Why Britain needs to maintain its presence in both the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific.
The Royal Navy faces a pivotal challenge over the coming decades: balancing its commitments to the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific theatres. As global power dynamics continue to shift in unpredictable ways, the strategic imperatives in these regions will demand the careful allocation of limited naval resources to ensure stability, influence, and flexibility.
This article is the opinion of the author, Dr Emma Salisbury, Research Fellow in the Sea Power Laboratory at the Council on Geostrategy and Associate Fellow at the Royal Navy Strategic Studies Centre. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
In the Euro-Atlantic theatre, the resurgence of Russian maritime activity, grey-zone activities in the Baltic, and heightened tensions in the Arctic underscore the need for robust NATO collaboration. Key considerations include submarine warfare, maritime domain awareness, and securing critical undersea infrastructure, all of which the Royal Navy should be well-placed to contribute to. This region remains central to the United Kingdom’s (UK) collective defence obligations under NATO and to the British continuous at-sea deterrent.
Simultaneously, the Indo-Pacific theatre presents challenges driven by China’s naval modernisation and expansion, territorial disputes in the South China Sea, and the need to uphold a rules-based international order. The Royal Navy’s engagement through carrier strike group deployments, offshore patrol vessel basing, and AUKUS reflects a growing commitment to this region in recent years, known as the “tilt” to the Indo-Pacific.
The election of a new government in Westminster has presented an opportunity for a comprehensive reassessment of the challenges confronting the UK. Informed by the policies of preceding administrations, the government of Sir Keir Starmer, Prime Minister, is looking to refine national security strategies to meet the current moment. Starmer’s emphasis on mission-driven government underscores the necessity of advancing economic growth while defending the nation and reducing strategic dependencies within a volatile global landscape. Given the historical and contemporary significance of maritime strength to the UK, sea power remains central to the realisation of these objectives. The UK’s reliance on maritime capabilities for security, energy, trade, and broader economic prosperity underscores the Royal Navy’s critical role in ensuring the protection of national interests.
The Royal Navy is increasingly stretched as it confronts mounting geopolitical and strategic demands. The challenge posed by revisionist states such as the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Russia, Iran, and North Korea, coupled with threats from non-state actors such as the Houthis, has necessitated an expanded operational remit. As global geopolitical uncertainty intensifies, the risks to critical economic and strategic maritime infrastructure continue to grow. These include vulnerabilities in maritime communication lines, subsea cables, energy pipelines, and offshore wind farms, which are integral to sustaining the UK’s economy and energy security. Ensuring the resilience of these critical assets necessitates a reassessment of British maritime strategy and an enhancement of naval capabilities to maintain strategic deterrence and security.
Despite the Royal Navy’s leadership and technological advancements, it is evident the fleet size of the 2020s remains insufficient to meet the mounting challenges confronting the UK. While Britain possesses a range of sophisticated maritime capabilities, the Royal Navy’s numerical limitations constrain its ability to maintain a broad global presence and respond to the intensifying threats posed by geopolitical competition. The emerging reality of multi-domain conflict underscores the imperative for a reassessment of fleet composition and strategic investments. Without substantive policy interventions to address capability gaps and fleet expansion, the UK’s ability to safeguard, let alone advance, its strategic interests may be compromised. As geopolitical landscapes continue to evolve, the prioritisation of sea power remains essential for preserving national security, sustaining economic prosperity, and asserting influence in an interconnected and contested global order.
The forthcoming Strategic Defence Review and the accompanying strategic documents will answer the core question of whether the UK will look to maintain its contributions in both the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific theatres, or look to a more focused presence in the Euro-Atlantic. The two theatres are, however, not as separate as many imagine, and the UK’s interests in the Indo-Pacific cannot be easily divorced from those in closer waters. A comprehensive strategy balancing both theatres, allowing both a strong commitment under NATO in the Euro-Atlantic and the leveraging of deployments and relationships in the Indo-Pacific, would be in the best interests of British security.
It remains to be seen whether the Royal Navy will expand its presence in both theatres or recalibrate its focus towards a more concentrated role in the Euro-Atlantic region. However, by leveraging relatively low-cost deployments like those of HMS Tamar and HMS Spey, as well as carrier strike group missions and multilateral initiatives like AUKUS, the Royal Navy can operate within its means and meet commitments in the Euro-Atlantic while also collaborating with regional partners to maintain stability in the Indo-Pacific. Crucially, such engagement enhances the regional states, allowing them to strengthen their own security and governance frameworks. This strategic positioning allows Britain to contribute to regional security, reinforcing a balanced approach to Indo-Pacific engagement that aligns with broader international security objectives while also maintaining a central position within NATO in the Euro-Atlantic. It is not a matter of either or, but rather of both.
Dr Emma Salisbury is the Research Fellow in the Sea Power Laboratory at the Council on Geostrategy, and an Associate Fellow at the Royal Navy Strategic Studies Centre.
We all know the RN is stretched too thinly, even the powers that be know it yet all we see is cuts and Jam. When will we start to see hardware ?
I just came across this amazing way to earn $6,000-$8,000 a month online! No selling, no struggle—just a simple system that anyone can follow. Kelly Richards did it, and so can you! Don’t miss out on this life-changing opportunity.
Check it out now!….. 𝐖𝐖𝐖.𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐑𝟏.𝐂𝐎𝐌
I Get paid 0ver $150 per hour w0rking from h0me. I never thought l’d be able to d0 it but my colleague makes over $ 15415 a m0nth doing this and she convinced me to try. The p0ssibility with this is limitless.
SEE MoRE HERE…..>>> 𝐖𝐰𝐰.𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭𝟏.𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞/
I just started 3 weeks ago this web income system that my friend recommended to me and I’ve gotten 2 checks for a total of $9,200…this is the best decision I made in a long time! This extra cash has changed my life in so many ways, thank you!”
HERE_____ 𝐖𝐖𝐖.𝐇𝐈𝐆𝐇𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐅𝐈𝐓𝟏.𝐂𝐎𝐌
in an Ideal world there would still be a royal navy presence on Ireland island in the old naval base on Bermuda it is ideally located for a squadron of fast boats to get stuck into the drug running. id also love to see the ambition to resssurect the Mediterranean fleet based at Gibraltar. it’s okay to dream. but a carrier, a couple frigates and a T45. iin today’s world , not beyond doable and would raise the profile of the RN and the nation itself
do we show any more than pipe dream but we used to be the leader in innovation. nowadays we are fixated with fly b night projects protest ( can’t do anything except phone home) motherships and crow about things that have already had millions of £ thrown into with no visible benefits.
When T26 and T31 start to enter service. The escort fleet will at least be back up to 19, and be much more capable. Along with the T45 weapons upgrades.
More capable than it is now at 13/14, but it was plainly obvious that 19 was too few escorts even in the most benign peacetime. Things are Much more dangerous today & world events probably won’t wait for HMG/MOD to slowly pull its finger out.
Make do and mend, the answer to every thing. Its not changed and never will. We can do much and are very good at it we simply just do not have enough kit or people to be all a government demands of the Navy/military its do everything with next to nothing.
Yeah continue to vote for the main two and there’s no surprise is there!
I am not aware of a single party planning anything very much on defence. Who are you proposing we all vote for?
Everybody can earn 250$+ daily… You can earn from 10000-15000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good earning opportunity..
go to this site home tab for more detail thank you…… 𝐖𝐖𝐖.𝐍𝐄𝐓𝐏𝐀𝐘𝟏.𝐂𝐎𝐌
Well Mark, judging from yesterday’s local elections it looks like Nigel Farage for PM. I’ve no idea about Reform’s policy on defence but I think Farage is probably right when he says he speaks for the silent majority.
Ah yes, the silent majority. Since you’re saying that Farage speaks for the ‘silent majority’, this group must therefore be pro-Trump & pro-Putin and keen to turn our healthcare system into a paid-for/insurance model?
I can still see Reform doing well at the next General Elections; not because they’re any good or offer any sensible policies (it would be a complete clown-fest if they were in Government) but because the electorate has become desperate by years of economic stagnation and so willing to turn to more extremist solutions.
This always happens whenever there’s economic turmoil, the 1930s were just a more extreme example.
Because this is an inevitable outcome, a smaller carrier based in the Far East should be a credible idea. Australia and New Zealand could be co-partners in the construction and running costs. An air strike component will be essential if a credible surface fleet is established to counter China’s growing naval strength in this region.
Johnson’s review said that we would have all 31s in the far east, one littoral response group in Bahrain and one carrier group there. Is that not enough!?
If you were to instruct the Admiralty in the last century, two carriers would be capable of conducting global operations; they would have locked you in the Tower. Two carriers is certainly not enough if the UK is to conduct credible operations in the Pacific. An air wing is essential to the RN regardless of how many frigates are deployed. Remember, two carries equate to just one operational full time due to maintenance, even though we currently can operate two simultaneously, due to both vessels spending months in repair docks.
We would not have had a Carrier Group there, as in forward based!!
The CSG could visit, using facilities we have in place, much as is happening now.
What is the purpose of anther carrier? We have two perfectly good ones.
It would take 10 years to design and build one even if funding wasn’t an issue.
QEC’s were designed around one being available at any one time.
We are much better off using the two carriers we have already invested in to do more frequent tours of the area.
Read my response to Robert Billington.
Maurice, I feel that the way to counter Chinese strength will require a whole new approach now that Tango Man is displaying signs of madness. It will be a coalition of the willing which is why sending CSG’s is such a good thing.
There will be no coalition of the willing, look at Spain’s stance on china – actively trying to undermine the west. The USA is the only country that can confront china, everything else is for tabloid headlines.
Forget Spain they are one of the more useless NATO countries.
Most other countries that count get it.
China may be big but its economy isn’t as skewed as the global economy was to USA in the Cold War.
All the other NATO countries that count are spending – except the UK which is using super thin excuses to avoid spending.
ATM the most urgent thing is a pathway to 3% so that long term orders can be placed for things like warships and jets….
Chris,
Agreed, believe the ConOps for the RN, in the event of hostilities in the I-P, would be for QE class to backfill USN CVNs in the E-A, which could in turn be released for deployment to the I-P. However, would presume there is additionally the possibility the Brits would choose to intervene directly if selected Commonwealth countries overtly threatened. The RN is probably at the nadir of capabilities in 2025, but will be demonstrably more capable circa early-to-mid 2030s, w/ multiple new frigate classes will be post IOC, destroyers updated to latest standard, full complement of Astute class deployed and maintained, etc. This is the published equipment program on a marginal budget. If UK defence budget is materially increased in the future, significant increase in capabilities could be envisioned.
…2020s, when…🙄
…2030s, when ..🤬🙄
I agree If there was any sino U.S. war ( and I think their probably will be) and if the US has not completely blown its relationship with its allies or Russia and Iran don’t also attack the west at the same time ( a possibility). The UK support would probably be in securing the Indian Ocean regions freeing up the U.S. fleets in the Indian Ocean to react into the pacific..it would make more sense for the US carrier in the eastern Indian Ocean to steam into the western pacific and them the Uk carrier to steam all the way to the western pacific… so I suspect that the UK involvement would be small in the pacific but large in restricting china in the Indian Ocean.
I think the issue is that
1) if the western alliance remains ( and its looking weak at present) china will have encouraged both Russia and Iran to attack at the same time in a true world war..in which case the RN, UK CBG and SSNs will be needed in the high north to attack the Russian bastion.
2) The US seems hell bent on destroying all its key strategic alliances and leaving itself open to a sino US war in which it’s the isolated nation not china.
I’m not sure we need to worry about a Sino US war anymore. Most of the government seem to despise Europe and have no desire to do anything for European security against a very weak Russia.
I just can’t see them running to the aid of a country like Taiwan against a very dangerous country like China.
The creation of a compact of mutual interests is beginning to expand between the UK, Australia, and New Zealand regarding naval operations. This will strengthen in the next decade as a credible naval presence in the Far East will grow as China expands its naval fleet. A medium carrier would be pivotal in achieving a fleet with real clout capable of operating remote and manned craft in combination with a multinational mix of destroyers and frigates.
I agree Maurice and the traditional relationship is still their, shared history, Anzac etc, plus the usual sports rivalries!. Particularly with the construction of new frigates, Aukus/subs, P8/E7
/drone ops, and even NZ putting a frigate into the CSG. I like your idea of a medium carrier, something like a Trieste, even for the RAN with some F35Bs. NZ may opt for the A140/T31 frigate and Wildcat or go with the Mogami/ Seahawk or somethimg else. But have to smile with the NZ PM having a nice trip in a “Wildcat” on his recent UK trip. Wonder if that helped? 🤔
Reasonably certain Xi Jenping has an excellent understanding of American, British, and French red lines w/in the I-P. Xi is probably not concerned re the conventional capabilities of any/all western powers at this point, but must account for potential nuclear responses to a military campaign in the SCS and beyond. In the case of the British, believe a ChiCom attack upon OZ or NZ would be tantamount to declaration of war, less certain re Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, etc. Similarly, an attack on French possessions would elicit a military response. In the case of Uncle Sugar’s current government, there may literally be no method of a prediction of response.
Actually, have argued the case that no one, and especially not the current US administration, comprehends US red lines in the I-P, beyond US territories. An at least mildly concerning proposition…
I’m not even sure the current US administration understands the purpose or what even a geopolitical or geostrategic red line actually is, something they need to comprehend before they can actually understand what their red lines are..more worryingly what others red lines are.. I could see I small possibly of the U.S. actually stumbling into a conflict with a nation it had no intention of having a conflict with…its actions and words towards Canada are a prime example..there are nations that would take what the trump administration have said and done to Canada as essentially to the first shots in the political war leading to likely an actual war.. (and actually have in the past gone down the path to war for pretty much what the US has said and done).
I honestly think if the US continues to go down the route of destroying its strategic alliances there is actually zero chance of containing china.
China is for all intent and purpose a super power and close peer to the US the big difference is the network of strategic alliances.. AKA the wider west that essentially takes the US 30% of the worlds power and wealth into a “western alliance “ which is 60% + of the worlds power and wealth, china non its own has 22% of the worlds wealth and power..
If the US destroys its strategic alliances then they essentially become even and if china picks up strategic alliances ( which it is now doing ) then the US ends up on the potentially weaker more likely to loss the war side.. at which point it’s impossible to contain china because no one will risk a war with it.
I suspect unless the U.S. does some major damage control.. nations will begin to drift away from the U.S. and settle into a more neural state with china and essentially allow china to dominate the western Pacific region as will as start to set more of the international agenda..
Europe and the UK will need to decide what its priorities are..which will essentially likely be become more of a cohesive power block that sets its own priorities and moves to a more dominant status in those areas it needs or wants to control.. the high north, Euro Atlantic, western Indian Ocean, Africa and Middle East.
I have a suspicion that unless the U.S. changes course and starts to see value in the western alliance you will be seeing three great power blocks and a number of balance tipping powers..
Great powers
US in the Americas western Atlantic and eastern pacific.
china in the western pacific with an aligned Russia
EU in the eastern Atlantic, Africa, western India ocean
Then you will see some floating powers
Uk as a likely counter weight and bridge between the US and EU
Indian as a counter weight and bridge between china and the EU in the Indian Ocean.
Brazil as a counter weight and bridge between the US and South America.
China is not a Superpower, actually a profounding global power. Although many propoganda may mislead public, just cannot directly related strength with GDP or industrial production amount, that is not accurate at all. China does not have any militay bases or assets beyond south china sea. Still importing large amount of weapons from Russia and highly dependent on it. It is also a country which lacks of many resources, in significant population decline and economic crisis, especially debt, capital investment, consumption and property. Ability of innovation and technology is not outstanding enough as well. I would say it is much powerful than Russia but donot have huge global influence.
China in reality has far more capability than the Soviet Union in the 1980s and we called them a superpower.
China has an active military base below the Red Sea, in Djibouti…was looking to build a base on the Andaman Sea in Myanmar and is also seeking a base in Western Africa.
They also have a basis ( in post WWII history ) for a claim to the South China Sea…a claim that becomes more robust in the event of reunification with Taiwan.
Yes…they have issues…but so does every other nation operating on global stage. It’s those issues that may drive them to do something outside their own borders to change the equation.
When Xi kicks things off militaristically, he’ll not have just the USA & Taiwan to contend with, but Japan, South Korea(probably busy keeping N Korea in check), Austrailia, Phillipines etc. Most of whom have not fallen into the “End of the cold war” dismantling of their forces as we have in European NATO & have been building steadily in the face of the PLA rise. Taiwan itself is a well armed hard nut to crack, even harder than Ukraine was when Putin invaded in 2022.
If Taiwan falls, the rest of East & SE Asia as well as ANZAC & the SW Pacific could be next. The CCP would love a world order of dependant submissive autocracies snuffing out dissent & freedoms.
Australia and New Zealand’s defence is in the interests of the UK, and increasing cooperation with both appears to be growing. The carrier I’m suggesting is more akin to the former Invincible Class if not smaller, capable of accommodating F35, Remote drones, and Merlin. Sadly for the doubters, nothing has changed in a hundred years of aircraft carrier deployment or the dependence on such vessels for maritime warfare.
You can’t operate F35B off a carrier of the same side or smaller than an Invincible.
It was a struggle using the hangar deck of Invincible with Harrier. F35 is a lot, lot larger so it would never work.
The Japanese are pushing the limits with their creative carriers.
Small carriers dont cost any less than QEs, waste of money. By all means build a third but it mayas well be a QE #3. Maybe some opportunities to switch crews with RAN and RNZN
Yes, if the RAN is able to commit to the development, deployment and sustainment of an AUKUS SSN-A flotilla, generating a multiple CV capability should be relatively straightforward and cost effective, especially if modeled on the RN QE class.
This is going to sound convoluted I know but bear with me. Why does the UK need both Atlantic and Indo Pacific reach?
To preserve some of the influence and respect formally held by Britain and others, then eagerly absorbed by the US following the era of rapid decolonisation, and which is now bleeding out because of Trump’s policies. If no one else steps into the vacuum then China and Russia will and they will shape the world in ways that we might find abhorrent.
Yes, and if we remove or weakem ourselves from having influence it will likely mean that the international rules amd order we support will have less enforcement and also get further undermined or even ignored completely. There made be less influence in International trade lanes and maybe even restriction of movement. There maybe even consequences for further progress on climate action with countries like China Russia and co feel is an imposition by the West.
I’d like to see a slightly biggerT31 fleet so there can enough ships based immediately based East of the Suez plus others that can.go on regular rotations with allies further into the indo Pacific like India, Aust, NZ, Singapore, Japan, particularly to facilitate the movement of international trade and the rules based order.To have an actual presence with our allied partners and other like minded nations as a counter to others that will think and act quite differently and gaining strength.
interesting but we know all this surely. What we need after nearly thirty years of cuts is commitment and I do not see where it’s coming from.
To put it more succinctly, we can’t expect to confidently predict the nature and location of future threats over a period of several decades (i.e. the useful lifespan of major platforms). Therefore, building capabilities around one anticipated threat in one region of the world does not serve our security needs very well, however prominent that threat might be at the moment.
Without an increase in defense spending to 3% it is totally impossible, at least 24 escorts, amphibious ships and more auxiliaries are needed and I do not see Starmer willing to do the work.
We are not a world power, we will never have the defence budget to enable us to be a world power. Putting a couple of surface vessels in the Indo-Pacific will not deter China from increasing its influence in this region. We need to concentrate on UK Defence and our contribution to NATO and European Defence. Australia and New Zealand are big enough to look after themselves – if they need help they should be turning to the USA, not the UK. Alliances are fine but there comes a point where the UK has to look at what it is getting for its money – spreading it thinly does no good for anyone – we cannot have our resources in 2 places at once. Difficult decisions must be taken and some old allies will have to go – we no longer have a Commonwealth and need to stop wasting funds supporting nations that no longer have any use to us.
Britain is a maritime nation and needs a strong decent navy if not in case of war would be very easy a blockade of the country, do you want this ?, it has no sense for a country wich receive most of the priducts by sea to have a decadent and weak navy, it,s very dangerous.
In 1938 before the second world war had started Britain had the largest fleet in the world bar none it consisted of among other assets
Battleships and Battlecruisers: Around 15.
Aircraft Carriers: 7, with more under construction.
Cruisers: Over 66, with many more under construction.
Destroyers: Over 164.
Submarines: Around 60.
When war broke out we didnt have enough ships and Churchill begged tue Americans for the loan of some . We were at the time the worlds largest shipbuilder with scores of shipyards .
Makes you wonder doesnt it if war broke out now how we would survive when it take the best part of 10 years to build and comission a frigate
Agree completely. Focus on the UK and the near abroad and we might,just, be able afford the necessary forces.
Reply was to Bill Glew.
We WERE a maritime nation with the largest navy and a dominant merchant fleet of British built, owned and crewed ships. Of course we are still an island, but we are simply not a maritime power now.
Everybody can earn 250$+ daily… You can earn from 10000-15000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good earning opportunity..
go to this site home tab for more detail thank you…… 𝐖𝐖𝐖.𝐍𝐄𝐓𝐏𝐀𝐘𝟏.𝐂𝐎𝐌
Agree but did you read what I read. They clear stated their strategic aims.
It’s a soft power deterrent through governance strengthening – as stated. I’d go further and extrapolate that just by being there, initially through, let’s say ‘training’, allows us some influence particularly because our energy needs (to take one example) are so susceptible to global market prices – per our historic energy set up. We already know of the knock on affects of increased energy costs to UK PLC but us as citizens and consumers.
I say all this but I at least agree we need to grow the fleet. It’s good to be clear eyed and not overly ideological when attempting to explore strategy. Long story short, this country has always needed both – for prosperity, I understand, historically
We actually are a world power..one of the issues that the British have is belittling themselves because they were within living memory a superpower. To be very clear being a world power does not mean being a superpower.. being a world power means you have the ability to influence across the globe that is not the same as controlling.
Being able to put surface vessels in the indo China region does help deter china, because I communicates intent and that is important.. and china does consider the intent of the 6th largest economy, that has 150 nuclear warheads, ballistic missile submarines , the ability to send a 5th generation carrier battle group into the pacific as well as the ability to send a couple of probability the most effective ASW ASuW SSNs on the planet into its region.
The UK could tip the balance… it’s not the balance but being a world power is all about being able to tip the balance not set the balance, that’s what superpowers do.
Just consider, the US is likely to be able to deploy 3-4 carrier battle groups in any pacific war..so if the UK can also send a carrier battle group that’s a 25% increase in the biggest most important piece on the board of a pacific war. The U.S. could probably deploy 15 SSNs into the region.. if the UK deployed 2 then your taking a 10-15% increase in SSNs the second most important piece on the board.
The fact the UK has airbases that can project AirPower into the eastern and western Indian Occeans would be import if the UK was involved in any sino US war..as the UK is perfectly able to block Chinese shipping access to the western Indian Ocean if the bulk of its forces are engaged in the pacific..
Anyhow back to world powers there are actually a lot of them
The U.S. is a superpower, china is in reality also a superpower
The world powers are
Uk , France, Japan, Germany, Russia, India
With Italy and Korea as maybes in some lists.
Thank you for your deliberation, appreciated.
Same, good reply Jonathan.
What evidences the UK p’s status as a superpower isn’t simply the UK resources; it’s the ability of the UK to act as a core for Spanish, Norwegian and Canadian elements. CSG2025 is an example of how to weld together hard and soft power. It’s about credibility, relationships and moral authority.
A mix of new and old tech some of which could in theory be put in place quite quickly and probably not as expensive as you might think is a suitable direction for a technically aware country such as the UK. The issue is convincing the RN to demand the investment and then get the politicians to make it possible. I’m not sure they are frightened enough just yet and consequently are not giving it the appropriate amount of attention.
Can anyone confirm that RN has only 9 seaworthy ships (not including SSBN)?
No, not really, It’s all about how you define sea worthy. If you are asking about Operational then maybe but some vessels are in various stages of refit or maintenance. Some of these can be made ready at relatively short notice.
Just been looking at the vessels used during the Falklands… 31 surface ships (not including survey vessels used as ambulance ships/ minesweepers) and 6 submarines.
Looking at our current crop we would be lucky to muster 10 in total.
Its ok saying we have the most advanced and best in the work… but if you havent got the numbers to back it up then its pointless.
Simple fact is that we might be able to protect power… but we havent got the ability to fight a war on our own should one occur like 82.
Hi Chris like all things you have to consider the balance of risks.. you say we could not refight 82..what does that mean.. it means could the RN destroy and dominate the Argentinian navy and could it get air superiority over the Falklands..if it does that any land action no matter how imbalanced is a forgone conclusion.. so can the RN do that.
I would argue that actually the RN and RAF in its present form is far more able to do that than it could in 82.. first the initial campaign.. there is now a very good and clear airbridge between the Uk and Falklands that did not extist in 82, the Falklands have good air defences to protect that airbridge.. so any amphibious assault on the Falklands will be matched with an airbridge able to reinforce the island, so that initial campaign would be hard.
Then the campaign to remove the oppositions navy.. the RN has the ability to destroy most navies on the planet in the high seas with its SSN fleet, its SSN fleet can also strike and knock out or disrupt any major base of choice with impunity and actually the SSN can do this come home reload and do it again with no way for an enemy to prevent that from happening.. infact the Uk could simply adopt at tactic of stabbing its enemy with SSN attacks until its enemy gives up and signs a peace deal.. the long war.. where you just keep hurting your enemies until they give up..especially if they have no way of hurting you back.
air domination if the RN and RAF park a fifth generation carrier battlegroup 600 miles off the coast of a nation there is nothing a second world airforce can do about it .. infact there are a fair few first world airforces that could do nothing about it..
So the RN can essentially with impunity set up air and sea dominance around the Falklands and there is no navy or airforce in the South Americas that could do diddly to stop them.. especially not Argentina..
That would mean that the recapture and victory would be essentially inevitable.
The RN and RAF don’t have an issue with concentrating power.. they have a far greater ability to concentrate power than they did in the 80s.. the issue is defusing power across all areas of influence and conflict as well as mass..
Yes, and just look at some of the crap we sent there, numerically of course you are correct, however what could be sent today would mean the opposition wouldn’t come out of the port and may not have a runway to take off from.
The UK does not need any reac, it is not a global.power or anything near
Stay out of other people’s countries who do not want us there and leave the regime changes alone.
If we had stayed away from Ukraine we could have rebuilt the army and navy.
If we’d “stayed away from UKR” it may have been enough to hand victory to Piutin who would then be preparing to attack the Baltics, Moldova or Poland who are NATO members, have UK troops present & would require a far greater UK effort & cost to defend. Even now BBC Security brief has highlighted a Russian build up either side of the Suwalki gap for “exercises”, which may prove simply to be exercises, but Russia did just the same before invading UKR in 2022.
We are a global power, just not a super power. We’re a world wide trading nation. We’ve stupidly, treacherously run down our forces & allowed far too much of essential manufacturing to be exported to the far east, China particularly. We need to decide if we continue to allow the richest to get away with very low levels of tax while they dictate what the rest of us must put up with.
Build the third enlarged QE CANZUK supercarrier then, it will work out cheaper.
For the RN to operate effectively in both theatre the size of the fleet needs to double , including an extra carrier and more subs . They are just too thinly stretched with the available assets to be able to cover all theatres . More forward bases need to be reactivated such as gibraltar and the in the caribbean . This is all a pipe dream until our political masters undo the damage they have caused over the last 20 years to this once proud service and give it the funding it needs . 2.5% wont cut it neither will 3% , they need to be looking at 4 – 5 % of gdp for defence and if that means a couple of pennies on income tax so be it . Defence has to paid for somehow and if they were honest with the public I dont think there would be too many protests .