Scotland’s strategic location, shipbuilding capacity, and skilled workforce must be central to the UK’s defence industrial strategy, according to Labour MP Graeme Downie, who on Wednesday called for the national armaments director to prioritise new frigates and investment in air defence.
Speaking during a Commons debate on the remit of the recently appointed National Armaments Director, Downie described the current defence moment as one of urgency and opportunity, aligning with the Prime Minister’s attendance at the NATO summit.
“This is not all about numbers on a spreadsheet or a press release,” he said. “The national armaments director will allow the UK to focus on how defence money is being spent to increase the lethality of our armed forces and ensure that the deterrent effect of the combined UK armed forces is sufficient to prevent a war that no one in this Chamber wants to see.”
Downie welcomed the new director’s mission to instil strategic coherence and efficiency into UK procurement, but warned that progress must be swift: “Only by doing so can we make sure our adversaries know that we are committed to our own defence.”
He singled out Rosyth as crucial to that effort, calling for urgent consideration of additional Type 31 frigates beyond the current five being built for the Royal Navy at Babcock’s facility in his Dunfermline and Dollar constituency.
“The Type 31 frigates being built at the Rosyth dockyard would seem to fit the bill,” he said, referencing the Strategic Defence Review’s call for “an ‘always on’ supply line for shipbuilding” and a “more powerful but cheaper and simpler fleet.”
HMS Venturer, the lead ship of the Type 31 class, was recently floated off, and Downie praised the workforce: “I will take this opportunity to once again thank the workforce at Rosyth for the incredible contribution they make to our nation’s defence in the construction of the Type 31, as well as the other incredible work they do for us and our American allies.”
He asked whether the new armaments director would “urgently consider the need for more Type 31 frigates to reflect the flexibility of this platform as well as the lower cost and faster production that the incredible workforce at Rosyth have been able to deliver.”
Beyond shipbuilding, Downie pressed the government on air defence, citing both parliamentary debates and recent public discussions. “This has been a key theme of the ongoing Sky News podcast ‘The Wargame’, created by a range of defence experts and advisers,” he said, suggesting the future air dominance system and the forthcoming Type 83 destroyer programme could be key to “countering the emerging threat from hypersonic missiles.”
He urged the Ministry of Defence to provide updates on both projects and outline “how the armaments director is likely to prioritise this important work.”
Downie also made the case for a broader industrial strategy: one that uses defence investment to drive prosperity across the UK. “We are strengthening the UK’s industrial base to better deter our adversaries, and to make the UK secure at home and strong abroad,” he said. “That means engaging all parts of society and business, including the growing network of high-tech small and medium-sized enterprises and skilled manufacturers in my constituency, in Fife, and across Scotland and the rest of the UK.”
He pointed to the proposed defence growth fund recently trailed by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, calling it an “exciting prospect” and arguing that it could help institutions like Fife Council and Fife College “play a much larger role in delivering on defence and providing the skills and training that our young people need and deserve.”
But his comments also took aim at the Scottish Government, particularly the SNP’s record on defence policy and skills. “We have seen the total failure of the SNP Scottish Government on devolved matters such as skills and infrastructure spending,” he said. “We have the farcical position that senior people in the SNP say that it is party policy that public money should not be spent on military equipment.”
He condemned what he described as the SNP’s “preposterous” stipulation that medical aid to Ukraine not be used on military casualties. “That position puts Scotland’s security at risk, and reduces opportunities for young people in my constituency.”
In closing, Downie reiterated his support for the government’s creation of the national armaments director role and urged further acceleration of reforms: “I just hope that we can accelerate down that path as much as possible, to ensure that we deal with those threats, as the British public expect us to.”
Hard to disagree with the fella
There aren’t many issues that can’t be solved with more Frigates.
I feel the Government would consider a few more T31 over additional T26 purely on cost grounds. The T31s do appear to be a solid base to expand weaponry beyond current plans and a stretched variant (similar to Sheffield Class destroyers) might be a viable option in the future. Considering the amount of new infrastructure in the Scottish yards, it would be wise to have some builds in the pipeline once the 13 new ships are completed. Building both T26 and T31 for export would be one possible route to maintain excellence and skills.
A stretched variant is the Babcock proposal for the Type 83 destroyers. I believe it’s being called the Arrowhead 160.
Makes sense. I wonder how many crew will be on these vessels in twenty years as manned functions are replaced by automated systems. Demanning will become an increasing trend in all three services as the recruitment and retention of crews becomes increasingly difficult.
leh, I thought that the stretched Babcock T31 was for the Multi Role Naval Platform T32, she would have a mission bay much like the T26, a multi mission flex deck under the flight deck and a stern ramp.
As for an Arrowhead 160 can can find no information for this designation.
I can’t post links in this CS, but go to the Naval News article on the Type 83 and FADS, it’s mentioned there. NN usually have slightly better info than NL or UKDJ as they are in direct contact with reps from the companies.
That ‘AH140’ comment is really interesting and I thought a lot about it at the time.
It’s clear that a simple 20m extension to Type 31 isn’t possible, but what about repeating the AH140 process but using an air defence destroyer as a parent design? We are deepening ties with the Japanese and they have several destroyer classes that might be suitable, for example.
I’ve seen your Shipbucket sketches over on the SP forum for the Type 83 destroyer, and whilst I appreciate the idea, I don’t think that’s what Babcock is getting at. They’ve long suggested that AH140 could be used in the AAW role, and I expect that lengthening the hull will be used to accommodate more systems and weaponry. I don’t think we’ll see any use of a second foreign design in the AH140 family.
Oh, you read SP as well?
AH140 is already big and stable enough for a pretty good radar setup if we wanted an AAW frigate.
But I’ve also played with Shipbucket and the statistics for trying to add 20m of length into the AH140 design, and it’s just not designed for that sort of length/beam ratio. There are a few destroyers that are similar, but they will have a structure designed for it.
I wouldn’t mind using the T31 method for T83 at all, it worked wonders in a quick programme for T31 and it cuts down on early design costs which caused grief for T26 and the QEs.
Yeah, I’m Reuben James on that forum (not my real name).
My concern with going down that route would be the loss of critical design skills within the shipbuilding sector. I’m not sure about the Type 31’s extensibility, though Babcock may have made alterations to the design (much in the vein of the relationship between BAE’s Future Air Warfare Command Ship and their Type 26 frigate) that mean that it’s not simply a longer Type 31, but rather a development of the system that has been fully fleshed out.
It sounds like T31 had a complete design review, but not a redesign, so I’m confident that a similar process would retain the second design team in the UK.
And I’m a bit worried about the FAWS. Hopefully it’s common with the T26 in the “we’ve tried to use the same components and systems where possible” to savr operating costs rather than shoehorning the radars and CMS in the smaller hull to save initial design costs.
And from N-A-Bs comments on NL, there really isn’t any way of changing every aspect of the design without it costing a whole load of money.
“It sounds like T31 had a complete design review, but not a redesign”
You are wrong.
“It’s clear that a simple 20m extension to Type 31 isn’t possible”
“..it’s just not designed for that sort of length/beam ratio”
Says who? A 20m stretch would take the T31 to approx AB III dimensions, length and beam.
I think T83 will be a new 10k ton BAE design incorporating he best of T45 and why wouldn’t it.
I saw Babcock had proposed a modestly stretched T31 for T32- bigger mission bay, smaller flight deck and stern slipway – optimised for launching and recovering USV and UUV drones. Would make a more feasible follow on at Rosyth.
The T45 hull is a very cheap, nasty and noisy one but we not still be designing. The T26 hull is quite the opposite as reflected in cost and international interest.
“I think T83 will be a new 10k ton BAE design incorporating he best of T45 and why wouldn’t it”
Because the Type 45 design will be 40 years old when the Type 83 will need to be built i.e the time span between the start of world war 1 and 9 years after the end of world war 2.
At least 5 more frigates are needed.
The SNP stance on defense is embarrasing! I am lost for words……
I suspect it’s mostly political as the SNP will have to change its posture regarding defence issues before the next election.
Defence !
“Is now a front line nation.”
As far as im concerned, Scotland always was.
Yes but you’re talking Hadrians Wall era stuff !
“You can take my life but not my freedom”.
Men in skirts always a bit worrying.
I agree I really can’t understand the complacency in realising just how vulnerable they could become especially their Norwegian outpost in the Shetlands.
I’ve been thumping the tub on continuous production of second-tier escorts for years and over the last few years production at Rosyth in particular. It would cost us £360m a year, maybe less in 2025 terms, to produce a fully equipped T31 every 15 months. So forget thinking about another batch of 3 or 5. Just keep production going indefinitely, occasionally changing the specification to fill new needs: AAW, ASW, mothership, patrol frigate, etc.
Those we can’t use in the Navy, we sell or even mothball as a reserve. We can’t accept Treasury reluctance any more.
We can’t pay for a whole T31 in a year
Nice to have extra subs and the unmanned fleet; still need a lot more supports for the surface fleet… and yes, must have some form of continuous production lines that have an option to increase production rates quickly!
What we want is the kit to properly defend our nation and our allies.
I am confident that in producing that kit the will be plenty of jobs created. What you don’t do (if you have an brain cell) or two is just create defence jobs randomly to suit some socialist agenda. Work out exactly what kit we need and then work out where we can best build the skills to build the kit and get on with it.
Also the is no rule that all ship building needs to be done in Scotland.
More ships would certainly be welcome, but given the current build schedule, the government still has plenty of time to address this.
In the meantime, priority should be given to expanding the Army’s armoured capability, specifically by adding another armoured brigade. This would allow the UK to (just about) maintain a continuous rotational deployment of one armoured brigade.
The army does not so much need another armoured brigade it needs to ensure the brigades it has are fully deployable that means
1) giving the 1st deep strike reconnaissance brigade Mec or armoured infantry and full CS, CSS
2) give the 4th infantry brigades infantry battalions Mec or protected mobility and full CS CSS. Including self propelled artillery.
3) give 7th Mec battalion full CS CSS including self propelled 155mm artillery
4) maintain a 3rd MBT regiment.
When I say “another armoured brigade,” I’m not expecting them to build a new 12th or 20th from scratch anytime soon—though that would be ideal, especially while retaining the 1st Deep Strike Brigade.
The reality is, we currently can’t sustain continuous deployment of an armoured brigade. Having only two isn’t sufficient, and while three would make it possible, it’s still far from ideal.
At last someone saying Scotland in particular is indeed a frontline state or at least could very easily become one if we don’t take defence seriously. Russia could certainly in the future target and potentially even occupy Norway. It’s one of our prime NATO functions to prevent that but if we didn’t then this Country as a whole and Scotland especially would be at the mercy of Russia, the North Sea open to Russian domination. It would be a nightmare scenario so can’t be contemplated just because it seems remote at the moment. The occupation of France seemed even more remote in early 39. But even short of this worst case scenario the region is a weak point that Russia will inevitably wish to exploit and weaken our capabilities.
In reality the next order is going to be the MRSS.. as bae is going to jammers with T26 then T83 I suspect MRSS is going to be a Babcock build, especially as they are now going to essentially be complex( ish) commissioned warships.
The issue is not so much how many ships the RN/MOD want to fund… or even the old “ we don’t have crews” argument.. the issue is industrial capacity..
So if we want more T31 frigates we will probably need to delay MRSS.