The Defence Committee has urged the Ministry of Defence to ensure the Royal Navy’s future Type 83 destroyers are hardened for Arctic operations, as part of a wider strategy to respond to grey zone threats and protect critical undersea infrastructure.
In its new report Defence in the Grey Zone, the Committee warns that hostile states are increasingly targeting seabed cables and maritime infrastructure through sabotage and sub-threshold activity. It argues that the UK must be equipped to operate in the High North and Baltic Sea regions, where many of these attacks are concentrated.
“The deterrent effect of the JEF is only credible, however, if it is suitably equipped to undertake operations across the spectrum of conflict, including in the grey zone,” the report states, referring to the UK-led Joint Expeditionary Force.
The Committee notes that the UK currently has only one ice-capable patrol vessel, RFA Protector, and cites expert testimony raising concerns about its reliability. It calls for the Royal Navy’s next generation of destroyers to be reinforced for operation in slush and disruptive ice conditions. The report specifically suggests that the Type 83 class could be adapted for this role.
It also references comments from the Defence Secretary indicating that the planned New Hybrid Navy, as outlined in the Strategic Defence Review, “would indeed be better equipped to operate in the polar ice.” The Committee sees the Type 83 programme as an opportunity to deliver that capability.
Chair of the Defence Committee, Tan Dhesi MP, said the current wave of grey zone threats posed a direct challenge to national security.
“Grey zone threats bring war to the doorstep of each and every one of us,” he said. “These attacks do not discriminate; they target the whole of our society and so demand a whole of society response, in which we all must play our part.”
The Committee also recommends increasing the permanent presence of the Joint Expeditionary Force in the Baltic Sea to deter further acts of sabotage and to secure key reinforcement routes for NATO forces.
Alongside military readiness, the report urges the MOD to engage more directly with civil society to build cyber resilience and crisis preparedness. It calls for closer collaboration with schools, local authorities and the private sector to improve national awareness and capabilities against grey zone threats.
The Committee further proposes the appointment of a dedicated minister for homeland security to lead a coordinated government response.
The report concludes that a more resilient UK defence posture requires both military investment and broader societal engagement, with a focus on the technologies and infrastructure most likely to be targeted by adversaries.
May be a substantial increase in underwater robot systems, which could operate on a 24/7 basis. Furthermore, the use of the private sector to carry out 70% of surveillance would allow the RN to concentrate on its core business.
The RN needs another Ice Patrol vessel – ideally one built to RN requirements like the previous HMS Endurance – it really is that simple.
What about the Canadian Harry DeWolff class AOPV? Helicopter, drone capable and can be hangared. The Babcock stretched T31 MRP variant looked useful and maybe could be ice hardened. What’s happening with the T32 class, still mysterious? And weren’t the MOD/BAE looking at Kongsberg Vanguard class?
The Harry de Wolfe class aren’t really a warship but a very capable class 5 Ice Hardened OPV, but they are horrendously expensive (mainly down to Canadian shipbuilding costs). Norway doesn’t seem to use Kongserg designs for this sort of task but VARD ones, Harry De Wolfe is based on the Norwegian Svalbard class which is a VARD design.
If it was me I’d go down the same route as the Vanguard isn’t an in service ship, just a concept / design. If you really want to go all in take a look at Norways Jan Mayen class, 10k and with lots of space.
By the time T83 comes into service, there’ll be no ice left in the Arctic!
UKDJ has clearly upgraded their AI image generator, that looks (nearly) exactly like the BAE T83 proposal!
But why would an air defence destroyer need to travel in sea ice conditions? The only forces that e.g. the Russians maintain up there are submarines, and it isn’t looking likely that T83 will have a sonar fit.
T45 was intended to have a sonar but it was reduced, by salami slicing, to the present unspectacular unit.
Given that T45 is IEP it should be able to be quietened enough to get to AB levels of sonar performance and as I’ve said a few times I suspect that PiP will do at least part of this with rafted diesels in enclosures.
What we should have done with T31 (and retrofitted with PiP, if possible) is a standardised family of towed sonars that can be fitted whenever necessary to other escorts, like the Kraitline or maybe CAPTAS-1.
Then in an Atlantic CSG, for example a T31 could help with ASW beyond being a Merlin lilypad.
Re type 45 sonar, although not a long range unit, its worth noting the australians chose the same hull sonar as the type 45 for their Hobart class destroyers so not as poor as many make out. On the noise issue, l askrd a serving officer on a (not yet p.i.p) type 45 about tbis. The answer l got was… depenfs at what speed. Below about 13 knots the ships are very quiet, but above that cavitation from hull and prlpelldr etc generates qjite a bit of noise.
‘Depends on what speed’ is universally true….an SSN at 25kts will be reasonably blind a T26 at 30kts will be blind.
Most ASW work is done at a crawl sometimes just enough to put some tension on the tail so it can be depth adjusted.
I’m not surprised that a T45 runs reasonably quiet below 13kts and was always a bit surprised about how much the noise levels and dud sonar were talked up. Sure it is no T23.
That’s much closer to the artist’s impression provided to Navy Lookout, which didn’t come from BAE. BAE’s proposal has some key differences around the area forward of the bridge, the rear superstructure and structure of the mast. It also lacks the Artisan radar.
NL just lifted their images from the presentations at CNE, the fixed panel one is BAE but the Artisan one is from the RN presentation on FADS.
The Navy one has the funny extended sides to the VLS silo seen above, the BAE one doesn’t and looks a lot more like T26.
Finnish-Swedish Ice classes. Super IA is the highest level, minimum speed 5 knots in a one metre thick ice channel. IA, IB & IC have lower requirements. IB for 0.8m, IC for 0.6m for non consolidated ice. New RN frigates/destroyers just need hulls to IC standard.
By the time they are built, there will be no ice left. (apparently)
2You have stolen my childhood and my dreams with your empty words”.
T83 is an escort vessel, giving it a solo job away from were it needs to be is just stupid.
Type 32 if that ever gets built (Type 31 Batch two) could be hardened for this and can operate alone, but will a sona added, not idea with this hull ofc.
Where did the picture come from?
It’s just a made up thing, It’s not representative of the proposed T83 (BAE concept design or not) because we know nothing whatsoever about it yet. Like a lot of stuff on these sites and so many others, It’s just an image to give a visual element to the subject.
Same with Tempest/Edgewing.
Same with T32.
Same with Dreadnought.
same withT91.
“This is wat I is sayin like init bro”. (that’s modern English for us old fuddies)
Yes but where did it come from?
Colder Waters.
wouldn’t T26 be more suitable for Arctic missions? seems subs and surface ships are more of a threat there than aerial assets
my 2 cents