The Ministry of Defence has confirmed new projections for the UK’s defence spending, setting out a path towards the government’s target of 3% of GDP in the next Parliament.
The information was published in a series of written answers to Parliament, responding to questions from James Cartlidge, Conservative MP for South Suffolk.
Luke Pollard, Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Defence, provided a breakdown of projected UK spending: the MOD budget will represent 2.08% of GDP in 2025-26, rising to 2.20% by 2027-28, while total defence spending under NATO’s definition is forecast at 2.36% in 2025-26, reaching 2.60% in 2027-28.
He added that “under NATO guidance Government expenditure can be counted towards defence spending, provided it is specifically to meet the needs of its armed forces, those of Allies or of the Alliance.”
The figures come as NATO has set a far more ambitious long-term benchmark. At the 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague, Allies committed to allocating 5% of GDP annually on core defence and security-related requirements by 2035. This includes a binding commitment to spend at least 3.5% of GDP on NATO-defined defence expenditure, with up to 1.5% reserved for resilience measures such as protecting critical infrastructure, civil preparedness, and strengthening the defence industrial base. NATO has instructed member states to submit annual plans showing a credible incremental path to this target.
In Parliament, Maria Eagle, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, was pressed by Cartlidge on how the UK’s Defence Investment Plan will be structured. She said: “The Defence Investment Plan will set out the Department’s spending plans to deliver the vision of the Strategic Defence Review against its forecast budget. This will be based on the Department’s Spending Review settlement, and the MOD’s projected share of the Government’s ambition to spending 3% of GDP on defence in the next Parliament as and when fiscal and economic conditions allow.”
Asked whether the plan would be tied to cost envelopes of 2.5%, 3% or 3.5%, Eagle replied: “The Defence Investment Plan will set out how the MOD will deliver the vision of the Strategic Defence Review within the MOD’s share of the Government’s commitment to spending 2.6% of GDP on defence by 2027, and 3% of GDP in the next Parliament as fiscal and economic conditions allow.”
On the role of intelligence funding, Eagle confirmed that the government’s future increases will incorporate the Single Intelligence Account, saying: “The Prime Minister has been clear about the contribution our intelligence and security services make to the defence of our nation. The commitment to spend 2.6% on defence from 2027 will include all spend relating [to] the Single Intelligence Account.”
When the Wales Defence Investment Pledge was signed in 2014, only three Allies met the 2% target. By 2025, all members are expected to exceed it, with European Allies and Canada together raising their investment from 1.43% of GDP in 2014 to just over 2% in 2024. The Alliance has also maintained a separate benchmark that at least 20% of defence spending should go on major equipment, research, and development, to ensure modernisation and interoperability.
£6B to find to get to 2.5% by 2027.
Another £15B on top of that to get to 3%
Another £60B on top of that to get to the promised 5%.
That’s £81B they have to find. Unless war actually breaks out, and whatever they have promised Trump for the 2030s, I can’t see the Treasury ever getting above 3%.
If we could have a real 3% without all the padding of potholes and broadband – we might still have to have Angie’s 15th house in the budget to keep her onboard with the spending rise.
But as I explained in a previous post SNP maths has taken over from SMP maths. This has lead to a number of amazing new proofs and mathematical concepts that are now being widely adopted.
This uses Sturgeon’s proof. Initially, this was only thought to apply to camper vans.
Where the number of campers vans is greater than one the total campers vans are always zero.
The great thing is that Sturgeon’s proof has now been extended to taxation. When applied to a Scottish workers ‘pay up it is good for you’ is greater than or equal to ‘pay through a company registered in England it is good for me’.
Even more elegantly the proof has been extended in a remarkable new paper described as Angie’s Stamp Duty Paradox. In this paradox Angie states that it is ‘good for the population to be taxed out of existence for second homes’. When the proof is applied to Angie’s second home the rate tends towards the standard rate. Professor Starmer [who has taken over from Professor Reeves as chief money wizard at Gringolts] was unable to find any fault with the proof of Angie’s paradox.
I salute you sir, absolutely first rate sarcasm, combined with hilarious observational comedy..
Indeed. The guy who thought up this little ruse on defence spending is probably the same one who sold Lady Godiva her clothing.
It’s less than we were spending during the Cold War, and actual war hadn’t broken out then. They only need to fund defence spending up to 3.5% of GDP, with the additional 1.5% being a rather woolier definition that includes investment in the industrial base.
I have a plan for £22bn uptick straight away
ditch the £22bn Miliband wants to spend on mechanical extraction of carbon and plant trees on any government piece of land (the mod has lots of) instead.
We could also put some of this money to improving the Grid (critical infra) by investing in the nuclear industry (RR SMR’s) and building resilience
Setting up key manufacturing should Pay for itself once tax collection and local economic benefits are taken into consideration + reduction in benefits. payments as many MOD sites are in areas of low economic output.
It needs a vision and perhaps we should adopt an approach similar to Southh Korea’s 12 National Endeavours strategy that has been so successful.
In all cases any Government can no longer sit on the fence and hope for the best – as every country is helping key industries except ours – leaving UK firms ridiculously exposed to takeovers and unfair competitive practices. Pick the key endeavours and go all in from fastback planning to funding to government dept dedicated support. That’s what others are doing.
Indeed. They say that government is difficult, which it is. That fact has for too long been used to excuse a succession of logically nonsensical decisions however, apparently including pretty much everything that has Miliband’s fingerprints on it.
Ah yes Green Kommissar Milliband.The Totskyist intelligencia of the Labour Party.He so left he makes Corbyn look like Ghengis Khan. A dangerous subversive 5th Columnist.
As my dear ol’ mum used to say ..I could smack him.soon as look at him.
Definitely agree with you.
Maybe there’s something deeper going on here, but I always wondered why we don’t just plant more trees? Are trees expensive? I have no frame of reference for this kind of thing.
Trees are cheap to plant but land is expensive, fortunately mod and HMG are biggest landowners plus a lot of usable land such as Yorkshire moors and Scottish highlands is relatively cheap.
Kelp is also far superior and capturing and fixing carbon… milliband is a maniac
The usual smoke and mirrors, while the forces continue to shrink and, or, lose capabilities.
As mentioned in another article, I believe the core budget includes:
2 billion for the Afghan data breach debacle.
150 odd million every year for 99 years for the Chagos nonsense. That alone is more than many equipment programs get PA.
3 billion plus a year for Ukraine.
Pensions.
The billions allocated for the DNE, so including non ops spend including SSN dismantling, infrastructure builds at the AWE sites, new warheads, and so on.
The SIA, as stated.
Is it any wonder conventional defence is falling apart?
Much of the bigger spend will be lost in the existing black hole, channeled into the MIC, HMG’s primary objective regards defence spending alongside the politics of being at the “top table” by having nukes. Using the defence budget to feather the nests of the MIC is all well and good for jobs, industry, and indeed sovereign resilience, but still leaves questionable outcomes for actual military kit deliveries years down the line, which are by no means guaranteed going by past history.
Example, 12 BILLION I understand to get industry to develop Tempest, never mind then buy it. How many will the RAF get? If it is cancelled, will MoD see that money sunk into BAES? Like hell they will. Did they for any other cancelled program?
I love how the biggest % target, real extra money, is always into the next Parliament. The same trick promised by the Tories when Sunak pledged the same, knowing full well they’d be out of office and not held to it.
What did DS Healey talk of when elected? “stopping the hollowing out”
Where?
Show us real uplifts in the autumn equipment plan, and in personnel, and I’ll concede I’m wrong. The outflow surpassing inflow of trained personnel is at least reducing, and being slowly halted, from what I read.
Till then, this government are all hot air just like all the rest. And the Service Chiefs are no better, gagged in office and only complaining when in cushy non executive advisory roles with defence firms when leaving service.
The 5% commitment by a government that probably won’t be in power to a President who will probably be dead – is completely worthless. I’ll stick by the conviction that any UK government of any colour with the current spending pressures will, no matter what they say, ever spend over 3%. Oh & 3% will be a struggle and of that 3%, as you’ve shown above, not all will be spent on core defence.
not unless some one has the bottle to tackle benefits
Bravo sir, well said!
Sadly all correct, let’s hope the autumn equipment plan proves you wrong 🤞 but sadly I fear my initial optimism was misplaced.. the UK alongside the rest of the west is going to loss its edge and it’s going to cost us hard in a long brutal war with China and its allies.
Well Germany, Holland, Poland, Sweden, Norway & Denmark have real money and are spending it.
France claims it will spend it but won’t.
So not all bad but we are utter laggards and viewed as such.
True but Germany, Holland,Poland etal are all rightly focused on the eastern border of Europe and don’t really have hard power global reach.. the global power in the west is really focused on the US, UK, France and to a lesser extent Italy.. and generally each of those powers in their own way is making a right old fuckup of securing western hegemony.
Just seen a convincing post on X, detailing televant page and clause, saying that the Afghan money is additional, and allocated from HMT reserve.
If so, that is something at least.
Rest remains valid AFAIA.
That’s good the breach cost will not be on the MOD budget, that’s 5 type 31s.
Talking of spaffing money away, just read an article that says trump is changing the name of the Department of defence to the Department of War and it’s going to cost a billion dollars to sort all the letter heading and email.
Paragraph 38, page 16, of said HMT report, apparently.
Fairs fair, I don’t like to report incorrect information.
We had our own War Department, a bit before my time. I’ve always thought that name a bit too aggressive for western Liberal tastes, even a right of centre pro military type like myself.
The Ministry of Defence, which united the Admiralty as well, seems more appropriate.
The costs, as well as all the hassle I have to go through to keep up with the changes, is why I’m against all the pointless rebranding we ourselves indulge in.
But Trumps idea is on a different scale entirely!
Mate, read Supportive blokes post above, he clearly explains the new form of goal post moving economics that point towards the sun lit uplands…
It will all be fine, remember its all gravy tomorrow and T26’s much than the gravy, as Norway is getting ours first!
I’m still in two minds at that, mate. I get the reasoning, but the RN Escort force is literally falling apart.
But hey ho, Starmer is now grandstanding again about the possible sale to Sweden and Denmark.
Hi mate,
Im sure the RN will have its delevies slowed, but they need to employ more people and pick up the pace.
Hopefully, the extra orders will reduce the unit price and allow a few more for the RN.
The RN should have a core force of 12 T26 in these uncertain times.
If we steadily towards 12x T26, 12x up-armed T31 and 9 x T84, backed up by a myriad of unmanned/ lean manned surface assets, then the RN surface combatant fleet will be finally match fit again!
To be honest the speeding up of the programme will not really impact to much time wise..and I honestly think the RN was going to have trouble commissioning the stack of frigates it’s going to be trying to get operational in 2028-2030.. because T26 1 was such a slow build add in first of class trials, the speeding up of build three and the slowing of build 1 T31 the RN was going to have about 5 new frigates to commission in a couple of years….
Thats true, but apparently the RN has turned the corner on its recruiting issues and dont forget, T26 and 31 both have fewer crew.
they are looking to outlive Donald Trump and then go back to underinvesting
all talk no action – across almost everything
Its what you expect. I’m sure they will find ways of including slices for the miners pensions, Education and the NHS out of the imagined 5%. Just waitinging out Trump and the next election. Meanwhile Fudge anyone? They have a bucket load sized stash of it in No 10. Amazing they can still rest and get sleep at night in the Place.
I’m not sure if Politicians think we are idiots or they truly believe the crap they spout. An increase in Defense spending is required because we need more people, bullets, tanks, ships and planes to successfully beat off the invading hordes when they come. Shuffling the pages in the outgoings ledger so that more existing expenditure is considered “defense” fails to achieve that. All they succeed in doing is make themselves look more dishonest than they already do, and leaves us just as defenseless as we are now.
They just don’t care as long as they get there cheap house and expenses they will say what ever. None are ever held to account for the cr*p they spew ever single day. Bring General Cheeseburger in to sort.
That’s what NATO agreed to do though. It’s why the government reports the old definition of defence % of GDP, and then the new definition that includes things like intelligence services because that’s how all other NATO members are reporting it.
It won’t happen, the plan is to drag this promise of 5% out to the end of Trumps term hoping for a softening by the new administration.
Who really trusts these numbers? All that happens is more things are re classed as NATO spending but to be honest we have not ordered any thing in over a year apart from spares etc. So any so called new money is not going any where. Its simply government accounting making it look like its better when there is no change. All talk, meeting, window shopping, and committees followed fancy talk moving costs and things about. The Army still has no Tracked Arty, two years after we gave all ours away.
Hardly some thing to gloat about,
Has Rave on Raynors fancy new Seaside pad been declared as as NATO asset perhaps???
There is no new money to be spent on conventional capability. Almost all the political talk is as though the money promised for 2027 is already there. It isn’t. “We have increased,” they say in the past tense, as though having promised it is all that’s needed. There’s around £750m extra this year (in real terms), which will almost certainly be soaked up by filling in Sunak’s cuts in real terms from 24/25, and the nuclear overruns.
That’s why there can be no significant new purchasing until 2027. No new money.
So why the big defence review when if what you are saying right nothing is going to get ordered this winter when the Defence Command paper comes out. Or have miss read your comments?
HMG really enjoy telling a good story 🤗
And it is all subject to the constantly repeated mantra of weasel words : “when/if economic/fiscal conditions allow” , i.e. never.
Head in the sand stuff.
Litmus test of buying 40+ extra Typhoons now, or Gov just not serious about defence of UK.
Go to 5% and use it as an investment into UK industry – not other countries kit, especially USA – to kick-start re-industrialization of UK, and gain the wider benefits to the UK economy.
It would be a kind of sensible interim purchase wouldn’t it? Like a few more T31s, P8s, E7s, just to beef things up with real and now platform’s and missile stocks. All the talk of 2030s and later, we need to get through the next 5 years or so let alone the next 1-2 years. Russia is getting upset we’re spending their money assets helping Ukraine so could chucked a wobbly. Do we have “counter-wobbly” tech?
*chuck
*Never in the field of (FFWD) has so much bollocks been written/said by so futile a government*
5%, 10 x Lethality, A growing Navy, we pledge to cut Illegals, Tough on Crime, they are all the bloody same, all piss and wind.
Thinking of buying a new £800,000 Rental property, looking for advice ?
Yes do it the property market is not in a bubble about to burst and being a landlord is great, essentially when the government bring in all the new snuggly laws and start charging national insurance on rental income..
It’s definitely time to invest
“ this is not expert investment advice and it is recommended you contact a financial advisor before making any screw your life up decisions “
Weren’t the US meant to be coming down hard on what goes into the 3.5%?!
The word BULLSHIT comes to mind.
As most of these aspirations will be after the next election, and assuming it maybe Reform in power, what have they said about defence spending??
They won’t even have thought about it. Nor anything else involved in running a country. They only have one policy.
I have always thought setting a benchmark of a% of GDP is the wrong way for NATO to ensure all members make an adequate contribution. It would be far better to set out in detail what each country should contribute-size and equipment of ground, naval and air forces.
Not only would that foster a more cooperative approach but it would prevent politicians from spinning numbers to conceal their failure to deliver.
Focussing on outcomes rather than cost would emphasise the inadequacy of the RN surface fleet and the lack of GBAD. We might also be under pressure to increase the size of the army – as we should be.
Hope that any extra money is not wasted, is scrutinised and people held accountable for spending it! Good luck!
He added that “under NATO guidance Government expenditure can be counted towards defence spending, provided it is specifically to meet the needs of its armed forces, those of Allies or of the Alliance.”
I think this is the key message that they wanted to get/slip in there.
Start by spending what we have in a wise manner, good god just look and how much the MoD have wasted on crazy ill thought out projects.
A lot of blah blah blah, at the moment there are no orders for new ships, planes or tanks, the only hope for an increase in real capabilities is that one day Reform UK governs. Neither Labour or Conservatives are interested in defense and they have been demonstrating this for 40 years.
I don’t see this as all doom and gloom.
A year ago, when Labour came in, defence was down a big hole, with service pay having fallen well behind, pretty dismal barracks and family housing standards, an outflow of serving personnel and a recruiting problem, a weapons stockpile run down to a minimalist level and a £15bn+ procurement black hole, meaning no budget for a lot of the new equipment the services want.
HMG has pumped £2-3 bn into the budget this year and £5bn a year for the next two years. It needs a lot more of course, but at least it’s a start. £13bn would buy a lot of Typhoons, tanks and frigates, if all the cash could go on procurement of platforms.
Of course it can’t, there are many other elements that need tackled. Sensibly, the first tranche of new money has gone into recruitment and retention, with a close on 5% pay rise, infrastructure work on family housing, barracks, naval bases, some new weapons orders to replenish stockpiles and in the development of quite a number of new UAVs and UUVs.
I personally think that was the right place to start, fixing the crumbling foundations. The defence procurement plan comes next, I think in November, and that will set out future force levels and equipment plans.
We have about 60 main procurement categories and the competition for funding is immense. That is what is going on just now, the silence on new procurement masks a lot of detailed planning and debate going on behind the scenes. As it should be, we need a coherent equipment plan across the single services that fits the available budget, rather than ad hoc demands swayed by political and Treasury interference. I fear that the major emphasis will be on new equipment, when it is perhaps even more important to increase service numbers, which have been reduced to an all-time low and far too few for any peer-level engagement.
The defence spending figures are revealing. The new NATO rules defining what constitutes core spend are kicking in here.
As we all know, we have not really been spending 2.36% of GDP on defence, or anything like it. The 2.08% that goes to the MOD is far closer to reality. The other 0.28% has got to be the funding for Ukraine, the MOD’s share of the Single Intelligence Account and one would hope some of the peripheral things shoved into the defence budget, such as the civil costs of AWE Alderston and suchlike.
The 2% core of course includes the whopping and ever-soaring costs of the defence nuclear programme. We probably have something like 1.5% in reality to spend on the forces, which explains wht we are always so cash-strapped for new kit compared to many of our NATO allies.
The good news here is that, if the core budget is going from 2% to 3% over the next 8 or 9 years, that means a 50% increase in defence spend, which is not to be sneezed at.
Whether PM and Chancellor can pull this off is another matter; the country is pretty broke and while the public largely approves of more for defence, that support evaporates when they are asked to accept reduced benefits to pay for it. It was ever thus in peacetime. The planned incremental rises in defence spend, while too slow, it is the best way to inch our way towards the 3% target. But it will be a serious task to get to NATO’s 3.5% without a big uptick in the economy.
I’m glad someone pointed out the money being spent on fixing the “foundations” of defence infrastructure, the housing investment is decades overdue and it’s not an open ended, never ending spend. It’s a short term investment to uplift the infrastructure and then that drops down to maintenance (please not another PFI).
However as I’ve pointed out before that spend is dwarfed by what’s being spent on the DNE infrastructure, quite literally every single bit of it was falling apart due to zero investment. So nearly everything at Aldermaston, Burghfield, Capenhurst, Derby, Sheffield, Devonport, Faslane and now Rosyth is being renewed, enlarge or replaced and that is accounts for a large chunk the £10 billion pa we are spending on renewing the CASD and upsizing for AUKUS.
What most folks don’t realise is that the 10 years £100 billion DNE spend is a bit like a reverse hockey stick in terms of cost, all the infrastructure costs are near the start of the project and right now we are pretty well near the peak of that element of the overall spend.
In the other words the annual cost curve starts to decline and that money can then go elsewhere in the defence budget.
So yes there is light at the end of the tunnel.
Yes all very good points which is why unfortunately I can’t many more orders beyond the existing equipment plan of frigates f35 and hopefully mrss might get beyond design phase until after 2030.
The navy force levels do seam to be set for a good decade or more now.