UK to Revamp Defense Strategy with New Submarines and Increased Military Spending

ICARO Media Group
Politics
03/06/2025 10h37

****

The United Kingdom is gearing up for a major overhaul of its defense capabilities with plans to construct new nuclear-powered attack submarines and enhance the army’s readiness for potential conflicts in Europe. Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the initiative on Monday, emphasizing the need for the UK to become "a battle-ready, armor-clad nation."

Acknowledging the growing threat posed by Russia, Starmer committed to undertaking the most comprehensive changes to British defenses since the end of the Soviet Union. "The threat we face is more serious, more immediate, and more unpredictable than at any time since the Cold War," he stated during a speech at a navy shipyard in Scotland.

The move comes as part of a broader reassessment of defense spending among NATO members, particularly in response to Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. A strategic defense review, led by former UK defense secretary George Robertson, has informed the government’s new military strategy. This marks the first review since 2021, addressing significant global shifts, including the war in Ukraine and the reelection of President Donald Trump.

The Labour Party government, headed by Starmer, intends to accept all 62 recommendations from the review. Among the key measures are the ramping up of submarine and weapon production, drawing lessons from Ukraine's advanced use of drone technology against Russian forces. Additionally, the UK will invest in innovation and establish a cyber command to counter frequent Russia-linked cyber attacks.

Specific initiatives outlined in the review include building up to 12 nuclear-powered, conventionally armed submarines as part of the AUKUS partnership with Australia and the U.S., and investing 15 billion pounds ($20.3 billion) in Britain’s nuclear arsenal. Furthermore, the UK plans to increase its conventional weapons stockpiles by constructing six new munitions factories and producing up to 7,000 UK-built long-range weapons.

The government will also develop new airborne and land drones, create a "hybrid Navy" incorporating autonomous and crewed vessels, and allocate 1 billion pounds for air defense enhancements. Starmer noted that this rearming strategy would generate a "defense dividend" by creating thousands of well-paid manufacturing jobs, contrasting with the post-Cold War "peace dividend" that redirected funds from defense to other sectors.

Despite these ambitious plans, Defense Secretary John Healey highlighted that he does not foresee a rise in the number of soldiers—currently at a historic low of about 74,000—until the early 2030s. He assured that plans to boost defense spending to 2.5% of national income by 2027 are "on track," with an ambitious goal of reaching 3% by 2034.

However, Starmer described the 3% target as an "ambition," noting challenges in identifying funding sources given the Treasury's financial constraints. The government has already reduced international aid spending contentiously to meet the 2.5% target. This has led critics, such as James Cartlidge of the Conservative Party, to argue that a defense review without guaranteed funding is merely an "empty wish list."

At the NATO level, there are calls for even higher defense spending to deter future Russian aggression. NATO chief Mark Rutte suggests that member countries should consider committing at least 3.5% of GDP to defense during an upcoming meeting in the Netherlands.

Starmer’s announcement also addresses demands from former President Trump for increased defense spending by NATO members. In addition to enhancing Europe’s defense posture, Starmer pledged that the UK would make "Britain's biggest contribution to NATO since its creation," reiterating that the UK’s defense policy will remain firmly "NATO-first."

Defense experts, including Matthew Savill from the Royal United Services Institute, noted that while the review outlines a vision for the future military force, key details still need to be fleshed out.

The views expressed in this article do not reflect the opinion of ICARO, or any of its affiliates.

Related