Political and defense circles in Britain are in an uproar after the belated publication of a long-awaited Defense Investment Plan, with the prime minister and the opposition leader sparring Wednesday in fiery exchanges in Parliament.
Depending on whom you ask, the “transformational” plan either is bold and radical or relies too heavily on unproven unmanned technologies that require America’s leading ally to fight a Ukraine-style poor-man’s war.
Politicians, pundits and media have been furiously debating the 81-page Defense Investment Plan since its release Tuesday, particularly its budget shortfall and its striking plans for the future Royal Navy.
The debate reflects ongoing turmoil in Britain’s defense, bureaucratic and political establishments.
It has erupted amid a recent national humiliation. At the outset of the Iran conflict, Britain’s once-vaunted Royal Navy was found incapable of swiftly deploying a warship to the crisis zone.
Funding battles, delayed release
The Defense Investment Plan lays out funding called for in the June 2025 Strategic Defense Review. It has had a long, troubled gestation, only to finally appear amid a leadership crisis.
Originally expected in the fall of 2025, the Defense Investment Plan was repeatedly delayed amid a funding fight that pitted the Defense Ministry against the Treasury.
The Treasury was reportedly angered by the Defense Ministry’s history of delivering faulty projects late and over budget.
On June 11, defense chiefs acted.
Secretary of State for Defense John Healey and his deputy, Armed Forces Minister Al Carns, resigned in protest over the funding shortfall.
That piled pressure on Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who led the Labor Party to a decisive general election victory in June 2025 but whom polls now show to be widely unpopular.
On June 22, prime minister-hopeful Andy Burnham — having just won a by-election to enter Parliament — made clear that he would challenge for the party leadership (and, by extension, the country’s leadership).
The same day, Mr. Starmer announced that he would not fight the challenge. He is heading a caretaker government until the party confirms a new leader.
So far, no other candidate has emerged, leaving Mr. Burnham with a “coronation” in mid-July. However, Mr. Carns, a charismatic former Royal Marine Commando, has hinted that he may step up.
In that case, the winner would take office in September. The Labor Party’s electoral term expires in August 2029.
“This plan commits more investment in our armed forces — [$395 billion] over the next four years — which includes an additional [$20 billion] on top of last year’s spending review settlement, of which most is extra day-to-day spending on training and availability of ships and aircraft,” Dan Jarvis, who was appointed defense secretary on June 11, told Parliament on Tuesday.
“That is [$2 billion] more than when I took on this job just a couple of weeks ago,” said the former paratroop officer. That represents a modest win for the ministry.
“We made some difficult but necessary decisions to fund this,” said Mr. Jarvis, noting that government agencies had been required to surrender some allocated funds to defense.
On Wednesday in Parliament, Conservative Party Leader Kemi Badenoch took aim at Mr. Starmer during Prime Minister’s Questions.
She called the Defense Investment Plan “too weak, too little, too late,” and accused him of leaving a budget shortfall of almost $7 billion in it for his successor. Calling it “a mess,” she demanded to know where that cash would come from.
According to The Guardian, an unidentified ally of Mr. Burnham has called the Defense Investment Plan’s budget hole “an unexploded bomb.”
Mr. Burnham did not attend the Prime Minister’s Questions session and has stayed mum on the Defense Investment Plan — perhaps for good reason.
A party member familiar with Mr. Burnham’s tenure as mayor of Greater Manchester from 2017 to 2026 told The Washington Times that he had never once heard Mr. Burnham discuss either foreign policy or defense.
Ms. Badenoch urged Mr. Starmer to fill the cash gap from welfare funds.
Mr. Starmer returned fire, accusing Conservative administrations of “hollowing out” defense and calling the Defense Investment Plan the biggest defense spending upgrade in 40 years.
It looks less impressive on a per-capita basis. It represents 2.7% of gross domestic product by 2030, while NATO’s mandate is 3%, and it offers no clear path toward the 3.5% of GDP NATO has called for by 2035.
What is Britain buying?
Among the Defense Investment Plan’s standouts are the doubling of nuclear weapon delivery options.
For decades, London’s sovereign nuclear deterrent has been based solely on Trident-equipped nuclear submarines. Now, with nuclear superpower Russia fighting a devastating war in Europe, the Royal Air Force will also take a role.
Ten nuclear-capable F-35As — a different variant from the 48 F-35Bs that make up London’s existing stealth fighter force — would be acquired by the early 2030s. Some $84 billion would be spent on the fighters, along with new nuclear submarines and maintenance facilities for the submarines.
Funding of $12 billion has also been confirmed — there had been jitters that it would not be — for a sixth-generation stealth fighter program Britain is developing with Italy and Japan.
The Royal Air Force’s current Typhoon fighter wing would receive a $1.3 billion upgrade, and investments were announced in drone wingmen to fight alongside manned jets.
On land, $15 billion would be spent replenishing weapons and munitions sent by London to Ukraine, including infantry anti-tank rockets and mobile artillery, while $4.4 billion would be spent on tanks and all-terrain vehicles.
Air defense would require another $1 billion to fund sensor arrays and anti-drone weapons, but London’s capability to down ballistic missiles, particularly hypersonic missiles, remains questionable.
Mr. Carns has warned British forces to prepare for the “next war, not the last,” and the most striking changes in that sphere are to the Royal Navy.
It will get new submarines and frigates, but a planned new destroyer flotilla has been nixed. Instead, the Royal Navy will get at least six “Common Combat Vessels” — hybrid warships controlling organic squadrons of air, surface and underwater drones.
Funding is also allocated for aircraft carrier drones and mine-hunting drones.
Unmanned systems solve recruitment shortfalls and slash political risks for governments, which may suffer popularity drops if body bags mount.
Yet the Defense Investment Plan’s pivot away from manned surface warships to unmanned systems has generated controversy. So, too, has the document’s heavy focus on Ukraine’s combat experience.
“Britain needs a Navy to control the seas around it for its security and prosperity, not just deny their use to an adversary as Ukraine has done,” former Royal Navy officer John Foreman, who commanded two ships in his career, wrote in The Spectator.
“Much of the [unmanned] technology remains unproven at sea,” he added, noting the need for “extensive and realistic trials for which the Navy scarcely has enough sailors and ships to spare.”
New capabilities “will have to be proven and operational in less than 10 years,” independent specialist media Navy Lookout said on X, adding that the $1.7 billion budget looks insufficient.
Navy Lookout called the changes “full speed into the unknown,” while Mr. Foreman warned, “Britain cannot afford to mistake experimentation for transformation.”
Contact the author
Please read our comment policy before commenting.