Armed Forces Minister Alistair Carns has used a speech at the London Defence Conference to argue that the UK must move faster in adapting to modern warfare, warning that failure to do so would increase the risk of future conflict.

Speaking after visits to Cyprus and Ukraine, Carns said both theatres pointed to the same conclusion: that the nature of war has changed, and that resilience can no longer be treated as something that can be improvised in a crisis.

He said Ukraine had shown how quickly conflict now evolves, with drones, compressed kill chains and constant attacks on infrastructure reshaping the battlefield. He also argued that Russia was not simply fighting in Ukraine, but learning from the war and passing on what it learns to others, including Iran.

“If we did not change at pace, we would fall behind,” Carns said.

A central theme of the speech was the economics of modern war, with Carns arguing that cheap, mass-produced uncrewed systems are now changing not just battlefield tactics but the wider industrial and logistical model behind them.

He said drone warfare now accounts for the overwhelming majority of casualties in Ukraine and claimed that one drone can deliver the equivalent battlefield effect of multiple artillery rounds, dramatically reducing the logistics burden behind sustained combat.

“The economics of warfare matter, and we must learn and act now and act together,” he said. “The consequences of ignoring these lessons will be grievous.”

Carns rejected the idea that Western militaries could simply assume future wars would be fought differently, saying the answer was not a choice between traditional high-end capability and cheaper autonomous systems, but a blend of both.

“It’s not either or. It’s a blend. It’s a high, low mix,” he said.

He tied those lessons directly to current UK defence policy, pointing to investment in uncrewed systems, integrated targeting networks and closer cooperation with Ukraine. He said readiness now depends not only on what is bought, but on how quickly lessons are absorbed and capability is scaled.

The minister also broadened the argument beyond the armed forces themselves, saying national resilience rests on the health of the economy, public services, energy security and workforce skills as much as on ships, aircraft and munitions. “You can spend billions on defence, but if families are struggling and the economy is under strain, you’re kidding yourself about how strong this country really is,” he said.

Carns argued that resilience must be built before crisis hits, rather than assumed to appear under pressure, and said the UK should not simply assume it would show the same staying power as Ukraine without doing that groundwork in advance.

On alliances, he said the UK response remains rooted in NATO but extends beyond it, including cooperation with European allies and the Joint Expeditionary Force. He also sought to play down doubts over the UK-US relationship, saying it was grounded in long-standing operational and industrial integration rather than short-term political commentary. “Friends can disagree,” he said. “The reality is our cooperation is continuous.”

He ended by returning to the question of people, arguing that pay, housing and family support are essential to sustaining a ready force, and linking improved recruitment and reduced outflow to that wider approach.

“If we get this wrong, if we fail, we increase the chances of war,” Carns said. “We increase the chances of conflict by not being ready.”

George Allison
George Allison is the founder and editor of the UK Defence Journal. He holds a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and specialises in naval and cyber security topics. George has appeared on national radio and television to provide commentary on defence and security issues. Twitter: @geoallison

14 COMMENTS

  1. He is effectively supporting my view that basing our armed forces on a defence strategy that is only refreshed every 5 years or so is crazy. It’s like relying on your car sat nav in a rapidly rapidly growing town, but only updating the map every 5 years. We need a rolling plan that is updated (not rewritten) every 24 months or so to reflect political, strategic, military and technological changes. Of course the UK hasn’t help itself by taking 12 months to develop SDR2025 and then another 12 months figuring out how to implement it – 2 years where rather than “adapting fast”, our armed forces and industrial base have effectively been in stasis, all but frozen.

    • I think we need a new strategy refresh every five years however I think that should not be equated with a new equipment plan. The strategic defence review should focus on who we are going to fight not how we are going to fight them.

    • Don’t not be silly.. that would mean a labour government not handing over ridiculous amounts of money to the work shy to invest in the defence of the realm.. which I’m meant to believe is the first priority of government

      • True but it all started with Camrons cuts , Reform are too close ties with the Russians. the Torys now are talking the talk but I doubt they
        will get in the next elections.

  2. Mr Carns is confusing war fighting capability with deterrence. They are not the same thing at all. Of course we need both…but what we really need, right now, is a conventional deterrent…you know…the one that we are committed to providing to NATO.

    As a consequence of the dereliction of all three major parties, Britain is and has been for some time in breach of security assurances that we have given to Ukraine, to NATO and of our obligations as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council.

    Shameful! What an utter disgrace!

    • Very true, more vague political speak, whilst promising nothing…

      The government should have injected emergency funding into the armed forces on coming into power. That should initially have been used to increase armed forces pay, faster improvement to living conditions, spares and munitions stocks and to remove the deliberate drip feed bottle necks, regarding on going programmes.

      An additional 10 to 12 billion a year I would say.

      Certainly a few billion wisely spent on on pay increases, bonuses, perhaps increasing the Armed forces tax threshold to £20,000, more generous pensions, more selective engagement options etc, could reduce the numbers leaving annually. If it reduced that number by 30%, we would stop the rot and start building back.

      It would also encourage recruitment and start pushing total personnel numbers steadily in the right direction.

      That’s low hanging fruit the government could have immediately enacted as soon as they took power.

      The SDSR should have been written with 3.5% in mind a rapid year on year increase to that amount.

      They found ‘many’ billions for their pet projects in their first budget, paying their Union paymasters off etc, and did absolutely fu#k all about defence of the relm, something they are still happily doing fu#k all about 2 years later while the spector of war looms ever closer.

      • Spot on!

        Anyone who has bothered to do a five minute search online will know that the evidential basis for net zero relies upon deeply flawed modelling incapable of recreating even the climate of the recent documented past.

        Consequently there are resources available that could be deployed immediately to restore this country’s conventional deterrent.

        The only thing we lack appears to be the political will.

        Mr Carns has had a distinguished military career. The charitable view must be that, no doubt, he is doing his best…

        • Mr Carns has had a distinguished military career. The charitable view must be that a distinguished military career is no proof of strategic thinking.

    • The first point of the armed forces is deterrent, showing the enemy you have the ability to hurt them in unacceptable ways..and that really means hurting… with offence being the core.

      If russia thinks NATO political will is weakening it will end up pushing the Uk if the UK is not able to show it can hurt Russia.

  3. Less talk and more ordering tanks, fighter jets, and warships. This government will be the only one that doesn’t order a single one of them, and the previous ones were disastrous.

    • And add missiles to go with all that! Get the GBAD network happening. Additional Aster, CAMM and LMM for Land and Sea to backup anti drone tech and protect valuable assets, bases and people!

      • To be honest the most important thing is stuff that can hurt russia… if we can constantly plant long range drones and missiles on stuff Putin cares about he’s far less likely to push.. defence is important but defence does not deter.

  4. I do agree with this, numbers matter, that ability to harm matters and resilience matters.. the maths of peer war is not rocket science it never has been.. it’s a simple equation of harm vs resilience if you cause more harm that an nations resilience you win if they do that first they win.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here