Photos Show British Aircraft Carrier Reaching Indo-Pacific Waters
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The British aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales arrived in Indo-Pacific waters after passing through the Suez Canal and the Red Sea, as part of the Royal Navy flagship's deployment.
The goal of the eight-month deployment is to reaffirm the United Kingdom's commitment to security in the Mediterranean and Indo-Pacific regions, the Royal Navy said on Tuesday.
Why It Matters
The Houthis—an Iran-backed armed group in Yemen—halted attacks in the Red Sea following a deal with the United States. Both sides exchanged fire in the crucial waterway from March to early May.
The British aircraft carrier HMS "Prince of Wales" transits the Suez Canal toward the Red Sea on May 24, 2025.
The British aircraft carrier HMS "Prince of Wales" transits the Suez Canal toward the Red Sea on May 24, 2025.
U.K. Ministry of Defense
What To Know
The Prince of Wales left its home port in southern England in late April for a mission known as Operation Highmast. This will take the aircraft carrier to the Western Pacific Ocean via the Mediterranean and the Middle East for joint war games with U.K. allies and partners.
The naval strike group led by the Prince of Wales completed what the Royal Navy called a safe passage through the Suez Canal and the Red Sea, arriving in the Indian Ocean from the Eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean, marking the next stage of its global deployment.
The Norwegian frigate HNoMS "Roald Amundsen," front, transits the Red Sea with the United States destroyer USS "Truxtun" on May 31, 2025.
The Norwegian frigate HNoMS "Roald Amundsen," front, transits the Red Sea with the United States destroyer USS "Truxtun" on May 31, 2025.
U.K. Ministry of Defense
Officially released photos show that the U.K. Carrier Strike Group, which includes multiple British, Canadian, Norwegian, and Spanish naval vessels, completed the transit in late May. A U.S. destroyer, USS Truxtun, was also seen sailing with the strike group in the Red Sea.
The presence of the Truxtun complicates any potential Houthi attempts to target non-U. S. ships within the carrier strike group, the specialist outlet The Maritime Executive said. The U.S. destroyer also operated alongside the Prince of Wales in the Mediterranean last month.
The Royal Navy did not disclose whether the carrier strike group conducted any operations, including escorting shipping, while in the Red Sea, the specialist outlet Navy Lookout noted.
During its transit in the Red Sea, the Prince of Wales launched its F-35B stealth fighter jets, according to photos released by the Royal Navy. These aircraft are designed for air-to-air and air-to-ground combat, as well as intelligence gathering and electronic warfare missions.
Before departing Europe, the U.K. Carrier Strike Group conducted a naval exercise with the Italian Carrier Strike Group in the Ionian Sea, south of Italy, the Royal Navy said. The drill involved 21 warships, three submarines, 41 fighter jets, 19 helicopters, and 10 patrol aircraft.
What People Are Saying
U.K. Defense Secretary John Healey said on April 22: "As one of only a few nations capable of leading a deployment of this scale, the Royal Navy is once again demonstrating that U.K. defense is strong, modern, and ready to meet the threats of today and tomorrow."
Commodore James Blackmore, commander of the U.K. Carrier Strike Group, said on April 22: "Working closely with partners from across the globe, Operation Highmast will demonstrate credible deterrence and our support to NATO and the rules-based international order."
The British aircraft carrier HMS "Prince of Wales" launches an F-35B fighter jet while transiting the Red Sea on May 26, 2025.
The British aircraft carrier HMS "Prince of Wales" launches an F-35B fighter jet while transiting the Red Sea on May 26, 2025.
U.K. Ministry of Defense
What Happens Next
It remains to be seen whether the Prince of Wales will have the opportunity to operate with American aircraft carriers when it reaches the Western Pacific Ocean during its deployment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Dawn French ‘dismisses' Oct 7 Hamas attacks
Credit: X/@Dawn_French Dawn French has been accused of dismissing the Oct 7 Hamas attacks in Israel in a new social media video. The British comedian and actress, 67, posted a video of herself to X in which she appears to mimic Israel's supporters amid the military campaign in Gaza. In the video, published by French on the social media platform on Thursday, she says about the conflict in the Middle East: 'Complicated, no, but nuanced. But [the] bottom line is no.' She then goes on to mimic apparent defences of Israel's military campaign in neighbouring Gaza since the Hamas-led massacre in 2023, saying: ''Yeah but you know they did a bad thing to us'... Yeah, but no. ''But we want that land and there's a lot of history…'. No. 'These people are not even people, are they really?' No.' In response to the viral tweet, which has been viewed more than half a million times in the 24 hours since it was published, Tracy-Ann Oberman, the West End star and playwright, branded French's tone as 'mocking'. The Jewish actress, 58, reposted French's video and said: 'I am so saddened by this post. 'This mocking voice 'bad thing' of October 7 that Dawn (who I revere by the way) appears to be mocking involved the most horrific terrorist attack involving rape, sexual violence, burning alive child, mutilation and the taking of civilian hostages.' She added: 'Why would Dawn seem to deny that which has affected so many of us personally in the most painful way possible. 'I can mourn the horrors of the war in Gaza whilst also remembering the horrors of what started it. Is this how most of our industry feels now – Oct 7 was a 'little thing'? NO!' Israel launched a military campaign in Gaza in response to Hamas's massacre on Oct 7 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed by the terror group and 251 others were taken hostage. There are now 56 hostages still held by Hamas in Gaza, at least 20 of whom are believed to be alive. Israel said its expanded offensive in the Strip, named Operation Gideon's Chariot, will increase the chances of returning the missing. The Hamas-run health ministry that operates in Gaza has said that at least 54,000 people have been killed in the territory during the war. Hamas has rejected proposed ceasefire and hostage release deals that do not guarantee a full Israel withdrawal from the Strip and an end to the war. Other responses to French's post include the financier Ben Goldsmith, who has been a strong defender of Israel's response to the Hamas terrorist attacks. He remarked: 'Wow, this is really bad. Who knew.' Elsewhere, comedy writer and self-described 'champion of Jewish rights' Lee Kern wrote: 'What you sneeringly mock as a 'bad thing' included the grieving children I met in hospital whose friends and family had been murdered, kidnapped and raped and who themselves were coming to terms with their own life-altering injuries. 'It also includes the 1,200 people murdered and tortured on October 7th… you proactively broadcast – with misplaced pride – a wicked glee in your mockery and dismissal of Jewish suffering, pain and death.' In a subsequent post following the criticism by Oberman, French clarified that she did not mean to 'support the atrocities of Oct 7th'. Writing on X, she said: 'I do not say 'a little thing'. In NO WAY do I support the atrocities of Oct 7th. Of course not. Appalling. Horrific. 'But starving innocent children is not the answer. NO is the answer to ALL of it, Tracy.' French has been approached for comment. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A Royal Navy Nuclear Submarine Is Being Scrapped For The First Time
The former U.K. Royal Navy nuclear-powered attack submarine HMS Swiftsure has begun to be cut up as part of its scrapping process. Remarkably, this is the first British nuclear-powered submarine of any kind to be fully dismantled and decommissioned. This means that all the rest of the Royal Navy's out-of-commission nuclear-powered subs are currently sitting in docks awaiting disposal, a process that is only now starting to happen, after years of stasis. Babcock International Group, a British aerospace, defense, and nuclear engineering services company, recently announced that the first major cut had been made on the exterior of Swiftsure. This involved the removal of the submarine's fin (or sail), after which it was lowered to the bottom of the dry dock, a process seen in the photo at the top of this story. HMS Swiftsure was the lead ship of a class of nuclear fleet submarines built for the Royal Navy. Entering service in 1973, the submarine served until 1992. A highly notable episode in its service came in 1977, when Swiftsure penetrated undetected through layered escort screens of destroyers and frigates and approached the Soviet Navy aircraft carrier Kiev. The submarine recorded extremely valuable acoustic signatures and took detailed underwater periscope pictures of the Soviet carrier's hull and propellers, something you can read about in more detail here. Swiftsure is being disposed of at Rosyth in Scotland, under the Submarine Dismantling Project (SDP). The submarine is serving as a demonstrator for the broader SDP, which will eventually dispose of the Royal Navy's other out-of-commission nuclear subs, which include both attack submarine (SSN) and ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) classes. The work on Swiftsure is being carried out by Babcock in collaboration with the Ministry of Defense's Defense Nuclear Enterprise, contractor KDC Veolia Decommissioning Services UK Ltd, and Rolls-Royce. Up to 90 percent of Swiftsure (by total weight) is being recycled, with at least some of the high-grade steel being repurposed into components for future Royal Navy submarines. 'The project showcases our commitment to sustainable disposal practices,' explained Lorraine Russell, Senior Responsible Owner for the Submarine Disposals Program. 'By recycling materials wherever possible, we're ensuring these vessels that served the nation so well continue to provide value even after decommissioning.' The plan calls for Swiftsure to be fully dismantled by the end of 2026, making it the first U.K. nuclear-powered submarine to be fully disposed of. After the process has been proven out, Babcock will then lead work on the long-term dismantling of the backlog of other nuclear-powered subs, which are laid up in Rosyth and in Devonport, in southwest England. According to Navy Lookout, a website providing independent Royal Navy news and analysis, there are currently 16 decommissioned nuclear-powered subs in Devonport and seven more in Rosyth (including Swiftsure). The other boats in Rosyth include HMS Dreadnought, which was the U.K.'s first nuclear-powered submarine, commissioned into service in 1963 and finally withdrawn in 1980. This means the boat has been in storage longer than it was in service. At Devonport, notably, the naval base has a regular capacity for a maximum of 14 submarines. This means that special permission had to be granted to add another two subs (HMS Talent and Triumph, which arrived in 2023 and 2024). This provides further evidence of the urgency in starting the long-term disposal of these boats. Of the boats in Devonport, 12 still have their nuclear fuel on board. The submarines are stored afloat in a non-tidal basin. Every 15 years, each boat goes into dry dock for an inspection and preservation work, where necessary. At Rosyth, there is even less available space, especially bearing in mind the need for the base to accommodate the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers when they go into dry dock. That the United Kingdom has such a big backlog of nuclear-powered subs awaiting disposal reflects the fact that so many of these boats were withdrawn from service relatively rapidly with the end of the Cold War. During these times of tension, the priority was to build up underwater capabilities, with less thought given to what would be done with the nuclear-powered submarines once they were no longer needed. At one point, it was even suggested that the boats should be filled with ballast and sunk in deep water, but such at-sea disposal of nuclear material was banned in 1983. Not only does the long-term storage of nuclear-powered submarines present very serious safety and security challenges, but keeping storing and maintaining the boats is also a considerable economic investment. This is in stark contrast to the United States. The U.S. Navy has always had a bigger fleet of nuclear-powered submarines than the Royal Navy and its construction program is coupled with a decommissioning effort to deal with the boats once they are removed from service. The U.S. Department of Defense explains the decommissioning process — specifically at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard & Intermediate Maintenance Facility in Bremerton, Washington — as follows: Currently, the shipyard receives a steady flow of decommissioned Los Angeles class attack submarines that are brought in for the recycling process, which can take up to two years to complete. Dismantling starts along the pier, where the subs remain afloat. Ladders used by sailors are removed, stairs are added to give workers easier access, and holes are punched into the sub's hull so cranes can be lowered to pull out scrap metal. The crews bring in their own electrical power and ventilation piping because the vessels are no longer functional. The forward and aft ends of each submarine are then separated from the already defueled reactor compartment, which is then closed at each end with massive steel encasements. PSNS & IMF is the only naval shipyard that can make robust steel encasements large enough and with the safety requirements needed to hold the empty reactor cores. The giant cases are pieced together by expert welders using submerged-arc welding, technology not used anywhere else in the Navy. Part of the recycling team's work includes filling large bins with items such as insulation, circuit boards, electrical components, cabling, and other debris that is sent to different waste streams. The contents of the bins are sent to contractors who will either melt down the scraps, reuse them, sell them, or send them out for environmentally safe disposal. As parts are removed, the subs slowly rise out of the water. Visitors on the pier can see water lines on the subs from where they initially sat when they were at their operational weight. Once in dry dock, it takes another 10 months to break down a sub to where all that's left is the empty reactor compartment. The dry dock is where that heavy recycling process takes place. Parts of the ship that are too big to remove along the pier, such as the diesel generator, are removed during this phase. Large chunks of the submarine's main structure are also ripped apart and deposited onto barges at the pier for disposal as scrap metal. The shipyard itself also reuses some of the material. The defueled nuclear reactor compartment is all that is left. They are placed in robust shipping packages consistent with federal and state regulations and shipped to the Department of Energy's Hanford Site in Hanford, Washington. The packages make the 700-mile journey by barge from the shipyard in Bremerton down the Washington coast and up the Columbia River before being transported on a multi-wheeled transporter to the site for safe, permanent disposal. As of March 2025, more than 140 reactor compartment disposal packages had been transported by PSNS & IMF to the Hanford Site since 1986, reflecting the huge scale of the decommissioning effort. It's only more recently that the United Kingdom started a similar kind of disposal project for its unwanted nuclear subs. While Swiftsure will be the first Royal Navy submarine to be fully dismantled and decommissioned, Babcock is now also under contract to prepare for the nuclear defueling of four Trafalgar class SSNs. Nuclear defueling has been done before in the United Kingdom — all seven of the boats at Rosyth have had their fuel removed, and of the 16 boats at Devonport, four are also without fuel. However, the work on the four Trafalgar class SSNs will be the first nuclear defueling of a decommissioned Royal Navy submarine in over 20 years. According to Navy Lookout, until 2003, nuclear subs had their fuel removed soon after decommissioning, but this process was abandoned after it was determined that the facilities for doing this work were no longer safe enough. As an interim measure, these submarines had their primary circuit chemically treated to ensure it remains inert and were fitted with additional radiation-monitoring equipment. 'This meant fully fueled boats have been stored afloat for the last two decades while a solution was developed at a glacial pace,' Navy Lookout reported yesterday. 'The submarines that have not had fuel removed have their reactor primary circuit chemically treated to guarantee it remains inert, and additional radiation monitoring equipment is fitted.' To make the defueling process safer, the previous cranes used to remove the fuel have been replaced with a so-called Reactor Access House. Moving on rails, this is an enclosure that is positioned over the submarine in a dry dock, after which the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) is hoisted into it. The largest and most radioactive element of the submarine, the RPV is then transported to the Sellafield nuclear site for above-ground storage. Longer-term, it's expected that the RPVs will be buried underground, but this plan has yet to be finalized. Here again, there are differences with the U.S. approach, as Alex Luck, an analyst who closely follows submarine developments, told TWZ: '[Decommissioned U.S. Navy submarines] get defuelled, and the remaining material goes to Idaho for processing and then storage. The reactors and all associated elements are cut up and put into special waste storage sites. Unlike the United Kingdom, the United States simply disposes of a lot of material by burying it. The United Kingdom, on the other hand, is reprocessing and recycling as much as possible due to their far more limited capacity/tighter regulations for 'buried,' i.e., long-term stored waste.' Regardless, once the RPVs are removed, the submarines can start to be fully broken down, as is now happening with Swiftsure at Rosyth. While there was already some urgency to develop a plan to finally dispose of decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines, the problem is only set to grow in the years to come. The four Vanguard class SSBNs that entered service in the 1990s and currently comprise the United Kingdom's permanent at-sea deterrent are scheduled to be taken out of service between 2031 and 2040. These will be replaced by a similar number of new Dreadnought class SSBNs. The four Dreadnought boats represent one of the most important U.K. defense programs in many years, and you can read more about their design here. Beyond that, starting in the late 2030s, the United Kingdom will have to dispose of seven Astute class SSNs. These will be replaced by an increased fleet of up to 12 SSNs, to be developed under the SSN-AUKUS in collaboration with Australia and the United States, in a plan that was outlined in the Strategic Defense Review earlier this week. Despite these plans for expansion, the Royal Navy's submarine fleet will remain a shadow of its numerical strength back in its Cold War heyday. For many years, the growing backlog of retired nuclear-powered submarines stood testament to that period of naval power. Now, with the milestone cutting of the exterior of Swiftsure, this increasingly problematic and costly legacy is starting to be dealt with. Contact the author: thomas@
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Who owns the news? It must not be a group of foreign powers
Who owns the news? Much of the Left has been obsessed with the issue for over a century. They have long railed against press barons and their supposed bias. So it is perhaps surprising that this Labour Government is taking such a lackadaisical approach to foreign states having substantial holdings in British newspapers. The last Conservative government back in December 2023 intervened to put on hold and scrutinise the proposed sale of The Telegraph to a company backed by Sheikh Mansour, the deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates. Columnists, including Charles Moore, The Telegraph's former editor, rightly argued that even if there was no actual interference in the newspaper's editorial line, there would be the perception that the paper would no longer be independent. This would fatally undermine the newspaper's standing by throwing away its reputation for fearless reporting, whatever the reality of the situation. The then government listened and last year, in the Digital, Media and Competitions Act, introduced a new regulatory regime to restrict foreign state ownership of newspapers and news magazines. But this Act only set out the broad principle, not the details of how it would be implemented. A total ban would come with its own problems. There would be little risk of editorial interference if, say, the sovereign wealth fund of Norway was a passive investor owning 3pc or 4pc in a UK-listed media company. During the consultations, it was proposed that a 5pc limit may be appropriate to allow for such holdings. Last month the new Government announced that the threshold would not be 5pc, but actually 15pc. I and many of my colleagues in the House of Lords have serious misgivings about this much higher limit, but it is one we can live with. However, there is another aspect of the draft regulations which is unacceptable. The 15pc threshold is not cumulative, it applies to each individual holding. This means that there would be nothing to stop multiple states each owning 15pc of a newspaper. It has been reported that after The Telegraph's proposed takeover by RedBird Capital, Sheikh Mansour intends to retain up to a 15pc stake in the newspaper. With the current proposals there would be nothing to stop, say, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Bahrain from each taking 15pc holdings. A cumulative 60pc of a British newspaper owned by foreign states is a very different proposition. The guarantees against foreign control would have evaporated. Has this potential scenario arisen as a result of an oversight by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary? Alongside 50 of my fellow peers, I have written to Ms Nandy asking for clarification. Signatories include former chancellor Lord Lamont, former trade secretary Lord Lilley, long-time chairman of the 1922 committee Lord Brady, ex-director of public prosecutions Lord Macdonald and the current chairman of Ipso, the independent press regulator, Lord Faulks. Our fears could be easily assuaged by simply amending the proposed regulations to ensure that 15pc is a cap on total foreign ownership. If the move is deliberate, it raises serious questions about this Government's commitment to a free press. The statutory instrument implementing the Government's regulations has now been laid and will shortly come before both Houses of Parliament. If the proposals reach the Lords in their current form, I and many of my colleagues will not be able to support the measure. The Telegraph's ownership has been left in limbo for two years so far. It is time for the new regulatory framework to be put in place that will allow its smooth transfer to new owners. But this must be done in a way that entrenches the traditional freedoms of our press. The issues are much wider than the future of just one newspaper. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
