Royal Navy warship HMS Richmond kept a close watch on a Chinese Navy task group as it passed the UK twice in three weeks, according to an announcement.

The Plymouth-based frigate monitored the People’s Liberation Army (Navy) ships first as they headed to St Petersburg to participate in Russian Navy Days.

In their announcement, the Royal Navy say that, working alongside NATO allies, the British warship was on hand to keep the two Chinese vessels – the Jiaozuo, a 7500-tonne destroyer, and Honghu, a 23,400-tonne supply ship – firmly under surveillance as they made their return journey through the North Sea and into the Channel, travelling through UK waters under routine right of passage.

Minister for the Armed Forces, Luke Pollard, said:

“These escorts are a clear demonstration of how the Royal Navy continues to protect the sovereignty of UK waters. Working closely with our allies to support Euro-Atlantic security is a top priority for this government. I thank the crew of HMS Richmond for conducting a safe and professional transit and all they do in keeping our nation secure at home and strong abroad.”

Although the presence of Chinese Navy ships in the English Channel is not a common occurrence, it’s not the first time the Royal Navy has maintained watch on Chinese ships heading to or from the Russian city for its annual naval gathering. HMS St Albans and Westminster were called upon to monitor the Chinese destroyer Xian as it sailed to and from the same event back in 2019.

HMS Richmond took over from the French ship Commandant Blaison which maintained contact with the Chinese duo past its country’s coastline.

From there until reaching the North Sea, where Belgian Navy patrol ship Pollux continued to follow Jiaozuo and Honghu.

Richmond used her helicopter ‘Brigand’ from 814 Naval Air Squadron at Cornwall, plus cutting-edge sensors and simple visual contact to maintain a constant eye on the two vessels.

HMS Richmond’s Commanding Officer, Commander Richard Kemp, said:

“Close monitoring of foreign vessels in UK waters is routine business for the Royal Navy and ensures their compliance with maritime law and respect for UK sovereignty. By maintaining a visible and persistent presence, the Royal Navy demonstrates our commitment to the NATO alliance and in maintaining maritime security which is crucial to our national interests.”

The Royal Navy say it routinely monitors UK waters and adjacent seas to ensure compliance with maritime law and protect national interests. As part of unified activity with NATO Allies, the presence of foreign naval vessels is monitored as they transit through or adjacent to the UK Maritime Area. This is entirely normal and helps to ensure the Royal Navy’s presence is noted, they add.


At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!

Avatar photo
Lisa has a degree in Media & Communication from Glasgow Caledonian University and works with industry news, sifting through press releases in addition to moderating website comments.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

71 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Jim
Jim (@guest_843573)
1 month ago

It’s very interesting how China and Russia have to send supply ships everywhere even when just deploying a small frigate or a destroyer. The lack of foreign bases makes it very difficult for a navy to operate globally. It may be an idea for the UK to invite Chinese warships for a port visit next time they are in European waters, freedom of navigation means China has as much right to have ships in the North Sea as the UK does in the South China Sea and it may help two ward off a Cold War mentality. I wonder what… Read more »

Iain
Iain (@guest_843574)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Sending a supply ship when you are about 8000 miles from home is pretty normal if most people aren’t interested in hosting you for a resupply. You will note however that there isn’t the Russian Std Tug accompanying them.

The problem with freedom of navigation is that it is a two way street, we acknowledge that right where China insist on trying to block their side of the street. This is why they aren’t that many places they are welcome and why they have a supply ship.

Jon
Jon (@guest_843591)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

I think it’s a great idea to suggest they have a port visit somewhere like London (and well away from our naval bases). They can collect lots of Elint and we can monitor them monitoring us. It’ll be like live electronic exercises.

Last edited 1 month ago by Jon
Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_843683)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

…and they have all those illegal police stations of theirs dotted around Greater London to visit and compare notes.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_843609)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

This is not a tug in case of breakdown..this is sending a task group with RAS support into the meditation/euroatlantic region..if they had sent a frigate without RAS support…that’s just the normal activity of a green water frigate navy and less of a concern… Its not a weakness that they are sending an at sea replenishment vessel on a distant deployment…question you should be asking is what does it mean that they are able to send so many task groups out with RAS support…after all they have a deployment in Europe with RAS support, a deployment in the gulf/gulf of… Read more »

Blue Fuzz
Blue Fuzz (@guest_843648)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Fortunately the US has allies with capable navies. China does not.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_843653)
1 month ago
Reply to  Blue Fuzz

The USN will also very likely be fighting the PLAN in the china seas…in which the tyranny of distant and land based air cover will be hard…its best to not be dismissive…if china can decimate the USN in the china seas it cannot recover…china can and has been building the equivalent in tonnage of the RN every couple of years and that is in peace time…all the allies in the world ( especially since many are in Europe) will not help the U.S. bridge the ship building capacity gap if china and the US end up in a years long… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Jonathan
Netking
Netking (@guest_843667)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

“if china and the US end up in a years long attrition war to strategic exhaustion….china can win that fight….a lot of very expert opinion is saying so.” They can and in my opinion they would, if it came to that but based on the US force design and recent procurement decisions, they have no intention of being in an attritional war. Also keep in mind that a Taiwan invasion scenario is incredibly complex for China. I can’t see how they invade Taiwan without dragging Japan and possible South Korea into the war which makes it a multifront conflict for… Read more »

Peter Gilkes
Peter Gilkes (@guest_843724)
1 month ago
Reply to  Netking

What has Taiwan got to do with South Korea or Japan? It is a province of China.

Netking
Netking (@guest_844170)
30 days ago
Reply to  Peter Gilkes

Hi troll

Peter Gilkes
Peter Gilkes (@guest_844322)
29 days ago
Reply to  Netking

How mature!

DanielMorgan
DanielMorgan (@guest_843672)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Japan can act offensively in self-defense (that’s not a contradiction in terms) and is restructuring its armed forces to have a preemptive strike capability. The “experts” are naive if they think that a Chinese attack on Taiwan wouldn’t be met with a military response by all of the democratic powers in the Pacific who would recognize an attack on Taiwan as a direct threat to their national security. China can’t gather the forces necessary to invade Taiwan without alerting US intelligence well in advance and the US will be waiting for them with a formidable array of US Navy, US… Read more »

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_843685)
1 month ago
Reply to  DanielMorgan

Japan has effectively stated it will support Taiwan in any conflict. In reality it might not have much choice as it would inevitably lead to the southern Japanese islands being assaulted soon after which are nearer to Taiwan than mainland Japan so they would otherwise have to accept an invasion akin to Russia taking the Shetland. China by the way illegally enters Japanese Internationally recognised territorial waters over a 100 times per year which shows the full e tent of Chinas hypocrisy let alone future intent in such matters.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_843689)
1 month ago
Reply to  DanielMorgan

Indeed it can, but it can only act if it is defending itself against an existential threat to its existence. Now china taking Taiwan is a potential existential threat..in that it could potentially cut a number of major shipping lanes if china and Japan ever went to war….but like Russia and Ukraine is to many Eastern European nations..it’s a risk of a potential existential threat not an actualised existential threat…therefore it’s a toss up as to what Japan does in that case.. Japan would have to balance a future potential existential risk against the real risk that china would bury… Read more »

Mike Barrett
Mike Barrett (@guest_843839)
1 month ago
Reply to  Blue Fuzz

Well said and you’re 100% correct.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_843686)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Numbers do not outmatch capability and experience. You know. I know. The US Navy would wipe the floor with them. They don’t even have experience of dropping bombs on terrorists in the desert, let alone anything else. And that’s not underestimating them. Its simple truth. The Americans have decades of combat experience. The Chinese have zero.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_843694)
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

The problem is Robert that is not alway true…the west lost in Afghanistan and the US lost in Vietnam…to an enemy with almost no capability…as for experience, there was no more experienced or battle harder army in the world than the Wehrmacht..the US forces were essentially utterly green…the Wehrmacht lost….the Japanese imperial navy was far more battle hardened than the USN in 1941…against they lost… The simple truth is wars are won by far more that a nations standing field army or navy..if your depending on your navy for a short sharp victory..and yet your opponent has 260 times the… Read more »

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_843809)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I think you are massively underestimating the US’s industrial capacity in a crisis. Building ships quickly is one thing, making them into trained capable fighting units is another. The US didn’t lose in Afghanistan, not from a military point of view anyway.The west lost the politics. China couldn’t even do what us and the Americans have done on the Red Sea for an extended period. Their lack of capability and experience would be exposed very quickly. Also, you have to remember. China is also a land of McDonald’s and Disneyland. And huge numbers of rich and middle-class Chinese buy expensive… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_843842)
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Hi Robert, interestingly it’s the USN and department of defence itself that has raised the issue of ship building as potentially war losing…they have produced a three slide briefing that essentially says in their estimate china can produce 200% of the tonnage of warships than the U.S. in time if war…that’s their estimates if both sides converge all of there capabilities….essentially they have estimated at best the US is now capable of producing 100,000 tons of warship a year. But they estimate china at max capacity could produce 200 million tons….and the really brutal bit is that china does not… Read more »

Alan Henderson
Alan Henderson (@guest_843690)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

A frigate and an auxiliary isn’t a task force…

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_843695)
1 month ago
Reply to  Alan Henderson

Yes it is…look up the definition of a naval task force…basically if it’s more than one military vessel assigned to a task it’s a task force…and it’s not a frigate..it’s a 052D AAW destroyer…very modern and 7500 tones ( PLAN have around 30 commissioned and 7 fitting out and seems to be aiming for 50) as well as a type 903A replenishment ship…a very nice 8 year old, 23,000 ton replenishment ship, with hanger and flight deck for a large military rotor.(PLAN have 9 of them)…

Last edited 1 month ago by Jonathan
Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_843682)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Except the Chinese don’t accept our right of passage in the South China seas at all even though it has been designated legally as non Chinese territorial Waters, let alone offer freedom of navigation if it were officially recognised as theirs, as is the case of the Channel being Internationally legally designated.

Pete ( the original from years ago)
Pete ( the original from years ago) (@guest_843779)
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

It’s a very contested concept but there is a very strong academic argument to effect the SCS is not mainland Chinese territory but may be Taiwanese administered territory…courtesy of allies at end of WWII….hence the ramping up of mainland China’s desire to regain control of Taiwan.

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_844453)
29 days ago
Reply to  Jim

Unfortunately China has more freinds & bases globally than you might suppose.

Redshift
Redshift (@guest_843575)
1 month ago

Can you really describe one medium size warship and a stores supply ship as a “task group”?

Adrian
Adrian (@guest_843581)
1 month ago
Reply to  Redshift

It is interesting how the world works, if it was a genuine task group of 5 to10 warships the royal Navy would have looked a bit silly escorting them with 1 ship. I suspect that the Chinese couldn’t (it present) support that size of task group and certainly the Royal Navy doesn’t have enough ships to be a credible escort for it.

I read in one of the papers that the chancellor will be looking for the MOD to reduce (along with other departments) to make savings, rather contracting the ambition to increase the defence budget.

Redshift
Redshift (@guest_843582)
1 month ago
Reply to  Adrian

If that paper was the Telegraph or the Mail it’s probably best to ignore it.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach (@guest_843596)
1 month ago
Reply to  Adrian

She has to pay for all the new benefit packages she’ll need soon.

Ben Coe
Ben Coe (@guest_843628)
1 month ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

She has to lay for the Conservatives’ deficit.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach (@guest_843652)
1 month ago
Reply to  Ben Coe

Very similar to the deficet left by Gordon Brown. Remember the note. “there’s no money left” Just for a change it would be nice if politicians of all parties came into office and said “The past is the past, I will take responsibilty from now on” 😏I’m not holding my breath.

Tim
Tim (@guest_843669)
1 month ago
Reply to  Ben Coe

Labour left 170bn deficit the last government left 120bn I believe so maybe labour doesn’t want to really say much about that

Adrian
Adrian (@guest_843670)
1 month ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

Very true, I’m still shocked she got away with a speech saying large black hole in public finances, here’s £10 billion in pay rises.

Either we have a budget issue or we don’t, what she was basically saying is the government is making a choice to give (well deserved in most cases) pay rises at the expense of other spending.

Roy
Roy (@guest_843684)
1 month ago
Reply to  Adrian

Defence cuts are almost certain. The pay raise is coming out of the MoD budget and it comes on top of an already existing large deficit in program budgets. I suspect that almost everything “east of Suez” will go and the easiest cut in the navy would be to get rid of one of the carriers – big personnel saving, one can then limit the F-35 orders going forward and there is no negative political fallout. It’s not the right move, but politically it will be the easiest.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach (@guest_843848)
1 month ago
Reply to  Adrian

I agree. I think she suffers from the Diane Abbot school of arithmetic. I’m in debt (?) so I’ll spend money I haven’t got then cancel a load of capital projects that benefit private sector employment, then I’ll have a review. If we don’t have defence cuts I’ll be amazed.

Simon
Simon (@guest_843862)
1 month ago
Reply to  Adrian

some of that cost would have happened any as the pervious government had already offend junior doctors a 22% pay rise etc, they were just dodging the bullet by calling an election

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_843611)
1 month ago
Reply to  Adrian

They most definitely could….they are very light touch in Europe for political reasons not because of capacity….but china could but a CBG through the channel anytime it’s likes..the PLAN is now larger than the US when measuring large surface combatants as well as logistic and support vessels….this summer they have around 6 task groups with RAS support on operations…

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_843810)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

It’s not just about having support vessels. It’s also about having strong diplomatic relationships with nations, ports, and logistics suppliers. Spare parts for vessels and aircraft are also flown and dispatched globally. Fresh food when in ports. Can China dispatch engine parts for a J20 to the other side of the world. It’s much more than just having support vessels. And supporting a single destroyer for a Russian port visit for a jolly is one thing. Supporting during a conflict or a enduring operation with multiple vessels or aircraft carriers or nuclear submarines is a whole other ball game.

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_843629)
1 month ago
Reply to  Adrian

I think Reeves has asked all depts to ask their suppliers for proposals for ‘in year savings’. E.g. we can ask BAE and Babcock to hang on to a few invoices for a few months until the govt can pay them: accrued accounts receivable? The govt have a peak of one time expenses like the Post Office managers compensation and the infected blood scandal and the Treasury reserve has been spent several times over. The last govt decided to cut NI and this govt decided to fund pay awards for public service workers so the credit card is maxed out.… Read more »

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts (@guest_843655)
1 month ago
Reply to  Adrian

As much as I hate to say it, the Type 052D outguns any destroyer/frigate The RN currently fields. You can bet that the Type 23 doing the shadowing has no ASM fitted.

The Jiaozuo has VLS 64 cells for mixed missile load and another 24 dedicated for short-range SAM. The type 23 (or type 45) would not want to get into a slug out with her.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_843680)
1 month ago

Course not but it’s a matter of showing you’re they’re and keeping an eye on them.
Also sure that one frigate would have a bad time but the destroyer would quickly be completely surrounded by UK and Nati aircraft if it ever did try something, which obviously they wouldn’t.

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts (@guest_843749)
1 month ago
Reply to  Hugo

My point is the amount of firepower these ships carry compared to RN ships, even a flotilla of 5 would be a headache to NATO ships and aircraft

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_843811)
1 month ago

Just because It has lots of VLS. doesn’t mean they are full. And they also lack any operational experience of any kind. I’d feel safer on the T23.

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts (@guest_843828)
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

You can assume the same for the RN as far as missile load out goes… given the MOD’s reputation for cuts and FFBNW.

China is wealthier and has a huge industrial capacity, if they can churn out these ships every 2 years, they can certainly manufacture missiles at a rapid pace too.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_843850)
1 month ago

Is like to see the engineering quality of these vessels and training standards of the crew. Ans how much operational flexibility the officers have on-board. Nations like China are not well known for encouraging free thinking.

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_843594)
1 month ago

The size of the Chinese navy now I wouldn’t of thought they’re have any problems sending a naval task group anywhere round the Globe 🌎

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach (@guest_843597)
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew D

I think we’ll see more of the Chinese once their carriers and amphibs. are fully deployable. Unless we buck our ideas up, and I’m not holding my breath, It’ll be only U.S. and Chinese task forces we’ll be watching in a few years time.

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_843615)
1 month ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

Agreed mate 👍

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_843617)
1 month ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

Their carrier is fully deployable…last year it had three deployments..one of which was a mid pacific deployment…which was around 8000 miles…this year it’s got about the same level of deployment….I very much suspect that the RNs CBG will pass a PLAN carrier battle group in the night in Indian Ocean next year….strategically PLAN are not specifically interested in the Euro Atlantic at preset..their focus is: 1) turning the china seas into a blood bath for the USN. 2) project power to and beyond the pacific second island chain…( taking the fight to the US and disrupting the USNs ability to… Read more »

OldSchool
OldSchool (@guest_843651)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I’d be watching where they are dragging their anchor chains after the Baltic disgrace tbh.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_843687)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Hmmm…that timeline would be totally compatible w/ Xi’s mandate that PLA be ready at any time after 2027…🤔

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_843777)
1 month ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Yes and this is the problem…china are talking very tough and saying they are going to go to war over Taiwan…which you could probably put down as sabre rattling if it was not for the fact they are at the same..telling their own armed forces, people and companies to be ready for war, burning trillions of dollars in capital spending on military capabilities..as well as completely warping their economy into a wartime economy which has impacted growth by about 2% a year….and launching almost constant political warfare attacks against the west..while Harding its own population against political warfare…all the while… Read more »

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_843785)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Quite frankly, agree w/ your assessment. Believe the die has already been cast and fateful deeds are now in the countdown phase. Do not foresee any political leaders in the West both capable of and willing to effectively marshall the capabilities of the various MICs in the remaining time available. Consider momentarily the choices for POTUS during the next four years. Cannot conceive of a method whereby either would deter either Putin or especially Xi from acquisitive plans. Taiwan will be attacked and America and its few stalwart allies will be decisively and comprehensively defeated by conventional arms. Then, there… Read more »

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_844463)
29 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

If China launches an attack on Taiwan/the USN I’d expect massive missile strikes on all the PLAN bases from both. That’ll throw a spanner in the PLA works.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_844476)
29 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

Unfortunately Frank, most assumptions are that china would get strategic supprise and missile them first…essentially chinas war stocks of medium and intermediate range ballistic missiles is huge…infact it’s one of the red flags…there is little use for the amount of theatre ballistic missiles that they have in the region other than a knockout blow to the U.S. bases in the western pacific….the other problem for the west in this potential missile engagement…is that essentially china has a continental size nation full of bases to prevent concentration…the US has everything in a very small number of bases..all exposed on small islands…in… Read more »

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_844585)
29 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Very serious. This is what we get for shifting so much of our manufacturing base to China. Also what we get for trying to get away with the minimum, or below minimum, spending on defence. Certainly past time limiting Japan with post WW2 constraints.
Freedom & international rule of law has to be defended to survive.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach (@guest_843845)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I was more thinking what things will be like when they have five or six carriers. As you say, three deployments last year as opposed to the R.N.’s once every four years with a handful of aircraft. They don’t have to be interested in the Atlantic but making a political point, showing the flag in our case, reinforces their capability worldwide. Anybody who doesn’t think China is a threat to the west is living in a fool’s paradise.

Andrew
Andrew (@guest_843600)
1 month ago

Now compare what would be the response of a Uk warship sailing through international waters between China and Taiwan…

Bloke down the pub
Bloke down the pub (@guest_843614)
1 month ago

Wot! You mean HM govt aren’t sending a strongly worded protest to the Chinese to stay out of UK waters, like the Chinese would do if we sailed through the Taiwan Straits? I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked!.

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts (@guest_843620)
1 month ago

Jiaozuo is a type 052D of which PLAN has about 25 – 30 in their fleet, that is a lot of firepower.

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_843676)
1 month ago

Oh dear 😟

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_843677)
1 month ago

I believe they have now completed the first batch, with 27 and 28 launched in March 2023 so I think all of the 052DLs are now built fitted and being commissioned ( I think that takes them to ship 30… there are recent pictures of 5 of the 10 batch follow on order of 052DMs all fitting out in one of the two yards that build them, Dalian Shipbuilding seem to have just built five 052DLs at the same time and launched them and started filling them all out at the same time, with Jiangnan launching 2 of that batch… Read more »

Baker
Baker (@guest_843709)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Quite where the PLAN will end up, is anyone’s Idea, I reed such silly stuff on here at times and most seem to just dismiss the Plan’s Plans as rather inadequate. Yet they are building ships and Aircraft at an astonishing rate, way faster than the USA or UK that’s for sure. They learn faster too . We dismiss them at our Peril. This is not the first time they have sent ships through the channel yet some folk on here still dismiss it as a one off. This action demonstrates once again that the PLAN is a true Blue… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_843711)
1 month ago
Reply to  Baker

Unfortunately..many people see see the PLAN as the navy it was 15 years ago…the level of expansion is profoundly scary…to dismiss them is not wise…to underestimate the balance of power in regards to naval shipbuilding capacity is unwise as well..the west is so indoctrinated into the idea of a short war..that to get your head a round an enemy that will happy loss the opening campaign as well,as see their own fleet decimated…as long as they can sink a good portion of your navy is alien to the west….the simple truth is the PLAN would happy loss vast numbers of… Read more »

Baker
Baker (@guest_843847)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Yes, people are too quick to dismiss the Chinese potential threat in a war scenario and certainly no one on here has any real Idea. It’s all very well throwing silly comments around but the truth is we just don’t know how good a fight they would put up. All I know is that they are happily and quietly building a massive inventory of modern equipment, Ships, Subs, Aircraft and support infrastructure and when you actually look into it like a few of us do on here, there can be no real grounds for such a simple dismissal. If you… Read more »

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_844466)
29 days ago
Reply to  Baker

Most dismissed the Japanese until Pearl harbour, Malaya, Phillipines, Dutch East Indies etc.
I would expect Japan, S Korea, Australia & others to join against any effort at Chinese expansion. If N Korea attacks S Korea at the same time as a PLA invasion of Taiwan that would tie up S Korea & also much of Japan & US forces in the region.

DB
DB (@guest_844442)
29 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Jonathan. As much as I agree with your reply my only problem is ‘a good portion of our fleet’ is our fleet because US and UK platforms are tied up alongside; we are in dire straights. Time to stop shipping colour TVs and fridges. Economic war is here and they have a head start. The West has to gut China economically and just cut off their exports to the UK while imploring the EU and US to do the same. There will be inflation, but, at least we will start thinking about our purchases. Put it out there that I’m… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_844459)
29 days ago
Reply to  DB

Indeed we have to start essentially a true Cold War..exactly as we did with Russia..china is at present doing it to the west…every business every action is controlled and managed by the CCP to support their aim and they do believe they are in a conflict with the west…we need to be fighting them on the same battlegrounds…political, social, economic, industrial, resource as well as military industrial complex build up….but we will not accept the pain.

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_844467)
29 days ago
Reply to  DB

The export of massive amounts of manufacturing industry to China was a betrayal of our own people & fed the monster that could destroy liberty worldwide.

Carole Nowell
Carole Nowell (@guest_843671)
1 month ago

Well done to the Royal Navy once again for securing our waters. The United Kingdom needs our Services, not just abroad, but in this country too. My dad served in the RN during WWII and I’m a proud of his service, no matter how short. To all our naval and support crews thank you.

Richard
Richard (@guest_843741)
1 month ago

Funny how when Chinese warships pass through UK waters it is mostly ignored by the press. Plus the Royal Navy gives a very low key report.

Quite a contrast to what happens when the Royal Navy ships passes througth or close to Chinese waters

Fen Tiger
Fen Tiger (@guest_843940)
30 days ago
Reply to  Richard

Too worried about Strictly’ problems’. Priorities………. ?