Defence Investment Plan - Impact on DfT Budget

[Annetts key]

What would be easier for the UK to build quickly, if it turned out it needed them for an unforseen strategic reason?

A large hunk of sea going metal, or a drone fleet?

People will of course assume ships are obsolete due to missiles and drones, because they probably have no clue that naval vessels these days are basically just mobile missile platforms.

If we come up aagainst an enemy whose missiles are unstoppable by any intercept technology known to man (all of which can be mounted on a destroyer, and works most effectiveley when you have multiple platforms spresd across large areas), then we aren't going to win a war with them whatever we use.

But that's only a handful of countries currently. But pretty much all countries know, or should know now, that if the UK can't land an invasion force on their shores (which you can't without a proper navy), they can wage war with us.

Yes, all modern frigates, cruisers and destroyers are missile platforms except for some that were designed for anti-submarine warfare. With a different mix of types of missiles depending on which is the priority when designed or when last refitted. Some systems, are for air defence including anti-missle, some are anti-ship, some are surface / land attack.

Keep in mind that some of the current Royal Navy ships have not been fitted with all the launch tubes that the ship was designed for, in order to save money.

Which is better, a small number of large, expensive destroyers or a larger number of frigates? If a navy loses one of a small number of destroyers, that's a serious set back. Whereas, it's not good, but less of a problem if a navy loses one of a larger fleet of frigates. And if you can send multiple frigates instead of a small number of destroyers, that may be more effective. The enemy now has to deal with more targets while having incoming fire from multiple of our ships.

In what way can we currently land any substantial invasion force? And why would we want to have an invasion force like that? Our ability for this was lost as defence funding was cut. We barely managed it during the Falklands war in the 1980s.

 

[jon0844]

Seems we might not be out of the woods yet.

Badenoch accuses Starmer of leaving defence spending 'mess' for Burnham

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch criticised what she called a missing £5bn in the defence investment plan.

www.bbc.co.uk

Andy Burnham's government will have to find an extra £4.7bn to fund the defence investment plan announced by the outgoing prime minister Sir Keir Starmer, a defence minister has said.

Luke Pollard told the BBC the next chancellor "whoever that may be" will have to "find the resources" in their autumn Budget.

In one of his final acts as PM, Sir Keir announced £15bn of spending over the next four years to support a long-awaited plan to boost the UK's defences.

But the Treasury said only £10.3bn in savings had currently been identified, meaning Burnham, who is widely expected to take over as prime minister on 20 July, will have to find the resources to plug the gap.

So, perhaps there will have to be some more cuts that will create a headache for the next PM.

 

[Annetts key]

Seems we might not be out of the woods yet.

Badenoch accuses Starmer of leaving defence spending 'mess' for Burnham

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch criticised what she called a missing £5bn in the defence investment plan.

www.bbc.co.uk

So, perhaps there will have to be some more cuts that will create a headache for the next PM.

As some of this funding is for the future years of this government, the thinking may have been that the economy will get better, resulting in a increase in tax revenue and borrowing costs will fall, hence giving the treasury more room for manoeuvre.

 

[Magrar]

Yes, all modern frigates, cruisers and destroyers are missile platforms except for some that were designed for anti-submarine warfare. With a different mix of types of missiles depending on which is the priority when designed or when last refitted. Some systems, are for air defence including anti-missle, some are anti-ship, some are surface / land attack.

Keep in mind that some of the current Royal Navy ships have not been fitted with all the launch tubes that the ship was designed for, in order to save money.

Which is better, a small number of large, expensive destroyers or a larger number of frigates? If a navy loses one of a small number of destroyers, that's a serious set back. Whereas, it's not good, but less of a problem if a navy loses one of a larger fleet of frigates. And if you can send multiple frigates instead of a small number of destroyers, that may be more effective. The enemy now has to deal with more targets while having incoming fire from multiple of our ships.

In what way can we currently land any substantial invasion force? And why would we want to have an invasion force like that? Our ability for this was lost as defence funding was cut. We barely managed it during the Falklands war in the 1980s.

We aren't getting frigates either.

If you can't land an invasion force, you can't stop an enemy doing whatever it wants. Case in point, Iran.

And yes indeed, we lost the ability to mount a proper invasion from the sea in the last defence round. And how wise does that look now? We now cannot outflank a Russian invasion of NATO's Eastern front. We also can't do anything in the areas that border all the important international maritime trading routes.

Argentina is a perfect example of our weakness now. They clearly want the Falklands back. How can we stop them with mere drones? How do we even get the drones and their platforms/operators to the south atlantic without a proper navy?

As we found out in the original Falklands war, the South Atlantic is a very long way away, and you cannot count on anyone to help you in a mere colonial war, not even your closest allies. So how do we even fuel/resupply our drone fighting capability that far from home, without a proper navy?

A proper navy now needs both drone capabilities (offensive/decensive) and actual ships. If it isn't the case already, you'd have expected the next generation of warships to all be fitted with modular launch bays, so the weapons and associated control systems can be upgraded/reconfigured as needed.

 

[yorkie]

This thread is to discuss the impact on DfT Budget.

This thread isn't for discussion related to the defence budget.

 

[Magrar]

As some of this funding is for the future years of this government, the thinking may have been that the economy will get better, resulting in a increase in tax revenue and borrowing costs will fall, hence giving the treasury more room for manoeuvre.

The irony being, those growth forecasts might (and I stress might) be based on impending fixes to bottlenecks on the strategic road network.

I'm as anti-car as anyone (on a railway forum), but when you're stuck in slow moving traffic on a primary A road, as I was this afternoon, you can't help but look around and realise the impact on productivity. Just the sheer number of business vans, never mind HGVs.

Not that Amazon should be our main concern, but it struck me that one of their trailers (brand new!), hauled by one of their thousands of subbies, was parked up in a layby they don't usually use (it's nowhere near one of their depots, or on a trunk route they would use). The depressing realisation was just a driver that's run out of hours, getting to/from a nearby supplier warehouse. Even though you assume Amazon plan such things to the second.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

And yet again it is the East Midlands that suffers, according to the BBC article

East Midlands mayor angry as road projects scrapped

Major schemes in Derby and Nottinghamshire are due to be axed as money is diverted to defence.

www.bbc.co.uk

Not to mention the poor Midland Main Line Electrification.

I have no problem with road projects in the East Midlands are cancelled/deferred etc as long as money is spent on railways in the East Midlands. As you point out, MML electrification would go a long way to help even it is just a small portion - say Wigston to Syston or East Midlands Parkway.

 

[BrianW]

I have no problem with road projects in the East Midlands are cancelled/deferred etc as long as money is spent on railways in the East Midlands. As you point out, MML electrification would go a long way to help even it is just a small portion - say Wigston to Syston or East Midlands Parkway.

'The railway' has its envelope of cash allocated by HM Treasury. The Secretary of State for Transport, the Rt Hon Heidi Alexander (MP for Swindon South) has 'offered up' a sacrifice of these two road schemes as part of the government's 'finding' of money to reallocate to the Defence Investment Plan. IIUC she was also one of those said to have 'spoken with' Kier Starmer 'suggesting' he 'consider his position'. There is no more money for rail, at least until the next 'fiscal event', and if HS2 overspends there may be less.