The MP for Dunfermline and Dollar has called for increased orders of Type 31 frigates, greater use of east coast assets including Rosyth dockyard, and a single funded High North strategy, in written evidence submitted to the Defence Committee’s Defence in the High North inquiry.

Graeme Downie, who chairs the All Party Parliamentary Group on Estonia and whose constituency is home to Rosyth dockyard and HMS Caledonia, told the committee that the UK should consider itself to be in a conflict with Russia and that the High North and the GIUK gap should be treated as the country’s physical frontline, warning that delay is not defence and that the UK had not yet matched its strategic ambitions with the funded plans needed to deliver them.

On Type 31 frigates, Downie said the government should consider increasing orders for more of the vessels, describing them as cheaper and quicker to build and adaptable over their lifetime to fulfil different roles, saying this could be “particularly critical for the future hybrid navy envisaged in the SDR and emphasised by the Royal Navy.” He noted that it was not yet determined what role the five Type 31 frigates on order would play, with the flexibility of the platform being key, but argued that with an increased maritime role required in the High North, expanding the programme made strategic sense.

On east coast basing, Downie argued for greater use of assets such as Rosyth and DM Crombie to improve response times, resupply and deterrence posture into the GIUK gap and northern waters, saying this was how the UK could “shorten our logistics tail, reinforce allies at speed, and make presence in the High North continuous rather than episodic.”

Downie described the protection of subsea cables and offshore energy infrastructure as “the central test of our staying power in the region” and said there was a growing pattern of hostile behaviours around the UK’s cable routes and energy installations that demanded investment in seabed monitoring, resilient routing and hard power capacity to deter threats around the northern approaches, saying these were “defence tasks, not merely regulatory ones.”

On the threat picture, Downie drew on discussions with senior Estonian officials in his capacity as APPG chair, saying their view was unequivocal that northern European security was indivisible and that UK leadership in the JEF and NATO was indispensable. He said Estonian counterparts had told him that even a peace settlement in Ukraine would not stop Russian aggression but would simply redirect it, likely towards the Arctic and North Atlantic where Russian strategic priorities lie, adding that “when they offer advice, we should listen.”

Downie also cited the deployment of HMS Dragon to Cyprus following the drone attack on RAF Akrotiri as evidence of the strain on UK readiness, saying it demonstrated the limits of the UK’s ability to transfer capability rapidly between theatres and that the lack of viable support ships reduced operational flexibility and forced the country into piecemeal reactive deployments rather than coherent force projection. He warned that attempting to service multiple disparate theatres simultaneously would stretch already pressured readiness further, and argued the UK needed to concentrate on the High North as the theatre where its geography, vulnerabilities and adversaries’ intentions intersected most sharply.

On the question of allied cooperation, Downie said there was uncertainty among close allies about what the threshold for direct UK military involvement would be short of a clear Article 5 breach, and said this must be made clear, citing the risk that hybrid activity against subsea infrastructure might not trigger a NATO response, asking who energy industry leaders should call if a Russian submarine appeared next to one of their installations and saying the government must have a credible answer.

The MP also raised the Arctic’s strategic importance for critical minerals, noting that China currently controlled 70 per cent of rare earth mining and 90 per cent of processing, and that the Arctic presented a once-in-a-generation opportunity for the West to reduce its dependence on China through coordinated long-term investment, provided it was done responsibly and in line with Western values rather than by replicating the approach of adversaries.

He concluded that the UK had the talent, allies and industrial base to lead in the High North but that leadership required urgency, clarity and action, warning that “delay is not defence.”

George Allison
George Allison is the founder and editor of the UK Defence Journal. He holds a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and specialises in naval and cyber security topics. George has appeared on national radio and television to provide commentary on defence and security issues. Twitter: @geoallison

14 COMMENTS

  1. I think Downie is right about the frigates however I think we should be buying the Babcock T32 design with a stern ramp, acoustic reduction and a larger mission bay.

    They can put 16 Mk41 at the front instead of the 40mm. These can be designed specifically as minesweeper and drone mother ships tailor made for operations around the North Sea and as part of NATO maritime standing groups.

    We can buy a couple of the containerised CAPTAS 2 Sonars as well and they can serve as a secondary anti submarine force to supplement the T26. We should be buying these instead of the specialist offshore support vessels we are buying from Norway.

    • Have Babcock put a price on that configuration?
      A bog standard T31 is over 300m , they have then invested a lot of money and will want a return, I doubt an improved full fat frigate is going to be cheap when development costs are added.

      If it’s close to a Type 26 cost, more Type 26 would probably make more sense as higher end ASW are needed, especially if the Chinese were to join the Russians in sending SSN into that region. The RN wanted and needed 13 even in more peaceful times. Not that they can manage what they have.

      • They haven’t put a price on it as the T32 contest has not been run. The Polish version of Arrow head 140 has the acoustic reduction and the CAPTAS 2 sonar so these are all known cost and an existing design. I would imagine your looking at half the price of a T26.

        Babcock also indicated a substantial crew reduction to around 60.

        Ultimately to get the budget for these extra five ships your looking to replace the minesweeper and possible OPV’s so an extra T26 won’t cut it. The Clyde is also stacked for work for over a decade at this point. Babcock is about to run dry.

        • We’ve been here before and a potential solution, or rather a temporary band aid, sometimes crops up. Why not order hull production with the minimum or no fit out? I think that’s pretty much what batch 1 gave us. Like you, Jim, I think the extended design with better mission bay access would be a great idea. However just ordering something, even if it’s two more of the same, is the right way to go. It’s clear Babcock isn’t going to start producing ships without orders so a compromise needs to be reached.

        • We don’t have Polish labour costs. Unless you want to build in Polish yards, Polish pricing is irrelevant

  2. While I think many of us here would agree with Mr Downie, it will dismissed by government as just the vested interest of his constituency, or simply ignored. The lack of a clear, long-term plan for the Navy, consistently batted away these days with a casual reference to the DIP, is exactly what the Parker Report and the National Shipbuilding Plan was supposed to overcome. Instead as the world lurches ever closer to a possible world war, and when decision speed has never been more necessary, this government seems to feel that muti-year delays are a good thing. Nothing can be further from the truth. The latest in a long line of governments to dismantle UK defences through cuts, it is on the shoulders of this one the culpability for current inaction lands, and the current Prime Minister should be ashamed of himself.

    • Could not have put it better myself!!! The Starmer-Reeves-Healey Triumvirate have talked a Good Game but as usual hasn’t delivered this is true with the Economy as well as Defence. “ We want Eight and we Just Won’t Wait”

  3. By all means containerise capabilities, but build the Frigates (T26 AND T31) as per current signed off design and add mass with new orders. Cyprus proves the lack of current available Frigate capacity so sort it HMG!!

      • & should add AAW Destroyers! A sensible buy of extra T31 for the RN might trigger some additional exports from countries looking for innovative and more value multiple purpose ships. Obviously any T31s will free up other ships do their thing. Hope all the useful T23 accessories can get re-used.

      • It doesn’t matter how many ships you have nothing is going through the straits. If the US navy can’t do it then non one else can either. The only way those straits get opened be force is land campaign.

  4. Ultimately Downie is right.

    As others have said the costs of the Polish flavour of T31 will be well known by now.

    The main thing is to get hulls into production as it takes so long from order to ISD and it is critical that there is no gap in work for Rosyth otherwise the pretty grown up NSS that Boris actually started rolling the ball on is gone in a puff of smoke. I am not at all sure that super speccing them is the way to go. What are needed are budget ships that things can be bolted onto albeit with things like Mk41 fitted as well as the wiring and cabinets present for NSM etc.

    Lest we forget we are not propping up BSL basket case central but very successful design exports that have added build exports for T26 as well.

    In the same breath T45’s successor needs to have a fully funded design process ASAP with a clear main gate decision on ordering and build that is set in stone so that T23/SSBN costly mess is avoided again.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here