Turn on thread page Beta

Statement of Intent from the Secretary of State for Defence watch

    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Ministry of Defence - Statement of Intent


    Current UK Defence Budget: £34.3bn
    TSR Defence Budget: Max. £50bn- £15.7bn increase

    It gives me great pleasure to present to the House the Ministry of Defence Statement of Intent for Government XXI.

    The Royal Navy

    Strengthening the Royal Navy will not only provide jobs and boost local economies through shipbuilding but increase both the defensive and humanitarian aid capabilities of the ‘senior service’. In these ever-turbulent times, having a defensive based Navy will allow the service to maintain a constant presence globally without being seen as aggressive. All contracts given to companies with regards to the building of new ships will come with a clause that all orders will be completed within 10 years maximum.

    HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion (equipped with 2 Chinooks each) will be deployed to the Mediterranean to assist in the recovery of refugees in the ‘Mediterranean Crisis’ until the end of the term, when the new Government can choose to continue or stop the deployment.
    The order of Global Combat Ships (GCS) will be raised to 15, an increase of 2 (£700m).

    We shall invest in a further three landing platform docks, taking the total to five. These shall be bought from the US Navy (San-Antonio Class) and join HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark (£1.9bn). This shall give us greater capability to assist in humanitarian efforts as recently seen by Bulwark’s excellent service in the ‘Mediterranean Crisis’.
    A pair of Mistral-Class amphibious assault ships shall be ordered from France (£700m). The onboard hospitals will be able to provide much needed on the spot medical care to large numbers after a possible natural disaster.
    Increase the number of Type 45 Destroyers to 16, an increase of 10 (~£6bn).

    Cost: £9.3bn

    Royal Air Force/Fleet Air Arm

    Currently the Queen Elizabeth carriers will not have a full complement of aircraft. Without investment into this, the carriers are basically redundant.

    Increase of 45 F-35Bs (Primarily for Queen Elizabeth Class Carrier) (£3.0bn)

    Cost: £3.0bn

    Miscellaneous

    The MoD intends to provide more funding for the transition of serving Armed Forces members into civilian life alongside the Department of Health (£500m to ‘civvie street’ programmes).

    Bombing of Syria by British pilots shall cease until Parliamentary approval is given.

    £1bn to a new Challenger 3 R+D programme to extend the service life of the Challenger 2 and provide armour and optics upgrades.

    An initial order of 5000 HK417s. The SA80 service life ends in 2020 and a replacement weapon must be found. An investment into a number of HK417s, a rifle with a proven track record and good reputation will help ease the Armed Forces into the transition between the standard issue rifle (£643m).

    All remaining Armed Forces personnel in Afghanistan (470 (with NATO Resolute Support)) assisting security forces shall remain and the number of Armed Forces trainers currently in Syria and the Ukraine shall remain at 75. This is to help bring stability and increase the effectiveness of the respective Governments in three of the most turbulent regions of the world.




    The overall cost of the necessary improvements to our Armed Forces with the current expenditure provides a total of approximately £48.74bn. A budget of £50bn, as promised by UKIP in our manifesto, will provide £1.26bn of 'unused' funds to use only if necessary. I would like to thank the Rt Hon. Nigel Farage MEP MP for his assistance with this document.

    Rt Hon. JoeL1994
    Secretary of State for Defence.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    In these times of painful austerity, you're spending £15 billion extra on defence?! This is wholly intolerable. Where the heck is the mandate for that?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    It is incredible how typical this statement is for a politician - "We will boost local shipbuilding industries!" - proceeds to buy ships from France and America.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Are you actually being serious?
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    I agree the British military is always in need of equipment upgrades, however with the equipment of most enemies the forces encounter nowadays being in bad condition we can manage as it is. £15bn extra is just too much.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    In these times of painful austerity, you're spending $15 billion extra on defence?! This is wholly intolerable. Where the heck is the mandate for that?
    I have to point out: we are not the Americans and have a different currency.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Andy98)
    I have to point out: we are not the Americans and have a different currency.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Apologies. There's something about exorbitant defence spending that made me think of the American Dollar.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I should point out that Challenger 2's armour isn't its primary limitation - the armament and the ammunition for it are largely where it is out-paced by modern developments. Its existing armour when combined with the latest appliques and reactive armours is still world-beating; perhaps the case could be made for integrating more of the recent applique upgrades into its base design and streamlining this in terms of engine performance. If you're looking for defensive upgrades, then consider seriously more advanced countermeasures for them in terms of jamming devices for incoming missile guidance, or prototype hard-kill countermeasures.

    (Original post by JoeL1994)
    An initial order of 5000 HK417s. The SA80 service life ends in 2020 and a replacement weapon must be found. An investment into a number of HK417s, a rifle with a proven track record and good reputation will help ease the Armed Forces into the transition between the standard issue rifle (£643m).
    So you basically intend to entirely switch the calibre of the standard issue armament of all British services from 5.56mm to 7.62mm? The HK417 is a weapon that has been used in limited amounts largely in specialised roles as a Marksman or Sniper's Rifle to supplement existing small arms, not to replace them in the role as a general-purpose rifle for use in varied battle scenarios. It is not an appropriate weapon to complete replace all standard issue small arms used by the infantryman, and in many environments and combat types could prove to be a downgrade.

    Please tell me you didn't take the notion of '7.62x51mm bigger, more kill' from a video game and decide that this is what British infantrymen need in all circumstances and then decide to simply go with the HK417 because it's reliable and has a bigger calibre...


    (Original post by RayApparently)
    It is incredible how typical this statement is for a politician - "We will boost local shipbuilding industries!" - proceeds to buy ships from France and America.
    2 new GCS and 10 new Type 45 destroyers is a hell of a lot of work for British shipbuilding and defence contractors, not to mention the fact that the RN would refit US San Antonio and French Mistral classes with our own systems and armaments, requiring British labour force.

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Apologies. There's something about exorbitant defence spending that made me think of the American Dollar.
    Anything other than complete peanuts on our defensive and power-projection capabilities is, apparently, 'exorbitant' to the Labour Party. That said, you believe the current climate is 'austere', so I can see where your mis-perceptions lie.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Apologies. There's something about exorbitant defence spending that made me think of the American Dollar.
    I didn't see the part about training soldiers to napalm everything and hope for the best in this statement? Although I can see where the confusion arose

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    In these times of painful austerity, you're spending £15 billion extra on defence?! This is wholly intolerable. Where the heck is the mandate for that?
    Protecting the country and its people is just a monetary burden then, is it?
    How dare we tolerate preparing to defend our nation should the need arise!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    That's my Green Government!
    :happy2:
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I'd like to see you go further however this is a good start. Good to see you got this past the Greens and Liberals.

    I'll be interested to see how this will be paid for though.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wellzi)
    Protecting the country and its people is just a monetary burden then, is it?
    How dare we tolerate preparing to defend our nation should the need arise!
    We dont need a £50 billion budget to protect the country.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I'm sorry but why the hell do we need all this? This is basically Christmas come early for the military top brass. We're a member of NATO ffs, we don't have a pressing problem defending ourselves. Sure, defence spending needs to be brought up a bit, enough for a new aircraft carrier for the Navy and for replacing ageing weapons perhaps, but not by £15 billion. I'd much rather see £15 billion spent on resources for struggling inner city schools, or on better transport links for the north, or on renewable energy, if we have to spend it at all. Besides, where's it coming from?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    In these times of painful austerity, you're spending £15 billion extra on defence?! This is wholly intolerable. Where the heck is the mandate for that?
    When Russia comes knocking on our door with their advanced nukes, you probably won't be moaning then.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefano93)
    When Russia comes knocking on our door with their advanced nukes, you probably won't be moaning then.
    Thats just not going to happen and even if it did this mass spending increase in conventional forces isnt going to help us.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    We dont need a £50 billion budget to protect the country.
    50 billion is peanuts for defence. We spend over twice that amount on the NHS alone.

    (Original post by United1892)
    Thats just not going to happen and even if it did this mass spending increase in conventional forces isnt going to help us.
    Actually our ability to defend mainland Britain against ballistic missiles is tied directly to the capabilities and numbers of the Type 45 destroyer and its advanced AA missiles, which this statement quite directly addresses.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Friar Chris)
    50 billion is peanuts for defence. We spend over twice that amount on the NHS alone.
    Its not the NHS improves millions of everyday lives all this does is drain away money which could be spent improving public services.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Stefano93)
    When Russia comes knocking on our door with their advanced nukes, you probably won't be moaning then.
    Realistically is that ever going to happen? Plus even if it did there'd be no way in hell to prevent it, no matter how much funding you had.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Friar Chris)
    Actually our ability to defend mainland Britain against ballistic missiles is tied directly to the capabilities and numbers of the Type 45 destroyer and its advanced AA missiles, which this statement quite directly addresses.
    But nobodys going to be firing balistic missiles at us anyhow.
 
 
 

1,329

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.