The Ministry of Defence has said the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) sets both explicit and implicit priorities for what the Armed Forces should scale back, as it moves to implement reforms through the delayed Defence Investment Plan (DIP).
In a letter to Defence Committee chair Tan Dhesi, the Defence Secretary described the review as marking “a pivotal shift in the UK’s deterrence and defence,” built around five core ambitions including NATO-first policy, a move to warfighting readiness and a stronger focus on innovation and economic growth.
Responding to concerns that the review does not clearly state what should be reduced or cut, the letter argues that prioritisation is embedded within the recommendations themselves, stating that decisions on what to stop or deprioritise are reflected in both “explicit and implicit recommendations” accepted by government.
These include a shift in focus towards the Euro-Atlantic region over other theatres, as well as efforts to reduce duplication across the department through wider defence reform measures.
The letter also points to the scale of change required, noting that the transition towards warfighting readiness comes after what it describes as a “previous hollowing out of the Armed Forces,” with the SDR’s 62 recommendations forming the basis for future capability and investment decisions.
However, the process of translating those recommendations into funded programmes remains tied to the Defence Investment Plan, which is intended to turn the review’s strategic direction into what the department describes as an “affordable delivery programme.”
When one looks at the clear-cut language of SDR 98 it’s sadly clear how much of the communications of the British Govt is just meaningless drivel. It’s all makework to justify inflated salaries and baffle readers with bullshit, and it will never change so long as they are not held accountable for it.
I agree with Matt.
Total drivel, the 97 SDR clearly stated a future force structure, and lacked any financial back up to make it reality, as with this latest one.
Pure spin.
The UK has been NATO first since NATO formed, yet funnily enough trade arteries we depend on extend beyond ENATO area and we have plenty of other world commitments to allies and dependent territories.
“Reducing duplication” is another euphenism for cuts, as seen in CSOC, when individual services training,support, and niche capabilities ended up tri service purple to be “more efficient.”
Still results in less of everything.
Where are the examples that “hollowing out” is being reversed in any force structures?
“Wait for the DIP” ?
SDR 1998 was IMHO the clearest and most sensible defence review I’ve personally read – and that is going back to the White Paper’s of the 1970’s. But it was quickly crippled by three factors:
1. Lack of adequate costing and matching funding, at a time when the public and government were still demanding a “Peace Dividend”
2. 9/11 and the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, with the reallocation of expected funding (operational and capex) to pay for the UKs involvement in these
3. The RN’s decision to sacrifice everything else to save the CVF “super carrier” programme. The resulting 17 year (!!!) gap in orders for destroyers & frigates has truly come back to haunt us.