By Tom O'Kelly, Senior Research Manager
This week the government published its long-awaited Defence Investment Plan, and it is a genuine step forward in ambition. Most of the coverage will understandably focus on the new kit: drones, munitions, warships, combat aircraft, AI, cyber capability and nuclear renewal. It will also focus on the reported funding gap, with the next government facing an estimated £5 billion shortfall to fully fund the plan.
That funding gap matters because it sharpens the real choice underneath the announcement. If the cost of new technology is met by squeezing the things that hold service life together, housing, families, training and retention, then investment meant to build capability could quietly erode the very thing capability relies on, people.
Equipment alone is not capability. Capability depends just as much on the people able to operate, maintain, adapt and believe in it. For those of us working in military and defence communications, that is the point that matters most. The Defence Investment Plan is not only a spending story. It is a people story.
The scale of the plan is real. Annual defence spending is set to rise from £54 billion toward almost £80 billion by 2029, with serious investment in drones, autonomy, AI and the digital systems that let a modern force see, decide and act faster. The clearest lesson from Ukraine is that the side which innovates and adapts quickest wins. But innovation and adaptation are just as reliant on personnel as they are on procurement.
Capability Is a People Story First
A drone is only as effective as the person trained to fly it. A hybrid fleet only works if there are enough skilled people to crew it, maintain it and stay long enough to become expert. AI-enabled targeting still depends on trust, human judgement and confidence. Capability is created when people, technology, and training combine, turning equipment into genuine advantage.
That puts two human challenges at the centre of the plan's success:
-
Holding on to the experience already in the system
-
Making service compelling to the next generation
These are not separate issues. People challenges should be at the heart of any meaningful discussion of capability, with investment in people being just as important as in equipment.
Holding On to Experience
Recruitment is improving, but retention is the harder test, because experience and specialist skill take years to build and cannot be replaced at pace. The warning signs are in the data. More than half of personnel rate service morale as low, and 38% have looked for work outside the Services in the last year. For those weighing up whether to leave, the biggest factor is not pay. It is the impact of service on family and personal life.
Housing brings that into focus. Reports that a planned military housing upgrade has been pushed back beyond 2030 to help fund wider investment point to a risky trade-off. The technology may be future-facing, but living conditions feel decades behind. If investment in equipment moves faster than investment in people's daily lives, capability is undermined from the inside. The hardware and the home have to move together.
Reaching The Next Generation
The other half of the challenge is reaching the next generation. The Armed Forces depend on young people for new recruits, and you do not win them over by just listing equipment. The next generation needs to see purpose, fairness, belonging and a clear sense of what service offers and what it asks in return.
That makes the lived experience of service part of the recruitment story too. Culture, family life, progression and trust all shape whether people join, stay and recommend service to others. Pathways such as apprenticeships, cadet forces and STEM programmes matter for the same reason. They are often the first place service becomes visible, aspirational and achievable. Any plan serious about the future of the Armed Forces should invest in them with the same seriousness it gives the hardware.
The People Challenge
The Defence Investment Plan is a real step forward, and the ambition behind it is necessary. But it risks feeling incomplete if the people at the heart of military capability are not given the same prominence as the equipment. Personnel need to see that change is being made with them, for them, not around them. Recruits need an offer that feels credible and modern. Families need to feel that service life is sustainable, not something to be endured quietly in the background.
The investment is welcome. The real test is whether the human side of defence keeps pace with the technology.
Sources: