NATO warships have joined HMS Prince of Wales for the start of exercises off the UK coast.
The Royal Navy say here that the carrier and her task force practised sailing in close formation and learned how different navies operate as they began Joint Warrior – testing the readiness of the UK Carrier Strike Group and its ability to deter threats.
Royal Navy frigate HMS Portland and tankers RFA Tideforce and Tidespring joined Prince of Wales last week and their numbers were bolstered by Royal Canadian ship Navy Halifax-class frigate HMCS Charlottetown; Spanish Navy Alvaro de Bazan-class air defence frigate SNS Cristobal Colon and Danish Navy Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate HMDS Niels Juel.
“The close manoeuvring was a chance to test the navigation officers and bridge teams of all the ships involved, as they overcame language barriers and sailing ships of varying sizes in tight formation. HMS Prince of Wales is now under NATO command for the first time since 2022.
Joint Warrior is one aspect of NATO’s biggest exercise in a generation Exercise Steadfast Defender which will see dozens of countries work together across Scandinavia and northern Europe, demonstrating NATO’s resolve, unity and capability.
While the UK Carrier Strike Group operates at sea, Royal Marines have once again deployed to Norway to test their ability fight and defend in one of the harshest environments on Earth.”
UK Carrier Strike Group Deputy Commander and Chief of Staff, Captain John Cromie, said:
“Earlier this week, we saw the primary ‘striking’ capability of the force arrive with the embarkation of our F-35Bs. Today, we saw the international elements of the ‘group’ assemble with four ships from NATO allies joining the two UK units already escorting HMS Prince of Wales. An aircraft carrier cannot operate effectively without the protection of escorts or the logistic support provided by auxiliaries.
The fact that our Carrier Strike Group now includes ships from four NATO countries speaks to the level of unity, interoperability and resolve that exists across the NATO alliance. We are now ready to commence Exercise Joint Warrior, a maritime exercise that is but one part of Steadfast Defender, and through which we will demonstrate to any potential adversary our absolute determination to defend ourselves and our allies.”
Interesting discussions in NATO lately, Germany openly discussing paying Britain and France to increase their nuclear stockpiles in the event of a Trump presidency.
Could we see a batch 2 Dreadnaught class or the UK developing a B61 replacement to have dual code weapons for Germany, Italy, Poland etc.
Non-proliferation treaty reduced the missiles per boat and the number of MRVs per missile. Suppose you could start with putting them back. Wouldn’t be popular though.
It’s not NPT, uk is not subject to any arms reduction treaties.
Our current system could probably carry 640 weapons if we packed them on. We are believed to have around 240 at present.
640 ? … How many Boats are actually currently Active ?
Hi mate, that number is clearly the maximum number we could field across all 4 SSBNs, but we actually only have somewhere in the low 200s of warheads. Old BJ did provide the readies to increase said stockpile, but its not an item you can just ‘knock up’ in a week!
We currently/normally have missiles on 3 SSBN’s, and if you choose to believe/if the blurb about missile numbers is still correct, then we currently have 24 missiles on those three boats. As for numbers of warheads, your guess is as good as mine or anyone else.
Yes mate… Thanks for a sensible portion of clarity…. my understanding is that one Boat is always out, with another ready and the other two in various states of maintenance/rebuild…. ?
Frank, thats basically it fella.
One on Patrol, one just back going into a maintenance period, one finishing maintenance getting ready for pre-deployment work up and one in long term refit.
Obviously with Vanguards refit taking some 7 years and our infrastructure issues wrt SM dockings, the patrol maintenance cycle has become somewhat skewed, as longer maintenance cycles have to be cut short to met the CASD requirement. It eventually catches up and you are left with 5-6 month deployments – not nice.
I’m guessing after 6 months…. there must be quite a struggle to be fist person out of the hatch !!!! 😄
Most consider that only one boat is at sea at any time.
Vanguard boats have capacity for 16 Trident D5s. Each D5 can fit up to 14 MRVs. So that’s a maximum 224 per boat. Only one boat is deployed at any one time. I understand warhead number agreements reduce both the missiles-per-boat and MRV-per-missile count in the U.K. (also saves money). Something less than 150 in total is likely. Who knows though.
I do remember the total ceiling/number of warheads being lifted to a potential 260 (UK) was going to be reduced to a figure of 180 originally.
I know there was about 40 warheads and 8 missiles on the deployed SSBN. Wonder if that figure has changed or will change for lots of differently reasons.
The 1968 NPT did not reduce missiles carried aboard RN Tridents – it was a unilateral decision by HMG.
The easy way to do this is simply increase the number of warheads per missile..the UK deterrent is thought to presently be around 12 missiles with 4 warheads for 48 warheads…per active boat….a trident can carry 12 warheads so the Uk could triple its deterrent just by adding warheads to the missiles for a total of 144 missiles per active boat.
If all four boats were even able to be at sea with 64 missiles with 12 Mirvs in each….. it would still not add up to 640…. and then you have to consider the Decoys…. Then if you think about just the two boats being at sea with maximum load including Decoys, there probably won’t be more than current stocks… I very much doubt that re-loads would be required after that.
Why would you bother with decoys if you were trying to maximise warhead payload?
Google is your friend….. 😉
“Could we see a batch 2 Dreadnaught class or the UK developing a B61 replacement to have dual code weapons for Germany, Italy, Poland etc.”
Considering that the B61-12 cost 10 billion US dollars to develop and each weapon is said to cost more than it’s weight in gold, I’ll put that possibility in the “very unlikely” category.
Honestly, the only way I see this working is if German money frees up some of our own defence budget to spend on conventional stuff. I understand why we have a nuclear deterrent, and one that needs to be updated and maintained periodically, but it’s the conventional side that needs shoring up.
I don’t think we need add any more Trident subs. Filling existing launch tubes & missiles with as many warheads as they can carry would deliver enough nukes to wipe out Russia or China & of course MAD.
What is desperately needed is stronger conventional forces & capabilities that actually deter Putin & Xi from bullying their neighbours & trying to subvert & destroy our way of life.
Non-proliferation treaty reduced the missiles per boat and the number of MRVs per missile. Suppose you could start with putting them back.
Oops. Wrong thread.
I really don’t think the 1968 NPT caused the reduction of missile tubes – unilateral HMG decision.
Nice to see(small numbers notwithstanding) F35B’s on the POW all with low viz Brit roundels!
On the subject of airpower, there is an article in todays Mail regarding the early retirement of 30 RAF Typhoons which has attracted 1,8k comments thus far! Surely with joint RAF/RN front line numbers at an all time low, such a move would be madness in the current climate?
Hello Geoff… don’t worry, our 8 F35’s can do the job of 10 Typhoons….. It’s true, I read it here a while back.
Not sure if you meant 30, but 8 F35s could probably do the job of 10 Typhoons. 30 would indeed be a joke.
It was all a joke mate…. I just took something I read earlier and re posted it for comical value…….. A couple of members will get it though……. 😎
More like 15 Typhoons. Without stealth. Typhoon would not be used on the first night of war. Or against an advanced integrated air defence system. The politicians wouldn’t take the risk
Has always it’s all good Geoff 😕
It is and isn’t. If they were promptly replaced by another Typhoon Batch then fine.
But they’re not.
Hi DM. I wonder if theTrance1 retirement will prompt the MOD to ramp up a further order of F35’s ?
They’ll probably spin it by saying the planned additional F35s replace Typhoon T1. Which is cobblers.
My eyes are on Labour.
It says 2 RN escorts, I though it was just Portland from the RN, which is the extra one, is it HMS Somerset ?
also four NATO escorts, they had one Spanish and Dutch AAW frigate and a Canadian frigate..what’s the extra one ?
whatever that’s a pretty significant CBG that is essentially European ( with help from the lovely Canadian’s) ….that Russian would have no hope of matching.
I thought it 4 escorts, 1 RN and the 3 you mentioned mate. Plus the 2 Tides.
Must be a lot of RAS training going on to need 2 Tides so close to home.
I did as well but reading it it sounded like there were two RN escorts but infact the press release was actually weasel words….it’s states “four ships from NATO allies joining the two UK units already escorting HMS Prince of Wales”….
in essence lying while not lying..to make it sound better….the very reason I’ve finally had enough working in a leadership role in a government agency and am heading off to do honest work setting up my own business….
🙁 wrong direction! I’d vote for you.