Latest news with #HMSVanguard
BBC News
12-05-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
The real problem facing Britain's depleted armed forces
On a March day this year, a British nuclear-armed submarine quietly returned to its base on the west coast of Scotland after a record-breaking 204 days underwater. HMS Vanguard had 130 crew members on board. They had spent nearly seven months without fresh air or daylight, and with little of the UK's nuclear-armed submarines are supposed to last no longer than three months. But the last eight patrols have all exceeded five months, as the navy's ageing fleet of submarines requires ever more time in maintenance. It means the submariners on board are spending longer and longer underwater.A submariner who was on board one of those long patrols described to me a worrying situation in which the crew ran low on food and medicines. Towards the end of the patrol he described how hungry crew members rummaged for tins of food in hidden compartments inside the submarine. He said they even had to make bread out of custard powder, because they'd run out of navy has long found it difficult to recruit sailors into its Submarine Service, often known as the "Silent Service". But the case of the 204-day patrol by HMS Vanguard raises a wider issue. Virtually everyone agrees that Britain's armed forces are depleted. Troop numbers are down, morale is weak, and some ageing equipment is in a poor state. And all this comes at a time of greater geopolitical uncertainty, as the threat from Russia looms large across the next few months, the government will publish its long-awaited Strategic Defence Review - a consultation launched by Sir Keir Starmer shortly after he arrived in Downing Street last summer, designed to identify threats to Britain and recommend how the armed forces can meet them. But there are already doubts over how much it can realistically as the world becomes more dangerous, what can the government do to reverse the decline - and restore the UK to military readiness? Dwindling troop numbers Politicians from all sides, along with military chiefs, admit Britain's armed forces have been "hollowed out". It's true for the Royal Navy and the RAF - and perhaps most acutely, in the British 2010 the regular Army was nearly 110,000 strong. Now, it is struggling to meet its target of 73,000 soldiers - not enough to fill Cardiff's Principality this year defence minister and former Royal Marine, Al Carns, told a conference at the Royal United Services Institute, a think tank, that the entire British Army could be "expended" within six to 12 months if it fought a war on a similar scale to the Ukraine summer the head of the army, General Sir Roly Walker, said the Army needed to be ready to fight a war by 2027 - an admission it isn't ready to fight one in its current state. He said the Army needs to leverage technology, such as drones, new software, and artificial intelligence. But Justin Crump, an Army Reserve Officer who heads the risk and intelligence company Sibylline, argues that boosts to technology won't make up for the lack of military hardware. "We have big gaps and they're not going to get filled overnight," he government is also promising to streamline the bureaucratic process of ordering new kit - trying to learn the painful lessons of past mistakes. By the time they eventually arrive, the delivery of hundreds of new Ajax armoured vehicles will have taken more than a decade. Weaknesses in its Nato commitments Speak to any government minister about security, they'll no doubt talk about Nato. It's the cornerstone of the UK's security, the government says, and one that has only become more important since Russia's invasion of to its Nato commitments, the UK is supposed to be able to field tens of thousands of troops at short notice to defend any Nato territory – with a war-fighting division made up of tanks, artillery, and heavy a former senior General told the BBC that in a real war it would run out of ammunition, spares and supplies within weeks or even days. Nor does Britain have much in terms of ground-based air defences – not enough to protect key military bases in the UK, yet alone its towns and cities. The weaknesses in Britain's contribution to Nato became starkly apparent in February this year, when a group of British MPs visited a Nato military site in Tapa, Estonia, where British soldiers are deployed (alongside Danish and French troops). The point of the base is to deter or slow down an invasion from Russia - which is just 80 miles away over a land Martin, a Liberal Democrat MP and former British Army Officer, said the Estonia visit was like going back in time, seeing the same equipment as when he first joined the Army as a reservist in 2004: ageing Challenger 2 tanks and Warrior armoured vehicles. What one former General described to me as "legacy kit from the 1980's" - old and dwindling in 1,000 British troops are stationed at the site. At the time of the MPs' visit they were armed with some drones - though not many. Nor did they have much in the way of systems to block or jam enemy drones, either. They also have a handful of long-range artillery guns - important for land warfare. The British Army currently has a total of just 14. Even tiny Estonia has double that sources say that since the MPs' visit, the Army has now begun to test some of the new technology it wants to introduce. They say it "will help soldiers see further, and strike faster". Talk of thousands of British troops being sent to Ukraine for a lengthy deployment, if there were to be a ceasefire in its war with Russia, would present another huge the recent past the British army has just about managed to sustain a prolonged military campaign. But in Afghanistan, between 2006 and 2014, it was only fighting lightly armed Taliban insurgents. Even then it was stretched - with nine thousand troops being constantly rotated every six says "Afghanistan was painful enough, and we had 20,000 more people". While he says providing a reassurance force for Ukraine "might be doable – it would rapidly wear us down". Questions over the price tag The government says it is addressing these challenges with its Strategic Defence Review. John Healey, the Defence Secretary, claims it will lead to the "biggest shake up of UK defence for over 50 years".But past reviews have rarely lived up to expectation – not least because the money available rarely matches ambitions. Most reviews are quickly overtaken by events. Harold Wilson's defence review of 1966 was overtaken just three years later by a crisis in Northern Ireland; whilst Tony Blair's review of 1998 came just three years before 9/ when work on this review began, the US - under President Joe Biden - was still the UK's closest and most reliable military partner. Now that's less clear. There are also questions over the price tag. The review's terms of reference assumes that defence spending will be capped at 2.5% of the UK's national income, or Gross Domestic Product (GDP). But few in defence believe that'll be of the independent experts leading the review, General Sir Richard Barrons, has already said the UK should be spending at least 3% of GDP on its armed forces. Meanwhile, Nato's Secretary General, Mark Rutte, is pressing allies to increase defence spending to "north of 3%". President Donald Trump has gone even higher, urging Nato countries to spend 5%.The government's "ambition" is to boost spending to 3% at some time in the next parliament - which will have the added bonus of boosting growth, ministers say. Just last week Sir Keir said that extra investment will create a "defence dividend" for jobs and think the review is too narrow in focus. A former military chief told the BBC that a review should first identify threats to the UK, and then work out how to shape the Armed Forces. It was "bonkers", they added, to conduct a defence review without it being "nested" in a broader cross-government security review. An MoD spokesperson said that boosts to defence spending "will make Britain stronger and safer in an insecure world and will help us build a modern and resilient Armed Forces, with cutting-edge capabilities".The defence review, they added, is "wide-ranging and working at pace, looking hard at the threats we face and all the capabilities we need to meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century". Low morale and cases of harassment Attempts to broaden the Army's appeal - including high-profile recruitment campaigns targeting the so-called "snowflake" generation - have not been enough to reverse the decline. Nor have a series of slick television adverts called "Belonging", which aim to highlight the camaraderie of life in the year, the UK's armed forces were losing 300 more full-time personnel each month than they'd been a MoD survey last year nearly six in ten military personnel rated morale as low. Just four in 10 said they were satisfied with service life – the lowest since records government is trying to boost morale by improving military accommodation, plus last year's pay rise of 6% for armed forces personnel was the largest in two of the problem is a broader cultural one: fewer people have an emotional connection with the armed forces, Crump says. The average Briton is now more likely to know someone in jail than serving in the military, he year, the Army apologised to Kerry-Ann Knight, a black female soldier who fronted Army recruitment campaigns, after she described years of racist abuse and bullying that made her life while serving a "living hell".High profile stories of bullying and sexual harassment within the military can't have helped - particularly for women and MoD has set a recruiting goal of 30% women by 2030, but they currently make up less than 12% of the regular armed forces - a figure which has hardly shifted in a decade. Britain is not alone in struggling to fill its ranks. It's a problem experienced by many western nations relying on volunteers. Some governments have now introduced some form of conscription. In March, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk announced a plan to make all Polish men undergo compulsory military there appears to be little appetite for conscription among the British public. A YouGov poll in September 2023 found that just 28% of the British public would support a one year military service. Younger people were particularly government wants to get people interested from a young age, by expanding cadet forces in secondary schools. The MoD is also trying to keep better records of those troops who have left, and who could be recalled in a MoD spokesperson said: "We are committed to fixing Armed Forces recruitment and have already given personnel the largest pay rise in decades, scrapped 100 outdated recruitment policies, and passed legislation through the Commons to introduce a new Armed Forces Commissioner to improve service life." AI on the battlefield? Whatever comes out of the defence review, there is no expectation that troop numbers will increase in the near are, however, looking at radical solutions - including the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on the battlefield. The most obvious example is AI-enabled drones, which are already being used in Ukraine to identify targets on their own, to deadly effect. But some also envisage a future in which machines could collect data on adversaries.A large land war in Europe is now focusing minds. Senior British military officers, as well as politicians, have repeatedly stated the UK 's armed forces must be ready to fight. But there still appears to be a temptation to use their power and influence much further away from home. Last month, HMS Prince of Wales - one of the Navy's two aircraft carriers – left Portsmouth on an eight-month voyage to the other side of the world. It's the biggest UK defence endeavour this year, involving nearly 4,000 personnel, along with the support of allies, sailing to the Pacific and says it will demonstrate the UK's ability to deploy a major military force around the world, while at the same time promoting British Salisbury, a fellow at the Council on Geostrategy, a think tank, says the carrier's Pacific deployment holds a powerful symbolic importance. "It's a message not just of deterrence against Russia, but also against China," she says. "In the world as it is now, we can't look at things geographically. Everything is interconnected. It's linking together our alliances and partnerships on a global scale."But the deployment also highlights the challenges of trying to do more with less. Britain can only afford to have an episodic appearance in the Indo-Pacific. And the Trump administration has warned UK and other European allies to focus on their own doorstep, rather than faraway adventures. The carrier deployment is another strain on finite course, ministers maintain that their soon-to-be published defence review really could reset the dial and restore the UK to military readiness. But so far no government has really been willing to tackle the greatest dilemma for UK defence: do less or spend a lot more. BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
Telegraph
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Golf, ‘Beer Starmer' and a toxic gas leak – on board an aircraft carrier with the PM
It is 2.08am when the alarm sounds aboard HMS Prince of Wales. A voice crackles over the tannoy. 'Atmospheric alarm.' And then: 'Engine room.' This is not a drill. Toxic gases are leaking from one of the aircraft carrier's diesel generators, reaching dangerous levels in the room housing it. Duty officers scramble into action. Sir Keir Starmer is among those awakened. In one of the two VIP suites on board, he pulls on his naval fleece embroidered with the words 'Prime Minister' and investigates. 'Like everybody else, I was woken up by the alarm,' Sir Keir recalls later on Thursday morning, a little less rested than hoped. 'I remembered the briefing from the night before, which was somebody will come and tell you if you need to move. But I was still concerned enough to get up... and have a look to see what was going on.' The situation is soon resolved. Crew members don gas masks and venture into the engine room and fix the problem. The exact cause is not disclosed on secrecy grounds. By 2.50am, a second alarm sounds, alerting all on board – Sir Keir included – that the problem is over. And so, with the vessel gently rocking, some more sleep can now be had. The incident is hardly the most dramatic thing to have happened aboard this enormous machine, but it is rare. Only around once a month is a problem deemed serious enough to send out a vessel-wide alert, let alone one in the middle of the night. In a way, it underscores why Sir Keir is aboard in the first place, becoming the first Prime Minister since Harold Wilson in 1966 to spend a night at sea on a Royal Navy ship. 'I like to meet people in their work environments,' Sir Keir says. 'You understand things far better than you ever could from a briefing. You get a better perspective on what it is really like.' He took the same approach last month, joining the Trident missile-carrying HMS Vanguard as it returned from sea after 204 days underwater, when those on board finally learnt of not just births but bereavements while they were away. The personal stories stuck with him. The Telegraph was invited to join the Prime Minister as he spent Wednesday evening aboard HMS Prince of Wales before its latest voyage. It will head up the so-called 'carrier strike group' that this week begins a long trip to the Indo-Pacific, via the Gulf. Eighteen F-35 fighter jets will be on board. Frigates and destroyers will bob alongside, providing cover. It all amounts to the biggest British naval embarkation since the Falklands War, when all the UK military assets involved are added up. More than 4,000 British troops will be involved in the voyage. The carrier can hold a whopping 1,600 at one time. But it is not Britain alone. The Norwegians have a vessel joining for the whole journey, and the Canadians will be present at the start. Australia will take part in war games later on. It is a message of 'unity' from the West, says the Prime Minister – one clearly being sent to Beijing, whose ambitions in the IndoPacific look set to become one of the great geopolitical challenges of the next decade. The trip starts on Wednesday afternoon as Sir Keir, travelling with John Healey, the Defence Secretary, catches a military plane down to the south-west after Prime Minister's Questions and then helicopters onto the carrier. The vessel, essentially a moving landing strip for military planes, is vast. It drops eight levels below the flight deck, and the control tower rises up another nine. Crew members say it can take four months to learn your way through the labyrinth of corridors and stepladders. One tells us that 'it's like the Crystal Maze' when showing us the way after landing. Sir Keir's and Mr Healey's first stop is for a briefing about the voyage ahead. Cdre James Blackmore, the commander of the carrier strike group, sits between the pair in uniform on a sofa, tracking the route on the map spread out before him. Hand hovering over the waters above Australia, Cdre Blackmore says: 'China will be watching.' Dinner is held around a coffin-shaped table built to match that in the Cabinet Room – deliberately, in case the Prime Minister has to run the country from the sea. A TV screen beams the scene on the flight deck live. Silver goblets and figurines from past missions – 'trophies', to use official Royal Navy parlance – glitter around the room's edge. Then it is off to the Wardroom, the dark wood bar for senior sailors. Alcohol is allowed on board, but there is a two-drink daily limit for the juniors. A portrait of Queen Elizabeth hangs by the fridges; King Charles's official portrait for the Navy is yet to be issued. The walls are dotted with dramatic scenes of the carrier at sea. On comfy green sofas, soldiers are slumped in their military attire – desert camouflage for the F-35 pilots; dark green for the helicopter crews; and blue for the Royal Navy sailors. Sir Keir pours a bottle of Coors into a glass and settles into a free spot. He hears stories of 'mixed emotions' – heading off with excitement but leaving loved ones behind. One sailor, a father, tells the Prime Minister: 'You're going on an epic adventure, and at the same time, your family is dealing with everything at home.' Sir Keir responds: 'I am really struck by that. The extent that the family is serving their country because you are serving your country.' It is a theme of many of his conversations. Before moving on to another group, Sir Keir is surprised by two young female soldiers who offer up an unexpected gift: a cartoon image of him drinking, dubbed with the words 'Beer Starmer'. It is a meme, apparently. One of them explains: 'If your phone's ringing, it's the Prime Minister. Beer Starmer. You have to have a drink.' It supposedly pings around WhatsApp groups on Fridays. The Prime Minister laughs and poses with the gift for the cameras. It is not his last of the trip. A bottle of expensive Johnnie Walker Blue Label is later handed over. It is 11pm when Sir Keir completes the final selfie requests in the bar. His night, albeit interrupted, is more comfortable than that of his team, who squeeze into spare bunks and cabin beds. The night-time dramas do not stop Mr Healey, 65, from joining the 6am circuit practice on Thursday morning. It takes place in the vast hold area for aircraft, with a row of helicopters as the backdrop for 80 or so soldiers exercising. As Britain's flagship aircraft carrier, HMS Prince of Wales has the mental well-being of soldiers woven into its DNA. A golf simulator, privately funded, is on board for relaxation. Bulbs designed to mimic natural sunlight – the same ones that are used to help with Seasonal Affective Disorder – are dotted inside. Ice baths are available. One senior sailor says they 'swear by' dunking into the cold for six minutes each day. A buffet breakfast of sausages, beans, bacon and eggs is on offer at the junior mess hall when Sir Keir joins. There is plenty of fresh water too. The carrier uses reverse osmosis to create 150 tonnes of the stuff from seawater every day. Later on, the Prime Minister gives a pep talk to a circle of a few dozen soldiers. It offers a sense of the significance he sees in this military mission out East. Speaking from a small stand, he says: 'The UK is in the lead position, showing our commitment to global stability. 'That is an incredible message to our adversaries… It is an incredible show of unity to our allies and our commitment to Nato [the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation].' By now, the sun is up, streaming through holes in the clouds. The carrier, constantly on the move – it can travel 500 miles a day – bobs off the coast around 20 miles south of Plymouth. And then it is time for a hint of the military might. An F-35, the fifth-generation stealth fighter jet, American-made, hovers around 10 metres above the carrier before lowering down. 'Incredible,' mutters the Prime Minister, marvelling from the flight control centre. Another jet uses just 100ft of runway to launch off one end of the carrier, deliberately curved up, and into the sky. The mission to the Indo-Pacific is not without its dangers. Chinese vessels are expected to physically track the vessel's movements. 'Posturing' is the official term for it. The UK does this to Russian vessels too when they pass through British waters. But uncertainty remains. One veteran of tracking vessels controlled by hostile nations gives a nod to the risks involved: 'It can depend on how ballsy their captain is.' The exact duration of the voyage, which will include multiple military exercises, is not made public. All crew members will say is that they will be back before Christmas. Speaking to The Telegraph as the visit nears its end, Sir Keir is asked what message is being broadcast to the Chinese by sending this carrier strike group their way. He says: 'It is a real statement of intent in terms of UK global leadership. Particularly when we get down to the Indo-Pacific and we are then training with the allies in that region, I think that's when it'll become quite real.' And then the time is up. A pair of helicopters whisk Sir Keir and his entourage back to the mainland, where, with one eye on next week's local elections, the Prime Minister will do some campaigning before the weekend. As the choppers descend on a football pitch near Bristol, it is clear that the pristine case carrying a bottle of Johnnie Walker Blue Label, hand delivered by one of the air crew, has made it back. There is no sign of the cartoon 'Beer Starmer'.
Japan Times
23-03-2025
- Politics
- Japan Times
Keir Starmer on Putin, Trump and Europe's challenge: ‘We've known this moment was coming'
With a staccato burst, a horn sounded in the control room of the HMS Vanguard, sending the crew of the nuclear-armed Royal Navy submarine to battle stations. The voice of the commanding officer crackled over the intercom. "Set condition 1SQ,' he said, ordering its battery of ballistic missiles to be readied for launch. It was just a drill, conducted last Monday for a visiting VIP, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. But Starmer had reason to pay close attention when he was shown where the submarine's launch key is stored: The prime minister is the only person in the United Kingdom authorized to order a nuclear strike. "You're looking for the ideal conditions?' Starmer asked softly, as the captain explained how the Vanguard must be maneuvered to the right depth to launch its Trident missiles. Starmer leaned forward in the captain's chair, the blue glow from a bank of screens reflected in his eyeglasses. Later, after he had climbed a 32-foot ladder to the submarine's deck, Starmer reflected on its nearly seven-month-long mission. Prowling silently in the depths of the Atlantic Ocean, it is designed to deter a nuclear conflict with Russia (at least one of the four Vanguard-class submarines is always on patrol). At a time when Europe's capacity to defend itself has come under criticism, not least from President Donald Trump, Starmer said these mighty boats were an ironclad symbol of Britain's commitment to NATO. "Twenty-four hours, 365 days, year after year after year, for 55 years,' Starmer told me after we had cast off and the Vanguard steamed toward its home port in Scotland. "It has kept the peace for a very long time.' Back on a tugboat, taking us to shore in the Firth of Clyde, Starmer sat alone, staring out a window at the gathering clouds. It has been a defining, if sobering, few weeks for the 62-year-old leader: Swept into power eight months ago on a tide of discontent about the cost of living, he now finds himself fighting to avert a rupture of the post-World War II alliance between Europe and the United States. "In our heart of hearts, we've known this moment was coming from just over three years ago, when Russian tanks rolled across the border' of Ukraine, Starmer said of Europe's heightened vulnerability and the strains in the NATO alliance. "We have to treat this as a galvanizing moment and seize the initiative.' The crisis has transformed Starmer, turning a methodical, unflashy human rights lawyer and Labour Party politician into something akin to a wartime leader. With debates over welfare reform and the economy largely eclipsed for now by fears about Britain's national security, Starmer invoked Winston Churchill and, in a nod to his party, Clement Attlee, the first postwar Labour prime minister, as he described Britain's singular role in a more fractured West. "Many people are urging us to choose between the U.S. and Europe,' he said in one of three conversations last week. "Churchill didn't do it. Attlee didn't do it. It'd be a big mistake, in my view, to choose now.' Pausing for a moment, Starmer added, "I do think that President Trump has a point when he says there needs to be a greater burden borne by European countries for the collective self-defense of Europe.' The immediate question is whether Britain and Europe will play a meaningful role in Trump's negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin. To ensure that they do, Starmer is trying to assemble a multinational military force that he calls a coalition of the willing. The goal, he says, is to keep Ukraine's skies, ports and borders secure after any peace settlement. Behind Starmer's whirlwind of diplomacy is an even more elusive goal: persuading Trump of the value of NATO. | Pool / via REUTERS "I don't trust Putin,' Starmer said. "I'm sure Putin would try to insist that Ukraine should be defenseless after a deal because that gives him what he wants, which is the opportunity to go in again.' Britain faces hurdles on every front: Russia has rejected the idea of a NATO peacekeeping force. Trump has yet to offer security guarantees, which Starmer says are crucial before countries will commit troops. Aside from Britain and France, no other European country has done so, even as Starmer led the first military planning meeting for the coalition Thursday. Senior British military and defense officials said they expected that ultimately, multiple countries would contribute planes, ships or troops to the effort. But regardless of the political and diplomatic uncertainties, Starmer said he felt he had little choice but to get ahead of the pack. "If we only move at the pace of the most cautious,' he said, "then we're going to move very slowly and we're not going to be in the position we need to be in.' Behind Starmer's whirlwind of diplomacy is an even more elusive goal: persuading Trump of the value of NATO, the 75-year-old alliance that the president disparages as a club of free riders, sheltering under a U.S. security umbrella but failing to pay their fair share. Unlike French President Emmanuel Macron or Germany's incoming chancellor, Friedrich Merz, Starmer has not called for Europe to chart an independent course from the United States on security. He insists that the "special relationship' is unshakable and that, in any case, British and U.S. forces are deeply intertwined. (The United States supplies the Trident missiles on British submarines.) Starmer has painstakingly cultivated Trump, phoning him every few days and turning up at the White House last month with a signed invitation from King Charles III for a state visit to Britain. The prime minister said Trump told him how much he treasured his meetings with Queen Elizabeth II. The two men could hardly be less alike: Starmer, disciplined and reserved, with leftwing political roots; Trump, impulsive and expansive, with habits and instincts that shade into the regal. Yet they seem to have established a rapport. Trump occasionally calls him on his cellphone, one of Starmer's aides said, to discuss favorite topics such as Trump's golf resorts in Scotland. "On a person-to-person basis, I think we have a good relationship,' Starmer said of Trump, whom he first met over dinner in Trump Tower last fall. "I like and respect him. I understand what he's trying to achieve.' As for Trump's actions — from imposing a 25% tariff on British steel to berating Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy — Starmer said he recognized that the president had generated "quite a degree of disorientation.' The right response, he said, was not to get provoked by it. "On the day in which the Oval Office meeting between President Trump and President Zelenskyy didn't go particularly well, we were under pressure to come out very critically with, you know, flowery adjectives to describe how others felt,' Starmer recalled. "I took the view that it was better to pick up the phone and talk to both sides to try and get them back on the same page.' Starmer dispatched his national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, to Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital, to coach Zelenskyy on how he could mend fences with Trump. In multiple sessions, two senior British officials said, they crafted language to mitigate Zelenskyy's anxieties about a ceasefire in which the Russians would keep shooting. Starmer then phoned Trump to relay the progress in Kyiv and lay the groundwork for a call between him and Zelenskyy. When the presidents spoke again, Zelenskyy threw his support behind Trump's peacemaking effort. Starmer meets with U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington on Feb. 27. | Pool / via REUTERS In offering himself as a bridge, Starmer is trying to reclaim a role that Britain played for decades before it voted to leave the European Union in 2016. It showed, he said, that after a period in which Britain had been "disinterested' and "absent' from the world stage, "we're back, if you like.' But there are limits to Britain's role in a post-Brexit world: The EU said it would exclude British weapons manufacturers from a defense fund worth €150 billion ($162 billion), unless Britain signs a security partnership agreement with Brussels. Britain, analysts say, will find it harder to act as a bridge if Trump spares it from more sweeping tariffs that he has vowed to impose on the EU. For now, Starmer's statesmanship has buoyed his poll ratings and won him praise across the political spectrum. After a fitful start, in which he was dogged by a torpid economy, Starmer said the crisis "had injected an urgency' into his government. How long that will last is anyone's guess. Britain's economy continues to sputter and Starmer has faced a backlash over decisions such as cutting payments to help retirees with winter heating costs. The benefits of being a statesman, analysts say, can be evanescent if domestic woes keep piling up. Even the fire at an electrical substation in London on Friday, which shut down Heathrow Airport and threw travel plans for tens of thousands into chaos, is a reminder of how events can temporarily swamp a government's agenda. Painful trade-offs loom, further down the road. Starmer has pledged to increase military spending to 2.5% of Britain's gross domestic product by 2027, financed with a cut to overseas development aid. It is not clear how Britain will pay for a promised further increase to 3% of GDP within a decade. "We've all enjoyed the peace dividend,' Starmer said, noting that Europe is moving into a darker era. "I don't want to veer into scaremongering,' he said, but he added, "We need to think about defense and security in a more immediate way.' Three days after the submarine visit, Starmer took part in a keel-laying ceremony for a new fleet of ballistic missile submarines, being built at a shipyard in Barrow-in-Furness, in northwest England. Four Dreadnought-class vessels, each almost the length of St. Paul's Cathedral, are scheduled to go into service in the early 2030s, at an estimated cost of 41 billion pounds ($53 billion). Standing in the cavernous factory, with the aft section of a submarine towering above him, Starmer expressed pride in this statement of British might. But it was also a reminder of the stretched state of its military. The Vanguard-class submarines being replaced by the Dreadnoughts are nearly 30 years old — "pretty old kit,' in Starmer's words — which necessitates prolonged maintenance periods. That has extended the patrols for the other vessels in the fleet and put acute pressure on their roughly 130-person crews. The strain was on display during Starmer's visit to the Vanguard, which set a Royal Navy record for longest patrol. Sailors said the food, excellent at first, deteriorated as the submarine's provisions dwindled. Four were returning to spouses who had had babies while they were away. Others lost family members, only learning the news from the captain on the eve of their return. "It is with huge respect to the team' that they survived seven months at sea, Starmer said after stepping gingerly off the submarine's weathered deck. "But we shouldn't be celebrating it.' "This has doubled my resolve to ensure we go further and faster in our capabilities,' he said, "to make sure they are not put in that position again.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times © 2025 The New York Times Company
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
One Trident sub could ‘incinerate 40 Russian cities': Why Putin should fear Britain's nuclear arsenal
Russia fears Britain's submarine-based nuclear deterrent – known as Trident – according to Sir Keir Starmer. 'I think they appreciate our capability. What is obviously important is that they appreciate that it is what it is, which is a credible capability,' the Prime Minister said on Wednesday during a visit to greet the return of HMS Vanguard, after what is believed to have been more than 200 days at sea. But is he correct? Do Vladimir Putin and co actually quake at the thought of the UK's arsenal being trained on Russian targets? After all, the Royal Navy submarines have suffered from a few embarrassing mishaps in recent years, including a number of missile launch failures and a collision with a French nuclear submarine during a secret mission in the middle of the Atlantic. The Trident programme consists of four submarines HMS Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance. The first boat, HMS Vanguard, was commissioned in 1993 and the last in 1999 – so they are all coming to or have already exceeded their 25-year lifespan. Each submarine can carry up to 16 ballistic missiles, loaded with 12 independently targeted warheads a piece. In theory, this means a single vessel could potentially deliver 192 warheads in a single volley – although current UK policy limits the number of warheads permitted on board each of the submarines to 48 at a time. One of these submarines must be at sea at all times. This is known as the 'continuous at-sea deterrence'. It is the cornerstone of UK defence strategy and the ultimate guarantor of the nation's security. Two other submarines are armed and should be ready to deploy at short notice while a fourth is usually undergoing some form of maintenance. How close the Royal Navy has ever come to failing to meet this crucial requirement for any meaningful length of time is unknown – virtually everything to do with nuclear submarines is highly classified. What is clear, however, is that Britain's nuclear strategy is now solely dependent on Trident given that all tactical, lower yield nuclear weapons were decommissioned at the end of the Cold War. This dependency and Russia's increasing nuclear belligerence has led to calls for Britain to rebuild its nuclear arsenal to allow it, if deemed necessary, to deploy tactical nuclear weapons and ultimately avoid having to use missiles capable of the destruction of cities. Adding to the sense of anxiety, the Royal Navy's trident submarines have suffered the ignominy of two relatively recent missile test failures. In January 2024 a test firing from HMS Vanguard failed. The missile failed to launch properly and crashed into the sea. The Ministry of Defence described the incident as an 'anomaly' and emphasised that the failure had 'no implications for the reliability of the wider Trident missile systems and stockpiles'. Eight years earlier in 2016, a Trident missile test from HMS Vengeance also failed, with the missile veering off course and eventually self-destructing. Also of concern is the age of the fleet. The oldest sub in the fleet, HMS Vanguard, first entered service in 1993 while the last boat to be commissioned, HMS Vengeance, did so in 1999. And all four vessels will be expected to continue to deploy on secret missions for at least another 10 years yet. Despite the vessels's age, Rear Admiral Chris Parry, who served in the Royal Navy for 37 years from 1972 to 2008, agrees completely with the Prime Minister's view that despite their age, the Trident submarines really do worry the Russians. 'One Trident submarine has the ability to incinerate 40 Russian cities very quickly. That is a lot of food for thought for Putin and that should make any world leader fearful,' he tells The Telegraph. Britain's Trident nuclear missiles are manufactured in the US but are jointly maintained by the UK and US, with the Royal Navy relying on the US for parts and technical assistance and returning the missiles to the US for periodic refurbishing. While in the past such dependence on the US was not an issue, recent events, with Trump suggesting that Nato can no longer rely on US support, may create problems for the future. Still, for now, Britain's threat endures. 'Putin knows what Trident submarines can deliver and that is something he has to factor into all of his calculations when he is provoking the West,' says Rear-Adml Parry. 'Russian air defence systems are not that great. Russia is also the largest country on earth – it is impossible to defend against a ballistic missile attack.' The decision to launch nuclear weapons can only be taken by the prime minister – or a designated survivor following a nuclear attack. Two designated personnel must authenticate each stage of the firing process before missile firing. The control is not actually a 'red button', as widely popularised, but rather a trigger, modelled on the handgrip of a Colt 'peacemaker' pistol. Locked inside a safe on each of the submarines is a 'letter of last resort' from the prime minister, containing instructions on what to do if all contact with the command system is lost following an overwhelming attack. The precise contents of these letters are never disclosed and are destroyed, unopened, when the keys to No 10 change hands. The missiles themselves, meanwhile, have a range of 6,500 nautical miles and each has a speed of around Mach 19 – more than 13,000 miles an hour. This means that depending on where the submarine is based at the time, a target inside Russia, such as the capital Moscow, could be destroyed within 30 minutes of the order being given. 'Just imagine how vulnerable we would feel in the UK if we had given up all of our nuclear weapons,' says Rear-Adml Parry. 'There have been problems but it is important not to overplay these events. The missile firings, for example, were about testing the launch process – there was too much focus on the missiles failing. Yes they are old, but they are still very capable.' But that view is not shared by everyone. There are growing concerns in some areas of the Royal Navy that the increasing age of Trident submarines means that they are an accident waiting to happen. 'Trident submarines are old and this is an obvious concern,' a senior naval source tells The Telegraph. 'When something goes wrong on a submarine it has the potential to be catastrophic. Obviously the older something becomes, the more prone it is to some sort of failure that is why ships and submarines have a life span – you can't constantly make do and mend, especially with a submarine. 'There is always risk associated with submarines but the older they become, the more vulnerable they become and the greater the exposure is to some sort of failure and the potential damage to national prestige obviously increases.' Patrols by one of the UK's nuclear-armed submarines – which used to last three months – have had to be extended in recent years because of prolonged periods of maintenance and repair work on the other boats. The fleet is operating well beyond its original in-service life of 25 years because of delays in the building of four replacement vessels. Trident is also increasingly expensive with running costs around six percent of the UK's defence budget, which was around £3 billion for 2023-2024. The current fleet will eventually be replaced by a new class of Dreadnought submarines – said to be as quiet as an idling car, allowing them to avoid detection. HMS Dreadnought, HMS Valiant, HMS Warspite and HMS King George VI will at that point become the nation's main nuclear deterrents. But that looks unlikely to happen for at least another 10 years and estimated costs are expected to be at least £31 billion. Still, despite Trident's soaring costs, the fleet's age and the fact that it consists of just four boats, Rear-Adm Parry insists Britain's nuclear deterrent packs enough of a punch to make Putin wary. 'This is one weapon system the British possess which will really worry the Russians,' he says. 'And that after all is the point of a nuclear deterrent. It is an insurance policy – often expensive until you need it.' 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.
Telegraph
20-03-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
One Trident sub could ‘incinerate 40 Russian cities': Why Putin should fear Britain's nuclear arsenal
Russia fears Britain's submarine-based nuclear deterrent – known as Trident – according to Sir Keir Starmer. 'I think they appreciate our capability. What is obviously important is that they appreciate that it is what it is, which is a credible capability,' the Prime Minister said on Wednesday during a visit to greet the return of HMS Vanguard, after what is believed to have been more than 200 days at sea. But is he correct? Do Vladimir Putin and co actually quake at the thought of the UK's arsenal being trained on Russian targets? After all, the Royal Navy submarines have suffered from a few embarrassing mishaps in recent years, including a number of missile launch failures and a collision with a French nuclear submarine during a secret mission in the middle of the Atlantic. 'Continuous at-sea deterrence' The Trident programme consists of four submarines HMS Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance. The first boat, HMS Vanguard, was commissioned in 1993 and the last in 1999 – so they are all coming to or have already exceeded their 25-year lifespan. Each submarine can carry up to 16 ballistic missiles, loaded with 12 independently targeted warheads a piece. In theory, this means a single vessel could potentially deliver 192 warheads in a single volley – although current UK policy limits the number of warheads permitted on board each of the submarines to 48 at a time. One of these submarines must be at sea at all times. This is known as the 'continuous at-sea deterrence'. It is the cornerstone of UK defence strategy and the ultimate guarantor of the nation's security. Two other submarines are armed and should be ready to deploy at short notice while a fourth is usually undergoing some form of maintenance. How close the Royal Navy has ever come to failing to meet this crucial requirement for any meaningful length of time is unknown – virtually everything to do with nuclear submarines is highly classified. What is clear, however, is that Britain's nuclear strategy is now solely dependent on Trident given that all tactical, lower yield nuclear weapons were decommissioned at the end of the Cold War. This dependency and Russia's increasing nuclear belligerence has led to calls for Britain to rebuild its nuclear arsenal to allow it, if deemed necessary, to deploy tactical nuclear weapons and ultimately avoid having to use missiles capable of the destruction of cities. Adding to the sense of anxiety, the Royal Navy's trident submarines have suffered the ignominy of two relatively recent missile test failures. In January 2024 a test firing from HMS Vanguard failed. The missile failed to launch properly and crashed into the sea. The Ministry of Defence described the incident as an 'anomaly' and emphasised that the failure had 'no implications for the reliability of the wider Trident missile systems and stockpiles'. Eight years earlier in 2016, a Trident missile test from HMS Vengeance also failed, with the missile veering off course and eventually self-destructing. Also of concern is the age of the fleet. The oldest sub in the fleet, HMS Vanguard, first entered service in 1993 while the last boat to be commissioned, HMS Vengeance, did so in 1999. And all four vessels will be expected to continue to deploy on secret missions for at least another 10 years yet. A potent threat Despite the vessels's age, Rear Admiral Chris Parry, who served in the Royal Navy for 37 years from 1972 to 2008, agrees completely with the Prime Minister's view that despite their age, the Trident submarines really do worry the Russians. 'One Trident submarine has the ability to incinerate 40 Russian cities very quickly. That is a lot of food for thought for Putin and that should make any world leader fearful,' he tells The Telegraph. Britain's Trident nuclear missiles are manufactured in the US but are jointly maintained by the UK and US, with the Royal Navy relying on the US for parts and technical assistance and returning the missiles to the US for periodic refurbishing. While in the past such dependence on the US was not an issue, recent events, with Trump suggesting that Nato can no longer rely on US support, may create problems for the future. Still, for now, Britain's threat endures. 'Putin knows what Trident submarines can deliver and that is something he has to factor into all of his calculations when he is provoking the West,' says Rear-Adml Parry. 'Russian air defence systems are not that great. Russia is also the largest country on earth – it is impossible to defend against a ballistic missile attack.' Nuclear protocol The decision to launch nuclear weapons can only be taken by the prime minister – or a designated survivor following a nuclear attack. Two designated personnel must authenticate each stage of the firing process before missile firing. The control is not actually a 'red button', as widely popularised, but rather a trigger, modelled on the handgrip of a Colt 'peacemaker' pistol. Locked inside a safe on each of the submarines is a 'letter of last resort' from the prime minister, containing instructions on what to do if all contact with the command system is lost following an overwhelming attack. The precise contents of these letters are never disclosed and are destroyed, unopened, when the keys to No 10 change hands. The missiles themselves, meanwhile, have a range of 6,500 nautical miles and each has a speed of around Mach 19 – more than 13,000 miles an hour. This means that depending on where the submarine is based at the time, a target inside Russia, such as the capital Moscow, could be destroyed within 30 minutes of the order being given. 'Just imagine how vulnerable we would feel in the UK if we had given up all of our nuclear weapons,' says Rear-Adml Parry. 'There have been problems but it is important not to overplay these events. The missile firings, for example, were about testing the launch process – there was too much focus on the missiles failing. Yes they are old, but they are still very capable.' 'Trident submarines are old' But that view is not shared by everyone. There are growing concerns in some areas of the Royal Navy that the increasing age of Trident submarines means that they are an accident waiting to happen. 'Trident submarines are old and this is an obvious concern,' a senior naval source tells The Telegraph. 'When something goes wrong on a submarine it has the potential to be catastrophic. Obviously the older something becomes, the more prone it is to some sort of failure that is why ships and submarines have a life span – you can't constantly make do and mend, especially with a submarine. 'There is always risk associated with submarines but the older they become, the more vulnerable they become and the greater the exposure is to some sort of failure and the potential damage to national prestige obviously increases.' Patrols by one of the UK's nuclear-armed submarines – which used to last three months – have had to be extended in recent years because of prolonged periods of maintenance and repair work on the other boats. The fleet is operating well beyond its original in-service life of 25 years because of delays in the building of four replacement vessels. 'An insurance policy' Trident is also increasingly expensive with running costs around six percent of the UK's defence budget, which was around £3 billion for 2023-2024. The current fleet will eventually be replaced by a – said to be as quiet as an idling car, allowing them to avoid detection. HMS Dreadnought, HMS Valiant, HMS Warspite and HMS King George VI will at that point become the nation's main nuclear deterrents. But that looks unlikely to happen for at least another 10 years and estimated costs are expected to be at least £31 billion. Still, despite Trident's soaring costs, the fleet's age and the fact that it consists of just four boats, Rear-Adm Parry insists Britain's nuclear deterrent packs enough of a punch to make Putin wary. 'This is one weapon system the British possess which will really worry the Russians,' he says. 'And that after all is the point of a nuclear deterrent. It is an insurance policy – often expensive until you need it.'
