AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth In 1889 the British parliament, fearful of a possible war with France and Russia, adopted what came to be known as the “two power standard.” It called for the Royal Navy, then the world’s most powerful fleet, to maintain and operate enough battleships to outnumber the next two most powerful navies.
Although Britain abandoned the policy after World War I, when it accepted parity with the American fleet in accordance with the of the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty, the Royal Navy remained one of the world’s most powerful maritime forces.
As recently as a year ago a member of Parliament raised the issue of restoring the two power standard, but the question was more of a jibe than a practical proposal. Britain’s fleet has been in decline for years, and it has declined even further this year.
The Royal Navy is suffering from major readiness issues. None of its nuclear powered attack submarines is available for deployment. Its ballistic missile submarines also are hampered by readiness issues and the Navy barely manages to keep one of the class on full-time deployment. And Britain’s carriers suffer from a shortage of available F-35B aircraft. Other ships likewise have serious maintenance and readiness challenges. So too do the other military services.
Exiting Prime Minister Keith Starmer just released a new defense investment plan that is full of promises without concrete timetables. With respect to the Navy, the plan includes a major upgrade of its capabilities. Among its highlights: “completing the build and commissioning of Type 26 and Type 31 frigates … building at least six new Common Combat Vessels at the centre of the Hybrid Navy; new amphibious ships potentially developed in collaboration with the Netherlands” and “scaling up the Hybrid Navy to its full vision,” whatever that is supposed to mean.
It appears that the majority of those new programs will not commence until 2030 at the earliest. Indeed, the investment plan simply states a plan to invest $43 billion U.S. in “new maritime capabilities” between 2030 and 2035. The plan offers no specifics regarding actual annual outlays for these and other military programs. Nor does it speak of funding to address the navy’s current readiness problems or those of the other armed services.
Even as presented, the plan falls short of what it actually would cost. Armed Services Minister Luke Pollard acknowledged that Britain needs to find an extra $6 billion in this autumn’s budget to fund the investment plan’s initial proposals. Indeed, British government officials reportedly identified a far greater shortfall amounting to $37 billion.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the widely respected John Healey resigned as defense minister, claiming that the planned investment budget failed to support Britain’s commitment to NATO to allot to defense five percent of its Gross Domestic Product by 2035. He called for the government to commit to spending three percent of GDP by 2030.
Instead, as he put it in his resignation letter to Starmer, “You have been unable … to commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats.” Earlier this week, Healey again argued that the plan’s target of defense spending for 2030 should be increased from 2.68 per cent of GDP to 3 percent.
Britain has been in economic decline, however, since it exited the European Union in 2020. Spending on Britain’s forces is unlikely to survive other budgetary demands. Current forecasts put the country’s GDP growth at less than one percent this year, while the government will face a $46 billion shortfall. Under these circumstances it is difficult to see how the shortfall in defense spending, even the smaller shortfall that Pollard has projected, can possibly be filled this year.
Moreover, the Royal Navy is not the only British force that is a shadow of its former self. The British army has shrunk to the point that the entire active land force of approximately 75,000 is barely the equivalent of a single American army corps.
Like the Navy, readiness problems also beset Britain’s Army. Similarly, the Royal Air Force has roughly one-third of the aircraft it operated in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War. Britain also faces major cybersecurity challenges that are only likely to intensify with time.
The sad truth is that Britain no longer can be classed one of the world’s leading military powers. If Andy Burnham, who is widely expected to replace Starmer in the coming weeks, is to reverse Britain’s downward military trend, he should heed the advice of the country’s recently departed defense minister. As a first step to reversing Britain’s military decline, he should commit additional funds, especially for readiness, that will indeed enable Britain defense spending to reach three per cent of its GDP in four years’ time.
Dov S. Zakheim is a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and vice chairman of the board for the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He was undersecretary of Defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Department of Defense from 2001 to 2004 and a deputy undersecretary of Defense from 1985 to 1987.
Add as preferred source on Google TagsCopyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Comments: Link copiedMore Opinions - International News
See All
Opinions - International Venezuela’s interim regime is using the earthquakes to bury democracy by Arturo McFields, opinion contributor 2 days ago Opinions - International / 2 days ago 
