Keir Starmer has confirmed that the UK will deploy its Carrier Strike Group to the North Atlantic and High North regions later this year, with HMS Prince of Wales set to lead the deployment.
The Prime Minister said the carrier will operate alongside the United States, Canada and other NATO allies, describing the deployment as “a powerful show of our commitment to Euro-Atlantic security.”
The announcement places the Royal Navy’s flagship at the centre of a renewed focus on the High North, a region increasingly framed by NATO as strategically critical amid heightened Russian military activity and competition over Arctic routes and infrastructure.
Starmer also linked the move to wider European deterrence efforts, saying it was part of the UK’s commitment to NATO security. “That is also why we’re enhancing our nuclear cooperation with France,” he said.
He added: “For decades, the United Kingdom has been the only nuclear power in Europe to commit its deterrent to protect all NATO members.”
HMS Prince of Wales, commissioned in 2019, is one of the Royal Navy’s two Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers and is capable of operating an air wing of up to 24 F-35B Lightning II aircraft, alongside helicopters such as Merlin, Chinook, Apache and Wildcat. The carrier previously led Operation Highmast, an eight-month deployment to the Indo-Pacific in 2025, including exercises with India and other regional partners, underlining the UK’s ability to operate at range while maintaining NATO-linked commitments.
Correct location for it, but it will be interesting to see what escorts and RFA can be scraped up for the deployment!
I’d suggest
– 2 x T45
– 1 x Tide
– 1 x T23
– 1 x Astute
I’ll be interested to see how many F35 Starmer insists on and for how long.
I’m 50/50 on the Astute, and I’m more inclined to think that it’ll be a single British destroyer, and various allied ships filling in. The Dutch, the Danes, but particularly the Norwegians would be interested. The French might do a sort of trade, considering we’ve just attached Dauntless to their CSG.
So, I’d guess:
– 1 x T45
– 1 x Tide
– 1 x Fridtjof Nansen/De Zeven Provincien/FREMM
– 1 x Astute (maybe – I don’t think they’ll pull Anson back, and I don’t think that any of the others are a guaranteed sight)
Virginia class as a substitute sub for an Astute maybe, although that maybe would need us to stump up more surface escorts as I’m not sure the US would want other allies in the group.
Adrian, Not sure why you say that. CSG25 had many nations involved including Norwegian, Spanish and Canadian vessels and a US destroyer provided additional firepower during part of the mission.
Back on CSG21 a US destroyer ‘The Sullivans’ sailed with the Group, which also included a Dutch vessel, HNLMS Evertsen.
The US often include several other nations ships in their own CSG deployments.
I would be surprised if they had not got another Astute out and about pretty shortly TBH.
I am sure it will involve parts rotations from one hull to another but it will be done otherwise the Astute to AUS starts to look embarrassing.
For sure there will be allied ships involved.
I think Starmer’s speech referenced ‘with US and European allies’.
In fairness a mission like this doesn’t necessarily need to be so heavy in F-35s. This is pretty much going to be the same use case as the Invincible class where 8-12 jets for air defence is probably sufficient and covering their entire role. Seeing an increased ASW capability (although the QE-class have already usually been pretty good on this) is probably more important, though it doesn’t get as much attention.
True
But Mad Vlad and The Tangerine play to trumps so the more F35B present the Bigger Beautiful(er) CSG.
Maybe if they put some gold leaf on PoW it could impress Tge Tangerine?
Maybe dedicate her as part of the RN Trump class?
What about a gilded stern gallery a la Victory? Those boat boarding ramps don’t get used for much, it would be easy to add a three deck Admiral’s cabin/ Captain’s cabin/ Wardroom arrangement there.
I think you are onto something there.
Maybe saw the back end of Victory off and put it on the back of QEC as the King Trump suite?
It would look tacky
Be of no practical use
Distract from the task in hand
Keep Trump happy
The perfect Trumpian policies?
1 x Astute- will largely depend on whether or not they can get either Audacious and or Artful out by the summer and fully worked up. Anson has been v busy since late last year, so when she does finally get back from Aus will be due some serious down time.
I imagine this deployment will be either v late summer or sometime in autumn if they want an Astute with them.
Wether they get another one of is the acid test of 1SL’s 100 day push.
If nothing else comes out then it will be an embarrassing failure.
The Navy is pushing hard for this, but, supply chain issues are not helping. Will depend largely on how much money and how quickly they throw some £ at the problem.
Getting Astute, carriers, T45 and Tides fully operating al should be money is no object.
I’d add F35B to that as well.
I’d definitely agree, it should be that, but unfortunately its not as simple as just throwing £ at the issues. Some fwd planning and procurement was needed.
Now we’re effectively starting from scratch with some of those issues, particularly if you need to find a manufacturer for certain items first. We just don’t learn.
I agree although this issue has been rattling around for a long while and my understanding was that some of the supply chain issues had been resolved.
To be fair some probably have. That probably just leaves the rest-however many that might be. It also depends on what/which kit are they having issues with. Certain equipment is whats called a ‘sea stopper’. Could well be something like that that we are having difficulties sourcing enough replacements. Who knows.
I think Starmer is cashing cheques that the MOD are struggling to cash. IMHO.
Personally I don’t think that Starmer and co are that interested in defence. They talk the talk without backing the rhetoric up. I believe our NATO neighbours are rapidly coming to the same conclusion. It’s not a good look for the UK standing in the world.
It might help if they stopped dithering about the DIP and actually published it. Whether we can afford it or not is a different conversation. We all wait with abaited breath.
Something I can agree with him on for once, even though other parts of his speech were posturing waffle.
You know when your country is scraping the bottom of the barrel when its PM makes a big thing of sending a capital ship into what are our home waters, which is something we took for granted for well over 200 years.
No doubting our force’s quality or commitment but the rhetoric is hollow.
The Invincibles were all over that tasking for decades….
Well we know we’re meant to speak softly and carry a big stick.
But our political class are so desperate to grandstand that minor detail gets ignored, and the big stick has shrunk to a twig.
These days the UK talks at medium volume from time to time and carries a picture of a big stick that we own which is at the menders or a video of the next big stick we would like to buy assuming we can work out what sort of stick we want and what we think it might be used for.Most future sticks will probably be used without a person wielding said stick and the Navy sticks are usually FFBNW things like handles.
Exactly!
Nice to see the carriers being used, may a bigger navy and Airforce is needed more than a bigger Army, just a thought. I know the currant government talks a lot but does nothing else its ok a lot problems to fix from the last 20 years.
We all want a better Army but in the world now is a bigger better Army as much use as bigger Navy or Airforce? Only my view but much more Anti UCAS/GBAD would be better than lots of vehicles, more excorts and ASW ships and Strike and SEAD and AWACS aircraft. By the time we scrap together a full Div if we ever really can? what ever happened will be over on the ground, others will have hold the line on land not us.
Most know any Div we field would under guned, lack heavy Armour/Arty, decent GBAD and little or no anti U-CAS/Drone defence. We just hate admitting it we are a shadow of what we were and the will and money to fix it will never be there. DIP will be a cut hidden as some thing else.
Well my view has always been the RN, RAF and intell first.
But, we do need a bigger army.
We can not afford it, sad that the Arny seems to come of worse every time. We need a much better equipt Army may not a bigger one. Poland and Gernsny will have step up while we move to bigger navy and better long range air defence and int. Not what every one wants to hear but it’s what naje sense. We can not have everything best stick what we are good at ASW is one of those things
Well “what we are good at” has always included soldiers, Martin. Look at our infantry, our Paras, RM, Rangers, and SF.
So I’d not exclude the Army there.
Agreed but we can not fund all we are good at, this is the problem. We can not do all we used to, but what do we choose?. Wiser men than me deside that, a sad state of affairs but that is were we are.
Definitely could afford all of it if we made some serious decisions on how we fund our welfare state and pensions.
yes but a labour government cut welefare? increse it yes. cut never.
Morning mate, the Army are certainly far behind the curve compared to the Navy and the Airforce.
Though the Navy and Airforce are currently far too small, they both have active re-equipment programmes underway, that can be built upon when someone is finally forced to send more!
The Army is in a perilous state, under strength, with obsolescent equipment across the board.
We have probably never been better at SF, with the development of first and second tier abilities, and certainly still able to deploy at Brigade level, but anything above that would be a war emergency measure.
The Army needs comprehensive re-equipment and upgrading of just about everything from its ageing infustructure onwards, plus a restoration to 100,000, with a capable and deployable AR.
Its sadly in a terrible state currently, as we all know.
When you hear politicians and Generals talking about a ‘deployable Division’, its just farcical, like Hitler moving fantasy Divisions around his map in the bunker in 1945!
The general public have no idea how bad things actually are.
Morning mate.
Another reason to expose as much as possible here.
Though the public probably don’t care that much. How many of Ratcliffe’s 9 million newcomers are concerned at the state of the military?
Big chunk of the public right there, plus the hand wringers, liberal left, the nats in Scotland and those in N Ireland who fly the tricalor from masts where the police don’t venture.
Many of the public don’t give a stuff.
The public as whole do not care, benefits and NHS matter to most, not defence. And the TOPBrass are to blame for the mess the Army is in they did not stand up for it leadership lacking there.
Hi Daniele, how does your prioritisation [RN, RAF and intell first] square with our ‘NATO first’ strategy ie deterring and if necessary defending in the Euro-Atlantic with allies, with Russia being the most significant Threat?
Hi Graham.
Sorry, I know whenever I write that it frustrates you Army chaps.
Well all those 3 are equally applicable to Russia and defending Europe?
Knowledge is power, the RN can strike the land, control the GIUK, and project to the Falklands if need be.
Same with the RAF, be it Maritime, Strike, Interdiction, or Air Defence. Plus the RAF ATF and the RAF SHF exist to move and enable the Army.
The heavy warfighting part of the Army has less utility apart from Eastern Europe, elsewhere it needs the other two to move and enable it.
The RAF and RN are also applicable to out of area power projection as well, and our network of intelligence facilities and PJOBs support that.
Maybe a too crude a description, but the Army being a projectile fired by the RAF and RN, and enabled by intelligence, is one way I sometimes think of it.
Plus that we’re traditionally a sea and Intelligence power, not a land power, we don’t need such a big Army in my view compared to air and sea.
That said, I’ll happily contradict myself in that the Army is at least 10k too small and needs to be at minimum 2 Divisions plus Corps Troops, plus out of area with 16, ASOB,
and the DSF on top.
A lot more CS CSS is needed as we know.
Hi Daniele, thanks for this. I challenge somewhat that the heavy (armoured) part of the army only has utility in Eastern Europe – armour has been deployed in the last 30-ish years to two Gulf Wars (a one year deployment and 6-8 years respectively), the Balkans (Bosnia and Croatia for 3 years; Kosovo for several years starting in 2000). Some armour deployed to Afghanistan – including Warriors, armoured Hagglunds BV206S (and heavy PM vehicles).
Certainly the lighter part of the army has more chance of being deployed.
I served in Afghanistan as you know. Unbelievably we initially deployed just a single BG (based on 3 PARA) to Helmand province (a place the size of Wales) with 1* top cover. Task Force Helmand (TFH) did of course later ramp up to a Bde Group, however reputable OA determined that we really needed an Inf Div to cover Helmand Province – the British Army wasn’t large enough to field that. Some say we failed in Helmand – if we did, one key reason was because the army was too small to allow the proper size HTF to be sent.
A small army leads to too small a deployed force and a high risk of failure and/or high casualties. The well-executed staff work done for ‘Options for Change’ determined that the regular army could or should be cut by 40k to 120k to meet its likely post-Cold War remit; current Establishment is 60% of that.
Evening Graham.
Point taken regards use of the heavier parts of the Army elsewhere.
Again, requires sea and airpower to put it there.
Martin, you relegate the importance of the army, but Russia is the major threat in the NATO Euro-Atlantic region (and our policy is NATO first) and is heavily orientated to ground combat. If we were forced to embark on war in Europe, the army would be the key Service, supported by the RAF; I am not sure the Navy would have very much to do, unless the Russian Navy became very active in the Atlantic preventing sea-borne troop reinforcements and materiel resupply from the CONUS.
The Army is the Service that actually gets used the most often in kinetic operations, peace support operations and peacekeeping operations. Op Corporate, for a few months in 1982, is the last time that the RN has had a dominant and leading role in a significant kinetic operation. That was also the last time that the RAF did any air-to-air combat, and then not very much.
If however the Main Effort of ‘the free world’ is to be the Far East/Pacific as regards China, then the RN should rightly have the priority, and the army relegated to 3rd place for priority.
i relagate nothing its just the way it seems things are, yes the Army gets used the most often. How ever its weak shambles and there is not the will or money to fix it. Should be fixed but we both know its unlikely it will be a skicking plaster made look like a lot. 20/30 years of neglect can not be fixed it will be tidy it up, replace some kit, gap others.
The RAF is not going to get a big boost either i can not see what we would even buy for the RAF, nothing stands out and although 3 AWAC’s is joke i see no change to that unles they buy from Saab.
The Army has become the poor third cousin and i see the mess it is in, we will be lucky in the future if we can deply a fully armoured Div in the field, and that is 3 to 5 years away plus we have not replaced giftrd Ammo nor seem in a rush to.
The navy will be the prority as i see it, that and general Air defence and long range strike but thats a guess. Again years off from getting there.
Morning Graham, sadly the Army is in a dreadful state, as we know.
I was talking to a good mate, he’s an Armorer in the AR and it’s really not good news, I won’t elaborate further, but what a bloody mess.
My point is, although both ‘far’ too small, both the RAF and RN have active re-equipment plans that are slowly starting to show fruit.
The Army is very much lastbin line, obsolete creaking equipment, knackered inferstructure and way below strength.
Its going to need a ‘really’ serious injection of funding, strong leadership and a willingness to accept new doctrines for the new era of warfare, blend off the shelf equipment with domestic supply, while avoiding utter fu#k ups like Ajax, just pouring money down the drain.
It’s unlikely that the UK would ever have to fight a peer adversary on its own and hopefully our ongoing support and leadership towards a stronger NATO alliance should ensure that. I think therefore we need a force structure that is flexible, versatile and responsive. It also has to be large enough and well equipped to get the job done and hopefully avoid major, drawn out conflict. For me, the plans regarding the modernisation and re-equipment of the UK Armed Forces is on the right track; it’s just taking too long, there is rightful frustration around numbers and contracts have not been managed well financially. The whole through-life procurement and in-service support process needs reform. So cuts are often made to save costs and capability goes awry. There are too many examples to note here, but regular posters will know what they are. But we do have some really good tier 1 capability with more on the way; but we need even more and faster.
We could have to fight a peer on our own.. we do need to have that capability.. alliances are only a pen stroke away from not supporting you and we have plenty of territory that nobody will help us defend…
But we need to be ready to fight the solo peer war we would get into.. for that we need strategic strike, a navy an airforce that can defend our Skys, support our navy and do strategic strike.. the army required for a sole peer war is actually very small.. the army really is all about supporting allies as a deterrent against people we don’t like getting to powerful.. it’s always been the weight we put on one side of the scales a massive geostrategic tool, the navy is the part that keeps us sovereign as now does the airforce.
So, Keir Starmer has confirmed that the UK will deploy its Carrier Strike Group to the North Atlantic and High North regions later this year.
What about deploying them to the English Channel?
Robert, what are you talking about? There is no cross-Channel invasion threat from Russia…and even if there was, you don’t need an aircraft carrier as RAF airbases can deliver airpower to the Channel area from their UK bases. I really don’t understand your point. Please explain.
Wanting the armed forces to stop the illegal migrants crossing I think.
Quite how a CSG would do that, I dread to think! Being that it’s a border force matter.
Why Prince of Wales and not Queen Elizabeth? Isn’t it the latter’s turn to deploy?
QE is still in refit and afterward will need significant time to work back up again to readiness. Unless the deployment is at the end of the year Prince of Wales is the obvious choice.
I was going to ask the same.. i’d lost track
Yes makes a lot of sense we need to concentrate the navies main strength in the North Atlantic home waters and nursemaid the remaining t23s until the new frigates arrive just in the nick of time hopefully!
Doesn’t look like any more orders will be forthcoming for frigates but there were rumours of us buying Norwegian drone mother ship/ patrol vessels to replace batch 1 rivers apparently leaked by the Norwegians but no confirmation or batch 3 rivers enhanced which makes alot of sense!
Then mrss who knows what and if that will look like now🤔
Kongsberg Vanguard variant to replace the B1 Rivers would be a no brainer. Part of the T26 deal, commercial standards/ costs, fills urgent drone mothership requirement, quick build, retain the OPV capability, upgraded – 30mm and heli-deck? What’s not to like?
Yes as you say a no brainer a cheap way to fill gaps makes you wonder if part of Norways sudden we may only order 3 frigates is part of a bargaining ploy to make sure we order them in return for type 26! All awaiting the DIP nothing can be decided🙄
I suspect that most of the DIP has been decided, that the shortfall has been allocated to GCAP and that Prince William has been sent to Riyadh with a mission to do a deal and come back with some Saudi readies 😂
Paul.P,
Commercial standards? Really? Thought RN generally demanded a higher survivability standard. Conceivable that even the OPVs may be compelled to sail in harm’s way in extremis, in the foreseeable future. Dunkirk/Battle of Britain/possible (Nazi) seaborne invasion not that far back in the historical record. UK survival depended upon the capabilities of the RAF and RN. History may not always repeat, but it appears to record a significant amount of variations upon a theme. Simply musing … 🤔
Paul.P.,
Sorry, reread your text, realize you were discussing a different class of vessels. Mea culpa … 🙄
No worries. Still a valid point. My understanding is that the B1 Rivers were built cheaply – decent quality but not for combat. They have done well. The B2 do have survivability design measures commensurate with the kind of damage they might sustain in a constabulary role. Be interesting to see how the Kongsbergs turn out.
Ha I think you could be right alot goes on behind the scene 😆
These days the UK talks at medium volume from time to time and carries a picture of a big stick that we own which is at the menders or a video of the next big stick we would like to buy assuming we can work out what sort of stick we want and what we think it might be used for.Most future sticks will probably be used without a person wielding said stick and the Navy sticks are usually FFBNW things like handles.
Thats especially both funny and sad as a stick is both the Thing and the handle of a Thing
*we have ordered a number of P8 systems, they come FFBNW the aeroplane part
Well i F’d that up.. i ment E-7.. i should be a politician 😩
So, Keir Starmer has confirmed that the UK will deploy its Carrier Strike Group to the North Atlantic and High North regions later this year.
What about deploying them to the English Channel?
Just send the frigates Astute and destroyer. Essentially the carrier group without the carrier it will do the same job, be more flexible and a lot less expensive.
If the mission is pure defence of UK waters and the High North, a stronger mix of:
More attack submarines
More anti-submarine frigates
More maritime patrol aircraft
Enhanced air/missile defence
Undersea surveillance systems
Would provide greater defensive capability than investing heavily in carrier strike operations. The only reason we’re keeping them is the political firestorm that would errupt if they got shot of them
Defence remember is mixed with offense.
In the Cold War the old HMS Ark Royal was allocated to join USN CSG in the Norwegian sea and launch air power towards targets across the Kola peninsula.
The Carrier can also host the Carrier dedicated Merlin ASW Sqn as well.
So not purely a defensive asset here. Though yes, HMG do need to Grandstand about something and funnily enough our SSN and ASW Frigate force has largely vanished!