A lot so summarise and it's a summary anyway. I'll comment on a point or two.
The UK's 'Global Britain' ambition is at risk, with the military facing severe cutbacks and equipment shortages leaving the nation ill-prepared for growing global conflicts.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk
The Type 31 is also hopefully safe, although the follow-up Type 32 programme could now be further at risk or delayed well into the future as it’s unlikely to be considered a priority by the new government. Likewise, the proposed Type 45 replacement (Type 83 destroyers) are nothing more than an idea on a drawing board in reality, meaning they could also face the axe.
Mostly agree. The Type 32 requirement is uncertain, with some expecting it to be just a Type 31 Batch 2. Some have angled it as a drone mothership. If that's the case, and if (yes, two ifs in one sentence, so take with abundant salt) the MRSS is much like Steller Systems' Fearless concept (below), which has significant drone support capability, the Type 32 as drone support becomes redundant. The number of frigates though needs to increase, so Type 32 may likely be Type 31 Batch 2, maybe just not as many as planned.
Note this too:
Efforts are being made in conjunction with the Department of Business and Trade to support export campaigns for the Type 31 Frigate.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk
The Type 45
will need to be replaced and while the Type 83 is an idea at this stage, it's requirement is imperative for fleet defence - especially ballistic missile defence. How much capacity do the Type 45s have for upgrades in capability?
Tempest/GCAP may face further delays, with anticipated entry to service currently set for 2035. However, this relies as much on the UK’s internal politics as it is on the two significant collaborators, Japan and Italy.
Actually I'm fairly confident about GCAP. There may be delays (almost certainly), but without second-guessing the review, the Starmer government has repeated expressed commitment to it. Again, it's needed, and as an international project with attendant political commitments, and with Japan at least very much in need of it to counter China, backtracking is very unlikely.
The Johnson government wanted to prioritise space and cyber over the army on the rationale that as a Western European island nation, ground-based defence was less of a priority - not considering obligations with allies and force projection. Possibly the review will have similar priorities if they have to choose between the awful and the catastrophic.
My guess is that the army will lose the most.
Note also point 3 in my previous post - recruitment is targeting cyber specialists.