During a recent visit to a Vanguard-class submarine returning from patrol, Defence Secretary John Healey underscored the crucial role Scotland plays in the UK’s nuclear deterrent strategy.
This visit marked Healey’s first official engagement in Scotland since his appointment and allowed him to meet with Royal Navy submariners at HM Naval Base Clyde.
Healey stated that Scotland is “central to UK defence,” talking of its importance as the home of the country’s nuclear submarines and major shipbuilding yards. He reiterated the government’s commitment to the nuclear deterrent, saying, “Our new Government is unwavering in our commitment to our nuclear deterrent, maintained on behalf of the UK and our NATO allies.”
The Defence Secretary said:
“As the home of our nuclear submarines and major shipbuilding yards, Scotland is central to UK defence. I am determined to make defence a foundation for jobs, growth and prosperity across Scotland.”
He noted the significance of the continuous at-sea deterrent, stating that it secures protection for both the UK and NATO allies 24/7. Healey’s remarks reflect a broader commitment to national security, recognising that “Scotland is central to UK defence.”
The government’s investments in HM Naval Base Clyde aim to prepare for the new submarines while continuing to support the operational readiness of the current fleet. This dual focus not only strengthens the UK’s nuclear capabilities but also contributes to the economic prosperity of Scotland, securing jobs in the defence sector.
Healey concluded by thanking the submariners for their dedication and service, reinforcing the message that Scotland’s contributions are vital to the UK’s security landscape.
Excellent BUT today…
Healey warns that some defence projects are at risk..”tough decisions ” to be made. So much for the Strategis Defence Cuts Review.
Airbus and Sikorsky have pulled out of Medium Helo. project. Any bets it’ll be cancelled?🙄
They would have to compensate Leonardo, unless there is some clause in the competition.
If it’s still at the competition stage no contracts will have been signed to compensate for.
I think Jacko has it right. No contract, no money.
Didn’t we buy 6 Airbus H145s? Seems to me the grand NMH plan of a single type to replace 4 or 5 types has been abandoned; probably in favour of a few more Merlins and some AW149s.
Yes, we did. To replace the Pumas of 230 Squadron which is currently split between Akrotiri ( as 84 Sqn number plate ) and Medicio Lines in Brunei.
I like your optimism! More Merlin! What have you been drinking?!
AW149 was overkill for both those locations, it just gives the chance to reduce the number purchased to minimum levels, if at all.
NMH was a great vision; a substantial fleet of new machines all of one standard to cut running costs. Regardless of what was chosen what could go wrong? But it was a vanity project. Someone must have spoken out that our most important need is for more Merlins, of both types, low commercial and technical risk and minimum cost. The rest falls out from that; a few cheap H145s, minimum number of AW149s: Yeovil jobs, LM UK jobs. Hope I’m right.
I think you’re almost there. Someone spoke out, but that someone being someone upstairs that money needs saving so you’re not getting the 44 ( as some of us have been warning here for years ) and possibly not even 25.
Agree on Merlin, need more both for ASW and for the CHF to support the LRG.
But, i think the LRGs are toast, based on Labour’s rhetoric so far.
And, are they really cheaper? They’re also a lot bigger, so hardly a medium helicopter, and the RAF reportedly was happy to get rid of them.
More Merlin would belong to the FAA.
So what happens to the medium element of the RAF SHF?
Bye bye is my guess. As 2 contractors have already walked away.
I’ll be interested to see the fate of the LRGs. I see Argus is slated to go on CSG25. I’ve a feeling that what the RN has decided to do is to sacrifice both LPDs in order to protect both QEC. These can function either as F-35 strike and/or LPH. If you had another cheap LPH flat top (Argus / Ocean ) and at least 3 Bay replacements ( not needed as motherships if T32 is approved and already funded I think) then you have the ability to project 2 useful LRGs or one big expeditionary strike group. As you say, more commando Merlins are needed for this strategy.
We’ll be lucky to have a serious amphibious capacity at all when this lot have published what they’ve already decided. Cut defence for cash for more benefits…unless you’re a pensioner of course.😏
We did as Daniele says. More Merlins? Maybe a handful of Chinnoks but also doubtful. Puma life extension possible?? I can see the whole programme being cancelled altogether along with others. Used to be able to trust a Tory on defence. Labour never.😠
As I see it the program is effectively dead as a competitive exercise now that Leonardo is the only ‘bidder’. The MoD announced a while back that the number required would be nearer 25 than 44; then we bought the H145s so Airbus and Sikorsky had plenty of signals as to which way the wind was blowing. I may be reading the runes wrongly, just speculation, but a mix of new Merlins and AW 149 would tick a lot of boxes. You could keep the Pumas going so you could spend the budget over a period. Maybe Leonardo could build a new version of Merlin which was optimised to what the RM need? But as you say even if this is the current trajectory the defence review could change everything.
Yes, i think we’ve had it. Merlin won’t happen but Poland has ordered the AW149 so maybe still feasible? If they’re cancelled then maybe a small number of extra Chinooks? I know they’re heavier but otherwise we’re in for a re-hash of the Puma, if anything. Labour would probably rather cancel so there’s more money for benefits.
The thing is, by buying the H145s and shuffling things around a bit, have you realised 80% of the savings you were looking for standardisation to achieve, spending 20% capital budget and in 20% of the time? Pareto is your friend.
The old 20% acheiving 80%.. I don’t know. I guess we would need to have to know all the prices. You may well be right.
Defence of the country is obviously not as important as buying off the unions…..until too late, defence really does become important….and the forces lose countless lives because of political chicanery. Our political class is utterly vile.
The possible denudement of our defences (if there are cuts) is not reflected in the UK’s military commitments, which appear to be expanding. What is indefensible is exposing our forces to dangers due to under investment.