Defence Secretary Ben Wallace delivered a keynote address at the 20th IISS Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, focusing on ‘Building a stable and balanced Asia-Pacific.’
He emphasised the importance of upholding international rules, promoting free trade, and fostering partnerships in the Indo-Pacific region. Wallace highlighted the United Kingdom’s commitment to the area and addressed the challenges posed by China’s rise.
Wallace began by expressing gratitude to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) for hosting the dialogue and noted the shared history and values between the UK and Singapore. He acknowledged the changes that have taken place since the last UK Defence Secretary spoke at the event, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the United Kingdom’s increased focus on the Indo-Pacific.
“We believe this region offers enormous economic opportunity for all,” said Wallace. “It’s why European companies and countries are looking east, and why the United Kingdom Government considers our interests to lie as much here as they do in Europe,” he added. “In 2022 our total exports to the Indo-Pacific amounted to £127 billion – a remarkable increase of 22 per cent on the previous year,” Wallace highlighted.
While recognising the opportunities presented by China’s rise, Wallace also addressed the challenges associated with it. “We are all now navigating the consequences of China’s rise – both those opportunities and those challenges,” he said. “Be they climate change, energy and food security, economic stagnation, tech regulation, nuclear proliferation,” Wallace noted. However, he also acknowledged challenges arising from China’s actions, including “illegal fishing, tensions in territorial waters, sovereignty disputes, and debt diplomacy.”
Wallace emphasised the importance of upholding international rules and promoting common standards to maintain balance and stability in the Indo-Pacific. “Why rules? Because the ‘balance and stability’ we are talking about today is ultimately based on adherence to shared rules,” he stated. He cited the invasion of Ukraine by Russia as an example of the tragic consequences when leaders disregard international rules. “Because rules are agnostic of nations’ military or economic power. They are common to all our needs,” Wallace highlighted.
Regarding free trade, Wallace stressed the significance of backing it to reduce overdependence and build resilience. “The more we open up competition, the more we reduce overdependence and build resilience,” he stated. “We believe the best resilience comes from diversification, not from protectionism,” Wallace emphasised. He highlighted the UK’s efforts to diversify supply chains and its trade agreements with countries such as Japan, Australia, and Canada.
In terms of partnerships, Wallace underscored their importance in maintaining stability. He emphasised the role of defence forces in supporting soft power initiatives. “The skills and capability of our Armed Forces are there to help friends when they’re in trouble,” he said. Wallace acknowledged the collaborative efforts of countries, such as Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, in supporting stability, particularly in Ukraine.
The Defence Secretary concluded by emphasising the UK’s increased engagement in the Indo-Pacific and the importance of long-term partnerships. “The UK is becoming more proactive and more persistently engaged in the Indo-Pacific,” he said. He highlighted naval deployments, defence agreements, and partnerships with regional countries as examples of the UK’s commitment. Wallace stressed the significance of partnerships in sustaining capabilities and strengthening supply chain resilience.
“Building the best possible future for all our people,” Wallace concluded.
A third carrier would be a wise investment and stationed in this theater to ensure a worthy contribution in an area of growing tension. Another QE Class would be too expensive but something on the lines of the Invincible Class should allow for a permanent detachment of F35 plus a rotary wing.
I couldn’t agree more however, the likelihood of this happening… 0.00
Invincible type vessel would fit the the bill ,but has Tom says 0 chance of that happing 🙄 sadly.
No it wouldn’t.
Invincibles weee too small for F35B.
You would need two so one was in service at any one time.
We can only just about afford what we have. Which is the 2nd best carrier fleet in the world.
A third will never get built. Better off cooperating with the French and having two carriers available most of the time.
Better things to spend money on.
Exactly.
Take alook at the Japanese carrier a displacement of around 19.500 tons sure there have plans for F35 .And has a fair airwing as now but no doubt be smaller with F35 👍
A question of needs must. They have it and it will do for retaking small island by supporting amphibious forces.
Japan doesn’t have budget for QEC’s.
Everyone always ask why they have a bigger surface fleet – no QEC, no SSN and no SSBN…also a lot of their fleet is really quite old.
Agree, we could have a massive fleet if we kept all the T21, T22 and T23 as well as the upholder class SSK in service and sailed round the North Sea.
Most of those ships are still sailing with other navy’s today.
T21 was retired due to the inability to upgrade it and its lack of BDR.
T22 was retired because the machinery was ancient. Once the Invincibles [flagships] were cut the costs of the support for the Olympus GT’s would have eye watering. Also most of the machinery was similar to T42. So the economy of scale disappeared.
T23 will quietly disintegrate due to tin worm….
I’m sure they are sailing but at what level of readiness?
Actually the later T22’s had Spey’s same as the T23 so that was not a consideration it was the larger crew that got them killed off and being only 4 of them with the T23’s being the better ASW hunter. The T22’s could have gone on for some time but in the end they had to go a great loss to the Fleet.
Sorry got my GT’s mixed up. You are right they were Speys.
Most of the rest of the T22 plant looked more than similar to T42 or Invincible so the basic point stands.
Last batch of T22s fine ship’s
Heartily concur Shipmate – very well armed and packed with sensors
Spot on 👍
Always thought they were one of our great successes, the Argentinians certainly didn’t like them.
We already know Westminster is in a very poor state and though it was reinstated Iron Duke was said to be borderline reparable so may not have been at this stage. The older ones are certainly struggling. Interestingly I always thought T-22 looked like the naval equivalent of a concrete bunker a real hard nut of a ship. Wonder how long they will go on.
T22 was constructed to a much higher standard than T23.
In the initial design of T23 – every expense was spared.
Thank John Nott for that nonsense.
The ‘we must be able to build cheaper warships somehow’ burble has been destroying RN for years.
They have on casino hinted at eventually obtaining bigger carriers, something perhaps nearer to America size but politically it’s a tough job getting it through. As it is they have had to be very careful about giving their existing ‘aviation destroyers’ or whatever they called them offensive strike capability. It’s going to be small steps. The ideal would be they and South Korea building 2 each of a similar design to keep costs down but RSK has seemed to have rejected their plans to build such carriers probably rightly feeling they would have little role in defence against the North. Japan would certainly have greater use of them with its islands to defend or retake perhaps. Presently seriously reliant on the US for air cover esp on their outlying islands but is equally why they are massively investing on new bases in their most southerly island which is but a stones throw from Taiwan and China has hinted at having a claim on.
I think this is why people have to understand the implications should China and its attack dog Russia are given any encouragement to expand their claims. World war would be almost inevitable down the line I fear.
Spot on
If (big if) you are building another carrier or three you should always base on an existing modern design which works. The QE design fits that to a tee especially now we have eliminated some of the teething problems. Never go backwards.
In that case we would need to ask for the use of Diego Garcia again.
Again? We have use of it. A RN Party is stationed there.
Yes joint base Diego Garcia as it’s known.
PJOB mate. “Permanent Joint Operating Base” unless they’ve changed the jargon yet again.
Falls under PJHQ, part of Strategic Command.
Two of the sites in Cyprus, and Ascension, Gib, MPA in Falklands are the others.
Gold plated assets of ours that extend our reach that we must never relinquish.
Though our behaviour in deporting the islanders was outrageous and then we leased the place to the US.
They have prepositioned equipment, an airbase, and there are USN space surveillance ground stations and no doubt NSA/GCHQ bits and pieces there too. Unsure but possibly some GPS bits too, certainly are in Ascension.
Yes, treatment of the islanders was a real stain on Britain’s reputation. Recent moves have tried to rectify the position by offering British citizenship. However I agree we can’t ever hand it over to Mauritius. It will be a Chinese naval base in 5 minutes along with open season on all the sea life in the marine park.
Well the island(s) are being handed back the US in recent weeks expressed its anger but one presumes a permanent base agreement will be arranged but still hardly prevents being spied upon. In all honesty should never have been given to Mauritius, no where near it or had previous links, but hey we weren’t interested in being east of Suez back then till the Americans took an interest and it could hardly exist by itself so seemed sensible I guess in a non military debate. Very short sighted mind.
I never did understand why exactly the poor islanders could not just have stayed on the island.
I’d not given that much thought to be honest, wonder why? The Americans wanted everybody out, so we complied.
Indeed for an ‘anti Imperialist’ Nation they sure are black and white on such matters when it suits them and then just concentrate on how disguising it, we were the useful patsy back then and get all the grief. Not dissimilar thinking about it to certain events in the 1770s actually that caused similar ‘disagreements’ on the rights of indigenous peoples, so shouldn’t really be surprised I guess.
Don’t remember all the details, but it had something to do with the lend lease agreement during the early part of WW2, (just the first 2.5 years of the conflict). I think the US under that agreement took control of some UK overseas asets such as BIOT for 99 years. If you want I will see if I can dig through some details.
Aah yes you are right, it was an offer we just couldn’t refuse back then wasn’t it. A bit like giving them free access to all our technology too and giving up ownership of around a third of US Business we owned from pre war, so much of all that fed into their post war boom that made America great. Let’s hope they don’t expect a similar process to make them Great again eh or we will be asking the islanders to help us.
I’ve never really understood why the Chagos islanders couldn’t be permitted to return to live on the other BIOT islands aside from Diego Garcia itself, or even allowed there if they wanted employment at the installations.
I get American security concerns but excluding them from the entire territory seems like real overkill and you’d think tight border control and vetting would allay most of their worries.
The Mauritian claim is ludicrous given it’s hundreds of miles away and was governed via Mauritius up until the 60’s purely out of bureaucratic simplicity!
Along with Gib, the SBA’s in Cyprus and Ascension BIOT is definitely a strategic asset we should keep hold of.
Definitely.
My understanding is that there is only one inhabitable island. Fresh water will be the major sticking point. Realistically the island was probably not that viable long term as well, look at the Pitcairn Islands and all the problems there. We evacuated St Kilda for much the same reason and that’s a British island.
The real disgrace was not making the people British citizens and dropping them in the Seychelles and Mauritius with zero consultation.
But we have a chance to make things right.
My understanding is we paid Mauritius a sizable sum to give the islanders a new home.
Quite correct DM. Diego Garcia is a British Indian Ocean Territory.
Better to spend a few billions extra on other military needs, me thinks. Having two large carriers is still impressive.
I still think it would of been better for the French to go for two carriers not one.
Yes but they have no budget for it.
Neither does the UK. The evidence is everywhere.
What country are your from again, seems to change every week.
Partially so. We should never have stopped building warships, Frigates and SSN’s during the early 2000’s that’s the main reason for the gap.
I do agree we are being slow in filling the carriers with planes. Much due to the F35 development being well behind schedule meaning we sensibly waited for later more capable marks to appear. Defence budget needs to be 3% GDP. QEC cheap at the price. I’ll bet the French Carrier costs 3x as much.
Thats rubbish –
Yaaaawn, do dry your eyes little sad one.
Appreciate this is a repeat, but new members may not be aware. Two ocean type ships would be jolly useful, although originally this seemed impossible, we very nearly had two “commando carriers” from Gavin w. Can’t remember the progress of these to date, some fudging with a hospital ship perhaps? Also I appreciate the critically low amounts of helicopters we currently have.
Any carrier based in or near the South China Sea would be likely to be sunk in the first few minutes of a shooting war with China.
Better to keep the carriers west of Suez and deploy to the far east if required in a secondary back up operation along with the US 5th and 6th fleet and European partners.
It can then head to the Indian Ocean and blockage China while.
Something the size of an Invincible will be little use on its own and almost no help for anything more than ASW work as part of a task force.
The premise that once a conflict with China begins we immediately lose our key assets, does have a president in Prince Of Wales and Repulse but technology has made huge strides since WW2. Survivability is now key and no capital vessel would be exposed as the afm. A more compact aircraft carrier stationed in the Far East would prove to be key in demonstrating the projection of naval power, and a reminder to China that combined international effort can be a real deterrent. This third platform in combination with allied navies in the region would allow for fast jet interdiction and recon over a greater span of ocean than rotary assets.
Hi Maurice. We lost PoW and Repulse because they had zero air cover after the Carrier due to accompany them ran aground before deploying.
Also as to the expulsion of the residents of the BIOT, security concerns may have played a part but there were also concerns about how the resident population might have posed a challenge to British sovereignty in the future. Similar reasoning I would think for the prohibition of permanent residents on Ascension.
btw-to which Navy does the Frigate F805 belong in the head photo? Aussie?
I’ll take a guess and say it’s Dutch, a Tromp class destroyer/frigate.
Thanks Quentin
Okay Geoff, I was attempting to keep it concise but yes the two capital ships were lost due to a typical British balls up. Those apart, and lessons learned we should be in a better place than in WW2. Unless there is a change in Chinese policy in the Far East the West is going to have to spend billions on defence in this theater alone.
Sorry Maurice-I knew you would know that-just in case other readers might not! The reality is that the UK cannot do it alone and now needs to be part of an allied effort. Gone are the days when I remember a Defence Minister saying Britain needed to keep two carriers East of Suez permanently! 😎
We can play a small part, but thankfully a great many billions have already been wisely invested in the defence of PRC’s neighbours in an arms race over past decades, while we have been recklessly cutting ours. Apart from the mighty presence of the US armed forces & fleet(s), the combined navies of the regional likely opponents of the PRC match at the least the size & projected expansion of the PLAN.
We need a concerted effort to deter Xi’s ambitions to invade Taiwan & expand any further. I think we must stop fudging & appeasing & say very clealy we will not let it happen.
Any war could be very messy, costly & disasterous. We would probaly not simply be facing Russia or the PRC alone, but also the likes of N Korea, Iran & others in their sphere.
Hear about China with a salvage vessel at the wreck site of Prince of Wales and Repluse the other week 🤔
If true AD, that is not good news the sites of both vessels are war graves. China leave those bones of brave men and their ship and home alone.
Well said 👍
What I’ve listened to on Proceedings, better to stand up to our responsibilities in the Atlantic, Arctic and Med.
Let the US deal with the Pacific; we’re not welcome and poorly integrated; much like Aus.
I’d like to see a more fundamental increase in the defensive armament on the existing QE carriers especially prior to CSG 25 and all the RFAs. All such precious assets, mutually supportive of each other, necessary for fleet ops, and all should be adequately armed especially against subs, drones, loitering munitions. If they already are, great, if not, it surely needs to get sorted. As mentioned in another article thread, if all/some of the deployed Wildcats get an upgrade with dipping sonars and also with Venom that’s a step up. Like to see the Merlin’s and maybe drones be able to carry Martlet and Venom.
A couple of other things. Can the two Waves be upgraded to operate as a semi or hybrid FSS? They’re just parked there, not too old and would be good to put them to use.
And hope with CSG25 the group can visit Australia this time. The whole group in Sydney harbour would be spectacular! NZ might request a visit too. That’s for Klonkie!
I still get itchy when I watch the QEs leave Portsmouth as 70 + years ago (as seen on U-Tube in colour) HMS Hood do exactly the same route and my thoughts are vulnerability? The current visual ship defence apart from the air wings looks sparse with just Phalanx.
Yes you could say a bit “under-done”, even “semi-naked”, lol. Looks can deceiving though but also very revealing too. It’s a bit of a rant of mine but there’s an obvious contrast with other navies.
We lost carriers in WW2, caught out with minimal escort, well armed for AA self defence when we had a huge navy. Nowdays people suppose we’ll never have our carriers vulnerable when we have never had such a tiny escort force & the carriers themselves armed little better than RFAs. They say allies will always contribute to our carrier defence screens.
The USN with a huge fleet, many allies, yet gives its carriers a 3 tier SAM/AA defence, with medium ranged Evolved Sea Sparrow SAMs, short ranged RAM SAMs & Phalanx CIWS, wheras all our QEs have is the last ditch Phalanx CIWS.
So we could find ourselves in harm way mostly relying on hope & a prayer.
We need to think about it 🤔
I’m glad so many contributors believe the QEs are under-protected. We spend billions on their construction and then dither around in regard to adequate protection. I’ve said from Launch they needed Sea Sparrow as well as Phalanx even if the SS’s were in the short term, bolted on the back of a truck! Many responses said space was a key issue, well that’s easily answered reduce F35 or Merlin by one to accommodate. The rapidly developing drone market possibly poses the greatest risk going forward. A swarm of heavily armed drones would quickly compromise a carrier’s safety and as yet, I don’t believe there is a weapon that can eliminate a drone swarm of more than five?
Our own Sea Ceptor would be ideal. They may even have been designed with the possibility in mind(?). It always amazes me the spin arguments that they come out with NOT to adequately arm or protect our warships.
I think what HMG just ask them selfs for the sake of a Ex weapon systems on the carriers cost wise which may just save the day ,or the the cost of losing a carrier 🤔
I think we all hope that it’s not just down to costs and that maybe additional defences are still to come. Looks stupidly short sighted and frankly irresponsible if not.
Agreed. It’s imbecilic to have heilicopters embarked that can’t do either surface attack or ASW sub searching. Everybody else fits their heli’s for both.
stop dreaming..lets find the money to make what we have fully functional – the rest is nonsense without a massive hike in the budget and there will be many internal demands on it not just for another carrier!
If we are going to be global we need faith in what we intend to do. I would suggest that we propose to our allies in the region the idea of an Asian/Pacific Task Force. The U.K. provides the carrier along with say ten or twelve F35’s. The U.S. and Japan are asked to each provide the same. Maybe later the Aussies might want to join in. Supporting aircraft as required.
Each participating country ,and others should they wish to do so, provide a destroyer and/or frigate for a balanced escort force. The UK and US provide an SSN. Again logistical support as required.
The Task Force could of course be expanded with amphibious warfare ships and aircraft but initially as a standing force it would reinforce the UK’s commitment to the region and allow the Royal Navy and the RAF time to fully integrate new ships and aircraft.
I did include something like this in a submission for the defence paper but…who knows?
To be honest Geoff it would be more effective and efficient if the UK carrier force ( supported by the French) takes over from the US around the med, Middle East and eastern Indian Ocean area, allowing the US to forward base a second carrier in Japan. Europe has 3 good carriers, that’s plenty to manage everything west of India. allowing the US to focus its entire 10 carriers into the pacific.
The UK bit of the pacific tilt is best supported by SSNs that can transit extremely quickly when needed and the planned pre deployed set of type 31s. With the odd occasion world cruise by a UK carrier group to make a point ( when the French carrier is covering the med/middle east).
Talking of India, they’ve also got a carrier with Rafales. Like to see the RN covert the PoW to a hybrid carrier asap so can be shared with US, France, India and others.
Often thought that the RAAFs Hornets here could trained on carriers too, just for something extra. Like to see a medium sized carrier in the RAN, share some Ops with NZ.
*convert…. covertly… Lol 😁
We don’t need carriers in the med or the gulf. We can cover it from allied bases, swapping the F35B for the greater range F35A, which will also have weapons of greater range, more air refueling and more P8s. A carrier in the gulf in particular would be very exposed and there should be no doubt the Iran would try to capitalise on a USN occupied by a Taiwan conflict. If we’re not going to deploy globally then we really don’t need 2 large carriers.
Reason for 2 ships is that one will always be available once the refits cycle kicks in regardless where you send the operational one which can travel 500+ miles per day. can a fixed airfield do that? Also you cannot always rely on your ‘friends’ for access. The Saudis did it in the Gulf so we sent the Invincible in with a CAG and showed what it could do even with its limited numbers (we did better than the Yanks if I recall 😉).
Yes but still the main reason for the carriers is to put an airfield anywhere on the worlds oceans. But government policy is going to change after the election to focus closer to home. Mainly North Atlantic and the Euro. If allies don’t want us in the gulf we won’t be going. Carriers are only warranted if government policy exists to exploit them.
What if large parts of the ME side with Russia/PRC as they like authoratarian despotic regimes, or revolutionaries take over there? Suddenly many of those bases disappear.
Look I 100%believe we should remain global and keep the carriers but the next government is looking to retrench to Europe and build up land forces. In that scenario its pointless keeping the carriers to tour the UK coast. So the who’s pulling the strings in the Gulf doesn’t matter. We’re not going to get involved unless requested which means bases will be available as we’ll have been invited. Carriers are in there element when we need to sovereign runway 1000s of miles away not 100s. Its completely logical for the next government to review what use carriers would be in the Nirth Sea and North Eastern Atlantic.
Your idea has merit Jonathan but I think we need to go further. The Asian or Indo Pacific is going to be vital to the economy of the U.K. in the decades to come. If we want to take full advantage of being with our allies we need to be there.
AUKUS ( to become AJUKUS? ) is a great start but it could become a lot more. Powerful multi national forces will show the Chinese that we are not going to be pushed around. The Royal Navy is unique in enabling the UK to take part in a real force for good.
Could envision periodic RN deployment of a QE class carrier to Indo-Pacific for a limited timeframe, perhaps once in every three to four year period, but believe a more frequent deployment schedule would require additional carrier(s). However this would not preclude deployment of a partial to full RAF/RN squadron of F-35Bs more frequently, if embarked w/ USN/USMC Gator Navy. UK hosts USMC periodically, turnabout would be fair play, or even simply common courtesy. Escort vessels could supplied largely plug and play basis from AUKuS partners, supplemented by willing regional allies. The Aussies could parallel this effort, If convinced to acquire some F-35Bs. And in the near future, the Japanese Navy will be able to fully participate in operations. An overall plan and schedule could be developed that does not overtax any single military. 🤔😳😊
Agree, it would be good to see UK F35B deploy on US Navy LHD if just for practice of cross decking.
Ideally the next UK deployment of CSG to the far east would see Singaporean and Japanese F35B deployed on HMS Prince of Wales to show that it can be done.
The best deterrent to the CCP is showing that we can deploy a strong naval force in the area comprised of multiple parties and that even if the USN large carriers are knocked out the Gator Navy and the UK can still deploy substantial aviation assets in conjunction with other regional allies.
Hi Jim, “the Gator Navy”, what’s that?
Agree we should all be aking it crystal clear to the CCP any further agression will not be tolorated. Too much apeasment & ambiguity has led to a very dangerous situation. Russia & PRC both show complete disregard for treaties or international rules when it suits them.
Please see my response to Jonathan. I do believe that the UK and US working together with sound well equipped allies in the Asian Pacific theatre is the ONLY way of keeping peace. Although the UK is obviously not geographically connected it brings a new dimension to the game. It is and hopefully always will be a bridge between East and West.🚢🙂
Ideally, with RN coordinating deployment schedules with the MN, a carrier would deploy there on a regular basis ie at minimum a deployment every two years of a carrier, preferably every year and a half or so, with the RN deploying twice as often of course.
They should Andy and maybe they would join in at some point but politics are weird in India. They rely on Russia and to some extent favour France but the UK and US? I’m not so sure.
To be honest I think it would be better if the UK/French carrier forces took over and managed the west of India work, allowing the U.S. to base all its carrier fleet in the pacific.. a UK carrier even if we had one on 1 months notice is still a good months transit from the strait of Taiwan..and I know everyone will say but we will have more than 2 months notice of an invasion….but and this is a big one Taiwan itself thinks china could and has plans for an invasion based on strategic surprise…they do regularly ( annual) undertake province wide mobilisations to test resilience at the same time as there large regional exercises around Taiwan and the ROCs defence department has published papers on how it thinks the CCP could move from exercises and mobilisation test to an invasion.
It would be a better deterrent if the US could concentrate its carrier forces in the pacific, without worrying about other areas.
The UK could look to basing frigates in the pacific as planned as well as SSNs. With the SSN fleet being able to transit in 2 weeks even from the Uk it’s a better deterrent offer.
I don’t think we will get 2 months notice of an invasion- probably much much less, up to a week possibly if SIGNIT can pick up on troop movement, orders, planning and pre-positioning of strategic assets like air transport aircraft, strike aircraft and warships returning to port to form up an invasion fleet/ returning to port to take on live ammo and marines. I think likely a weeks notice of an invasion in the offing. Enough time for the USN and Japanese, Australians to put to see and get ready. Any strike on Taiwan may well involve simultaneous hits against Guam, Marshal Islands, Aleutian Islands, Alaska, Japan, Diego Garcia, Singapore and possibly Australia to try to degrade the allies response and destroy allied key infrastructure and forward based supplies.
For the Chinese however their key weakness isn’t against a massive carrier based surface fleet responding to a Taiwanese invasion it is the huge superiority in quality of the allied submarine fleet- especially USN SSNs and Japanese AIP SSKs.
I cant see China being able to successfully mount a combined arms invasion of Taiwan whilst keeping the allies response forces (especially the submarine fleets) at bay and degrade their forward bases within the next 5-10 years. If China continues its huge military build up then potentially in the 2030s the Chinese might judge their time has come. The West however is now wise to China, the semiconductor ban and other restrictions to advanced technology have come just in the nick of time. Ditto thanks to Mad Vlads war in Ukraine the west is re-invigorating its defence posture to make the NATO alliance much, much more deadly then it was before with key learning from the Ukraine war absorbed into Western military doctrine. The number one learning point however has to be establish air superiority, maintain air superiority and suppression of GBAD systems. Russia failed to do this and is now losing a war against a country that was ranked 34th in the world on the military power rating pre war. Now probably Ukraine is somewhere in the top 12.
Hi Bell, interesting to really defend Taiwan from invasion the U.S. and allies may have to force the strait of Taiwan, assuming the CCP would effectively need to close the strait from outside navel incursion to allow an invasion. One of the big issues is it’s all continual shelf generally no more that 100ms deep..the southern entrance is covered pretty much entirely by Taiwan banks with a depth of only 20-40 meters ( no SSN is going to want to cross a large body of water that’s only 60 feet deep), then to the north you have the Chang Yuen ridge again in the 20-40 meter range…it sort of makes it a death trap for SSNs. Interestingly the Chinese have specifically build a small SSK the type 039A class specifically for moving around the shallow enclosed rocky waters of the strait. The big unknown is the quantity of the new build of Chinese SSKs as well as surface fleet. They are building them in numbers that will allow them to utterly overwhelm ( the aim seems to be to have 40 039As)…when you consider the early and much less advanced 039 popped up next to ( within 5 miles) a US carrier without being detected…the 039A is meant to be as good as any SSK from a noise point of view….their SSNs are more in line with soviet levels apparently. But basically the 2004 hearing on military modernisation and cross strait balance…effectively said it would be suicidal to send US SSNs into the strait and most of the china seas ( yellow and east) to contest with Chinese SSKs as china had pretty much built its SSK to fight that very specific fight and it was operating at the limit of what the US considered SSN operations.
Recent US war games suggested loosing 5 SSN’s in the first few days which would be catastrophic for the USN.
B1 bombers armed with LRASM were more effective around Taiwan.
The goal of the Taiwan strait should be sea denial and not control. Offensive mine warfare is the cheapest way to buy time on landings. Targeting invasion assets in the strait for shooting from or over the island is a key capability.
The geographic limitations make defense harder. The political aspect will be significant also. Can mainland China be attacked? What about limiting the logistics support from other ports in China? It is in China’s interest to limit the war to Taiwan alone, and there will be pressure from Japan and South Korea (if they support Taiwan militarily) not to expand the battlefield.
Hi James, in this case it will be a 2 way sea denial:
1) china will seek to deny the US and friends the china seas, very specifically the seas around Taiwan and the strait and stopping the US forcing the strait.
2) the ROC will use sea denial to prevent the PRC from crossing the strait.
it essentially turns into the greatest bloodbath in the history of naval warfare….
What is worse is that contagion is inevitable, there is no limiting this as neither side could loss.. you are talking the two largest most powerful nations on earth with very significant resources…and with the stakes being who’s going to be the hegemonic power into the mid and late 21c, neither side is going to take losing unless they collapse with total exhaustion…or are essentially destroyed. if China forces a crossing and takes the ROC the U.S. will simply keep fighting to exhaust and defeat china…by moving the fight into the wider pacific, if china fails to take Taiwan it will do the same…both nations will then move to pressure their allies to close the worlds seas to the other side and bring in every ally they have…your talking a fight between superpowers for effectively global dominance…contagion is not even a question…the PRC invading the ROC is world war 3.
The UK is only ever going to represent a follow up force in the pacific, it’s too far away from us. We need to be able to respond quickly in the euro Atlantic and give the US and other allies outside Europe time to provide the follow on forces while we do the same for the Indo pacific.
We need to be able to respond quickly in the euro Atlantic, yep and we don’t need carriers to that. Pointless having carriers just sailing around our coast. Just invest in air refueling + more P8’s, swap to F35A which has more range and weapons and is cheaper. A retrenchment to Euro area and N.Atlantic will make our carriers redundant.
I disagree, operating in the far north of Norway is challenging without carriers. Amphibious operations are key in Norway and QEC is in effect a giant amphibious assault carrier that’s able to provide its own air capability and land helicopters at the same time. It’s exactly what you would want if invading Norway or the Kola Peninsula.
As we saw in Libya with the USA in 1986 and our intervention in 2014 host nation access in the Mediterranean can be an issue as well. With the clout China has in the Indian Ocean using any air base other than Diego Garcia will be a challenge and Diego Garcia runway will probably be closed in the first few minute by long range
With retrenchment to Europe actions like Libya will be off the cards unless there’s a lot of support from Euro nations. Which solves any access issues. The F35A has more range than the Tornado and with the increase in IFR from drones like the MQ25 will increase its combat radius further making it ideal for operating out of NATO bases in Europe. That just leaves North Atlantic, who exactly is going to invade Norway? And if they did would they be able to take the whole country before NATO could reinforce? Russia has barely made it a few 100km in Ukraine over flat terrain against a country with vastly inferior capabilities to NATO Finland shares a boarder and has a huge army and has now joined NATO.
Let me be clear I think we should remain a global player and keep the carriers but the next government will be looking to fund a bigger army and retrench to closer to home. I don’t see how keeping carriers is credible for what now becomes a limited set of scenarios close to home. Keeping the carriers also means keeping the F35B when the A is better( and cheaper) aircraft for ops closer to home. Carriers are in their element when we need sovereign airfield 1000s of miles away not 100s of miles away and where we’re surrounded by allies.
The Uk cannot fully retrench into Europe, we have land we are committed to defend across the globe. Also the carriers give us far more ability to defend our interest than any land based aircraft…the first thing for instance Russia would do is try and knock out our airfields….you have to find a carrier before you can knock it out…even regional navy’s are investing in carriers for a reason.
I’m all for continuing our global presence but we’ll.have a new government with new policies in less than 18 months. They’ve made it clear where they priorities lie. And with that it’s hard to justify 2 large flat decks. I’m highlighting how thing could oan out with new policy direction. Also if we are moving closer to home do it properly, F35b make no sense for a European looking defence stance.
They’ll probably conduct regular dry run exercises towards Taiwan, then once we’ve got used to them, catch us out with a real one. It will be the free world’s big mistake if we let them get that far. It will be their big mistake if they do it. I’d like to see less restraint on helping Taiwan defend herself.
It might make a lot of sense for France and the UK to take over as the US seems to have pissed off everyone in the region. The Biden administration seems hell bent on pissing off everyone that the Trump administration hadn’t.
https://breakingdefense.com/2023/06/exclusive-us-says-irans-claimed-naval-alliance-with-saudi-gulf-nations-defies-reason/
Well then get off your ass and do it. The US doesn’t need the oil .
Ah US fanboy, without a US passport….how amusing.
Do you remember that Abraham accords that were signed in the Trump administration that basically aligned the Arab states with Israel against Iran… You might want to stay off the mainstream media.
Hmm have you read the lates news SA talks with Iran instigated by China plus some interactions amongst the Gulf States not only with. China but Russia too. They are rapidly expressing both an independence while making sure they secure fences to sit on as the big boys fight it out. Great concern in the West about conflicting events in a region they once thought at least the main players were onboard. Not that non US Countries will in some way change that growing iffy-ness it’s just commitment to the US is becoming more pliable as they put Arabia first in response to similar pronouncements elsewhere. Europe probably needs to be wary too, like it or not if they too are to be deemed expendable.
You might want to hurry up and tidy your room, as the Brit squaddies have left their socks and pants all over…..Ah a cuck to the Brits, but if you enjoy it who are we to criticise.
Signalling to China that it may only be fighting the US and some other token offering from its allies would only embolden them. Best deterrent is 1 in all in from the West and it allies. I think with 2-3 years we won’t have anything based in the Pacific!!!
S Korea(Unless tied up by N Korea, PRC’s proxy), Japan, Australia & possibly any of Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Phillipines could well join US efforts to combat PRC aggression. They’ve been gearing up for it for over a decade.
Taiwan would not be a walk over by any means, though there may be some portion of their forces turned by very active ongoing savage PLA bribary/blackmail.
Could, might some yes, Japan Australia. North Korea will see it as a opportunity. Or will act on Beijings behalf. The rest will more likely sit on the fence to see which way it goes. Many of those countries are seeing inward invest from China.
Unlike Ukraine resupply of Tiawan will be a nightmare. China will have learnt a lot from Russian incompetence and Western tactics and weapons.. but countering all of the West’s weapons system is greater challenge than just US systems and therefore sticking together is a bigger deterrent.
May be logical to stage a T-31 out of HMAS Stirling as well as an Astute. This class of frigates is going to have a very full social schedule. 😁
“Does it make sense to send Carriers too close to the SCS, hence the reason for the US to further upgrade the B-52 to launch long-range missiles plus 1000 mile Tomahawk anti-ship missiles?
The U.S. Navy’s fleet of 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers fared poorly in a series of war games, simulating a Chinese invasion of Taiwan in 2026, that the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. recently organized.
Even when the United States and Japan successfully defended Taiwan—as they did in most of CSIS’s 24 simulations—the Navy lost at least two carriers … and sometimes as many as four.
No war game is perfectly predictive. There are a lot of ways a game can fail to capture the chaos, nuance and surprise of an actual war. Still, it’s not news that the U.S. fleet’s giant supercarriers might be vulnerable to Chinese missiles. Fleet leaders for years have fretted over the missile threat.”
LINK
“Installation of AESA is one of the largest upgrades to the B-52 in the history of the fleet. The effort will cost approximately $2.8 billion, with initial operational capability expected in 2027.
“Sustainability is an important part of this effort, because the old radar is unsustainable,” said Ruscetta. “The advancement in combat capability that AESA will bring is really critical in keeping this aircraft effective with our near-peer adversaries. The new radar is an enabler for our long-range standoff capability and will prepare the aircraft for optimized lethality.”
LINK
He has clearly not got the message about no longer using ‘near peer’ any longer in respect to China.
Indeed, they are closing the gap in many areas. They might not have the technology in some but make up for it in numbers!
This gives us an idea of how fast their navy is growing compared to the US.
As you may recall I’ve touched on the UK partnering with SK in relation to products for the British Army in the past.
“The Pentagon estimates China’s navy to have around 340 warships at present, while the US has fewer than 300. It thinks the Chinese fleet will grow to 400 in the next two years, while the US fleet will take until 2045 to hit 350.
But it’s not just the increasing vastness of the Chinese navy that has raised concerns. Some of the ships China is churning out arguably have greater firepower than some of their US counterparts.
Take China’s Type 055, in many eyes the world’s premier destroyer.
Displacing 12,000 to 13,000 tons, the Type 055 is bigger than typical destroyers (it is nearer in size to the US Navy’s Ticonderoga class of cruisers) and packs a formidable punch.
It has 112 vertical launch system (VLS) cells that fire surface-to-air and anti-ship missiles, which is more than the 96 on the newest of the US Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. It also boasts sophisticated radio and anti-submarine weapons systems.
But some Western analysts say the Type 055 may have a peer in South Korea’s Sejong the Great-class destroyers.
At 10,000 to 12,000 tons displacement, the Sejongs are slightly smaller than China’s Type 055s, but they have more firepower, with 128 VLS cells and weapons that include surface-to-air, anti-submarine and cruise missiles.
The three Sejongs, which cost about $925 million each, are the pride of the South Korean fleet.
“With this one ship, (the South Korean Navy) can cope with multiple simultaneous situations – anti-aircraft, anti-ship, anti-submarine, anti-surface – and defend from ballistic missiles,” the country’s Defense Media Agency says.”
LINK
Makes you wonder how the QE Carriers would actually do in the same war games doesn’t it?
Really need more defensive armaments on these and RFAs, plus the CAMM put on the T45s asap. And containerised CAMM and or Martlet/Starstreak(ER) looked at if not done already.
Indeed, these are high-value targets and need to be kept well away from the range of China’s missile defences and yes, they need to be very well protected.
Worth reading in full.
“While the recency of introduction suggests the inventory may not be deep enough for a major conflict, China’s precise weapon procurement rates are not as publicly discernible compared to U.S. forces.
However, the U.S. Department of Defense has stated that China conducted more than 135 ballistic missile live firings for testing and training in 2021, which “was more than the rest of the world combined,” excluding conflict zones.
The DoD made the same remark about 2020, with China firing 250 ballistic missiles that year, and earlier again for 2019, but with no accompanying figure.3 These firing rates suggest that China has invested in a robust missile production industrial base and recognizes the value of building out deep inventories of precision weapons.
LINK
Worth reading.
LINK
A very interesting story as reported by a number of foreign media outlets, but as of now (6 hours later) only Sky, the DM and STV have reported this:
https://i.postimg.cc/vHRjZNV9/Opera-Snapshot-2023-06-06-212950-www-aljazeera-com.png
I suppose I should ask if they were secret how did we know about them or how many there are – but its about bloody time.
Now we just need to find out what they doing about that Chinese Diplomat in Manchester
Well things are secret until you discover them I guess. Equally however in more modern usage it also refers to unofficial set ups that don’t have the overt approval of the Governing State. As we know in the middle there is much turning of eyes where it’s thought it best by those governing bodies for some sort of ‘greater good’ no doubt ie like ignoring Saudi human rights for example. I suspect all three factors have come into play here along the timeline.
Bit ironic him speaking of the importance of observing rules after recent years demonstrated that leading figures in his party didn’t think laws or rules applied to themselves!
But I agree we should be supporting the rule of law & civilization globally. For that we need a bigger stick! Apart from foolishly feeding the monsters by fawning over trade & investment with & from them, exporting so much of our domestic manufacturing to the far east, cutting the throats of our own workers; cutting our conventional forces so far has been a dangerous game we’ve lost, resulting in the empowerment of toxic authoratarians. Ukraine has paid the price & Taiwan could be next.
However I hope & pray the free world will wake up & face down these threats rather than allowing the world to slide into tyranny.
For credible influence in the far east we need a bigger fleet so we can deploy a modest task force without leaving our NATO commitments short. Thankfully other far eastern nations have not neglected the growth of the PLAN & expanded their navies & other forces wisely, while we in the west slept.
Couldn’t put it better myself ,good post 👍🇬🇧
Not helpful and and a very biased view of whats been happening.
Can you elaborate
Wow I like Our Defence secretary. He has got a really first rate vision for the UK in the defence field.