In a recent exchange in the House of Commons, Sir Iain Duncan Smith raised concerns about the UK’s defence capabilities in light of increasing global threats, particularly from China, Russia, and Iran.
He pointed out that one Chinese shipyard is currently outbuilding the entire United States naval capability, drawing attention to the growing challenges faced by the UK and its allies.
Duncan Smith asked Defence Secretary John Healey whether he would advise the Prime Minister to ensure that the UK’s defence spending reaches 2.5% of GDP, highlighting the urgency of addressing the escalating security risks.
The question referenced Lord Robertson’s upcoming assessment, which is expected to outline the most significant threats since the Cold War.
In his response, Healey reaffirmed the government’s commitment to national defence, stating that the Prime Minister does not need persuasion on the country’s primary responsibility: the defence of the realm. “The duty and the first duty of any government and this government is to defend the country and keep our citizens safe,” Healey stated. He also pointed to the ongoing Strategic Defence Review (SDR), which is set to address these issues in more detail.
Despite the Defence Secretary’s assurances, Duncan Smith’s question underscored the growing concerns about the UK’s position relative to other global powers, particularly with the rapid expansion of China’s naval forces.
The anticipated findings of the SDR, externally led by Lord Robertson, are expected to provide crucial insights into the strategic direction of the UK’s military capabilities. Healey, however, pointed out that it is his role to oversee the successful delivery of the SDR and assured MPs that the Prime Minister is fully aware of the stakes.
The Review
The UK government is conducting a Strategic Defence Review (SDR) to assess military readiness and capabilities in response to global security challenges. Central to the review is the evaluation of the UK’s defence spending, especially as the country works towards meeting the 2.5% GDP target. The SDR also aims to address the evolving threats posed by nations like Russia and China and to ensure the UK’s military is prepared for modern conflicts.
A key focus of the SDR is identifying gaps in military infrastructure, modernising the armed forces, and improving deterrent capabilities. With Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and China’s growing naval presence, the UK aims to strengthen its role within NATO and ensure its defences are capable of responding to emerging threats.
Alongside military capabilities, the SDR will look at long-term procurement and defence technology strategies, with an emphasis on areas like cyber capabilities and artificial intelligence. Ensuring the UK’s armed forces are equipped with the right technology to stay competitive is a top priority, though successful implementation will depend on effective use of resources.
Personnel issues are also a key concern, with a focus on recruitment and retention of skilled service members. The government has pledged to improve conditions for military personnel, but the effectiveness of these measures remains to be seen. Finally, the SDR will consider the UK’s role in global partnerships, particularly with NATO allies and non-member countries in regions like the Indo-Pacific.
At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
“A key focus of the SDR is identifying gaps in military infrastructure, modernising the armed forces, and improving deterrent capabilities.”
Same old. “Modernising” happens all the time, you don’t need an SDSR to modernise.
Not one of those three stated aims will deal with the real issues, which are mismanagement, a budget that goes on the MIC more than the military, and lack of assets so what left is burned out, and overstretched.
Every single SDSR makes cuts to enable “modernisation” as if the two are magically linked.
That old chestnut is wearing a bit thin, HMG.
The forces need more assets.
We have been making cuts to one thing or another to fund modernisation since the 1600’s
Otherwise we would still have battlecruisers and first rates and we would be spending 100% of GDP on defence,
I don’t think it’s unreasonable for labour to conduct a defence review given we have not had a real defence review since 98.
If an argument for more funding is to be successful with the treasury and the public that have to pay for it, it needs to be based on evidence.
Too much since 2019 has been done on the fly based on the whims of the particular PM and DS of the time and everything done between 2010 and 2019 was carried out on a pure desire to cut the defence budget to pay for the foreign aid budget.
Very true that SDSR 97 was a proper review.
Pity the conventional forces that it required where never implemented.
I hope SDSR 25 does not go the same way.
Yes, having a review for strategic direction, funding, posture, allocation of resources is not the issue, it is linking it to modernising.
You could have no review at all and an army armoured vehicle should still be replaced with a newer model as the original comes to the end of its service life.
No review is necessary, just proper planning and the 7 Ps!
They link cuts to it every time and we are all sick to the back teeth of it.
I agree however at some point you need a Defence review to ask if you still need armoured vehicles in much the same way we had to ask if we still needed horses or archers.
We still have horses and archers just not many of them although apparently Wellington asked if it was possible to bring them back before Waterloo on account of the greater volume of fire from the long bow vs the musket.
Is that so?! Didn’t know that.
I think it was mentioned in the book Azincourt, by Bernard Cornwell. At least that’s where I read it.
Apparently someone told him that it took a decade to train a good archer, and so he gave up.
Always heard that is why football was banned as it distracted the young men from their national duty of learning to perfect the bow and build the muscles. Always reluctant to bring up these things as far too often they turn out to be urban legend. Mind you it would account for why the Welsh were so good at archery and so poor at football. 🤐
We still had some horses in front line units in ww2, took a while to fully move to vehicles. They were just cheaper.
virtually the entire German Wehrmacht logistics were run on horses, didn’t stop them taking over Europe.
A very good point. The image of Blitzkrieg, tanks and half tracks was only true regards the Panzer and Panzer Grenadier ( previously motorised) Divisions.
But a small part of the Wehrmacht.
Yeah, even the tanks used in the initial blitzkriegs were pretty inadequate, French and British tanks were bigger and tougher but I suppose taking the initiative with superior tactics and confidence can take you a long way.
Ha. The Pz 1s and Pz2s, with a handful of short barrel Pz3s.
And they used mass in key points.
And the training.
And the aggression.
And the airpower.
Absolutely Daniele, tactics and its application were streets ahead especially combined planning with AirPower. The infantry had aggression and initiative, similar to Julius Caesar’s Gaul campaign, and they beat superior forces and defences. To be fair, you have advantages when you take the initiative as it’s all attack, whereas the BEF was a defensive force waiting to be attacked. Shows even in tank design, fast lightly armoured German versus slow heavily armoured French and British.
I don’t believe there is any reliable source for the “ wellington longbow story”..like any well read clever military man of his time he would have understood the limiting factor around longbows and why the transition had occurred..the longbow is a profoundly better battlefield weapon than the smoothbore black powered musket..but it takes a lifetime of training and constant practice to master…a musket takes a few drill sessions.
This is really interesting. By Waterloo indeed the Peninsular Campaign the Baker rifle was common which was accurate and could fire 2+ shots per minute. It was renowned in the hands of sharpshooters and was a prominent reason for the success of the British Army at that time with lessons learned from the American war of Independence when few such weapons were available. Now the Long bow is a tough one, while around 12 shots a minute have been mentioned some experts claim a heavier bow would be around 6 a minute though 3 a minute would still have won at Agincourt it has been claimed. 10:a minute would have used up an archers carried arrows within 5 minutes while accuracy was somewhat random at distance. Don’t know what effective range of the two is mind but a rifle will have a big advantage while leaving the soldier less vulnerable to rival rifle fire, longbows were only really effective en masses leaving them a sitting target for artillery which the French used effectively.
Find it difficult to believe that Wellington would seriously have bemoaned not having archers generally, they would soon be countered in the early 1800s (as they were originally which led to their demise) but one might consider in a particular scenario he might have thought they might be valuable more through lack of a better alternative if from well defended positions perhaps behind a brow of a hill against massed formed up attacks as did happen on occasion and did at Waterloo where that well defended position on a hill existed and waves of attackers were attacking his positions and thus a ‘mortar’ effect could perhaps be effective as the pressure grew. He did lack artillery and there has been some criticism of his use of it indeed, and I don’t know considering over half his troops were not British, how well they were armed and indeed with what. But if he said it I can imagine it only being with a laconic, or ironic tone in a moment of massive sustained pressure as happened at Waterloo when something unexpected could have been useful in the moment..
It’s a fair point Jim. I’ll differ judgement to SDR 2025!
Hi Daniele. I’d like to see them start using commentary around things like “expansion” “increasing” , and “enlarge”.
I think they cannot bring themselves to ever say that, despite Healey saying the forces are hollowed out.
I agree the disarmament wing is still strong so as with so much else, like just today on green energy, it’s all nuanced and substance lacking so as not to offend and start a row. Trouble is you can take as much or little as you want from it all, or just fall asleep.
Well said Daniele
In the same way the US was able to out build every other nation in WW2, it is highly likely that in any prolonged conflict, China could now do the same.
within 72 hours of war i imagine china’s shipbuilding industry would be in ruins thanks to JASSM, dark eagle and tomahawks. world war 2 would have been completely different had the japanese or germans had things like cruise missiles or precision bombs dropped by long range stealth bombers. a lot of people seem to forget that when they look at these production numbers… the US may yet outproduce china in an actual war if they do well keeping the chinese out of the atlantic (this should probably be what the RN focuses on during that conflict instead of going all the way to the south china sea). but i suspect any major war involving the US to be a relatively quick affair before the enemies logistics are dried up (not counting stuff like insurgency) just due to how effective US long range strike platforms and intel is.
Interesting take, probably true now but in 20 years? Probably not on current relative tangents and technology developments.
The Germans of course did have early cruise missiles and indeed accurate radio controlled guided bombs late in the war, the latter sinking a concerning number of ships actually especially in the Italian landings. Sadly for them it was far too late to make any difference, another few years of development would have been interesting especially if rockets are added to the mix. .
If building modern warships still involved sticking guns on big metal boxes I might be concerned.
Modern naval warfare is about nuclear submarines and airplanes and the US out builds China on both.
At the moment…
On submarines? You may be right but certainly around the original AUKUS submarine agreement I could have sworn that the outlook was that the US was struggling to match Chinese production, certainly by later this decade at the very least with no way to turn that deficit around for many years thereafter, it’s why giving subs to Australia was so controversial. Maybe they were just being alarmist.
The US has two distinct advantages in this field compared to Chia.
I think this is pretty much the only reason beyond them wanting even greater forces available, that they haven’t yet taken Taiwan and clearly is their reasoning for closer links to Russia. But they also have near exclusive control and/or much influence over some rare earth metals so not one sided. Clearly BRICS and the road and belt initiatives are designed to increase the stranglehold one way or another.
America reinventing itself as an enclosed island is going to eventually find ‘friendly’ suppliers around the World in self interest mode not making vital supplies available if it comes to not upsetting China. America’s power is not essentially through love of them, as some like to foster, but through seeing them as the winner and thus we better show mock respect. That’s rapidly changing, if in stealth mode presently and no overblown memes from MAGA can slow that down, indeed they will speed it up. At some point we risk hitting the fatality curve in World opinion away from America, indeed events in Africa and South America suggest that’s already in its early moments. The great hope perhaps only hope is that many countries will wake up (like the Philippines and Argentina have) that such deals are Faustian at best and a perceived arrogant West is better than what China and its acolytes will end up foisting on them.
SDR Conclusion. We Need a Bigger Navy!!!!!
Agreed but to do so Recruitment needs to be addressed has some ships stuck in port because of Manpower issues
Reviving nuclear fuel production, artillery barrel forging, project Brakestop, frigate builds, Boxer and Ajax…there’s a lot going on. If we can address the recruitment and retention issues 2025 will hopefully see things coming together. Time is pressing.
What are there to say?? obviously if Royal Navy fights China alone it will be defeated.
It depends on the circumstances, the UK armed forces are still very capable of conducting a distant blockade of Chinas energy imports from Diego Garcia, the Falklands and the Caribbean and China still has a very limited expeditionary or blue water naval capability to do much about it.
China would rapidly lose any war where its energy imports were cut.
Something the Chinese government is well aware of and refers to the Malacca Problem.
Off course that’s rapidly changing and its unimaginable that the UK could find itself in a solo war with a land based power on the other side of the planet unless they start putting people in HK in concentration camps.
All depends on the scenario, as i suspect if China had a motivation to break any blockage it could easily overwhelm anything we could put to sea.
But yeah we would never fight them alone and realistically if we did fight China it would go nuclear very quickly anyway.
Yes this is most an exercise. UK do not have enough ships (it would have to be submarines) to start a blockade. So we are talking about 1 SSN in station.
One hope we do have is just how inexperienced Chinas forces are. When their UN contingent was tested in Africa/Middle East (sorry forgotten exact location) some years back it was humiliated by tribesmen. And of course the one child policy has limited manpower beyond what otherwise would have been scary. A Taiwan invasion or greater conflict with India might reveal more in that respect I guess.
No need for an SDR. The issues are well known and I can relay these to the SoS now if requested. The other stuff can be worked out behind the scenes.
“UKs position relative to other global powers”.
The UK is not a global power. Spending a limited budget on equipment that bolsters the illusion that we still are undermines our real defence needs.
The idea that raising the budget to 2.5% of GDP ( ie by between 15 and 20%} is going to put everything right and allow UK to match China is nonsense. At best it would fund a modest increase to numbers still substantially below those of even 25 years ago.
The reluctance of any party in office to commit irrevocably to even this modest increase shows that the chances of getting more are non existent.
What we can do is think much more carefully about exactly what we need to fund and where we really need to operate.
You could be right, I fear you are but equally even in the thirties re armament was done mostly by stealth because the anti war coalition was so powerful.
Now with the spotlights available to reveal anything controversial to make too big a deal on expansion, especially when we are so short of money for other things would be very stupid and raise endless controversy provoked by the usual suspects. So far better to talk big about the need, prepare the populace as much as possible, make things feel relatively mundane and do as much as possible without excessive and explicit publication. However that’s hope ove any real belief they are or will be doing that.
Immediate requirement – GBAD. Our military air and ground bases are almost all unprotected. No need to think too much about it – just do it.
The hypocrisy of the Tories questioning UK defence spending. They spent the past 14yrs cutting defence spending and our capability to fund their tax cuts.
Indeed and have made it far more expensive and urgent to change direction. Governance by 5 year terms and the thinking that generates is depressingly destructive. It’s not dissimilar now to debates about immigration to bring in the perceived work force and skills shortage without any reference to the fundamental and dramatic changes through robotics, ai and resulting technology that is going to totally transform the environment within 10 to 15 years when those decisions today could become a massive liability very quickly.
The Deep Fleet is also a concern.