A rough list and key highlights from Phil Hammonds statement to the House of Commons this afternoon;
- Core committed equipment programme, just under £152 billion over the next 10 years
- That budget includes over £4 billion as a central contingency fund
- 14 new Chinooks
- Apache life extension
- Puma upgrade
- £4.5b ten year programme of new armoured fighting vehicles including assessment phase of FRES SV Scout
- £1b for Warrior upgrade (not certain if this is included in the £4.5 billion figure)
- Building (was very specific on that word) of the 2 QE Class aircraft carriers
- Remainder of Type 45 destroyers
- Type 26 frigate
- Astute and successor SSBN
- Wildcat helicopter
- Merlin upgrade programme
- Assessment phase for Merlin marinisation
- Voyager
- A400M
- Airseeker
- Additional C17 (I think this is the one already announced)
- Continued investment in Typhoon and JSF
- £7 billion for complex weapons i.e. missiles and torpedoes
- £4 billion for ISTAR and comms, including the CIPHER (Crypto, key distribution and security management), SOLOMON (ISTAR dissemination), DCNS (Defence Core Network Services), FALCON (communication system) and CROWNEST (ASaC Mk 7 replacement) projects
- Outright purchase of 3 River Class Offshore Patrol Vessels that have been leased
- Capability enhancements for Typhoon
- Aircraft basing, simulators and support arrangements
- No project will be allowed to commit without a 10 year budget line for procurement and support
- Individuals and contractors will be held to account for estimates
- NAO to review equipment plan with the MoD providing controlled access to commercially confidential information
The debate that followed revealed a number of other items;
- 10 Year Equipment Plan not to be published as previously promised but Service Chiefs and NAO to confirm programme is achievable
- No delay to Trident programme
- Commitment to regimental structure remains
- Announcement soon (before Summer recess) on professional procurement and commercial negotiation skills within DE&S as part of Defence Material Strategy
- Defence research to not be reduced below current reduced level of 1.2%
- Not just about budgets but about changing behaviours
- No additional personnel reductions beyond those already announced
- Increase in other NATO nations defence budget not realistic but focus on persuading them to create more deployable forces
- Funding for Trident to ensure Continuous At Sea Deterrence (CASD)
- Work already started on next SDSR
Statement in full from the MoD
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C2E55C04-BA5A-4BC7-A8DD-86294A8359F8/0/statement_defence_budget.pdf
The 4.5bn AFV programme. What’s that?
Dare I say, all good news. And a well rounded and sensible package.
No mention of MPA re-generation though…
Cheers for the list TD.
Some good news for a change.
I would really like to hear/read how the SoS Defence worked this out.
At least the cuts have been pushed aside… for now.
But with the black hole seemingly closed, how long until SecDef answers the inevitable questions about fleet numbers? Namely, the inadequately equipped and under-strength Daring fleet, and the clear capability gap that the current configuration of the Global Combat Ship will produce; There need to be more ships of more types.
As a side note, I’d like to throw in the idea of the Astute replacing much of the current frigate role (ASuW, ASW).
hopefully consideration given to the new 17 tonne, CT40 armed BAE Scout linked on the right (CV 21).
why?
because i like it!
No really, i’m quite keen on keeping lightweight FR squadrons that can provide a little ad-hoc firepower to the intervention brigades.
Any information on:
- Numbers of Type 26?
- Sentinal R1?
Other Chris,
Sentinel was offered to the NATO survielance role, as Gabby pointed out to me, so its likely it’ll remain (touch wood!).
The Shadow R1′s are more vulnerable, but perhaps the Olympics will see one committed.
I am very happy about the RN parts of the programme.
The Puma money should go towards navalising HC Merlin. Or for laughs navalising C47
Let’s hope the AFV money gets spent here in the UK with somebody other than BAE.
A400m? What a waste. More C17, more C130x, and some C27 please.
No replacement for SA80? Another better use for the Puma money.
The bit that caught my eye was the purchase of the 3 River class OPV. Is this simply becuase the lease deal has reached its natural conclusion or has the contract been ‘bought out’?
Suggests that the MoD might be realising that leasing is the ‘poor man’s option’ and over the longer term it is ususally cheaper to buy outright? The elephant in the room here is the Voyager order. I can’t see that contract escaping the eagle eye ‘Spreadsheet King’ for long.
C-295 is a better bet becuase it has modular on board mission systems both in service and in development that would handily plug some of our capability holes as well as helping out with tactical transport.
“and some C27 please.”
Anyway neither is funded so we will both be waiting a while
@ Peter E re C27
I know they are not funded. I was expressing an opinion on the stumbling A400m project.
“The Puma money should go towards navalising HC Merlin. Or for laughs navalising C47″
Why? The Puma’s are very useful little taxi’s.
“No replacement for SA80? Another better use for the Puma money.”
SA80 isn’t due to leave service for another 13 years. And I tell you what, its replacement better be one of the swiftest and simplest defence programmes in history. A sodding small arm should not cost the earth or need decades of development. An off the shelf purchase will be fine.
I foresee a HK416 derivative. Bought off the shelf. Job done. The Guards can then dust off the SLR drill manual making them happy as they like vintage.
Sounds very reasonable, disappointing no comment on MPA
Good that the sad facts of life seem to be taken on board – concentrating on what we can afford, not what we would like to do and then trying to squeeze equipment out of an underfunded budget.
What is really annoying me is that this is a big statement, about the defence of the realm. Try and find any detail about it on the BBC website, in fact it barely makes the first page.
@ Phil re SA80
I am in firearms mode at the moment. Yes I know the OSD of SA80 is slightly outside the time frame of this programme. As I said to Peter E I am just looking a bit beyond the black and white. I have no problem with 416. Unless BAE come up with a plasma rifle….
I don’t have a problem with most current small arms out there right now. The decision when it comes should be considered and careful, but not expensive or drawn out.
Small arms technology is a mature and simple field. We’ve already got the sights and accoutrements, the actual weapon should be a doddle to field.
What I don’t want to see is some sort of horrendous XM8 programme.
And to be honest, the SA80 could be re manufactured again for all I care.
It’s a perfectly good weapon.
This could be just because of the quick jotting down:
“Merlin upgrade programme
Assessment phase for Merlin marinisation”
- is it to be read that after-assessment phase is funded, or it is the FAA Merlins that are funded (including Crows Nest), and it could be Chooks for the Junglies? Would be seriously limiting though as a carrier would always have to be present a s the mother ship for Chinooks, even if they operated from other vessels
When they got HK onboard, to fix the SA80, did they re-manufacture existing ones or build new, RE
” SA80 could be re manufactured again for all I care”
Phil said “It’s a perfectly good weapon.”
As long as you bods on the front line are happy that is all that matters.
@ ACC
They re manufactured most of the moving parts and gas parts.
@ x
People moan about it all the time. Most of it stems from Skill At Arms instructors passing on all the ditties and frankly bullshit they were told about the origins of the weapon. Certainly in its A1 form it was not a good weapon. But its reliable now, balanced, can be fitted with sights and accoutrements with the picatinny front ends and its accurate and easy to maintain.
It’s a mature weapon system.
Yes its heavy but we’re soldiers not poofters.
So as ever, more myth than substance surrounding it. And plenty of internet shooters going on about how it takes them 3.12 seconds to re-load on their M4 on a range but 3.56 seconds to re-load an SA80 on the range so it must be completely pants. Whatever, I say to them. I can tell you for certain that unless you’re SAS you’re re-loading under contact will be more than 3.5 seconds as you flap.
X,
Ref: plasma rifles, had you not heard? The Defence Industrial Strategy has forced us to issue a tender for sourcing security for the TD biccie tin (following the cloaking device/potting shed incident, of which the less said the better) to BAE Systems. They plan on rigging up a plasma rifle with a sophisticated early warning and seamless rapid response device they’re calling a “trip” wire. They say they only want £85 million for the design study….
On a broader front, yes, Merlin upgrade would be good. Elsewise better to U-turn again, leave HC3 (a good airframe) with RAF and make off with the Chinooks, for mixed Apache/Chinook AAC regts attached to the brigades, and Chinooks for CHF (despite their considerably shorter range which is the main reason I approve of HC3 as the new Junglies.) As for boom sticks, the “Armalite done right” that is HK416 is likely to be it (interoperable with the Norse straightaway, and the Diemaco’s a cousin.) Shame since I’d prefer the 417′s barrel size. And how did FN Herstal screw up the SCAR? Yes it was built for secret squirrels but a doughty modular rifle of middling physical size sounds just the ticket for a fixed budget and a nation that still intends to intervene abroad. License build like SLR and the 5th Duke of Salisbury would be a relative in the first degree….
Like the news about buying the Rivers, another 3 would be good too.
Re Unless BAE come up with a plasma rifle….
No, wait for Westinghouse. To bring out the M-27 Phased Plasma Pulse Rifle.
Dave
SCAR got messed up? What a shame – I had not heard. Good concept with the heavy and light variants, I thought. What went wrong? HK 416 is well constructed however. Given that there are only four or five 5.56 contenders in western service, all with gazillions of rounds fired, it can’t take Abbey Wood more than a couple of months to choose one. Can it….? They’ve all got rails, so it’s a straight weight / reliability / price comparison. Buy in ten of each and let ITDU have a play.
Have heard that the Army and the Andrew have had heads knocked together and now mutually understand it is not T26 or FRES, and looks like both are in. Did something big fall out to allow both programmes to co-exist?
“Did something big fall out to allow both programmes to co-exist?”
Ark Royal
Harrier
Nimrod
20,000 soldiers
a third of the MoD civilian work force
Just a few things James
One minor issue (or rather two), the budget is balanced based on two assumptions as follows:
1) Costs for each individual programme remain as forecast, any variation and things start going wrong
2) The Treasury sticks to its promise to give the MoD 1% real spending increases from 2015
If number one is achieved then Phillip Hammond will be deserving of a medal. Number two looks less likely by the day, as the deliberately undereducated mass of sheeple swings back towards Labour the prospect of that economically illiterate rabble winning the next General Election grows stronger, and they will be under no obligation to keep any defence spending promises made by the current government. Secondly, continued GDP stagnation, Grexit and ultimate Euro conflagration may make the whole exercise redundant anyway.
“1) Costs for each individual programme remain as forecast, any variation and things start going wrong”
I do believe this is addressed. Or if we’re going to have the party pooper hat on, there has been an attempt to ensure this is addressed.
Jame’s
My understanding is that the AFV budget is effectively what it has been since the last spending review, the Army just needs to decide how that will be spent, has nothing to do with Type 26.
Reading not just the statement, but the answers to the questions, a couple of things emerge:
MPA is to be considered as a possible use of part of the 8 billions “headroom” in the budget.
That’s as good as it goes for now.
And the 10 Year budget WILL be published:
“I have made it clear that once the National Audit Office has completed its review, we will publish its report and a summary-level equipment plan, with the same level of detail in it as has routinely been published about the defence budget.”
Overall, sensible and rather better than I expected.
I’m not sure that the £4.5b for the ten year programme of new armoured fighting vehicles will be enough. Our fleet is pretty clapped out.
@jedibeeftrix “hopefully consideration given to the new 17 tonne, CT40 armed BAE Scout linked on the right (CV 21)… .I’m quite keen on keeping lightweight FR squadrons that can provide a little ad-hoc firepower to the intervention brigades.”
Agree absolutely. It will be very necessary for 16AA (if retained) and 3 Cdo Bde. FRES SV will be too heavy for them. CV21 could be a world-beater for BAE if it is developed properly.
A pity there is no mention of MPA
@ChrisM “What is really annoying me is that this is a big statement, about the defence of the realm. Try and find any detail about it on the BBC website, in fact it barely makes the first page.” That does not surprise me at all, Chris. What was it Boris Johnson stated about that revered institution in the “Telegraph” today? He said, “The prevailing view of BBC newsrooms is, with honourable exceptions, statist, corporatist, defeatist, anti-business, Europhile and, above all, overwhelmingly biased to the Left.” No change there then.
Phil,
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Re the BBC, I don’t know what you all expect, its vile, unscrupulous propaganda machine for the extreme left and Al Qaeda.
So Hammmond has just made a high-profile, and very public outright lie to Parliament about there being 8Bn of wiggle room in the 10 year plan? As I said, you can say it won’t work, but unless he is completely lying, then an attempt has been made to reduce risk.
How that observation deserves some sort of psychotic guffaw I am not sure.
@ Jackstaff
The SCAR is a mixed bag. It does nothing a well tuned AR system can’t do. The options available, let alone custom work, to tune and tweek the AR are dizzying. I think SOCOM like embuggerment for the sake of embuggerment.
I hold out no hope for 6mm round. I bet soldiers in the 2050s will still be qualifying with small arms chamber for 5.56
@Bob
Re my comment: “It will be very necessary for 16AA (if retained) and 3 Cdo Bde. FRES SV will be too heavy for them. CV21 could be a world-beater for BAE if it is developed properly.”
Forgot to say that I would still like (very much) FRES SV for most of our main reconnaissance requirements! Looks as if that programme should now be on. Hope so.
Seems as if we agree on the BBC!
There was never going to be any new major program announcements, that counts an MPA right out for the moment. Maybe after 2015 SSDR but not until then.
As for a new infantry small arm, again not until after 2015 when the last of the boys come home. Don’t forget the army is due a rather big cull of the regiments soon (expect much blood as different cap badges fight their corner)…super regiments will be the future. Well super in that it will be a smaller army meaning the best L85A2 rifles will be retained and the rest binned in increments…I expect there won’t be any major talk until after FRES scout and the Warrior upgrade is out of the way. As for what is selected as long as the army are not allowed to put together any “infantry small arms of the future” committees to mess about with fancy computerised laser guided bullet plasma charged rifles all will be good! Simply there are a number of perfectly acceptable designs on the international market be it HK416, FN SCAR, Beretta ARX-160, Remington ACR, CZ 805 BREN and many more. I doubt the elderly M4 or Diemco C7 will get a look in and my gut feeling is the HK416 will fall foul of the desired individual unit price for the program. Nevertheless it will be 5.56mm SS109 chambered and off the shelf, it will go to a manufacturer who can keep the unit price down and offer some moderate UK offset but don’t expect the rifles to be made here…just assembled (maybe). That tends to favour the manufacturers with the capacity to serve that kind of contract like FN, Beretta and Remington. We mustn’t forget that if they go for a new rifle it would have to include everything from training aids to rifle racks.
Aside from the outright purchase of the three River class patrol boats most interesting announcement for me is the move forward with the Apache life extension…now does that mean they get the Block III upgrade?
Still sticking with the half equipped, mega overpriced Voyager PFI. The Puma upgrade & Merlin marinisation is a waste of money. Spend it on new folding Merlins.
Cutting the Army below 100,000 is a risk.
No F-35 numbers or mention of Typhoon Tranche 3.
How much more do we waste on FRES SV?
Not a bad plan. The contingency fund is nice. Not a lot of change though.
Trying to get my head round the hostility by some for the A400 and Puma? Extending Puma seems better than dipping into the cash pool for a whole new bunch of helicopters. And A400 is vastly more capable than Hercules. The range on that thing should come in bloody handy.
Well the question is how much would it cost to unpick the Voyager PFI deal? The default clauses are probably pretty hefty!
Had the same question in mind
“the move forward with the Apache life extension…now does that mean they get the Block III upgrade?”
- the difference in expenditure is colossal (and hence expect a simple LEP; which I don’t object to, as the current model is definitely good enough)
@ Fedaykin
In extremis HMG would bring in legislation to dismantle the contract. Parliament is sovereign. Air W*nkers could pursue HMG through European system. It would be messy. I imagine HMG would try to renegotiate the contract away so that that Air W*ankers’ directors get healthy payouts and the workforce would be nationalised so in effect they become civil servants; we still the need the tankers. A few million in your pocket is a small price to pay for knowing you did right by your country.
You’d probably have to agree to buy the planes off for more than they paid, plus give them the support contract.
Those Merlins had better get the marinisation programme or they’ll be as useful as the proverbial chocolate fireguard. Non-folding, they are in some ways more difficult to accommodate aboard than the Wokka.
However, as CHF aircrew are apparently (grudgingly) being put through the training system, you’d hope that it ends up a done deal….
A bit of good news in attempt to draw a line under the carrier fiasco. Whilst i would question the puma upgrade most items have either been announced already or make logical sense. The only other exception is the lack of investment of escort numbers for the navy, a positive statement for the MHPC would have been gladly received.
Am I dreaming?
Remainder of T45s. What does that mean?
The 6 cut from the original 12 now restored?
NO cant be surely
@ ArmChairCivvy
Problem is UK Apache are Block I (albeit in a unique format with kit not common to US Apache D), the LRU are facing obsolescence problems. There has been talk about somehow overhauling the LRU but that in itself raises questions. Like you I expect it will be a LEP and the LRU issue will be put off…
@Phil
I think he’s referring to Duncan and Defender, both still in fitting out/trials.
@Fedaykin
Do you know if the AH1 would still retain it’s improved performance characteristics over the US model?
@ Chris B
Yep it would cost but canning FSTA is doable given the political will. We would have to keep the ‘planes as I said because we need them and by extension the staff. Still can’t believe how poor value the deal is for HMG. They may not have had the money to buy tankers out right but if you compare the deal to the USAF tanker program we care getting mugged.
Does anyone have any views on the changes to the TA?
Are we looking at an effective increase to, and consequently more reliance on, our reserves?
TD et al
What is the story with the MOD’s love affair with helo upgrades?
Surely £300mill for 28 upgrades is a fools errand?
What would be the cost of 28 brand new helicopters?
The Pumas are 40 years old?
How long will the upgrades hold out for – 15 / 20 years?
How long would new builds last – 30 / 40 years?
If UK builds are important why not more troop friendly Merlins?
Also:
- “£7 billion for complex weapons”
This sounds promising. We still need ground and surface vessel attack for T45 as well as work on the Naval Strike Missile for F-35.
Development of the ground attack function for NSM and possibly a vertical launch system as well (allowing lauch from the A50 Sylver?).
@The Other Chris
Thanks for that. A bit misleading as why would the last two NOT be completed.
With regard to the AH1 I think the US block III will see the advantage reversed. The major benefit was the power advantage the RTM322 at 2300 had over the 1900 GE CT7s. Block III has the new 2900 version. The AH1 might still have the edge in DAS but everything else the yanks will have leaped forged us.
@ FBOT
“Surely £300mill for 28 upgrades is a fools errand?
What would be the cost of 28 brand new helicopters?”
- £10 million for the upgrades,
- £30-£40 million for new Merlins