A letter from Lord Coaker to Lord West of Spithead has shed light on ongoing plans for a second vessel to support RFA Proteus in safeguarding the UK’s undersea telecommunications network, according to official correspondence.
Dated 28 January 2025, the letter reaffirms “the RFA Proteus is the first of two multi-role ocean surveillance ships,” with a second ship “currently in its concept phase.”
Although the original intention was to deploy two vessels, Lord Coaker indicates that the Strategic Defence Review “will consider how best to deliver defence capabilities and augment RFA Proteus,” suggesting that details such as the second vessel’s role or final specifications may depend on the review’s outcomes.
Lord Coaker underscores the government’s “commitment to ensuring the security and resilience of the UK’s telecommunications infrastructure,” noting established processes for “effective coordination across Government departments and agencies and with the subsea cable and telecoms industries.”
In addition, the letter references the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021, which requires providers to “identify, reduce, prepare for and respond to security and resilience risks.”
The future of British seapower lies in ships like RFA Proteus
Addressing the RFA Proteus’s operations, Lord Coaker states it “undertakes survey work and protects the UK’s maritime zone and undersea critical national infrastructure,” using remotely piloted technologies and coordinating with cross-governmental resources.
The letter also highlights that “we constantly monitor UK territorial waters and our areas of interest to protect the nation and safeguard critical infrastructure,” reflecting an ongoing, multifaceted approach to undersea security.
While plans for an additional multi-role ocean surveillance ship remain part of a “larger programme to update the Royal Navy’s military data gathering capability,” the final shape and timing of this second vessel are expected to emerge from the forthcoming Strategic Defence Review.
Good news; Proteus is a success! How about Sterling Castle?
How about RN MCM as a whole. It’s arguably the biggest loss in terms of capability and capacity over the last 10 years that very few people have bat an eye at.
Spot on and we had the best , days gone like must things I guess 🙄
I confess I don’t understand what Sterling Castle doing. The Belgians, Dutch and French are buying the City class MCMV mothership….sort of a Kongsberg thing. As a commercial buy Sterling Castle is cheaper. Are the trials just to demonstrate that a commercial vessel can do the job? I saw Babcock produced a T32 design for lengthened T31 with a full width MCMV mission bay. What’s that all about? Hope the SDR provides some direction.
The MoD recently commissioned Kongsberg to do a study on the feasibility of their Vanguard design to fulfil the MCM mothership role. I think the experience with Sterling Castle to date has swung the preference back from off the shelf commercial vessels to a more military grade, purpose built solution.
This is getting silly.
So shift the onus for Defence of underseas networks to the providers of said multi-faceted infrastructure and save the Govt a few Bob.
And continue slashing Defence platforms and aspirations; great management technique.
Actually the network cables aren’t the issue. It’s the sprawling offshore energy infrastructure that’s going to consume far more of the surface fleets time. For 250 GW of offshore wind we need around 40,000 sq km. So that’s equivalent of defending Denmark !!!
I see the ghost of HMS Challenger.
The problem is critical mass to be cost effective.
Most UK military programs are already too small to get full economies of scale.
Right! So what we need are more multinational projects…..like Boxer 🙂
Or F35
No, what we need are larger buys of less exquisite systems.
You are right. I was being facetious. Perhaps the talk of Patria 6×6 means the penny has dropped.
Been asking this for years.
A better balance between quality and quantity.
Good enough rather than gold plated and bespoke.
I see no other way to increase mass.
I agree with you Daniele, but sometimes you just need more of what you already have in limited numbers. We have world class ASW assets being produced, we just need more of them. We don’t need a modified T-31 frigate that’s ok at sub detection for most of the money of a T-26. Same with fitting Wildcat with a dipping sonar, if we want a helo doing ASW, buy more Merlins.
What price the security of our undersea assets when we are are an island nation? Just asking that question should concentrate minds.
You take a good selfie George!
I really don’t understand why they simply don’t develop a proper patrol, surveillance and mine warfare platform.. in the end all of these capabilities are now modular based on autonomous vessels.
So what they need a program of 2000-3000 ton vessels, that have, a work deck, small well deck, flight deck, crane. Give it a basics self protection kit including a 57mm medium gun essentially a rivers batch 3.. build 10 then another 5 as the rivers 2 go out.
Too small to do the kind of work required.
These drones are going to get rather large and rather heavy so a v. big ship with chunky crane….
That’s is where the MRSS come come in…you’re not going to want 6 of them doing amphibious vessel work all the time..so essentially they become your very large littoral patrol ships…when you want a lot of UAV,AUVs in one area.
Your 3000 tones patrol ship if designed well is plenty big enough for a couple of 11meter SEA class boats for mine warfare duties, or act as mother to a couple of 12 meter Herne XLAUVs.
Essentially you have a mixed force of 21 low manpower patrol ships 15 3000 tons and 6 15,000 tons..that all then have a proper hot war role as well.
Or just buy the Dutch-Belgian-French CIty class MCM ships.
A 2nd MRSS needs to replace HMS Scott needs to have the endurance and seakeeping for long stints in deep ocean, so personally i think it’d need to be a larger bespoke design like RRS David Attenborough.
However i absolutely agree that with a modicum of foresight and coherent ambition we’d be looking to replace the Hunt’s, Sandown’s, Echo’s and eventually the River’s with a large OPV style design that can swap out modular kit for all of those support roles.
As it is we have go for the Kongsberg Vanguard design which fits the bill…….but sadly only 3 of them to carry MCM drones.
Or just buy the Dutch-Belgian-French CIty class MCM ships.
Odd how some decisions are left to the defence review whilst others are already made. But by the sounds of this the some of the surface fleet is going to be retasked to infrastructure protection. Which I’m not surprised at UKs offshore power infrastructure will grow to cover 10s of 1000s sq kms all of which needs protection.
The budget originally intended for a second MROSS is instead being used to keep HMS Scott in service for a decade longer than her originally planned 2022 decommissioning date. Probably a very sensible call, like Argus she is too useful to decommission and too expensive to replace.
Scott is currently undergoing a life extension refit to keep her going until the” early 2030’s”. Maybe SDR2025 will give some clarity as to whether a replacement will be ordered, but I’m not holding my breath – I expect just some some vague statements about the need to defend the UK’s critical underwater infrastructure, with no explanation as to how this will be done.