After his election victory in 2024, the Prime Minister commissioned Lord Robertson, former Labour Defence Secretary and Secretary General of NATO to write the new Strategic Defence Review.
Together with Fiona Hill, a British-born former national security profession in the US Government and advisor during the first Trump Administration, Lord Robertson has completed this thankless task with the announcement of the Strategic Defence Review’s findings today.
While the name “Strategic Defence Review” implies high level strategic decisions and a clarifying of UK objectives in such a way that will shape the world moving forward, more often it is a reactive document setting out how the UK will fill the gaps exposed by the latest challenge presented by world events.
It’s a balancing act where the authors must prioritise threats such as Russia, China and terrorism, while the various sections of the armed forced: The Army, Navy and Air Force, all vie for funding and politics as politicians lobby for the industry and infrastructure in their areas.
Unlike past Strategic Defence Reviews this one deals with the challenges presented not only by enemies and rivals but allies as well. The Trump administration has upended the worldview that has underpinned the UK’s long-term foreign policy, placing further importance on the UKs short-term defence planning as it can no longer rely upon American support.
Past Reviews
Key to understanding how a Strategic Defence Review (SDR) will be judged will be the challenges Britain faces in the years following it’s being published.
2021 Integrated Review: Delayed by Covid, this review focussed on building up the navy and cooperation with the United States, particularly in the indo-pacific region. While the Strategic Defence Review identified Russia as an “acute threat”, it’s investment seemed tilted towards China’s “systemic challenge”.
It failed to anticipate the shell shortages, long range fire requirements and drone warfare of the brewing war in Ukraine and continued the UK’s long-term integration into US foreign policy despite the looming threat of a second Trump administration.
2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review: The last terrorism focused review was torn between the potential threat from ISIS and resurgent aggression from Russia. With UK forces still engaged in Afghanistan there was a focus on special forces and maintaining the size of the army and upgrading attack helicopters crucial when fighting an insurgency while holding air dominance.
The evacuation of Afghanistan and the failure to maintain the size of the army, which has shrunk by over 12,000 since 2015, and dipped below the 82,000 target in the same Parliament, meant this SDR did not age well. A renewed focus on the navy however has been carried forward since.
2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review: This review was perhaps the most honest and inward facing review of recent times. Focussed on cost cutting, the 2010 Strategic Defence Review cut short-term capability in search of savings in the hope that brighter fiscal weather would allow for their restoration in the future.
While the fiscal headwinds have not let up, capability, in particular the commissioning of the second Queen Elizabeth-Class carrier into service reversed one of the major decisions of this SDR.
Today’s Announcements
- Warfighting Readiness: The UK Armed Forces are to shift towards a state of “warfighting readiness” to deter potential conflicts in Europe and the Atlantic, particularly in response to threats from Russia.
- Nuclear Submarine Programme: Plans to build up to 12 nuclear-powered attack submarines under the AUKUS partnership with the US and Australia, replacing the current Astute-class fleet from the late 2030’s.
- Nuclear Weapons Investment: An additional £15 billion will be invested in modernising the UK’s nuclear weapons production at Aldermaston, supporting over 9,000 jobs.
- Defence Spending Increase: Defence spending is set to rise to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027, with an ambition to reach 3 per cent in the next Parliament.
- Munitions Production: £1.5 billion allocated to build at least six new munitions and energetics factories, aiming to produce up to 7,000 long-range weapons and create approximately 1,800 jobs.
- Home Guard Revival: Proposal to establish a volunteer-led Home Guard to protect critical national infrastructure, allowing regular forces to focus on other duties.
- New Cyber and Electromagnetic Command: Introduction of the Digital Targeting Web by 2027. Taking lessons from the Ukraine war, this system will allow forces to more quickly deliver targeting information.
Final Thought
Unsurprisingly, the war in Ukraine has overshadowed today’s announcements, with munitions manufacture and a new Cyber and Electromagnetic Command coming directly from lessons learned, but rising defence budgets have also allowed for continued investment in the navy.
Nuclear powered attack submarines built under the AUKUS agreement with Australia and the United States signal a focus on the Atlantic, but could still be relevant to any stand-off in the Pacific.
The dog that hasn’t barked is any sort of distancing in the partnership with the United States. One might have expected that with Trump’s wafer thin commitment to Ukraine, bellicose attitude on Greenland and blowing hot and cold on NATO that the UK would start pragmatically replacing the United States in our supply chain and investing in replacements for alliance capabilities currently handled by the United States.
There is precious little sign of change in this area with the US still planning to supply the UK’s nuclear deterrent and according to reports in the Sunday Times, considering an additional purchase of 5th generation fighters to deliver air-launched nuclear weapons.
It’s clear that the government is hoping the MAGA storm will blow over and things can return to normal. History will judge this SDR on whether that hope is realised.
Miles Bennington
DesignationOperations and Finance Director, Chamber UK
