In a recent report, experts discuss the necessity for the Royal Navy to bolster its frigate force to address current and future maritime challenges.
The report, ‘A More Lethal Royal Navy: Sharpening Britain’s Naval Power‘ by William Freer and Dr. Emma Salisbury, outlines the current state of the Royal Navy’s frigate fleet and offers key recommendations to enhance its capabilities.
The Royal Navy’s frigate force has dwindled to precariously low levels but is expected to see a modest resurgence by the early 2030s. The Type 23 frigate, serving as the workhorse of the Royal Navy for three decades, is aging and heavily overworked. The report states, “While one of the best general-purpose frigate designs of their time, they are ageing – and have been heavily overworked.”
The current plan involves a mixed fleet of high-end and lower-end warships. This will include eight advanced Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Type 26 frigates, five less capable but still potent Type 31 frigates, and possibly five Type 32 frigates. The Type 32 design is yet to be finalised but is expected to be a more autonomous version of the Type 31. This strategy aims to provide a total frigate force of 18 warships.
These new frigates will offer a balance between hull numbers, lethality, and survivability. The report notes, “The Type 26 class will carry 48 VLS cells for Sea Ceptor and 24 cells of Mk41, for a total of 72 cells.” The Type 31 class, initially planned to carry only eight Sea Ceptor cells, will now be equipped with 32 Mk41 cells, significantly enhancing its capabilities.
The Type 32, described as a “Type 31 Batch 2,” may also feature 32 Mk41 cells. The Royal Navy’s approach to rebuilding the frigate force is commendable and by the mid-2030s will see a larger and more capable fleet.
Recommendations
Additional Type 26 Frigates
The report recommends procuring two additional Type 26 class frigates, increasing the total order to ten vessels. “Russia and the PRC are both placing heavy emphasis on their submarine fleets and ASW frigates will be in higher demand in the coming years,” the report explains.
Integration of ASROC
To amplify the ASW capabilities of the Type 26 class, the report suggests integrating the Anti-Submarine Rocket (ASROC) system. The report states, “ASROC is Mk41 VLS compatible and will amplify the Type 26 class’ already potent ASW capabilities.” This integration would ensure that the Type 26 can engage submarines at a range of around 10 miles, even if its helicopter is inoperable.
“The Type 26 is already set to become the world’s leading submarine hunting warship – integrating ASROC will turn it into an even more lethal submarine killer.”
It’s important to note that after the report was published, thinking went down this route.
Maintaining Type 31 Capabilities in Type 32 Design
The report emphasises that the Type 32 class design should not see a reduction in the capabilities of the Type 31 design. It asserts, “Ensure that Type 32 class frigate design – as a ‘Type 31 Batch 2’ – does not see a reduction in the capabilities of the Type 31 design.”
Additional Type 32 Frigates
To enhance operational flexibility and coverage, the report recommends procuring an additional four Type 32 frigates, bringing the total to nine. The report states, “Procure an additional four Type 32 frigates, taking the total order to 9 vessels. Warships can only be in one place at any given time and a larger number of warships will amplify and extend the Royal Navy’s ability to protect British interests.”
Enhancing Offensive Firepower
The report suggests fitting both the Type 31 and Type 32 class frigates with eight canisters for surface-to-surface missiles to boost their offensive capabilities. It advises, “Fit the Type 31 and Type 32 class frigates – designed ‘for but not with’ – with eight canisters for surface-to-surface missiles to amplify their offensive firepower.”
Options include transferring Naval Strike Missiles from the retiring Type 23 class or procuring new canisters for the Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASW) or other weapons such as the Long-Range Anti-Ship Weapon (LRASM).
Improved ASW Detection
Finally, the report recommends amplifying systems for submarine detection. It suggests, “Bolstering the effort could come through ensuring investment into the Merlin helicopter life-extension programme and exploring how long-range drones, able to operate across multiple platforms, can contribute to ASW.”
No arguments on that……also need to make them well weaponised as described
I don’t think the T32s will happen. Were looking at a 2045-2050 if it did happen before those are all commissioned if we’re lucky.
I’m waiting to see if it gets wrapped into another program, like more Fighty Amphibs or purpose built Mine hunting motherships
The stretched Type 31 with the stern ramp and mission bay babcock showed off last year seems like an easy way to merge the Type 32 programme with future mine hunting capability.
Yes, design ready to go and pretty well armed too. Not sure it needs 4 x MK41s as it has two and maybe could have a 24 CAMM farm on the roof.
With all these additional ships, will there then be a need for additional helicopters too?
Since 2000 the uk helicopter fleet has lost more than 50% of its assets, that is crazy.
so in any world the UK needs to massively increase its helicopter force, the only type you could really say is a healthy size is Chinook but you can never have enough of those beasts of burden.
its gonna cost a fortune
You are Mystic Meg and I claim my £5 🙂
Navy Lookout has just posted an article on learning from RFA Sterling Castle – it says that the RN want 3 large, bespoke design armed, survivable MCM motherships.
The type 26 frigate is far too expensive to build in large numbers, it is 4 times more expensive than the previous generation type 23. The type 26 comes in at over a billion each. The type 31 and 32 is more affordable if you carefully choose what systems you want to put on them, we can’t afford everything and anything. Camm, a good radar, a good helicopter hanger, and if you have been careful about your budget so far some anti ship missiles. Then your done
It’s more like 800 million now which is in line with other first line frigates.
800 million is still a considerable sum, but beside the point its 800 million after the research and development period. The issue is that once we have paid to develope the vessel there is nothing left to build them. The navy can’t keep choosing extravagant designs that take up all the budget to develope and then scream bloody murder when there is nothing left to build the things. the budget is the budget, the navy is responsible to choose a design where resources available allow for both design and build.
It needs to be an “extravagant design” to have any hope of bothe detecting the very good latest gen of Russian subs and defending itself from those subs.
What was the cost of T23 in the late 80s and 90s when inflation is taken into account?
320 million initial cost, initial 1st ship hms norfolk, 200 million for later ships. 135 million 1991 and 97 million in 1990s onwards. Even with inflation we are seeing a 4 fold increase in cost. If you spend 4 times more don’t be surprised if you get 4 times less.
And Norfolk didn’t have a command system at build . You had to fire Seawolf from a local console!
Now factor in the upgrades to T23 to get it from where it was at build to where it is at decommissioning which will be where the T26 will start at with its new/better and comparable systems.
Just from my world as a WE
Mk8 Mod1
S2087
S2150
Artesan
1008
ECDIS
Doppler Log
Sea Ceptor
SCOT5
DNA
CMS
Comms fits
COBLU
30mm
Sea Gnat
DLF 3
ESM
NSM
Special Fits
The point is any additional orders will not have the development cost included. Therefore much more affordable.
Initial requirement was for 13 platforms, we should have stuck to this number. Also build rate would be higher as investment in facilities wad depending on an order of 12 plus.
I agree the Navy will always want the best toys as it were. Sometimes that can be achieved by going with proven technology. Propulsion systems for instance. Look at the destroyer debacle. Lessons need to learned. No more fitted for but not with. A multi layered air defence is required for all ships. With CIWS as the last resort. With limits on cell capacity the day of the depot ship could be coming again.The destroyer fleet is to small, the RFA is desperate for investment. Amphibious assets are tired. Somebody at Barrow and another at RR in Derby needs to be looking at the Astute replacement. Someone else needs to take a look at the Points and order replacements or upgrades. They are all coming up for 25 years. With an upgrade they may continue for another 25. It is all crying out for common sense and investment.
Theyre already looking at the Astute replacement, its part of the whole aukus program.
You should read my post again. I said someone in Derby and Barrow. Not someone in Derby, Barrow, Gorton and Newport News. AUKUS has already caused delays. Ambush will go out of service in or around 2040. We need to be cutting steel in 2029.
Extravagant design? It’s not made of gold. The design is to make it peer class sub hunter, there’s no cheap way of doing that unless you think we should build 3 times as many crap ships that will fail to detect until too late and be sunk quickly. Tech , detection systems, integration and weoponry are state of the art and takes years to build and commission, so it ain’t cheap. Your cost comparison to the T23 fails to account for the upgrades that lead to the starting point of the T26. Obv if we build more of a class then it’s cheaper per unit but this issue of cost affects all navies in the world, which is why there are few capable navies.
Yes extravagant design for what it offers. It is a good project for the Australian and Canadian navy versions, not the subpar UK version.
Is the subpar reason because it does not have torpedo launchers like the RAN version?
“Subpar UK version”? In what world is it subpar? Look at the fleets they’re designed for it makes sense.
The RCN version packs a little more offensive firepower with 8 cannister SSMs and torpedo launchers, as well as the superior LRDR radar, but has dropped half the Sea Ceptor cells and Phalanx. Its a more multipurpose vessel at the expense of being costlier, because unlike a T26 its role is to do everything, not hunt subs under the umbrella of destroyers and carrier air cover.
The RAN version is, honestly, daft. They’re overloading the ship to make an ASW frigate do a better job of air defence than the destroyers they just finished building. The fact that they’re now dropping a third of them for cheaper ships tells you exactly how effective gold-plating is
A Flight II Type 26 with updated weaponry and radar systems might keep the price down, the shipyard open and allow for improvements in the original design. I look at the Burkes being commissioned now and they are beasts compared to the original Flight I Burke.
I am not familiar enough with the Type 26, is there planning for improving the ships over the years to come?
If Norway order the T26’s 🤞 then the unit price should come down further, so a couple more on the back of that for the RN should make things slightly more affordable?
Just need to sell some to the US for some extra icing on the 🎂!… If their Constellation class falls through. And why not try for a licence build T26/T31 to India?
I’m inclined to agree, I think we should really have a force of perhaps 12 high end destroyers merging the T26 and T45 role like the Burkes do for the USN then a cheap frigate fleet like the T31 with 12 hulls as well.
T26 will be top class but it’s expensive for something bobbing around in the North Atlantic in numbers like the T23.
The T31 may be too cheap and cheery though for our NATO commitments
We possibly something like a T32 with the noise reduction options to make it better at ASW instead.
T31 will be great for presence missions in place like Bahrain where the submarine threat is minimal.
Why go to the effort of quietening the hull on the T-32 when the work has already been done for the T-26. Just build a few more T-26, bearing in mind that the £800m price tag only holds for up to 3 extra at which point the government furnished equipment (radar etc) carried over fromT-23 runs out.
Yeah I don’t think fielding £800 million pound surface frigates meets the economics of war. Its less than 1.2 billion but with that reference point any sum ‘looks’ cheap. Its way too many eggs in a basket, it’s doomed to be fielded in small numbers because of the cost, it ensures that ship yard capacity is kept low because we can’t afford the volume of orders to keep it up. In the event of a protracted conflict we are immediately going to run into the issue of not being able to deploy them widely enough due to small numbers leading to big gaps, any loss will be devastating and in war there will be losses. For the reasons above our ship yards won’t be able to build fast enough to expand the fleet let alone keep up with losses and I very much doubt the viability of quickly scaling such a skilled workforce for such a sophisticated Hull. Ultimately to reach the scale needed to achieve that crital mass of fleet size and production capacity is well beyond our means. The Americans are struggling to achieve it, and arguably failing, even with there $850 billion dollar budget. I think the trope of ‘they didnt give us enough money’ is too easy and allows decision makers to deflect blame and avoid confronting the viability of their strategy. We need to come up with a different strategy and stopping fooling ourselves into thinking frigate ‘nirvana’
The whole issue relates to one fact, to our political masters defence is NOT important. Shipbuilding is not important. 100 years ago shipyards were considered critical national infrastructure. It’s not for nothing that Arson in the Kings/Queens shipyard was the last crime alongside High Treason to carry the death penalty. If the escort fleet had been been maintained at a build rate of two a year, allowing for replacement of the whole force over 20-25 years. Would the costs per ship be so high? However could we afford it even if the unit prices were lower, not without something else big being cut.
Thing is Fraser is you are not counting all the investment made on the T-23s since comissioning. Many of the onboard systems have been replaced. Also defence inflation has run above baseline inflation since at least the end of the cold war and we have far less shipyards capable of building surface warships now. Also according to defence analyst Francis Tusa the the costs of the T-31 are pushing £450m per ship, due in part to the use of capability insertion after comissioning which is outside the base contract.
I would argue that with Canadian and Australian variants starting construction with economy of scale the price should come down.
The Type 26 are not too expensive and the unit price could even be cheaper if we chose to build at full throttle. We “can’t afford” more frigates at the moment because the government chooses not to fund Defence to even a fraction of what is needed. Type 23 was ordered in the 1980s, when we spent a real and properly measured 5% of GDP on defence. That’s why could buy twice as many. Even then there was more than an element of fitted for but not with. Remember the design lifespan and how that worked out?
Type 26 UK do not have 360º planar face radars that all its competitors have, do not have area AAW with Aster 30 or Standard missiles so what explain its cost?
Silence. There comes a point in a fight against a submarine where the ability to run silently comes in handy. If American terms help you think, perhaps try accoustic stealth.
No, it won’t have wide area AAW coverage to the same standard as a destroyer. I have no idea why you’d want to judge an ASW specialist frigate by the standards of an AAW ship. Especially as we still don’t know what AAW missiles it will be getting, other than CAMM. Maybe it will have Aster 30s or SM2. The medium-range Artisan radar is pretty good from all accounts, even if not quite up to the standard of SAMPSON. Fixed-faced radars aren’t the only way to do the job, especially if you are more worried about sea-skimming missiles than ballistic ones.
I think this is where “designed for but not with” comes into play. You can’t afford everything in one go so stagger it all over 5-10 years with upgrades during standard refits. Much like with what’s been done with the T45s.
Yeah but not being able to equip a very small number of ships and then having to equip our ships over 10 years, shows how unaffordable navy equipment has become. Imagine if we got into a war and we increased our spending 20x to over 3
40% of gdp for 3-5 years. What would we get 10 partially equipment ships a year instead of half a partially equipt ship a year, which we get now?. In ww2 we were making over 200 major naval vessels a year, and the uk economy was much much smaller back then. Naval equipment isn’t even close from a affordability/economy point of view.
Hi folks hope all is well.
I note mention of “Type 32s”. This would be fantastic to have a further class of frigate to bolster needed numbers. However, I’d be surprised if such a class will get underway, especially when Labour take control, and poor over the MOD’s accounts, they’ll have a hissy fit as it currently stands despite all the talk of increasing the defence budget to 2.5 percent of GDP “when possible” or something like that!
Cheers
George
Preaching to the choir.
Still no land attack capability
Still too small a fleet. The RN should be circa 50 warship hulls
With our economy size that’s frankly unfeasible, it could be better but not that.
Entirely feasible.- its all down to political decisions and priorities.
There aren’t many votes in defense so while i don’t like it I see exactly why it isn’t a government priority
The US has three companies – NVIDIA, Microsoft, and Apple whose market capitalization individually is greater than all of the companies listed on the London Stock Exchange. It’s a matter of economics, not politics mor priorities. The only real place the funds can come from is the NHS budget and that is not going to happen.
Have you seen south Koreas navy? They have more ships then we do. Be it we have more modern ones. We used to keep what we now call ‘old’ ships active longer to keep fleet sizes up. The US, China, Russia etc do this still. If we upped the type 26s to 10 and built more type 31 ships we could. The problem is the philosophy of the MOD unfortunately is way fewer ships more technology. Where are we could do both. Ships that are active in navies even from the 70s-90s are still feasible ships with the right upgrades. Also in the UK we love to spend more money then we need for things like HS2 for example lol. A fleet size of 30 frigates and 20 destroyers could be done. If done right… I also think the submarine fleet needs to be at least 15-20. Either way if we want to be taken series as a navy again we have to get near these numbers.
False ,with your social state and political state expenditures is what makes it unfeasible.
Face the fact only few people in Britain care for armed forces. Billions are spend in propaganda, netzero, DEI, universities etc.
Great report but will the bean counters at the treasury take it onboard and agree to the extra funding the Navy is desperate for . The fleet is far too small for all escort types including subs .
It has nothing to do with bean counters, but with political and cultural priorities of British media-political class.
The Britiish Government will spend 1226 Billion Pounds in 2024/2025 if Statista is correct.
10% would have been 122 billion.
Priorities
The Telegraph
Need an urgent purchase of 4.5″/5″ anti-air shells and some similarly armed 40mm for the T26, carriers and support ships (30mm if they cannot be up-gunned). Dragonfire once it is available.
We have 30mm lying around. There’s other reasons for not installing them on the carrier.
Buy as many shells as you want.
Unless the gunnery control system can do AA it won’t matter.
It’s a systems issue not an individual item issue.
I don’t think 4.5″ rounds are being made anymore.
Emgprom in Brazil make them for the Brazillian Navy. There are still some Mk 8s in use for other countries but not many . Pakistan made its own but now that the T21s are gone that need has probably disappeared.
I think that BAe do batch runs as required for RN and Chile use. The new facilities that they have can be configured far more easily than the old, dedicated calibre machines
I’ve got a funny feeling that Iran also have the 4.5″ on a couple of their older frigate/ corvettes? I guess they’d be making their own ammo…. Lol 😁
I think they do. Could have been buying from Pakistan or making their own ordo they even have shells for them?
Fantasy Fleets, my favourite! Sadly they will be last on the list of Starmer’s priorities. I would add two more T26, but built as a Canadian/Australian arsenal ship. So the Canadian T26 standard, but with the proposed extra aft MK41 VLS offered to the Australians.(Exeter & York?)
Then three more T31, but with the ice hardened hull being developed now. (Hurricane, Hardy & Havoc).
Sadly there is not enough money down the back of the sofa. (My five would probably cost £4 to 4.5 billion).
Why do they need to be ice hardened.
Also there’s no point in an AAW T26 because we have no Mk41 long range missiles.
Because the only way we’ll get them is if hell freezes over?
Just being cheeky.😯
Have you seen what Putin is doing in Polar regions? If you have no missiles for MK41, you can buy them off the shelf. A mix of Tomahawk, ASROC & Standard SM3 & 6, would be my choice.
Theyre not going to get any other air defense systems till they decide what theyre going to use for the Type 83, e.g. theyre not going to make an Air defense variant of either the T26 or 31.
in canada type 26 built by Irvin shipyard est 15 ships =Can $ 70/80 billion public figures
Well thank our Canadian cousins for the extra R&D. Also their figure includes money spent on Canadian shipyards & workers.
That price tag is for the full funding for 15 ships from start to finish over 40 years.
I’d disagree with it being last on Starmers lists of priority. With much thanks to Russia, defense has slowly crept back into the public eye and some recent headline reports on the state and actual capabilities of our armed forces have come as a shock to a lot of people I know who previously have never paid any attention to it and just assumed that “we are Britain we’ll always be strong ect, ect.”
Complete lack of air defenses and the size of our navy always seem to be what gets the average person actually scratching their heads. As we watch daily on the news about Russian air strikes in Ukraine or the Houthis attacks in the Red Sea, people are getting genuinely concerned at our ability to protect ourselves from a Russian or terrorist cell drone and missile campaign – rightfully. When the news was having a field day earlier this year talking about the navies lack of man power, uncrewed ships and lack of offensive weapons it did surprise lots of people I know personally and again raise questions and some lengthy conversations as to how the mighty Royal Navy was suffering so badly.
As Boris has proven, nothing gets the general public more excited than talking about warships. Him bumbling around the aircraft carriers and seemingly inventing T-32 on the spot mid speech did help reinforce the “Torys are good for the armed forces” myth (even during his unprecedented manpower cuts) as warships are generally very big, impressive and publicly visible things – unlike tanks or aircraft. For Starmer to win some easy points, him just building ships willy nilly could be a genuine strategy to prove labour defense sceptics wrong and give the general public a surface level view that there’s real investment going on to improve UK defense. There’s also the fact that all of the seats in the port towns where the ship yards operate are contested or are actively labour seats that he’ll want to win over or hang onto – not just now but at the next election as well.
What most people forget though is our geography!
we are a island to the far west of Europe and thus a long way away from most potential air threats.
very few Russian jets have the range and would have to deal with many other European countries first.
Chinese could only hit us with ballistic missiles (and let’s be honest they have their hands full with the Americans !) and they would be nuclear armed so end of the world stuff and Russian missiles would have to cross most of Europe (the Germans or poles would be more likely targets!) or be launched by bombers in the far north, which would make intercepting them by the raf or Norwegians fairly straightforward.
this is why we have no ground launched sam systems as they would be pointless.
the navy really only needs to be big enough to form a small cbg around the carriers to support the oversea territories, supply the odd ship to international operations and hunt Russian subs in the north( and arguably this could be done better with more p8’s!)
Last thing I want, is more party politics on this site. The UK has a £2.7 trillion national debt. Rapidly heading to £3 trillion. We are still running a gov deficit of £120 billion in what is hailed as a good financial year. The unions want a bonus from the first Labour government in 14 years, but money will be tight, no matter which party wins. Yes I want more money spent on UK defence, but I am well aware of the financial constraints.
Time for the 🇬🇧 to generate more sales revenues, cut down on waste and pay off some of that debt! 😁
As an ex-army man I have totally given up hope of the army being expanded even slightly in manpower and platform numbers, whichever Party forms the next Government – we will struggle to deploy an effective well-equipped warfighting division on a single-shot operation and it is wishful thinking to suppose we could deploy even a brigade on an enduring operation without recourse to the Reserves and/or ‘the Royals’.
I wish my Navy colleagues and their supporters all the best – their news looks a lot brighter, certainly as regards the escorts.
Evening Graham, I fear you’re right mate…
Everything seems to be downsizing to Brigade level. The thought of deploying a division is frankly laughable in anything short of general war.
Alas, I think even deploying a Brigade for anything more than a few months would start to cause issues.
Hi John,
The BA, even at 73,000 Regs, has the numbers to deploy a warfighting division (but probably could not easily continue with all other commitments). There may be a limited recourse to Reservists in specialist roles. The issue is kit – if deployed in the short term it would be largely old and/or unmodernised kit. No-one is really sure about how much we have in the way of ammunition reserves – some are very pessimistic on that front.
If we were instead required to deploy a Bde on an enduring operation, it would of course deploy for the standard 6 months. The issue would be that there would not be five other similar brigades in the Orbat who could be ‘lined up to follow-on’, thus the preferred inter-tour interval of 2.5 years (Harmony guidelines) could not be maintained.
With 73000 you can’t make rotation and there will be losses.
Yet we have most advanced small arms factory in the world and make bigger stuff too. No stockpiles though damned idiots
Having served in the army you could be missing the point. We just don’t need a big army.
we are not on Russia’s border, Germany and Poland are! Our contribution to the shared defence is securing the northern sea lanes, cyber and nuclear.
the army’s only real job is to protect the overseas territories and we don’t need 100k men todo that.
Russia can never win a fight against nato they know that as well as we do. The bigger concern is that they try and get so completely destroyed in a very short time frame that they feel threatened and resort to nukes.
Daniel, I have never argued for a big army, just a right-sized (and properly equipped) army. When I joined the army in 1975 we had a big army of 180,000 regulars and about 70,000 TA. The key army commitment then was of course assignment of a Corps to NATO, with HQ 1 (BR) Corps commanding four armoured divisions in West Germany plus a brigade in Berlin. A heavy commitment to Op BANNER in Northern Ireland (a 38-year deployment) was also a remit, with up to 21,000 soldiers deployed at times (plus 6,500 UDR).
That was a big army.
‘Options for Change’ was a very well considered Defence Review in the wake of the end of the Cold War. The army was reduced to 120,000 regulars, deemed to be the right size for the post-Cold War army, and included two fully deployable divisions assigned to NATO, as a resurgent Russia was deemed to be Europes’s greatest potential threat. A succession of further cuts since ‘Options’ to 73,000 Regulars have not been justified by any reduction in Threat or tasks and have purely been to save money.
Now, you talk about our geographic distance from Russia and state that this means that we don’t need a large army. Well, we don’t have a large army now (so you must be very satisfied), but we don’t even have a right-sized one.
Our relative greater distance to a threat nation (Russia) is not an overriding factor in determining the size, organisation, role and equipment of our army. We do not just defend our homeland and the BOTs with the army – we have NATO commitments. Why do you think those NATO commitments are limited for the UK, to just ‘securing the northern sea lanes, cyber and nuclear’ and don’t involve the army which you say is only there for protecting the overseas territories. It also sounds as if you don’t think there is much of a role for the RAF in supporting NATO operations. I don’t think I have ever heard anything so astonishing, that we basically only need a navy, some cyber capability and Trident to meet NATO obligations.
Where do you get the idea that we have only NATO commitments to northern sea lanes, cyber and nuclear? This is not stated in any SDR/SDSR, Integrated Review or Defence Command Paper. Our commitments are far and away more than that, and very much involve the army and the RAF.
You also don’t mention our past and no doubt future commitments to UN operations, multi-national non-NATO operations (often US-led) and defence diplomacy tasks including training foreign forces.
If the army is now relegated to just protecting the overseas territories, why do the army commit so few troops to this task and only rarely conduct relevant exercises?
Why is the army structured, trained and equipped to do more than protect the overseas territories? Perhaps you should take a look at the ‘Future Soldier’ booklet.
‘Future Soldier’ says “Future Soldier will see the Army become more global in its perspective, its operations and its partnerships.
The Army will be balanced to deliver right across the Defence spectrum: Protect the Homeland; Engage with allies and partners overseas; Constrain the aggressive activities of our adversaries; and Fight wars if required….The Army’s primary job is to fight war in person when it is at its most lethal and visceral. The ability to conduct high-end warfighting remains the core of the British Army, including remaining a leading contributor to the NATO alliance and the ability to field a warfighting Division.
The 3rd (UK) Division will hold the Army’s armoured forces and remain at the heart of the Army’s warfighting capability. This will be supported by 1st (UK) Division as the home of the Army’s light forces and the 6th (UK) Division as the home of our unconventional warfare capabilities”.
Finally we should not be limited to thinking of Russia as our only Threat.
That’s worse that I imagined. I thought two BCTs with rotations and you tell me they’d struggle to field a single brigade. Why for pities sake? A BCT is about 5,000ish, isn’t it. What’s the multiple to stick a group in the field for long periods?
Okay, I read your response to John. You say it’s a sixfold multiple One tour on, five tours off. I’ve never served so this seems a very high multiple to me. Double the Navy’s rule of three.
So I looked up Harmony guidelines. Over a three year period (1096 days), Navy can be away 660 days, that is 60% of the time. Army can be away 498 days, 45% of the time, and RAF can be away 468 days or 43% of the time. At no point does Harmony suggest a 5 to 1 ratio or 17% of the time. So where does that come from?
All 3 Services should be the same and at the HIGHEST number as the Fleet has been doing that and more for years. Better people management would help with personnel being able to multi task, more. In the end all the talk about desired dreamed of new equipment is all hogwash without the right people to man it and the younger generations are simply not up for that as they are all WOKE and soft which is not to blame them but the older generations allowing it to happen. Little hope for the future no matter who gets in as they are all hot air and NO action.
Hi Jon,
World of difference between fielding a division for warfighting in a one-shot operation such as Gulf war 1 (and warfighting phase of Guldf War 2)….and fielding a BCT on an enduring operation.
Enduring operations (of various sizes) can be ongoing for many years – Op TOSCA (UN duties in Cyrprus) has now been going for exactly 50 years. The mission to defend the Falklands by deploying an in-place force has lasted for 42 years.Op BANNER in NI lasted for 38 years. Op HERRICK in Afghan lasted 12 years. Op TELIC in Iraq lasted 8 years.
Enduring operations is far harder on the troops over the long-term than a one-shot operation.
Harmony guidelines were guidelines used to advocate one tour of (usually) 6 months followed by 2.5 years ‘tour-free’, for a majorly significant (usually kinetic) Operation, such as HERRICK, TELIC, BANNER. Hence you needed 6 brigades/BCTs or BGs or whatever to enable one of those to be on tour. Harmony was all about having decent Tour Intervals. It wasn’t about ‘nights out of bed’ or days away from Quarter/Barracks.
I have not heard the figures you mention – that must be relatively new. It might be a different way of depicting tour length and frequency – it seems a bit confusing to an old soldier like me. If so, I suspect that it somehow reflects that without 6 similar brigades that the old Harmony guidelines cannot be met….or I suspect it is something entorely different…and reflects max intended time away from Quarter/barracks which is a different thing…you can be away for multiple reasons in addition to a significant Op tour – eg you may be away on a ‘minor tour’, exercises, certain long career courses away from home barracks, detachments on KAPE tours etc.
Tha navy’s rule of 3 was doing something rather different – it was abot kit. It confirmed you had built enough of a class of ships such that one out of three could deploy ‘on tour’ or had deployed on tour and was not in refit or undergoing quay-side maintenence. It did not indicate that a sailor would spend 1/3 of his life on deployment. Anyway there is a difference in risk/stress levels/danger between a sailor on a routine at sea deployment and a soldier possibly being in a kinetic environment in Iraq, Afgnaistan or Northern Ireland dodging the bullets.
One tour on, 5 tours off – was always an ideal, which was rarely ever met. Besides – if you really did do just one tour in 6 in Afghanistan, then you may still be pinged during your 5 ‘off’ tours to do a UNFICYP tour or a Falklands posting or an Op CABRIT tour, so time away from home (and add in long exercises) would still be a lot. Maybe that is what those figures you mention are all about.
My figures came from an old answer to a parliamentary written question. Ah, found it. 2017 it was, so possibly out of date. However, I did understand it to mean time away from home rather than time getting shot at.
Time away from home had become an issue around that time – some called it ‘nghts out of bed’, I seem to recall. That is (or can be) a very different thing to number of deployments on major op tours in a given period.
Okay, had a think about what you are saying and it puts the hollowing out of the Army into chilling perspective.
It is quite easy to make a claim that the army could not deploy a BCT+ on an enduring operation (running for many, many years) or could only do so by making recourse to reservists and/or RM personnel. ie no more Op Herricks or Op Telics or Op Banners.
Agreed 2 additional Type 26
12 type 31 or mixture type 32
8 type 83 destroyers
This would be a minimum requirement in current climate not in 10 years time..
Flog the older ships to death.. they are much needed now and get our ships ready we need more personnel..
Army and air force are so stretched.. yet we are scraping things left right and centre to save money.
We need troops vehicles planes and ships.
More chance of Ed Davey becoming prime minister. Sunak should have ordered a second batch of 31’s when he had the chance.
In fairness I thing that could have happened……but
T31 was brought at a budget.
MOD/RN up specked T32 and then there was a moment of disbelief when the costing numbers didn’t match any conceivable budgets….
So round the maypole it went….
And a down specked T32 is the order of the day!
Probably right my friend and something we see far too often. Where we go now heaven knows. 😇
I think getting the T26, T31 and the rivers B2 up to 10 each would be a good start to increase the fleet in a decent timeframe. My opinion is for what it is worth, cancel the T32 and build more what is currently in production, the T26 is a world class platform and the T31 has plenty of potential for expanding it’s capability, what we have is generally great capability, just not the numbers required in today’s threat level. We can then start to look at the type 83, with the T45 being upgraded as much as it can be as in my view is still an amazing piece of engineering.
T32 has been suggested as just another name for a 2nd batch of T31, or one with slight modification, but obviously both seem unlikely unless something is done about crewing or budget
T32 being a 2nd batch of the T31 is probably the best option. I feel the more T32 being a different type of ship option is out there, the more chance it will get analysed for what difference it can be to the T31, who can come on board as a potential partner to export to/share development cost and it will just get canned and take up much needed defence budget/resource in the process.
Perhaps type 32 should simply be a T31 as currently envisaged (mk41 etc and NSM), to simplify hull and shipbuilding planning, but add a bow sonar and ‘NS200’ class radar instead of NS110. Create a drumbeat of Type 32s and when time is right sell off type 31s and replace with additional T32s.
Escort fleet of 24
8 x GP
8 x ASW
8 x AA
8 x is of course…long long term but reflects for each class of vessel, at any one time, 2 for CSG / global deployment, 2 for home waters / North Atlantic, 2 alongside post patrol and 2 in long term refit / maintenance
There’s been a recent UK shipping industry delegation visiting Hyundai in Korea recently, but I didn’t see Babcock on the list there but I think they’re more involved with subs. I might be wrong on that.
Mentioned this before but the UK is not on the list for the RANs light frigate requirement for 7-11 ships. How/why did they miss that? Navantia is on there despite there being problems with their Canberra, Hobart’s and now the latest Stalwart /Supply oiler ships, so you’d think the T31 with its Danish IH background would have got a look in? Might need to lease/share the two Waves to the RAN?
About time too! Better late than never but we need them now!
The ‘buy American’ report recommends buying ASROC instead of it’s much more capable Japanese cousin, the Type 07. Shocker
Maybe “they” want cheap, and quickly? If it’s Asroc hopefully they can get the latest with a bit more range out of it and definitely use UK torpedos. Wonder if the Aust and Canadian T26s will also have Asroc and if the Norwegians go for the T26, them too? Common stock, pooling resources, so might get the nod.
Would the Japanese Type 07 be able to carry the UK torpedo?
I’d be happy with that recommendation. Type 26 (+2 more hulls=10)
Type 31 and additional batch of type 31s ideally optimised for surface strike with 5inch medium gun and a navalised MLRS?. Then add 5 type 32s.
Plus 8-12 type 83s.
Job done.
Best navy in Europe.
Signed, sealed, waiting… Lol 😁 🇬🇧
Instead , building drone carrier will be more cost effective and will provide modern sea warefare lead.
Certainly true. Most here have been saying this since escorts ran down to 25, if not earlier & today we have a hopeless 15 & no new builds ready for a year or two. But we also need more air defence destroyers. CAMM has considerably increased the air defence of our frigates but area air defence is dangerously low with just 6 T45 DDG. Add to their remit the planned ballistic defence capability of the UK & we’ve far too few to withstand any sustained attack.
Henceforth, recommend that all consultant reports have a mandatory section detailing a viable financial and schedule implementation plan. May tend to reduce overall consultant expense. 🤔
I think “they” should be consulting all “us experts” here on UKDJ. Free of charge too! Lol, tongue in cheek of course!! 😂 And some here are actual subject matter experts.
Was it Labour or the Tories who wanted Citizens’ Assemblies to help decide on some matters? Well, in UKDJ we have an assembly of, presumably, British citizens who have an interest in and occasionally knowledge of Defence. What are the government waiting for?
“Ukdj” should be a think tank consultancy direct to the MOD! What do you reckon?! 😁 😂
As long as they wangle me a job at one of MBDA, BAE or Qinetiq in a few years I’d be happy to help.
I’m not sure they’d want us, we all want them to spend more money.
There are a few non-British and (Russian and Chinese trolls excepted) we are enriched by their presence.
Tories, specifically Rory Stewart proposed the idea when he was running in the 2019 leadership contest that Boris ultimately won. That’s not to say that people in other parties haven’t suggested it over the years but due to the 2019 leadership candidate debates and 1-on-1 interviews RS got the concept a fair amount of airtime.
Recommendations have some utility, however, recommendations embedded in a viable implementation plan can prove to be quite valuable. In days of yore, we often said consultant reports were valuable paperweights (NLA w/ electronic media).
Sorry if I’ve missed something, but if the T32, which I thought are going to be mothership types for MCM roles, how can they also have 4 MK41s? They’re then basically going to be a T31+? I thought they might be more a paired back T26 or like the Babcock MRP stretched T31 concept which had just the 2 MK41s, mission bay of the T26, but not sure if there’s a CAMM farm on the roof? It’s good there’s this report and debate going on as things must be being stirred into some action.
Waiting to see now if the UK will order some diesel subs for costal, regional and far north next!? Let the Astute’s do their thing. Maybe the T32 and usv/drones will take on this role?
Drone motherships were mooted, not MCM. MCM will be the Castles.
Agree another 2 T45 would be good: but not practical. The French canned all but 2 Horizon class in favour of incrementing AAW capability of some Fremm frigates. The UK could do something similar by building another 2 T31 or T26. Both have room for lots of VLS but in either case you would create something of an orphan design. Wouldn’t surprise me if they are holding fire on finalising the T32 – MCM thing until they see how RFA Sterling Castle works out.
I think we should be building a destroyer class ,something similar to the ticos, yes keep the frigates but think we should have something more powerful
To summarise- this report recommends
* a fifth Dreadnought
* five more SSNs
* two additional T26 frigates
* nine T32s ( all additional to current numbers),
* arsenal ships
* installation of ASROC and more SSMs
to a Royal Navy that can’t crew its existing fleet.
My fantasy upgrade would instead
* increase Typhoon fleet to 300
* install a comprehensive air defence system for the whole UK
* augment Trident with several hundred long range nuclear armed cruise missiles
* increase the army to 100,000 with equipment to match
* increase the SSN fleet
The last suggestion is on both lists and the only one likely to happen.
‘This Report is the first to be released by the Council on Geostrategy’s Strategic Advantage Cell. Kindly sponsored by Lockheed Martin, this Cell is the first of its kind in the United Kingdom (UK)’.
Defence company sponsors report recommending more spending on defence..,well I never. Be interesting to compare with the likely labour govt’s defence review. Back to reality I would say getting pay and recruitment sorted is pretty high on the agenda so we can deploy the ships under construction.
Exactly. If existing surface ships can’t be fully crewed what is the point of T32? Unless AUKUS disintegrates, I do think an increase in SSNs will happen. The rest, no chance.
MRSS is an opportunity. Get the design, the number, roles and crewing right and things could look a lot brighter.
Given the disasters of the Zumwalt, LCS and Constellation classes, perhaps working with the Americans should be avoided
This mornings Articles more Destroyers , Submarines , Frigates. Think must of us on ukdj have been saying this for year’s ,please don’t make me laugh 🤗 Like I’ve said on another post need to sort out recruitment first and budget increase 🙄 🇬🇧
I had to check I was drinking just normal ☕ this morning when all these “need more of” articles came in. 😂 Lets hope at least some of them eventuate.
and the new destroyers to the list
We have to get away from the concept of fitting for but not with. By there very nature warships can be called upon on very short notice to respond to a threat – particularly as the world is at the moment. There may not be time to retro fit the anti ship cannister system and you are more than likely going to put both the ship and the crew at greater risk. To me it is a false economy.
I think it’s reasonable to delay a decision on certain elements of the initial fit out, just as it’s reasonable not to decide what will go in a mission module or which missiles will go in a VLS. The issue comes when there’s no money put aside in the budget to buy these things. So we end up with few missiles, nothing in the mission modules and FFBNW lasting the entire life of the ship.
If the Navy can’t put aside the budget space for these things, there’s no alternative than to pay for the full fit out up front.
Companies are clearly anticipating that they will need to fight to sell Government anything at all. This ‘report’ looks like the opening salvo.
What planet are these experts are from the government has never increased the quantity but always reduce, even to suggest that we need to increase will fall on deaf ears…. This is how the government brains work plan for 8 might increase to 10 but end up at 6..
then another twenty five years to get them.
Would it not make sense to just order nine more Type 31’s instead of 5+4 Type 32’s?
Why 4 not 5 Type 32 (Aka Type 31 batch 2). I also take the other two T26.
Then there to Batch one river class ships needed replacing soon. Also as a priority the T83 design is needed now, first T45 due to retire 2040.
Then there is the Astutes, originally planed for 12 but now only 7, in the full report they suggest one extra Dreadnought with lots of conventional VLS, to keep the Sub Drum beat going, but would it not be better and cheaper to built 2-3 Astute as a single ship of a class is a waste of time with time in dock needed for maintenance / repairs/ upgrades / rearming etc.