Defence Investment Plan planned to be published before NATO summit

• Air

Defence Investment Plan planned to be published before NATO summit

The government’s Defence Investment Plan will be published before the next NATO summit, Defence Secretary John Healey told the House of Commons on 1 June 2026.

Healey named the plan as part of the government’s wider defence reforms, telling MPs the measures were “part of the transformation of defence in the Defence Investment Plan.” On its publication, he said: “The Prime Minister is determined to publish before the NATO summit.”

He set the document alongside measures he listed for the armed forces, among them what he called “the biggest pay rise for over 20 years,” free childcare for forces families and “the biggest upgrade to forces housing in a generation,” telling the House that armed forces numbers were now growing.

Pressed on whether the Treasury had approved the plan, Healey declined to give a direct answer. “I can say to him very clearly that the prime minister is determined that we publish the defence investment plan before the Nato summit,” he told the shadow defence secretary, James Cartlidge, who had asked whether the spending had been signed off. Cartlidge seized on the reply, telling the House: “No wonder the defence investment plan is so late – Labour still haven’t worked out how to pay for it.”

The criticism was not confined to the Conservative benches. The Liberal Democrat MP for West Dorset, Edward Morello, said defence firms were frustrated by the repeated delays to the plan and that the Commons was likely to greet Healey’s commitment with some scepticism. “Companies in my constituency have been telling me that at this rate they will be European or US headquartered by this time next year,” he said. “We risk losing jobs, sovereign capability and billions of pounds of investment.”

Defence Minister Luke Pollard pushed back on the suggestion that the government was idle while the plan was finalised, saying it had signed “1,200 major defence deals” since the general election in July 2024 and was “not waiting” for the document to reach agreements with “companies large and small.”

The summit Healey referred to is the alliance’s next gathering of leaders, due to take place in Ankara on 7 and 8 July, which leaves the government a little over a month to publish a document that has been some time in preparation. It is intended to set out how the UK will fund the force described in the Strategic Defence Review, published in June 2025 ahead of the NATO summit in The Hague.

At that summit, alliance members agreed to raise defence and security spending to 5 per cent of GDP by 2035, comprising at least 3.5 per cent on core defence and up to 1.5 per cent on wider security such as critical infrastructure protection, networks and the defence industrial base.

The document covers procurement and the equipment programme, the area where the review’s ambitions for a more lethal and integrated force, expanded use of autonomous systems and revitalised munitions production have to be matched to budgets. Its contents are expected to indicate which programmes are funded and on what timescale, questions left open by the review itself. Publication before Ankara would place the plan in front of allies at the point where the UK, like other members, is expected to demonstrate how it will resource the capability targets set at The Hague.

65 COMMENTS

1. After much delay and pussyfooting around, a chance for Labour to prove they can actually put their money where their mouth is. So of course be ready for disappointed come July Reply It helps to re-read the SDR. Which did not recommend increasing the RN Escort fleet beyond 19. Or more Typhoons or increasing the size of the F35 fleet beyond what has already being announced. Or more Challenge 3 tanks forexample. Because those are the headlines some are expecting. Reply Yes yes I got the gist of it. More drones, new munitions factories, new support ships and maybe new home based anti missile/drone defence systems. Underwhelming, but I can envision Labour making an announcement that somehow comes off even more watered down than even those promises Reply That is a timely reminder Robert, you are quite correct that there was no stated intention in the SDR to increase the number of platforms or equipments beyond what has already been announced. The DIP will inevitably disappoint most observers, particularly those hoping for increases in fighter jets, warships and armoured vehicles. The reason why is that defence is carrying a large legacy of underspending accrued over decades and whatever extra money is wrung from government coffers will barely be enough to plug some of the gaps and pay for the equipments already ordered or envisaged. .Going from 2.34%.of GDP in 24/5 to 2.5%.by 27/8 is going in the right direction but is nowhere near enough extra money to start to rebuild the forces. A key issue is that defence nuclear is now demanding nearly 40% of the procurement budget over the next ten years and then we have to find something like £18 bn to fund the development of GCAP. Once you pay for these big ticket items, there is barely enough left to pay for what’s already on order, such as 13 frigates, 27 F-35s, 3 Wedgetail AEW aircraft, 600 Boxers and so forth. I see it as maybe a glass half full, the start of a longer-term push to get defence spend up to the 3.5% target, which would, if achieved by 2035, be a 50% increase from 2024. In that longer-term context, this DIP is just the first step. Of course we should be rearming much more rapidly and purposefully, but I think Healey and team have done pretty well to wring the extra funds out of the cash-strapped public finances. If we were still in the EU, we’d be able to boost defence spend considerably right now, with a long-term, low-interest defence loan from their SAFE fund. Just sayin… Reply And if we were in the EU We would be Paying ~£28bn per Year Membership…!
   Swings and Roundabouts…! Reply If we were still part of the EU, our government wouldn’t be accountable to British voters, but instead to a dictatorship controlled by appointed commissioners who get their policies ticked off by EU MP’s who vote on things they have no understanding of. That goes without mentioning the vast sums of money they raped British taxpayers for over the years with very little in return. Reply Completely agree. Some parts of the media have casted the 2025 SDR as a huge uplift in defence ambition, but really it was barely a re-stating of our already reduced abilities. In most areas this ‘uplift’ is damage control, not increases in capabilities beyond what we had 10 years ago. I think this is what many on the left of politics wanted. A normalisation of reduced defence ambition. The lack of orders etc has reduced the defence community to welcoming cuts of “only”, for example, 50% to certain fleets as a good outcome. Think tank fleet, 155m artillery etc. Ironically money doesn’t appear to be the real problem, it’s how it is spent. The MIC hoovering it up for profit, whilst other countries get way more bang for their buck (Italy is a good comparator). Reply Yes it did. I’ve read the SDSR through multiple times.
   The warship section stated. And I quote.
   The UK should rebuild the RN to “a fleet of at least 25 frigates and destroyers” at least meaning more than.
   I guess you need to go back and read it again. Agree about typhoon numbers and C3 numbers. Although C3 upgrades for the final 60-70 available hulls would be a pitifully low sum of money in the big scheme of things. Reply It doesn’t say that about escort numbers. It was speculated before the SDR was published that it might. But it didn’t. Reply Other nations seem to get more bang because they don’t have a nuclear deterrent/nuclear powered boats. Nuclear takes up a huge chunk of our budget. Reply Or the construction costs and wage demands regards infra renewals.
   Or a network overseas bases.
   Or our logistical trail that can actually deploy stuff, however minimal in number, as opposed to looking good on paper.
   Or our training costs.
   Or the UKSF Group which reportedly has a vast budget of its own.
   Or a military that actually deploys repeatedly on ops where most nations forces sit at home.
   Or some pretty niche GCHQ/5 Eyes stuff.
   Or all the AWE/DNE that gives us the SSN/SSBN.
   Or maybe, they don’t have such incompetent buffoons as leaders and actually order kit in a prompt manner, stop slowing stuff down, don’t have a cuts exercise every 4 years and take Defence seriously rather than a political football and piggy bank?
   Maybe? Reply Oh yes! And many might buy largely OTS where we buy tiny amounts of kit in small building cycles to subsidise our own MIC? Reply I couldn’t imagine Italian politicians are particularly competent 😆 Reply I understand procurement isn’t totally in their hands. Reply Au contraire. That certainly would have been fair 10 years ago or more, but look at them now. Fiscally responsible, stable government, and with a well-funded and well resourced military. Reply I wouldn’t call 137% national debt to GDP ratio fiscally responsible. Only Greece has worst debt in the EU. Reply Reducing the deficit to 3% of GDP is very responsible compared to us and France Reply They are still in a much worser state than us. Reply you guys as regulars know far more than me. If however our nuclear is basically at the disposal of NATO could we not put forward that other non nuclear members contribute a small amount towards it Reply You think short-termed blinkered politicians are a purely British issue? 🤣 Reply I don’t believe I said that?
   I’m hard pressed to think of another nation of Britain’s stature in the world that has made as much of a mess and cut like we have?
   Any ideas? I could do with cheering up!
   Italy. No. France. No. Japan, most certainly no! South Korea? No, not with the threat on their doorstep. Reply I seriously doubt they are making such a big splash about it and rolling it out before the NATO summit to give bad news. Reply
2. Hallelujah, a firm deadline.
   Does this mean the funding kerfuffle is all sorted? Reply I wouldn’t hold your breath…. It’s akin to Trumps repetitive Iran war ending announcements, except It’s taking way longer. Reply Firm deadline What year The NATO Summit in 2027?
   The press were wrong about the DIP being announced today. Only Healey announcing it was going to happen before 7th July a week before Parliament breaks up
   I have a horrible feeling that it will be bad news and we are all going to be disappointed Why not now?
   They hope to avoid the anger will simmer down over the recess until returning in the Autumn I hope I am wrong
   Sorry for this lawyers but your fellow brethren like Starmer and Hermer are HARMERS and do no anything at pace but inflating the cost because of delay
   Starmers phrase – WORKING AT PACE
   I will be ever so sorry and contrite if I am wrong Reply
3. Doubt it… They said they’d publish to deadlines before and still blow past them. Reply
4. “The Prime Minister is 🚨⚠️ DETERMINED ⚠️🚨 to publish before the NATO summit.” Reply
5. A bit more leeway then, up to July. Will Starmer even be in power then?
   I love how he says ““part of the transformation of defence.”
   Defence has been modernised and transformed endlessly since 1995 “to meet the challenges of an uncertain world” according to Stirrup, and to make the military more “agile” according to HMG.
   We have had:
   1994 Front Line First.
   1997 SDSR.
   2004 “New Chapter” of said SDSR.
   2007, the Army had FAS -Future Army Structures.
   2010 SDSR.
   2012 Army 2020
   2015 SDSR.
   2015 Army 2020 “Refine.”
   2017-18 MDP Modernising Defence Program.
   2020 on – Wavell, seems to have vanished into the ether, assume it was only ever an internal Army thing.
   2024 SDSR.
   Every single one used the same flowery words, agile, transformed, modernisation, rationalise, and so on, while presiding over cut after cut after impending cut.
   So prepare for a fun ride and apologies for those of us now so cynical and sceptical because we’ve sat through all this crap before and no longer believe a word these charlatans say….
   The little boy who cried wolf comes to mind. Sorry.
   Anyway, I saw this suggested project list to look out for on X, courtesy of J Fennel ( Who used to post here as well long ago )
   Type 83/FADS.
   Types 91/92/93
   MRSS
   CIC/CLC
   MHC motherships.
   GCAP
   Medium ACP / CCA
   Carrier AEW Drone
   MQ9 Sea Guardian upgrade.
   New Jet Trainer.
   CH47 next order. ( the 14 ordered are only the start, lack of another order and the Wokka force collapses like much else )
   Nyx Drones.
   Brakestop OWE.
   Nightfall Missile.
   Patria CAVs.
   RCH155
   LMP
   GBAD, both extra SHORAD and MRAD.
   Skynet
   ISTARI.
   Munitions/Drone factories.
   Munitions stockpiling.
   Naval / Air base upgrades.
   Duel use civil airports.
   Further forward deployment to Germany/ Norway.
   CNI protection, on and offshore, so MROSS as well? I wonder what survives? Even 2 more E7, 3 more P8, 3 more T31, more people for the Army, RN, RAF I take as a big win, simple as they seem. Reply Sounds about right pal. Worth folks re-reading the SDR. So those expecting another 60 Typhoons to be ordered won’t be disappointed. Reply I know mate. The sad thing is, I think those “mundane” kit orders are needed!
   And to be fair, the SDR was as wishy washy and vague as could be on all manner of things, so I don’t rule things out. Re read it??!!! I wasted hours of my life going through that already!
   Small, sensible, targeted increments in certain, pinch areas.
   We all know the fleet is too small, even 3 more cheaper assets would help.
   Typhoon, yes, given the money needed for GCAP and the second tranche of F35 that is also wishful thinking. Reply Hi mate. I was generalising when I said about re-read it. I didn’t mean you as per say. I know you will have been over it many times. 👍 Reply Haha! Bless you mate, I know you weren’t, I didn’t take it that way at all. I was sounding off thinking stuff that if some poor sod wanted to read it again for the minimal actual structure or plan it contains. Reply Dr Alex Alexander Clarke did a video on the defence reviews since 1997. Good video on YouTube. I think it was called ‘where has Britain’s Royal Navy gone’ Reply To the sofa’s of Benefit Scroungers. Reply We have far to many ….
   Student to Career Politicians in Parliament Who Have little Grasp of Reality..!
   HMS DRAGON Debacles taken them All by Suprise….What the Hells a Navy…? Reply Pfft. They are all being replaced by Drones. Reply A thousand ship navy says Pollock no Pillock 3rd time lucky
   Pollard Reply Grayburn Reply Starmer will still be in power, just a question of how much longer. Everyone is waiting for Burnham which won’t get into parliament until the end of June. Then there needs to be a leadership battle and members vote, so likely august before his in office. Reply Thanks. I didn’t know the timeline around all this.
   I hope Starmer wins. Reply Unlikely, party members are normally made up of the extremes of the party and starmer is more a centralist, he only got in because they were fed up with being in opposition for so long and realised another Corbin would never get them in, however now they are in power and will revert to type. Most likely scenario is Starmer will step aside without a leadership battle and no one else puts their hat in to contest, and it will be a smooth fast transition. If he fights to could take months. Reply Extremes of the party.
   Revert to type.
   Wonderful. Just what the nation voted for.
   God help us… Reply Luckily Burnham isn’t the next truss, or hopefully isn’t. Reply I don’t really care as long as it isn’t Rayner or Milibrain, I’d actually like it to be Streeting who has at least got the bottle to try and sort the NHS and its Unions out.
   If Burnham loses the Bi election (and I think he will lose due to the Greens and Reform) then he is pretty well sunk as no one likes a Parachuted in candidate, which leaves Rayner, Streeting and Burnham to fight it out. But who ever gets in has to deal with the Welfare budget, HMT and sack Milibrain.
   The thing I don’t see enough mention in the press is the rather odd shifting of the Big Unions opinions. It’s fine and dandy for Labour to have its London based ideological focus groups and activists but it’s the Big Unions that pay the bills
   And most of them aren’t very happy at the moment about the dithering, lack of growth, investment and job losses. Reply If Burnham fails it Might well be Millbrain….!
   Difficult to Understand the Unions.!?.Their membership will go Down like A Stone if they Continue Supporting the Party Direction of Taxing to the Max and Spending it on Welfare…! Reply There is sadly no way all those worthwhile programmes are being pushed through to completion. Not unless defence budget is going to 3.5% now. Reply What a list!
   I wonder if the complete lack of major equipment investment last year means that infrastructure and personnel projects have received extra cash? It’s not sustainable of course but devoting an entire year to background stuff may have had useful side effects. Reply DIP Will be Interesting…. A lot more Spin than Substance I Suspect, Similar to SDR..!
   Were BILLIONS Will be Spread Over Years and Will Not Add to Much When you do the Maths….! Old Blair Trick…! Reply I was hoping it Would be 6 or Even 9 P-8s ..!..
   The t31 Would Certainly Not be my first Choice ..
   Much Prefer 1 or Even if Possible 2 t26s ..! .
   I think t31 is going to be a Problem Child..! Reply
6. It helps to re-read the SDR. Which did not recommend increasing the RN Escort fleet beyond 19. Or more Typhoons or increasing the size of the F35 fleet beyond what has already being announced. Or more Challenge 3 tanks forexample. Because those are the headlines some are expecting. Reply An SDR is not like an independent inquiry that reports freely and then the government responds. It is a government shaped process from the start. #‘Independence’ Reply
7. The improvements to forces housing, pay, and general welfare is something that the current government hasn’t received enough credit for. Reply Sure. Yet I understand the pay was already in core budget, they just took it from one pot. So not new money like Healey indicated in his grandstanding at the time.
   Still, vital for trying to improve retention. Reply
8. One thing you can guarantee it will be very very heavy on autonomous systems.. and light on everything else. Reply
9. So child care, housing, a pay rise. Anyone believe we are going to do anthing about equipment? Sounds more like a benefits pacage. Nothing wrong with that per sa but some kit would be nice. Reply
10. Typhoon Force is getting fragged. Anyone who thinks 100 is sufficient for current tasking and the threat assessment either hasn’t been awake or has their head in the sand. GCAP is at risk of being further pushed back meaning without a further order our air defence capability is going to be hanging by a few threads Reply
11. After a year of waiting, this better be bloody good. Reply
12. Hold on, they didn’t expressly say July 2026 Summit! Reply
13. The Times is reporting Cabinet minister Pat McFadden as saying that the DIP is still “weeks away” from being ready for publication. It seems that the MOD’s internal budgeting process has effectively ground to a halt, although the government is denying that there is a “formal blanket ban” on new contracts, unless personally signed off by Prime Minister. The impact is now becoming crazy, e.g. will the service life of two or three River Class B1’s be extended to 2030 to reflect the T31 delays? If not, Tamar and Spey will need return to the UK from the Indo-Pacific by the end of this year – ending a hugely successful and very popular tasking. Reply
14. After the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) ….
    Which Was was an Underwhelming muddled joke.in my View…!
    We Now FINALLY have DIP to look Forward to in the Next few Weeks…! 9mths late..!
    This Should have been Clear.!..
    This is What we Need and this is How We’ll Get it..!.
    But Internal Party Politics Seems to Have Hijacked the Process to a point Were One Wonders What Horrors in the Name of Progress Awaits Us.!..
    Are we About to See one of Westminsters famous Slight of Hand, Extra Money that Never Was…?
    Or Bread Today, Jam Tomorrow.! .. After the Next General Election…! Cant Wait.!!!!! Reply
15. PM made a big deal out of saying the military budget was going UP as percentage of GDP. secondly there is little messaging to the general public about a need for building up defence. Reply Reading the Mandy Papers Today.! …Clear the only think Labour MPs interested is Tax to the Max! on Welfare Spending and Stuff the Rest ( inc Defence) Shambolic !! Reply
16. Well, At least It’s “Summit” to look forward to. 😎 Reply Very good! 😂 DIPostively good news even, maybe. Reply 😁 Reply

LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply