A Royal Navy Type 23 frigate is in the North Sea as part of efforts to protect underwater infrastructure following attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines.

HMS Somerset is working with the Norwegian Navy to reassure those working near the gas pipelines.

“The group condemned the blatant attacks against civilian infrastructure,” the MoD said on Twitter.

“A Royal Navy frigate is in the North Sea, working with the Norwegian Navy to reassure those working near the gas pipelines.”

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace met virtually with ministers from Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) partner nations to discuss attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines in the Baltic Sea, the following statement was subsequently released.

“Following the deliberate damage caused to the Nord Stream pipelines in the Baltic Sea, today Defence Ministers of the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) met virtually to share assessments of the blatant and irresponsible attacks against critical civilian infrastructure.

The JEF condemns in the strongest terms the reckless sabotage in the Baltic Sea. It is discussing security responses, including increased maritime presence and Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance activities. It will seek to deter further such acts, reassure allies and demonstrate collective commitment to the security and stability of the region. Ministers discussed increasing shared intelligence assessments to ensure common situational awareness, as well as cooperation to secure critical infrastructure. The JEF will ensure complementarity, alignment and transparency with NATO as well as the investigation led by Danish, Swedish and German authorities.

The JEF is a group of like-minded nations – Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom. The nations share the same purpose, values and a common focus on security and stability in the JEF core regions of the High North, North Atlantic and Baltic Sea region. The JEF provides a responsive, capable, and ready military force that undertakes integrated activities at sea, on land and in the air, across northern Europe. These activities are preventative and proportionate and demonstrate solidarity, capability, and resolve to stand together for security and stability in the JEF core regions.”

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace added:

“In this period of heightened concern for all like-minded partner nations, it is right that we act with speed, agility and collective resolve to actively demonstrate our shared commitment to mutual security.”

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

57 COMMENTS

  1. Er… while we would mostly agree it was deliberate, where’s the proof? I haven’t of any inspection results, so how he know and why has the guilty party not been named?

    • Well they dont just blow up by themselves, plus its not exactly an accessible area you can send an engineering team to take a look at short notice. Will take time.

      • Do they not? To be honest I haven’t got a clue, either way. They have highly flammable substance within them, a mistake could result in something metallic getting into the line and causing a spark I would think.

        What I don’t understand is who benefits from it and had the capability to do it.

        Obvious answer is Russia, but wouldnt it be easier for them to just turn off the supply. Ok they might want it to be less clear that it was them, but they would have known everyone/public opinion would blame them anyway, so no real benefit from not going the easier option. Maybe a test of a capability, but loops back to why risk it.

        Ukraine is the next potential option but I doubt they have the capability. Although they definitely have the motive to try and ensure europe doesn’t stop supporting them.

        Outside that various terrorist groups, but I would think that would be beyond them.

        It doesn’t really make sense to me.

        • I’d go down the route that it’s Russia trying to make it potentially look like it was the US. Possibly trying to turn allies against eachother?

          • I had considered it was a false flag operation, but to make that work they would need to leak other info to make it sound like it could be the US or another country, but I’m not aware of any such approach outside the explosion itself.

            Just confuses me as to why they did it, when it has no real benefit over just turning off the tap which would be far less expensive for them.

          • I’ve only heard some grumblings online about it but no actual evidence for it.

            The only reason I can think of is, the tap can just be turned back on should Europe fold and want gas from Russia again. A blown pipeline isn’t so easy so even if Europe wants to start buying gas again they can’t.

            With how bad it’s going to Russia on the ground at the moment, maybe they’re just throwing their toys out the pram and having a tantrum.

          • If the issue is that they might turn it back on again, then it would point to rogue elements in Russia rather than the government, since the government has absolute control over them taps. Not sure a rogue elements would have the capability to destroy underwater cables, that requires specialist equipment.

    • It was definetly sabotage. These pipelines are designed with extreme tolerances. They are exceptionally tough. Hence why Denmark and Sweden both state they detected explosions equal to around 550kg of TNT. You need to blow these pipelines up with a lot of explosive.
      So sabotage. Definitely. I think the rhetoric from Russia would have been much more angry and accusational to the west if in fact they had not done it. They would have sent inspection ships to survey the damage etc. The fact they havent says it all really.

      • But what’s in it for Russia? That’s the bit I don’t get. If they wanted to make it look like an accident than they would go through the motions of accusing the west and sending vessels etc. Not doing so makes them look guilty but if they wanted that why not just turn the pipe off, considering that’s in their power and would have a bigger impact.

        Not saying they didn’t do it, just that I don’t understand the logic.

          • So far everything Russia has done has been logical. I might not agree with the logic but I can see how they came to the decision. This doesn’t.

          • Why?

            I’m not saying I agree with this, as I don’t but the logic is sound to me

            Russian oligarchs had blead dry russian resources and Putin needed a new revenue stream to keep them in line. He thought that he had brought off western policticans (we know trump/Boris had been) and had control over europe with their oil/gas needs. He had tested the west by taking Crimea and it hadnt really reacted. Everyone thought that the Russian army would walk all over Ukraine’s. Plus biden was considered to be weak /indesive. It was a logical move, based on assumptions I probably would have made also at the time.

            He just didn’t count on internal corruption he had encouraged had meant that the armed forces were not vaguely prepared for it and that Boris had no principles and would change his view on a dime, sell his granny, if it meant him staying in power for another day, and the war gave him his Falklands opertunity. Biden turned out to be stronger than people thoughts and European unity had been strengthened by brexit. Plus ukraine got lucky early on with a few setbacks that meant the initial attack failed, who knows what would have happened if it hadn’t.

        • The US warned Russia would do this months ago, the reason is that they want sanction relief to fix the pipelines and claim they can’t be fixed without the sanctions being lifted. It’s the exact same story they used with the Turbine in nord stream 1.

  3. Would taking HMS Monmouth out of mothballs, fitting her out with basic surveillance equipment, man her with ex navy, offer a quick short term solution which would free up actual naval assets until the smoke clears, or the 2 new ships come on line

    • Does she not need a big refit?
      Probably better getting commercial ships quickly and get a few type 31/32 fitted out with the needed equipment to work with the commercial survey/surveillance ships. They have the mission bay and weapons. I’m not too sure these 2 ships the navy are talking about are armed.

        • Exactly my point. The folly of defence cuts is coming home to roost. There just doesnt seem to be any urgency getting new warships in service which are desperately needed now.
          HMG could do more.
          Speed up the glacial tupe 26 build.
          Shoehorn a further 2-3 ships into the type 26 build. Unit price mustve come down now Australia and Canada getting the type.
          Speed up type 31 programme and place firm follow up orders for future batches of type 32 and up the order. Get a full fat heavily armed type 31 derivative ordered with mk41 vls.
          MOD and HMG are asleep at the wheel. Its not as if there us a psychopathic madman in charge of a nuclear armed state nearby or anything.

          • Mr Bell, your da man!! I’m with you and I’m sure others too! If they can also add Mk41s onto the T45s, top up with some extra Merlin’s and upgraded Wildcats. Like the “full fat T31/32s, 5-8 of these could be useful, free up the rest of the fleet for other duties. Come on MOD – get a move on, be bold!!

          • Probably not helped by our fairly chaotic domestic political situation over the last 6-months. Hard to ask the prime minister for more cash for defence when for a couple of months we haven’t really had a prime minister.

        • Depends what did the damage. If it was a sub with divers, wouldn’t it need a sub hunter to be effective? A surface vessel doing it, would surely be better spotted by air assets.

          One vessel tells me it is a token PR measure to show they are doing something and not a serious reaction.

          • The Baltic isnt very deep- so a USV with a timed explosive charge deployed onto the pipeline would do the job. USV’s able to deploy a few charges along a pipeline and deliver a 500kg charge exist even now and can easily be deployed by one of Russia’s Baltic fleet vessels.
            They would only need a control console and the ability to launch over the side and that’s all. recovery- i guess would be needed unless the USV or self guided delayed charge torpedo was kamikaze.

    • Or tasking HMS Montrose, a fully functioning frigate otherwise slated for decommissioning, after her return from the Gulf? BTW, do either HMS Somerset and/or Montrose have a tail? Might prove a useful feature, if monitoring for sub-surface interlopers.

      • Makes more sense than refitting Monmouth, which is past the point of no return now. It would be too costly and protracted given the condition she is in. Logical to extend the life of an asset that is already in service while the ‘new’ vessel is prepared for her role. I think Somerset has a tail but Montrose (and Monmouth) are both GP T23s.

        • I will be pedantic here…the only difference between the equipment fits on Montrose and Somerset is the 2087 tail.
          Passive/LF Sub hunting using 2087 is the only difference. Both can use S2050/51 for sub hunting, Ceptor, 4.5, Helo, Artisan, EW etc. All the mechanical equipment is the same and the same quietening techniques are fitted such as rafts, enclosures for DG Sets etc.

          • Very interesting. If required, RN could have at least 3 additional effective ASW assets, for the price of a corresponding number of 2087 shipsets, plus the operational expense associated w/ a possible increase in numbers of sonar techs. Pretty decent cost/benefit trade-off, at least to the uninitiated.

          • I know! The question is are the T23s equipped with 2087 like Somerset inherently more suitable for this speific role or is it of little consequence? If the GP T23s are sufficient and those with 2087 better employed elsewhere then fair enough.

      • Somerset does , Montrose does not.

        Montrose will need a lot of work on her return. I have worked on her for the majority of her maintenance periods over the last 4 years whilst she has been away including the last one a few months ago.

        She will also be in need of a mandatory Lloyds Hull Survey on return.

        • Understood. Trying to read between the lines in your answer. Based on your professional experience, if money was made available, would Montrose merit a refit to sustain her for an additional period, or should she be released from duty?

          • Above my pay grade and an MOD decision.
            It could be done but it would cost a lot and take a fair amount of time to complete…probably 18 months start to finish. Another issue would be manning as the manning plot is calculated on current and future hull numbers. Suddenly adding another into the mix will give the Manning Co-ord a massive headache.

          • Thanks for timely answer. Eighteen month refit schedule and especially the unplanned/unscheduled manning requirement are the final nais in the coffin. Probably no workaround other than activation of naval reserve or making it a NATO project (including nanning). Both are low probability actions. Chile will be pleased w/ new addition to fleet.

          • It seems the Royal Navy doesn’t have spare capacity at the moment. Getting crews is a bit of an issue.
            If it could be done I would like to see an extra billion minimum for the navy. That would be for 2-3 extra type 31 with bow sonar, helicopter and crews. As it will take 5 years it leaves plenty time to get crews trained up (if they can find people).
            As much as it looks like the 5 type 31 are extra ships they are not. 8 type 26 and 5 type 31 to replace 13 type 23.
            Before someone says what about type 32, we don’t know what that will be and how many smaller boats they have to replace.
            In 10 years the navy is still going to be smaller than it is today.
            I think the RAF can manage with what they have and have planned for 10 years. The army I’m not even going there.

  4. The folly of defence cuts are now coming home. We could really use the 4 type 22s batch 3s prematurely scrapped and the 3 type 23s we sold to Chile right now.
    The speed of sjipbuilding and replacements needs to be massively increased and orders placed that rebuild the RN back upto a fleet of 26+ destroyers and frigates and 10+ SSNs. It can be done. Just needs some political will rather than incompetence.

    • We must have more than 1 frigate available. There must be others that are doing non essential activities that could be called back to support with a real threat. As they haven’t been, I assume the MOD isn’t taking the threat very seriously, which of course they will have way better intel on what happened than us.

      • We do have more than 1 available, but most are busy doing other work(eg JW), or in maintenance. I expect that this threat is being taken very seriously, but there is little point in shutting said stable door after the horse has bolted so to speak!

        • Horse might have bolted this time but there is still a stable full of them. The war is ongoing and this could easily happen again. if they were taking it seriously they would be sending more than 1 ship, considering how much damage could be done to our economy if the Norway pipe was targeted and just how big an area would need to be protected.

          • This most certainly could happen again, I believe it is being taken seriously.

            Most of our cable infrastructure runs E/W from the Bristol channel, whilst most of our oil/gas pipelines come ashore north of Aberdeen or further south around Hull. Its a vast area to police, our entire surface fleet if all available at the same time couldn’t cover it. So, a single T23 or a MROSS platform isn’t going to cut it either!

            You can’t keep a WS or a number of them on station ‘just in case’, it’s a waste of assets which we and other NATO members just haven’t got nor can we spare. I would imagine outside of a SM threat, airborne maritime assets (P-8/drones) may well be used to provide a constant real time picture over the areas should it be required.

          • Its the gas and electric interconnectors between the UK, Norway and Europe that are the key points. Putin must know this. If we have a problem over the course of the winter with these interconnectors things economically could get very troubling for the UK and mainland Europe.

          • Yes it’s a thorny issue for us, I’m not convinced that we could adequately police it all and stop anything happening. In fact, it’s probably an impossibility to keep an eye on all of it.
            One therefore must hope that things don’t get worse, or indeed we have the means to effect some rapid repairs should the need arise.

          • So with that thinking should the uk be working on retaliatory strike capability. Can the uk blow up essential pipes, cables etc of who ever does it first to the uk quickly and effectively.
            Ideally this is not the answer but maybe could be a deterrent if defending the infrastructure is difficult.
            On defence of these subsea assets some kind of drone submarines that could go up and down the length of the cable frequently checking for changes would be really useful. If perhaps a bit science fiction right now.

  5. Sorry to complain but it another old photo of a Seawolf T23 again! Copyright 2022 can’t be right either as aren’t all T23 upgraded or being upgraded by now? Happy to be wrong on all accounts…

  6. Another example where the decisions made yesterday are shown to be folly today.

    I would:

    1-Retain all Type 23s, reinstalling all ASW, Dragonfire and ASuW capabilities degraded over the years.

    2-Order additional squadron batches of Type 26s to increase numbers to ‘at least’ 20 units. Decommission T23s as the additional T26s commission into service. This approach would also sustain a continuous drum beat for high end frigates, one of the biggest errors governments stopped with the T23s in the 1990’s.

    3-Order additional batches of T31 and T32s to increase numbers to at least 12 or each type. Increase capabilities across batches: ASuW-ASW-AA. This, with the T26s, would result in ‘at least’ 44 frigates.

    4-Destroyers. 12 Type 83s in build now (a continuous drum beat… apologies for repeating!). Fit ASMs, Dragonfire, and dare I say it, the AS90 based 155mm gun canned in 2010 to existing and new builds.
    Once the drum beat exists, economies of scale will lead to lower subsequent costs; especially if a builder is nationalised/created (think royal dockyards of old).

    Of course, for underwater protection, the best platform for that is a submarine. Quite simply, more Hunter Killers are required (think ‘at least’ double) and a few diesel electrics wouldn’t go astray either (1-to-1 with the Hunter Killers).

    • That is a very expensive list. Would it be double/triple the numbers of crew needed in the navy?
      No doubt the other services would have a hissy fit at why aren’t they getting a massive increase.

      • Alternative is to learn Russian or Chinese.

        Defence of the realm is a fundamental responsibility of any government.

        The present naval, air and ground forces levels are hardly credible with respect to the likely adversaries. Some of the high costs experienced presently are due to the relatively low numbers ordered, over time, this would reduce with better bang for your pound. And, losing is more expensive.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here