The UK will scale back permanent military deployments in the Indo-Pacific and concentrate its defence posture on NATO, according to evidence heard at the Defence Committee this week.
General Sir Richard Barrons, one of the lead reviewers behind the recent Strategic Defence Review (SDR), told MPs on Wednesday that the UK is “too thinly spread” and must refocus its Armed Forces on their core NATO deterrence role, especially in Europe.
“The review is really clear in resolving this under the umbrella of NATO First,” said Barrons. “We looked very carefully at what NATO asks the UK to do in making its contribution to the alliance… the Royal Navy is going to focus on the Atlantic bastion: the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap.”
Pressed by Labour MP Derek Twigg on whether this shift would mean “much less in Asia-Pacific”, General Barrons confirmed it would.
“For the Navy, that is the Atlantic bastion,” he said. “For the Army, it is a SACEUR strategic reserve corps — one of only two, France being the provider of the other; and for the Air Force it is its role in the NATO air component.”
“If you commit to that, and accept that deterrence is a 24/7 activity, you are not going to regularly station force elements — ships, tanks, aircraft — in the Indo-Pacific.”
While the UK has increasingly focused on the Indo-Pacific in recent years, sending HMS Queen Elizabeth in 2021 and HMS Prince of Wales this year, Barrons said this engagement would rely more on “strategic communications” than permanent military presence.
Citing a conversation with the commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, Barrons told MPs that the United States does not see much value in UK forces being based in the region.
“In conversation with the officer who runs Indo-Pacific command for the US, he said it does not really help to have UK forces permanently stationed in the Indo-Pacific region, because he has a lot of stuff,” Barrons explained. “But it is really helpful if, as we are seeing now, the carrier group makes a sortie there about every four years. It sends a really important signal to opponents and friends.”
Instead, the UK will prioritise contributions through “diplomacy, technology and training” rather than a sustained physical footprint.
Pressed further by Twigg on whether this meant focusing on Europe and not trying “to do lots of things in different parts of the world”, Barrons replied: “In terms of what we do with our forces, absolutely.”
The UK’s Future Force posture under the SDR includes expanded stockpiles, new drones, deeper NATO integration, and an emphasis on rebuilding homeland resilience. The review’s shift away from global force projection toward collective deterrence marks a significant realignment of British military priorities. The Defence Committee’s hearing formed part of ongoing scrutiny of the SDR, with further sessions scheduled in the weeks ahead.
‘He would, wouldn’t he.’
I’m getting more and more pissed off with the negative attitude and rhetoric towards our nation and the British armed forces. if we didn’t have a preference, they’d be saying that we’re not doing enough
If the British armed forces had a better punch then it could both look after its backyard AND contribute to the Indo Pacific situation. What is happening here, for those who can’t read between the British understatement, is that the US admiral and the RN admiral is kindly telling the Committee that the British barely have enough to nail down the backyard from Russian aggression, so any attempt to work in the IndoPac (and against a much more capable enemy) is a waste of scarce resources which would be better spent securing Europe.
Face the facts: is a Type 45 pre-Aster 1NT and with no CEC going to be as capable as a Burke with SM3 against a salvo of DF26s? No. So what is a River going to do in the IndoPac, other than get in the bloody way?
In other words, the admirals are saying “You’re biting off more than you can chew, sort yourself out mate!”
The US is pulling it’s focus from Europe to south east Asia because it doesn’t have the numbers to do both and is focused where it economically mesns the most to them. Don’t see any problem with the UK doing the same
the U.S IS Developing A PARANOIA COMPLEX TOWARDS CHINA in the same way as during the in the cold war. but apart from showing ambition and rattling off a few odd comments, china has done nothing to warrant the American phob9a
China is a direct threat to their world leadership and therefore economic power. If they lost the ability to bully other nations into doing what they wanted their economy would get hit. The irony is trump has managed to make Europe rethink it’s reliance on the US and so has done more to weaken it than china has.
china is also an easy excuse to blame the wealth inequality in the US on, it’s all china fault the jobs have gone.
I used to think like this, but I have gradually realised after the shock of Vance’s Munich speech that the US has big problems on its hands. It makes sense for the UK to focus on the North Sea and North Atlantic. We spend about twice as much servicing our national debt as we do on defence now, and things will only get worse.
I wouldn’t take offense, the US is saying UK’s role should be to counter russia and support nato so the US can move more stuff to the pacific. If the US goes to war with china, europe will be on their own against russia. Thats just reality and its what the US has been trying to say. The US cant fight in the pacific and europe at the same time.
the Americans MUST BE TOLD that we will do what we want to do and not what they say about that the sheer arrogance of the U.Zs towards the allies should be challenged and they must be told, stay out of other nations business on issues such as OUR MILITARY,ITS MAKEUP AND USE.FUNDING ET AL
The idea that we focus on our local parish makes sense as we’re not made of money and we don’t have any direct interests in the area. We can find other ways to help our allies in the area e.g. as we have we are doing with AUKUS and GCAP.
That said, it feels like the Americans look at us as a vassal state and exist only to serve American strategic (and economic) interests, not least a war with China which has become an increasingly weird obsession for them.
Welcome to the World post war however much it was hidden. Trump sadly is just the principle on steroids and without the kind face or most worryingly any acceptance that the US needs allies against its potential enemies especially at sea. What shocked me today was the attitude of clearly some of the political leadership in Washington that ‘America First’ meant AUKUS should be sacrificed. It just gets madder. The US admits it can’t produce enough submarines and yes there might be an initial de line in their available submarines in US hands but they will be in Australian hands and soon after the Australians will have a powerful force to add to the US forces as they will work in close liaison. This ‘released’ view suggests great Ally Australia is no longer important to them, in what delusionary dystopian World would are we in whereby writing off the South Pacific to China and its allies not be a strategic and indeed economic disaster to the US? China would control their trade routes and have endless number of bases to intimidate anyway moving across most of the Pacific. How absolutely idiotic do you have to be not to see US interests in that not taking place? Why on earth if you want a vital ally growing n strength not to be increasingly capable of defending that part of the South Pacific and eventually taking much weight off of your hands? Has this logic totally changed since Japan recognised these facts? If anything that region is many times more vital today and into the future for the West. This US Administration seems hell bent on self destruction to spite itself so that it can spite its past friends and allies. Or is this si,ply about extreme intimidation to force those former friends and allies to become vassal states to be stripped of their wealth and power to feed the US oligarchs?
The americans don’t view the UK, Europe or anyone else for that matter as allies they just view them as competition.
That is why they get involved in other countries, it’s not to help but to destabilise and weaken them, it’s also why they don’t want Europe to have a strong military
Maybe it’s Time for UK to turn into a gaullist version of its own…!
I look at the US and it feels like the UK in the 1970s… everything falling apart. Let’s hope it’s a blip and not a permanent trend. I think the issue is that they can’t produce enough submarines and so the US navy needs them instead of selling them to Australia. It’s more about problems in the US than anything else.
“…we don’t have any direct interests in the area…”
Not correct! The UK is a member of the CPTPP trading in block, so a direct economic interest there.
We need to urgently reform the Commonwealth as a military force; but this time being inclusive of everyone’s defence. Gen. Barron is talking rubbish and needs to get out more.
Hi Merion X, I had forgotten about CPTTP so I went back and checked the analysis that was done on the trade deal.
The Government estimated that CPTPP would only benefit the UK to the tune of 0.8% over the long-term, and remember this was an estimate produced by a Government with every incentive to big up the deal. (By contrast, it is estimated that putting up trade barriers with the EU we reduce our GDP by c.3-4% over the long term).
And while 0.8% is still better than nothing, it unfortunately isn’t really going to move the dial and help us to break out of the economic malaise we fallen into since 2009.
I personally wouldn’t underfund our homeland defence (we now have plenty of examples of how drones could cripple our airports, power stations and undersea infrustruture etc.) so we can send a sub-optimal number of assets out to Asia Pacific, simply for the sake of 0.8% of GDP.
There are good political reasons for sending out valuable military assets of course but we need to be cognisant of the potential knock-on costs – both financial and opportunity – back here in Dear Old Blighty.
Cheers.
I believe we have very important financial and political interests in the region to this day Tim. We have old friends who appreciate the gesture. Our armed forces are famous for being easy to work with.
Hi Barry,
I get that the cultural (I have family in Oz) and political perspectives (we do have significant allies in the region eg. Australia, South Korea and Japan).
As for the financial interests, I would like a proper analysis of our economic interests in the region as I suspect most UK citizens don’t have a direct financial interest and it is they who would have to fund the military presence (I wouldn’t want to replicate the past where the financial benefits of Empire accrued to a minority but any expense was borne by the majority).
The nub of the problem is that we’re no longer a rich country so how do we fund it? While we’re nominally the 6th richest, we’re only 22nd by GDP per head which is pretty low compared to other countries (like Australia!). To mske matters worse, our economy has been broadly flatlining for 15 years now with no sign of real improvement (real incomes have barely moved since 2020).
So, the question on a Indo-Pacific presence is really one of spending priorities.
I personally want our focus to be on homeland and regional defence e.g. so we can defend ourselves in the way the Israelis can with proper air and missile defences. To do this properly would take all our current spend and then some. Besides, our allies in the Pacific (along with the USA) are alteady rich enough to defend themselves without our (likely paltry) help.
As for growing the economy (so we could spend more on defence), the only thing that will really move the dial will be massive investment but even that would take time to make a difference.
We could reallocate resources in the short term but the sums needed would require major cuts, not just to small scale benefits such as PIP and the depressingly low in-work benefits, but to the many hundreds of billion spent on the NHS and on state pensions. By 2060, HALF of all Government spend is predicted to be on the NHS and this increase in spend is entirely because we’re getting older and so sicker as a population. This is clearly unsupportable. Other services such as children’s and mental health are already absent in large parts of the country so will be an even worse state in 30 years time.
Are these people going to wear the impact on their lives for people, as rich if not richer than they, living far away?
I doubt it but if they are, I am all for higher defence spend and a stronger Pacific presence.
By the way, I’m in my late 50s now so I am part of this growing spending problem! I am going to be one of the old gits in the coming decades demanding that loads of public money is spent on me! No doubt like lots of self-centred old people, I’ll also start blaming ethnic minorities, migrants, benefit scroungers and the lazy youth for everything wrong in the world. Everyone will be fault but me. Fun times to come. 🥳
During WW2, as the Italian Navy bowed out and the RN became dominant in the Atlantic, the Royal Navy started looking at sending fleets to the East of India again for the first tim in years. The Royal Navy would eventually deploy 11 Aircraft Carriers and 6 Battleships to the Pacific, providing CAP to the Americans at Okinawa and aggressively striking Japanese Airbases. And the what did the Americans say?
“We don’t think you’ll be helpful in the Pacific.”
Initially they wanted zero RN contribution, basically they where already working on the “America beat the Japanese on it’s own” myth and a British Fleet in the Pacific would be inconvenient for that. Even after the RN deployed anyway the Americans tried to side line the Royal Navy. Nothing has changed, the US doesn’t want us in the Pacific because they’re afraid of autonomy and anything that can undermine the “America great we do everything” narrative. Heaven forbid we make some close defence ties with Australia, or Singapore…. that would really piss in the US’s cereal.
Admiral king didn’t want the British pacific fleet but everyone else did. Admiral Spruance begged Nimitz for it because 5th fleet carriers were being lost faster than they could be replaced once they got near Japan.
Admiral king didn’t want the US Army either 😀
Jim, the issue here is who will protect UK shipping interests in the Pacific? Reliance on the US is currently under review and Australia and New Zealand will do their bit too, but they simply don’t have the means to do it all on our behalf. Permanent stationing may be a step too far without a third F35/Helicopter flat deck (modest in size), and somehow I don’t envisage such a vessel surviving Treasury scrutiny. However, a carrier group every two years would bolster friendly navies and a six-month rotation of a destroyer or frigate out of an Australian port would at least add additional clout against a growing Chinese Navy.
In fairness it wasn’t just Admiral King, Spruance was if anything in a bit of a minority, and the BPF bounced back and forth between MacArthur and King quite a few times as they tried to keep the British out of the Pacific.
Spot on and it was this attitude over the years that played a big part in Europe not being fit to defend itself. The US asserted it was in control when and wherever it could, it made all the important decisions and we became be tame lapdogs, this was ensured after Suez, we had to do what we were told whatever the superficial pretence. We were just there to add some compliant mass and a sense of a unified front for World consumption as the US enforced the new World Order based around the Dollar. The ultimate deterrent that would prevent war was theres, we were just to be the cannon fodder for any Russian strike, a safety belt for continental US. Surprise, surprise we became compliant and felt, once immediate risk dissipated in the 90s that defence, when it had no real independence anyway being physically and psychologically almost totally reliant on the US (as they instilled in us, so we couldn’t question them) simply wasn’t worth pursuing. Reliance was established mentally and physically. Stupid but hardly surprising. Now both the Global economy and European reliance they built no longer suits their political situation, so a new plan of hard core threat and manipulation without the veneer begins. For Europe it’s kill or cure, big decisions for Australia too despite being about as good an ally as the US could have hoped for.
This is outdated Continental rhetoric. Reality is that in the 90s the US asked Europe not to slash its defence budgets quite do far down and were told to piss off. So they did just that. That is the origin of the 2% NATO spending guideline; the US had plumped for more actually, and were told in no uncertain terms that Europe had enough of wars and it was silly to spend so much on defence when, oh, 1.6% of GDP would do. But I shouldn’t have to remind anyone here just how bare the cupboard actually got under European (mis)management, do I?
Telling the Americans to take a hike is fine, IF you can show that you’re capable. If you end up depending on them to fill out here and there and lean on their warstocks, then you’ve buggered the job, plain and simple.
Agree that towards the end of the war the Americans were working on constructing the narrative that the war in the Pacific was won solely by them and actively sidelined allies.
The series of amphibious landings in Borneo by Australians (their last combat operations of the war) were largely seen as unnecessary with MacArthur’s island hoping strategy having already isolated them.
The triumphant US narrative on both European and Pacific theatres ignored contributions by allies like Australia being the first to stop a German advance at Tobruk and Japanese troops at Milne Bay in PNG.
The ‘victors’ like to write ‘history’ from their perspective.
History is famously written by the victors, though the USA uniquely has taken things to a whole new level by winning in places where they weren’t even present in the first place e.g. U571.
I looking forward to seeing American accounts of their crushing defeat of Carthage in the Punic Wars. Apparently, Rome never even got a chance to mobilise their legions before the American Divisions had sprung into action. Very impressive stuff.
Typical USN and Army talk. Not helpful as UK has strong links with the Indo-Pacific. The RN and all the other of our forces are too small. However here we go again with what the Army through Barron has said. Dreams of an Armoured Corps in Northern Europe. He seems to forget the Plan navy will soon surpass the USN in quantity and maybe quality. Who knows. You may not see them but they will be coming. The Army as a rule has little concept of the flexibility of the sea.
We dont know how far the Chinese ambitions go.
The European Club Med needs to stop relying on the Northern Europeans.
My Dad flew over Okinawa and Tokyo Bay with the BPF. His comment ‘The Yanks didn’t always get it right.’
You would love my Dad’s comments about the Yanks on Malta, take them tongue-in-cheek:
If the sirens went off and it was the Italians coming to bomb us nobody paid much attention, they would drop their bombs somewhere near the island and toodle off to women, food and opera
If the sirens went off and it was the Germans we took it seriously and headed to the shelters
If the Americans headed towards their aircraft we stayed as far away as possible becuase you never knew what the twits would do next.
That being said, after starting with Fairey Battles “deathtraps” then Bristol Blenheims “nice aircraft but very obselete”, then Vickers Wellingtons “love the Wimpey, a workhorse but dated though she could take an amazing amount of abuse” he ended up on RAF B24’s and liked them.
Even the US military is adopting Trump-speak – sheer arrogance and distain for anyone not American. Diplomacy and respect for long-standing friends appears to have gone out of the window. I would have expected better from their military, after our long association and co-operation.
Do you mean disdain?
Yes
Correction – and well spotted. Should have been ‘disdain’.
Well what do you think happens when you replace all your commanders with political appointees?
We know Dern – we have it before our eyes. The USA begins to turn into Idi Amin’s Uganda.
If it will go that far I don’t know, but they are short of US Marines because President Chump they have sent a couple of thousand of them illegally to LA to play Robocop when there is no problem whatsoever that requires an intervention.
We’ll have to go back to the Pacific when USN ships are withdrawn to intimidate New York. But our politicians have proven adept at that so far. Trump needs a bit of “there, there” like your grandad with dementia.
Just been watching a Congressional Committee interviewing the alcoholic Def Sec Pete Hegseth – the USA’s answer to David Icke. He had a legal duty to put in a budget in February. This is now June and he still cannot give them even a delivery date.
More seriously, there’s a long interview with Anne Applebaum about her reprinted book “Autocracu, Inc” on Time Radio today; very much worth a listen.
Agreed if the military is going rogue MAGA then the future is bleak indeed, but the same attitude is being projected against their own people too as we see in LA as young cocky Marines are threatening via TikTok anyone who dares to confront them. A civil war is developing I fear where the army or elements of it, see any but the most compliant of the public as the imaginary enemy mad MAGA is painting them. If so we need to start making arrangements for alternative alliances. The last thing we need is a Farage in full Auisling mode or we will become a very compliant US overseas possession akin to Puerto Rico.
You mean “Quisling mode”?
I suspect Farage would be even worse.
Have you misused et al?
Except he is right and sending a strike group to the pacific leaves the forces totally unable to handle European issues in our own backyard.
Your taking what he said the wrong way.
He is saying “we need you guys to handle Europe and Russia while we focus else where” We need the UK to lead the European allies
The American is talking about the Rivers? It’s no real concern as they are not a great drain on uk resources and show flag and good will in further parts of globe not normally reached. Would imagine they are a lovely posting for navy crew.
Amusing given half their destroyer fleet is end of life in the next ten years. At a build rate of 1.8 per year they have no hope of replacing them either.
Hmmm.
I see what he is doing here, relinquish our IOT (for a small fee) then sugest a relocation of our meagre assets back to the west of Suez (again) due to “not really having enough stuff”.
Slowly reduce the frequency of CG visits, then cut the bloody lot when no one is looking.
“The future is bright but will the last person to leave, please turn off the light”.
There is a big difference in east of Suez and The pacific. The US is desperate for us to have assets east of Suez in the Indian Ocean where it’s very expensive for the US to maintain forces. However they have little need in the pacific.
Most UK assets in the pacific are there more to support of Australia and NZ (FPDA) than anything to do with the pacific.
As usual the USN is show boating in the pacific and putting all its assets there and seems to be forgetting that 80% of Americans live along the Atlantic and Caribbean coast.
The UK’s Atlantic bastion will do just as much to protect America as it does to protect Europe.
I was, as always, being sarky with a side of cynacism.
“Night night Jim Bob”.
(for anyone younger than @ 40, that was “The Waltons”) ((i’m not actually going to sleep yet)).
Could have said something like ” It’s Life Jim” but not sure it worked any better.
Minor point, wasn’t it John Boy???
Which makes comments about AUKUS even more stupid than those I highlighted elsewhere. Any damage or delay to the UK building up to a dozen state of the art hunter killer submarines would have serious implications to US security and trade with both Atlantic and Pacific regions seriously affected but yes the Atlantic crucially so. Sadly the delusion virus seems to have taken hold across the pond currently with even the more insightful scared into silence to preserve careers as the myth takes hold that the US is some unreachable medieval castle. Perhaps if they studied the fate of medieval castles they might see the lunar of that belief.
better not to use the words Suez and the Americans attitude in the same place
Seems a very sensible idea. Our assets are few and the North Atlantic is our priority. Having a reminder to those in Asia who may have ill thoughts is useful and shows support to Australia who has been a staunch ally.
Agree. Anyone wishing malign intent on Australia needs to know we will do our utmost to defend their sovereignty and national interest.
However the size of force China is now continuing to assemble is daunting even for the USN.
The UK deploying a carrier every couple of years is a good idea as is rotating a frigate for 6 months every year and a half. Aukus has committed the UK to deploying an Astute there as well but I can’t see that happening when we only have 6 currently and 7 eventually.
China aren’t worried about European NATO forces as they know we could only send a token support to the USN, Japan or Australia
As I understand it, the Astute is to be on rotation with 2-3 Virginias (with only one SSN based in Western Australia at a time). This continues till RAN 2nd hand Virginia submarines start arriving in 2032 or thereabouts. Most of the time, it will be a USN submarine.
I think the Australians could do with focusing on long-range air and missile assets. Australia has a vast continental area to defend and this approach would enable to do just that at a more reasonable, though still very expensive, cost.
Ironically, I think that Australia would do well to consider the approach the Chinese have taken to push the Americans out of their littoral waters i.e. by developing the capability to launch long range missiles to strike at an invaders surface fleet. It would be a cost effective way to deter a Chinese incursion (by changing the cost/benefit equation).
And while long-range Drones are also a no-brainer for them to acquire (and they have made great strides in developing an indigenous capability), I also think Australia would benefit from acquiring something like GCAP as it could provide them with the same set of capabilities that are so valuable to the Japanese, who also have to defend a large maritime expanse.
Happily, both of the options I listed above (long-range missiles, GCAP) are things that the UK is keen to develop so it gives us an opportunity to deepen our collaboration with our Australian allies.
And it doesn’t mean of course that they shouldn’t also acquire other maritime assets (MPAs, ships, submarines) and employing new, potential more cost-effective technologies (Types 92/93)!
I accept that this would be very much a homeland defence first strategy for Australia, which I don’t think would please the Americans. They’re desperate for their regional allies to invest in capabilities which can be used to strike the Chinese mainland e.g. SSNs with Tomahawks as apart of their long-hoped for hegemonic war against China.
The defence of Australia is a secondary (or perhaps even tertiary!) consideration for them.
I don’t know why all this faffing around waiting for the 3+ Virginia’s to turn up for Aus, which may fall over or take even longer, that the RAN doesn’t order another 3-4 diesel in the meantime? An instead of parking them miles away on WA station them up north. Darwin should have a decent naval base and utilise Cairns/Townsville more. And when the nuclear subs turn up you have a hybrid mix, keep the best/latest diesel subs for more littoral, close regional and NZ.
The article mentions “Deployments” such as QEC, but we have permanent locations out there that have been suggested contribute to overstretch, which is uninformed cobblers.
The QEC demonstrating the capability to deploy at distance occasionally is fine.
So what remains:
1 Gurkha Infantry Battalion and a helicopter Flight.
In Brueni at the Sultans expense, and the Bn acts as the UKs Far East deployable reserve.
The Jungle Warfare School. Also in Brueni, used by SF so again must remain.
The BDSSU at Singapore. Static, no real military issue supporting this, includes NP 1022.
The 2 River B2 OPVs, a vital role that withdrawing does nothing but harm our interests.
Diego Garcia. Overwhelmingly American, there is a RN party there, NP 1002 and HQ BFIOTDG
Duqm, Oman: The UKJLSB. Static logistics base.
Juffair, Bahrain: The UKNSF, and a Frigate and what’s left of our MCMV on Kipion. Vital roles, withdrawn would not look good.
Ras Madrakah, Oman: A joint Omani UK Trainihg Area. Oman is our greatest ally in the region.
Intelligence Bases in the Middle East east of Suez: There are at least 3, we’d be imbeciles to just close them.
British Gurkhas Nepal: Consists of Camps at Katmandu, Pokhara Dharan. If we want Gurkhas, we need these. They’re not closing.
I won’t detail the elements in the South Atlantic, Africa, or Csntral America.
All minor, and politically vital, in the case of BFSAI and Ascension.
@Daniele (not sure where replies go)
Your list equates to the hard power back up part of the often mentioned Ultra important and influential soft power projection this country is unique in possesing. I dread to think plans are afoot to degrade this.
“Cut’s cut’s cut’s, they are all a bunch of Cuts” (ahem).
Yes, it is mostly soft power. The military side is overwhelmingly presence, intelligence, and training.
Not hard power.
Hard power in things like SSN and QEC can indeed be predominantly European NATO area, which is only right.
These overseas bases are one of this country’s greatest assets. They give us reach. Lilipads for SF to deploy to jets and beyond.
I was worried before labour came in, based on the rhetoric that Healey and Lammy were coming out with, that they’d be dispensed with in short order. So far, thankfully, I’m wrong.
Most politicians make statements in opposition that they quietly forget about once they get into office and have their ministerial briefings which probably include a very polite and well disguised but firm dressing down from the senior civil servants with regards to the realpolitik… i.e. hands off the bases…
I know many on here like to stick the boot into the civil service, me included sometime, but it is very effective at steadying the ship in times of crisis and during changes in government of which it is has had plenty of experience in recent years. It is also very good at sticking to process, which is sometimes a pain and overly complicated, but it worked wonderfully well when Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II passed and that idiot Truss got the boot all within weeks of each other. Many countries would have been thrown into chaos at such a time, but not the UK, despite the flaws, the good ship UK sailed serenely through troubled waters.
Sorry if that is a little flowery, got a bit carried away there, but I for one am rather proud of how our country manages to stay pretty calm and steady even when the politicians manage to get is into some pretty serious scrapes and the Truss government was a hellish disaster in the making. As it was it gave us a real hard kick in the ribs and winded us…
Cheers CR
Yes I see that.
The Starmer Govt are – on strategic politics – proving to be careful & competent, though to my eye too timid and not good at communications. At present, they are the only credible game in town – the Lib Dems not having any Government experience apart from a couple of people.
When the US is referring to the pacific they are referring to Guam and Japan not the SCS or Indian Ocean. We have nothing past Brunei and most of our assets I.e. Singapore are set to support transit of fleets in times of crisis as opposed to permanently deployed assets.
We have military partners in the Pacific, Important ones at that, AUKUS (or Auk), Tempest and don’t forget the commonwealth and BOT’s including Pitcairn. The Rivers have been very active and usefull in that part of the World, I’d hate to see that activity cease.
Hopefully the officer who runs Indo-Pacific command for the US will also have conversations about not very helpful things with his commander-in-chief and school him on his malign influence on global stability and security.
I don’t think he was being critical. It’s more a recognition of the realities that have existed since 1917, that The Pacific is far away from the UK and the British isles is the perfect place to protect the North Atlantic.
I don’t disagree but I think the world is a much smaller place since 1917 and I no longer believe that what’s good for the US in other parts of the world will necessarily continue to be good for everyone else hitherto considered allies of the US.
Regrettably true, we need to look to our interests and our other allies, Australia, New Zealand, Japan et al. Not forgetting we are a trading nation, our economy is very dependant on shipping across the globe especially in the Indo-Pacific region. We need to show willing to those allies and show bad actors that we will support them. The US used to understand this as to a degree it applied to them. They seem to have forgotten it, which doesn’t mean we should kowtow to US exceptionalism in the mouth of one I’ll informed individual.
It’s a un-funny comment, comes across as wanting to shut out non-US influence of its own allies in “it’s” spheres of influence. The puffed up arrogance of “hard power”? And we point the finger at China in the SCS. Understand that the US may want to protect and even expand its military-economic interests in the Pacific, so do other countries, allies or not, who to them are just as legitimate in their national self interests and many with long historical relationships. It’s going to be interesting if the world goes more bung who turns up and who doesn’t at the LA Olympics in 2028. There’s not much time to clear up the current social mess in LA and abroad.
Hi Quentin, what’s the AUS perspective on Trump and the Pacific?
I know there’s all of the guff about AUKUS, but would your government be happy to go it alone with the UK or would they consider themselves reliant on US technology?
I have a serious question (no seriously) Would it not make more sense to continue Astute build but with PR3 2adaptations” rather than a totally new 3 partner design ?
“Blow main ballast”.
“adaptations” doh.
I believe PWR3 is physically wider than PWR2 so doesn’t fit. The US equivalent would physically fit as I understand it, but would take up more longitudinal space (long & skinny vs short & fat). AUKUS is likely to be a similar width as Dreadnaught, but obviously shorter. I am expecting AUKUS to be based on Dreadnaught as a starting point rather than a redesigned Astute.
That’s a bit hard to read at the moment. But the PM is meeting with Trump at the G7 and he’ll says he’ll stand up for Aus and won’t be pushed around. I’m an Aussiefied Pom so have a strong affection for this country. There’s a strong sense of fairness here and always come to the fight to defend that. Aus has to straddle the US with its other more traditional relationships and get what right for itself. I guess like the UK with the US and Europe too. The media is reporting issues with the Hunter T26 here and will we or won’t we get US subs. Could be mismanagement and politics. I’m very 🇬🇧 biased, still wish they’d order the A140 for their light frigate and NZ and Indonesia is building a stretched version. They need to get on with it. If the US subs aren’t coming order a few more diesel in the mean time, even go French if you have too, lol.
That makes sense, thanks.
What do the Australians want from the UK, militarily speaking? More CSGs or just to take the load off the Americans in the Atlantic?
@TJ, just to add, i’d like to see the continued co-use of UK assets with Aus and NZ for interoperability with US, India etc, as we don’t ever want to get too cut off down here with our trade and defence relationships.
U.K. presence until, does that mean when the US navy go toe to toe with the Chinese navy, in their back yard we can say, “ not our problem, mate”
Suits me fine.
The big problem with that attitude is a war between China and the USA would probably effect us more than it would the USA how much trade goes through that area and if god forbid China was victorious how badly would that be effected
It is the American commanders words, not mine. As we have interests of our own and strategic partners in the region our presence is not just a luxury, it is a necessity.
If Taiwan fell to the Chinese the impact on the high end chip market would be devastating .
“Never turn your back on your friends”.
And if the friend doesn’t want our assistance ?
@Michael Hanna. I was obviously (not obviously) talking about our friends in the Pacific. We would not really want to leave the area having so many “Friends” there. think Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Japan, Pitcairn and all the Island nations. Hell even our friends in “New Albion” would be rather dissapointed if we left at the moment given the Trump Chumps antics.
“Drakes Drum” can still be heard to beat when England goes to war.
Hi
Perhaps being more specific next time and last time I checked this was Great Britian, not just England.
MH, sorry, I’ll spell it out in big LETTERS next time for you and Drake was a sailor for England if you didn’t know your English history. “New Albion” was what he called part of present day California when he called in there in 1579. “England” had a Pacific interest way before the US was even a thing.
Hope you can get over your grumpyness today, I’m having a great day with my kids personally.
They already did.
Trump tried to calve up Ukraine with Russia over the heads of Europe for profit for him and his friends. Europe managed to sideline the USA on that one, and it’s coming together more.
But … that’s just one step, and we’ll see. Trump has his international political head in about 1890 when they just confected wars to invade things they wanted, and he wants to be President McKinley.
Unfortunately, all I can say is we do our best and at some point we will find out.
So what about our allies and commonwealth cousins down under. Welcome to AUKUS, we ought to say your never see a Royal Navy ship, ever again. We know the King is head of state but we take our orders from his majesty President Trump and his half wits. What ever happened to British national interest? This feels like another Labour surrender. As for NATO, great organisation but we still need enough kit and people to do it ourselves.
We are in competition with the US when it comes to trade and presence in Asia/Pacific. All we have there permanently are two OPVs. These are of very little use in propping up warfighting in any theatre. That’s not what they are for! They are nevertheless of use to us, and screw what the commander of US Indo-Pacific Command thinks.
It’s said that Tony Blair’s attitude to the UK military was to create the best possible American ally he could. I’d hope that we were past such stupidity and that we don’t denude sovereign capability because someone told somebody else that the Americans don’t need it!
Let me rephase that: I meant all the Navy have east of India are two OPVs and a few people at Sembawang.
What a surprise. Conveniently fits in with Starmers Eurocentric attitude, despite our French”friends” not wanting us involved in anything that might upset their applecart. As for Barrons he pleads knowing what the U.S. wants because he had a conversation? Beggars belief…
Starmer’s focus could just as well be characterised as being ‘NATO-centric’ given that NATO’s focus is on the defence of the European region and not Asia-Pacific.
Apologies if I’m misreading your comment but it feels like you’re making some sort of political point when you referred to ‘Starmer’s Eurocentric attitude’. I personally see Starmer as more in the ‘middle’, roughly equidistant between the two polar opposites that are the EU-phobes and the EU-philes.
He is less viscerally hostile to Europe/EU than previous Governments have been but he’s not ‘pro-EU’ in any meaningful way. If he was, he’d be pushing to get the UK back into the Single Market and Customs Union but he’s been very clear that this isn’t on the cards.
Starmer’s keeping us out of the EU proper while tidying up the most egregious impediments to trade that were left in the original exit deal (e.g. phytosanitary standards), which is to our benefit as a trading nation. Unfortunately, some people hate the EU so much that even doing that little is far too much for them to stomach.
I am making a political point Tim but not a party political one, although after the first year of Satrmer and Reeves? The so called “deal” to me has all been one sided. I voted remain and Brexit wasn’t ideal but we have been out for seven years and have been doing better than most, if not all , of other the E.U. members. Apart from Starmer wanting to be more closely aligned with Europe I don’t see what has been achieved. We have lost out on farming, including animal welfare, on fishing, probably on immigration and now potentially on defence trade and services. All for what ?
French position with regards to eu defence pact totally makes sense, it’s not rocket science. Also, next Time, british politicians Will think twice before managing deals as they did with aukus.
I hope you’re right but with our politicians who knows..?
If the Americans think this way ,fxxk them,arsehole for a president and let them fall in the Pacific,
Read the article, not just the clickbait headline.
I already did,still equates to the same ,
It really doesn’t. The official said that the UK CSG deployments were very positive, but also said that the permanent troops didn’t add anything not already there.
Well Said Leh.
In fact go beyond the article and the 3rd hand quotes and read other articles on the subject.
George is good at pushing peoples buttons to generate comments, and they have swallowed this one without any critical thinking.
I did type a longer reply but it seems to have been lost. as I CBA to retype I’m simply going to say this is all bollocks .
This is a short sighted decision and not a UK strategic one , bourn purely from cutting costs , and of realigning with Europe under the pretence of NATO commitments.
It smacks of appeasement to Labour back benchers, the EU & to America.
Labour have never understood Global Britain nor our associated requirement to influence East of Suez, now even more necessary to counter Chinese influence & aggression.
I now fail to see the relevance or requirement for 2 carriers if they are not going to go very far very often to protect any semblance of hard (or soft) power , and fear the next step will be to cut one.
People are overreacting.
He says:
“If you commit to that, and accept that deterrence is a 24/7 activity, you are not going to regularly station force elements — ships, tanks, aircraft — in the Indo-Pacific.”
I’ll ask, when was the last time that the UK permanently stationed either tanks or aircraft in the Indo-Pacific? As for ships, we currently operate just two OPVs, which I imagine will remain given their low potential when operating in the North Atlantic.
He goes on to say:
“In conversation with the officer who runs Indo-Pacific command for the US, he said it does not really help to have UK forces permanently stationed in the Indo-Pacific region, because he has a lot of stuff, […] But it is really helpful if, as we are seeing now, the carrier group makes a sortie there about every four years. It sends a really important signal to opponents and friends.”
So, far from cutting the carriers, this is an active endorsement for them. I mean, he literally calls them ‘really important’. Nothing from this signals any change at all for the carriers. They’ll continue on their quadrennial deployments, as they have been doing.
He continues:
“diplomacy, technology and training”
This is literally the service provided by the OPVs. Why withdraw an asset performing the exact role you’d like to be performed. It’s the same with the bases in Brunei and Singapore.
He finishes:
“[They will no longer try] to do lots of things in different parts of the world […] In terms of what we do with our forces, absolutely.”
No real change here. Again, it’s pretty rare, outside of the quadrennial CSG deployments, to see any major British deployment beyond Europe/Falklands.
So overall, very little change.
Wise words.
Back in 1939, the UK (more accurately, the British Empire) was a major World Power. Winning the 2nd world war bankrupted us (we were still relying on IMF loans 30 years later), put us in hoc to the USA for 50 years, and cost us that Empire. Like it or not, these days we simply cannot afford to be a major military player in the Indo-Pacific, except perhaps to wave the flag once every four years.
But the UK is still today a major European military power and we should focus our resources where our needs and strengths are – keeping Russia out of the Atlantic – while the rest of ENATO should focus on keeping Russia out of the Western European land mass. Leave the USA to face up to China.
We are not enemies of China but we are friends of many Pacific countries. Heaven forbid we leave anything to the US to sort, It’s not like they have the best record. Britain has that special power and a certain international respect, we need to embrace that.
“Look after your Broom”.
I don’t disagree with what you say, but the USA and China both seem determined to face off and the Pacific is where it will happen. We don’t have the economic or industrial clout to stop them (no one does) or protect our allies there, so maybe best stay out of it.
‘Our ego is writing cheques that our (economic) body can’t cash….’
Unfortunately, today’s Britain simply doesn’t have a strong enough economy to have these kind of aspirations. Our economy has been in doldrums since 2009 and is showing few signs of any significant improvement. Furthermore, we have a rapidly aging population and health related expenditure is going to balloon even further over the next few decades. Too many old people and too few workers is the short version of the story.
So we just have to be practical in the short term. In the longer term, we might become rich enough to become a global player again (bit like the Chinese are now doing after c.180 years of ‘humiliation’, as they see it).
Same attitude different words these days.. we are poor, too much “ego”, blah blah.. weak-willed spineless naysaying doomers.. Empire was formed by people with a steady will-do attitude and a stick and beat the world into submission, then acquired wealth. See where we have been, see what we need to do to get out of where we are and just ***** do it.
Fascinating opinion, an interesting insight into your beliefs.
Silver845, thanks for that constructive and very clear reply.
I am not sure who is supposed to demonstrate a ‘steady will-do attitude’? Whoever it is, I hope they get the message and lead our country into a period of glorious renewal in short order.
Personally, I would prefer to find ways of increasing UK investment levels in the economy to match those in the rest of the G7 but perhaps your approach would deliver better results. We’ll have to let history be the judge.
I predict that, based on history, the future history will judge the present rather poorly.
Mr Allison,
I much appreciate the journalism you do. However, this article has be given a headline that is not entirely representative of the content of the article and can give a misleading understanding of said content. It’s been titled ‘US Pacific Chief says permanent UK forces not helpful’. Whilst this is technically correct, it omits the important qualifiers later present in the article, namely that ‘he said it does not really help to have UK forces permanently stationed in the Indo-Pacific region, because he has a lot of stuff’. This is not an official criticising the UK, as the headline suggests, but rather an acknowledgement that there is a duplication of capability. A more representative and encompassing headline might be:
– ‘British defence officials discuss realignment towards the European theatre’
– ‘American official acknowledges importance of British Pacific deployments, but suggests reevaluation of permanent deployments’
Id say the “US Pacific Chief” can say what he likes.. simply raise ones tea cup, nod and carry on regardless.
I remember a US Admiral saying the same when the Queen Elizabeth was out there in 2021. At least they are consistent.
Maybe it is down to them not having direct control so viewing the RN as a potential loose cannon.
Well well, perhaps we can finally come to terms with the fact we can not be everywhere at once. One day our politicians will grow up.
Just because a couple of OPVs make no noticeable difference to US defence plans doesn’t mean they don’t make a difference to our foreign policy.
Get the round in, I’ll join you soon as I can.
“Blow the froth off a couple”.
👍
And there it is..nothing to do with the US.
We need to recognise what he’s actually saying, an opv isn’t all that helpful to him but a carrier strike group is. As there’s no realistic possibility of permanently basing a carrier then focus on the North Atlantic makes more sense.
If the proposition was an Astute and destroyer in addition to a frigate then the conversation is different
Un helpful words, but he may have a point let’s face it we are spread two thin thanks two HMGs cuts over the year’s.
Too much infatuation with the US and what it wants and thinks…
Let’s do what we want and need to do🤔
Yes
I agree, but with what though? Do we really have enough to protect our own country, let alone scatter ships across the globe?
There is no sense here if you wish the British economy to grow you need to be in the indo Pacific! We should expand the fleet so we can operate east of suez properly?
That leaves Australia and New Zealand, two countries the UK has a deep commitment to without our help. I can think of nothing more disgraceful and it will cost us dearly. If you cannot help protect your family, what use are you as a country?
In reality a lot of what the US is doing is about keeping European nations in their North Atlantic box..
It’s always done that so no difference really..
What I think is different is that US continuing to believe it has lots of stuff to manage the pacific .. the really is when the Sino US war really kicks off and the USN has been decimated ( if its lucky).. and China is rebuilding at a rate the US cannot match it will be begging for ENATO forces..
My personal view is I’m not now sure the UK wants any part of that Sino US war..which will be a war to strategic exhaustion. Because I no longer think even with ENATO help the US is in a place to win that war….
Britain’s woke Navy is not much help to anyone. Not even the British who continue to offer under wave after wave of illegal immigrants and the tyrrany of forced multiculturalism. Keep your little boats at home chumps, protect your own border and channel. Oh that’s right, you don’t care about your own borders. Pathetic.
And breathe.
Poor Rupert must be off his medication today.
Why do pro-woke people just insult everyone who’s anti-woke and never, ever seem to have any points to make? The tolerant far left at it again
Because you tend to get the energy back that you put out. If a right wing “anti-woke” racist starts throwing an emotional tantrum there’s rarely any point in reasoned debate.
I notice, NoPoet, that you have no issues with Rupert not making points.
Yeah must be bloody strong meds
The officer’s comment is probably a touch of arrogance, ignorance and of trumpism (lowercase lack of respect intended, and from hereon).
.
.
He won’t appreciate forces, no matter how meagre, in HIS (arrogance) backyard; maintaining historical relationships (ignorance) within the 5-Power arrangement, which does not include america, without consulting him first (arrogance, ignorance and trumpism).
.
.
Expect more.
USA: “Our influence in the region is nosediving and we’re about to become far less popular over there than the British, so let’s kick the British out and get the biggest slice of the pie we can before China cuts us off. The Brits will always come running to support us when China attacks.”
and yet.
UKDJ
UK aircraft carrier deployment to Pacific praised by the U.S.
By George Allison – April 18, 2025.
[… In testimony to the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee this week, Admiral Samuel J. Paparo, Commander of United States Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM), spoke of the importance of the United Kingdom’s military engagement in the Indo-Pacific as part of a wider network of U.S. allies and partners.
Admiral Paparo stated that the U.S. alliance system in the region represents a “tremendous asymmetric advantage” and that “no competitor or adversary can match the combined strength and capabilities of this network.” Among those allies, he cited the UK as a vital contributor to regional stability and deterrence.
“U.S. and UK collaboration strengthens security and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific through combined and multilateral exercises, AUKUS initiatives, and aligned strategic priorities,” Paparo told lawmakers during the committee’s review of the Fiscal Year 2026 Defense Authorization Request.
He noted the UK’s ongoing deployments in the region, saying, “The UK demonstrates its enduring commitment to the Indo-Pacific through deployments such as the 2021 Carrier Strike Group and the 2025 Operation HIGHMAST, led by UK Carrier Strike Group 25.”
In addition to exercises and deployments, the UK’s logistical and strategic support was also highlighted. “Continued UK support for the U.S. military presence on Diego Garcia remains critical for U.S. national security,” Paparo added.
The Admiral’s comments were made as part of a broader review of U.S. defence posture in the Indo-Pacific, including testimony on U.S. Forces Korea. The hearing focused on strategic deterrence, alliance interoperability, and long-term defence planning in a region marked by heightened tensions with China and North Korea.
The UK’s involvement in initiatives such as AUKUS and Operation HIGHMAST reflects its increased focus on Indo-Pacific security and its position as a key U.S. partner in the region.]
There is a real danger of over reaction here – it really wouldn’t matter if we trusted our government to defend UK’s interests. The US has their interests, we have ours, and they often overlap, but absolutely not always.
The UK’s permanent military presence is minimal and it would be madness to withdrawal (though wouldn’t trust Labour not to try).
I think the issue is not the training / supply bases or even the two OPVs, it’s the plans that were discussed to ramp up permanent presence.
Given priorities, we should not be replacing OPVs with light frigates for example. The reality is also that we probably cannot forward base a SSN in the region.
What really is at risk are AUKUS and Tempest which is in the UKs interest and not so much for the US – by not being present the UK will be seen less of a credible partner.
Hi Smithy,
Nicely put. For me AUKUS and Tempest are the big economic / military issues here. If having a couple of OPV’s and maintaining a number of military bases (one paid for by the host nation) helps to cement our chances of bring those two deals in then it is money well spent. Then there is the new deal with India and our membership of CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) which accounts for 15% of the worlds trade. We need to maintain our small but diplomatically vital presence in the Indo-Pacific region and continue to underline our interest in the region with a four yearly CSG deployment.
To be fair the Admiral did say that the CSG deployments were valued.
Cheers CR
The US is currently in trade/tariff negotiations with China, Australia and other Indopacific allies such as ROK and Japan. Discouraging the UK from operating in the Indopacific and putting a question mark over AUKUS could easily be part of that. Both outcomes would be desirable for China as part of a wider deal. It also raises the stakes for the Australia negotiation.
Whether they will go ahead or not is too early to tell, expect more flip-flopping over the coming weeks.
those surplus ships can join Brazil’s Navy now…
In other news I see the US Army is celebrating the 250th anniversary of Jane Austen’s birthday.
Fine when the US asks for our help with China we can just tun them down saying we are little use in the area…. can we remind the US we have friends in that area who we stand with.. se perhaps tge USN should become a coastal defence force as they are big on America First and Isolationism.
Face it, the USN hated the idea of the Royal Navy being “East of Suez” from the start, Admiral King (a well-known Anglophobe) did everything possible to block the Royal Navy entering into the War against Japan. This isn’t a new stance by America by any means. Unfortunately there are certain sections of the FCO and Admiralty, backed by the Right-Wing MSM, who can’t get over the loss of Empire and insist on being able to ‘meddle’ out East.
The financial shambles over Diego Garcia would have been easily avoided by simply telling Mauritius and America “we’re leaving, sort it out amongst yourselves”. Cut back everything east of Cyprus, including anything in the Gulf. Make it clear Taiwan is nothing to do with us.
Focus on Europe, North & South Atlantic, and the Mediterranean (the Falklands gives us control towards the Cape and Antarctica, Gibraltar allows to control access to the Mediterranean and Cyprus gives us control of the North African Littoral) We can either concentrate on being the pre-eminent European Military Power in Europe and taken seriously, or keep up the pretence of ‘Global Britain’ and be underfunded and discounted globally.
We cant ignore the rest of the World things happen. I think the Canadians, Aus and New Zealand and a lot of other useful contacts would be sorry to see us withdraw from the Pacific at this time. We have a lot to contribute not least with AUKUS. I can see the US probably want to revisit that treaty because they see $$$’s which its all about with 47.
No body is saying we should have 2 carriers East of Suez, so I can’t see what all the fuss is about. I realise 2 OPV’s is over the top.
We seriously need to tell the US to sod off…