The Ministry of Defence has been running out of money for so long that the pressure for a review of resources and commitments had become overwhelming.

For years the defence chiefs have stumbled along trying to meet all the demands of the Government — fighting simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while ensuring that the Armed Forces are equipped to confront every eventuality, from a state-to-state conflict to an emergency evacuation of British citizens from a distant place.

Resources have been at breaking point, despite the constant reminders from the Government that, year on year, the defence budget has been increasing in real terms. In reality, the MoD has had to look for cuts, and the days are over when adequate savings could be made by delaying the painting of windows or cancelling training exercises.

The MoD can no longer afford to go bumbling on, ritually trying to hang on to every equipment programme and every military capability. In the equipment business there have been too many sacred cows, with Service chiefs competing to preserve prestigious projects.

The blame, however, cannot lie only with the single Services and their pet programmes. The Government has deluded itself into believing that, despite an increase in threats and an ever-rising demand for British Armed Forces around the world, whether fighting insurgencies or chasing pirates in the Gulf of Aden, the percentage of the nation’s GDP spent on defence did not need to rise.

There is now huge support for the troops fighting in Helmand and a growing sympathy for the sacrifices being made, but no one in any political party is contemplating increasing defence expenditure by a substantial margin. Assuming there will be no change in approach, whoever wins the general election, a strategic review will be the only way that some sense can be brought to play in plotting Britain’s defence and security requirements.

The dilemma for the Government is that so many of the most expensive equipment programmes have an inherent momentum that makes it too late or too costly to cancel them. The Royal Navy’s two 65,000-tonne aircraft carriers, for example, are not scheduled to come into service until 2016 and 2018, but by the end of this year £1 billion will have already been spent on the project.

Every general complains of the £20 billion cost of the RAF’s Eurofighter/Typhoon programme — potentially involving the purchase of 232 of the aircraft that were conceived for the Cold War. But Britain is locked into a four-nation European programme and there are thousands of jobs at stake. Jobs are a key issue in any big equipment programme, making it difficult for ministers to decide which project can be cancelled.

The strategic defence review now promised by both Labour and the Conservatives cannot result in everything in the defence locker being kept but just scaled down: smaller carriers, fewer missiles for the Trident submarines, a reduced infantry, downsized bases.

A ruthless approach is needed. If expenditure is not set to rise, the Armed Forces can no longer do everything and be everywhere. Investment should focus on the capabilities and platforms that can best be used in the future to contribute to multinational, probably US-led, efforts.

Britain does not always have to be the second-biggest troop provider in an international force — as it is in Afghanistan. This country has been punching above its weight for too long.

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• The bright side of this winter rain
• Story behind the picture: Snow Leopard, 2008
• Times Charity Appeal: The Place2Be