Up to six new amphibious warships for the Royal Marines to be built in the UK.
With up to 28 warships and submarines in the pipeline, backed by defence spending rising to 2.5% of GDP, Britain is seeing a new Golden Age of shipbuilding, Defence Secretary Grant Shapps will say today.
Speaking at the annual Sea Power Conference in central London, the Defence Secretary will announce that up to six new state-of-the-art warships will be built in the UK to strengthen Royal Marines special operations.
Defence Secretary, Grant Shapps said:
“With up to 28 ships and submarines being built or in the pipeline, this is a new Golden Age for British shipbuilding.The new vessels for the Royal Marines will help our brave Commandos fight the conflicts of the future.
This is all possible because this government has committed to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence by the end of the decade, as part of our plans to deliver a more secure future for you and your family.”
The Defence Secretary will also announce that HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark will not be scrapped or mothballed before their planned out of service dates of 2033-2034.
Today’s new ships are known as Multi Role Support Ships (MRSS) – specialist warships designed to rapidly deliver the famous Royal Marines Commando Force onto coastlines around the world to conduct special operations.
It brings the total number of UK-built ships and submarines in the pipeline to benefit the Royal Navy to up to 28, with Type 26 and Type 31 in Scotland, Astute and Dreadnought submarines in Barrow-in-Furness, and Fleet Solid Support ships in Belfast and Devon.
The First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Ben Key, said:
“I am delighted that the Secretary of State has cemented the future of our Royal Marines by committing to this new class of up to six amphibious vessels.
These will be the most capable amphibious warships the nation has ever owned, designed to be fully interchangeable with our closest allies in Europe, and in NATO.
I also pay tribute to the sterling service of the two Type 23 frigates that were announced for retirement today – collectively they have deployed worldwide, conducted dozens of live operations, and have far surpassed their expected service life. While always sad to pay off such fine warships, their decommissioning marks the next stage of our reinvestment in new, more modern frigates.”
MRSS will be highly flexible warships, able to deploy on a wider variety of operations, and designed to carry vehicles, aircraft, insertion craft and a broad range of uncrewed systems for complicated missions. They will also be able to act as primary casualty receiving ships, providing urgent medical care to our forces wherever they are deployed.
The MOD has entered the first, or Concept, phase of the MRSS Programme and will work with industry as part of early market engagement ahead of developing the vessel design.
In line with the National Shipbuilding Strategy, there will be up to six MRSS built overall, which will replace current capabilities, including the two Landing Platform Docks, three Landing Ship Dock (Auxiliaries) and the Aviation Support Ship RFA Argus, in the early 2030s.
Defence Equipment & Support CEO, Andy Start said:
“With the MOD’s new Integrated Procurement Model in place and DE&S undergoing its biggest transformation in a decade we are aiming to be faster, more efficient, more innovative, more integrated and more productive when delivering new equipment such as the Multi-Role Support Ships for the Royal Marines.
Our MRSS team has already begun engaging with the potential shipbuilding market to lay the groundwork for this versatile and essential future capability.”
The Defence Secretary will also announce that HMS Argyll and HMS Westminster, that have a combined service of 63 years, will be retired. HMS Argyll has been sold to BAE Systems and will be used within the UK’s vibrant shipbuilding sector, supporting apprentice training in line with the Government’s agenda on skills and shipbuilding capacity.
I’ll believe it when I see the actual contract
With dross the smoke and mirrors guy same here Watched the defence committee trip him up he said 11 million will be added to UK defence department.asked how Ukraine is getting the same amount but under a different name.all lies he said then the committee got angry.he admitted he’d just slipped the figure over from one balance sheet to the next.they were going to recall him with new figurines.
Interesting side note. Muslims their loyalty is to Allah.
have said they will not accept. Conscription
As remember when dross said he would take p and o to court re sacking?
And last week p and o are paying £1.48 per hour to staff. Dross was dragged in and admitted he couldn’t do anything
Understand he’s quoted as 3 firm plus 3 options.
So that’s 3 then.
Yep that’ll be 3. So a definite cut to capability. 2 full sized LPDs gone and 3 Bay class landing ship auxillarys gone for 3 MRSS. 6 ships has to be the ONLY solution 3 won’t cut it.
Only three does seems like a stupidly small number for these type of roles. Hard to do more with 50% less!
Three on paper. Two built, one cancelled. One in use, the other alongside in Portsmouth with no hope of sailing on the seven seas.
Which isn’t really a definitive answer, we all know about the commitment to additional A400M’s to replace the retired C-130’s, they’ve repeatedly backtracked on when that contact is even getting put down or how many.
Yes is there an election soon
Wow, Argyll is actually going then. Crushing News to be honest. I thought it was coming back into service after their recent twitter posts. Frigate fleet down to 9 ships then?
Good news to wake up to. I’m concerned that it is ‘up to 6’. Since 6 represents a like for like replacement then this could easily turn into a cut. Especially if Labour don’t commit to the increased budget.
My hope is that unions will hold Labour’s feet to the fire in terms of commitments to shipbuilding. Never in my life thought I’d be rooting for unions but we are where we are
The next five years under liebour will be tax and lies.labour have kept silent about taxing the energy companies or the American fast food joints
I think it was always up to 6. In the national Shipbuilding Strategy it was described like that, so no need to read between the lines.
I wouldn’t trust the conservatives to commit to the increased budget after the general election. Words are cheap
Quite!
What’s the alternative?
I read on a Malaysian defense blog that two Type 23s had been offered to Malaysia, perhaps that is where Westminster and… Montrose that retired last year? Not sure if anyone really wants either ship considering the condition they seem to be in.
MRSS could be good but the main problem is lack of escorts for these ships. If they have to operate alone and not be a sitting duck, they will need decent detection capabilities and weapons to defend themselves, and not just CIWS.
Hi folks hope all is well.
This good news. Caught sight last night in the Telegraph.
My concern is when Labour are in government, how safe is this program? It all sounds good and is very encouraging in a much needed increase in the defence budget. Personally I would like to see 3/3.5 percent increase in GDP and major recruitment drive in both military personnel and military industry. Anyway, hopefully this is the right trajectory to go forward.
Cheers
George
The Torys did the exact same in 1996 and labour committed to follow Tory spending plans. Rachel Reeves has done the same again. The gigantic issue is that the Tory’s are lying about all of this and they have no plan or intention of increasing the defence budget to 2.5% of GDP so there is nothing for labour to follow. They actually cut the defence budget this year in a year where Russia is going to war in Europe. Why would they suddenly decide to increase it.
Because there is an election coming up.
2.3% of GDP spent in 2023/24. 2.5% adds @£5b per year. With everything either already ordered or committed to, including Tempest and AUKUS, the budget will have to be increased from its current level. Add in aid to Ukraine and replenishment of ammunition stocks and that’s your 2.5% of GDP.
Without that modest increase, there would have to be further cuts. There is nothing dishonest in the defence secretary’s statements.
Two things wrong with this maths. First you need to take GDP and inflation forecasts into account. Most of the governments promised money is just to maintain the “2.3%”, and only £20bn to increase it. Second the £20bn is backloaded. So it may average a little under £3bn a year, but there’s nothing this year and about £6.3bn in 2030/31 after a second general election.
Over the next 6 years there would be £14bn, all of which was already spoken for by Sunak’s new initiatives (munitions – £6bn , Ukraine £3bn, R&D, family accommodation, new HQ, etc, etc). There is not even a modest increase.
Nothing wrong with my maths. The latest government figure for defence expenditure is 2.3% of GDP. Raising it to 2.5% by 2030 won’t deliver additional equipment/ personnel because it will be needed to fund existing and planned programmes.
I think we are saying the same thing.
The real defence budget is more like 1.97% of GDP. The only reason we are even at 2.3% is because of Ukraine aid which is being double counted as foreign aid and military spending. We are also legally committed to spend 0.7% of GDP on aid, the Tories never changed that law, just ignored it which labour won’t do.
Ukraine aid won’t last forever, the budget will increase as GDP increases however that’s a long way from the treasury actually parting with 0.5% of GDP and spending it on things that go boom.
It’s not add into Ukraine, Ukraine is already part of the budget as the Cons own Mark Francois outed in Cmtte the other week. Disgusted with this Govt.
Except Peter that I make our current defence spending, 2023/4, just 1.97%. The procurement black hole between aspirations and budget is so large that it would account for most and probably all of the supposed 2.5%, before we add in Ukraine expenditure.
So even with 2.5%, we will be lucky to avoid further cuts.
A point I’ve made many times, Labour and Tory parties only try to match the other rather than big bold plans of their own. So again why do people vote for these 2 parties is beyond me. Defintion of madness is doing the same thing over and over (for decades) and expecting a different result.
The other major parties, lib Dems, greens, SNP would all see big cuts in defence spending. So who to vote for if you actually want an increase in defence spending.
Reform UK or Britain First maybe but then there is always a chance they would spend the defence budget on gas chambers.
I haven’t decided who to vote for yet, I did vote Labour a few times but not for me know, can’t be bothered with the out dated class war mentality. Maybe the MRLP.
However, I think the turnout at the next election will be very low as people just don’t like the choices they have. We’re going to have another who do you dislike the least vote.
Maybe because there is a general election about to be called and the Tories need the votes??
Don’t worry too much. It will not only be internal consideration that will shape the future budget of UK defense program. Germany is on a path toward 3% of the GDP. This is very likely to happen given the popularity of Mr Pistorius and the likely coalition that will emerge from German general elections next year. Pressure will be tremendous for France to match German military budget, so French budget will go up to 4% of GDP. Every other budget will be lowered to reach this target. If France and Germany increases budget, most likely UK will increase budget as well in coming years. The balance of power within Europe is linked to these equilibriums. It has been this way since the beginning of the peace in Europe. We will see if someone wants to break it or not. I don’t see it happening, it never really does. We are all at peace between each other, but military budget are almost always equal. France is going for nuclear, Air Force, navy, space force and cyber, approximately in this order. I think UK is going for navy, Air Force, nukes, cyber and space force, approximately in this order while Germany is going for Air Force, ground forces, space, navy and cyber, approximately in this order of priority. Italy focuses on navy and Air Force, Spain on air force, ground force, navy, Poland land forces, Air Force, navy and cyber. All other nations have specific target to reach in the security framework. UK will be strong, I have no doubts about it.
There is no way Germany will surpass British spending.
German defence spending has hardly risen despite the contrary.
French defence spending is the same it will maintain as it is.
Hum… I don’t know. I think German budget has risen to 65 Bn€ per year on defense. It was not too big before. My point is not to say that German budget will surpass UK or French budget. My point is that it is a game where all 3 budget are almost equal and this has been true for decades. Whenever one of the 3 mentioned is increasing budget, the other 2 align. Budget are decreasing almost simultaneously in all 3 countries and do increase the same way. That’s the only thing that is very stable. I am not talking of percentage of GDP or action outside Europe. Just saying that the big 3 have approximately the same budget in global amount. That’s very constant over the last 80 years. It is an unwritten rule that is far more important than any political changes in the 3 mentioned countries. Since Germany has a bigger economy, they have a lower % of GDP allocated to military spendings.
Germany has 2 issues: on in the west, one in the east. They don’t want to look menacing to the west. Since they are now deeply concerned to what happens in the east, military spendings will increase. In order to avoid wakening old demons and fear, France will align. Whatever social program we will have to cut to achieve that. And UK will be aligned as well. May be UK will increase spendings first, I don’t know about that. But if so, even if we don’t feel threatened, we will align.
Question is how we will manage to maintain the equilibrium and parity with Germany. I don’t know that for sure yet, but I am almost certain it will happens, because consequences of not moving are even bigger. And we want peace and stability maintained in Europe.
Thanks Math for your detailed reply. Yes that’s true about the history of European militaries. Whatever the outcome, we need to press on urgently to commence with new equipment building, otherwise this is going to be a 1930s moment again.
Cheers
George
No mention seemingly anywhere for increasing manpower. All Politicians seem to think a useless specimen gets recruited, issued a uniform, given a rifle and that constitutes what being a soldier to be. At a rough guesstimate it would take up to 6 years to produce one fully equiped Division that can fight as an integrated force. Some very steep learning curves to be conquered. The very last thing we need is to rush the first tranche of recruits into the front line. Train them well and hard. Lay off the emphasis on drill and ceremonial tasks. Most importantly it needs to start now! Time is the commodity we don’t have. Designs for equipment must be fast tracked. No political party should be able to make decisions without conferring with Uniformed staff. Civil Servants should be the last port of call. Keep the ego’s out of the process.
I hope for something like this. Absalon-class frigate – Wikipedia
I’m hoping for Albion with a 5in and Sea Ceptor.
Just a few musings in response to what seems positive news. This is a little confusing at first sight it seems we have gone from seemingly being willing to pretty much cut off RM specialist sea borne capabilities at the knees, to now giving them 6 new state of the art ships to play with and all managed without a ‘Review’ that Govts so love but of course would be meaningless presently.
So is it another case of words and actions are not always truly being aligned, as others will no doubt point out from military experience? So what’s the reality, is this more of a pr job or real commitment, or to be really cynical merely offering up a plan they would have no intention of delivering anyway if re elected, that they are just expecting the next Govt to cut back on instead and taking the hit leaving the Tories to look better in retrospect. Also I note it says ‘up to 6 ships’ which as they note will be replacing an existing 6 and that if history repeats itself will never reach that number in reality with us being told that the likely 3 or 4 built are immeasurably more capable than those they replace blah, blah, blah.
Finally and this is well beyond my pay grade to answer, is this the best plan for spending any more money that. becomes available to our armed forces, or even our navy? Would it be better used on other projects and prioritiez when we are so short of frigates and destroyers or indeed submarines. Will such ships to support large scale RM landing ops be even practical in future war zones? Will their main objective be to attract new recruits via those flash adverts, look good on port visits, snowing the flag and at best moving forces equipment around, or helping in major relief operations? What do others more qualified think? Is this as much, or perhaps more political strategic considerations for future exploitation than actual military priorities, or is it an important sustainment or even potential upgrade on present vitally important capabilities, or a mix of the two.
Any change in plans will become an absolute cut. Remember how we reduced the number of destroyers to pay for a faster build of new frigates? Cut the money from MRSS to pay for something else and the cut will happen, but the something else won’t.
The entire idea of the new amphibious concept these ships will support is more agile marine forces inserted from further away and primarily by air rather than landing craft. The USMC is going for much the same.
Given current situation it is immensely useful. Poland is building a massive mechanised army on the Central European plane which Germany should soon be supporting.
Russia being a nation of donkeys unable to provide land based logistics more than 40 KM from a rail hub now means that if they want to piss off or threaten NATO then the northern Scandinavia route and Baltics is all they have. So the UK Amphibious capability and the JEF is more important than ever.
The best way to keep the US engaged in NATO is to offer engagement in the Indo pacific, the US is desperately short on many things for a war with China, SSN are their main concern, amphibious ships are their second. The US amphibious fleet is old, breaking down frequently and very expensive to replace in US ship yards. the UK having 6 x 20,000 tonne LPD’s backed up by two 65,000 lightning carriers is a massive capability for the US. It means we can add 30-40% of their amphibious capability.
“the UK having 6 x 20,000 tonne LPD’s backed up by two 65,000 lightning carriers is a massive capability for the US. It means we can add 30-40% of their amphibious capability”
Nice political perspective. Assuming the North Atlantic is secured I think you have hit the nail on the head.
Given that MRSS hasn’t been detailed, whether or not they’re a net benefit to the RM as a Brigade will be very up in the air.
I think this is the best option. Escort construction takes up all the build space through till early 2030’s. In one form or other this class of ship is required and may yield export orders. It also keeps skills in large complex ship building alive.
To those that say we should give up on global Britain I say that the Global part of the world is where the most dynamic development is taking place. Already the Bays are some of our key participants. In the Atlantics we have a duty to take Everything down to Antarctica with the utmost importance.
The Bulwark and Albion are fine ships but lacking in economy of operation and air.
No indication how large these ships will be: 15k t?
Blah, Blah. The Torys are finnished and Labour will just say “That was the last govenment who said that, not us” Nothing will happen….😎
These ships and the Royal Marines are an offensive capability. With the parlous state of air defences to defend these isles and its population, I can’t help but think MOD/Tories have got the priorities wrong. I would be happier if the increased spending was spent to upgrade our defensive capabilities as Poland is doing, and along the lines of Israel’s Iron Dome.
Because of the delays with the FSSS i am struggling to see where these ships can even be built. As far as I can see H&W won’t be able to do it. Rosyth maybe if we don’t do the T32 but then where will the QE class dry dock for refit.
Do we reactivate a yard at Birkenhead just to then see either Rosyth or H&W close again a few years later for lack of work.
It’s jam tomorrow type procurement we have gotten use to.
Carrier strike bigger than any time since the 70’s but no carriers for 10 years.
Fleet Solid Support ships with 3 purpose built designs but 1 old one in service for 10 years.
13 frigates on order but make do with 9 for now.
We should really be focusing on retaining the yards we have and giving them a constant build cycle with Rosyth and Clyde doing surface combatants, Barrow with subs and Belfast doing large FAA vessels.
It’s not fair on these communities to ask them to ramp up an industry only to see it close down again after a decade when the works dried up.
Reuter reported 28 ships in build or planned. This includes the MRSS so
8 T26
5 T31
2 Astute
4 Dreadnoughts
3 FSS
6 MRSS
So 28, no T32. But that won’t be cancel in this government, just chuck that one at Labour to cancel 😀
To be honest it’s maybe not a bad fleet especially if we get some more RFA Stirling castle type ships for MCM but 5 T32 would have been very nice.
Yeah if the MRSS are multi role and given we don’t go around storming beaches on a weekly basis then these could be used as base ships for unmanned platforms which was the T32 role.
If its true I hope the young are willing too sign up and serve no more cuts or lowering of standards
Would these be RN or RFA? – just as a matter of interest.
Disguise the retirements with the announcement of new shiny renders of ships they’ll have obligation to uphold since they won’t be in government. Rats
hmmm surely you do retire old ships and replace them with new… I don’t keep my old washing machine when I get a new one 😀
Renders are not ships, they are unlikely to be fulfilled promises
That would make perfect sense if your new washing machine was being delivered before you got rid of your old one.
Your analogy would need to be – I have thrown away my old washing machine and my cooker and possibly my microwave as I’ve ordered a combined washer/oven/microwave device from Curry’s that they have shown me a nice brochure about – and could be ready in a decade or so.
Well at least with Argyle they are following your white goods analogy by taking away a frigate while delivering the new one. But you are right they usually do that upon delivering the new one not years before delivery.
Yeh, so there Expat 🙃🕳️
You haven’t seen my kitchen 😀
Well by my experience I would advise them to leave the old ships out in the front garden and within hours they will have conveniently disappeared to who knows where.
Cynical me is reading that we are retiring 6 ships into the 2030’s and replacing with ‘up to’ 6 new ships. We all know what that really means.
If they were really serious, they’d order 6 and benefit from efficiency savings in manufacture.
Wait for the… ‘Oh these 3 new ships are so super duper fancy that we really don’t need 6 anymore’.
When in reality the rise to 2.5% of GDP will JUST ABOUT plug the hole in the defence budget for current planned spending.
Lot of mouldy accommodation and stagnant pay rates to address out of that finite budget.
Where is the news on MROSS No2 and the 3 Mother vessels for MCM work?
I echo others comments, “up to 6” MRSS does not mean 6. It means….nothing, they are not ordered yet.
LPDs may not be scrapped or mothballed but are sitting idle like the Waves.
The drop to 15 escorts was first reported over a decade ago the way things were going. So this should be the bottom of the curve before numbers grow again with the 13 new. Shame on this government for delaying GCS/T26 to the point Montrose Monmouth Argyll and Westminster coukd go no more.
The trick will be if T32 or T31B2 happen. If not, their “growing the RN” is in reality just reaching the previous new low benchmark of 19 escorts, which was set in 2010 when the 4 T22B3 were cut.
We all know a number in the mid 20s is required.
Bloody politicians, I despise the lot of them.
Politicians words are usually very nuanced and often tell more than the apparent numbers !
”With up to 28 ships and Submarines being built or in the pipeline”. Is now precisely correct, no more and no less but it’s Smoke and Mirrors and I’ll try and explain.
GE coming up, Ricky has announced defence as a marker point compared to Labour, so Crapps has to back that up. So he is announcing something already in plan and that really can’t be ignored, but doesn’t actually cost a penny right now (Tax cuts !).
He has announced “up to 6 MRSS” will be built and also that Albion/Bulwark will not go “before” 2033/34. Which is great because we cannot build replacements anywhere in UK before that. The only yard that can do it is H&W and they will be busy on FSS till 32/34 (allowing for slippage). So they and the Bays will soldier on till mid/late 30’s or be gapped.
It is actually a really clever bit of Politics, they are sticking to the NSBS by announcing the MRSS (a year early), but it will go out to concept for a year and not cost a penny till post GE. And looking at some political stuff it may just ensure that some key Tory constituencies are a tad safer.
Add up 8 T26, 5 T31, 2 Astutes (still in build), 4 SSBN, 3 FSS and now “up to” 6 MRSS and you get 28.
Now for the bits that are missing T31 B2 / T32, T83, MROS in fact not one single extra actual Warship.
A “Golden Age” and not spent a penny !🥴
Yep, as I said. Still only 19 escorts and nothing actually new.
Sadly, no one in journalism with a wider audience seems to have the defence knowledge to point out the realities. The BBC will just report and the Telegraph is already grandstanding.
How about a UKDJ affiliated YouTube channel were some of us with the time and knowledge put the reality out there?
That’s a great idea there are many out there on YouTube but most are click bait level or American so a DJ version would be a welcome addition to add a sense of studied and focused reality and with out the terrible accents or/and Ai voice overs.
Agreed, UK-centric defence reporting is normally very surface level, industrial announcements, or broadsides from Americans who don’t quite appreciate their good fortune in being the world’s only superpower.
UKDJ and Navy Lookout do a good job of trying to pick up the slack, but may be too many irons int he fire to try doing YouTube too…
Isn’t that what their OSINT podcast is supposed to do?
I agree, having well-informed and balanced content on wider media would be really good, especially for this site 😉😉
Don’t worry I’m sure sky news will dig up some more old generals to tell us the problem really is we don’t have enough tanks and cap badges.
Sky news are repeating parrot fashion that we are getting all these new ships “due to the 2.5%”
Which is baloney!!
19 escorts? 6+9 = 15, doesn’t it? Oh, you mean eventually, right?
Many a strategic review between now and eventually. “But we have the contracts.” “But we can still sell some to Chile for no good reason.” I’m feeling pretty depressed about it all today.
I meant the previous bare minimum from 2010 that should be maintained but has dropped off the cliff by delays.
13 T23 and 6 T45. 19.
The new T26 plus T31s plus the T45s maintain that.
And already that was far too small!
And they grandstand like it’s a result.
I still think 3 extra Type 31’s and then further down the line – 8 replacement Destroyers .. So l guess that would start to happen around the 2040’s. Then the RN would reach 24 Destroyers/Frigates.
I know that would be a very long waiting game, but the way things are at the moment just seems more feesable.
DM simple truth is they left any uplift in. Umbers anytime soon, way too late by about a decade. Our yards are completely full with very little wiggle room for at least 5 years. So anything they announce right now is pointless.
The real indication of future intent is in the infrastructure programmes. 😉
Reason to be hopeful then.
Better dust off your best suit Daniele, and practice reading an autocue!
I like the idea, potentially even a collaboration with Navy Lookout. But I think everyone involved does it in their spare time- and that kind of thing becomes really one hell of a commitment to feed that YouTube algorithm…
That is the thing mate. I can contribute my knowledge on all things ORBAT and basic comparisons with how things were, from 95 on. But I have very little techie knowhow, no idea how to start, and, as you say, it is the time commitment. Easier if a larger number contributed, and retired sorts to boot.
What I’d like is a widely available source to contradict the UTTER CRAP political parties of all shades get away with, without challenge.
To be fair, UKDJ already is such a place.
Podcasts have much more limited reach than youtube videos unfortunately.
Yes, UKDJ does well- although you’re right that even a modest Youtube channel can spread information wider if you get the right tags and stuff.
I think people would be a lot more concerned about security in general if they had proper critical reporting of government announcements- but for their part none of them have true defence correspondents that aren’t specialised towards the international politics side. Mind you, the MOD certainly don’t help themselves either by not crossing government statements, in the US they’re far more forthright.
Daniele, there are not 19 escorts. There will not be 19 escorts. 45s will go out of service before all the 26s are in service.
Surface fleet has been cut and there is no getting away from that; it is a disgrace.
I read we can put a max of 4 escorts to sea at the moment; it is incredulous but, hey ho.
M8 do you know that George (as in the journalist why writes this) was at the conference ? So ….
I did, yes. I follow him on Twitter.
The daft thing is that have just left a massive open goal if Starmer has the balls to go for it !
All he has to do is challenge them on the detail and announce that if gets in he will review the numbers of Frigates, CR3 and Typhoons and guarantee the numbers will not go down.
Which isn’t exactly difficult !
Hmmmm. As you know, I trust Labour even less than the Tories.
So I will wait on that one while not holding my breath, sorry!
I’d ask you to join the Party that trusts none of them…
Given the state of the sleepers in Millom, where nuclear runs over them every few hours, not sure we have much time left to make a choice…
😉
In London from July, hopefully find time for a coffee, take care buddy.
Yes mate.
Yes what a political win. But does that help us from a defence perspective. Political parties need to stop playing the game of just slightly out doing the other or matching the other. It is very inspiring to know that Starmers ballsy play is to errr match Tories on defence…. face palm, just how did we get to this….
It’s not a game and that’s the problem, but Politicians rule the roost budget wise. Right now we cannot build any more ships even if we wanted to.
The future is tying the buggers down to future commitments but backed up with the necessary investment in capacity to deliver.
Thats the best hope we have.
Labour are absolutely CR@P at detail on defence; when someone speaks out from the Labour Party, that someone gets banned. Should tell you all you need to know.
Michelle Scrogham, you are pants.
What I’m a bit puzzled by, frankly, is what (let’s be positive) 6 MRSS are going to be doing?
We’ve just cut our Marines down to raiders and fleet protection specialists, unless I’m very much mistaken- what are we going to be launching from these 20,000 Te vessels? Even assuming a 50% rotational allowance, so 3 are in refit/training, I’m not even sure we’ll get use out of 3…
Only thing I can think of is that one each will be the centrepiece of an LRG (north and south) and the other supports disaster response in the Caribbean? But that’s a lot of ship to do the LRG role, or at least for the troops that make up an LRG. We’ve not got enough airlift for both LRG to have long range insertion capability, even if we had enough raider marines to do something big (unless we stage with 16AA?); and as we’ve not got any non-raider marines we can’t really go about a larger scale amphibious landing without adding additional infantry and heavier troops.
Asking you because you have a far better handle on ORBAT than I!
Raiders at smaller scale still need mother ships mate as much as an entire Cdo Group on an LPD. As does the future autonomous kit and Drones. Size is a flexible asset, look at the QEC.
Add SF to that, they could use such vessels. We have FIC for example that could deploy from the well dock. ( At least 3, as I have seen 3 sitting in Poole! )
Yes we are not talking of landing in Bde or even Commando Strength, the LRG have a Company assigned from each parent Commando, Forty and Four Five.
Aviation is a good point.
A Chinook sized Hanger could give us the ability to use the ER Chinooks, though the CHF is small with only 3 Sqns and 25 FAA Helis plus how many Wildcat 847 NAS can get their hands on ( Army cabs )
My outline, which I put elsewhere, was keeping the 2 LRG N & S with 2 vessels each, so 4, with 2 spare for other tasks, refit, HADR, and so on.
I will be amazed if we get 4, sadly.
I need to meet you and have a tea 😉
Rule of 4, 1 is available
Rule of 3, 1 is available
Bud, I don’t understand your optimism.
Right now, HMCG are being tasked as first responders to… anything, anywhere on UK mainland; I don’t mind that, I just wonder why Ambulance, Fire and Police need us to be there at the same time as them.
This country is reaching an apex moment.
Maybe I’m underestimating the size of the vessel required, it just seems such a lot for vessel for the role of carrying around a raiding force in FICs and launching some drone boats- you could do that with a mission bay. Putting a well deck in for that mission seems like you’re buying a tipper truck for taking your household rubbish to the tip… But you have a point- steel and air are cheap.
Yes, our rotary lift force could be in a better place. For the size of our forces, I actually think we have quite a few Chinook- but our medium lift force is comparatively very thin on the ground unless I’m very much mistaken. If we’re going to spend money anywhere, it’s this new contract for the replacement of Puma et al.
Interesting on the force structure, 2 each is generous if you only have a company of Marines!
In my opinion, if we are treating Marines as raiders, then I think that our regular units (primarily the Boxer ones, I’m thinking) should take on a greater amphibious role- because we’re not going to be able to support defending the high north if all we can land in a hurry are raiders.
Which is exactly why I see the RM going all light raiding and configuring the ships to match is an error. I think they should be going medium! So retaining the ability to put heavier stuff ashore.
Agree on medium lift, just the Pumas and 25 Merlin of the CHF.
Good point on 2 ships for a Coy! But I based them on 2 each as LRG(N)had a LPD and Bay, and LRG(S) has a Bay and Argus. A bit of a mismatch in capabilities where the MRSS will hopefully do aviation and lift and other stuff. The capacity to expand is good and just because only 1 Coy of each is forward deployed afloat assume both can be enlarged if the situation requires it.
I take your point- I’ve always had a thought that revising how we think of our armed forces more towards how the Americans consider the USMC might be a good idea. Ultimately, they’re the expeditionary hard punch, that takes the fight away from our shores and protects any distant interests- and that’s what our military needs to be. Yes, I know that we have CASD and a mission to protect UK airspace, our sovereign economic area, and suchlike- so the analogy can’t be exact. But certainly, a bit of a change of perspective wouldn’t go amiss in my view.
So what are the 28 ships in the pipeline and do they include the promised type 32s , no specifics on numbers and types given . Also the type 83s are due to replace type 45s , are they included or are they for the future . Could someone please give details as to what the 28 are .
2 Astutes
8 T26
5 T31
3 FSS
4 Dreadnoughts
6 MRSS
Yep it’s 28 🤷🏼♂️ I had to scratch my head but the way he has defined it includes the 2 Astutes still being built.
So 6 subs, 13 Frigates, 3 FSS and now 6 MRSS.
If T83 was to be included then so would SSN AUKUS.
28 have been announced atleast, probably bad news for T32 though which was previously announced but now no longer seems to be budgeted for.
It’s irrelevant what extra they announce if it isn’t in the NSBS because that is the reality of what we can deliver.
The crunch time for both T32/ T31b2 or T83 being announced is when we get the first T31 in the water, commissioned and in service. Then it’s squeaky bottom time for MOD.
Shapps is a known liar. His use of the names Michael Green, Corinne Stockheath and Sebastian Fox tells you everything you need to know about him. As others have posited, when the vessels are in the water, then the hyperbole can be believed.
So aren’t these the ships that will use a Dutch design, all for collaberation but recently we’ve done very well on exporting our designs and with it UK components. I would prefer to see UK have design authority and rights then leverage that for exports (as long as we build a sesnsible product)
There is an article on Navy Lookout about this.
Apparently the Dutch have already pulled out of a full collaboration, requirements were diverging. At least they had to good common sense to call it early!
May be some sharing on the systems level…
Cheers CR
What a load of rubbish, with no placement what does this leave the ready available fleet down to 2-3 frigates and destroyers? A defence force is not a fleet I would like to see the Navy’s battle plans if it ever kicked off in the Falklands, but im under the impression that’s the long term plan.
All talk about up to 2.5% and 28 vessels in build but where’s the contracts for parts orders and what is the employment plan long term? All up in arms to be honest ready for the new government to make new sweeping cuts.
I would say a battle in the Falklands would be the best scenario for the current RN Force to counter especially considering how lacking Argentina is and the size and capability of the Queen Elizabeth class.
It’s other roles it’s lacking in.
Ordering 3 to replace 6 with the possibility of building up to another 3 in the future once they’ve left office actually sound like a Defence cut.
How dare you suggest it sounds like a cut! This government works harder than any before them to make sure all cuts sound like new spending.
This type of vessell should have been built at the old Appledore Yard in Devon.But no our useless MPs have decided to give the work to Scotland.In a few years time it will be independent and no RN ships should be built there.They should fend for themselves and compete in the international market by means of ‘tender’ and I really can see the French,Germans,Dutch etc giving them contracts to build their ships,can’t you.BAe are playing a dangerous game,relying on the tried and tested english taxpayer to pay for everything.No wonder the Tories are on their way out.
Honestly I’m not sure if you’re joking or just really thick, these are 20,000 tonne ships and you want to build them at Appledore.
Have you ever seen Appledore?
It’s like trying to build the Great eastern on the Thames.
I beg your pardon,I must apologize,this is what sometimes happens with a rushed reply.I did indeed infer that they could have been built at Appledore, that was an error on my part.I was thinking more about the need for RN coastal vessells and marine support boats,something we are desperately short of.Not forgetting border security,a task that will shortly be beyond the capability of the RNLI,who are currently also engaged in picking up asylum seekers on our beeches.I stick to my thoughts with regard to BAe and the degree of foresight to put ‘all their eggs in one basket’.Indeed they are going to try and expand their construction infrastructure north of the border.Bearing in mind the probable political structure we will have in this country within the next decade,perhaps BAe would benefit from an expansion of facilities in the south.In the fullness of time this may prove to be a shrewder policy.
The RNLI is a registered charity whose entire remit is saving the lives of people in danger at sea. They are not “Border Security” and never have been. If you have a problem with the RNLI rescuing people at danger at sea (again, their only job, and they’re mostly volunteers) then frankly you’re a bit of moral vacuum.
RN doesn’t maintain a coastal flotilla beyond Cutlass, Dagger, Tracker and Raider (Cutlass and Dagger entered service in 2022 btw, so not in need of replacement any time soon). As for Marine support boats: the recent support ships of the RFA have been ordered from South Korea and H&W in Belfast, not Scotland.
BAe’s only shipbuilding facility south of the border is Barrow, which is building Submarine (which rather hilariously they are also investing in and upgrading).
Not only will MRSS not fit into Appledore, but also the contract is not awarded and probably not going to Scotland when it does get awarded.
Appledore had issues building the Irish P60 class at under 2500 tons, how do you think they could build ships far bigger than that?
Six ship’s ? do we have enough RM for this . Don’t get me wrong all for it or is just an Election move.There again if Labour get in chances are won’t be happening 😞
The idea is they’re much smaller than the existing LPDs, so a lower number of embarked Marines. I like the idea though, gives us greater coverage
Actually the Army can and do operate off amphibious ships as well.
RM forward deployed in smaller groups, still need shipping.
We have 6 now for the role.
6 would maintain the LRS(S) and LRS(N) stance with 2 ships each, plus 2 spare to cover for refits.
Both can amalgamate to form a LSG if needed for a major operation, as now.
When Labour get in, I’ve forecasted before the LRG,LSG concept is a goner given their constant rhetoric against anything beyond the European theatre.
The killer question is do you need an KUR to carry and land CR3 over a Beach or not ?
If yes then you have to have 20k ships with all the “Bells and Whistles’ and probably be lucky to get 3.
If not then take a look at the Damen MPSS 9000 design, it’s a bit too small but a mix of 3 of those and a larger version would do the trick. It also means that like the bays they can really multi task in peacetime.
It’s literally a 1-1 replacement for the current ships.
Yep and that is probably the best reason why we may just actually get 6 hulls, it’s all down to the tasking they all perform.
Albion and Bulwark are dedicated LPD.
Argus is a bodged, jack of all trades and can act as an LPH.
The bays are LSD so backups for the Bulwarks. But are being used as Caribbean / Falklands Guard ship, disaster relief, mother ships and accommodation for building a mobile port ! They are probably in peacetime the most flexible, reliable ships we have had since WW2.
Now bearing in mind the 2 likely scenarios of landing in Norway or the Falklands and us only having 148 MBT does anyone think we need to be able to carry CR3 ?
I don’t so ditch that as a KUR and max vehicle load of 40 tonnes and ability to operate Helicopters and UAV.
The article has provided an image of the BMT Ellida design which is their probable submission for the MRSS, the usual other suspect is the Dame Enforcer.
But if we need a really flexible ship that can carry out a plethora of peacetime tasks but Amphibious in Wartime then I’d look at alternatives.
Last year we signed a MOU with Netherlands to design a joint replacement for both Navy’s Amphibs, but Netherlands wants them to replace their OPV as well. Which with the usual thinking of 6 x 16k tonne LPD/LSD doesn’t work.
Nos take a look at the Damen MPSS 9000 design and think what would happen if we ordered 3 of those and asked for a design for 3 larger ones of about 16K tonnes.
FYI Damen has sold a MPSS 7000 to Portugal and it’s going to carry UAVs as well as a host of other Tasks including light Amphib.
Nice thing is our most likely partner in a NATO Amphibious operation is the Netherlands and we know they design very flexible and reliable Amphibious ships (after all we built 4 of them for ourselves).
.
Difficult, because ideally we’d land an armoured Brigade using point class in friendly ports, but if a port is out of commission, maybe having to land heavy stores over a friendly beach might be necessary.
The problem is there are so few fully fighting brigades at the moment: 16 AA is going to heli insert wherever they go. 12 and 20 can’t deploy on amphibs because Challenger? 4 won’t go anywhere until it’s reserves are called up. 19 is non deployable. ASOB, 3 Cmdo, 11SFA are not configured for this kind of deployment, so by process of elimination we are now desiging our amphibious requirement to only deploy 7? Or maybe 1 DSR?
The dutch seem to have issues with common projects right now, I think they’ve pulled out of F127 with Germany as well (Apparently they want a 16kt OPV but a 10kt “Frigate” is too big?)
You realise you’ve done exactly what they hoped you’d do – paraphrase the headline announcement as ‘Britain getting six new amphibious warships’ while only referencing the ‘up to’ in the body of the article. But the headline is what gets onto the search engine pages..
George is actually in London attending the conference on RFA Proteus 😉
Article incoming on that. Like the starship enterprise in some parts apparently.
Talking of MROSS, where is no2? And the MCM Mothers?
Trialing things properly takes time, and the idea of seeing if a commercially OTS solution will have to be “bomb proof” to be accepted.
It’s a massively courageous bit of OOTB thinking and the political consequences of getting the decision wrong would be serious.
Whilst France, Netherlands and Belgium are building purpose built City class Mother ships, we are trying a different way. Which to Jo Public may take some explaining.
I actually really like the idea because it’s a great way to have a core Regular Capability but backed up by other available OSSV. You just need the containerised kit and trained reservists.
I do have to smile about the irony of having to interrupt the ongoing trials so they can use Proteus as a conference hall. It’s like Monty Python “No absolutely no shortage of ships here !”.
Believe it when we see them ,pinch of salt, one outgoing loads of useless replaced by another load of useless 😑, what an option,
It’s better than that, they’re not just idiots, but idiots that actively hate you/us with a burning passion
Spot on levi,take care 👌
I cant think your comment is conducive to the good conduct of this blog.
That would be the same ‘up to six’ that was announced in 2022?
So about the question of whether we should be able to deploy Challenger from them. I understand wanting to deploy our heaviest equipment. But might he medium forces – whatever they are now called – be a better model for these. The question then is a bit different – can we deploy Boxer/ Ajax/ supporting arms. Lighter and smaller, though you still wouldn’t want one to run over your toe obviously 🙂
It just seems to my rather uneducated mind that the proposed role for the new medium force might be a better fit with the idea of a landing that doesn’t use an existing harbour?
Given we will have 148 I’d guess there will not be enough to deploy !
Why would we deploy Boxer/Ajax without Challengers? If you look at our Orbat, Boxer and Ajax are brigaded with Challenger, and if they deploy they’d be in battlegroups build around a Boxer Battalion with a Challenger Squadron.
Or you’re suggesting putting Ajax and Boxer on a Amphib and leaving Challengers to fight alongside 1 UK div…which is just so much “No”
Well the last time we actually carried out a real war time amphibious operation I suspect we ignored Orbat or any other plan.
No MBT were deployed In the Falklands.
We didn’t ignore the Orbat. for the Falklands, we deployed 3 Cmdo Brigade, which was the Rapid Reaction Force, and 5 Infantry Brigade which was the “Out of Area” Brigade, and reinforced them with the Public Duties Battalions.
Both formations where Light Role Infantry Brigades, we did not cut any armoured Brigades in half to do that. Neither formation was trained to operate alongside MBTs.
Orbats exist for a reason, Armoured Infantry (even if they are in APCs) are specifically trained to support tanks, and vice versa, and you are not going to strip MBT’s out of the only formations that are equipped and trained to work alongside them.
7 Bde it has to be then. Especially if they assign them to NATO flank, much like the old 1 Bde in AMF(L)
I wonder has this got anything to do with the upcoming general election.🤔 As the saying goes words are cheap, I foresee that after the election all these promises of new equipment and increased in military spending will quietly disappear. I wouldn’t trust a politician as far as I could throw him.
So not even designed yet, oh that is wish full thinking i guess. I bet there will not be six
Up to six , eh? One is “up to six” isn’t it? Highly doubt we’ll buy more than 3, whichever clownshow is in power.
Was the T32 deliberately avoided in this article ?
Will be interesting to see what actually materialises. Over the past 20 years we have gone from 1 x LPH, 2 x LPD and 4 LSD(A) to 3 x LSD(A) (One of which is permanently supporting UK MCM forces in the Gulf). Our ability to lift a Commando Group with all its associated equipment and deliver it to anywhere in the world has been significantly eroded, and I doubt 6 x MRSS will improve that. Who is going to crew them? RFA? RN? Mixed? We do not have enough manpower to put the LPDs to sea at the moment, let alone crew these vessels. Something that will either be built and sold off (remember RFA Largs Bay?), or cut to save money for something that we ultimately don’t need.
Telegraph Headline – Six
Telegraph report – Up to six
BBCR4 Interview with Shapps this afternoon – definitely three.
Pretty impressive even by this government to cut a fleet in half in a day.
Just goes to show – never believe a headline, especially its seems in The Telegraph
2 batches of 3 are planned, but yes at a minimum it’ll be 3
Spin of the highest order!!
The T26, T31, Astute and Dreadnaughts are like for like replacement for T23, Trafalgar and Vanguard and the programmes have been running , in most cases, for decades absolutely nothing at all to do with an increase in spending “announced” in the last month.
The FSS are also little more than likely for like replacement, or at best are putting us back where we were a few years ago.
The MSS are THREE committed ships not six, it is “up to six” the same meaning as fitted for but not with. They are also not really a brand new capability.
The only upswing I can read is the desire to mothball Albion and Bulwark some time in the distant future.
Total spin and hot air campaigning “fibs” defined to deceive.
One thing else, no mention of the unicorn like mythical beasts bought about by a Boris brain/mouth hiccup Viz a Viz the T32!!!!
hopefully a new HMS Fearless & Intrepid 👍
This is interesting spin, mult role support ships are specialist ships that cover a variety of roles..
Is this like only this government will increase defence by retiring 2 frigates.. we are definitely on the edge of spin here. How are they saying this with straight faces I’ll never know
Westminster is understandable. She will be out if service for years, is in a bad way, lots of money needed, and newer ships will arrive before then. So its a sensible move.
Argyll, I don’t get as I’d read she’s just had a refit.
My guess is that sale to BAe is setting up the disposal process for those T23 which have some life left in them.
6 new my eye! Anyhow… what’s wrong with Albion and Bulwark??
Good question. They are relatively new ships and I would guess are pretty close to the MRSS requirement. If they were given a refit I wonder whether some new technology could reduce their crewing requirement; and could this be what Shapps has in mind when he says up to 6: definitely 3 (the Bays?) but the LPDs might get a refurbish.
I am a bit confused with this announcement. My understanding of the MRSS was that they were meant to be replacements for the Waves and the Forts with possible other uses. If I remember correctly the original MRSS concept was also to have one possibly two RAS postions. Now they seem to be Support Base Ships for the Royals.
Whilst I think that they will make good support platforms for the Royals it will mean that the RFA need 6-8 smaller multi cargo replenishment ships, capable of transfering fuel and dry stores. These ships would run from bases to the fleet tankers/fleet support ships and top them up, then on to the next base reload and back out to the fleet RFAs. The Tides and future Solid Support Ships would then stay with the Task Group.
If HMG picks the BMT Ellida type then it is possible to use the same design for both Amphibious and replenishment variants.
That’s the FSS not MRSS. FSS (Fleet Solid Store) ships are replacements for the Forts (which we only have 1 of as we scrapped 1 and sold off 2 to Egypt).
MRSS Is the Multi Roll Support Ship which is to replace Argus, the 2 Albions and 3 Bays, so all our Amphibious ships.
Which blithering idiot puts “SS”in multiple UK Military acronym is either a blithering idiot or bloody dangerous. 🤔
I hope BMT will fix up the rear Phalanx. All the models show the exhaust stacks seemingly restricting the arc of fire. Can the flyco deck be built out a bit further or the stacks pushed forward to increase the arc to 180 degrees at least? And put as decent radar on top so maybe these ships can host containerised CAMM if ever needed.
“Up to six”. Which will be reduced to four, of which two will be built.
Will Labour continue with the ‘Golden Age’ of British (Scottish) Shipbuilding? What a bullshiner this bloke is!!
MRSS to replace Argus? What will do the AV support or is this another task for the Tides????
Shapps has now clarified to Sky News what the “up to six” means. A first batch of three MRSS’s will definitely be ordered, with an option for a second batch of another three which may be ordered.
Given the news around sir Galahad on bbc today, it’s critical that these ships have their own air defence capability. It’s clear that with such a small navy they cannot always expect to be protected by a frigate.
given their size 128 camm should be added.
we should learn from previous mistakes, not learn then ignore due to cost