HMS Spey, a Royal Navy offshore patrol vessel, has conducted a freedom of navigation operation through the South China Sea this week, according to a statement from Defence Operations.
This activity, carried out in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), reaffirms the UK’s commitment to international law and maintaining a free, open, and stable South China Sea.
HMS SPEY has just conducted freedom of navigation activity through the South China Sea in accordance with UNCLOS.
This activity underlines the UK’s commitment to international law and to upholding a free, open and stable South China Sea. pic.twitter.com/7UHXObNAgH
— Defence Operations 🇬🇧 (@DefenceOps) May 16, 2025
The Ministry of Defence stated:
“This activity underlines the UK’s commitment to international law and to upholding a free, open, and stable South China Sea.”
HMS Spey recently completed a 16-day multinational exercise in the South China Sea, working alongside Commonwealth partners to rehearse joint responses to regional threats. Named Exercise Bersama Shield 25, the operation was conducted under the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA), uniting Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, and the UK.
During the exercise, HMS Spey joined warships from Australia, Singapore, and Malaysia under the command of Captain Mohd Effendy bin Shuib of the Royal Malaysian Navy. The drills included maritime surveillance, simulated air and surface threats, boarding operations, and gunnery exercises.
Commander Paul Caddy, HMS Spey’s Commanding Officer, remarked on the significance of the FPDA:
“The Five Power Defence Arrangement has been the bedrock of the UK’s enduring commitment to regional peace, security and stability over the past five decades. Our ability to respond to challenges now and in the future requires continuously developing and strengthening our ability to operate and cooperate.”
China has again condemned the UK’s actions, with its ambassador to the UK stating previously:
“I would like to remind the UK side that China’s rights and interests in the South China Sea have been established in the long course of history and have solid and legal basis. The UK’s picking on China by making an issue of the ‘award’ of the South China Sea arbitration, which is illegal, null and void, will not shake China’s firm resolve and staunch will to safeguard its territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests.”
However, international law, as determined by a 2016 ruling from the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, rejected China’s expansive territorial claims, deeming them without legal foundation. The ruling reaffirmed that the South China Sea is governed by international maritime laws, including the principle of freedom of navigation.
Despite the ruling, China continues to assert control over large parts of the sea, overlapping with the exclusive economic zones of several Southeast Asian nations, leading to regional tensions. The UK’s participation in freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs) alongside allies is a direct challenge to what they view as unlawful maritime claims.
By carrying out these operations, HMS Spey and other allied vessels reinforce the rules-based order at sea, demonstrating that no single nation can dominate international waters or unlawfully restrict navigation.
Don’t think HMS Spey can be considered a ‘warship’.
By that logic, do you think REME or RLC or not Soldiers?
The crew onboard Spey are sailors like any other serving but Spey herself is an OPV – not a warship – and she was never designed to be one. Let’s call a spade a spade.
Indeed. But warships don’t all need to be heavily armed, just as a driver in the RLC won’t be going around with some weapons a Ranger or SAS guy might.
I think that was what I was trying to convey.
I’m not aware that China has sent any warning shots against western vessels there so far?
If going to do something deliberately to piss off another nation, one would think you would use a vessel that is capable of defending itself in case things get dicey. Plenty of history of aircrew firing on other planes by mistake or misunderstood orders.
Although I wouldn’t be surprised if they skirted the contested waters and stayed firmly in uncontested international waters, as was reported last time a similar news article was published.
Steve no single ship is going to be survivable if the PLAN decides it wants to put it to the bottom of the sea, that’s why when actually at war ships tend to sail in fleets.
Well actually Daniele… 😉
Cambridge Dictionary calls a warship a ‘boat equipped with guns or other weapons of war’.
Well in that case then, let’s send one of the Archers to the SCS with a couple of Gimpys. That meets the definition according to the Cambridge Dictionary.
Well if it’s making a political point, which this is, why not! 😉
It could also be said that wars have different thresholds. The Grey Zone ww3 that many think is already underway is not openly kinetic.
We don’t have the Frigates to do this at the moment.
We do have the RB2s. They are cost effective for what their role is.
If ww3 kicks off for real then sure, bolt wherever weapons on to them you can. And they’d be withdrawn from there anyway, and rightly.
Till then, apart from a rotary Drone and some nice sigint kit ( who knows maybe they already have ) they are fine for what they do.
The alternate is to do nothing and not dilly daly through the SCS.
Then, at the other end of the scale, if the QEC group passes there, we will still have some posters saying it’s not enough.
It’s negligent to send an ill equipped ‘patrol vessel’ and it’s crew into a contested area. If I was China I’d simply seize and impound the vessel and her crew and make an example.
The alternative is yes do nothing – because our govt hasn’t given the RN the vessels & capabilities to do the job. Instead it talks tough and carries a very small twig I mean stick.
There is no rationalisation around a lack of capabilities as it kills – ask those who served and were on Sheffield/ Coventry/ Sir Galahad/ Antelope/ Ardent.
For potential foes like China their J2s will understand our weaknesses in mass/ capabilities in a heartbeat. It’s a shame people on here seem so blinkered to them.
Ah yes, lets compare Frigates in a shooting war to OPV’s doing a FON in accordance with UNCLOS with a country we are not at war with… a very honest comparison.
I’m simply pointing out that there are definitions under which HMS Spey could be considered a warship. I never said that I agree with that assessment, merely that it can be made.
David, a previous government acknowledged that the new Fleet Solid Support (FSS) ships would be categorised as warships following calls from unions and ‘industry stakeholders’. Patrol Boats manned by RN officers and ratings and with weapons sytems are clearly warships.
The batch two rivers have been a great success for some of the far away patrol stations like west Africa, the Mediterranean and the Pacific islands but they are a bit under armed for the South China Sea.
Hopefully once the T31’s are deployed we can follow up on the previous plan and have one forward deployed in either Singapore or Brunei.
Having one deployed in this area with those under water glider drones attached could be a real intelligence coup gathering data on Chinese SSN’s acoustic signatures.
The USN already has the PLAN subs mapped out to a T. This data is shared with the RN.
Agree. Besides when the QEC task force sailed near China they tried to deploy some of their subs into a ambush position ahead. The Merlin’s and type 23s had them tracked and plotted the whole time, the accompanying Astute class could have sunk the lot as the Chinese didn’t even know it was there.
One area of naval power the Western allies have a significant qualitative advantage over China is attack submarines and ASW. Hard won expertise.
The PLAN sub fleet is going to rapidly improve however after they stole the designs from Naval Group France for the short fin Barracuda designs leading directly to the Aussies cancelling their order. There was no point ordering a sub that your principle antagonist knows everything about.
While multiple sources state that hundreds of gigabytes of data have been stolen from USN contractors by ChiCom hackers, has not previously understood that Naval Group had been compromised. Any info re BI, BAES, RR, etc.? Would presume all the CRINKs have ramped up efforts. One of the areas reportedly w/in the NATO 1.5% of GDP goal for associated (not direct) military spending, reportedly to be adopted at the 2025 NATO Summit in June, will be cyber security. Perhaps there will be additional emphasis on this area ultimately. 🤞🤞
…had not…🙄
Hubris?
I think India just learned the definition of the word; we might be advised to think carefully.
What’s more interesting would be a small order for 6-8 corvettes based on a stretched river 2. <3000 tons. Helicopter, glide USSV, 56mm bae gun, NSM , torp tubes, small sea Ceptor silo and a CIWS. Could be a 40mm Bofors. That would all fit onto a stretched river class corvette. Cost wouldnt be too high and the RN gets a squadron of warships optimised for surface action and close protection of capital ships
On second thoughts a second batch of type 31s make much more sense and would offer a greater capability then a corvette sized warship.
Steel is after all cheap
Agree, I think you were pretty much describing a 3000 tonne T31. May as well go for the larger hull.
Agree, SDSR will be a load of hot waffle, management speak and BS.
The reality is the RN needs 2-3 more type 26 and another batch of type 31 frigates.
Ultimately it comes down to money.
The cheapest way of growing RN is more T31’s ordered ready for “so that RN can evaluate fire needs during construction….”
Sounds like the Babcock – Saab corvette being developed?
A third batch of OPV with additional defensive weapons against drones would I think make sense. Two 40mm guns and two 20mm guns along with a sea ceptor array would make a decent escort for merchant vessels against lower tech attacks which are increasingly becoming possible from smaller countries, sub national groups and pirates.
So baisically a Corvette, which will cost Frigate money.
If it’s being asked to reassert FoN it needs to be equipped to face down a range of threats.
Yip – a 30mm pop-gun isn’t going to cut it.
If there is an honest belief that a ship exercising FoN in the SCS will have to open fire a 57mm, 2x40mm, Mk41 with CAMM and NSM, and Heli launched torpedoes isn’t going to cut it either. But China is not going to start a war with the UK by sinking an OPV doing a FoN exercise.
That’s a simplistic take on potential tactics. China doesn’t have to sink an OPV to make a statement it could simply capture the vessel and detain (as it did with an EP-3).
Sending ill equipped vessels into the SCS when China has given specific warnings is complacent. Either don’t do it or be prepared.
There are no wars started by detaining vessels!
Another really “honest” comparison. An aircraft that can’t stay in the air and has to make an emergency landing is not the same as a ship sailing through international waters. But you of course know that.
Exactly how do you think China is going to “capture” a 2,000t OPV hm?
If a 10k ton Coast Guard cutter armed with 76mm main gun wants to argue the point, a River B2 armed with a single 30mm has no chance. Chinese ships have been known to use the old fashioned ram technique. Doing the same to a Brunei 80m OPV with 57mm & the latest Exocet AShM may be a tad more risky.
Aaaand there it is, the comparison instantly goes to a declaration of war, and an exchange of fire over a FON exercise. Which, once again, if it comes to that means a lone RN ship in Chinese waters getting sunk, as 57mm and a few exocets, or even a Type 31 frigate with Mk41 is not making it to a home base. But of course an OPV conducting a FONOPS is such a huge threat that the PRC will go into a shooting war with another Nuclear Power over it.
Is it what the China says versus the rest of the World? If they’re are a signatory to the same conventions on the sea as the rest of the world plus the UN, it sounds like they’re wanting it both ways. Funny how they use very Western language when defending their rights and their historical self justification and their so called professional behaviour. The world has moved on. Country’s grow up and ideally want their independence, territorial boundaries, freedom to choose their relationships and to be respected. It still seems we have to be on either on Team USA, Team China or on Team bench.
The problem is the USA is not a signatory to the Law of The Sea so it is not bound by it.
China is a signatory and chooses to ignore it.
Time for the rest of the world to get together and stop these two sets of clowns causing problems.
Great Powers make the rules and the rest get by as best they can. That is how the world (really) works.
The UK is now doing its best to coddle up to the US, which is about the best it can do.
Actually it doesn’t since 1945.
Rather naive. In fact … unbelievably naive.
Thanks Jim. I was not aware that the USA hadn’t signed up to UNCLOS. So they’re free to roam the 7 seas and do whatever wherever. How do we then expect China to comply when the leader of the freer West doesn’t feel bound to it either?
Funnily, if China is choosing to ignore it we, thecrest of us, must then be choosing to ignore them ignoring it!? 🤔 Sounds like the Two Ronnie’s.
In typical US fashion the executive (pre trump) complies with it but it’s not law because congress refused to ratify it.
The US was the prime driver in writing it.
None of this matters if you’re not willing to go and anchor off of the Chinese “islands”.
Those are not Chinese lands, they’re not even land and there is no EEZ around them.
But they won’t say near them and they won’t fly over them.
Ballsy. Hope the crew get Downtime after that one.
Whichever staff officer came up this mission needs taking behind the bikes he’s and having a serious kicking administered; someone signed off on putting the lives of people under their authority in serious jeopardy for pointless reasons.
Absolutely agree. The UK would never send an unarmed Police Officer down the road of a gunman just to prove it’s safe. Why do we think we should do differently in international situations? Domestically we wait until we have overwhelming force to approach such situations, otherwise we keep a low profile. To do anything else is embarrassing to say the least like Johnson sending ships in seas contested by the Russians before the Ukraine war. It just hands advantage to an aggressor.
Because the two situations aren’t even remotely comparable?
Dern, that ship’s crew are in deliberate harm’s way; and for no good reason.
Oh really? Are we at war with China?
How many warships, do you suggest we send to the SCS? Even 1 or 2, or even the whole of what’s left of the RN, wouldn’t cut it with the PLAN!
Only our subs will survive, if the chicoms really wanted to sink UK vessels.
Hi. I have to tell you from first hand experience that the U.K would do just that. I have done it and the policy of the force I worked in at the time was to do this first so as to reduce the risk of a firearms unit opening fire i.e. the theory was ” well if they shoot me then we’ll send in the firearms. If they don’t its a win…..I hope you understand I’m not in any way endorsing this course of action but I can easily see it being policy.