Russian warship lurking near Outer Hebrides spying on Britain's missile defences caught by Navy
The Yuri Ivanov, a so-called Russian research ship, was trying to watch a Nato live fire tests on shooting down a missile
PUTIN MISSILE SPIES Russian warship lurking near Outer Hebrides spying on Britain's missile defences caught by Navy
A RUSSIAN warship was caught by the Navy spying on Britain's missile defences.
It was found lurking near the Outer Hebrides during Nato live fire tests on shooting down a Russian-style missile.
Advertisement
4
Russian spy ship Yuri Ivanov is tracked by the Navy
Credit: Royal Navy
4
HMS Hurworth shadowing warship Stoikiy in the Channel
Credit: Royal Navy
4
HMS Hurworth and a helicopter during the alert
Credit: Royal Navy
The Yuri Ivanov, a so-called Russian research ship, was trying to watch the exercise, known as Formidable Shield.
The drills involved HMS Dragon, one of the Navy's most powerful warships, firing a £1million Sea Viper missile at a target designed to simulate Moscow's formidable hypersonic weapons.
The Navy hailed the test a 'huge moment' as the Sea Viper obliterated the incoming missile.
Moments after the war games finished, HMS Dragon was ordered to hunt down Vladimir Putin's spy ship.
Advertisement
The Navy said: 'HMS Dragon launched her Merlin helicopter to collect information until the Yuri Ivanov headed north towards its Arctic home.'
Separately two Navy minehunters, HMS Ledbury and HMS Hurworth, were scrambled in the Channel to shadow Russian corvette Stoikiy.
Lieutenant Commander James Bradshaw, captain of HMS Hurworth, said: 'This was all in a day's work for the ship's company.'
4
The Navy ordered one of its vessels to hunt down Vladimir Putin's spy ship
Credit: Alamy
Advertisement
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Belfast Telegraph
an hour ago
- Belfast Telegraph
UK-EU reset may resolve many issues over Irish Sea border, but lack of consensus is worrying
The combination of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump as globally powerful leaders has had a seismic impact on European politics. Suddenly security is a major concern across the continent — including for the United Kingdom and Ireland. While it doesn't make Brexit irrelevant, it does help to place it in context. Our European neighbours are also our most reliable partners.
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Nato needs to prepare for attack
A new generation of armed drone The world is becoming less and less safe. Russia has invaded Ukraine and threatens others. Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... On the other side of the world there are growing concerns about stability in the Pacific, tensions between India and Pakistan threaten a potential war and Gaza and its civilian population are being brutally targeted by Israel. Meanwhile, the nature of conflict and instability are rapidly changing. Online attacks, often state backed, have brought financial institutions, businesses and public services to their knees. Key subsea communication and energy infrastructure has been sabotaged. Traditional military capabilities can be targeted and taken out with new technology like drones, at very little cost. In the Ukraine war, most of Russia's casualties have been inflicted by drones. In the most audacious attack of the war, the Ukrainians destroyed a large part of the Russian strategic bombing fleet using swarms of drones, thousands of miles away from Ukraine. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Meanwhile, Germany's most senior military commander General Carsten Breuer has warned that Nato needs to prepare for a possible attack from Russia within the next four years. All of this underlines why the UK is right to think about defence priorities for the years ahead, including a significant increase in defence spending. While Prime Minister Starmer has committed to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027-28 he hasn't fully committed to reach 3 per cent by 2034. In contrast, Denmark's Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has said that 5 per cent is achievable, but a Nato proposal to reach that by 2034 is 'too late,' while also saying 3 per cent isn't enough.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Keir Starmer's desperate Churchill act won't fool anyone
But the PM's proclaimed enemy isn't the Argentinian junta but a mighty Russian military machine which could wipe Britain off the face of the Earth in 10 minutes. The truth is the Russians are not our enemies; they after all lost 20 million people helping us to defeat Nazi Germany. They are in conflict with the Ukraine and with Nato over the treatment of the Russian areas of Ukraine and the fact that Nato has placed troops and missiles right up to the Russian border despite saying it wouldn't. The war in Ukraine could have been over two years ago at the talks in Istanbul. Craig Murray, our former ambassador who attended these talks, told me that a peace deal was blocked by the US and Britain. Now Keir Starmer has taken on his warlike role and is willing to spend money on warfare rather than welfare. I believe Scotland should be different and be a force for peace in the world rather than war, but for that we need our independence. Hugh Kerr (MEP 1994-99), Edinburgh. Don't fall for war hysteria Failing governments love war hysteria to distract the public from their incompetence. Arms companies love war hysteria since it is great for profits. The military establishment loves war hysteria since it strengthens their resource bargaining power. The rest of us should view war hysteria with both concern and scepticism. The proposal that the UK should proceed with a range of tactical nuclear weapons for which they would purchase American Lockheed 5-35A planes to deliver them should certainly be cause for concern. The theory is that the smaller tactical nuclear bombs are more "useable" and, therefore, a credible threat. This is an invitation to so many other states who have until now ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to decide that it would also be viable for them to go for small "useable" nuclear bombs. But so much in this Defence Review is also cause for scepticism. The current four nuclear-armed submarines at Faslane are in a serious substandard state and the Navy struggles to ensure that there is one constantly at sea. Their replacements are years overdue and hugely over-cost. By the time they are ready for service, it is questionable whether there will be a Trident missile system to lease from the US, certainly not for long since the US Navy is planning to have Trident 3 decommissioned in the next 20 years. So another huge amount of squandered money. Read more letters The other cause for scepticism is that the supposed "independent" British system is totally dependent on the US, which leases and services the missiles on the Clyde to the UK. Donald Trump could cancel that lease at any time. The proposal for the new tactical nuclear weapons again depends on the US for the delivery system. Who are the people who will lead us away from this constant war hysteria? Ironically George Robertson, who led the current review, did show some honesty in a radio interview in August 2022. He said that when he was Nato Secretary General they had developed quite a cooperative relationship with Vladimir Putin and had a Russia/Nato Council. But the US did not like this cooperation and stopped it. He also said it was a serious mistake for Nato to approve Nato membership in principle in 2008 for Ukraine and Georgia. We can't wind the clock back but we can as a first step change the tone of the rhetoric and work on a new vision. Isobel Lindsay, Biggar. Where is the anti-war left? Defence Secretary John Healey has announced that 'the UK would be ready for a fight' with hints that this is aimed at Russia, and that six new defence factories will be built in Britain. Funny, this was not in the Labour manifesto. Hitler and Napoleon were also ready for a fight with Russia and look at what happened to them. As both Russia and the UK have nuclear weapons it's odd that CND and similar groups are not protesting on the streets. What happened to the anti-war left? What happened to the anti-corporate left? Geoff Moore, Alness. We need to be pragmatic Peter Wright (Letters, May 31) makes some valid points in questioning the assignment of the Glen Sannox and Glen Rosa to the Arran route and whether that represents 'good business'. With regard to his defence of the cost overruns and delays in the building of the aircraft carriers and Type 26 frigates he also makes some valid points, although notably is seemingly less forthcoming with such arguments when commenting on the building of the ferries. Steph Johnson (Letters, May 31) on the other hand attempts to have it both ways by including even estimated peripheral costs in her ferries budget excess comparison with the building of the frigates but omitting costs such as the initial £127 million Type 26 design contract and other ongoing MoD costs. While no doubt arguments will persist over the building and assignment of these ships, I think we can all agree that governments around the world have poor track records when it comes to major procurement projects, especially when these encompass innovative designs, and regrettably neither the Scottish nor the UK Government is an exception in this regard. Where we will perhaps continue to disagree is on the commitment of hundreds of billions of pounds to British imperialist global posturing. In an independent Scotland no doubt the Scottish Government, whichever political party is effectively in power, will continue to make mistakes, but our naval spending will be much more in tune with our practical requirements and similar to that of our Scandinavian neighbours. A sensibly pragmatic approach to future defence spending, while still meeting common international obligations with our allies and within the United Nations, will release billions of pounds to invest in Scotland's infrastructure and public services to construct the genuinely democratic, prosperous and egalitarian country most people in Scotland desire for their children. Stan Grodynski, Longniddry. Fred Goodwin (Image: PA) Why must we pay RBS bill? It is surely wrong that we taxpayers have to accept £10 billion of loss on the sale of shares following the Government's rescue in 2008 of the bankrupt RBS (now NatWest) ("RBS owner Natwest returns to full private ownership after shares sell-off", The Herald, May 31). Why was our support not by a loan, refundable in full to the Treasury in stages as the bank returned to health, with interest at a fair historical rate? Does the present board not feel any moral obligation to pay the £10 billion incurred due to its culpable predecessor? This loss compounds at a far higher level the nonsense that the individuals concerned (some not even bankers in the true sense) were allowed to walk away with their previous bonuses intact, even though they were shown to have been paid from what transpired to be bogus 'profits'. Likewise, their pension 'entitlements' were considered sacrosanct (for example Fred Goodwin's £600,000 a year for life from age 50 which he reluctantly reduced under public pressure from £713,000) despite the fact that on other bankruptcies, unfunded defined-benefit pensions are taken over by the Government's Pension Protection Fund, whose compensation cap in 2008 for members of that age was £24,202 pa. The late Lord Myners, the City grandee Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling appointed to deal with RBS, could and should have demanded that Goodwin and the board accept that the most recent bonuses, at least those to the top brass, be repaid and that their pensions be capped at PPF limits – as a vital non-negotiable condition-precedent before any taxpayer bail-out could be considered, let alone granted. So whether or not they accepted it, either way such phone-number inflation-adjusted payments to the directors and senior staff would have been avoided, and a form of lawful 'justice' seen by the public to be done. But without that agreed condition, and with Fred Goodwin being just 50 in 2008 (among others much younger than normal retirement age) such largesse will have endured quite possibly for well over 40 years into the 2050s. And Fred 'the Shred' Goodwin had the nerve to call the Government's negotiations a 'drive-by shooting'! John Birkett, St Andrews.
