The UK Government has released its long-awaited Strategic Defence Review 2025, a sweeping document promising the largest overhaul of British defence policy in a generation.
Titled “Making Britain Safer: secure at home, strong abroad“, the review lays out a radical shift toward warfighting readiness, industry reform, and alliance-led deterrence in an increasingly volatile world.
In his introduction, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer stated: “A step-change in the threats we face demands a step-change in British defence… We will never gamble with our national security.” He reiterated the Government’s commitment to raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, with an ambition to reach 3% in the next Parliament. This follows what the review calls “the largest sustained increase to defence spending since the Cold War.”
According to Defence Secretary John Healey, the Strategic Defence Review marks a “new era of threat, which demands a new era for UK Defence.” The review outlines five core ambitions: ‘NATO First’ – leading in NATO and strengthening UK contributions to European security; warfighting readiness – building a more lethal, integrated force capable of enduring high-intensity warfare; industrial growth – transforming defence into an engine of national economic growth; tech-driven innovation – harnessing AI, autonomy, and drone technologies at “wartime pace”; and a whole-of-society defence – deepening civilian-military integration and national resilience.
The Government has endorsed all 62 recommendations made by external reviewers Lord Robertson, General Sir Richard Barrons, and Dr Fiona Hill. These include major structural, industrial, and military reforms to ensure readiness and resilience over the next decade.
Among the key measures announced:
- Adopt a ‘NATO First’ defence policy, reaffirming NATO as the foundation of UK defence strategy, while retaining global partnerships like AUKUS and the Joint Expeditionary Force.
- Increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, with an ambition to reach 3% in the next Parliament.
- Launch a new Defence Investment Plan in Autumn 2025 to replace the outdated Equipment Plan and align investment with strategic capability needs.
- Transition the Armed Forces to full warfighting readiness, reversing decades of hollowing-out, and embracing a tenfold increase in Army lethality via drones, AI, and long-range fires.
- Create a New Hybrid Navy, combining SSN-AUKUS submarines, autonomous vessels, and transformed carriers.
- Develop a next-generation RAF fleet, including F-35s, upgraded Typhoons, future GCAP sixth-generation jets, and autonomous combat aircraft.
- Introduce a digital targeting web by 2027 and a new Defence Uncrewed Systems Centre by 2026 to harness battlefield data and emerging technologies.
- Establish a new National Armaments Director to lead industrial reform and defence procurement.
- Invest £400 million per year in UK Defence Innovation (UKDI) to grow dual-use technology companies.
- Create a new Defence Exports Office to boost international defence collaboration and trade.
- Allocate 10% of the equipment procurement budget annually to novel technologies, with accelerated contracting timelines.
- Invest £6 billion in munitions production, including six new UK factories and a permanent production pipeline.
- Commit to continuous submarine construction, producing a new SSN every 18 months and growing the fleet to up to 12.
- Build 7,000 long-range missiles domestically, supporting around 800 jobs.
- Invest £15 billion in the sovereign warhead programme and maintain the Continuous at Sea Deterrent (CASD).
- Explore enhanced UK participation in NATO’s nuclear mission and increase investment in deep precision strike and air/missile defences.
- Establish a new CyberEM Command by the end of 2025 and allocate £1 billion to strengthen homeland missile and cyber defences.
- End the Levene Reforms, restructure MOD budget holders from ten to four, and empower the Chief of the Defence Staff with expanded command authority.
- Automate 20% of MOD HR, finance, and commercial operations by 2028.
- Introduce a Defence Readiness Bill to enable rapid mobilisation of reserves and industry in crisis.
- Increase Regular force numbers when funding permits, including a small uplift for the Army.
- Expand Active Reserves by 20% and improve the military-civilian interface with flexible working and military ‘gap years’.
- Invest £7 billion in forces housing, including £1.5 billion for immediate repairs and upgrades.
- Expand the Cadet Forces by 30% by 2030, aiming for 250,000 cadets in the longer term.
- Deliver a Defence Infrastructure Recapitalisation Plan by February 2026 to restore the UK’s strategic base.
- Rebuild Defence Medical Services in partnership with the Department of Health and Social Care.
- Strengthen Defence Intelligence through a new charter and integration with the UK Intelligence Community.
- Prioritise development of directed energy weapons, such as DragonFire, and maintain an ‘always on’ munitions production capacity.
The review frames UK defence through a “NATO First, but not NATO Only” lens, citing increasing threats from Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. It calls for deeper minilateral cooperation through frameworks like AUKUS and the Joint Expeditionary Force and underscores the importance of industrial partnerships with allies.
The reviewers conclude: “This is a transformational and genuinely strategic review. We must innovate at wartime pace, reverse the hollowing out of our forces, and prepare for a harder world.” Their vision is clear: by 2035, the UK aims to be a leading tech-enabled military power with integrated, adaptable, and digitally connected forces.
A few small points that raised my eyebrow:
“Rebuild DMS in line with Department of Health…” is interesting. That could be really good, and could be really bad. A lot of the civilianisation of the DMS in the late Afghan era meant lowering of level of medical care provided far forwards, something which, in certain units, has been slowly reversed at the cost of a lot of paperwork.
Rapid mobilisation good, but increasing the reserves while saying “maybe someday more regulars, including a small uplift for the army.” isn’t. The regulars should be prioritised over the reserves.
Reserves are easier to recruit for than the regulars. Much more attractive to spend a few weeks a year rather than your whole life in the army. Since the Army isn’t even at 76,000 now I doubt there’s a need to increase it even more.
They’re also much less useful, and not needed. The army currently has too many reserves, and not enough regulars (as evidenced by the 19 light brigade just sitting there). The army isn’t at 76,000 now because it’s authroised strength is 73,000, but that’s an irrelevant point as no army is ever at full strength. (And stop loss is, although unpopular, a thing that has been implemented in the past).
When it comes to healthcare and medical reserves are essentially double hatting because the NHS infrastructure and staff are a strategic resource that the nation would need in a peer war..
The model that has developed..with a lot of NHS medical professionals being reservists and essentially the armed forces walking way from mass role 4 capacity is fine for an expeditionary role..essentially you take out a few staff from the NHS system and have a small ish number of casualties being moved along the operational patient care pathway..
It’s a utter disaster waiting to happen in a peer war in which the UK is attacked because
1) The NHS acute care system works on just enough to manage.. as an example I was a senior clinician in a accident and emergency department that served a population of 300,000.. we had 3 resus bays..with the staff I would have on shift I could run 1 trauma bay well and one badly…that’s two P1-2 trauma cases max.. for 300,000 people.. at the same time 4 of our senior clinicians including 30% of our consultants were army reservists ( one a Colonel who keep getting deployed.. which was crippling).. now we had a port, military industrial stuff and a military base within our catchment.. so what would happen had I lost a load of key senior clinicians..then I kept getting major casualty events….
2) The role 4.. now the military role 4 is hosted by the NHS, mainly in the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine hosted and integrates into the Queen Elizabeth Hospital run by university hospitals Birmingham NHS foundation trust.. now it’s a profoundly impressive hospital ( one of the largest hospitals in Europe with 1200 beds has the largest single floor ITU in the world with 100 beds.. infact it’s about 1% of the entire UK acute capacity) … but you put more that 100 role 4 casualties through it at one time and it’s not going to manage… you have a peer war you will have 10,000 of casualties. It also services a population of over a million that could also have a mass casualty even in a peer war..
3) hospitals are big easy undefended and essentially full of strategically irreplaceable staff and equipment.. if I wanted to put down a nation I would kills its medical infrastructure.. Russia loves blowing up Ukrainian hospitals for that very reason… in the first year of the war Ukraine recorded 700 attacks on its hospitals and medical infrastructure. So all this means the civilian medical infrastructure that will be trying to keep the civilian population alive and healthy..or at least alive when possible will be in bits…when it only just has enough capacity to manage 1-2 major casualties per 300,000 at the best of times…
4) The NHS has lost its skills in managing mass casualty events related to nuclear biological and chemical incidents.. I was fully trained to triage, decontaminate and treat patients exposed to these.. that training all stopped after 2010 and the equipment was not replaced in the district general hospitals.
To fight a peer war.. the NHS needs to be transformed into a service that can manage mass casualty events as a normal thing… manage contaminated patients and have the ability to operate while the medical and healthcare infrastructure is being attacked..
The military medical services cannot be taking the civilian emergency and urgent care staff as they will be needed for mass civilian casualties, they need their own fully staffed and equipped medical establishment that can manage mass casualties as well as their own role 4 which is resistant to attack.
Couldn’t agree more. Rebuilding the reserves into more of a resilience force, if I’m reading it correctly, is sound. Also the existing regular army is the prioity. Having the best equipent money can buy through to and including good housing capabilty. Would mortgage support work to allow families to get on the housing ladder instead of “social housing”?
Dern, Healey has been speaking about a future uplift being of 3,000 regular soldiers.
I know, but that’s a much less firm commitment than the 20% increase in the size of the Army Reserve, which is ridiculous since the Regular Army needs the extra bods and the AR doesn’t.
Oh boy some of this is in riddles 🙏
Leading in Europe, hahaha what a spin no guarantee of increase to pay for these things suppose we will have to wait till autumn budget to find out how much more taxes will be paid to cover anything. I reckon GCAP will get scrapped in favour of U.S 6th gen as they put pressure on Japan and Italy
GCAP is safe. It features frequently throughout the report. None of the UK, Italy nor Japan want the F-47 or the F/A-XX.
Means testing the pension would be able to afford all of this and then some.
No government would ever dare do it though because the “I paid in all my life” brigade would shriek like infants over it.
Pensioners have paid in over many years but there is on area where I think wealthy pensioners could pay more and that would be splitting National insurance into two parts one to pay for pensions and one to pay for the NHS. pensioners ought to still be paying for the NHS.
Start it off at the same threshold as personal allowance and charge say half of working people’s NI so 4%. It would cost me over a thousand pounds a year personally but I would be quite happy to pay so as to be fairer to younger working people.
Oh Martin, bless you.
Pensioners paid taxes. They didn’t “pay in”. I shouldn’t have to explain to you that it wasn’t a bank account.
Why should pensioners get special treatment when a mountain of you are on Final Salary and DB pensions (all of which your generation’s managers have removed from young people), while also jabbing your palm demanding my tax money to fund your lifestyle?
Ben, £5bn has already been passed across to Defence (last September) and the rise to 2.5% is guaranteed.
I haven’t spotted much in the way of actual numbers (beyond ‘up to’ 12 submarines). Are the carriers safe (rumours of one being mothballed, how many fighters are being procured and when, how many frigates, anything firm about sub strategic deterrence, how is the army going to be 10x more lethal etc?
Army to increase to “at least” 76,000+ a 20% increase in Army Reserve. So Army up to 112,000 including AR, and then whatever the Strategic Reserve is. Specific single service updates should be following in the various service plans that will come out a few months later.
Carriers are safe, as is GCAP.
Specific procurement decisions are scheduled for the autumn.
Well the army will be 10 times more lethal as they will increase the equipment budget to allow for each soldier to have 10 bullets instead of 1…..
Healey said “Carriers” in his speech with regards to hybrid air wings, which will include long range missiles on their decks.
That was one of the weirdest points in the whole thing.
Why the carriers? MRSS or even escorts and auxiliaries would benefit much more from any mk70 style deck launchers, they would just get in the way on a flight deck.
Crossing my fingers and toes for MQ9B STOL!
I’d guess that it means long range air launched missiles?
“Missiles capable of being fired from the carrier deck”
Doesn’t sound like F35 launch to me! Might well be the new hypersonic/2000km missile, would need to be large in order to outrange an F35/SPEAR strike.
The biggest concern (seeing as they’ve mentioned war footing) is the army isn’t really growing much. Don’t these clots look at the attrition rate in Ukraine?
@Brian Dee agreed, but also because as it stands the Army can’t even bring it’s full strength to bear. The Army should have at a minimum 6 Deployable brigades, plus ASOB and 11X. The headcount to enable 4 and 1 Brigades to go back to being formations that can deploy, plus sufficient enablers for 1 Div to deploy as a division is needed.
The 20% increase in reserves would help with attrition (as would reinvigorating the Strategic/Regular Reserve, which is desperately needed) to be fair, but the Reserves already have a large number of limited use formations lumped together in 19Light Brigade which serves little purpose as a fighting force.
Yea that sounded weird to me too. The could always just park an MLRS or two on deck…
Might refer to something like CAMM for self defence. I believe the French carrier has similar.
CAMM is many things, but it isn’t a “long range precision missile”.
That implies land attack, which would be a very odd decision.
SD, I guess you are new to SDRs! High-level strategic not fine detail. This SDR was done by an external team who made recommendations to MoD. MoD has accepted all 62 recomendations. Detail in the Defence Command Paper or White Paper in the Autumn once the MoD has generated some details.
I have two concerns
A lot of less than precise language but anyone questioning how it will be funded raise good points however all I will say is that finding the money to get to 3% is considerably cheaper and a lot less painful than finding the cash to fight a war.
When the Tories get back in how quickly will all this be forgotten in favour of a tax cut for the rich.
‘When the Tories get back in’
Yeah, seeming unlikely right now.
What rich do you speak of? They are fleeing the UK quicker than the migrants that are entering!
Means test the pension. A mountain of unproductive money that could go to the defence of the nation.
I did sign up to protect the nation!now you want to means test my pension! Two letters FO.
I can find you £8b+ a year quite easily👍
Greedy piggy says what?
Yes, I do want to means test your pension. Stop stealing my taxes to feed your lifestyle. Maybe cut down on the avocado toast and you’ll be able to afford it?
This is the soundtrack of your entire generation – “I deserve free money at the expense of every working person and I’ll keep jabbing my palm until you pay me more”
Triple lock should be removed.
Pensions should be means tested.
You should have saved more (you know, that thing that your generation happily tells mine while you lounge about in your bloated house valuations, DB pensions, and easiest tax ride of any generation in history.
I will hazard a guess and reckon I’m probably in your parents generation so are you happy for your taxes to pay for their pension?
My taxes (I still pay) paid for your grandparents pensions,you do realise that’s the way it works don’t you?
BCWYWF when means testing,when Reeves took the WFP that encouraged a LOT more pensioners to claim pension credit etc and that ended up costing the govt MORE than if they had just paid the WFP😂 so maybe I would actually get a bit more,who knows?
As for my house I had the gumption to actually move to a part of the country and get a better house cheaper than if I’d stayed where I was, a house that I had paid a mortgage on for 25 yrs or so!
Still if you can get over your bitterness and actually complain about what’s really costing an absolute fortune on people who have not paid a penny into our society you might lay off the pensioners👍
Cherio have a nice life.
My parents retired early on their DB pensions and yes, I absolutely resent the idea that I will be dumping a fortune of my taxes into their pockets while they live a better life than I ever could. I may love them dearly, but my stance is unchanged.
Lol the WFP misdirection, nice try.
Talk to me when the pension budget isn’t £150billion per year on the richest generation in British history.
Oh incidentally, this is why I left our stupid country and moved away to one where I am not being scammed left, right, and centre by greedy piggies who actually didn’t contribute enough to come even close to what they’ll take out.
The number of pensioners you paid for in your working years are a fraction of mine because (wow this is going to blow your mind) there hadn’t been a massive baby boom before you. So actually, the greedy piggies once again walked away with a better deal.
You didn’t pay for the triple lock until 2010 (everyone in my generation has to), you didn’t pay for as many pensioners (like my generation has to), you had significantly lower housing costs proportional to salaries, and yet you pretend that somehow it was some sort of hard graft.
Come off it. Maybe the lead in your brain from all the leaded petrol in your youth is starting to have an impact (feel free to look that one up, heavy metals make you stupid 🫵😁).
It’s funny really, all bar one of my friends that have any real earnings power have left the country. Why would we break our backs to live in a slum rented to us by a Boomer to pay that very same Boomer’s pensioner Universal Basic Income?
You really are an angry little man aren’t you?😂perhaps you should follow your friends and sod off im sure you won’t be missed
Bye🤞
Already left, sweetie 😘
Enjoy being a greedy piggy while time takes you away from us ✌️ can’t wait to see the obit.
Michael, No need to be concerned that there is not a welter of fine detail. This is a Strategic Defence Review produced by an external team, not a shopping list. Detail to follow in a Defence Command Paper/White Paper, once MoD has done some staff-work.
£5bn has already been added to Defence budget and the rise to 2.5% is guaranteed. Further increases would fall to the next Parliamentary session.
Didn’t see anything about the RN getting to 25 escorts.
No, not about the nuclear deterrent expanding.
*nor
I think we definitely should be building 5 SSBNs as 4 just isn’t enough, 1 every 5 years should be the tempo as I find it incredible that we ask people to go undersea for 6months in kit that is borderline death traps. If you want people to do that job at least keep the kit up to date. 3 SSN’s and 1 SSBN every 5 years is doable given today’s statement
I used to think that was a waste of money, but I found myself hoping it would be brought up in the emergency debate earlier this afternoon. (It wasn’t.) I think I’m a convert to a fifth Dreadnought. I’m not one of those vociferous, more-zealot-than-an-original kind of converts, but on balance, I think we do need a fifth one.
@jon the thing that really convinced me is 1) cost of the LEPs, 2) LEP length that effectively mean we are running the fleet far too hard, 3) the state of the current fleet is shambolic. I wouldn’t get on one.
I hate LEPs as they just suck the life out of the budget for very little benefit really, accountants should be banned from making military decisions imho.
No wonder there are retention issues… same accountants / mandarins wouldn’t put up with 20% of what serving personnel have to.
PM27, why is a 4-boat SSBN fleet not enough? It has been since 1969.
I noticed the lack of clear mention of RN surface ships too, seems like a lot of people have just skipped that.
The only specific reference I saw was a need for the RN to choose cheaper platforms with a suggestion that T 45 might be replaced by a simple missile carrier
⸻
How does something like this take over 10 months to produce? We might get more soldiers at some point, refurbish a few houses, expand cadet numbers, and so on.
And the big headline? We’re supposedly getting up to 12 SSN(A) submarines. A convenient announcement, given we haven’t even finished building the current generation. Instead of revealing a capability we might see decades from now, why not commit to something tangible in the short to medium term? The reality is, the further off the promise, the less pressure there is to deliver. And we’ve heard “up to” before—it almost always ends with the numbers being cut.
Does it? If you’re thinking of the T45, that’s because the unprecedented financial crisis of 2008 got in the way. The 2010 SDR was meant to cut spending- this SDR is specifically to increase spending (I haven’t seen a single announcement of cutting anything somewhere in defence).
You intentionally understate the announcements- £1.5 billion is not a ‘few houses’- why I don’t know. It’s a significant improvement from the past 20 years or so, it’s a bipartisan issue, and there are actually multiple big headlines- all of them good. Ukraine is another unprecedented event that happened between the last round of cuts and today. Comparing everything to the past is pointless and lazy.
£6Bn of efficiency savings sounds suspiciously like Whitehall language for cuts, which will come with the follow up paper later in the year. This was picked on the R4 Today programme with no clear explanation from the Minister. I would strongly suggest we await further detail before stating if we are seeing a genuine uplift or another ‘Jam’ tomorrow announcement.
It seems to be more positive but let’s be clear we have had cuts already with this Government, however, you want to spin it.
It is going to be interesting to see how our PM is going to demonstrate at the NATO summit how our huge up lift in spending to 2.5% sits whilst many other NATO members are already heading to 3.5%.
I totally agree with the premise of stopping the rot first by tackling recruitment, retention and housing whilst ensuring we have manufacturing capacity rebuilt, which was criminally dismantled. The second stage is an increase in numbers of personnel and equipment across the board and that is the hard bit because it requires sustained spending at 3+%.
All in all a good proposal just as you might expect from Lord Robertson let’s hope this time the reality meets those aspirations.
Concur sjb, it is a good proposal. Would go further and say that it is a pretty meticulous analysis and synthesis of current defence management and what needs to change.
Complaints about it taking 10 months are misplaced. When you look at the number of senior contributors, panels and clearly liaison and exploration with every branch of the services, FCO, intelligence community etc, it is a pretty comprehensive and overdue overhaul of the whole setup.
Those looking for big additions to service numbers and equipments will remain disappointed. The authors were allegedly looking at 3.5% of GDP to meet what they saw as minimum requirements, but that ain’t financially possible right now, HMG’s budget is stretched to the nth degree.
Reality is that we have a total of £13.4 bn extra to spend over the next 3 years. Most of that is already committed.
X bn for the service 4.5% pay rises
£6bn on munitions, including the new factories, long-range missiles and drones.
£7bn in forces housing, Inc £1.5bn for immediate repairs.
etc, etc.
Factoring in that the MOD already has a mega black hole in its procurement budget of £9bn (MOD figure) to £17bn (Public Accounts Committee figure), can’t see that there is much if any new money left to buy F-35As, A400s, more Wedgetail, T32s etc.
These things are in the Review as placeholders, dependent on getting the big 20% increase from 2 5 to 3.0% in the next Parliament.
It is a good effort from Healey, he delivered a 7% increase in defence funding and got a lot of his sought-after enhancements in the placeholders list.
I don’t see how we get to 3% without a cross-party consensus on which politically unpopular cuts to make or taxes to raise. Starmer is playing it all pretty well so far, have to see if he is able to pull a rabbit out of the hat now to get to that 3%.
12 Subs that this nor the next government will be expected to fund and build, they could have announced anything for a headline, in no way means it will happen.
So, there are very few recommendations that specify numbers or types of kit, though, as the Defence Minister said earlier, that will come later, in the autumn.
Some interesting bits I noted (by no means exhaustive):
Both the GCAP and the carriers are supported by the SDR, and named as valuable aspects in maintaining British global influence and a strong defence industry. Previous worries about their cancellation were, as expected, unfounded.
The review advocates for a constant production stream of munitions, that can be rapidly scaled in the event of a conflict. This aspect partially links with the government’s pledge to support 6 armaments facilities and purchase 7000 long-range strike weapons. Indeed, the review as a whole places emphasis on rebuilding sovereign defence-industrial capability.
The review recommends the creation of a cross-force digital targeting web, in which any sensor can be used to detect a threat, and any effector can then be used to prosecute that threat. There is a nice graphic on page 52. This capability should be delivered by 2027, and is key to the reviews vision of an digitally integrated British military.
The review highlights the need for more combat air power in the RAF (mentioning specifically the F-35A and F-35B), as well as a further purchase of E-7 Wedgetail AEW&C aircraft. It also highlights the importance of airborne assets in air and missile defence, and suggests an extra £1 billion in funding for that mission. It also recommends further integration with the RN, including exploring giving the Protector drone a maritime surveillance capability.
The review suggests that the RN should become a hybrid force, mixing unmanned and manned assets. Examples given include enabling the carriers to operate a mixed drone and manned air wing, and eventually to fire deck-launched long-range missiles. There is also the suggestion of a derivative of the Type 45’s role, but undertaken by minimally manned or unmanned ships to support air and missile defence. There’s also the 12 SSN-A commitment we heard earlier.
I’ll have to come back later for the rest 🙂
There generally isn’t, the SDR usually gives broad overhead direction, and then the services go away and a few months later come back with more specifics about what they are doing with that direction (that’s what happened with future soldier for instance, the actual review was very light on detail).
That’s what I expected, but glad to have it confirmed from someone with more experience of these things. This is essentially my first SDR (that I’m capable of understanding).
Also “Always On” shipbuilding, which would imply both Rosyth and Belfast having something to do after approx. 2033, when both of their programmes will have finished. One will have MRSS, but the other needs a new programme.
Looks like George has just put out an article on the carrier missiles, so won’t comment there.
Maritime Protector is an obvious win if done well, with torpedoes and proper sonobuoy dispensers.
Wasn’t sure what to make of this:
“Exploring possible development from a Type 45 destroyer to a minimally crewed or autonomous air dominance system that could integrate directed energy weapons and enable better connectivity to other assets within the UK’s Integrated Air and Missile Defence system.”
Sounds like the autonomous missile barge idea floated for type 83, but ‘developed from type 45’ and with DEW confused me. Haven’t heard any mention of a platform like this before.
Have I kissed something? I don’t actually see any commitment to anything, specially numbers and types of equipment? This just appears to be a load of twaddle?
I don’t know if you’ve kissed anything, but that seems slightly off topic for this forum 😉
AFAIK, specific procurement decisions are to come in the autumn.
Thanks, I was expecting details of procurement etc to be included with this review announcement and a little surprised to now find it appears to be in two parts.
According to Dern, this is pretty typical.
So they’ve extended and extended the wait for it only to tell us to wait til autumn?
No. This is typical of how these SDRs work (according to Dern).
That’s it? No detail?
We need the detail for force structures.
Agree with Dern, we need our own Defence Medical Services, they can treat civvies but also veterans.
Good luck with increasing the Reserves.
Nothing on increasing the size of the RN, RFA, and RAF.
Massive disappointment.
Sorry, to clarify we have our own DMS, it’s already a joint command that handles a lot of centralised stuff for the AMS and the RAF and RN medical services. What exactly the “rebuild” it means is going to be very interesting, I would very much caution against making the DMS something that treats civies and veterans (akin to the US VA) because you instantly make it much harder to deploy, as doing so means removing healthcare providers from civilians.
Quite. I read little new in that section beyond the point you raised.
Sadly unlike the Army, Navy and Airforce, Stratcom never seems to feel the need to publish plans, so we’re unlikely ever to get a comprehensive update on DMS reforms.
The SDR will be followed by a Command Paper or White Paper, which is expected to detail the ORBAT and procurement plans for the equipment wediscuss here. The Defence Secretary has stated that this will be released in the autumn. Still, considering the scale and urgency of the threats we face, the SDR itself feels underwhelming.
I’m not surprised, I’ve yet to see one that wasn’t cuts dressed up as improvements with healthy doses of spin and jam tomorrow.
Ok.
Of interest, in no real order then my scruffy notes.
Part of NAD, a new DE&EO. Says in footnotes can remain under DSTL name, so….
UKDI Defence Inovation Org.
Automating HR to free more uniforms to front roles.
Firing LR PM from our Hybrid Carrier decks! Alongside F35, Merlin, and UCAV and drones. Interesting.
A hi lo mix across military, been wanting this for years
Army 2 Divs, confirmed. CS CSS still to be sorted.
A “Digital Warfighters Group”
Our global footprint is now IGDN.
“MIS” Military Intelligence Service” reforming and regrouping the services Int orgs under DI.
Army. “The first Division” of 2, so assume 3 UK, with 3 all arms manoeuvre Bdes, plus a support Bde. Confirms reorg changes coming.
RAF, want to buy more E7, possibly with joint funding with other nations.
Desire to buy more Atlas.
Both were known.
As for the new Cyber and EM Command ( which I covered in detail previously with the current set up and how I think it’s not actually “new” beyond re brigading assets ) confirms offensive Cyber will remain the remit of the NCF.
The “Strategic Reserve” confirmed as involving the Regular Reserve and reinvigorating it. Derns suggestions here previously would be good?
Navy to grow, Army, they want to grow by 3k, RAF, update. ( Healey’s speech earlier, repeating what we’ve discussed here over last week with the leaks.
We both know that 2 Divisions and a Corps are not achievable on the current headcount. So that won’t happen without a headcount increase. With a 3k uplift? Not sure we’d get 2×3 Brigade divisions, it will be a squeeze I think. Definitely no Corps fires though.
The Light Recc Strike was mentioned a few times, I’m keen to find out more about that.
11th Brigade ? are being moulded into a tactical recce-strike force
So maybe those Light Recc Strike mention points towards that🤔
Yes, indeed they are. And have been put with the LSOF.
Light Recce-Strike and Tactical Recce-Strike are used pretty much interchangeably.
I doubt there will be much public facing stuff about it. They seem content to say the name and assume everyone knows what it is.
Light recce strike is something the 1RIR has been playing with as far as I can tell it’s aggressive air mobile light infantry with access to protected mobility vehicles…..
That pretty well sums up my knowledge on it!
You know what, fair play. I completely forgot about the Recce Role that Royal Irish are doing. Although IMO that actually is a Recce Role (ie they’re using WIMIK’s to play the role that RAC Light Cav regiments play in Jackals).
But still no mention of GBAD for critical sites such as airfields, nuclear power stations, etc. Maybe that will come up in the Command or White Papers?
Mentioned 1 billion for some integrated AD system, which i assume is part of a NATO program.
Thanks Daniele, didn’t see that.
Side note, if there is no uplift, or minimal uplift in Army personnel, and we’re getting a big uplift in sam systems, who is going to crew them?
RAF reg getting an uplift (not complaining, let them earn their keep and well do the real soldiering :D)?
You would imagine any home based AD system and GBAD would be RAF crewed…I did note the RAf were getting an uplift in reserve.. you also wonder if the new model of home based second teir reserves may end up providing crews.. after all if your not deploying anywhere and doing it part time in a fixed location and it’s one essentially tec based role yiu could have any old 50 year old with a gammy leg doing it.
@Dern.
Re GBAD crewing, I think using Gurkhas in a Battery for each gun Regiment implied to me that the UK posts released would be used to form an additional AD Regiment.
That is for the Field Army and Wavell.
As for UK GBAD, who knows! The Rocks do come to mind.
I do wonder if UK based GBAD would be potentially a reservist role..or even that second tier of none deployable reservists they are taking about for guard duty etc.. a form of modern militia.. after all if it’s not ever moving then why not have a local militia crew it.
Morning J
For non deployable, UK GBAD of key sites, yes, why not.
Re the army.. I very much read 3 deployable heavy brigades as well as the air assault brigade.. but very little to indicate any ambition around the 2 infantry brigades… but what was interesting was the mention of the Marines being more integrated. But an eventual uplift of the army to 76,000 is good.
The thing that I read in this was the very high level shift
1) integration.. the services are going to expected to be far more integrated than ever before ( even mentioning the marines being inserted into Army formations)
2) civil defence is going to be huge.. essentially changing the mindset to a nation that is ready and able to suffer.
3) political warfare capabilities are going to be huge
4) procurement will be rapid and follow essentially agile paradigms.. buy it, use it, move to the next…and that procurement would be based around wartime pacing. Industrial bases would be adapted to facilitate this…
This is all music to my ears because it means we are catching up with how our enemies actually plan to win… use every available means to make a nation suffer until it gives up…you don’t attack a nations army to win you attack it body and soul ( infrastructure and population).
It’s also very interesting how they have come up with the three priorities
1) protect home and the sovereign territories
2) protect the Euro Atlantic
3) Support the western geo strategic position across the globe by engaging in the Middle East and indo pacific…
That’s a purposeful prioritisation and it highlights the risk..by making it clear all our enemies can attack our home in some way and would.. even Iran and North Korea…that is essentially a complete reversal from every SDR since the Cold War.. as they all had the list the otherway around.
What it looks like equipment wise
The 20 40 40 was the key.. 80% of the kinetic power is coming from drones and missiles.. linked with the agile procurement..I would expect we will see an army awash with drones very soon and down to section level.
Carriers.. well that’s interesting and so it looks like we will see drone catapults.. the long range strike discussion puts missiles a long time way..but single use strike drones launched from the deck will probably be soon.. a one way banshee perhaps. That’s part of a wider we will hurt you message coming from this SDR..,
The RAF look like they will get a lot of love more F35b, F35A and more strategic platforms.. but they are going to have to turn the protector drones into a martime force.. more integration..
1 billion investment in integrated air defence for home.. at last.
The 7000 long range munitions… and six munitions factories, that’s a we will hurt you and keep hurting you message.
Clearly there is stuff/details agreed that is not in this SDR .. tactical nuclear weapons ( from the discussion in parliament this was a leaked plan not a release) 12 SSNs, 25 escorts ( which in think will be T32 and MRSS rolled into one..because there was a comment about surface combatants with mission bays acting as amphibious vessels in the review).
We need to see how the services shape this
Jonathan, the ambition laid out in the SDSR is for 2 Divisions under a British Corps, that means that at least 16 AA + 1 other brigade in 1 UK division. The other thing is the Royals being integrated into ARRC is nothing new. Being a Brigade sized force the Royals almost always integrate into larger Army formations (Telic had them as part of 1 Armoured Division, Herrick as part of 6 Division), so having them operate as either a Separate Brigade/Field Force under a British Corps, or as a Brigade within one of the Corps divisions wouldn’t be a huge shift at all.
The bigger question is “What does the Corps gain from that.” Because a light infantry brigade consisting of two small battalions with no organic mechanisation or lift is not an amazing addition.
Your right it clearly states 1 division should be reconstructed with 3 deployable brigades that include armour and mec capabilities ( which is actually very significant) as well as full CS, CCS.
What is interesting is that the 2 pagers brief that comes with SDR says that the 76,000 regulars is the minimum target number and it could be more.
Re the marines.. be fair they have around 100 Vikings, a number of jackels and around 150-200 utility vehicles, self propelled mortars ..they could make a fair shake of fielding as light Mec with what they have organically. But not sure what CS CSS they have ?
Re the integration, section 4.1.1 was sort of making it clear that integrate needs to happen well before any battlefield deployment as as happened before, I don’t just think they are looking at plopping the marines into a formation add hoc if they need manpower during a deployment, it looks like they would want it as a pre planned and practiced thing, so it maybe your post a few days back when you said merge the marines into the army…May in a way sort of happen.
Jonathan. The way the RM works is their battalions have no organic mechanisation. Lift, if it is needed, is provided by Viking Squadron (which used to be called the Royal Marines Armoured Support Group before it got downsized) that gets attached to a specific Commando for a specific task. (And remember the utility vehicles they have largely go to supporting units so don’t provide lift to the commandos). Realistically Viking Squadron can only lift 1 Commando at a time (although if Commandos get slimmed down any more it might be enough to lift 2). Worse, as things stand, the force that UKCF could provide to the Army is just 40 and 45 Commando, supported by Army Artillery and Engineers, as 42 has shipborne protection and SOF roles, and 43 is guarding Faslane.
So yeah, I stand by the point; if UKCF was subordinated to ARRC I don’t really see that giving the Corps Commander a very useful asset, unless UKCF undergoes some major changes, or the two fighty commandos get folded into an Army Brigade.
4.1.1 isn’t specifically referencing a single under-strength brigade going under ARRC permanently, it was more about how the services train. At no point does anyone in the army train with Navy to, for example, call in Naval gunnery support. Unless you happen to be a JTAC, Paratrooper or Ranger, chances of you training alongside the RAF are very minimal (It’s incredibly rare for a company commander on exercise to call in fast air for example, but we do it routinely on the battlefield). I think there will be an understanding the UKCF in some way will fall under ARRC in a warfighting scenario, and there might be more joint training, but I don’t see UKCF falling permanently under ARRC command any time soon. (Also my amalgamation point was more about the back end, training establishments, doctrinal schools, procurement etc, which is duplicated, more than who sits under what command).
Cheers that’s interesting, the RM commando’s really are very hollowed out boats focused light role infantry with little behind them.. I can see why the navy gave up on the albions.. after all what are they going to put on the beach and where.. if the points can move the army and the bays can to more logically challenging movements.. and the marines are just a few light companies.. who needs a 20,000 full fat amphibious.
It does ask some interesting questions around the RM and there role and the force size and equipment needed.
1) force protection yes.
2) specialist high risk boarding yes.
3) specialist amphibious raiding yes.
But the traditional idea of the RM dumping a brigade onto a beachhead or providing the core artic fighting force…?
Of those we may not really see the need to or have the ability to force a contested beachhead.. but potentially well trained cold weather forces for the artic would seem to be a needed thing.. is that something you could see the armies light role infantry getting more training on to fill the hole ?
Well the Albion and Bays didn’t just move Royals. Albion could carry a full Challenger Regiment and enough landing craft to put an entire troop of CR2’s ashore at a time. A Bay class can maybe manage half of that. I think there’s a real feeling of not wanting to do amphib from the Navy, and the Army isn’t really interested either, which means it’s just easy to cut, rather than there not being a use for the Albions per say.
It’s a shame, because I do actually like the RM (I know I sometimes give the impression I don’t), so I really hope they do evolve.
For the Arctic, my stance has long been that with Sweden and Finland joining NATO the calculus of the NATO’s northern Flank has changed dramatically. The old use case of the RM in the North was that the fighting would be in Norway, down a narrow strip of land, hemmed in by the Sea on one side, and the Swedish border on the other. Lots of narrow fjords with very difficult terrain where amphibious and mountain specialties would be important.
But that’s not the case anymore. If you look at a map, the mountains really end at the Swedish border, and there is nearly 300miles of, relatively flat, Swedish and Finnish Tundra and Taiga between the Russian border and the Norwegian mountains. Yes there’s forest in the Taiga, but the further north you go, the smaller the trees are, and the sparser the forest is, until Taiga gives way to Tundra (and when you get far enough south you start seeing fields. You’d need a lot of dismounted support, especially in areas where the trees are thick enough to force you to stay on roads, but you’d also need mechanisation.
(Of course if you are a local defence force and intend to hide in the woods with a low logistics burden and ambush mechanised forces that do come through that’s also a valid option, but A) I don’t think the UK is well placed to provide that kind of light infantry in Sweden and Finland. B) The European side of the border has decent road infrastructure to enable friendly mechanised movement. C) The Russian side of the border, while it has fewer, and much worse, roads, is also very sparsely inhabited, so not going to host a lot of local defence forces.)
The closer integration that caught my eye was creating a MIS, Military Intelligrnce Service, overseen by DI.
Thanks George,
I will have to read this later
Only read it quickly. Lots of emphasis on autonomous systems and AI. Lots of transformation that seems to be nothing but a name change.- eg. Defence Equipment Plan becomes Defence Investment Plan. Why bother?
. Two details struck me – the ambition to launch long range missiles from the carrier decks. And the reference to both F35A and B in the wish to increase the current fleet.
Otherwise, why has it taken nearly a year to produce this waffle? Obviously they didn’t use their beloved AI to cut the timescales and cost.
Without a guaranteed large increase in budget,- this review was always going to be a waste of time.
Heavy on deckchair moving and commitments to industry. Later welcomed and needed, former could go either way as history shows.
If the deckchair moving doesn’t go to plan then that 10% of equipment budget on innovation may as well be burned in a big pit.
Nothing bad here, just lacking detail, a masterclass in politics. A shame as we wanted an SDR.
I know we’ll get more detail when the Command Paper is published in the autumn, but overall, I’m still underwhelmed. There are definitely some good plans in the SDR, but as usual, there’s not much that’s concrete.
Hopefully, Trump continues his rhetoric in the lead-up to the NATO summit—it might be the pressure needed to finally get things moving at pace.
Over 10 months for this SDR, given the current global environment? A complete and utter joke.
Still reading through but my initial scan at a high level
1) the world is utterly and completely fucked and heading down the toilet faster than anyone predicted
2) all the old defence reviews sort of new the toilet had been flushed but did nothing about it
3) the UK as a nation is totally unready ( infrastructure, civilian population understanding, civil defence, core infrastructure and medical services, legal and leadership frameworks, industrial capacity, security forces and military forces ) for the tidal wave of ongoing sub threshold political warfare that will just jack up…and is completely unprepared and not in a place to fight the long extended peer war that’s heading its way.
So the nation will essentially have to undertake a complete transformation ranging from civilian, civil defence, core infrastructure and medical services, legal frameworks, industrial capacity, leadership ( military and political) as well as creat a unified armed forces that are ready and able to fight a war to destruction over years….
Essentially this SDR is a national kicking and an instruction to do or die…it’s the biggest indictment of the insanity that was the “ end of history and last man” I have seen….
Ignoring the details and what is funded when etc I completely agree with the tone
I wonder where the leak.about 25 Escorts came from?
As it stands, there are no increases at all beyond aspirations on E7 and Atlas, 3k for the Army, if they can stop levels falling, and using drones and autonomous to increase mass.
They say the hollowing out has stopped, but they got that in early, didn’t they.
Albion. Bulwark. Waves. Puma. Watchkeeper. And all the cuts from the Tories from the last 3 years.
Not one reversed or filled.
I’m wondering about that as well. Clearly the newspaper had what it believed to be a source, but now I’m wondering as to whether they were simply conflating MRSS reports from a while back, rather than actually having new information.
Same for “F35A with nuclear weapons”.
Despite the tone of the “tactical nukes” debate just before Healey’s speech, there is nothing at all in the SDR about a second delivery mechanism, only some guff about “enhanced UK participation in NATO’s nuclear mission” in collaboration with the US and “collective investment in the range of
capabilities necessary to deter nuclear use at any scale”.
The first pushes towards what would be an idiotic decision to go down the B61 route, while the second implies a new weapon.
Everything is vague, mate, by design.
Escorts? Who knows?
Army ? Who knows?
FMH ? Where?
27 F35B, will we or won’t we?
This government have been doing this since they came in, while vowing more transparency.
A political exercise in back slapping and hear hearing. I can accept that white papers come out later in the year with real detail, but not putting at least something of substance in these SDRs is so frustrating.
It cannot be judged, and HMG make headlines about 12 SSN decades from now!
I know, but as Leh said it’s our first SDR and I was expecting a bit, well, more from 140 pages.
Another wait for the Command Paper, I suppose?
I did like the focus on ASW and the Atlantic, though. Bodes well for having a robust core capability, but not so much for more T31 and carrier strike short of MQ9B STOL.
I agree, the SDR has some fine ambitions but also a lot of political rhetoric. And it’s just very expensive toilet paper unless the money is found for it.
Healey will try hard to push it through, as will Starmer (until Friday, anyway), but facing them are the Treasury and Rachael Reeves’ big black hole 😧.
Our only hope is that someone writes a White Paper that simply and clearly states what hardware and other stuff is required to achieve the SDR aims, and how to fund it.
And how does the SDR 3% fit in with NATO’s 3.5% + 1.5%?
HI DM, Is this a typical SDR document? I don’t see purchase recommendations of hard numbers of equipment (or budgeting for that matter). Most of the outlined context for the RAF and RN is nothing new? I think you mentioned the actual nuts ‘n bolts are announced by the government in Autumn ? Seems odd, as I think the UK government fiscal year runs July to June (am I correct)?
At the risk of sounding pessimistic, this SDR is rather underwhelming. I hope the follow on procurement commitment from the government will be positive – numbers, timelines and budgeting.
Morning K.
I think so, yes. I recall others were short on numbers and kit details, but did have some snippets. This one has even less than usual. A few bones thrown would have been good. The 12 SSN headline grabber is meaningless and decades away.
From memory…..97 SDR, formation of 16 AA Brigade, formation of a 6th Armoured/Mechanized Brigade, as examples.
2005 FLF, Front Line First was all about buying TLAM, Apache, Meteor.
2010….cut this, cut that!
A Digital Warfighter group? to be deployed with conventional warfighters on operations side-by-side.
Cyber and IT geeks with differing age and fitness requirements?
Well, why didn’t they bloody say that 🤣
Yep seems about right
I watched Packham last night, with his series on dyslexic and autistic people.
One part of the program showed him visiting GCHQ, who are employing these types.
Often, they have skills others lack.
So could that be utilised too by the military.
Here’s one to blow your gasket….TPL, aka Sir H on X has an article suggesting the over 60s be signed up! To contribute to non warfighting support roles.
Assume this is along those lines.
Reckon I can still do morse code at 25 wpm… I’m available but not on my allotment days (Mon, Thurs or Fri). Oh and can’t miss my coffee morning on Tuesday, or bowls on Wednesday. Otherwise, willing to rub in the Deep Heat and defend my country.
It doesn’t blow my gasket at all Daniele, but then I am over 60. Western society is expecting its elders to add a year every so often to their retirement age, Denmark has already legislated for 70. Yes we live longer, but that doesn’t account for the degeneration in physical resilience which still separates an older performer from a younger one. I can often be heard making the argument to younger people that if you expect us to keep going ever longer, give us easier roles – or leave the way open for the same opportunities that you still enjoy. Of course, if we’re taking about being an infantry soldier or a pilot that’s rot – but (and I’ve argued this too) it might, for instance, be part of the solution to the personnel shortages in the RFA or even liberate ‘young’ soldiers from tail end support roles to take up more kinetic activity closer to or on the front line. We are in a crisis – ‘Rome’ is burning now – and a little more creativity (outside of the box) won’t go amiss. Haven’t got a clue who TPL is as I’m not on X. Google’s AI Overview tells me that the average age of parliamentarians in the Danish Folketing is around 45.7 years. Well they bloody would, wouldn’t they?
Hi Old Bloke.
TPL, Thin Pinstriped Line, with Sir Humphrey.
A defence blog.
I think he was ex RN or ex CS or something.
To be fair there are already large numbers of Neurodivergent people in the army.
Also Sir H is current CS, and has deployed in that role to some rather violent places.
@Dern.
Sir Hs take on all this is very interesting.
Morning Mate. I quite enjoy Chris Packam’s TV work -really interesting ,that and Bran Cox.
Well – 1 things for sure at this glacial pace Putin isn’t going to be concerned for at least another decade
I hope there’s a realization in this whole-of-society approach (COVID should have hammered it home) that if the UK population is at threat then NHS staff in the Reserves can’t actually double-hat and go off to war. Two entirely independent staff, support and infrastructure streams are needed, they can support each other in good times but need to be in different places with different priorities when things aren’t.
This also applies to all “war-time” essential workers, the Army Reserve was created to fill gaps in the Regulars for our foreign interventions, a time when, for some reason we were still working on the assumption Russia was a spent-force who would be quiet and compliant for a chance to be “civilized” by the west.
Hopefully a reserve restructure around the idea of home defence is incoming. Alongside that an increased headcount for the Regular Army is a must as we are going from the mythical 3x lethality to a completely realistic and workable 10x lethality while still hemorrhaging personnel. Making Cadet numbers a headline under that section makes me suspect otherwise though.
It’s mentioned, a new force along the lines of the old HSF, for guarding CNI KPs.
I have just skim read the 144 pages. Mainly waffle, but I did print out ten pages. As others have pointed out, it is mainly a wish list with no firm orders. Things may or may not be bought if the money can or can’t be found. This document means well, but is built on sand. If & its a big if, these plans all come into reality, then great, but I can see this fading away at the next financial shock. Putin, Xi & other dictators may not give us the decade or more this document needs to deliver the capabilities that we need today.
Agreed. Makes you wonder what the first draft looked like before anything resembling a new commitment was removed to avoid embarrassing the government.
Hi Jon, you hit the nail on the head. it strikes me as thin on detail. I have been offered a senior sale role at Sky TV. This is a new position, tasked to grow the direct (non agency client) market. And so I will be starting at Sky the beginning of July
Good luck. The economy is not in a good state right now. The turnover in my family firm fell sharply over the last year, so I know sales are tough at the moment. Private customers spend as much time deciding to buy something for £2, as they did buying something for £2000 twenty years ago.
Morning Jon. I owe you an apology. Somehow I managed to erroneously cut and paste part of an email I sent to a client re the Sky tv thing. Sorry for the unintended confusion.
LOL, Chris. I was wondering!
Skimmed it, but it seems based in reality for once. Move back towards pre-1991 forces, add some mass, and leverage new technology to improve lethality.
I disagree with the statement “we will never, in the future, expect to fight a major, ‘peer’ military power alone”. It’s an unlikely scenario, but still a risky assumption to make.
Ive read the whole 144 pages and although there is much to be impressed about and for me breathe a huge sigh of relief I am concerned it is short on detail of when the 64 recommendations will all be delivered.
My biggest concern is the lack of detail around GBAD and the fact this issue only has a very minimal mention. £1 billion allocated to protecting CNI is not going to cut the mustard. That does mean in any conflict vs Russia or China within the next 10 years we will have missiles and drones penetrating our airspace and striking the UK. The issue will then be how accurate they are and how much damage they will do to our military bases, military equipment and CNI
If all £1 billion is spent on dragonfire, radar guided bofors, phalanx and drone jamming hardware then we might be able to afford to protect with some certainty 6-10 CNI sites. If however we are looking at a missile based system then £1 billion is only enough for a few land ceptor sets and the number of sites protected would drop to just 2-3 I think. So VSHORAD or SHORAD and dragonfire direct energy weapons, radar guided guns, phalanx and drone jammers is the way to spend this money for now to at least provide a closer range protection over more CNI locations.
For me the SDSR is about setting the groundworks and putting the UK back onto a war fighting position. It hasn’t provisioned the UK to fight a war and win on its own but we could potentially at least contribute more meaningfully towards European NATO defence, if article V activated. The implementation will be key as the rot has already set in under the Tories wasted 15 years and all programmes and activities listed are now super urgent and needed yesterday.
A maritime focussed armed forces structure is however key as we are an island nation so our forte should be protecting our sea lines of communication and offshore infrastructure. A primary focus towards the RN and airforce was correct. Britain should never have to generate a large heavy armoured army to fight Russia in Europe- the 500 million Europeans can do that. We can however ensure there is as little disruption to trade, energy, telecomms as possible coming into the UK and Europe through guarding the GIUK gap, ASW focussed RN and having the enablers to provide an enduring presence- so MPAs, enough AWACS and enough air interceptors.
It is not just the tories. The Labour SDR98 was a good document, but Gordon refused to fund it. From then on, UK defence was all downhill, first under Labour, then coalition, then Conservative. It was one cut after another. This 2025 defence review means well, but there are too many “up to” & “when resources allow” for it to be credible.
On the plus side, defence is once again in the news and all parties are talking about improving capability. That in itself is a major change.
With no funding commitments to meet the SDR’s ambition it is all just waffle I’m afraid. Some random comments about long range missiles from the carriers and a F35A buy for free fall strategic nuclear bombs. Why on earth are they there when so many basics remain unfunded.
We can only hope that pressure on the Treasury increases over time. Only then we will see the SDR’s ambition realised. All eyes on the Command Paper in the Autumn. Perhaps by then things will have moved on. We can hope.