The Royal Navy could see its destroyer and frigate fleet grow from 14 to 25 vessels, according to a report by The Sunday Times, marking the most significant expansion of Britain’s surface escort force in a generation.
The news comes ahead of the government’s strategic defence review, set to be launched on Monday, which outlines plans to restore Britain’s military strength in response to growing global threats. As part of this agenda, the review will reportedly back a resurgence in shipbuilding — a key component of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s aim to place defence at the heart of national economic renewal.
According to The Sunday Times, the government’s plan includes a new underwater surveillance programme named Atlantic Bastion, led by the Royal Navy. The initiative is designed to counter Russian threats to critical subsea infrastructure, including internet cables and energy pipelines — a growing concern following recent sabotage incidents in European waters.
The move to increase the number of Royal Navy escorts signals a major shift in defence posture, reflecting the heightened emphasis on maritime security in an era of increasing Russian naval activity and global instability. At present, the UK fields six Type 45 destroyers and eight frigates, a number widely regarded by experts as insufficient to meet operational demands and alliance commitments.
Raising the total to 25 ships would not only reverse years of decline but also bolster the UK’s ability to maintain persistent presence operations, escort task groups, and contribute to NATO maritime forces at scale.
With work on next-generation Type 26 and Type 31 frigates already underway, and conceptual designs like Type 83 on the horizon, the new target offers a clearer signal of intent to sustain the British shipbuilding sector, from Rosyth to Govan and beyond.
While funding details remain to be confirmed, the ambition to expand the surface fleet aligns with Defence Secretary John Healey’s repeated statements that Britain must be ready to “fight if required” and invest in an “always-on” defence industrial base capable of sustaining operations at scale.
If enacted, this shift would represent the most dramatic strengthening of the Royal Navy’s surface combatant fleet since the end of the Cold War.
Isn’t this two months late for Apr 1st?
As an American I apologize for the comments made about your navy after WW2. The British navy is hardly a 2nd rate navy. It’s barely a 3rd rate navy and if you had to fight Argentina again… you’d lose. But you have terrible Healthcare and are a minority in your own cities instead. Being a former global power and a possessing a very shabby weak military you too should turn in your nuclear stockpile.
not so Great Britain leading the way.
no one will reply or engage with trolls like u
State Sponsored industrial espionage against UK since the USA founded.
Atlantic Charter
Shady investment in pre WW2 Nazi Germany
LendLease
Tizzard Mission
Operation paperclip
Manhattan Project betrayal (see Tizzard Mission)
Shady movement of Nazi assets
Marshall Plan (Overlay with sentiment from Atlantic Charter)
Bretton Woods
Suez
#Read 3 books on each of these subjects.
Then come back with a view. I’d be interested to hear how you feel about America pulling off the biggest heist of power, capital, technology, IP and reach in human history.
You are beneath contempt! You know nothing, silly septic!!!
Better a 3rd rate military than a democracy crumbling into facism
Whatever, Ivan.
what would make my day, would be a commitment to a front line fleet of 30 to be kept at that number ships of all types. 12 attack submarines? i d say he needs a good shake. to bring him back to the real world.
Like most defensive reviews it’s obsolete on publication filled with promises, ambiguous “ambitions” scattered with some low hanging fruit, headline grabbing keywords. The truth is, we are screwed. The Americans screwed us leading up-to, during and post WW2, we screwed ourselves further by naively ignoring this reality and use of the Marshal Plan funds. Countless governments fumbled around leading us to Wilson who gave away our nuclear independence to the US, at a slightly discounted rate, with some Indian Ocean islands included the over-way, you may have heard of them? He also gave up our orbital launch capability associated to the Nukes, essentially gifting France (ESA) the building blocks of Arianne FOR FREE with a load of other terrible tech and capability cuts chucked in. Heath dropped his pants to the EU….. THATCHER! Gave Hong Kong to a communist dictatorships, Cancelled the sprouts of a renewed orbital capability, privatised pretty much everything, offering discounted share options for good measure, spunked north seal oil revenues on tax cuts, sold millions of council homes at knock off prices to same people getting tax cuts, tidy share options in BT, British Gas etc etc etc AND artificially inflated the housing market, further enriching said generation. A generation who now kick off at any suggestion of pension reform, welfare cuts (winter fuel). It’s odd how a generation who voted for Thatcher, who not only benefited from access to free university, non means tested welfare, cheap but dirty energy… seem to blame our current predicament in housing shortages, energy prices, failing utilities and underfunded education, healthcare AND DEFENCE on everyone other than the culprits, you know Immigrants, Last Governments, Gordon Brown, THE EU…. ? Lol As a nation we won’t be able to deliver tangible ANYTHING let alone defence without fundamental changes to our political systems, birth rate, budget deficit, national debt pile, energy independence, food and water security and rapidly aging population. To do that we need to realise that NI contributions of current retirement population is in deficit by 80% of what they paid to what they have received, factoring in income taxes (which are often used with department cuts) to backfill the deficit it drops steeply to 40% deficit. But when you overlay the state instigated personal wealth rises, via asset sales, housing give always, tax breaks and triple lock policies its jumps WAY WAY WAY back up. BUT Let’s park that. The current retired population (which is set to double) have only contributed 60% in total taxation to what they have drawn. Millions live in households with assets over £1.5 million, close to a million earn over £125k a year, millions earn a shed load more than the national average income. Yet all other departments, infrastructure, DEFENCE crumbles to support this Ponzi scheme. Let’s Means Test ALL benefits including the state pension, and stop millionaires subsidies and FUND defence, education and healthcare appropriately.
Good news if it happens – it’s certainly needed as a minimum, though the proposed use of drones could be game changer in it’s own right.
Should find out tomorrow, assuming the SDSR isn’t delayed again
🙂 – I hope…
The fastest way to get more escorts into the fleet would be to order a second batch of the T31. Forget building more T26s (too long in build and too complex). No point in designing a new frigate like T32; T31 already has plenty of room for growth. The T31 is of course not much of a warship but that is down to the weapons fit not the hull or sensors. There is plenty of room for NSMs, more Sea Ceptor SAMs and the mission bay could be used for a UUV anti-submarine solution.
I think we need the T32 but I think it should simply be based on the Polish derivative with hull mounted and towed array sonar. Six of these can operate in the North Atlantic freeing up T31 for global deployment and T26 for escort missions.
Even better if we can get the crew number cut by half as Babcock suggests
You can’t make a more complicated vessel then slash the crew massively
You can, it’s called automation.
Which also increases cost per ship.
Keep it simple and just order more Type 31s. We don’t need 4 different frigate/destroyer types.
Is a robot going to plug the hole in the hull?
No we are going for a novel ASW fleet.
Sure we might get 2 more type 26 and hopefully a few more type 31s.
The ASW fleet is going to be composed of Type 92 unmanned/ optionally minimally manned sloops as motherships for ASW and sub surface hunter killer drones
Type 26 (hopefully order going back upto 10
Poseidon MPA and Astute subs
The RNs main mission is to close off the GIUK gap, something we have history and expertise doing.
25 escort warships is great news. 🤞🤞🤞🤞 It actually happens.
I agree with Healey, we should NOT be tricked into trying to generate a large army. The Europeans numbering 500 million can face Russia with just 126 million people.
Our expertise should always be to look to the sea and an air and maritime strategy.
Totally agree
Spot on.
We’re too far from where the land fight will be, best stick to what we are skilled at and in the right geography for.
Exactly this, RN, RAF, SF Intell first policy.
Knowledge is power.
That said, the Army needs investment too in CS CSS to enable what it has.
Totally disagree.
The Russian threat is a land forces one, backed by.ssome airpower but chiefly salvos of missiles and drones.
You don’t defend against an airland threat with.naval vessels, it needs well-armef land forces backed by air superiority, now including long-range missiles and artillery, drones and counter-drone cover.
The navy-first lobby never looks at the scale of the land threat. Russia can put 500,000-1 million troops in the field and concentrate them against any chosen point in Eastern or northern Europe. NATO Europe, which may look strong on paper, has nothing like these deployable numbers.
On our main area of focus, the North German Plain, where we are meant to ride to Poland’s rescue, NATO can deploy just three army mechanised divisions, one German, one British, one equivalent Benelux, plus some light brigades if not needed elsewhere. That’s about 80,000 troops max, including corps troops. That is not a lot to back up Poland’s 4 going 5 smaller divisions. 5he total force on the NGP is well under half the strength of the Ukrainian army.
It is even worse in the Baltic republics and Finland, where ENATO standing forces are pretty tiny and there is no great body of reserve formations to send to the front line. Pretty much the same applies in the Carpathian Basin and east Balkans. Basically, we are dead short of deployable combat troops across Europe.
The fancy number of supposed land forces we have overlooks that several NATO members may sit out any conflict. Turkey, the largest army in ENATO, is as likely to watch on and not get involved. The Russian-sympathetic stooges running Hungary and Slovakia, are most reluctant ENATO members.
The British contribution to land defence is pitifully small, we would be lucky to be able to deploy 40,000 troops.
The RAF has just 7 combat air squadrons, so a total of 77 front-line aircraft. You could lose that number in a few weeks of conflict, if that long.
Next to the big shortfall in ENATO land and air assets, the naval position is far more secure. What’s left of the Russian navy poses little threat to ENATO, other than its submarine force. They are completely outnumbered and outgunned in the Med by the Italian, Spanish and Greek navies, even if Turkey sits out the action
They are bottled up in the Baltic and have very little naval strength there.
The only real threat is containing Russian subs in the Atlantic and High North, plus the lingering threat of their reinforcement by PLAN.naval units if war.becomes worldwide.
The navy is not in my view the first priority for expansion, nor the second; priority has to be air/missile/space, followed closely by land.
The navy is short.of ASW capability in the North Atlantic and that needs to be rectified by more T26s
There is a bigger overall question about strategy and deployment. ENATO is looking to expand force capability in the European theatre. The RN is still looking at playing a major out-of-area role, as in days of yore. Its principal duty lies in the East Atlantic, but it hardly has anything there, because what naval assets we have are busy heading east to other oceans. That is a bit of a dichotomy at the heart of our defence strategy that needs to be resolved post’Radakin.
For me, yes to F-35As, another batch of Typhoons and please some reinforcement of the army, and yes to a couple more T26s for the ASW task
More T31s or T32s for out-of-area flag-flying kudos looks a very low priority in the wider scheme of things.
The idea we should get involved early in Central Europe with an Army like BOAR is fanciful. Its correct that we have a really effective Navy and act as Guardians of the North and Atlantic. You seem to be forgetting that with SSN’s and a melting ice cap we need to look at the Arctic. In my opinion the Russian navy will retreat from the Murmansk area and offer the Chinese a base in Northern Russia. The Chinese will have a modern 500 ship Navy by mid 2030’s.
Actually the vast majority of the delivery of those missiles is via sea power.. Russia does not have cruise missiles or any number of land based ballistic missiles that it can fire at the UK.. it’s firing platforms will be
1) submarines
2) surface vessels
3) maritime strike aircraft and strategic bombers..
4) long range land based aircraft
To defend against those the very best defence is to dominate the artic and northern seas with navel power.. sub sea, surface and carrier based..
Secondly the best way to defend any enemy is to hurt them and strangle them.. to do that you need to attack as we are around 2000km-3000km away from most Russian targets we need a navy to do that with
1) SSNs and surface vessels interdicting Russian shipping
2) carrier battle groups with effective strike aircraft
3) SSNs with land strike capability
4) surface vessels with land strike capabilities
5) long range land based airborne strike
Completely agree, a RN (and RAF) first approach is best route for us to take. This would be a sensible approach given our geography, history, expertise and limited finances.
The hard part will be working out an appropriate tasking and sensible level of enabling resources for the Army so we can meet our NATO obligations. We should be very wary about getting pulled into a wasteful recapitulation of the BAOR.
In the longer run, we’re likely to see an increasing number of by PLAN forces excursions into the Arctic Sea and Atlantic Oceans as they develop into a true Blue Water Navy. In that eventuality, we and our allies would be grateful that the UK had built up a strong and capable Navy as a counterweight.
Babcock already have an ASW variant of the T31 as a proposal
“The T31 is of course not much of a warship”
They are going to have 32 MK41 cells, have a decent radar for a frigate and three guns.
What do you think is actually missing in terms of armament for a GP frigate?
For me the only thing missing right now is the hull mounted sonar.
I agree, however not much point in the sonar if she did not get the acoustic reduction package, but she is certainly a warship and there are many roles for a GP frigate that don’t require staking SSN’s in the North Atlantic or shooting down ballistic missiles in the SCS.
Agree a hull mounted sonata and a torpedo/ mine defence system and the type 31s are rocking this world.
Definitely should get more built Babcock are embarrassing BAE systems and building complex warships at speed and to a reasonable budget.
That’s what I meant but didn’t say. The T26 build is glacial compared to T31. BAE have taken the piss out of MOD for too long. If we want to rapidly increase the fleet then buy more T31, arm them properly and use the large mission bay for an ASW solution.
Hopefully seeing the rapid progress of the T31s will shake the complacency out of BAE.
The Type 26 build rate has been done to death here over the years – the reasons are crystal clear,stop repeating the anti-BAE Bullshit.
I like the idea of a “hull mounted sonata”.
Trouble is it will cost more than three Tenors.
Wouldn’t you be safer using a helo’s dipping sonar?
“Wouldn’t you be safer using a helo’s dipping sonar?”
You cannot launch a helo in certain sea states and if your helo is being maintained or the crew rested it isn’t always an option.
If I were crew I personally would like the ability to be aware of threats around me. A hull mounted sonar gives you 24/7 capability even if it isn’t quite as good as a towed array or dipping sonar.
To be far a hull sonar has very very limited use in ASW..its main use is supporting sanitisation of enclosed limited seas..
Is a hull mounted sonar actually going to be any use against an SSN/K?
Surely even today we can hang a sonobuoy from a fibre optic drone and create 10 times the effect?
Would it be of use against an explosive-laden UUV? If it’s built in, it will be more likely to be in use than a sonobuoy when the ship is attacked.
100% agree on reordering the Type 31. Forget messing with the Hull and having to basically redesign the whole thing. We don’t want to do the same hackjob the Canadians did to the Type 26.
Imo ordering more a batch 3 of Type 26’s would also work. Then we can also offer batch 2 to Norway. Lets finally get some economies of scale in our shipbuilding.
They shouldn’t have built the Type-31s in the first place. Instead, just constructed more Type-26s. A fleet of just one type would be cheaper than a mixed fleet of two. In addition, the mixed fleet is also less capable!
Except we need frigates now, not in 10 years, T26 is not delivering fast enough to make up for losses.
T31 with Mk41 and NSM fitted along with soft launch Sea Ceptor, 57mm and 40mm is an awful lot of AAW warship.
Particularly if you get target data from another platform…..
T26 are only slow to build due to treasury tight fistedness. If properly funded for normal/urgent builds they’d be built as fast as most others around the world. Not a shabby design at all as both Canada & Austrailia have taken the design too. As an island maritime major trading nation we’re critically reliant on seabourne trade, plus historically the major contributor to security in the NE Atlantic, so need a larger ASW optimised escort fleet than just 8 T26. Every escort needs basic ASW sonar as a minimum.
Who else thinks they will just class the rivers and the remaining supply vessels as ‘escorts’?
Actually they’ll probably designate the 6 MRSS as escorts
Yep, an Absalon type design for MRSS would do it.
There was that Babcock MRNP stretched A140/T31 a little while back. Maybe that? But even with six of these isn’t there a need for a Trieste type multi-purpose platform with a well dock for heavier helicopter and marine ops? Hope there is a quicker uptake in NSM to spread across the fleet.
Yes, I saw the stretched T31 proposal. BAE showed a ‘strike frigate’ graphic too. Lots of suggestions. It does seem though that a LHD design has been ruled out, so we’ll have to wait and see. I can see the synergy for the LHD with Asia Pacific geography but the Falkands will be our last island invasion. It looks like the defence review is putting the navy money into subs, frigates and drones to secure our comms and sea lanes.
But MRSS ain’t escorts, so I don’t think so. If they do that you might as well count Rivers as escorts, or Tanya, whose details are in the phone booth.
Why not, they may end up as a modified frigate design or armed with self defences, not a stretch to call it something else for a cheap newpaper win.
No they won’t, they are genuinely increasing the budget, there is no need for games.
Lord Robertson is a very very serious man.
He is not f**king around.
Wishful thinking lol
If the MRSS are heavily armed combatants slotting into the T32 role then there is t sn issue.
If they are effectively Bays with a couple of 40mm and a budget radar I’d be sceptical.
The real peace time number is 30 which was Robertson’s old number from the 1990’s.
That would require another batch of T31 and MRSS.
Which a tuly wouldn’t cost that much.
Please don’t keep repeating the declines we cannot man them. On that argument you’d never do anything. Better to aim a bit higher….
I agree 30 should be the target and it’s doable with something like a 8 T83, 8 T26 and 14 T31/32
9 more T31/T32 at £300 million a pop spread over 15 years is hardly breaking the bank.
That being said I am delighted with 25 and if combined with UUV and USV’s it’s probably more than enough.
There clearly are current issues manning ships, but given that we won’t be reaching these proposed hull numbers for a good few years then that gives time to sort out recruitment, combine that with additional automation and there may not be a problem.
And even if there was it would still be valuable to have spare ships available in an actual war, meaning there’s something to take the place of ships in repair or lost. Besides I’m sure crew could be found with help of other NATO allies. But first you actually need to build the ships crew.
With it widely acknowledged there are too few destroyers, considering the Rule-of-3, we ought to aim for at least 9 T83s to replace the 45s. That leaves 16 Frigates (and other escorts). The reality is, going for 9 T83s might then still stretch the budget, so the least expensive option might be just adding 3 more T31s but, with hull mounted sonar and, if it’s feasible and sensible to do so, add hull noise surpression?
Hugo, i agree with Jim. Lord Robertson is neither a bluffer nor a liar.
Agree. I met him a few years ago. He’s got his head screwed on and knows exactly what force structure we need and more importantly what we can reasonably afford.
Every warship and sloop we build complicates Putin and Xis arithmetic. They have to build a counter.
At least after today’s strike by Ukraine on Russia’s tactical bomber fleet we now have 34% less bomb and missile trucks to worry about.
Slava Ukraine!
Let’s wait to see if that 34% number is actually evidenced outside of Ukrainian claims. Whilst I support Ukraine, they have a tendency as much as Russia to exaggerate their achievements. The last I saw (about 4 hours ago), only 8 bombers had been confirmed destroyed through video. Whilst only a lower limit, it is still far from that 40 bomber number claimed by Ukraine.
It’s been evidenced. 2 Siberian airfields were hit over 5000 miles away from Ukraine.
Genius attack involved articulated trucks packed full of kamikaze drones in their containers.
At least 43 Russian aircraft destroyed including TU95 Bears, AWACS and Backfire Bs and some Blackjacks.
All of which are no longer in production and irreplaceable.
At a stroke the loss of these 43 aircraft has removed a significant proportion of Russia’s air force tactical enablers and very much reduced the attacking threat to NATO and allies.
Spectacular success.
Just hope that any Russian response is not tactical nuclear and or mass drone attack against civilians. Hope Ukraine can still have momentum to flush Russian forces from its sovereign territory and regain access to the Asov and its ports and rescue its trapped population there!
[Replying to Mr Bell]
You have neither given nor linked any evidence that 40 aircraft were destroyed.
They are not significantly increasing the budget just yet. There’s a little more this year, a few billion in 2027 (maybe 10% over last year) and for the rest, we have to wait a decade and it depends on Labour getting reelected with this still in the manifesto. Have a look at The Time’s laundry list and see if you think there’ll be room for any new frigates. I’m not sure, but there might be.
• The government will invest £6 billion on munitions to replenish UK stockpiles, with £1.5 billion earmarked for six new factories that will sustain 1,000 jobs.
• The government will seek to buy American-made jets capable of launching nuclear gravity bombs
• The review will commit to new defensive shields to protect Britain against enemy ballistic missiles.
• It recommends the re-establishment of a civilian home guard to protect national infrastructure.
• It backs a resurgence in shipbuilding, with the Royal Navy wanting to increase the number of destroyers and frigates to 25, up from 14 now.
• A new underwater surveillance programme, known as Atlantic Bastion and overseen by the navy, will guard against Russian sabotage of internet cables and energy pipelines.
• Healey will focus on fixing the armed forces recruitment crisis but is expected to set a longer-term target for increasing the size of the army.
Fiona Hill is equally serious, and has been making some of the most perceptive commentary on both the detail of the Trump regime, and Putin / Ukraine.
She has been months ahead of even the best of the media, perhaps Ukraine the Latest notwithstanding.
Very bright lady. Too few of her ability in either the US or UK Govt infrastructure. She warned 5 years ago the dangers of Putin and his successful manipulations of the US and Trump. Clearly still not got through to him.
Jon,
?? Bullet point 5 explicitly states an expansion of destroyer and frigate flotillas to 25 vessels. Concerned that will be below the budgetary cutoff line? Potentially of more concern, no apparent reference to SSN(A), a possible game changer. 🤔🤞
I think SSNA and Tempest are a given. And yes, I think some of these listed aspirations will be below the cut off line for the budget unless the 2.6% of GDP (including security) coming in 2027 is increased yet further. However, it’s not that we can’t afford to buy the extra second-tier frigates, that’s trivial. It’s that we won’t be able to operate them, so they will get delayed until we can, because the Treasury will argue why buy them if you can’t operate them?
SSN A along with Tempest were all recommitted to before the SDR started. Expect no issues or much comment on them in SDR.
Major risk is Australia pulling out over cost or the US over giving up Virginia’s.
I just spotted that Reuters are saying 12 SSNA to replace Astutes
BBC are reporting 12 to be acquired.
Jon,
Thanks for Reuters update. Hmmm…even expressing an aspiration to acquire 12 SSN(A) is notable and impressive. Suddenly, the expansion of submarine maintenance facilities comes into sharper focus. Almost as though the blokes down at the Admiralty have a plan. As Deep32 has stated previously, RN should increase recruitment and training for a significantly expanded (doubled?) Silent Service. If SSN(A) is ultimately equipped w/ SLCM-A, the CRINKs should take a step back and reassess their options.
Also pleased to learn RAF contemplating F-35A acquisition, a realitively low cost option for diversification/increased resiliency for delivery of nukes. Perhaps ultimately the RAF will acquire B-21s and/or SR-72s to reconstitute a true Bomber Command. 🤞
What is SLCM-A? I assume it’s a submarine-launched cruise missile, but I’ve not seen the “-A” before. Is this a planned AUKUS thing or are you riffing on Son of Tomahawk?
Mea culpa, intended to write SLCM-N. 🙄 Currently, US only programme. In the future, given current trends? 🤔
Fiona Hill is equally serious, and has been making some of the most perceptive commentary on both the detail of the Trump regime, and Putin / Ukraine.
She has been months ahead of even the best of the media, perhaps Ukraine the Latest notwithstanding.
I have worked for him.on a number of projects have talked with him several times and have said this from the start , once again thank you Jim .🇬🇧👍
I think the review team are excellent. However, the review has had to get past Treasury and Cabinet. I assume that’s why it has been delayed so long. Who has worn down whom? We won’t have long to wait.
Listening to the orchestra warming up, the ambition sounds good if the budget matches. We still haven’t heard anyone say, we want to increase all this stuff AND get rid of that stuff. It’s the get-rid-of bit I’ll be looking for in the SDR. If it isn’t there (as it almost never is) we can expect capability to drop off the bottom unplanned, along with more cheese paring. Bringing forward the 2.5% is the single most useful thing HMG can do to make this work.
So hows it going today, so far massive bluffs and no substance.
Everyone has to be so negative in the face of good news
Yep
They’ll be classing RIBs as warships next
Rivers can’t even escort themselves! No armament beyond close range small boat attack, no SAM/AA, no ASW, no missiles, too slow to catch another warship.
An expansion in the Royal Navy’s capability to project power and ensure the defence of our nation would be greatly welcomed!
I would very much like to see the capability of us to complete surface-vs-surface engagements not only via the main gun, but also a cruise missiles that can complete these operations. The ability for the ships to complete surface-vs-submarine warfare aboard all our vessels would ensure every threat can be dealt with.
An increased fleet would see not only an increase in our nations abilities, but also a huge increase in the shipbuilding sector with many, many jobs becoming available, ensuring an overall growth in the economy.
I look forward to seeing what happens next!
Isn’t 78 per cent a bit misleading. The current orders are to take the R.N. to 19 so 25 is 31 per cent. Having said that 25 is good. I would be more than happy to have five more properly equipped Type 31’s as Rob suggests. I also feel that we should look at Bae’s proposal for a destroyer based on the T26 hull form with 96 VLS.Commonality makes sense.
There won’t be a T26 destroyer because we’ll be working on T83 immeadiately after
That will probably end up being the type 83.
For now to get to 25
6 type 45s PIP completed, Sea Ceptor a installed and cannister launched NSMs
9 type 31s ( a second more heavily armed batch 2 X4 ships)
10 type 26s (gain of +2)
An undisclosed number of type 92 sloops- possibly based on an enlarged Samuel Beckett hullform or Steller systems trimaran TX concept
Possibly Appledore to build these sloops.
The difficulty I have is keeping the yards open after such a sudden rushed but of ship building and warship orders.
Rushed glut of shipbuilding
We’re not getting more T26, T83 follows too soon after
One of the proposals as reported by Navy Lookout is a T-83 derived from the T-26 though details were sketchy at best with tonnage suggested between 6000 to 10000 tons. 6000 is ludicrously low and to me inconceivable which unless a typo, suggests on that aspect certainly they may be just speculating on very little actual evidence because it’s been mooted before, but either way there won’t be both a T-26 ‘Destroyer’ and a T-83 follow up.
Is BAE going to be offering a two tier AAW option with both a T83 and T26 hull based? Plus there’s the Babcock A140 AAW variant.
Are they going to sell QE to crew them?
Spot on. Sanctioned plans are to restore base fleet of 19. Regarding crewing. Next generation vessels will need fewer crew and give the fleet balanced and robust efence capabilities with good shore accommodation and retention will improve.
My money is on 5 new Type 32’s based on T31 design and 7 Type 83’s.
Why 7, very random
Lucky number?
Navy wants 8 and the Treasury wants 6 so I guess 7. Previous outlined plans were for 24 escorts with 19 existing and five added T32 so I can’t figure out why 25 now unless we add one T26 or a T83.
Hi Jim, your comment above re Aus and Aukus. I think the Aus and US met in a Singapore defence summit with other countries over the weekend so likely discussed there. All this waiting around for the first secondhand Virginia’s, I don’t know why in the interim Aus doesn’t purchase 2-3 additional diesel subs similar to the Collins? Could co-share with NZ?
I really think we need more submarines, but not the huge ones we have now with ballistic missiles, just smaller ones, with a small crew brimmed purely with torpedo’s. We need aircraft carrier, destroyer killers, not intercontinental nuclear missiles.
Almost going back to WW2 WOLF packs.
Having loads of smaller submarines would tie up and stretch the enemies hunters.
Smaller submarines have no legs. We’re not going to be able to field masses of them. Ambition is to increase to 12 SSNs in the 2040s
Hugo, small submarines. Are you saying that SSKs have no utility patrolling in NATOs Atlantic area, specifically Eastern Atlantic, Western Approaches, GIUK gap, North Sea?
They have utility but only in numbers, we can’t have more SSNs and SSKs
Look at the UK defence forum. Net webpage on the type 92 sloop.
We are about to get drone hunter killers able to patrol continuously and then prosecute any target found within the GIUK gap.
That’s how we increase our subsurface fighting fleet.
SSNr might well end up being a motherships for a squadron of these things able to dominate huge areas of ocean.
Is there any evidence from the government/official channels that indicate the Type 92 will be armed, and not merely a surveillance vessel?
Just build more T-31 and faster
Goodbye QE and POW.
Congratulations on the stupidest comment of the day. 🤡
Glad you like it.
Goodbye 1 of them?
😁👍😁 beat me to it 👍
This is exciting news. Why does everyone have to be so negative? With type 45’s potentially looking at being the oldest in the fleet and the new frigates coming into service, how about we all just stop being so pessimistic.
Hang on.
I know how MoD and HMG spin.
25 Escorts.
Brilliant.
Now, are those 6 to get to the 25 the “up to 6” MRSS?
Which will replace 3 Bay, Argus, and the 2 cut LPDs.
So when we compare to Robertsons 97 SDSR which mandated 32 Escorts, and we had Ocean, 2 LPDs, and 4 Bay on top, we are actually still down.
One could concede that if a traditional LPD is now obsolete ( which I don’t agree with ) and we are only doing light raiding then smaller groups from a MRSS combatant along with Drones are more suited.
Tend to agree and we also have a more fundamental problem we can barely get the ships we have off the wall because of a lack matelots. We could have a lot of new kit tied up unless something is done about it pretty quickly and you cannot spin your way out of that problem.
I agree that more detail is required before any reaction can be given. Additionally, is this not as much an unconfirmed rumour (until tomorrow) as the F-35A rumour? As I said on the other article, I trust these non-specialist news organisations on the topic of defence about as far as I can throw them.
What’s needed is to get to get Healey in front of a sharp journalist who asks directly, are the 6 additional ships to be ‘strike frigates’ and double counted as escorts and MRSS amphibious assault ships.
I hope you’re wrong and it’s genuine, say an additional 6 Type 31s.
We’ll find out tomorrow I suppose.
In effect, ships increase by 2, as the LPDs are gone.
Or, same overall number as before.
Not the expansion it seems overall in RN wider capability.
If…..if.
Beware HMG spin.
Hi DM, the devil will be in the detail. Perhaps the most efficient affordable fix is to scale up the t31 to10. They seem to be able to build theses rapidly, compared to the Type 26 anyway.
The nuclear thing is worrying:
“John Healey, the defence secretary, and Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, the head of the armed forces, are looking to acquire American-made fighter jets capable of launching gravity bombs with lower power than conventional nukes.”
This implies to me getting F-35A and B-61 nukes possibly under American control, like the Germas have. Is that how others read it? If so it would be a mistake, wasting yet more of the limited budget on American kit. Even if they are under UK sovereign control, if would still nor deliver enough bang for the buck.
Massively, if Carrier Strike is thrown under the bus to pay for it.
F-15s?
An F15 to reach its target will need a massive support package. It is a massive radar reflector than can be detected a long time before say a F35 could. A number of F35s would be required to clear a path for the F15, from land based air defences, not to mention enemy fighter aircraft. Whereas a F35 would need significantly less. This is the main reason why Germany binned the idea of buying F18s to replace their Tornados. The nuke carrying F18 would need a similarly large support package to reach its target.
The F35A yes, I can see the point in getting a few of those, if their primary role is as a strategic strike aircraft, using conventual and nuclear weapons until GCAP becomes available. However, I do and I don’t see the UK going for the B61. The do is simply because of the time and costs of integrating a sovereign weapon on to the F35, especially as the B61 is now an integrated weapon. But it is still a dumb bomb that requires either an over flight delivery or the use of toss bombing. Which in this day and age is crazy. Why hasn’t anyone fitted a wing kit to it? Which would at least give the delivery aircraft a chance to evade defences.
The don’t is that we will be integrating a new sovereign weapon on to the F35, which is the FCASW air launched cruise missile. This will be a new evolution of Storm Shadow, but stealthier. It may have a similar BROACH (Storm Shadow)/MEPHISTO (Taurus) warhead, but with a greater fragmentary effect. At 450 to 480kg the warhead is fairly large. Could the space for the warhead also be used for a small thermonuclear device? Our AWE certainly has the knowledge and manufacturing capability to design and build one. A smallish diable yield warhead similar to that carried by France’s ASMP of 100 to 300kt should be more than doable.
FCASW is supposed to have more range than Storm Shadow, so it’s not going to be small. Therefore, it’s unlikely it will fit in a F35A’s weapon bay. It will have to be carried under the wing. This is not a major problem, as the F35 even with weapons under the wing will still have a significantly lower radar cross section than a 4th Gen fighter carrying the same. Meaning it still should be able to get within weapons launching range of its target “relatively” safely. Plus if FCASW does a similar flight profile as Storm Shadow, but wrapped in a stealthier skin. It should also be able to get much closer to its target before being detected or tracked.
Perhaps the MoD do have a Sovereign option, now that the Government has stated the intent of an air launched nuke. We will have to wait and see.
I think a lot of positive news will be announced tomorrow. But as always, the devil is in the detail, and when we actually see orders placed and real money committed. And priority no1 is getting more people into our Armed Force’s and improving retention.
Healey has already stated that the army will not grow in size until the 2030s – the Guardian reported that today. That said, perhaps that’s for the best.
Yes, not in this Parliament.
Makes the reshuffling in Project Wavell interesting.
He basically said his first job is to stop the reduction in numbers so it stays where it is now .. so 73500 ish and not let to drop to the planned 7300.. then once stabilised to increase in next parliament.
Does not give the army much wiggle room.. so whatever it does to increase lethality will need to include reorganisation of what is there.
Thus Wavell.
@Daniele fingers crossed and they stay very pragmatic and don’t go all sacred cow.
We don’t need an increase in numbers we just need to properly arm and equip the army we have . We still have far too many pretty much useless lorry born infantry and the loss of Warrior is an absolute crime . What we do need to do is follow the example of the rest of Europe and invest in a decent replacement IFV , CV90 or a derivative would get my vote but the German IFV Puma is certainly worth a look . At the very least put a decent gun and turret on top of Boxer and reinstate the third Mech Bde in 3 Div . Sure BAOR is long and gone but the ARRC which we command is still the only truly deployable Corps in Europe and the UK Armed Div is the tip of it’s spear. One properly formed and equipped Armoured Division consisting of three Mech/Arms Bdes , a forward deployed deep Recce strike Bde ( 1 Bde) and yes reform 1 Arty Bde ( an excellent formation with which I had the privilege to serve) and consisting of all our remaining 155 mm and rocket artillery and which aside from Battle Group indigenous assets should also own the drones . IMHO
Not far off what I want to see, though I feel to get that 3rd All Arms Bde DRSB would need to go.
As you know, we don’t have the CS CSS for DRSB in its current form or 4 Bde.
I’m hoping Wavells reorg might find the people, in conjunction with the extra Gurkhas being recruited to free up UK head count
I agree it’s going to be a systemic shift.. it looks to me like the priority’s may be
1) the dishing out of long range pain and the industrial capacity to keep dishing it out. ( this is interesting because although NATO aligned it’s very much how an isolated island would need to fight any enemy on its own back)
2) the fighting of political sub kinetic wars
3) the protection of seaways
4) ensuring our nuclear deterrent can deter all levels or scale of nuclear attack
5) recruitment and retention
6) the military industrial complex as an engine of national renewal
I’m just going to dash some cold water around for a moment and ask a question.. because this is important.
The mood music is that MRSS is now going to be a complex commissioned warship focused on littoral combat….
Does 25 major surface combatants therefore include 6 MRSS? Or is that 25 + 6 MRSS. Because if it does that’s a bit shit..
If it’s 25 +MRSS then essentially the RN will have 31 major surface combatants..
Personally I’m hoping it means 8 AAW destroyers 8 ASW frigates and 9 GP frigates for 25 + 6 MRSS with medium gun, CAMM and land attack missiles….
I suggested this above.
6 MRSS for 3 Bay, 2 LPD, 1 Argus means same number as before, spun as an increase.
Where in reality numbers drop. By 6, as before we had the escorts AND the Amphibs.
Fingers crossed it’s not… we may hopefully find out soon.
Except that the LPDs were obsolete and weren’t used, whereas we’ll be getting something useful extra in their place.
Weren’t used? What are you on about. They were very busy till we ran out of crew. And when exactly are we getting their replacement
To be fair, I think that is debatable.
If they’re obsolete, with their c3 suite, ammunition stowage, and ability to take 4 LCU 4 LCVP 1 BARV where does that leave the Bays with far less capability.
People often say mass beach landings against defended areas are a thing of the past, sure.
Who’s to say those ships could not have been used to land smaller teams in the FCF concept?
Again, as said before, now we have unilaterally given up landing at scale on a coast, no doubt the MRSS as duel combat vessels might be a better match, but I’d not call LPDs obsolete.
Particularly as they would have made excellent mother ships for ‘ sea baby’ type surface strike drones. Sea drones are excellent and have priced them selves time and time again in the Black Sea/ Ukraine, but without a mother ship with a large flood able dock how are you going to get them there . The Albion class also had a large flight deck which would have been perfect for operating large rotary drones. Very sadly it is my belief that we ditched our LPD just at the moment they would have come into their own.
Anyone who thinks the rest of Europe think LPDs are obsolete clearly hasn’t been watching them arrive in numbers at Devonport. There is a massive Amphib exercise happening down there and an Albion should have been heading up the UK’s contribution to that. Instead it is being done by a Bay class. I believe the participants are as follows:-
FS Tonnerre
FS Dixmude
ESPS Galicia
ITS San Giorgio
RFA Lyme Bay
Plus various escorts
The LPDs were sometomes used for tasks other than amphibious landings, an expensive substitute for a frigate. So perhaps the idea of an Absalon type hybrid ship, able to support small scale amphibious operations and also act in a traditional frigates role is the best option for the RN. The previous concept of MRSS as a ” large non complex warships” looks to have fallen out of favour.
American jets and nuclear gravity free fall bombs. Do we ever learn? In 1998 the UK had its own nuclear free fall bomb and most UK designed combat jets could use it including the diminutive Sea Harrier and Jaguar. The best outcome. The GCAP Tempest is made nuclear capable and able to operate a British designed nuclear free fall bomb and also able to operate off our two modified QE carriers. If we use US bombs and aircraft we may as well cut the middle man out and hand the US even more billions and not bother using the money on the UK armed forces. Note the US pays far more attention to France because they have their own range of nuclear weapons and delivery systems completely independent of the US. Being independent of the US is also cheaper and more cost effective in the long run. France has had a consistently lower defence budget than the UK but has been consistently a bigger strategic presence on the world stage. And France only fights in wars that are in ITS interest.
Tempest will never operate off carriers
So my bets on the what tomorrow will bring
1) the dishing out of long range pain and the industrial capacity to keep dishing it out. ( this is interesting because although NATO aligned it’s very much how an isolated island would need to fight any enemy on its own back)
2) the offensive capabilities to fighting of political sub kinetic wars ( cyber to sabotage)
3) the protection of seaways to the UK ( up to and including the Indian Ocean )
4) ensuring our nuclear deterrent can deter all levels or scale of nuclear attack
5) recruitment and retention
6) the military industrial complex as an engine of national renewal
7) the ability of the nation to defend its undersea infrastructure… using autonomous systems.
8) the ability of the UK to defend against air attacks
9) the ability of the UK to defend again sub war political warfare attack
10 the resilience of the UK to a major peer war that involves direct attack ( civil defence)
The creation of a new ‘Home Guard’, the addition of cadet forces in state schools, the rebuilding of a defence industrial base, defence against aerial attack, the securing of undersea comms and sea lanes, cyber defences, Project Wavell, enhancement of our ability to strike back are all evidence that a new United Kingdom is coming into being; Empire and the 20 century are past, devolution, EU membership and covid have run their course and we are moving on, reborn; sort of a Dr Who regeneration 🙂
Fingers crossed
Well we’re already involved in (2), so more resources definitely needed asap.
This would make me so happy
25 Escorts ? This is government who have just got rid of our 2 landing ships two Brazil because we don’t have the ability to crew them . Which is true but also to save money .Think HMG want to get recruitment numbers up first before before coming out with pipe dreams .🙄
It wasn’t just to save money, they were never going to put to sea.
Too man power intensive
It wasn’t to save money, they were obsolete. We’re not going to be doing large opposed landings anymore.
They’re not obsolete. That’s an excuse.
They were effectively laid up before Labour came to power, the decision to remove them officially was just completing what the Conservatives had started but were too afraid to finish. A lot like the prison release scheme and the Chagos Islands deal both also started under the previous government, now completed and hypothetically criticised roundly by those who started them.
I think you mean hypocritically rather then hypothetically. In other words absolutely normal for politics.
I had to double check that a 78% growth is only 25 ships — I knew things were dire but wow.
Still, it’s long past due for action instead of words so it’s all welcome. I just wonder if a very small number of very capable ships could triumph against waves of lesser designs – after all, it only takes one missile in the wrong place to put any vessel out of action.
Yes more FF/DD but 25 only thanks us back to 2010 numbers. We need to be closer to 30 ships. In addition the RFA needs expanding as 3 operational tankers is completely insufficient especially whilst operating two Carriers. Of course the words are cheap what counts is finding crews to man any addition to RN or RFA, that is the real challenge!
Correction Takes us back to 2010 numbers
We have 4 Tide class tankers.
Only 3 are crewed
Yes but Tiderace has been laid up since 2022 in Liverpool. To be accurate on figures with at with the other 3 at least one is in maintenance over the year leave the RFA for long periods with only two tankers available.
I can’t see this happening in the traditional sense. I think their idea of escort ships may include much smaller armed drone ships, a bit like a loyal wingman. This is just speculation of course but it would make sense and fit in with the general direction of the UK armed forces.
T32 and MRSS folded together in the form of 6x Arrowhead 140 MNP (or something based on it), following on seamlessly from T31 at Rosyth.
That would make sense for numbers.
They have just announced the SSN fleet will move to 12 and they are investing 15billion in nuclear warhead development…
😲
Cannot find the source?
BBC news
Sir Keir Starmer will say up to 12 conventionally-armed nuclear-powered submarines will replace the UK’s current fleet from the late 2030s onwards.
The prime minister is also expected to confirm the UK will spend £15bn on its nuclear warhead programme
Going from a planned 19 to 25. It’s a step in the right direction but a very modest step. I would order an extra 3 T26’s and 3 upgraded T31’s.
Even bigger news is that the RN will get 12 SSN-A’s to replace the seven Astute’s. That is serious money. Or have I missed an “up to” somewhere?
Yep. It’s “up to 12”
Part 1.
As a leader in ASW and given the threat environment, restoration of this capability with additional T26s makes sense, while also anticipating that 25 will be upped in the future as well. What is lost on many, is the per unit costs of the T26s includes the development costs for the class, spread over the 8 instead of the (already low) 13 as 1-to-1 replacements for the T23 (post the early 2000 cut from 16). Norway is expected to purchase 5, possibly built wholly in the UK. Add a further batch of 5 for the RN, and sooner rather than later, then the UK should be able to get these additional units well cheaper than the original Batch 1s (or 2s). Now, if the MoD is smart for once, these Batch 3s would include the replacement SAMPSON fixed arrays (maybe incorporating CEAFAR technology) allowing at a pinch (and with additional VLS cells) a boost to local and area AAW capabilities to augment the T45s/T83s.
.
.
Part 2.
To expedite any quick force build-up, the UK has to inject the funding upfront, not over 2, 5, 10 or 15 yrs but now in June 2025. Unhindered by multi-year trickle funds, industry – without further political intervention – can then build cost-effectively much quicker and cheaper for the tax payer.
.
.
Part 3.
Circling back to part 1, yes T26s are needed in numbers, however, the force needs additional T31 or T32s (as follow-on T31s) and the pitiful T83 hull numbers need to restore the T42 fleet numbers, bringing the Destroyers/ Cruisers numbers back to 12 (I’d go 13 myself to replace Bristol, but hey, give me an inch, I will take a mile). Between another batch of (5) T31s and 6-7 additional destroyers then the UK can start to then go, wait, what about AUKUS boats, going for the jugular, +10 more over the Astute 1-to-1 replacements and I would say the RN is starting to recover and with some RFA, mine hunters etc, could be just about ready to stand ready.
.
.
Note this only restores the RN to force levels from around 2000, 25 yrs ago; More would be needed to go back a further 10-12yrs before that.
.
.
Question though is does the UK have the will and resolve to mobilise like it has in the past.
I see a lot of commentary on the “glacial” build aspect for T26’s. It it just Labour bashing / BAE bashing or people predominantly not understanding the fundimental context and record of the the given situation … Probably a bit both.
Please read / reread –
https://www.navylookout.com/in-focus-delivering-the-type-26-frigates/
Ok – so what are the cuts to be announced? There aren’t many left as the cupboard’s pretty bare.
Latest annual government deficit is 4.8% of GDP., @£148b. The defence budget is so stretched that MOD hasn’t published an updated 10 year equipment plan. There are demands for increased funding for health, education, etc. So the reality of the SDR is likely to be-
AUKUS will deliver an increased SSN fleet from 2040 using funding already in place.
The surface fleet won’t return to 19 until the early 2030s
T32 and MRSS will be merged allowing government to claim an increase.
Existing funding lines, already budgeted for, will be spent on modernizing nuclear weapons.
F35A with free fall US nukes won’t be acquired.
Army equipment programmes, Ch3, Boxer, new SPG won’t be completed until 2030 at the earliest
Any new money, and there won’t be much will be spent on increasing weapons stocks including new drones.
Long, long, LONG overdue….
Type 26 x 8.
Type 31 x 5
Type 32 x 5
Type 45/83 x 6
Total = 24
This is 1 vessel not already announced. Hardly some massive increase. I will be interested when they announce an aim for 45 escorts.
As commented on above. Can we add 6 MRSS or no? Depends what becomes the T32?
I am thinking, Type 32 based on the 31s, as an automatons Drone launch ship, so it can launch 20ft shipping containers of AI enabled drones, to attack the enemy and to protect a fleet against incoming drones attacks. With 57 mm and 40mm guns, backed by laser with 36 Mark 41 VLS. We need to use the 41s drone launching too.
I also see the MRSS using shipping containers loaded up to send in swarms of drones before and and during landings. With a 5″ for shore bombardment & AA’ and 36 Mk 41 VLS. Backed up with 40mm or 57mm bofors and laser as well as sea Ceptor.
In fact all of the ships need to modified to be able to launch drone swarms from shipping containers. Different containers for direct jobs.