The Royal Navy patrol vessel HMS Spey has concluded a 16-day multinational exercise in the South China Sea, working alongside Commonwealth partners to rehearse joint responses to regional threats, including the simulated defence of Malaysian territory.

According to Navy News, Exercise Bersama Shield 25, conducted under the longstanding Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA) – which unites Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and the UK – brought together land, sea, and air forces to demonstrate allied readiness and deterrence in a strategically sensitive area.

Spey, joined by warships from Australia, Singapore, and Malaysia, operated under the command of Captain Mohd Effendy bin Shuib of the Royal Malaysian Navy. “These shared experiences will build stronger armed forces but also deeper friendships and trust between our nations,” said Captain Effendy, highlighting the importance of cohesion in facing “the complex maritime challenges of our time”.

The exercise involved maritime surveillance, simulated air and surface threats, boarding drills, and gunnery exercises. UK artillery spotters from 148 Battery, 29 Commando Royal Artillery provided targeting support, while Spey’s air safety cell worked with HMAS Sydney to coordinate allied air operations, including fast jet strikes.

Commander Paul Caddy, Spey’s Commanding Officer, stated to Navy News: “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.”

Chinese claims

However, Beijing recently made an issue of British vessels exercising freedom of navigation in the area. In a statement to UK media, China’s Ambassador to the UK said:

“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 in accordance with the law. We urge UK to respect China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea, stop stirring up trouble and sowing discord, and stop undermining peace and stability in the South China Sea.”

China’s sweeping claims over the South China Sea—encapsulated by the so-called “nine-dash line”—are widely disputed by regional neighbours and have been rejected under international law. In 2016, an international tribunal in The Hague ruled that China’s historical assertions had no legal basis under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a ruling Beijing has refused to accept.

Despite this, China continues to militarise artificial islands and assert control over vast swathes of the sea, overlapping with the exclusive economic zones of countries such as the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia. This has fuelled regional tension and drawn condemnation from the wider international community.

Freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs) are vital to upholding international law and ensuring that critical sea lanes remain open to all. The South China Sea is a key maritime corridor through which a third of global trade flows, making it strategically essential.

By operating in these contested waters, the UK joins allies in asserting that excessive maritime claims—such as China’s sweeping assertions—should not go unchallenged. FONOPs help preserve the principle that no nation can unlawfully restrict movement through international waters, reinforcing the rules-based order at sea.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

25 COMMENTS

  1. It doesn’t look like the Chinese Ambassador’s comments have anything to do with Spey. The comment was made to rebut a FCO statement supporting the Philippines in a clash between Chinese and Philippines shipping in the South China Sea and was originally made in December 2023. The embassy’s remarks were repeated in March on the occasion of David Lammy’s visit to the Philippines as a response to a press question and not as a Beijing warning about Royal Navy shipping. Differently worded rebuttals have been made in the interim to FCO statements and this seems to be a common pattern of FCO condemnation and Chinese embassy responses to the FCO.

    I don’t know what to make of “Beijing recently made an issue of British vessels exercising freedom of navigation in the area” and it would be interesting to read it, if someone could provide a link to a news report. They haven’t seemed to mind that much about Spey and Tamar over the past few years. I wonder if it’s more related to the upcoming carrier group visit. The last time they kicked up a fuss about Royal Navy encoachment that I can find using Google was in 2021. There’s also been nothing since then on the Chinese embassy website either, which is where you might expect to find it.

    • You don’t know what to make of Beijing’s issue of British vessels exercising freedom of navigation in the area? I’d suggest the same as the rest of their attempt to claim the South China Sea as their own and the same as their ongoing industrialisation of islands & reefs in the area thus enabling them to claim geopolitical influence.This has been well.documented doctrine of China for several years…Make if that what you will

      • I don’t know what to make of George’s report. I’m well aware of China’s policy and issues. I’m also aware that Tamar and Spey have traversed the SCS with no real fuss from the Chinese government (at least not in public) for the entire time they’ve been there. When we sent a frigate or HMS albion, there were public complaints by china, but for the OPVs nothing. If there really is a complaint now, I want to know if it’s about Spey as the article implies, the forthcoming CSG, or something else.

        Right now I’d imagine China would want to keep a relatively low profile in Europe, and allow Trump unfettered access to the headlines. If they are actually kicking up a fuss over something that hasn’t previously been an issue, it would be useful to know exactly what they are saying. Wouldn’t you agree?

      • Let me add that the exercise in the SCS was reportedly by the Tioman islands, some considerable distance outside of the nine-dash claim.

  2. I don’t think the CCP made such a big deal about the Italian’s or French sending a carrier to the pacific which shows how much a bigger influence in the UK is.

    I love when apparent super powers claim we are picking on them, China is like a crying little baby 😀

    Just like the other apparent super power than claims everyone is picking on them too over trade 😀

    • Such a big deal that I can’t even find what they said or where they said it. Contrast that with the argy-bargy over the Philippines in March where I found no fewer than 20 news outlets reporting it.

        • If you read my first comment you will see that they don’t pertain to our Navy at all. They are about the Foreign Secretary’s comments made on his visit to the Philippines last March. A recycled comment from 2023 at that. So it doesn’t help, I’m afraid.

  3. An Offshore Patrol Vessel is no substitute for a Frigate. HMS Spey should be patrolling UK shores. It is too slow & too small & vastly under armed for gallivanting around the far east.

    • Spey and Tamar seem to have been doing excellent work. The three knot difference between a River B2 and a Type 31 is hardly going to break the bank, whether it carries a few CAMM and NSM’s is not going to make a huge difference if it needs to take on the entire PLAN on it’s own, and I’m not sure what relevance physical size has?

      • Surely Its just a statement ..now you could argue its a pointless one…but in the minds of those that see power as a manifestation of intent then it will make a difference. A rowing boat or the PoW? Or to paraphrase ….10 blokes with rifle or 5 blokes with the whole SF caboodle….

        • It’s not a Rowing boat or PWLS (not PoW FYI) however. It’s a River Class OPV or a Frigate, and the signalling difference between two OPV’s forward deployed on a permanent basis, and a Frigate forward deployed on a Permanent Basis isn’t nearly as extreme, especially when there is a British Carrier strike group that pays the occasional visit as well.

          • Yes I know PoW is not the PoW…but ..you knew what I meant …as did I ….I was of course being trite.

          • The Prisoner of War is not the Prisoner of war? You are not making sense in that last sentence.

    • They are perfect for the low level presence, diplomatic and constabulary role being asked of them. A single forward based T31 would be twice the cost of both in both money and crew and still be a liability. The danger however with a T31 is that people would be stupid enough to believe a light frigate could do anything significant apart from perhaps retreat a bit quicker.

  5. What are Beijing going to do ? order their ‘Fleet “to sea and challenge our multi National Fleet , I would question their sanity first and foremost , not to say they may have the Chinese version of (Mad Ivan) commander’s let loose , however our joint multi National Fleet are first and foremost better trained , disciplined and extremely professional in dealing with any issues that they may encounter ; Beijing are merely pandering to their inner cohort of aging hard liner anti Western propaganda by way of good Old Sabre Rattling . (Big Yawn)
    G.S.K./God Speed (Our Lads & Lassie’s)🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🇦🇺🇳🇿

  6. Another waste of time and money – does anyone really believe that China will change their Home and Foreign Policies because we send a Patrol Boat to the other side of the world. If you call it a statement of intent, an intent to do what – send another Patrol Boat.

    • Nobody expects China to change their home and foreign policies. The OPV’s aren’t aimed at deterring China, frankly the UK could forward deploy an entire CSG and it probably wouldn’t alter China’s Policies, since they’re planning is centered around fighting multiple American CSG’s. The OPV’s are there to influence allied policies, both as physical aid to allied navies in low level constabulary work, and as a visible sign of UK commitment to the area.

    • We don’t want china to change its policy, we want them to keep it the same and not invade Taiwan and not prevent freedom of navigation via the SCS.

      So yes it is working

  7. Be careful…now Labour are trying to reopen ties with China after several years of distancing (cus of the economy dontcha know) they may throw you under the bus .

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here