During a recent Defence Committee session, officials from the Ministry of Defence addressed the evolving defence landscape, focusing on the cultural shifts within the Armed Forces and the emphasis on innovation to meet modern threats.
Sir Robert Magowan, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, provided compelling examples of how the MOD is adapting its approach to prioritise warfighting capabilities and technological advancements.
Responding to questions about resistance to change within the military, Sir Robert acknowledged the perception that some may see the Defence Strategic Review (DSR) as a threat. He stated, “You are getting at a cultural issue here that those in the military you are probably referring to are traditionalist, wish to protect what they have and see the review as a threat.” However, he emphasised that the military is undergoing a significant shift in mindset: “Everyone in this business would accept that the programme of record is largely what it was pre-February 2022. It would be amazing if the programme of record pre-February 2022 is the programme of record we need for the future.”
Sir Robert outlined a strategic pivot towards warfighting deterrence, asserting, “We are absolutely on this shift now to warfighting deterrence and to warfighting if necessary.”
To illustrate the MOD’s commitment to innovation, Sir Robert provided three key examples of transformative projects across the services:
- Project Asgard (Army): This initiative, led by the Chief of the General Staff (CGS), is focused on incorporating lessons from Ukraine, particularly in the use of AI-enabled capabilities. Sir Robert highlighted its forward-thinking approach: “Project Asgard… is CGS’s drive to be innovative in Estonia or wherever, learning lessons from Ukraine, particularly through AI-enabled capability and putting more money into that. He was not doing that two or three years ago. He is absolutely doing it now.”
- Autonomous Collaborative Platforms (Air Command): These platforms, also referred to as “loyal wingmen,” are a cornerstone of future air capabilities. The MOD is collaborating with key allies such as the US, Australia, and potentially Japan to develop network-enabled, autonomous air intelligence and strike systems. Sir Robert described this as “the future in terms of a network-enabled, autonomous air intelligence and strike capability.”
- Autonomous Naval Systems (Royal Navy): The First Sea Lord’s focus on autonomy spans capabilities from the seabed to air operations. Sir Robert noted, “If the First Sea Lord were here, he would absolutely be promoting his whole autonomous portfolio, from seabed through to underwater through to surface through to air-enabled capability.”
Sir Robert stressed the need for innovation in response to rapidly evolving global threats: “Innovation is alive and well, because the battlespace we are seeing in front of our very eyes globally is changing so much.” He expressed confidence that the Defence Strategic Review would reflect this cultural and operational shift.
Other MOD officials echoed Sir Robert’s optimism about the department’s adaptability. David Williams, Permanent Secretary, highlighted the MOD’s active engagement with external review processes and internal reforms. He stated, “Key parts of the Department have been on this journey with them [the review team]. We will hit the ground running.”
Similarly, Andy Start, Chief Executive of Defence Equipment and Support, underscored the importance of collaboration with industry and academia to achieve meaningful reform: “You will see the Department embracing it. There has been no lack of desire to change, to deliver a better output.”
Innovation is the bit the UK is rather good at.
Investing to turn innovation into viable product is the bit we are very bad at.
Ordering enough product to support industry to innovate and make viable products…..twenty years of Peace Dividend have taken a massive toll….
I believe it’s not really innovation until you turn it into a useful product and deploy it. We need to create, operate and maintain new capabilities to realise the benefits.
Agreed we are good at innovation and then failure to protect or invest in said IPR or companies. Thirty five years of nothing resembling a Defence industrial plan; thirty years of “Peace Dividend” and sale of sovereign defence capabilities & assets.
Over the last few centuries the UK has produced new innovative weapons repeatedly this is exactly what’s needed..
From the dreadnoughts to turbinia, jet engines bouncing bombs we have always been ahead of our peers. About time we utilised this innovation again.
Project Asgard will probably identify AI enabled autonomous Hunter Killer drones are being developed are required – For Drone Defence, Reconnaissance and attack as key in all theatres; Land, Air, Surface, Sub surface. Within the light A vehicle sector they will probably identify that the Ukrainian forces love the Bradley vehicles as they are relatively fast light enough to use class 40 bridges and have good striking power. So almost a Stormer 30 or WCSP/warrior 2000? rather than bloated Ajax or Boxer. Has the army strategy and strike concept produced weapons ideal for dominating yesterday’s battle space rather than modernizing with tens of thousands of deployed drones – Rather than the hugely expensive few we have. It appears Ajax is a massively expensive technical and commercial cul de sac that will not be mentioned or criticized.
I wonder if we’ll ever order anything?
Seems like a load of gobbledygook to me.
Of course the services are trying to protect what they have, the assets keep getting cut.
Meaning.
1/ Assets are worn out before their time due to repeated use as you can only manage hours so much with a limited fleet with no mass.
2/ People get up and leave, they can only be deployed and abused so much. Again, lack of numbers, harmony guidelines broken.
And the MoD spin this as being “Agile.”
We’ve been innovating, and playing with autonomous systems and UAV for years, this is hardly new. Look at UAV, we are petrified to actually make a decision to by some incase it’s out of date too soon.
To me, their focus on change, a favourite quote of every political party come election time ( meaningless spin ) is an excuse for cuts and trying to focus away from lack of assets and lack of money in all areas save Nuclear.
Meant to add….It’s ok though! We are innovating to meet modern threats!
I’d prefer HMG buy assets and employ people to meet those threats myself.
Is innovation dealing with the total lack of UK GBAD coverage, for example? Or only having 14 escorts left?
Or the smallest Fast Jet fleet of major European nations?
Go ahead and innovate!
Well said Daniele 👍
I Agree Daniele. I just wish the UK could start doing the basics at scale, encourage recruitment with reasonable T7Cs and opportunities, and instigate an integrated UK R&D/Design/Manufacturing capability that retains IP and in-country-spend benefits.
This is the true deep meaning of the saying quantity has a quality all of its own. You need quantity to make quality. It’s why we in the NHS tended to close a lot of small EDs, you need mass to practice and get good.
It’s the same with navies, if they have to few ships to deploy the quality of their skills will in the end degrade, if you have limited crews and ships that can just cover the critical tasking they have less chance to practice and improve…
I read a really good paper from a US senior officer on how the reduction in mass will in the end reduce quality as well and any navy needs mass to get really good..which is why China and PLAN need to be taken very seriously..because their mass means they are very likely to get good.
Project Asgard will probably identify AI enabled autonomous Hunter Killer drones are being developed /are required – For Drone Defence, Reconnaissance and attack as key in all theatres; Land, Air, Surface, Sub surface. Within the light A vehicle sector they will probably identify that the Ukrainian forces love the Bradley vehicles as they are relatively fast, light enough to use class 40 bridges and have good striking power. So almost a Stormer 30 or WCSP/warrior 2000? Rather than a bloated Ajax or Boxer. Has the army strategy and strike concept produced weapons ideal for dominating yesterday’s battle space? rather than winning on today’s battlefield? Should we be modernizing with tens of thousands of deployed drones – Rather than the hugely expensive few we have? It appears Ajax is a massively expensive technical and commercial cul de sac that will not be mentioned or criticized. Ultimately just an open cheque book for Spanish vehicles manufacturing and GD? I still struggle with the fact that after Operation Granby the Defence committee in parliament issued an urgent recommendation that Warrior be URGENTLY fitted with a stabilized gun for the safety of Army personnel. That was over thirty years ago and was never done. However since 2012 Andover have managed to spend £25 Billion on fielding a few Archer SPG and not much else, unless we count pretty much the destruction of UK companies and sovereign capability in A vehicle design and manufacturing.
More hot air for the sheep. Try innovating some of this into front line forces. Oh sorry, you don’t do that…
UK is great at innovation, and then it meets the “commercial branch” of DE&S, where it grinds to a halt because:
You don’t have a track record
You don’t have 10 years of data showing you can make this
You haven’t got £X million in the bank
Etc etc etc
The problem is that in the end innovation is a function of mass and in defence we have no mass. It can be summed up by the lovely saying “failure is the mother of innovation” what this means is you innovate by failing a lot and as you fail you learn.. the more ships you build the more you innovate..you cannot be innovative if you can only afford to do it once..if your building one ship and that’s all you have you must be conservative, if your building 20 you can try a few novel ideas and innovate.
Hey, can we have a new form of defence invocation?
It is called buying stuff?
I realise that it would require a massive cultural change…..
That would involve HM treasury opening its wallet..which I believe was sealed shut and time locked over a decade ago…not to opened against foe at least 100 years.
Innovation is awesome and expensive . Innovation is pointless if the Army Navy AIRforce do not have the critical mass of numbers and good standard kit ready to use today not tomorrow. I fear this is nonsense talk, and defence budget down the corporate Blackhole gravy train with nothing g to show for it. We need airdefence and attack missiles today in large numbers