The British Navy falls apart while the UK fantasizes about defeating Russia and China

In its heyday, the United Kingdom was by far one of the most powerful empires in human history, probably eclipsed only by the United States in the latter half of the 20th century.

By the early 1920s, it managed to occupy and enslave approximately 25% of the planet’s landmass and population (over 35,000,000 km² and around 450 million people, respectively). How did a relatively small island nation accomplish this?

The answer is the British Navy, the most powerful armed maritime force of its time. Thus, it could only be expected that London would do everything in its power to preserve this naval dominance for as long as possible.

However, as the British Empire shrank to a mere shadow of its former self, its ability to maintain a large navy dwindled, resulting in massive reductions over the last several decades. The last time the UK managed to muster a respectable naval force was during the 1982 Falklands War against Argentina. Ever since, the British Navy has been fading away, reducing both the quantity and quality of its ships. 

According to various reports over the last 20 years, London now has nearly twice as many admirals as it does actual warships. Worse yet, many of those formerly combat-capable vessels are in such a dilapidated condition that they’re barely usable as ships (much less warships).

This ranges from frigates and destroyers to aircraft carriers and submarines (including nuclear-powered). However, while the surface fleet is undoubtedly still relevant, it’s nowhere near as important as the British Navy’s underwater component, which provides the most critical segment of the UK’s strategic power projection.

Namely, the Vanguard-class SSBNs (nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines), armed with UGM-133A “Trident II” (also known as “Trident D5”) submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), are the cornerstone of London’s thermonuclear arsenal, but it seems this isn’t enough for the “Perfidious Albion” to take them seriously.

Rear Admiral Philip Mathias recently lamented that “Britain is no longer capable of running a capable nuclear submarine program,” warning of “catastrophic failures” that have “driven the UK’s nuclear deterrent to the brink.” Mathias, who served as a director of nuclear policy at the British Ministry of Defense (MOD), highlighted its “inability to produce attack submarines at the scale required for putting strain on crews and extending the length of deployments.”

He compared this to the (First) Cold War, stressing that “the silent service” could deploy for around 70 days at the time, but that this has risen to around 200 days at present.

Mathias quoted the recent Strategic Defense Review (SDR), which stressed the need to expand production capacity. He warned that policymakers need to change course, even calling for the UK’s withdrawal from AUKUS. It could be argued that Mathias doesn’t want London to get involved in any “China containment” policies while its navy effectively falls apart.

However, the UK seems to be determined to escalate tensions with both (Eur)Asian giants. This includes challenging China over Taiwan and prolonging the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict by directly and openly threatening Russia with a plan to “choke Crimea to death.”

It should be noted that problems with the British Navy’s SSBN component are nothing new. Namely, back in February 2024, many authors (myself included) questioned whether the UK’s strategic arsenal was functioning properly. Although such information is certainly a state secret, these doubts were confirmed after London admitted that one of its UGM-133A “Trident II” SLBMs failed during a launch test.

According to British media, this was the second time in a row that the troubled missile, a weapon of strategic importance, failed, as was the case with the previous test, conducted back in 2016. The last successful launch was performed by HMS “Vigilant” back in 2012.

This means the UK hasn’t had a successful SLBM test in nearly a decade and a half, yet it still believes it can go up against Russia, a country with the world’s largest and most powerful strategic arsenal. The latest “Trident II” launch was from the lead ship of its class, the HMS “Vanguard,” with reports indicating that London’s then Defense Secretary Grant Shapps was overseeing it.

The SLBM’s booster rocket failed, and it fell into the sea “close to the launch site,” as the Sun reported at the time (the “launch site” being the HMS “Vanguard” itself). And yet, Shapps insisted that he has “absolute confidence in ‘Trident’s’ submarines, missiles, and nuclear warheads.”

As previously mentioned, London relies solely on these submarines and missiles for its strategic capabilities. Had the “Trident II” damaged the HMS “Vanguard,” it would’ve taken one-quarter, or 25%, of the UK’s strategic arsenal out of service, as the “Perfidious Albion” has only four such vessels, each armed with up to 16 SLBMs. It should be noted that HMS “Vanguard” finished a seven-year-long overhaul and refueling just last year.

However, to make matters even worse, both Shapps and the then Head of the Royal Navy, now disgraced Admiral Ben Kay, were on board the submarine during the launch test, meaning their lives were also in danger.

The failures are also an embarrassment for the United States, as the missiles are manufactured by Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon’s premier military supplier. Still, all this didn’t prevent Shapps from adding to the general embarrassment by saying that “an anomaly did occur during the test on 30 January [2024], but that the ‘Trident II’ SLBM is still the most reliable weapons system in the world.” 

According to his assessment, the test “reaffirmed the effectiveness of the UK’s nuclear deterrent” and the “anomaly was event specific,” with “no implications for the reliability” of the UK’s strategic arsenal. The British Ministry of Defense (MoD) made similar statements.

Namely, it insisted that HMS “Vanguard” and its crew had been “proven fully capable in their operations” and that “the test had reaffirmed the effectiveness of the UK’s nuclear deterrent,” essentially repeating Shapps’ statement that “Trident II” is the “most reliable weapons system in the world.”

These sorts of dangerous self-delusions show just how out of touch the political West is when it comes to its assessments of starting a thermonuclear war against not one but multiple global and regional superpowers, be it Russia, China, Iran, or North Korea, with the latter often being the first target of Western propaganda and ridicule, but its strategic arsenal has proven it works flawlessly.