Rishi Sunak has announced that the UK will spend 2.5% of its GDP on defence by 2030, up from approximately 2.1% at present and well in excess of the NATO benchmark figure of 2%.
He had been under some pressure since Chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s last budget statement had nothing for defence. The criticism came not just from the wider audience but also from within his own party, and Labour had thrown down the gauntlet by making the 2.5% pledge first, albeit “when the circumstances allow”.
He had also come under pressure, hardly surprisingly, from the old and bold within military circles, who bemoaned what they saw (quite rightly) as the continuing underfunding, under-manning, and under-equipping of Britain’s armed forces.
Finally, and perhaps most tellingly, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz had stated that the UK needed to up its defence spending “if Britain wants a leading role in European security” prior to Sunak’s visit to Berlin.
Now, that was a bit rich coming from the Germans given their fairly chequered history in recent times with their own defence forces. Ships that couldn’t sail. Fighter jets that couldn’t fly, and war games where broom handles substituted for gun barrels were gleefully reported in the UK tabloids.
The British PM has also announced another £500 million in aid for Ukraine.
However, it appears that Germany is also getting its house in order and is now the second biggest military aid contributor to Ukraine after the US.
As for Rishi Sunak, well, his statement may have allayed his critics for now. Whether he and his government will still be around in 2030 is another matter altogether. I suspect not on current performance.
Be that as it may, now that he has bought himself a little space and relief from his critics, what might the eventual increase to 2.5% of GDP actually mean?
Downing Street sources say it will be equal to an additional £75 billion being spent on the military over the next six years.
Now, that appears to be a significant sum, but defence is eye-wateringly expensive and it may still prove to be not enough. Many are already calling for the spend to go up to 3% of GDP and beyond.
Leaving that aside for the moment, what should the additional money be spent on?
Amateur military commentators have been quick to promote their favourite hobby horses in terms of priorities, and social media is awash with suggestions for fantasy fleets, squadrons, and battalions.
Perhaps it is best to approach this generically and then mention one or two clear equipment priorities later.
What follows are my suggestions; there are and will be others.
My first priority would be to concentrate on personnel. All three services are under-strength so improvements in recruiting and retention are essential. Better conditions of service and military housing are an important part of this. In addition, the current outsourcing of recruiting for the army needs to be terminated forthwith and the requirement brought in-house.
Next, the nation’s defence industrial base (DIB) needs to be restored after years of neglect. The shrinking of the armed forces has been mirrored by the decline in the defence industry, to the extent there are many things we need which we just don’t have the capacity to make any more. This needs to be reversed.
We also need to rapidly build up our stocks of munitions. One of the major lessons of the Ukraine war is that previous estimates of ammunition expenditure in modern conventional warfare were well off the mark. On top of that, we have sent a considerable amount of our already meagre stocks of some nature to that conflict already.
Firm figures are understandably hard to come by, but it’s perfectly possible that we have donated up to 50% of our stocks of hand-held anti-tank missiles and certain natures of ammunition. These stocks have to be replenished.
I said that I didn’t want to get into the fantasy orbats scenario, but the consensus is that the Royal Navy has too few ships, the RAF too few of all types of aircraft, and the army too little of everything.
Perhaps we should highlight the dearth of ground-based anti-air defence (GBAD). Although the threat/risk to the UK is not of the same order of magnitude, we should ask whether we could defeat a similar attack of over 300 attack drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles as did Israel.
The answer might be; defeat the drones, probably; defeat the cruise missiles, possibly; defeat the ballistic missiles, probably not.
I could bang on for ages but won’t. I would just point out that it’s easier to deter than to fight, and so we should spend now to save later.
Upping defence spending to 2.5% of GDP is a step in the right direction, but will the pledge actually be honoured once the General Election is done and dusted?
Lt Col Stuart Crawford is a defence analyst and former army officer. Sign up for his podcasts and newsletters at www.DefenceReview.uk.
