In a recent Parliament session, Baroness McIntosh of Pickering raised a question regarding the UK government’s plans for the country’s maritime security.

Specifically, she inquired about the potential application of the Overseas Patrol Squadron vessels in overseeing suspicious activities in the UK’s fisheries and safeguarding vulnerable undersea assets in areas like the North Sea.

“To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to use Overseas Patrol Squadron vessels to monitor hostile activity in the UK’s fisheries and against vulnerable undersea assets in regions such as the North Sea,” said Baroness McIntosh.

Baroness Goldie, Lord in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip) and The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, replied on behalf of the Ministry of Defence (MoD), assuring that the UK government consistently observes activities within UK waters and its Economic Exclusion Zone to deter and combat potential threats.

She stated, “The Ministry of Defence constantly monitors activity within UK waters and its Economic Exclusion Zone to counter and deter detected threats.”

The Minister further explained that the Royal Navy’s Batch 1 Offshore Patrol Vessels, belonging to the Overseas Patrol Squadron, are regularly deployed on a high readiness basis in UK waters to carry out domestic security operations.

Baroness Goldie emphasised the government’s commitment to ensuring the security and resilience of undersea infrastructure such as cables, interconnectors, and pipelines, recognising their critical role in national infrastructure.

She asserted, “The Government takes the security and resilience of undersea infrastructure, including cables, interconnectors, and pipelines, very seriously. These are critical to our national infrastructure, and we monitor the full range of threats and risks.”

Lisa West
Lisa West
Lisa has a degree in Media & Communication from Glasgow Caledonian University and works with industry news, sifting through press releases in addition to moderating website comments.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

130 COMMENTS

  1. Sadly “monitoring the threat” in UK waters isn’t actually doing anything about the source of those threats. UK needs land based anti shipping missiles with 500 mile range to dispose of these threats.

  2. With a potentially mind boggling amount of underseas infrastructure, remote sensing must be the way to help protect our assets. However, somehow we must dissuade hostile activity in our waters by physical presence; but how many platforms do we need to project power?

    • Possibly more than we have available?

      3 River B1
      The FRE.
      Poseidon.
      Assume Protector when it arrives?
      MROSS.
      SBS Sqn in MCT role. ( They rotate )
      815 NAS and 846 NAS MCT Flights support.

      The JMSC, “Joint Maritime Security Centre” at Northwood monitors the RMP “Recognised Maritime Picture” and liaises with other NATO organisations.

        • Thanks for drawing my attention to that. Without too much hyperbole peace hangs by a thread.
          Someone once told me that during the 70s there was on average 2 deaths per week attributable to the security services, spy on spy type of thing. Is that how things are playing out now? A semi-silent war?

          • Was speaking to Slovak soldiers who hunted American SF in forests below Plzen – SF were searching for Scuds; both sides would go kinetic, casualties were taken.

            Then spoke to Czechs who did base security around Sliac AFB who hunted Brit SAS.

            Why Brit? Because I spoke to a Brit who had done it, it never went kinetic because the Czechs couldn’t find the SAS 😉

            Both NATO countries transited a neutral country to effect ingress and egress – now visualise that, it means crossing the heavily guarded Danube for the SAS with patrol packs and crossing 200 kms of enemy territory. Then they had to get back.

          • … it means crossing the heavily guarded Danube for the SAS with patrol packs …

            Huh? No mate, no … 😂🙄

          • Who knows?! They most certainly will not be crossing the Danube with patrol packs .. and tab 200 kms … 😂

          • Yes. 70s / 80s as Sliac was one of the longest runways in Central Europe and hosted Soviet Aviation.

            As you leave Zvolen towards Banska Bystrica, look towards your right and you will see where the Soviets were quartered. Next is Sliac on the left of the railway.

            There was a YouTube somewhere that documented how the garrison rioted when told they were returning to the Motherland.

            However, near to Sliac AFB is Tri Dubni – three oaks – it was where SOE and OSS flew into when supporting the Slovak moderate partisans who were holed up in the Fatras and Low Tatras.

            You’ll like the historical background to this because at Dukla Pass, North East of Presov in Eastern Slovakia, the Soviets stopped when facing depleted German lines and told the Partisans to rise up as the Soviets were coming… the Soviets stopped where they were and the partisans were massacred, thus ending any moderate nationalist forces in Slovakia.

            Now, Soviets could also eradicate the fascist regime that had been ruling Slovakia and provided materials and manpower to the NAZIs.

            However, although almost all the 2,000 partisans were killed, something like 200,000 Slovaks claimed after the war they had been partisans…

            Bear in mind that a German General at Stalingrad had said to high port the Austrians and give him another Division of Slovaks on his flank.

            After the war, Slovaks claimed they had been victims of NAZIsm – this country had 94%? 96%? efficiency when removing the Jewish population, the highest efficiency of all regimesin WW2.

          • Thanks for that history, David.
            The Soviets did that too on the Vistula outside Warsaw.
            The SAS SF story is fascinating, as I had a similar story told to me by an ex scaley.
            And not in Slovakia, but even more heavily guarded. The Kola Peninsula, spotting Soviet subs leaving. Seems bonkers as on Soviet territory and undeniable if caught?

          • Well, the O Boats off Soviet Rīga must be a story that I wish I would be alive to read in 50 years, hey, ho. 😉

          • Hi DM.

            On matters clandestine, HMS Conqueror in 1982 (fresh back from the Falklands) did the following. Pleases excuse the lazy cut & paste.

            Operation Barmaid in 1982, Conqueror completed a raid to acquire a Soviet passive towed sonar array from its Polish-flagged towing vessel. The operation, a joint mission between British and American forces, was conducted on the boundary of Soviet territorial waters.  Conqueror used cutters affixed to her bow to shear through the 3 in (76 mm) thick wire before silently returning to her base on the Clyde.

            p.s. I saw this on National Geographic/Discovery some years ago.

          • Hi DM

            On matters clandestine in the cold war, here is an interesting story (excuse the cut & paste) war.

            In 1982, HMS Conqueror completed a raid to acquire a Soviet passive towed sonar array from its Polish-flagged towing vessel. The operation, a joint mission between British and American forces, was conducted on the boundary of Soviet territorial waters.  Conqueror used cutters affixed to her bow to shear through the 3 in (76 mm) thick wire before silently returning to her base on the Clyde.

          • Hi DM

            Some clandestine wizardry from 1982. HMS Conqueror completed a raid to acquire a Soviet sonar towed passive array within Soviet territorial waters. Special cutters on her bow sheared through the cable wire and she returned to base with the sonar secured for the intel boffins in the UK.

          • Hi mate. Yes, I’d read of that escapade on here and elsewhere. USN and RN subs often operated in Soviet waters, and in some cases I’d read of, followed Soviet subs back almost into port.

          • Morning DM. Apologies for the bombardment of the same comment from me . I suspect my comment(s) were awaiting website approval (unsure why though)

        • Not the main takeaway, for sure. But noticed that the Union Flag associated with Nord Stream comment early on was upside down – at least my first assumption. So far so sigh.
          However, on second take, NBC appeared to have invented a new derivation perhaps best described as alternative reality saltires of St Andrew & St Patrick.
          The latter possibly misremembered by POTAS, maybe? In which case, totally understandable 😊

    • I’m interested in the economic aspects of all of this. Its vastly costly to provide increasing, and absolutely necessary, levels of security and protection for the energy and data infrastructure. Industry will argue that all the pipelines and rigs exist because they took the risks and provided the investment and innovation. But whilst we protect the services we rely on we are also protecting their massive profits. The relationships are as complex as they are necessary. Premier League football clubs pay, at least a contribution, to match day policing. This is on top of the tax they already pay. Perhaps a little bung from the energy companies to the RN would be appropriate.

  3. OPS is just a renamed FPS, with the B2s added and deployed abroad.
    They never, ever stop rebranding.

    • IIRC you are interested in radar, correct?

      If so, the author of ‘809 Squadron,’ Tom Whipple, has a book in TESCOs ‘Battle of the Beams,’ ISBN 978-1-787-63413-8, £11.

      • I think the author of Harrier 809, if that is the book you are thinking of, was Rowland White, and it was a very good read. He has also written about the Black Buck raids and several others. I’m looking forward to the Tom Whipple book, the reviews were excellent.

    • Well, HMS Mersey has been to the Caribbean and lately returned from the eastern Baltic, Daniele. First was primarily disaster relief, I think, but the latter involved working with the Baltic States, small rubber boats & interacting with P8 to assess maritime traffic patterns. So, coupled with the B2s, an arguably not too unreasonable name change.
      Does make you smile over just how expendable the B1s were. But that seems to apply to so many of our air, sea and land assets – still amongst the first into any fray 🤔
      Rgs

  4. Probably should standardise any reply to any question about the Royal Navy with the acronym..NEH..ie NOT ENOUGH HULLS!!

  5. I know I will get shouted at for even mentioning this, but the US Navy is talking of retiring 2x Independence class trimaran LCS. These are only 4 years old. They have a core crew of only 40. What if they were transferred to the RN, to be based in Hawaii as the new British Pacific Fleet? It would allow the 2x batch 2 Rivers to return to the UK to patrol home waters.

    • Why would we base in Hawaii when we have a base in Singapore, and if that doesn’t do, why not Australia or New Zealand or Fiji?

    • • They wouldn’t be “transferred”, we’d have to buy them $$$$
      • They have different systems to the rest of the RN.
      • They’re being retired for a reason, it’s too expensive to remedy the faults in them compared to their newer sisters, approx $500m each.
      • Independence and Coronado have already been retired and moved into reserve.
      • They’re not 4 years old, Independence was commissioned in 2010, Coronado in 2014.
      • Aluminium superstructure…
      • There’s not going to be a “British Pacific Fleet”, the empire is gone. It needs a lot more than 2 ships for a fleet.
      • The vast majority of the RN’s ships are based in home waters already.

      • If they are in Hawaii, they can share facilities with USN. The British Navy in the Pacific exists now with 2x Rivers. If the proverbial hits the fan over Taiwan, then the 57mm gun, NSM & RAM + helicopter of the Independence class, is more use than the 30mm gun of the River class.

        • • There is a huge difference between having a forward deployed vessel or two in a region, and saddling them with the ridiculous “fleet “ moniker.
          • Great, they could help defend Hawaii but not Taiwan as they’re not considered sea-worthy – unless you want to spend $1bn on them. Probably much more since they’ve been retired and probably cannibalised for parts.
          • If they were sold to the RN, they’d be without weapons – probably have been stripped already. So probably an extra $100m there to the cost.
          • If China attacked Taiwan we wouldn’t send a River, it’s an OPV not a warship. Likewise the USN wouldn’t send any of its remaining Independence class vessels.

        • Yes but in truth the RN has a plan to replace those rivers with type 31, which will be far better ships that the independence class (which are being retired for a reason). It’s very unlikely china will kick off its invasion of Taiwan before the type 31s are commissioned. China is a very pragmatic nation, it’s not invading Taiwan until it’s good and ready and knows it can deny the four seas of china, hold the strait and force a successful crossing of the strait.

          • Let’s face it, when Labour get in all or most assets over there will be gone any way. Healy has all but said as such complaining about the “Tilt to the Pacific” that in reality has expanded by 2 OPV.🙄

          • Let’s hope that ridiculous replacement plan dies under the application of common sense. We need both frigates and B2s available in the Indo-Pacific. Wasting the T31s on lightweight presence and constabulary duties instead of being what they should be, warships, will ensure they are never properly equipped, and we’ll have £350m ships doing a job that’s currently done better by £120m ships.

  6. Anyone know when the 20mm guns get taken out of RN service next year (?) will the B1s get up gunned to 30mm?
    There should also be enough space at the back of the B1s to land a drone. Still very useful ships.

  7. If we didnt have one before, we now have an implacable enemy in Putin/Medvedev’s Russia. It’s time the government and the millitary establishment take their repeatedy articulated clear threats to our national security seriously.

    At a time when it is now obvious that we could not put a singe effective armoured division together, let alone deploy it anywhere except Bovington or Salisbury Plain, the MoD should stop cutting our armed forces and start building them up, particularly the Army.

    Allowing a Russian vessel with armed men in uniform aboard to cruise the N Sea, mapping our subsea infrastructure, looks like pure folly to me. I may be a bit gung-ho, but it is plain for all to see what is likely to happen next winter if the war in Ukraine does not end this year with the Russians being expelled from all Ukrainian lands.

    The Russians are said to be mobilising another 400,000 conscripts. The Americans have China, Taiwan and Iran to deal with; we need to re-arm and quickly. We cannot just leave it to Poland

    • You’re more than a “bit gung-ho”, proposing we commit piracy or an act-of-war in the North Sea.

      In case you hadn’t noticed, we’re an island and don’t have land borders. That’s why the U.K. has always put its emphasis on the navy and has always had a relatively small expeditionary army.

    • We’re an island nation and other than the Cold War, never had a large peacetime army.
      However I agree with the premise of what you are saying, the army needs fixing.
      We should aim for an armoured division and ARRC able to deploy to Eastern Europe. Then all other combat units should be light/light mechanised expeditionary units able to rapidly deploy anywhere in the world. Aim to get personnel back up to 82,000.
      Increase vehicle numbers, more Boxer, acquisition of CV90, either archer or K9a2.
      We should also look into refurbishing any Challenger hulls that are recoverable to either more Tanks, or more Trojans, Titans and maybe a CRARV based on Challenger 2 hull. We had 474 Challenger hulls and now have 314 of those hulls in service with 14 off to Ukraine. Even if none of the others can be refurbished, we should explore the possibility of refurbishing the 22 DTT hulls to combat roles in wartime.

      • 474 Chally hulls? We bought 386 CR2s.
        DTT – pretty sure they do not have Chobham/Dorchester armour.

        • I added in Titan, Trojan and DTT.
          General Dynamics takes old Abrams and re-manufactures so essentially they are new vehicles. We could do the same with Challenger as unless the rest of the hulls were completely scrapped or sold off, the hulls must be lying around somewhere. If not we could at least try with a DTT just as proof we could do it if we had to.

          • Thanks Louis for the explanation. For as long as we Brits designed the tank it has been subject to Base Overhaul. For much of my service life BOH was done in 18 Base Wksp REME at Bovington and 23 Base Wksp REME in Wetter, Germany. All AFVs (not just tanks) were BOH’d roughly once every 7-9 years.
            A bit different now as a more economic version, Base Inspection & Repair (BIR) came in 20 years ago, 23 Base closed down and 18 Base became ABRO then was contractorised out to Babcock Engineering. No idea if Babcocks do BOH/BIR these days, but they seem to do their work to maximise their commercial gain, whilst meeting the MoD remit.
            RBSL is to convert 148 CR2 to CR3s, which just gives us two armd regts and some for the Trg Org plus a handful in depot storage for RP and Attrition Reserve.
            We all want more tanks to be upgraded and I understand that there is a total of about 308 CR2s that still exist out of the 386. Some buffoon scrapped around 78 tanks some years ago – God knows why.
            I do not understand trying to convert DTTs to CR3s – they do not have a turret ring and do not even have Chobham armour – and they are needed for driver training! Just convert some more of the 308 CR2s.
            Why mention Titan and Trojan? I am puzzled there.

  9. Lets get radical. Establish a Coast Guard akin to the US Coast Guard. Incorporate the RNLI, rescue helicopter fleet and fisheries protection all under one paramilitary unit. Simple but armed ships built on commercial lines. Free up RN person power. And finally? Make the Irish pay for their “protection”, they have been freeloading off of the UK for too long.

    • Where would you get the manpower?
      The RNLI is staffed by part-time volunteers, the majority of whom would probably walk if drafted into a “paramilitary unit”.

      • Agree regards the RNLI, that is not possible, but I’ve visualised/speculated on such a UK CG idea before, could it be given a greater home defence role if only in the surveillance area? Ships it has given some form of weapons training?

        I believe the CG inputs into JMSC already so that is something.

        • Ah is didums upset that I thought his idea of press-ganging the volunteers of the RNLI into a paramilitary unit wouldn’t go done well.

          You’re clearly some foreigner troll, because no Brit would make that elementary mistake about the status of the RNLI.

      • The RNLI – that outfit is also far too busy providing the taxi service to unwanted migrants. God forbid asking them to do anything for King and Country … 🙄

        • You’d prefer Border Force to foot the bill of rescuing them? Or would just prefer we let them all drown?

          The RNLI lifeboat crews already put their lives on the line for ‘king and county’ in the rescues they do. Press-ganging them into a paramilitary organisation as suggested is quite frankly, un-British.

          • Press-ganging them into a paramilitary organisation as suggested is quite frankly, un-British

            Press-ganging is un-British? Your knowledge of the Royal Navy is clearly lacking!😂
            Un-British!😂

          • Warning. Please do not feed the troll. It has enough problems coping with its narcissism and multiple identity issues 😎

          • Calling long standing, well respected & valued commenters on this site trolls just demonstrates your ignorance. Better to argue your case rather than lazily attack the commenter. But most folk commenting on hear have great knowlage of the subjects, so don’t be surprised or offended if people shoot down wild ideas.

        • The RNLI save lives at sea without prejudice. Why the casualty is at sea is irrelevant. The illegal migrants are the Governments issue, not the RNLI.

          • RNLI rocks up at the sight of a ship wreck, survivors clinging to wreckage as gale force 12 winds batter the life boat. A man, dressed head to toe in orange climbs on to the foc’sle of the the boat. He spies the survivors, twelve of them as he hooks himself onto the railing. In the cabin, the helmsan fights to keep station within reach of the survivors, each wave buffeting the wheel and threatening the slew the boat around, broadside onto the wind and waves. Time is limited, there is a lee shore off somewhere in the gloom and sea spray.

            Knowing this the man on the foc’sle girds himself, produces his waterproofed clipboard and in his loudest voice shouts: “HAVE YOU, OR ANY FAMILY MEMBERS EVER ILLEGALLY ENTERED THE UK, IT’S POSSESSIONS OR OVERSEAS TERRITORIES!?”

    • The secret Irish agreement is in our interest primarily, whether they get something out of it then there you go.

      If there is a threat from the west we need the ability to deploy aircraft into Irish airspace to counter them ASAP, and that is primarily regards airliners I believe.

      • We would overfly anyway in a “hot” situation. The suggestion of a full time CG that’s armed makes sense to me. I know plenty of ex coastal fishermen who would jump at a chance, and ex merchantmen. Plus they know the waters. Having looked at Border Force operations of late? I am convinced we need robust coastal oversight. I live near a small port where unemployment is very high. Then I feel the same about establishing a militia for internal use.

        • Definitely not a Brit, with your ridiculous suggestion of

          “establishing a militia for internal use”

          Britain is democracy, we don’t use paramilitary forces to subjugate the population. Heck, we’re such a civilised bunch that the vast majority of our police aren’t armed because they don’t need to be. But you need feel the need of a militia for use against the populace 😂🤣😂

          • Exactly, the notion that we need a Militia of disaffected individuals “for internal use” is just bizarre/worrying.

            On the general idea of a more cohesive and coherent UK Coast Guard, fair enough, but there are already agencies doing that job.

            The current system has a mix of agencies and bodies – UKBF cutters (what used to be Revenue Cutters), the Royal Navy, and Marine Scotland (they have their own ships and a couple of aircraft). Trying to force them all into one organisation isn’t as easy as it sounds.

          • the militia idea is probably not needed…but good civil defence volunteer forces and expanding the use of reserve forces is…. especially in areas of high skill like boarder force and fisheries protection etc us useful. We should use more clever solutions to harness skills for reserve forces…having the wildcat force parked next to the factory that builds them is a classic idea.

          • I see no issue in expanding the use of reserve forces in these areas, or expanding the reserve forces – perhaps allowing for different levels of time commitment and flexibility to increase numbers.

            It’s enslaving the volunteers of the RNLI in a paramilitary unit, and forming a militia to keep the civilian population in line, that I object to.

          • Yes the RNLI are actually volunteers who aready go above and beyond their normal jobs…the militia ideas do still have connotations of riding down workers.

        • I for one agree with the concept of an expanded role for CG / BF, whether using the existing or expanding the RNR.

          What roles would you envisage for a “Militia”? The term is still in use in some army reserve formations, but is purely historical.

          The last units I can think of entirely for home use are the HSF companies in the Cold War that guarded KPs.

          I don’t see a role for a militia myself? The 14 Infantry battalions of the Army Reserve are available, or any Army unit for that matter can be used to assist the civil power. The police also have CT Command, and various firearms units, and MoD have the MDP and the Provost part timers guarding installations.

          • Similar to the National Guard, a bit like the old HSF. And a pool of manpower for any eventuality. I rather like the Polish model recently re-activated. And the Norwegian and Finnish Home Guards. The other advantages of it could be a focus for so many younger folk who lack any direction. I served in the Terriers after regulars, a lot of younger weekend warriors really became focussed and professional soldiers. Civil defence is totally lacking in the UK. And I guess the people you mention would be pushed in a real crisis. There are social and economic benefits to be had imo.

          • You’re right regards civil defence, and fair point regards the standard reserves and regulars/police.

          • https://i.imgur.com/4hrtph6.jpg

            Maybe something like this….

            (By way of explanation: Put the Regular Reserve on an organised footing with veterans nominally assigned to a “Militia Battalion” of their speciality so they can be recalled more easily and efficiently in a time of crisis).

          • Ah, a Dern ORBAT chart special! Love these. I cannot see it well on my mobile will study it more closely later when home. 👍

          • It’s part of a much larger one, but I think I might have to censor some of my ideas because they rely on insider knowledge before I post the whole thing. XD

          • And the Regular Reserve idea seems totally logical to me? The RR is not an area I have any real knowledge on regards conditions of recall, time served, and so on.

          • https://i.imgur.com/4ZRLFkv.jpg

            Full version for you to peruse.

            It’s I think eligable for recall for 4 years after leaving service or something like that? Honestly it’s incredible we’ve let that atrophy, it’s zero cost, and all it would require is once every couple years doing an ex that would see how many people could reach their local muster point (e.g. The nearest TA barrack).

            You could divide it into two brigades, one for the recently released with more current skills, and a volunteer one for long term released, then if the army needs to expand rapidly, say there is a war, you could put everyone through an abbreviated training course to bring them back up to speed, and grow the army quickly like that.

          • Ta. Will study and reply later once I’ve given it a good study. Is this the one you showed me a couple of years ago, or another newer effort?

          • Most is as we both know current, with some Dern adjustments ( such as 24Bde, 6th Armd Bde, Overseas Bde, 2nd Inf Div, merging 3 Cdo as we previously discussed, and so on )
            I see where you’ve used the Militia idea as you mentioned for 2 Div, and with SOF, Ranger, and Cdo specialist units too for those RRs.
            And DRSBCT with tanks and Infantry!! If only.

          • The objective was to do minimal changes, too many “realistic orbat rethinks” involve huge sweeping changes that will never happen (and even then my 3 Cmdo 4 Light Merger is probably a pipe dream), so most being current is good.

            A few quick nods: It’s enabled every fighting brigade to have a full set of CSS by allocating our reserves slightly more intelligently. This gives the army 5 Regular and 3 Reserve (8 total) fighting brigades.

            The idea with a paper RR division in my head is that you’d want to recall people to roles they’re familiar with for minimal retraining where possible. So if a Medic leaves the army, they’re assigned to a RR Med Reg, and if recalled show up, get sent with all the medics on a 6 week medic refresher course. If you recall a former SAS bloke, you’re going to want to sort him to a specialist formation, not send him in with a bunch of RLC’s because that’s who happened to be in his neighbourhood. In my head this is prime 11 SFA brigade work: the ATR’s will be busy bringing as many new recruits in as possible, 11 SFA can focus on bringing the RR up to speed and form the cadre of a new division.

            Don’t get too excited with DSRB’s infantry and tanks. Both are reduced to two sub units in this orbat. The DSR Cav group remains primarily a scouting unit, it just has some flexibility to conduct more fighty recce or to dig itself in and hold something critical until the actual combat brigades can relieve it. (Also gave me some headcount to bring 5 Scots back up to a light mech battalion on cyprus rotation)

          • The merger of 3 Cmdo with the Army was voiced earlier by a Senior Army General and the the response was well if that is the case there would not be a 3 Cmdo to merge as they would ALL walk. They belong to the RN and are Sea Warriors that are extremely effective in what they do compared to any Army unit. So please push off.

          • I doff my cap to thee, Dern. What a labour of love. Great to see fresh thinking. The Orbats from the Head Sheds over the years have been dire. Great to put RRs into a useful ‘home’. I left the army at the age of 53 in 2009 and they had even dropped the annual reporting requirement (where they apparently checked and updated your retention kit, gave you a few briefings and a days pay). If the balloon had gone up, and the RRs were recalled to the Colours I had no idea where they would have put me. I am sure there is some 2nd line REME in your 2 Div!, but it looks really impressive to me. Great to see a proper third manouevre bde in 3xx in the shape of 6x.

          • ARGH! I knew I was forgetting something! Can we say that there are combined CSS Battalions? 😀 (They’d be huge though, 4 Battalions to manage all the RR RLC and REME soldiers? O_O I also know I left Signals out of there, I’m not sure how to manage signals as the EW space does move apace a lot). Anyway, next time I draft a few REME RR battalions will show up, open to suggestions for names 😛

            The weird thing about 6X in 3XX is that, with the exception of the re-rolling of 243 Field Hospital to a Medical Regiment, 6X is composed entirely of units that are already present in the division, just grouped together as a Brigade, and giving the divisional commander the option of fielding a 3rd Manuever Brigade or using them as BCR’s as he sees fit (assuming there’s enough tanks to equip the RWY of course).

            And agreed, the dropping of RR reporting requirements is absolutely stupid. That couldn’t have topped more than five or six figures to do, but I think it would help if blokes had an idea of what their war time role might be if they where recalled. I know I’d be a bit more likely to turn up if I knew I’d end up in a specialist unit with people I’d served with, focused on my old military skill set. Then again, by the time I’m in the RR’s my knees might not agree O_O

          • Don’t worry about it!

            I served in UNFICYP Sp Regt in 1981 – it included a REME Wksp, an RCT Sqn and a RAOC coy (Tim Cross (now Maj Gen (Ret’d) was its 2IC) – so this concept of bringing together REME and loggies sub units under one CO is not new. Similar org in FI when FIEU merged with FILU. There was a CSS Bn in 19x a few years back – Daniele reminded me of that.

            REME is 10% of army strength and RLC is 15%, so 25% of your RRs will be REME/RLC pax – but many bods will be at first line with (ie organic to) the units. So one CSS Bn for each RR Bde – any numbering system will do.

    • We don’t need a new service what we need is better integration and intelligence sharing between agencies that proved Patrol and constabulary within UK waters…so better working and integration between fisheries protection, boarder force, coast guard and RN. If Russia are playing silly with spy ships pretending to be fishing vessels then get fisheries to board them….then embarrassing the crap out of Russia when they find a load of armed men and undersea monitoring equipment….the fact is that Russian spy ship with the armed men on deck was in a NATO EEZ, that was a breach of law and that ship could be boarded and legal action taken…although the collection of intelligence with an EEZ is perfectly legal..so it’s just about embarrassing and making it known we know.

      • Having all your assets under one command is sensible. This mish mash we have at present could prove a liability if, just if things hot up. I experienced “sharing of intel” and believe me? It does not work. A command structure with clear briefs to tackle each tasking is efficient, and more accountable. UK Inc stumbles from crisis to crisis. Or do we wait until a British Nordstream incident. And Russian “trawlers” have been a fact of life for decades, a consistent approach to them would have precluded the present shit show. I have no problem with dealing with Russian or anyone else’s interference on our infrastructure.

      • Aye but imagine a full time Coastguard where their devotion is payed by a decent salary. Not saying that voluntary service is not admirable at all.

    • Hands off the RNLI. A great British institution with a proud history of saving lives. A treasured part of our history & culture & you want to paramilitarise it?

      Better to focus on the RN upping its game in all areas & removing treasury penny pinching.

    • Incorporate the RNLI you do realise it is a charity and manned by volunteers and despite a few political shenanigans over the years includes Eire.
      Besides which the only thing that would achieve is some Admiral deciding to cut the numbers of RNLI assets for something else.
      As for the Irish paying for anything, good luck on that one. They will not even pay for enough crews for the ships they have.
      Simple truth is they have us over a barrel and they know it. They don’t want to do it themselves and know that we will do it for them because we can’t leave the back door open. And no U.K. politician is going to tell them because it will be splashed all round the US as poor little Ireland being bullied by the nasty Brits again.
      It is one thing the EU could actually do and force Ireland to protect its EEZ properly.

  10. R2, T31 and ‘squadrons’ are the right trend for the UK – more hulls, endurance, presence, good C3, credible self defence, all hulls capable of launching unmanned submersibles and rotary and exerting influence. Nowhere between Ceylon, Cape Town and Panama, Greenland and the Falklands should be more than a day’s sailing from a RN frigate or sloop. Pax Britannica 🙂

  11. As others have discussed we need a lot of patrol assets as we have a huge EEZ ( fifth largest at 7 million square miles) remembering we all tend to forget the UK is not just a European political entity but is actually spreed across all the oceans of the world ( we have dirt and seas we need to protect in every part of the world, with all the potential resources and risks inherent in that): north Atlantic, south Atlantic, southern ocean, Indian Ocean and pacific. We also oversee some of the most busy and important sea-lanes and transit straits ( choke points in the world…one reason the UK has alway won wars against vastly more powerful European empires).

    In reality we do need a lot better patrol infrastructure than we have, to be honest there is an opportunity to have a lot of the home waters maritime work staffed via a reservist approach….home water security and maritime surveillance is a perfect reservist role especially for a nation with a lot of maritime based industries and infrastructure. We could probably look to:

    greater integration of patrol infrastructure as at the moment its all very siloed and not working as a whole all of these should be tied into a civil defence and maritime defence integrated infrastructure and work closer with the military..as we have a fair bit of patrol infrastructure..just all in bits.

    1) English inshore fisheries and conservation organisations, 10 organisations in England. The larger of these operates a 27meter patrol vessel, a 11 meter survey vessel and 2 6.5 meter ribs…even the smallest operates a pair of 6.5 meter ribs.
    2) Scottish marine protection: 2 84 meter patrol boats, 1 42 meter patrol vessel, 1 68 meter survey reaserch vessel, 1 27 meter survey and reaserch vessel, 1 10 meter survey vessel and 2 Cessna F406 maritime surveillance aircraft.
    3) maritime and fisheries wales..Five fast patrol vessels 26- 13 meters.
    4) UK boarder force: 1 50 meter cutter, 4 42 meter cutters, 6 18 meter patrol vessels, 4 25 meter patrol vessels.
    4) cost guard: rotor fleet, 10 cabs.
    5) RN rivers 1s, rivers 2, 16 archer class ( these should be more heavily used)
    6) RAF, maritime patrol aircraft

    once the rivers 2s can be used as they are intended that will help..we should also consider moving the fleet of MQ-9s to the boarder force as they are retired from the RAF as well as the rivers 1s to boarder force as they are retired from the RN We should also lever autonomous vessels on all the rivers…the rivers 1 have good cranes for sub and surface vessels and the rivers 2 add a flight deck for air.

    Maybe a better national programme of ordering new build patrol vessels for all services…with in requirement for built in civil defence capability or the capability needed to be used as a reserve asset for the RN…in any government agency or sponsored organisation. Finland has an actual plan that involves ever government asset in time of war..everything has an in built defence purpose.

    • Good post IMO. This ties in with the suggestion of a greater role for the Coast Guard, Border Force.
      Like the Archer idea, but unsure how suitable unless coastal or river roles?

      • Hi Daniele the Archers are 20meter hulls and pretty much the primary focus of the design is inshore patrol so around 9-12 miles out to sea in most sea states. But they can easily manage transits across the Chanel and North Sea, they have transited and operated as far as the Baltic. Also they acted as the Gib patrol and the bay of gib can be a bit of a handful ( vom inducing) for smaller boats…sailing around it in a 10 meter boat is fun. But they are also great for transitioning to inland waterways ( which is why the RN went for the 20m hull)…all in all I would get something else for the university squadrons etc and have all these as active patrol boats….if we have these the inshore fisheries and boarder cutters as a cohesive inshore patrol ( out to 12 miles) as well as all the rivers 1-2, the 3 large Scottish maritime cutters and 5 broader force 42-50 meter cutters doing the off shore work.( that around 15 larger off shore patrol boats) backed up by and acting as the homes for lots of drones.

        • You’re right….I’d forgotten there was an article right here on the Archers in the Baltic.

  12. In 2020 we were told that the B1s were the Offshore Division of the Coastal Forces Squadron. Now we are told they are part of the Overseas Patrol Squadron.

    Can ships be assigned to two squadrons at the same time or has there been yet another rename?

    • Received special funding to retain the B1s specifically for European duties. RN only interested in jollies somewhere nice

    • The usual rebranding, yes, as the FPS was renamed due to the RB2s being based abroad. I thought the Coastal Forces Sqn is the Archers with the URNUs.

      • You may well be right. After the 1st Patrol Boat Squadron (the Archers) was rebranded as Coastal Forces in 2020, there was a FOI request about it whose answer placed the B1s in Coastal Forces along with 14 Archers (excluding Tracker and Raider). At the time I thought that meant only the B2s were left in the OPS, which turned out not to be the case.

        The RN website still claims the OPS consists of 4 OPVs and a helicopter, which I suspect was a lazy retitling of an already outdated FPS page. I think you are right and the FOI response from the Navy was wrong!

        I may drop them a line and ask for some clarity.

          • Hmmm. I’m a tad confused, and intrigued.. On Clyde is a fair idea, I follow your logic, but she had no hanger, so visiting and not a deployed flight. And in the FI we had 1 or was it 2 Chinooks, and the contracted SAR Helis, neither of which I think would be included?

            In the UK both the FAA Wildcat, Merlin, and CHF are separate entities to the OPS. I doubt they mean the Dauphins contracted for use by FOST either.
            I’m curious.

  13. Great soundbite response, little substance in reality. We’re very vulnerable. Escort vessel numbers drop to 16 by the end of the year.

  14. Yep, heavy on irony. Tories pande to the right by cutting the state including defence. Trouble is they don’t know when to stop.

  15. This refers to the Home Patrol Squadron.
    The Overseas Patrol Squadron is 5 X River B2s deployed, err, overseas

    • Never heard of a Home Patrol Squadron.
      The OPS is a renamed Fishery Protection Squadron, the oldest in the RN.
      There is a Coastal Forces Sqn that has the URNU Archers.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here