The UK Future Air Dominance System (FADS) programme, the Type 83 Destroyer, is in its concept phase, according to Defence Minister Luke Pollard.
Responding to a written parliamentary question, Pollard said the programme entered the phase following approval of its Strategic Outline Case in 2025.
“The Future Air Dominance System (FADS) programme is already in its Concept Phase, following approval of its Strategic Outline Case in 2025,” he said, adding that “the commencement of subsequent phases will be subject to future approvals in line with Defence Investment Plan.”
FADS sits at the centre of the Royal Navy’s future air defence construct, built around the planned Type 83 destroyer and supported by a wider mix of crewed and uncrewed platforms.
Ministers have previously described the programme as a “system of systems”, incorporating next-generation radars, combat management systems, advanced weapons and new communications technologies, alongside concepts such as the uncrewed Type 91 “missile ship”.
The Type 83 is intended to replace the Royal Navy’s six Type 45 destroyers and is currently expected to enter service from the mid-2030s, although key decisions on fleet size and configuration have yet to be taken and will be confirmed at a later business case stage.
All the momentum that was built up under BW has evaporated in the face of the gusts of STARMITE hot air.
Absolutely terrible – yes, the economy is a mess and STARMITE’s indecision has made that worse as well: killing growth.
Go for a arrowhead 160 hull and mechanics and vast vls with the same composite mast that Sweden are looking at for there 120 design.90% already designed.
I believe that Indonesia was recommended a similar concept at DEFEXPO 2021 with a centre and bow vls. The model is awesome.
Good idea.
You can’t just scale up a warship like that. AH120 is a heavily armed but quite short legged frigate; it would be no good for escorting a carrier group, for example. For Babcock to compete for T83 they will need to either inherit another existing design as they did for T31- perhaps they could talk to the Japanese?- or they will have to design the thing from scratch, which would be quite a step up for them.
We could buy the Trump Class Battleships !
Only if 1 will do.
That’s being optimistic, it will be one more than the Americans… unless it’s one of those rubber blow up versions UKDJ announced on April 1st, we can have 50 in that case. Will be perfect for the Straits of Hormuz too, the drones will just bounce off so we can lose all the rail guns and VLS or any defensive systems and just employ smoke and mirrors instead, Rachel will love that.
There is images of a concwpt stretched Arrowhead at DEFEXPO2021 with a bow and midship vls. Great model. The images are abit difficult to come by but if you look up ‘Indonesia Bersiap untuk Lakukan First Steel’ you may have a chance.
Oh I see, they’ve stretched the bow portion and split up A and B guns for what looks like an additional 56 cells (would probably be 32 mk41 as MIDLAS is much more compact than mk41. There was also a model at DSEI2025 of Arrowhead unstretched but with the forwards boat bays replaced with additional ExLS silos so that the mk41 can all be used for long range missiles.
I don’t think either would work for T83 as T31’s power generation isn’t great.
I’m guessing the power generation change would sub to the customer preference. Babcock seem to be alright when it comes to customisation.
Not sure if you could retrofit in gas turbine generators though, those things require some massive funnels and downtakes as on T45 and the Burkes.
Best just to go for a clean sheet.
Sails.
If Labour has It’s way, they would be wind powered.
On the plus side that would be one less logistical issue to worry about
HMS Milliband
It has been tried and tested for thousands of years.
I think we would be heading for the doldrums.
The VICTORY 2 CLASS..With 64 pounder Guns…?
That looks impressive though the gun placements start to remind one faintly of the Nelson class battleships.
Not as much as the Naval News spoof Chinese nuclear cruiser, that one’s properly got the bow citadel.
Thanks @Coll
I’m not sure how you get to it being short legged?
It all depends on weight, buoyancy, fuel bunkering?
An RN version would be at least as large as the T31 probably extended by the length of the mid VLS.
There is a lot of air in and around a VLS and the actual missiles are not that heavy in ship terms – most of the weight is in the protective insert/canister.
So there would be the same propulsion space as a T31.
The Swedes have never really deployed beyond the Baltic so I assume range isn’t a huge requirement. The Visbys had a very specific doctrine of staying close to shore repelling amphibious invasion forces and with the Swedes in NATO I don’t think that will change to the extent of them requiring long range deployments.
That’s before you get to the problems with ‘just make it bigger’.
OK you can point to all the issue with T42BIII and T22BIII and how they were resolved as the hulls were stretched.
These days that is not such a massive problem to model properly.
It is a mistake to think that the IH design really lives that much in T31 it is already a complete reworking.
Talking about IH ‘heritage’ as a ‘reference’ was really just a way of confirming that the hull budget didn’t need to be anywhere near the T26 hull budget.
To be fair TorpedoJ, the AH140 is arguably one of the ‘longest-legged’ general-purpose frigates in its class.
The AH140 / Type 31 has a published range of 7,500 nautical miles at standard cruising speed, The higher, more practical speed used for everyday operations, such as keeping pace with a Carrier Strike Group. For a frigate, this is often around 18 to 22 knots. … However some variants claim up to 9,000nm, For most modern warships like the Type 31, the economical speed is typically between 12 and 16 knots. It is often used for long transits or routine patrols where reaching the destination quickly is less critical than preserving fuel.
That is exactly the same range as the Type 23 frigate it replaces and significantly more than many older designs like the Type 21. The Type 31 is specifically designed for Forward Presence. The AH140 starts with a much larger ‘fuel tank’ relative to its weight. The UK’s plan in 2026 is to keep these ships permanently stationed in places like the Indo-Pacific or the South Atlantic. You don’t send a short-legged ship to Singapore.
The confusion usually comes from two places.
Propulsion (CODAD), the AH140 uses a Combined Diesel and Diesel (CODAD) system. It doesn’t have the high-speed gas turbines of the Type 26 or Type 45. Some traditionalists equate diesel only with slow/coastal patrol, but modern MTU diesels are incredibly fuel-efficient. It may have a lower top speed; 26-28 knots, but it can sustain its cruise speed for a very long time.
Because the the batch 1 fit-out the Type 31’s are built to a strict £250m-per-hull budget the initial ships are coming out of the yard with lighter armament. People see fewer big missiles and assume it must be a coastal ship. In reality, the hull is a massive 5,700 tonnes. It has the physical space and the ‘legs’ of a heavyweight destroyer; it just has the wallet of a frigate.
Remember also, that the AH140 is based on the Danish Iver Huitfeldt class, which was designed for long-duration NATO missions, and as such the ship has a massive internal storage volume to carry victuals, potable water, spare parts, and mission modules in its midship bay to stay at sea for a significant amount of time without needing a tanker every three days. And although the core crew is only about 100 it has accommodation for 160 people, the extra space is for embarked forces, Royal Marines, drone pilots, or specialists etc. which gives it legs in terms of mission versatility.
Range comparison at 15 knots –
The Type 23 – 7,500 nm, the current standard.
The Type 26 – 7,000+ nm, a high-end, specialised sub-hunter.
The AH140 – 7,500 – 9,000 nm, a long-legged / global presence.
Arleigh Burke – 4,400 nm … has a close relationship with its tankers.
The AH140 is a large, lean ship. to solve the current budget mess, you build a massive, long-ranged hull that is cheap to run, then you plug in the expensive sensors and missiles later as the budget recovers. So yes, it’s a ‘global freighter’ of hard power that just happens to be starting its life with a budget weapons fit.
Most naval range statistics like the Type 31’s 9,000 nautical miles, are calculated at a cruising speed, which is typically between 12 and 18 knots. Fuel consumption on a 5,700-tonne ship isn’t linear, to go from 15 knots to 30 knots, you don’t just use double the fuel; you might use four to six times as much. Thus when a ship is on ‘Forward Presence’, like patrolling the Indo-Pacific, South-Atlantic it spends 90% of its time loitering or patrolling at 12-15 knots to save fuel and machinery hours. This is why the AH140 is designed for high endurance at these speeds.
Unlike the high-end Type 26, which uses expensive Gas Turbines, the AH140 uses CODAD (Combined Diesel and Diesel). The AH140 is expected to hit 26-28+ knots … and for a general-purpose frigate, that is an abundance. It’s fast enough to keep up with an aircraft carrier or intercept most merchant vessels.
The ‘chugging’ efficiency of the four MTU diesel engines on the AH140 is incredibly efficient. At 12-15 knots, the ship can go for 9,000 miles without refuelling … that’s essentially London to Australia on one tank.
Although it lacks a Gas Turbine like the Rolls-Royce MT30, it can’t sprint to top speed as instantly like a Type 26 … but in terms of legs It can stay on station longer than almost any other ship in the Royal Navy. It’s a marathon runner, not a sprinter.
A140 has excellent range. it’s top speed & sprint speed are somewhat the same, but 29-30 knots is competitive. There are frigates that can hit 36+ knots but the turbine is guzzling fuel to do it.
Why can’t they just release a DIP 1 Overview draft and then a more detailed and final DIP 2 later if needed? Its got a “late assignment extension request” feel to it. This “DIP” better be a b****y good one otherwise they’ll get even further ridicule and loss of any credibility for all the wait for this.
Because if they did it will just be full of cuts. Reports are of a 28bn shortfall before the SDR is even taken into account. I would wager defence needs another 50bn over the next 5 years to meet current commitments and the ambition of the SDR. The Government seems incapable of making that decision so we are stuck. It’s a giant mess.
I think that’s right; had they published the DIP on the date originally committed it would have quickly unravelled. There seem to be two views. The ‘Lord Robertson’ view is that the Treasury don’t understand the urgency and the complexity of defence, that Reeves is being over rigid about her financial rules and that they should just trust the MOD with lots of money. The other ((Treasury) view is that the MOD has a long track record of poor procurement and project management and that they need to demonstrate a more disciplined and professional approach in defining and managing projects and suppliers before the funds are released; especially if they are a 10 year commitment. It’s obvious that Starmer is siding with the Treasury. I read that the Treasury have given the senior heads in the MOD their homework and they are meeting this week with an instruction to find £3.5b in cuts in the current year defence budget. If they get a good mark from teacher maybe we will see the DIP released.
Both views might be right.
Robertson is certainly right much greater capability is required, and it will cost.
The Treasury could be right, has the MoD delivered effective capability for the monies it is given. The jury is certainly out on that one.
Simply throwing money at the MoD will see much wasted.
Ramping up Defenece spending is much harder than cutting it.
The Treasury PoV is a canard – they point to a few bad projects as an excuse for not doing anything.
There are something that can be done at fixed costs like ordering piles of, for example, NLAWs, CAMM, A30, 155/57/40/30mm shells…..those can be bought on a properly understood contract with low risk parameters.
To try and bracket buying stuff that is already developed in with AJAX, NIMROD etc is beyond idiotic.
Where I do agree with Treasury is keeping the Good Idea Club in check.
The other thing to keep in check is actually penny pinching which is what lead to the NIMROD MRA4 debacle.
I agree yes the MOD and armed forces need to wind back to procurement with a paradigm that looks like..
1) does it do the job
2) can it be purchased in large numbers
3) does it support development of British industrial capacity
4) is it cost effective
Best should be left.
I also agree that the treasury seems to be living in a Delusional world in which Russia is not an active enemy, the US and EU are not at each other’s throats politically and economically and the world is not falling into hyper aggressive great power empire building
Agreed. As with most things in life, it’s never black and white: and the rapid development of drone technology must be having an effect. I read that Estonia have dropped a $500m order for CV90s to fund drones.
I might have a trace of sympathy for the ‘MOD spends money inefficiently’ argument if the government applied it equally to other areas of public spending (such as the NHS), that it is happy to throw much larger sums of money at with no demands for efficiency savings at all.
Ajax anyone? Ajax is one of the obvious reasons why Treasury can’t trust the MoD when it comes to money.
I think you are 100% right
The Treasury has probably said
We can not afford it We cannot borrow more as we are maxed up – ie yields on bonds would go up – ie more debt repayment when it is alreadyh much larger per year than our total defence budget
Only one PM has addressed debt in the living memory – Thatcher and maybe Cameron/Clegg/Osborne as New Labour got kicked out they left the message in the Treasury Secetary’s drawer Sorry no £ left therefore years of austerity and some very poor defence cuts
Those politicians names even today are unfairly denigrated
Politicains of all parties promise a lot for power and when thay are elected ……………………..
They have to look at the massive growth of benefits and welfare
Tell the country it has to be addressed and cut so defence can be funded
Will they because they think it would be unpopular?……………………….
One Labour MP explained it to me like this and it makes a lot of sense. “The problem is the only benefit that can be cut is the basic state pension triple lock and reform have now pledged to protect it. Labours quite sensible position is what’s the point is cutting the basic state pension to protect NATO from Russia if those cuts result in a former RT news personality with extensive links to the kremlin becoming Prime Minister and cutting all aid to Ukraine” ( which he has said on numerous occasions he would do”
Because those supposed links are entirely spurious and malicious. It is the left siding with Iran (Russia’s ally) and others who are hostile to British interests.
It is Starmer who acted on behalf of terrorists who hate the UK.
It is Starmer who has a questionable history of going behind the iron curtain during the cold war.
Farage is a capitalist through and through, but also a nationalist. You can oppose that of course. But accusing him of acting in another country’s interests goes against virtually all of the available evidence.
There are many areas of the welfare budget and other budgets that could be cut quite easily. No benefits for illegal immigrants first off. No benefits for legal immigrants in first 5-10 years. Two child benefit cap. Higher thresholds for disability benefits, even just yearly in person assessments. Stop subsidising universities actively working against British interests. No student loans for overseas students (which will mostly never be repaid). Public sector workforce reforms. Reducing public sector pensions. Net zero madness.
You have to be utterly blinkered to not see Farage’s long standing ties to Russia, and his wholley self-serving actions throughout his entire career. He is a populist, not a patriot. Farage is a traitor to the UK.
Whatever you think of Farage, look at what he has achieved whenever he or his parties have come into any power.
Ukip, got elected, councils it ran fell apart. EU parliament they made speeches for their YouTube channels and not anything productive re representing the interests of the UK, same with the Brexit party, all YouTube speeches and nothing productive. Farage himself joined the fisheries committee and then did nothing useful for our fishermen. Both parties fell apart due to infighting.
Reform, sure popular, but how’s Kent and Staffordshire council doing? Not very well. Plus he seems to be employing all the failed Tories that messed up the country in the first place.
Farage is a very good campaigner, he even occasionally makes some good points, but look at his and his parties record of delivering on any promises or even being vaguely competent at running anything and you’ll be very disappointed.
May I remind everyone that this is supposed to be a discussion regarding the Royal Navy’s future Type 45 replacement. It isn’t the Political numpty dumpy hour.
You must be new here 😁😁😁
I’m firmly on the side of thinking Starmer is a waste of space, but where exactly are you getting that he’s tied to terrorists and went “behind the iron curtain”?
As for Farage, as much as I like a lot of what he says, a lot of what he says and actually does is highly suspect. It’s not “fake news” that he’s been openly complementary of Trump and Putin while hanging Ukraine out to dry; that is very much “acting in another country’s interests”, because it’s firmly in our own interest for Ukraine to win or at least continue to bleed Russia dry.
You need to read up on the History of TTK 🙄
He was editor of a socialist/communist magazine in the 80s, tied to a Trotskyist group, which continues to support claims that he’s an idiot, but doesn’t link him to Russia.
You may be shocked to discover that there were communists actively against the Soviet Union, but also, modern Russia isn’t communist anyway.
Benefits can be cut by a whole bunch of other less direct ways. e.g. employ people in the defence sector (lower unemployment and universal credit) or build genuinely affordable housing (reduce housing benefit). Reduce care home spending by insentivising people to care for their own families or live with elderly relatives. Carers allowance is, what, less than £100 a week, but rather than up that we choose to send our elderly to care homes at a cost of £300k per year. They’re are not thinking very hard.
Indeed. There are also efficiency savings to be made in areas other than MOD. We have had 30 years of ‘salami slicing’ MOD budget and capabilities to feed other government budgets, so the logical remediation is to start salami slicing those budgets on behalf of MOD to restore a more sensible balance of public spending. We also continue to spend relatively huge sums on international aid and Miliband’s eco-vanity projects, which would have no adverse impact on public service/benefit provision if they were eliminated entirely.
Those shortfall figures must be waking the government up not closing there minds but why the defaulting to demanding more savings? Are they asking other departments for the same sized savings? The majority consensus is that there isn’t enough being done for UK Defence so there’s a big opportunity here for the PM to get it right which he says he is doing. Just speed it up a little please! And there hopefully could be increased flow on of UK exports and further strengthening of trade and alliance relationships across the board which isn’t that what the UK wants on the global stage? If i can be trite…”Back the UK and the UK will be back!” 🇬🇧 Regards from 🇦🇺
All seems rigid and monolithic to me and one thing we know in defence is that approach goes out of date very quickly, indeed the delays themselves have undoubtedly covered a period where the weapon/technology goal posts have already subtly shifted in some areas, just how much so is left to argue over. Just concerned that this process will just be about putting into effect orders based on yesterday’s realities over tomorrows if we aren’t careful and late and too small numbers at that. Meanwhile in 5 years we have fallen from 4th to 14th in NATO GDP relative defence spending. That’s a fact this Govt can’t reject.
Because I think they are not just restructuring the MoD, they are trying to address NHS, Social Services and Education budgets as a whole, as they are the four biggest money consuming departments, to ‘balance the books’ … plus, as everyone wants more ‘boom-boom sticks’ they might need to up their income supplied by the general public; thus stifling growth, they even may borrow a little more, thus eating themselves into debt oblivion, but hey, we want more ‘boom-boom sticks’ and we want em’ Now!
… It aint’ gonna be pretty.
While I am not enamored by Starmer , the only thing I truly like is him at times standing up to Trump, it never ceases to amaze me how shortsighted partisan people are.
Starmer’s government is not pushing enough on defence, true..but the UK is doing BETTER than it has been in ages on this front. Just like the rest of Europe.
Should Starmer donmuch more? Absolutely!
However, to blame him for the problems is absurd when a long line of often also conservative governments before him caused the problems!
Anyone who does not know this needs to spend maybe 2 minutes looking at actual HISTORY!
They get their opinions from GBNews, Facebook, and the Daily Mail. It doesn’t matter what Starmer or Labour do or don’t do. They will be told to hate them either way.
Tend to agree with you both in generality, though it is also true that Starmer and co talk big while doing everything they can to slow necessary spending on the basis that they prefer to spend money on things that might improve their electability over what’s right, if sadly unappreciated for the Country. Of course if Russia starts cutting off even their internet access let alone serious related technological and basic service effects it could cause, these same people will be stalking Starmer with lighted torches and pitchforks in hand wanting blood. No wonder only predominantly self serving people go into politics these days.
It’s true the Conservatives weren’t great—but that doesn’t mean Labour should get a free pass. Falling into the “two wrongs make a right” mindset is a mistake. Saying the Tories were bad doesn’t justify poor decisions now.
That’s something Keir Starmer often leans on at PMQs. Instead of directly answering questions, he frequently deflects with lines like “I won’t be lectured by the Tories.” But that doesn’t really address the issue at hand—and it’s not good enough when serious matters are being discussed.
On defence, Labour have now had two budgets—two clear opportunities to start putting things right. They’ve shown they can move quickly in other areas; for example, Wes Streeting regularly highlights the additional funding directed into the NHS. That demonstrates capacity for decisive action when it’s prioritised.
But defence hasn’t seen the same urgency. Instead, there’s a growing concern that it’s being used to pursue broader ideological goals, rather than focusing squarely on its core purpose: protecting the UK. I suspect delays in the DIP are also because they were hoping to get more involved in Europeean procurement to further their justification for closer ties.
And it raises a simple question—how hard would it have been to identify a clear list of immediate “must-haves,” while taking more time to think through longer-term challenges like emerging threats? Some priorities are obvious and actionable now. For instance, upgrading ballistic missile defence capabilities on the Type 45 destroyer is a concrete, practical step. That’s not an abstract debate—it’s the kind of decision that could have been progressed quickly. Its not like ballastic missiles have just been invented! Or GCAP were already committed so just ring fence some proper funding, if another nation joins then deal with reallocation of budget at that point.
Then there’s the impact of National Insurance increases. These effectively claw money back from the defence budget. Civil servants, armed forces personnel, and employees of defence suppliers all pay more—meaning part of the increased spending is immediately returned to the Treasury. In practice, that looks like giving with one hand and taking with the other.
It a little over 2 months we’ll be 40% through this governments term, in little over 5 its their 3rd budget, its quite beyond me how even an ardent Labour suporter could consider its good enough to keep blaming your predecessor whilst sitting on your hands.
‘Two wrongs make one right’ definitely is not even in my ‘vocabilary’. As such reading this in to my comment is not correct.
It is not that the earlier cabinets where just as bad, no THEY CAUSED it , while the current government isn’t ‘wrong’, just not ‘right enough’. You write yourself, they push harder on other issues..but they did increase the priority towards defence.
This combined with the attack on Starmer over this by the reaction I reacted lead to me ‘ defending’ the man. But really, it is asking for more reality in this, not defense.
Blaming predecessors can be ok, if it is reality, but it can never be instead of acting! But this is politics..
Looking at your analysis of defence needed we agree wholeheartedly!
Not so much about social spending, which , when you compare internationally , acts as an investment that helps the economy.
Expat
“…Some priorities are obvious and actionable now. For instance, upgrading ballistic missile defence capabilities on the Type 45 destroyer is a concrete, practical step. That’s not an abstract debate—it’s the kind of decision that could have been progressed quickly. Its not like ballastic missiles have just been invented!
fyi
As of April 2026, the Power Improvement Project (PIP) is finally clearing the backlog (awesome news) HMS Dauntless, Daring, and Dragon have completed their engine overhauls, with HMS Daring finally returning to the fleet this month after nearly nine years out of action. However, the much-vaunted Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) capability is still a work in progress rather than a finished reality. But it is happening!
The Royal Navy is currently undertaking the Sea Viper Evolution programme to turn these ships into genuine theatre-level shields against anti-ship ballistic missiles. HMS Diamond has been designated the lead ship for this upgrade, however, the complex integration of the Aster 30 Block 1 missiles and the re-coding of the Sampson radar means she isn’t expected to be fully operational with this capability until February 2028. To fix the original error of a shallow 48-cell magazine, the ships are also being fitted with an additional 24 cells for Sea Ceptor missiles, with HMS Defender currently in the yard as the first to receive this 72-cell configuration.
While this methodical, line-by-line rectification of the fleet is the proper way to ensure relevance, it highlights the ‘trough’ of vulnerability the UK currently occupies. We have spent years and billions just to get the house in order, and the calculated risk is that we have zero ships capable of intercepting a ballistic missile until HMS Diamond emerges from her refit in two years’ time. It is a slow and often frustrating grind, but it represents a move away from adhoc vanity projects towards building a sustainable, functioning force that can actually afford to leave the harbour and fight.
Sea Viper Evolution, Software & Missile Fix
This is the core of the BMD cover. The government has confirmed that Capability One, the Navy’s entry-level BMD, is on track.
The interceptor’s are being upgraded; the Aster 30 missiles to the Block 1 standard. This gives the Type 45 the ability to intercept short-range and anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs). The Sampson radar (the spiky egg) is also being reconfigured with the ‘Digital Targeting Web’, which allows it to track high velocity threats in the upper atmosphere.
Sadly, while the work is underway, the MoD recently clarified in a parliamentary answer, January 2026 that ‘Full Operating Capability’ for this entry-level cover isn’t expected until late 2032. They are currently in the “testing and integration” phase.
However, “Deep Space Cover” the naval term, often used alongside “Upper Tier” or “Outer Layer” defence is for intercepting threats that travel through the vacuum of space before re-entering the atmosphere to hit their target. When the MOD talks about more serious threats, they are moving beyond the basic Sea Viper drone-swatting logic and aiming at Medium-Range Ballistic Missiles (MRBMs). These are missiles with a range of 1,000km to 3,000km … think Iranian Shahab-3 or Russian Iskander-M variants.
The current Type 45 upgrade uses the Block 1, which is fine for short-range threats. whereas, the Block 1NT is the fix for the 2030s. This is the game-changer. Standard missiles use X-band seekers. The Block 1NT uses a high-frequency Ka-band seeker. Because the wavelength is smaller, it can ‘see’ a tiny, fast-moving warhead in deep space with much higher resolution.
Standard Aster 30s can’t reliably hit an MRBM because the incoming ‘V’ (velocity) is too high. The Block 1NT is specifically tuned to intercept missiles with a range of 1,500km, hitting them while they are still in their terminal descent from deep space. This missile features a brand-new seeker designed to hit targets moving even faster and higher.
Instead of committing billions upfront, the MOD is currently running a feasibility study, through March 2027 to see if these missiles can be integrated into the Mk 41 VLS on the new Type 26 and Type 31 frigates as well … This would mean the BMD cover isn’t just restricted to the six destroyers, but spread across the whole fleet. (Yay, imagine that).
… But you can’t have cover if you run out of missiles in ten minutes, so to fix the rotten logic of the original Type 45 design, the lead ship HMS Defender is currently being fitted with 24 additional Sea Ceptor cells. By moving the low-end air defence; drones and jets to these new cells, it frees up all 48 main silos to be packed with nothing but heavy ‘mofo’ BMD interceptors. (egads!)
So ‘stuff’ is happening.
Can we please build some decent warships rather than stretched corvettes that have a history of awful combat performance and being uneconomical to repair?
What do you consider current or in build stretched Corvettes out of interest?
Pretty obvious dude
Type 31 is a stretched corvette.
Rivers are patrol ships, which are fine but they’re being used in roles that really demand a warship in the modern era (as are rfa vessles) – A River patrol vessel on the Falklands is not a deterrent and similarly having a River class in the gulf (only escaping the current situation by pure luck) is just exposing the crew to unacceptable dangers.
The Type 31s could be regarded as peace time flag waving patrol ships – they do have some capability to defend themselves against limited air attack, but they have no sonar which will make hem entirely dependent on helicopters for ASW detection and prosecution. Essentially they’re very much a target for submarines and a big drop in capability from the Type 23s they’re replacing.
Both classes would struggle in any actual war.
(Proof of that the vessel the Type 31 is based on had its combat management system fail for 20-30minutes whilst under attack by houthi drones and was forced to rely on its main gun only for air defence. Had it been anything more serious it woukd definitely have taken damage). Work on the type 31 has included reworking the combat management system and bringing it up to newer lloyds classiciation but especially given that experience, recent RN issues with systems failures and that Denmark decided it was too expensive to repair it is rather worrying. If the Type 31 ever gets fitted with a half decent number of MK 41 VLS cells (currently unfunded) then it might have some value as a TLAM small arsenal ship but it will still only be 32 cells even if fully fitted out. Currently an 12 cell vls and no point defence is barely enough for self defence and to call it a frigate. It would cetainly need escorting itself to operate anywhere with beyond minimum threat levels. I do have some hope in that apparently it has some quieting and provisions for many of the things it’s obviously missing(towed array sonar, larger VLS etc) but at the moment none of those things are funded and the history of the RN in recent decades is that they take decades or are never fitted, the cheapest time to fit them would obviously be during the initial build but that point is often missed (hence my comment that building proper ships would save alot of money/time/capability gaps in the long run rather . Overall in comparison with most warships being built at the moment it’s an extremely weak design and as I said essentially a stretched corvette (which was the aim when it was designed – to be as cheap as possible Boris paying so little attention to it that he got the class number wrong when citing the achievements of his government and we’re still waiting for anything concrete on the Type 32 frigates he was forced to invent to cover his mistake….).
The T31 has an entirely different CMS from the Iver Huitfeldts which is why Denmark is considering it to replace those ships, which have indeed had CMS problems.
We don’t have a River in the persian gulf, I’m not sure what you’re referring to there?
T31 is very much not a stretched corvette. It’s a very underarmed frigate, but in terms of endurance, its combat management system, sensors and damage control it is very much a frigate and not a corvette.
TR
No! the Type 31 is not a stretched corvette. In fact, physically, it is almost the exact opposite.
Calling the Type 31 a ‘stretched corvette’ is a mistake; based on its armament, which is light, like a corvette’s rather than basing it on its hull, which is massive, like a destroyer’s.
Here is a breakdown of why calling the Type 31 (Arrowhead 140) a stretched corvette is a clusterfsck of unmitigated vacancy.
A corvette typically displaces between 1,000 and 2,500 tonnes, stretched corvettes typically displace 3,000 to 3,500 tonnes. The Type 31 (Arrowhead 140) displaces roughly 5,700 tonnes, with a 6,000 + tonne ‘Deep Load Displacement’. At 138.7 metres, it is significantly longer and wider than any modern corvette. Because it is based on the Danish Iver Huitfeldt hull, it is one of the most voluminous frigates in the world. It is actually larger than many ships officially classed as ‘destroyers’ in other navies.
During the early phase of the Type 31 project, BAE Systems actually did propose a stretched corvette design called the Cutlass, based on the Al Shamikh-class corvette. The MoD rejected the stretched corvette idea. They realised that a small hull, even if stretched, doesn’t have the legs for global presence or the space for future upgrades.
They chose the Arrowhead 140 specifically because it offered a huge hull for a low price … it’s the big empty box strategy.
Confusion persists because of the ‘Batch 1’ weapons fit. Initially, the Type 31 will carry a 57mm main gun and Sea Ceptor missiles. This is a weapons load you might find on a high-end corvette, like the Swedish Visby or the Israeli Sa’ar 6. The difference being that a corvette is ‘full’ when you put those weapons on it. A Type 31 is 80% empty. It has the electrical power, cooling, and deck space re”any to plug in Mk 41 VLS, heavy anti-ship missiles, and massive drone bays later.
Typical in regards to seakeeping, Corvettes struggle in high Atlantic/Pacific swells the Arrowhead 140 is an ocean going ship, built to serve in the North Atlantic. Corvettes typically have an endurance of only 14-21 days at sea. Arrowhead 140 is 60 plus days at sea, with huge victuals and water storage. Corvettes have a limited upgrade path … adding a new radar would make it top-heavy. Arrowhead 140 has massive space for lasers and extra VLS.
The Type 31 isn’t a corvette that grew up; it’s a heavyweight cruiser that started its life on a diet. By building a massive hull now, the UK has avoided the mistake of the 1970s and 80s where we built small, cramped ships that couldn’t be upgraded. Even if the finances are rotten today, the hull is big enough to ensure the ship is still relevant in 2045 when the budget eventually recovers. It has room to grow.
Mk 41 VLS for the Type 31 is now confirmed policy, as of April 2026. Because construction on Bulldog; ship 4, only began in Feb 2026, the shipbuilders at Rosyth have the ‘structural window; to install the Mk 41 silos while the hull sections are still open. This involves fitting the four 8-cell modules, 32 cells total into the ‘Forward Mission Bay’ or ‘Bathtub’ area located just behind the 57mm main gun.
Installing them now, rather than during a refit in five years, saves the taxpayer significantly on cutting and welding costs and ensures the ship is strike capable from its first day at sea.
The decision to fit the Mk 41 during the build of ships 4 and 5 is driven by the UK’s requirement for the FC/ASW (Future Cruise / Anti-Ship Weapon). By the time Bulldog and Campbeltown are commissioned in the late 2020s, the UK intends to be testing these new missiles. These ships will also be able to carry the RIM-162 ESSM (Evolved SeaSparrow Missile) or even the VL-ASROC for anti-submarine work, effectively turning them from ‘General Purpose’ frigates into ‘Multi-Role’ combatants.
Ships 1, 2, and 3, the lead ships are not being left behind; they are simply following the original capability insertion path. HMS Venturer and HMS Active will still enter service with only the Sea Ceptor (CAMM) for air defence. They are pre-built with the structural reinforcements, cabling, and cooling margins already in place,so during their first major maintenance period, likely in the early 2030s, they will have the Mk 41 modules dropped in. Even earlier if it is deemed necessary, I suppose.
Mk 41 is currently in the ‘Assessment Phase’, they’re working with Lockheed Martin and the US Navy, through Foreign Military Sales to finalise the exact quantities and strike length specifications before the money is officially committed. The reason the order isn’t done yet comes down to the integration study … In Feb 2026, the MoD awarded a contract to MBDA to study how to integrate the Aster 30 missile into the Mk 41., as historically, the Aster 30 has only ever been fired from the European Sylver launcher on the Type 45. The UK wants to ensure that when they buy the Mk 41 for the Type 31, it is 100% compatible with the missiles we already have, I suppose they are avoiding a situation where they order the ‘box’ before knowing exactly how the ‘bullets’ fit in, if indeed they do fit in – I’m sure they will.
Foundations and the launchers. The Foundation is the structural steel and foundation footprints for the Mk 41 that were already ordered and already built into the hulls at Rosyth. The shipyard is currently welding the reinforced deck structures into HMS Bulldog and HMS Campbeltown.
The Launchers, the 8 cell modules, the physical missile ‘boxes; will likely be ordered as part of a batch order in late 26 or early 27, this allows the Navy to buy in bulk for both the remaining Type 26s and the Type 31s to save on costs … even if the UK signed a cheque today, the physical ‘boxes’ likely wouldn’t arrive at Rosyth until mid 28’. This is why ships 4 and 5 are being built with the structural seats and foundations now, by having the hole ready, the shipyard can drop in the launchers as soon as they arrive, rather than having to rip the ship apart later.
The physical launcher is the easy part, as the wait usually comes from the Combat Management System (CMS) integration. The challenge is to fire an Aster 30 from a Mk 41 launcher. The Thales TACTICOS, the ship’s Dutch/French brain must talk to the American launcher, Lockheed Martin to fire an European missile, MBDA, and as of February 2026, the MoD only just began the official study into this integration, experts suggest this software ‘handshake’ can/will take 3-5 years to test and certify.
On a side note – Denmark is currently in talks with the UK and Babcock about the Type 31 / Arrowhead 140 design. The Danes are considering buying the British version of their own ship because the UK’s ‘Thales-only’ integration (TACTICOS) is seen as more stable than their original Danish-integrated Terma C-Flex system which suffered a critical software error. For approximately 30 minutes, the ship was unable to launch its primary air-defence missiles, ESSM and SM-2 and the CMS couldn’t process data from the radar and ‘hand it over’ to the missile launchers. Even the ship’s 76mm guns reportedly experienced issues with defective ammunition during the same engagement.
TACTICOS is used by over 25 navies and has a massive global support network and by using Thales for both the radar (NS110) and the CMS (TACTICOS), the UK avoids the ‘integration gap’ that caused the Iver Huitfeldt’s 30-minute blackout. The ‘brain’ and the ‘eyes’ are designed by the same company to work in unison.
So …
Type 26 VLS – Ordered and being fitted.
Type 31 VLS – Intention confirmed; procurement discussions ongoing with the US; final contract pending.
Type 31 Hulls – Ships 4 and 5 are being physically prepared to receive the launchers as soon as the contract is signed.
The Royal Navy is essentially playing a game of strategic timing. They are waiting for the ‘Full Business Case’ approval for the cruise missiles, due later in 2026 before they sign the final cheque for the Mk 41 hardware.
TR.
“…A River patrol vessel on the Falklands is not a deterrent” but it is, it’s a “tripwire”.
The River Class is a great design for the South Atlantic Patrol Task, provided you accept what it is; a high-quality hull with a low-quality weapon fit. For the specific job of patrolling the Falklands, it is arguably the most efficient ship the UK has ever had. It doesn’t break down often, it treats its crew well, and it can stay at sea in weather that would force smaller “stretched corvettes” back to port. The Batch 2s have a much more pronounced Bow Flare at the front, which pushes water out and away, keeping the ship drier and more stable in the 15-to-20-foot swells common near the Falklands.
During Operation Southern Sovereignty in late 2025, HMS Forth operated deep into the Antarctic circle near South Georgia in heavy snow and freezing seas without any stability issues.
With only a 30mm Bushmaster cannon and some machine guns, a River-class ship cannot win a naval battle against a modern frigate or a submarine. The ship’s job is not to defeat an invasion fleet. Its job is to assert sovereignty on daily basis. It tracks fishing vessels, performs search and rescue, and monitors any unwanted visitors. If a River-class ship is fired upon or harassed, it serves as the legal and political “tripwire” that triggers the Mount Pleasant Complex, the massive airbase on the Islands, within minutes of a River-class ship raising the alarm, RAF Typhoons are in the air.
River-class Batch 2 is widely considered to have some of the best living quarters in the Royal Navy. A junior rating often shares a cabin with only one other person, and they have their own bathroom. Yes! En-suite Cabins, unlike the old frigates where you might share a ‘mess deck’ with 20-30 other people, the Rivers feature one or two-man cabins, and they almost all have their own en-suite bathrooms. In the isolated South Atlantic, having a private space to retreat to is essential for long-term morale. It’s the difference between a crew that is burnt out after a month and a crew that can handle the 8 week rotation with ease.
The rivers were built with a work-life balance in mind. The Wi-Fi is generally better (when in range of the islands), and the recreational spaces are far more modern than the 30-year-old Type 23s they replaced.
The debate usually isn’t about the hull, but the hangar … the missing hangar is the biggest criticism of the design, it has a flight deck but no hangar. While it can land a Wildcat or Merlin helicopter, it can’t house one. In the freezing, salty spray of the South Atlantic, a helicopter left on deck will quickly degrade.
By leaving the hangar off, the Navy saved millions and kept the ship simple. For the Falklands mission, they rely on the RAF Chinooks based on the islands to fly out to the ship when needed, rather than carrying their own helicopter 24/7.
Hi SB, Just listening to PMQs, KB asked him if he would fund the previously agreed ABM Capability upgrade to the T45’s that he paused inJuly 2024 he didn’t answer it.
I like to think I’m fairly well informed but that’s the first I’ve hear about that.
Any ideas ?
That is pretty bad that he won’t fund the one ABM system that is at least partially ready.
Do you think the T83 might be being brought forward if this is the case? The T45 upgrades might just be like a bit of Typhoon radar upgrade before the new Tempest. Just enough to get by.
Curious if the UK will look at the SAMP/T Aster NG for some of its GBAD if it goes onto the T83?
Well it was always basically an interim upgrade giving partial capability against medium ballistic missiles.
ABCRodney.
The Prime Minister hit back at KB and he had a lot of ammunition. If you look at the stats he dropped in the House. He threw Badenoch’s own words back at her, noting she had admitted over the weekend that the UK’s defenses were the “weakest in 400 years”, a state of affairs that happened entirely under the previous government’s watch. He reminded the House that the previous government oversaw the Army shrinking to 72,000, cut the frigate/destroyer fleet by 25%, and left the Type 45s with engines that broke down in warm water for over a decade (the PIP project). being that it took them (Cons) nearly 14 years to actually start the physical work to fix them with the PIP. He pointed out that the Conservatives left office with defense spending at 2.3%, while he has already committed to 2.6%, rising to 3.5% by 2030. It’s endless tit for tat.
… Any way, following the lessons learned from HMS Diamond and HMS Richmond in the Red Sea, where they faced actual Houthi ballistic missile threats, the government ended the pause in early 2025. They announced a £405 million investment specifically to accelerate the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) upgrades.
The upgrade is no longer a single event but a phased rollout. Capability 1 upgrades the existing Aster 30 missiles to a Block 1 standard with improved warheads and software and enhances the Sampson Radar. This allows the Type 45 to intercept Short-Range Ballistic Missiles (SRBMs). Work has begun on HMS Diamond and HMS Defender, with full capability expected by 2032 across the fleet. But HMS Diamond is being fitted now, she is physically being fitted with the hardware and software needed to track and kill Short-Range Ballistic Missiles (SRBMs) expected to be back at sea for trials in 2027 and Operationally Ready to intercept ballistic missiles by early 2028. and HMS Defender is in the queue behind her, likely getting her ABM badge by late 2028 or 2029.
Capability 2 involves purchasing the Aster 30 Block 1NT; New Technology missile. This would allow the ships to intercept more complex, medium-range maneuvering ballistic missiles. As of April 2026, this is still in the Assessment Phase. As I mentioned in another comment The UK is evaluating the Aster 30 Block 1NT , this missile features a brand-new Ka-band seeker that allows it to intercept Medium-Range Ballistic Missiles (MRBMs) with a range of 1,500km. This would allow a single Type 45 to protect an entire region, like a carrier group or a coastal city from complex, manoeuvring ballistic threats.
The government has agreed to the study but hasn’t signed the final cheque for the new missiles yet.
Whilst I agree this Gov needs to pull their finger out, but what momentum? The last government took forever to decide on anything resulting in the current frigate and support ship issue. Ok they eventually ordered the t26 / t31 but hardly call that momentum.
While the Type 45 , with its own ‘pointy hat’ is a very handsome ship, one of the most good looking destroyers even, this fantasy picture and many others I have seen representing the Type 83 are all ugly. In this case the radar mast really doesn’t work.
But ..that’s just looks.
The ships have to be effective! After the audition of the SeaCeptor I think the T45 is among the best, although it might need a little more defence against drones, but that is true for every current destroyer I know off.
I also wonder why the T83 in most illustrations doesn’t have a true long range volume search radar, like the Smart L successor of the one on the 45.
New “Destroyer” ?
Bugger, I was hoping for more than one !
Welcome back!
How many ships will be built and based on what?
Ask again In about Ten years time !
Too soon. Ask when the first Type-45 has been retired…
Just sack the MoD, give incorporate previous MoD funding with the defence budget to the services on a 50-25 25 split to the navy and the rest and let the services manage their own budgets – The navy is core to the UK’s defence, if the navy is not well funded and equipped then it won’t matter about the light blue or the grunts.
.
.
On the T83. Just go to tender and get them ordered. I would go so far as suggesting the Royal Dockyard (White) model needs to be revisited, to reign in the defence monopolies under-performing, even 3 yards building would assist with more rapid and needed expansion of the RN fleet.
.
.
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
.
.
The current systems in place are far from perfect and lacking value add – Sometimes one must revisit history to find the answer.
Lisa’s comment about entering service mid 30s seems to be a tad earlier than previous late 30s? Might be wrong but has the T83 been brought forward?
OT but would like to see new images of the CAMM upgrade to the T45. Can the CAMM 6 farm be adapted to take CAMM-ER as its only a bit taller and heavier? Save space in mk41s for other missile types. Also with the CAMM 6 farm , if made of two blocks together of 6 could potentially handle 12+3= 15 CAMM or, even more?
I genuinely don’t understand. Why not just upgrade Type 26 incrementally?
Do you mean a variant or the currently ordered Type 26?
Either – but perhaps, as Paul.p argues, its not so easy.
My understanding is that Australia, having decided after choosing T26, that they wanted AAW capability, is trying to turn the T26 into a kind of lite AB. It’s not simple or optimal. The T26 hull is optimised for ASW ( and strike). My understanding is that the ideal for T83 would be a new ( probably beamier) ship design of at least 8-10k tons to accommodate the heavier radars which are anticipated. That said, I wouldn’t rule out AAW versions of either T26 or T31 if T83 is pushed too far into the future.
Thanks for the info.
No problem. Both the Australian Hunter class and the Canadian River class are based on the Type 26. The River Class ( which the Canadians class as a destroyer) looks to be the more conservative design with proven all US radars, systems and weapons. The Hunter class is more ambitious; the Australians seem to be making substantial changes to the upper deck in order to accommodate more VLS tubes. They are also integrating their own radar. It will be interesting to see how these projects progress.
Dither dither dither. Can that foolish woman in number 11 not be made to understand that the longer you delay a military programme the more it will eventually cost let alone the defence capability gap it creates? If Lord Robertson is ignored, which he will be then we are truly lost in a parallel universe. Starmer and worse that dreadful bunch of Joe 90 spads in number 10 have to be called out for their acts of treason and appalling insulting garbage that they come out with such as their reaction to Lord Robertson’s speech yesterday. Starmer lied for a living as a barrister and he is now doing the same as PM, he is all mealy mouthed deflection and now apparently they are looking for £3.5 billion defence CUTS while supposedly increasing spending.
The UK has been lost in a parallel universe since 2010 which then went totally of the rails in 2016 and went fully La La Land in 2021 we are now entering the universe parallel to the parallel one we were in until we elected Mr Indecision and his Corbynlite party.
The problem with this level of indecision is that UK is no longer seen as a reference military power and this will affect arms exports massively. Yes, that = jobs Starmer you dolt.
Why can’t thry get those cuts in a totally different department? Sell Turkiye another 10-20 Typhoons! Shit stirring here but cancel or delay the 12 F35As?
If anything my DIP money would be on selling off a dozen T1 and T2 Typhoons to order more F-35As.
I’m actually surprised that they haven’t been cancelled yet, nor would I be that surprised to see them cancelled some time this year as part of a middle finger to Trump.
How about getting the current T45’s working and available for deployment. The RN needs to get the current fleet operational before focusing on a new ships. The recent fiasco of taking 3 weeks to get a ship to the med has left a bit of a credibility gap for the RN.
That is coming good now.
Daring will be PiP’d and back in service quite soon by all accounts.
The woeful thing was how slow it was to get funding to start PiP.
Something that does need to be accelerated is NSM.
At this point it would have been easier and likely cheaper to have built a whole new class of destroyer and sold/scrapped the T45s
Think they should look to see what Airfix can offer straight out of the box.
I think they used all the glue on HMS Forth.
Excellent, very good 😂🤣😂
France yesterday announced an immediate defence budget uplift by €48 billion.
Guess they aren’t spending as much on welfare, illegals and all the other stuff we are wasting money on.
SDSR not implemented
Defence investment plan 6 months late
Terrible situation.
The question is, ‘can France actually deliver that uplift, on top of the previously announced uplift?’
There would have to be big cuts elsewhere to allow for this.
The big problem with UK borrowing is the inability to deal with the pension triple lock, benefits and NHS spending all three of which are totally out of control, rising inexorably and failing to deliver the promise. I’d be rather keener on a means tested pension that was higher for the worst off and tapered for the better off rather than the usual cliff edge nonsense that the UK usually goes for. NHS now has huge budgets but the outcomes are relatively poor and not improving, the answer is not more cash. Benefits it is so hard to have a proper conversation around this while the true level of fraud is denied.
The pensions triple lock is massively exaggerated as an issue, but fueled by the generational warfare that the left likes to lean into.
A much bigger issue is retirement ages. The UK’s will soon be 67 and due to rise to 68 not long after. France and other European nations have had trouble increasing theirs from 60 to 65. We also need to address the falling birth rate. The idea that we can rely on immigration to make up the difference has been exposed as nonsense given the recent public figures showing that these populations are a net drain on public finances, despite their younger age structure. Not to mention the social issues created, which have defence implications as even many white working class youngsters say they wouldn’t fight for modern Britain (more British Asians joined ISIS over a 5 year period than joined the UK armed forces).
Benefits culture and the NHS are huge problems. NHS seems to be a black hole. Although I lean right, I thought one benefit of a labour government would have been the ability to actually implement meaningful reform in the NHS. But it seems more and more likely that this was wishful thinking on my part. Rachel Reeves needs to own her recent mistakes on growth with NI increases etc, instead of doubling down on them, or else we risk being locked into a long period of economic stagnation.
I agree that retirement ages and triple lock go hand-in-hand.
It needs to creep up higher than 67 which is unrealistic.
Fuck it, I’d wait for the May 7 elections to pass, then in the November Budget, hold the Triple lock to the end of this Parliament (I don’t see them lasting longer, before they do this or not) and use the now not going to Pensions money, throw it to defence. Because Defence needs capital now, but once it’s bought, you could say it’s not required to maintain huge yearly budgets.
the trouble is with having a means tested state pension, is that going to mean you have more higher earners move away from PAYE with the view that there no point as they are not going to get a state pension anyway
Every thing is waiting for much delayed Defence Investment Plan. Yesterday the MOD was told to find £3.5 billion in savings, so r Labour really upping defence spending by cutting it. Any words the defence Sec says are half truths and out and out lies. Hes clueless and can not remember what Kit he over sees with out being reminded, another Labour fool out of depth and taxed beyond his lefty tiny mind.
He top at statemeants about nothing, dressed up as some thing.
Healey’s job is to convince the Service chiefs and the Prime Minister that the organisational and personnel changes he has made in the MOD have resulted in a DIP which addresses the major ( if not all) the risks identified in the SDR and to convince the Treasury that the plan is credible, affordable and deliverable. He will earn his salary.
Good luck with him geting that moron Reeves to spend more, strange though the MOD has asked the service chiefs to save £3.5 Billion, how is that doing his job, hes a part time fill in the job, he does not know his brief, he lies, bends the truth every time he speaks.
Nearly 2 years in and nothing apart from moving the deck chairs about and promissing a lot, looking in this and that but no action just words. The DIP can not and will not fix all, it simply can not. Agreed not Labours fault but doing nothing for nearly 2 years is.
Ad hominem attacks on Ms Reeves does’t really advance your position. From what I see she is doing a good job stabilising the UK economy in difficult circumstances; reversing Thatcher’s damaging incentives for short term rent seeking behaviours while looking after the most vulnerable. It’s a pity the left wing labour MP’s don’t have more faith in skill and her sense of fairness. I’m not close to govt but my impression is that there has been a lot of fundamental and overdue reorganisation of the MOD, that key projects like the frigates, subs and GCAP have been protected and that several projects to quickly increase our conventional deterrence have been initiated e.g. Nightfall and the Anglo- German 2000km missile. We have are also seeing valuable short term enhancements like CAMM on T45 and NSM. It also looks like we will cap F-35B orders after the next batch and switch remaining orders to F-35A. If we buy Stormbreaker for the As and Bs both the RAF and the RN will have a good stand off strike capability. So I am seeing a trend of smart decisions to spend what money we do have more wisely. There will have to be compromises in the DIP. We have to hope the powers that be make the right ones.
She is doing a good job with economy, really, are you feeling ok, Taxes up, unemployment up, an extra 1.5 million on benefits, the welfare bill up by £20 Billion, firms niot taking people on due higher NI and taxes. What good thing is Reeve doing a made up black hole, now the MOD are asked to make £3.5 billion in savings, how?
The mess its not Labours fault but they seem to be unable place any big orders like replacing the entire AS90 fleet we gave away, the NLWS and Javlin and 155mm rounds we gave away, they good at meetings and wish list and moving the dect chairs abour. What have Labour ordered since becoming the Government no new ships, no new aircraft aside helicopters, in fact they cut aircraft and ship numbers,
No vehicle orderrs for the Army less for a few add ons the Sky Sabre and some lighyt recce vehicles, and other up grades to the Type 45 Labour put on hold, so yes they tinckering at the edges but dithering about any thing else.
The UK has provided £7b of military support to Ukraine and £1.5b of financial support. Ukraine is the front line. Many if the items you list are part of that aid. Taxes are up to balance the books without big increases in borrowing. Everybody agrees the benefits bill is too high. The coalition govt tried austerity. The NHS waiting lists and the roads are still recovering. Claimants game the benefits system and sharp operators assisted by accountants game the tax system. The trouble with Adam Smith is that he seemed to have rather a broad definition of self interest, of what was morally acceptable. Reeves is closing a lot of tax loopholes; allowances which have been abused. I agree there is resistance among left leaning MPs to any attempt to cut the benefits bill. The govt have not given up trying and will come back with another attempt. You are right to point out that more small businesses are having to think twice about hiring young staff. I think this is a consequence of the govt strategy to increase the number of young people taking an apprenticeship. They want youngsters to gain more skills which lead to higher wages and salaries, rather than take low paid jobs which lead nowhere. They want more qualified electricians and fewer Deliveroo drivers. I can understand this is a challenge for some small businesses. Overall though, my feeling is that the govt is working hard to create an effective set of tax incentives for decent small businesses; but owners have to put more effort into working with the system. Ammunition orders are flowing.
Are you a member of Labour you know the party that totally thinks taxes will solve every thing, save your speach. Labour gave IRA murders get of jail free pass, change the vetrens bill, started the Irag second war and made things about WMD’s, sent terroist comfort letters, who leader was pro IRA evem meeting members of the IRA, you have not ordered a new war ship since 1979. All others were order by some one else.
You stand by and let 70 year old soldiers be tryed in NI when it was a labour government that first sent them there.
The government is upping taxes to pay welfare, unemployment is up, 1’5 million more on benefits, more boat people than ever. half your MPs care more about the midle East then the UK, and now you ask the military to make £3.5 billion savings is that to cover the lifting of the two child benefit cap. All you care about is your voter pool and diversity. Do not preach to me your party hates the UK, hate is culture and only ever cares when its vote time.
As it happens I am not a member of the labour party. But I do think that right now they are very much the best of the bunch for govt. Democracy works at least some of the time. They say, if it’s working don’t fix it. At the last election we decided things weren’t working and to try a different approach. Let’s see where that leads and vote again at the next election. As regards diversity, my take is that the govt wants policies to encourage inclusion. I support this. English culture is still rather clubbish. ( Islands of strangers?) As the Scottish Tourist board advert once said about golf in Scotland “In Scotland you don’t join a club, you just bring a club”. I do agree though that immigrant groups should not be encouraged to live in isolated ghettos and that they should be expected to learn English. I also agree that the religious allegiance of some immigrant groups cannot be allowed to unduly influence UK foreign policy. When in Rome…..if you want to be considered British then you must learn to leave your old home and fall into line with British values. It is fashionable to trash Christianity but the UK is constitutionally a Christian country; we believe that both individuals and nations can come back. We have 13 frigates in build. Let’s get them crewed and into service and complete the T45 mods. I have not followed the veterans bill saga, so have no views as to whether it is or is not an improvement on the situation that obtained before. I am looking forward to the sunlit uplands of the DIP. Have a nice day!
The DIP will be less than hinted at, better than nothing, let us stick military matters i feel that would be best.
👍
One positive that may come from the delayed DIP and the tight budgets is forcing the MoD to innovate and look at British SME’s instead of American Conglomerates for solutions. Six months ago the only solution to finding Russian submarines in the Atlantic were billion pound frigates or expensive MPA’s.
Now I’m looking at a wide range of cheap flexible drone solutions coming from across UK small companies.
The UK’s greatest war time asset remains the Garden Shed.
I hope you’re right, but I worry that’s wishful thinking. The slow acknowledgement of defence as a legitimate area for companies to be involved in, instead of being blacklisted by universities and attacked by activists, is one positive we’ve seen in recent years. But I’m concerned that this is too little too late. And all being undone by immigration which is shifting the voter base to communities that place less value on the armed forces (or in many cases are actively hostile to them).
I agree that the glorified garden shed is a useful adjunct. However, we still need more cheap frigates to go with them to provide the persistent mother ships.
Yep the RN optimised for sea control could do with 12-15 ok GP frigates ( type 31 variants) as drone motherships if it wants to dominate the Atlantic and high north. quite frankly what more does a Atlantic mothership need than a good AAW gun set, CAMMs, ok radar, narrow line TAS, small ship fights ( 2 because you want to move people to and from the drones) and the drone control centres.. NSM would give it more GP capability.. then say 20 ASW drones say 1000 tons.. TAS, landing deck for small ship flight ( with refuel capability ) AAW/self defence gun.. quarters for a small optional crew.
Maybe the option to add a more advance AAW drone ( maybe 2000 tons with AAW radar and missile silos )
job done.
Sure. drones that cant be deployed because there are no ships to deploy them and so small they cant work in sea state 5?
i am sure the government is eagerly looking at getting ASW on the cheap.
ACUA Pioneer retains the ability to launch and recover one tonne ROVs up to sea state 5, is that your definition of ‘can’t work’?
I’m hoping there are no cuts to the t26, if anything they should increase the order but given the t45 was cut from 12 to 8 to 6 I wouldn’t put it passed the dimwits to cut the t26.
61,000 civil servants now in the MoD!
Absolutely, increasing the T26 class would be a good move. I Looking at the Australian Hunter class (based on the T26) doing something similar- potentially firing aster instead would seem to be a good answer for the Type 83 requirement.
Historically Type 8xs have been cruisers – able to engage air surface and submarine threats. The last one being HMS Bristol (Type82).
It does look like what we’ll actually get is essentially a type 46 destroyer, Type 4x being destroyers able to engage air Bourne targets. (Type 2x, now 3x being focused on ASW)
Although the type 8x was originally a second line all purpose little frigate, the 1960s T81 Tribals were of that type of frigate the RN built to allow it to be there with some capability… they were utter dog but even in 1982 3 of them took over duties that supported the formation of the fleet that went to the Falklands.
It would be actually better to get a type 46 destroyer, a do everything cruiser would mean we get 4 and drop all frigates as the 4 ships will do everything in the treasurys eyes
We have more admirals than ships,
On Here ? 😁😁😁
The T83 is actually going to be a bit of a mind screw on which way the go.. the pressure and risk is growing to an insane level
1) the standard maritime air strike is still a core issue, including shorter range anti ship missiles ( less than 100km)
2) long range anti ballistic missile attack is now also a problem
3) long range air breathing hypersonics are a theoretical risk
4) and in the littoral mass attack by many hundreds of drones is also a risk
But at the same time the SSN and electric boat risk is increasing.. as will as attack by sub surface and surface drones..
So what do you build
You could go the French and Italian way any have the bulk of pretty good ships that do a bit of everything.. with a tiny number of very highly specialised or gold plated ships.
Go the US way and just build “do it all gold plate ships”
Go the Chinese way and build adequate cheap all purpose ships in vast numbers
The old RN way of limited numbers of gold plated but ultra specialist can do one thing very well and not a lot else ships
Or what seems to be a new RN approach of a specialist mother ship supported by a supporting cast of drone ships.
Many questions for the new RN route, does it produce a very small number of very gold plated specialist mother ships or does it go for less gold plated motherships and focus capability in drone ships…how big and how much capability will be in the drone ships and will they have an option for a minimum crew.
So options for the mother ship T83 are probably
1) an AAW version of T31 ( adding a long range volume search and better main sensor).
2) a do it all version of the T26 essentially a UK version of a Burke but with more balance on the ASW and less on strategic attack.
3) a New gold plated do it all.. like the Italians are building
4) a new just enough AAW focus mothership
Then you go to what the Drone ships will look like.. in reality for decent speed, endurance and the strategic mobility needed to keep up with a CBG it’s probably going to need to be 2000+ tons..
Interesting times.. no wonder there is so much argument over the DIP..
Zero point not designing a new ship. The Ajax and Nimrod disasters show the stupidity trying to modify an existing (old) design to do something radically different.
BTW hypersonic anti-ship missiles are in service today
Sea drones don’t scale down well at sea as in land. Plus the communication problem under water is still present(btw if it is fixed it also means it is easier to detect submarines.
Ref the ever-popular criticsm of Rachel Reeves, we read today that the IMF has singled the UK out for praise, for reducing our net public debt and borrowing by the gighest amount in the G7. This has been done the hard way, by increasing employers’ national insurance, etc. The IMF sees this as being fiscally responsible, i.e. starting to live within our means.
The immediate benefit of the reduction in borrowing is reducing the sky-high interest we are paying on our borrowing, which gives HMT more money in the kitty.
This to say no pain, no gain. We all seem to have very high demands that the Treasury can just pull a white rabbit out of the hat to fund the plethora of defence needs and wants. Alas, real world economics is not quite so simple.
Politically, it would be nigh impossible to.get any major reductions in benefits through the House, without splitting the Labour backbenchers, probably irreparably.
Reeves’ only real option on increased defence spending is some form of hypothecated defence borrowing, such as a SAFE-type fund or defence bonds, or a 1p in the pound tax rise to fund defence. Unfortunately, Reeves is opposed to any such borrowing, so the dozen EU countries doing so are all wrong in her book.There is not an extra £10 bn a year sloshing around in the Treasury to fund the DIP properly. It cannot be done from HMG revenue.
So we are a bit stuck in an impasse here.
New British Destroyer awaiting for new and different British government for proper investment.
I genuinely don’t understand. An anti-air (AAW) focused platform would be a Type 4X. As a Type 8X this is multi-mission (AAW, ASW, ASuW, etc.). so same mission as US ABs. So why does the Type 83 get described as an air dominance platform? What about the other missions?
Who did you have in mind?
The Conservatives, who demolished defence spending in their 14-year reign?
Reform, who are even further to the right and will prioritise welfare cuts – to.tefuce taxes for the better off, not to fund defence?
The Greens, who are committed to leaving NATO and we can assume.cutting defence spending sharply?
Proper funding requires a lot more than political will, it also needs the Treasury to have ample surplus funds, which is not the case st the mo and won’t be until we get national borrowing down and reign in welfare spending, which no party seems able to do. And the only ones who might will hand out tax cuts for the wealthy.
“…expected to enter service from the mid-2030s…” 😂
We’ll be lucky if the first cut in steel is made by the mid-2030’s, given this countries procurement track record.
“Written Parliamentary question” purely asked so Pollard can continue in his efforts at popping smoke around funding defence, and come up with so many “good news” stories recently, in an effort at diverting the real issue, which is there is no more money for defence, there is no passion for defence (in this Government) and no real plan to progress. All the plans involve kit ordered either by the last clowns with no real prospect of being in service anytime soon, or in fact surviving contact with Reeves 1st year university knowledge of economics, or kit which is essential NOW but costs a few quid and therefore will be kicked down the road till these antisemites in charge are kicked out of power in 2029, and therefore it wont be their problem.
Tough to understand Goverment thinking on Defence..!..Lord Robinson of NATO And SDR fame clearly bewildered by the Lack of Action..!
Starmer Needs to Show Authority…!
Given the oil situation it clearly needs to be nuclear. Given the world situation we need to be building it now, not thinking about it. Given the fact the US is an enemy not a friend we need to source ALL electronics and software in the UK, all missiles, all warheads, all lasers from the UK. So we best stop messing around and start building this and some nuclear powered carriers with UK built planes to go on then. Work with the Europeans for sure but have zero to do with the yanks. There is no choice but we need to up our spending on the military by at least ten times, at least, that should be a minimum. If we buy British and use British people to man these things then we will have to spend a lot less on benefits. We can tax the rich, we can tax companies properly, including Amazon I no longer give a shit If a a country that wants a paedophile, a dictator and a genocidal maniac in charge objects.