This article was accepted into the corpus but its outbound wikilinks were never NER-processed — typical at the deepest BFS hop or when the run's entity cap was reached. No expansion funnel to show.
| 2016 Comprehensive Review of Defence and Security | |
|---|---|
| Name | 2016 Comprehensive Review of Defence and Security |
| Date | 2016 |
| Jurisdiction | United Kingdom |
| Author | Prime Minister's office |
| Outcome | Strategic defence adjustments |
2016 Comprehensive Review of Defence and Security The 2016 Comprehensive Review of Defence and Security was a national-level assessment produced under the Prime Minister's office that evaluated threats articulated after events including the Annexation of Crimea, the ISIS insurgency, and shifts in alliance dynamics such as those involving NATO and the European Union. The review drew on inputs from institutions including the Ministry of Defence, the Cabinet Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the MI5, and it sought to align capability decisions with obligations under treaties like the Treaty of Lisbon and commitments under the NATO Lisbon process.
The review was initiated in the aftermath of high-profile events such as the 2014 Ukraine crisis, the 2015 Paris attacks, and shifts in transatlantic policy during the 2016 US election, prompting reassessment by bodies including the Defence Select Committee, the National Audit Office, the Joint Intelligence Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. It referenced historical precedents like the Falklands War and the post-Cold War reviews that spawned reforms at institutions such as the Royal Navy, the British Army, and the Royal Air Force.
Analysts concluded that risks from state actors exemplified by the Russian Federation and asymmetric threats represented by Al-Qaeda-linked networks and ISIS required integrated responses combining capabilities drawn from the Royal Navy, the British Army, and the Royal Air Force as well as agencies such as the GCHQ and MI5. The review assessed shortfalls in areas highlighted by reports from the Institute for Public Policy Research and the Royal United Services Institute including maritime security gaps affecting routes like the English Channel and force structure vulnerabilities comparable to those discussed around the Suez Crisis and the Gulf War.
Recommendations advocated for posture changes echoing alliances like NATO and cooperative frameworks with partners including United States, France, Germany, and Australia, and supported investment in domains emphasized by the National Cyber Security Centre and the Ministry of Defence such as cyber, intelligence, and expeditionary logistics. The review recommended procurement pathways referencing platforms analogous to the Type 45 destroyer, the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier, and collaborative projects like the F-35 Lightning II programme and cooperation models exemplified by the Lancaster House Treaties.
Organisational proposals included restructuring headquarters patterns influenced by models from the Joint Chiefs) and consolidating commands similar to the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps concept, strengthening liaison with entities such as the National Security Council and enhancing joint capability centres akin to the Defence and Security Accelerator. Capability changes prioritised investment in force multipliers comparable to the Challenger 2 replacement discussions, rotary-wing platforms like the Merlin, and unmanned systems reflecting trends from programmes such as the MQ-9 Reaper deployment, while addressing sustainment issues raised by the Public Accounts Committee.
The review proposed adjustments to spending envelopes linked to fiscal planning overseen by the HM Treasury and debated in the Parliament, weighing commitments to NATO's two percent guideline discussed at the NATO Wales Summit against domestic spending constraints highlighted by the Office for Budget Responsibility. It outlined procurement prioritisation that affected contracts with industry actors such as BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce Holdings, Babcock International, and Airbus, recommending lifecycle funding akin to arrangements used for the Astute class submarine and export-orientated strategies similar to those pursued for the Typhoon.
The review characterised the threat environment with reference to regional crises like the Syrian Civil War, transnational criminal networks examined in UNODC reporting, and disruptive technologies highlighted by actors such as North Korea and state behaviour reminiscent of Cold War-era incidents involving the Korean War. It stressed resilience measures across critical infrastructure sectors coordinated with agencies like the Cabinet Office and the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure and drew on analytical frameworks used by the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Implementation pathways assigned responsibilities to entities including the Secretary of State for Defence, the Chief of the Defence Staff, and parliamentary oversight through committees such as the Defence Committee, with planned milestones intended to align with defence spending reviews and strategic defence reviews influenced by precedents like the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review. Timelines proposed phased delivery across parliamentary terms and contingency triggers linked to events monitored by the Joint Intelligence Committee and allied reporting mechanisms within NATO.
Category:United Kingdom defence reviews