In a recent response to a parliamentary question, Lord Coaker, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, confirmed that nine Type 23 frigates are currently in service with the Royal Navy, with six of these vessels presently available for operational deployment.
This update came in response to a query from Lord West of Spithead, who inquired about the number of frigates in the Royal Navy’s active order of battle.
Lord Coaker stated “As a new government, we inherited a situation in which the Royal Navy has nine Type-23 frigates in service, six of which are currently available”, he then went on to explain, “The normal operating cycle of every ship involves them entering different readiness levels depending on their programmes and departmental planning requirements.”
This cycle can affect the availability of vessels as ships undergo scheduled maintenance, refits, and other planned readiness adjustments.
As part of its long-term strategy, the MOD is advancing a gradual transition from the existing Type 23 frigate class to two new classes, the Type 26 and Type 31 frigates. This shift will unfold over the next decade, with these new ships intended to enhance the Royal Navy’s capabilities in both anti-submarine and general-purpose roles.
In context
Recent trends in the fleet, particularly the Type 23 Frigates, show a positive shift towards increased operational availability.
Earlier in the year, we reported that a lower percentage of these ships were active or immediately deployable, with the majority undergoing maintenance or refit. However, recent data indicates a marked improvement, with more ships transitioning from maintenance to active status.
This improvement is particularly notable in the Type 23 Frigates, where the percentage of active ships has risen significantly, reflecting better fleet management and possibly more efficient maintenance practices. The removal of HMS Argyll from service has also played a role in this trend. While this reduced the overall number of Type 23 Frigates from 10 to 9, it has not hindered the increase in the percentage of active or deployable ships.
On the contrary, the focus has seemingly shifted to maintaining the readiness of the remaining vessels, leading to a higher proportion of the fleet being operational. The Royal Navy has managed to enhance the availability of the fleet despite the reduction in total numbers. This trend suggests a strategic shift in the Royal Navy’s approach to fleet readiness and operational capacity. By improving the availability of its remaining vessels, the Royal Navy has increased its ability to respond to operational demands.
The data, in summary, indicates a focus on maximising the utility of the existing fleet, ensuring that a more significant percentage of ships are prepared for immediate deployment when needed.
For comparison 16 Frigates and 8 destroyers were sent South Atlantic to take the Falklands back.
Maybe however as an example a type 45 is probably 15-30 times more effective than a Type 42. So I’m not sure what your numbers prove.
In what way is it 15 to 30 times more effective?
Area defended, probably
Aster 30 Vs Sea Dart is a massive range increase.
Multiply that by number of missiles carried and you probably don’t get far off 30
It’s can shoot sea skimming missiles for a massive start, T42 relied on its hull or helicopter facilities to catch Exocet.
It can only be in one place at a time though
It only needs to be in one place defending a task force.
True enough 👍
Not in Argentina’ case but the greater capability of 45s over 42s is offset somewhat by the greater capability of ASMs and their launch platforms.
T42 in 1982 was completely unable to engage any sea skimming ASM on its time. T45 is capable of engaging any sea skimming ASM on the planet today as well as ballistic missiles.
God forbid the Argentines ever get their hands on anti ship ballistic missiles.
So too have the ships in every other major navy increased their effectiveness. The reality is that the Royal Navy has nine frigates (eight if we assume that HMS Northumberland is done).
Air defence is much better now, lessons were learned.
Yeah but most of them were shite. 2 T23, 2 T45 and 1 SSN with a QE class would be way better.
And today’s RN, despite being much smaller, would decimate the RN of 1982. And would bring unbeatable capabilities to Argentinian forces. People seem to think little has really changed since the 1980s, except we have got smaller. Technology training, support functions, and capability have come on leeps and bounds.
In my view it is not just about numbers. It is a lethality as well. True we need a number of vessels as well otherwise you are putting all your eggs in one basket. That said ultimately drones etc. will spread the lethality and the speed of production providing the politicians however have the imagination.
More Ships needed so they can be deployed to more sea’s around the World. Modern tech should be being used to reduce crew numbers thus allowing more Ships to be manned and available. Presence is one of the biggest deterrence and for that you need numbers. If we had more bobbies on the beet then our streets would be safer but they are seldom seen these days. Same goes for the Military only with having if it can do its job of making the other side think twice and our Armed Forces are just too small to be really effective……sad… Read more »
Spot on 👍
there is a very big underlying problem with this and that is availability/readiness and maintenance cycles are a zero sum game, in that you increase one you decrease the others and each is important and decreasing any of them will have wide longterm consequences to either the quality of your fleet, the effectiveness of your deterrent or your ability to deploy in times of crisis or high risk ( war or pre war). So you can raise one of these elements but you will impact on the others and impact on wider important issues. That is why a recent U.S.… Read more »
6 out of 9 , it was only a few years ago we had 13 . Not good
The Type 23s hulls were not built to last this long, compound that with glacial build progress on new types, it is not surprising.
The fleet is supposed to operate a two thirds forward, one third reserve structure. So six is the required number for the frigates here. Anything less should be classed as a planning failure.
RN already on the path to resolution of this issue, by 2030, progress will be obvious. Simply need RN to avoid naval conflict during that period. 🤔🤞
It’s all good, we are just going to sail round the North Atlantic minding our own business until 2030.
Hopefully Xi waits for us 😀
A Labour government may have greater latitude from becoming embroiled in significant conflict, by emphasizing diplomacy and soft power measures, perhaps for a sufficient period to begin the process of British rearmament. View the current period to parallel the mid 1930s, exactly where on that timeline may be too difficult a task to discern. 🤔🤞🤞🇬🇧
“British rearmament”, in any serious sense of that term, would take a generation. It will be the 2040s before SSN AUKUS enters service for example. I would anticipate that the coming defence review will cap the fleet at 19 surface combatants (assuming some Type 26s are not actually sold off), limit the MRSS to perhaps three ships (of limited quality) and perhaps mothball one of the carriers.
… but of course an angry US administration, demanding that allies pay their fair share (which may or may not be elected today), could impact British and other allied defence planning.
No matter how much better modern toys are, numbers count. They can only be in one place at any one moment in time. There is also attrition. The Ukraine should have taught us no matter how fancy your new toys are, attrition counts when you look at our potential enemies. Unless you figure on a 2 week war ala Gulf 1 and 2, you had better hope nothing breaks down or god forbid, we take casualties. The old adage of putting all your eggs in one basket …
And NATO war wouldn’t look like the Ukraine conflict. The Gulf wars didn’t drag on because of overwhelming capabilities. Just think of the fire power and precision the US forces on their own would bring to a conflict. Especially against a standing army instead of an insurgency.