Colin, but in 280 characters or less. Nowhere near enigmatic enough for it to be worth you reading this bio. Unlikely to be the droid that anyone is looking for
@Aviation_Intel The willingness to accept that soldiers will be killed ahead of the mid term elections. Plus expensive stuff. That is what it will look like to the administration. 😔
@thinkdefence But would any of them actually do a good job? Half the government are first term party yes-men/women (of which plenty are basically students union level). The train wreck will continue regardless. 😔
A techUK survey of 45 defence technology suppliers has found 93% reassessing investment or recruitment, 73% hit by contract suspensions and 87% by funding delays, with the unpublished Defence Investment Plan named as the single biggest driver.
https://t.co/k7GQAmYbPI
Extraordinarily - and this seems to demonstrate a complete disregard of the seriousness of defence at the heart of government - John Healey was only told what the offer was for additional defence funding on Monday afternoon.
I am told Number 10 then tried to rush and publish the Defence Investment Plan on Thursday.
Then a handbrake was applied by Mr Healey and his military chiefs. The (now ex) defence secretary made clear that racing to release the blueprint without a settlement that had been accepted by him and his team would be a risk for defence and for its soldiers, sailors and aviators.
You can only imagine the tone of the exchange that must have taken place - and I know that people were in the MOD until very late last night.
But John Healey firmly believes the settlement was inadequate and, if left unchallenged, would not enable the UK to keep the country safe or meet its international commitments - such as help defend Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire with Russia.
A key detail is that Mr Healey believes defence spending must be increased to 3% of GDP by 2030, up from 2.3% now. This would guarantee tens of billions of additional pounds for defence.
But - despite the stakes and the position of the defence secretary - the Prime Minister and Chancellor agreed just to inch it up to 2.68% of GDP within that time frame, after hitting a new target of 2.6% next year (which is already being inflated by lumping in the 0.1% that is spent on the intelligence agencies).
Utterly incredible.
What must our allies and our adversaries be thinking, let alone everyone in the UK armed forces and, frankly, everyone in our country?
We all rely on a secure UK to live, work, go to school, enjoy holidays, access healthcare, spend time with friends and families.
This is not a divine right. It happens because we have security - something that might not be apparent until or unless it is compromised...
@ListerLawrence Its rarity on those - it’s a collector car and arguably one of only 4 models in the 997 lineup (along with the 4 litre RS, Speedster and SportClassic) that really matter to someone trying to build an ultimate garage.
@TomSharpe134 You are supposed to use an emoji to denote sarcasm on here Tom… 😉
Obviously though the short answer is that if someone is going to throw anti-ship ballistic missiles at your ships, at least some big radars will be required on something.
I asked Claude to plot the rate of defence reviews. “…crosses zero in 2045, at which point Britain achieves the Defence Review Singularity—a permanent, continuous review in which each document is superseded before publication. MoD becomes a pure review-generating organism.”
@anon_opin The problem is the number of them who studied subjects for which there were far more students than jobs. This is the legacy of Blair - a surplus of people qualified for jobs which don’t exist.
Just a pity you haven’t increased defence spending to cover the cost of this necessary 14% pay rise. You’re taking it from other parts of the defence budget, further hollowing out our military, which started under the Tories.
@alessionaval Replace “plans” with “dreams of”. Airbus Germany is out of the manned fighter jet business and is in denial. No path to a successful project can be described with “German-led”. A project with a chance would be led by France, any of the 3 Tempest partners or Sweden.
@TBrit90 Indeed. NATO already has plenty of planes to task for dropping American owned and controlled B61s - all it would do is further complicate F35 logistics and availability for something that we can’t even refuel in flight.
@MtarfaL I do have a glib response to this (not entirely serious) : when the alternatives are Airbus (the prime for the NH 90 fiasco) and Lockheed (F35 block 4 upgrade) and the army is so bad at requirements that Ajax happened : it could still turn out not to be that bad an outcome? 🤔
@thinkdefence The choice is : do you want something that doesn’t work, likely never will and which will be continue to injure soldiers for generations (and ultimately doubtless fuel damages claims for decades). Or do you stop bonfiring money on that, sack those responsible and make do? 🤷♂️
@TBrit90 Moreover, no more F35 should be ordered until LM have a resolution for whatever it is that causes them to have 2 month holidays in places like the Azores and India. 2 out of a batch of 5 breaking down on the delivery flight was a bad look.
@DrifterPlanes@MtarfaL@TomSharpe134 Again : that isn’t the point. If it is your job to fix it, it doesn’t matter who broke it. Do your job or be damned for not doing your job. 🤷♂️