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

55 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?

        • PRC have no reason to complain about HMS Spey. Why – because it’s not worth complaining about. It has no helicopter, no AA missiles, no AShM & a 30mm main gun. Brunei equivalent has a 57mm gun & 4 Exocet (MM40 block 3). Thailand equivalent (actually based off the River B2) has 76mm & Harpoon missiles (& 2 x 30mm as secondary). Yes it can wave the flag, but not much else.

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

    • Goggle the following for an Interesting read on potential basis of a Chinese claim on SCS. It’s a provocative read.

      “Historically-mine the potentially legal basis-for chinas sovereignty claims to south china sea. “

  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.

          • I can’t find anything else specific from Chinese ministry only reports in press.

            Perhaps we are all wrong, the CCP are really nice people and it’s just the main stream media inventing stuff about them that makes us all think they are a massive threat to western civilisation.

            Any idea why they banned Pepa Pig and whinny the poo. 😀

  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 armed very poorly Dan, all they can really do is act as another set of eyes. The crew doubtless doing a brilliant job with limited resources.

      • River B2 has no missiles of any sort. No helicopter (so no helicopter launched missiles, torpedo or cannon/mg). Main gun is a light OPV/patrol boat gun. While T31 is way way below par, it can support a helicopter up to Merlin, can take 8 heavyweight AShM with potential for 16. Can take 32 strike length mk41 plus more missiles if the B gun is removed. Does have 3 AAW capable guns & a low end frigate class radar. Right now it’s definitely meh (as regards a 6,000-7,000t frigate), but it can be more than capable. River B2 was designed & built to be meh from the start. T31 has potential. River B2 – not so much. Basically someone like PLAN can ignore a River B2. It’s not worth the cost of taking it out, now or in the future. The same can’t be said of a T31.

        • Cool story, but not really interested. I’m well aware of the capabilities of a Inspiration Class Frigate, and it doesn’t matter how much it gets up-gunned, if the PLAN decides it wants to sink a British ship and go to War, the T-31 is going down, and it’s not taking much with it except for a significant portion of the UK’s surface warfare fleet, and over 100 sailors.

          B2 Rivers are not “meh”, they are first class low cost defence engagement and constabulary vessels. In other words, they are really good at what they where designed to do. It just so happens that what they are designed to do is not go toe to toe with another frigate.

        • I see the anti River B2 crusade continues.
          Not every RN ship needs to be armed to the teeth, and these don’t need to for their role.
          If anything, a rotary Drone and a SIGINT fit would be better than any number of missiles and guns people want to plonk onto them.

          • True, it seems like fashion it dies down and then randomly comes back. BTW I made a post on the Hawaii article that might interest you.

    • 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.

      • Especially the early variants with no Mk41 VLS, they are little more than up-armed river class until then, for a 5000t frigate.

        • Twice the Range, a 57mm, 2x 40mm NSM and a CAMM Farm, a hangar for Merlin or Wildcat, and Sea Gnat decoy system, it is a bit more than an “Up armed River Class”

    • I was thinking about this whole presence in the pacific thing and the Rivers 2 being suitable or not and I did realise somethings….juts how insanely Eurocentric that discussion actually was in that we sort of describe the pacific as the pacific region and that’s it..sort of forgetting its half the planet and encompasses 5 continents

      So to say are the B2s suitable for presence in the pacific is actually I now realise a profoundly silly question.. because is would be like asking are the B2s suitable to deployment in the whole Indian Ocean region or the whole Euro Atlantic.. the answer will always be NO, just because there are some bits you would not send a patrol boat.. you would not send a patrol boat into the gulf of Aden or the Gulf, you would not send a patrol boat into the black sea etc.. but there are vast areas of the Euro/atlantic or Indian Ocean you would send a patrol boat.

      So that’s the same with the pacific… there are huge areas of the pacific including all the South Pacific islands that a patrol boat is perfect for as its very cost effective and these are very benign areas..infact just like the western Atlantic, small island states that like visits from and working with small flag waving ships with constabulary capabilities…then there are parts of the pacific that are some of the ugliness areas on the planet geopolitically and sending a full fat warship is important both for safety and for communication of deterrent… this includes the Korean Peninsula, because its ugly and still a war zone in which vessels do still die to grey zone and sub threshold attacks…the china seas, because anything you send into the china seas will be analysed to the enth degree by the CCP and if you’re sending a message it better be the correct one.

      So I think for me it’s not that the B2s are not suitable for the pacific as a whole it’s that they are not really suitable or the appropriate communication of intent for some small areas of the pacific..and because we don’t have the large surface escorts..they have been sent to those more problematic areas not just the 90% of benign patrol boat appropriate areas of the pacific.

      For me the ideal partnership for that region is a patrol boat and a full fat GP vessel that can manage ASW, ASuW, AAW threats as well as having land attack capability.. because one is your relationship vessel for the South Pacific, the other is your intent vessel for the western pacific area and it needs ASW because the western pacific is thick with potential ASW threats… infact it has the greatest proportion of ASW threats on the planet.. with the huge Chinese submarine fleet, the Russian pacific fleet and the North Korean fleet.

      • Typically when reference is being made to the pacific region rather than ocean it’s the island chains between New Zealand and Thaiti. In that context B2 rivers make great sense. Region in this context donates an area where people live as opposed to the ocean itself which as you say is half the planet.

        • The problem is they also sent the B2 to the Korean Peninsula to support the UN sanctions against NK..that is not a safe or appropriate use of the B2 NK does take pops at ships.

        • Note that while a River B2 compares favourably to the local Pacific Island states own capability (40m patrol boats supplied by Australia), it doesn’t compare well to the likes of the French who operate in the same area (Tahiti to New Caledonia). Or to the Americans or Chileans. Even those 40m patrol boats (often armed with a HMG), can go to a 30mm plus two HMG if required. Even NZ OPV’s can carry a missile armed helicopter.

  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)🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🇦🇺🇳🇿

    • Adrian china is utterly and completely dominate in the china seas and western pacific..if the west ended up fighting a navel conflict with china in the china seas in the wrong situation it would be an utter bloodbath, I’m not sure what you think the PLAN is but if the USN made a bad strategic move in a conflict with it the USN would end up gutted.

      Mass created experience and expertise and the PLAN have mass in everything other than carriers and they don’t need carriers to dominate the china seas because it’s their regional seas..they also practice a lot, infact they spend an insane amount of time and effort in practicing “naval and air domination of the china seas”.

      Beijing at present are actually in the process of eyeing up exactly which year it is they start a Sino US war of their own bat .so if you think they would ever back away from what they considered provocation you would be putting your money on the wrong horse…the PLAN are at preset launching the equivalent tonnage of the entire RN around every 2 years or so.

      They have

      60ish ( could be up to 80 ) electric attack boats most being modern and considered very good indeed.
      9 SSNs with an estimate that china will from around now ish be throwing out 2-3 good SSNs SSGNs a year.
      10-12 14,000 very modern AAW cruisers
      47-50 7000 ton air defence destroyer again almost all new vessels
      46-50 4000-5000 ton ASW frigates
      70 modern corvettes

      That’s 170 major surface combatants..almost all of them build in the last decade. The total of the PLANs major warships is around 250..compared to the U.S. 219..but 126 of those are logistics or support vessels..

      China is throwing the following major surface combatants into the sea each year

      1-2 14,000 ton very large AAW destroyers
      3-4 7000 ton AAW destroyers
      2 5000 ton ASW frigates

      The US at present is managing on its own around 1

      China has 240 times the ship build capability of the US.

      In a recent wargame simulation in the pacific the US lost about 20 combatants and the PLAN lost 50..the U.S. was Gutted and was essentially unable to continue conflict the PLAN was still able to continue…

      The US naval institute did a review recently around what are the victory conditions for naval conflict and out of 28 major naval wars the navies with the larger numbers won 25 out of 28 times.

      • PLAN is disturbingly large, but lacks experience & would not be opposed by only the USN, but Japan, S Korea, Taiwan, Austrailia etc, so long as the US stops playing the lunatic & keeps allies alongside rather than offending them. Trump, rather than Zelenski, is the real threat of causing WW3 by creating chaos & shattering the anti-authoratarian alliances, so making the way far easier for China, Russia etc to operate.

        China has no right nor jurastriction in the SCS. Destroying vital reefs/Atols to create artificial islands just to bully neighbours with immensly greater claims into submission is obnoxious & environmental vandalism.

        Our B2 Rivers are effectively defenceless. I’m just glad they were escorted by 2 proper warships in this instance.

        • Unfortunately power alway has and aways does make right. Agreed I think the only thing holding back china is the network of allies that the US has, but china has been spending a lot of capital over that last decade to try and mitigate that..and trump is in the process of giving china its pay out.. in regards to a major conflict it’s very likely you would see the following geostrategic considerations.

          1) most of the US fleet and power is not within the western pacific theatre, so if china gets strategic suprise the US would be fighting with what it had which would be at best 2 carrier battle groups an amphibious group and support. Infact in all likelihood if china launched a lighting attack on the US those forces would be running or dying and as the USN are not idiots they would be running.
          2) the bulk of the US Pacific fleet would provide take 1-2 months to concentrate and steam back into the western pacific..at that point Japan would be faced with a pretty stark choice…neutrality, terms or massive destruction..at present and the way things are going it’s very likely Japan could stay neutral..if not it’s going to be in a bloodbath with PLAN that plan can afford and the JMDF could not.
          3) Korea.. it’s very likely any Chinese plan will revolve around North Korean countering South Korea.. you can safely say if South Korea got involved it would find itself in a land war with North Korean and china and one thing china has plenty of is ground forces and tactical aircraft it could thrown into the Korean Peninsula…so would South Korean risk it ?
          4) Australia.. Australia is massively intwined with china and although keeping a hard eye on china as a huge and pretty potent democracy between it and china..so would it jump strait into a Sino US war…not so sure to be honest.
          5) the Russian question… Russia is also a pacific power and its relationship with china is now coming very close to a strategic alliance
          6) the European question…would the European nations support the U.S…send support and lock china out of the Indian Ocean and access to African and Middle Eastern resources and markets.. or would European nations stay out of it ?
          7) Iran would Iran take an opportunity in the Middle East ?
          8) wider Middle East who would they support ?

          A few years ago and any Sino US war would seen china strategical isolated and it would have found it difficult to pressure the US ina long war..now and in the future..China is planning and thinking it can win that long war.

  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.

      • I think china does take notice..but it’s as much about how much support the US would be getting in a long drawn out global conflict..because the RN sitting in the western Indian Ocean preventing china from operating in that region would be not insignificant in any U.S. sino war.. I honestly think China is at the point it thinks it can win a war against the U.S alone ( because although it thinks the U.S. would win battles, once the mass death and ecconomic collapse started the U.S. population would simply give up and force a peace).. I suspect it still feels it could not win a long global conflict against the U.S. and Europe..it’s one of the reasons it’s changed geopolitical tack and really started getting Russia and Iran on side.. because it would be essentially planning to use Iran and Russia as a counter to Europe.

    • 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 .

      • Labour are actively pursuing Chinese investment in the UK and closer ties.
        The Head of the British armed forces has visited China for the first time in a decade.
        China’s proposal to turn the former Royal Mint building into Europe’s largest embassy was rejected by Tower Hamlets council before Secretary of State Angela Rayner called them in and announced she would make the final decision in October- tellingly the MET subsequently withdrew their objection to the plans.
        Chancellor Rachel Reeves Reeves met the Chinese Vice-Premier in Beijing to discuss trade and investment opportunities as part of efforts to grow the UK economy and raise living standards. Following the talks, the UK Treasury said both countries had agreed to deeper co-operation in trade, financial services, investment and climate issues.
        Britain’s Foreign Secretary David Lammy went on a 2 day visit to China as the new Labour government stated they wanted to recalibrate many of the previous Conservative Party-led government’s positions on China particularly around accepting Chinese job-creating investment.

        Seems to me Labour are more than just trying to ‘get back into bed’ with China & they are actively courting and will accept that investment regardless of the influence it will bring.

        This is a short sighted , bad move for the UK, they must be desperate, or stupid, or both.

  8. get used to chinese rhetorics all recycled and provided by CCP and theyre running out of words. their repeated disregard of international law and order, their bullying and aggressive tactics, intimidation, coercion and most of all hegemonic ambition is patterned with their moist doctrine. so all internatinonal law abiding, morally upright should jointly keep on undertaking frequent passage of SCS. just imagine uf china get control of the entire SCS the rest of the international community will be subordinated to the foolish will of china

  9. There are two aspects to maintaining a right to passage through an area both work together.

    The first is size, when an aircraft carrier and it’s escorts pass through it establishes that the right includes big ships.

    The second is frequency the passage by an OPV each year established that it wasn’t a one off which was passed over.

    It looks like this year the UK will do both and other countries who are part of the carrier strick group will also be recoding their passage which adds a third string to the argument that the right is not just for the UK but for all.

    The real test would be if a ship from a nation which doesn’t regularly pass through gets stopped. Perhaps a Lithuanian mine sweeper or an Irish patrol boat

    • Irish patrol boat? Lithuanian mine sweeper I would class as a long shot maybe. They are likely prepared to give it a go if asked. But an Irish patrol boat? Only with a T45 & 2 x T23 escort & if NZ promise to make their AOR available.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here