The UK must continue to deploy naval forces globally, including to the Indo-Pacific, in support of allies and open trade routes, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence Lord Coaker told the House of Lords, responding to concerns over whether the government’s focus should remain closer to home.
The comments came during a Lords exchange following the announcement of additional F-35A and F-35B aircraft procurement.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire questioned whether the UK was right to prioritise deployments such as the recent visit of HMS Prince of Wales to Singapore, arguing that “the SDR and the national security strategy emphasise the threats to us locally and regionally… the North Sea, eastern Europe, the Baltic and that part of the world which is closest to our insecurity.”
In reply, Lord Coaker rejected the suggestion of rebalancing UK posture away from the Indo-Pacific: “We, with our allies, simply have to guarantee the security of regions across the world, whether it be the North Sea, the Mediterranean or the Indo-Pacific.” He pointed to threats in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean, including from Houthi forces, as evidence that forward presence remains necessary.
“We should celebrate the fact that we have people with a sense of duty that allows them to put their lives in danger to ensure that trade, communication and all the things we depend on can get through,” he said.
Defending the UK’s global engagement, Coaker noted that deployments to the Indo-Pacific were welcomed by regional partners including Japan, Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia: “All those countries ask us to go there because they recognise the importance of ensuring the global trade routes stay open—it is the trade and prosperity on which our nation, and the nations of the world, depend.”
The debate also touched on the UK’s role in the F-35 programme. Lord Beamish welcomed the F-35A acquisition and emphasised the importance of maintaining UK industrial participation: “Some 15% of every single F35A will be produced in the UK.” He warned against proposals to limit UK involvement in the programme, suggesting such a move would damage the economy and Britain’s international standing.
Lord Coaker agreed, stating: “Of course, our exports are also really important.” He closed by noting his support for the UK High Court’s ruling in the al-Haq judgment, calling it “really important for our country.”
Ben Wallace former defence minister, saying he would like carrier closer to home. Think there’s was an article in ukdj where UK Italy France may consider to coordinate more with carrier deployments. Obviously f35b’ can be flown home if needed.
No, NOT Ben Wallace but a Lib Dem peer, who spent his whole life in academia, and probably never had a real job in his whole life.
I don’t think he understands the carrier can actually move over 500 miles a day so could be home in just a few weeks if required.
Thank you, I stand corrected.
If the UK-Europe don’t put themselves out in the AsiaPacific every once in a while we all know who’ll want to fill in any vacuum. And what about the “Global Britain” thing? UK-Europe is a counter balance to the US and China/Russia and hopefully will stand up to both sides along with other allies.
Does somebody need to explain to Lord Beamish that not all F-35s have equal UK participation? Less of the F-35A is made in the Britain than F-35B, and sacrificing 12 F-35Bs for an equal number of F-35As has reduced the industrial spend in the UK both proportionately and absolutely. So that’s what Lord Beamish is actually welcoming, a government decision to spend less in the UK.
Maybe he doesn’t need to be told. The funny thing is that Beamish, better known as Kevan Jones, was a Labour minister at the MOD, a former Armed Force shadow minister and a long term member of the Commons Defence Select Commitee. I’m sure he already knows what government’s announcement means. Either his last year’s ennoblement has befuddled his brain or he intends to become another pointless stamp of government approval. Well, we could always do with more of those.
Just abolish the Lords and be done with it.
Replace with a council of experts from every field to advise HMG.
HMG doesn’t need more advice. It needs to be robustly challenged, especially on technical matters, and with teeth. These days the only other opposition comes from the Labour back benches on populist issues.
ONE HUDRED PER CENT CORRECT.
Not sure if you are suggesting we no longer have an upper chamber voting on legislation?
Life peers do tend to come from all walks of life and sometimes they need to say something outrageous to get people’s attention.
There are quite a few MPs who seriously believe the Britain would be safer if we disbanded our armed forces and came home.
Not entirely, no.
But in its current form. I prefer SME’s to peers.
Oddly that is exactly what the Civil Service is supposed to provide.
They in theory are the subject matter experts running Government under the watchful eyes and with the authority of ministers who, in theory, restrict themselves to setting policy.
The issue with peers & MPs is they try amplify the uninformed nonsense which often comes from the public. That said occasionally occassionally some excellent ideas come from the public.
@Mark B And not just the Civil Service. There are the SPADs, calls out to industry and lets not forget “independent” SDRs. They can follow trails blazed by allied countries. Heck, they can even read the comment sections of noted press journals. The government’s opportunity for advice, expert or not, overflows. Whatever their bias on any issue, they can always find advice to pander to it.
Make it a limited time chamber of experts that are voted in.. without any regional links, I would also make it party agnostic as well if I could .
Me me me, I’ll do it.
“Vote for Halfwit, it’s not like you haven’t before”.
“Clowns to the left, jokers to the right”. 🤡
“Stuck in the middle with you”? Definitely could be worse.
Labour’s manifesto included reforming the lord’s and include a mandatory retirement age for members to get rid of life time peers. How broad the reform will be, is yet to be seen, as their focus has been on their investment and workers rights bills which take time to go through the process.
If you replace Lords with a bunch of experts- then you have several problems.
1/ They will lack any power & can safely be ignored.
2/ If you give them power, then politicians will rush to appoint politically acceptable “experts”.
3/ Who decides what type of “experts” are needed.
Every senior minister already has access to “special” advisers of their own choosing , on top of public service.
My preference would be a senate type elected body (multiple members per constituency, with limited number of constituencies). Eg: NI, Scotland, Wales, North England, Central England, South England, London. Like Australia, duration should be twice that of lower house, only half coming up each election. This ensures at least half the house at least knows the ropes & a degree of continuity past the usual election cycle. Continuity is one advantage (& disadvantage) of the present system. Not keen on the Canadian system, as it’s too hard to get rid of duds (as it is in the Lords).
When will the F35B’s be signed off to use Meteor missiles. By far the best Western AAM to date.
Ask LM, they’re the ones doing it, when they can get round to it. Immensly frustrating though!
Very quickly if “War” breaks out, just like so many other systems.
I suspect the reverse. If a war broke out LM focus would be on US upgrades and building more for the US. Support for allies including the UK would be secondary. Joy of not owning the code to do it locally if needed.
We know that Israel has tweaked the Adir (F-35I) to take Israeli weapons, yet LM claim it’s impossible to integrate more weapons until block 4 software is available. What do the Israeli’s know that LM don’t?
A lot depends on the weapon. For example who have thought that you could fit and fire Western weapons from Soviet/Russian? It was seen as impossible a few years ago, due to the differing interface standards not to mention the communications to and from the aircraft’s mission system. But today the Ukraine War has shown that it can be done, but to a lower fidelity standard. The example being HARM on Mig 29s, where they worked out that the Russian based communication system could be mimicked, where it gives the weapon a basic and usable function. Which has now morphed into a standalone NATO standard databus, controlled via an iPad, thereby giving the weapon full functionality.
I’m not saying we could lay in a new databus. But we could use and mimic another weapon with similar attributes. For instance using Storm Shadow and using some of the parameters of JASSM. This could be done, but giving the weapon a percentage of its functional capability. This may be what Israel have done.
Rotating the joint French / British / Italian Pacific carrier tours makes total sense. These tours more political than anything else. As has been discussed in this forum countless times, we have the two carriers and should make use of them, but they are more about power projection than home seas defence. As for the purchase of the F-35A, this was a surprise to me. I wonder if part of the reason for the selection was because they can carry a version of the Naval Strike Missile (as well as a tactical nuclear bomb)… that would be useful for use against surface naval threats. In future, the Tempest seems like a critical weapon for home seas defence against surface threats with its apparently long range and payload possibilities.
Quite so.
We needed to demonstrate that we still had long legs even with the lack of FSSS – caused by a lack of Fort Vic.
IRL QEC is so huge that I don’t think munitions or spares are really the problem.
However, food storage will be an issue for a crew that large. However, a few pallets of food a day are VERTREPable. Or they can use drones for the non hazardous items.
Food is not really an issue either when she is making frequent port visits.
As you say QE class is massive with a small crew for her size.
That depends on the design.
The design of fridges could well be sized for a week and depend on RAS to replenish.
Plenty of spare deck area for a Solar Farm.
“the Sun never sets on the british Empire”.
It’s also good for recruitment. One of the main drives historically for the military has been to enable poorer parts of the country to see the world. With cheap ryanair flights in recent decades that side has reduced, so getting out of Europe will be a pull.
I’m guessing by the fact that Ben Wallace arranged CSG 25 after the Ukrainian war started that he is only asking this question as a straw man.
Jim, no NOT Ben Wallace, but a Lib peer
Sorry I miss read it.
Interestingly CNN reporting from German foreign minister that they were told by the Chinese foreign minister that China wished Russia to win in Ukraine so the United States cannot solely focus on China. China now denying this statement.
That seems like a really daft thing for China to say out loud even if it’s in their interests. Shows just how low the bar in Beijing had become for ministers.
Fealty to the supreme leader is all that matters much the same as Russia and the US now, competence not required.
Time for the civilised world to form a new club.
Revealing about China in cahoots with Russia in wanting to set up a logistics and transport hub on the Crimea? Pretty criminal intentions really by both. Where’s the respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty plus its people and resources. Probably want to access their agricultural lands and minerals to feed its population and spread its influence and tentacles further depriving the West access. Hope Ukraine is supported to give it the means to flush Russian forces from its territory for good.
If the aim is to piss China off and bolster support for America, then one day China is going to play the same game.
As their sub and surface fleet increases at a ridiculous rate, they are going to play these games in our oceans.
Several Chinese SSNs routinely crossing the arctic sea and interfering with CASD would be considered a suitable reply by them to our “meddling ” in the SCS.
That will really put our stretched fleet and current one operational sub to the rest.
We lack the means to play games with China.
China is totalitarian communist dictatorship that crushes descent and democracy so anything that pisses them off is a good thing. Appeasement as history tells us doesn’t end well so the west either steps up or it will be swept away, which suits our enemies.
It is no game and our military and political weakness puts us at a distinct disadvantage so we need to up our game.
We do , but we won’t.
Last week there was a report that a River Class OPV ” defied” the Chinese Navy .
Yet we have one active SSN.
Meanwhile Type 09IIIB production capability is 2-3 boats per year.
It’s all very well acknowledging it’s a vile regime, it is. But at the same time we are letting them build a super spy hub next to the city of London. Mad Eds net zero targets require mass import of Chinese EV, turbines and solar, in a process that will cripple our industries.
So it’s all cosplay. Pretend expeditionary deployment , when the RFA is wrecked, and solidarity with allies.
Wait til China plays us at the same game and sees the North Atlantic via the arctic as it’s rightful trade routes to “protect”.
Even the incompetent Tory’s worked out China was a danger and given current performance Labour will be a one term Government (thank god) so I am not as worried as I was. Ironically if China does flex its muscle that reinforces the need for genuine rearmament and a more political response. A lot is going to change in the next 5 to10 years in the UK.
It didn’t defy the Chinese navy, it was sailing in international waters and the Chinese made no attempt to stop it.
Do you really think that not doing stuff the Chinese don’t like will in any shape or form make them play nice? Or rather encourage them to be more belligerent because they are getting their way!
I would like to add only one thing.
Respectfully – we need a quiet word with ourselves, who exactly are we and what do we stand for.
A very good point. Our problem is indeed that we have an identity crisis and weak self confidence. It’s no coincidence that no-one wants the job of Archbishop of Canterbury and that we see an epidemic of ‘mental illness’. The C of E, since the time of Elizabeth 1st, with monarch as its supreme governor ( when in Scotland the monarch is transmogrified into a member of the Kirk) has been the compromise establishment institution, ( the Tory party at prayer), which has bound the English together. For a variety of reasons it can no longer perform that role. The 20th century saw 2 world wars which facilitated universal suffrage, the NHS, universal secondary education and the loss of empire. The NHS has replaced the C of E as our saviour and the embodiment of national culture and identity. It’s a tough ask! We need significant constitutional reform: at a minimum the disestablishment of the C of E, an elected upper chamber and a new Bill of Rights. Until this happens our politics will thrash around and we will risk from both populist and far left parties.
Hi Paul, a certainly brilliant look back over the 20th Century to modern day. Mental illness is at the forefront of the problem here in the UK – anyone with a % of a brain cell should know exactly what areas I am in about but I am unwilling to go into, because it’s absolutely hopeless, in my humble opinion.
If we were to look at our organisation and decision making – we are simply lost in translation, certain factors can justify just about any thing, any approach and sometimes ‘any evil’ much to the negative effect of the majority of the population. A friend to all is a friend to none.
Oh, and we don’t need soldiers now, we have machines – but let’s see how these machine get on in the trenches. We have come so so far yet haven’t got nowhere.
The mistake we are making is that we do not approach illnesses of the mind by leveraging the tools we deploy to prevent diseases of the body; the main one being immunisation, in which we teach the immune system by giving the body some prior exposure to the pathogen. When you read a child fables and fairy stories, or take them to church or Sunday school, or teach them how to play and conduct themselves in physical team sports you are both warning them and teaching them how to discipline themselves, how to react to and deal with temptation and evil so that you are not defeated by it and neither do you infect others. You are in fact immunising them against mental illness. We need to do these things in childhood, within the safe environment where mistakes are forgiven so they grow into resilient adults; a loving family and school. The thing is, mental illness is a communicable disease, just like covid.
No argument about deployment but the three nations are a vey mixed bag. Our carriers are able to carry 15/20 aircraft as things stand with shakey AEW; C de G takes 30 ‘ish Rafales and Hawkeye and Cavour around 10/12 F35 with no discernible AEW. F35’s can cross deck to an extent, C de G can’t. The other question, given that we only have two squadrons and apparently it’s going to take another 8/10 yeras to form a third is what happens if the RAF need the F35 for a European or Middle Eastern mission. Potentially we have no F 35’a available assuming, as I’ve been told, the Lightning has an avaiabilty of 50 per cent.
I think we need to follow the lead of the new chief of defence staff and stop differentiating between RAF, Navy and Army. Our F35s will be deployed in the most advantageous manner as decided by the defence staff, no army plan, no navy plan and no RAF plan.
If we are fighting alongside NATO allies we might be sending an aircraft carrier to sea with a joint UK Italian force of F35B aircraft in a similar way to how we trialed a joint US Marines and UK force in 2021 on HMS Queen
Elizabeth
The problem isn’t what the mission is though. It’s the number of aircraft available. If the availability number is correct we will only have 20/25 aircraft for overland use and for the carriers. Whichever way it is looked at there are not enough aircraft to deploy.
That’s the kin problem. ..no plans .
People do seem to forget that the Indian Ocean is profoundly important for UK and European security… the pacific less so to be honest.. that is more important to the US.. but for Europe it’s the Indian Ocean, artic, north and south Atlantic.. so it really depends on what you class as close to home.
Exactly the vast majority of European energy imports now come through the Indian Ocean as well as the lions share of its manufacturing exports and imports.
The Indian Ocean is now more important to Europe than the North Atlantic for physical trade by sea.
Aside from the geopolitical case for an occasional deployment to the Indo-Pacific, it strikes me that this must be good for recruitment and retention – arguably the biggest problem facing the RN.
“Some 15% of every single F35A will be produced in the UK.”
That old figure had been bandied about for some 20 years now, and was an early estimate used to justified the UK’s involvement in JSF, and paying $2 billion to be the sole a Level 1 partner. It now badly needs revisiting and auditing. L-M constantly emphasise that the supply chain is solely based on commercial criteria such as price, quality and ability to deliver. There are supposedly no formal international workshare arrangements. Also, whilst BAE Systems has the lion share of the “UKs” F-35 workload, it has quietly moved a considerable proportion of this to its overseas subsidiaries (in particular Australia) and subcontracted other parts as an off-set carrot to win orders (e.g. from TAI in Turkey, until the USA blocked this).
It would certainly be ‘interesting’ to understand the up-to-date details those particular agreements. I wonder if BAE would be obliged to provide that level of detail to HMG as part of a ‘security’ type audit. However , even if they did would it be made available for public knowledge.
just posturing, and everybody knows it, we can’t do anything without US permision, or more relistically, as a small part of a US led operation
but hey, politician’s and generals love to posture, it’s part of the job description
Being a long retired but la former long serving Royal Marine Commando with some years of service in that particular theatre makes me absolutely sure that our UK influence, for the sake of peace and stability and with the agreement of SEATO friends and colleagues our presence in theatre is necessary and would be welcomed by many.
The entire point of having carriers in the first place is to project power globally. They’re basically a mobile base. Local and regional interests are served through NATO bases.