Strategic Defence Review (SDR)
Defence UK welcomes today's announcement by the Prime Minister and the SDR rhetoric on 'warfighting readiness' against the 'deadly quartet' of Russia, Iran, China and North Korea, and the underpinning plans for 12 new submarines, 11 new frigates, 6 munitions factories, expansion of our cadets and homeland defence, and nuclear-capable F-35A fighters, in what is clearly Britain's most significant nuclear posture shift since the Cold War. These measures all closely align with Defence UK's 2024 manifesto recommendations.
However, critical gaps in funding and timelines remain. Specific procurement decisions delayed until autumn, while 3% GDP spending comes with familiar escape clauses that undermine capability development and Defence Industry self-investment.
Britain's defence reviews consistently suffer from resource-capability failures that are repeated here: Strong rhetoric without detailed funding commitments. Several announcements also repackage existing programmes by the MoDs own admission, such as the submarine commitment from AUKUS, and the Nuclear Warheads programme.
The security of the United Kingdom demands more than aspirational targets hedged with fiscal get-out clauses.
- Statement by the Directors of Defence UK Ltd
(2nd June 2025)
There is a right way and a wrong way……
Back in the 1990s this author was part of the defence policy working group of one of this country’s main political parties. As is usual practice we had several senior officers come to advise us on defence policy and one of them (4-star general( retired) described how defence policy used to be (and should be) made.
It starts with the politicians stating what, in general strategic terms, they would like the country to be able to do and be protected against. The military would then consider this and come back with a list of the assets needed to achieve these aims and their likely cost. The politicians would then look alarmed and say “That is too expensive” and they would go away and re-consider their ambitions. They would come back to the table with more modest proposals and the military would go away and consider these. So, it was a dialogue between the politicos and the military, an iterative process which eventually arrived at an acceptable compromise between the desirable and the affordable. That is how it should be done.
The said 4-star general then went on to say how defence policy should not be done. Two extremes in fact. One is to say “We need such-and-such a capability, regardless of cost.” The other is to say “We have this much money to spend on defence – go away and spend it as you think fit.” Neither of these extremes matches resources properly with priorities. But at present the UK practices both of these undesirable extremes at the same time! The nuclear deterrent, 4 big submarines armed with Trident 2 missiles will be built regardless of cost. £3bn per submarine initially, now £8bn each, maybe more. It’s too late to change now, of course. Meanwhile the conventional forces get whatever is left, this much money, go away and spend it as the forces think fit.
The reader will notice there is no mention of percentages of GDP here. When you define defence policy in terms of “we will spend X% of GDP on defence”, that is simply a re-iteration the second of the bad ways of doing defence policy. It is detached from military and strategic reality. For example, this author is worried about the security of Northern Norway. Should the Russians overrun this area, then Scotland will come within range of Russian fighters based there and the airspace and waters to the north of Scotland would become hostile, or at least contested, space. What do we do about this? Apart from the Scandinavians it will be Britain most threatened by a Russian conquest of Northern Norway.
These are the kinds of issues the politicians should be raising and demanding answers for. But there is no sign of any such dialogue taking place. There cannot be a dialogue unless the politicians start it but if they have no idea what they want then it is very hard to create a meaningful defence policy. Which is where, I fear, we are now.
Steve Coltman - Defence UK Director
(26 Feb 2025)
Defence UK Statement:
Properly Funded Armed Forces
We welcome the Prime Minister's announcement of increases to defence funding and agree with him that at this point the Government must prioritise defence over international development. However, we are concerned that the increases are not being phased in quickly enough. Defence requires long lead times both for manufacture and supply of equipment and for the recruitment and training of military personnel. In view of the current world situation, moving to 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2027 and 3% by 2034 is not going far or fast enough. We hope that the soon-to-be-completed Strategic Defence Review by Lord Robertson and his panel will recommend a much more ambitious plan and budget for Britain's Armed Forces.
Andrew Smith, CEO, Defence UK Ltd
(26 February 2025)
Defence UK Statement:
Trump, Ukraine and NATO
We are deeply dismayed by comments in the past week by President Trump and key members of the new US Administration regarding the Russia-Ukraine War, and their proposed reduction in the US military budget and withholding of US aid to Ukraine.
Any 'deal' with Russia which removes President Zelensky, and hands large swathes of Ukrainian territory to Russia, would not be a true peace. It would be peace without honour - a shameful and dishonourable betrayal of our Ukrainian allies.
NATO rightly sees Ukraine as the West's front line against Russian aggression. If Ukraine falls to the regime of former Soviet KGB officer Vladimir Putin, Russia will be emboldened to launch further military action against European countries.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron are right to call on the United States government to stand with Ukraine at this critical time and not to give in to demands from the Russian dictator. But the UK and Europe are not doing enough to support Ukraine or to strengthen our own defences.
Now is the time for a significant increase in the resourcing of our Armed Forces, and for a renewed determination to resist rogue states such as Russia and China. The alternative is Appeasement, and we know where that road leads - not to lasting peace but to the certainty of yet more conflict.
Andrew Smith, CEO, Defence UK Ltd
(21 February 2025)
DEFENCE UK STATEMENT ON BUDGET '24Defence UK welcomes the increase in defence funding announced today (30 October) in the Chancellor's Budget statement, but we are concerned that the increase will not be sufficient to plug longstanding gaps in the nation's defences and repair the damage done by years of cutbacks in our military. The Government claims that protecting the British people is its first priority but if this is so why is the budget for welfare, health and social services ten times bigger than the budget for Defence of the Realm? We need a new commitment by ministers to ensure that our Armed Forces are given the priority they deserve and that our country needs. Today's announcement is a start but nowhere near enough.
- Andrew Smith, CEO, Defence UK Ltd
Defence UK welcomes today's announcement by the Prime Minister and the SDR rhetoric on 'warfighting readiness' against the 'deadly quartet' of Russia, Iran, China and North Korea, and the underpinning plans for 12 new submarines, 11 new frigates, 6 munitions factories, expansion of our cadets and homeland defence, and nuclear-capable F-35A fighters, in what is clearly Britain's most significant nuclear posture shift since the Cold War. These measures all closely align with Defence UK's 2024 manifesto recommendations.
However, critical gaps in funding and timelines remain. Specific procurement decisions delayed until autumn, while 3% GDP spending comes with familiar escape clauses that undermine capability development and Defence Industry self-investment.
Britain's defence reviews consistently suffer from resource-capability failures that are repeated here: Strong rhetoric without detailed funding commitments. Several announcements also repackage existing programmes by the MoDs own admission, such as the submarine commitment from AUKUS, and the Nuclear Warheads programme.
The security of the United Kingdom demands more than aspirational targets hedged with fiscal get-out clauses.
- Statement by the Directors of Defence UK Ltd
(2nd June 2025)
There is a right way and a wrong way……
Back in the 1990s this author was part of the defence policy working group of one of this country’s main political parties. As is usual practice we had several senior officers come to advise us on defence policy and one of them (4-star general( retired) described how defence policy used to be (and should be) made.
It starts with the politicians stating what, in general strategic terms, they would like the country to be able to do and be protected against. The military would then consider this and come back with a list of the assets needed to achieve these aims and their likely cost. The politicians would then look alarmed and say “That is too expensive” and they would go away and re-consider their ambitions. They would come back to the table with more modest proposals and the military would go away and consider these. So, it was a dialogue between the politicos and the military, an iterative process which eventually arrived at an acceptable compromise between the desirable and the affordable. That is how it should be done.
The said 4-star general then went on to say how defence policy should not be done. Two extremes in fact. One is to say “We need such-and-such a capability, regardless of cost.” The other is to say “We have this much money to spend on defence – go away and spend it as you think fit.” Neither of these extremes matches resources properly with priorities. But at present the UK practices both of these undesirable extremes at the same time! The nuclear deterrent, 4 big submarines armed with Trident 2 missiles will be built regardless of cost. £3bn per submarine initially, now £8bn each, maybe more. It’s too late to change now, of course. Meanwhile the conventional forces get whatever is left, this much money, go away and spend it as the forces think fit.
The reader will notice there is no mention of percentages of GDP here. When you define defence policy in terms of “we will spend X% of GDP on defence”, that is simply a re-iteration the second of the bad ways of doing defence policy. It is detached from military and strategic reality. For example, this author is worried about the security of Northern Norway. Should the Russians overrun this area, then Scotland will come within range of Russian fighters based there and the airspace and waters to the north of Scotland would become hostile, or at least contested, space. What do we do about this? Apart from the Scandinavians it will be Britain most threatened by a Russian conquest of Northern Norway.
These are the kinds of issues the politicians should be raising and demanding answers for. But there is no sign of any such dialogue taking place. There cannot be a dialogue unless the politicians start it but if they have no idea what they want then it is very hard to create a meaningful defence policy. Which is where, I fear, we are now.
Steve Coltman - Defence UK Director
(26 Feb 2025)
Defence UK Statement:
Properly Funded Armed Forces
We welcome the Prime Minister's announcement of increases to defence funding and agree with him that at this point the Government must prioritise defence over international development. However, we are concerned that the increases are not being phased in quickly enough. Defence requires long lead times both for manufacture and supply of equipment and for the recruitment and training of military personnel. In view of the current world situation, moving to 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2027 and 3% by 2034 is not going far or fast enough. We hope that the soon-to-be-completed Strategic Defence Review by Lord Robertson and his panel will recommend a much more ambitious plan and budget for Britain's Armed Forces.
Andrew Smith, CEO, Defence UK Ltd
(26 February 2025)
Defence UK Statement:
Trump, Ukraine and NATO
We are deeply dismayed by comments in the past week by President Trump and key members of the new US Administration regarding the Russia-Ukraine War, and their proposed reduction in the US military budget and withholding of US aid to Ukraine.
Any 'deal' with Russia which removes President Zelensky, and hands large swathes of Ukrainian territory to Russia, would not be a true peace. It would be peace without honour - a shameful and dishonourable betrayal of our Ukrainian allies.
NATO rightly sees Ukraine as the West's front line against Russian aggression. If Ukraine falls to the regime of former Soviet KGB officer Vladimir Putin, Russia will be emboldened to launch further military action against European countries.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron are right to call on the United States government to stand with Ukraine at this critical time and not to give in to demands from the Russian dictator. But the UK and Europe are not doing enough to support Ukraine or to strengthen our own defences.
Now is the time for a significant increase in the resourcing of our Armed Forces, and for a renewed determination to resist rogue states such as Russia and China. The alternative is Appeasement, and we know where that road leads - not to lasting peace but to the certainty of yet more conflict.
Andrew Smith, CEO, Defence UK Ltd
(21 February 2025)
DEFENCE UK STATEMENT ON BUDGET '24Defence UK welcomes the increase in defence funding announced today (30 October) in the Chancellor's Budget statement, but we are concerned that the increase will not be sufficient to plug longstanding gaps in the nation's defences and repair the damage done by years of cutbacks in our military. The Government claims that protecting the British people is its first priority but if this is so why is the budget for welfare, health and social services ten times bigger than the budget for Defence of the Realm? We need a new commitment by ministers to ensure that our Armed Forces are given the priority they deserve and that our country needs. Today's announcement is a start but nowhere near enough.
- Andrew Smith, CEO, Defence UK Ltd
