Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton dismissed reports of a £28 billion funding shortfall in the defence programme as “speculation” as MPs pressed him over delays to the Defence Investment Plan and warned that the government was failing to match its ambitions to resources.
Giving evidence to the House of Commons Defence Committee for the first time since taking up the role of Chief of the Defence Staff, Knighton said the strategic environment had shifted sharply, with instability and rising threats increasing demands on the Armed Forces.
He told the committee there had been a “change in the strategic context” and said the Strategic Defence Review referred to a “step change in the threats that we face” requiring a “step change in defence”. Knighton said that in a world of “greater volatility” and “greater levels of uncertainty”, “more is going to be expected of us”, both in terms of “war fighting at scale” and responding to crises.
Committee chair Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi said members were “extremely disappointed” and “exasperated” that the Defence Investment Plan remained a “working document” months after it was promised, with reported suggestions it could slip into March or beyond. Dhesi asked who had “a handle on this” at a time of heightened tension, adding that Defence appeared to be “trundling along rather than realising the urgency of the moment.”
Knighton said he shared those concerns. “I completely agree with the concerns that you the committee has, and I’ve heard reflected in Parliament about the delays,” he said, adding that the programme was being reshaped by a changing world and the need to ensure it was credible. “There is no point having a defence investment plan that can’t be delivered or is unaffordable,” he told MPs.
Pressed for a delivery date, Knighton said simply: “I do not have a date.”
Dhesi then put to him media claims that senior military leaders had warned the Prime Minister of a “staggering” £28bn shortfall and that the Prime Minister was “livid” because he believed the Strategic Defence Review was fully funded. Knighton refused to confirm any figure, replying that the reports were “speculation”.
He said he met the Prime Minister regularly and confirmed a meeting took place in December, but insisted the material discussed was classified. “The material that was discussed at that meeting was classified secret, and so I’m not going to talk about that in public,” he said, warning against a “to and fro” over numbers before decisions had been made.
Instead, Knighton framed the problem as one of assumptions and political choices. “We are not at a stage yet where we understand precisely what the cost of the programme will be, because there’s a whole bunch of judgements that will need to be made,” he said. When asked directly whether there was a funding shortfall, he replied: “The answer is, it depends on the assumptions you make.”
Knighton pointed to what he described as an unprecedented funding trajectory, citing commitments he said had been made to higher defence and security spending. But he repeatedly stressed that even with an expanding envelope, ministers still faced hard choices. “We can’t do everything we would want to do as quickly as we would want to do it,” he said, adding: “That requires ministers to make difficult trade-offs.”
That theme sharpened during an exchange with Derek Twigg, who repeatedly asked whether there was any scenario that avoided cuts or delays without extra Treasury funding. Knighton resisted being boxed into a single headline conclusion and warned: “Don’t try and put words in my mouth.” But the discussion underlined the pressure behind the delayed plan, with Knighton acknowledging that the programme required prioritisation, pacing and decisions on what goes ahead, what is deferred, and what is dropped.
The committee also probed readiness and near-term risk. Jesse Norman pressed whether the UK was meeting NATO demands as alliance targets increase. Knighton said requirements had risen and “we are now being asked to produce more than we were in the past, and we are not at that level yet.” He added: “We have to do more and do better,” and said full delivery would take years, describing a timeline extending into the early 2030s.
On domestic resilience, Twigg raised concerns about mass casualties in a major conflict. Knighton said there were gaps in specialist medical skills and warned that in an Article Five scenario the defence medical system would need to plug into the NHS. “Right now, we don’t have a complete plan for how we would mobilise the National Health Service,” he said, suggesting work was underway through the Cabinet Office.
In the hearing’s opening, Dhesi framed the moment as one where hard power had returned, but the committee’s early exchanges with the CDS focused on a more immediate question: whether the government can produce an affordable defence plan, on a credible timeline, without being overtaken by events.
I have just seen a short clip of Knighton in action, talk about weaselling around the problem, I’m not surprised that the committee came away pretty disgruntled with his statements. He, like many of his predecessors, is not going to say anything to upset his political masters to ensure he gets up to the Lords when he retires. When are we going to get some senior officers who actually are prepared to speak truth to power. The DIP is now a running joke, it is unlikely to happen before the parliamentary recess in the spring, and will do nothing to address any of the multitude of problems in the armed forces, and it’s not just the headlines of how many troops we are going to send to the four corners of the globe, it’s all the other below the radar needs like updating married quarters so the poor bloody Infantry can house their families.
And I saw a report yesterday that Leonardo will close the Yeovil factory if they don’t get the medium lift helo contract by the end of March. They have been sole source on this for a year and still no contract. The chief executive was quoted as saying that they have had no major contracts for many years, the unspoken meaning behind it is they don’t need a relatively small factory in this country. And who could blame them.
Perhaps leonardo closing shop would give them all a kick up the backside and realise industry isnt going to wait around with baited breath for measly orders.
In other words nobody has the bottle to say “this is what we need, we don’t have the funds, if you want the country defended this is what you need to provide funds for”.
The only people ever promoted these days are yes men.
We have become a deeply unserious country (I am refraining from use of the “C” word).
I’ve just watched Knighton facing questions from the defence sellect committee. Trade off is the new term for defence cuts. From what has been said for the last 2 and a half hours has not filled me with confidence. The DIP is delayed yet a gain and described as a millstone around the PMs neck.
Lots of words but getting no where fast. As it has been for 20 months, yes there is more money on papper but no enough and cuts some where are coming. Same old whaffle and defect and bugger all new. A long winded bag of hot air while most other nations buy kit and try catch up we have meetis and do paperwork, shameful
Yap,yap,yap and more yap. No action. The DIP, aptly named, if and when it comes will be more bullshit.
I don’t understand what it is that causes CDSs to shill for ministers like this, with no political reason. A lordship can’t be that important, surely?
Knighton seems to be particularly bad, there is no place for a civil servant (sort of) to say ‘don’t put words into my mouth’ in front of a parliamentary committee.
Fairly standard political discourse to try hypotheticals to get a point across and absolutely correct not to be ensnared in something unrealistic or untrue when on the public record.
“When did you realise that you must stop beating your wife” is hardly a fair question..
Those hoping that the DIP will yield more aircraft, tanks, and frigates are going to be in for a massive disappointment.
I think the vast majority have given up hope now, and are instead hoping that cuts will be avoided.
The previous CDS was clear at a Defence Select Committee meeting that the Strategic Defence Review was a threat based menu that would be done as little or as much as the political will for Defence would allow. Specifically he talked about the HM Treasury funding expectation for SDR and the acceleration of scope that more will would enable above it.
He specifically said that cuts were not an objective though I suspect that HM Treasury are fully aware of the fiscal drag of inflation which is a year on year decrease of buying power in real terms. The consequence of government printing money is that prices increase..
Another pillar of SDR is transformation to All-Of-Government meaning Foreign Office, HM Treasury and MoD align the requirements to the budget so that everyone knows what to do, and what that costs, are realistic, being funded.
That’s a new way of working and significant change which DIP progress suggests hasn’t been achieved.
I suspect Sir Humphrey doesn’t like change…
To be fair to Sir Humphrey, the Industrial input to DIP is hard, too. Yes, welcome demand signals, but also risky innovation is hard to price and traditionally not done very well. MoD Procurement Executive etc..
Collaborative ways of working are big changes to traditional Procurement. Sovereign capabilities can look like protectionism..
Been saying that since these scum came in.
Nothings changed my view, only hardened it.
I think I actually give up.. I’m building a bomb shelter, getting my preppers kit together, buying seed stock and I will see you all on other side of TEOTWAWKI.
I guess HMG told him to deny it or no Pension 😟
Champagne aspirations on a panda pop budget
There is a lot of unrealistic on this site today.
Defence is getting a big financial boost under this government, the first real new money for decades. In two or three years, the defence budget will have increased from £60.2 bn last year to £73.5 bn a year. That is a 22% increase, hardly to be sneezed at. Those demanding even more money have to explain where it is going to come from, basically tax rises or cuts to welfare Inc NHS, schools, housing etc. None of the political parties are proposing to do either of these things.
There may be a lot more money, but it has to cover a vast programme.
First, mega funds are needed to patch up all the gaps left in defence by years of previous government underspend, equipment gapping and kicking so many replacement programmes into the long grass.
E.g. Service pay, housing, upgrading bases, weapons stockpiles etc have all been greatly underfunded or ignored.
Elderly equipment has not been replaced or been scrapped, leading to holes everywhere. 13 T23 frigates popping their clogs, CVRT, AS90, Puma and the older Chinooks being scrapped and gapped, elderly Warriors and Bulldogs long overdue for replacement, a long list of ships now due for early replacement, the hard fact is that the new money is nowhere near enough to even maintain our current strength.
Previous governments have left a legacy of a massive backlog right across every facet of the forces and defence infrastructure
Second, the rush to ‘transformation’ is going to add billions to defence spend. This Bastion Atlantic plan alone is variously thought to be a £3-4-5 bn exercise and I would think more.
Add in the RN wanting a carrier-launched MALE UAV and a heavyweight cargo UAV, the army needing 3 UAVs and a counter-UAV/LLAD capability and the RAF needing funds for Tempest and.loyal wingman drones, etc., etc., and this transformation agenda will gobble up most of the new money.
The money on the table has to do both jobs. There is not enough to do so and no prospect of more until 2028/9. So hard choices will have to be made between replacing elderly and gapped kit or investing in new transformational capabilities. It is hardly surprising that the DIP is delayed while these things are wrangled over, particularly as hardly any of the proposed transformational stuff has a staff target, let alone designs or costings.
I would start by re-casting this mega expensive Atlantic Bastion as a NATO-wide project, we cannot possibly populate thousands of square miles with seabed sensors, USV sloops and UUVs out of our defence budget without cancelling a load of other essential expenditure and equipment replacement.
I was not overly impressed with the new CDS before the Defence Select Committee today. He could easily have said we have a very useful boost to the defence budget but it will not be enough to fund the many gaps created by years of underspending and also cover the considerable cost of proposed equipment transformation.
We need to narrow down and cost the transformational proposals, and then decide what we can afford to do within the budget, before we can publish a definitive DIP.
He sort of gave bits of the jigsaw in his statements, but overall lacked any clear direction and authority, which one would expect from a CDS.
Getting ratty with David Twigg and making a fuss about the MP putting words in his mouth was a low point, not really acceptable behaviour at all. If he had explained the dilemna between funding the gaps in defence transformation, it would be clear that some equipments and capabilities may need to be cut to fund this transformation rush. But he seemed to bridle at any mention of cuts, as if it was a naughty word he was forbidden to use.
Not his finest hour I’m afraid.
Seems to me the CDS has been told to shut up about spending shortfalls and take the questions on the chin. He could have turned round and said that the government were a bunch of tight fisted twats that want everything but will pay for nothing. I’d be snarky as well if I was being asked questions these MP’s already knew the answers to; there’s no money but make it work anyway and if it doesn’t, well it’s “your” fault, not the treasury’s.
Can they all just stoop talking about it and get on with it. Is the evidence not clear enough that we are short in all areas and the threat is rising exponentially!! We are all fully aware that the Armed Forces have been hollowed out and the peace Dividend wasted!! The Government of the day needs to deal with the issues of the day and set the tone for the future. So cut the Welfare & Aid Budgets and Boost the Defence Budget or Rise taxes for Defence Spending specifically. I personally would rather pay higher Taxes for Defence to stop my Sons and Grandsons paying the ultimate price like my forebears. Deterrence is not cheap and needs Leadership which is currently sorely lacking. So Mr Starmer and Rachel from Accounts get the Cheque book out before it’s too late, show some true leadership for the benefit of the country. JFDI!!!
The left of the party revolt if they try to reduce the welfare state.
So they U turn.
They did reduce the aid budget to boost “defence” then on the quiet after the headlines made shoved other items into that pot which instantly made it irrelevant militarily.
So much for Starmer’s lies about moving to a war footing it’s just the same cross your fingers and pray, lie about it being unaffordable then put benefits up again.