The Liberal Democrats have proposed ordering six additional Royal Navy frigates and expanding British shipbuilding capacity as part of a defence package aimed at responding to the threat from Russia, according to plans published by the party.
Under the proposal, three additional Type 26 anti-submarine warfare frigates and three additional Type 31 general-purpose frigates would be ordered for delivery by the mid-2030s.
If added to existing government plans, the proposal would increase the planned Type 26 fleet from eight ships to 11 and the Type 31 fleet from five to eight. The government currently intends the two classes to form the core of the Royal Navy’s future frigate force alongside at least six Common Combat Vessels replacing the Type 45 destroyers.
The Liberal Democrats estimate that three additional Type 31 frigates would cost around £1.2 billion, based on an assumed unit cost of approximately £400 million in 2025/26 prices. The party puts the cost of three additional Type 26 frigates at £2.85 billion, using an estimated cost of around £950 million per ship.
A further £370 million would be allocated from the party’s proposed Defence Bonds scheme towards additional shipbuilding infrastructure.
The party describes the policy as providing funding for four new shipyards, although the detailed costing accompanying the announcement says the £370 million figure is based on constructing two further facilities at approximately £185 million each, using BAE Systems’ Janet Harvey Hall on the Clyde as its benchmark.
The frigate orders and shipbuilding allocation amount to approximately £4.42 billion of capital spending under the party’s published assumptions.
The Liberal Democrats also propose increasing the Digital Services Tax from 2 per cent to 10 per cent and using part of the additional revenue to meet personnel and maintenance costs associated with the expanded fleet.
The party says there are no current official estimates available for the through-life operating costs of the Type 26 and Type 31 fleets. Its own calculations assume annual running costs of £20 million for each additional ship by 2034/35, producing an estimated £120 million annual cost for the six vessels.
Liberal Democrat Defence Spokesperson James MacCleary MP said: “We cannot afford to sit on our hands while Putin’s aggression intensifies and our national security weakens. We need a plan which gives confidence to British industry and allows our manufacturers to get on with delivering for Britain’s long-term security.
“By investing now in six new warships and by expanding our ship-building capacity with four new British shipyards, we can regenerate our fleet, protect our vital underwater infrastructure, and ensure Britain has the defence capabilities we need to stand up to the Kremlin.”
The announcement follows a Defence Committee report published on 22 October which warned of serious capability gaps affecting British operations in the High North.
The committee said publicly available evidence of low availability among frigates, destroyers and attack submarines raised questions about the UK’s ability to meet its commitments in the region, while warning that Russian submarine and sabotage activity presents risks to undersea infrastructure and North Atlantic reinforcement routes.
The Liberal Democrats also cited polling conducted by Savanta between 29 May and 1 June 2026 involving 2,234 UK adults. According to the results commissioned by the party, 60 per cent said the government was either probably or definitely not doing enough to protect critical infrastructure from Russian attacks, compared with 26 per cent who believed it was doing enough. Fourteen per cent answered that they did not know.
The party argues that additional orders would also provide a longer and more predictable workload for British shipbuilding, allowing yards and suppliers to invest in workforce and infrastructure with greater confidence.
The government’s existing shipbuilding programme includes eight Type 26 frigates and five Type 31 frigates, while the wider Hybrid Navy plan also envisages new crewed and uncrewed vessels operating together. The 2025 Strategic Defence Review placed particular emphasis on the Type 26 as part of Atlantic Bastion, the Royal Navy’s approach to countering the growing submarine threat in the North Atlantic.
The Liberal Democrat proposal would go beyond those numbers by adding six crewed frigates to the planned force, with the party arguing that the additional hulls should be ordered during the next Parliament and delivered by the mid-2030s.
A pity they are entirely irrelevant, and we all know what would happen the moment they got in.
“New ships? What new ships? We never said anything about new ships.”
No danger they will get in.
Odd thing is where did they come up with the figure of six. A bit random.
Now if they said we will give the armed forces everything they need – I would have been more impressed.
Doesn’t invalidate your second sentence though.
It’s a cop-out. Oh, you need six hulls to replace those T45? Six frigates, easy, manifesto fulfilled, money saved.
Yes, becuase we are looking at six CVVs, and sounds like they will just buy the arrowhead 140. Basically, they will buy something that is already planned. I doubt they will buy anymore Type 26, other than replace the the ones we have promised Norway. Basically, bait and switch and then call it a win for frigate numbers. Yes, a cop out.
When I say planned for ccv, I mean the current outline for replacing the Type 45.
What number wouldn’t have been random in your thinking then? In what World is any party going to simply say we will give you everything you want? How random could you get ‘we want 50 B-21s please and two Ford class carriers’, geez it’s like the election of Presidents at Real Madrid, there’s always one promising the world’s best player signed if they get elected. How much more ridicule could one bring upon yourself… other than promising to end a war on day one perhaps.
The rule of 3 would seem like an obvious reason?
I would go 6 x T31 to polish spec plus the abilty to command the envisaged drone fleet. If that drone concept proves a step too far you still have 6 very capable frigates. At that point you commit to a t83 concept and eventually sell on the batch 1 T31. Should drone command concept prove robust then commit to those command ships, retain t31 batch 2 and again..on sell T31 batch 1
Or 4-5 T31s and an additional 1-2 T26s. Maybe they’ve been reading all our posts? Even a few more T31s would be half decent. Whether it happens or not at least they’ve spelt put their intentions. Good to hear the ambition.
This sure does get read and quoted in parliament.
The positive thing is that increase in size of surface fleet is no longer seen as Armchair Admiral stuff.
Everyone accepts the threat is real and that RN needs more assets.
Now all we need is for them to act on it rather than just talking about it.
Cheers CR
I don’t think the comments get read in parliament (I hope not!), but George’s articles certainly do.
The reasoned expert comments are read. I was chatting to a parliamentarian a few months ago.
The comments asking for a 100 ship navy or throwing abuse don’t get a lot of traction.
Comments reminding people of the 30-34 ship navy do resonate.
There is a lot of expertise on here.
A fleet of 20+ should be doable. There’s a lot of common sense for the good of the UK, its place amongst its allies and standing in the world and a genuine want for things to be better than they are. And love the banter at times. 🇬🇧 🇦🇺
Hi SB,
Having politicians taking note is good to know.
As others have pointed out the 30 ship escort force was considered the minimum for a peacetime RN escort fleet. Given the current lamentable situation where we are getting to the point of needing to virtually rebuild the RN from the ground up (decline fleet numbers, too many seafarers with no sea going jobs, and the decline may not yet have hit the bottom of the curve) a 20+ escort fleet would come as a major relief!
However, we shouldn’t let that relief fool ourselves. If a 20+ escort fleet was considered too small for a peacetime fleet, then it is highly likely that it is too small going forward even with a hybrid navy. Given the way the geopolitical tectonic plates are shifting at the moment we have no idea of how the future power structures will look like when things finally settle down into some new world order. If the US goes as far as cutting Europe lose entirely (an unlikely scenario, but not now unthinkable) Europe and the UK will likely face a very serious and complex threat environment that would need significantly more a 20+ escort fleet for the RN.
Our politicians need to start to think about the unthinkable. Many of the emerging risks are still in the ‘unlikely’ bracket, but the point is they are no longer in the ‘unthinkable’ bracket and we need to wake up to that and act accordingly. After all Canada has apparently put a possible ground invasion from the US on the bottom of it’s worry list so perhaps Europe, including the UK, should start thinking about unlikely scenarios as well.
For example, China could actively start to support Russia in the West by backing up the Russian fleet with PLAN ships and subs based in the Kola inlet. The aim might be to force an overstretched USN to consider a possible Russo Chinese attack on the Eastern Seaboard or NATO making it very difficult to focus on the Pacific Region and Taiwan as many in the US are currently advocating at the moment. Such a move would complicate NATO’s threat environment considerably even if deployed force was small as it would set another new precedent in terms of Far Eastern force operating in the European theater.
Sadly, as much that sort of thing was considered impossible even a few years ago it is now drifting into the unlikely bracket, if not higher up the range, meaning that they are no longer unthinkable. This is especially true now that we know that North Korean troops and apparently some Chinese mercenaries have been engaged against Ukrainian forces in the last couple of years!
Time is against us.
Cheers CR
What worries me though is going into super-reliance on autonomous vessels and drones… purely because, look at the massive vulnerabilities AI is currently exploiting (at the behest of it’s human creators, let’s not hear the usual rubbish about Skynet) in world software.
Look at the capabilities of jamming Western militaries currently have, that can partly or completely disrupt enemy capabilities.
It doesn’t seem much of a leap to ask “Well hang on, what if we build a Navy that’s mostly drones thinking for themselves, then they’re exploited and turned against us?”
That clearly is going to happen, every nation’s military will devote a ton of AI power to it, because frankly, they’d be morons not to. Hey presto, you get an enemy that’s destroying ITSELF.
That sounds far too sensible Pete. Planning ahead that’s a no no surely.
sorry I forgot….back to my knee jerk engrainedment therapy
Pick a number, any number will do…!
I think the lib dems can totally increase defence spending while not raising tax and maintaining the triple loch, Ed Davies is obviously a genius. 🤦
Read the article Jim!
Their plan is to pay for the 6 additional ships from a defence bonds scheme.
Their plan is to fund the additional crew numbers by a 10% digital tax.
Nothing to do with pension triple locks or increasing general taxes.
The defence bond.idea is on the right lines. Our ENATO allies are virtually all in the same boat as the UK, in that they would have to cut public spending and raise taxes to.meet the 3.5% defence spending.target. This is not politically feasible. What the EU has devised is a means of injecting big money for defence, without the tax rises snd public services cuts. The SAFE scheme lets members.take on long-term, low interest loans for defence, These loans are excluded from a country’s national debt, as they are repayable loans.
This has released a big tranche of money for immediate equipment purchases, which is wht there are multiple orders being placed for early delivery of new equipment.
Not sure that the Lib Dems defence bonds will raise enough money to give a significant early boost to defence spending, it all depends how they do it. Similarly John Healey’s Multilateral Defence Mechanism, which he will probably put forward in his budget.
But both are on the right lines: we need a big, early injection of additional funds for defence, outside of normal government borrowing or tax rises. There are various other ways of achieving this which should also be considered.
I’m all for a defence bonds scheme!
It is possible (I try) to invest in UK defence as part of a stocks and shares ISA, but you often end up having to invest in the parent company- which could be in Europe or the US. Buying defence bonds direct from the government, so it can be used directly, would make it a lot easier.
Ah Yes the digital tax, also known as Americas red line on trade negotiations. We already abet a digital tax in place.
Well people seem to be under the delusion Elon Musk is a genius so can’t be that difficult, doubt Ed has enough snake oil and Koolaid to go round mind.
They slashed defence when in the infamous Coalition in 2010.
Alan Clark got them right: Conservatives in the shires and Trots in the suburbs.
They sent irrelevant at all. A labour /lib dem coalition is currently the most likely outcome of the next election. Whether they will fight for this as a budget priority is another question and seems unlikely
Aren’t not sent, stupid autocorrect
Yep, clever tactic of Burnham to propose ‘discussion’ on future relationship with the EU. As does his conference speech mention of promentionStops the libdem seats in the south of England reverting to the Tories.
Sadly probably a good prediction Steve.
It is the privilege of an irrelevant party to produce policies that make no sense. How realistic is the proposed unit cost for these platforms? How would they man them given the difficulty of maintaining even current manning levels? Why do they think that hiking Digital Service tax would do anything apart from driving tech businesses out of this market entirely? If they did build the additional hulls what is the defence strategy into which they would fit? Because it definitely isn’t Atlantic Bastion.
Come now Ian, you can say a lot of things about the Lib Dems and politicians as a whole, but it’s absurd to claim that ordering more frigates for classes already in build “makes no sense”. Likewise, the proposed unit costs align with known figures and are perfectly reasonable numbers to operate from.
Unless the big tech services want to abandon the UK entirely, they’ll have no choice but to pay the tax. Apple, Amazon, Google, etc, they won’t give up the UK market. The bigger issue is likely to be pressure from the US government, because it’s going to hurt US companies more than anything else.
Are you seriously asking what strategy more hulls serves? Beyond the obvious of allowing the RN to actually perform half the tasks it’s currently charged with, Atlantic Bastion is desperately in need of more ASW frigates and motherships. Covering the entire GIUK gap, North Atlantic, and Norwegian Sea with one RN T26 and a fleet of small drones isn’t feasible, even when you factor in the RNoN ships.
So you think a digital services tax is a bad idea and will drive companies out of the market. Why? Firstly as business becomes increasingly part of digital services it will become a vital way to bring in tax income, secondly why should companies operating from abroad simply be able to milk this Country for business and profit from uk citizens without being taxed, its foreign exploitation of the British market, thirdly as they are making that profit, and increasingly without employing actual workers or infrastructure here (so little added outlay), why would they withdraw from the profit they take here from those services u less politically driven?
The World is changing and we better start looking at ways we can survive within it rather than sleepwalking into being a slave colony of either the US or China. Interestingly the words I have just expressed were mirrored by President Lula Da Silva today after being re elected so I’m not the only one to recognise the dangers in simply ignoring the problem or doing the bidding of Trump and co who of course control or massively benefit from these mega tech companies driving the online economic system that’s replacing traditional economies. Not sure how we pay for defence or any other required services uses if we don’t.
Meani gless gesture politics.The Libdems are never going to get anywhere near power.
Well, they did in 2010 and if they had exercised that power more responsibly they would have taken a chunk of votes away from Starmer.
No, thanks to them for trying.
3 more rafted T31s with bow sonar and TAPs
However, 4 more T26.
That would have brought us to 26 Escorts, add in 12 Standed Norwegian vessels and the RN would have been in a much better shape.
Now, where are the crew coming from? I ask because, last week there was an article that stated that the retired SSN and SSBN all had to be manned in the nuclear safeguarding role and I can’t help thinking there must be a fair few bods for 19(?) boats.
We need razor blades people, not decommissioned boats sat alongside.
Well going back to the real world a minute unmanned seems to be what the RN is asking for not T26 or T31.
In which case people are not going to be the issue.
And in the real world, only UKE has shown one way attack naval drones to work and therefore I would suggest we need manned surface platforms a tad longer… in the real world.
Trouble with all this unmanned stuff is you can build it quickly and the advantage goes to those that get there first.
In WW2 the Germans perfected tank warfare. The horse was done and dusted. Tad longer we haven’t got.
We don’t want to end up like the Russian Black Sea fleet.
Not a counter factual but all the loyal wingman concepts while great in concept will take time to perfect – that is the time we do not have,
UKE has one way attack drones – nothing of the sophistication needed to replace actual surface platforms, let alone submersible platforms.
I recognise the need for transition but, manned platforms will remain into the 2050s and be accompanied by professional crews (hmm!) as we transition to unmanned platforms; now the only problem is getting the crews(!) and making the drones work in the North Sea.
I would say it’s worse that that, you can build it quickly and the advantage goes to those that build theirs as close to their date of use as possible given the rate of technological development. It’s like Mussolini building one of the World’s most modern air forces in 1936 – by 1939 it was behind the curve and there wasn’t enough money left to fix it.
The RN will not as it does not live in the Black Sea.. essentially an enclosed lake. The RN lives in the North Sea, Norwegian Sea and North Atlantic.. some of the worst seas on the planet, with distances and sea states that would smash any Black Sea drone to flotsam.
The Hybrid Navy Concept… is to be Delvered in full Operation no Problems fully integrated Within 12 yrs !!…
Now how many of us think that’s likely..??
Taken 10 yrs and counting for a manned frigate…!
Far better we buy 6-8 t83 ..!
And Develope the Hybrid Navy at a far more Realistic Pace…
Not sure our potential opponents will be that worried by a manned RN without unmanned support in 10 years time.
Betting odds on RN/MoD getting Such a SYstem as Hybrid Navy to Work within 12 years are Not Good… leaving us with No backup Plan… Sounds Familiar in so many areas..!
I think that can work in reverse too. Too much unmanned and not enough manned. Need for weighting of both and not neglect the manned.
You can’t win it seems, people endlessly whinge about not spending enough on defence and talk about how we should order more frigates especially on here and when a party does just that it’s just gesture politics. As they say we get the Governments we deserve and the British public have sure played blinders at getting the Mediocre Govts they deserve over the decades by their own lack of consistency, logic, insight and clear thinking only helped by a political system that most of the public have actually defended no less, enabling a deluded elderly, middle England idiocracy to elect the likes of Liz Truss as PM.
Shows a lack of understanding. Buying 3 more, essentially useless, T31 which are obsolete before they have entered service is clueless.
I think you’re showing your own lack of understanding by referring to them as obsolete before entry to service.
I agree Leh this debate is getting more surreal by the comment, the T-31 may not be the Worlds best frigate but it is far, far from obsolete, that sounds like a comment even a Russian bot would think twice before issuing. Indeed other versions of the vessel are extremely impressive indeed and probably better than any opposition they are likely to meet. Might be more convincing to argue navy vessels generally are becoming obsolete but an absence of them is hardly a risk to presently take methinks.
Obsolete in what way?
All of them are to be fitted with mk41 and NSM, so they’ll make an extremly useful patrol frigate.
The “are to be fitted with” is the problem. It’s not difficult to imagine a future government delaying or cancelling that upgrade.
I think the last 3 might actually have mk41 built in from the start, and the fitting for hms venturer is already paid for.
Cutting out all the ships weapons while still building them would be dumbest way to save costs imaginable.
Oh so it’s all in your imagination then, rather than providing actual evidence. Can understand cynicism but arguing imagination is fact and making judgements, indeed conclusions based upon that preferred ‘truth’ is a pretty pointless circular process surely.
Actually, my boorish little friend, nothing has been set in stone concerning timing of the installation of the Mk 41 VLS into the Type 31. All we know for sure is, as Navy Outlook reported in May, that “the Type 31s are already being built with the foundation structural seats for four 8-Cell Mk41 Strike-Length VLS modules.”
There have been reports that the last three ships will have them installed with the first two ships being refitted later, a Capability Insertion Period, as its called. But, even that hasn’t been confirmed.
At the same time, with the schedule and cost issues, we can’t even be sure when the first Type 31 will be delivered. Plus, you need to put something into those 160 VLS and that adds another couple of hundred million pounds to the bill.
Money issues aren’t going away. The RN has a hybrid fleet to build and that won’t be cheap either. So, its not unreasonable to believe that the integration of the Mk 41 VLS into Type 31 could be delayed or cancelled by a future government. It’s also possible they will be built with fewer VLS cells to save money.
Look at the only 1 band radar and a rotating one only, Then look at no sonar… no radar director for the guns so bad weather and puff.. Yes obsolescent already.
With no hull sonar or TAS, the T31 is a flawed answer for solo out-of-area patrol deployment, it is too vulnerable to submarine attack. That lack of ASW capability makes it equally unsuitable for convoy escort work. After the 5 on order are completed and in service, we really need to switch to an upgraded version, call it T32, with proper equipment rafting, hull mounted sonar, etc. and with a better radar.
The Lib Dems’ three additional T31s needs to be nudged to this improved version. The batch 1 ships could then be progressively replaced by the upgraded version. The original T31s could be re-roled as motherships for the T9X or sold off at a reasonable price, due to being comparatively new.
The original quest to get capable warships for £250m apiece was always flawed, we’d struggle to get a semi- capable corvette for that kind of money. Any further T31s beyond the first five need to be based on a much more realistic budget, which is probably around the £500 million mark.
With that approach T31 would never have been ordered!
That was just possibly a valid answer in the past, when we were dozing along in peacetime mode and cost-cutting was the order of the day. Now that we are having to gear-up to face the possibility of serious hostilities, I think the T31 will be found wanting due to its lack of ASW capability.
A couple of little T92 sloops per T31 could well change the picture – IF we can get them to work and they can keep up with the mothership and can operate in sea states of 5 and 6 without sinking and if they don’t need to stop for unexpected repair and maintenance problems in the middle of a wartime manoeuvre and if they don’t disappear over the horizon in tow to a hostile enemy vessel and so forth.
We may conclude that it would have been a lot simpler just to give the T31 a decent ASW fit-out in the first place!
I wish we had gone for the rafted engines and more, but otherwise I think they did the T31 ordering correctly. It was more recently that we’d had reports of them messing with the spec. That’s the mistake. No matter what the change and how much more efficient it would be to make it during the build, we should pay the extra and do it afterward in a capability insert. Speed of delivery trumps all, and that means NO changes during the build. Not for VLS, not for anything.
Sorry. I meant to write “more CAMM”.
Half joshing but maybe they can add a prosthetic plate type sonar to the T31 bow kind of?
and how old id the Mk41? Where are the orders for these on T31?
It’s obviously not a serous proposal that has any chance of happening. But when even the LibDems are proposing a boost to the RN you know: (1) things are really really bad; and (2) there a cross-party consensus for the first time in many many decades (1950?) that increasing rather than cutting UK defence spending is a real priority. The big question now is will Healey deliver on defence spending in his first budget since resigning as Defence Secretary and then becoming Chancellor.
I think the bad state of the military is starting to resonate with the public more than i can ever remember. However, we all know Healey will not deliver a meaningful increase in defence spending, instead more cuts, efficiency savings and ever increasing spending on other areas.
Exactly. They are sniffing for votes, which means they think it’s finally percolating into mainstream.
Well if nothing else that is a positive sign. I think all the major parties do want more investment in defence but in their own ways winning votes is the priority and for Labour doing the right thing inevitably risks losing votes on money not being spent elsewhere. Self survival is always going to be a major influence which is why so many Govts haven’t taken the right decisions in so many areas. A benevolent dictatorship would probably be the best bet but sadly you inevitably get Putin, Xi and Trump instead so you only get half of it, though I guess the Chinese are likely going to be the closest to it in they eyes of their people in the decades ahead especially as ai and robotics puts so many out of work. Hardly an encouraging prospect for the concept of democracy is it.
No, he won’t. Healy , like our PR PM, is naught but a charlatan.
There are few if any votes in defence. It would make sense for a cross party ( excluding the lunatic fringe) committee to take a bigger role in defence decisions. It might,just, help to avoid the short termism that has harmed defence planning for years.
But increasing escort numbers from 19 to 25 is pretty unrealistic and perhaps unnecessary.
There are a lot of things need taking out of petty party politics, unfortunately I can’t see it ever happening. Not enough people care enough to look deeper into our problems and see the obvious flaws in our political system, they are then conned every 5 years into thinking the next short term plan they vote for is going to fix generations of rot. The whole country and everything in it is condemned by inefficient undeliverable short term planning.
Very true New Me and like you don’t see an answer unless indeed a joint far less political structure for defence is created with long term planning separate to that ‘5 year plan’ intervening.
It’s ironic that voters don’t care enough about defence and won’t en masse support more spending, yet the moment a conflict starts and they start suffering the consequences of not spending they turn on the Govt for not being far better prepared, the 2nd WW was a pretty good example of that particular form of chaos theory. Thus Govt’s stick to a narrow line between that rock and a hard place, one fears mostly humming to themselves hoping that conflict never actually comes.
We haven’t got 19 & won’t have 19 for a good decade or more. We’ve got about 11. 25 was too few, 19 worse, then they let it all slide while feting Russian & Chinese investors. Definitely not unnecessary in a very uncertain world with major wars, WW3 quite possible, Russia & China aggressive & assertive & Donnie wants to join in against the free world too. Virtually all our trade & much of our food comes across water, plus we have overseas dependencies & allies. We must avoid tipping into fascism ourselves & help prevent the world becoming one complete failed state hell-hole.
And if the UK wants to have influence as a global citizen, to keep international trade lanes open, maintain and grow nation to nation relationships, support its CSG exercises and alliances it will need a greater presence to back up the B2s.
About sums up the situation that few in Europe want to truly face up to. Trump wants to destroy Europe as much as Putin does it threatens both of them in being tyrants slitting the World up between them. Trump is probably hoping to bring Putin closer and persuade him to jointly confront China and Europe simply and inevitably stands in the way of that. As it stands and somewhat ironically China is probably the one that does not want Europe destroyed in such manner, it damages its economy and its role in the future World it is hoping to build. Russia is playing the game with China but knows its ultimate weakness as time passes in its ability to resist Chinese hegemony so one can see why Putin is at least showing willing to cooperate with the US in these manoeuvres. Trump’s whole policy of weakening Europe, the West generally, Canada and Brazil and the like (while making others irrelevant) is all part of this policy to weaken resistance from within those Countries making them unable to resist this bigger policy and ultimately make us all unable to resist their plan. He wants Europe to fail and thankfully he isn’t achieving that presently but the far right movements are doing his bidding sadly and next year will be a big test in deciding if we resist or start to fall.
If that’s on top of the 6 CCVs then I’m all up for them pushing that agenda..
In the end the point of the smaller parties is to move the dial of the conversation a bit and for to long the conversation around the escort fleet has been stuck at 19…. Like that was a reasonable number that had been arrived at by logical risk assessment processes.
This simple fact is the fleet of 19 is a figure based in pure unadulterated fantasy, it’s the fever dream of a wish to cut costs against reality. When people tell me any discussion beyond 19 escorts is fantasy fleets I find it ironic, because fantasy in regards to the escort fleet is having ideas, expectations, or plans that are not realistic, or treating an imaginary version of life as if it were true and expecting a fleet of 19 escorts to provide our security is pure fantasy.
So what is a realistic dial based around a realistic assessment of the risk and what is needed to do that… we do actually have that and that was the 1998 defence white paper that essentially said in a peaceful world the RN needed 32 moving to 30 escorts as a minimum as well as 25 small mine and patrol ships… that was the number needed for the assessed risk in a peaceful world with no direct peer threat to the UK.
The plan essentially left the UK in 2000 with a balanced fleet of
11 AAW destroyers
11 ASW frigates
9 GP frigates
With future plans that the next building programs would require 10 AAW frigates, 10 ASW frigates and 10 GP frigates… every move from that has essentially been driven by cost saving and a refusal to pay for the assessed need.
The thing is that 30 ships was the basis for a peaceful world, the UK should have been planning to expand from that in 2010 when it was clear china and Russia were geopolitical rivals and from 2014/15 the plans should have been upgraded even more, with 2022 seeing a crash rearmament programme on top of that. We are truely living in a world of fantasy fleets.
In reality you could probably have said the fact that UK frigates are so much better at AAW means you could reduce the AAW destroyer mass a bit and instead have more frigates.. but you still need hull numbers as good does no replace presence. Also the new idea around autonomous vessels could support the expansion you should have seen beyond 30 as the world got nasty again..
Yes there is zero chance of getting to 30 anytime in the near or medium term, but it should be a goal for the long term.
So for 2040s-2050 in a world in which china and Russia are our enemies and the US is less than reliable what is reasonable.
If we assume by 2029 Babcock can start a new batch of ships lay down the first of the 6 CCVs and then Lay down and launch one every 2 years… that would give the slips ready for new hulls CCV 7-8 in 38 and 39… with BAE able to lay down batch 3 T26s in 36.. for an extra 4 hulls.
So it’s possible that in the mid 2040s the RN could have
5 T31s
8 CCVs
12 T26s
+ any T45s they keep running
It would then be possible to move the fleet to 30 from 45-50…. At which point they can start building the replacements for the T31s and batch 1 T26s.
If we were serious about defending ourselves I think we should indeed be seeking at least 30 proper escorts.
I would say keep the target of 30 destroyers and frigates as we would understand them, but the mass will still come with Type 91 and 92 and their successors. Then I think we’d look at Type 45/successor, Type 26, and Type 31 as cruisers with T91-92 as destroyers and frigates. If nothing else, it would give the classification more sense (when a frigate now comes in as larger than a WW2 cruiser, etc, that old argument about how something so big could NOT be called a cruiser).
Such numbers would be lower than the number of cruisers we had around WW2 (low-to-mid 60s), but that was because we had a globe-spanning empire to watch over, so it’s probably a sensible number.
How did they ever get to “19”? Maybe they need to re-assess the risk assessment itself. Looks dodgy and was it ever achieved in terms of 19 actually being available at any time? The logic of less is more availability has obviously led to the less being used more frequently with more wear and tear even sooner leading to less of less. The Carriers, FSS, RFAs, all pretty underarmed, will need their escorts and then what’s truly left?
They gradually cut to make savings..
Labour cut 3 frigates to save money to pay for the sand wars
Then the T45 got expensive so Labour gradually sliced the order from 12 to 10 to 8 to 6..
The the tories came in in 2010 and sliced four more frigates for austerity budgets..
And so over 15 years it went from 20 frigates to 13 frigates and 12 AAW ships to 6…all in the name of fitting the budget at the time.. due to constraints first the sand wars following the US about ( that cost 70 billion) then the 2008 world banking crisis..
Very good post Jonathan. Of course we need more than 19 escorts, that figure is simply the best that can be done on the budget available to start to repair the damage done by 40 years of feckless defence cuts.
I look at the escort fleet numbers needed by the 4 roles the RN has to play. The absolute minimum operational (aka at sea seems to me to be:
1. NATO North Atlantic – Minimum 2 ASW FF and 1 AD DD
2. UK EEZ: Minimum 2 ASW and 1 AD DD. The ASW role would include riding shotgun on an SSBN going out to or returning from the North Atlantic. Air defence of the UK should be undertaken by GBAD, not scarce and expensive T45s/CCV.
3. Carrier Strike Group – Minimum 2 ASW FF and 2 AD DD.
4. Out-of-area patrol: 27 AD DD, 3 asw-capable GP FF. Of course, many more are needed, but that is the essential minimum.
That adds up to 15 operational escorts, giving a minimum total escort fleet of 38, with the number operational, alondside and in maintenance/refit in brackets.
14 Air defence destroyers (5:5:4)
16 ASW frigates (6:6:4)
8 General Purpose frigates (3:3:2)
If allied nations can commit to providing an air defence and asw ship to the CSG, then overall numbers would reduce to 34. That seems to me about the minimum peacetime strength needed for the escort fleet, based on current needs. As you say, this kind of number is not ‘fantasy fleets’, rather it is a fantasy to pretend to think that the escort job can fulfill its given role with 19 or even 25 warships.
That ’27’ air defence destroyers for out-of-area patrol should read ‘2’….
All of the credible political parties need to say what format, equipment levels and manpower levels are projected for all 3 branches of our forces – army, RN, RAF. And by when
Instead of simply trying to out bid each other in money terms
Army – manpower, how many brigades/divisions etc, main equipment numbers
RN as above, how many hulls, submarines, RFA, bootnecks etc
RAF aircraft numbers, squadrons etc.
The Tories have made an initial suggestion, but what about missile defence for the country. Also offensive long range missiles. Guess it won’t happen but long range attack missiles would be good, 1000mile + range (to supplement submarine Tomahawks). As well as short range tactical missiles. These are in addition to air launched missiles.
I think the Lib Dems have made it clear that joining the EU is their biggest priority, so they would need to find £20 billion or so for the net membership fee before anything can go towards defence.
Does nobody read the ‘Maastricht Convergence Criteria’ .. Good read for Returners…!
Good read for the French and the Italians too.
Historically, 90+% of the money paid to the EU came back to us in the shape of farm and food subsidies, civil infrastructure such as roads and bridges, etc.
I don’t remember it being anywhere near £20 bn, must look that one up and see.
Hi Cripes. In 2016 the net membership fee (so taking into account the money that came back) was around £10bn. Add 10 years of inflation plus extra spending that the EU has taken on, plus the likely loss of the British rebate then I’ve seen estimates that the net membership fee if we joined now would be around £20bn.
8 + 5 was a pre ” war footing ” number so the aim of should always have been to boost numbers now that Putin will be kicking down the door by 2030 ( allegedly)
3 more T26 would make sense. ( Might need to rotate to the FI in a decade if Argentina buys modern subs)
5 more T31 frigates would be more like it as a supplementary Air defence variant. 32 cells for Aster 30, a better radar fit and a lightweight TAS
That would allow some offshore AAW picket duty , 5 would make 2 available
Seeing as A140 is likely to form the basis of the wonder drone mother ship , there would be commonality.
Can’t see how they aim to fill 4 yards without a far bigger order.
Like the T31 comment especially if Danes go for the AH140 AAW type with Aster it can be done. Is it worth putting expensive Aster on LUSV drone ships? Will the CCV mothership have Aster?
Any additional AA/ABM cover might help make up for some of the lack of GBAD of the mainland.
🥱
It is a good initiative. The numbers look right, the escort force would increase to 25 ships, with ideally 9 operational, 9 alongside and 7 in maintenance/refit.
It is important to have a big majority in Parliament in favour of increased defence spending, as many Labour backbenchers are lukewarm or actively opposed, as are the Greens and Plaid. With the Lib Dems and Cons actively backing defence increases, that large majority is assured.
With the polls currently showing that no party would win enough seats to form a majority government at the next General Election, it is not inconceivable that the Lib Dems could be the junior partner in a future governing coalition. So it is important to welcome their stance and encourage them to be rock-solid on rearmament.
Is it bollocks. Turn coats all.
The limp Dems couldn’t order 6 coffees
Careful JM, your party political slip is showing….
The ship numbers look good in this proposal – funding is a separate issue of course. However, there is the obviously more pressing immediate need – we must get a lot more of our current stock available and at sea than we are currently managing. No good thinking about a decent expansion plan if you can’t cope with what you’ve already got.
Go for it! The Miecznik is Poland’s replacement for their OHP class frigates. We should build T31s for the USN. C’mon Donald- you know it makes sense.😉
This whole defence bonds idea is unlikely to ever see the light of day and the take up would be very questionable in a country where banks still get away with de-banking defence companies and half the under 30s would never fight for their country so they say. What next re introduce the Thunderball Lottery as Thunderflash a kind of 21st century Spitfire fund?
Heading towards a WW3 hot war with a fleet ridiculously too small for peacetime with an ambition, but not funding, to return to minimum peacetime levels is insane & treasonous.
Manpower. Pay them much better & recruitment solves itself. Putting your life on the line deserves more.
Funding. Stop the gaslighting of the poorest. We’ve been hammering them mercilessly since Thatcher, nearly 50 years, scapegoating the poorest, the weakest, the most vulnerable. Stamping out fraud is always right & today the rate is extremely low.
The very richest have never suffered, but only increased wealth hand over fist while society has been hollowed out. They’ve extracted most wealth out of society & put it away offshore. They have the wealth, resources, power & influence to keep it this way. HMG has failed throughout, being their poodle. Let them pay more for the civilised running of a decent society & take the hit for moving the nation onto a wartime footing. All those sweetheart tax deals, tax breaks while everyone else gets hammered by cuts. They set the government & media agenda, so remain hiding in plain sight.
We have the manpower, we just need to make it worth people’s while to make a career in the forces. We can get the funding if we stop allowing the richest who actually have the vast majority of wealth to be taxed at a proportion similar to regular tax payers. With great wealth comes great responsibility.
The Lib Dems would only give the RN additional ships at the expense of the CASD.
Good point, and the key difference a centre/left voter needs to understand between a vote for Labour versus the Libdems, the Greens and the SNP.
Well, it is not a secret that for years, the Chiefs have wanted to lose CASD, so what is the problem? Money could potentially be funnelled into Conventional defence[; the caveat is that the Treasury would probably take it…
It makes sense to build a more GP T26 meaning one that has an ABM capability because that is another big risk, so add beam to take the topweight which is what the Auzzies should have done. So drop the 5″ and put it in your cheaper frigate. You need at least 4 probably 6 more of these T26 to bring them up to 12 -14.
The aim should then be for a cheaper Frigate ie the T31. The limiting factor on the T31 is its unrafted and noisy powertrain and lack of ant anti sub ability. I do think you have to look at that. You probably need to aim at the end of the day putting the Mogami power plant into that hull. Perhaps you could buy it off the shelf. You need another 3 as the paper says bringing the total to 8. You then have 20-21 escorts.
The cost of this exercise is minimal compared to losing the war at sea. If Thicko B cant understand this he needs to be sent on Gardening leave.
If you take the 5″ out of the 4 new T26s you lose topweight and can add Mk41 tubes and upgrade radar. It a highly desirable move to make. However eliminating manned Frigates etc is one of those Duncan Sandys moments of madness. Can you replace the sensory abilities of people? Can a robot lower scrambling nets? Smell smoke of what kind? See refuse on the water? Will a seagull crap on its camera- probably.
“Allocate £370 million raised from defence bonds to fund four new shipyards. Last year, the incredible Janet Harvey Hall facility for developing two frigates side-by-side was completed on the Clyde, near Glasgow. The facility cost £185 million, and was part of a wider £300 million programme of modernisation at the site. We’d use defence bonds to build two more, at a cost of £370 million.”
So this is weird and can be read one of three ways.
– First, that it wants four new shipyards.
– Second, that it wants two new build halls and is either counting Janet Harvey Hall and Venturer building to get to four or is counting the number of ships that can be assembled in the two new halls to get to four.
– Third, that it wants one new shipyard, and it’s counting Janet Harvey Hall as two and the new hall as two, from the number of assembly spaces.
I’m thinking they mean two new build halls, hence a cost exactly double that of JHH (inflation, what’s that? Space? Why might you need to buy more space?). Presumably these would have to be built at a current site on the Clyde and/or at Rosyth, as a build at a non-existing site or somewhere like Inchgreen, would be more expensive than JHH. Given the probable bottleneck for extra frigates being fitting out, will new assembly halls do diddly squat by themselves? Or if they are made tall enough, can fitting out be done there?
Well done libdems – good to see a vision for ordering and growing the fleet unlike the ruinous shower we have in charge at the moment. 1SL needs to resign (service before self) as a statement that labour are useless
It’s brilliant what you can say or promise when you are not likely to ever get into government and have to keep them.
If that were so, we might as well ignore anything that any of the nine opposition parties say, because none of them look like forming a majority government at the next election as polls stand.
In our democratic system, parties publish and campaign on their election manifestos and it is from these that at least the thinking members of the public (unfortunately always a minority) decides how they are going to vote. It is the parties’ blueprint for what they hope to achieve in office. If the Lib Dems propose to add six frigates, that is their public commitment. Others might major on hitting the 3% target by 2030, or pay lip service to defence while majoring on other issues like welfare increases or cuts, or obsess about immigration etc.
The public does not forgive or forget parties that break their manifesto promises. There is no reason to suppose that the Lib Dems would abandon their six frigates if they were part of a governing coalition. The main problem that junior coalition partners face is getting their policies adopted by the senior coalition partner, as the Lib Dems found to their cost in the Cameron coalition.
They may have learned from that to demand a high price for their support at the outset and get a clear formal commitment from the larger partner before entering into any agreement.
In 2010, the LibDems had one policy hill they could die on in exchange for supporting the Tories. They could have chosen education, which a large number of people cared about; instead they chose a proportional representational referendum. Not even a policy, but a referendum on a policy, and they even screwed that up by opting for a system nobody could understand. Education was clearly for the benefit of the electorate, while proportional representation was for the benefit of the party and activists. They chose party over electorate, and that’s why they have still not been forgiven, otherwise why would we still be talking about it? I doubt they would be so stupid to make the same mistake again when there are so many more completely different ways for them to screw up.