A new report urges the government to outline its plans and timeline for the Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ship.
The UK Government has been urged to formulate a comprehensive strategy for the protection of offshore infrastructure by the Scottish Affairs Committee in its new report, ‘Defence in Scotland: The North Atlantic and the High North’.
This comes in light of increasing concerns about the vulnerability of critical national infrastructure situated offshore or beneath the sea to interference.
The committee referred to incidents such as the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline as evidence of the vulnerability of such infrastructure, specifically pointing to the North Atlantic’s transatlantic cables and the UK’s Exclusive Economic Zone. These areas are highlighted as potential targets for malign actors due to the integral role they play in communication lines and economic activities.
Despite welcome investment in subsea surveillance, such as the Multi-Role Ocean Support Ships, the report pointed out that significant vulnerabilities remain. The committee voiced concerns that the legal regime governing subsea cables appears to be weak, making these crucial infrastructures an attractive target for malign actors.
Further, the UK Government’s position that repair of subsea cables should be the responsibility of the cables’ commercial owners has drawn criticism from the committee. The report expressed unease that the government did not elaborate on how critical infrastructure could be repaired in the event of sabotage or failure.
In response to these concerns, the committee has recommended that the UK Government develop and publish a strategy for protecting offshore infrastructure. This strategy should detail how potential interference by malign actors could be deterred or prevented and how damaged infrastructure could be quickly repaired by their commercial owners.
The committee also urged the UK Government to provide a timeline for the refitted Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ship, RFA Proteus, and the future purpose-built Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ship to enter service. The government was also asked to confirm whether the intention, as stated in the 2021 Integrated Review, for the purpose-built MROSS to be built in Scotland, still holds.
“Events like the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline have shown that Critical National Infrastructure that is based offshore or beneath the sea can be vulnerable to interference. This is a concern in the North Atlantic, where transatlantic cables are critical lines of communication, as well as in the UK’s own Exclusive Economic Zone. Investment in subsea surveillance like the Multi-Role Ocean Support Ships is welcome, but vulnerabilities remain. We heard that weaknesses in the legal regime governing subsea cables makes them a tempting target for malign actors. The UK Government told us that repair of subsea cables was a matter for the cables’ commercial owners; we are concerned that the UK Government did not have more to say about how such important infrastructure could be repaired in the event of sabotage or failure.
The UK Government should produce and publish a strategy for protecting offshore infrastructure. This should include a plan for how attempts by malign actors to interfere with Critical National Infrastructure can be deterred or prevented, and how damaged infrastructure can be repaired quickly by their commercial owners. The UK Government should set out the timeline for the refitted Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ship, RFA Proteus, and the future purpose-built Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ship to come into service. It should state whether it is still the intention, as set out in the 2021 Integrated Review, for the purpose-built MROSS to be built in Scotland.”
Commenting on the report, Pete Wishart MP, Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee, said:
“The North Atlantic and the High North are becoming increasingly important to the defence interests of both the UK and NATO, and Scotland’s role in the defence arrangements is considered to be fundamental. During our inquiry we heard widespread agreement that the Arctic is of growing strategic importance and maintaining a well maintained and resourced military capability is essential to meet The UK’s defence interests. Because of its geography Scotland is home to a number of the UK’s strategic military assets and in our report we call on the UK Government to look at how the defence presence in Scotland could be scaled up if required to meet future threats if required. We are also calling for a review of the UK’s cold weather capabilities.
We also looked at the opportunities and threats that may emerge because of climate change in the Arctic and the High North. Emerging trade routes and the responsibility of protecting offshore and subsea infrastructure are likely to become emerging priorities in a fast changing environment. As a Committee, we’ve conducted a series of work on Defence in Scotland, and it’s clear to all the considerable contribution Scotland makes to the UK and NATO’s defence and security. This is a topic we will be keeping a close eye on. We wish to extend our gratitude to all those who work to defend us and keep us safe.”
Think about it , two years; postpone due to election- two years; consider again- two years; to get go ahead if successfully thought about- two years; design stage- five years; negotiations with Switzerland over tender to build- three years; decision finally made to build at home in refurbished and redundant Scottish ferry port- three years; cost escalates by 400 per cent but finally built for but not with superstructure;- six years. In service date-2050. 😉
That is cruel but very true.
can anyone kindly point me in the direction of any official Government announcement that says the 2nd MROSS ship is to be built in Scotland.
I’ve looked at the 2021 IDR, 2023 Refreshed IDR and the recent command paper and I am damned if I can find it.
Just mentions in 2021 IDR to be built in the U.K.
I smell a poisoned chalice question from the Scottish Committee 🤔
Say yes and get thumped by everyone in Liverpool, Devon and Belfast. Then be held to that commitment.
Say no it’s to be built in the U.K. and get whacked by the SNP.
The obvious answer would be to just point out the the previous statement and the Build will be somewhere in the U.K and thank them for their suggestion.
And then ask “bearing in mind this ship will likely be @6000 tonnes where exactly do they suggest it can be built ? Because the last time I checked Scottish shipbuilding was chocker till the next decade”.
Fergusons is too small and is badly congested with a permanent bad case of “Stickyshipyitis” which was nearly fatal.
Barrow. Please don’t even think about ! The last time they got a surface build it snarled up the SSN build schedule.
H&W have their hands full getting up to speed for the FSS builds.
And unfortunately Appledore is too small.
So IMHO it is time CL had a crack at a decent sized ship and build “RFA Diver McDiveface”.
Hi mate, not sure if we have a funding line in MOD for that yet, or even a design for the ship? Might be totally wrong mind, but if it is the case as you say, only limited options as to where we could possibly build them. Much will also depend on having enough skilled people to actually design/build them elsewhere in the UK.
I totally agree, although I’d call it Rossy MROSface.
Agreed. I don’t recall any such commitment either.
CL has been contracted to build the new Mersey Ferry, and they outsource the hull to Damen in Holland. CL will just outfit it. Again, I don’t know what will be constructed in the main assembly hall in the near future. You get a chance to build local skills, and you end up just sending the construction to Holland. I have nothing against Holland/Damen and understand that they merely bid for the project, but this seems counter productive when you want to build skill sets for future projects. I really do hope the outsourcing is to free up the assembly building for a big project.
Speaking of Mersey Ferry. the party boat just went by.
Sorry to add to your wows but the hull build is contracted to Damen who are headquartered in the NL, but they only outfit in NL. But their hulls are actually built at their Romanian shipyard due to the lower costs involved. Just take a look at all their recent Major Naval vessels.
Hence “CL has been contracted to build the new Mersey Ferry, and they outsource the hull to Damen in Holland”. It doesn’t matter if it’s Holland or Romania. It isn’t being built in Birkenhead. It won’t be a true Mersey Ferry.
Is it actually known that the hulls are definitely being built by Damen rather than CL or is that an assumption and fear and conjecture by Unite ?
The reason I’m asking is I read about the type of Green Ferry they announced that they want and Damen design and build loads of them all over the world and act as a design consultant for self builds.
I’d be really surprised if a Liverpool Politician would ever contemplate this it would be like announcing that LFC and EFC were merging or that the Beatles were from Leeds.
TBH if CL were actually going to do the build themselves it would make massive sense to have Damen as the designers.
https://www.damen.com/vessels/ferries
Yes. I contacted the Mayor of Liverpool’s office, and they confirmed that CL contracted the hull out to Damen and CL will fit it. That’s what they said. I guess, I should take it with a grain a salt in their wording and usefulness.
Some crackheads would steal it anyway
Gosport ferry needs a replacement
Perhaps have a woody Williams type ship(ugly but flexible. To do a lot of this spy ship, mothership stuff.
We have the first MROSS, the second is scheduled. HMS Scott has been extended for another ten years. Is it really something that we need to worry about right now where MROSS2 will be built? If the Scottish Affairs Committee want assurances that anything and everything that can be built in Scotland will be built in Scotland, they should be told where to get off.
I’m with Rodders. If we have to come down somewhere (and we don’t), it’d be Laird’s for me too.
Here is a novel idea.
Just get another STUFT like Proteus was and use that?
Will be quicker, and no doubt cheaper.
This is assuming that Proteus is capable enough for what we want these things to do, carry UUVs.
Assume such a vessel could also do Scotts Hydrographic role in support of our subs too?
I think that’s the point. Scott has very specialist gear and was built around its sensor capability. STUFT, COTS, whatever, wouldn’t/couldn’t be a direct Scott substitute.
Whether a plethora of UUVs could somehow do the same job and might be housed in a COTS mothership, I couldn’t say, but not a one-for-one replacement.
Yes, that was my one concern.
HI M8
If you want a laugh read this.
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/33700/documents/184116/default/
It is a previous report from this committee from January. I am a proud Scot but what this bunch are doing is scandalous. It is basically saying Scotland has an entitlement to all U.K. shipbuilding. If these dingbats keep this up then if I was English I would ask then to shut up, leave and close the door afterwards.
So they rant against the FSS build at H&W it should have gone to Scotland and on page 23 slate the decision to COST the 1st MROSS as it should have been a new build in Scotland.
Interestingly they also state that they don’t know where No 2 will be built.
Because surely they know the yards in Scotland are at capacity for years.
Petty politics interfering with national security issues again.
The build space next to HMS Venturer looks empty.
https://www.navylookout.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/HMS-Venturer-under-Construction-Rosyth.jpg
The UK should.look to STUFT more often,
I’ve just dug this out of the Parliamentary site and have shared it with Mr Mandelli. You may all find this interesting and quite how they get away with this Tripe is beyond me.
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/33700/documents/184116/default/
To those of you from England, Wales and N Ireland I can only say I am a Scot and a Unionist and am deeply ashamed of these MPs,
And the majority aren’t even SNP but Labour and Conservative MPs
Isn’t this behaviour the same as you get in the US. Isn’t it known as pork barrel politics.
While I don’t want private companies piggy backing profit off the military, they do everything to avoid paying taxes for, the government should repair it as a loan to be repaid.
You create a company/service in which the companies pay in funds to set up as well as something from the government and it is an emergency service to use with materials and equipment as pre-positioned and ready. You have similar kind of scheme to this in other industries too.
this is due to government lack of forward thinking we seen this happen good idea but takes years and years to come into service so we talking about 2040 by that time its all hot air under the heading UNDER REVIEW . RFA CREWED ,still it will be interesting when labour gets in and the defence review with in 100 days of office
The election in just over a year is the reason for no forward thinking, the reality is its going to be Labours problem, and of course Labour have a 5 year get out of jail card as they can blame the Tories for everything they don’t do in their first term. none of that helps of course but when did that matter in politics 🙂
Surely all this mothership this and mothership that is a role that could have been (still should) be done by the echo’s.