- The Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) says an increase in defence spending is now “necessary”
- The “uncertain” geopolitical environment has prompted the watchdog to challenge longstanding views of defence investment as a minum insurance policy
- The Spring Budget leaves a lot to be desired, lacking a holistic society approach to defence and security
The OBR fears further increases in UK defence spending will be “necessary” according to its latest fiscal outlook for the country.
While the claim could easily dismissed at first, the assertion diverts from the government’s longstanding view of defence expenditure as a minimal insurance premium. Now, the “uncertain… geopolitical situation” necessitates additional funds, particularly amid the ongoing crisis in the Middle East, in which US and Israeli offensive strikes against Iran enter their fifth day.
Discover B2B Marketing That Performs
Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.
British forces are only engaged defensively, having announced plans to deploy a Type 45 air defence destroyer, HMS Dragon, and two Wildcat helicopters to Cyprus. The frequency of national responses like this one will only increase operational costs that come with such a deployment.
Many were left scratching their heads wondering why the UK had not deployed any air defence assets to the region in the first four days, with the UK Defence Secretary John Healey downplaying Iranian strikes against British military sites in the region, noting the lack of casualties.
But this has since changed following the Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s decision to deploy naval platforms to protect British interests and allies. While security reality seems to hit home with some of the country’s leadership, not all the cabinet are compelled to change the status quo.
A reluctant Treasury
The Chancellor Rachel Reeves delivered her Spring Forecast to Parliament yesterday (3 March), expressing pride for having presided over “the biggest uplift in defence spending since the Cold War.”
While this is true – after a relatively peaceful period in the last 30 years, it should be noted – there is a lot more to be desired at a time of Russian revanchism and unlawful militarism around the world. In this backdrop, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has routinely delayed the Defence Investment Plan (DIP), which is intended to put forward a cost breakdown of priority defence programmes for the next ten years.
Army Technology contacted the MoD to comment on whether the department has delayed to DIP as it attempts to re-evaluate the force structure for cheaper, asymmetric warfare amid the stringent fiscal constraints, but there was no response at the time of publishing. There is a lot to substantiate this outlook, including the Chief of the Defence Staff’s comments in January addressing members of the parliamentary Defence Committee to whom he acknowledged necessary “trade-offs”.
Reeves was quick to note the £1bn New Medium Helicopter contract award to Leonardo’s Yeovil facility in her speech as an example of her good graces to the defence sector. But one should not ignore the fact that the British based manufacturer was the sole tender left for around 18 months, as well as the timing of the decision, when negotiations only began on the day of the contractual deadline and the award being announced the following day.
Many suppose the DIP delay comes down to an enduring struggle between the MoD and the Treasury over funding the requirements laid out in the Strategic Defence Review last year, which covers a £1bn Digital Targeting Web to £15bn in sovereign nuclear warhead production among other provisions.
Such inertia will only stunt the UK’s rearmament and modernisation as the threat perception develops in the coming years.
However, the UK Government reiterates its commitment to reaching 2.6% of GDP on defence by next year and agreeing with Nato allies to boost their collective target to 5% by 2035.
Yet Ben Goodwin, a fellow of the Council on Geostrategy, a London security think tank, has argued in the Britain’s World substack that a wider, more fundamental cultural shift is required on the part of government:
“In wartime, [it] is not a matter of reallocating public spending within a fixed budget, but of mobilising the economy for national survival. Against that benchmark, a 5% peacetime commitment can be understood as a form of insurance: not to ‘compete’ with civilian activity, but to prevent a far costlier mobilisation from ever becoming necessary.”
The Spring Budget was subsequently released today (4 March) reaffirming existing targets with no sign of a shift toward cultivating such a holistic national defence resilience plan, notwithstanding calls to do so among the top brass.
