- UK military chief signals the Defence Investment Plan will mean cuts or delays to capabilities
- Savings likely come from slowing or shrinking future procurement, not existing kit, as well as operational deployments
- British Army programmes could be most at risk as drones reshape priorities
The UK’s seniormost military officer has signalled the long-overdue Defence Investment Plan (DIP) will likely result in cutting or delaying planned acquisition programmes, amid ongoing negotiations for a financial settlement for defence.
Originally intended to provide the numerical backing to the 2025 Strategic Defence Review, the publication of the DIP was originally intended to be published in autumn 2025 but the question of how to fill the purported £28bn ($37.5bn) funding gap has resulted in huge delays.
Discover B2B Marketing That Performs
Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.
Rumours were rife last week that the DIP would be published on Friday, when parliament was not in session, with a keynote speech at the unveiling of a new drone testing centre slated as the point at which government ministers would make their long-awaited funding announcements.
However, the dramatic resignation of former Defence Secretary John Healey, and Al Carns, Minister for the Armed Forces, in protest at the lack of funding in the DIP, seemingly threw the UK Government’s plans into disarray.
Instead, the newly appointed Defence Secretary, Dan Jarvis, undertook the drone centre speech, with only select broadcast media permitted to attend.
Speaking before the House of Lords’ Defence Committee on 16 June, Air Chief Marshal Richard Knighton, Chief of the Defence Staff at the Ministry of Defence, effectively confirmed that the DIP would require capability or readiness cuts in the UK Armed Forces.
“The plan was for some capabilities [to] be removed from service, they could be delivered in a different effect,” Knighton said, citing lessons being understood and learned from conflicts such as Ukraine, Middle East, and the earlier Nagorno-Karabakh war.
Continuing, Knighton said there was an “inevitable opportunity” to “change the profile of commitment” already given to long-term conventional programmes in order to “create the space” to buy modern technologies such as drones.
However, such is the paucity of actual platforms in the UK Armed Forces, that Knighton did not see “huge savings” in cuts to existing conventional forces.
Conversely, in yet-to-be delivered programmes, there could potentially be “some savings”, likely referring to delivery timelines and acquisition numbers.
“If you have already bought a thing… it is a [sunk cost]. If it is things you are planning to buy in the future, we can choose when you will buy it,” Knighton said.
A reduced financial settlement could also require the UK Armed Forces to make savings at an operational level, with fewer platforms or units deployed on exercises or standing task orders.
This would see the further withdrawal of the UK from the world stage, as it settles into limited regional power projection and national defence roles.
“The thing I am most concerned about is RDEL [funding], our day-to-day operational [requirements]. Without changes to the settlement… then those areas will come under pressure,” Knighton confirmed.
UK military cuts: signs point to the Army
It was previously analysed by Army Technology that the DIP could see varying degrees of cuts in acquisition programmes.
With Knighton’s statement that, effectively, there was not much left to cut in the UK military, he cited the number of warships in the Royal Navy, the axe looks likely to fall on procurement. This could be delaying the acquisition timelines or else scaling back the order.
This could mean programmes like the GCAP sixth-generation fighter, the Challenger 3 main battle tank and wider British Army modernisation in small arms and mobility vehicles could be at risk.
Indeed, the British Army appears most at risk, given the changing nature of warfare in the land domain, with the prevalence of drones now having a strategic effect on force planning.
The purchase of just 72 RCH 155 artillery platforms could reflect an early loss, with the number able to fill out three, potentially four, British Army artillery regiments. There is likely a desire for a further one or two regiments fielding indirect fires capabilities.
Further, the vulnerability of main battle tanks in drone-saturated battlespaces could see a reduced number of Challenger 3 main battle tanks acquired. It is planned that 148 of the existing Challenger 3 tanks will see the upgrade to the Challenger 3 standard.
Ongoing acquisition of the troubled Ajax programme could also be a consideration, although the ‘sunk cost’ element could see it secured, along with the fact that the British Army simply does not have an alternative.
The service appears already set to lose all of its Warrior infantry fighting vehicles without replacement.
