Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry Luke Pollard has declared “a golden age for UK defence industry,” using a keynote at the Farnborough International Airshow to set out how the Defence Investment Plan is rebuilding British air power while trailing announcements to come on GCAP and the Storm Fighter uncrewed combat aircraft programme.
Speaking at the Aerospace Global Forum’s Defence Summit, part of this year’s Farnborough programme, the morning after the reshuffle that brought Wes Streeting to the Ministry of Defence, Pollard opened with candour about his own uncertain position, thanking organisers for the chance to address them and “apologies for giving you the fright, as you have a minister who has not yet been confirmed in his place speaking on a platform”.
“I’ve left my phone on loud at the back of the room, so if the PM rings, you’ll all be able to hear it. Don’t worry.”
The Minister said the new Prime Minister had set out in Downing Street his commitment to defence and to international partners, with NATO commitments topping the list, and pointed to the forces deployed as he spoke, troops in Estonia, Typhoon aircrew in Romania and a carrier strike group in the North Atlantic, providing deterrence against what he called the evolving threat from Russia. The Defence Investment Plan behind them, backed by what he described as a down payment over four years to deliver the 62 recommendations of the Strategic Defence Review, provides “a clear long-term demand signal for industry and importantly for investors as well,” he said.
Pollard said the RAF and the aerospace sector were big winners from the plan, with £31 billion committed to air and space over four years, Typhoon upgraded and sustained well into the 2040s, the ground laid for the first F-35As compatible with NATO’s nuclear mission and providing “a long overdue additional rung on our escalation ladder,” the transport fleet of A400Ms, Voyagers and C-17s sustained, and the jet training system fully recapitalised to ultimately deliver new aircraft for the Red Arrows. On the Global Combat Air Programme he offered only a tease, telling delegates: “spoiler alert, there’s some good news coming on GCAP later today,” while on Storm Fighter, the programme to deliver Europe’s first uncrewed combat jets, he said the new Defence Secretary “will have an exciting announcement to make on that tomorrow about the timeline for that programme, but no spoilers from me I’m afraid.”
Threading the industrial argument through the speech, Pollard cited £5 billion for drones and uncrewed systems, up £1 billion on previous plans, the ring-fenced £400 million annual innovation budget, the £20 million hypersonic target contract awarded to Lockheed Martin UK, 94 per cent of major contracts going to UK-based firms, £182 million in defence skills and the newly published Defence SME Action Plan, telling business and investors the challenge was straightforward: “Defence knows where it’s going. The demand signal is now very clear.”
Defence, he argued, is an engine for growth and reindustrialisation providing careers in every nation and region, and he closed on the wider purpose: “We stand ready to support our allies, grow our economy and keep Britain safe.”
A “Golden age” for defence expansion would be nice too. But as always, politicians have their priorities.
Apart from Drones, I see no expansion of the RAF?
C17 Atlas Voyager sustained. Wow. That should be automatic.
Jet training recapitalised. Not in your term it won’t be, the 350 million only gets things started.
Typhoon upgrades, ongoing for years.
F35, kicked into the next Parliament.
Meanwhile…
Chinook numbers halved.
Shadow lost.
Slow mo for AW149.
How about a few more P8, Protector, Atlas?
How about more GBAD for the RAF Regiment that’s not a cheap Skyhammer Drone?
How about 500 more people for the RAF?
The only addition seems to be the CCA and unspecified numbers of other Storm Drones.
Hopefully a DIP part 2 will happen.
Think it’s coming for October budget which would be nice!
3% for 2030 or soon after!
A good few billion pounds would change so much!
Extra billion here and there could mean extra F35, Chinooks, being builds before 2030 which is what we really need
Lockheed Martin have yet to deliver TR3 and Block 4 so until they do, no more orders from wise customers. It’s the only way to reach them.
They can’t even pay for the last lot of promises…awful government and am nervously waiting to see how bad this new PM is.
Drones is the answer to everything.
Need more fighter planes – drones.
Need more surveillance planes -drones
Need more transport/tanker planes – drones.
Need more helicopters – drones.
Need more ships -drones
Need more submarines – drones
Need more tanks – drones
Need more Artillery – drones
Problem is, none of these drones exist yet. Some proof of concept maybe, but nothing that will fill the replacement/capability gaps we are creating.
The guy just started in the job on Monday. They have already said they will increase defence spending faster than the current plan. A number of items have been left out of the DiP intentionally looking for further funding E7, ABM and F35 all being on that list.
You forgot E7 – need more of those. I can see more and more aviation contractors taking a bigger chunk of what was previously military manned/owned. The likes of SNC, Leidos and Metrea will be doing what Shadow did, for example, and I don’t think it’ll be long before they’re supplementing P8s and AAR (although AAR is a tricky one in the UK).
I did. Far too much backloaded as well, as ABC observed weeks back, not what NATO required.
I can only assume hes had a knock to his head and hes talking about the 1950’s mate🤔🤔
All I’m seeing is more cuts in critical areas and vague hope of ‘Terminator’ drones at sea and in tbe air to save our bacon…
Meanwhile, what are the army going to do with radically reduced battlefield lift and clearly zero intention of replacing the lost C130J airlift.
With the exception of SF and teir 2 forces, (who are well catered for), is the rest of the Army supposed to just look busy and hope there’s an actual plan in SDSR30??
It’s not as bad as that mate, Army wise. I’m excluding battlefield lift and utility in that as clearly thats headed for a big drop.
Wavell is still ongoing, and the Army is reorganising itself to the 2 Division ARRC model.
A few name changes thrown in for effect! Field Army has reverted to Land Forces, as it was before. Though the term “Field Army” remains valid to describe the deployable parts of the Army.
Home Command is now Standing Joint Command!
And the SSG, Security Services Group, is now SSG ( Guardian ) within SJC, having moved from,I think, the DIO.
They love a good deck chair reshuffle….
On top of the deck chair moving and unit reorgs to flesh out 1 UK Division, you’ve got Asgard and lots of new EW and ISTAR kit underpinning everything, and Drones and OWE galore.
The Army is also of course in the long drawn out process of actually replacing a lot of kit!
Ajax, Boxer, CH3, RCH155, more MLRS, Apache now Apache E, things are hardly stationary.
I’m still expecting a big CAVS order as well.
It’s also noted in the DIP, and by the CGS in BAR, that numbers are to grow by 3k to 76k, which I’m still hoping will result in more RA, GBAD, and CSS formations.
On lift, yes, Wildcat axed, Chinook numbers dropping like a stone, either temporarily or permanently, Puma gone with AW149 on slowmo, all by design.
It’s like the world stops at the borders of Poland Estonia and they might not be needed elsewhere.
RAF wise, yes, maybe more will appear IF Healey can sort the 3%.
That’s just an outline, lots more ti describe.
One not so nice bit of news I saw which is yet to be covered here is a plan to replace both 105mm LG AND 81mm Mortar with 120mm Mortar.
I’d assumed 120mm would augment, not replace, 81mm so I’m hoping it’s only for certain Battalions and not all. And I’m asking if 120mm is effective as a LG replacement as well.
Interested that you say Chinook.fleet halved Daniele. As far as I remember, there were just over 60 of them, but the latest figures state 52. 14 of the older ones are being withdrawn and replaced by the 14 new extended-range Chinook ERs. So the total will still be 51. Have I missed some new development?
51 is a useful force and is by far the biggest Chinook force in NATO, after the USA.
A lot of our older Chinooks should really have been replaced over the last decade, but at £100m an aircraft, the budget was never there to do so. At least we see getting14 new ones now so all is not gloomy!
Indeed you have mate!
We had 60.
9 oldest already gone, including “BN.”
Ok, i have 51, you, 52, whatever.
The 14 ER are coming yes.
Meanwhile, the 29 HC6As are all going as they get to major maintenance milestones.
If they go before the 14 new ERs it leaves the Chinook force at 22.
We have 51 now!!!
The 14 ER take numbers back to 36, but those ERs are black printed SO types, it looks like they won’t be mixed and matched in the wider Chinook force but used exclusively by 7 Sqn/JSFAW.
The lost numbers are supposedly returned with Chinook CSP phase 2.
I’ll believe THAT when they’re ordered, MoD have played that trick before, cutting, vowing replacements in the future which then are watered down and never arrive.
There are some good articles on X about this from aviation watchers.
“Printed”
Blasted phone…..”painted”
Is the good news about GCAP that was due today the announcement that the Canadians are onboard as observers?
Carney is experienced in HM Treasury behaviour and given worse relations with #47 wise enough to look for 6th Generation outside ITAR foreign interference.
Elbows Up 🇨🇦
Great news, dont mention the Arrow, I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it…..
In fact GCAP looks a hell of lot like a 21st Century Arrow…
😆
Black…..? Churchill wasn’t black….mate….🤔
😅
A golden age for the defence industry?
Impossible.
This is what a golden age looks like:
‘National Electricity System Operator (NESO) estimates put total gross cash costs for an accelerated (net zero) transition at over £3 trillion, and potentially up to £7.6 trillion when factoring in economy-wide changes.’
‘Miatta Fahnbulleh, newly appointed as the Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary under Prime Minister Andy Burnham, has historically advocated for a radical 10-to-15-year net-zero target (aiming for full decarbonization by 2034–2036). This represents an aggressive acceleration from the UK’s legal 2050 timeline.’
Can we afford a bronze age or just a stone age on whatever derisory defence budgets remain after that deluge of plain barking mad government spending on a completely unevidenced goal of net zero sparks off?
You share some absolute s**te on this website some times 🤦♂️
Everyone is fed up of debunking it .
There has been no ‘debunking’, only the usual sticking of fingers in ears, infantile shouts of ‘Nah nah nah nah, I can’t hear you!’.
The dotty pursuit of net zero is one major reason why, despite war now for twelve years on Continental Europe, Britain no longer leads Europe in meeting its NATO obligations.
A golden age? An utter disgrace!
you repot a figure of £7.6 trillion and that it’s from NESO.
it’s not from NESO it’s from the Institute of Economic Affairs which is a right wing think tank which is largely funded by oil and gas companies. Honestly do you think no one on here can use google?
You do this all the time, publish a nonsense figure form some extremist group then try and claim it’s from a credible source. £7.6 trillion is such a nonsense number you may have well said its twenty quadrillion.
Net zero costings were sourced from NESO in 2020 when they were the National Electricity System Operator and before they were promoted to ‘National Energy System Operator’, brought under the direct control of the government in 2024. NESO analysed the cost of net zero in its 2020 Future Energy Scenarios (FES) report (available: NESO.energy documents). You haven’t even bothered to check.
The NESO numbers are backed up by John Sullivan’s workings, here: The Laleham Policy Forum: Net Zero. Costs and retail price impacts Dec 2024
Read: ‘The true affordability of net zero’ by Kathryn Porter, May 2025
Philip Hammond? The first attempt at putting a cost on net zero came in a May 2019 letter from then Chancellor Philip Hammond to the prime minister. Hammond warned that the total cost of transitioning to a zero-carbon economy over a 30-year period these would amount to a cost of £1.5 trillion to £2.1 trillion.
If Ms Fahnbulleh wants to get there faster, and she does, it will obviously cost a great deal more, won’t it?
NESO: ‘While there is a wide difference in levels of societal change between the net zero scenarios, all of them will require substantially more societal change than our Steady Progression scenario.’
Did you vote for ‘substantially more societal change’? That is certainly what you will get when Putin’s little green men move out of Kaliningrad into Poland’s Suwalki corridor, knowing that Britain cannot, despite promises, provide NATO with a fully operational Army Corps…no deterrence…
Monro. I understsnd you hsvr a bee in your bonnet sbout Net Zero snd cost associated. Ok so what’s your alternative – and I’d prefer ruling out massive increases in fossil fuel use as that is unlikely ( although I expect some tinkering by new govt etc). So what are realistic alternatives nuclear, hydrogen etc??
The bee I have in my bonnet is our failure to live up to our security assurances given to Ukraine, our failure to meet our commitments to NATO and our lamentable position as the weakest permanent member of the UN Security Council, a position that requires strength.
We don’t need to increase fossil fuel usage but we do need to exploit the resources that we have in order to reduce our reliance on overseas suppliers like France which supplies 15% of our electricity. We have plenty of fossil fuel reserves:
‘…sun and wind cannot provide ‘geopolitical stability’ since they are intermittent, nuclear cannot provide intermittent back up whereas our own reserves of fossil fuels can.
‘The British Geological Survey (BGS) estimates the UK’s total shale gas resource is vast—ranging between 822 and 2,281 trillion cubic feet (central estimate 1,329 trillion cubic feet).’
‘…over 7 billion barrels are geologically proven and technically accessible (North Sea). These resources include:
0.5 billion barrels in near-term developments with advanced plans, 1.4 billion barrels in potentially commercial discoveries. Over 7.3 billion barrels within reach of existing infrastructure – making them viable as tiebacks to existing platforms. The findings show these new projects would make a material difference to the UK’s energy independence.’
OEUK 2025′
Nuclear is the solution to the increases in generation that will be required in the future, but it needs well thought out deregulation.
The whole net zero fandango is dotty, a boondoggle based on nonsense:
‘Since 1750, additions to the atmospheric CO2 concentration derived from natural emission sources associated with biological processes are about 4.5 times larger than the contribution from fossil fuel emissions (e.g., 22.9 ppm per year from nature, 5.2 ppm per year from fossil fuel combustion).’
Refined Reservoir Routing (RRR) and Its Application to Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Balance,Koutsoyiannis, 2024
‘CO2 also lags temperature by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.
Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.’
The Phase Relation between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Global Temperature, Global and Planetary Change, Volume 100, Humlum, Stordahl, and Solheim’
The ‘net zero’ boondoggle is a political agenda aimed at ‘societal change’. It is a very long way from being the claimed scientifically evidenced measured solution to an ever changing climate…
The UK Defense industry hasn’t exactly had a stellar export record over the last 50 years, and since the UK isn’t buying anything it’s hard to envisage a “golden” age. A few nice toys here and there, but sufficient to inspire a “golden age?” I struggle to get too excited.
It’s a politician talking boll****.
Sites like this, and hopefully others, create a bit of perspective to debunk the endless grandstanding with a few realities he won’t highlight.
Golden age? Seriously deluded child
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/minister-for-defence-readiness-and-industry-luke-pollard-mp-keynote-speech-at-agf-defence-summit-farnborough-international-air-show
For the full te text.
Andy Burnham strategy of using defence spending to re industrialise is probably the best political strategy to get the UK up to 3.5% of defence spending. It’s exactly what Germany is doing. However I think many on here will be disappointed as it’s not going to mean instant purchases of American equipment or adding to our existing exquisite special forces capabilities to provide better service to American foreign policy.
It’s going to mean lots more drones and missile systems because these are what we are good at and these are things people will buy from us instead of insisting on local production.
If Andy wants something to splash the cash on then I suggest ABM systems are the way to go. A quick role out of BAE gallium nitride based AESA radar and leveraging projected DIAMOND to build a missile agnostic GBAD ABM that can fire Aster, Aquila, Standard Missiles, Freya, CAMM and Star Hammer.
Getting SPEAR integrated on all versions of F35 ASAP and Typhoon, Gripen and Rafale is another.
Space is another area we can do more, massive expansion of One Web with the UK government buying a much larger stake and getting manufacturing done in the UK. Getting multiple UK launchers off the ground from Shetland is another.
But that is not what our NATO allies are asking us for, is it?
‘(UK) Article V responsibilities. At the heart of that commitment sits the provision of a fully operational warfighting corps and the guarantee that that critical asset can be delivered to NATO in a timely manner, to best effect, whenever and wherever it is needed. It is upon this critical capability (the Supreme Allied Commander’s most important and most potent reserve, and thus trump card) that the real substance of Britain’s Army-centred contribution to NATO will be judged.’
Dr Andrew Sharpe 2025
Our strength has always been in our navy and we should never pretend we’re anything but an highly professional expeditionary force. Control of the air and seas are where we should focus our limited resources.
SDR 2025 is all about NATO, as it should be. The entirety of Europe requires a solid credible and verifiable conventional deterrent. It also requires comprehensive ABM defence which only NATO can provide, unaffordable for this country on its own.
In return, NATO requires various commitments from its members. As set out in SDR 2025, it expects a deployable fully formed Army Corps from Britain.
We are in breach of that commitment.
That’s not what NATO HQ thinks. We apparently have enough ships collectively, it’s land forces we are well short of. The UK is definitely remiss here, our NATO commitment is a strategic reserve corps of two divisions. At the time this almost certainly meant heavy arm inf Divs, not light troops. So 6 heavy brigades.
All we can actually offer is two heavy brigades. Other than that, we only have 7 Light Mech and 16 Air Assault, which may well be needed elsewhere. And 4 bde, once its reserve formations are called up and organised to take the field and head to Estonia.
These NATO force targets are set by NATO HQ and agreed with member states. We are clearly welding on our commitments and pretending to the nation that all is well.
Ref respective importance of the services, it clearly sorts itself out:
1. Air, because land and sea assets are too vulnerable without air superiority or at minimum air denial
2. Land, because any Russian malign military activity, whether initially against Narva, Suwalki, Moldova or similar weak spot, will be a land attack, they won’t be coming in warships.
3. Sea is lowest priority, because NATO Europe alone has far greater naval assets and capabilities than the Russian fleet, across the North Atlantic, Baltic, Med, Black Sea and out-of-area. We can rattle on about the importance of defending SLOCs but the reality is that the Russian navy, in its current shape, won’t get that far.
It may surprise a lot of people on here but our NATO Allie’s don’t ask us for anything?
Where do people get these ridiculous idea form 🤦♂️
Like there is some magic list that Finland and Germany all get together and present the UK with😂
Do we get to run around presenting NATO Allie’s with a list of things we want or is it only the UK that gets this list 🤣
NATO has projects and commitments with nations volunteer to add to. That’s it.
‘We welcome the apportionment of NATO capability targets to be endorsed at the NATO Defence Ministerial Meeting in June 2025. We are committed to enhancing our military capabilities to strengthen NATO’s deterrence and defence posture in line with NATO requirements and fair burden sharing, in support of SACEUR’s regional plans, recognising that it requires increased defence spending and having in mind that leveraging defence effort is a prerequisite for it.’
‘NATO Capability Targets define which military capabilities member countries need, in order to implement NATO’s operational plans and contribute to the Alliance’s collective defence. New capability targets are adopted every four years.’
‘As part of the June 2025 Capability Targets and the subsequent Strategic Defence Review (SDR), the UK’s core commitments and capability modernizations include:
Spending Targets: Accelerating the commitment to reach 2.5% of GDP on NATO-qualifying defence spending by 2027, with ambitions to reach 3% in the next Parliament.
Integrated Air and Missile Defence: Investing £790 million in new homeland air and missile defence systems.Nuclear and Conventional Deterrence: The UK is returning to NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangements and purchasing F-35As for NATO’s Dual Capable Aircraft (DCA) mission.
Advanced Technology & Domains: Committing £3.2 billion for space capabilities, £2.5 billion for cyber and the electromagnetic domain, and £330 million for protecting critical underwater infrastructure.
Strategic Reserve Corps: Developing a fully deployable and enabled Strategic Reserve Corps to meet NATO’s conventional defence requirements.’
One of the NATO Capability targets for the British Army is a real IFV, so I understand.
Which of course is absent from the DIP.
Using Boxer and pretending it’s an IFV won’t cut it.
Warrior gone by next year.
Mind the gap.
It is a complete shambles.
BAE planned to manufacture CV 90 at the (now) Pearson ex Vickers plant in Newcastle.
Boxer will fall over with a turret and will anyway fall over on challenging terrain.
One might say that providing a full capability Army Corps to NATO implies a Warrior replacement.
Difficult to see where that might come from and, so far, absolutely no sign of it.
That will not have passed unnoticed overseas.
I understand the Army looked at ARES for it as a sort of left field measure, with the incoming Boxers then moving over to 1 ( UK ) Divisions 7 Bde.
We’re only talking 4 measely Battalions.
Warrior Bns once stood at 9, then 6, then 4, soon to be none.
No wonder the Army is playing up 4 Bde and Drones taking over Cabrit, we won’t be able to furnish an Armoured Battlegroup anyway.
Ironically, I support the Armour being pulled back, as we cannot create a SACEUR Reserve Corps, refit it’s units with Ajax, Boxer, CH3, and be expected to have said Reserve “double hat” in Estonia at the same time.
Thank God for Drones….
Colonel Carns is not rejoining the MoD team so the outlook for defence clearly remains poor.
A fully formed Army Corps with one armoured division and one recce strike division, despite SDR 2025, NATO first commitments, is obviously not, therefore, going to happen in this parliament.
Nevertheless, the new Defence Secretary is said to be a ruthless slasher of dead wood…
We shall see but a very poor effort by successive governments, willing the mission but not the means for the last thirty five years.
The major concern right now is that, with twelve years of war in Europe already, it could all go pear shaped for us very quickly and, as we have seen, when stuff happens, we have not.much in the way of immediarely available cspability with which to respond.
I thought they announced a Golden Age for UK defence last year, but my memory was faulty. On checking it turned out that last year was a Golden Era. I wonder what next year will be.
2027 😁
Can any of the Labour propagandists on this site explain how Burnham is meant to pay for the increase in military spending he is supposedly so set on?
He intends to cut taxes, not cut benefits in any meaningful way and of course reversing one of Starmers few good decisions and raise the foreign aid budget
So more borrowing or a magic money tree, which is it?
Magic money tree isn’t it👍funny enough though I can’t seem to find one to buy and plant anywhere🤔
😏
I don’t think we can take this clown seriously at all. Burnham will be as bad, 2 cost of living stunts one unfunded and one involving accounting trickery to pretend it’s being paid for. We are rapidly getting the mark of the man, he is a snake oil salesman. So last man stand with any credit is Healey, let us see what trickery he employs to make it look like we are spending more on defence.
Hang on, these two guys have only been in the job for a couple of days. You seem a bit overly keen to pass judgement surely?
These ‘clowns’ have just found an extra £10bn for defence, with another £5bn to come at the next spending review. First UK government to actually increase defence spending significantly for 35 years. Compare and contrast with the last weary 14 years of endless cutbacks and accounting trickery.
Things could be worse.
I genuinely hope you are correct. Streeting could not say the words, “we will fund the DIP” on Sky this morning he just trotted out the old more bang for your bucks, spend wisely, reduce waste mantra. Most of that £10bn is to be funded by reduction in waste and other cuts across government so it is disingenuous to say it’s funded when what they are really saying is they hope they can fund it. by savings as yet not made. In other words more accounting trickery just like Burnham’s cost of living announcements, the best one being £400 million pounds a year will be found by not giving out £400 million grants a year but 10 year loans. If that is not accountancy BS I don’t know what is. The only reason it’s the biggest increase in defence spending in 35 years is because we were cutting back in the vain hope of peace in our time. I think Healey will have 6 months to stand up and be counted or exposed as a fraud if he cannot fund the DIP but I fear that will be torn up and started again to delay spending once more. In the 30 years I worked for HMG there were constant cut backs, recruitment freezes, no pay rises and savings being forced on us and where are we today? The biggest state ever and the most costly too so let us see.