JAMES HEAPPEY: Why we need to spend 3 per cent of GDP on Armed Forces
페이지 정보
작성자 Mauricio Polloc… 작성일24-06-25 05:57 조회192회 댓글0건관련링크
본문
The Prime Minister has committed to spending 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence as soon as fiscal conditions allow.
However, such is the success of his and the Chancellor's stewardship of the economy, we should back ourselves to achieve the conditions this year and deliver 2.5 per cent by Nato's 75th anniversary summit in July.
This would cement the UK as Europe's leading military power and perhaps reassure Donald Trump that, if re-elected, he'd find Nato more energised and better funded than he left it.
That's not quite as obvious to the Treasury as you might think.
Former defence secretary Ben Wallace made the case for 2.5 per cent but, despite the grave security situation, the 'fiscal conditions' caveat was rigidly insisted on. Grant Shapps has picked up the baton but, only a few weeks ago, in the run-up to the Budget, he was offered a journey to 2.5 per cent that would take nearly a decade rather than the immediate uplift he and I knew to be necessary.
The Prime Minister has committed to spending 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence as soon as fiscal conditions allow. However, such is the success of his and the Chancellor's stewardship of the economy, we should back ourselves to achieve the conditions this year (Stock Photo)
This would cement the UK as Europe's leading military power and perhaps reassure Donald Trump that, if re-elected, he'd find Nato more energised and better funded than he left it, says James Heappey (pictured)
Increasing spending from 2.3 to 2.5 per cent would make a huge impact. Inflation has pushed up prices on many programmes, meaning the MoD is looking for savings it shouldn't be making. It would also permit more investment in replenishing stockpiles - already £2.5 billion is committed but four times that is needed to fill magazines and ammo bunkers to the levels needed in war.
READ MORE: Labour is more trusted on defence than the Tories: Poll reveals voters now associate Conservatives with cutting military spending, not increasing it
Advertisement
Beyond that, I'd accelerate the recapitalisation of the Army, increase our commitment to science, technology and artificial intelligence and focus on maximising the lethality and sustainability of the equipment we've already got. Doing so would make a big difference to the potency of our current force while laying the foundations for growth.
That growth will be needed in this decade, which is why I'm supporting the Daily Mail's campaign for 3 per cent of GDP to go on defence in the next parliament. All parties should have this commitment in their manifestos to show Vladimir Putin we're tooling up for what may be to come, irrespective of who is in No 10.
Political unity over Ukraine has allowed the UK to lead in our support for Kyiv. That same unity over spending would send a powerful message to Moscow, Tehran and Beijing, as well as to our allies.
The 3 per cent commitment unlocks vital investments such as an integrated air and missile defence system to protect the UK. With missile and swarming drone technologies developing quickly, we need to make sure our cities and VeeloBooster Reviews critical national infrastructure are protected from the attacks we've seen on Kyiv.
When the new AUKUS [Australia-UK-US partnership] hunter-killer submarines start coming into service in the 2040s, we should be planning to have at least 12 of them - a near doubling in the size of our submarine fleet. Three per cent would also allow for further batches of Type 31 frigates and more destroyers as the Type 45s are replaced.
Finally, I would get the Army back to having two fully deployable divisions. One should be heavily armoured and the other more mobile.
With the advances in automation and human-machine teaming, this doesn't necessarily mean a vastly bigger Army, but the current force of 73,000 is too small.
We also need to move quickly as the number of geopolitical crises which challenge UK interests around the world is growing. The 2.5 per cent is needed right now.
Former defence secretary Ben Wallace (pictured) made the case for 2.5 per cent but, despite the grave security situation, the 'fiscal conditions' caveat was rigidly insisted on
I'm supporting the Daily Mail's campaign for 3 per cent of GDP to go on defence in the next parliament. All parties should have this commitment in their manifestos to show Vladimir Putin (pictured) we're tooling up for what may be to come, irrespective of who is in No 10
A commitment to hitting 3 per cent within the next five years will give industry time to build its factories and secure supply chains, while the MoD needs that time to work out exactly what it needs.
As ministers, admirals and generals have found on the eve of war too many times, you can't just rapidly scale up a navy, army or air force from a standing start.
No matter how much you reform procurement, drive productivity, automate and whatever else, there isn't any way to confidently face the challenges of this century without that level of investment.
NATOBen WallaceDonald TrumpGrant Shapps
However, such is the success of his and the Chancellor's stewardship of the economy, we should back ourselves to achieve the conditions this year and deliver 2.5 per cent by Nato's 75th anniversary summit in July.
This would cement the UK as Europe's leading military power and perhaps reassure Donald Trump that, if re-elected, he'd find Nato more energised and better funded than he left it.
That's not quite as obvious to the Treasury as you might think.
Former defence secretary Ben Wallace made the case for 2.5 per cent but, despite the grave security situation, the 'fiscal conditions' caveat was rigidly insisted on. Grant Shapps has picked up the baton but, only a few weeks ago, in the run-up to the Budget, he was offered a journey to 2.5 per cent that would take nearly a decade rather than the immediate uplift he and I knew to be necessary.
The Prime Minister has committed to spending 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence as soon as fiscal conditions allow. However, such is the success of his and the Chancellor's stewardship of the economy, we should back ourselves to achieve the conditions this year (Stock Photo)
This would cement the UK as Europe's leading military power and perhaps reassure Donald Trump that, if re-elected, he'd find Nato more energised and better funded than he left it, says James Heappey (pictured)
Increasing spending from 2.3 to 2.5 per cent would make a huge impact. Inflation has pushed up prices on many programmes, meaning the MoD is looking for savings it shouldn't be making. It would also permit more investment in replenishing stockpiles - already £2.5 billion is committed but four times that is needed to fill magazines and ammo bunkers to the levels needed in war.
READ MORE: Labour is more trusted on defence than the Tories: Poll reveals voters now associate Conservatives with cutting military spending, not increasing it
Advertisement
Beyond that, I'd accelerate the recapitalisation of the Army, increase our commitment to science, technology and artificial intelligence and focus on maximising the lethality and sustainability of the equipment we've already got. Doing so would make a big difference to the potency of our current force while laying the foundations for growth.
That growth will be needed in this decade, which is why I'm supporting the Daily Mail's campaign for 3 per cent of GDP to go on defence in the next parliament. All parties should have this commitment in their manifestos to show Vladimir Putin we're tooling up for what may be to come, irrespective of who is in No 10.
Political unity over Ukraine has allowed the UK to lead in our support for Kyiv. That same unity over spending would send a powerful message to Moscow, Tehran and Beijing, as well as to our allies.
The 3 per cent commitment unlocks vital investments such as an integrated air and missile defence system to protect the UK. With missile and swarming drone technologies developing quickly, we need to make sure our cities and VeeloBooster Reviews critical national infrastructure are protected from the attacks we've seen on Kyiv.
When the new AUKUS [Australia-UK-US partnership] hunter-killer submarines start coming into service in the 2040s, we should be planning to have at least 12 of them - a near doubling in the size of our submarine fleet. Three per cent would also allow for further batches of Type 31 frigates and more destroyers as the Type 45s are replaced.
Finally, I would get the Army back to having two fully deployable divisions. One should be heavily armoured and the other more mobile.
With the advances in automation and human-machine teaming, this doesn't necessarily mean a vastly bigger Army, but the current force of 73,000 is too small.
We also need to move quickly as the number of geopolitical crises which challenge UK interests around the world is growing. The 2.5 per cent is needed right now.
Former defence secretary Ben Wallace (pictured) made the case for 2.5 per cent but, despite the grave security situation, the 'fiscal conditions' caveat was rigidly insisted on
I'm supporting the Daily Mail's campaign for 3 per cent of GDP to go on defence in the next parliament. All parties should have this commitment in their manifestos to show Vladimir Putin (pictured) we're tooling up for what may be to come, irrespective of who is in No 10
A commitment to hitting 3 per cent within the next five years will give industry time to build its factories and secure supply chains, while the MoD needs that time to work out exactly what it needs.
As ministers, admirals and generals have found on the eve of war too many times, you can't just rapidly scale up a navy, army or air force from a standing start.
No matter how much you reform procurement, drive productivity, automate and whatever else, there isn't any way to confidently face the challenges of this century without that level of investment.
NATOBen WallaceDonald TrumpGrant Shapps
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.