The UK Government says upgrades across Russia’s Northern Fleet and wider Arctic posture are being monitored in coordination with NATO, with hypersonic systems, ballistic missile submarines and modernised surface combatants identified as part of a growing threat environment.
Labour MP Graeme Downie pressed ministers about the commissioning of Borei-A ballistic missile submarines, the refit of Admiral Nakhimov, armed icebreaking patrol vessels and new Arctic infrastructure, including S-400 deployments on Novaya Zemlya. He also asked about hypersonic-capable missile systems and their implications for UK policy.
The MOD did not disclose detailed assessments, but views Russia’s naval modernisation as a factor in NATO’s current deterrence posture. Carns stated that the Ministry of Defence “keeps Russian military capabilities and investment under continuous review” and works with Allies to understand consequences for NATO security.
He added that Alliance planning is already evolving, saying NATO “is strengthening its deterrence and defence as a result of the increasing threat from Russia and will continue to adapt as necessary.”
On hypersonic systems within the Northern Fleet he said they are only one component within a broader set of Russian strike options. Carns highlighted investment announced in the Strategic Defence Review, including up to £1 billion for Integrated Air and Missile Defence, describing it as “a comprehensive and integrated approach to deterring and defending against the range of strategic threats we face.”
Cool now do somdthing about it
So what are the govt doing about it? apart from sitting on their thumbs.
As things stand we have an RAF without ASuW capability, a set of batch 1 type 31’s that has an ASW capability not far off the Bacchantes, a set of destroyers without ASuW capability and a surface fleet with a grand total of just 13 vessels! of these just 1 (Somerset) is currently capable of engaging a peer surface vessel. For a navy that 100 years ago was the largest on the planet – this is some managed dismantling!
And to add, why no JSM for P8s and F35Bs, Marte ER for Typhoons? Have all the 11 sets of NSM be ordered for the T45/T23/T31s? Has the Storm Shadow got an ashm capability? Will Nightfall or Brakestop have coastal defence ashm capabilities?
For me the pressing question is why the F?ck does our fast jet fleet not have the ability to engage maritime and naval targets at range.. we are a nation of airfields on islands FFS and our airforce seems unable to even see the blue bits on the map…
Johnathan …. I think you are apportioning blame wrongly to the RAF, when if anything, the RAF’s reduced capabilities are the responsibility of previous CDS and politicians. The RAF can only do what it’s asked to and what is provided for financially. In recent times, anti-ship capability has been the sole responsibility of the RN.
They will produce an extensive report conclude the Royal Navy is not up to it and they will do absolutely nothing about it.
The whole of UK defence is as I say beyond a joke. Civilian lawyers aren’t up to the job. They need to stop funnelling money into Benefits, Shut the Channel to the boats where they still come daily and try harder than make available 150 places in the army ‘Call up Scheme’, they need 15,000 yesterday, just for starters.
We probably don’t even have 15,000 spare rifles to shove in their hands.
And the boat crossings are highly publicised but in reality not the largest source of illegal immigration. And stopping them would ruin us on the world stage.
And guess what? US won’t send millions of rifles over to you undefended bastards like we did in the last war.. you decided to disarm you’re on your goddamn own
Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed.
Money is not “ funneled” into benefits. While I would agree that some aspects of the benefit bill is out control, especially those related to “ stress” illnesses, the fundamental tenant of the social benefits to provide a safety net to those less fortunate or to give the poorly paid a living age is fundamentally correct.
As for the small boats, many previous governments of all colours have pledged to end it and failed. I suggest we look to rejoin the EU where there were many routes to deport people entering from non official routes.
Rejoining the EU would cut a huge amount of trade and be a massive boost to the economy.
But what do we do with 15,000 potato peelers with rifles.. that is not what the army needs..
1) CS,CCS for all its deployable brigades ( and that is essentially all specialist roles).
2) MBT numbers to keep 3 MBT regiments.
3) a new infantry fighting vehicle for the AI.
4) self propelled 155mm artillery to equip a regiment for each deployable brigade
5) a full integrated drone warfare doctrine from section to brigade level with the drones to fight it.
6) 2000 reasonable APCs at about 1 million a pop.
7) an armour cav vehicle that actually works and fits British army recce doctrine.
They really don’t need 15,000 drafted youths…
I wonder whether the advent of the Admiral Nakhimov sea trials is what has prompted Trumps ‘golden’ battle cruiser announcement. For the UK I think the response is Storm Breaker on the F-35s and the increase of the UK Aukus SSN fleet numbers to hopefully the full 12.
I think we’ll see Zero UK response to the threat. Seeing as we’re still biting nails over SDB on F35
It’s not even like it’s a hard decision 🙄
The first SSN AUKUS won’t arrive for a decade and a half … There will be so many governments between now and then, saying that there will be 12 means almost nothing.
Why not a small SSKN fleet of 4 212CD type subs to complement the Astutes and to do more coastal regional North Sea and help with infrastructure -undersea patrols? Base at Rosyth/Leith for quick North Sea access.
Firstly, I think there is an institutional fear in the RN that inducting SSKs after three decades of purely nuclear boats, especially in an environment in which said nuclear boats have really struggled with availability, will lead to political questioning of the suitability of the SSN/SSBN project in comparison to SSK and now perhaps SSBKs. Whether that’s a rational fear is a different matter (I would say it’s not rational).
Secondly, I think that a split fleet, especially for just four boats, would probably incur too much in the way of support costs to justify the limited capability that could be produced. Perhaps the RN sees that money as better invested into infrastructure for the nuke boats.
Thirdly, a similar plan is already underway, with one key difference; the submarines being procured will be unmanned, and developed as part of Atlantic Bastion. By using drone submarines, the RN gets many of the benefits of an SSK while avoiding the two awkward circumstances mentioned above. The perceived difference between an unmanned SSK and a manned SSN is great enough that the former will not threaten the continuance of the latter, whilst small drone submarines will cost less, be faster to build and far cheaper to crew than a larger submarine.
One thing that seems ‘off’ with what the RN has told us so far about Atlantic Bastion is that T93 seems to be intended to sit inside the main barrier in just the same way as T92. But the chariots (an excellent term for LUUVs, incidentally) are going to have huge disadvantages compared with the surface vessels in on-station endurance, speed and ease of use with the long-standing communications issues. So if XLUUVs are going to be part of A-B, they need to find a role for themselves that is more suited to the abilities of a submarine.
The first is minelaying, or a combination of minelaying and static sensor deployment. It was actually mentioned in the Project Cabot announcement as “Underwater battlespace area denial” but I haven’t seen any referral since. It would be logical for the RN and NATO to find a way of bottling up or actually destroying Russian subs beyond a surge in frigates, and a Stingray based seabed torpedo mine in the strait between Svalbard and the North Cape could be very effective. The same goes for seabed sensors deployed closer to the Northern Fleet bases, but a CETUS sized UUV would have neither the range nor the payload to take more than one or two mines that far from base. So something like MSubs Moray would be better with more hull volume for mines and sensors.
The second is as a much more proactive sonar picket, pushing round the North Cape to act as early warning for the direction Russian subs are moving in. They’d have to spend long periods basically just drifting to avoid Russian passive sonar networks, but being able to tell whether a submarine has left port for an exercise or to try and run the Bastion would be much more useful than having them further back. Again Moray would be much better than Cetus.
The third is as an actual anti-ship asset using a tube or two of Spearfish on something Moray sized, flank sonar and an attack periscope to loiter outside likely ports, and as a deterrence force. The RoE would be that a ship is detected by the chariot itself or cued by longwave radio to look for one, at which point it ascends to periscope depth and gets an MQ9-style satellite link back to an operator in order to look down the ‘scope and decide whether to fire or not. It wouldn’t be very survivable but it would be a big threat to the Russian surface force and also be an interesting way of preventing Chinese or Iranian hybrid ships leaving port.
Money was found instantly for Labour interest groups, but an actual threat to the nations very survival. Hmm no money for that.
Quite its criminal. There needs to be a threat from Reform and anyone else, to bring people to trial for a form of negligent treason. Nothing else will get them off their backsides.
Never gonna happen because it is not by any of our laws treason.
There has to be a law that is acceptably below the treason laws but yet covers negligence or failure to defend UK necessarily.
No, why would that be a law as up to now we haven’t reached this depth of lack of defense. But also what government would want a law that means it must spend a certain amount.
Neglecting the defence of the UK has been a tradition of Parliament since the 18th century.
Labour were quite happy to write off the 750m the Conservatives had invested in offshoring illegal immigrants to Rwanda because they had a better plan that has actually produced record numbers of boat people, sure that money cold have been better spent on a couple of type 31s. This government are handing it to Reform on a plate with their mismanagement of the public finances. Can’t say I’ll be sorry to see them ho.
You’re aware that migration to the UK has actually fallen under Labour, right? That overall migration is down by just under 70% over the last 12 months? Direct immigration down as well, whilst deportations have risen.
wwwbbccouk/news/articles/c70989jrdweo (fix the link by adding the ‘.’ between ‘www’, ‘bbc’, ‘co’ and ‘uk’)
In the same vein, the BBC actually ran an article a few months ago that show the government’s figures are misleading. Of 24,000 returns only just over 6,000 were forced returns the rest mainly voluntary who also tend toget handouts to resettle. As for this government’s attempt at paying the French government’ millions to what seems to be very little seems to be another waste of tax payers cash. I’m afraid your argument doesn’t wash here as most here can see past that flannel.
Link the article, it’s easy. If you’re actually representing the truth, it should easily disprove my argument.
If your interested in the article it’s still on the BBC news (and other outlets)
BBC
Has the government really ‘returned’ 24000 people?
Google that.
It doesn’t matter. In some parts of the UK there are no longer any Britons, or even Europeans. Very progressive, isn’t it?
Labour interest groups, do you mean doctors and Nurses?
Take a walk around Luton, for example, you’ll only see doctors and nurses who contribute to the NHS, of course they do.
Relax, folks. Germany and Poland’s mighty navies are clearly the first line of defence against Russia’s Northern Fleet…
Worth noting that “Germany and Poland’s mighty navies” are actually on a very similar footing to the Northern fleet, and as the Type 31’s, 126’s, 127’s and U-boats come online in the next decade that gap is only going to favour the Germans and Poles.
It’s 18 months since the SDR was commissioned and 6 months since it was announced. Since then, nothing, zilch. No extra money, no important new defence programmes – just more cuts (warships, fighters, artillery …) and lots and lots of meaningless public talk-talk from the PM down about putting the UK on a war footing. Meanwhile, we now know from leaks that in private the PM is refusing to sign off on the DIP (Defence Investment Program) because he’s concerned about its cost and affordability. The MOD wants to make the assumption that core UK defence spending will rise steadily to meet the new NATO target of 3.5% of GDP by 2035. However, the PM (presumably strongly supported by the Chancellor) apparently won’t commit to more than the already stated 2.7% from 2027, albeit with an “ambition” of 3% in the next Parliament (i.e. by 2034). That is a cash difference of at least £50 Bn over the next decade, i.e. more than the expected the cost of Dreadnought and associated programmes, and perhaps triple the UK’s expenditure on the GCAP Tempest Project over the next 10 years.
So around a third of the government’s term has already been spent talking about and reviewing defence, and that process is still not complete. The SDR is finished, the DIP remains unsigned, and there is still no command paper setting out force structure.
It’s almost as if action is being delayed deliberately because there is no clear plan…
An extra £50B spread over the next 10 years is peanuts, less than 0.5% pa of government spending. Starmer and Reeves could find that easily if they wanted to.
Why don’t they want to? Answers on a postcard please.
‘Meanwhile, we now know from leaks that in private the PM is refusing to sign off on the DIP (Defence Investment Program) because he’s concerned about its cost and affordability.’
Could you link a source for this claim, please?
You’ll need to break the link for it to go through – this can be done by removing the ‘.’ in the first section of the link.
Starmer has probably sent Healey away and told him to come back when the DIP contains a realistic estimate for fixing Ajax and a cost for repairing or replacing Argus. Frustrating but given the MODs track record, understandable.
Why would we replace Argus at this point, it’s not even dedicated to the hospital role anymore.
My guess we won’t. But it requires a formal decision and recalculation of expeditionary capability. Maybe we will see a batch 2 Absalon style T31 with containerised hospital. Who knows? But it seems unlikely that we arranged for her to fail deliberately.
From a RN or RFA person I’ve talked to the modular hospital will be based on MRSS
Yes, bigger would definitely be better.
You cannot fit a modular hospital on a T31… a while back I did a breakdown of what was on Argus and how many standard shipping containers you would need to house it…. It was a lot.
Yeh, I remember your making that point a while back. That said, I did read somewhere that the Danes do use Absalon in that way. Different level of capability I guess.
Yes if your just looking for treating maybe one or two casualties to stabilise before transporting to definitive care you could do than in something you could fit on a frigate.. but not sure the value of that to be honest… you want you complex trauma cassvaced to definitive care without sidestepping into a shipping container.. if they are already on an air ambulance take them to the place that has a full set of ED resus bay, diagnostics, operating theatre, ITU bed, then ward.
Could have made Albion into a hospital ship. I never understood why it had such a huge crew. Anyway with luck it could then have been paid for by another department, instead given away.
Sometimes I do wonder if Labour deliberately want the South Americans to collectively invade the Falklands and humiliate the UK. I dont trust them.
We would need Gunbuster or someone to explain why Albion needs such a big crew. But my understanding is that it was crew numbers and skills that were her undoing. I’m not too worried about Brazil. They are a big economy, geographically and politically significant. They were a Portuguese colony and Portugal is Englands oldest ally. We have good relations with them and should look after our relationship. They bought some T22 frigates.
Yes if your just looking for treating maybe one or two casualties to stabilise before transporting to definitive care you could do than in something you could fit on a frigate.. but not sure the value of that to be honest… you want you complex trauma cassvaced to definitive care without sidestepping into a shipping container.. if they are already on an air ambulance take them to the place that has a full set of ED resus bay, diagnostics, operating theatre, ITU bed, then ward.
He probably doesn’t have a desk, so everything could be deniable.’ It never passed over my desk’ kind of thing.
The sad reality is this: just cuts. What’s clear is that the left is even worse right now than the Conservatives, who also aren’t interested in defending the country. It’s curious how Labour was the author of the two-aircraft-carrier program, which Cameron didn’t cancel because of the harsh penalties it would have entailed. How things have changed; now Labour is even worse than the Conservatives, which is saying something. I hope Reform UK does something about it, although I don’t expect much.
In the cold war Buccaneer was the solution to killing Soviet cruisers.
A quick fix would be more Typhoon plus ASM in a specialist squadron or two. Integrate AARGM-ER and some more Voyager.
More P8 would be a no brainer and the return of sea mines that could be dropped from an A400.
An anti ship seeker should have been considered for Storm Shadow
There is money, no will.
I’ll never forget the day many years ago when the US and the UK decided to put the whatsit up the good folk of Beirut. The US sent over bombers flying so high they could hardly be seen, and the locals laughed at them. Then the UK flew Buccaneers over the city at 50 feet and boy did the locals take notice!
A great aircraft. Why don’t we build some more?
Of the Buccaneer? It’s outdated, and the niche of a low level attack jet is becoming more contested.
I know, but they look good and make a great noise.
That they do. They used to build them near where I went to school (well before my time though).
Absolutely! Defenseless.. and absolutely embarrassing. What happened to all the defense money that you promised? Trump evidently you lied