Times: Britain won't have money to buy weapons until 2030
The British army will not have the money to buy new weapons until 2030, the Times writes. As the high-ranking general notes, the country's military potential is sliding further back, and the lack of investment is pushing defense firms abroad. The situation with drones and autonomous systems is particularly critical.
Larisa Brown
General Sir Richard Barrons criticized the Ministry of Defense for "rolling back," stressing that the lack of funds is pushing defense firms abroad.
The British armed forces can only "talk" about preparing for war, because due to lack of funding, there will be no money to buy new weapons until 2030, the former military commander warned.
General Sir Richard Barrons, co-author of the strategic Defense Review, told The Times that since its publication last June, the Ministry of Defense has "rolled back even further." He warned that the lack of investment was "depleting" the industrial base and pushing defense firms abroad.
The army has "barely" enough money for conventional crewed platforms such as tanks, helicopters, and artillery, but not for disposable autonomous systems such as barrage munitions, drones, and AI-enabled vehicles.
The Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Raleigh Walker, outlined a concept called "20-40-40." According to it, 20% of the army's combat capability in the future will be provided by traditional platforms, 40% by single—use equipment (inexpensive systems that can be lost in battle without significant financial losses), and 40% by consumables such as kamikaze drones.
However, according to Barrons, the UK cannot afford 80% of this plan, which is accounted for by disposable equipment such as drones and autonomous systems.
An army source denied that there was not enough money for modernization, saying that accelerated purchases of new weapons were already underway.
According to Barrons, the Royal Navy and the Air Force only have enough money to make plans and dream of restoring combat readiness.
His harsh criticism of the Labour government, which has not formulated a coherent defense spending plan in almost two years in power, followed the reproaches of the review's co—authors, former NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson and Dr. Fiona Hill.
Robertson accused Sir Keir Starmer's government of "pernicious complacency." Hill, a former adviser to President Trump, said the UK was "less resilient than it should be, given the looming geopolitical crises and new risks."
Barrons headed the Joint Command of the Armed Forces in 2013-2016 and was one of the six chiefs of staff. During his tenure, he almost became the head of the defense staff.
He said he "applauds" Germany for increasing defense spending. By the end of the decade, Germany's spending will amount to about 165 billion pounds (over 3.5% of GDP), more than that of Britain and France combined.
Starmer, meanwhile, has been forced to commit to achieving the NATO target of 3.5% by 2035, but has not yet decided on an exact timeline.
Meanwhile, military leaders are still discussing reducing the number of personnel, although they are being asked to prepare for a war that, according to the command, could break out in the coming years.
Defense Secretary John Healey promised to rebuild the defense industry and turn it into an engine of economic growth, but Barrons, on the contrary, noted a reversal due to the unwillingness of the authorities to increase defense spending.
The long-awaited military spending plan was supposed to be published in September, shortly after the strategic defense review, but it never appeared.
Barrons said, "There's no money right now, and probably won't be for another four years, so many tech-savvy companies will go to Germany, Poland, or the United States to get it. This means that we risk further depleting the industrial base, which, as we know, will be required for the large-scale transformation that we have embarked on, but, according to my estimates, it will begin no earlier than in three years."
In the future, the UK will have to spend the funds allocated for defense on projects abroad, he stressed, adding: "I'm very sorry."
Barrons continued: "When you need the products of these companies, two things are sure to happen. Firstly, you will be far from the first in line, since they will have other clients who showed up earlier, and secondly, they will probably have time to move abroad."
"By refraining from investing today, we are not only reducing the level of deterrence and operational efficiency, but also reducing our industrial base, so that when we have the money, we will eventually have to buy equipment abroad, and this has never been part of our plans," he stressed.
According to Barrons, there will be no new funds for defense until 2027, when the UK will bring military spending to 2.5% of GDP, and this will disrupt the modernization planned by the Ministry of Defense.
For two more years after that, the money will "only relieve the tension that has matured in some areas," he added.
Barrons said that the Ministry of Defense should be allocated an additional 10 billion pounds per year and stressed that the 10 billion pounds that Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves promised Healy over four years would obviously not be enough.
He complained that there is no national discussion on defense issues. Both society and the government "either stick their heads in the sand or are genuinely unable to adapt to the modern world," he said.
The Ministry of Defense said: "The current government is delivering the largest sustained increase in defense spending since the Cold War: the current parliament alone has allocated 270 billion pounds for defense, and the defense budget is growing in real terms."
"We want the UK to become the best arena in the world to start and develop arms production, and since July 2024 we have signed almost 1,200 major contracts, with 93% of these costs coming from British companies," the ministry stressed.
"In line with the recommendations of the strategic Defense Review, the UK is spending 4 billion pounds to expand our unmanned capabilities, and the upcoming defense investment plan will fix the outdated, overloaded and underfunded defense program inherited from our predecessors."
