UK to build attack subs as part of major defence review
UK prime minister Keir Starmer (Image credit: AP)
LONDON: Britain announced it will build 12 new attack submarines as it was set to unveil Monday a major defence review to deal with "growing" Russian aggression and the changing nature of warfare.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer told BBC radio that "there is greater instability on defence and security than there has been for many, many years, and greater threats."
His Labour government will later publish its Strategic Defence Review, a document that will assess threats facing the UK and make recommendations.
The review warns that Britain is entering "a new era of threat" as drones and artificial intelligence transform modern warfare, The Guardian newspaper reported over the weekend.
"I wanted a review that told me the challenges we're actually facing and likely to face for the foreseeable future," Starmer told the BBC Monday.
"And the principles are clear: war-fighting readiness, integrating our forces... and a Nato first approach," he added.
The UK has been racing to rearm in the face of the threat from Russia and fears that US President Donald Trump will no longer help protect Europe.
Starmer said it would serve as "a blueprint for strength and security for decades to come".
Daily attacks:
His government pledged in February to lift defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027 in the "largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War".
And despite budget constraints, it aims for spending to rise to three per cent in the next parliamentary term, due in 2029.
The Labour government has said it will cut UK overseas aid to help fund the spending.
Based on the recommendations of the review, which is led by former Nato secretary general George Robertson, the government said Sunday that it would boost stockpiles and weapons production capacity, which could be scaled up if needed.
This includes £1.5 billion ($2 billion) for building "at least six munitions and energetics factories", procuring 7,000 domestically built long-range weapons, and spending £6 billion on munitions over the current parliamentary term.
The government also said late Sunday that it would build up to 12 new attack submarines as part of its Aukus military alliance with Australia and the United States, and invest £15 billion in its nuclear warhead programme.
The defence ministry last week pledged £1 billion for the creation of a "cyber command" to help on the battlefield.
"We're in a world that is changing now... and it is a world of growing threats," defence secretary John Healey told the BBC in an interview Sunday.
"It's growing Russian aggression. It's those daily cyberattacks, it's new nuclear risks, and it's increasing tension in other parts of the world as well," he said.
Sophisticated challenge:
The last such defence review was commissioned in 2021 by the previous Conservative government, and was revised in 2023 after Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
While launching the new review, Robertson said it would tackle threats from Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, calling them a "deadly quartet".
But in an op-ed in The Sun newspaper, Starmer did not mention China, while warning that "The Kremlin is working hand in hand with its cronies in Iran and North Korea."
The softer rhetoric on China is in line with the Labour government's efforts to thaw relations with Beijing, which reached new lows under former prime minister
Rishi Sunak
's Conservative government.
The review describes Russia as an "immediate and pressing" threat, but calls China a "sophisticated and persistent challenge", according to The Guardian.
At a time when Washington is demanding that its Nato allies bolster their own defences, Britain is considering strengthening its deterrent by buying nuclear-missile capable aircrafts from the United States, The Sunday Times reported.
Without confirming or denying, Healey said Sunday that "strong deterrence is absolutely essential in order to keep Britain and the British people safe".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- Indian Express
C Raja Mohan writes: New America, churn in Asia and India's path
Two recent developments to India's east offer insights into the rapidly shifting contours of Asian geopolitics. The first was the annual Shangri-La Dialogue (SLD) in Singapore, where US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth outlined the administration's priorities for Asia. French President Emmanuel Macron's keynote address offered a European perspective on Asian security that diverged from Washington's in key respects. The second was South Korea's presidential election, where the likely victory of left-leaning candidate Lee Jae-myung could reshape not only Korea's political trajectory but also the strategic dynamics of Northeast Asia. More broadly, South Korea's political churn reflects the growing dilemmas across Asia in responding to an assertive China and an increasingly unpredictable US. As expected, US-China relations dominated discussions at the SLD. The absence of China's defence minister underscored the current crisis in bilateral ties. The SLD historically served as a valuable platform for US-China dialogue on regional security. Much of Asia was eager to hear from Hegseth about the Trump administration's strategic intentions. Many countries remain caught in the crossfire of President Donald Trump's trade wars and were watching closely to see if Washington would uphold traditional alliances or, as in Europe, move to dismantle them. Hegseth, however, steered clear of economics, saying his focus was 'tanks, not tariffs'. He had strong words on China's military capabilities and ambitions of annexing Taiwan. Even as Hegseth warned against Chinese hegemony, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced the breakdown of the trade truce with Beijing he had negotiated last month. Asia and the world, which welcomed the relaxation of US-China commercial tensions, must now brace for more turbulence. For those in the region worried about a US-China condominium or a potential G2 arrangement, there was some relief: A strategic alignment isn't imminent. Nor is Washington likely to cede an Asian sphere of influence to Beijing. However, Hegseth reinforced concerns about the risks of an escalating US-China rivalry, economic and geopolitical. On regional security, Hegseth reaffirmed a strong US commitment to alliances and partnerships in Asia. 'No one should doubt America's commitment to our Indo-Pacific allies and partners… We will continue to wrap our arms around our friends and find new ways to work together.' Yet, he made it clear that US support would not be unconditional: He called on allies to shoulder more responsibility, notably by raising their defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP. This is an impossible ask for most Asian nations. Japan has promised to raise it to 2 per cent but is having trouble mobilising the financial resources for it. India, despite a two-front threat from China and Pakistan, spends only about 2 per cent. Asked about NATO's potential role in Asia, Hegseth urged Europe to remain focused on Russia rather than overstretch its resources in the Indo-Pacific. Macron, however, had a different message. He emphasised Europe's stake in Indo-Pacific security and called for new coalitions between Europe and Asian partners. Macron stressed the importance of 'strategic autonomy' and a balanced approach to global power shifts. Kaja Kallas, the EU's High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, echoed Macron. She argued that the security of Europe and Asia is deeply interconnected. Both were critical of China but avoided overt confrontation, reflecting the nuanced European posture amid the shifting dynamics involving the US, Russia and China. No Asian nation illustrates the impact of domestic politics on foreign policy more vividly than South Korea. The current election, prompted by the fall of conservative President Yoon Suk Yeol, follows a period of political turbulence. The frontrunner, Lee Jae-myung, represents the progressive tradition that seeks a more autonomous foreign policy. Yoon deepened South Korea's alignment with the US and Japan and adopted a tough stance on China and North Korea. Lee, by contrast, promotes 'pragmatic realism' — aimed at repositioning South Korea as a strategic balancer rather than a compliant US ally. While affirming the alliance with Washington, Lee advocates greater autonomy and legislative oversight over South Korea's military involvement in US-led operations, especially concerning Taiwan. This could complicate American contingency planning in the Indo-Pacific. Lee's China policy prioritises economic pragmatism over ideological confrontation. With China absorbing about a quarter of South Korea's exports, Lee seeks to stabilise trade and supply chains, especially in strategic sectors like semiconductors and batteries. Balancing economic ties with China against security expectations from the US will be a delicate act. On North Korea, Lee favours a return to engagement. He supports reopening joint projects like the Kaesong Industrial Complex in exchange for verifiable progress on denuclearisation. A potential diplomatic outreach from Trump — who has promised to re-engage Pyongyang — could provide new opportunities for Lee. On Japan, Lee diverges sharply from Yoon's approach. While supporting trilateral defence initiatives, he insists on historical accountability from Tokyo for its imperial-era abuses. This dual-track approach may resonate domestically but could generate diplomatic friction with Japan and the US, both of which have encouraged Seoul and Tokyo to move past historical disputes. Lee Jae-myung's foreign policy vision represents a significant departure from tradition, aiming to balance strategic autonomy, economic security, and principled diplomacy. His success will depend on managing the deep internal divisions on foreign and security policies, stabilising ties with the US, insulating the economy from US-China tensions, and navigating a complex external environment. Both the SLD and South Korea's political turn underscore the deepening uncertainty in Asian geopolitics, shaped by the tension between alliance building and strategic autonomy, between economic integration and commercial de-risking, and vastly divergent views within Asian polities on dealing with the changing external conditions. For over three decades, India's Asian strategy was premised on great-power harmony, regional stability, economic interdependence and stronger regional institutions. That era may be ending. Delhi must now contend with growing disorder, which demands both stronger national capabilities and enhanced strategic flexibility. (The writer is contributing editor on international affairs for The Indian Express and holds the Korea Chair at the Council on Strategic and Defence Research, Delhi)
Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- Indian Express
What Ukraine's drone attack on Russia means for peace talks
How can the Ukrainian attack on Russian air assets affect the negotiations? What will Russia be looking for as it investigates the drone strikes? What does the attack mean for President Putin? Alind Chauhan put these questions to one of India's foremost experts on Russia. Ukraine's massive drone attack on Russia on Sunday came a day before the second round of peace talks between the two sides in Istanbul. The talks ended within an hour — the two sides agreed to swap thousands of dead and wounded soldiers, but there was no progress towards ending the war. The first round of talks in mid-May had also ended without a consensus on a ceasefire agreement. This was the first time that such large numbers of Ukrainian drones attacked Russian airfields. At least five of them were attacked, and some of them are located very deep inside Russian territory, including in the Far East. If the attacked sites have facilities that contain nuclear-related equipment such as strategic bombers and nuclear weapons, then the Russians will take a serious view. So far in the war, the Ukrainians have not needed to target Russia's nuclear weapons facilities as the Russians will not use nuclear weapons as long as the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) does not get involved. That's why the Russians would be concerned if their nuclear facilities were targeted. They would be investigating if the attack was just an adventure by Ukraine — an attempt by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to get President Donald Trump on his side somehow and get him involved in the war — or if someone in NATO put the Ukrainians to it, trying to achieve some greater goals. The Russians would be investigating the second angle because drones typically do not fly by themselves and need navigation, which Ukraine cannot do without the help of United States satellites. No. Over the past month, both sides have been attacking each other quite heavily with drones. Ukrainian drones attempted to attack Moscow during Russia's Victory Day parade on May 9. More than 20 leaders from various countries had gone to attend the parade. It was the depth at which the Ukrainians hit Russia which was unexpected. They attacked airfields in the Irkutsk region, which is deep in Siberia, and far from where the military action has been taking place. The method of launching the drones was also unusual. The Ukrainians launched drones from trucks that are used to haul loads over long distances. It is unusual for the Russians to realise that they can be hit so deep. But they are too far gone in the war against Ukraine. And the support for Putin is way too solid for this attack to make any significant difference. So from a military and a strategic perspective, the Russians may be worried. However, from a political perspective, Putin will not be concerned too much. Currently, both countries are looking at some technicalities as they have not been able to square the fundamental disagreement. The Ukrainians are saying that before any negotiations start, the Russians should agree to a month-long ceasefire. The West, except the US, has supported this demand. The Russians are saying that they are not opposed to a ceasefire, provided there is a roadmap to the ultimate resolution. That's because the Russians have got initiative on the ground. Although they are advancing slowly, they are advancing — and the Ukrainians are just trying to hold on to territory. The Ukrainians are also exhausted and running out of material for the war. The Russians do not want to give up this advantage and allow the Ukrainians a whole month to regroup and replenish their stocks. Also, the Russians have said there are certain reasons why the war began — such as the question of Ukraine's neutrality and the protection of the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine. Unless there is a possibility of an agreement on these issues, the Russians say, there is no point in a ceasefire. The Russians also do not want to give up territory that they have captured. That's why the Russians had earlier suggested that the two sides come up with plans or outlines of how they visualise peace, and meet on June 2 to compare notes. The negotiations are still at a very preliminary stage and involve second-level officials. Both Russia and Ukraine are under pressure from the US which wants to see a peace deal soon. However, both sides have red lines on what they want to talk about. The Russian delegation is led by Vladimir Medinsky, a former Cultural Minister, and includes some officials from the security services and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Ukrainian delegation is led by the country's Defence Minister Rustem Umerov. However, these delegations do not have the authority to make the final decision. They are just trying to narrow down the differences and come to a document that is acceptable to both sides, which will be presented to Putin and Zelenskyy for a decision. Nandan Unnikrishnan is Distinguished Fellow at Observer Research Foundation.
Mint
23 minutes ago
- Mint
Ukraine's drone strike is a warning—for the US
By now Americans know about Ukraine's remarkable drone strike on Sunday that damaged as many as 40 aircraft deep inside Russia as strategic bombers sat like ducks in a row on military bases. One urgent lesson beyond that conflict is that the U.S. homeland is far more vulnerable than most Americans realize. The details about Ukraine's daring operation are few, but Kyiv managed to sneak cheap drones across the border and use them to destroy costly Russian military assets. The bang for Ukraine's buck was considerable. You don't have to be a fan of thrillers to imagine a similar scenario in the United States. 'Could those have been B-2s at the hands of Iranian drones flying out of containers, let alone Chinese?" military analyst Fred Kagan asked this week. The U.S. strategic bomber fleet is small (about one-third the size it was in the Cold War) and concentrated at a handful of bases. See the aerial photo flying across social media of B-52 bombers lined up at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana. The story is similar for fighters and capital assets like aircraft carriers. One lesson is that President Trump's planned Golden Dome missile-defense shield isn't the boondoggle it's portrayed to be in the press. The headlines are preoccupied with space-based interceptors. But the U.S. is exposed to many threats besides ballistic missiles—from drones and spy blimps to cruise missiles launched off submarines. The bipartisan Strategic Posture Commission warned in 2023 that the U.S. needs better integrated air and missile defenses against 'coercive attacks" from Russia and China, and such an attack could come from conventional weapons. In a crisis over the Taiwan Strait, Xi Jinping might threaten the Commander in Chief: Stay out of the Western Pacific or you never know what might happen to your pricey F-22s in Alaska. That's one reason the U.S. needs a layered missile shield that exploits new technology and existing systems like the Patriot. Israel's recent success shooting down drones with lasers shows that innovative and affluent societies can meet new threats. President Trump deserves credit for elevating missile defense as a presidential priority. But the U.S. has lost some basic muscle memory since the Cold War on living in a dangerous world. A prescient report this year from Thomas Shugart and Timothy Walton at the Hudson Institute warned about highly vulnerable U.S. airfields, especially in the Western Pacific. For the new B-21 bomber, the Air Force is looking at shelters 'akin to sunshades," Messrs. Shugart and Walton write, that could leave the aircraft 'exposed to threats, including lethal" unmanned aerial vehicles. 'Not building approximately $30 million" hardened aircraft shelters 'for over-$600 million B-21 bombers is an unwise decision that could endanger the US's ability to strike globally," they write. Such shelters always end up being a low budget priority compared with airplanes and missiles, and the message here is that defense spending can't stay at 3% of the economy and provide the security Americans expect. The bill moving through Congress puts up $25 billion for Golden Dome. But a national air defense won't be built by a one-time cash infusion, and the Administration is ducking a sustained defense buildup to mollify its fiscal hawks. Americans are accustomed to wars fought far from home by a force of volunteers, but everyone in the U.S. will be on the front lines of the next conflict. Political leaders could be doing much more to educate the country about this vulnerability, rather than boasting that the U.S. military is the best it has ever been. It isn't. Ukraine did the U.S. a favor by destroying bombers of a U.S. adversary—and sending America a wake up call about its own complacency.
