Defence firms left waiting as investment plan delay bites

Craig Langford · 2026-05-19T06:00:26+00:00

John Milne, MP for Horsham, raised the case of Chess Dynamics, part of the Cohort group, which he described as a world-leading developer of exactly the capabilities the armed forces need. Without clarity from the DIP, Milne said the company cannot commission new air defence systems, leaving the next generation of Royal Navy frigates potentially exposed. “It needs to know now,” he said, asking the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to meet him and Chess Dynamics to provide the certainty the company required.

Chief Secretary James Murray defended the government’s record on defence investment, pointing to over a thousand contracts signed since the general election including a billion-pound contract for medium helicopters in Yeovil, half a billion pounds invested in radar systems, and £100 million to support submarine-hunting aircraft. “This Government are raising investment in defence to the highest sustained level since the cold war and it is at the core of ensuring that we are protecting our nation’s security,” he said, without directly addressing the DIP delay or agreeing to the requested meeting.

The exchange reflects a pattern of concern emerging across the UK defence industry over the delayed Defence Investment Plan, which is intended to set out the MoD’s funding priorities and programme commitments for the coming years. The plan’s finalisation has been cited in recent parliamentary correspondence as a blocking factor for a number of capability and infrastructure decisions. The collapse of Aeralis, the modular jet aircraft developer that had positioned itself as a potential Red Arrows replacement, was directly attributed by its administrators to cashflow pressure caused by continued delays to the DIP.

Conservative shadow minister James Wild pressed Murray on whether the Chancellor was blocking the investment plan, citing former Defence Secretary and NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson’s warning that “we cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget.” Murray dismissed the challenge, pointing to the previous government’s welfare spending record and reaffirming the commitment to raise defence spending to 2.6% of GDP by next April.

Dame Meg Hillier, Chair of the Treasury Committee, also asked whether the government would consider joining the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank to accelerate defence investment. Murray noted the UK had already signed up alongside Finland and the Netherlands to a multilateral defence budget.

Primes say supply chain must change at DPRTE Scotland

Primes pledge to open doors for Scottish SMEs at DPRTE

UK sets out how the 50m Scotland defence deal will be spent

Service Complaints Ombudsman lays final annual report

UK ends in-country help for Afghan relocations

Minister unveils powers to ban foreign state proxies

British support for Ukraine tops 20 Billion Pounds

Government moves to nationalise British Steel

Defence suppliers to earn more for on-time delivery

Glasgow refuses Royal Regiment of Scotland freedom honour

The “Defence Investment Plan” is a massive farce and joke just like Labour and Starmer.

Why can’t the PM just get DIP v.1 out nowish and a finalised one later? Ridiculous behaviour isn’t it? We all want to see their homework and give them a mark….LOL.

What you’re advocating is an aspiration list which is exactly what the last government did and it was a disaster. That’s why defence is in such a state now. Defence should not be an aspiration. I agree the DIP should have been produced last year and there is no excuse for the delay but having a fully funded ten year equipment plan should be a basic standard. Unfortunately the last government didn’t do this and started building up aspirations that were in effect vital military equipment.

The aspirational element wasn’t something added by government but by the armed services, most particularly the RN. They prepared their 10 year equipment plan on the basis of what they thought they needed, including T32,T83/ FADS. MRSS, despite these having no final design never mind approval. The other services plans included only approved programmes. So the 2023 plan which as a result of the RN approach plus the reprofiling of DNE costs, lurched back into apparent deficit was not very useful, as the NAO observed.

I’ve gained $17,240 only within four weeks by comfortably working part-time from home. Immediately when I had lost my last business, I was very troubled and thankfully I’ve located this project now in this way I’m in a position to receive thousand USD directly from home. Each individual certainly can do this easy work & make more greenbacks online by visiting following website—.,.,.,.,.—>>> JobatHome1.Com

The “Defence Investment Plan” is a massive farce and joke just like Labour and Starmer.

Why can’t the PM just get DIP v.1 out nowish and a finalised one later? Ridiculous behaviour isn’t it? We all want to see their homework and give them a mark….LOL.

What you’re advocating is an aspiration list which is exactly what the last government did and it was a disaster. That’s why defence is in such a state now. Defence should not be an aspiration.

I agree the DIP should have been produced last year and there is no excuse for the delay but having a fully funded ten year equipment plan should be a basic standard. Unfortunately the last government didn’t do this and started building up aspirations that were in effect vital military equipment.

Isn’t it time the the “highest sustained investment since the Cold War” rhetoric was changed? There is no increased investment in conventional military capability. Nor have we even returned the twisted headline measure to where the old and better-measured headline number was in 2010. Yet.

Can you share your numbers on that as you math doesn’t seem to fit with the numbers I have seen. why are you making a distinction between conventional and nuclear forces? Are you keen on running a colonial police force again? Do you think the Russians and Chinese make a distinction?

Can you share your numbers on that as you math doesn’t seem to fit with the numbers I have seen.

why are you making a distinction between conventional and nuclear forces?

Are you keen on running a colonial police force again? Do you think the Russians and Chinese make a distinction?

Will he release it or hide behind this leadership rubbish and then if he looses let it get licked down the line. For once he needs show real leadership and get on with it, enough of the warm words and hinted at prommises, get on with it. Labour talked a good defence but really have not done what they said they might/could/should do

The extra funding is being announced this week, its £18 billion over four years. it’s being delayed because of the media frenzy over a leadership contests that doesn’t actually exist. No one in labour has supported a leadership challenge. No one in labour will ever support Wes Streeting Andy Burnham may well not even get to parliament.

The leadership contest may not have been triggered yet but we all know it exists. Yes of course it initially relies on Burnham getting a seat, failing that another challenger will show his hand. I personally would love Starmer to stay, he’s doing a great job destroying Labour.

No denying there will be a leadership contest but there is little appetite for one in the party both in PLP or member level mostly because there is no real challenger present unless Burnham gets in. But Starmar needs to go because he has become massively unpopular, partly because he has dithered and made some bad calls but mostly because the electorate is so hyper polarised that any individual in the role would be just as unpopular, look at Trump. But the leadership contest won’t be changing much if anything and nothing in defence. What you will be seeing is a change in leader not a change in government. Healy will be staying at the MoD. Rachel Reeves will be gone but the fiscal rules will remain.

True. Burnham yesterday also said he would stay within the fiscal rules aswell. So no dramatic increase in defence spend over and above already indicated.

They’re only changing leaders cos starmers been stripped of all his mandelson puppets. They need someone new in, who has their own entourage of mandelson approved puppets.. 🙁 War is a rich man’s game, make them pay for it

Well when I see or hear that I will be happy, as for Labour leadership we are better of with the grey never here civil rights lawyer than any of the other looney tunes, with thier tax and spend obsession. Best thing to quite every one down is Reform win the Bay Election and that shuts every one up so they can back governing the Country.

That takes defence to ~2.75% which as I have repeatedly said is as high as you can go without massive cuts elsewhere. Most of that is achieved by gutting what was DIFID which was funded by gutting MoD.

If the DIP is being further delayed to optimise media coverage then that truly is disgraceful.

True. Burnham yesterday also said he would stay within the fiscal rules aswell. So no dramatic increase in defence spend over and above already indicated.

If the DIP is being further delayed to optimise media coverage then that truly is disgraceful.

Andy Burnham may well not even get to parliament.

True. Burnham yesterday also said he would stay within the fiscal rules aswell. So no dramatic increase in defence spend over and above already indicated.

No denying there will be a leadership contest but there is little appetite for one in the party both in PLP or member level mostly because there is no real challenger present unless Burnham gets in.

But Starmar needs to go because he has become massively unpopular, partly because he has dithered and made some bad calls but mostly because the electorate is so hyper polarised that any individual in the role would be just as unpopular, look at Trump.

But the leadership contest won’t be changing much if anything and nothing in defence. What you will be seeing is a change in leader not a change in government.

Healy will be staying at the MoD. Rachel Reeves will be gone but the fiscal rules will remain.

True. Burnham yesterday also said he would stay within the fiscal rules aswell. So no dramatic increase in defence spend over and above already indicated.

That takes defence to ~2.75% which as I have repeatedly said is as high as you can go without massive cuts elsewhere.

Most of that is achieved by gutting what was DIFID which was funded by gutting MoD.

If the DIP is being further delayed to optimise media coverage then that truly is disgraceful.

Isn’t it odd, of all of the “leaks” that happen in government – there have been no leaks relating to this programme.

Britain really must get a move on. The view on the Ukraine conflict from The Baltic States: ‘Rosin said he does not believe Russia is currently interested in earnest peace talks, nor does he think that Ukraine giving up Donbas would lead to a lasting settlement. “Probably, Russia would then come with some new demands, and then start the negotiations again from zero,” he said. “I wouldn’t fall into that trap.” Putin’s overall goal, Rosin argues, remains the capture of Ukraine and the destruction of the European security infrastructure. Rosin also sees no change in Moscow’s view of the U.S., despite the apparent thaw since Donald Trump’s return to the White House last year. “The Russians feel they can outsmart the West…Russia’s main enemy, strategically, remains the U.S.” The all-out war in Ukraine has also sparked concerns about Russian aggression spreading further into the Baltic region….Moscow’s military remains fully occupied in Ukraine and does not currently have enough forces available to launch an attack against Estonia. At the same time, the intelligence chief warned against the West falling into complacency in the face of the Russian threat. “I think we don’t have the luxury to think that we have many years,” Rosin said. “We have to do our work now.” Kaupo Rosin, Head of the Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service 16 May 2026

Britain really must get a move on. The view on the Ukraine conflict from The Baltic States:

‘Rosin said he does not believe Russia is currently interested in earnest peace talks, nor does he think that Ukraine giving up Donbas would lead to a lasting settlement. “Probably, Russia would then come with some new demands, and then start the negotiations again from zero,” he said. “I wouldn’t fall into that trap.” Putin’s overall goal, Rosin argues, remains the capture of Ukraine and the destruction of the European security infrastructure.

Rosin also sees no change in Moscow’s view of the U.S., despite the apparent thaw since Donald Trump’s return to the White House last year. “The Russians feel they can outsmart the West…Russia’s main enemy, strategically, remains the U.S.”

The all-out war in Ukraine has also sparked concerns about Russian aggression spreading further into the Baltic region….Moscow’s military remains fully occupied in Ukraine and does not currently have enough forces available to launch an attack against Estonia. At the same time, the intelligence chief warned against the West falling into complacency in the face of the Russian threat.

“I think we don’t have the luxury to think that we have many years,” Rosin said. “We have to do our work now.”

Kaupo Rosin, Head of the Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service 16 May 2026

Forget it, Mandelson and other low-priority business keeps getting in the way. Now a leadership contest will defer the DIP even further. One possible outcome: the DIP becomes an issue contenders could use to weaken Starmer? In which case, it may come sooner than we think.

The core problem with resolving the DIP has very little to do with the leadership challenge or other daily political diversions. It is solely down to the very big financial gap between what the services/MIC think they need and what HMG can realistically raise. I reckon that, even if big-ticket items like T45, SSN-A and MRSS are pushed back to post-2035, the gap is at least £41bn over ten years. So the DIP exercise is finding an affordable middle ground. HMG has already committed £14 bn extra over 3 years, a 22% increase in the defence budget, which we are spending atm. Now they have announced a further £18bn, details yet to be disclosed. That is a shedload of new money. Starmer has clearly intervened and told the Treasury to cough up. That leaves the MOD to cut £10bn from its wishlist of new equipment or from other savings, i.e. £1bn a year on average, which should be manageable. So we should see the DIP appear in June. While we can all bay for instant action and an unending supply of government money for defence, the harsh reality is that no medium-weight nation such as the UK can afford vastly expensive SSBNs, carrier strike group, 6th generation GCAP and all the rest on 2.5 or 2.75% of GDP. We would need to be about doubling our defence budget, of which there is no possibility at all in the short to medium term. We have to be realistic, there.may be just enough money in the 10-year budget to pay for what’s already in the procurement pipeline but the big-ticket items will inevitably have to be pushed back to post-2035. At a rough guess, the navy should be good for 24 new ships/boats plus a chunk of the Atlantic Bastion kit. While preparatory work may be done on SSN-A, T83 and MRSS, full-scale production is unlikely to be affordable or commence before 2036. RAF should be good for 70+ aircraft and helicopters, maybe more if they can squeeze in the 6 extra Atlas they want and the Hawk replacement. I doubt there will be any money over for more than 3 Wedgetails, more Poseidons or much in the way of GBAD because GCAP will be devouring a sizeable chunk of the available funds. I could go into the Army in detail but shan’t in interests of brevity. For me, the pint is half full. Defence spending is rising by a useful amount. It will be the first time it has done so for 40 years. We will still be a long way from 3.5% of GDP, but that is at least on the table. When the DIP is published, we can all moan and groan about what has had to be gapped or pushed to the right, but I hope that at the same time we will recognise that defence has got a pretty good settlement for a change and that a practical compromise has been funded.

It is, in fact, the government that is ‘baying’ for action: ‘We cannot risk tens of millions of people going hungry because one country has hijacked an international shipping lane. Iran’s continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz while the agriculture clock is ticking shows why we need urgent global pressure to get the Strait reopened, fertiliser and fuel moving and ease the costs of living pressures. That is why we will continue to lead calls for the immediate and unrestricted opening of the Strait’ Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper MP 19 May 2026 Willing the mission, but not the means. The means could, quite clearly, be made available: ‘In the period 2002 to the present, the total cost to the electricity consumer of those renewable electricity subsidy schemes that we can quantify has amounted to approximately £220 billion (in 2024 prices), equivalent to nearly £8,000 per household. The annual subsidy cost is currently £25.8 billion a year, a sum equivalent to nearly fifty per cent of UK annual spending on defence. Subsidy to renewable electricity generators now comprises about 40% of the total cost of electricity supply in the United Kingdom.The total subsidy cost per unit of renewable electricity generated has risen by nearly 50% in real terms since 2005 and now stands at approximately £200/MWh. This contradicts government and industry claims that renewables are becoming cheaper but is consistent with expectations from the physics of energy flows, the empirical study of the capital and operating costs of both wind and solar, and the grid expansion and reinforcement and system management costs known to be imposed by renewables…Renewable electricity generators have now enjoyed generous financial support for over twenty years without showing any significant progress towards independent economic viability. On the contrary, the requirement for such support seems to be rising. The public is surely entitled to ask when government will bring this extraordinary and insupportable level of subsidy to an end.’ All that is lacking is the political will…

The core problem with resolving the DIP has very little to do with the leadership challenge or other daily political diversions.

It is solely down to the very big financial gap between what the services/MIC think they need and what HMG can realistically raise. I reckon that, even if big-ticket items like T45, SSN-A and MRSS are pushed back to post-2035, the gap is at least £41bn over ten years.

So the DIP exercise is finding an affordable middle ground. HMG has already committed £14 bn extra over 3 years, a 22% increase in the defence budget, which we are spending atm. Now they have announced a further £18bn, details yet to be disclosed. That is a shedload of new money. Starmer has clearly intervened and told the Treasury to cough up.

That leaves the MOD to cut £10bn from its wishlist of new equipment or from other savings, i.e. £1bn a year on average, which should be manageable. So we should see the DIP appear in June.

While we can all bay for instant action and an unending supply of government money for defence, the harsh reality is that no medium-weight nation such as the UK can afford vastly expensive SSBNs, carrier strike group, 6th generation GCAP and all the rest on 2.5 or 2.75% of GDP. We would need to be about doubling our defence budget, of which there is no possibility at all in the short to medium term.

We have to be realistic, there.may be just enough money in the 10-year budget to pay for what’s already in the procurement pipeline but the big-ticket items will inevitably have to be pushed back to post-2035.

At a rough guess, the navy should be good for 24 new ships/boats plus a chunk of the Atlantic Bastion kit. While preparatory work may be done on SSN-A, T83 and MRSS, full-scale production is unlikely to be affordable or commence before 2036.

RAF should be good for 70+ aircraft and helicopters, maybe more if they can squeeze in the 6 extra Atlas they want and the Hawk replacement. I doubt there will be any money over for more than 3 Wedgetails, more Poseidons or much in the way of GBAD because GCAP will be devouring a sizeable chunk of the available funds.

I could go into the Army in detail but shan’t in interests of brevity.

For me, the pint is half full. Defence spending is rising by a useful amount. It will be the first time it has done so for 40 years. We will still be a long way from 3.5% of GDP, but that is at least on the table. When the DIP is published, we can all moan and groan about what has had to be gapped or pushed to the right, but I hope that at the same time we will recognise that defence has got a pretty good settlement for a change and that a practical compromise has been funded.

It is, in fact, the government that is ‘baying’ for action:

‘We cannot risk tens of millions of people going hungry because one country has hijacked an international shipping lane. Iran’s continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz while the agriculture clock is ticking shows why we need urgent global pressure to get the Strait reopened, fertiliser and fuel moving and ease the costs of living pressures. That is why we will continue to lead calls for the immediate and unrestricted opening of the Strait’

Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper MP 19 May 2026

Willing the mission, but not the means. The means could, quite clearly, be made available:

‘In the period 2002 to the present, the total cost to the electricity consumer of those renewable electricity subsidy schemes that we can quantify has amounted to approximately £220 billion (in 2024 prices), equivalent to nearly £8,000 per household. The annual subsidy cost is currently £25.8 billion a year, a sum equivalent to nearly fifty per cent of UK annual spending on defence. Subsidy to renewable electricity generators now comprises about 40% of the total cost of electricity supply in the United Kingdom.The total subsidy cost per unit of renewable electricity generated has risen by nearly 50% in real terms since 2005 and now stands at approximately £200/MWh. This contradicts government and industry claims that renewables are becoming cheaper but is consistent with expectations from the physics of energy flows, the empirical study of the capital and operating costs of both wind and solar, and the grid expansion and reinforcement and system management costs known to be imposed by renewables…Renewable electricity generators have now enjoyed generous financial support for over twenty years without showing any significant progress towards independent economic viability. On the contrary, the requirement for such support seems to be rising. The public is surely entitled to ask when government will bring this extraordinary and insupportable level of subsidy to an end.’

All that is lacking is the political will…

It is a myth peddled by some that the DIP will be the first time that there has been a 10-year equipment funding plan. We used to have the LTEP (Long Term Equipment Plan) which was a 10-year equipment funding plan. As I understand it DIP also adds in infrastructure costs. This makes it a very complex document to construct hence the delay. What did not help was the inordinate length of time it took to do the SDR which is a predecessor piece of work. In the days of the LTEP I don’t recall it ever being launched grossly late.

George, do you think we could have a counter on the from page of UKDJ: “Days elapsed since Defence Investment Plan was promised”?