The UK is reforming procurement and expanding industrial partnerships to support faster capability delivery, Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry Luke Pollard MP has said.
Speaking at DPRTE 2026 in Farnborough, Pollard said the government’s “stated ambition” is to move the armed forces towards “warfighting readiness… able to deter, and, if necessary, defeat a peer adversary.”
He argued that a more dangerous and unpredictable security environment is driving the need for faster action, stating that “the world is getting more dangerous… the threats that we are facing are becoming more severe and more apparent to us all.”
Pollard confirmed that defence spending is increasing, with an additional five billion pounds allocated this year, but added that reforming how that money is spent is central to delivering capability at pace.
He said efforts are underway to accelerate procurement, including “cutting the time of contracting” and “removing… rules that get in the way of delivering the capabilities that our Forces need at a faster pace.” The minister also highlighted a greater focus on UK industry, noting that “as we’re spending more of an increasing defence budget with UK-based firms, we’re also spending more of that with SMEs as well,” with a target to increase direct SME spend by 50% by May 2028.
Pollard also pointed to recent contract activity, stating that more than 1,200 defence contracts have been signed since the general election, with 86% awarded to British companies. Since October, £4.9 billion in contracts have been signed, with 94% going to UK firms. Among the programmes referenced were £650 million for Typhoon upgrades and £1 billion for the New Medium Helicopter programme, alongside ongoing investment in uncrewed systems and maritime autonomy. He also announced in-service support contracts worth more than £280 million over seven years for military vessels, awarded to Babcock and Serco, with a significant portion directed to smaller UK suppliers.
Looking ahead, Pollard said the forthcoming Defence Investment Plan will provide greater clarity on long-term priorities, adding that “there’s very few people that want it out more than I do… and that will come out soon.”
He stressed that industry will play a central role in delivering capability, describing defence as “a team sport” involving government, armed forces and suppliers.
Pollard added that strengthening the defence sector’s visibility as a career path is also important, arguing that “if we can make the case that defence is an engine for growth… then we attract more investment, more bright young people.” He concluded by emphasising the need for continued collaboration between government and industry to deliver capability at speed in response to a deteriorating security environment.
Ok sounds good, another MOD press realease that avoids the big issue. You have order kit for it to be delivered, at the moment there seems to a 2 year hold on buying any thing apart from service contracts. So how are these reforms going help?. Of course any thing that helps address the total mess procurment is very welcome but it kind of still missesthe point, no procurment going on out side spares etc.
All we have is what we have had for 30 plus years, run down, clapped out or simply retired and gapped, fix that and then that might help fix other massive problems. Rather than talk about it, releasing long winded statemets and sound bits try being up front about the real crap state of things.
Not expecting it fixed over night and some things are getting better and seem on the right track, its just the not ordering the fighting kit seems as if we got all day no rush, just hold on a bit longer. And by 2031 every thing will be rosey.
Complete Public-Relations BS.
The whole Procurement chain mess was a deliberate invention to drag out the spending on defence projects. I never really got it, because delaying things just makes them more expensive due to inflation. Now they system has gained a life of its own and is actually preventing anything being delivered in a timely manner.
I suspect a bit of fat-trimming will take place, but the purpose of the Procurement chain – to prevent defence spending – still remains.
The extra 5 Billion this year, how much of that is going into core conventional defence, so paying for people to operate kit, and buying that kit for the RN, Army, and RAF?
And how much was diverted into a long list of other “Defence” items that eat at the Defence table but have no relation to equipping the forces?
Good question – I’d like to see a comparison of our actual conventional forces spend (excluding Civil Service £3bn, Pensions (9% of defence), Nuclear (20% according to this forum), Afghan resettling – v’s other NATO allies and v’s similar island nation (Japan).
Spend benchmarks should be based on this?
So I had it on good authority that the increase in the Army budget almost entirely covers the salary and NI increases….
I am pleased that it covers it TBH.
The usual trick would be for it to slightly not cover it!
That is at least a positive to try to help with retention.
This is the real problem.
Government have been hiding the true nature of the defence calamity for a while by releasing less and less data.
There used to be a published breakdown of how funds were top level split between, salary, pension, capital expenditure, maintenance contracts etc but this has disappeared in the last couple of years.
Good news. Now, can we see new kit before the default date of 2030?
Mr Pollard is talking a lot about abolishing the “silly rules” that are stopping procurement. He means inside the MOD. And he’s right, but it all feels like a diversion from discussing getting ready for war and paying for it. It’s a good conversation, it just feels like the wrong one.
I was listening to Deborah Heynes who did the War Game podcast for Sky and she was likening the “we are spending money” talki now to that in 2010/11 when we were seeing it cut to the bone. Nobody in the MOD is fooled by that, she said.
So in your world there’s no such thing as risk and all projects will always run on time and budget.
The level of procurement risk hasn’t suddenly leapt to swallow £5bn without a sign. That would be a new Ajax-sized write off annually. You tell me where the money is going then. In my world the money isn’t getting though to capability. I’m waiting on the DIP, like everyone else, to see where the money is going, and if it ever existed.
All been said before and will last right up until there’s a failure and it will snap back. The project management triangle doesn’t disappear. If you want to speed up procurement you will expose the taxpayers to more risk. The greater the risk on a project, the more it will run over budget.
That depends if the spending is for more 5″ shells, A30 missiles, NSM etc as those lines can be bought at fixed cost as they are all knowns. So there should be little risk in increasing stockpiles which a good % of money in needed for.
So it is quite important to differentiate that sort of low risk spending with the higher risks of developing new cutting edge products.
Then there is the mid risk which is ordering more of large platforms such as T31 which could be low risk is fiddling with the spec was excluded or could be very high risk if the Good Idea Committee is allowed full reign.
Unfortunately, I would not be surprised if the type 32 frigates and type 82 destroyers are totally eliminated, and replaced by a few drone missile barges. The Royal Marines may totally disappear. The RAF may benefit with F35A, which the fleet air arm can’t fly.
Unfortunately, I would not be surprised if the type 32 frigates and type 82 destroyers are totally eliminated, and replaced by a few drone missile barges. The Royal Marines may totally disappear. The RAF may benefit with F35A, which the fleet air arm can’t fly.