The UK Defence Journal is a member of the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which regulates the UK’s magazine and newspaper industry. We abide by the Editors’
Code of Practice and are committed to upholding the highest standards of journalism.
If you think that we have not met those standards and want to make a complaint,
please contact us at the email below. If we are unable to resolve your complaint, or if
you would like more information about IPSO or the Editors’ Code, contact IPSO on
0300 123 2220 or visit www.ipso.co.uk
Contact us: [email protected]
© 2014-2024 UK Defence Journal, all rights reserved.
I really hope we can see Japanese F35 and even Singaporean ones embarked on PoW for CSG 25. This will emphasise the flexibility at the heart of the CVF concept.
No doubt it will also attract the usual trolls banging on about aircraft carriers without aircraft but it will be worth it, CCP won’t be happy but then that’s largely the point.
I wonder how long it will take china with the “world’s largest navy” to operate a carrier strike group on the other side of the planet.
The latest estimate I’ve seen is that we should expect to see a PLAN CSG sailing the North Atlantic by the end of the decade.
Just enough time for France to build PA2 then.
If that ship ever becomes more than a slick rendering on a powerpoint slide, I’ll eat my hat
Yep makes sense their new carrier will be fully operational and in service tested by then.
Apparently their a super power 😀
If we’re being honest I think it’s safe to say that they are an economic superpower already and appear well on their way to being a military one as well.
They will be hard pushed to find any friends in the noth Atlantic a nd they will get a nice little from all of us ,uk ,us ,Canada, Norway, Sweden, Denmark with a nice flotilla waiting for them ,chased out of our waters
Perhaps we’ll have some air launched anti-ship missiles by then, compatible with F-35 and Typhoon…
If I’m one of the trolls banging on about getting more aircraft to sea after ten years Labour can prove me completely wrong if they win the election and order Tranch 3 F35’s.😇
I think with their new carrier that’s the idea, India is certainly a little concerned. Their present Carriers aren’t really equipped to operate much beyond the inner Island circle.
I’m not sure that’s there is an immediate military objective. Their primary objective is to show the US that resistance is futile, so don’t bother intervening in Taiwan and then be able to back it up if they did. China has a logistical advantage due to how close Taiwan is to the mainland, no point in stretching that by pushing carriers beyond where they need to be. I don’t think China would plan to hit the US, that would trigger article 5, so again another reason why they would keep carrier strike close to home. They will.use them and other assets to blockade the islands as they know that’s how they will win.
But I agree UK showing how we can integrate regional allies is part of the overall deterance. Its much harder for China to prepare to fight the US and all of its allies than just the US.
Carrier strike is probably a total waste of money close to home for China. In a shooting war the SCS will be a no go zone for any kind of surface ship either Chinese or US and China will loose a war over Taiwan in the Indian Ocean after its oil is blockaded.
It’s almost impossible to imagine any scenario where china wins a war against the US and its allies unless it builds a bigger navy with power projection capability.
China attacking the US wouldn’t necessarily trigger a NATO article 5 request. It’s a North Atlantic/European agreement, and just like the attack on the Falklands didn’t being in the South Atlantic, nor would a Pacific assault on the US. (Article 6 expands on the exact area covered.)
Article 5 starts:
Isn’t there a US state in the middle of the Pacific.😅 Any attack.on US soil could trigger Article 5. Falklands are different they’re self governing. They have their own government.
Article 5 trigger NATO involvement in Afghanistan so any attack on US soil could see European forces deployed to the Pacific. If the 911 attack had been on Hawaii it would have trigger Article 5.
Any European politicians who suggest anything less are putting NATO at risk and playing into Trumps hands.
I think everyone copped out over the Falkland’s using the excuse it wasn’t British and it was South Atlantic. If it is so, I don’t quite understand their point. Does that mean if Greenland or some of the French overseas territories are attacked NATO wont be involved. Supposing Bermuda was attacked are you going to tell me the USA and NATO wouldn’t get involved? What about the Azores?
“ I’m not sure that’s there is an immediate military objective”
Trouble making and pot stirring are the main PLAN objectives. That keeps NATO running around.
Coupled with bellicose rhetoric if anyone calls them out.
Sorry I should add I think its very likely well see Japanses F35s sharing deck space. They’re are still working up their converted carriers for F35s so this will be extremely valuable for them.
Yes I don’t see Japanese F35 onboard as being that big a stretch, they already crossed decked with USN.
Singapore could be an interesting one though. I think they have 6 F35B already. They have never been officially designated for carrier operations but no reason why they could not hop onboard. I doubt Singapore will be willing to send such a clear message to China though.
Singapore talks up its western allegiances but it’s addicted to Chinese money.
QEC’s are the pioneers of F35B so there is a lot of learning to transfer to allies.
Yes, for instance I wonder if Japan is considering SBRVL.
It is either that or dump payload into the sea? Which gets kind of expensive……
I know this was announced in 2023 but doubling down in it, is this Tories teeing up for when they are in opposition, its bit of guantlet to Healey who already criticised the last deployment. He can off course call it off and that will have the then in opposition Tories calling them out for not supporting allies in the region. Or go ahead and back peddle on his own comments. With Labour being dead cert Tories can act like an opposition party making lots of commitments for next years but knowing they won’t have to deliver them.
Just wish they’d make some firm spending commitments that Labour can’t row back. 😀
Exactly this. What is your position, Labour? Having been criticising the “Pacific Tilt” ( which is actually primarily trade, AUKUS, GCAP) for the last few years, will any if this ever even happen?
We’ve seen a lot of this, Tories confirming F35, T32 still in play, subs in Australia. I think they know they can’t afford most of it but it won’t be their problem, but it’s great ammunition for them in opposition. But that’s the name of the game when you’re in opposition.
Hi mate, I for one believe that AUKUS will go ahead, certainly the SM part.
Apart from anything else this is all about jobs, especially in the UK for the foreseeable. It’s also big money involved.
At the end of the day, Labour is all about jobs, as it pleases their paymasters (unions). So, can’t see them deep sixing this at all. We will send a SM to Surf-West in 2027 even if we can’t really afford to in terms of our unit availability here in the UK.
Despite what Labour have said ref ‘Tilt East’, I also think we will see the 2-3 yearly CSG deployment out that way, they also know where the future trade is coming from. Just not sure how/what they intend for the Forces as a whole. That’s assuming that they get in on the day of course.
Exactly. It is, for politicians, all about jobs.
One if the biggest problems WRT the defence budget.
Providing the right numbers of people, kit, and assets for the commitments a P5 G7 nation such as the UK require is secondary to jobs.
That will also play out soon when AW get the FMH order.
Yes, they should know where the trade is coming from! It’s the world’s biggest growing market and Labour’s rhetoric endlessly complains or wishes to withdraw from it which is why I have such a problem working out their contradictions and why I trust them on defence about as far as I can throw them.
And that’s saying something considering just what the Tories have done since 2010.
On the sub, I think it’s vastly beyond our assets to have one based there. I’d drop it. What does bother me is the thought of losing bases, and thus access if we need it, which we have had in some cases for many many decades.
A CSG deployment every now and then is fine, I wouldn’t want it parked out there constantly myself.
Do Labour know where the East is? Cleethorpes? I thought they always went to Blackpool. They have to get over the fact the 1960’s are over and we have to be seen to be believed especially in Australia. If we don’t turn up, the USA will.
Labour is in opposition, its job is to criticise and oppose but the pacific tilt will remain unchanged.
It’s an Anglo-sphere policy with more to do with the military and civil service than the government of the day.
Most other European governments are doings something similar. Just as pacific governments (Australia, Japan, South Korea) are taking more interest in Europe.
Unless Trump gets elected then labour will double down on NATO and Europe and all bets will be off.
I don’t follow that if Trump was elected Labour would just focus on Europe that’s putting party ideology a head of commons sense. And its not something Labour has ever done internationally.
US presidents come and go so it’s best not to screw things up just because you don’t agree on some things for what might be just 4 years. As you know I’m no fan of our political class but I’m fairly sure Starmer will work with Trump where he can, he’s not stupid. The only ones who benefit from discord between allies are our potential enemies.
Labour tilt to Europe was/is tactic to win votes. They went too early with it when Ukraine was front and central, however generally they know the average voter will not analyse it much and on the surface it appears a good idea. I sense there’s also appeasement as they can’t rejoin EU yet, so cuddling up on defence appeases some factions. These factors just underpin my disappointment of politicians its about presenting superficial and binary arguments combined internal party
In an ideal world they would all stop acting like squabbling bloody children and return some much needed investment into defence of the realm on a long term basis, 3% commitment for the next 25 years.
Alas it won’t happen, Labour are looking to go ‘old school’ and attack the wealthy for having the outrageous audacity to be wealthy, same old.
Scratch the shiny and the socialists are just under the surface.
A new generation of London centric EU enthusiasts, but “keep the red flag flying here”, non the less.
They just need to keep it under the carpet for now and keep the car salesman grin up for a bit longer…
Where will that get us, investment will fizzle out as wealthy non Doms take themselves and their money elsewhere.
Callahan tried this in 76 and it was a total unmitigated disaster, ah well….
Great choice, bloody indecisive and utterly useless leadership under Sunak and the spent Tories, or a dose of equally bad socialism.
Talk about a rock and a hard place!!
Sadly both parties are unelectable imo. I think there’s telling signs things won’t end well, this week Shell stated it felt unloved and is looking at listing in the US. If their valuation flies in the US it will put pressure on others to exit also. The finacially nieve will say we don’t need these companies.
I’m a socialist at heart but realise the best way to redistribute wealth is to make a load more of it. So increase the top 1% high earners by three fold and that’s pretty much everyone else’s income tax sorted. I really couldn’t care less if we have a few more rich people living here, they won’t use the NHS or government schools so they’re no drag on public services. Trouble is that goes against a typical and outdated socialist ideology we see in the UK because at its heart, its about class hatred.
Well said, I have been thinking of pulling my pension pot for the last couple of years since tuning 55 a few years back.
An election year and Labour started to lay out their ‘glorious 5 year plan’, has me scrambling into action!!
Labour will most certainly pull the plug on 55 pension pot plundering, as they endeavour to nail my generation in the workplace by our feet!
I’m self employed, I’ve been paying into my private pension since I was 17, take zero benefits
of any kind and pay all my taxes and no bloody socialist is stopping me having ‘my’ money when I want it…
Tax at the highest it been in years (having to pay double council tax on my second home) and individual freedoms constantly being eroded…. And that’s under the mock Tories, or socialism light as I call them.
On Monday the flurry of paperwork went off to Company via special delivery, the markets are already starting to get gittery and I want ‘my’ money under my control before the cretins on both sides of the House of imbeciles start turning the market into a bunfight
on a rollercoaster!
It’s just depressing mate, bunch of bloody idiots the lot of them.
Where a company is listed on the stock market and where it pays its corporate taxes are rarely the same. Shell only recently moved to the UK from the Netherlands as well for tax reason.
The UK stock market is small compared to the US even though it’s the third largest in the world but it’s not necessarily a big problem. US stocks attract crazy valuation prices. Just look at ARM, its market cap would be 3 times smaller if it was listed in the LSE instead of NYSE but it’s still a British company paying tax in the UK.
Those same high US stock prices and the obsession with them have whipped out Boeing and General Electric as well as cratering the likes of Intel.
Im no doubt if shell.relists the HQ and oil and gas traders will.follow. also every shell share that’s bought and sold is taxed so there’s a loss to the treasury and the bigger the company leaving the bigger the loss. Unlike ARM shell has no reason to HQ in the UK, despite best efforts to frame its global profits as theft from UK voters Shells UK business is something like 15% of its global business, and that 15% is facing increased hostilities from the government.
HSBC is also tipped to.move its HQ, BP and Glencore are also ar risk of relisting.
Ah, there it is! Well said. A nation of “peasants on benefits” because making something of yourself resulting in you having some wealth is scorned.
Exactly. You tax the rich too far and they say cheerio and take the tax receipts and income tax elsewhere. Because they can.
Then what?
Then what indeed, the Tories are already hostile to anyone with money, Labour will double down and cost us far more money than they raise in the short term…..
Starmer pledging 2.5% of GDP on defence today.
“When conditions allow” but welcome nonetheless.
That’s funny to me. Dont conditions allow when there are two major wars going on? Watch what happens and it aint going to be pretty be it Trump abandoning Ukraine and Europe because his wife is from an East European country and he’s fixated on Russia or China, N Korea and Iran causing mayhem. Its planned can’t people see.
‘When conditions allow’ Jim, so he’s not pledging anything at all … Typical political doublespeak, it means absolutely nothing whatsoever.
Spot on 👍
Yep so have the Tories won’t be voting for them either. 😅
Will Grant Shapps be allowed to comment when he has a new job? I hear he has applied to pull pints in his local Weatherspoons.
Might be worth you noticing that all the good news we’ve had recently is since he became Secretary of State, and I don’t even like the guy particularly.
Mate, do not buy the Snake Oil…..
😉
Good, the free world needs this. I hope POW will have all her defensive armament, paltry as it is, fitted for the deployment in these dangerous times. It will be a boost to all our friends & allies in the far east.