The Royal Air Force has recently deployed to the Indo-Pacific, participating in Exercises Griffin Strike 24 and Pitch Black 24, demonstrating the UK’s commitment ‘to maintaining a credible and reliable presence in the region’, according to a press release.
In early July 2024, six RAF Typhoons and an RAF A400M were deployed, joining NATO Allies and partners in these exercises.
Wing Commander Robertson, the commanding officer of the deployed RAF detachment, stated, “The exercise [Griffin Strike 24] has demonstrated the ability of the Combined Joint Expeditionary Force to plan and conduct combined projection of Air Power at distance. It underlines the capability of Air Forces to act together in an integrated manner to protect our interests and reassure allies whilst deterring potential aggressors.”
Griffin Strike 24 showcased the capability of the Combined Joint Expeditionary Force to project Air Power over long distances. The RAF detachment flew nearly 9,000 miles, from France to the Middle East, then on to Singapore, and finally to Australia, providing vital training for both the RAF and other participating Air Forces.
The deployment also highlights the UK’s ability to support a persistent presence in the Indo-Pacific region when needed.
Following Griffin Strike 24, the RAF will take part in Exercise Pitch Black 24, which runs from July 12 to August 2. This year’s iteration is the largest in the exercise’s 43-year history, involving 20 international participating nations, over 140 aircraft, and nearly 4,500 personnel.
Organised by the Australian Air Force, Exercise Pitch Black focuses on large force employment missions and integrates some of the most advanced air combat capabilities in the world. Allies including Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United States also participate, further strengthening international military cooperation.
What would China bring to the bun fight?
There just not enough platforms and uniforms across the services to be credible. You have to wonder what this Defence Reviw will bring.
Lord Robertson coined the phrase the deadly quartet, which suggests he sees Russia, China, Iran and North Korea as a grouping, and John Healey was next to him when he said it, so I don’t believe it’ll be a simple retrenchment to fortress Europe. Dr Fiona Hill is a Russia expert who is really anti-Putin. She also waxes lyrical about the knock-on effects of Russia on countries in Asia. General Barrons is no less hawkish, not only talking from day one about NATO forces in Ukraine, he also advocates multiple strikes against the Houthis until they give in.
These are the team that will lead the review. Fluffies they are not! Robertson’s 1998 review is often regarded as the last reasonable review defence had. The biggest fly in the ointment is the Chancellor, who has made sure that the Treasury will be “notably” represented, and has ruled the overall Defence budget (the timing of the 2.5%) out of scope. Lord Robertson earlier this year testified to one of the select committees that the Treasury typically block things rather than enable them. I am minded of Churchill’s advice: when forming a war cabinet the first step is to send the Treasury packing. Let’s hope the Chancellor will prove more reasonable and imaginative in her treatment of this review than Gordon Brown was to Lord Robertson’s last attempt.
The nuclear deterrent needs to move back under the Treasury; dumping it into the MOD budget as happened under Cameron, was a cheap shot, underhand defacto budget cut. I have read (willing to be corrected) that the nuclear deterrent alone chews up 13% of the overall defence budget – what we could with that money if this was reversed – even more could be accomplished with a further uptick to 2.5% of GDP.
As for the new defence review, I like Lord Robertson and I think he and his team are sincere but Starmer needs to override the Treasury as we know, no matter which party is in power, HM Treasury loathes paying for anything defence related!
Don’t forget he transferred the military pension to the MoD as well. A not small pot of liability. So the effective reduction in GDP was far greater. Something I would call ‘creative accounting’. And very damaging.
Always respected Fiona Hill’s assessments. Is she returning to the UK? Or is she a prospective member of the Strategic Review committee? Recommend close attention to her recommendations.
I don’t know. I’m not sure if she doesn’t already divide her time. She took up the post of Chancellor of Durham University last year as well as remaining a Senior Fellow at the US Brookings Institute.
Huh, so the bottom line of the review will probably be something akin to: We (UK) should really consider actually rearming, pending HMG Treasury approval, which surely will not be forthcoming? A truly magnificent and inspiring SR outcome for the benefit of the forces! 😉😳😱🙄
👍👍🤞🤞
Good post.
I’m reassured by the details of those leading, retreat is one of my greatest worries.
In 97, the review, while still containing cuts, was good, until the floor was dropped in by HMT and force numbers started dropping.
A “good” 2024 review means nothing if HMG don’t honour it.
Could China deploy 6 jets to Western Europe? Nope.
Your point is?
They don’t need to; sometimes Robert you are hopeless.
China goes on the attack, cuts off Western SLOCs and Britain is stuffed. Puts Chinese jets into Pskov and suddenly the Baltics are under threat with additional jets deployed to Kaliningrad to upset central Europe.
Chinese forces are superior in numbers although, perhaps not in quality or pilot experience; you’ll not need to be reminded of Stalin’s adage.
You’ll also know that the Chinese sailed a few warships up the English Channel the other day…
And, evidently, ChiCom PLA joint exercises w/ the Belorussians? Remember that individuals on the site questioned my contention that all branches of the PLA were capable of metastis to other locales. May only be a brief time before permanent presence in the Arctic, Antarctica, Europe, Middle East, South America, etc. The ChiComs will be coming to a body of water and airspace near you, relatively soon. Guaranteed. 🤔😳😱
… metastasizing…🙄
100% Robert brings experience and passion to this site but, the British Armed Forces are not what they are.
I love these little made up war scenarios. China has zero experience of combat. They haven’t even dropped some bombs on terrorists in the desert. Nothing. Rip off copy cat equipment and poor training. They would seriously struggle to take Taiwan, let alone anyone else.
Robert,
Completely understand your points re PLA equipment, training and recent warfare experience. However there are countervailing facts, principally: ~2.185M (active duty), ~1.170M (reserve components), 660K (paramilitary). Additionally the capability to conscript perhaps additional scores of millions. “Quantity has a quality all its own.”. The ChiComs could, and perhaps would, amp up Orc human wave tactics, as if on steroids.
Equipment may indeed not match Western standards, but the quantities are sobering, especially when extrapolated over the next decade. PLAN already has more warships than USN. Again: “Quantity has… its own.”
Bottom line: Believe it is imprudent, if not dangerous to under estimate as significant a potential opponent. Personal estimate is that the West collectively may not be able to defeat solely w/ conventional weapons.
Of course they could. Your attitude is the main reason they don’t. The bigger they can grow without disturbing Europe, the more advantage they have.
My attitude?? Please explain how China can deploy and sustain capable forces very far from home? The attitude is presuming they are somehow manically fantastic and capable. They are not. The lack of real-world combat experience would be on display very quickly indeed. People big up Russia and still do, yet ignore the hard facts on display for the world to see. They are pretty much useless. They can’t defeat a neighbour with pretty much zero Navy or Air Force capability. Lost hundreds of thousands of men for what gain? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
How can China deploy (capable) forces far from home? It can use its own military bases such as those in Djibouti or Cambodia, or it can be hosted by its BRIC friends, or others for example Pakistan. Its warships do deploy far from home, running FONOPS off Alaska and almost continually patrolling the west coast of South America since 2016. I’m sure you know Chinese ships have also exercised with Russia and Iran off South Africa in recent years, right? And what about the Chinese ship that turned up to the Tongan International Fleet review a couple of weeks ago?
If you are asking do they have the ships and the manpower, the answer is clearly yes. They are the world’s largest shipbuilders. They have military transport and logistics ships and planes too, with the Y-20 currently targetting foreign sales. You used the word capable in your question, as though even if deployed, the Chinese military would be somehow incapable. There is no evidence to suggest that, quite the contrary.
At the moment China only flexes its muscles in its own back yard, but its growing capability can certainly go further afield whenever China is ready. In large numbers.
Jon,
Concur, quite concerned re balance of forces, unless/until West becomes serious re rearmament. 👍👍
The enemy, obviously.
The question is what rate western jets could down PLAN jets? -Or possibly face a Mitsubishi Zero moment as per WW2 when we racistly dismissed the Japanese, only to find the Zero better than most of our fighters at the start of war with Japan.
If the RAF had 500+ active combat aircraft, i.e. like in the 1980s, I would have no problem sending some to distant shores. But with the current state of only around 100 this seems foolhardy. Coningsby in particular does not have a large headcount of active combat aircraft since it is also the host for OCU and the cooperation squadron. Southern AD must be fairly thin as a result.
The RAF do get around considering we have so few aircraft these days. Great effort on there part, would be nice if HMG order some more Typhoons like German have done but I don’t think that will happen 🙄
Unfortunately it will take the U.K. too long in closing the stable door, especially when they removed the hinges on one side, propping up the side with no hinges takes more materials and bodies than we seem able to afford or want because of our failure on financial planning
‘Royal’ Australian Air Force – I thought a UK magazine would get that right!
Would they not be better employed flying round this country?
Maybe the lessons delivered by the wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Ukraine have not been learned by the West. A great deal of traditional, expensive, military hardware was rendered useless against an almost invisible enemy who blended with the local population. That same hardware is now being rendered obsolete on more traditional battlefields (as in Ukraine) by less expensive hardware that can be operated by clever video-games players. Just watch a recent-model tank being destroyed by an FPV drone that cost €1k. The UK spent a fortune on two, hydrocarbon fuelled aircraft carriers that have limited autonomous range and are sitting ducks for the latest drone and missile technology. It cannot afford to give them a full complement of aircraft, although that might be a blessing because it would reduce the financial loss if the carriers were destroyed in combat. The crucial factor in any war is now who has the most sophisticated electronic hardware and devices/platforms that exploit an electronic advantage. As long as Western Nations build their latest inventions in China, they give that technology to the Chinese. The road to national security and economic survival starts with manufacturing almost everything at home. Every time a Brit buys an MG car, he damages the UK economy and he pays people in China to copy our latest tech and make the people who invented it bankrupt. The extent of the collapse in the UK military is displayed Monday to Friday on flightradar. Eurofighters play war games with civilian, low-tech adversaries flying from Teesside operating at intercept and kill ranges that are way below the capabilities of the latest radars and missiles. We (in the West) need to up our game massively. The nuclear deterrent only works as a threat. But it is a threat that cannot be implemented because almost destroying the planet is a worse option than defeat in a conventional war. So we need really effective, non-nuclear weapons and military personnel in credible numbers. We have a choice; reduce our disposable income to fund a very large defence budget or be prepared to be overwhelmed economically and physically by hostile actors.
DM