The government has yet to set out when its promised acceleration of defence procurement will be achieved, as a written parliamentary exchange shows the department still has no defined timetable for meeting the contracting speed targets outlined in recent policy.
Ben Obese Jecty, the Conservative MP for Huntingdon, asked the department “by when is his target to reduce the average times to contract for (a) major projects of six years, (b) pace-setting modular upgrades to two years and one year respectively and (c) a target of three-month cycles for rapid commercial exploitation.”
The question sought clarity on when the MOD expects to reach the accelerated acquisition benchmarks it has set out in recent defence policy.
Responding for the department, Minister of State Luke Pollard said that reducing delivery timelines remains central to procurement reform efforts. He stated in the written reply that “reducing the time taken to deliver capability is a key driver of our acquisition reforms.” Pollard said the MOD is introducing a “segmented approach to procurement, supported by accelerated commercial pathways,” which is intended to help programmes reach contract more quickly.
However, the answer makes clear that the department has not fixed dates for achieving the specific reductions cited in the question. Pollard wrote that “no timescale for achieving the targets has been set,” signalling that the MOD is not yet committing to when the one year, two year or three month cycles might be reached.
The only formal milestone referenced in the reply is the establishment of the new segmented approach itself. Pollard said the department is progressing toward “the target date of 1 April 2026 for establishment of the segmented approach in line with the Strategic Defence Review.” According to the answer, this will begin with pilot projects intended to identify early opportunities for improvement.
While the MOD continues to present accelerated procurement as a priority, the implementation remains tied to structural reforms rather than clear delivery timelines for the targets described in policy statements.
Britain lacks politicians who actually give a crap about defence*
Fixed the title.
Pretty much.
They’re only interested in supplying pork to the MIC, with jobs as part of that contributing to their “plan for change” and “boost growth” which is being strangled by their own policies.
Have a look on youtube at Gordon Brown ranting about change.
Nothing has changed.
No time line so, next year, 5 years, or decades. Who cares, it’ll be someone else’s problem then.
They’re going to get a wake up call when ruzzia keeps upping attacks on Europe. I’d hate to be a high ranking officer in the British military. Must be very hard trying to get things done with hands tied behind your back and money getting thrown up against the wall.
Very, very frustrating. We have a good defence industry and we have the best trained military personel in the world. Our biggest weakness is the lack of political will and wasteful spending. Good lord the MoD wastes money.
“They’re only interested in supplying pork to the MIC”
I am not so sure about that. BAE used to have a monopoly, created expressly by HMG, on things and that might have been true two decades ago.
Part of the problem with lack of defence spending is that sustaining the capability both of R&D and manufacture eats such a big % of spend. Ordering tiny numbers then means that the R&D costs spread over tiny units leads to eye watering prices. In most cases ordering 25% more units ads little to the overall project costs. And cutting 40% of the procured units makes almost zero difference to the overall project *except* for in-year accounting.
I suspect it’s more to do with the sheer amount of civil servants involved and vested interests. Breaking that would take someone with a serious backbone, as it would involve constant negative news stories of strikes etc. the civil service would form ranks around the offenders.
I would like to see a ban on anyone in the military or civil service or MP moving into a senior role in a contractor for x years after departure. However it’s not practical, as it would be cutting off people’s career options post military. Without that senior people just won’t push back against contractors to get better deals, as they have one eye on what comes next for them, whether they are aware of it or it’s subconscious.
Unfortunately there isn’t any model country out there that has solved it, every country has the same problem.
Maybe the best option is to bring it back in house, but that would be impossible at this point as all the IP is with massive private companies and not the government.
On a positive this is the first time since the early 90s that our forces aren’t deployed in an active war zone. It gives time to stop fire fighting on what is immediately needed for the specific war and start forward planning. Which should reduce the constant decision changes in capability needs that slows everything down.
there is a ban on the MOD civil service joining defence companies, which doesn’t seem to apply to ex minsters
There is a very short term ban. That’s why so many move across.
Seems it’s meant to be 2 years for both, at least in respect of lobby roles and it’s often broken, as there isn’t really any bite to the regulator.
What a load of fantastically written bullshit.
Sad reality? It will take a direct, massive hit on the UK before these lazy, useless politicians do anything. Only when a population feels pain do they demand swift action. So, its an attack on critical infrastructure that will cause mayhem that kick starts change. Social tensions are already bubbling in the UK. And Pooters knows that.
It’s all lies. They’re not going to acquire anything; their only interest is reducing military capabilities and saving and saving to squander on useless things.
Waffle.
Pancake.
Maple Syrup.
Actually, I should have said Jam. Jam tomorrow is normally on the menu !
Has this wretched government placed any orders for significant platforms in their 16 months in office? So many senior officers and quite a few leading politicians in government seem to accept that we are in a pre-war situation.
I agree with John that only a significant Russian kinetic attack on a UK base, military platform, critical national infrastructure or even a town will wake up the population-at-large and the Prime Minister. By then it will be far too late to rearm – we had nearly 5 years of rearmament to get ready for WW2 – we will probably not have 5 months next time around.
I think the view, rightly or wrongly, is that a Russian kinetic attack on the UK will bring in the US under NATO Article 5. I think we are still a country that the US, and particularly the US people, values and not even the Trump administration could survive by doing nothing. I think Putin knows this too, so in spite of all the rhetoric, Russia will probably continue its sneaky subterfuge with us instead. However, I agree it is well past the time when a UK government needs to step up to the plate and undertake a fully costed and resilient plan to rearm our nation and provide the appropriate defensive and offensive capability to make anyone in the world think twice before upsetting us.
You would need to trust that the Tangerine Tinted Buffoon was not a Kremlin asset.
It is getting increasingly hard to find excuses for TTB bizarre behaviours with Mad Vlad.
I hate to break this to you, but the MAGAtrons don’t give a flying f@ck about us or anyone else. They don’t even give a damn about many of their fellow citizens.
Britain lacks………………..nothing more to be said. I genuinely think clowns like Starmer still, despite all the evidence think Emperor Trump and 7th cavalry will ride to our rescue again.
“… segmented approach to procurement, supported by accelerated commercial pathways,”
That’s all right then. Nothing to worry about. Got it sorted…
Please translate?
When is the bl@@dy Defence Investment Plan going to be published?!?! I assume they’ve been waiting until after next week’s budget for obvious reasons, but it feels like many urgent defence purchases have been on-hold for this 🤦🏻♂️
Looks like it’s by the end of this month.. so I would imagine after the budget but before the 1st December.
I think I have figured out where we may the defence investment plan, there was a piece published in which one of the procurement leads, Deputy director of UK Defence Innovation and head of technology transition at the National Armaments Directorate (NAD), James Gavin intimated they were working on the end of November for publication . if we assume it’s after the budget on the the 26th that gives the very end of this coming week for publication.. hope so.
As well as the DIP, we are also waiting for the Defence Command Paper or White Paper which should detail how the SDR is to be implemented.
On defence and security HMG really are ridiculous , couldn’t believe they give permission for this super big Chinese Embassy to ahead .Why not just give them the Key’s to number 10 MR Starmer . 🗝 🙄
Nothing for defence, but another £15 Billion for Benefit Skivers. Labour talk the talk, but when it comes to actually paying up, they suddenly become cagey but when you mention some Gazan Terrorists need Student grants and housing and food and benefits for family, they break out the bank and offer them vanloads.
I’m wondering whether the 12 new SSNs in this government’s plans will just end up as another ‘type 32’?!?! The next government will do its own defence review and decide on another, ‘marquee’ procurement. Maybe what our military needs is a cross-party strategy that allows defence leaders to define a 10 year strategy and just get on with their job of recruiting, training and arming the armed forces to meet that strategy? Like so many on here, though, I can dream!