The Defence Investment Plan swaps a planned generation of crewed destroyers and frigates for six Common Combat Vessels and a fleet of uncrewed platforms it says will grow through the 2030s. On an optimistic reading, the sheer number of simpler hulls, spread across more yards, could do more for British shipbuilding than the warships they replace, but will they?

The Royal Navy’s shift to a hybrid fleet leaves one figure wide open, the number of ships it will actually build, because the Defence Investment Plan commits to at least six Common Combat Vessels and a new family of uncrewed platforms, the Type 91, 92, 93 and 94, a mix of missile carriers, submarine hunters and sensor ships, without ever putting a firm number on the uncrewed fleet.

The plan drops two crewed programmes the Navy had been counting on, the Type 83 destroyer meant to replace the six Type 45s from the late 2030s and the never-numbered Type 32 frigate planned on top of the eight Type 26 and five Type 31 already under construction. In their place come six Common Combat Vessels acting as crewed command hubs for the uncrewed platforms, plus however many of those platforms the Navy can eventually fund, so that on paper a generation of perhaps eleven large and complex warships gives way to six command ships and a far larger number of small ones.

Fewer warships, but many more hulls

For British shipyards, that trade looks very different depending on how it is counted, since eleven frigates and destroyers would have meant a great deal of steel and thousands of skilled jobs concentrated at the big yards on the Clyde and at Rosyth, whereas the uncrewed vessels are smaller, cheaper and far simpler, each carrying only a fraction of the tonnage and labour of a frigate. Measured by tonnage and man-hours, six command ships and a swarm of drones would likely not match the programme they replace, though the sum looks different once the measure is hull count and the number of yards able to take part.

Simplicity is what makes that plausible, because when industry was competing to shape the cancelled destroyer requirement, one British shipbuilder’s concept, shown publicly in 2025, paired a large air-warfare command ship with smaller, lean-crewed or autonomous sensor and effector vessels it argued could be built at a wide range of yards, well beyond the two that build the Navy’s frigates today.

If that holds, a fleet of uncrewed platforms could spread work to the commercial and second-tier yards that rarely see a warship order, sustaining a broader industrial base and a steadier drumbeat of construction than a handful of complex hulls ever could.

How many drone ships would it take?

As for how many that might be, the plan gives no total, yet the Navy has offered a template, because the First Sea Lord has described the hybrid model as a Type 26 frigate operating in company with two uncrewed escorts while a submarine drone hunts beneath, and has said he wants the first uncrewed escort ships sailing alongside Royal Navy warships “within the next two years”.

Taking that flotilla as the unit, the Navy will have nineteen crewed surface combatants once the command vessels arrive, the eight Type 26, the five Type 31 and the six Common Combat Vessels, and on the usual planning assumption that only about one hull in three is at sea at any moment, roughly six of them would be on deployment at once. Screen each with the two escorts the First Sea Lord describes and that is a dozen uncrewed vessels at sea, or eighteen at the higher figure of three apiece, and applying the same one-in-three rule to the escorts themselves points to a standing force of something like around thirty to sixty surface hulls.

That one-in-three assumption is doing most of the work here, and it could move either way, because uncrewed vessels are meant to stay at sea longer than crewed ones, which would pull the total down, while unproven early designs may spend more time under repair, which would push it back up.

The template only carries the count so far, though, because the four uncrewed types are not one interchangeable escort. Three of them are surface ships, the Type 91 carrying missiles as a dispersed magazine, the Type 94 carrying a radar to watch the skies, and the Type 92, listed in the plan as an underwater sensing platform but in practice a surface sloop that hunts submarines with towed sonar arrays in support of the frigates, and it is these three that the flotilla screen above is really counting.

Only the fourth, the Type 93, works beneath the surface, an extra-large uncrewed submarine drawn from the Excalibur programme that ranges alongside the crewed attack boats, and it scales not with the number of frigates put to sea but with the length of the North Atlantic barrier the Navy wants to hold, so it sits on top of the surface figure rather than inside it. Once it and the sensor gliders already entering the water are added, a total comfortably into the sixties is easy to reach.

The government says as much itself, listing the Type 91 to 94 and committing that “in the 2030s, we will expand the numbers of the above platforms and bring at least six Common Combat Vessels into service as the brain of a networked Maritime Air Defence system.” The upper end of the ambition is larger still, because the minister responsible has spoken of a Royal Navy numbered in the hundreds, most of it uncrewed, a figure that drew open scepticism given the service’s struggle to order even a modest number of autonomous minehunters.

There is evidence behind the direction, too, because a Navy-wide wargame late last year was reported to show the hybrid force roughly trebling the missile capacity of a task group, and even the lower, flotilla-driven figure, were it built in the UK, would be one of the larger runs of naval hulls this country has ordered in a generation.

Where the hulls get built

The optimism rests on conditions that are not yet in place in my view, the most important being where the hulls are to be built, because one of the competing industrial concepts would base its uncrewed vessels on designs from an overseas shipbuilder, sending much of the metalwork abroad and leaving the British share in the systems and the integration, while much of the value in these platforms may lie in the combat systems and the autonomy in any case, where the yards that weld the hulls would capture only part of it.

There is a question, too, of how simple these hulls really are, since the larger surface types are assessed as potentially eighty to a hundred metres and a couple of thousand tonnes, closer to a small warship than to the cheap drone the word suggests, even if the sonar sloops prove smaller. Only one of the four, the Type 93 underwater vehicle, would flow not to commercial yards at all but to the specialist submarine supply base, so three of the four types are surface hulls that more yards could in principle take on, which is the part of the case that most helps British shipbuilding, provided the orders come and the metal is cut here. All of it depends, too, on orders that do not yet exist, since the plan describes its figures as indicative, commits only to at least six command ships, and leaves the uncrewed numbers to future budgets, against a recent record of ambitions announced and then quietly trimmed.

None of that cancels the opportunity, and if the Navy builds the flotillas it is describing, and builds them in Britain, the hybrid fleet could put more hulls into more yards than the crewed ships it has given up, even if each one is smaller and cheaper than the warships now being set aside. Whether the Navy takes that opportunity will show in the order book over the coming years, as the numbers the plan leaves open are either turned into contracts with British yards or allowed to slip.

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

12 COMMENTS

  1. Just imagine the personnel savings that can be realised by using remote hulls and the possibility the RN could have around thirty surface combatants crewed and uncrewed by 2040.

    • It should be significant however with an unmanned fleet there will have to be substantial dockside prescience either of RN or civilian personnel as maintenance will still have to be done. But certainly less days at sea for most.

  2. Id believe it if they ran a competition in 2 years time. Spec that industry demonstrate a prototype able to work maintenance free for 60 days , in winter and rough seas and do 15-20 knots transit to operational areas and have the range to provide the screen for the carriers. Demonstrate robust data links that can deal with disruption. Until then a 2035 date seems fantasy.
    They might get some slow plodding smaller ships at that time ( which will be targeted / shadowed by persistent enemy drones) but if this concept has legs, why are better funded Navies not doing it.
    That’s the crunch. It’s cost pressure.
    Also , with the lack of RFA vessels , how will this large flotilla be refuelled at sea?

    • US and China are already ahead of UK. Sea Hunter class are operational. They are small- 135 t and expected to operate for up to 70 days without refuelling.
      I can just about see this size of USV being an effective and cheap force enhancer. The larger the USV the more doubtful I become. Are we really going to put £100m of missiles on a wholly unmanned vessel that would have to be at least OPV size to cope with the load?
      Obviously we need genuine proof of concept, building and testing a prototype in all conditions. That should include evaluation of a lightly manned variant.
      I am very sceptical about the whole idea.

      • What happens when they break down at sea, you will very often need a manned vessel to go to them as helicoptered personnel (will we have any?) can only do so much. This looks great on paper but I really don’t know that they are factoring in all manner of problems and added requirements operating such a fleet will inevitably entail. We will see but sounds very optimistic with so few manned vessels to cope with this plus their own responsibilities.

        • The apparent idea they outlined is multiple redundancy’s onboard to ensure sufficient capability to at least return the vessel to port.

  3. For the AAW sensor version, how large would it be to operate “up threat” in the winter just of northern Norway?

    This is folly.

  4. You don’t dabble in new technology by staking the most critical part of the Royal Navy on its success.

    A far more prudent approach would have been to build a scaled down Type 83, think Type 45.5. Then alongside it build semi-autonomous Corvette’s to act as a picket against exactly the type of emerging threats forcing this change. They should be armed not with Aster, but up to and including CAMM, specifically to force multiply the lower layers of the fleets’ defence, which is where the saturation risk lies. An autonomous Visby-like (perhaps slightly larger) corvette designed to combat cheaper mass threats would provide a cost-effective defence against emerging threats WITHOUT risking the integrity of the RN’s most critical assets. A Visby-like approach would also provide additional hulls to investigate / hunt SeaBaby-like threats, which have so decisively deterred the Russia Black Sea fleet.

    These USV’s must exist in addition to proven philosophy, not instead of it. The fleet should be designed such that if all USV’s are destroyed, that it’s fighting capacity is merely degraded, not fundamentally undermined or worse.

    I fear the RN is going in too hard on this, at a time when the consequences of getting it wrong are unacceptably high. A shortage/forced retirement of T23 during tense times is one thing, but the same for T45 at a time of war/critical moment of deterrence is an all-together different affair. We cannot repeat the fiasco of the T26 timeline, and this proposition is currently riddled with risk.

  5. There is a real opportunity here for UK industry to swap something that we are not particularly good at ( making big metal boxes) for something we are excellent at, small boats and high end autonomy.

    If we get this right then there is no reason why we can’t see multiple yards in the UK like AP Tyne, Cammel Laird and Falmouth reopened. Countries will probably be far more open to buying foreign made drones than they ever were for full warships. If the Command Ship does end up being based on the Type 31 then Babcock has a strong foundation of assisting with foreign completion of the ship aspect and we can tap on our own domestically produced drones.

  6. How this pans out in the next few decades is anyones guess, but its a facinating time. Seems like a watershed moment for sure. I bloody hope it works

  7. My opinion is this dash to drones is a modern day “ Dash to Drones” is a modern day Duncan Sandy moment.
    How will a small cheap drone ship survive a North Atlantic Winter and remain operational. How does it survive attempted jamming or electronic warfare. How does it protect itself from suicide drones. This has not been thought through. It is fortunate the type 45 hulls still have a lot of life and alot of room for growth .
    I am expecting some realism to start creeping into defence.
    As for Trump bullying Starmer at the next NATO summit. He has made this bed he can sit in it, by encouraging others to spend more than not leading by example. See Meloni or Zelensky for advice on how to handle the bloated one.

  8. Replacing 11 manned ships with 6 means less resilience! If say two are lost from the 11 it leaves 9, but if two are lost from 6 that only leaves 4. Each of those command ships will be a primary target and therefore need upgraded and substantial defences themselves. Having lots of uncrewed ships certainly saves on manpower, but they are only the effectors, the actual weapons or weapon platforms. Going after the ‘command’ ships will obviously be a primary goal of any enemy. Lose the command and then lose the weapons associated with them. At least manned ships are able to operate independently and take advantage of opportunities otherwise not seen. While there is some logic, it is really done to save money and staff costs. The whole point of using uncrewed weapon systems is to have lots more of them, but they all need control and it is all very well having lots of weapons, if they can’t be ‘manned’ or controlled then what is the point? Aside from a single point of failure they are still going to be vulnerable to communications disruption as well.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here