The Ministry of Defence has disclosed new details of a wargame exercise conducted with industry in late 2024, designed to test the resilience of Britain’s defence industrial base under wartime conditions.
The exercise, described as the first of its kind, highlighted serious structural weaknesses in current supply chains and a lack of mutual understanding between government and industry regarding mobilisation for large-scale conflict.
The findings were shared in a letter from MOD Permanent Secretary David Williams to the House of Commons Defence Committee, dated 11 July 2025. The letter responds to questions raised during a committee session on 2 July, including question 70 on Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) and its engagement with the private sector.
The exercise was informed by conclusions from the MOD’s own Planned Force Testing-10 as well as the US-led Globally Integrated Wargame (GIWG). Both concluded that in a new era of great power competition, industrial preparedness is now a critical component of conventional deterrence and strategic credibility.
According to Williams, “our supply chains are largely designed for peacetime operating, with minimal resilience, not war.” He noted that industry possesses only a limited understanding of what defence would require in terms of volume and speed during a conflict, while the department itself has an incomplete grasp of what industry can realistically deliver without significant adjustment.
To address this gap, a new wargame series was commissioned and designed collaboratively across MOD entities, including DE&S, the Front Line Commands, and industry partners. The December 2024 exercise was conducted over two days and presented participants with a scenario that included operational demand, mobilisation timelines, and potential adversary interference in industrial processes.
The intent was to provide a “safe-to-fail” environment in which realistic pressure could be simulated, allowing both sides to test assumptions and identify shortfalls. The scenario was framed around sustaining critical defence supply chains during a period of escalating conflict, with particular emphasis on decision-making requirements before the outbreak of hostilities.
Four key themes emerged from the event. First, participants agreed that the UK is already operating in an environment of “credible sub-threshold threat and activity.” Second, the game raised questions about the relationship between government, society, and its armed forces, including industry’s role in a national defence posture. Third, the need to identify what actually provides strategic leverage in industrial planning was underscored. Finally, there was broad recognition that timelines must accelerate across the board.
The exercise generated four specific work packages to be taken forward: improving secure communications between MOD and industry; sharing threat briefs and, where appropriate, classified intelligence; identifying regulatory quick wins that could remove bottlenecks; and expanding the wargaming methodology into the boardrooms of major defence suppliers.
Williams noted that industry participants showed a “tangible” appetite for closer collaboration, reflecting a recognition of mounting geopolitical risk and persistent supply chain disruption.
He described the exercise as a catalyst for cultural and procedural change, and framed it as part of a broader effort to deliver on the ambitions of the Strategic Defence Review, the Defence Industrial Strategy, and the ongoing defence reform programme.
“The evolution proved that as the world changes, we must change too,” Williams wrote. He concluded by saying that the overarching challenge now is to identify and develop the “big idea” that will drive the next phase of mobilisation planning, industrial readiness, and deterrence credibility.
look forward to comments, complex weapons have a global supply chain which ends pretty quickly even if hostile state only takes sub threshold action (below level that justifies UK reprisal)
How did the fire start at DDH? Wargaming is important but so is telling the truth should we really wish the British public to take on-board our march towards future conflict.
Weaknesses were not discovered ‘in’ the wargame, they were discovered ‘by’ the wargame.
That’s exactly how I read it too.
I always find it pays to read things properly. 👀
Misleading use of the English language is the norm in the press these days. The classic one is, “A man was found guilty today of mass murder at the Old Bailey.”
Ah, that’s a good example, I’ll bet not many will question that nor this particular one.
I would imagine a lot more weaknesses than strengths were found in the wargame.
Change will come, that’s no challenge. The Latin tag is “tempora mutantur et nos mutamur in illis”: times change and we change with them. This is not an injunction to change. We will change no matter what. The questions left are “to what” and “how”. Williams “big idea” is the usual set of small ideas that are opposed every time.
That we spend more on security vetting so we can push anyone through SC clearance in a week and through DV in two. That we cross-recognize industry security clearances within FVEY and bilaterally where appropriate (France, Norway, etc). That we extend the digital backbone into industry (or equivalent). That we pay industry for the ability to step up production on request and we test that ability for one month every two years with actual orders. That we insist on having suffcient stockpiles and spares, and if the supplier can’t or won’t play ball (I’m looking at you F-35 JPO) we think twice before getting into bed with them in the first place.
They are opposed because they appear at first glance to be inefficient. If only the Treasury would keep looking after that first glance! Efficiency is the enemy of resillience.
We extend the digital backbone to SF HQ who will download it as an excel and email it out to…..
But you are right in the main.
However, the reason we no longer have rolling lines like we did in The Cold War is that MOD stopped giving the multi year trickle statement contracts to keep lines running at low productivity.
The reason we don’t have spares stocks is because they are ‘expensive’ when accountancy rules.
Think is if you put a proper accounting value on the underutilised assets and stopped using 101 accounting for kids then the spares stockpiles actually do make sense rather than just in time nonsense as you get higher utilisation rates from expensive assets.
This actually applies to a lot of businesses but business school culture and teaching is so poor that it creates hoards of drones who believe outsourcing and just in time are the only solutions rather than actually being major business problems.
The not manufacturing little bits, like fastenings, is a very major problem when it comes to the tiny bits of dual use materials needed for everything military that will become unavailable for the far east overnight if something kicked off.
No surprise there, this is very much the result of decades of flawed thinking/ short-termism.
MOD and governments burying their heads in the sand, ignoring or downplaying potential threats.
Thinking the US will always be there to back us up
Letting important military industries go bust.
Armed forces must do more with Less.
FFBNW
Scrapping/ early retiring of perfectly good kit (Challenger 2 comes to mind).
“ Williams wrote. He concluded by saying that the overarching challenge now is to identify and develop the “big idea””
Maybe the big idea is to actually spend domestically big money with UK companies to get the supply chain working and incentives to use UK manufactured bits (not assembled) to grow the value chain?