Rear Admiral Chris Parry, a former senior naval officer, said that the lack of a proper surface-to-surface missile had left the Navy exposed. He said: “The Naval Strike Missile is a fudge. It’s a sticking plaster to show we have some capability.
“The real worry is that we are not going to be able to go toe to toe with our Chinese and Russian opposite numbers in encounter actions and we are going to see more and more of these issues. We, the UK, haven’t thought about the scenarios within which those weapons might be used.
“You need to look at the effect you want to have and that effect should be that when a British frigate or destroyer turns up, the Chinese and the Russians say oh f—, it’s the Brits. That’s what a deterrence is all about.
“Instead they are going to say, it’s got a pop gun on the front, no surface-to-surface missiles and a helicopter which I can shoot down with a drone so why are we worried?
“The point is you don’t bring a knife to a gun fight, and at the moment we have the knives and they have the guns.”
Mark Francois, the former armed forces minister, said: “The lack of a land attack missile from the Royal Navy’s surface fleet was specifically highlighted in a defence committee report some two years ago. It is encouraging that this missile is now on order but also disappointing that it is still not yet in operational service.”
Mr Francois added that it was “embarrassing” that one of the Navy’s three minesweeper vessels was taken out of action earlier this month when it collided with another British mine hunter in Bahrain. “The most important naval capability that we provide for our American allies are the three mine countermeasures vessels based in Bahrain,” he said.
William Turner is a seasoned U.K. correspondent with a deep understanding of domestic affairs. With a passion for British politics and culture, he provides insightful analysis and comprehensive coverage of events within the United Kingdom.
