Work to replace the ships that carry British military equipment around the globe is at an early stage. Here we look at the background and requirements of the Strategic Sealift – Future (SSL-F) programme.
Context
The MoD relies heavily on its strategic sealift vessel to deliver equipment and supplies across the world. The Point-class roll-on, roll-off vessels, introduced in the early 2000s, have been quietly and efficiently providing the UK with flexible military logistics, supporting overseas operations, NATO commitments, and crisis response scenarios. (More details of their operations in our previous article)
Strategic sealift is not merely about moving heavy armour or humanitarian supplies; it is a critical enabler of expeditionary warfare, ensuring that British forces can deploy swiftly and at scale. The Integrated Review (2021) and its subsequent updates have underscored a renewed focus on global presence and resilience, highlighting the necessity of maintaining a capable and modern sealift fleet. Recent events underline the increasing likelihood that, depleted as it may be, the British Army and its kit may need to be transported to Europe’s Eastern borders and sustained in larger numbers and for a longer period than has been the case for several decades.
Interim
In December 2024, the MoD awarded a seven-year contract extension worth £476 million to UK-based Foreland Shipping Limited owned by Hadley Shipping Group. The existing vessels are managed by FSL but the Treasury is the insurer of last resort for the ships that may have to enter war zones where normal marine insurance would be invalid. The contract extension ensures continuity for now but is effectively an interim measure used to put off the looming capital cost of replacing the ships built in the early 2000s with an expected service life of about 25 years.
FSL will continue to run the four Ro-Ro vessels (MV Hartland Point, MV Anvil Point, Hurst Point and Eddystone), safeguarding the jobs of approximately 150 British seafarers, 97% of whom also have naval reservist status. Originally there were six ships, but two (MV Longstone and MV Beachy Head) were released on commercial charter in 2011, briefly generating income while remaining strategic assets until sold off completely.
Tendering process
Despite this investment, the lease agreements for the Point-class ships are approaching their end and consideration of their replacement is urgent. In January 2025, the MOD issued a Request for Information (RFI) to industry for the Strategic Sealift – Future (SSL-F) programme. Assuming funding is allocated in the SDR, SSL-F will replace the current interim capability, increasing back to six slightly upgraded vessels. Initial market engagement will conclude in April and the MoD will have an outline business case by November 2025.
There are several ways the SSL-F delivery could be structured. The first option is the defence-owned & supported model where vessels are both owned and operated by the MoD, ensuring full governmental control. The defence-0wned & commercially supported option would involve the MoD buying the ships but contracting their operation by a private entity, leveraging commercial expertise for efficiency. Under the commercially owned & defence supported framework, vessels are privately owned but operated by the MoD, allowing the military to maintain operational command while outsourcing ownership. Finally, the current model could be continued whereby the ships are both commercially owned and managed.
Whatever the management structure, the ships must be under sovereign UK control, available to respond quickly to developing military logistics requirements. Each ship must be registered in the UK, be British-owned, and classified by a full IACS (International Association of Classification Societies) member headquartered in the UK. The new ship’s lifespan is expected to be around 30 years for a new build, or have at least 10 years service life remaining if second-hand vessels are selected.
The biggest hurdle is how to spread the capital cost of the new vessels to align with MoD annual budgets cycles and the cash flow of a commercial entity. Estimates for building the 6 new ships range broadly from £1–2 billion depending on the level of specification and where they are constructed. Given spending constraints, a phased procurement process, where the older ships are replaced incrementally, may be the most viable approach.
Point-class vessels – general arrangement
More capable..?
The new vessels sought by the MoD are expected to be approximately the same size as the Point-class, less than 200 meters in length and have a draught of no more than 8 meters. They must be capable of carrying International Maritime Dangerous Goods Class 1-9 cargo and support refrigerated containers (Reefers) for cold chain storage when necessary. The required capacity should provide a minimum of 15,600 Lanes in Meters (LiMs) at a minimum of 2.8 meters width across at least four vessels.
The new ships will need to have some significant upgrades as existing ships are limited in their ability to accommodate modern, heavier armoured vehicles such as the Challenger 3 Main Battle Tank and Boxer Infantry Fighting Vehicles. Future vessels must have sufficient deck space and load-bearing capability up to 5 tonnes per square metre to transport contemporary and future military platforms.
The ships must be able to operate in extreme environments from the Arctic to the tropics and built to Ice Class 1A standard to ensure they can navigate through sea ice. Propulsion systems must provide for extended range at economical speeds and be able to run on globally-available fuel sources while being adaptable to future fuel solutions.
The MoD also wants to explore ways these vessels could play a greater part in amphibious warfare operations, serving not merely as just transport vessels but potentially incorporating a flight deck for helicopters or UAS, command facilities and modular mission bay spaces. The next-generation vessels must consider potential operation in more contested waters and some defensive equipment may be required. This could include mounts for crew-served light weapons and hardening of the ship’s systems against cyber threats and electronic warfare. There is now a very strong case that no British naval auxiliaries or transports should put to sea without effective soft-kill counter-UAS and USV jammers or ideally with hard kill weapons.
Efficient cargo transfer and loading is the core business for the ships. The vessels will include a self-supporting main stern ramp and internal ballasting system for offloading to Mexeflote or ashore, capable of supporting a SWL of 75 – 150 tonnes. The new requirement also specifies a side ramp which would allow the ships to make use of a wider range of ports and harbours as loads can be discharged onto a jetty or quay while alongside instead of requiring either a port with its own ramps or placing the ship in a ‘Mediterranean moor’, stern-to the quay. The Point-class have a small starboard side door amidships, but this access point is narrower and is not as efficient as stern loading.
To facilitate self-loading and unloading at austere ports, each ship will have at least one crane capable of handling 20 or 40 foot equivalent (TEU and FEU) containers and cargo. Access must allow containers to be fully secured to the ship while still accessible at sea, not something possible on board a typical container ship.
Although the Point class are already highly automated with a core crew of just 22, future ships will take this further, integrating autonomous and remote ship operation technologies to reduce crew size even further. The new ships will need comfortable accommodation for extended periods at sea and provision for up to 12 additional augmentees in addition to the core crew.
Procurement conundrums
A key decision for government is where to build the replacement sealift fleet. SSL-F could be procured by simply allowing the operator to order ships wherever they can be built most quickly and cheaply. This would almost certainly be in Asian shipyards but would undermine the UK Shipbuilding Strategy that specifies these vessels in its 30-year plan. While an entirely British-built solution may be politically and economically desirable, a mixed procurement, with some foreign involvement but with ship blocks consolidated domestically (a similar model to the Fleet Solid Support Ships) could be an option.
Navantia-Harland & Wolff and Cammell Laird would appear to be the best positioned shipyards in the UK for this work. Although lacking recent experience of ro-ro vessel construction (MV Hartland Point and Anvil Point were built by H&W in 2002-3) constructing these ships should be a relatively simple task compared with the complexity of warship construction.
The incumbent, FSL may be in the strongest position to bid for the SSL-F contract, assuming the MoD retains a commercial operator. The new management arrangements and the four ships need to be up and running by 2032, which implies a tight schedule to fund the project, select a contractor, design and build the ships.
I thought I saw a requirement in another article for them to be able to carry Mexeflotes. That would make a lot of sense to me.
£476mill — for what?
Good work if you can get it.
Hopefully the COTS vibe will have taken root.
Capable ships that have done a great job.
NextGen — more of the same please.
Everything should be configuration design and catalogue engineering.
Hopefully Scope Creep is kept well under control.
Manning at 22’ish is what we need — not a world salad of autonomous ship acronyms.
Interesting — the 8m max draught stipulation.
CalMac vibe with that little nugget.
You have to ask why?
Yesterday’s North Sea bump — shows the resilience of COTS engineering.
Interesting to see what the full story is behind the bump.
Hollywood might need to get involved.
Speed 3 or Tanker Security Programme Down.
Bookies not taking bets on what went wrong.
Too much money from the Middle East.
Full speed ahead trough a parking lot.
Questions need to be asked.
£500K Per year per unit, to run and maintain on a ageing platform, would assume large amount of risk as they are at the End of life of design. not many vessels this age in the western would of shipping
Where / how to build them — get an Asian company to manage a UK yard.
Japan vs South Korea should keep things real.
If we don’t know how to build ships efficiently then we need to learn from those who can.
You mean like DSME or Hyundai?
Because both of those went bankrupt in recent years and needed Government support to keep them afloat…
No matter who owns them they are bashing steel as we speak — nightshift on the job.
We cannot bash steel at the required rate so we need someone to show us how.
Big and simple should be the way forward.
RoRo / bows doors would be worth a look to see how much it would cost.
UK Unions can kill anything look at Tata steel
Do we rent these ships out to other NATO countries?
Also costs highlighted above are mental.
Big and simple is what is needed.
Loving the Ice classification — what do we have at the moment?
Should be looking at an extra £10mill max to the hull budget.
Angle iron engineering — little testing required.
Which part of the costs do you think are “mental”?
It’s ok, he gets a bit Irate at paying tax.
A figure of £2bill anywhere near this project.
£330 mill unit cost — someone is having a giraffe.
7 years for entry into service — need to start thinking about the extra long lead stuff pretty soon.
Commodity engines would be a good start.
Podded powertrain plus some batteries if wanted.
Depends what the £2b covers. Often in defence the quoted price includes years of maintenance and support. If £2b is for PFI in might include the total fixed running costs for the duration of the contract.
Without knowing the details it’s impossible to known if £2b is or isn’t reasonable.
The curse of big number politics.
That way the million pound Alsatian comes.
And comes quickly — not a good look.
Wrapping up various extras and services into the bill to procure anything is just a way of hiding the poor value of the initial purchase.
Defence is crap at budgeting / getting value for money.
Any form of excuse-mongery should be chased.
£2bill for 6 ferries is just contractor gouging / MOD stupidity.
Renting… yes and no. We have a reciprocal transport agreement based on ‘credits’. We move a French TEU for 1NM and they owe us 1TEU/NM in return. All managed by the NATO Supply and Procurement Agency liaising with a small team of planners in DSCOM. No money changes hands, one of the most efficient ways of doing international support. There is also an Aviation equivalent which is equally streamlined.
Just replace the Points when life expired. They aren’t warships. It would be nice to think the MoD could sponsor some modifications to suit their needs as they did in times past with ACL or ASN say but that be seen to be anything near a necessity.
A better question would be where are we taking kit too? And do we have any kit to take?
In this instance the government could well argue that with events moving on the international stage at the pace they are it would be better to wait a few years before making any decisions.
Maybe we’ve learned our lesson of not replacing ships incredibly late
I hope so. Build often and replace early seems obvious doesn’t it?
With so much other work for british shipyards required, subs t26.t31.t83.t32.replemishment etc makes sense to get a Korean yard to build. Will the 6 have the faster speed of 22kts of the last 2 anvils!
No need for a faster speed.
Don’t forget we got the Tide Class built in Korea…
Then we had to put them into A & P and Cammell Laird to remove lots of the defects…
It was not plain sailing…
The Tide Class was a issue with the procurement and errors in translation on certain fittings and fixtures. they were still built faster than any UK yard quoted and no UK Yard tendered as they couldn’t deliver. but it opened a door
Yeah that’s not exactly what happened…
No UK Yard tendered as they couldn’t deliver, base build on the Tide, but lazy procurement didn’t make allowances for MOD changes. UK yard fit out of defence equipment was always planned, it was used by the UK Yards to pan others work, when they have not exactly been on point. Ferguson Marine couldn’t build a pedalo, BAEs supa glue snap nuts back on studs, quality at its best And dont mention Babcock.
22 knots should be the service speed plus some flex.
COTS stuff should be commodity pricing given the volumes in play.
Not sure why there is the 200m restriction — parametric design will help.
it’s all a puzzle.
I looked the specification fir these vessels and thought ‘that’s what the RFA did/had years ago: Bacchus, Hebe; LSL class. One scenario is for a management company to run the vessels (Serco, anyone?). They’re also talking about having mounts for weapons, plus electronic warfare capability, and flight decks. The seafarers are to be British and part of the Reserve…where have I heard that before. The only thing missing is, should they be painted grey?
Russ
It is not quite as simple as “paint them grey”
= because there was a very good reason why they were orginally painted green!..
And, point of fact, the RFA did not ever operate any roll-on / roll-off ships
———-
In the past quarter century, the Points have “probably” been the most sucessful MOD procurement contract of all time = remarkably cheap, on budget; exceeded their technical requirements and have exhibited remarkably “in service” high availability (ie MOD ordered six: only needed four).
Also everything that the Army has ever wanted to be transported has fitted in – and that is despite the British Army’s long term vehicle procurement policy committee making a Whitehall Farce look like a stunningly professional operation!…
However, the Point class were – back in those very peacefull 1990’s – designed for a very different era…… ..thus assuming a permissive environment….. so sea conditions where the ships would not need escorting (note 1) = and thus why they are still without any countermeasures and weaponary etc.
Also it was orginally intended that much of these ship’s freighting would be short-sea trips within NATO: i.e. keeping the BOAR wine cellars fully stocked….
Accordingly, IF – as being suggested here – their replacements are to be fitted with counter-measures and weapons (lets say the excellent Bofers 40mm) for all around defence, that in turn::
,
Now then: as we don’t have anything like enough sailors for the existing UK RFA fleet – do we really want to make that really big change now?
—————-
I must admit that – very unusually for one of my “always-very-thoughtful” posts here on Navy Lookout = I am fully in agreement (100%) with the Zookeeper
Notes
“Have at least 10 years life remaining if second hand vessels are selected”
A choice anything like that would be very counterproductive. You’re not going to find 6 existing vessels with 20-30 years life left in them, so it should be new builds all day long.
Next gen — forward superstructure is a no brainer.
Space for an accommodation block behind if required.
Hybrid powertrain — engines forward / pods aft.
Batteries inboard where they can be reached.
20MW gensets installed plus 10MWh in batteries should do the trick.
As noted by others — 22 knots plus is industry standard.
No more Albion and Bulwark to slow us down.
Just need to speed the Bay Mk2’s up.
Three main cargo decks.
Tank deck down below.
Main deck with plenty of headroom.
Upper deck.
Helicopter platform above.
Hangar would be a step too far.
Given all the requirements set out in the article — which ones would be new or can the Point Class do all this at the moment?
Also it is Lane Metres.
Close packing at 2.8M widths is one thing.
Surely 3.3M ferry style would be more flexible?
2.8M is the standard for NATO support doctrine and planning software. 3.3M may be more flexible individually but need to play the game.
Fair enough — but how do you access the cab of your average Bedford lorry?
Climb in through the sun roof?
Or is NATO built around Humvees?
When was the last time the Army had a Bedford Truck?
We can but dream.
Back in the day Irvine used to do Slimcea spec Volvos for the Swiss market.
2.3M cab width rather than the more mainstream imperial number of 8 feet or full fat metric of 2.5M.
What we have lost since the Treasury convinced Thatcher that the UK had no future in manufacturing / engineering.
How times change.
Or maybe they dont — the Treasury is still trying to run the show.
ATH
I bet you a quid that at least one Bedford lorry is still in “long term storage” – and is still based “somewhere in England”
After all, this is the very same British Army which was the organisation caught red-handed – during an audit of their storage warehouses – keeping overshoes for mules
and that was as recently as 2001
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
That was because some highland regiment at the time still used pack mules
The US still have some
https://supportourtroops.org/news/2168-pack-mules
“ a rifleman with Fox Company, 2nd Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment leads a military working mule during Animal Packers Course 23-1 at the Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center.”
up to 5 tonnes per square metre to transport contemporary and future military platforms.
You two have both overlooked the most serious (and potentially very costly) mistake made in this article
= the key statement that 5 tons per square metre is needed for future army systems
Can I politely suggest that somebody in the new ship design team goes back to school and learns the key difference between:
which is something taught to all newbees in their first few weeks of any half-decent structural engineeing design course
That beginner’s error is what my former boss used to call “a pretty basic mistake“
5T / M2 — Deck loading capability — pretty mainstream for any PSV / AHTS working in the North Sea.
Calmac currently work up to 44 tons on a 6 axle HGV combo.
Could be 22 tyres involved or 10 standard units and 6 jumbos depending on the operator.
Consequently 5T is not an issue.
Shelf data and a rummage in any design library should get us sorted.
Challenger tank tracks — how wide are they?
750mm is a very ignorant guess from Glesga.
I think a lot of that will inflate the cost for little benefit. Not getting Bay class mk2 either
Possible strategy could be to address the SLL-F requirement alongside the MRSS/future amphibious force requirement; in order to build a balanced and complementary force, designed to operate together in mutual support. Both projects combined could see the aquisition of 10-12 ships (up to 6 for MRSS and 4-6 for SLL-F).
A possible configuration, depending on budgets, build times, industrial capacity etc, could be:
5 Fearless MRSS Concept (from Stellar Systems), providing the high end amphibious strike capability.
8 BMT Ellida concept to provide a Bay Class and Point Class replacement. Could theoretically be sub-divided into batches/sub-classes to optimise for the requirements of each role.
Under such a system the Fearless Concept could provide forward presence in the LRG role and when required form the core of a LSG, effectively supplying the strike role; with the Ellida vessels fulfilling the transport, logistics and medical capabilities in a supporting role as and when required. They could also fulfill the humanitarian and disaster relief role
Well firstly we need to define the requirement. This is a “service” ship to the Army. With the disposal of Albion/Bulwark does UK Plc see itself in the deployment by Sea Game ? If the answer is no, then you don’t need these ships as the RM Commandoes and Parachute Regiment will be deployed by Air (Another MOD fallacy but as this about floaty things I will not comment further).
My own view with the withdraw of the USA from European Defence is that the UK has the ideal opportunity to provide the Leading Navy element of any European Defence Force. The UK would then structure its whole military provision to provide the “Marine” element of that Force. So you would look for the UK to provide 2 Marine Task Force Divisions made up of the following
1, RM Commando to Provide Special Forces.
1, Tank Regiment of 56 Tanks
1, Recon / Cavalry Reg Ajax mounted.
3, Infantry Divisions Mounted on Warrior / Boxer
1, Artillery Regiment with Boxer 155mm (Note the height of those at 4m)
1, M270 Himars Rocket Regiment
1, Close Support Logistics Reg
1, Close Support Medical Regiment
1, High Dependency Casualty Treatment Ship
2nd Division provided via wheeled vehicles such as Coyote, Mastiff, Ridgeback, towed 155mm artillery, Bronco/Vikings etc etc. Its not ideal but it’s what we’ve got. With the aim of replacing with a pure Boxer fleet in due course.
All of the above could be flexed depending on the deployment.
it should also be possible for Frances Medium brigade to provide Marine Div 3 and then work with other nations in Europe (Especially the Dutch) to provide a 4th Div. Those nations would provide the shipping for those Groups.
Then take a real look at those and see how many trucks, armoured vehicles, personnel that needs and the RN needs to look at supplying the Ships and Lane Metres to deploy that in full. Plus a Helicopter / Logistics shipping to support such a force with the ramps etc to debark on to a Quay, LCAC, LCAT, Mexifloat etc.
Effectively the UK supplies 2 sea transportable Marine Divisions to provide the defence and armour to the High North (Norway/Sweden/Etc) or to Italy/Greece etc in the Mediterranean. You are looking at the G4 Class ACL ships with an addition of cranes, or the Grimaldi lines ships. They should be built in South Korea as efficiently as possible using existing design. You could easily obtain 6 at $100m a ship. USA purchasing in Italy at $88m if we did the same it would help with European integration. Slightly more expensive as UK would need certain extra facilities, such as ability to place containerised hospitals on them.
You then look at replacing Bays/Albion’s with a Mistral style vessels. Again if you are replacing 3 bays & 2 Albion Class you should be able to operate 6 Mistrals which allows you to fit them with radar, missiles, C4 etc to be command ships. Finally in the long-term you look to put 4-6 F35B’s on them to provide aircover and spread the risk of one ship being destroyed taking away your aircover. They could also help with ASW Merlins if needed. This leaves the Carriers to be converted to Cats & Traps to work at distance to provide air cover deep strike etc. (Unfortunately controversially the only “European” aircraft in the game is Rafael !)
Effectively you do this as converting the British Army into an expeditionary force which allows it and the French equivalent to deploy out of region in areas of either countries interests. As I say you have to look at this in the whole, there is no point the RN looking at this in isolation of the Strategic Threat we now face. Just getting some ships that the Army can’t deploy from (remember the Royal Marines are out of the armour/light infantry game) is pointless.
That won’t stop the Navy and Treasury from doing exactly that, changing its mind 5 times, taking 20yrs to deliver something that costs 3 times as much.
The Big Ginge
A week is a very long time in politics…..
No evidence – at all – of any of these “media loviee” allegations made, only last week, that, in the long term the USA is “suddenly withdrawing” from Europe .
There is simply no substance behind them.
What has been said, very recently, is exactly what Donald Trump first said to chancer Angela Merkel, and her minister of defence Ms Useless Von Der Leyen, about eight years ago
Bing Videos
—————–
and, lets be butally honest here
———————-
I will however totally agree with your key point that the UK’s very own British Army needs to be made far more “expeditionary”.
As of today, it struggles to travel much further North than the Watford Gap service station
As of today, the British Army – ten years on after the Afgan Fiasco ended (final score:the UK came a very p**** poor second) the UK Army is still in a complete omnishambles about
So – until those five key issues (above) are sorted out… any all-new UK ship type(s) – and thus the absolutely key technical determinants of payload / capabilities / numbers built etc etc cannot possibly be resolved.
And it is not just the Germans who have been criticised about poor European defence practices – by the US of A – in the not too distant past:
Here is what was once said abot three decades ago, by the US mainstream media, about the French attitude to Euro defence:
French lampooned as ‘cheese-eating surrender monkeys’ – The Irish Times
However, only last week, the French defence industries were suddenly “back in fashion” with those media loovies = probably because so many media lovvies voted remoan in 2016
And thus speaks the Reform Voter who like a Maga supporter doesn’t deal with reality. America has been very clear since Obama.
It is clear that you never basis defence planning on what you “wish” will happen, only on what people have committed themselves to doing. Just making a wish doesn’t make it true, I know that’s hard for Reform to hear because they thought post Brexit America would welcome us with open arms, but that’s the real world Maga’s don’t differentiate between the UK and EU just look at steel tariffs this week !
British Army
I would argue with your point. The British Army Tactically was never beaten on the battlefield, but lost the Strategic Political position.
European Defence Force Fantasies
As to resorting to insults and dragging up previous American insults, I am sorry but ultimately the French were right and we should have never have got involved in Iraq, when we didn’t have the strategic plans, political will and manpower to execute a violence free post liberation Iraq.
We can either shape the future or we can wallow in nostalgia and become irrelevant. It would appear Reform proponents favour the latter.
The Big Gringe
For the record:
——————
—————-
So……….
I orginally used the very well known term “remoaners” in my post ….because I was using it to describe the fact that…..
……..there are still many people (especially those working in the media and living in North London) whom are – nearly ten years after that big and key democratic vote – still intellectually failling to accept that “many ordinary people” voted “differently from them” in that key 2016 Brexit vote.
They were the target of my orginal post – especially Nick on BBC 2 Newsnight – who’s salary I have just paid (i.e. by renewing my TV licence this year)
Remoaners all feel that all those little people “got it wrong” .
…….especially when they are giving us – just like you did on NL two days ago – their heartfelt opinions about Donald Trump (i.e. someone who does not like the EU)
Frankly I consider remoaners attitude towards that one-off big Brexit vote to be as bad as any one of the following other examples of “others” having had a very bad attitude towards democracy:
——————-
For the record, the “cheese eating surrender monkeys” phrase was reguarly used, behind closed doors, duing Gulf War One: i.e. when the coalition were planning to go into battle to liberate Kuwait
It was popular slang back in 1990/91
It was first broadcast on the Simpsons in 1995
The (very rude) comment – about our key ally’s formage based dietiary habits – specificially refered to the French’s very ambiguous political military and strategic position during Gulf War One campaign to liberate Q8 i.e. the French were very noticeable by their abscence: and that happened despite their many historic allegencies, and very very deep ties etc throughout that region of the Middle East
(including the French selling a nuclear reactor to Saddam H)
and, it has to be noted that, back in 1991, the UK barely went into Iraq proper.
(Note: all of the UK tanks would have broken down long before they ever reached Basra to liberate it – let alone going as far as to liberate Bagdad! That is why it is called Stop Line on a Britsth Army warplan = i.e. their tanks just stop working by that point!).
We certainly did not liberate Iraq – as you put it – in 1991 !!!!!
You can correct me if I am wrong here………
…….. however during that 1990/91 big war I am not aware that any UK forces actually met any Iraqi civilians = except the SAS patrols when they both got lost, i.e. very soon after they were given some very-wrong weather forecasts and also had completely the wrong radio / rescue codes issued to them
In hindsight:
———————
You are quite right that, throughout the 1980’s, Mrs T was generally pro EEC
However the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 was also when Maggies attitude towards the EEC (as it was then called) changed – really really radically.
…..so in 1990, she is on the record as definitely not being in favour of German reunification
(i.e. probably because Grantham had been bombed by Germany in WW2).
Maggie was then forced out, in a very undemocratic vote, by the Tory Party…
And, frankly, since the Iron Curtain fell in 1989, the EEC / EU has never ever felt the same
And thus today the EU is about three times the overall size that the EEC once was – back when we first joined it (in the early 1970’s)
———————–
I do not disagree with your assessment that the USA has militarily pivoted towards – i.e. prioritising its very best defence resources etc – into the Pacifuc Region.
That trend was very clear many years ago: and a very long time before Obama
… indeed I would argue that it first started back in 1990:
As soon as he went back onto the campaign trail in early 2024 the presidential candidate with orange hair made it very very clear to potential US voters that he wanted to “deliver” (note: a truely horrible word) peace in both Gaza and in Ukraine.
His attitude “out on the stump” in early 2024 – i.e. when he was still being predicted to loose in November – was hardly him “ignoring the rest of the world” and “being isolationist” and “ignoring Europe” etc – i.e. as you imply:
Thus I can confirm that the geopolitical orbits of both Ukraine and Gaza are definitely spinning about at this moment in time
However when I check again tomorrow morning – i.e whilst the world is still spinning and my head is not – I suspect that the two countries will be found as:
————————–
And if the EU and US were ever to have given Ukraine some proper security guarantees: that really ough to have been done way back in February 2022 (an episode which you clean forgot to mention!!!!)
So in Feb 2022:
Because in Feb 2022 Mr Putin – the VERY same bloke responsible for the WMD’s being used in Salisbury seven years ago…….
and so – when the EU and USA both did “F***all less ten” to even hint at stopping him, then – and only then – did Putin decide to invade Ukraine (and he almost won!)
———————-
I will definitely disgree with your very muddle headed assessment of how and why British Army failed in Afganistan and Iraq (round 2).
NONSENSE
Your comments are, quite frainkly, a long excuse note.
You may as well have well written:
So, if you want to find out what really happened behind the scenes, please go out and buy – with your mummy’s next birthday book token – a book called The Changing of the Guard, written by a former army officer turned Economist journalist
(PS If you don’t subscribe to it: I will tell you that the Economist magazine is run by remoaners these days. I do subscribe….and I have done so for over four decades)
That big book sets out, spread over about 600 pages of often very gory details, just how unprepared – and also very badley led – the British Army has been: in every war the UK has been involved with since 11th Sept 2001. It describes all of the advice given by the Army to government
That excellent book finishes up with a very cutting comment – one which was made by a “soon to retire” army officer about ten years ago
(coincidentially at a conference I was sat at the back of… coincidentially, once again, nursing a hangover from the free beers the night before …..).
He told the Army’s VERY Top Brass (i.e. the Armys’ Dress Committtee)
————————————–
And with regards to the EU……… It is you who are wallowing in nostalgia- not me.
You are harking back to the 1970’s, when expanding the EEC made a very good deal of sense
—————
The British Army now needs to take some advice from the Navy Lookout editor
“Save the British Army”
Well presented concise points
I would add that the post of Chief of Defence since General Inge in 1994- 30 years ago- 19 of those years its been the Army. Only twice the RAF and twice the RN.
They have fouled their own nest.
Yes Army. Unless the MRSS can carry the 29 RA equipment, it’s for army equipment.
When did the US withdrawal from European security?… The rest of the world must have missed that.
US always runs from a fight, never won a conflict on its own…. just sells arms to everyone in wars it starts
Automation is fine. But, if you’re adding command facilities, a helipad, crew-serve weapons, and the like, I think you’ll need more than just a dozen augmentees. Besides, i would think such a ship would have a contingent of infantry to operate those crew-serve weapons and drive those Challengers and Boxers on-and-off the ship.
There can be RWS.
But why eh ?
No Issue with these being built in a overseas yard, they are not warships they are Ferries,
UK Yards and building Ferries don’t have a great result, Built in the UK we get 4, but overseas full 6. if the point class has been a true success than modernise that basic design. keep it simple
I agree with you completely, other Jon. (To the extent that for a second I thought I wrote that post myself.)
The issue is at the moment. What are they supposed to transport? That’s the problem
Funnything the 4 Points are currently at sea or unloading 25 years old and with the new Equipment coming Ajax/Boxer/Chal4 no problem shift more tonnage than the RAF
I thought the Army’s 104 Bde uses it now rather than the navy.