Independent Researcher

Standing as pillars of national security, the United Kingdom’s armed forces—the Army, Navy, and Royal Air Force (RAF)—project might and provide stability in an environment growingly unstable. Still, major personnel, pension, and defence system investments are absolutely necessary if we are to keep the country safe and effective. Drawing similarities with NATO members, this paper argues for more funding for the military branches of the United Kingdom and suggests structural changes to guarantee autonomous strategic thinking free from outside influence, therefore addressing concerns presented by foreign scholars.

The Argument for Greater UK Armed Forces Investment
At £53.9 billion, or 2.3% of GDP, the UK’s defence budget in 2023–24 satisfies NATO’s 2% baseline aim. But this number is small compared to top NATO members like the United States, who pay 68% of NATO’s whole budget, while the UK merely accounts for 6%. Germany among European NATO members has indicated intentions to raise defence expenditure towards 5% of GDP; even Canada is looking at comparable increases. Although the UK’s expenditure above the average for NATO, it falls short of these goals; with a projected rise to 2.5% by 2027 and an objective for 3% in the next parliament,

As the 2025 Strategic Defence Review makes clear, the UK’s Army, Navy, and RAF suffer with equipment shortages and a “workforce crisis.” For example, the Army’s personnel dropped from 132,360 as of April 2024—a 16% drop from 2014. The RAF needs funding in next-generation aircraft like the F-35 and autonomous technologies while the Navy battles to keep its escort force intact. As advised by NATO sources, increasing defence spending to at least 3.5% of GDP by 2035 would help the UK modernise its troops, restitute ammunition, and solve personnel shortages.
Increased investment would also improve service personnel’s income, so military jobs become more appealing. Retaining talent depends on competitive pay, particularly when other powers use financial incentives to attract UK expertise—as shown by the divisive instance of former RAF pilots teaching Chinese forces.

The RAF-China Training Controversy: A Financial Issue
Allegedly for pay above £200,000 annually, rumours surfaced in 2022 indicating up to 30 former RAF pilots were hired to teach Chinese military troops ( BBC News, 2022). This event emphasises the attraction of more money presented by overseas companies. Although the UK government denounced the behaviour and implemented policies to stop it, the instance exposes a crucial problem: inadequate financial incentives for UK employees can motivate them to look for chances elsewhere.

Given China’s offers well above UK military pay, these pilots most likely motivated themselves financially. Comparatively, depending on rank and experience, a senior RAF officer’s pay falls between £70,000 and £100,000 yearly (Ministry of Defence, 2023). Not only would increasing the salary of active employees discourage such defections, but it would also help recruitment and retention, therefore guaranteeing the UK keeps its strategic capability.

Improving Pensions for Retired Officials and Former Officers
Although the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) is reported separately from the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD) budget, limiting its exposure in defence spending debates, it now costs £5.1 billion yearly. With pensions that might not fairly represent the risks and sacrifices of their service, former officers and retired staff members sometimes struggle financially. For instance, a retired colonel with thirty years of service would get an annual pension of roughly £30,000–£40,000, which is little compared to private-sector equivalents (Ministry of Defence, 2023).

Increasing pensions would respect veterans’ service and help with the rising strains on living expenses. Funded by reallocating some of the intended £2.2 billion MoD budget rise for 2025/26, a 10–15% pension augmentation may greatly enhance their quality of life. This expenditure would also show the government’s dedication to its veterans, therefore improving the morale among present staff members.

Funding Defence Systems: A Strategic Priority
To offset changing threats from Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, the UK’s defence systems desperately need modernising. Under the Aukus program, the 2025 Strategic Defence Review requests funding in drones, artificial intelligence, cyber capabilities, and twelve new attack submarines. Projects like the Ajax armoured vehicle programme, which has only produced 26 of 589 units at a cost of £5.5 billion, draw attention to inefficiencies that need to be fixed though.

Jobs would be generated and national security would be improved by a suggested £1.5 billion investment in air and missile defence systems and ammunition manufacturers. Using the Integrated Procurement Model, which gives quick deployment of new technologies top priority, streamlining procurement through the MoD helps to reduce cost overruns and guarantees efficient use of money. The UK runs the danger of lagging behind rivals fast increasing their military capability without such expenditures.

The danger of outside influence on UK think tanks

Though their funding and affiliations raise questions regarding possible influence from nations with ties to Russia, China, Iran, or former USSR republics like Azerbaijan, UK think tanks significantly impact defence policy. Some believe, for example, that foreign organisations donate to think tanks, which could distort their suggestions and analysis (Chatham House, 2023). Attending such events, policy advisers could unintentionally take positions consistent with those of these countries, therefore compromising UK sovereignty.

The emphasis of the 2025 Strategic Defence Review on a “NATO-first” policy highlights the need of autonomous strategic thinking. To deliver objective, evidence-based advice, the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), MoD, and security services should set up a collaborative, government-led think tank. This organisation would emphasise security issues unique to the UK, free from outside financing or influence, therefore guaranteeing that policy recommendations give national interests top priority.

Reducing Risks for Foreign Researchers
Researchers from friendly and hostile nations working on sensitive subjects—such as defence technologies, cybersecurity, or strategic studies—must go through thorough screening and ongoing monitoring to help to better protect national security. This covers financial audits, thorough background searches, and access to classified material limitations. Such actions will lower threats to the defence system of the United Kingdom and relieve pressure on civil services, which are sometimes strained by the necessity to prevent intellectual property theft or espionage. For instance, cooperation with researchers from countries like China, which has been connected to state-sponsored technology theft, calls for strict control to stop unintentional disclosure of vital defence information.

Suggestions to the UK Government
As advised by NATO, commit to 3.5% of GDP by 2035 to upgrade equipment, restocking, and solve personnel shortages.

To improve retention and discourage defections to foreign countries, raise pay for Army, Navy, and RAF troops by 15–20%.

Funded by the MoD budget upgrade, a 10–15% rise in AFPS payments for former officers and retired soldiers should improve pensions.

Reforming procurement will help to eliminate waste; allocate £2.5 billion annually for innovative technology such drones, cyber capabilities, and Aukus submarines.
Create an FCDO-MoD-security services think tank to offer autonomous policy advise free from outside influence.

Implement thorough examinations and ongoing supervision of researchers from friendly and hostile nations working on sensitive issues to lower pressure on civil services and thereby decrease hazards.

Eventually Although the Army, Navy, and RAF of the United Kingdom are indispensable for both national and international security, they also present issues that call a strong response. The UK may improve its military capability by raising defence expenditure, improving personnel income and pensions, investing in modern systems, and screening foreign researchers. Establishing a unified think tank will also help to guarantee that policy decisions are motivated by free from outside influence, independent, UK-centric ideas. These steps would not only safeguard the country but also confirm UK leadership both inside NATO and outside.

Bibliography
BBC News, 20211 BBC News, 18 October “Ex-RAF pilots lured to train Chinese military for high salaries”. Accessible at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-632965.( accessed on June 5, 2025).

Ministry of Defence (2023) Chatham House Annual Report 2022–2023 London: Chatham House London: HMSO; Armed Forces Pay Review Body: fifty-second report 2023.
UK defence expenditure: Commons Library House of Commons Book – Commons Library.parliament.uk, 28 May 2025.
Based on http://www.gov.uk, 25 February 2025, Prime Minister outlines largest continuous increase in defence spending since the Cold War.
News.sky.com, 3 June 2025: UK will be obliged to boost defence spending to 3.5% of GDP in NATO push.
UK military expenditure is going to soar; can British businesses rise to meet? http://www.theguardian.com, March 3, 2025.
http://www.sgr.org.uk, 10 March 2023, eight reasons why UK military spending shouldn’t be raised.
UK Defence Spending | Institute for Government – http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk, 23 April 2025
The defence review for Britain has great aspirations. Now it needs the money; http://www.bbc.co.uk, 3 June 2025.
Strategic Defence Review 2025 – Making Britain Safer – http://www.gov.uk, 3 June 2025.
Key aspects from government’s defence strategy – http://www.bbc.co.uk, 2 June 2025 – at a glance
PM hails “turning point” in European security as UK plans to raise defence budget to 2.5% by 2030 – http://www.gov.uk, 24 April 2024.
ICAEW – http://www.icaew.com, 10 January 2025: Chart of the week: Defence spending battle lines.

UK Armed forces support © 2025 by HZ is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0