Naval chiefs from across Northern Europe have signed a statement of intent to develop a formal Northern Navies initiative, the First Sea Lord announced at RUSI on Tuesday, describing it as a multinational maritime force to defend Northwest Europe and the High North with the UK at the helm.

General Sir Gwyn Jenkins said he hosted naval chiefs from across Northern Europe last week and that during that meeting the assembled nations signed a statement of intent committing to work up detailed proposals for the initiative. He said he wanted all participating nations to have signed a formal declaration by the end of the year, “laying the foundations for what will be a vital and enduring partnership for many years to come” and pledged to set out more details later this summer on how he intended to deliver it.

The initiative would see member nations operating common systems and platforms, shared digital networks, logistics and stockpiles, trained through the Royal Navy’s Fleet Operational Standards and Training, supported through UK doctrine and integration standards, and commanded from Northwood’s Maritime Operations Centre. Jenkins described it as “a visible and persistent conventional deterrent, a force that is stronger, collectively, than the sum of its parts” and said it should complement rather than compete with NATO, functioning as a means for the Alliance to respond rapidly and seize the initiative in the region.

Jenkins said the Royal Navy was uniquely placed to drive the initiative forward, pointing to the Lunna House Agreement with Norway and the export of Type 26 frigates to Norway and Canada as evidence of the foundations already in place, saying he hoped similar deals would soon be struck with other Northern allies and that conversations with counterparts showed keen interest in the Hybrid Naval plans. He said the goal was the creation of “a family of allied fleets, something that has not happened in decades.”

On the strategic context driving the initiative, Jenkins was direct about the Russian threat, revealing that Russian incursions into UK waters had jumped by almost a third in the last two years and that in 2025 alone the Royal Navy was required to respond dozens of times in support of homeland defence against Russian Navy surface vessels. He said it was Russia’s reinvestment in its submarine programmes that posed the most acute threat, warning that all signs suggested the pattern of behaviour would only worsen, and pointing to the Defence Secretary’s recent announcement about Royal Navy disruption of Russian submarine activity as evidence of the persistent challenge.

Jenkins described the initiative’s ambition in terms of genuine interchangeability rather than mere interoperability, saying he wanted to create “a maritime force that trains, exercises and prepares together, a force designed to fight immediately if required, with real capabilities, real war plans, and real integration” in which interchangeability was made possible because member nations would be operating common systems and platforms.

George Allison
George Allison
George Allison is the founder and editor of the UK Defence Journal. He holds a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and specialises in naval and cyber security topics. George has appeared on national radio and television to provide commentary on defence and security issues. Twitter: @geoallison
X

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

89 COMMENTS

  1. I presume this is just another paper exercise or do we need to have both our ships available at the same time…

      • I’ve gained $17,240 only within four weeks by comfortably working part-time from home. Immediately when I had lost my last business, I was very troubled and thankfully I’ve located this project now in this way I’m in a position to receive thousand USD directly from home. Each individual certainly can do this easy work & make more greenbacks online by visiting
        following website—.,.,.,.,.—>>> J­o­b­a­t­Ho­m­e­1.C­o­m

  3. This is a decent start but we need more, we need a new alliance within or alongside NATO that can operate without the USA and where Slovakia, Turkey and Hungary don’t get a veto. Most of all the new alliance needs to be a nuclear sharing agreement and the UK should set as an absolute priority development of a sub strategic nuclear capability and dual use agreement with major Northern European governments as well as Canada and Australia (if they want it).

    We already have the potential to developed and IRBM alongside France as part of ELSA and Germany, Poland and Sweden have all signalled a willingness to pay for such weapons again as part of ELSA.

    It’s up to the UK to form a spine around which the middle powers can gather.

    At all costs we must maintain the NPT even in the face of a US withdrawal and we must deter Russia with nuclear weapons which is the only thing they have to threaten Europe with.

    • Yes, I support any defence link up with our northern European allies.
      If we are defending NATO when will ENATO contribute to the DNE, which is bleeding our military white?

    • We already have a new, streamlined alliance alongside NATO. It’s called the Joint Expeditionary Force. It has been a stunning success, and this is building on that framework.

      A separate sub-strategic deterrent and nuclear sharing fits poorly with the UK’s existing nuclear doctrine. The reason we argue we need an independent deterrent is because nuclear sharing is fundamental non-credible. As such, it’s a bit awkward for us to then act as a nuclear guarantor. More generally, the UK sees nuclear weapons as militarily useless outside of deterrence, and therefore something whose costs should be ruthlessly minimised as far as possible. They would see other countries spending money on nuclear sharing a waste of their defence budgets, even if it was financially beneficial to us.

      • The problem is the UK’s existing nuclear doctrine is no longer fit for purpose. It’s based on providing a secondary strategic response to deter a large capable aggressor like the Soviet Union with a “minimum credible deterrent”. The UK’s nuclear doctrine relies on the US being a part of it, the US has all the strategic planning to actually fight a nuclear war with Russia and the US provides most of the escalation ladder through nuclear sharing with Germany, Italy etc.

        We now need a nuclear posture designed to deter a rouge state with little conventional capability but an oversized nuclear capability and a willingness to exploit it and we have to do this in the context of the USA probably not being there.

        Our Trident submarines should be fully laden with all the warheads we can put on them and held as a secondary strike capability able to deal a massive retaliation against Russia with a counter value strike, or provide the capability to threaten a counter force strike in conjunction with France that’s large enough to take out most of Russias land strategic missiles (around 280)

        So we need a sub strategic capacity that can also be shared with other European nations designed to provide a limited measured response should Russia use a single or small number of tactical nuclear weapons against a European state like Poland.

        We can do this with around 100 nuclear armed storm shadows shared across Allie’s under a dual use and around 50 road mobiles MRBM’s offering long range nuclear precision strike.

        If we combine that with a capable missile defence provided by Arrow, SM3 and Aster 30 able to intercept a limited IRBM strike then we can deter Russia from a nuclear escalation as it might attempt to fire a single missile at Europe only to have it intercepted then receive a single nuclear armed missile in response that Russia is unable to intercept.

        • Jim,
          Future sub-strategic nuclear option may already be in process of being addressed by both RAF and RN. Reasonably straightforward options: LRSO, in addition to B61-12s, for F-35A and Tempest/GCAP, and SLCM-N for SSN-A. Either FMS sale or DIY production under license. Presto, credible independent E-NATO sub-strategic nuclear deterrent. The bad news: There will be a requirement for HMG to actually expend some coin of the realm. 🤔😱😉. Next issue?

        • Eff that.. if anyone is spicy enough to launch so much as the smallest yield “tactical” nuke, they should get wiped off the map. Nukes is nukes. If theyr willing to launch once they can and probably will launch again.

        • Eff that.. if anyone is spicy enough to launch so much as the smallest yield “tactical” nuke, they should get wiped off the map. Nukes is nukes. If theyr willing to launch once they can and probably will launch again.

    • “It’s up to the UK to form a spine around which the middle powers can gather.”
      How can we propose to do this, with the spineless government we have?

      • RS,
        The UK has been assessed historically as a middle tier/weight nation, but w/ the justified reputation of being able to “punch above its weight class.” Certainly, if future HMG honor the formal NATO commitment to sustained MoD budget increases, the UK military will be significantly enhanced w/in the next decade (certainly by 2040). The RAF and RN both have clear pathways to restoration of former capabilities during this timeframe. The BA always appears to be treated as the unwanted step-child of the services in terms of national priority and funding, but this will immediately be reversed upon the commencement of hostilities. Guaranteed.

      • We are. Have been for ages. All the way back to mid 90s the PS at MoD was on TV saying as such.
        The hillarious thing is, we Brits here all know it, but you feel the need to push it at every opportunity.
        So, the issue lies with you, doesn’t it.
        Typical of insecurity, to belittle and put down others for…..?

    • Should you know any serving, senior, Slovak officers, you might refrain from posting tripe.

      I’d also point your attention to the fact that a German General at Stalingrad said he would rather have another Division of Slovaks than a Division of Austrians; 20,000 Slovaks fought on the German side at Stalingrad.

      Slovaks also provided substantial numbers during the Russian mis-adventure in Afghanistan and took part during the NATO misadventure; currently they stand up in Latvia alongside the Canadians, although they can be less than jovial when international ice hockey is aired…

  4. If he pulled out his finger and got more Astutes at sea? I might take his words more seriously. If he was not one of those politician friendly chiefs his words would give more confidence’

    • John, I doubt that 1SL could somehow get more Astutes at sea. Those that know say that the submarine fleet’s readiness problem is related to excessively long maintenance periods, as well as an outdated infrastructure that is not enough to support even the current number of boats. There is also a lack of technical personnel for timely repairs.

      1SL could only address the issue of a lack of uniformed technical personnel.

      • Issues with our SSN availability land squarely at successive governments. Late orders and failures to invest in support and maintenance infrastructure at Faslane and Devonport have led to the shit sandwich we’re all currently feasting on. None of which is getting improved anytime soon but perhaps in place for Dreadnaught and SSNR.

  5. You’re kidding me. This is some sort of joke idea? We can’t do NATO commitments and some clown decides we can run a parallel second navy. This is a nonsense.

      • Would you prefer the alternative, where our allies buy from others or build their own?

        1SL can’t magically make the government pay for more forces, but making the RN the standard for equipment and training for several nations is probably the best option he’s got for demonstrating financial benefits of defence and maximising capability

    • Steady on, all the deluded nimrods will call you a russian bot, although they dont seem to know what that is,the criteria is not agreeing with the delusion.
      They still can’t see the gun flapping and gaslighting isnt actually the same as having a military.

  6. I was in STANAVFORLANT IN THE ‘60s (Euryalus)This scheme seems similar, but without a surface warship based in Scotland is a logistic nonsense and looks like the UK will rely on others to cover the northern gap. The navy now has few sea-going ships and less matelots.

    • Exactly,nothing else happens, Starmer has a photo taken and all the left wing chimos start clapping.
      The UK couldn’t fight it’s way out of a wet paper bag

  8. We seem to hear lots of talk about Stuff and selling Stuff plus future Stuff, but we are not ordering anything what so ever?? (using Stuff to cover everything from Weapons Systems/Guns/Vehicle/Ship/Tanks/Airplane/Trainers/Defensive system etc) I could go on, but I got Stuff to do.

  9. More word salad , cut the crap and build a bloody navy fit for an island nation . Where do we get the money ..stop wasting it and cut welfare drastically. Pay people more to join and stay . No DEI hires ..hire on merit , promote on merit . Build a modern force ..no more wasting money on frill when the basics are lacking.

      • No evidence, he’s just a Reform nutter that believes the rage-bait AI slop posted on social media by the Russians.

      • ‘Defence People Vision:
        Defence outputs delivered by the right mix of capable and motivated people that appropriately represent the breadth of the society we exist to defend, now and in the future

        Defence People Strategic Objective 5:
        To develop a more inclusive culture within Defence and a more diverse workforce at all levels

        We have been working across Defence to deliver this vision and objective through a set of actions focussed on:…Recruitment

        This work has been driven by a pan-Defence Diversity and Inclusion Programme (DDIP), with the Chief of Defence People (CDP) as the Senior
        Responsible Owner.

        Specifically, a focus on D&I will:
        • Build stronger, cohesive teams and improve decision making by harnessing the diversity of thought, skills and innovation that comes with a more diverse and inclusive workforce and through enabling people to fulfil their potential…

        …we still have a lot of scope for improving our D&I performance. For example:
        » In the military, BAME and female representation is still very low (particularly
        at senior levels).
        » In the Defence Civil Service, our female, BAME and disability representation is low compared to the wider Civil Service
        (particularly at senior levels).

        …This strategy has not been developed in isolation. It takes account of D&I best practice in the wider public and private sectors. It has, for example, been influenced by the development of the new Civil Service D&I Strategy…The strategy is underpinned by Equality legislation. The Equality Act 2010 legally protects people from discrimination in the workplace and in wider society. Following the Act coming into force, a specific legal duty was imposed on public authorities to have ‘due regard’ to the need to:

        …Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

        ‘A Force for Inclusion, Defence Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 2018 – 2030’

        Res ipsa loquitur

        • 😆 Yes, I was studying the wiring diagram for DE&S last year and noted that Diversity Champions have sprung up there as well.
          I didn’t note those in my orbat charts.

          • Indeed.

            I don’t believe that Britain’s Olympic team selects with DEI as one of the criteria?

            I wonder which the general public think is more important: the Olympic Games or national security?

            • I’m not convinced that the MoD and DE&S do either, only observing that such posts exist.
              Any post should be on ability regardless of anything else, but certain criteria are obviously considered, looking at my own experience how the employees in my job changed.
              My old place of work was overwhelmingly male, middle to older aged, and white dominated, and that changed in the 25 years I was there. There was clearly a push to get younger, non white, and moee females into the job, less rarely was a middle aged white man recruited. That is not saying that females, younger employees and non whites were any less able, they were the same quality, and actually a lot friendlier than some of the white prats I worked with!
              So one still has to pass the interview regardless.
              One of my best friends from the railway is Kenyan and as black as the night. Can he do the job? Absolutely! And in a smiling, happy friendly manner too.
              So yes, DEI is a thing. Where there are issues is when there is clear discrimination where whites are excluded, as has been seen in several instances, our own RAF included!

              • Very much so…

                Ability, merit, is of course absolutely key to any roles concerning national security.

                Far too much bureaucracy, legislation, regulation, interference.

                If the chain of command is not selecting entirely on merit, that should be a disciplinary matter.

                I wonder how much accountability was attributed regarding the Royal Air Force pilot selection incident recently…

                • Sod all I think? The Group Captain who reported it quit, and should be crowd funded for her effort.
                  No body else did a Postumus and fell on their sword, CAS living it up elsewhere on a board somewhere no doubt?

                  • Yes.

                    Apparently the reason given was ‘faulty legal advice’ with Officers simply ‘pushing the boundaries’ of the advice given.

                    That does not really redound to the credit of the RAF, particularly given the findings of a tribunal on this matter:

                    ’28. The fact of the admitted positive discrimination within recruitment in the RAF
                    is sufficient that, in the absence of any other explanation, the tribunal could conclude that discrimination occurred. The tribunal rejects the submission that the policy of positive discrimination was never put into effect. It is very jclear from the evidence before us that it was: BAME and female candidates were prioritised for the OASC and subsequent training. This was recognized
                    publicly.’

  10. Reliable sources say MOD has 19 groups working on diversity which is more than we have fighting ships/sub’s. 65000 staff with 66000 soldiers who dare not fire a bullet without getting clearance from a human rights lawyer first

  11. Good news depending on how it works. A formal Northern defence treaty involving, potentially, the UK, Canada, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Denmark and Sweden, possibly also the Baltic States and Polant, could be a powerful bulwark that goes beyond NATO and be able to act to support each other when the US and other European countries may be unwilling…

  12. One presumes everyone in the RN will have to eat three shredded wheat daily to cover all these tasks with one or two ships?

  13. The UK needs to concentrate on leading the High North with Norway, Sweden & Finland. A new NATO command AF North, as per the Cold War.

    This means the UK withdraws from AF Central, pulls out of Estonia, at the end of a logistical nightmare, nothing more than speedbumps. AF Central is principally France, Germany and Poland.

    As lead nation of AF North, the UK needs to invest across the board. For the Navy, this means at least B2 Type 31 frigates & B3 River Class and double the number of P8 Poseidon’s. A new naval base in Scotland, sensibly Rosyth should support this.

    The Army forward deploy 2 arm brigs in Central Norway + equipment for the balance of their parent divisions & a Corps Command – the personnel being air-portable. Reinforcements in the UK for a second and third tier too. This of course needs hundreds more Chall 3s, IFVs, 155mm & MLRS etc.

    RAF Scandinavia – a new Command to support the Army, with a permanent Typhoon and F35 squadrons + helicopter, tanker & ground based air-defence assets – UK surge squadrons would deploy closer to time.

    In War, 3 & 16 Brigades would deploy to the Shetlands, Faroes, Iceland & Greenland, supported by 3 Typhoon squadrons for air-defence & tankers.

    So yes, more B4 Typhoons & tankers to stand up extra squadrons, a new RAF air base in South-eastern Scotland.

    More also needed for UK defence, iron-dome system, plus Level 3 Home Guard to support authorities in time of War.

    Lots, but whats needed. Prevent a War through readiness not weakness.

  14. To be honest this is probably how Europe needs to organise its defence.. essentially get nations into lanes.. the reality is there is no single big single nation fits all in Europe and a pan European EU led post U.S NATO would have danger of being perceived as weak due to a lack of focused decision making ( the EU is piss poor at swift decision). Where as a patchwork of responsibility with a lead nation could react swiftly to a threat.. then the wider alliance has time to get it bureaucratic ducks in a line.

    In the end a none US led NATO will only work if the UK, France, Italy and Germany agree who’s leading and focusing on what.

    • Come now dear Jonathan and pray tell us how long it took rEU to release the #90Bn to Ukraine, including the Slovak political ‘anker being put in his place and Hungary out of the picture?

      NATO does have to concentrate but this sounds like a sales pitch for more NATO navies to buy more T31/26, not a serious First 15 effort at rugby, especially given the parlous (non-existent?), state of the RN.

      • 2 years.. and that is my point. There needs to be swift decision making bodies..that have skin directly in the game.

      • The 9 partner nations haven’t just gone along with the UK; they have actively sought this partnership because it solves specific strategic problems that larger organisations like NATO sometimes cannot. For these countries, the UK is the natural framework nation because of its high-end military capabilities, carriers, nuclear subs, and logistics which these other nations lack but need for their own defence.

        Crucially, the JEF is a voluntary catalogue of forces, a nation like the Netherlands can choose to contribute ships to one JEF mission but sit out the next if it doesn’t align with their national interest. This menu-based approach makes it a low-risk, high-reward club to belong to. They are partners who view the UK’s leadership of the JEF as a vital insurance policy that complements their NATO membership while offering more agility.

        JEF is adapting, it’s a future-dated bet, the concept relies on the fact that while the UK’s physical fleet is at its low-water mark, the 9 partners are not just filling seats, they are bringing specialised power to the scrum. At this point the JEF neighbourhood is currently the most rapidly re-arming region in the Western world.

        JEF strategy is effectively a bridge. The partners aren’t just willing, they are invested, they know that if they help the UK through its parlous 5 year asset gap/transition trough, by providing the hulls while the UK provides the command structure, they end up with a combined force that is essentially a mini-NATO without the political red tape.

        They know that by using the UK’s high-end command, control and intelligence to lead a fleet that is currently 60-70% made up of their partner assets, that they are upgrading their entire national security posture. The UK provides Northwood and the tactical ‘brain’, it provides strategic depth through GCHQ, intelligence, satellites and a nuclear deterrent and has a ‘Tier-1 military framework’ that is respected worldwide, they respect the ‘institutional memory’ of a nation that has operated globally for centuries.

        As a core member of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, with the US, Canada, Australia, and NZ, the UK has access to a level of top-tier data that is simply unavailable to the other JEF members. Hence, the 9 partners are willing to overlook the UK’s parlous ship numbers because the intelligence the UK puts on the table is a major force multiplier. It tells them where the threats are before their own sensors can see them.

        While the UK is currently Tier 1.5 … it has a Tier 1 headquarter but only a Tier 2 warehouse (it lacks mass) however, the JEF partners aren’t bothered by the 1.5 label, they aren’t looking for the UK to provide 100% of the ships; they are looking for the UK to provide the GPS (C21) and the EMS so that their ships actually mean something in a crisis.

        The UK needs the JEF to remain relevant as a Tier 1(.5) power because its own fleet is currently too small to police the North Atlantic alone. By leading the JEF, the UK ensures that if a ‘scrum’ breaks out in the Baltic, it has 9 other players already wearing the same jersey … ideally players who bought their kit from a British supplier.

        Go … Grasshoppers RFC/Harlequins/Dark Blues/Australia A (Shadow Wallabies)/NSW Waratahs/Gordon RFC/Biarritz Olympique.

    • Jonathan.. Of the Countries you Mentioned, Only Germany is in any Financial Position to Spend Large Amounts of Money on Defence…! The Rest have Serious Debt Problem’s….! Not helping is the Higher Bond Intrests Rates due to the IRANIAN CONFLICT..!

  15. First Sea Lord might publicly state the JEF is a “complement” to NATO. However, its structure is a masterclass in strategic decoupling, giving the UK and its northern neighbors a way to act when NATO is paralyzed by domestic politics or internal vetos.

  16. another important sign of nato disintegration !

    the west should never have reneged on it’s assurances to russia it wouldn’t allow nato to spread eastwards, (see ‘nsarchive, what gorbachev heard’)

  17. High time, this has been a long time coming HMS Initiative to patrol our waters……oh no I misunderstood just another cluster of emails flashing around MOD pukes. Oh well, an initiative here..a forum there…the wheels keep turning until its pension time for all! I must say statement of intent is a bit aggressive and to the point for these guys. Went does an initiative become a statement of intent I wonder?

    • I’d say this is just in time but also a bit rich considering we can only send 5 Frigates and 1 SSN to sea as of today. Think about that for a moment. If we are lucky we might control the Channel, Irish Sea, Minch and Shetland waters although the Channel is doubtful.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here