The problem with comments such as Penny Mordaunt's is that they often treat defence as though it were simply a question of spending more money. The reality is far more complicated.
Modern warfare has changed dramatically. The conflict between Ukraine and Russia has shown that technological innovation, agility and adaptability can be just as important as conventional military strength. Ukraine entered the conflict at a significant disadvantage, yet through innovation, Western support and the rapid development of drone and electronic warfare capabilities, it has repeatedly challenged a much larger opponent.
What has perhaps surprised many military planners is the cost effectiveness of these new technologies. Drones costing a fraction of traditional military hardware are capable of destroying equipment worth millions. Artificial intelligence, electronic warfare and autonomous systems are increasingly shaping the battlefield of the future.
That does not mean conventional forces are no longer important. Strong armed services remain essential. However, it does mean that governments must think carefully about where resources are directed and whether procurement systems are capable of adapting quickly enough to technological change.
The challenge is particularly acute for the Royal Navy and other major platforms. The period from initial design and commissioning to full operational service can span decades. Technology can change several times over during that period. Equipment conceived for one era can find itself entering service in a completely different strategic environment.
It is also worth remembering that many of the procurement programmes and defence reviews inherited by later governments were altered, delayed or scaled back over time. Long term planning only works when successive administrations maintain strategic consistency. Frequent changes of direction inevitably increase costs, create delays and reduce effectiveness.
The debate therefore should not simply be about spending more. It should be about spending smarter, modernising procurement, embracing new technologies and ensuring that Britain's Armed Forces are prepared for the realities of twenty first century warfare rather than the assumptions of the twentieth.
That is a serious discussion worth having. Trading political slogans is not.