The UK’s quantum sector has recently been buoyed by a £2bn government commitment, a significant signal of intent to develop a technology that will underpin future defence capability and national resilience.
Unfortunately, investment alone will not determine who leads in quantum technology. In a field where advantage will be defined by how quickly breakthroughs are translated into operational capability, funding is only the starting point.
China, for example, recognised this early. Its latest Five-Year Plan identifies quantum as a strategic priority. But crucially, it pairs that ambition with a focus on deployment, including building national quantum communication networks and accelerating commercialisation pathways. China’s strategy is backed by tight coordination between state, industry and academia.
The question is whether Britain can match that level of coordination and focus to secure national quantum advantage, or whether it risks repeating a familiar pattern of accelerating research while practical or commercial advantage is secured elsewhere and in other nations – as was the case with AI in the past decade.
From research programme to real-world capability
Britain is not starting from a position of weakness. It has world-leading quantum science and produces exceptional research and talent. The challenge is what happens next.
The UK has historically been strong at discovery, but weaker at turning scientific leadership into deployable systems, national infrastructure and sovereign capability.
We have seen this before, with British tech founded here and scaled elsewhere, such as DeepMind being acquired by Google. Without a shift in approach, there is a real risk that quantum follows the same path.
Part of the issue is that responsibility remains fragmented, meaning a lot of technologies with clear defence and resilience value risk remaining in the lab rather than being deployed at scale.
There is already a lack of sufficient quantum talent. McKinsey research found that there is only one qualified quantum candidate available for every three quantum job openings.
The gap extends beyond specialist engineers. There is a broader shortfall in quantum awareness across Whitehall and British boardrooms, where policymakers, executives and technical leaders will be responsible for turning investment into real-world outcomes.
Policymakers do not need to understand the finer details of quantum physics. In fact, the UK Quantum Skills Taskforce report shows that “most roles will not require deep expertise in quantum physics but will require some form of quantum knowledge or awareness,” and warns that “it is critical for industry to prepare for the adoption of quantum computing now, including understanding the skills they will require.”
Those responsible for national infrastructure and defence do need to understand how the technology will impact the systems they oversee. For defence, quantum technologies will underpin next-generation capability across secure communications, positioning and timing, intelligence, and operational effectiveness.
Energy networks, financial systems, defence supply chains and communications infrastructure will all be affected within the next few planning cycles. Yet the strategic expertise needed to guide critical decisions today remains limited.
There are simply too few people thinking at a strategic level about how to apply this technology and how to act on it. Without that understanding, decisions risk being made slowly, or incorrectly, at precisely the moment when speed and clarity are most important.
A matter of focus
Quantum is not a single technology. It spans computing, sensing and timing, and encryption, all of which will become greatly more accurate through quantum. Attempting to lead in all areas may risk diluting effort.
If the UK is to secure meaningful advantage, both economically and in defence capability, it must prioritise where it can genuinely lead.
One such area – and potential priority – is quantum compute, particularly in the development of quantum processing units. This is where a significant share of future strategic leverage is likely to sit. Done right, Britain could establish a position analogous to Nvidia’s dominance in GPUs, controlling a foundational technology that underpins entire industries.
Meanwhile, in areas such as quantum timing, the UK already holds leading intellectual property and a credible path to deployment.
Modern defence depends heavily on GPS for positioning and, critically, precision timing. But these signals are vulnerable to disruption, with real consequences for accuracy and coordination in conflict. Quantum timing changes that. By enabling ultra-precise, unjammable time signals, it removes a known weakness at the core of modern defence and critical infrastructure.
Yet these opportunities are not currently being treated as national capabilities.
A narrowing window
Quantum is a domain where early leadership may be difficult to reverse.
Once a country establishes a dominant position, it becomes increasingly hard to catch up., as China understands.
The UK now needs strategy, expertise and execution to convert that into operational advantage.
That means aligning government, industry and defence around clear priorities, accelerating the transition from laboratory breakthroughs to deployable systems, and creating the conditions for companies to scale and remain in the UK. It also means treating quantum as part of a wider national resilience framework, rather than as a research programme.
Air Marshal Andrew Turner, CB CBE is a senior defence advisor for Universal Quantum
