Most likely, no. Unified armed services never really worked that well, and i see politics screwing up the military even more if it was to become a single, unitary entity.

To answer your question, though, my personal belief is that the UK in a not-too-far future will need to develop new capabilities to protect its home soil. An invasion, and even old-style bombardment from the air are unlikely, and the Typhoons and Navy can deal with both scenarios.
New technology though opened new fronts in term of homeland defence: a new need at some point will be an anti-ballistic missile for the defence of home soil.
I’ll bring you the example of Italy: it joined the MEADS (with Germany and US) and the land launched version of PAAMS Aster 30 (together with France), and both have anti-ballistic capability (for current commitments, in terms of anti-aircraft commitments they both are overkill since there’s not real threat from the air), which is a good thing because, differently from the UK, southern italy is already well within the range of latest model Iranian ballistic missiles.

Soon enough, as the new versions gain more and more range, the UK will have to carefully value joining NATO efforts to develop anti-ballistic capabilities both at sea and on land. NATO is already discussing this, actually, and the US are actively lobbying the alliance to join the plan, officially said to cost only 200 USD million dollars in ten years. The price is suspiciously low, and i’m not very aware of what the proposal truly is about. It seems difficult that any serious deployment of interceptor missiles can be funded with so little money.
However, this is a future area of possible developments. The informally announced possible “Aster 45” is a possible future joint development. Otherwise, the Type 45 could get 16 MK41 VLS cells, with not just Tomahawks but Standard SM3 anti-ballistic missiles too. The US is also developing land-launched SM3, so this may be a good solution for the UK too.

The SM3 would also partially fill up another large gap in capability: anti-satellite weaponry. With the vital importance of satellites, it is essential to be potentially able to shot down unwanted watchers.
Russia, US and China have this capability, and other users of SM3 missiles like Japan are potentially capable to shot down satellites as well.
This is another capability that the new face of the world will at some point dictate for the future.
Had not been for Cold War treaties spurred by american ASAT missile development, it would already be a well developed branch of military capability.

Always in the area of Air Defence, CAMM should be at some point supplemented with a new, more deployable C-RAM system. Ideally, such system should be self-deployable in units that can be moved around underslung by a Chinook so that Afghanistan-like FOBs could be given their own umbrella of protection, in mostly every situation.
Mortars and rockets, after all, will continue to be weapons of choice of guerrilla in the near future, and be massively used in more conventional warfare too without doubt, so it certainly would not be wasted money.
OTO Melara for example mounted a naval 76 mm Radar-guided Davide gun on a 8×8 armoured chassis for air and C-RAM defence even on the move, but even more interesting is the Porcupine, a Vulcan-based “Land CIWS” that promises to be more “self-contained” and thus easier to deploy than the Centurion, that is quite a big ass system to move around!
C-RAM should be getting more attention in the future, since force protection grows more and more important.

Part of the security of the nation will also be about cyberwarfare: a large scale hacker attack could have incredible consequences for any european nation, and it would be both a blow to the economy and to the effective capability of the armed forces to respond to any successive physical attack.

The thick of the focus should be on expeditionary warfare, however, both in form of “forcible entry” or “simpler” operations that are anyway most likely to happen far away from European and UK soil.
Thus the army should adapt to ensure it can make the best use of the strategic air mobility and of the transport and support the navy can offer. Ideally, the army should indeed become a projectile that RAF and RN could “fire” in the intended area and support.

Armor will still be needed, but in forms a bit different from the largely undeployable Challenger II: that’s why the Army has a requirement for a FRES (ASCOD based at this point, realistically) Direct Fire variant, that will get a smoothbore 120 mm gun (possibly autoloaded, it would also save manpower and thus give long term savings: the T62 autoloader in the URSS times saved 95 men from every tank regiment by removing the need for the gun loader man) and replace in the long term the CR2.

Another gap in UK’s sovereign capability is imagery and earth-observation satellites. Even Italy’s got its own COSMO-Skymed constellation, and France too.
The UK has been relying on US-supplied satellite imagery, but sincerely this seems a bit limited way to tackle the objective need for them.
A few months ago there were indications on the press that the government may be interested in creating a Skynet-like consortium for putting into orbit a UK-owned constellation of Earth Observation satellites.
Just like with the COSMO-Skymed, the idea was to fund it not with just defence money, since it would be used by civilian departments as well, and the excess of capability would be sold to users around the world just like unsued bandwidth with the Skynet.
The idea was admittedly fantastic and long due, and i hope the SDSR will not be an obstacle on this promising path, that hopefully the birth of the UK Space Agency will only make easier to follow.

Anyway, back to immediate needs, we all know most of them. New frigates, new oil tankers for the fleet, and such. The Army’s most urgent need, i will add, (after the replacement of Scimitar, since the ASCOD SV has been accorded precedence) however, is the replacement of the Saxon in the mechanized brigades.
Really, men, they are embarassing relics that even the oldest BTR vehicles of old soviet russia probably beat.
They would be great for Police against riots, but it is amazing that the army hasn’t yet got a replacement vehicle for them. The termination of FRES Utility was a major failure, ultimately. It is a requirement that can’t be ignored for too long still.

@RVF Harrier

This is the best reading i can suggest you about the studies made in relation to the now officially-dropped “Mighty O” replacement:
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/lphr.htm

Merit for that and all the other wonderful pages is Richard Beedall’s.

Well… if this is it, i’m actually relieved. I’d like to have more details, but my analysis of the matter is that the 5 Type 42 are out within 2013, as Beedall suggested. The Type 22 will follow, and this is already a bit of a blow… One navy commitment will have to go, definitely.
Hard to see what that could be… Operation Atalanta against somali pirates seems impossible to drop. Same goes for South Atlantic.
May it be the Caribean deployments that go…? It is the only one i can see happening with overall limited political/strategical consequences. That’s America’s front garden after all, so no real pressing need to deploy a ship there.
Of course, even so the navy will have an hard time having ships available for all the missions they load on it.

I still say that scrapping 8 Sandown would have been a less damaging move by far.
HMS Ocean not replaced. Sad and mad, but expected. We all have known it for quite a long time, and accepted that a CVF will have to do LPH work. Not excellent, but hey… if the Mighty O stays until the end of her life in 2018, so that there’s (hopefully) no big gap before PoW is operative, and the rest of the Amphibs is safe, it is not bad, overall, since the scenarios we have been looking at were massively worse.

I’m still not really sure, however, because of the “cutting Devonport” idea. If the amphibs are safe… Will they all go to Portsmouth? Is there adequate space and infrastructure for them all? I think there must be, since the base hosted a so far larger Royal Navy in the good ol’ times, but i must admit i’m not updated on this factor.

However, my personal observation (take it as my instinct, i’m no economist) is that closing the base will have a MASSIVE impact on economy in the area. The navy may do without Devonport, but Devonport will have a hard day from the navy moving out.

I wish to the Uk every fortune, but i’ll let you know my personal idea: when the cuts are delivered in full (not just those on defence), the enormous number of new unemployed people created by them and the business hit by them will drag the whole of the economy in a depressed state, with probable new recession. I hope the cut to the deficit will truly mean that the economy recovers faster, because next year i see a UK economy weak to say the least. The blows to come will be ferocious and vicious.

Back to military matters exquisitely.
I had already expressed doubts on the plan for 22 more Chinooks, and i see i wasn’t wrong.
Puma upgrade was also very vulnerable, and i was pretty sure we would have seen a decision of this kind…

I hope the Merlins still get navalized in decent timing, though: it is important to ensure they are a full joint instrument that the armed forces can use in any scenario. Otherwise, the Commandos in 5 years will be left without a single helicopter truly capable to go on ships, and that would be a major loss. The Apache, when it was brought with folding blades and other “naval” features, was a true BARGAIN. One of the smartest decisions EVER in MOD procurement.
For the future helicopters, this kind of measure should become the norm, to ensure they can used in any scenario.

As for reduction in RAF strike planes: it will be interesting to see what route is taken here. One month ago, i would have no doubts in saying that the RAF would have tried desperately to get rid of the Harriers to save as many Tornado as possible.
Now, with the Harriers probably being seen as the only bridge for both the navy and the RAF to get 70 F35B (70 being the number that Fox’s plan called for), it is likely that the RAF will be more “navy-friendly” and let the Harriers be.
Also because there are so few of them left by now that, pretty much, any further cut would spell the effective end of the whole fleet.
“Early” is also deceptive: in the run-up so far we have had “early” assuming values going from “within five years” to “2020, five years earlier than planned”.
To achieve real savings, i’d say the the “early” we are looking at is the first one.
At least, “Half” is better than losing ALL the Tornado fleet.

As to the army, i don’t know what to say.
I’ll have you know, i’m so fond of british forces that i’m certainly happy to hear that no armoured brigade will be lost.
BUT on the other side, i was deeply disappointed and pissed off by how the army has been facing this review. In the end, the only real partisan between the service is the army.
The Royal Navy again takes a blow of incredible violence upon its nape of the neck, and the RAF does not laugh either… I think the army could and should have been cut some, to ensure that less damage was made to the whole structure, personally.

Arguably, the 20th Brigade could have been disbanded with heavy armour put in storage, without excessive consequences.
The significant loss of helicopter mobility (once again!!!) and of strike fighters (not much for present time, but for the future, with the great reduction in F35 numbers) are a blow that causes a damage far greater than any effect the 20th Brigade will EVER sort in combat.

It would have hurt a lot less to lose a brigade of Challenger II than losing 68 F35B and all those choppers.
Also because, i fear, we’ll soon enough hear the army cry again about shortage of helicopters.

Overall, though, i hope this report is true, because it depicts a less dramatic situation than we risked seeing.
This, of course, provided that there are not other cuts that the report does not indicate.

Main good news that seem to emerge from the report:
-Carriers safe
-Amphibs mostly safe (HMS Ocean not replaced in 2018, but there will be PoW at least…!)
-Nimrod safe
-C130J safe (i hope so, i think they will still be needed a lot!)
-Not all Tornados to go
-Army to mostly retain its shape

Reports last week said HMS Endurance was about to be replaced with either leasing or acquisition of a younger Norwegian icebreaker, with service to start next year. Hopefully, it is true and will soon be confirmed.

Main bad news/uncertainties:

-Commando Helicopter Force at serious risk
-expected helicopter mobility to drop sharply: 60 Chinooks and 28 Merlins alone
-Navy to lose even more escorts, with consequent material incapacity to cover all of the current commitments
-Dramatic drop in availability of Strike aircrafts. 70 planes may grant the creation of 3 active squadrons, but certainly no more. Just enough to fill up one carrier at a time.
–Procurement? Rivet Joint and the drones of project Scavenger are going to come, or procurement will be frozen over entirely as “non-evident” additional cut?
–TRIDENT. Major nuts. Problem postponed to 2015, but pretty likely deemed to weight on the MOD budget in the future. Possible source of new, draconian cuts from 2015 onwards

In 1991 the Type 42 HMS Gloucester shined too, during Iraq war:

In February 1991 during the Gulf War the battleship USS Missouri, escorted by HMS Gloucester (carrying Sea Dart) and the USS Jarrett (equipped with Phalanx CIWS), was engaged by an Iraqi Silkworm missile (also known as a Seersucker). The Silkworm missile was intercepted and destroyed by a Sea Dart fired from Gloucester. During the same engagement, the Jarrett’s Phalanx 20 mm CIWS was placed in autoengagement mode and targeted chaff launched by the Missouri rather than the incoming missile. This engagement was the first validated, successful engagement of a missile by a missile during combat at sea, though the engagement was tail-end after the Silkworm had flown past the Gloucester.

That’s become famous!

What good can the RN do in Afghanistan? What did it add in Iraq, Bosnia, Croatia? In all those conflicts the Army was the major force. The RAF and RN are just support services for the army.

Misinformation of the worst kind.

Navy provided to Afghanistan:
-Deployment of Royal Marine Commandos Brigade for regular 6 month tours.
-The Marines were the first into Afghanistan, coming from HMS Ocean. They also introduced in theatre the Vicking vehicle, that became so popular that the army sent drivers from Royal Tank Regiment to the Marines for training on the Vicking.
When the first 6 month tour in Afghanistan ended for the Marines, they handed their Vickings to the army, and kept maintaining them and training army pilots. Ultimately, the army was so delighted with the Vickings that ordered the similar but larger Warthog.
-The royal navy supplies flights of Sea King ASaC for radar reconnaissance over Afghanistan
-Royal Navy divers have become specialists in anti-IED work
-Special Boat Service operatives have been operating on chase with the SAS
-Fleet Air Arm supplies the helicopters and crews of the Commando Helicopter Force
-800 and 801 Naval Air Squadrons supplied crews for the Harriers GR9 that were so precious in the battle zone

And so along. The Royal Marines paid in blood for their presence, too. I’ll remind you that even the 300th victim in Afghanistan was a Commando.
Royal Marines are NAVY.
Is that enough for you? What else should have they done? Put wheels under the keel of Type 22 frigates and used them on land…? Get your facts straight.

And go back to 2003 and get updated on Navy and Marines contribution to Iraq too. You’ll be surprised.
-Tomahawk launches from submarines
-transport of the army forces in the area with Point class ro-ro ships. Extraction of army at the withdrawal moment again with Navy ships.
-Royal Marines stormed the Iraqi Al-Fawl peninsula to capture oil rigs before they could be destroyed.
-Royal Marines were large part of the forces deployed in Iraq.

Idem for Bosnia:
-Sea Harrier patroled the sky under NATO command from the navy carriers
-HMS Sceptre was the first Uk unit firing in line launching Tomahawks
and so along

Sierra Leone saw HMS Ocean and other Navy ships in action, in support of Operation Barras too, with the hostages extracted being brought to RFA Sir Percivale.
RN supplied for the Sierra Leone crisis:

from wikipedia

In support of the effort a number of Royal Navy assets were diverted:

* HMS Illustrious with elements of 801 NAS, 899 NAS and No. 3 Squadron RAF embarked. HMS Illustrious and her task group, Task Group 342.1, had been on Exercise Linked Seas and the group was diverted.[1]
* RFA Fort George
* HMS Ocean
* HMS Argyll
* HMS Chatham
* RFA Fort Austin
* RFA Sir Bedivere
* RFA Sir Tristram

Illustrious and Fort George had been diverted from NATO exercises in the Bay of Biscay, with RAF aircraft embarked for the exercise. Aircraft of both No. IV Squadron and 801 Naval Air Squadron made a number of patrols in support of the mission.

In addition, RN provides Nuclear Deterrence 365 days a year, Fishery Protection, with over 1100 ships searched every year, continuous surveillance of the Gulf to keep the oil for you car reaching the UK, anti-drug patrols in the caribean, protection of the Falklands, mapping for the sea bed and of the sea lanes so merchant ships don’t ran aground on uncharted obstacles, provides SAR coverage service, carries out policy of presence around the world, shows the flag and keeps relationship with allies all around the world, last year sending surface warships as far as Japan.

So, PLEASE, reason and get informed before you say idiocies.

The army’s top brass is the worst threat to UK security at the moment, is the comment i can give to this news from my observation point outside the UK.

If they win, UK will be an island with an irrilevant army stuck on a rock in the middle of the sea.
An army that will be able merely to contribute to “America’s Wars” as many like to call them. Exactly the opposite of what everyone is hoping for the future of the forces. And to contribute only to medium scale ops, i will add, since numbers will still be too small for anything else, and there will be too few heavy armor for high end warfighting.

The proposal to buy F35A is total nonsense if not all-out madness, of all things. Who was crazy enough to put it forwards? Ol’ Richard Dannatt?
“One carrier only, for training purpose and in extended readiness only” It is the greatest piece of bull**** i ever found in my life.

And people contests admirals and their love for aircraft carriers…? At least they live in the real world!
I’m astonished by this madness.

Hopefully the economy will have recovered, but that does not mean it will translate into any more F35 orders does it? I don’t get the impression that Green Dave cares that much about defence, beyond getting Britain out of Afghanistan by 2015. Capabilities lost will not be restored.

This is unfortunately most likely very, very, very true.

The MOD will try to restore some of what it loses, but it will have to do so within a budget that will stay limited and insufficient, if not even smaller.
So it won’t have that much space of maneuver… And its enemies will be able to say: “You did without that for years, you can continue to do without that.”

And the worst is that it is not really a “Dave” or “Nick” or anyone else problem, but a general trend that continues from years and that undoubtedly will continue in the future too.
That’s why it is double important to save as much as possible in this SDSR. What’s lost, most likely is lost definitively.

Not the same, of course, for the only one special budget, International Aid. And not so for all the other budgets either. But for defence…? No one cares, it seems.