US Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson visited London to highlight the importance of the US and Royal Navy partnership.

During the visit, Richardson met with Secretary of State for Defence Gavin Williamson, Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Sir Nick Carter, and First Sea Lord Adm. Sir Philip Jones.

Richardson and Jones also participated in a roundtable discussion at the International Institute for Security Studies, where they discussed strengthening the partnership between their two navies during a time of increasing global maritime competition.

“The US has lots of partners, but when we really want to go to the high end of naval warfare, I know that the Royal Navy stands by our side,” said Richardson.

“Our relationship starts at the top. The First Sea Lord and I are in constant dialogue, exchanging ideas about how to enhance maritime security as we sail alongside each other in all corners of the globe.”

“As much as the Royal Navy must retain the sovereign capability to act on its own in defence of the realm if necessary, even the most cursory analysis of our history shows that we are better off working in partnership with our allies whenever our interests align,” Jones said.

“Of all our partners around the globe, the most significant is our collaboration with the US. Ours is a truly strategic partnership, underpinned by our shared commitment to the development of world-class 21st century seapower.”

Richardson said the US. and UK naval partnership is a priority and a relationship he seeks to strengthen through information sharing, interoperability initiatives, and combined operations.

“The U.S. Navy-Royal Navy relationship will continue to set the standard for the US-UK alliance, ensuring that we bring to bear all the capabilities of our two great countries,” said Richardson.

Link to full International Institute for Security Studies video here.

10 COMMENTS

  1. Just about the polar opposite of what James Mattis has just said in his leaked letter. Diplomatic and political amateurs in charge of both US and UK governments.
    We British do not take kindly to being ordered what to spend our hard earned cash on.Looking at the state of the roads,there is only one place to look for more cash, the foreign aid budget. Oh,that and not wasting the money that is received.

  2. Yeah,I suspect that too.Dosnt matter whose idea it was, no one will be impressed.
    Might help if they gave us some idea of the purpose they intend to use it for. They’ll only be back for more in a few years time having wasted it all and built an unsustainable structure.

  3. Like all monoliths one end does not know what the other is doing, they call it governance! Considering Britain is the only European country to have one carrier permanently on station is a big contribution to US Navy ops. When the 26’s and 31’s are on full strength both carriers (in theory) be at sea simultaneously each with a full complement of escorts, now that is impressive.

    When the two carriers were under construction, I considered what it would have taken the MOD to build a third? Considering during the 50’s & 60’s the UK had more than two carriers to allow for global reach. A third QE carrier would have ensured that the UK could deploy two carriers at the same time, which a third hull would have guaranteed. Money and possibly resources would have made such an option extremely difficult to get approved, yet a number of countries are contemplating more than two carriers?

    • I’m not sure about that. A couple of amphibious assault ships like Ocean would provide flexibility at fraction of the cost. Ocean has also doubled as an ASW platform and led NATO battle groups.

      I’ve wondered if it’s practical to add ski-jumps to an Ocean-like vessel, which would allow F35Bs to take off. Having cheap ad-hock light carriers would mean we wouldn’t need to sacrifice capability elsewhere. It also provides the capability for Libya-like missions.

      Another point: I presume our assault ships will be closer to the combat area, which means the F35s could stay on station longer. I’m not sure if it’s sensible to risk the QE carriers as assault ships against a comparable enemy. I’ll defer to more informed people.

      • Would be interesting to look at investing in an Italian Cavour style carrier that could take on the ampbibious assault role of ocean and the strike role of full aircraft carrier, you could buy 2 and 1 would be fitted for the assault and the other the strike role and they can rotate every few years! and that would give us in effect 4 carrier.
        One can dream at least

  4. When you take the cost of govt incompetence out of the carriers (both in time and money) they are truly exceptional both in terms of capability and cost.

    We could easily have built a third carrier within the cost envelope of the 2 we eventually got, such was the dithering and eventual slowdown and refinancing, but clearly we didn’t have a buyer and if Cameron and Osbourne could have cancelled they would have.

    We should think ourselves lucky we have 2 of these amazing vessels which I am very proud of, and of those who helped build them

  5. google queen elizabeth carrier without ramp and you get an image that really does make the vessel look excellent.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here