UK Government defence spending. How much, what on and with EU or US partners?
a trillion pounds in defence pending by 2035!
The current UK parliament runs for 5 years from 2024-2029. The annual UK defence budget spending figures for 2024/25 are not yet available for the full financial year, but projections and preliminary data suggest a rise to around £60.2 billion, as reported by the House of Commons Library.
£60 billion pounds represents 2% of the UK’s (stagnant) GDP of £3 trillion.
“At the 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague, all 32 NATO member states except Spain committed to increasing their annual defence and security-related expenditures to 5% of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035.” The new 5% target is expected to add approximately $1 trillion annually to NATO’s defense resources by 2035.
Which for the UK represents a increase In defence spending to £150 billion from this year £60 billion.
This new target consists of at least 3.5% of GDP allocated to core defense requirements, such as equipment and personnel, and up to 1.5% of GDP dedicated to civil preparedness, defense innovation, cybersecurity, and other security priorities. Spain received an exemption, stating it can meet its military requirements with a spending level of 2.1% of GDP.
The UK has delivered a lot of ordinance to Ukraine and is committed to continue doing so “… a significant portion of the increased funding is being used to replenish military stockpiles depleted by support to Ukraine. the UK has pledged £500 million in 2024 for ammunition, air defence, and drones for Ukraine, described as the largest single delivery of military equipment to Ukraine’s frontlines. The government has committed to maintaining at least the current level of military support to Ukraine annually.
The UK’s 5% of GDP commitment by 2035 looks like being attempted In stages.
The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) is planning to increase its spending significantly up to 2030, with a focus on modernisation, procurement, and innovation. The government has committed to increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, with a further ambition to reach 3.5% of GDP by 2035, aligning with a new NATO target. This increase includes a shift in the definition of defence spending to incorporate activities of security and intelligence agencies, which is expected to raise the reported figure to 2.6% of GDP by 2027.
2.7% works out at £81 billion a year, so we have a track for defence spending (not included in the latest budget numbers?) of £60 billion for 2025, £81 billion In 2027, all the way up to £150 billion in 2035. Let’s assume even annual increments of around £10 billion from 2027 to 2035 to allow for inflation and wastage/ inefficiencies. £90 billion in 2028, 100 billion in 2029, 110 billion in 2030, 120 billion in 2031, 130 billion in 2032, 140 billion in 2033, and150 billion in 2034 and another 150 billion in 2035.
Well over a trillion pounds – not in the budget!!! (With £5 billion pledged to Ukraine over the next ten years.
It’s only money and it’s not theirs. They better hope there is no kinetic war and large or even moderate battlefield losses!
Each year the UK starts with a deficit of around £120-150 billion for interest on £3 trillion of existing government debt– plus capital required for those ludicrous “net zero targets” and rapidly rising welfare spending. which magic money tree is all this money coming from?
“Despite these commitments, the MoD faces a financial shortfall. The National Audit Office (NAO) reported in 2023 that forecast costs for the MoD’s Equipment Plan 2023–2033 exceeded the budget by £16.9 billion, with costs rising by £65.7 billion compared to the previous plan. This fiscal gap means that nearly one-quarter of the planned increase in defence spending through 2030 will be used to finance existing procurement programmes.
“ The government has not yet provided a detailed, credible plan for funding the full increase, with sources suggesting it may come from re-prioritisation of existing budgets rather than new borrowing.
You would think that the Labour government would be doling out defence contracts left, right and center. Here are its announced plans (from Brave AI).
“A major portion of the spending is directed toward capital investments, with capital spending projected to grow at 8.6% per year in real terms between 2025–26 and 2028–29, compared to a 0.7% annual increase in day-to-day spending. This capital focus includes major procurement programmes such as the development of the Challenger 3 main battle tanks, the Ajax armoured fighting vehicle, the Mobile Fires Platform artillery, and the Boxer armoured vehicle on land.
In the air domain, the UK continues procurement of F-35B stealth fighters, while the Royal Navy is acquiring new frigates, including the Type 31 class, following reductions in the number of Type 26 frigates.”
Here’s one bun fight that looks like ending badly:
UK’s last helicopter factory set to close - 3,000 manufacturing jobs at risk
“In November, Leonardo’s chief executive, Roberto Cingolani, told investors he was negotiating with the MoD to try “to boost the collaboration with the UK government”, while in December he wrote to the defence secretary, John Healey, and threatened to scrap all investment in Britain, in a letter first reported by the Daily Telegraph.
Leonardo Is th result of the a “merger of the UK’s traditional helicopter supplier Westland and Italy’s Augusta via a complicated network of companies. Wiki has details here:
Leonardo (company) - Wikipedia
Here’s a comparison of the costs and capabilities of the three original bidders for the billion-pound helicopter contract:
“The Sikorsky S-70M Black Hawk is considered the most cost-effective option among the three contenders for the UK’s New Medium Helicopter (NMH) requirement, with a unit price of approximately $25.69 million based on a tender in Romania. This figure positions it as the cheapest outright airframe cost compared to the Leonardo AW149 and Airbus H175M. However, the total cost of acquisition includes logistics, training, and equipment packages, which can significantly affect the final price.
For instance, Poland’s contract for four S-70i Black Hawks, including support packages, amounted to $180.7 million, or about $45 million per aircraft, though this includes extensive logistics and training components.”
“The Leonardo AW149 has a higher unit price of $27.53 million based on the same Romanian tender, and its acquisition cost is further elevated by a $1.83 billion contract for 32 aircraft that includes comprehensive logistics, training, and simulator packages.
“The Airbus H175M has the highest unit price at $35.72 million in the Romanian tender, making it the most expensive option on a per-airframe basis. However, it offers a significant range advantage, with a ferry range of 1,083 km, compared to the S-70M’s 460 km and the AW149’s 849 km. The H175M also features a cockpit layout similar to the H135 and H145, which could reduce pilot conversion training time and costs. Despite these advantages, Airbus has not yet delivered a military variant of the H175 to any country, and establishing a UK production line would require significant lead time and investment.”
How about ability to withstand attack?
“The difficulty of shooting down the Leonardo AW149, Sikorsky S-70 Black Hawk, and Airbus H175M depends on a combination of design features, survivability systems, and operational context. The AW149 is engineered with significant survivability enhancements, including ballistically tolerant rotor blades capable of withstanding 12.7 mm rounds and retaining functionality for up to 90 minutes post-damage. It also features a fuel system with self-sealing tanks and critical systems that are physically segregated with redundant backups to maintain operation even after damage. The aircraft’s infrared suppression system reduces its infrared signature by 75%, making it significantly harder to target with heat-seeking missiles. These features collectively make the AW149 highly resilient in hostile environments.”
“The S-70 Black Hawk, a military variant of the UH-60, is known for its robustness and proven performance in combat zones. It has demonstrated the ability to sustain damage and continue flying, with a long history of operational use in conflict areas such as Afghanistan and Iraq.
“ However, the H175M has not been highlighted in the context of specific survivability enhancements like those found on the AW149 or the combat-proven Black Hawk.
Back to the linked MSN article:
“The defence industry has become frustrated by the wait for the government’s promised defence investment plan, which was expected before Christmas.
“The H175M, while modern and capable, lacks the same level of documented survivability features in the provided context. Therefore, based on available information, the AW149 and S-70 Black Hawk are likely more difficult to shoot down than the H175M, especially in high-threat environments.”
On the face of it, maybe the Augusta Westland looks a good option but apparently not to the defence mandarins In Whitehall! So who is holding things up this rather small contract that is keeping 3,000 people in work?
Could It be Rachel from accounts, Number 10 and the Treasury? A billion pounds out of planned increased spending of over a trillion in the next ten years seems small beer. Maybe they are working a better deal with the IRG/Muslim Brotherhood!
Onwards!
PLEASE take a paid subscription or follow/recommend my site to others you think might be interested. You may also donate via Ko-fi – (any amount three dollars and above here): https://ko-fi.com/peterhalligan