The UK defence sector needs to move from a peacetime mindset to a “war footing” to seize emerging industrial opportunities, particularly as doubts grow over long-term reliance on the US defence industry, Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman told MPs.
In evidence to the Defence Committee on 1 April, Freedman responded to concerns raised by MP Alex Baker over reports of growing allied unease with the US—sparked in part by fears over an alleged “kill-switch” capability in the F-35 fighter jet.
Freedman is one of Britain’s foremost strategic thinkers and served as Professor of War Studies at King’s College London from 1982 to 2014. He was a key foreign policy adviser to successive UK governments and was appointed to the Iraq Inquiry panel in 2009. Known for his analysis of nuclear strategy, international conflict, and the evolution of military doctrine, his views continue to shape defence debates at the highest level.
“Yes, I hope so. It should do,” Freedman said when asked whether this shift in sentiment could benefit sovereign industrial efforts in the UK. He noted that US defence companies are aware of the reputational risks of locking allies out of their own capabilities, especially following the brief suspension of support to Ukraine.
But while this creates a window of opportunity for the UK and its European allies, Freedman cautioned that “a lot needs to be done” to address the underlying inefficiencies in defence procurement and industrial culture.
“Industry needs confidence that it will get the orders,” he said. “Unfortunately, we have got into a culture where industry does not come up with the ideas; it waits.”
The solution, according to Freedman, lies in a shift to emergency thinking. Drawing from his experience writing the official history of the Falklands War and the Iraq inquiry, he argued that “when you are in a sense of emergency, a lot of things happen quite quickly that otherwise would take months or even years.”
This shift must include faster procurement processes, fewer delays caused by requirement changes, and the willingness to invest in “mass”—such as drones and basic stockpiles—as opposed to high-end prestige projects alone. “We could not fight that sort of war at the moment,” he warned, referencing Ukraine’s daily munition usage.
Dr Alexandra de Hoop Scheffer, Acting President of the German Marshall Fund of the US, echoed Freedman’s assessment, but focused on the broader European challenge of fragmentation.
“Europe produces more types of tank than the entire rest of the world,” she told MPs. “It is just not working… it is not a question of money; it is a question of strategy.”
She called for EU institutions to take on a stronger role in facilitating joint industrial projects and speeding up defence manufacturing timelines, warning that timelines like 2030 or 2040 are too slow for the urgency of the current security environment.
“It is all about politics,” she added. “If we have fragmentation among our industries, it is because the politics of industrial dynamics is dominating and undermining our co-operation strategies.”
Both witnesses agreed that streamlining bureaucracy, improving stock levels, and empowering domestic and European industry would be essential for ensuring resilience—and autonomy—should US support ever become unreliable.
“Freedman is one of Britain’s foremost strategic thinkers”
You could almost ask a random bloke on the street these days and get the same point made, it has become so obvious. The question shouldn’t be what do we do, but how do we get it done. How to speed HMG and MOD by a factor of ten, that’s what we really need an expert for.
Everything I have read from him thus far has about as much insight as a guy down the pub.
What’s the obsession about Europe producing more than one weapon system. Off-course it does it’s not one country. Why should Germany, France or the UK have to give up sovereign capability because someone who is clearly past it thinks having one tank design will solve Europe’s defence issue. Does anyone think the US defence industry is something worth copying? Does anyone think Eurofighter or FCAS is something worth copying across the board for procurement. If we are merging our defence does that mean the UK and France no longer get to have a foreign policy? What’s the point in them being a country. NATO is an alliance not a government or a military, “experts” like this with stupid suggestions need to be treated appropriately.
We need to make it clear that European NATO already has all the men and equipment it could ever need to defeat a small weak opponent like Russia and stop this EU/NATO power grab to be one the USofE.
In all fairness Jim, that’s because the media gives Freedman sound bite sized time. When you read his in depth stuff, he is absolutely spot on and has seriously deep insight.
I’m not complaining at what he said, but that we are still asking the same questions and not digging further. Take the question of “streamlining bureaucracy”. That means different things to different people. There are a bunch of civil servants working their way through labyrinthine processess to get things done. It’s too slow. I think we all agree on that.
Do we A: fire a bunch of the civil servants, so there are fewer to work their way through the same processes.
Or B: reorganize the civil servants adding another layer of oversight to the processess by people with fancy new titles.
Or C: reorganise the processes to get rid of unnecessary work and oversight?
If you want A, vote Conservative
If you want B, vote Labour
So the Tory’s increased the civil service to an all time high under the last government and labour is committed to a 15% head count reduction in this parliament.
So where do you get your points from?
JOIN US Everybody can earn 250/h Dollar + daily 1K… You can earn from 8000-12000 Dollar a month or even more if you work as a part time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity.tab for more detail thank you…
COPY AND OPEN this_____ Www.HighProfit1.Com
Did you miss the point entirely, Jim? It doesn’t matter if they are destructive like Cameron, or reorganisers like Starmer. Both are failing strategies. Nobody is cutting the red tape! It’s a lot cheaper to halve the workload than double the civil service!
Google pay 92 every hour my last check was 8400 working 10 hours per week on the web. My more youthful sibling companion has been averaging 18k throughout recent months and he works around 24 hours per week. I cannot accept how simple it was once I attempted it out.This is my main thing……… WWW.WORKSTAR1.COM
I have made $180 reliably in one day.That was my ideal day in my life and my boss was to a great degree content with me..CNN is additionally awed from my work and is outstandingly happy..check also unpretentious parts by open the affiliation and tap on HOME TECH OR MEDIA……
HERE————➤ 𝗪𝘄𝘄.𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸𝟰𝟰.𝗖𝗼𝗺
Europe needs to get a common procurement process really. The issue with Europe is not the size of the armed forces in total, it’s the waste of duplicating procurement, MoD’s, high level (non operational) HQ’s (think Commander Land forces) but without Corps and Army Group formations or enablers. It’s also needing a military industrial strategy to give it mass to compete with American, Chinese and Russian exports on a global scale.
Also if you didn’t like the idea of a united Europe then we should have remained inside and veto’d it. So…. yeah, frankly I hope we do get a united Europe that can stand up to Russia and America.
Spot on Dern
News today, Chinese nationals, likely special forces operatives captured in Ukraine fighting for Russia on Ukrainian territory.
That’s embarrassing for China as the subterfuge is now fully removed. The lines of axis are drawn up and openly displayed.
It’s China, Russia, North Korea and Iran Vs the West.
mr bell, unfortunately the west looks like it no longer exists.. MAGA America does not see the west it sees the US, China and Russia dividing up the world in its own areas of interest.. Europe needs to suck it up and take on its own destiny as a superpower on that table.. or it becomes another Africa and South America.
Europe either goes one of 2 ways
1) it grasps the nettle of US, Chinese, Russian power politics and becomes a coherent superpower in its own right, with a cohesive foreign and defence policy to add to its cogent trade policy.. it then when its built up and ready looks Russia in the eyes and with 23% of the the worlds power and wealth asks russia as a small independent world power to “decide if it wants to fuck off out of Europes areas of influence or face the consequences of an ongoing war with a superpower” . It then needs to tell the US that if it wants to be friends it either plays strait or it’s a neutral relationship and finally form a friendly neutral relationship with China letting China know that if it keeps its nose out of the western Indian Ocean and Atlantic Europe will stay out of direct conflict in the pacific..but telling all three other powers to play nice and by European rules in Africa and the western Indian Ocean or face consequences.
2) stay fragmented, not have a cogent defence or foreign policy, fail to become a competing superpower and essentially become a wealthier nicer to live version of Africa ( not in control of its own destiny and essentially picked over by competing world powers ).
Within those 2 potential destinations the UK and Norway and Iceland, possibly Canada need to decide what sort of relationship they have with the developing superpowers.. because it’s becoming a superpower led world and at present none of them have the UKs or European interest anywhere on their agendas.
Hi Jonathan,
So true. Perception is strong. Though in reality, EU is far from a super power as we speak.
I believe we want to go beyond in the EU adventure. Thing is theire was a lot of powergrab that did alienate voters in recent years, may be leaning to much on local topics, like lgbtq, diversity laws, immigration open arms, stringent régulations, too open markets, too much fight against business concentration.
EU was going down in polls and if French people had received the right to vote on the matter, we would have had a frexit.
Though, people think we start to have more control, with leader’s speech more aligned with right and far right voters. A stronger political alignement from Afd or RN with Meloni´s views could be the kind of Trump moment deemed acceptable by elites, which would save the institutions. Right wing leader’s must also not overplay their cards and stay in the idea of reducing supranational régulations. Because in the end, EU citizens prefer to have a sort of EU army to safeguard the eastern border.
I agree but explain to me who is going to join up today ? The government has alienated it recruitment base in the UK, FROM A VETERAN !
It’s waffle ..
European rank production should not effect British procurement.
We build tanks,we build ships and aircraft..just get on with it .
I understand standardisation of weapons applications across Europe buts let’s get on with own patch .
We need another carrier battle group for home water approaches and yes typhoon production should be increased also.Perhaps marine and ground attack variants.
We have the production facilities.
Get on with it let’s do our thing.
A comprehensive British missile protection dome also.
I have made $180 reliably in one day.That was my ideal day in my life and my boss was to a great degree content with me..CNN is additionally awed from my work and is outstandingly happy..check also unpretentious parts by open the affiliation and tap on HOME TECH OR MEDIA…HERE————➤ 𝐖𝐰𝐰.𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝟓𝟒.𝐜𝐨𝐦
The government has alienated its recruitment base in the UK, young British men no longer rush to join our military, and that’s also down to wokey, lefty, and DEIs
British men don’t rush to join our military because they aren’t recruiting and, when they do recruit, the benefits are nowhere near what they once were. Military housing is all but gone, pension is no longer what it was, training isn’t as thorough, perks arent kept up to date with the modern world and when you leave to civi street you get no support. This isn’t the 1800s, nobody is joining for gravitas and a chance to go up a social class and it isn’t the 1950-1970s, privatisation has turned this country away from something worth defending and being proud of.
This is the truth.
The ‘politics of industrial dynamics’ is undermining co-operation. No kidding 😂
Yes I dont like the way things are going. I’m sure Tempest will come in for a massive load of tricks. Forewarned is forearmed.
Fully agree.
Also the UK has been a close ally, but that has also made the UK exceptionally exposed to the whims of the US, which today is a kindergarten – where the grown-ups have fled.
That means UK should make the security & defence pact with EU, Norway & Canada.
It also means that a war in the Pacific with UK participation has become less likely, while a war in Europe against Russia has become more likely, possibly without the support of the US. That has a lot of implications, as UKs military has to adapt & has to start working with EU on common arms projects, so we field one MBT, IFV, etc. The FCAS & Tempest should also be checked for if commonality can be found.
For nuclear, UK should consider sharing R&D with France on an equal basis, to reduce cost and reliance on the US. So an arrangement with France sharing R&D & blueprints, can cut costs of nuclear deterrent, while increasing independence.
That the current gov is refusing to extend the fishery agreement with EU is not taking the current
. the current situation seriously, but still letting Farage & the oligarch-controlled media set the UK’s policy.
Ideally, the UK changed to the less vulnerable PR election system, had a media reform, and turned on Brexit, as that was a policy made in a different reality. DK voted to enters EUs defence part in full, while Sweden & Finland joined NATO. Ireland likely to follow, while Iceland & Norway could join the EU. The UK should take it similarly seriously. Europe is on its own in a hostile world, and US may not return to its former self.
Also, we need to develop Europen arms, to replace MLRS, and other key US arms systems. UK companies can help, and we need to give more to MNDA & Thales, BAE. The days where UK fielded its own types of tanks should be over, as its cheaper if we buy one type for all of EUrope.
Agree with this!
I would suggest the Uk is the least exposed country primarily because of our close US relationship and broad network of other alliances. For instance it has been confirmed by HMG that the UK can independently operate F35 but no tier 2 or 3 partner can. It’s been confirmed that our SLBM can be independently operated for at least 10 years.
We are now in the position of having the lowest global tariff regime with USA,Pacific countries and EU.
Everyone else including USA is exposed way more than us.
We need to stop pretending we are weak, it’s Russian and Chinese propaganda amplified by the Nhilist British “intellectuals” and left leaning media.
👏👏👏
« close US relationship »: this is the past. With trump and that new world, UK Will matter to the us if it has something to offer, if not, it’s expendable.
We have plenty to offer which is why he gave us the lowest tariff rate of any US trading partner. That’s not the distant past that was Thursday.
Nope. Russia got the lowest Tarriff.
He did it because the UK is a servile, obedient little poodle – so got a little pat on the head 🤣
I’ll just make the point again about “CAPABILITY.” The UK must also develop key strategic capabilities, not just capacity.
For example, there is no point in having a warehouse full of drones that are instantly obsolete. The UK must develop its own Sovereign drone capability (design teams, software, hardware, comms etc.) and then turn on the mass production capacity as required. Ditto for heavy armour, aircraft, cyber, space, sea bed etc. Once capabilities are set-up, don’t then lose them by not have at least trickle funding/orders to retain them.
The biggest change required is for faster weapons development and production. Instead of spending years running trails and comparisons against competing weapon/equipment before deciding which equipment to fund/develop/purchase.
One of the current military talking heads made the point on a recent YouTube video that Ukraine is forced to change and adapt weapons in weeks rather than months due to changes on the battlefield.
Even looking back into our history during WW2, weapons were developed very quickly. Maybe a refresher of watching the 1970’s ‘Secret War’ documentary series with William Wollard and Professor RV Jones should be compulsory viewing. All available on YouTube.
This is why procurement needs to be taken away from uniformed personnel. They are unqualified and their career structure and the need for field and staff rotations is ill suited to having any input on multi decade procurement programs.
Only a series of idiots would have a 2000 page specification document for an off the shelf purchase of an armoured vehicle.
That’s a lawyers wet dream and any serious project managers nightmare.
The never ending four letter acronym programs are just a way to generate staff appointments and boost people’s CV’s before they go to civy street and try and get consultant gigs.
The UK is working hard on bi-lateral relationships. King Charles is in Italy. This follows state visits to Germany and France. These visits signify the official stamp on deals like Tempest, CR3, Boxer, joint FR-UK forces in Ukraine. Maybe we will buy M346 to replace Hawk; maybe we will develop Aeralis with France, or hypersonic successor to ASMP? Who knows, but these visits set the official seal on govt intent for significant joint deals.
And what will MP.s and government do about it? warm words , agree to look in to it. Hire more consultants and then hope it goes away.
In terms of MBTs, Europe currently has Challenger 2/3, Leclerc and various tweaked versions of the Leopard 2. Beyond that, there are various lighter vehicles used for e.g. armoured reconnaissance that fulfil a different role to the MBTs. Given that ‘Europe’ is in fact a couple of dozen countries with different security postures and requirements, I’d say it was remarkably harmonised in terms of equipment types.
…no?
Europe operates:
Challenger 2/3
Leclerc
Leopard 2 A4 through A8
Ariete
M1
K2
PT-91
TR-85
T-72
and soon KF-51 Panther will be added to that list.
And MBT’s is one of the *most* harmonised procurement lines in Europe.
Yes and some of them are really really Rubbish MBTs.. Italy is very good at building efficient effective warships very cheaply.. but it’s shite at building tanks for some reason.. always has been.
Ariete is not terrible, there aren’t really any Western Tanks that are.
It’s just, like the Challenger 2, a 90’s design that has had no upgrades and a very limited production run.
I was being a bit flippant, but I think you hit the nail on the head with “it’s not terrible”..which really is not good..it is after all better than any of the 3rd generation T series tanks, but if you put it on the list of western tanks it’s most definitely at the very bottom of the 3rd generation tanks and probably has well earned its accolade as “worst” NATO tank.
But you really must give the Italians their due..they had not ever built an MBT before and had zero experience of building a generation 1 or 3 MBT..so literally Ariete was their first effort..and they were always very focused on the concept of medium brigades. As they have now really focused on the concepts of heavy brigades, I suspect the new Italian MBT and IFVs are gong to be very good. Their concept of an Italian version of a Panther MBT looks very promising and what they are planning to do with they Lynx tracked AFV is very good ( 1000+ with, a 30 cannon armed, IFV, 120mm armed medium tanks, 120mm mortar armed direct and indirect fire support and an air defence version).. the fact they have essentially secured all their own tec into the vehicles and have 60% of the production was good going.
Commonality of types when you have different producers aligned with sovereign independence means that the Professor is talking twaddle. It’ not going to happen.
At which point, are we looking at a NATO directive that defines requirements without US input and selects a contractor with national subcontractor clauses built in and an anything but US?
The US has to learn the very hard way that their power is diminishing and other powers are reasserting themselves after a brief spell of a couple of thousand years; what the new order will look like is anyone’s idea, but, it won’t be led by America.
Agree about the theme of this article. We need to capitalise on our ability to field first rate world beating systems such as Aster30, sea/land Ceptor. Type 26+31 frigates.
Typhoon
A400M etc etc
UK needs to integrate much more with eNATO and seriously proliferate it’s military based on sovereign and eNATO+ Canada, Japan and Australia’s resources and abilities to replenish and repair platforms. Commonality is key.
UK should definitely become a formal member of the Franco/ Germanic next MBT platform as C3 will only take us so far into the future and commonality of platform with massed production of +1000 vehicles will help ensure tooling, spare parts etc available.
Tempest should become the European choice for future air. The Franco-Germanic programme abolished and widespread work share and production throughout Europe with all purchasing and partner nations contributing to the aircrafts R+D. That’ll put the fear of god into the Donald as his F46 is unlikely to win many foreign sales Vs Tempest.
I can see if the EU supports the programme Tempest easily surpassing 2000 aircraft.
Agreed, we also need to stop acting like we do you need to engage with the EU if we just do bilateral engagement with member states. Maybe the EU will achieve a common defence policy, maybe it won’t, but we very much are painting ourselves into a corner if it happens (see the gnashing of teeth over the recent EU armament and infrastructure fund which we are not involved with due to only pursuing bilateral member relations).
Mmmm. Yes and no. The EU itself might well not have a clear position on whatever topic we want to discuss. Secondly I would argue that the EU policy or position is often determined by the dominant influence of one or two key members through the Commission who are lobbied by key industries; historically the Franco- German ‘locomotif’. As a late comer, whether we were an outsider or just felt ourselves to be so in an unfamiliar communautaire culture is a moot point. We have left the EU so we can no longer use EU commission channels to influence policy. So I think it does make sense to have a bottom up country to country approach – influence the key player nations and their leaders individually through diplomatic, industrial and defence channels. The EU armament and infrastructure fund is just that…an EU fund. It’s a communautaire thing, bit like a credit union. If you are not a member of the community and contribute you can’t draw out money. What we need to do is to form a ‘European Defence Union’ of which we are a member and base the fund on that grouping.
Errrr well not.
For starters, who the driving force in Europe is is irrelevant to the point I’m making: The EU is starting to become an organisation that is actively involved in defense, and will only continue to do that more so. We can not afford to ignore that fact in favour of pig headedly just going after agreements with member states and ignoring the EU itself.
We might have been a late commer, but not by any current standard, the vast majority of the EU joined after the UK, and places like Poland will have major influences in the EU as it goes forward.
You can have a country by country approach BUT NOT AT THE PRICE OF NOT DOING DEFENCE BUISNESS WITH THE EU. Sorry, but that’s just the fact going forwards.
And no, the Eu Armament and Infrastructure fund is not just an “EU fund” although yes primarily it is: Countries that have specific defence agreements WITH THE EU (not with member countries) can be involved with it, HENCE the need to engage WITH THE EU in the future. Again: THE DAYS OF IGNORING THE EU IN DEFENCE ARE ENDING.
We do not need a EDU, unless it just happens to be the military wing of the EU. A European Defence Union with half in half out countries like the UK would be a disaster.
(Caps for emphasis since there isn’t a bold option anymore)
I think the UK has to come to terms with the fact that the MAGA movement will force the EU to move from essentially a trading organisation with aspirations for closer political alignment to essentially becoming a true superpower that has its own defence and foreign policy goals as well as a unified military, and it will do that I have little doubt. The UK needs to decide what it’s going to do about that…as you say pretending it can have agreements with the components parts of likely new superpower/ Neo empire is a bit delusion.
The UK needs to really consider its place in a new world order that has 3 superpowers ( EU, US, China) and a number of world powers that will need to align in some way with the superpower structure ( so UK, Russia, Brazil, India, Japan)..then you will have the regional powers that will need to do the same and finally the victim nations that will have no choices at all.
Fantasy. Pure fantasy. The government’s priority is the Third World and Net Zero. They are more likely to wind up the armed forces than spend money.
Your ignorant drivel never fails to astound 💩🙄
For once I agree with you. Stopped clocks, and all that…
Were not going to get far on 2.5%
I have made $180 reliably in one day.That was my ideal day in my life and my boss was to a great degree content with me..CNN is additionally awed from my work and is outstandingly happy..check also unpretentious parts by open the affiliation and tap on HOME TECH OR MEDIA……
HERE————➤ 𝗪𝘄𝘄.𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸𝟰𝟰.𝗖𝗼𝗺
Ah yes a Professor of War Studies at KCL -one of the first such universities to have such a specialised department, anywhere – for over 40 years , but ,yeah , a bloke in a pub could have such insight.
Who needs experts like this when maybe they should just come on here and ask for opinions, I’m sure you are all just as well informed.
Although there are some on here who provide valuable insights into specifics and yes, others that provide a more strategic overview on some subjects there are few (If any) that would be able to offer the depth and insight someone in his position is able to.
I think people need to recognise what this forum is and what it provides instead of believing their own hype.
I do however agree that there is a conflict here from a UK PoV as there is a fine dividing line between keeping enough UK forces autonomy to be able to consider options vs. ensuring the mass our Western European allies provide is augmented by our own forces. Whether standardisation & procurement needs to be considered as part of that , and how far that would integrate us into an EU defence force removing our autonomy well ….that’s the argument.
I personally think our force structure and capability to provide autonomy should always be sacrosanct.