The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has reaffirmed its commitment to developing uncrewed maritime and amphibious drone technology, emphasising its integration with crewed platforms as a key element of the Royal Navy’s future capabilities.
Responding to a written parliamentary question from Johanna Baxter MP on 24 February 2025, Defence Minister Maria Eagle outlined the UK’s approach to advancing unmanned systems for naval and amphibious operations.
Maria Eagle stated:
“Integrating uncrewed systems with our crewed platforms is a critical part of ensuring the Royal Navy can effectively respond to competition, crisis, and conflict in the future. Delivering uncrewed systems will feature heavily in the design specifications of the Multi-Role Support Ships – the next generation of amphibious ships to support the Commando forces.”
She further highlighted that the MOD is actively working with industry to assess the potential of these technologies, conducting trials and spiral development while incorporating lessons learned from the conflict in Ukraine.
The Multi-Role Support Ship (MRSS) programme is central to the Royal Navy’s plans to modernise its amphibious warfare fleet. These new ships, which will replace the Albion-class assault ships, Bay-class landing ships, and RFA Argus, are expected to play a key role in future amphibious operations and power projection.
Designed to accommodate a range of uncrewed and autonomous systems, MRSS vessels might feature:
- Well docks for deploying landing craft, amphibious vehicles, and unmanned surface vessels (USVs)
- Flight decks and hangars to support both helicopters and uncrewed aerial systems (UAS)
- Command and control suites for coordinating amphibious and littoral operations
- Flexible modular spaces for humanitarian assistance, troop transport, and combat operations
These ships will be integral to the UK’s future Commando forces, enabling rapid deployment of troops and equipment while integrating cutting-edge naval drone technology.
The MOD recently confirmed that the MRSS programme is progressing well through its Concept Phase, as outlined in a January 2025 update. The Royal Navy, in collaboration with Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S), is conducting detailed work on key user requirements, conceptual designs, affordability, and exportability assessments.
An Outline Business Case is expected by mid-2025, paving the way for the programme to transition into the assessment phase in 2026. The first MRSS is expected to enter service by 2033.
According to the MOD, the MRSS will renew the Royal Navy’s amphibious capabilities, ensuring global deployment and support for the Royal Marines.
The MOD say that it is actively assessing operational lessons from Ukraine, where uncrewed maritime systems have proven their effectiveness in modern naval warfare. The war has highlighted the growing importance of unmanned systems for surveillance, strike operations, and logistics, influencing the UK’s approach to integrating these technologies.
One would hope that this is one of the programmes that gets speeded up with the new money and we get the full 6.
Hopefully these turn into some form of true multi role ship as well and not just an old style minimalist amphibious assault vessel. The RN really needs 6 good sized combat capable mother ships for carting autonomous capabilities into hot combat zones as well as to act as raiding/amphs support vessels ( something that can provide some organic air defence as well as precision strike)
Yes you would think 6 of these and 5 T32/31 would be a no brainer with the uplift. My concern is the number of assholes(exclusively ex army) currently doing the rounds on TV saying that for an extra £6 billion a year all we are going to do is sit still and the BOAR had 60,000 soldiers in it don’t you know and we can’t possibly do anything without 110,000 regulars soldiers (Reserves don’t count don’t you know unless it’s Russian reserves which we double count)
This is specifically why the MOD doesn’t get more money all it does it piss it up the wall.
Everyone of these assholes was in charge of major budgets and procurement programs. Can you image the head of the NHS coming out and saying that even if you give us a real times over night increase of 12% we are not going to do any more operations.
I know none of these people still currently work for the military, however everyone of these “expert commentators” does nothing but damage the MOD credibility. It’s notable they are all ex army as well never RAF or RN who do go on to get more useful jobs in industry.
£6 billion in 1 year would pay for the entire T32 and MRSS program and still leave enough money for 20 F35B’s.
Agree re the Army cheerleaders.
There have been several planting stories in the media, especially the Telegraph, for years.
It’s all the Carriers fault apparently, but we shall ignore what our own CGS did around 2015 self mutilating our service in the rush for wheels to play wacky races to Tallin because the French were doing it in Africa.
I’m talking Strike.
The dismembering of an Armoured Brigade.
The mutilation of the two that survive.
Bringing Boxer forward while Ajax Challenger 3 WCSP, so the recapitalisation of our then substantial Armoured Division, which was mandated in 2010 SDSR as Army 2020, was underway and blowing the budget as it could not stretch to all.
Boxer was originally MIV to replace 3 Battalions of Mastiff HPM FROM 2027, after the others were completed and paid for.
The eradication of yet more CS CSS from the then 7 deployable Brigades A2020 had, including 3 Cdo, which has left only 4 now, and 2 Divisions in name only both deficient in several areas.
Oh yes, blame the other services.
A 10 billion plus Boxer program is currently scheduled to furnish only 4 out of 31 Battalions with a new Armoured vehicle, that is currently a retrograde step in the one it replaces.
An Army that mixed Ajax firepower on tracks, Boxer on wheels, while cutting HETs needed to move the former at speed and distance, and leaving the latter dispersed and un supported.
Oh yes, and cut it’s few rail enablers at the same time as moving the lot back to SPTA.
The head of which was now on TV the other day bemoaning.
Sure, it’s all the RNs fault.
What makes me really spit is that we could have recapitalised the army for a really the amount of cash that has been spent already…
The French have got or are getting..
2000 STANAG 4 , 25ton 6 wheel APCs
800 STANAG 4, 17ton 4 wheel APCs ( for air mobile forces )
200 modernised MBTs
300 armoured cavalry vehicles
650 infantry fighting vehicles
109 155mm self propelled guns all for 12.5 billion pounds (give or take )
For around the same money 11.5 billion the British army has ordered
150 MBTs
650 APCs
550 armoured cavalry vehicles
It’s a stark difference
Can’t we just retain our current existing LPDs? Cutting an existing capability to then try to replace it later at huge expense is folly.
Unless we sell Albion and Bulwark abroad and get over a billion for them both we shouldn’t do this.
Only leaves an 8 year capability gap if they get delivered on time….in this new age of increasing defence budgets can we not keep one of Albion/Bulwark available?
Let’s hope so. I don’t think scrapping 2 LPDS of only a few available in ENATO should be scrapped. They are key capabilities we should be retaining. Announcing their scrapping and likely selling to Brazil is absolute folly.
Has there been any clues announced where MRSS will be built? Given the timescales, both H&W and Govan are non-starters. Rosyth is possible. A&P/Laird’s perhaps. Another class assembled at Rosyth but with blocks built everywhere would be my guess.
Somewhere that has a gantry crane that can take life the blocks and large a dry dock for the size of ship.
Hopefully not Rosyth! I am still in hope for the stretched T31 design from Babcock to become the T32. Also depending on the size of them it mght need the bigger dock which is needed for the carriers. I think that H&W have enough dry dock capacity to build the FSS and MRSS (need to check that), but Laird is a real possibility with blocks built in several other locations and shipped to Liverpool. Did a quick check due to the possible beam of a MRSS being about 30-31m only number 5 dock wouldbe useable.
Rosyth is a non starter due to the Submarine decommissioning, the T31 build and the need to have the build dock available 24/7/365 for the QE carriers. Babcock have the contract till 2032.
TBH it’s all up in the air at present due to the SDR, the H&W fiasco and we need to get the FSS build going, once that’s done then someone needs to refresh the NSBS.
TBH they really need to get H&W at Belfast up and running with the FSS and then deal with the MRSS, it’s got all the facilities necessary in one place. They can block build using blocks from C&L, Appledore, A&P just like the QE’s were built.
So meanwhile IMHO and now that they actually have some money get Bulwark back up and running to plug the gap.
I’d not be so sure.
Some juggling will be done to make MRSS happen – of that I am sure.
It might mean that Babcock take a subcontract on the Belfast dry dock – not the H&W build dock but the other one that isn’t used that much.
The alternative is to build them on the flat outdoors/or indoors and use a bigger submersible barge to take them off.
With this sort of level of cash injection some creative thinking is called for to enable build paths.
Opening a fourth [fifth if you include Barrow] shipyard is not the answer.
I agree, get bulwark back and stretch the Bay class life out a bit until Belfast finishes the FSS.
If we are working with the Dutch on this we could ended up having some built in Holland.
It will be Belfast or Rosyth that assembles them from blocks that could be made elsewhere.
Absolutely no point in trying to get a fourth naval shipyard going when it is hard enough to get the manpower and *management* for three yards.
Much better off running three yards flat out and investing properly in them so they can keep updating panel lines, coatings and automated handling etc.
Agree, last thing we want is a fourth yard. New budget might be just enough for 3.
The headline isn’t supported by the statement. Nowhere does it suggest that personnel will be carried by UAVs.
It is taking a very long time to finalize the specifications of MRSS. The RN withdrew their idea from the 2022 10 year equipment plan, partly on the grounds of affordability. In the 2023 plan, it was re included ( contributing to the new £17b black hole). So over 2 years ago they had a clear idea what they wanted but are still working on it? If they’re so unsure what they need,, maybe they don’t need anything and the increased budget would be better spent on more necessary equipment: speeding up the frigate and AFV programmes, increasing GBAD and RAF combat aircraft numbers, getting the SSN fleet to sea, rebuilding lost MCM capabilities.
Sadly, I suspect the newly increased budget commitment will deliver little extra and will do no more than allow existing programmes to continue to IOC. Finally, if the RN couldn’t crew the Albions, why do they think they can crew their replacements?
The Albion’s have a massive crew requirement for engineers (60) which the RN is desperately short on. This is the main reason they are going. The MRSS will have a massive crew reduction via automation as well as organic aviation facilities which Albion’s don’t have.
With the new funds and a limited ability to spend them near term hopefully we see the Albion decision reversed. I understand scrapping frigates as they were f**ked and watchkeeper is now useless but the LPD’s are vital and still very capable.
If we are fighting any where it will be in Scandinavia or the pacific and in both instances with will need LPD’s. There is zero chance of us fighting a large tank battle as Russia has no tanks and we can only get to China by sea.
Jim I might have agreed except 2 days ago it was reported that Russia is producing 1000 tanks a year. Where they got that estimate from I do t know, maybe it isn’t true but I have no evidence to discard it either so can’t discount it. I am more confident about the lack of manpower that Russia can call on for some years with around half a million casualties, probably 200,000 + dead, a shortage of vital workers and popular discontent if a true nationwide mobilisation were invoked. Mind you it also concerns me what sort of manpower the likes of Britain, France and Germany could reliably call upon too for different reasons which is why the likes of Ukraine and Poland (and others on the front line) are so vital I feel.
The Pacific? Is that not far less likely now? If the US is not supporting us in Europe now not sure how we can be expected to support them in the Pacific even nominally I fear. One can’t to that though not sure what difference we can make is Australia and New Zealand if they too are greatly jettisoned by the US in an emergency. But as we were mostly powerless in WW 2 early on to help much just don’t know what that could be in effect now.
Hi 1000 that’s a lot more than I’ve heard I thought capabilities were around 100 new builds a year then modernise around 200 so 300 a year.
MRSS does not replace the Albions.
They were cut.
That’s like saying F35 replaced Harrier and Sea Harrier and the Typhoon replaces the Buccanear.
Both were removed to save money in short sighted cuts.
MRSS replaces the Bays and Argus, and we’d better get more than 3.
I think 6 is guaranteed now as it was top on navy shopping list and they don’t have much more to add other than 5 T32/31 from the wish list. The RAF and navy are likely to get a big piece of the new pie as both can show clear plans of what to spend it on, how that will generate lots more jobs in labour constituencies and how it will directly make the UK safer. The treasury will be pissed about having to spend the new money, they won’t be in the mood for seeing it spaffed up the wall on new four letter acronyms programs the army thinks it wants.
The army can’t recruit enough to meet the 72,000 it has authorised now. It can hardly tell anyone with a straight face that it can go up to 100,000. The Army has generated zero UK exports and is 100% reliant on foreign contractors to provide all its equipment, the three factories it has on UK soil all doing assembly work for foreign contractors already have a decades worth of orders and all its helicopters come from the USA so no chance of getting any more.
To be fair, the loss of Land industrial isn’t the Army’s fault.
The MCMV motherships, phase 2 of MCMV autonomous, and MROSS 2 are also needed.
On the Army, yes. As I’ve mentioned often, I’d rather see it sort itself out at it’s current level, or with a small establishment increase, than any great expansion.
That means CS CSS and an ORBAT that is balanced and makes sense for what we already have.
But agree it doesn’t help the Army’s case.
If you gave army £13Bn they would waste it on a huge establishments and a small number of exquisite projects that never quite come to production and get cancelled.
Or they would waste it on buying piles of American kit that has no UK defence industrial boost.
Hi M8, I have a funny feeling that the MCMV and MROSS may be wrapped up in a deal with Norway as they are going standardised ships but flexible ships which can do OPV, Survey and UAV MCMV and will based on either a VARD or Kongsberg design. Google Norwegian Navy Standardised Ships.
I may be wrong but a work offset for the T26 would make sense as we would end up with both our high end and low end vessels standardised on both sides.
Funny thing is most of Kongsberg designs are based on the RR commercial marine ones they acquired when they bought it. Norway tends to build strong, ICE hardened, reliable ships with excellent Sea keeping in the Northern Seas so a good fit for us.
IMHO the worst thing we could do is plop for a version of the NL/BE/FR City class motherships or even worse let MOD set up a fancy letter project and design the thing into the ground with a Gold plated hybrid and then find we can only afford 2.
For God’s sake, please no.
Yes, going with Norway.
Hi Jim, I don’t actually see us being in a position to do much with MRSS till FSS gets going and that’s down to the workload across the remaining industry. One thing we should learn from the Bulwarks is that they were Gold plated with a Cherry on top, whereas the Bays are one of best value and flexible platforms we’ve had in decades.
If it were me I’d go for a large flexible, lean crewed LPD with a heli deck, hanger and plenty of generating power, nothing fancy but build 6 of them and equip just 2 with command facilities. In fact I’d just go with a modern version of the Damien Enforcer design (that’s what the Bays are).
If we let the RN/BAe/Babcock or BMG near it they will waste a lot of money on options, fancy lettered projects and in the end be able to afford very little. Whereas we know the Dutch design very good ships that just work.
What do you think as an interim capability going for something like the original Littoral Strike Concept with a large ferry based platform. Maybe even get the two original point class that were paid off back and use them.
I agree we need to avoid the gold plate for something as simple as an amphibious platform.
I think RN has plenty on its shopping list.
MRSS as you say
T32 as you say
Piles of A30 and CAMM [+variants]
NSM stockpiles and maybe more launcher sets for T26 to provide missile mass and load-out with a medium price missile system
Merlin numbers?
Various munitions for Merlin etc
A heavy weight drone program with *munitions*
Ramping up the mine warfare and deep sea infrastructure protection program….lots to do there and real needs/drivers
Something to put in all those nice Mk41 VLS that we are buying
Change all the 30mm to 40mm on the new ships as they come into service
Figure out what to do with T45 4.5″ gun system – museum? – and then what?
ARTISAN upgrade pathway for all T26 and QEC [10 sets]
1850 upgrade pathway to SMART-L for all eight sets [6 x T45 and 2 x QEC]
RM equipment program – quite essential as they are the pointy bit of the spear.
If we can replace Crowsnest, we can get all the ASW Merlins back for the next decade and concentrate on the replacement rotors. I think with both the NATO next gen rotor under assessment, and the possibility of selling a lot of Merlins to the Norwegians, I wouldn’t jump to order any for us just yet.
When someone said that Leonardo were looking to offer Merlins as a package with the T26 to Norway, I loved it, because have you read the Norwegian helicopter requirements? They have three: ASW, special forces, and military transport. If they can afford a second type for special forces that’s preferable, but otherwise, all three requirements should be met with the same helicopter. Within helicopters in general, the following order of priority is recommended: Anti-submarine helicopters, helicopters adapted for special forces operations and medium-duty transport helicopters. We all know that Merlins can do ASW and transport, and they can also fit into the Norwegians plans to upgrade all their Coastguard ships to have helicopter capability, so there’ll be an increased S&R requirement and it’s not like AW101s don’t already do that in Norway for the Air Force.
It may not be ideal for special forces insertion, even though the Italians have used a variant that way, but it’s pretty awesome for everything else. Yeovil may be on to a real winner.
Hi Daniele it really depends how many are ordered and who runs them also what capabilities they have.
The old capability
2 commissioned warship, Amphibious warfare vessels, command and control capabilities.. 3 company size intervention . 67 vehicles and 8 landing craft
3 logistics landing craft, auxiliary not commissioned ( some people refuse to accept or acknowledge the massive legal limitations on this.. there is a reason the US does not have auxiliary amphibious vessels). No command and control only 1 landing craft.
1 role 3 and auxiliary aviation ship.. no landing craft no command and control
Essentially whatever we may pretend and however well the RN have used them the bays and Argus are not amphibious warfare ships.. they are logistics vessels that have a limited over the beach logistics capability and a flight deck and 3 with limited well deck.
So it’s 6 very disparate vessels that have all been scrapped or forced into roles they were not for.
So what capacity did the RN really have to deploy
1 amphibious vessel delivering 2-4 company amphibious capability via 8 ship to shore vessels
1-2 auxiliary mothership logistics vessels that can house a company and do other general tasks
So 6 MRSS vessels could fill those boots
If they are all ( all 6)
1 RN commissioned warships with full warships spec and full command and control able to house a company or Two with 2-4 ship to shore vessels. Essentially 2 of these would acting together deliver slightly better than a Albion
2) they all have a good fight deck and well deck with crane for autonomous vessel.. when not doing amphibious warfare they can do what the auxiliaries did.
The only thing we may loss is logistics vehicle lanes.. but this would be where getting a good strategic sea lift replacement comes in.
Surely we need these to be through decks a la mistral america class. They would provide more adaptability as drones develop into the future as well as distributed slots should a carrier have issues
We need them to be cheap so we can get 6, they will also have to have their own organic missile capabilities for defence which does not sit well with a through deck design.
We already have two massive through deck aviation ships. I don’t think we need any more.
I think the Point Class might indicate the direction of travel – conversions of commercial ro-ro designs. Big and cheap. MV Ocean Trader
They are very badly suited for trade protection. Too large. Escort carriers were developed for a reason.
Also…. only 2 through-decks necessary? That is madness. We need a minimum of 4. By all means accept we can and will never get to that number, but treating the current number as optimal is insane.
I agree we need to think a little different and flexibly just afford to have one trick ponies even if in theory they can cover the carriers, just nota remote priority as nice as it would be and just start to become further big expensive targets with little utility in a shooting war.
Even the US has had considerable thoughts and re thoughts and doubts over just what is expected or is practical with the Americas with substantial changes initiated after the first two reflecting that.
Personally I think they should go with a 15,000 ton hull that has the defensive capability of a patrol frigate and precision strike option ( 57-76mm gun, CAMM, NSM) a good well deck and flight deck, capacity for a company level amphibious opp as well as acting as a autonomous vessel mother ship.
What’s the point of that we don’t have sufficient numbers of Helicopters as it is.
Agree – a through-deck design would offer the best flexibility to line up helicopters to send off an airborne assault wave, like with HMS Ocean. Alas, I suspect the RN will be averse to anything that might even remotely be seen as a cheap alternative to the two carriers, so I suspect MRSS is going to end up being something like a scaled-up Absalon-class ship. i.e. Frigate at the front, transport at the back.
Surely not – Even in Avatar, they had pilots!
🤔 I think the theme with futuristic sci-fi movies and serials is that without humans prominently involved they might get a little unwatchable to the target audience, not to mention the need to make sure humans have a role in the various brave new worlds positive or negative. I remember in Startrek how the old human saviour had to take over from the ship’s computer to negotiate a meteor field or similar equally complex dangers quite regularly. Asking ChatGpt 4 to take over doesn’t quite have the same effect on the watchers’ psyche or give the right message, despite in reality it could probably do it far more accurately… especially in the future.
Personally I think we should commission a number of the thunder-child, ironclad torpedo ram class, the only ship known to kill alien tripods on a 2-1 ratio
New ship’s that’s all well and good , however do think the RM would like to keep our two LPDs. It would be a welcome decision to keep them and wise. 🤔
By the time they enter service they will more likely be using drones to deliver drones.
My main worries re the RN now centre around the fact that we have bought ships tailored to the cold war out of area/global policing role which is (or should be) secondary to hot war/high intensity conflict. This means that we have combatants with poor sonars if they have a sonar at all and no onboard ASW weapons excepting the helicopters. Even the Type 26s do not have an onboard ASW weapon of any kind if their helicopter(s?) conk out or the sea state is too bad to launch and recover them. There is talk of giving Type 26 an ASW standoff weapon – that needs to happen soon and be more widely deployed and we should refit other platforms with better ASW sensors and at least torpedo tubes (better still also an anti torpedo weapon) soon.
The carriers are now absolute White Elephants with the sole realistic justification being Falklands deterrence/recapture. There is no way we are ever going up against China on its home turf and if they make it here our main concerns will be ASW and sea denial, not projecting power. In the event of a war the carriers would be a very high priority target and would most likely be destroyed in port as we have seen with Russian ships within range of Ukrainian standoff weapons. At sea there is now the possibility of losing squadrons of F-35s with these platforms that would be far more survivable dispersed on land. Our F-35Bs currently do not have any air to surface standoff weapon. Spear Cap 3 is on the way, but there are no plans that I know of to order NSM for them.
On the subject of bases, all of our three major naval bases should have at least one Sky Sabre system covering them. Poland has ordered at least 37 of an upgraded version of Sky Sabre and we have just announced we are going from five to nine, two of which are permanently based in the Falklands. Even with Sky Sabre, drones operated covertly from nearby are a real threat which has been demonstrated by one landing on one of the carriers whilst in dock. I don’t know what the answer to maritime platform survivability in port is, but on the plus side, European NATO can sink all of Russia’s surface assets and many of their submarines in port if they have to.
On a positive note, the ASW drone idea looks great, although I don’t know how it would work with international maritine law. Could Chinese commercial vessels just rock up and “salvage” them?
If the US pulls out from Europe our carriers become more relevant than ever in the reinforcement role particularly in the high north. However, your comments about the weakness in our carriers is well founded but is much more to do with a lack of funding to equip them properly with suitable self defence capabilities, escorts and support vessels.
As for dispersal of F35s on land as was done with the harriers that is unrealistic given their reliance on extensive support and maintenance facilities so they are far more vulnerable based at Marham than on an airfield that can move several hundred miles a day.
Whilst I do agree with you that carriers do seem vulnerable to stand off weapons and mass drones attack it seems proponents of land based AirPower do not seem to recognise the same equally applies to their fixed and largely unprotected airfields.
The revolution in warfare is likely in my opinion to see far more than just carriers consigned to the history books.
They also become very useful for ENATO power projection if the US leaves. ENATO already has millions of men and thousands of tanks but it can’t carry out operations past the eastern Mediterranean.
Even with a resurgent Russia the greatest threat to European security is still someone cutting shipping lanes in the Middle East and Indian Ocean.
The US won’t pull out of Europe. Have you seen or heard of a single asset that has been packed up and shipped back stateside? Nope me neither.
At the end of the day, mighty as the USA is, its military forces cannot deal with China alone and the mischief that will play out if all of the USN is centred around Taiwan and all the other marginal players are doing the silly beggars routine.
So USA need an alliance to help it. Trump is a dealmaker at heart. A very strange approach maybe but there is madness in the method [or is that the wrong way round?]. As a dealmaker Trump will know that it would be vastly more expensive to create NATO2 than to keep with it and marginally change its brief. Which is basically how the next stage of this will play out.
I do think we tend to forget that we in Europe aren’t the only close Allies the US has and for that matter we aren’t always the largest or most capable either. If the US goes toe to toe with China they will not be alone, they will have the Australians, S Korea and Japan with them and when you put that together it’s a lot of weight.
For example between them they have more SSK than China which when you add them to the USN SSN’s makes a very potent force.
And what could Europe actually do ? Best case we can send nothing more than a token force and that would take a while and need supporting. IMHO the best thing we could do is stare down Russia and let the US and local partners deal with China, which is funnily enough where Trump seems to be heading.
You are right he is deal maker and has had 4 years to perfect a game plan to frighten the living daylights out of Europe and force us to actually spend our money rather than theirs.
He is absolutely right we have collectively been taking the P|$$ out of the US for 25 years, he can read a spread sheet and it’s pretty shocking when you consider the facts and stats.
If you put the population of Europe together (exclude Turkey) and include Ukraine there are 556 million of us, 340 million Yanks and just 140 million Russians.
In terms of money our combined GDP equates to $23.67 trillion and 2.5% is $591 billion which is ample for us to defend ourselves (US defence budget is $916 billion). And we wonder why he is angry with us and 2.5% may be a very interesting figure to get to.
I’d be really surprised if he isn’t very amicable to Starmer tomorrow, after all we are already the 3rd largest oa spender in NATO and have upped it a bit more as well. And we also buy quite a bit of kit from them and need to add / modernise / replace some of it, so I will not be surprised if AUKUS, F35, M270, P8 and E7 don’t get a mention somewhere along the line.
But if I were a betting man I’d say Germany is about to get a very strong nudge and Italy, Spain, Portugal and above all Canada get a hell of a nasty shock and I don’t think he will wait till June at the NATO summit to do it.
And somewhere along the way there is zero chance of him missing out Ireland as they are trying to hide away and make money !
In really most of the US pacific allies will be removed from the board very quickly.
South Korea is the classic, because you can guarantee China will use North Korea to remove South Korea from the wider geopolitical picture. Japan is the interesting nation. China will probably try to remove and isolate Japan from the US and if it’s not successful I suspect it will use a large part of its Ballistic missile arsenal to do very significant damage and it will keep going until Japan agrees a peace deal. We would forget at our peril that Japan has one of the very worst sets of generational trauma of any nation.. they may find their warrior spirit or be forced to fold by an overwhelming and completely ruthless enemy that in reality hates their guts ( china has neither forgotten or forgive Japan and would show zero restraint to knock it out any war).
In the end China has overwhelming local force in the western pacific, Taiwan has warned that when it decides to go it will use strategic surprise and probably overwhelm day one force on the western pacific.. its got about 2400 ballistic missiles and there is good evidence it’s practicing a day one BM version of shock and awe..we forget that the bulk of the US strength is probably 1-2 months away from the western pacific and if it’s not careful by the time it’s ready to send in its eastern pacific forces there will not be a lot left.. Chinas plan is a mutual bloodbath to shock its enemies into peace negotiations or if that does not work grind them in years of suffering until they give in. The US needs Europe to help grind down china economically and isolate it across the world before China collapses the US populations will to fight through suffering..
The only deal Trump wants is where America wins, irrespective that it has at long last highlighted to the public the need for more defence here. The US are a completely unreliable partner at present whether they still have assets here or not. It’s a zero sum game with Trump, no principles. He’s not a deal maker, he’s a profiteer carpetbagger.
The only deal Trump wants is where America wins, even if it is only a perceived win. The US are a completely unreliable partner at present whether they still have assets here or not. It’s a zero sum game with Trump, no principles. He’s not a deal maker, he’s a profiteer carpetbagger.
Drone marines? Whatever next. More blah blah backed up by nothing. SNAFU. The UK is banjaxed.
We can argue about kit and capabilities until the cows come home. We need people in uniform to staff it. First thing they need to do is make it financially worth it for people to stay in. Conditions also needs addressing. No more reviews and committees action is required now.
This is all very well, but remains academic unless we get some hulls in the water.
Despite Starmer’s lack of frankness, it now seems clear that the increase AFTER FORECAST INFLATION amounts to around £5/6b per year by 2027. Since defence inflation normally runs higher than general inflation, the increase may deliver very little additional capability. The funding demands of DNE/ AUKUS and Tempest could reduce the effect of the increase even further. Better than a freeze or cut but perhaps not much.