The UK should increase its naval presence in the Baltic Sea to strengthen deterrence and protect maritime supply routes to Estonia, according to a new report from Parliament’s Defence Committee.
The report urges the Ministry of Defence to base Royal Navy vessels in the region for longer periods to respond more quickly to grey zone threats and to reassure allies. These deployments would help secure vital sea lanes used to reinforce British troops in Estonia as part of NATO’s enhanced forward presence.
“By basing and operating assets more regularly for extended periods in the Baltic the UK could offer additional reassurance for allies, better protect the sea lanes of communication to reinforce UK troops in Estonia, be a greater deterrent against grey zone threats and accelerate any response to an actual incident,” the Committee wrote.
Since 2016, the UK has deployed a battlegroup of around 900 soldiers to Estonia under NATO’s deterrence posture in the Baltics. In the event of a crisis or conflict, that force is expected to increase to a full brigade of between 3,000 and 4,000 troops.
To test reinforcement plans, the Royal Navy conducted Exercise Baltic Express in April 2025, simulating the protection of military equipment being shipped to Estonia. The report describes the route as “critical, but vulnerable” in the event of war.
Further joint exercises with the UK-led Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) took place in November 2024 under the name Joint Protector, designed to practise escalation from grey zone threats to full combat operations. The JEF, comprising ten northern European nations, retains the ability to act outside NATO command structures, enabling faster responses to regional crises.
“The Joint Expeditionary Force’s freedom to operate independently should allow it to be more responsive and agile in combatting grey zone threats,” the report said. “But it can only do this if it possesses credible, deployable capabilities.”
The report forms part of a broader warning from the Committee that the UK is increasingly exposed to grey zone activity, including sabotage, cyberattacks and disinformation. These tactics, it says, are being used by hostile states to destabilise societies and undermine conventional deterrence.
Chair of the Defence Committee, Tan Dhesi MP, said: “Grey zone threats bring war to the doorstep of each and every one of us. These attacks do not discriminate; they target the whole of our society and so demand a whole of society response, in which we all must play our part.”
The Committee’s recommendations align with calls for greater integration of military, civilian and industrial efforts to strengthen national resilience. It argues that forward deployment, credible capabilities, and closer coordination with allies will be essential to secure the UK’s eastern commitments.
Fine, buy more bloody ships then!! It’s not rocket science
This is exactly what the FSL should reply with.
I’m sure the Baltic nations are more than capable of looking after their patch! I reckon they will be more than happy if we concentrate on the North Atlantic.
One of the biggest threats in the Baltics are mines. If only we had ships that could do MCM… The RN badly needs a MHPC Sloop that can independently operate in medium threat environments.
Where’s that T32 when you need it?
Is that not the point of Operation Baltic Sentry?
Down to 7 Frigates soon as the T23 in the gulf, Lancaster, is withdrawn.
Seven…
There were 17 when the Tories came to power in 2010.
Even more in 1997 when Labour started cutting T22s, then 3 young T23s.
Total escort force was around 40 in 1995.
There lies the problem.
All talk. No actual orders.
The 13 Type 26 and Type 31 just follows the usual trend, the new low becomes the benchmark.
And then it will be 6..5..4…really the test case is what happens to Kent..if Kent is decommissioned as all the others have been at 6-7 years after lifex then the RN has a problem.. because in that case by 2031 all the Type 23s will be gone and it will be down to 3 type 26 as its ASW fleet and 3-4 Type31s..
Fleet wise it’s going to be a big problem for both hulls and crewing from 2028 onwards..as the RN will need to crew two new frigates on first of class see trials as well as keep crewing operational vessels and it losses T23 hulls..imagine the 2028 picture.. T26 on first of class sea trials so not operational, T31 on first of class sea trials so not operational.. and the only operational T23s are St Albans, Sunderland, iron duke with Somerset going that year.
The peace dividend after 1989 was real and reasonable. The threat that had largely determined the size, equipment and location of UK forces for 45 years had collapsed. The damage was started by the 1998 SDR which urged a switch to expeditionary capability. Two predictably pointless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ( did no one in charge remember Kut or the retreat from Kandahar?) frittered away the army budget on UORs. Then, without the provision of the necessary funding and ignoring the growing evidence that wars of intervention didn’t work, the expeditionary ambition led to ordering two carriers larger than any the RN had ever had. Faced with the financial crisis, facilitated by Browns decision to remove regulation from the BoE and made worse by his profligate welfare spending,, borrowing and selling assets in years of full employment, the coalition inherited a massive deficit. Several of their decisions were unfortunate but having to fund both carriers and overdue replacement of SSNs squeezed the equipment budget still further. Escort orders were delayed( although some of this was caused by the RN itself trying to work out what it wanted- hence TOBA and OPVs rather than frigates).
Belatedly, extra funding was made available under Johnson to address the equipment black hole, largely caused by overspends on the carriers and defence nuclear.
By 2030, the escort fleet will be in much better shape and the army re equipment programmes close to FOC.
If extra funding to meet the new NATO target is really forthcoming, force numbers could theoretically be increased quite substantially. I doubt that will happen- existing programmes like AUKUS and GCAP will hoover up funding, so any real increase in force.size will be modest at best.
I would still like to see a decision to re purpose one of the carriers to an ambitious role, reducing the need for MRSS and more F35s. This could free up useful funding for other more important assets.
What the present state of the 10 year equipment plan is, we have no idea. The last one in 2023 was a bit of a shambles but it had thanks to RN including unapproved programme costa and a massive increase in defence nuclear spending lurched back into large deficit. The DIP should clarify this in the autumn.
Hi Peter the 1998 SDR was actually a very good and reasoned review..infact it was the last threat based SDR. The issue was it was incorrectly funded and not fully implemented.. there were a number of reasons for this, but the biggest was probably a mix of the war on terror coming along and burning 60billion pounds as well as the fact capital investment was paused for a very long time in key areas such as SSN which then saw a massive need to invest in capital projects.. essentially while the army was burning money like water in Iraq and Afghanistan the UK was trying to build long overdue: air defence destroyers, SSNs, typhoon fighter squadrons, Martime patrol aircraft and the army ever pissing away around 700 million on the FRES program that never delivered a bean.
Most people forget that if the 98 SDR had not been undermind by a decade of none investment in capital expenditure 1987-1997, the war on terror and the treasury in the 2000-2010 period refusing to provide the required budget we would have had a fleet of 30 escorts.. instead of 19… the fact we are going to have about escorts 10 for 2028 is all on the Osborn Cameron government.
Baltic, North Atlantic, persian gulf, Indian ocean, Pacific… at what point will it dawn on them there are not enough ships to cover all these areas?
RN already overstretched – we need to seriously prioritise things. For normal peacetime patrolling I’d say there are enough NATO allies in the area as it is, though training and similar missions need to be considered. Fact is, the surface fleet of destroyers/frigates is woefully under strength.