The government’s Defence Industrial Strategy, published earlier this month, promises to make defence an engine for growth. But it doesn’t address the real issues. Britain’s armed forces are perilously weak.
The Royal Navy has only a handful of frigates and destroyers, with submarines often tied up for lack of crew. The RAF has shrunk from nearly 850 combat aircraft in the late 1980s to just over 100 today. The Army can barely field 73,000 regulars, short of tanks, artillery and modern air defence.
This article is the opinion of the authors Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee and Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Crawford and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
Meanwhile, Russia is resurgent, America distracted, and Europe divided. In any future fight, our troops will go into battle with what’s on the shelves now, not what’s been promised years ahead. Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Crawford writes:
“Last week saw the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) trade fair take place in London. It is one of the biggest arms industry exhibitions in the world, and there was as much hyperbole and wishful thinking on display as there was military hardware in the speeches and statements delivered by the many defence firms in attendance.
After all the glitzy announcements and self-congratulatory backslapping, however, the reality is that very little of real substance came out of it, at least as far as Britain is concerned.
The actualité is this; after decades of underfunding under the so-called “peace dividend” following the end of the Cold War, the UK’s services are woefully understrength and underequipped to face the realpolitik of the new international order. Russia is resurgent, NATO divided, and America increasingly focused on China.
Our Navy has too few ships, the RAF too few aircraft, and the Army too few soldiers and not enough armour, artillery, or ground based air defences. Frankly, the forces are not fit for purpose. So the armed forces are indeed in dire straits. But hand in hand with a rearming of the forces must come a rapid ramping up of the UK’s defence industrial base”
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee continues in agreement,
“That is where the Defence Industrial Strategy (DIS) comes in. Published earlier this month, its ambition is to “make defence an engine for growth.” Recently the Trade Body ADS highlighted the contribution the sector already makes: £25.4 billion in exports, 330,000 jobs, and productivity growth of almost 30% over the last decade.
It is clear to all that strategy alone is not enough. The Ministry of Defence must reform its labyrinthine procurement system to give small and medium-sized enterprises the same chances as the big primes. SMEs are the workhorses of the supply chain, yet they too often find the barriers to entry insurmountable.
I know this first-hand as the Chair of a small but innovative Northern Ireland engineering company, Boyce Precision Engineering (BPE). Companies like BPE are part of the vital supply chain feeding into the larger defence primes. They see clearly the potential for growth and jobs if procurement is simplified and opportunities genuinely opened to SMEs. But they also know the risks of government failing to deliver on its commitments: missed opportunities and talented young people discouraged from staying in the sector.
Equally important is spreading the benefits of defence investment across all regions of the UK. Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the English regions all have capabilities to offer. Ministers should also act as global champions for our companies, promoting British defence as the gold standard and boosting exports.
Defence spending is not a luxury but the first duty of the government. Vague promises of higher budgets years from now are worthless when threats are already at the gate. We must invest now, both in our armed forces and in the industry that sustains them — or face humiliation later.”
Baroness Foster is a former First Minister of Northern Ireland and Chair of Intertrade UK. Lt Col Stuart Crawford is a defence analyst and former army officer.
In truth, we need to be on a war footing, and the British people need to be told in plain English of the dangers. Once the nation recognises the need for defence, the sooner we can get the effort started with urgency. Too many political issues are getting in the way of the need for action. The Army desperately needs modernisation, and current plans are too small in scope and too slow in terms of delivery.
People seem to be more interested in protest marching about a war in the Middle-East that has nothing to do with us.
Given the current obsession with beating ourselves up about our “Colonial” past and historic “Expeditionary” brutalities, the biggest battle ahead is reestablishing some patriotism/national pride in the general population.
It has everything to do with us when we are sending surveillance flights over, and also have defence contracts with Israel.
The reason people aren’t supportive of defence is because it is still stained from our past. What we need is an open and honest conversation regarding the defence failures of the past and the dangers we face. Otherwise people will not be on board to potentially be fooled by the government again.
Everything ????
All our fault Eh?
UK=bad, Global Ummah=good …is that where your loyalty really sits?
No, it has nothing to do with us, we are not belligerents in that conflict
UK exports represent less than 1% of Israel’s total defense imports
You’re strawmanning because your argument is based on false emotions. Your logic should then also be applied to Ukraine.
Really stained aren’t we🙄
Defending Europe in two world wars,maintaining a standing force in West Germany for god knows how many years for the purpose of defending said Europeans!
Please point out where exactly our forces are/were stained?
How about following America into the Middle East where 1 million Iraqis have been killed. How about Afghanistan where 600 troops were killed and the Taliban are in charge. How about Palestine, where Israel has shown for a fact it can prevent collateral like it did in Iran but still chooses to bomb civilians
Now then was that our forces stained or the politicians who sent them?
We have NO involvement in Palistine despite some claims from nob heads who probably have no clue where it is!
Didn’t say it was our forces. Read my comments properly before you call anyone a nob
Righto defence implies our armed forces🙄 I didn’t actually call you a nob,but if the cap fits👍
In which branch of the services did you serve in Uzair to gain this insight.
We should be doing far more to help Israel than that.
They are fighting off genocidal hate largely built on the fact that they are an island of human civilization in the most barbarous and backward part of the planet, the heart of religion on earth.
I am ashamed we are so critical of them when compared to us fighting the Nazis from a far safer position the Israelis are fighting like saints.
“most barbarous part of the planet”, Europe drenched itself in poison gas in WW1, had industrial standard death camps and Total city destruction bombing in WW2.
We in Europe wrote the book.
Genocidal hate? The current members of Hamas are those that were children during the intifada. Israel’s actions now have set themselves up for an even worse response in 20 years time.
We should be critical.
Hind rajab. 300 bullets. 300. Justify that.
They used weaponry to target specific IRGC members in apartment buildings but will blow up buildings in Gaza. Justify that.
They bombed Qatar, justify that.
They enacted the Hannibal directive. Justify that.
They cut off water and electricity to 2 million civilians. Justify that.
They flattened entire neighbourhoods with no military targets. Justify that.
They’re hired a biker gang called infidels to hand out aid. Justify that.
They flattened entire neighbourhoods with no military targets. Justify that.
They bulldozed olive groves to starve families. Justify that.
They hold thousands without trial under administrative detention. Justify that.
Do you want me to carry on?
Re point one We murdered 3.5 mil German civilians in WW2. We do not get hate from Germans now because they are no longer Nazis. The Israelis may well get hate but that is not because they have done wrong but because the people will still be Muslims with their usual attitude to anyone standing up to their evil.
Re the other points: Read up on our blockade of Germany in WW1 and 2. Our bombing campaigns. We were far rougher even though we were never facing the genocide that the Israelis face if they lose once.
The Israelis are fighting like saints and the people of Gaza are Fascist pigs that make the German public in WW2 look good by comparison.
Thats total rubbish, we supply no offensive weapons to Israel, why would we they have a better defence industry than ours. We aid them in gaza in no way.
Get off your soap box. Total “whataboutism”
And? By selling defensive weapons, If you want to call the f-35 that, to a genocidal country we are legitimatising its actions
If the Arabs overran Israel, would you call what would then happen “genocide”?
Yes any more strawman arguments?
We have what we have. We cannot undo what has been done.
If it was up to me I would just let them get on with it. Religion be damned.
What did the Muslim nations say they were going to do with Jews if they had won previous wars? I believe they were going drive them into the sea and wipe them out.
Now shoe is on the other foot. The west has woken to the woke rubbish.
The uk doesn’t sell f35 to anyone, Lockheed Martin does.
And let’s not forget the people of Gaza supporting Hamas. They celebrated in the streets after female soldiers were taken prisoner, raped and god knows what else.
It’s estimated Palestinian terror groups killed 18000 Jews in total in 2024.
You act like an animal, you support terror then forget religion you got it coming and Israel is gunna make it happen
And yes I would legitimise their actions if wiping out the people that celebrated the death of 1500 men women and children.
Infact I would send them more weapons
We don’t need people in the world that support people like hamas
At least Doris green light T26/31 so we have warships in build and to sell people.
That is a bit of something.
“ with submarines often tied up for lack of crew”
Not really – it is parts and dry dock time that are the issues.
I’m not sure how accurate the facts were in this. I remember the RAF having 500, maybe 600 combat aircraft in the late ‘80s but not 850. Perhaps the author included the Hawk T1s and Jet Provests in those numbers as I don’t see them standing up otherwise
I would be inclined to agree.
He states that RAF has only 100 fast jets. That is not true as there are ca 100 Typhoon, in service, and ~40 F35B in service with another 24 on order and seven or so more to deliver of the current order to bring to 47 [minus 3 for the orange wired] – allowing for the one that went swimming. That said it is far too few. But it will total ~170 front line frames. Really it needs to be well over 200 frames in the 225-250 range for the various taskings that are presented to RAF and FAA.
Yes I thought that too. A rounding error to some but 50% of the stated fast air number!
Defence spending as a proportion of national wealth is the most meaningful basis for comparison, because it’s the only measure that corrects for economic growth. Relative spend has declined from ca. 4% of GDP in 1990 to a little over 2% now. It is generally true that each generation of platforms costs roughly double the previous generation in real terms (i.e. after inflation is accounted for). Comparing how many ships or fighter jets we had in the 1980s with how many we have now does not serve as a legitimate illustration of the relative level of resource allocated then and now, and only serves to muddy the waters.
Although a recognised approach Ihink merely using GDP as a metric can in itself muddy the waters. For example what was our GDP in the 90’s and what is it now. How does that equate to what hardware and personnel that would purchase then and now , in order to ‘service’ our defence requirements. We seem to be awfully good at gold plating equipment requirements and promising better kit later (Ares ,F35A, Type 32 ) instead of deciding what we want to be able to do and what we them need for a credible defence force. (Bigger army ? More Challenger? more Typhoon? Extra/enhanced Type 31 G ?) think that’s how we should approach funding WHAT do we need for credible defence and then we fund it…There’s been too much can kicking for 20 plus years and it needs to stop.
That’s the point though- what you could buy in the 90’s for ‘X’ amount of money will not buy you the same now in cash terms. Nor will the manning costs be the same, even in inflation-corrected terms. Nor will the capabilities of a modern platform be that analogous to its older equivalent. But on the other hand we have much more cash after 40 years of growth. Actually working out how cost-inflation versus capability enhancement versus growth in per capita wealth affects overall outcomes is immensely complicated- especially since you have to apply comparable calculations to the capabilities of your adversaries. % spend of GDP is at least a straightforward indicator of how much the government is prioritising resources for national security (or not). Exactly how the money is spent is another debate entirely.
The unpalatable truth is that even if the UK had the money and political will, it is no longer possible to re-arm quickly. Build times for modern front line weapons-ships, jets, armoured vehicles etc. take for years! Even if one wanted to buy off the shelf from foreign sources, where to go? No Western nation has warehouses full of front line fighters or heavily armed escorts, so quickly nowadays means a couple of years not a couple of months or even from WW2, a couple of weeks!!
russia is not resurgent.
Their economy is showing huge cracks, taking unsustainable losses in Ukraine and morale amongst the invaders is low and deteriorating
I would not write them off yet!
Like a typical autocracy, they have a large military industry which is already up to speed for attritional warfare.
Don’t forget North Korea, China, and Iran have their back too
As of the beginning of September 2025 Russia still has:
Main Battle Tanks ~3,300
Armored Vehicles ~11,000
Towed Artillery ~2,000
Self-Propelled Artillery ~1,000–1,300
Rocket Artillery (MLRS) ~1,300
Combat Aircraft ~1,200
Attack Helicopters ~400
Submarines ~83
Surface warships ~40–50
Putin loves to pull off a stunt that makes the West look weak, but stops short of all out war. That is the risk.
The concern is that the Ukraine war will eventually end one way or another, and the Russians will then continue to throw resources at rebuilding their capabilities in order to pose a more overt threat to NATO. Politically- they can get away with spending say, 20% of GDP on the military for quite a few years, as they proved back in the 80s (albeit regime collapse did follow eventually).
From what I saw they’re spending about 40% of GDP on defence and security. They’ve lost about somewhere between 10-20% of oil production due to Ukrainian strikes. Their major offensive on Povkrosk has ben a disaster and they’re losing territory, plus Ukraine have been taking out alot of commanders in that region. Alot of their spending is going into replacing and replensihing troops just to control 20% of Ukraine.
Their government spending has reached a high deficit, their bank leaders aren’t optamistic about their economy and even predict a recession. The main reason why their economy grew, despite heavy sanctions, is heavy government spending on the defence industry. Its created highly skilled jobs yes, but alot of people have left other sectors to move to the industry creating a labor shortage. Inflation is high, people are queuing for fuel in different areas.
This war is unsustainable. However, I think putin knows if he pulls out of Ukraine he could be finished.
How best to inform the public of this dire state of our armed forces? Perhaps publish two or three credible scenarios and detail what we could field and how long it would remain combat-effective given replacement equipment holdings, BCRs, ammunition stocks and supplies.
Sorry, to be a cynic but I don’t think that would really do much. The only people who would really pay attention are the people who already know and are interested in defence matters before hand. I suppose the media could help create a fleeting moment of “something needs to be done” which will last precisely as long as it takes Joe Bloggs to determine that something needs to be done providing that the expense is not a burden on people called Joe Bloggs.
Sky already tried to do that with the Wargame podcast, it barely had any effect!
They tried and it did make some impact in the Westminster Village.
The problem? Mealy mouthed politicians. Procurement practices and a societal wide negative attitude to overall defence matters.
Look at hoe the anti Semitic left has been given airtime, look at the enemy within. With political will things can get done, an economy on a war footing can soon produce.
“Quickly” ….
IMHO it’s going to take 10 years or more.
Bigger armed forces go hand in hand with faster procurement, industrial capacity expansion, Better recruitment processes, new infrastructure for maintenance …etc.
I see why Putin made his move on Ukraine when he did. he saw the bigger picture
How will that work when we are so reliant on America for capabilities ??
For at least two decades, I have been rambling on, about the poor state of UK defence, but Rachel has trashed the economy, Rishi maxed out the UK credit card over Covid & energy rebates, so massive spending cuts are needed across the entire public sector. I wish it were not true, but sadly “we are where we are”.
Thing is that it is the slowness of even modest increases and forward contracts that allow for capacity to be built up.
Words, Arguments, Anger, Point scoring, Insults, Brand new accounts.
Love this site !