Latest news with #StrategicDefenceReview
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Why has the Royal Navy taken over a civilian support ship? The answer won't cheer you up
Could the RN take back the amphibious mission and the minehunting motherships, leaving the RFA to run the tankers and support ships? This seems like a natural division of labour but would need firm leadership to force it through and even then the RN is short of people too. At least that problem is not as severe as it is for the RFA. The recent Strategic Defence Review mentions some of this but offers no detail – especially on money. The Investment Plan, due in the Autumn, will have some serious questions to answer here, as with everything all across Defence. The other even broader question is to what level should the Stirling Castle model of simply putting combat equipment on affordable merchant service hulls be used. Here the answer is divided between traditionalists and realists. The traditionalist view is that a warship should be a purpose-built thoroughbred, sleek, as fast as possible, bristling with weapons and sensors and made to exacting standards in order to be survivable in war. There are others of my acquaintance who would suggest that (for example) three Merlin anti-submarine helicopters on an ex-merchant hull would fight submarines at least as well as a single Merlin on a frigate. They'd suggest that radar drones or helicopters would find enemy surface units or aircraft much further away than a destroyer's radar can, being up in the air with hugely greater line of sight. They'd point out that destroyer weapons are already supplied in containerised forms suitable for bolting on to any hull. These people point out that a dedicated warship's high top speed – typically achieved using expensive gas turbines – is usually irrelevant as the thirsty gassers get through fuel very quickly at speed. A warship cannot actually travel over any serious distance any faster than its accompanying auxiliary tanker. When high speed is called for in combat, aircraft or missiles are what count: a frigate's primary means of attacking submarines is, after all, its helicopter. But I'm a former frigate captain and a specialist in the use of destroyers, and I'd rather have frigates and destroyers. There is a reason frigates, destroyers, aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines etc have remained largely unchanged in recent decades – they work. But I would freely admit that an insistence on exquisite, fast, heavily equipped specialist warships has got us to a terrible place in terms of capabilities and numbers. I do wonder how we punch our way out of the navy-wide hole we are currently in when there is no more serious money coming. I do ask how we achieve the mass that is missing and uncrewed advancement that we so obviously need? Before long every platform starts looking like a Stirling Castle -type purchase, or container ships with drones the way the Iranians are doing it, or uncrewed surface weapons and expensive proper warships are consigned to the military history bin. As ever, the answer is probably somewhere in the middle, but this is a balance that is hard to strike when financial conditions constantly force you to make decisions because you have to, not because you should. In the meantime, it's a safe bet that the practice of converting unusual ships for RN use is going to increase. So let's use the transfer of Stirling Castle to the Royal Navy as a test bed to become better at it.
Daily Record
3 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Record
UK military now has new AI digital targeting system similar to Ukraine and Russia
The ASGARD system is designed to dramatically enhance the speed and accuracy of the UK's battlefield strikes - with the UK military now having a system similar to those used by Ukraine and Russia The British Army has revealed cutting-edge AI digital targeting technology comparable to systems deployed by Russia and Ukraine. ASGARD is engineered to drastically enhance both the velocity and precision of the UK's combat operations. The technology underwent trials during recent NATO military exercises, employing artificial intelligence and sophisticated communication networks to identify and engage hostile targets across extended distances. It allows choices that previously required hours to be executed within minutes, representing a substantial enhancement to operational pace. ASGARD was revealed by Defence Secretary John Healey last October, with contracts distributed in January before an official prototype was deployed mere months afterwards, reports the Express. The system underwent successful evaluation during NATO's Exercise Hedgehog, carried out in Estonia across a fortnight in May. In a statement, Maria Eagle, the Defence Procurement Minister, said: "We are learning the lessons from Ukraine so our frontline personnel can strike further and faster and maintain advantage over our adversaries. "ASGARD exemplifies the vision of the Strategic Defence Review, with speed and world-class capability." Describing the system as a "breakthrough", Sir Roland Walker, the Chief of General Staff, added: "ASGARD helps double our lethality and exponentially reduces the time to see, decide, and strike. What took hours, now takes minutes." He also highlighted how the new system brings Britain closer to the high-speed targeting networks employed by the likes of Ukraine and Russia. It forms part of the Army's strategy to establish a 'Digital Targeting Web' across the Armed Forces by 2027 which has already secured backing of over £1billion in funding. Meanwhile, Britain and its people are not safe, a former Nato general secretary has warned, as he told Parliament describing the country as underprepared for war is an "understatement". Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, who co-authored the Strategic Defence Review (SDR), said the UK is lacking in ammunition, training, people, logistics, and medical capacity. He told the upper chamber: "Bearing in mind the difficult world that we live in and have to survive in, this is what I firmly believe: we are underinsured, we are underprepared, we are not safe. This country and its people are not safe. "The British people are faced with a world in turmoil, with great power competitions spilling over now into conflict, with constant grey zone attacks on our mainland, and with Russia - often with the co-operation of Iran, China and North Korea - challenging the existing world order. We simply in this country are not safe."
Scotsman
6 days ago
- Politics
- Scotsman
Former Nato Secretary-General's terrifying warning about state of UK's defences shows why we need to 'wake up'
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, 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... Given he was a UK Defence Secretary, Nato Secretary-General and recently co-wrote a Strategic Defence Review for the Westminster government, George Robertson is worth listening to on military matters. And, speaking in a debate on the review in the House of Lords, Lord Robertson stressed repeatedly that 'this country and its people are not safe' because of the state of our Armed Forces. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'When we say in the report [the review] that we are unprepared, it is an understatement,' he warned. 'We don't have the ammunition, the training, the people, the spare parts, the logistics, and we don't have the medical capacity to deal with the mass casualties that we would face if we were involved in high-intensity warfare.' If Ukraine is defeated by Vladimir Putin's forces, he is likely to turn his attention to the Baltic states, all Nato members (Picture: Genya Savilov) | AFP via Getty Images No more peace dividend Not that long ago, the risk that this country might be involved in such a conflict was relatively small. The UK was, therefore, able to enjoy a 'peace dividend' that saw the size of our Armed Forces fall to historically low levels, with the money saved used for other public spending priorities. And that was a good thing. However, the world has changed dramatically in three main ways: Vladimir Putin's corruption of Russian democracy and his invasion of Ukraine; the rise of isolationism in US politics, as expressed by Donald Trump's 'America first' slogan; and the increasing military might of China. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Suddenly the UK has found itself facing a possible future in which Russia defeats Ukraine and then turns its attention to the Baltic states, all Nato members; the US, under Trump or a fellow traveller, decides to leave Europe to its own defences; and China invades Taiwan. The problem is few people recognise the potential dangers. Former Conservative defence minister Nicholas Soames said 'unless the public has some idea of the sense of urgency, the only way really to wake people up is to establish either a minister or ministry of civil defence charged with training millions of people how to respond to an attack'.
Daily Mirror
6 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Mirror
Brits 'not safe' as Putin 'challenges world order', warns ex-NATO chief
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen said the UK was "underprepared" and that citizens in the country were "not safe" amid increased threats coming from Russia and China Britain and its people are not safe amid crumbling army preparedness, a former NATO chief has warned Parliament. Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, who co-wrote the Strategic Defence Review (SDR), said the UK is lacking in ammunition, training, people, logistics, and medical capacity. He told the upper chamber: 'Bearing in mind the difficult world that we live in and have to survive in, this is what I firmly believe: we are underinsured, we are underprepared, we are not safe. 'This country and its people are not safe. The British people are faced with a world in turmoil, with great power competitions spilling over now into conflict, with constant grey zone attacks on our mainland, and with Russia – often with the co-operation of Iran, China and North Korea – challenging the existing world order. 'We simply in this country are not safe.' The Labour peer wrote the review alongside the former commander of the joint forces command, General Sir Richard Barrons, and defence adviser Dr Fiona Hill. Artificial intelligence, drones and a £1 billion investment in homeland missile defence all form part of the review's plan to keep the UK safe in the face of threats from Vladimir Putin 's Russia and the rise of China. As peers debated the review on Friday, Lord Robertson said: 'When we say in the report that we are unprepared, it is an understatement. We don't have the ammunition, the training, the people, the spare parts, the logistics, and we don't have the medical capacity to deal with the mass casualties that we would face if we were involved in high intensity warfare. 'Over the years, and I suppose I must plead guilty to that as well, we took a substantial peace dividend, because we all believed that the world had changed for the better.' He continued: 'Sadly, we were not alone in that. There may have been over-optimism, but at worst wishful thinking, but the brutal, full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Putin's Russia three years ago was a savage wake-up call for all of us. 'This world we now live in has changed out of all recognition, and we have got to change as well.' Lord Robertson told the upper chamber he is 'confident' the review will 'intimidate our enemies, inspire our friends, invigorate our defence industry, and make our country safer'. Conservative shadow defence minister Baroness Goldie pressed the Government to be specific about the amount of money and timing needed for defence spending to reach 3 per cent of GDP. She said: 'In this exciting and brave new world for defence, the elephant in the room is money, and none of this excellent aspiration proposed by the review means anything without attaching pound signs to the proposals. 'Ambition must translate into specific financial commitment." Former military chief Lord Stirrup said the Government's spending would need to be restructured to be 'anywhere near 3.5 per cent of GDP for defence by 2035'. 'There is no sign of any urgency on any side of the political divide on addressing this crucial matter,' the crossbench peer added.
Leader Live
6 days ago
- Politics
- Leader Live
Britain and its people are not safe, former Nato chief warns Parliament
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, who co-wrote the Strategic Defence Review (SDR), said the UK is lacking in ammunition, training, people, logistics, and medical capacity. He told the upper chamber: 'Bearing in mind the difficult world that we live in and have to survive in, this is what I firmly believe: we are underinsured, we are underprepared, we are not safe. 'This country and its people are not safe. 'The British people are faced with a world in turmoil, with great power competitions spilling over now into conflict, with constant grey zone attacks on our mainland, and with Russia – often with the co-operation of Iran, China and North Korea – challenging the existing world order. 'We simply in this country are not safe.' The Labour peer wrote the review alongside the former commander of the joint forces command, General Sir Richard Barrons, and defence adviser Dr Fiona Hill. Artificial intelligence, drones and a £1 billion investment in homeland missile defence all form part of the review's plan to keep the UK safe in the face of threats from Vladimir Putin's Russia and the rise of China. As peers debated the review on Friday, Lord Robertson said: 'When we say in the report that we are unprepared, it is an understatement. 'We don't have the ammunition, the training, the people, the spare parts, the logistics, and we don't have the medical capacity to deal with the mass casualties that we would face if we were involved in high-intensity warfare. 'Over the years, and I suppose I must plead guilty to that as well, we took a substantial peace dividend, because we all believed that the world had changed for the better.' He continued: 'Sadly, we were not alone in that. There may have been over-optimism, but at worst, wishful thinking, but the brutal, full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Putin's Russia three years ago was a savage wake-up call for all of us. 'This world we now live in has changed out of all recognition, and we have got to change as well.' Lord Robertson told the upper chamber he is 'confident' the review will 'intimidate our enemies, inspire our friends, invigorate our defence industry, and make our country safer'. Conservative shadow defence minister Baroness Goldie pressed the Government to be specific about the amount of money and timing needed for defence spending to reach 3% of GDP. She said: 'In this exciting and brave new world for defence, the elephant in the room is money, and none of this excellent aspiration proposed by the review means anything without attaching pound signs to the proposals. 'Ambition must translate into specific financial commitment.' Former military chief Lord Stirrup said the Government's spending would need to be restructured to be 'anywhere near 3.5% of GDP for defence by 2035'. 'There is no sign of any urgency on any side of the political divide on addressing this crucial matter,' the crossbench peer added. Former top diplomat Lord Hannay of Chiswick said forms of soft power such as overseas aid and the BBC World Service should be prioritised alongside hard power. 'We really do need to take another look at the hard power soft power balance, recognising that we need them both,' the crossbench peer said. Conservative former defence minister Lord Soames of Fletchling said the British people needed to be told what they should do in the event of a cyber attack that knocked out the internet and phone networks. Lord Soames, who is the grandson of Second World War prime minister Sir Winston Churchill, called for the public to have food stocks at home. He said: 'I believe that unless the public has some idea of the sense of urgency, the only way really to wake people up is to establish either a minister or ministry of civil defence, charged with training millions of people how to respond to an attack.' Meanwhile, Tory peer Lord Harlech, who is a reservist, said the Government needed to pay more attention to the Territorial Army and other reserve forces. He said: 'For too long, we have treated reserves as an afterthought. A just-in-case solution. Too often called on at short notice, handed out outdated kit, sidelined from training opportunities and then expected to deliver at the same standard as regulars. 'If we are to rely more heavily on the reserves, as the review suggests, then we must be honest about what that actually requires. 'It means giving them the same standard of equipment, no more trickle-down hand-me-downs. It means equal access to courses and training opportunities. 'Too often, reserves find themselves bumped off areas by cadets or even airsoft groups. That is not how a serious military trains.' Labour's Baroness Goudie criticised the review for failing to mention gender, adding: 'The exclusion of women from peace process does not lead to stability. It leads to a relapse.' Defence minister Lord Coaker said: 'We're debating things that we never thought we'd be debating again, about war in Europe and also about the threats to the homeland with respect to attacks on it.' He added that the Government has committed to spend 5% of GDP on national security by 2035, alongside its Nato allies, but conceded 'the trajectory to get to that will need to be thought through'.
