and a lot of work to learn its lessons. If Europe does end up at war with Russia, there are fears that President Putin’s soldiers will be far more capable and battle-hardened. As a result, the Ukrainians are trying to teach the British and other allies all they can to prepare for their own war.      
&gt;        
&gt; Kateryna Chernohorenko, Ukraine’s deputy defence minister, said the Ukrainians were developing an app comprised of the latest training materials which they could share with allies such as Britain.

The United Kingdom plans to significantly increase its defense spending, its largest boost since the Cold War. The review includes military modernization and countering threats from Russia, emphasizing the UK's commitment to NATO and global security.

UK Defense Spending and Strategic Defense Review

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want