Minister's confusion on funding betrays the disarray at the heart of the MoD, by former British Army colonel PHILIP INGRAM

Daily Mail​

2 days ago

Keir Starmer is unveiling his Strategic Defence Review with great fanfare. Headed by former Nato chief George Robertson, it has been billed as a 'root and branch review' of our military policy, pointing the way to 'a new era for defence'.
How pitiful then that the announcement is overshadowed by the Defence Secretary quibbling over how much the Government is willing to spend.
Last week, John Healey declared there was 'no doubt' the UK would hit its target of spending 3 per cent of GDP (from the current 2.3 per cent) on defence by 2034, promising a 'certain decade of rising defence spending'.
Yet the commitment seems less than cast iron, as Healey yesterday retreated to the language of 'aims' and 'ambitions' when referring to the target.
If he doesn't know how much he's spending on the eve of the Strategic Defence Review then what confidence can we have in any of his and Starmer's promises?
It betrays a disarray at the heart of the department, for the Secretary of State's main job is to get the money right.
That aside, some of the Review's proposals already in the public domain are welcome – in particular, the revelation that the Government will build six new munitions factories, given that our defence industrial capacity has been depleted for decades.
Supplying arms to Ukraine since 2022 has severely diminished our stocks. Expanding home-grown munitions manufacturing will allow us to replenish our stores and reduce our reliance on the Americans and Germans. And the jobs it will create, including hundreds of highly skilled roles, can only be a good thing.
The Government's decision to build up to 12 attack submarines as part of the Aukus programme run by Australia, the UK and US will also create thousands of jobs.
Questions remain, though, on just how many of these subs will come under the Royal Navy's command or go to the Royal Australian Navy. Any expansion of our conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarine fleet must also be matched by investment in recruiting and retraining personnel, as the service struggles to man its fleet as it is.
Navy's command or go to the Royal Australian Navy. Any expansion of our conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarine fleet must also be matched by investment in recruiting and retraining personnel, as the service struggles to man its fleet as it is.
It would also appear that the Government is finally taking seriously the possibility of the UK coming under ballistic missile attack, with the review promising to introduce new defensive 'shields '.
While an Israel-style Iron Dome system to intercept long-range aerial attacks sounds enticing, it would be prohibitively expensive to envelop the whole of the British Isles. But we do need much more than the nothing we have today – namely, missile defences over key targets like government buildings, airfields and manufacturing hubs.
However, the announcement of 7,000 new British-built 'missiles' is worrying if that number also includes attack drones, as Healey has indicated. If actual missiles turn out to be a small proportion of this total, such a move will hardly jangle nerves in Moscow or Beijing. The Russians launch hundreds of drones and missiles at Ukraine most nights and the Chinese have over 10,000 missiles ready to fire.
And when it comes to drones, what type are we investing in? The Houthi rebels in Yemen have made light work of taking out the US's £22 million MQ-9 Reaper drones, downing six of them since March.
We need to expand and diversify our stocks, training soldiers to operate lightweight, cheap drones, in particular, which have proved so nimble and deadly above the steppes of Ukraine.
So while there is much to welcome in this review, there is also much more to be done. Elsewhere, reports emerged yesterday that the Government is in highly sensitive talks to buy F35A jets, which can carry nuclear bombs.
This would broaden our nuclear deterrent beyond our four Vanguard-class submarines but would also tie us to yet more US technology. The jet can use only the B61-12 bomb – stocks of which are controlled by the Pentagon.
Nor would the jet, which needs a longer runway to take off, be compatible with the Royal Navy's two aircraft carriers – so the decks of HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales will remain embarrassingly bare. And we are still shamefully unable to train our own pilots. The current Hawk T2 training aircraft is so unreliable that the RAF is sending new pilots overseas to earn their wings. A replacement must be announced.
On the ground, our armoured personnel carriers lack anti-tank systems, making them little more than battlefield taxis. The troops they carry will also be horribly exposed on any future frontline because they have virtually no air cover, due to so few aircraft, pilots and drones.
The latest hi-tech kit is always welcome but it's useless without the personnel to put it to use in action. One thing the Ukraine war has taught us is that troop numbers are important – and we desperately need more recruits in every branch of the Armed Forces.
Today, Healey is expected to set a long-term target for increasing the size of the Army, but I suspect that increase will largely come from a mooted 'Home Guard' force, which will be established to protect domestic infrastructure, such as nuclear power plants.
If the review does not commit us to expand the Army to at least 100,000 full-time soldiers (up from 73,000), we will remain incapable of prosecuting a land offensive in eastern Europe were Russia to invade a Nato ally, at a time when the US is retreating from the theatre.
It is painfully clear, given the current budgetary restraints, that the developments the Defence Secretary announces today are unlikely to get the UK anywhere close to being 'war ready'.