The United Kingdom’s commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was highlighted in a recent exchange between the Shadow Minister (Home Office) Holly Lynch and the Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace on June 9, 2023.
In a written question, Holly Lynch queried the Secretary of State for Defence on the measures being taken to ensure that the UK fulfills its NATO obligations.
In response, Ben Wallace emphasised the significance of the ongoing transformation within NATO, terming it as a “once-in-a-generation transformation” focusing on the critical threats of Russia and terrorism.
Ben Wallace stated, “Our commitment to NATO is unconditional and our contribution to deterrence and defence of the Euro-Atlantic will be delivered via credible, deployable and lethal warfighting capabilities into the NATO Force Model.”
He further elaborated on the steps taken to reinforce the UK’s commitment to NATO. As part of the new Regional Plans, UK forces will operate alongside NATO allies to deter aggression and defend NATO territory.
Wallace mentioned, “In the first year of these new plans, the UK will have enhanced our force posture in Estonia with rapid reinforcements on standby, have sent warships and fighter aircraft to south-east Europe and the Mediterranean and lead the inaugural very high-readiness Allied Reaction Force.”
Moreover, the Secretary of State for Defence asserted that the UK would continue to be an active participant in every NATO mission and pledge its nuclear deterrent to the alliance.
I’m absolutely, one hundred percent committed to winning the lottery. Seems the government use the same sort of language when talking about national defence.
HMG words are cheap & lightly used to muddy what’s actually going on. Look what they’ve been doing & continue to do for the real message.
I have often wondered about the UK nuclear commitment to the NATO alliance, the UK states that it’s SSBN are on NATO patrols but to my knowledge I have never heard this of the USA or France, does anyone know what it actually means? Is the UK deterrent integrated in to for example, US counter strike plans to take out Russians weapons in the ground in conjunction with US submarines.
I would suppose it’s to do with ( god help us if it ever happens) potential use in an article V situation, if Russia used nuclear weapons on a NATO member for example.
I really do stand by to be shredded for this but IIRC, SACEUR can request release of our SSBN payloads as part of a NATO response.
The French nukes are not under NATO command and do not take part in Nato deterrence. France is also not taking place in the nuclear planning group. With regards to the US, first of all, the US have assigned nuclear assets to be flown by Germany, Turkey, the Netherlands and some other countries taking part in the so called nuke sharing (I only know the german word, which means Nukleare Teilhabe). The nukes are stationed on foreign bases like Büchel in Germany, but hardly surprising in separate bunkers solely under US command. The nukes will be put onto German Tornados… Read more »
The US does not have the typhoon
NATO nuclear powers must work together in peace and war watching each other’s backs, training together etc. you would have thought.
The initial arrangement when we first got Polaris was that it was only for NATO.
The Prime Minister got in writing as part of that agreement that it can be used as a last resort as the UK sees fit.
Done somewhere in the Carribean I think, begam with an N pissibly.
Don’t get old, it is shite.
Nassau, Bahamas.
The Nassau agreement declared that the U.K. nuclear deterrent was dedicated to NATO except in exceptional circumstances. It was renewed for Trident.
To be fair precisely what constitutes exceptional circumstances is beyond me.
But I suspect it wouldn’t include Nuking a South American Country which doesn’t posses similar.
If the argentines destroyed the british fleet in the falklands war the Uk could say that is extreme circumstances. The Royal navy did carry nukes to the falklands during the war.
How were they going to deliver them? Don’t recollect Harrier being cleared for nukes. Only possible by SSBN.
Actually contemplated attempting to formulate a nuanced, unclassified answer; reconsidered almost immediately, value my freedom and pension too highly. Sorry.
Nato is a key part of the U.K. and worlds defence force. The U.K. also needs to maintain its independent force able to operate alone if needed.
As nato gets bigger it may have become harder to actually get things done quickly with all members.
NATO seems a bit pointless now. It is very limited to what would trigger a unified approach, as we saw with the Falklands. It’s only reason to exist has always been Russia, as they were always the only threat in the region covered. Now that no one seriously thinks russia is going to attack another country or is even capable of doing so, it’s easy to say your committed to it, as it brings no actual responsibility.
Steve that comment sounds like Russian disinformation. Firstly the Falklands, you say that illustrated the limited nature of NATO commitments. Are you genuinely suggesting that the whole of NATO should have gone to war with Argentina? A totally disproportionate response and one which the UK did not request. Those NATO members who could help did. France with data on weapons systems parameters and dissimilar ACT against Mirages and Etendards. The USA from diplomacy, to material (including brand new tech AIM-9Ls and satellite comms to putting the USS Iwo Jima on standby to be handed over to the RN if a… Read more »
In a word yes, if you have allies you expect them to be there when needed. Instead no one offered miltiary support. The US actively worked in the UN against us, trying to get US peacekeepers onto the island effectively taking over control. It was only once we committed to the fight that they partially backed us. The sidewinder topic is often misunderstood, we had access to a common pool and so had access to them, the US didn’t provide them out of support. The carriers was a token guesture as they knew we couldn’t crew them. We did get… Read more »
Oh my! without getting into a tit for tat I love the Falklands, I have friends and family who served there some of whom had friends who died there. I have friends who survived Sir Galahad. I’m not sure that I would have unleashed the whole of NATO on Argentina giving every power who wished a political excuse to portray NATO as a power hungry warmongering power bloc.
Imagine a different past where our allies all supported us and declared war on Argentina, including offering full miltiary support to regain British territory. The war would not have happened, as Argentina would realise they could not win and would have in all likelihood withdrawn. Instead we were left to go it alone and that caused many unnecessary deaths, on both sides. Even if the US had backed us in the UN we might have been able to avoid the war, as it would have made Argentina think twice about their actions.
Although, in fairness to our Allies, NATO and Article 5 is specifically written to cover the North Atlantic region, largely because Britain and France have territory literally all over the globe for which everyone else not least the US would ever want to go to war over.
So we weren’t left to go it alone, we chose to go – there was no obligation on the part of anyone else. The US couldn’t back us publicly; they had a much bigger fight in keeping communism out of South America…
When we have
Latvia – Baltic Sea
Bulgaria – Black Sea
Are you sure that NATO – new office in Japan, is confined to just the North Atlantic?
Article 5
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all”
The exact wording of the treaty. And the North Atlantic Region includes Europe. Also just to note David, did specifically talk about Article 5, not where NATO operates outside of that.
There we go with semantics. Article 5 is held up as the Shield from Death, aka the three musketeers all for one.. In fact, it actually says that MS will consult and decide what to do next. So an attack on Guam could be construed as an attack on NATO MS and the US would try to invoke MS’s into a war with China. Now might be a tin foil hat moment. Where Taiwan is going in the next five years is so unpredictable and Russia may just have nudged China off her preferred invasion plans. On the other hand,… Read more »
It’s article 6 that sets the boundary north of the Tropic of Cancer in the European or Atlantic area.
The US states that it considers Hawaii and Alaska to be covered but I don’t believe it’s ever been ratified.
I’ll bow to your knowledge- that quote came from the NATO website under Article V though. Interesting that they set it out more definitively
Well they were talking about 1982 not today.
Very much a US idea on the Euro Atlantic focus of NATO that may come back to bite them if China starts lobbing missiles at Guam, I can see several NATO countries questioning their commitment to defence of the US in the pacific in the event of a war with China.
Ironic how Rusian/Cuban & CCP are making major political inroads across S America recently. China is the one to watch.
There were 55(?) very unnecessary deaths on the landing ships – that wasn’t Argentina, it was Guards Braid who foxtrot uniformed.
Atlantic Conveyor, I’d posit was one of two reasons:
1. Sacrificial lamb or
2. Poor communication.
Atlantic Conveyor was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The Argentinian super eternard strike jets were trying to hit one of the carriers. The missiles got deflected by chaff from the carriers screening frigate and locked onto the next large target their radar detected eg Atlantic Conveyor. As a large decked conveyor ship acting as an auxiliary carrier you would hope that a modern day equivalent would have had CIWS protection. The lesson from her sinking is large merchantmen of high importance should have RN pods CIWS, SHORAD, defensive guns. The 40mm Bofors mounts for example could… Read more »
Mr Bell
That’s not true. Simply, very untrue. She was in the right place and at the right time. She took the hit.
The war would not have happened had Thatchers government not cut & planned to cut so much of our fleet, That gave Galtieri the impression(correct at the time) that we weren’t serious about protecting Falklanders. Policy only changed when they invaded & Thatcher realised her mistake. John Nott resigned as the one responsable for championing & driving those cuts.
I do t get your logic there are a whole range of European Cou tries which would not be able to put up a resistance to Russia that Ukraine has. Indeed even Ukraine can only do it due to the organised nature of NATO and the fact the countries within it know they can help while being covered by the whole against potential retaliation. Ignoring nuclear weapons the reality is not one single Country in Europe could realistically resist Russia (at least as it was prior this war) without the support of others helping to defend it. Equally while not… Read more »
It’s not NATO that has supported Ukraine it’s the individual nations. That support would have still been there without NATO. It doesn’t require a miltiary threaty for nations to cooperate in their own interests.
If that was a miss type then it is a corker. You may just have have nailed a single word to describe the NATO treaty.
Seriously it is a “Threaty”, it is a Treaty that Threatens specific actions to deter someone who is Threatening you.
When you say it out loud it even sounds right.🤔
Steve, you do know the only occasion since 1949 that Article 5 was triggered, right? …and that had nothing to do with Russia.
Yes I do, and it failed as not all nations reacted to it. Mainly because it wasn’t really an act of war as no state actor was involved and so act of war by whom. Additionally it was almost triggered due to the posioning in Salisbury (an act of war on UK soil, what I have seen it meets the internationally accepted definition) and wasn’t, partially because Boris was too busy partying with his russian mate to actually turn up to the meeting and partially because NATO was realistically powerless to act and partially because it wasn’t in anyone else’s… Read more »
I dispute that Article 5 failed. Within a few hours of 9/11 the North Atlantic Council met and the Sec Gen of NATO (Lord Robertson) confirmed that Article 5 applied (the killing of 3,000 people by an international terrorist group was considered to be an act of war even if you don’t think so). Article 5 text did not specifically say that the attack had to be by a state actor. All representatives consulted with their Governments. Op Eagle Assist was swiftly launched which provided NATO AWACS to augment US assets over US airspace – 13 nations provided 830 personnel… Read more »
13 out of 30 nations. My point is the whole attack on one is an attack on all clearly didn’t apply. Most of the ones like the UK would have helped out with or without NATO being involved.
Not sure you read all my reply Steve. All 30 agreed that Artile 5 applied. Article 5 does not mean all 30 nations immediately go to war. It means the 30 members Governments decide how to respond and what action as deemed necessary – it is not neccessarily armed force. Text: “if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties,… Read more »
So do we think there would have been a 20 year response for anyone else in NATO or maybe not?
Not sure I follow your point. You are talking about the 20 years that western forces were in Afghanistan? From 2001 – 2021?
All 30 NATO nations deployed with ISAF to Afghan plus 12 non-NATO, for varying periods of time in that 20 years.
So what is the point again?
Hi Graham, sorry didn’t make it clear, do you think we would get the same reaction for other members of nato? I’m all for NATO but sometimes feel reactions might be different for different countries, if Britain had gone article 5 with the poisoning of people in this country do you think NATO would have gone to war with Russia cheers.
I don’t think UK would have lobbied for calling of Article 5 ie to agitate for the whole of NATO to take on Russia due to the death of Dawn Sturgess, whereas c.3000 people were killed in 9/11 and half of New York City (the second city in the homeland of the most major NATO contributor) was wrecked. I don’t mean to play down the Salisbury incident, as a WMD agent was used but it was not released so as to cause mass casualties, and Russian intent was to kill a single defector. 9/11 was several orders of magnitude more… Read more »
Yeah totally agree with you they’re not comparable for article 5, I also agree about trump let’s hope he doesn’t get near the presidency again it is kinda worrying how anti nato he is, thanks for taking the time to answer.
Which NATO country did not help with ISAF?
No idea but the post above said 13 did, which means 17 didn’t.
Yes, my point is you cant name them and your post above is wrong:
Here is a list of NATO countries that contributed troops to ISAF:
Albania, Belgium Bulgaria Canada Croatia Czech Denamark Estonia France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland (Yes Iceland provided a small contigent) Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxemburg Montenegro Netherlands Norway Poland North Macedonia Portugal Romania Solvenia Slovakia Spain Turkey the UK and the US.
Now, please list the 17 NATO member’s that are not on that list, because I’d love to find out how NATO gained 17 members without me noticing.
Here you go here are the 30 NATO countries. A few joined since but most were there at the time. Well 31 as Finland joined this year.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52044.htm
^Completely missed the point.
Also ISAF was under a UN mandate, so I don’t know how many of them 17 went under NATO and how many waited for the UN mandate. Would need to check each country individually. The US and UK went under NATO is all I know.
https://www.911memorial.org/learn/resources/digital-exhibitions/digital-exhibition-revealed-hunt-bin-laden/international-community-responds
The post said that 13 NATO nations contributed to Op Eagle Assist in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and all 30 NATO nations deployed forces to ISAF, Afghanistan.
They all did – all 30 NATO nations plus 12 non-NATO nations.
13 of the 30 nations contributed specifically to the AWACS mission (Op Eagle Assist) over the USA homeland.
Thanks Graham, I completely forgot Eagle Assist was a thing tbf.
Yep. It involved 7 NATO E-3 AWACS. I have only just heard of it.
If China levels Guam, that will invoke a NATO response – hope you have lots of Skin Factor 1,000,000 applied.
Is Guam in the scope of NATO?
Also what has that got to do with the UK, it’s a US overseas territory not UK.
Plus if things go nuclear it’s the end of the world anyway so mute point.
Edit: it’s outside NATO
US Territory. Instant Article 5.
(Run for the hills, I’m from Cumbria 😉 )
I checked and it’s specifically excluded, as is Falklands and all our overseas territories.
So it would not trigger article 5 but clearly allies would act together as it’s the US.
Thank you Steve.
No it’s not, article 6 specifically mentions the areas article 5 covers and Guam is clearly excluded just as the Fakland Islands were, more of an argument for Hawaii being a state but it would be pretty easy for a number of NATO countries to wriggle out on a technicality. Article 6 For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack: on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey… Read more »
Article 5 of NATO treaty has always been geographically limited. Territories south of the tropic of Cancer are excluded from the mutual obligation, so the Falklands never qualified. NATO did seem to become less important after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but Putin’s aggression has re- invigorated it. The collective military and economic power of its now expanded membership make it a more effective deterrent organisation than ever before.
All active NATO operations have been since the fall of the USSR – Bosnia, wider Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. So, NATO gained in importance.
Yeah I know but that’s my point, NATO is now pointless as there is no threat. The threat was always Russia and it now is having its Vietnam, it won’t be a realsitic conventual miltiary threat to europe again in my life time. It doesn’t have the money to rebuild as most of its kit was upgraded soviet stuff.
It’s immensely important in that it binds the two most economically powerful units on the planet together. The sanctions that can be brought to bare by both Europe and North America operating together are immense. Probably even more off putting for an aggressor that it’s combined military might which is also immense.
Because the US famously became a declawed Tiger after Vietnam?
It kinda did for 30-40 years after it, they didn’t really get involved in any direct military action.
So you mean besides Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, the Bombing of Libya, the First Gulf War, Somalia, Bosnia, the Iraqi No Fly Zone, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq (again), Somalia (again), Lybia (again) and Syria right?
(All those happened in the 40 years after Vietnam btw)
Mate stop pushing Russian propaganda. You know full well if the Baltic states were not in nato they be invaded like Ukraine was. To say otherwise is daft.
What? There are multiple Eastern European counties not in NATO that haven’t been invaded. The logic doesn’t add up. I never said it wasn’t value for the eastern European states, I questioned the value to the UK. 2 years ago and I would fully agree for these counties they needed NATO but things have changed and Russia is no longer a threat to anyone. It’s having its Vietnam moment and will take decades to recover from it. We will never know but I suspect if afgan/Iraq mess hadnt happened the US would have deployed into Ukraine before the war started… Read more »
You are forgeting that the US invoked article 5 on 911 and also the US did not back the UK in the falklands war till the last minute. It nearly betrayed UK by giving intelligence to the argentines. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303816504577313852502105454
I am at a bit of a loss as to why the Baltic states, Finland and now Sweden joined and want to join NATO if Russia offers no threat🤔
They triggered the process right at the start of the war, when no one was certain if Russia could get their act together or not. If they had done and steamrolled Ukraine the conversation would be very different. My point is really what benefit does NATO bring to the UK. No country is any threat to the mainland of the UK, now Russia is a spent force (let’s ignore nuclear threat as NATO can’t stop that and ignore Russia messing around with undersea cables etc as NATO wouldnt risk nuclear war over that) and NATO doesn’t cover any of our… Read more »
It brings a great excuse for politicians to take a half arsed approach to managing the countries military….
The easy answer to that is it provides a level of security for us in this world that is getting more bonkers by the day! I’ll flip your question though if I may, what would NATO lose and exactly what would we gain by leaving NATO?
For the US, NATO is pointless in a military scenario, 1 the US military is 80% of NATOs strength and 2 if the US was attacked do you think the UK wouldn’t get involved anyway article 5 or not so that’s 2 out of 3 strongest militaries in NATO.
Same with the UK, Article 5 or not if mainland UK was attacked, the US would be fighting with us and you’d think France would too, so again the 3 strongest militaries are acting together.
The actual gain is for the Easton European nations now, article 5 ensures their boarders
I don’t agree that NATO is pointless for the US – unless you have a Trumpian view!
The US received collosal support from NATO allies post 9/11, especially in regard to setting up the operation in Afghanistan and delivering it for 20 years.
The US can no longer run a war on two fronts alone – NATO enables that to be a possibility if Article 5 is invoked.
45,000 troops from the brits when the US invaded Iraq in 2003 is not to be sniffed at either.
Very true. The ‘glass half empty’ brigade said that the US did not ‘need’ our forces – well US forces would have taken objectives slower and with more casualties if we had not been alongside.
Perhaps more to the point, it was politically useful for the US President to have a strong ally, especially when there wasn’t a strong international concensus for military action.
…and we must not forget our contribution to the US-led earlier Gulf War too.
Nato is important for US hegomony but it is also important to stop a strong power from steam rolling across europe like the germans did in 1940. You say the UK is safe from attack without nato i beg to differ, history proves you wrong twic.
lol
The NATO agreement does not include out of area possessions.
True – that is a responsibility of the ‘administering or supporting power’.
“Now that no one seriously thinks russia is going to attack another country”
What about Ukraine? What about Georgia? What about all the threats Putin’s made against neighbours & NATO, including nuclear threats? Russia may be weak, but unstable & demonstrably reckless. Had NATO & article V not existed it is highly likely Poland & the Baltic states would’ve been attacked too. Despite being weaker than we should be, NATO is effective, just not enough to have detered the 2nd invasion of Ukraine last year. Decades of cuts after cuts made Putin & Xi feel very bold.
“ Now that no one seriously thinks russia is going to attack another country or is even capable of doing so, it’s easy to say your committed to it, as it brings no actual responsibility”. Do you really read what you wrote? Ukraine was attacked and invaded. If the baltic states were not part of nato Russia would have attacked them for sure, then poland, picking eastern european countries off one by one. No way would russia do that now because of nato. However Nato is important for US hegmony.
Why would the Shadow Home Office Minster have raised a question like this? Very much outsder her brief. Why was she doubting our resolve to NATO? We virtually founded NATO and have always committed the vast majority of our forces to NATO, have participated in NATO operations and been on probably every NATO exerscise that has ever taken place.
Shadow is a man.
In the voice used at the start of the TV cartoon:
Hong Kong Phooey:
“Could be”
Article says it was Holly Lynch MP. Not many chaps called Holly!
You have to love politicians the masters of saying nothing even though they speak for hours. Committed ! most probably should be. Just wish they would provide all 3 Services with the kit needed to carry out the tasks. The MOD are also masters of own issues, always trying to get more and more from bits of new kit making them stupidly expensive so numbers get less and less.
Very odd question to come from a Shadow Home Office minister. And I can’t help but think that someone is pre-empting something. BW has as usual given it a straight bat, official answer so it is now in Hansard and available for future reference. Now I’m just wondering if this is a deliberate political move in advance of the U.K. being put in a very uncomfortable position regarding Defence Spending. If we consider the last year and the changes that have ensued since Putin launched his invasion we see a constant and continuous chain of uplifts in expenditure, cooperation and… Read more »
Well there is sophistry in his answer.
The UK does not participate in every NATO mission / stroke exercise.
We were due to take the Very High Readiness command – which means warships/Bns/Squadrons being multiple hatted.
Inaugural? Not sure about that.
The question came from a Shadow Home Office Minister – not Defence. Why?
Labour are far too quiet on Defence, that is of concern and very worrying and my apologies to Daniele for that.
It is a pretty clever question to ask as it effectively pre-empts any perception that Labour is anti defence and anything other than pro Ukraine. A lot of odd things going on in Labour at present, the TU’s seem to be very quiet about Defence and the Left wing is silent. I’d give odds that they are betting that in 18 months time they win the General Election and the Ukraine war is still going on. So in order to nullify any left wing shenanigans they would prefer it if the Tory Government had boosted Defence beforehand. If NATO up… Read more »
There have been news articles re a potential effort by select NATO members, some named, others preferring anonymity, to raise the floor of defense spending to 2.5% of GDP, on an expedited basis, at the NATO summit in July. Uncertain how credible these accounts are. Reasonably certain this action would cause significant discomfiture in selected capitals.
Fascinating description of potential intra-party machinations. Worthy of Machiavelli.
Like your add on, could you put some names to those countries please ? I’d guess Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Norway, Sweden. The thing is US, Greece, U.K, France and Germany already are above or nearly there and the rest will find it hard to argue against it due to Ukraine. Canada, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium and Spain will hope no one notices them being very quiet. IMHO if it happens this could be a massive game changer on a Global strategic scale not just in NATO. If all of the NATO countries spend a minimum of 2.5% then given the… Read more »
Believe Poland, the Baltic states and selected others (unrecalled) were listed as supporting the 2.5% threshold. The NATO summit is scheduled during July (in Villnius?); each member will reveal tt’s position during the course of the meeting. Wonder whether scheduling the summit in a frontline state was based random chance or a result of deliberate intent? 🤔
Have a read of this regarding NATO conferences.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50115.htm#:~:text=Although%20they%20do%20not%20follow,at%20times%20applied%20exceptional%20measures.
big bang on the war drum, bipartisan support for upcoming deployment
They need to invest more in the RFA.
Would have thought that their manpower shortage is right at the top of the priority list. Needs a bit of fast creative thinking/action to start putting it right, and keeping it there.
Yes,definitely mate.
5 years RFA service for
Immigrants gets them a passport.
Or 5 years clears student debt.
5 years gets u a guaranteed access to a mortgage for an average house price where you live or a nice council house when ur finished.
Free iPhone on sign up.
There’s loads of ideas to get folks in to a role.
Also instant service instead of the massive waiting time to join up.
You’ve sold it to me!
Yes, I’d say above all.
No Fleet Replenishment Ships at all at present.
Short sighted cuts. if we want to keep a globally deployable RN, they are going to have to get their finger out.
I don’t think they give a s**t, sadly.
Not sure if you’ve seen it, but a very interesting article over on TPL wrt whether or not the RN can still be classed as a ‘blue water’ navy given the current state of the RFA? Makes for some uncomfortable reading.
Tpl?
Ah sorry, it’s a site called ‘Thin Pinstriped Line’.
Sorry! I’m stupid.
That’s ok, we are all allowed a ‘senior’ moment occasionally!😩
Of all the necessary components of a blue water navy the mere fact that we are talking about the RFA as the missing component speaks volumes. It is the least difficult gap to plug – necessary yes but resolvable. So far as the RN is concerned we are getting there the glass is 3/4 full not half empty
You would have thought that this is the least difficult gap to plug so to speak, but it appears not to be the case. The manpower issues seem to be a longstanding issue, with the RFA seeing a 30% reduction in manpower over the last few years.
Not sure that the Navy is getting there on a glass 3/4 full either! Going down to 4 oilers (2 Waves potentially being sold) doesnt seem the smartest of moves when we are looking at increasing our deployments. The DR paper due later this month should be interesting.
Yes if you have a problem with recruitment or retention selling the assets can’t seriously be the solution. The armed forces generally is in need of a one off re-assessment of remuneration although that seems unlikely in the current climate as virtually every public sector organisation needs the same. I am hoping that someone has a cunning plan let’s see.
Wiki says that RFA has 13 vessels of which the two Wave class are in extended readiness – but surely the Tide Class can do their job?
I take it the real situation is less good?
Hi Graham, both the Waves and Tides are tankers, its more about numbers then anything else. If as alluded to, the Waves are sold, that will be a 30% reduction in the tanker fleet. Doesn’t leave much resilience with all the tasking they receive. One with a task group, one with NATO, one on HADR duties in the Caribbean, one in maintenance. You get the picture especially with Ft Vic our only Solid stores ship also suffering manpower issues. It means that the RN is now reliant on allies for more help in keeping assets deployed from our shores, whereas… Read more »
Thanks Deep. Alarming, especially making do with only one solid stores ship – not an act of war as we used to say.
I think the Navy may have lost its claim to be a Level 2 bluewater navy in regard to long duration operations.
It’s a particularly annoying and frustrating issue that could/should be relatively easy to fix, at no real significant cost either. We are due to get 3 new FSSS to replace Ft Vic over the next decade, so unless we show some improvements in both attracting manpower and their retention, no idea how they intend to man them! It’s unbelievable really, as the fix is as cheap as chips in the grand scheme of things. It’s almost as if this is deliberate, an attempt to reduce the size of the RFA, thus indirectly reducing the size of the Navy because we… Read more »
No, haven’t seen it, I do usually follow him though. I’ll take a look. 👍
Or at best, one ageing one. the two Waves are younger ships
Yes, I’d seen on NL Twitter Fort Vic was laid up at Leith so assumed not operational for a while.
The 2 Waves I thought were Tankers providing fuel and water, not solid stores or munitions, so not Replenishment ships.
Yes they’re much younger, and I think double hulled.
915 tons of dry stores on a Wave. but not a replenishment ship, I was thinking more along the lines that they are younger ships and laid up. there does seem to be a bit of debate on Navy lookout that Fort Vic isnt is a bad a state as is being claimed. Crews seem to be a major issue
Oh, so they do have some dry stores, handy, I did not know that.
Yes, I’ve read conflicting reports on her.
Ideas to boost recruitment such as listed by MS further up thread seem so logical to me.
Rolls Royce Submarines in Derby announces its submitting planning request for its Raynesway site to double its reactor production capacity to produce AUKUS and increasing the divisions 4,000 staff by 1,170.
https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/our-stories/discover/2023/rr-submarines-to-create-jobs-and-expand-site-in-derby.aspx
No absolutely not RR here in Derby is focused purely on military production for MOD and friend.
SMR is a different product and will produced separately hence we have Rolls Royce SMR.Ltd. The project is on track and now in step 2 of GDA and if it passes regulatory approval then we may see the 1st SMR factory being built on one of the shortlisted sites. And that is when we will see some very squeaky bottom moments in HMG re actually funding U.K. Civilian Nuclear plans via Great British Nuclear.
Well talking about real, tangible commitment to defence, here in Derby Royces have announced the expansion in facilities, manpower and training to build the Nuclear Power plants for all future RN and RAN boats. It was pretty well leaked before in March but today it is now official and it is a doubling of the site and an extra 1700 new staff. https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/our-stories/discover/2023/rr-submarines-to-create-jobs-and-expand-site-in-derby.aspx What isn’t mentioned are the financial details, so watch out for an official announcement in Parliament (tomorrow ?). It may surprise / shock some folks. Clyde, Rosyth, H&W, Barrow, Derby all receiving significant financial investment to secure… Read more »
Good stuff. WZ above has also been sharing these stories regularly.
Is the party in opposition actually aiding the party in “power”?
It seems to be a pre-arranged question.
why would partisan politicians get together on defence unless we all needed to get behind our blokes doing some rough things in the near future
Good question.
Press tour of the Tempest development facility at Warton, detailed description of the tech on show including a new engine intake. Interestingly Tempest is going to use the Martin Baker Mk16A in common with the Eurofighter rather than a newer ejector seat model. Also reporter notes the engine intake alone is around 10m, that could well mean we are looking at a 19/20m+ aircraft.
https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/uk-reveals-rapid-progress-on-sixth-generation-fighter-demonstrator-effort/153690.article
Given the suggestion that the unit price of the USAF NGAD Sixth Gen fighter may cost “multiples” of the unit price F35, I’m wondering how the Tempest is going to come in significantly below such an pricetag yet still be a full 6 gen fighter?
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2023/06/13/as-it-plans-ngad-fighter-pentagon-must-learn-from-past-failures/
With the capabilities set out its looking like NGAD will be more of a bomber size than fighter sized aircraft, loaded up with a large number of internally stored missiles and daughter drones. Some are speculating a 3 man crew with pilot, co-pilot and dedicated drone operator. Think somewhere between a supersonic B-21 and a B-1.
I bet Putin quakes in his boots at the ever shrinking UK armed forces contribution to NATO. If we want him to take notice & be detered, we should be adding force, not diminishing them.