Strategic Defence and Security Review

Strategic Defence and Security Review
Name	Strategic Defence and Security Review
Agency type	Defence review

Strategic Defence and Security Review

The Strategic Defence and Security Review is a periodic national assessment that sets long-term priorities for defence policy, national security, and related strategic capabilities, coordinating inputs from central institutions such as the Cabinet Office, Ministry of Defence, and national intelligence agencies like MI5 and MI6. Reviews of this type are influenced by international events including the Russo-Ukrainian War, Syrian Civil War, and shifts in relations with actors such as the United States, China, and Russia, while engaging domestic stakeholders including the Parliament of the United Kingdom, opposition parties like the Labour Party, and cross-party committees such as the Defence Committee.

Overview

These reviews synthesize inputs from service chiefs including the Chief of the Defence Staff (United Kingdom), senior officials from the Royal Navy, British Army, and Royal Air Force, as well as strategic assessments from the National Security Council and intelligence estimates from GCHQ. Terms of reference typically reference international instruments such as the NATO Strategic Concept and bilateral accords like the Five Eyes partnership, while drawing on historical precedents including the Levene Review and comparisons with allied processes such as the QDR and National Security Strategy. Stakeholders often include defence industry firms such as BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, and Raytheon Technologies, along with trade unions and think tanks like RUSI and the Royal United Services Institute.

Key Reviews and Timelines

Prominent review milestones correspond with political cycles and crises: the post-2010 consolidation amid the Global Financial Crisis (2007–2008); subsequent reassessments following events like the Annexation of Crimea in 2014; and later updates in response to the ISIS insurgency and renewed great-power competition. These timelines intersect with parliamentary events such as the 2010 general election and leadership changes including Theresa May and Boris Johnson, plus ministerial tenures like those of Gavin Williamson and Michael Fallon.

Strategic Objectives and Policy Changes

Reviews typically set aims such as force modernization, expeditionary readiness, nuclear deterrence posture involving Trident, and contributions to alliances like NATO. Policy shifts have included procurement emphasis on platforms such as the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier, F-35 Lightning II, and Astute-class submarine, as well as concepts like integrated force design linking cyber capabilities from GCHQ and space assets linked to agencies like the UK Space Agency. High-level strategies reference international doctrines such as the NATO Comprehensive Approach and link to operations like Operation Shader and Operation Herrick.

Defence Capabilities and Force Structure

Adjustments to force structure have affected regimental organizations in the British Army, carrier strike groups in the Royal Navy, and combat air capabilities in the Royal Air Force. Reorganizations have included changes to brigade formations influenced by lessons from the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) and logistical planning tied to bases such as HMNB Portsmouth and RAF Lossiemouth. Capability roadmaps have prioritized systems like the Type 26 frigate and Proteus-class concepts while balancing strategic deterrence via the Vanguard-class submarine replacement programmes and expeditionary logistics coordinated with allies including the French Armed Forces and United States Armed Forces.

Budgetary and Procurement Implications

Fiscal decisions arising from reviews affect defence budgets set in the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s spending rounds and are scrutinized in debates in the House of Commons. Procurement timelines involve major contractors including MBDA and Thales Group, with cost overruns and schedule slips debated alongside public finance measures such as the Public Accounts Committee inquiries. Reviews often reconcile commitments to NATO spending targets with domestic fiscal frameworks shaped by events like the Eurozone crisis and spending reviews coordinated by the HM Treasury.

Criticisms, Controversies and Political Debate

Reviews have provoked disputes over capability cuts, basing closures, and nuclear policy, drawing criticism from figures such as former service chiefs and opposition leaders like Jeremy Corbyn and commentators in outlets tied to institutions such as the Institute for Public Policy Research. Debates have centered on strategic coherence, readiness for high-intensity conflict, and procurement transparency, with NGO actors and campaigns from groups like Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament intervening. Controversies have led to parliamentary inquiries and media scrutiny involving broadcasters such as the BBC and papers like The Guardian and The Times.

Impact and Implementation Outcomes

Implementation outcomes vary: some initiatives yield enhanced interoperability with allies through exercises like Joint Warrior and deployments to theatres including the Baltic States, while others face delays in delivery of platforms such as the F-35 or cuts to force elements leading to capability gaps highlighted in reports by organisations like RAND Corporation and Chatham House. Long-term effects include shifts in industrial policy affecting firms such as BAE Systems and regional employment in defence communities like those around Barrow-in-Furness and Rosyth. Lessons from implementation influence subsequent reviews and strategic dialogues with partners such as NATO and the European Union.

Category:Defence policy