I think this is yet another case where you can lead a whore to culture but you can’t make her think.

I propose to let this whore carrying on thinking what he/she wants.

I apologise for starting this thread in the light of how it turned out 🙁

It is good to look at history, but it is all too easy to only pick one period.

So you think that there is no threat to the UK, and that consequently we should avoid spending on highly capable forces. That sounds familiar.

In the immediate aftermath of the First World War, Britain faced serious economic woes. Heavy defence cuts were consequently imposed by the British Government in the early 1920s as part of a reduction in public expenditure known as the “Geddes Axe” after Sir Eric Geddes.[65] The Government introduced the Ten Year Rule, stating its belief that Britain would not be involved in another major war for 10 years from the date of review. This ten-year rule was continually extended until it was abandoned in 1932

…
Rearmament and developmentBy the mid-1930s, Germany was controlled by Hitler’s Nazi Party and was becoming increasingly aggressive and expansionist. Another war with Germany appeared certain. The UK armed forces were not properly prepared for such a war, lagging behind the technologically advanced and potentially much larger forces of Germany Wehrmacht.

A far better parallel than your selection, particularly since the reason you suggested as to why germany wanted to build up its navy is spurious, or at least incomplete….

The Kaiser had long wanted a large naval force to assure Germany of what he called “a place in the sun”. A large German navy could assist in German attempts to attain colonies, as well as further the country’s economic and commercial interests elsewhere in the world. He was determined to make his country a colonial power in the Pacific and Africa

Which British overseas territory is actually threatened by someone? So it would be necessary to protect it? None. Same for French overseas territories or the British coast itself.

Well 5 of them are claimed by someone else so I guess that must be considered a threat

British Antarctic Territory — Territory overlaps Antarctic claims made by Chile and Argentina
British Indian Ocean Territory — claimed by Mauritius and Seychelles
Falkland Islands — claimed by Argentina
Gibraltar — claimed by Spain
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands — claimed by Argentina

But of course the building of defence assets has to look further ahead because however much you want to believe that we can rebuild a navy in a year, we cannot. CVF will take about 20 years (guestimate depending on where you start from) from start to finish. Hell it will take us 5 years to train up to be able to run a new carrier unlike the T45 crew you could magic from thin air.

And who can predict 5 let alone 20 years ahead.
Water-wars?
Iran?
Resurgent russia?

I have no idea. And whatever they say, neither do our politicians.

@flanker.

Lots spend more as a % of GDP, so by the logic of your table we could afford to spend more

@ppp
OK, I won’t list what we get, but as a matter of interest who do you think gets “more” than us (apart form US, France and China who spend more)

Leon,
to expand on some earlier posts. The Libyan Navy at the start of the recent conflict had
2 × Koni class frigates (armed with SSMs, SAMS, guns, mortar, tropedos and mines)

2 × Nanuchka class corvettes (armed with SSMs, SAMS, guns)

Would you have sent an OPV armed with (e.g. like the Holland class) one 76mm gun to blockade Libya?

Notwithstanding the problems of building a new T45 in 1 year, where exactly do you intend to get the crew from? Remember that support costs always exceed capital so you presumably are proposing to just keep a crew idle on shore?

Finally, when considering the threast to UK, you cannot only consider purely maritime threats: For example OPVs cannot defend a carrier adequately; OPVs could not be sent to perform BMD launch dtecetion and tracking (or engagement) duties.

in the end the decision is whether to save money in the short run or lives in the long run? History shows the politicians have got that one wrong frequently