No money for new weapons until 2030 thanks to Labour, says ex-general 2026

Key Points

• Gen Sir Richard Barrons, one of the authors of Labour’s strategic defence review, has said Britain’s Armed Forces have not been promised enough money to buy new weapons until 2030.
• He warned that the military lacks the funding needed to modernise effectively and can only “think about” preparing for war, rather than do so properly.
• Sir Richard claimed the Ministry of Defence has gone backwards since the review was published in June 2025.
• The strategic defence review said the UK would need about £68bn to prepare for modern warfare and recommended increasing the Army to 100,000 personnel, including reservists.
• He said the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force also lacked the money to restore operational effectiveness.
• Sir Richard praised Germany’s defence spending plans, saying they would reach about £165bn by the end of the decade and exceed the UK and France combined.
• He argued Rachel Reeves’ planned funding for John Healey, amounting to up to £10bn over four years, was not enough and said the MoD should get £10bn extra a year.
• The Ministry of Defence said the Government is delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War and pointed to £270bn being invested in defence in this Parliament alone.

LONDON (Britain Today News) — May 4, 2026 Gen Sir Richard Barrons has warned that Britain’s Armed Forces have not been promised enough money to buy new weapons until 2030, arguing that Labour’s current defence funding plans fall far short of what is needed to modernise the military and prepare for future conflict.

Why is Sir Richard Barrons warning about defence funding?

Gen Sir Richard Barrons said the Armed Forces lacked the money needed to modernise properly and were being forced to merely “think about” war preparation instead of fully equipping themselves for it. The former Army officer, who served for more than four decades, said the Ministry of Defence had moved “backwards” since the strategic defence review was published in June 2025.

He also argued that the Government’s current position meant there was no realistic prospect of enough funding for new weapons before 2030. In his view, that leaves the services with a shrinking window to respond to growing global threats and rising military pressure.

What did the defence review recommend?

The strategic defence review co-authored by Sir Richard said the UK would need around £68bn to prepare the Armed Forces for modern warfare. It also recommended raising the size of the Army to 100,000 personnel, including reservists, as part of a wider effort to strengthen readiness.

The review was presented by the Government as a major reset for defence policy, with ministers accepting its 62 recommendations in full. Those recommendations were meant to shape a long-term plan for transformation across the Navy, Army and Air Force, alongside improved war-fighting readiness and stronger NATO commitments.

What did Barrons say about the Navy and RAF?

Sir Richard said the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force were also struggling because they lacked the money to restore operational effectiveness. His warning suggests the funding issue is not limited to one branch of the services, but affects the wider defence structure.

That point matters because the review was designed to support all three services, not just the Army. By saying the Navy and RAF are underfunded, Sir Richard effectively argued that the problem is systemic rather than isolated.

How did he compare Britain with Germany?

Sir Richard “applauded” Germany for planning to increase defence spending to about £165bn by the end of this decade. He said that would amount to more than 3.5 per cent of GDP and exceed the combined defence spending of the UK and France.

His comparison appeared aimed at highlighting how quickly other European powers are moving to strengthen military capability. In that context, he suggested Britain risks falling behind if funding decisions remain too cautious or too slow.

Is Labour spending enough on defence?

Sir Richard said the funding plans associated with Rachel Reeves and Defence Secretary John Healey were not enough. He argued the MoD should receive an extra £10bn a year, rather than the up to £10bn over four years he believes is currently being offered.

The Government rejected the criticism and said it is providing the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War. It said £270bn is being invested in defence in this Parliament alone and that the defence budget is rising in real terms.

What is the Government’s response?

The Ministry of Defence said the UK wants to be the best place in the world to start and grow a defence business. It said nearly 1,200 major contracts have been signed since July 2024, with 93 per cent of that spending going to UK-based companies.

The MoD also said that, following recommendations from the strategic defence review, the UK is spending £4bn on improving drone capabilities. It added that the coming defence investment plan will address an

“outdated, overcommitted and underfunded”

programme inherited by the Government.

Why does this row matter now?

The row comes at a time when pressure is growing on the Government to show it can fund both immediate defence readiness and long-term military renewal. Sir Richard’s intervention adds weight because he helped write the review that is supposed to guide the Government’s future defence strategy.

His criticism also raises a broader question about whether headline spending commitments will translate into usable capability on the ground, at sea and in the air. For the Armed Forces, that means the issue is not just how much money is announced, but how quickly it reaches equipment, personnel and operational planning.

What happens next?

The next major test will be whether the upcoming defence investment plan delivers enough detail and funding to satisfy critics. Until then, Sir Richard’s warning is likely to keep pressure on ministers to explain how Britain will modernise its forces before the end of the decade.

The dispute is especially important because the strategic defence review was meant to set out a credible path to stronger defence capability, not a debate over whether the money exists to carry it out. If the funding gap remains unresolved, the argument over Britain’s readiness for war is likely to intensify further.