The Defence Committee’s recent session on the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) provided insights into the complexities of modernising defence.
Led by Lord Robertson of Port Ellen and General Sir Richard Barrons, the review addresses structural challenges while aiming to prepare the Armed Forces for future threats.
Budget constraints were a central theme. With defence spending set at 2.5% of GDP, questions arose about whether the review could deliver comprehensive solutions within these limits.
General Barrons acknowledged past failures to align ambition with resources, stating,
“Every review in my working life has failed, generally within two years…because they have left an enormous gap between ambition and resourcing.” Lord Robertson added, “We cannot guarantee anything…We are operating on the basis of the terms of reference that we were given.”
Ensuring implementation of the review’s recommendations emerged as another challenge. General Barrons emphasised, “Our job is to deliver the best review that we can…Some in the Department might think they can humour us and then go back to normal jogging.”
Both reviewers stressed the importance of embedding understanding of the recommendations within defence leadership.
The session also highlighted concerns about skills shortages, particularly in critical areas like cyber operations and artificial intelligence. General Barrons described this as a “skills crisis,” noting, “The one that is most prominent for defence is accessing the skills in the digital space.”
He also stressed the need for industrial resilience, arguing, “There is no point having powerful armed forces and a fragile defence industry. They have to be seen as symbiotic.”
The UK’s extensive global commitments were also discussed. Lord Robertson acknowledged the challenge of balancing these with resource constraints, saying, “We clearly have to focus…We have to deal with the legacy, the new elements that are now making themselves apparent, and what SACEUR [Supreme Allied Commander Europe] wants to do.”
Reflecting on past reviews, Lord Robertson noted the need to learn from mistakes, stating, “If there were mistakes made, we will try to avoid them this time around.” He emphasised the importance of producing a report that is both robust and implementable.
The SDR’s success depends on how well it addresses these challenges. As General Barrons observed, “Our objective has to be as least wrong as possible.”
God help us.
All that sounds like is code for cuts.
Was thinking the same. Constant focus on cyber is great for that as there is no substantive output from the investment or any stated deliverables or targets, so you can pretend to throw money at it when in reality the money doesn’t exist or is going elsewhere.
It is getting to the point where it is terrifyingly complacent.
There are real hot wars going on and we toss £25Bn at the NHS to waste on being rude and incompetent and of GP’s to be part time in the surgery and being a private GP it in the golf course…yet we can’t find enough for defence to have a real terms increase yesterday.
We are past the point where leisurely approach to 2.5% is enough, now it needs to be 2.75% but with a massive front loaded recapitalisation fund German style.
The problem with the lethargy is that the 2.5% should have been when Mad Vlad invaded so that things started ramping up.
To a certain extent you have to credit Doris @ No 10 with getting things back to around 2.2% from under 2%. Think how bad things would have got without that.
Perhaps realistically pricing MoD capabilities vs. cost at several different levels of expenditures would prove an invaluable service to the nation (i.e., current%, 2.5%, 2.75% and 3% of GDP)? Summary table in bold print in final report detailing increase in capabilities vs. level of investment. Even politicians should be capable of reading and comprehending same.
In reality, the UK only needs the capability to defend the home island until the cavalry materializes (principally USAF and USN). A full-scale invasion of ENATO would probably not occur unless/until the Orcs and ChiComs operate as a seamless alliance, perhaps in the 2030s or 2040s.
In my opinion the most urgent is missile defence and that is not US
FormerUSAF, we currently have 10,000 UK service personnel deployed around the globe (from all three services). We do not just limit ourselves to Home Defence.
Sad to say, also, that many in Britain and Europe have lost a degree of faith in the US reinforcements arriving in Europe during a Trump presidency.
Being “white van man ” dismissive of the NHS merely undermines any constructive critique engrained in your arguement.
When has it ever been anything else? I despair 😞
If this lot understood the horrific consequences of a serious military loss on national pride, cost, humiliation, death, casualties, PoW et. they’d have a different approach to the review in terms of prioritisation, resources and urgency!
Realistically the uk isn’t under hard miltary threat. Any threat is far away, such as Russia needing to get through all of Europe first. It means the general public don’t perceive the need for defence. Which is a positive and negative.
Russian missiles and drones can arrive anytime. From Iran to Israel 1200km, from Kaliningrad to UK 1300km, plus cruise missiles from submarines.
A threat doesn’t have to be physically from across the channel…maybe it did in 39..and even then thats debatable..but it certai ny doesnt now. Are you suggesting we wait until they truck up in Calais and are viewing us through 50×10 binoculars before we decide to do anything about it.
I’d ask if you are Chamberlain incarnate but that would be doing him a great disservice.
Russia doesn’t need to go through Europe to threaten the UK.
We are heavily reliant on the sea for our survival, and despite what’s often said, Russia still has a substantial submarine force.
Hitler came close to cutting us off in the 1940’s with his U Boats, and history has a nasty habit of repeating itself.
Unfortunately we don’t seem to have the politicians with the necessary urgency to actually do anything about it!!!
FormerUSAF, we currently have 10,000 UK service personnel deployed around the globe (from all three services). We do not just limit ourselves to Home Defence.
Sad to say, also, that many in Britain and Europe have lost a degree of faith in the US reinforcements arriving in Europe during a Trump presidency.
Ray, Russia is allegedly attacking us now with cyber attacks aimed at the NHS and the MoD. Several mysterious arson attacks at Defence contractors and on delivery couriers and warehouses have been attributed by some to Russian agents. We have experienced use of chemical agents such as Novichok on British soil several times. Russian strategic bombers head for our air space on a monthly basis.
If you thought this SDR was nothing other than cuts you would be deluded.
Mark, there will be some enhancements to go alongside the cuts. There always are.
All smoke and mirrors and lets spend money on the cheap things we can talk up, you can not defeat and enemy by cyber lone. No matter how much people talk it up. Must top of the list as its cheap. The review will as always mean cuts dressed up as progress. Hard to cut an Army so small with so little kit that works.
Madness, we spend 7% on foreign aid, money going to Country’s that side with Russia. When are politicians going to wake up
Erm. Trump will have other ideas. Watch this space.
John, How will Trump affect this SDR? He will just blast any NATO country not spending 2% – and we do, just.
He did sod all about it last time, what makes anyone think his suddenly going to do anything this time. His just a bigger version of boris, grand ideas no delivery.
He has tangerine tint and a very long red tie. Isn’t that enough?
So its tail wagging the dog time.
Rather than logically looking at what are the threats and what is needed, the “Labours” are just going for a max 2-5% budget spend. I seriously think we are at a crucial moment in history, again, and now is the time to re-arm and provide a credible deterrence to prevent and actual war.
They’ve already ripped the guts out of the royal artillery I can’t them stopping there
They keep talking about fragile defence industry, if you order enough ships/aircraft / tanks / artillery then industry takes care of itself. Ours is fragile because we’re trying to get a massive ship building industry without ordering many ships, submarines the same, tanks are the same.
If we forget about the rhetoric, it comes down to put your money where your mouth is.
Is the answer money …I bet it’s money…it is isn’t it ..its money !
We don’t want to fight but by Jingo if we do,
We’ve got the ships, we’ve got the men, we’ve got the money too,
I often think we should just adopted the Irish approach and get the humiliation over in one go.
Then have a couple of armed Cessna ( no buullets but keep that quiet) , a few coastal patrol rowing boats crewed by salty seamen to provide the harsh words and a volunteer militia armed with cross bows but no arrows ( health and safety)
Was thinking just issue everyone with a Lee Enfield.
Too many electronics involved we’ll be @#%* and cut backs well say no more. If Russia finds the old telegraph cable which their trying to find make no mistake then stand-by, the muppets (government) need to stand united and strengthen everything to do with our defences, as it stands right now we are showing that we are weak with all the bickering and cut backs we’re showing to the world we’re weak.
Key point: Lord Robertson: “We cannot guarantee anything. We are working on the basis of the terms of reference that we were given.”
It is almost certain that the terms of reference will include a stipulation about how much the UK can spend on defence pa. If its conclusions are not about what we need to do but solely about what we can fit into some futuristic 2.5%.of GDP, the whole exercise will be a big waste of time.
Reason why comes down to the.maths of how much we actually spend right now.
9n the most recent cold figures.of 2023/4 national GDP and claimed defence spend, it works out at 1.99%. An increase from that figure to 2.5% would be very good, a 25%.boost to each budget, personnel, equipment, accommodation, munitions etc.
However, the MOD accountants play with these.figures a lot, so that the MOD always claims to have spent more than the raw figures show.
Thus we have a figure of 2.15%.given by the Ministet to.a parliamentary question. Let us assume for now that relates to the core defence spend, I.e..excluding.money and kit given to Ukraine from the Treasury’s contingency budget. Going up to 2.5% would.give a smaller rise in core budgets of 17%. Better than nothing, but a bit of a peppercorn n3xt to the mass of things that need to be done and paid for.
But HMG continues to proclaim that we spend 2.33% of GDP on defence. That of course is the core defence budget PLUS the cost of supporting Ukraine – even though the latter is funded separately by the Treasury. A rise from 2.33 to 2.5 would of about 7%, which is unfortunately peanuts and would simply disappear into the nuclear programme, which again needs even more money.
What is really needed is an independent review by expert accountants to nail down how much we are really spending on defence, rather than buying the odd, inconsistent, ever-changing and politically convenient numbers that the MOD pumps out. They are marking their own homework here, with Treasury and political buy-in, which can’t be right. Lord R and team could usefully look under the counterpane to see what the true picture is.
Well said.
“We have to deal with the legacy, the new elements that are now making themselves apparent, and what SACEUR [Supreme Allied Commander Europe] wants to do.”
No.
We have to deal with the legacy,
We have to deal with the new elements, and
only then can we consider
what SACEUR [Supreme Allied Commander Europe] wants to do.
So ! To sum up !
Our strategy is do whatever the Americans want while trying as best we can not to cooperate with our European allies who aren’t worth F.A.
Also keep poking the Bear and the Dragon on behalf of our American friends while hoping a limited nuclear war doesn’t involve us.
If I’ve missed anything out please let me know.
Make peace you idiots !!! ❤️☮️
There is one answer and only one. You reverse the NI raise, you scrap ALL overseas aid except Ukraine, especially the billions being spent on climate change, you sink the boats in the channel and send all illegals to Russia where they were funded from, you scrap the green targets and build dozens of nuclear reactors, you go single taz and single benefit and remove the departments of tax an social security, you scrap fuel duty, car duty etx and remove dvla, you scrap all the bullshit about lbg and black livesmatter etc etx etc and get back to a state that looks after defending us from outside actors AND NOTHING else. You up defence spending to 25percent of gdp for the next 10 years which will help us recover and make a baseline of 15perxent beyond there with ALL government expenditure including defence to be on British produced goods and services. Make it so that British produced means at least a quarter from raw material mines in the UK with that set to rise 5 percent a year until it is all of it.
A hard limit on the available budget is not a legitimate ‘term of reference’. The review needs to determine the threats, the capabilities needed to meet the threats, and then determine the budget based on funding the required capability.
So if I understand this correctly they saying last review promised more but delivered less but next review will promise less and deliver less. The only difference being they can congratulate themselves for achieving the lower target.
It’s time to get serious about defense, cut backs can’t continue with increasing conflicts the uk get involved in around the world. If we can throw good money after bad in to public services, the armed forces should get a sensible increase year on year and 3% of UK GDP should be a start with other options when needed. The MOD needs to look at defense now not continue on the future deployment, get the now right first then look ahead to the future.