Part 1 - When rebranding could cost £100 million: What America's "Department of War" teaches us about defence communication 

The figure matters not because £100 million is particularly large in defence terms, but because it represents investment in symbolic change whilst operational transformation lags behind. Both America and Britain demonstrate the same challenge: announcing ambitious transformation whilst the machinery to deliver it remains incomplete. 

Rebranding matters when it reflects reality. Names shape perceptions and organisational tone. Done properly, rebrands clarify purpose and energise teams. The question is whether new names reflect genuine transformation or substitute for it. 

Trump argues "Department of War" conveys strength. Senator Mitch McConnell countered that "peace through strength requires investment, not just rebranding". Foreign defence leaders visiting the Pentagon will assess American capability, not bronze plaques. 

The administration deserves credit for accompanying rebrand with restructuring. On 12 January, the War Department reclassified the Defense Innovation Unit and Strategic Capabilities Office as Field Activities, appointed a new Chief Digital and AI Officer, and consolidated six execution organizations under a new CTO Action Group. Whether this delivers remains to be seen. The intent to move "at the speed of industry" signals operational change, not merely semantic shift. 

Britain faces the same challenge with slower execution. The Strategic Defence Review promised transformation at "wartime pace". The Defence Secretary pledged an army "ten times more lethal". The government announced £1.5 billion for munitions factories, £400 million for defence innovation, a new National Armaments Director. In July, UK Defence Innovation launched, unifying multiple organisations under £400 million annual funding. 

The commitments are substantial. The pace is not. UKDI launched in July 2025 but will not be fully operational until July 2026—a twelve-month transition whilst competitors move faster. Industry still awaits the Defence Investment Plan (DIP) seven months after the SDR. The MOD commits to no timeline. The National Armaments Director lacks complete supporting structures. 

"Wartime pace" demands swift problem identification, clear requirements, and coordination preventing peacetime bureaucratic filtering. Britain promises this whilst implementing twelve-month transitions and uncommitted timelines. The gap between rhetoric and reality grows uncomfortable. 

Europe takes a different approach: funding infrastructure rather than restructuring organisations. Since 2021, the European Defence Fund has invested €4 billion in 224 collaborative research projects. For 2026 alone, €1 billion funds development across member states. The EU Defence Innovation Scheme provides startups with €120,000 seed funding, testing facilities, coaching, and five European bootcamps connecting them with end-users and investors. Defence Hackathons run simultaneously across eight locations, building networks before contracts exist. 

Nordic countries translate this into delivery. Sweden purchases German air defence systems. Poland selects Swedish submarines. Norway and Britain sign a £10 billion naval security pact. Finland leads a Common Armoured Vehicle System programme joined by Denmark, Norway and Britain. These bilateral agreements convert shared requirements into joint procurement through established relationships, not institutional announcements. 

The contrast is stark. America restructures "effective today" whilst spending £100 million on new letterhead. Britain launches UKDI with substantial funding but faces twelve-month transitions and uncommitted DIP timelines. Europe invests €1 billion annually funding collaborative projects that actually exist. 

Three approaches to transformation: rapid institutional change, strategic vision with measured implementation, or funding collaborative infrastructure. The question is which delivers capability fastest, not which announces most convincingly. 

Britain's challenge is not money. The £400 million Defence Innovation fund exists. The £7.5 billion SME spending target is declared. The Defence Office for Small Business Growth launches this month. Yet our survey found 77 per cent of defence organisations struggle to reach decision-makers, 89 per cent face challenges managing stakeholder expectations, and 78 per cent report communication failures contributing to programme delays or costs. SMEs cite "invisible soft politics" and decision-making opacity. 

Money without delivery infrastructure is intent without execution. The SDR promised reformed procurement and collaboration at "wartime pace". These institutional changes matter only if accompanied by communication infrastructure enabling them to function: clear requirements industry can respond to, rapid feedback when difficulties emerge, coordination frameworks across MOD and industry, transparent progress reporting maintaining political confidence through challenges. 

Governments excel at announcements and institutional restructuring. They struggle with unglamorous infrastructure work: preventing misalignment between technical teams and stakeholders, ensuring end-users understand new capabilities, coordinating complex consortia, surfacing problems quickly rather than filtering them through layers. 

Europe's €4 billion investment funds networks, testing facilities, and coordination mechanisms enabling joint development. Nordic bilateral agreements translate requirements into deliverable programmes through established relationships. Both approaches prioritise infrastructure over announcements. 

Britain announced transformation in June and launched UKDI in July. America rebranded in September and restructured in January. Europe has spent four years funding collaborative infrastructure. All three recognise transformation's imperative. Differences lie in whether emphasis falls on announcements, institutional restructuring, or funding delivery mechanisms. Results will reveal which approach was correct. 

To offer my ‘two pennies worth’, three potential solutions come to mind. First, pace matters more than announcements. Declaring "effective today" differs markedly from "operational in twelve months". Second, align actions with messaging. Promising "wartime pace" whilst implementing year-long transitions creates credibility gaps. Third, measure infrastructure, not intent. Track whether decision-makers are reachable, whether expectations are managed, whether problems surface quickly. These metrics reveal delivery capability regardless of compelling strategies. 

Rebranding, strategic vision, and institutional reform all have value. Names matter. Ambitious goals drive organisations. Restructuring can accelerate delivery. The lesson is simpler: communication infrastructure determines whether transformation delivers, regardless of announcement quality or restructuring speed. 

That infrastructure comprises networks, processes and relationships enabling organisations to understand requirements, coordinate delivery, surface problems quickly, and maintain confidence through challenges. Whether called Department of War or Ministry of Defence, whether restructured rapidly or methodically, whether emphasising institutional change or collaborative funding, success depends on this foundation. 

Without it, transformation remains words on bronze plaques. 

Lindsay Compton is founder and chief executive of Canny Comms, a specialist communications consultancy working in defence, security and emerging technology. She sits on the Make UK Defence Advisory Board and the ADS Defence SME Committee. 

Read on to part 2 - While Whitehall reorganises, what should defence companies actually do? https://canny-comms.co.uk/news/what-should-defence-companies-actually-do