A recent question in Parliament has inexplicably clarified the government’s position on whether the Royal Navy should return to the two power standard.
Andrew Rosindell, the Conservative MP for Romford, asked the Ministry of Defence “whether he will make it his Department’s policy to reinstate the two-power standard as applied to the Royal Navy Fleet.” His question referenced the long standing benchmark used in the late nineteenth century to judge maritime strength.
In his reply, Parliamentary Under Secretary Al Carns explained that the measure originated in the Naval Defence Act of 1889. As set out in the written answer, the act required that “the Royal Navy should maintain a fleet at least as strong as the next two powerful navies combined.”
Carns added that the strategic environment shaping UK defence planning differs from that era. The response states that “today our security is underpinned by NATO’s collective defence, where capabilities are shared across 32 allies.”
Carns used the written answer to outline the government’s approach to fleet development. He wrote that “modern naval warfare still demands mass, presence, and resilience.” The Royal Navy is described as “transforming to a hybrid fleet, moving to a dispersed but digitally connected fleet of crewed, uncrewed, and autonomous platforms.” According to the department, that mix is intended to expand available mass and power in what it presents as a cost conscious way while sustaining capabilities associated with a front line NATO navy.
Well actually, it’s 31 allies in reality. The US is not an ally anymore .
Don’t be such a wet wipe. Should someone attack the UK tomorrow I guarantee you that the US would be well ahead of most of those 31 in offering support. Most of them give very little, and are only in it because of the security blanket the US provides. Spain refuses to even sign up to the 3% target.
I would not trust Emperor Trump to that degree. He would rescue us if we gave him Scotland as a feudal offering. He is a capitalist fascist cut from the same cloth as Putin and only draws a second breath if there is a profit in it.
Clearly you have missed recent developments in geo politics, as well as recent utterances from senior US political figures.
Being in NATO is all well and good but not over dependence on it. The real difference from that era? Priorities, defence came first, without it you have nothing. No NHS, education, welfare, railways, nothing. A lesson I think this country will end up relearning the hard way. Lest we forget, seems to have been forgotten in my opinion.
Exactly, we could be in a serious situation without NATO. Plus having a large Navy does actually help with influence around the world.
I’m sure countries certainly feel influenced with a huge US carrier strike group off their coast. Ask Venezuela, apparently Maduro offered US companies more shares in Venzuelan oil.
This is the whole US strategy, it is in decline and the only way to at least. Over that is to force at every opportunity other Countries to surrender their own to shore up the US economy every policy is aimed at the be it political, economic and military. Only China can currently resist it presently but most scarily it will weaken other Western Countries in particular so that they become relatively weaker to both and less independent. This will weaken American power relative to China over time but as long as he and his family gain financially he simply doesn’t care, he can blame the Presidents that follow for the consequences. It means we as united as we can be must work to undermine him if as silently as possible. If we don’t arrangements to avoid pain now will only ensure the continuation of these American policies that will all but destroy us down the line because the US public will increasingly be made to believe that if they don’t support these exploitative policies they will suffer accordingly both personally and nationally. Things are so bad for him it’s his only way of turning things around so he will inevitably double down on it. Classic divide and conquer tactics from Trump or in reality those using him like Miller and the brown nosing self serving acolytes who enable it. The international end game of impending BRICS pre eminence will almost certainly be the same it’s just the minor players on the board who move around, get taken and/or change positions and how much clock time is needed for it all to play out.
Interestingly at the time defence spending was not really much of a thing.. the UK government spending on defence in the 19c to maintain empire was generally lower than it has been we maintained 2 two power navy and global dominance with a % of gdp spend knocking around the 2-2.5% range… and the 19c British government was ruthless in cutting back on defence spending.
At the height of Britain’s imperial power in the mid Victorian period, RN personnel numbers totalled @ 50,000. But there was no real opposition. And there were lots of vessels kept in ordinary if rapid expansion was needed.
We need to look forward not back and think more carefully about what we really need to concentrate on. Countering Russia has to be the priority rather than tilts to the Pacific. If AUKUS goes ahead, a larger SSN force would achieve that and also enhance long range capability.
Rapid expansion in a time of crisis is unachievable, given modern build times. We fight with what we have, as will every other navy. Ordering a few additional escorts to cover vessels unavailable in major overhaul ought to be considered.
Shame, It would be great to have 800 plus ships.
It wasn’t so long ago !
It would certainly help the unemployment rate I guess.
Well yes, exactly and hell what’s not to like about that too !!!
Just need some wars and new places to invade. I did see there were still 20 places the british have yet to invade !!!!
I can’t wait to see the Royal Navy go at it hammer and tongs with Mongolia
Back then we had the largest empire in history to bankroll the navy, which we obviously don’t have any more. On the other hand, what we do still have requires less protection.
If the extra ships are mainly suicide drones that go BANG! it is more achievable. But 10+ more escorts, a new LPH, replacing the Albions, doubling the sub fleet & fully arming with a decent stock of reloads would be a good move.
The Minister was actually saying we will downgrade the RN even further.
We don’t have any of ‘mass, presence, or resilience.’
A single OPV River, or two, in the Pacific is one AShM or drone away from destruction with virtually nothing to stop them.
I wonder what Rosindell would say if he was presented with the level of investment necessary for the Royal Navy to have more ships than the US and China combined?
What was the point of the question, was he aving a laugh or was there some underlying laterally thinking point to it that eludes me. Or was it simply a depressing acceptance that actually asking relevant literal questions about the prospective strength of the navy is now pointless so might as well go all surreal for its mere entertainment value.
Perhaps he was hoping that Carns would reveal more detail about the defence industry plan – what types of ships would be built when.
This far-left government is only interested in disarming the armed forces; they will not order a single additional ship, plane, or tank. On the contrary, they only plan to withdraw equipment.
This government is not far-left and you have to be deluded to think so. They’re cut international aid, not giving into all the strikes that happen, want to cut welfare and other decisions. They’re awful but not far left.
Indeed and most of the lack of assets is down to the last Govt which was even less far left. Seems some of the comments are more surreal than the question.
This government is actually pretty left wing, if ‘left’ means what is does i.e. economic policy.
It’s true they’ve taken some *socially* conservative approaches to issues like immigration, reduction of foreign Aid, trans rights, freedom of speech, the OSA.
However, they remain a decidedly lefty economic bunch: natinoalisation of railways, steel, and potentially water; creating a national energy company GBE; a swingeing workers rights bill; huge social housing project; taxing business; large investment in infrastructure; increased public spending.
Labour are currently a socially conservative left wing party.
They are not far left. Starmer has angered the hard left several times and they want him out. The ones who make the decisions are probably centre centre left. Yes there are hard left Labour MPs but listen to the language to Wes Streeting etc.
The conservatives were talking about nationalising steel that was in the pipeline, they also renationalised some railways which were failing, the tories also had huge infrastructure projects, look at the disaster known as HS2 for example. Good idea but my god its costing an absolute fortune.
No, I’m afraid you’re just wrong.
I didn’t say ‘far-left’, I said fairly left i.e. clearly left wing, but not extreme – centre left if you like.
As I said in my comment, this Labour government are *ECONOMICALLY* left wing (or interventionist), whilst being *SOCIALLY* right (or conservative) leaning – and even there many of the social policies are somewhat progressive. You’re basing your conclusions on vibes and headlines, whereas I’m looking at the policies and how they effect the economy.
Major economic decisions by this government thus far:
National wealth fund and Industrial strategy – Redistributive in the NWF, and designed to steer industry in a certain direction – LEFT
Tax policy – Higher NIC and closing loopholes for non-doms – taxing business while redistributing wealth from nondoms – LEFT
Workers Rights and Wages – increased NMW and NLW, employment rights bill hugely in favour of workers rather than business – LEFT
Fiscal – Large capital expenditure on infrastructure and social housing, as well as creating a public Energy company which will contribute to a National wealth fund – LEFT
The only right wing ECONOMIC policy Labour tried, reducing Welfare spend, created a huge rebellion.
I am talking about what left/right actually mean. You can think Labour’s vibes are right wing all you like, their economic policies are squarely left.
I’ve laid out all of Labour’s main economic policies and demonstrated why they are left wing. Other than “Wes Streeting’s language” and your general headline reader vibe-politics approach, what evidence do you have that a) what I’ve listed is inaccurate, or b) that these policies are somehow not interventionist, do not favour workers over business, and seek to regulate and redistribute rather than dergulate?
Sorry mate the “far-left” was towards Micki, I should’ve clarified that.
No need for that attitude either, I actually agree with you I’m not good at wording things. Yes I should’ve looked more into their policies. Please dont talk to me like I’m an idiot. Thanks.
And yes, looking at your reply I do agree.
No worries mate, I’m a stickler for using terms correctly and lots of people on here and elsewhere banging on about Labour being RW is really annoying cause it’s just baffingly incorrect! Not that I’m a particular fan of any party atm.
But I didn’t mean to direct that ire your way in particular. Peace.
I struggle to see how Labour can be described as socially conservative. Take trans stuff for example, nearly everyone in Labour (including the PM) thinks a human can change gender. In normal times that would be considered an extremist position to take as it’s prioritising political ideology over the overwhelming scientific evidence.
Being economically interventionist doesn’t make you economically left wing. By that logic the mercantilism of the 16th-18th centuries was left wing.
Believing that the means of production should serve the interests of the workers is the definition of the economic left.
What a ridiculous comment showing your ignorance
If you think this government is far left you have no understanding of politics whatsoever. In fact it probably demonstrates your a brainwashed sheep spoon fed by right wing media.
Recognise yourself in the mirror?
I notice you along with Micki and Mar L give no evidence whatsoever to back up your childish insults let aline argument, unlike most thoughtful posters on here of whatever political hue, so maybe you are just playing with smoke as well as mirrors.
Left/Right wing = economic policy.
Conservatism/Progressivism = social policy.
Current govnt’s economic policies: natinoalisation of railways, steel, and potentially water; creating a national energy company GBE; a swingeing workers rights bill; huge social housing project; taxing business; large investment in infrastructure; increased public spending. The only typically left wing thing they haven’t done, *yet*, is raise broad taxes.
Current govnt’s social policies: immigration, reduction of foreign Aid, trans rights, freedom of speech.
This government are socially conservative, and economically left wing. They are the opposite of New Labour, and definitionally left wing.
Wake up Micki, this is the most RW Labour government ever.
The UK should maintain the largest navy in Europe and third largest navy in the world (by tonnage) . We are not far off those metrics at the moment and we currently have the second most capable blue water navy although China is rapidly getting to the point of over taking that.
Neither the USA or China maintain a two power standard, it’s an unachievable goal.
We should aim for 30 surface combatants 20 nuclear submarines, two carriers and 6 amphibious ships. With 7 large RFA vessels plus four large ferries.
Probably around 1 million tonnes all in.
The government should aim to develop a force able to defeat the Russian navy on its own in the Atlantic while simultaneously maintaining a substantial Taskforce supported by Allie’s in the Indian Ocean.
That force is very achievable with the resources the government has promised and more importantly the industrial base Britain has been re developing.
Morning Jim, that would be nice having all those ships, maybe you can ask RR next time you meet up with her ? 🤔😁
Can’t see Rachel being around much longer thankfully.
Off course we may get 5 more type 31/32 in the defence investment plan and maybe 4-6 type 91 arsenal ships to supplement the T45.
That would take us to 30 and would be fairly cheap.
No idea if that will happen but at 3,000t with mk41 and its own radar the T91 will be a surface combatant.
I think they will build T92 before T91.
We’ll Probably build another Ark before those two !
(Noah’s version, Global Sea Levels and all that !)
😂
Quire probably but the type 92 is probably just a basic OTC drone. Very limited use.
T91 is potentially game changing so it’s likely to take longer and cost more.
The two power standard applied with reference to the next two most potent navies of Continental Europe and I suspect that is what Andrew Rosindell was driving at, simply as a measure, rather than anything further afield. I agree wholeheartedly that investment in the RN should be such as to enable it to counter Russia in the North Atlantic with little or no assistance from allies but this would require corresponding investment in the RAF too. When Starmer first met Trump at the Whitehouse Trump made a quip about Britain being able to manage Russia alone (nuclear weapons, presumably, aside). Who can say but Trump may well think this – and in a world where Britain didn’t seek to cosset itself this would probably be true.
Even that would be a joke of over ambition the next two most powerful navies of continental Europe are that of France and Italy.. that’s a combination of 2 carriers, 4 20,000 ton+ flat top amphibious vessels, 3 smaller amphibious vessels, 34 escorts… Italy on its own is planning to have 22 major escort vessels so in the future your looking at Italy and France having about 38 frigates and destroyers.
The UK + Canada + Norway?
The reality is the the second most capable blue water navy is now a bit of an illusion held together by a couple of fraying bits of string.. it’s only really now the SSN advantage that would give the RN any chance in a equidistant fight with the PLAN and that is at a single point .. and the PLAN would still likely outlasts the RN and simply generate more points of conflict than the RN could manage.. even that fraying bit of string will fall apart in the next few years..within a decade the PLAN will have pretty even odds of parity with the USN across the globe..so at that point the RN becomes a speed bump.
If the RN and china started a war with each other next next year it would be 60 destroyers 60 frigates 60 corvette’s, 4 carriers, 4 large amphibious 40,000 ton flat tops, 2 20,000 ton drone carriers, 2 vert drone carriers, 8 assault ships of 25,000 tons, 12 SSNs, 50 conventional submarines, 17 large 17,000-43,0000 ton fleet support auxiliaries..vs 12 escorts, 2 carriers, 6 SSNs, 3 amphibious vessels, 4 large fleet support ships… I know we like to think of the PLAN as a regional navy the RN could manage. But we need to be realistic the PLAN is a blue water navy 10 times the size of the RN…the RN could not win a war..they could win some key battles before being warn down and overwhelmed.
With a decade it will be 10 carriers with 150+ frigates and destroyers and 30+ SSNs.. supported by SSKs with auxiliary nuclear generators for global reach.
100%. Many on here have a rose tinted view of the RN as a result of the two QEs now being operational (with just about a full air wing for one of them). And many also underestimate the growth of the PLAN. Within 3 years, even the USN would struggle to defeat the PLAN in the Pacific (they could probably just about do it if they diverted much of their Atlantic fleet). Europe is too focused on Russia to be cognizant of actual big threat to the democratic world. Understandable to a degree because of proximity, but partly our own fault for taking the cold war dividend too far, and being overly reliant on the USA for security.
The USN has a lot of allies in the Western Pacific with decent navies etc. There’s been no lemming like “peace dividend” cuts there, but hard nosed prudent fleet building which collectively match the PLAN on many levels. The real question is would the USA be a reliable grown up ally under Trump/MAGA?
I’m not even sure we’re even a true blue water navy any more in a practical sense.
The subs all need maintenance and the docks and lifts aren’t in existence to deal with this.
There must be some real knock ons from the T23’s being run so far beyond their life, the T45’s availability remains really bad while PIP is completed and the RFA isn’t really in a place to sustain any ops far from home.
People see aircraft carriers and think the RN is still a mighty force.
I personally see the reality as a fighting force with so many holes in it from reliability, number of hulls through crewing and weapons integration that you’d be mad to send it fighting China.
The SSN fleet appears capable but you may only be able to get 1 out. Perhaps 2 on a good day.
From what I’ve read on here the French do far better with availability rates and for all of the failings of their carrier it can throw up AEW aircraft and buddy refuel plus Rafale has a reasonable weapons integration.
Well this is strange, but it IS the same guy who wanted the surface fleet converted to nuclear power so at least he has form.
Indeed, in a shooting war who wants nuclear reactors leaking radiation into the seas & ocean? It’s suicide.
Well having reactor vessels sitting in the ocean probably isn’t all that bad really. Sinking conventionally powered ships has always resulted in vast oil slicks (that’s how they followed the Bismark and it hadn’t even sunk yet) and the harm to the environment from that is worse IMO.
Ah, so it’s a 0.03125 power standard then.
He’s correct about NATO, but HMG are also using that as an excuse.
We were a NATO member In 1997 when 32 Escorts was seen as a minimum.
Explain THAT, Mr Carns.
And there it is again, the reference or optimally crewed as an excuse for real mass of actual warships able to self deploy for tasking, be it in the GIUK or elsewhere.
I agree. It’s a typical politicians reply, he’s right but it’s an excuse… it’s a clever obfuscation of where the ground is on this line of questioning
In truth NATO has been used as an excuse by western nations to reduce their defence spending below the minimum required to defend their own interests.. happy forgetting that no alliance no matter how strong will guarantee your own security.. especially an alliance that depends on the co-operation of weak and disparate nations..
We need to face the fact that it’s becoming more and more possible that NATO may collapse politically and the UK may become isolated between the U.S, EU and a Russia/china powerblock.. our government is desperately clinging onto the lifeboat of NATO but as Europe ( EU ) the U.S. essentially pull apart into different geostrategic blocks and Russia and its satellites ( with Chinese support resurge ) the UK could be in dire straits if it does not:
1) pick the correct geopolitical path between the U.S, EU and China
2) have the military and industrial power to face off as a peer it’s key enemy ( Russia).
Sadly the way the world is going is not looking very good for independently minded medium sized powers that don’t have a big enough stick to play on the world stage..
I think it’s now time for the UK as mission one to look to its own geostrategic position outside of any structural alliance, because they can no longer be trusted.. we don’t know what the US and EU would now actually do if the Uk faced aggression from Russia. That does not mean stop participating in alliances but we need to be able to hold our own patches of influence with the alliance being added value..not the thing we are dependent on.
And for the Uk that means
1) Sea control of the North Sea and Norwegian Sea, North Atlantic and south Atlantic as well as the ability to put significant influence into the western Indian Ocean… with surface, sub surface, naval aviation and strategic land based air power.
2) the ability to smash a peer enemy over and over with conventional strategic strikes.. that’s many thousands of long range cruise missiles and heavy drones, CBG and long range strategic air.
3) the ability to have air dominance over our own EEZs.
4) MAD deterrent as well as a sub strategic nuclear deterrent
I’m being to think we need to do those 4 very well before we do much else.
I recall hearing a comment made shortly after the Second World War. Where an American officer asked a RN officer “what’s it like being the second biggest navy in the world” to which the RN officer responded “not bad actually, what is it like for you being the second best?”
Classic! Just to lighten the mood here 🙂
April 1 seems to have arrived several months early in La La Land.
Perhaps they could still have it, if they get to choose the two powers: say Ireland and Honduras.
What a ridiculous question from Rosindell. Where on earth would the money come from to field a fleet twice as large as France or Italy, let alone Japan.and the superpowers? The man is a century behind in his quest.
Since the days of British naval dominance, we of course have an air force as well, which is arguably the predominant force in.moderm warfare..Creating a super navy.is hardly the top strategic priority any more. The RN.needs a sufficient number of ships and boats to.play the leading role in NATO Eastlant, plus some capacity to project limited force out-of-area. That is the max needed and as much as we can realistically afford – if defence spend eventually reaches 3.5%.
It is a bit rich a Conservative spokesman seeking a massive increase in naval power, after 14 years of major cuts to the armed forces.it will take 10 years and more just to get naval strength back to somewhere close to somewhere approaching what it had in 2010 when the Conservatives came into office.
Well the UK defence budget is as big a France and Italy’s put together (or at least was until very recently). And we have a smaller air force and much smaller army than both. So its not beyond the realms of possibility that we could/should have a fleet as big as those two combined.
For our relatively large defence budget we get very little mass in return.
Hmm, I like the spirit of what you’re saying but isn’t this lack of mass partially because what we prioritise in our force structures to support our posture globally?
That global and wide nature of the UK’s interests may be defining weight on the scale.
I’m not saying this is, or should be THE question; but someone could reasonably ask among many questions: Should we/can we adjust WHERE our interests are OR should the threshold of military spend be set against our interests no matter where they are and what qualifier/extra filter or criteria should be applied to ensure a portion supports mass?
I have no idea myself – just some random musings
I don’t at all get what we would want this super navy for. The RN has a fairly limited role in the East Atlantic and an unaffordable aspirations to be a player out-of-area.
The cost of the RN, with its SSBNs, carriers and £1bn+ warships is already gobbling up a very large and disproportionate share of our defence budget. It comes entirely at the expense of the air and land contributions that we have committed to NATO but are completely failing to deliver.
Once the RN has snaffled the F-35bs and sailed off over the horizon, the RAF will be left with just 119 fighter aircraft, which is pathetically small compared to our Euro NATO allies. The army is even worse off, with just 4.5 combat manoeuvre brigades and a fleet of elderly, gapped and near-obsolete combat vehicles and artillery.
We are expected to field a corps of two heavy divisions, totalling 6 brigades to NATO plus field 3 medium or light brigades to handle out-of-area operations/reinforcement of NATO northern flank/RCZ reinforcements for the warfighting corps etc. We can’t do anything like even that limited ORBAT with 73,000 troops and a mass of old vehicles and equipment.
Basically, the RN is grabbing the lion’s share of the budget, leaving the other services pretty bereft. But strategically, in any peer conflict in Europe, which will inevitably be an airland war, the air and land forces will be top priority, with the navy very definitely in third place.
It concerns that the RN continues to operate its own strategy, which does not have a lot in common with our NATO-first stance. Somehow it gets away with diverting the main part of the fleet to out-of-area flag-waving, as if we are still a powerful, tier 1 nation bestriding the world’s oceans. IMHO the RN is the tail wagging the dog in UK defence, helped by the kind of low public.knowledge of defence exampled by Rosendill’s daft question in the Commons.
It did seem a bit of stupid question
There goes Al again talking Whitehall babble:“transforming to a hybrid fleet, moving to a dispersed but digitally connected fleet of crewed, uncrewed, and autonomous platforms.” These muppets have to get the word digital or AI into every sentence they utter.
The two power standard as far as I understand was a policy used for years including through the 1920s and 30s treaties and once past 1936, the 18-23 Battleship building program commenced. But as we all know, war came 5 years earlier than expected in Sept 39 and a recent new or type of ship was then becoming the most important unit type and then subs. So what is this two power standard about? Doubling the RN, or having twice the navy size of a certain ship type then the next two navies? Back then it was US and Japan, one a sort of a ally and another a former ally, becoming an enemy because of treaties. Who today? When I first read the headline, though it was a UK Defence Journal April 1st thing. The two power standard meant something different in the last century and most likely, a more simple idea than today.
The questioner seems to be living in some fantasy of Victorian Britain.
The 2 power standard was abandoned for understandable reasons with the Washington Naval Treaties of the 1920’s
A force bigger than the USN and PLAN combined would be simply ridiculous with U.K. GDP and population
USN Alone 55 SSN so Barrow producing 3 a year every year for at least 20 years.
In terms of Carriers with adequate aircraft to support them generating a CVN every other year for 20 years gets you to 10 to match the Americans of today and then keep going as by then the Chinese will be on Carrier 6,7,8.
Utterly daft question 🤦🏻♂️
What is Andrew Rosindell * mainlining?
Can I have some?
* TBF he’s on the Reform-adjacent wing of the Tories, and is a flag wagger who used to be in the Monday Club. So divergent behaviour is to be expected.