International cooperation is important, but over reliance on a single foreign partner, even a close ally causes risks. It leads to a situation where a country possesses shiny new military hardware but lacks the logistical support, sovereign weapons integration, skilled personnel, and overall control to use it effectively and autonomously.
I imagine the UK's experience with the F35 is a major driver in it's decision to partner with Japan and Italy on the next gen Tempest fighter, so they can regain sovereign control over its future air combat capabilities.
However, the problem extends beyond the F35. Although the UK has increased its defence budget in real terms, the extra funding has been outstripped by soaring equipment costs (Boeing mark up the costs of soap dispensers by 7,943%!), the legacy of decades of under investment, and the spiralling expense of strategic programmes like the nuclear deterrent. The budget for conventional forces does just not exist.
This is becoming the consensus, but I'm yet to see a lot of people making the logical conclusion: The "peace dividend" was based on a lie/severe miscalculations, and those that drew upon it should be the ones to pay it back.
You can't completely outsource defence.
International cooperation is important, but over reliance on a single foreign partner, even a close ally causes risks. It leads to a situation where a country possesses shiny new military hardware but lacks the logistical support, sovereign weapons integration, skilled personnel, and overall control to use it effectively and autonomously.
I imagine the UK's experience with the F35 is a major driver in it's decision to partner with Japan and Italy on the next gen Tempest fighter, so they can regain sovereign control over its future air combat capabilities.
However, the problem extends beyond the F35. Although the UK has increased its defence budget in real terms, the extra funding has been outstripped by soaring equipment costs (Boeing mark up the costs of soap dispensers by 7,943%!), the legacy of decades of under investment, and the spiralling expense of strategic programmes like the nuclear deterrent. The budget for conventional forces does just not exist.
>the legacy of decades of under investment
This is becoming the consensus, but I'm yet to see a lot of people making the logical conclusion: The "peace dividend" was based on a lie/severe miscalculations, and those that drew upon it should be the ones to pay it back.