Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
A dispute has broken out in the UK’s armed forces over how best to counter the threat from Russia, with the Royal Navy arguing it risks being denied sufficient funding because the Ministry of Defence is prioritising the army.
Senior officials from the three services met in Whitehall earlier this month, with people familiar with the talks saying the navy, as well as the Royal Air Force, argued the greatest threat to the UK would likely come via sea and air rather than a land war.
The army has argued it needs to rebuild after decades of underfunding, while the rapid development of drone warfare in the Ukraine-Russia war has revolutionised combat for ground forces.
But the Royal Navy claimed it requires a greater share of the investment planned for the armed forces because of the challenges it faces, which include increased monitoring of Russian submarines and its Type 45 frigates providing the UK’s primary defence against missile attacks.
The RAF also plays a critical role in surveillance and detection of enemy submarines.
Ministers within the MoD are said to be split over the type of warfare they should be preparing for, with some backing the Royal Navy’s position and prioritising direct defence of the UK while others believe building up the army’s capabilities is essential to support Nato.
“The government needs to make a decision on the type of war we’re most likely to end up in,” said one former senior MoD official who left in recent months.
“If it’s a more strategic one about defending the UK as an island then Navy and RAF are the forces that you want to prioritise. But if Nato ends up in a land war in Europe then the army is going to need to be ready, as UK forces will be committed.”
The dispute comes as the MoD prepares its long-term defence investment plan, which defence secretary John Healey wants to deliver before the end of this year. It will set out the capital spending plans necessary to deliver on this year’s strategic defence review which laid out the future of the British military.
But people close to the MoD say the plans risk being hamstrung by insufficient funding despite Labour’s vow to raise defence spending to 2.6 per cent of GDP in 2027 from 2.3 per cent today under pressure from the US.
The government has set a target to raise it to 3 per cent and above in the 2030s but concerns remain about where the money will eventually come from.
The MoD said the SDR was “a deliverable and affordable plan” that was “backed by the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war”, including a £4bn investment in drones.
“All of defence is delivering this transformative plan, across the three services, and we will say more when the defence investment plan is published this year,” a spokesperson added.
The MoD declined to comment on the clash between the Army and the Royal Navy. UK officials said it was not uncommon for services to wrangle over funding.
Plans have also been hampered by the delay in appointing a new national armaments director earlier this year, with Rupert Pearce, the former boss of satellite operator Inmarsat, only appointed to oversee weapons procurement last month.
People close to the navy argue the UK needs to pursue a so-called ‘High North’ strategy, including investment in a defensive barrier known as the Atlantic Bastion to prevent Russian submarines breaching the Greenland-Iceland-UK gateway to European waters.
There are concerns the plan, combining artificial intelligence-powered sensors with underwater drones, could be scaled back without sufficient funding. Navy officials fear the Treasury might fund the detection capability — known as Atlantic Net — without providing the cash for enough vessels to intercept suspicious manoeuvres.
The Royal Navy was widely seen as the primary winner of the strategic defence review, with its fleet of nuclear-powered attack submarines to expand from seven to 12, but people close to the service are concerned other areas such as frigates and maritime drones might find themselves squeezed.
“The threat from Russia is far more likely to come out of [the Russian Arctic port of] Murmansk than across the Polish plains,” one senior UK official said.
“If the priority is the defence of the homeland then that is where the money should go.”
The ‘High North’ strategy would answer a key request from the US, which wants the UK and Nato to take greater responsibility for monitoring Russian activity in the north Atlantic.
Healey has backed a ‘Nato-first’ strategy for the UK, widely seen as being part of efforts to woo US President Donald Trump. But the need to provide an army capable of helping defend the alliance’s allies in the Baltics has left him weighing which option to prioritise.
There has been anger in some quarters of the military that defence spending will not increase more quickly, with some pointing fingers at the Treasury for not taking the nature of the evolving threat seriously enough.
Healey last month said the UK had seen a 30 per cent increase “in Russian vessels threatening UK waters” and on Wednesday highlighted a “new era” of threat, including a Russian spy ship operating near Shetland.
James Cartlidge, the Conservative shadow defence secretary, suggested the government needed to treat the threat from Russia with more urgency.
“It all comes down to a straightforward question — in its heart of hearts does the government think there’s a significant threat to the United Kingdom, and is it potentially imminent?” Cartlidge said.
“If it really believed that it would not be behaving this way and would make the necessary funding available immediately. We should be re-arming much more rapidly.”
Data visualisation by Amy Borrett
