UK to expand submarine fleet as defense review calls for ‘warfighting readiness'
LONDON: Britain will increase the size of its nuclear-powered attack submarine fleet, the government has announced ahead of a defense review expected to say the country must invest billions to be ready and equipped to fight a modern war.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer, like other leaders across Europe, is racing to rebuild his country's defense capabilities after US President Donald Trump told the continent it needed to take more responsibility for its own security.
Monday's Strategic Defense Review will call for Britain's armed forces to move to a state of 'warfighting readiness,' spelling out changing security threats and which defense technologies are needed to counter them.
'We know that threats are increasing and we must act decisively to face down Russian aggression,' defense minister John Healey said in a statement.
Britain will build up to 12 of its next-generation attack submarines, which are nuclear-powered but carry conventional non-nuclear weapons, to replace the current fleet of seven from the late 2030s, the Ministry of Defense said in a statement.
Britain operates a separate fleet of submarines armed with nuclear weapons. The government for the first time said a pre-existing program to develop a new nuclear warhead to replace the model used by that fleet would cost 15 billion pounds.
'With new state-of-the-art submarines patrolling international waters and our own nuclear warhead program on British shores, we are making Britain secure at home and strong abroad,' Healey added.
The new submarines will be a model jointly developed by the UK, US and Australia under the security partnership known as AUKUS.
REVERSE DECLINE
In light of Trump's decision to upend decades of strategic reliance on the US by Europe, Starmer has already committed to increasing Britain's defense spending in an attempt to reverse a long-term decline in its military capability.
He has promised to raise defense spending to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2027 and target a 3 percent level over the longer term. On Sunday he warned Britain must be ready to fight and win a war against states with advanced military forces.
In the days running up to the Strategic Defense Review, which Starmer commissioned shortly after taking office last July, the government has announced plans to spend billions on munitions plants, battlefield technology and military housing.
Juggling severely strained public finances, a slow-growing economy and declining popularity among an increasingly dissatisfied electorate, Starmer has sought to cast increased spending on defense as a way to create jobs and wealth. 'This plan will ensure Britain is secure at home and strong abroad, while delivering a defense dividend of well-paid jobs up and down the country,' he is expected to say in a speech launching Monday's review.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
an hour ago
- Al Arabiya
Moscow poses no threat to Britain, says Russia's UK embassy
Russia's embassy in London said on Tuesday that Moscow had no intention of attacking Britain, rejecting accusations by the British government of growing aggression and daily cyberattacks. Britain said on Monday it would radically change its approach to defense to address new threats, including from Russia, after endorsing the findings of an independently-produced Strategic Defense Review. After unveiling the defense overhaul on Monday, Healey said Europe was facing war, growing Russian aggression, new nuclear risks and daily cyberattacks. Russia's embassy issued a statement on Tuesday criticizing what it described as 'a fresh salvo of anti-Russian rhetoric.' 'Russia poses no threat to the United Kingdom and its people,' the statement said. 'We harbor no aggressive intentions and have no plans to attack Britain. We are not interested in doing so, nor do we need to.' Relations between Russia and Britain are at their lowest level since the Cold War. They deteriorated further after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, and Britain and other NATO members have provided large amounts of military aid and other support to Kyiv. China's embassy in London also criticized Britain's defense review, saying in a statement on Tuesday that the document deliberately misrepresented Beijing's defense policy to justify British military expansion. The review had described China as 'a sophisticated and persistent challenge,' citing its rapid military modernization, including an expanded nuclear arsenal, and saying Beijing was likely using espionage and cyberattacks, and stealing intellectual property.
Saudi Gazette
an hour ago
- Saudi Gazette
Chief of General Staff inspects readiness of armed forces participating in Hajj operation
Saudi Gazette report MAKKAH — Saudi Chief of the General Staff Lt. Gen. Fayyadh Al-Ruwaili inspected on Monday the readiness of the Armed Forces units participating in the operation of Hajj 2025. This is in line with the directives of Minister of Defense Prince Khalid bin Salman as part of efforts by security bodies and government agencies to ensure the security and safety of pilgrims. Al-Ruwaili began his field tour by inspecting the Air Forces group at Arafat Airport. He concluded his field tour by reviewing the participating units at the duty force field at Al-Maghmas, where he was briefed on the approved operational and organizational plans to ensure the safety and security of pilgrims during their travels and the performance of their rituals. The Air Force provides advanced air support, including surveillance, reconnaissance, and securing the airspace over the holy sites. The Naval Forces participate in securing seaports, dealing with suspicious materials, and supporting rescue efforts through diving teams, in addition to contributing specialized infantry and drone units. Regarding health services, the Ministry of Defense is implementing an integrated medical plan that includes the operation of 36 health centers with a capacity of more than 1,040 beds, supported by a mission of over 1,790 health and administrative personnel distributed across hospitals and field clinics in the holy sites.
Asharq Al-Awsat
2 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Will a Strike Supersede the Nuclear Deal?
The recent spike in leaked intelligence assessments warning that the Israeli military could strike Iran's nuclear facilities should the ongoing negotiations between Washington and Tehran fall through, is redrawing the red lines around what Israel considers an 'existential threat' amid sweeping regional and international shifts. Talk of an 'imminent strike' is not limited to speculation in the media any longer, and it is not another round of the war of words between the two sides. It has become the subject of intelligence reports, direct and indirect statements by Israeli and American officials, and discussions in think tanks across the globe. More significantly, military experts are closely following the drills of the Israeli air force, precision munition transfers, and strategic deployments that suggest Israel is potentially ready to launch an attack within seven hours of a final decision, leaving the US intervention with a narrow window to intervene. So, are we truly approaching zero hour? Or is this still all part of a complex messaging game that Israel and the United States are playing to pressure Iran? Moving on to the broader context, especially with the shifting balance of power in the region, do recent developments make a strike seem more or less likely? Although Iran continues to enrich uranium at rates that border on the level needed to make weapons-grade levels (60 percent), it has lost much of its strategic leverage following devastating blows suffered by its regional proxies, particularly Hezbollah and Hamas. Their capacity to deter and support has severely diminished. At the same time, the focused Israeli strikes on Iranian military and intelligence targets in October 2024, along with the mysterious blast at Shahid Rajaee Port in April that destroyed large stockpiles of solid fuel used in ballistic missiles, have clearly undercut Tehran's ability to respond with asymmetric escalation. This erosion of Iran's deterrence tools makes Israeli military action more plausible, especially since its government has adopted a policy of 'preemptive defense' and typically prioritizes military considerations over political objectives. The consensus in Israel has changed dramatically since the October 7 attack in 2023. The prevalent instinct is now that existential threats, like Iran's nuclear program, can no longer be tolerated or entrusted to the slow pace of diplomacy. Thus, Washington's threat to end military and diplomatic coordination with Israel if the latter defies the timeline set by the US and undercut Washington's ongoing talks with Tehran, seems both strategic and serious. It signals that some in the US establishment are increasingly apprehensive about the prospect of an Israeli strike. Crucially, key Arab states share this view. Regional capitals have openly rejected escalation by Israel that would foil the effort to reach a diplomatic resolution. These governments have also sent direct messages to Tehran, urging Iran to engage constructively with de-escalation efforts and avoid sliding into a broader conflict that would be disastrous for all sides. Some are cautiously hoping that this emerging American-Arab umbrella could help reduce the risk of military escalation. For all the confidence he publicly demonstrates in Israel's ability to act independently, Prime Minister Netanyahu understands that launching a major operation without US support, and in clear defiance of influential regional actors, could incur steep strategic costs. Complicating this picture further, an Israeli strike is unlikely to be 'surgical' in the traditional sense. Reports suggest it would be a prolonged campaign that spans several days and targets multiple sites deep within Iran. This makes uncontrolled escalation more likely and forces Israel to make complex security and defense calculations, despite Iran not having the capacity to inflict maximum punishment. Although Donald Trump has shown no objection to Israeli threats being leaked to the media, since they add pressure on Iran, this convergence of interests is temporary. The US and Israel are managing optics without agreeing on substance. Trump would clearly rather seal a 'good' nuclear deal, sparing the US a regional fiasco and boosting his domestic political standing, furthering his personal ambitions, and bringing him closer to the Nobel Peace Prize. Whether or not Israel ultimately conducts an attack, the current moment reflects fundamental shifts in the strategic calculus. Once able to rely on its proxies for deterrence, Iran now finds itself increasingly constrained. Israel, previously unable to proceed without an American green light, now has more room to maneuver. As for the United States, it had once been the uncontested architect of regional diplomacy and is now bound by the insular logic of 'America First.' This is a moment of truth. It comes with great risks and carries rich implications. Either diplomacy succeeds in defusing the crisis through a real and durable solution, or we may be witnessing the opening chapter of a clash that could reshape the Middle East for generations.
