The Ministry of Defence has outlined how lessons from the war in Ukraine are influencing changes to British military capability, doctrine and supply chain resilience.
The above came in reply to a written parliamentary question from Conservative MP Richard Holden, who asked what changes the MoD had implemented across force structure, stockpiling, supply chains, and the integration of new technologies including artificial intelligence and autonomous systems.
Defence Minister Luke Pollard said the UK’s Armed Forces are “learning much from the war in Ukraine, particularly the need for a much faster ‘learn and adapt’ cycle to accelerate developments in our capabilities, doctrine and tactics.”
On supply chains and munitions, Pollard pointed to the Defence Supply Chain Capability Programme, which he said is strengthening resilience. He confirmed that the Strategic Defence Review “confirmed that we will invest in ‘Always On’ munitions production for our most critical ammunition types,” adding that lessons from Ukraine have been incorporated into how the MoD assesses munitions choices across the force.
Pollard also acknowledged the growing importance of autonomous systems, saying the Strategic Defence Review “highlighted the importance of autonomous systems within the UK’s Integrated Force.”
However, he stopped short of detailing specific equipment decisions, stating that requirements for artificial intelligence and autonomous systems “will be set out in the forthcoming Defence Investment Plan.”
Plans ? PLANS ?? We have Plans ??
UK capability, limited, UK doctrine, slow and catching up, UK supply chain resilience, threadbare and not taken seriously!
Yep, more politico bullshit and bluster….
Meanwhile, they have been in for coming up two years, fu#k all has been done, they haven’t even released the DIP.
I honestly think they are delaying plans as much as possible, with the intention of shoving as much of the financing as they can, onto the next government’s lap.
They know they can’t hold back GCAP, probably two thirds of the total UK contribution will be paid by 2029 anyway and simultaneously AUKUS will be rapidly ramping up…
There goes the current defence budget, 2.5% simply won’t cover these massively expensive programmes and everything else. They know that, so do we, so they are shoving as much as possible post 2029….
I’m sure we soon see the announcement with much fanfare of SDSR25 “Lessons learnt” supplementary review, that will further delay and delay and delay.
GCAP and SSN A are certainly the main issues along with Astraea warhead. Each of those programs is going to see £15 billion spent.
It is however worth noting that all those programs were started by the last government and the current government is increasing defence spending at a faster rate than the previous government planned to.
The Johnson, Truss, Sunak (days and years) had quite a habit of promising grandiose defence projects to be paid for in the next parliament. Phil Hammond had previously set out a ten year fully funded equipment plan which the Johnson government then threw out and the current government is now attempting to make all those sums add up however unlike under Hammond or Johnson it is having to do that under an extreme physical constraint as the Bank of England is no longer printing money and the government is attempting to prevent a ballooning national debt by achieving a surplus inside the current parliament.
We can go down the usual labour vs Tory bashing but I think it’s important to contrast an actual conservative government under Cameron/May with a populist government under Johnson,Truss, Sunak.
I’m personally think labours approach of a sustained increase of 0.1% of GDP to defence is the right approach. Increasing at a faster rate simply results in more waste however I think the nuclear endeavour should be removed from MoD spending and handled separately almost like it’s owned armed forces.
A core budge of 2.5% of defence for the conventional British armed forces win the nuclear endeavour and Ukraine funding handled separately is affordable and would put the MoD on a long term sustainable path.
This is exactly what SDR 98 outlined
Good balanced post.
The nuclear issue is the elephant in the room squashing everything else.
2.5% just for core Conventional forces?! We’d have no idea how to spend it or the people to man the kit. But, we need to start somewhere, and I agree with John that things are too slow and the left of the Labour party ( as always ) is holding things back, and the government is happy to delay to let others try to sort it out.
The Tories did similar. promising the earth, post election of course.
Political games, and it stinks. And the US and Trump have finally woken up to it.
“ I honestly think they are delaying plans as much as possible, with the intention of shoving as much of the financing as they can, onto the next government’s lap.”
I think even the man-on-Clapham-omnibus has cotton onto this – it is screamingly obvious now.
People are talking about the lack of action.
Same old Tony
What, frankly, is the point of even discussing ‘future’ programmes, unable, as we are, to even fund our signed up to at the highest level governmental defence commitments of today? Britain is currently in breach of the security assurances that it gave to Ukraine, in breach of its commitments regarding NATO’s ARRC and in breach of its responsibilities to the U.N. as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council; scandalous!
The real problem (which the government will not address, for a variety of blindingly obvious reasons that have nothing to do with national security) is this:
‘In the period 2002 to the present, the total cost to the electricity consumer of those renewable electricity subsidy schemes that we can quantify has amounted to approximately £220 billion (in 2024 prices), equivalent to nearly £8,000 per household. The annual subsidy cost is currently £25.8 billion a year, a sum equivalent to nearly fifty per cent of UK annual spending on defence. Subsidy to renewable electricity generators now comprises about 40% of the total cost of electricity supply in the United Kingdom. The total subsidy cost per unit of renewable electricity generated has risen by nearly 50% in real terms since 2005 and now stands at approximately £200/MWh. This contradicts government and industry claims that renewables are becoming cheaper.
There can be little doubt that renewable electricity subsidies are a significant factor in the much-discussed cost of living crisis and are very likely to be an important element underlying the weak growth in productivity in the UK economy since the financial crisis of 2008.
Renewable electricity generators have now enjoyed generous financial support for over twenty years without showing any significant progress towards independent economic viability. On the contrary, the requirement for such support seems to be rising. The public is surely entitled to ask when government will bring this extraordinary and insupportable level of subsidy to an end.’
A significant reorientation of government funding, systemic reform, is required.
Ignore the blather because none of us believe anything that comes out of any politicians mouth anymore.