The long awaited Strategic Defence Review was unveiled on Monday. It is probably to be expected that an incoming government would want to highlight the shortcomings of its predecessor, and by implication the SDR does so. More importantly, however, was the fact that the previous government had started to make the right decisions on defence but seemed unable to get them implemented. It is vital that this government grips the Whitehall and MOD machinery to ensure that the very necessary reforms called for in the SDR are delivered. To avoid a repetition of the extensive coverage already in the media, Commentary will limit its observations to a few salient points.
Money
There has been plenty of commentary on the rather meagre amount of funding which is available to underpin a long list of aspirations and ‘commitments’. The perennial Westminster game of what other departments will have their funding cut to pay for the inevitable increase in defence spending that will be needed, has already begun.
The government may yet find itself embarrassed at the forthcoming Hague NATO summit, when its expenditure forecast is set alongside those of other members of the Alliance, who have already increased their level of expenditure beyond 3 %. The UK cannot credibly claim to be a leader in NATO when others are spending more, and are scaling up their military capability.
The SDR reads like a prospectus making the case to the wider public of why the country needs to embark on this process of reform and re-armament. The prime minister and the chancellor may need to repeat this litany in the weeks to come, as the need for increased tax revenue becomes more urgent. The imminent spending review will be a test case of this.
Credibility
As the world reacts to the recent drone attacks launched by Ukraine in ‘operation spiderweb’ the MOD needs to ensure that it is placing its bets on the right kind of capability. But it also needs to ensure availability now. The well chronicled lack of availability of surface ships, submarines, fast jet training all testify to the extent to which the additional funds are needed to back fill the front line capability the UK needs now, even before it can begin to address the expected up lift in capability.
The lengthy timeline set out in the SDR by when the UK will have a battle ready force can only be justified if the analysis that Putin’s forces will not have re-equipped themselves after the effect of the Ukraine campaign prove to be accurate. Putin has other options he can pursue, notably in the grey zone of hybrid activities, to keep us on our toes. Other hostile actors will have taken note of the timelines set out in the SDR, and may draw their own conclusions.
Industry
Before the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, in February 2022, the UK was very close to losing its capacity to build the NLAWS anti-tank guided missile that proved to be so crucial in stopping the Russian attack on Kyiv, and stalling the progress of the Russians in the east. The depleted state of our ammunition stockpile has been well covered. This was due to the lack of orders from the MOD for the munitions needed to repel a modern military force.
Recapitalising our armed forces and ensuring they can sustain a prolonged campaign is now a priority. Industry has long been calling for a sharpened up acquisition process, but it too must ensure that it can deliver on time and on budget. The SDR addresses this and the new National Armaments Director will be kept busy ensuring that the customers and the contractors are talking to each other.
The jobs created in the defence sector are mostly highly skilled and well paid. New technology and the advent of AI etc do not reduce the need for weapons to be effective. Moreover, the UK needs to be thinking about the export potential of existing systems, as well as looking for partnerships in new technology such as drones. Industry can learn a lot from their counterparts in Ukraine, but have so far been reluctant to engage with them.
Skills
The SDR calls for innovation in weapons capability and reform of the acquisition process. The last prime minister called for the UK’s defence sector to be put onto a war footing in January 2024, but the time lag for this to happen is still with us. Hitherto the pronouncements from the MOD on reform efforts have seemed to be lacklustre. Rather like a stroppy child being obliged to do some house work, “Okay, if you say so…..” The prime minister needs a Churchillian ‘action this day’ stamp to endorse the secretary of states’ Defence Investment Plan.
The government has already identified the defence sector as a growth driver in its industrial strategy, published in October 2024. To ensure that the ‘always on’ capability called for in the SDR can be delivered will need much more co-operation between the MOD and the defence sector. The workers who will be delivering this new capability are still at school or college. Industry and government must step up their efforts to attract people into work in the defence sector, as well as the adjacent sectors of aerospace and IT. This requires the Department for Education and Skills to direct its efforts to providing more teachers who can deliver the STEM subjects needed. Simply ‘committing’ to create new jobs across the UK won’t make it happen unless there is the skills base to deliver them.
The Government and Industry need to revisit the apprenticeships schemes, to ensure that the criticisms raised about the apprenticeships levy are ironed out. It will also mean that government must ensure that the six new munitions factories needed to support its ambition to have a well-supplied stock of ammunition do not get wrapped up in local authority nimbyism.
People
The fact that the government has had to set aside some £1.5 bn of additional funding to improve service family accommodation is simply shocking. The military devotes a great deal of effort to train its personnel to crew and operate some of the most sophisticated systems on earth, and expects them to live in mouldy homes. This is penny-pinching of the worst kind. The MOD has tended to take a lackadaisical approach to the way it treats both serving personnel and veterans.
The modern economy in the UK is characterised by a shortage of personnel across all sectors. The choices people make about the careers they embark upon after full time education differ from previous generations. Jobs for life no longer exist, as technology replaces humans in many areas of the world of work. Both the services and the MOD need to recognize that unless their ‘offer’ to young people is attractive, they won’t even be considered.
To fulfil the long list of recommendations set out in the SDR will need people. Whether it be in nuclear engineering, welding, developing drones or AI programmes, the battlefield of tomorrow will still need humans as the deciding factor. Money is needed for salaries and pensions, as well as accommodation. It is also needed to fund training and exercises. By exercising with allies around the world, the UK exerts its defence diplomacy to further the aims of the government. But this costs money. There must be no more penny-pinching when it comes to training opportunities, particularly live firing which enables our armed forces to have confidence in their equipment.
Resilience
To deal with the new threat paradigm, the UK must be resilient. Some readers may recall the Home Service Force which was created in the 1980s to deal with the threat from Warsaw pact saboteurs. A modern version of this force, as called for in the SDR, is to be welcomed. It brings home to the general public the fact that the new era may see sabotage and other disruption to our way of life, such as the recent cyber-attacks on supermarkets. Policy makers need to have a grown up conversation with the public about the realities of the modern world. The recent fire at Heathrow airport shows us all just how brittle our way of life is, and how easily it can be disturbed.
Deterrence doesn’t just exist on the front line, it needs to encompass a resilient society that can withstand Hybrid attacks, and continue with life as near normal as circumstances allow. Our democracy revolves around such ideas as a social contract and policing by consent. If the public are to buy into some of the ideas set out in the SDR, and be asked to pay more in their taxes, they must believe that our society and way of life is worth defending.
Commentary will continue to monitor how the SDR works out in the weeks to come……
Nick Watts
07714 246478