Britain has announced an increased contribution to NATO, in response to Russian actions, at a summit in Madrid today.

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace MP said:

“We have always been clear that our strength and security comes from our alliances, and NATO is at the heart of that. The New Force Model and our presence in Estonia will ensure that the Alliance is able to respond at pace, helping to determine stability across Europe in the decades to come.”

The Ministry of Defence fleshed out the details in a news release:

“RAF Typhoon and F-35B Lightning fighter jets, Royal Navy vessels including Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers, and brigade-sized land forces will all be made available to NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) as part of the New Force Model.

NATO has introduced the New Force Model in support of Leaders’ decision to modernise and strengthen the NATO Force Structure for the future. Allies will declare capabilities, equipment and forces available to support SACEUR, ensuring they are in the right place at the right time. This will allow the Alliance’s military command to plan for emerging threats, safe in the knowledge that these assets will be available to take part in the Alliance’s response. The UK will also contribute to the new Allied Reaction Force: an agile, multi-domain and combat-effective force ready to deploy at very high readiness and to respond to a range of crises.”

The Ministry of Defence says that in addition to increasing its deployments to Estonia, since the Russian invasion the UK has also deployed hundreds of troops to Poland and sent more aircraft to conduct air policing in Romania. Meanwhile, HMS Prince of Wales has led the Alliance’s Maritime High Readiness Force since January 2022.

It comes as the Alliance has agreed a new posture of stronger forward defences to reflect the radically changed security context since Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.

“In response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the UK increased its presence in Estonia to include the temporary deployment of a second battlegroup, doubling the total number of deployed personnel to over 1,600. The lethality of these deployments will be enhanced with advanced capabilities including helicopters and artillery systems. Meanwhile, the UK’s existing HQ in Tallinn will be expanded. Led by a Brigadier, it will support the rapid deployment of high readiness forces at the brigade level.”

It is also stated that the UK will also support Estonia with training and logistics, the development of its first divisional-level HQ, as well as developing new ways of fighting through their joint hosting of the Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic European HQ.

George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. He also works for the NHS. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
115 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dave b.
Dave b.
1 month ago

Just wondering where the two new f35 squadrons will be based and how many planes would the contingent be ?

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave b.

Probably Lakenheath. USAF fast jet’s sqns can be up to 24 aircraft. Made up of 4 flight. But that number does vary. 👍

maurice10
maurice10
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

I’m sure it will be Lakenheath as it’s now F35 operational with improved infrastructure. However, some planes could operate from Marham as interoperability between Lakenheath is already in place.

Angus
Angus
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave b.

HMS HERON where else, perfect place.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

Yeovilton is pretty busy with WIldcats and Merlin, and has not operated fast jets bar some Hawks for years.

Angus
Angus
1 month ago

But still has capacity as we did it before with the SHAR’s Fleet there and talking 24 – 30 airframes which could all go southside. And really keeping all the eggs in one basket is not really a great idea at all.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

Of course, there is room to park them, but is there to operate?
When the Sea Harriers where there the Army Wildcats were not, are there hangers free? No idea.

Purely from an ops and security perspective why not use Boscombe, which has the HAS complex available which ironically was constructed for USAF F111s.

Agree on the basing all in one place. For several reasons. But I understand why they do it financially.

Darren hall
Darren hall
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

Brize Norton, Eggs in basket and one runway… couldn’t agree more…

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

It really is very busy there at present, I think there are around 9 squadrons with 100 is airframes. It’s got all 60+ wildcats, all 22 HC3/4 as well as T1s. It’s been massively built up since the harriers were moved, to take all the new army personal that moved down. Even if it had hanger space, it’s not got the space for accommodation and offices as they have built up all the old sports fields and spare land.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Correct.

John Stott
John Stott
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

Out of the question. Security is so tight around any F35 basing Lakenheath is the only choice.

Angus
Angus
1 month ago
Reply to  John Stott

Don’t you think we know how to secure our bases? Lakenheath is American anyway so our (UK) assets would not be based there. There are a few options and security is not the only consideration when choosing a basing option.

John Stott
John Stott
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

Yes I know a wee bit about security. I also know that Lakenheath is the only option for the USAF. And did I mention RAF assets being based at Lakenheath? Our base “security is actually a joke with the USAFE. Study the hoops we had to jump through before F35’s were based at Marham.

Angus
Angus
1 month ago
Reply to  John Stott

Then the RAF need to sort themselves out then. What else do they have the RAF Reg for? The RN does know a bit about it. Who else do you think looks after the nukes?

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave b.

I’m just wondering if the 2 extra F35 Squadrons may be F35B rather than A’s. To me that would make a hell of a lot of sense as the US Marines proved they can inter operate with us on the QE cruise. To all intents and purposes we would be providing an extra CAG for work on the NATO flanks.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 month ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Exactly the concept I was planning to propose. Whether DoD understands the rationale, difficult to predict…🤔

Cripes
Cripes
1 month ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

The USAF has confirmed the base is Lakenheath and the model is F-35A.

Don’t understand why we would hope for F-35B. They are based here to reinforce NATO in mainland Europe, primarily in the SEAD/interdiction role, for which the B has neither the range nor weapons payload. They are not here to fill the gaps on our carrier, that is our problem.

Rob
Rob
1 month ago

1) We need at least one more armoured Bde if we are going to rotate through Estonia.

2) The carrier ‘group’ will obviously have other NATO escorts but are the USMC making an F35B Sqn available?

3) We have sent 3 x M270 GMLRS to Ukraine and will send 3 more with our weapons being back filled from Norway. We still don’t have enough deep fires (Americanism alert) though. Surely the UK will now be procuring HIMARS for our own forces?

DanielMorgan
DanielMorgan
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob

The USMC has its hands full in the Pacific. The Cmdr of the Indo-Pacific command is screaming for F-35s to be based on Guam, which is US territory, and strategically a lot more important to the US than Ukraine.

Meirion X
Meirion X
1 month ago
Reply to  DanielMorgan

It would make more sense to base B21 in Guam. The F-35B does not have the range to reach China’s coast without a of refueling turns.
F-35B ideally needs a carrier to operate from.

Last edited 1 month ago by Meirion X
Andrew D
Andrew D
1 month ago

Think it maybe best to hang on to T1 Typhoons ,and Get some aircraft on those carriers 🙏

Jack
Jack
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew D

Or do what Spain has just done and order new aircraft.

Ianbuk
Ianbuk
1 month ago
Reply to  Jack

I would be ordering new ones if they can be delivered fast enough. A much better capability.

geoff.Roach
geoff.Roach
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew D

F35b’s only Andrew and we only have one squadron of eight aircraft to be shared between two carriers and the RAF. This is precisely what I’ve been arguing the case for for the last three years. Speed up the orders and the training and it’s all been don’t worry, no rush, wait for block4… Well, here we are . Now we need the aircraft and we haven’t got them.

Andrew D
Andrew D
1 month ago
Reply to  geoff.Roach

👍

Angus
Angus
1 month ago

UK Gov should follow Germany and provide some real cash to boost our current force levels with current fleets. STOP wasting money on kit that does not work or easy to support (AJAX). The Services are our Insurance Policy which is so very much lacking in what the UK Needs. Oh and to ensure old Vlad stops where he is send over that wee Scottish witch, as no one here wants her with her bonkers idea’s. One Oxygen thief there.

dan
dan
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

Never heard of someone suggesting that any country should follow Germany regarding defense issues. lol

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 month ago
Reply to  dan

Thats what I thought. The Germans have been utter laggards and been negligent with their defence forces to the point of being unable to fulfill NATO duties. Their crash program of investment was needed just to bring them upto an acceptable standard and despite this is years away until completed.
Therefore with respect I would not be comparing the UK with Germany just yet.

Matt
Matt
1 month ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Yep. DEs 100bn will backfill under 5 years of deficits relative to 2% .

And they have a now ludicrous approval process with Parliament having to approve items over 25 million Euro on an individual basis.

Cripes
Cripes
1 month ago
Reply to  dan

Interesting point of view Dan.

The number of Fast Jet Combat Aircraft fielded by the 5 main Western European NATO nations is:

Germany… 290
France… 251
Italy… 235
Spain… 165
Uk… 157

I’d suggest we could do worse than follow the lead of Germany and France, as the British total is downright embarrassing.

I better not total the armoured fighting vehicles comparison, where we are even more at the cow’s tail.

It gets tiring hearing this continual anti-German, anti-French, anti-Eutopean stuff from a handful on here, it is so 2016 tabloid.

Something Different
Something Different
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

Don’t agree with her but juxtaposing sturgeon and vlad doesn’t seem correct.

Regarding the budget Germany was at a low base so it needs to spend more. The UK in contrast has been spending north of 2% on GDP and has a multi purpose military as a result (should be bigger but still it’s not bad).

Simon
Simon
1 month ago

Given the amount of money our MOD (along with the Army in particular) have managed to waste over the years, maybe not such a bad idea !!

Ianb
Ianb
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

Angus, you are 100% correct, of course. When you look at percentage of GDP and national wealth dedicated to war fighting. We have never been better off in not having to fund large scale wars. Defence is our insurance policy and even at 2.5%, it’s a cheap policy. I am getting increasingly worried. China vs USA is almost an inevitability. It’s how the leading power has been challenged and fallen. China has such a large population that needs resources. If Russia hadn’t had so many nukes, you could bet your house Siberia would be on Beijing’s plans for expansion, it… Read more »

Marius
Marius
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

Follow Germany? 😂
They have for decades shirked their financial contributions to NATO!

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

Providing another £1bil to Ukraine. Fair enough since they’re the front line. As for political sensitivity or nonce, it’s reported as coming from the UK Devolved budgets. 🤔

Matt
Matt
1 month ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

Not quite aiui.

Part of it is from previous departmental underspend, including devolved underspend.

I can’t see a problem with the whole country contributing.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
1 month ago
Reply to  Matt

Agreed, Matt. But we are talking SNP, of course, a party that needs no reason to utilise ‘outrage’ in pursuit of one unending issue. This is ‘giving them one’ (issue, that is). The party started off as Independence for the sake of it, pre-war if I recall. Then when the UK agreed at Referendum, their current fav meme, on joining the Common Market, they objected because they did not want to join. I may have missed some ”issues’, but fast forward to the Independence Referendum, when we were in the EU with no real expectation of leaving and they were… Read more »

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
1 month ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

By the way, did not understand AIUI ’til looked it up. So above AIUI.
Rgs

Darren hall
Darren hall
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

Surely sending her to Russia would be a War Crime!!

Finney
Finney
1 month ago

These additional deployments are not sustainable in the long-run, and the carrier commitment is ridiculous, does that mean one active carrier always within 7 days of the Baltic?

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
1 month ago
Reply to  Finney

They may fudge it and have an Albion class cover the fleet commitment during maintenance.

Last edited 1 month ago by Watcherzero
David
David
1 month ago
Reply to  Finney

A carrier in the baltic sounds like a disaster in waiting….

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 month ago
Reply to  David

Agree a QE class should never go into the Baltics- too narrow, too shallow, too easily mined.
The QE can sit in the North Sea or northern Norway and fly its jets through to the Baltic states and provide air cover that way.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
1 month ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

I’m watching with interest the source of those jets.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago
Reply to  David

Sorry, my Friday rant, and still no news on increasing the defensive armament on these carriers with maybe 30/40/57mm, SEA launchers, decoys, Sea/Starstreak, CAMM or a fourth Phalanx…there’s a lot to choose from in addition to whatever EW is already on board. Try and bring forward the Aster-CAMM upgrades on the T45s a smidge if they can too if PIP is being accelerated.

Something Different
Something Different
1 month ago

Is it time to do the right thing and get up to BOAR levels of strength in Europe (3-4 armoured divisions). I think MBTs properly supported in combined arms units still are a valuable asset and their capabilities are not quite matched by other asset.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago

Press reports Erdogen has negotiated purchase of more F16s and upgrade kits in exchange for supporting Sweden and Finland’s joining NATO.

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

That sounds cheap at the price.

Quill
Quill
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Much more of a bargain than those political refugees in Sweden, they also know not to bite more than they can chew after calling the bluff witht he F-35 program and procurement of the S-400 showed that they would be sidelined if they were too greedy. I suppose it is still a great deal considering they have more leverage but they aren’t losing out a lot from this war, their military industrys bound to see a boost from other countries as a result of their drones.

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Quill

I think Erdogan has learned that playing NATO off against Russia may seem smart and devious but is actually spectacularly dumb. Turkey needs NATO at least as much as NATO needs Turkey.

Tams
Tams
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Erdogan didn’t look particularly happy. Though that might just be his resting bitch face.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Other reports focus on a possible ‘redefinition’ of terrorism by those two countries. If so, would appesr be a bit ‘mucky’? One man’s …….

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

Every Saint has a past and every sinner has a future….?

maurice10
maurice10
1 month ago

A troop recruitment drive will need to get underway with some vigour to ensure at least 100,000 UK army is quickly established. Hopefully, within 12/18 months this target could be achieved. Further recruitment should follow to establish an army of around 120,000? The daft headcount envisioned in the recent defence cuts needs to be thrown in the bin where it belongs.
CH2 needs armour standard upgraded with soft and hard-kill protection fitted with the utmost urgency. The initial systems may not be perfect but it’s imperative that CH2’s deployed to the mainland are protected as best as is practicable.

Sjb1968
Sjb1968
1 month ago
Reply to  maurice10

We could certainly try to recruit more personnel but where and how are they to be trained, housed and equipped. We have massively reduced our entire defence base in the last 20 years or so it is not a case of a quick splash of the cash and a recruitment drive. A decades old problem will take a long time to overcome and we really should focus perhaps where we can provide the quickest and most effective contribution. For example whilst more attack subs might be a great idea that has to be long term aim, whereas perhaps increasing the… Read more »

maurice10
maurice10
1 month ago
Reply to  Sjb1968

I don’t believe housing and equiping increased numbers of troops would be a big issue, as some bases earmarked for closure could be retained. Like most historical wars in Europe Britain has based its army there and that is already happening with rapid deployments in the wake of Ukraine. The UK army is too small and its armour too far behind its contemporaries, and that, I’m sure, will be addressed. The ‘fear cat’ is out of the bag and the British people will most likely understand the need to strengthen its defences, even at the cost of some social commitments.… Read more »

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  maurice10

The best way of gaining more funds would be growing the economy. That has not been very good recently. Call it brexit, lack of planning, development or whatever. Defence in the last 20 years has had a 6% real cut and during that time kit has only got more expensive. For the army to jump by a quarter in size would require at least as much in funding. New kit for them all etc etc. I don’t think the government will do it. I don’t even think boris’s bunch are going to give above inflation.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

I’d say another facet is we’ve become addicted to the peace dividend.
We were poorer during Cold War One but committed to sensible defence equipment levels, likely due to politicians and a Nation who had experienced the alternative (the Ukraine syndrome). Events deteriorating as they evidently are ought replace choice with necessity via remorse.

maurice10
maurice10
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

I think to some extent what we would prefer and the plain truth of the matter is at opposing ends of the yardstick. In some ways, the game changed yesterday in Spain and a plan put in place to mobilise NATO to a level not seen in many years. Britain is a key player and will make promises and commitments that will require a hike in spending, no matter how painful that will be to our balance of payments. The Army will grow and my estimation of around 100,000 is not inconceivable.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  maurice10

I totally agree that what was proposed in the nato Madrid meeting was important and needed. I just don’t think Britain is a big player. I will be really surprised if any uplift in army spending happens. The big players will be USA, Germany, Poland for ground forces. The smaller nato countries eg Baltic’s, Nordic countries will play an equally large part. I really really hope I’m wrong and some magic can be done with land forces. The British armies biggest contributions may well be light infantry with portable missiles and apache. After Baltic deployment is beefed up and made… Read more »

maurice10
maurice10
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Britain is probably the biggest player apart from the US in Europe at this point with France coming a close second. The uplift in the MOD’s budget is inevitable, it’s just by how much that is the big question? However, due to the UK’s leading role in tackling the supply of weapons and hard cash to Ukraine, we will find that events will demand the level of spending and that is very difficult to determine at this stage. No way will the UK play a lighter role in bolstering NATO’s new objectives and nor, should we.

Stu
Stu
1 month ago
Reply to  maurice10

Agreed.
One minor request: Before we attempt a recruitment drive, may I suggest a long hard look at the Company we pay to handle the recruitment for our armed forces…

Frank62
Frank62
1 month ago
Reply to  Stu

The blingingly obvious solution is to return it to the armed forces. Privatising/contracting out usually involves a high mark up first & foremost, then a bargin basement product. We’ve given the wrong people the helm for way too long.

Stu
Stu
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank62

👍🏼👍🏼

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 month ago

Stockpile in Estonia thousands of NALWS and enough ammo and smart munitions to make the Russian army look like a bunch of cowboys using 1970s equipment- which is exactly what they are. Estonia is a bit exposed- there must be a plan to reinforce the Baltic states. I think our Signit should provide enough early warning for NATO to crash deploy to the Baltic’s and Eastern flank the minute Russia announces any large scale “exercise in Belarus, or Western Russia. If NATO can improve its rapid reaction forces size and power and more crucially its ability to deploy this force… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Finland/Sweden now moving to NATO makes a massive difference to the small Baltic states. Effectively the Baltic now becomes a NATO sea and not somewhere Russia will be able to operate. The gulf of Finland is only 50 miles across. It would be no harder to re-enforce Estonia or provide air cover than it would be to do the same across the channel.

David
David
1 month ago

More and more commitments, but will there be sny increase in resources?

jason
jason
1 month ago

1000 troops how pathetic, how much of this supposed 300,000 force are we going to contribute to the security of europe? I would personally say we should be sending 50k with many armoured divisions but that would basically be our entire tiny military. This is getting embarrassing now Boris Johnson needs to step up and rebuild our army ASAP.

Last edited 1 month ago by jason
John Clark
John Clark
1 month ago
Reply to  jason

It’s not that easy Jason, sure, we could recruitment and basic train simple infantry fast enough, but that’s not what the British Army is today and they won’t be a lot of good to be honest. New recruits need to be technology minded, able to operate some very complex equipment highly professionally and be effectively employed in platoon up to Division level. This can’t be created overnight, it takes detailed and expensive training, coupled with constant practice, a couple of months basic training simply won’t hack it anymore, it needs to be steadily built up of the right people. The… Read more »

David Barry
David Barry
1 month ago
Reply to  John Clark

Another point to add, is that the officer cadre would need growing and that would take time – years in the multiple to get experienced combat credible officers both in teeth and CS, CSS arms. Logistics anyone?

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  jason

Currently it will be 1% of the 300,000 in Estonia and I presuming they will add in what the U.K. has at high readiness already.
Now adding in the navy and airforce etc that bumps it up a bit.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

But it shouldn’t just fall on the UK, Canada and USA- France and Germany need to match man for man our commitments- they are equal sized countries with similar defence budgets.
Time for France and Germany to put up or shut up.

Damo
Damo
1 month ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Canada also need to pull their finger out re GDP spend. Very interesting to hear a Canuck journo ask a question to Jens Stoltenberg yesterday by lambasting his own country’s “embarrassing” commitment to the 2% minimum

David Barry
David Barry
1 month ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

France supports Britmil in Estonia.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  jason

“with many armoured divisions” How many Armoured Divisions do you think we have? And how many do France Germany, and other comparable nations have? Previous to this announcement we were already a major contributor. You can have an army of a million but if it is just good at military parades and having shiny lines of equipment looking good with no clue, experience, professionalism and training how to use it then what’s the point? That is why the British Army, despite its procurement and equipment shortfalls, tends to be at the sharp end where others are nowhere in sight. Boris… Read more »

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago

Oh British forces are great at what they do. All the leaders would say we followed the trends, no enemy blah blah blah.

Cripes
Cripes
1 month ago
Reply to  jason

👍👍👍

Cj
Cj
1 month ago

Hi folks, this is a bit off topic, but has anyone else been keeping an eye on brics just noticed Iran and Argentina are applying to be part of it and was wondering if this is going to start being a threat to us at some point. Thanks for any answers in advance cheers.

Frank62
Frank62
1 month ago

Good. Didn’t work detering the Russian invasion of Ukraine, an all time tiny fleet with ludicrous capability gaps.

Ron
Ron
1 month ago

It’s all well and good spouting this that and the other but the UK as for that matter many NATO countries need to increase the defence budget. Strangly enough the UK is not in a very bad postion, definatly not as bad as Germany. From my point of view what does the UK need well lets start with the Army. The army needs a third armoured brigade, possibly a total of 280 MBTs (56 for training, maintance etc and 56 for a reserve brigade) giving 168 frontline, an extra brigade of artillery with two regts of possibly K9 Thunder and… Read more »

Paul42
Paul42
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron

Agree with the above, a lot could be achieved in a shortish time period! But in order to get anywhere we need a serious uplift in Defence spending matched with a Cold War style determination to get things done.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron

Nice list Ron, if I may I’d just add a few more P-8s. Wish the MoD and PM would consult the UKDJ website. Who know what might happen!?

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron

Interesting list, but it is all fine and Dandy providing the Army with extra Air Defence systems that will protect the army when forward deployed. But what about the U.K. itself, Putin has made clear we are Target No1.
So I would piggy back on the AA upgrades to Type 45 and build a U K land based Sampson system complete with a mix of CAMM-ER and Aster 30NT (then block 2 / 3 BMD). Start off by upgrading Portsdown with some land based silos to defend Portsmouth and Marchwood.

Steve M
Steve M
1 month ago

Well just when i hoped MOD Senior were starting to make sensible decisions………….sending a QE to the Baltic is just plain DUMB no where near enough sea room to carry out effective operations. Our escorts don’t carry enough weapons to be less than 30 minutes flying time from Russian territories.

ASW in the baltic is not done with tails in shallow conditions so need hull mounted sonar. QE’s and t-45 & t-26 are design for blue water Ops and keeping SLOC’s open. That is why none of the Baltic states have carriers just frigates, corvette, fast attack boats and MCM.

DMJ
DMJ
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve M

Where does it actually say that a QE is going into the Baltic?

DMJ
DMJ
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve M

Also see George’s Twitter clarification

Steve M
Steve M
1 month ago
Reply to  DMJ

Don’t do Social media period, just can see Carrier defend Nato Borders seeing as thats currently North Cape which would be be major escalation only other borders are at the end of the Baltic. If there is further info then happy to retract

Last edited 1 month ago by Steve M
Steve
Steve
1 month ago

Not sure why NATO needs a carrier to defend itself. All nations at risk of Russian invasion have neighbouring NATO nations, where it would be far safer to launch air attacks from. A carrier will always be a risk against subs.

Alabama Boy
Alabama Boy
1 month ago

There are plenty of friendly runways available for UK jets in any enhanced NATO posture. Why are we sending a very big carrier as well. Defending it against Russian missiles will require the constant attention of our best missile defence ships. Surely our ships are best hunting Russian subs and surface vessels.

Cripes
Cripes
1 month ago
Reply to  Alabama Boy

I think the imclusion of the carrier is just political spin to mask the fact that having lurched to an out-of-area naval strategy in the 2021 defence review, at the expense of land and air forces, we don’t actually have any forces we can contribute to the 300,000. We are talking of one infantry bn group of at most 1,000 troops, but stationed in the UK and necessarily drawn from some other formation, as we have no spare infantry battalions. The 3 based in out of area garrisons have now increased to 10, with the SFABs and Rangers posted out… Read more »

Alabama Boy
Alabama Boy
1 month ago
Reply to  Cripes

I agree with your comments. I have been calling for the suspension of all actions resulting from the flawed Threat Assessment used to support the Integrated Review and an urgent reappraisal be made. I fear the UK population is just not ready or prepared to take up the challenge that will result. Its good that a few are starting to come out in the open and call for more funding to be given to Defence.

Mark Franks
Mark Franks
1 month ago

I think we all know something has got to give. The planning assumption (SDSR) Frontline first and future soldier is not built around a long deployment and reinforcement. We were told the UK had moved away from a major land war posture because this was wars of old. We cannot in my opinion maintain the current commitments let alone sustain a further contribution. I also noticed at the NATO conference in Madrid that China is firmly fixed as a threat something I have said many times on this platform and that’s not without Iran and North Korea. The backroom planners… Read more »

Matt
Matt
1 month ago

Will US F35s provide backfill for interception of Russian probing missions into UK airspace, if our F35s are elsewhere?

What do US F35s do exactly, is – I guess – my real question.

Marked
Marked
1 month ago
Reply to  Matt

That’s a job for our typhoons not our F35s.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Matt

No. They are strike aircraft. The RAF 11 Group conduct QRA over Britain.
Legacy wise I did read once of Northrop F5s at Alconbury that could have helped 11 Group in the Cold War.

Paul T
Paul T
1 month ago
Reply to  Matt

The USAF F35A ,equipped with AIM-9X/AMRAAM is perfectly capable of Interception of any rogue Aircraft that enter UK Airspace but as the others have said that is the preserve of the RAF Typhoon QRA Squadrons,Strike is what it will be used for predominantly.

Last edited 1 month ago by Paul T