Defence industry leaders call for faster procurement

Defence Industry Leaders Call for Faster Procurement, Greater SME Involvement, and Stronger NATO Collaboration.

Leaders from the UK defence industry have called for significant reforms to procurement processes, greater SME participation, and increased NATO-led standardisation in an evidence session before the Defence Select Committee on 4 March 2025.

The session, part of the Committee’s ongoing inquiry into the UK’s contribution to European security, explored challenges facing British defence manufacturing, industrial cooperation with European partners, and the role of NATO in aggregating defence capacity.

MPs asked the industry leaders what single priority they wanted from the upcoming Defence Industrial Strategy (DIS).

Andrew Kinniburgh, Director General of Make UK Defence, said that the creation of an SME hub within the MOD was a positive step, but it must now be backed by binding targets for MOD and prime contractors to spend a percentage of their procurement budgets on SMEs.

“We need hard, regulated percentage spend on SMEs for the MOD and the primes, with no wriggling out of it. We should be following the US Department of Defense model, where 25% of DoD spending goes directly to SMEs, and 30% of prime contractor spending is with SMEs,” Kinniburgh said.

Julian David, CEO of techUK, stressed the need to change how defence spending is allocated, arguing that the current focus on long-term hardware procurement needs to shift towards flexible, software-driven capabilities.

“We are going to spend a lot more money, but we need to spend it differently. Stop specifying to the nth degree what you think you’ll need in 20 years’ time,” David said.

Meanwhile, Kevin Craven, Chief Executive of ADS, emphasised that effective implementation was the key to ensuring the success of the Defence Industrial Strategy.

“A few years ago, DSIS had some very sensible suggestions, the majority of which were not implemented. An industrial strategy that we carry out and follow with rigour would be game-changing,” Craven stated.

MPs also questioned the witnesses on how NATO could better support the UK’s defence industry and improve European security cooperation.

Kinniburgh pointed to pilot training as an example of where NATO-wide collaboration could deliver massive cost savings and efficiency gains.

“The UK MOD alone is spending £50 million a year outsourcing fast jet pilot training because there’s no availability of Hawk jets at RAF Valley. We’re sending dozens of pilots to the US, Italy and elsewhere,” he said.

He suggested that NATO establish a shared training fleet using a single aircraft model across multiple nations, reducing costs and ensuring standardisation.

“A UK company, Aeralis, has developed an advanced jet trainer. NATO could step in and say, ‘We are going to provide a NATO-wide resource for fast jet training, using the same jet across multiple nations.’ The RAF and other countries wouldn’t need to own them; they could just contract for availability,” Kinniburgh explained.

Julian David called for greater interoperability and standardisation across NATO, particularly in munitions and weapons platforms.

“At the end of the Cold War, the only two things that were common across NATO were diesel and 105mm ammunition. That’s ridiculous. There needs to be a real effort to address supply chain challenges and increase standardisation,” he said.

David also urged NATO to move towards a ‘willing partners’ approach, where countries ready to collaborate could push ahead without waiting for slower-moving members.

“If NATO operates at the pace of the slowest participant, we’re going to repeat past mistakes. We need to work with willing partners like France, Germany, and Poland who understand the scale of this challenge,” he argued.

Craven added that major defence programmes should be procured at a NATO-wide level, reducing costs for individual nations.

“At the start of the Ukraine war, there were 13 different variants of 155mm shells across Europe. That’s madness. We’ve since reduced that number, but there’s still a long way to go,” Craven said.

MPs raised concerns over the UK’s exclusion from EU defence projects and whether better access to European defence initiatives was necessary for industrial collaboration.

Kinniburgh pointed to AUKUS as a model for deeper cooperation without formal EU structures.

“We’ve seen with AUKUS that three countries—Australia, the UK, and the US—have created a framework for technology sharing, visa exemptions, and streamlined export controls. A similar model could be applied in Europe,” he suggested.

David and Craven agreed that the UK needs closer ties with European defence institutions, even if full EU membership remains off the table.

“We represent 22% of the European defence market. European industrialists want us involved. We need a political mechanism to bridge the gap,” Craven said.

David added that Germany’s incoming Chancellor had already called for a closer defence relationship with the UK, presenting an opportunity for new agreements.

“We need professional skills recognition, faster movement of people, and much smoother supply chains. Horizon research collaboration is a good example of what can be achieved,” he said.

The Committee also explored the long-term prospect of a unified European defence industrial base, given the inefficiencies of multiple nations designing and procuring their own weapons systems.

David noted that the US successfully coordinates defence production across its federal states, and Europe could follow a similar model.

“The US states compete for defence contracts but still maintain a unified equipment base. Europe should move in that direction,” he said.

Kinniburgh pointed to the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP)—a joint UK-Italy-Japan project to build a new fighter jet—as a missed opportunity for broader European collaboration.

“Why are we competing with France and Germany to build a sixth-generation fighter? It’s madness. We should be working together,” he said.

Mike Martin MP suggested that Europe needed to rationalise its defence production, citing the excessive variety of rifles, tanks, and armoured vehicles across NATO nations.

“It’s a bit of a nonsense that every European country has a different rifle, tank, or infantry fighting vehicle. We need a structured approach where different nations specialise in producing specific equipment,” he said.

Kinniburgh agreed, adding that Germany has essentially become the UK’s supplier for armoured vehicles, raising the question of what the UK gets in return.

“We’ve outsourced armoured vehicle design and production to Germany. Where’s the quid pro quo?” he asked.