A specialist ship bought to support Royal Navy mine-hunting operations – a mother ship to launch drones to find and destroy undersea threats – has arrived in Plymouth for conversion work before heading to Faslane, near Glasgow.
When deployed, the Royal Navy say that the platform will support the safeguarding of UK waters from the threat of mines at sea, operating a range of uncrewed systems that will help keep personnel at a safe distance.
Based at His Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde, the 96.8 metres long vessel – the length of two Olympic swimming pools – will work side-by-side with autonomous mine-hunting systems already operated by the Royal Navy out of Faslane under Project Wilton.
Purchased from Island Offshore, the vessel – currently named MV Island Crown, but due to be renamed as it joins the fleet – arrived at HMNB Devonport, where it will undergo minimal conversion work, primarily to support installation of military communication systems and Royal Fleet Auxiliary operations, before being handed over to the RFA later this year.
Defence Procurement Minister, Alex Chalk KC, was quoted in a news release as saying:
“This is another significant step forward in the modernisation of Royal Navy capabilities and use of autonomous systems to complement our crewed fleet. This vessel will play a crucial role in the detection of undersea threats, keeping our personnel out of harm’s way while they conduct vital operations.”
Operated by specialist teams on board, the Royal Navy say that “these innovative systems will allow the Royal Navy to protect UK waters, also providing support to the North Atlantic and European waters if required”.
Commodore Steve Prest, Director Navy Acquisition, said:
“The delivery of this ship is an important step in the Navy’s transformation to conducting mine countermeasures using distributed offboard systems-of-systems. The ship will be used to extend the range of our Maritime Autonomous Systems from coastal waters to conducting offshore survey operations in Defence of the homeland.”
The uncrewed systems will include the joint French-UK Maritime Mine Counter Measures (MMCM) system, the Combined Influence Sweep (SWEEP) system and Medium Underwater Autonomous Vehicles (MAUVs).
The purchase of the £40m ship was carried out by Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S), the procurement arm of the MOD, and the ship is intended to enter service in Spring 2023.
Operational in Spring! Another case of the Navy getting a shift on. I hope that wherever they’ve put the brakes that were previously being applied, they never find them again.
Yep!
Great
Logical home port considering it is primarily for operations in UK waters and supports keeping the approaches to Faslane clear.
Future Mother Ships I believe will be deployable so possibly based elsewhere, hopefully Devonport, considering what that base has lost over the years.
Though RFA assets don’t usually have a dedicated home port so maybe others will end up at Portland or elsewhere.
Yes fingers crossed Devenport sees some more vessels. Their is always T32 to consider as well.
The MCM teams are based at Faslane and Portsmouth with the backup they need to support them so Devonport is not likely as much additional investment would be needed and mean moving a lot of folks to the west country. best keeping them where they are. Devonport will keep the T26’s so getting some big units in the future.
4 additional support vessels may come about with 2 to each squadron, similar but a bit smaller with a stronger self defence weapon fit.
Mounting a couple of 30mm’s would give this Ship some self defence clout when its doing its bit as it too will be deployed away from UK waters.
4 as well as this one? That’s good, I’d read of 4 and assumed that number included this vessel.
Good point re existing MCM location regards Devonport.
Just for once wouldn’t it be nice on this site if we can just accept an increase of capacity without trying to then add all sorts of bells and whistles it doesn’t need.
Simple fact is it will be based at Faslane to survey and keep the approaches free of “objects” for the free passage of our SSN / SSBN to the Atlantic.
If they need self defence there, then someone has really screwed up.
But a single 20 or 30mm gun would perhaps be useful just in case you get an old stray sinker mine. A single old WW2 era 20mm would do.
All key naval ships should have some sensible base self defence ability. Doesn’t have to be over the top. The new Dutch and Belgian MCM vessels have a 40mm and the BMT Venari MCM concept even had a 57mm.Agree, that these RN buy-in commercial build vessels mayn’t have appropriate spaces for anything too heavy.
Look back to WW2 and see what was fitted to fishing vessels for self defence. On and a WW2 20mm gun is not longer around so can’t fit them and the 20mm GAMBO is being pushed out too in time.
Well of course if such come to the surface then it needs taking out and a sniper rifle is more than capable for that. But one can never know where she will end up and better fitted at next to no cost as the RN has many spares and the crews had the job of firing them as a secondary function anyway. One would say its an update of capability not an increase as such unless more systems are purchased. Numbers count in getting the job done so our ports remain clear for access in a crises. Trust me having seen the result of sea mines then you want the best and plenty of them. USN lost a major warship in Gulf war 1 due to going outside the cleared area, fortunately no one was killed in that incident. Our MCM teams did a great job.
I am actually talking solely about this one which is going Faslane, if it or it’s siblings go overseas then yes they need some self protection. There are some really interesting synergies using developments that all seem to be coming together.
The new remote systems are largely based in standard ISO containers, the PODS are as well, OSV’s can already handle ISO containers.
So mix and match using some adapted OSV’s, use PODs or a 30mm mount for Self defence and be able to expand using OSV’s as STUFT. Echoes of 2 World Wars and the Falklands.
As for the USN they ignore mine warfare at their peril, but do finally seem to be getting to a workable solution.
Use 15 of their LCS-2 as a Mothership for minesweeping. Talk about overkill ! But better than scrapping them
Hi Angus, will all 4 be assigned to the RFA ? Any ideas around timelines?
That is to be seen but expect slightly smaller vessels than this one and although I think this one will be deployable also to area’s of need as and when required like all our sea going assets.
cheers = thanks for the reply Angus
The autonomous division of thales is based out of turnchaple in Plymouth so they are probably planning to test and integrate there and then move to faslane or Portsmouth later.
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/united-kingdom/news/thales-opens-uk-maritime-autonomy-centre
Any Port will do Daniele so long as they have plenty of Grey paint at hand and a dry dockyard that won’t damage the Moon pool
Reported on Navy Lookout that as a result of cruise ships using Portland berthing fees have been increased making it less likely the RFA will use Portland
Interesting, I’d missed that. Thanks.
Portland no longer exists as an RN port.
I’m well aware, for years! However, the RFA use it, and they are not RN.
They now longer use it a base. SIR Tristan was to train special forces. It was part of the 2012 Olympics. Never been a base for the RFA. Check you’re facts.
God, I’ve got one here.
Check facts, well I’d say learn to read the posts above and spell check your own considering your 1st post said “RN port”
The RFA vessels do not have fixed “bases” BUT, Portland WAS a location, like Falmouth, which was used by RFA vessels.
A Google images search “Portland RFA vessels” will help, and shows ships of the RFA, at Portland, which was the point I was making considering you used the term “RN port” the RFA are not RN, and you say it has never been a base for the RFA.
If you bothered to read further up thread you’d have seen me stating the RFA vessels do not have permanent bases as far as I know even earlier in this thread.
I’m not talking about Tristam either, which replaced the ship in Portsmouth, Rame Head I recall?
Your turn.
Daniele
So if a UK port has a Z berth its a nuclear sub base?
PS
I’m being a gob sh*te!
😊
Pretty much that, GB….🙄
And yes, he is.
Just a question… Isn’t it about time there was a Naval Base on the East coast of England?
Why ?
Because you can only get the carriers into Rosyth at the right time of the month and the largest dry docks in the country are on the easily accessible Tees?
Because the East coast has the least military inward investment of any region in the country, yet pays the same taxes as everyone else?
Because land’s much cheaper than on the South coast and US carriers could actually dock without having to stand off? Of course they might prefer to anchor in the Solent than dock by Middlesbrough. I couldn’t possibly comment.
Well said Jon!
I was interested in your reasoning, but the last 2 bases were shut in 1984 at Chatham and 1994 Rosyth for good reasons.
Chatham was too old, too small and very hard to update due to the Historic nature of the Yard.
Rosyth was due to the RN consolidation at the end of the Cold War. Quite simply the RN didn’t need so many bases and with the moving off the SSN & SSBN refit / refuelling to Devonport it was the one that lost out.
The argument regarding the Drydocks is perfectly valid, Rosyth is Tide limited but has the facilities, security and workforce needed to support the RN CA’s.
It isn’t ideal but unless someone builds a new drydock near an existing facility it is what we have. But there is some faint glimmer of hope, if H&W can build the new RFA’s and re establish as being able to refit ships it does have big enough docks and deep water access. And it is on a U.K. east coast.
The fundamental issues with the East Coast are Geopolitical and are mainly the same ones as for the last century. It faces towards our potential enemy and so the docks and ships are more vulnerable due to distance and range of enemy weapons.
Which conversely is precisely why we based the V Bombers, Fighter bases and Bloodhounds on the east coast.
Secondly the North Sea is not our prime operational area, it is too shallow, relatively small and vulnerable to air / missile attack. Our prime operational areas are still the same as for the WW2 and the Cold War, namely the Atlantic, Artic and Norwegian Sea. So easy, fast access to western approaches and deep water are paramount.
This is even more important for the Subs, the boats need to get out, dive deep and get away to their operational areas ASAP . So realistically in U.K. that is limited to the West Coast of Scotland, Milford Haven and probably Falmouth.
Also the days of an American carrier needing docking in U.K is long gone, Spain (right next to Rota) and France have suitable docks and easy access to the Atlantic deep water.
Bottom line is we don’t have a big enough navy to justify another Naval base. We have what we need.
Yeah, good post.
Chatham was shut because it’s tidal. Only in and out twice a day. Not much use really. Only kept going for political reasons.
H&W is still in a long congested channel. Belfast Lough is bad move for non-civilian traffic. Been there during the troubles.
Rosyth is not a naval base, it’s a commercial dockyard that does naval work and commercial. I don’t doubt North East England should get more work from the MOD but that’s more likely to be in the form of land systems.
It’s also worth noting that most dockyards in the East Coast are full with North Sea decommissioning and offshore wind projections. Are you looking to stop those?
ABCRodney, I see the attraction of H&W. I thought it had everything the RN needed insofar as dry docks, big crane, deep water access, no tidal restrictions, security enough that it’s as far west as possible with easier protection of the waters that can be sanitised of unfriendly boats and a bloody good night out for those sailors.
I know some will say that there’s uncertainty in the political side, but what better way to solidify the position of NI in the UK than this major investment and cote of confidence in Ulster?
If anywhere in the UK needs the jobs and should get them it’s Belfast. However I would much rather see H&W docks used to build all large RFA vessels for the UK. I’m still secretly hoping that after FSSS we might get a couple of Canberra Class LHD’s to replace the Albion’s.
One can dream. 😀
That’s my dream too. Would love to see some lphds delivered to the RN. I like the ITS Trieste design.
CAn you name an East Coast port that doesn’t require a long river passage, has a deep water channel and can cope with any warship over 5000 tons?
The largest dry docks in the country are in Belfast. The Belfast dock is regularly used for cruise ships and the building dock takes 500,000 ton supertankers.
Ships based on the east coast would be able to deploy quicker to the North Sea, and the Baltic Sea.
Which isn’t where we would need to be. The North Sea is essentially blocked to unfriendly ships by the Channel to the South and access from the North goes through our prime operational areas, there no enemy ports and is relatively shallow. As for the Baltic, it would be a shooting gallery and the locals are better able to do it than we are.
Our Navy needs its access to the Atlantic, Artic and Norwegian Sea.
That argument didn’t help save Rosyth naval base! Where would the ships come from to fill another base? As it is, there seems to be plenty of real estate available in our existing bases…
With you Tom, I’d like to see a (diesel and or nuclear) sub squadron (to work with allies in the Baltic/Scandinavian/Artic region) based up on Far North/North East of Scotland, plus some MCM/MROSS vessels, patrol frigates, to patrol North /far North Sea region and key infrastructure with ready access.
Yes, good point if the high seas fleet comes out again 😀
Yes, watch out for Derfflinger…😂
Ah the Iorn Dog, we will get her the next time 😀
With a RN back at Cold War levels you could one day suggest having Chatham and Rosyth back, though not east coat I know. But beyond them, what need is there?
Not the same as what you suggest, there are “Naval installations” on the east coast, but they’re all RNR centres with Archer URNU boats.
Rosyth is on the east coast, why not Invergordon, or Scapa, why not hartlepool with the RN historic Dock yard, smaller than Chatham
I know, I meant Chatham, my bad wording, sorry. And one could even say Chatham is east coast too but to my brain it is not.
Chatham ? Have you seen the price of land down there ? We would need 25% of GDP.
Really?! I don’t doubt it actually, given wider SE prices. I suggested it purely on a historical basis of old RN bases as the 1st poster wants more.
I myself don’t see the need for any more HMNB beyond the 3 we have, especially as 2 of them now stand half empty given the demise of our escort fleet from 40 escorts to 17 since Front Line First in 95.
What I do want to see regards new UK installations is new AD infrastructure for a UK SAM system, especially point defence of key sites. Which for me would fall under the RAFs remit.
Daniele you read enough of these posts to probably know I actually advocate combining the RN and Army systems for a U.K. SAM system.
Now that we are upgrading Sampson for the T45s to take BMD, better upgraded ASTOR 30s and integrated with CAMMS why wouldn’t we leverage the investment ?
Have you ever seen the T45 training facility at Portsdown ? If not take a look just add ASTOR, CAMM and trial a land based T45. It screams try me !
Not sure about being RAF manned, they may have changed but historically the RAF has always been anti anything that flys other than Aircraft.
The “evidence Map” the RAF presented to kill CVA01 is legendary. They proved to the Defense Secretary that the RAF could provide Naval Air cover anywhere. They just kind of changed the distances between island groups and airbases to suit.
Shared Aster/CAMM/HVM inventory sounds very sensible. You’d hope it’s being done or considered. France/Italy have Sea/Land Aster. Cannisters should be interchangeable between ships, trucks and other launchers.
Ah, the LBTS/MWC sites at Portsdown. I’ve studied them countless times on GE, and then visited a few times, driving around and then walked the perimeter!
You’re preaching to the converted on that, I’ve had this conversation with our resident missiles/aviation SME Davey B on the possibilities of using that radar. Like you, it seems so bloody obvious to me. Sea Viper Silos up on Portsdown Hill, link them via the numerous tunnels and other UG stuff up there, to cover the whole region, which includes several important installations, not just HMNB.
On inter service shenanigans, I won’t go there, as the RAF is my favourite service, followed by the RN, so who did what way way back should have no bearing on who could take such a role today. And I don’t know any RAF officers to say if that historical view is still valid.
I wonder how the RAF proved they could cover the Falklands from a land air base.
Well pre Falklands they didn’t, afterwards Stanley was enlarged and still has a permanent CAP detachment. F4J followed by Tornados and now Typhoons.
Back in the 1960’s the RN Carrier replacement programme CVA01 was cancelled because the RAF argued that they could provide land based air cover east of Suez to Australia.
That involved using TSR2 and then F111 and legend has it a strategically altered map which moved certain islands and Australia to suit the range of the aircraft.
Result CVA01 was cancelled, followed by both Aircraft types and operations East of Suez.
Also in the 60s the Navy, in the shape of Mountbatten (as CDS) was rubbishing TSR2 when on an official visit to Australia, saying you could buy 3 or 4 Bucanneers for the price of one TSR2. Result – Australia abandoned plans to buy TSR2 in Oct 63 and TSR2 then got cancelled.
Agree strongly with last para, puts me in mind of a long gone sight – bloodhounds @ Bawdsey.
Hopefully some lessons are being learnt from Ukrainian experience.
Just a boy as I walked past the Woolwich Gate Guard – a Bloodhound – on my way to school.
Should we deign to re-open any old RNB, it can only be Greenwich!
There used to be – Harwich.
As we couldn’t design and build a new MCM vessel for £40 million the MOD should definitely purchase many many more of these vessels. Stand off remote mine clearance using drones is 100% the future.
Funds should be made available to purchase 8-10 of these vessels and all the drones needed then retire the MCM fleet and take a big step into the future.
I’m fairly certain serving on a 4000 ton walk to work type hull form is going to be more pleasant for a complement of 30-40 RFA crew and 60 or so RN personnel then a 700 ton minesweeper, likely improving retention of skilled crew.
With VLS now available in ISO container format these could also be adapted further in really needed. Of course not as a substitute for regular RN vessels.
I’m glad to see the re-adoption of the ‘Olympic Swimming Pool’ as a standard unit of measure – Is this an Imperial unit or Metric?
So much of the media use the “London Bus” as the unit of measure that we will need an internationally agreed conversion table on here.
Unfortunately London buses come in many lengths from around 8m to 14m. Even the classic Routemaster has grown from 8.4m to 11.23m. However, Olympic swimming pools are all 50m (excluding the touch pads at either end).
Built by Vard in Norway so if required we could source more of the same, new or pre owned.
As an aside I thought 1st world high cost economies couldn’t compete in commercial ship building. Or is that just spin our yards use to ensure government support via defence contracts 🙂
Top comment!
Similar for France, Spain and Italy whom are able to sell built warships rather than license them for local build – hopefully UK yards might be able to do this once up to speed with Type 31.
But this purchase for this use, as with the MV Topaz Tangaroa for MROS, make great sense – both from their utility and cost points. MOD would not have been able to spec and build new for this price.
Not surprising, do you know the regulations level that industrial companies have to go in the West?
Vard is Fincantieri. It is the only Western shipbuilding company in 10 first.
Good Day! A little off topic perhaps but good somebody is waking up and investing quickly!
Now what about taking the initiative HMG and investing 4% GDP in the armed forces in real terms ( Without pensions and salaries etc) like Poland!
Without a strong Defence to protect our democracy we will be in danger of not having one! Putin and others have shown already!
Wake up before it’s to late!
Nick ex Middlesbrough
I think that is why the US General said the British army is now not a tier one partner. They are massively keen to see the UK reinvest in defence and put some extra numbers, troops, ships and jets into our line of battle. We have sleep walked into this situation and now urgently need to rearm, requip but crucially increase our military size in terms of personnel.
I think an initial urgent move towards 3% GDP to defence ratio with intent to head towards 4% by 2030 would be a more then wise move and if framed that this is for the defence of democracy and our freedoms that will be supported.
For me the crucial aspect where we seem to have quality dominance over Russia and China is in attack submarines. If we can get SSNr or more astutes built to take us upto 10-11 attack submarine hulls in the early 2030s that would be a very very wise move.
Thanks your comments! It seems as as always the UK leaves it to late! Chamberlin syndrome!
I hope on hope that PM Sunak and Hunt wake up to the grim reality!
I am open to comments Ladies and Gentlemen!
I do hope though HMG wake up and take the initiative! There is no ex Cold War bonus any more! Numbers and equipment count even in the digital world!
Mit freundlichen Grüßen Nick Hamburg
Nick, Chamberlain’s appeasement slipped our entry to Sep 1939 and ensured we could send 13 divisions of the BEF to France; if we had deployed forces in 1938 in response to the CZ crisis instead of talking to Hitler, we would only have had 2 divisions to send to the Continent.
If we want to spend more on defence, we should take Chamberlain’s example –
From The Spectator of 7/7/20: ..”both as Chancellor and then as Prime Minister in the 1930s, he presided over a massive expansion in Britain’s armed services. As early as 1935, when he was still in charge of the Treasury, he was attacked by Labour for ‘scaremongering, disgraceful in a responsible politician’ because of his advocacy of military expansion. By April 1939, rearmament was swallowing 21.4 per cent of Britain’s Gross National Product, a figure that reached 51.7 per cent by 1940. He did far more to bolster Britain’s military than was ever done by his detractor Michael Foot…
The crucial point about Chamberlain’s drive for rearmament was that he ensured the greater share went where it was needed most, into the RAF and specifically into Fighter Command. In the 1930s, the RAF was still wedded to the belief in the ‘knock-out’ blow, whereby the best form of defence lay in the threat of overwhelming retaliation through strategic bombing. But Chamberlain rightly felt that the most effective form of defence lay in fighters, backed up by radar, though it has to be admitted this was partly for fiscal reasons. ‘A bomber costs as much as four fighters,’ he once complained. Nevertheless, it was thanks to his influence that the RAF had sufficient Spitfires and Hurricanes to prevail over the Luftwaffe in the summer of 1940. During the last two years of his premiership, Fighter Command more than doubled in size”.
I wouldn’t say the uk sleep walked into this situation of been not classed as tier 1 partner.
Lots of people have said for years we are losing capabilities and it would take much more effort to get them back when lost.
The uk had the cheek to point at other nations not doing there bit while slicing away at home.
1990s solution to defence spending, peace dividend
2000s solution to defence spending, new systems much more capable.
2010 solution to defence spending, fancy accounting.
2020 solution to defence spending, we don’t need big forces, armour etc
2022 oh poop, it’s fine it will blow over
2023 sorry economy is in the toilet. How about cut something’s to buy some other things.
Mr Bell, with you increasing sub numbers and if the SSNR could be built sooner (need to find a way) they could even be bought by or allow for some earlier Astutes to be leased/sold to Australia.
If you can’t name the US general then it didn’t happen 🤷🏻♂️
It didn’t happen. But kinda did. But officially didn’t but unofficially did.
That’s not what a US admiral tells me… 😉
The NATO definition of defence spending includes pensions etc.
https://tradingeconomics.com/poland/military-expenditure-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html
I am not convinced that this solution could work in war.
The concern was always the prospect of binning the Hunt’s and Sandown’s too quickly without any direct replacements.
A mix of 4-5 mother-ships bought off the shelf and converted as well as the flexibility of being able to deploy autonomous systems directly from land or via other surface vessels won’t be a terrible outcome.
Belfast and Larne are still in the UK.and near the Atlantic.
Good Evening again!
I hope the comments are noted by the powers to be!
I wish them not to be binned! Constructive arguments for and against always appreciated!
HMG and Ladies and Gentlemen! 4% GDP Defence spending like Poland! Or perhaps 5% on UK terms.
Nick
Poland is not actually spending 4% (its barley 2%) and it has zero chance of getting there as well. 2.5% is more than enough. Just look at the problems the USA has exceeding those levels. If I was living next door to Russia I would want 4% spent but I am not and would much rather see infrastructure, education and health spending maintained than cut to pay for an army to guard the EU’s eastern boarder when they are more than capable of looking after their own.
The USA will soon have the second highest debt to GDP ratio in the G7 spending trillions to guard others while Germany has the lowest. I don’t see any need or benefit for the UK to fall for the same paradigm as the USA.
We should continue to focus on our Navy and Airforce and keep a small capable and deployable army.
To be Mystic Meg, the real end game to increase the viability of having some sort of collective increase in spending for EU nations, would be for them to go down the road of further EU Armed Forces integration for it’s members. That way, nations that have not real threat to their borders, such as Portugal, Spain, Italy, Benelux nations, Germany, Denmark, The Netherlands etc, can make a larger contribution. Only once the become an EU force, will they have the numbers to deter Russia. Although, having a new major military power on the doorstep of the UK might change our own outlook?
Combined EU armed forces
Army
Troop numbers 1,278,171
MBT : 8,413
IFV : 25,421
Artillery : 11,259
Attack helicopter : 822
Logistic vehicles: 22,065
Airforce
Fighter/bombers Aircraft : 1,669
Bomber : 251
Transport/ARA : 391
Navy
Destroyers/frigates/corvette : 147
Amphib assault/support : 26
Carriers : 4
Attack sub : 48
SSBN : 4
To be honest if The EU had its own massive army I see that as a plus for the UK. We could finally revert back to a naval strategy without the constant worry we have had since 1945 of Europe not holding its eastern boarder. It would give us two strong partners to work with in the US and the EU.
It would be similar to our pre 1940 relationship with grande where we were happy for them to have the biggest army in the world well we had the biggest navy.
The USA would not be particularly happy long term as it would loose leverage and in effect turn a bunch of small allied forces into a potential super power rival. Russia and China would also likely be upset.
That being said, it’s never going to happen.
It took a civil war until the USA truly formed a standing federal army. I can’t see such an event happening in Europe as one way or another Russia is finished.
• No French Government would ever hand over it’s SSBNs to EU control. Just as no French government will hand over its P5 seat to the EU, no matter how often the EU asks for it.
• No need for a combined EU military, thanks to NATO
• EU bureaucrats running a combined military… what could possibly go wrong? 🤣
A combined EU miltary will happen, simply as it will allow the EU to cut costs (single weapons programs) which is was allows the likes of US/Russia/China to purchase vast amounts of weapons at cost. The problem with the EU, is its leaders are very liberal minded until it comes to the Uk that is.
“We should continue to focus on our Navy and Airforce and keep a small capable and deployable army.”
Spot on.
100% 👍🏻
The army is an expeditionary force, and by its nature has different requirements to the armies of continental nations that have land borders to defend.
I don’t want any defence uptick going to the Army. Just to be clear. The British army needs to be stabilised so it can contribute an armoured division and a mechanised division too NATO security with rapid reaction infantry and air mobile forces making up the rest of the deployable army.
That means an army of around 90,000 troops, so a small uptick.
Our greatest contribution towards NATO should be a maritime strategy and air support. So army is recapitilised to make it a viable force but we should be expected by our EU and NATO allies to need to contribute hundreds of thousands of British troops to their collective defence. Those days are long gone.
Hundreds of thousands of British troops? When did we have an army that size? The last time was in 1960 – 258,000 regulars.
The army was reduced to 120,000 (under the Options for Change review) that being determined as the right size for a post-Cold War army. Since then there have bee 4 substantial further cuts not warranted by any reduction in threats or tasks.
You know there is a brutal war in Europe – and our army needs to be strong, well-equipped and ready to deploy, if it boils over. I don’t see us using our Navy – when did we last use them for warfghting?
No Poland doesn’t. They’ve just increased to 3% of GDP.
https://www.trade.gov/market-intelligence/polands-defense-spending
Slightly off topic, but is it time that the British Army was given the ‘Royal’ title to bring it in line with the others? I understand because of some regiments having the ‘Royal’ prefix before their name, i.e. Royal Artillery, but wouldn’t it be great to actually have the entire institution bestowed upon it the honour of being referred to as the ‘Royal Army’? Debate…