Small print lays bare the holes in PM's defence plan

As the threat from Russia grows, our government is finally taking defence seriously, says expert Francis Tusa. But the prime minister needs to put his money where his mouth is

- Francis Tusa

Publishing a strategic defence review right now is, to put it mildly, challenging. Bearing in mind that the footage that has just been released of Ukrainian kamikaze drones blowing up nearly half of Russia's irreplaceable strategic bomber fleet, thousands of kilometres inside Russian territory, suggests that the “old certainties” – tanks, submarines, large platforms – may not be entirely relevant in modern warfare.

Well, the answer that seems to be contained in the review is the obvious one: you need both, but the balance needs to change decisively.

Various commentators have talked about the British army moving towards a 20-40-40 model: 20 per cent of its armoury would comprise “traditional” weaponry, such as tanks and artillery; 40 per cent would be the cheap-and-cheerful one-way kamikaze drones; and the remaining 40 per cent would consist of higher-end missiles and long-range weaponry. Would this produce a really different-looking British army? For sure.

And the signs are that as part of the review, the Royal Navy will also move to a similar type of model. Already, mine-hunting operations have begun to transition from dedicated minehunting ships to motherships that deploy unmanned underwater vehicles.

The navy has been testing a range of uncrewed surface vessels, and the work is looking into how, in the future, a crewed warship would be accompanied by uncrewed vessels so as to increase sea coverage, as well as effectiveness. Submarines, too, will also operate more and more uncrewed systems, to be able to detect enemy submarines much further away and then to engage them from safer distances.