In a newly published report by the Council on Geostrategy titled ‘A More Lethal Royal Navy: Sharpening Britain’s Naval Power’, authors William Freer and Dr Emma Salisbury outline the increasing maritime threats faced by the United Kingdom and the imperative need for an enhanced naval posture to meet these challenges.
The report, released today, offers a comprehensive analysis and set of recommendations to ensure the Royal Navy remains a formidable force in an increasingly volatile global environment.
The report highlights that the current naval posture, designed over a decade ago, is no longer adequate. Freer and Salisbury argue that what required only a single ship in 2010 or 2015 will necessitate several by the 2030s and 2040s. The UK, they contend, does not currently possess the necessary fleet size or capabilities to meet future demands.
The authors emphasise the diverse and escalating threats to British maritime interests. In the Euro-Atlantic, Russia’s modernisation of its navy presents a significant submarine threat, the most severe since the Cold War. Meanwhile, in the Indo-Pacific, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is expanding its naval power, seeking dominance in the region and beyond. Additionally, non-state actors like the Houthis in the Red Sea pose new challenges to international shipping and British interests.
The report calls for a strategic shift in the UK’s naval policy, recommending that the Royal Navy should lead efforts to achieve sea control in the Euro-Atlantic to secure vital maritime areas and support NATO.
Concurrently, it should contribute to sea denial efforts in the Indo-Pacific, in collaboration with allies, to deter the PRC’s aggressive actions.
Key recommendations from the report include:
- Maximising Aircraft Carrier Potential: Investment in additional F35B Lightning II combat aircraft, integrating drones into the airwing, and enhancing the carriers’ defensive systems.
- Improving Fleet Armament: Upgrading the armament of destroyers and frigates, accelerating the Type 45 destroyers’ replacement programme, and expanding the number of escort vessels.
- De-risking the Submarine Service: Speeding up the build time for the Dreadnought class and adding an additional Dreadnought submarine to provide deep strike capability.
- Expanding Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs): Procuring a third batch of five OPVs to replace retiring vessels and ensure capable systems are not overburdened with constabulary duties.
- Enhancing Littoral Strike Capabilities: Prioritising the Multi-Role Support Ship programme to encapsulate the capabilities of the Albion and Bay classes and integrate uncrewed systems.
- Advancing Mine Countermeasures: Shifting towards autonomous uncrewed vessels and investing in the Mine Hunting Capability programme.
- Strengthening Replenishment Capabilities: Addressing gaps due to delays in the Fleet Solid Support Ship Programme with options like additional Tide class ships.
- Augmenting Seabed Capabilities: Committing to additional Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships to integrate evolving technologies.
Dr Salibury is also worth a follow on Twitter if anyone cares about that sort of thing. Of course how willing the Tories are to listen to her is an open question.
Dream on 😎
And the glorious HMG will implement … absolutely known of these recommendations. All far too expensive. Surely other countries can cover U.K. defence needs. Seriously, with everything kicking off around the globe I’m starting to think HMG has been infiltrated. Inaction is certainly something I would nurture if I were a potential attacker. Has anyone seen Wormtongue wandering around parliament. 🤔
They’ve been infiltrated alright….by their own greed, incompetence and plain stupidity. It’s criminal incompetence and ignorance bordering on treason
Great, but how do we pay for or man …? 🙄
Defence spending is being ramped up, if they keep to their word and thats a big IF. Use some of that money to boost the pay a bit to make it more attractive, end contracts with Capita and we should be able to man the ships.
There’s an article on naval news about QE carriers and drones if anyone is interested.
All good stuff, but probably nothing that the RN has not long wanted to do – but lacks the money and sailors needed. Some of the suggestions are clearly never going to happen unless the defence budget leaps to 3%, e.g. a fifth Dreadnought and more Tide’s. Even if the later were ordered now for delivery in 2027, the RFA probably couldn’t man them given that Tiderace is in reserve due to lack of crew. Putting one or both Waves back in to service would offer a quicker and more versatile option – if they can be manned.
I always thought adding a 5th SSBN was a good idea, that way you can have 3 on SSBN patrol with two doing SSGN.
Having an SSGN with over 100 cruise missiles is about the biggest up lift in UK power one could imagine. Even the USN won’t have that capability once the Ohio SSGN are gone.
Or, for the same price as another Dreadnought, we can get two extra aircraft carriers instead. If we’ve got the money laying around I know what I’d prefer.
I think that if we seriously want to spend a bit more on Defence within an alliance then one of the things we really can bring to the table is a 5th SSBN.
Using one as an SSGN is simply nuts.
Nope the money is in developing the capacity to have SSBN a 5th SSBN as an add an add on to Dreadnought is @ £3 billion. If you order one right now !
As opposed to a carrier that the U.K. has no where free to build one.
Jim if you have 5 SSBN in a fleet rather than just 4 you can do precisely 1 thing. You have the ability to have 2 Boats on CASD rather than just 1 (as at present).
Which is why ever since the original Polaris project the optimum number requested by the RN has been 5, its the optimum number.
Dedicated SSGN is a Red Herring, it only came about because the USN had to repurpose 4 Ohio class boats due to START Treaties. Once they are gone they are not being replaced due to cost and resources being better spent elsewhere.
On the other hand if U.K and France were to both commit to 5 SSBN and integrate our deployment schedules we have 10 SSBN with a robust 3 on patrol and surge capacity of 4 between us.
That’s called deterrence.
As for this report it’s garbage. 🤔
Not sure if increasing the nuclear deterrent submarines is the best bang for your buck wrt defence. Being hawkish I’d increase our nuclear stockpile and range of delivery systems to match the Chinese. However I feel one of the reasons America is putting nukes in the UK is to specifically prevent that. What are friends for eh…
Report just sounds like a bunch of vague statements of the obvious to me. It’s the sort of thing people on this site have been saying we’ve needed for years.
Would be jolly nice if any of it came to pass before the next global war.
What a strange report. It has a mix of sensible suggestions like investing in a 30mm that has a joint Martlet launcher (that doesn’t have eflux problems like the last one did), slighly more outlandish ideas like getting rid of large-calibre guns, and then truely bizare ones like purchasing an extra Dreadnought class submarine to convert into an SSGN.
Yep it’s a bit odd, I was fine till I read the bit about what a 5th SSBN could do. Then I decided they were wearing tin foil for head wear 🤣
Very strange as it could only be deployed 25-30% of the time – it did have a credibility issue.
Also the Martlet launcher thing – you’d be better off swapping the 30mm -> 40mm (dual feed 3P and AP/FRAG) for much the same range and a lot lower price tag and the ability to have masses of reloads.
Not sure. The 30mm with LMM is a good suggestion, but why not just replace the 30mm with a 40mm. Getting rid of large guns. Again the suggestion was that the T83 should not have a large gun but a gun up to 57mm. I agree with this, I also think that the T83 should have a 57mm and 4x40mm + 2x Dragon fly as point defence.The reason is that the T83 will never go on the gun line and will always be an escort for the carriers.
As for a fifth Dreadnought as an SSGN, why not. In many ways it looks like the future SSN will have payload modules for land attack missiles. This in the Pacific works but the Atlantic and up North where the RN operates I am not sure if that is a good idea. To instal three or four payload modules then an Astute would need to be lengthend by 80-100ft. That makes for one big sub, where an SSN is a hunter she should be small, quiet, well armed and maneuverable. Whereas a dedicated SSGN could go out with a carrier group and give a land strike capability before the air group goes in.
It depends what you fire out of a large gun?
If you are firing dumb rounds then T83 doesn’t need it. If KINGFISHER becomes reality then I can see that making a lot of sense.
If T83 is as big or bigger than T45 then it can accommodate
1 x large calibre
2 x 57mm
2 x 40mm
Probably augmented by DRAGONFIRE.
Different defensive aids have different optimal targets. A suite of them is best.
Not only Kingfisher and those niche rounds but BAE and the US DoD have been trying for the last few years to develop a HyperVelocity projectile for the 5″; a super-aerodynamic sabot round that uses command or SA guidance to hit basically anything at mach 4 within 30 miles.
That means a cheaper means of dealing with AShMs that also allows more rounds to be carried.
If that gets carried forwards then in my opinion the best armament would be 1x 127mm, 2x 57mm with MAD-FIRES and 2x DRAGONFIRE. We can use the 57 like the Italians use the 76; as a heavy secondary gun or even main gun that uses guided rounds to increase effectiveness and range against missiles and small boats.
I think it is inevitable that SSBN will have to be able to be used for other functions.
There’s a Kraken 4 x Marlett/GPMG RWS so they should be able to up that to a 30mm. Like to see them develop a UK RAM style launcher but with a ASRAAM/Martlet/LMM type missile which could be synchronised with the Phalanx’s a bit like the SeaStreak.
I’ll have whatever those two were drinking!
You might need something stronger. I couldn’t finish reading it as it was of a sleeping pill in places. Seemed to be suggesting what we’ve been advocating for here on UKDJ for ages.
I would add to that list:
Upgrading and expanding shipbuilding and maintenance facilities
It takes too long to build a new ship now.
We should aim for 5 years from steel cut to commission.
Maintenance cycles no longer than 12 months
Solve the recruitment problems.
Nothing wrong with calling out deficiencies, but the practicalilities have to be considered. I see no real prioritisation, and I also don’t see any cost estimates. How about rating the suggestions in terms of size band, from carrier CIWS to another Dreadnought, and by priority/efficacy?
I don’t think enough thought has been given to small changes with small costs. Almost all the requested changes cost a lot of money that the government has no intention of providing. Some costed sub-million pound suggestions would be helpful.
All w pipe dream! Lets start with 5 SSBN’s – Well the original programme in the early 1960’s was to have 5 but Ramillies was cancelled which actually allowed the remaining 4 x R Class to remain in service longer because the spares where available. Priority needs to be more SSN’s with vertical launch cruise missile system.
Improving Fleet armament is vital. At present the RN is toothless. Type 26 and 31 MK 41 VLS will help but more investment in small calibre weapons is required including a training uplift as FOST cannot coupe. Automatic system similar to those fitted to German and US vessels 20-30mm rapid fire and place them also on RFA’s as at present these ships are reliant on GPMG’s unless east of Suez.
Maximise Carriers is great but you need not only the aircraft or drones but you need the TG that goes with it including the RFA’s to support. That means getting a grip on retention and building the T26’s, T31’s and getting T45’s to sea. Again you need to man these ships which is a problem. In addition your need at least one SSN and FSS and at least 2 Tides!!! Operating a carrier in the North Sea is not going to help maritime security!!
MRSS is vital as LSDA’s and Albion and Bulwark are old and in the case if the LSDA’s worked into the ground. A common platform will help availability but again it will be manpower and escorts that are the limiting factors apart from money and political will.
Enhance MCM capability just need more time and more mother ship’s. Who will man them??
the RFA is in a desperate state. Manning and lack of spare is a major concern. Accelerating FSS would be great but at present retention and recruitment is the priority. Getting 4 tanker back would be a good start.
MRSS great but we need to invest more and I think in the short term look more at the oil and gas industry and utilize their skill sets. This off course involves more investment.
Mostly sensible suggestions if more money and crews could be found. Some of the ideas are already in hand/ planned- seabed surveillance, shift to remote mine hunting, MRSS. With the recent announcement of adding land strike to surface warships, a fifth Dreadnought to act as SSGN is unnecessary and incompatible with AUKUS plans.
The carriers should have far better self defence systems but buying more F35s now is unwise: not enough pilots and no ability to operate the UK weapons that will transform their effectiveness.
Five more OPVs would place further strain on crew numbers. But the aim of removing constabulary tasks from the combat fleet makes sense. Using. T45 for drug interdictions is crazy.
These reports make me sad. I read the remarks of the regular people who comment on this site and on Navy Lookout and whilst always being impressed at the vast volume of knowledge you share, what so often is the subject of the conversations is just another back of a fag packet pie in the sky BS report from someone somewhere who thinks we should “just build more, recruit more”.
Our navy is truly in crisis, I feel enraged by the lack of resources we send our servicemen and woman out with. These reports read like they just realised there is a problem! The government is asleep at the wheel, this is plain to see if only by the fact they’ve known for years about the CSG supply issues with only one ageing vessel to carry out operations and did precisely nothing to address it. Increase defence spending for 5 years, raise income tax to pay for it, dump the rules surrounding all hulls being built in the UK, forget building additional billion pound ASW frigates and pay someone to build us an additional 5 Type 31 frigates. Arm those ships with defensive AND offensive weapons such that the MP’s would be OK with “their” son or daughter being in a hot zone aboard.
We MUST stabilise the current situation before pipe dreams of additional carriers and larger SSBN fleets can be considered. First thing, hold the bloody politicians to their words. When they say we’ll 6 vessels for the MRSS programme, we all know they’ll carve that up, delay contracts, build for but not including and fail to address all other areas surrounding crews, maintenance, parts, support…
God I detest these people lining their nests whilst selling off the farm for votes. Sorry, rant end. Keep up the great comments all, its a nice distraction from the daily work grind.
Personally I think the Royal Navy needs to move to a rule of 12. 12 ships in each class, so a total of 36 surface escort ships shared between the T31, 26 and T83. And 12 attack subs, with the necessary support vessels.
It will obviously require defence to go to at least 3% of GDP and more resources for recruitment and retention. But I believe these are minimum numbers given war is increasingly likely.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the detail, the authors’ broad thrust of increasing the power of the fleet is welcome. We need a lot more people from all sides coming in to argue for a serious increase in defence spending.
I would think that, strategically, given the most likely threats to NATO Europe, building up our flimsy air power and land forces would be first priority, rather than the fleet, which is in considerably better order than the other two services.
But, concentrating on the fleet, IF defence spending rises from its current 2% of GDP to 2.5% over say the 12 years to 2035, then the RN budget would see a 25% uplift..How should it be spent?
I would set out a basis something like:
A 10% increase in manning levels, from the current 30,000 to 33,000. This includes RN, RM and RFA personnel.
A 15% increase in pay and conditions
A 20% increase in housing, including new build, repair and maintenance
A 30% increase in weapons, including R&D, uparming our current warships and auxiliaries and increasing weapon stocks. We could easily spend the whole budget increase buying shiny new weapons at sky-high prices, but that would need to be balanced against the other priorities listed here.
A 15% increase in fleet size, or 9 additional ships and subs over 12 years. The average price would have be well below the customary £1bn frigate or SSN.
I would exclude the T83 DD. FSSS and MRSS, as we are hopefully going to get these anyway from the current budget. My 9 would be:
1 additional Astute and the first 2 of a new class of SSK, to start to rebuild our submarine hunting capability in Eastlant. New SSKs are nearly as capable as an Astute, but at 30-40% less cost.
1 additional T31 FF, to get escort numbers up to 20 by 2035.
2 of a new class of eventually 6 corvettes, to take over from the Rivers as more capable/fighty overseas patrol vessels and wartime escorts. Initial basings Caribbean, Falklands, Gib/West Africa. Equipment fit closer to BAE’s al-shamikh class – closer to 3000 tons displacement, equipped with hangar and medium helicopter, with a good array of anti-ship and anti-air missiles and add an ASW capability. The Rivers to be UK-based, forming an offshore patrol squadron and up-armed to be able to play a wartime escort secondary role.
2 additional Castle MCMVs, taking the total to 6. The planned 4 is too thin a capability.
1 additional Proteus MROS, taking the total to 3, so we can get two at sea, one will not scratch the surface of patrolling and inspecting the hundreds of vilnerable pipes and cables in the UK sea area.
That’s my 9. Not all fancy high spec, high cost warships, rather necessary vessels to plug the most obvious gaps in the current fleet makeup. No more F-35s beyond the 74 on order, as the value of a carrier air group in Atlantic and European waters is rather debatable, though we may need to provide one to help out the USN in the South China Sea one of these days.
Post 2035, aspiration should move to 2 additional T26s, 2 extra T83s, at least one more FSSS , additional SSKs and corvettes and a replacement for the Hunt in the minehunting role. Plus serious thought to a LPHD to provide a more powerful amphibious capability.
.