Ready for war in 1,000 days? Peers demand faster contracts and stronger UK industry

The UK must move faster to prepare its defence industry for the possibility of war within 1,000 days, a House of Lords committee has warned, finding that businesses still lack the contracts, investment certainty and workforce needed to turn rising defence spending into military capability.

In a report published on 11 November, the Industry and Regulators Committee warns that failure to build a new partnership between government and industry would leave the country “dangerously exposed” in the event of conflict.

Its findings expose a mismatch between the urgency of the threats facing the UK and the time required to procure equipment, expand factories and train the people who will operate them.

The committee welcomes reforms already underway, but concludes that higher spending alone will not be sufficient. Readiness will depend on how quickly investment produces equipment and an industrial base capable of sustaining the armed forces through a prolonged conflict.

Speaking to Advance, committee chair Baroness Hayter said the Ministry of Defence (MoD) was moving in the right direction, but businesses were not yet experiencing the transformation required.

“We’ve heard from … particularly, I suppose, from the startups and the SMEs, that it isn’t yet working the way it needs to work,” she said.

Her priorities were a workforce able to deliver the capabilities required, industry ready to begin work and a government relationship that gave businesses enough information and confidence to invest.

Where does the 1,000-day warning come from?

The warning originated in an article by Defence Secretary Wes Streeting in The Telegraph on 24 October. He argued that adversaries’ expanding forces and war economies could put them in a position to attack the UK by 2030, leaving little over 1,000 days to prepare to fight alongside allies.

It was a call to strengthen deterrence and prepare for its possible failure, rather than a prediction that war would begin on a specified date.

The Lords’ report places that warning alongside evidence from General Sir Richard Barrons, one of the authors of the 2025 Strategic Defence Review. He told the inquiry that existing plans could take ten years to deliver a minimum state of readiness, despite the possibility of an attack by 2030.

That difference between the threat timetable and the delivery timetable runs through the report. Procurement reforms, investment plans and workforce programmes must produce results within the period in which they may be needed.

Hayter emphasised that preparation was intended to prevent conflict. “The more we’re ready to fight a war, the more we deter a war,” she told Advance.

Spending commitments are not a pipeline of contracts

The committee’s most acute disagreement with ministers concerns whether industry already has enough certainty to expand.

Peers said they were “surprised and disappointed” by the Defence Secretary’s assertion that businesses had sufficient confidence to invest. That assessment contradicted the evidence they had heard from manufacturers and investors.

The Defence Investment Plan was a welcome signal of demand, they concluded, but did not provide a procurement pipeline.

ADS told the inquiry that the plan offered clarity on some programmes but not a complete picture. Babcock said uncertainty continued to constrain investment decisions, while investors described capital available for defence that was not flowing because future contracts remained unclear.

The practical consequence is that companies are being asked to prepare facilities, recruit staff and commit their own money without clearly knowing what government will purchase or when.

Streeting argued in his evidence that uncertainty had been overstated and that the investment plan and wider spending intentions gave a reasonably clear picture of future needs. The committee nevertheless called for greater long-term contracting certainty and clearer identification of where private capital should contribute.

Responding to the report, Samira Braund, ADS Defence Director, said: “Strengthening the UK’s defence readiness requires moving from ‘just-in-time’ to ‘just-in-case’, building the resilient supply chains and industrial capability necessary to surge and sustain production when needed.

“That means faster, more agile procurement, clearer long-term demand signals that give businesses the confidence to invest, and making it easier for SMEs and new technologies to play their part.”

Procurement must keep pace with the battlefield

The report questions whether traditional procurement can respond to technologies that change within days or weeks.

The Government has adopted different contracting targets for different capabilities: two years for major platforms, one year for modular upgrades and three-month cycles for rapidly exploiting commercial technologies.

These are targets for reaching contracts rather than delivering finished equipment. Even meeting these still leaves manufacturing, testing and entry into service to follow.

Evidence from Ukraine illustrates the pressure to move faster. ADS chief executive Kevin Craven told peers that Ukraine had procured software upgrades within six days, equipment upgrades within six weeks and platform changes within six months.

There are examples of progress. Tekever told the inquiry that the RAF’s StormShroud drone capability had entered service within nine months, while Evolve Dynamics described Commercial X reaching contract in three or four months.

The committee’s concern is whether these examples can become normal practice. It wants annual reporting to Parliament on procurement speed and further action if performance falls short of targets by June 2027.

For Hayter, this requires a change in how the MoD treats risk.

“It may occasionally have to put money into things which end up not working,” she said. “Because actually, you’re learning as you develop these things.”

She also suggested government might need to fund competing companies pursuing the same capability, rather than selecting a single winner at the outset.

Smaller suppliers cannot finance readiness alone

The report finds that the terms on which companies are paid can themselves obstruct expansion.

Evolve Dynamics chief executive Tom Redman described SMEs as effectively “financing defence procurement on behalf of the state”, with payment on delivery leaving businesses to cover wages, suppliers and production costs.

The committee concludes that this restricts their ability to grow capacity and accept further contracts. It recommends more upfront and interim payments, including through prime contractors.

Hayter said the conventional approach needed to change.

“Traditionally, it comes out with a contract, you bid for it, and then it pays for it on delivery. That won’t do any more,” she told Advance.

Primes also needed to examine the risks they passed down to smaller suppliers, she added, and consider helping with workforce training, cyber security and navigating defence procurement.

The administrative burden can be substantial. The inquiry heard of a 6,000-page invitation to tender requiring a 400-page response. ADS said it had stopped counting after identifying 90 different gateways or approaches to MoD innovation funding.

Peers want simpler, standardised SME contracts and sufficient resources for the Defence Office for Small Business Growth to provide an effective single point of entry.

Industrial capacity cannot be switched on when war starts

The shift to “just-in-case” production means maintaining capacity before an emergency creates immediate demand.

Witnesses stressed that companies cannot indefinitely carry spare workers, machinery, materials and factory space on the possibility of a future order. Maintaining readiness requires sustained contracts and funding.

The Government’s commitment to an always-on munitions pipeline and at least six new munitions and energetics factories is welcomed. But peers question whether equivalent arrangements will support other capabilities, particularly drones.

Here, simply accumulating equipment may be insufficient because technology becomes obsolete quickly.

“You can’t stockpile a whole lot of drones, because actually what they look like today will look different in 12 months’ time,” Hayter said.

The report instead calls for contracted capacity to rapidly manufacture and adapt systems. National Armaments Director Rupert Pearce described an approach involving modest purchases for training and operations, with industry able to increase production tenfold or a hundredfold during war.

That ambition requires a functioning supply chain and trained workforce long before the additional orders arrive.

A whole-government task

Workforce shortages present another constraint on the readiness timetable.

The committee heard that the forthcoming Defence Jobs Plan would address demand for an additional 53,000 workers in priority occupations by 2035. Peers want it to explain what can realistically be achieved over the next three years, with clear responsibilities for government, industry and local authorities.

Recruitment also depends on housing, transport and places where workers and their families want to live.

Hayter pointed to Plymouth’s recognition that attracting skilled people requires wider support for their families and communities. For that reason, she argued, responsibility cannot rest solely with the MoD.

“This has to be a whole nation response,” she said.

The Prime Minister must provide the leadership to bring the Treasury, education and local government behind the effort, she added.

The committee identifies the 1 December Defence Investment Summit as an opportunity to provide greater certainty, while calling for continuing engagement with investors and a progress report by June 2027.

For industry, the measure of success will be what follows the announcements.

“We welcome the Committee’s recommendations, and the contribution industry has made to shaping them,” Braund said. “But this is a staging post, not the destination.

“The test now is delivery, and ADS will continue to make the case for the changes needed to turn greater defence investment into greater defence capability.”