Britain spends tens of billions on defence, so why does our military kit arrive late, cost more, and still fail to work when it matters?

No one’s arguing about it down the pub, it doesn’t dominate the front pages, and you won’t see a slick campaign video about it any time soon.

But it is deadly serious, and for years now we’ve treated it like a bureaucratic side quest rather than something that might decide whether we can actually defend ourselves.

The very term "defence procurement" sounds dull, but it isn’t. It’s the difference between having a military that can fight tonight and one that needs to send a polite email asking if the kit might arrive sometime before things get properly unpleasant.

If that sounds over the top, listen to John Hutton. Speaking to LBC News earlier this week, he didn’t dress it up. Britain, he said, has “two to three years” to get serious about rebuilding its military strength or risk “a world of pain” in Europe.

He backed the former Head of Nato and ex-Labour defence secretary George Robertson’s warning that the state of the armed forces is “woeful”, calling it a genuine wake-up call. And he landed on the point that really matters: you can have all the speeches you like, but words don’t equip the armed forces.

They really don’t. In 2024 to 2025, the UK spent £60.2 billion on defence. That is a huge amount of money by any standard. And yet we keep coming back to the same slightly awkward question: What are we actually getting for it?

We have a Royal Navy that struggles to get enough ships out doing the things we all want our naval ships to do. You only have to look at HMS Dragon slowly making its way towards the Middle East as tensions rise, expected to defend British troops and allies while the wider system feels like it’s held together with crossed fingers.

None of that is the fault of the people serving. It’s the system around them.

Speak to people in defence and the same frustration comes up again and again. Instead of buying things that already work, we disappear into a maze of procurement processes.

Contracts, tenders, revisions, more requirements, even more requirements, and then a few extra just to be safe.

By the time anything turns up, it’s late, it’s cost far more than it should, and half the time it’s no longer fit for the job it was meant to do.

And it’s not just procurement, the same thinking runs right through the system. Recruitment was handed to the private sector in a £1.3 billion deal with Capita, and since then the Army has missed its targets every single year, in some cases by as much as 30 per cent.

Before that, soldiers recruited soldiers and, remarkably, it worked. Now we have a system that costs more and delivers less. Even basics like catering have been outsourced, with predictably grim results, just spend five minutes looking one of the many Instagram accounts showing the shocking food our troops are actually being served and tell me that’s a serious organisation preparing people for war.

Take Watchkeeper. If you wanted to design a cautionary tale, you’d struggle to do better. The Watchkeeper WK450 was meant to give the Army cutting-edge surveillance.

Instead, it became a two-decade slog of delays, cost overruns, and technical headaches. The budget nearly doubled to £1.35 billion. It crashed. Repeatedly. It struggled in bad weather, which is unfortunate for a country like Britain that is not exactly known for its endless sunshine.

At one point it was reportedly designed to meet 1,910 separate criteria. You don’t need to be a defence expert to see the problem there.

If you try to build something that does everything, you usually end up with something that does nothing particularly well.

While all that was happening, the battlefield moved on. In Ukraine, they’re 3D printing parts, modifying off-the-shelf drones, and getting them into the fight almost immediately.

Identify a problem, solve it, move on. No decade-long process. No endless committees. Just… getting on with it.

Then there’s Ajax, which at this point feels less like a procurement programme and more like a running joke that has gone on far too long.

The Ajax armoured vehicle was supposed to be in service in 2017. It wasn’t. Trials had to be paused after soldiers reported vomiting and shaking during exercises. The explanation offered was that the vehicle hadn’t been used properly.

Which is a slightly awkward defence when the core requirement is that soldiers can operate the thing without feeling like they’ve just come off a rollercoaster designed by someone with a grudge.

One defence source put it more bluntly: if you have to stop mid-operation to check the tracks every time you’ve been driving for a while, let’s hope the next war is short.

Even the basics tell a similar story. The SA80 rifle programme had a long, messy development, with reliability issues that took years to iron out. Meanwhile, the Americans went with the M16. Not perfect, but it existed, it worked, and soldiers could actually use it when they needed it.

That’s the pattern. We chase perfection. We get delay.

All of this sits against a backdrop of big promises on spending. The Prime Minister has committed to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027, with talk of 3 per cent after that, and NATO targets stretching even higher.

It sounds reassuring until you realise the Ministry of Defence is already facing a reported £28 billion shortfall just to meet existing commitments.

So it’s not just about how much we spend. It’s about how we spend it.

Right now, the system rewards complexity. It rewards caution. It rewards the ability to navigate a process rather than deliver capability. And the end result is kit that arrives too late, costs too much, and sometimes doesn’t work as advertised.

Meanwhile, potential adversaries are moving faster, adapting quicker, and worrying far less about whether the paperwork is in order.

Hutton is right to call this a wake-up call. But we’ve had a few of those over the years, and the danger is we hit the snooze button again.

If Britain is serious about defence, procurement has to change. That means buying proven kit off the shelf where it makes sense. It means cutting timelines. It means accepting that “good enough and available now” often beats “perfect but arriving in ten years’ time”.

Because when this is tested for real, there is no reset button. No extension. No second attempt. Either the kit works, or it doesn’t.

_

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk