The British defence review was asked to make its recommendations within the budgetary constraints of spending 2.5% of GDP on defence.
But it is already clear that to meet its goals of transforming Britain’s armed forces, to make them ready for war, there’ll have to be more money.
The over-riding message is that Britain’s armed forces and the nation needs to transform to be ready for the possibility of war.
Labour says this is the first defence review in a quarter of a century that will not lead to a cut in the overall size of the armed forces.
Many who read it might reasonably conclude that it will require a significant uplift in defence spending.
The British defense review was requested to provide recommendations while staying within the financial restrictions of allocating 2.5 percent of GDP to defense.
However, it is already evident that more funding will be required to achieve its objectives of modernizing Britain’s military and preparing it for conflict.
The government’s “ambition” to spend 3% by 2034 is praised in the review. However, it also adds that “it might be necessary to go faster as we live in more turbulent times.”. More than five percent has already been pledged by a number of NATO allies.
A defence source, however, told the BBC that even the government’s pledge to construct up to 12 new attack submarines, as stated in the review, would necessitate raising defence expenditures to at least 3% of GDP.
A summary of the government’s defense strategy’s main ideas.
There are no deadlines or assurances, but ministers say they think they will meet that goal in the upcoming parliament.
The war in Ukraine is cited in the review as proof of growing threats and the rapidity of change. The main takeaway is that the country and its armed forces must change in order to prepare for the potential for war.
Russia is said to pose an urgent threat. China poses a persistent and complex challenge. North Korea and Iran are regarded as regional disruptors.
The review cautions that the speed of change “has created alarming new threats and vulnerabilities” for Britain, and that these threats are unpredictable.
According to the review, the military in Britain needs to change drastically and adopt new tactics.
General Sir Richard Barrons, one of the report’s authors, called it the “most profound” shift in UK defense in 150 years.
More autonomous systems and drones will be used, along with other technologies that use artificial intelligence and software to make decisions more quickly on the battlefield. In essence, what is taking place in Ukraine right now.
While “heavy metal” like tanks, fighter jets, and warships will still be used, they will be used more in conjunction with autonomous systems.
Change will need to be made in more than just the military. The “whole of society approach” is recommended in the review.
It states that the government needs to have plans in place in case a transition to war is necessary. A “defence readiness bill” should be introduced to grant the government additional authority to facilitate the mobilization of reserves and industry, if necessary.
The protection of the country’s vital infrastructure, such as underwater cables and pipes, requires more action. “A renewed focus on home defense and resilience is vital,” the review states.
According to Labour, this defense review is the first in 25 years that won’t result in a reduction in the size of the armed forces as a whole.
Since then, tens of thousands of soldiers have been lost from the regular army. It was over 100,000 strong in 2010, and it is currently just over 71,000, which is still less than the 73,000 target strength.
Recruiting, retention, and low morale crises must be addressed, according to the review. It suggests that the size of the regular army should be increased.
Defense Secretary John Healy stated in the Commons on Monday that the regular army would be expanded to 76,000, but on no particular date and only after the next election. This has also not received funding.
Strong arguments for increased defense and national security spending are presented in the review.
It would be reasonable for many readers to conclude that it will necessitate a large increase in defense spending.
That increase hasn’t been revolutionary thus far; rather, it has been gradual. The growing threats in the world are acknowledged by other NATO allies, who have responded by increasing their spending.
