The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has confirmed that recruitment is still underway for the newly created National Armaments Director (NAD) position, aimed at enhancing defence procurement efficiency and strengthening collaboration with NATO.
The move comes as the MOD seeks to tackle inefficiencies and streamline procurement, ensuring greater value for money and improved defence capabilities. Responding to James Cartlidge, Conservative MP for South Suffolk, Defence Minister Maria Eagle stated:
“The National Armaments Director will have significant experience in leading and transforming large organisations, and the ability to build strong, influential partnerships across the globe.”
While the salary details remain undisclosed, Eagle confirmed that the MOD had benchmarked the remuneration package against defence industry best practices to attract a high-calibre candidate. She added:
“We have therefore benchmarked the salary against Defence industry best practice and standards to offer a competitive remuneration package to attract the right candidate with the right skills.”
The MOD’s defence procurement system has long been under scrutiny, with calls for greater efficiency, reduced waste, and improved capability delivery. The new NAD role is part of a wider reform programme, aimed at modernising defence acquisitions and strengthening the UK’s role within NATO’s procurement structures.
As Eagle confirmed, the NAD will act as the UK’s representative in NATO’s Conference of National Armaments Directors (CNAD) while also taking on additional responsibilities to enhance UK procurement strategy.
“Recruitment of the future NAD is ongoing, and we expect to invite applications shortly. Details of the new NAD duties and responsibilities and the associated remuneration package will be available in the job description once published,” Eagle stated.
The procurement overhaul aligns with recent increases in UK defence spending, as the government seeks to modernise its military supply chains and enhance interoperability with NATO partners. With the application window opening soon, the role is expected to be filled by a senior figure with extensive experience in defence acquisitions and strategic industry partnerships.
“While the salary details remain undisclosed, Eagle confirmed that the MOD had benchmarked the remuneration package against defence industry best practices to attract a high-calibre candidate”
Absolute goobedly gook that any serious professional knows that it translates into a SHEQ Manager or DEI Manager will be making more than you.
The same MOD who are currently offering £36,530 for a Cyber Risk Manager at Army HQ Andover when the going market rate is 60k scratching there heads wondering why no one is applying.
Start your dream career from the comfort of your home today! No experience or special skills needed—just a strong drive and willingness to learn. Get paid weekly or monthly, based on your preference, and enjoy the freedom to work on your own terms. Take the first step towards a brighter
future now!…… 𝐖𝐰𝐰.𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭𝟏.𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞/
I can’t see the point. Our NAD has always been the Head of DE&S, and it worked. Add on a hefty HQ and staff and this new initiative will be expensive.
Once established is the new NAD just going to go to international conferences or is he/she going to improve MoD procurement by conducting a Review taking ages and then issuing directives to CE DE&S and get in his hair or merely issue advice which might be ignored?
It is a ‘one over one’ nonsense.
I’m of the same view, mate.
It would be a start if HMG itself, and HMT especially, adopted “best practice” and stopped procrastinating, spent money up front more efficiently,and stopped dragging out programs resulting in spiralling costs and ageing equipment.
What point a NAD if a PM is able to ride roughshod over even an armies R&E with things like RCH155.
The other one I’m still waiting to get to the nitty gritty with is the “new” CDS Headquarters, which, no matter how many times directorates are renamed and reshuffled, exists, and has for decades.
I see it as window dressing rather than dealing with the root of the problem. THEMSELVES.
Hi Daniele, MSHQ was supposed to have been set up by CDS by end of 2024, however most new orgs open on 1st April by custom and tradition and to align roughly with a new FY.
Healeys statement to the HoC on 30th Nov 2024 was the latest info I found:
‘The Chief of the Defence Staff will oversee a new Military Strategic Headquarters…operating from the end of 2024
…where he will formally command the individual Service Chiefs for the first time
… and will be central to prioritising investment spending between the Services’.
PJHQ at Northwood, now part of the expanded Strategic Command, so CJO, worked on Ops.
Main Building has always done the “Strategic Direction” side while having certain ops functions itself located there.
They’re using words, and moving the deckchairs, re wiring the directorate diagram, re brigading who reports to whom, and suddenly it’s all “new” and a brave new world.
While the cuts carry on regardless.
see defenceeye dot co dot uk
As we don’t seem to have had any real success in this area in a long, long time we either need to recruit from abroad (Polish?, Turkish?), at the OAPs home or grab a damn shovel.
If it ends up being someone who’s been part of the failed system or a “cut everything to the bone to enrich shareholders” CEO from the private sector (Thames Water or Royal Mail have former staff available in sure) then we may as well just stuff a Guy with the money each year.
The UK does have folks capable, problem is they are already on silly money with big companies and with perks that would be unavailable in a government position.
So I’m guessing this some one else who is being employed to look through the GUCCI equipment folder and actually make a decision on what to buy?
I recall seeing the now VCDS, when she was DCGS, in an entourage being shown about some GBAD cannon, Terrahawk or something?
Years ago.
Still silence on that.
Was she wheeled out so the MIC could look important?
Or are they army actually going to buy something?
Terrahawk got sent to Ukraine in the end, I think. There are a lot of competitors in the category of “dismountable self contained AA system” now, with Tridon mk2 using the 40mm from BAE , Terrahawk using the naval 30mm mount and Gravehawk using R-27 missiles.
Surely at least one of them is worth purchasing?
I’d take anything mate.
As it is, we’ve nothing.
Dealing with Drones with expensive missiles seems wrong.