Systemic Delays in British Defence Procurement
- Claudia Faraday
- Dec 16, 2025
- 3 min read
Abstract
Britain’s capability gaps are widening not because we lack ambition, but because we take too long to buy, test, and field equipment. These lengthy cycles are not just driving up cost and stretching schedules, but they are also blunting our operational readiness. This puts the UK off track for the 2025 Strategic Defence Review’s aims. The key point is clear: delay is not just a problem, but a crisis that requires immediate attention to prevent further strategic exposure.
I set out five practical fixes:
Streamline regulation to cut admin drag.
Build more flexible contracts to move faster.
Consolidate oversight so someone is clearly accountable;
Use digital tooling to share data and make decisions in real time;
Adopt agile delivery to adjust quickly — without lowering safety bars.
Introduction
The SDR 2025, published in June, sets the course against a sharper international environment. Spending is expected to reach 2.5% of GDP by 2027, with a focus on munitions and long-range strike capabilities. Even so, the MoD forecasts a £16.9 billion gap over ten years. That mismatch leaves brigades and the fleet short of what they need. The Royal Navy’s frigate hole and the Army’s slow path to mechanisation are the obvious markers.
Other nations struggle too. The US has a considerable budget, yet bureaucracy still bites — witness the F-35B’s three-year slip to IOC (2015 rather than 2012). France’s DGA has rationalised parts of its system, but collaborative projects like the A400M still ran late, with a two-year IOC slippage and further tail-chasing on software and engines. The UK’s Type 26 has also drifted more than four years from its initial targets, underlining familiar friction points: coordination, scope creep, and supplier stress.
The lesson is not that Britain is uniquely bad. It is that institutions and interfaces — how we govern, decide, and integrate — make or break schedules. From France: tighten multi-national coordination, use modularity to get to an initial baseline faster, strengthen supplier assurance, discipline scope, and test early. From the US: Simplify administration and enforce rigorous program control. The UK should adopt both instincts: fewer hand-offs, clearer authority, and earlier evidence.
The Integrated Procurement Model (IPM, February 2024) is a significant step towards reducing acquisition time by one-third. It’s a promising initiative, but entrenched oversight layers and fragile supply chains still slow everything from maritime and SF equipment to EW systems. The IPM shows promise, yet deep-rooted constraints remain. The sections that follow describe the process as it currently stands, its shortcomings in practice, and how to address these issues without compromising safety or standards. The IPM is not just a model; it's a potential game-changer in our procurement process.
The Procurement Process: From Proposal to Integration
How it should work. DE&S shepherds projects from concept to frontline use.
Proposals. Quality managers frame options against strategy, drawing on the services and expertise of the industry. Plans are made 25–40 years in advance to anticipate supply risk.
Gate reviews. Initial and Main Gates involve HMT, allies, and contractors. Reviews routinely run towards two years. They help with affordability and compliance, but often elongate timelines. As recently as March 2025, QinetiQ highlighted delays in contract awards, which stretched schedules and strained supplier relations.
Major contracts. Once green-lit, deals scale fast. The Type 26 has surpassed £8 billion with BAE Systems. Integrators like Lockheed Martin and Thales bring depth, but export controls and cost growth add friction.
Testing and trials. NATO-aligned tests at sites such as Devonport reveal surface defects that require rework (as seen on the Type 26), adding time.
In-service support. Training, infrastructure, spares, and repair regimes aim for ~70% availability. Reality often falls short. Astute-class maintenance backlogs have been acute, with a 100-day recovery push ordered to unblock bureaucracy and accelerate fixes — a live case for empowering teams and removing barriers.
Comments