No Peace Dividend for the UK.

[Peg Leg Pom]

So what sort of state could the British Armed Forces be in now if British Governments had not slashed defence spending after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union but instead maintained Cold War levels of expenditure to this day. In 1984 this was 5.5% of GDP. Current defence spending is about 2% GDP.

 

[trash80]

You can't really answer that unless you work out what this greatly increased defence spending would be for, what threats, needs et cetera. This would direct what fancy toys you spent the extra money on.

 

[MarcH]

You can't really answer that unless you work out what this greatly increased defence spending would be for, what threats, needs et cetera. This would direct what fancy toys you spent the extra money on.

True to some degree but there would be some fairly easy things off the bat. There would likely be an earlier adoption of a new Aircraft Carrier along with better maintenance of the Harrier fleet. This could well include more than 2 carriers and may or may not include a catapult system of some sort. Another small change is that the Challenger 2 would likely have seen more upgrades during its life. Beyond things like that you may see something like the P.1216 maybe but im not sure.

 

[trash80]

After the Cold War the UK armed forces were keen to rebalance themselves away from the quite specialised role they were directed at e.g. the RN being heavily ASW focused to the detriment of a lot of other roles. We would probably see the reborn amphibious capability perhaps stepped up with perhaps more than 1 CVH for example.

 

[Rinasoir]

Probably see the SA80 go through the A2, if not A3 upgrade programme earlier. Which would probably lead to more than a few grateful men on the ground who were stuck with the un-upgraded ones when the flag went up after 9/11,

Outside of that, I've got nothing without a general picture of the mission statement for the BA at the time.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Senior Service. I would expect that the Carriers would have been built 10 years earlier with possibly a 3rd hull - all 12 Type 45s built as intended and the Type 26 ordered earlier and in greater numbers.

More A class SSNs replacing the Trafalgers on a 1:1 basis

The RNR would not have been slashed by 2/3 rds (I miss the subsidized bar dammit)



Brown Jobs. By now a replacement for the Challenger II would have been in service. Likely using the RM 120mm Smoothbore. Possibly even a licence built Leo2A7. An Ajax/ASCOD AFV might have entered service earlier replacing CVR(t) along with a wheeled family of vehicles along the lines of the Boxer - so perhaps Britain joins the project a decade earlier.

But I would expect the number of Regiments/battalions to have still been reduced in real terms with no need for BAOR.

Crab Air / F%$&ing Fast Airways. With no cuts to spares etc during the noughties the Harrier fleet would be able to be maintained with a overall higher number of aircraft with greater serviceability.

More Typhoons and more Squadrons. Also full capability would be reached earlier (FGR4 etc) - possibly this might see an earlier retirement of Tonka

I fear that Nimrod Mk4 would be persevered with despite the wing issue (the Torys were correct in killing it in 2010 IMO)

Ideally they would do the P-8 Poseidon and MQ-4C Triton approach earlier and not leave a half decade capability gap

With the draw down of RAFG overall strength in real terms would still be far below that of the late 80s


All 3.


So still large reductions for the Army and Air force but with better Kit

The Navy though would have a much lesser reduction but would replace its Cold War ships with more modern and less crew intensive vessels on an almost 1:1 basis



CAAMM might have made an earlier appearance as the tri service missile?

Maybe the L85A2 would have been replaced? Possibly something along the lines of a HK416 or the FN SCAR L

I understand from speaking with an armorer a couple of years ago that the latest version of the FN has a shot counter making it far easier to manage long term maintenance improving reliability across the entire estate - meaning that it is currently the preferred COTS choice of the 2

Or maybe they keep it 'simple' and just go the Colt Canada C8/L119A2 CQB variant carbine Route with all the trimmings as currently sported by Four-Three Commando Fleet Protection Group Royal Marines.

 

[MKD]

So what sort of state could the British Armed Forces be in now if British Governments had not slashed defence spending after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union but instead maintained Cold War levels of expenditure to this day. In 1984 this was 5.5% of GDP. Current defence spending is about 2% GDP.

but surely, with the decline of the main enemy, reductions in defense spending were inevitable. Doubly so considering some of the rocky economic times we have been through since 1984. Finally, who were we going to be fighting, in what manner and when? That must drive the priority for spend.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

There were the wars in Yugoslavia to cope with and the running sore in the Gulf that's still ongoing 30 years later. The world became less stable after the end of the Cold War so while there was certainly a need to restructure, the slashing of the defence budget was perhaps not the wisest choice.

 

[Pseudo]

Senior Service. I would expect that the Carriers would have been built 10 years earlier with possibly a 3rd hull

I think that they'd either be three STOVL carriers or two CATOBAR hulls depending on which launch and recovery system was eventually decided on.

I could also see two ~30kt-35kt LHD's being built instead of Ocean, Albion and Bulwark and two variants of the Bay Class ordered, maybe two LPD's (essentially a larger Rotterdam) and four LSL's as OTL.

- all 12 Type 45s built as intended and the Type 26 ordered earlier and in greater numbers.

Again, this is something that's going to depend on what direction the RN decides to go in. If they decide to go bigger with the Type 26 and make it more like an ASW-focused Arleigh Burke, so equip it with SAMPSON and double the number of Mark 41 cells (or adding 24 SYLVER A-50's) allowing it to fire Aster-30 then you'll probably only get seven Type 45's at most (two for each carrier group and one spare), though once again I'd expect them to be larger and more capable than OTL, maybe with a static four-plate SAMPSON, 32 Mark 41's amidship and 12-16 cells somewhere (maybe between the gun and existing VLS as I believe that there's space for an 8-cell Mark 41 there OTL) dedicated to CAMM.

More A class SSNs replacing the Trafalgers on a 1:1 basis

I think that they'd also hold on to the Upholder's.

 

[WILDGEESE]

So what sort of state could the British Armed Forces be in now if British Governments had not slashed defence spending after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union but instead maintained Cold War levels of expenditure to this day. In 1984 this was 5.5% of GDP. Current defence spending is about 2% GDP.

Spending at 5.5% is a bit steep at the end of the Cold War to be honest PLP.

I think the actual figure quoted was 3.6% in 1989 (ONS in the library)

You need to somehow get rid of the cuts that happened post 1980 (eg RN vessels getting broomed to fund Trident etc)

As for your original question . . . just off the top of my head

The BA would possibly remain the same as the UK has never maintained a large peace time standing army.

Firstly could you see a doubling of the RAF if the UK withdraws from Germany?, this was a plan originally put forward to increase the RAF but John Nott opted to decrease the RN?

Secondly The RAF would as other posters have stated retired the Tonka earlier and bought more Tiffies., plus you could see 60 or so C-17's being purchased instead of C-130J's, and A400M's.

As for the RN, possibly three QE's originally built in early 90's to CATOBAR spec's with F-18K Super Hornets.
21 x Astute SSN's built to replace entire RN SSn fleet (Swiftsure & Trafalgar)
A full fleet of 12 Type 45's
A full 3 batches (14) of Type 26's to replace all of the RN's Type 22's.

 

[RMcD94]

The economy would be worse as other services such as health, education and infrastructure. I imagine less population too for that reason, however perhaps because of the worse government position there would be higher immigration and that might boost the population even if the NHS is much worse and so many more and earlier deaths. A lower lifespan would benefit the NHS but it's possible the worse education might cause people to be less health conscious in other aspects. Can't say for sure.

So consider that you can't just take 3.5% of the budget and assume that's the money you have to spend. Perhaps by 2020 the GDP is 1% smaller so you really have 5% not 5.5% of current GDP

Also more spending on the military would encourage politicians to make use of it so I expect the UK to be more involved in foreign affairs which if they continue as OTL is probably overall a bad call. So more casualties and extra expenditure there, possibly more terrorist attacks too and maybe a deeper divide between the UK and EU and closer between UK and USA.

 

[naraic]

Or maybe British defense investment would have developed something that they end up producing for export and improves the economy.

We just don't know.