Andy Burnham, the frontrunner, has indicated that he would be prepared to improve on the modest £10bn increase contained in Starmer’s DIP, which falls well short of the £28bn that is needed just to get the defence budget back on an even keel.
But even if a change of personnel in Downing Street does provide more cash, the more essential requirement is that any uplift in defence funding is spent wisely, with ministers fully embracing the new war-fighting technologies that will be essential to achieving victory in any future conflict.
While last year’s Strategic Defence Review won many plaudits for identifying the woeful state of our Armed Forces, the rapidly changing nature of the modern battlefield has raised concerns that many of its recommendations, such as buying more warships, warplanes and tanks, are more relevant for fighting previous wars than future ones.
Al Carns, who followed Healey by resigning as armed forces minister over Starmer’s defence spending plans, has been highly critical of the lack of innovation contained in the DIP as it stands, and has called for the Government to take “bold and courageous decisions to put the funding in the right place”.
The experience of the Ukraine conflict, for example, where the Ukrainian military’s brilliant adoption of drone warfare is arguably the most revolutionary battlefield development since the introduction of the tank in the First World War, has demonstrated the importance of being both tech savvy and adaptable on the modern battlefield.
These are lessons that need to be fully integrated into the DIP if conventional UK military assets are to have any relevance in the wars of the future.
At present the Ministry of Defence is spending around £1bn upgrading the Army’s new 148-strong fleet of Challenger tanks. Their ability to operate in future conflict, though, will depend almost entirely on their ability to operate in tandem with drones and other new technology, such as AI.