IMPACT OF DEFENCE RESEARCH FUNDING
101. Section A2 of the DTS considers the impact of
research spending on military equipment quality. It notes that
recent analysis has shown that there is a correlation between
the quality of military equipment and the investment by governments
in Defence R&D.[162]
The military advantage achieved at any one time depends upon the
R&D investment made over the previous 25 years. The analysis
has shown that "advantage can be gained or lost by increasing
or decreasing R&D investment relative to other R&D investing
nations".[163]
Figure 1 below—which is reproduced from the DTS—demonstrates
the capability advantage that the UK has gained from past investment
in defence R&D and how quickly an advantage can be lost.[164]
This figure was also in the Defence Industrial Strategy published
in December 2005.[165]
Figure 1: Relative Years Advantage in Equipment
Quality as a Function of R&D Spend per Year
chart here
Source: MoD[166]
102. The DTS states that Figure 1 shows "that
we now have the ability to predict the future equipment quality
that the UK might face in combat, as a function of time and national
investment level".[167]
It states that Figure 1 shows that UK military equipment in 2001,
taken as a whole, was on average 12 years more advanced than that
of China's in the same year. The estimated position for the UK
in 2020 is based on "assuming R&D levels are broadly
maintained, whilst that for China assumes a continuation of its
growth in R&D investment".[168]
The DTS states that
the analysis has shown that the advantage achieved
at any one time depends on the R&D investment made over the
previous 25 years. In particular, investments 5 and 20-25 years
earlier are critical corresponding to development activity (about
5 years earlier) and defence research activity (typically 20-25
years earlier). Clearly advantage can be gained or lost by increasing
or decreasing R&D investment relative to other R&D investing
nations.[169]
COMPARISONS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES
103. We asked how the UK's spend on defence research
compared with other countries. The CSA said that the UK "hits
hugely above its weight" and was only second to the US in
terms of "science citation and international prizes".
He considered that the UK started from a "privileged position"
and that in his view, Dstl "is a jewel in the crown in terms
of its capability". He told us that: the UK was "approximately
equivalent" to France; behind the US; well ahead of China;
and ahead of Russia. Overall, he considered that the UK "are
second equal, somewhere in that domain".[170]
We asked whether the UK needed to spend more to maintain its position.
CSA thought "not at the moment". In some areas Dstl
was regarded as the "world authority". He said "that
is not a bad position in some sensitive areas. It is something
to carefully watch….at the moment I am moderately comfortable".[171]
104. We sought further information from the MoD on
the spending by the UK and a selection of other countries on defence
research, split between the spending on defence research and on
development. The latter relates to spending on the development
of defence equipment projects. The MoD provided us with data on
public sector Research and Development (R&D) spending and
told us that "whilst overall R&D figures are available
for most of the nations in question, the data is not usually split
into separate research and development figures and exact definitions
of the categories differ between the nations".[172]
Table 5: Defence R&D spend by other countries[173]
