The Ministry of Defence has reached a key milestone in a programme to deliver satellite-based tactical data link capability to the Royal Navy’s surface fleet.

The Maritime Multi Link programme’s Phase 2c has achieved its Equipment Delivery Date, clearing the way for Satellite Tactical Data Link and Joint Range Extension Applications Protocol capability to be fitted across 13 platforms, including Type 23 frigates, Type 45 destroyers, and Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers.

The upgrade also includes updates to existing Link 11 and Link 16 message sets, say DE&S.

The JREAP-C protocol allows tactical data link information, which is traditionally exchanged between platforms within line of sight, to be encapsulated and transmitted over satellite communications networks. This extends the range at which warships can share a common tactical picture with other units and command nodes without relying on direct radio links.

An early version of the capability was deployed operationally during Carrier Strike Group 25 aboard HMS Prince of Wales and her escorts. The MoD said this enabled the strike group to share a real-time operational picture with locations well beyond line of sight, describing it as having transformed how the group was able to operate.

The programme is managed by the Situational Awareness Command and Control Delivery Team, part of DE&S within the National Armaments Director Group, working alongside the Navy Acquisition Programme Team and Navy Command.

Samantha Thurlby, Maritime Tactical Data Link Programme Manager, was quoted as saying: “This milestone represents a significant achievement and truly a proud moment for the MML programme. Delivering the Equipment Delivery Date for Phase 2c required overcoming considerable challenges, including delays in equipment contracting that demanded alternative procurement approaches, as well as rigorous software assurance within a highly congested testing and assurance schedule.”

She added that the results were “made possible through strong collaborative working using a Joint Working Team approach across NCSISS, the SACC Delivery Team, and BAE.”

The fitting of Phase 2c across the fleet can now begin, bringing the capability from its initial operational deployment aboard the carrier strike group to the wider surface fleet.

Lisa West
Lisa West
Lisa has a degree in Media & Communication from Glasgow Caledonian University and works with industry news, sifting through press releases in addition to moderating website comments.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

111 COMMENTS

  2. Well, if these Telegraph ‘reports’ of a cut from eight to six T26 are true, they’ll need pretty much every upgrade possible.

    • My guess is that they either discovered the MoD were ‘considering’ cutting T26s, which they should (why not explore alternatives and discard them?) or have misinterpreted a report that the Norwegians will be taking two of the existing build slots, which is normal and would be less than I expected.

      • No it is the usual series of pre-defence budget leaks.

        Right – we will do the usual offer up scrapping the Royal Yacht – can’t be serious about scrapping the Royal Yacht……

        Why do you think Healey was banging the drum on ASW work?

        The more frightening prospect it that T26 is cut from 8 -> 6 on the promise of T83 being accelerated. We all know how that will pan out! With the sop of 3 or 5 more T31s to keep Rosyth busy whilst the STARMITE dithering continues.

        When DIP emerges nobody is going to like it as it will actually be short term cuts before the election with promises of oceans of cash the other side of the election.

        • That’s the same trick they always play. Workshare on Typhoon was 232 to be purchased. We got 140 because Saudi etc got our “slots “.
          Turkey ordering more has saved the jobs at Warton.
          The treasury won’t care as long as “promised orders ” are filled and there is no penalty for giving Norway 7 and 8.
          Its so depressing.

        • I’m not sure to be honest.. I think they may be trying to work the far left into a corner.

          The discourse seems now to be defence spending will be increased but what’s getting cut..

          the health secretary was essentially nodding to that today.. we all know defence spending must go up quickly but if nobody wants their taxes raised or the pensions, benefits, schools or hospitals cut were do we get the money.. he was giving the hard choices all in it together…

          In the end the British public seem to be getting the idea that the world is nasty.. and we need to build up the army, navy and airforce.. but I don’t think they quite comprehend this means missiles and drones coming to a town near them smashed power infrastructure, the health and emergency services buckling under civil attack casualties… with their hospitals full of victims of strategic bombardment and even the hospitals getting hit..

          Because they don’t get this they don’t understand this is not a few extra quid bunged to the Forces.. it’s a root and branch change to society that means we are all going to be poorer and all have to contribute to collective defence. I remember the Cold War and it was not a golden age it was poverty, old cars and rented TVs.. it was knowing that you would get evaporated Even though you could build a bomb shelter out of 3 internal doors and the contents of your house piled on it..

          On the flip side I honestly don’t think defence planners know what is now needed in a modern war.. Ukraine showed the tactical battlefield had changed forever and tactical drones were essentially the new kings of battle fields ( the casualty rates vs artillery are astronomical) .. with one European nation just cutting a .5 billion IFV procurement in favour of drone and air defences..Then after the Russian Black Sea fleet humbling by a nation without a navy we now see the USN essentially refusing to even try to secure the strait of Hormuz against another nation without a navy… this acknowledges that essentially major surface combatants can no longer operate in contested littoral environments..due to drone warfare..so what do we do about that and how do we harness that for our own EEZ and at the strategic end Russian and Iran have shown you no longer need expensive airforces with SEAD/DEAD and stealth or long range cruise missiles to undertake strategic bombardment of a nation.. you just need a never ending supply of £20k long range drones..because no matter how advanced an air defence system it will run out of 1-5 million pound missiles before you run out of cheap ass long range drones..so how do we both ensure our society keeps on ticking with the drones falling and send so many drones back the Russians get bored of their own building blowing up.

          In reality it’s a whole new world and the Army, Navy and airforce are still trying to figure it out.. and government have come nowhere near getting the public to rap their heads around the fact a future war with Russia will likely involve Russia throwning stupid numbers of drones at UK infrastructure as well as the odd Billy’s of cruise missiles and if they are feeling really fruity an IRBM or two…. Let alone building the civil defence infrastructure needed to prevent the UK folding like a card pyramid and jacking it in after the first 20 hospitals and power stations get flattened.

          • “Because they don’t get this they don’t understand this is not a few extra quid bunged to the Forces.. it’s a root and branch change to society that means we are all going to be poorer and all have to contribute to collective defence. ”

            I am not so sure that this is totally true.

            Defence drives R&D – particularly University R&D which is a massive wealth creator for this country.

            “In reality it’s a whole new world and the Army, Navy and airforce are still trying to figure it out.”

            There are certain things that are constants and the need for very effective ASW is one of them.

            The other is the needs to defend an against a range from ABM to toy town with a grenade on it.

            Again there are certain elements of that which need to be invested in. Do we need a defence against medium quality AMB – yes. Is it available – Yes. Can it be fitted to the new digital fabric – Yes. So get on and buy it. The same with a range of CAMM type products to defend bases and deployed troops etc. We need a never ending supply of £20k counter drones!

            Understanding everything is a classic delaying tactic for doing nothing. Yes, there will be gaps but they can be backfilled.

            • The problem is supportive our wealth has been developed of the back of neoliberal capitalism, which is open markets and just in time hyper efficient supply chains spreading across the globe.. that whole wealth generation approach cannot work if your in a highly volatile multipolar world in which powers are not only using military might, but control of resources, control of markets and mercantile strategies to attack your own markets and industries.. it’s not just about spending money on defence and civil defence it’s about Harding the whole economy for war..reducing market dependence where you may be cut from that market, reducing supply chains spreading across dependence where it may be disrupted..

              I read a very good piece on China and how it’s hardening its society.. not only is it spaffing many hundreds of billions a year on the military, it spends at least the same again on civil defence and security.. but beyond that it’s essentially massively warping its economy to harden it against external wartime shocks.. this study estimates that since 2020 it’s probably reduced its growth rate by 1-2% a year from that hardening and decoupling that it’s undertaking..

          • Hmmm … one wonders about alternative ending to WWII, if the Bohemian corporal had managed to launch similar numbers of V1 and V2 as the drones/UAVs and ballistic missiles that are being routinely utilized in UKR currently.

          • The fundamental issue that labour has is the media won’t let it borrow without going phyco about it. They didn’t report at all about it under the conservatives, as the national debt sky rocketed, but report about labour borrowing constantly, and but did the same thing under last labour government.

            We are at a time of massive global uncertainty and now is the time to borrow to cover the extra cost. It just cant be done polictically due to a combo of media pressure and how terrible labour are at getting their messaging across.

          • “Ukraine showed the tactical battlefield had changed forever and tactical drones were essentially the new kings of battle fields ( the casualty rates vs artillery are astronomical) .. with one European nation just cutting a .5 billion IFV procurement in favour of drone and air defences”

            Oh puleeze – all the major countries in Europe plus America China and Russia are busily developing and buying new armored vehicles – tanks IFVs utilities. Ukraine is one of them.

            Why? Look at Israel invading Lebanon – do you see any impact to Israeli operations due to your cheapo drones? heck no.

            Do you see how feeble Iran’s great arsenal of drones has been in deterring the US & its allies. One drone actually hit a U-2 hangar door in Akrori. Jeesh.

            Drones are no wonder weapon to replace all the others. Not even close.

            • Then why Estonia a front line nation essentially binned their IFV procurement… The decision was driven by lessons learned from the war in Ukraine, highlighting the need for increased drone defense and long-range fire capabilities over traditional armored vehicle acquisitions…. That was the reason, it’s all changed and you have to have you head in the sand to not see that…Ukraine has now developed a completely different armoured doctrine that has been proven in a drone saturated environment. It’s also come to NATO nations and proven that preset western combined arms doctrine will not survive a drone saturated battlefield… Ukraine uses massive levels of drone and other reconnaissance resources before moving armour.. yes armour is needed but how it was used is now changing and the balance of forces needed to change.. drone saturation now wins, not traditional combined arms doctrine.

              • Because they came to the conclusion that the CV90s they already have are good enough for the time being, especially if upgraded to be close in capability to the new CV90s they were planning on buying. The Baltic states, as small frontline nations, have a pressing need to maximise the return on their defence investments. This is also why the baltic states don’t operate any fast jets – because their limited resources can be spent elsewhere with greater impact, not because they believe that fast jets are obsolete and would not contribute to their defence.

                • That’s the point I was making.. not that armour is pointless but there is massive reevaluation of priorities and how it’s used and what is the best way to spend money… anyone who thinks drones are not now proudly reshaping the battlefield and doctrine needs to give their heads a wobble.

    • I’ve been saying this on here since the Norwegian deal was struck, that this would reduce our order from 8 to 6, with the excuse that the Norwegians are doing the high north role work and it’s all about allies sharing tasks, blah blah mealy mouth, blah. Seems my cynicism may be turning into scepticism turning into truth.

      • We need to get rid of the creeps who think they know about defending the UK at Home and Abroad. They have done the bare minimum since 2000. The % GDP needs set in Statute with a review to determine what constitutes that 5% level. Strong defence should be our deterent. 3% which is what the Liebour party will deliver is not enough.

        • Less than the bare minimum 🙃
          .
          .
          .
          The other problem is the 4th service in the MoD, which is a black hole for the pound and delivers, well, er, less than the bare minimum.

    • It’s sadly true, we are actually down to just 5 active frigates left in the fleet until HMS Kent returns to service after a very long, costly, complex refit to try to keep her patched up until finally replaced by inadequate numbers of frigates now in build.

    • I’m suspecting it’s the telegraph just picking up on the fact they will sell one of the 3 tranche 1s and 1 tranche 2 ships straight to the Norwegians as the Italians tend to do.. so the telegraph ( which hates the government) can hand on heart report a cut.. then we all know the Norwegian order means there has to be a tranche three with will be 5 boats.. 2 RN 3 Norwegian.. so yes for a time the government will have cut the order to five.. but to report it that way is really a lie of omission not the whole truth.

      But to be honest I have been thinking.. the T26s were ordered 15 years ago when the concept that a nation without a navy could essentially destroy and drive a major fleet from the littoral was a fantasy.. now a good number of the Black Sea fleet are reefs and the rest hide in port or scuttle around in fear.. even the most power navy on the planet essentially when told to open a littoral against a nation without a navy that had its military bombed to pieces essentially turned around and said no thanks.

      So yes we need a high end large powerful long range ASW frigate for the CBG.. but how many high end SSNs are out and about.. for the Atlantic we are now looking at loads of ASW drones with some form of mother ship.. and to control the high north , North Sea and Atlantic we need a good number of these mother hens and companions.. is that really the very high end T26 or do we want more cheaper ships as drone mothers.. because 6 T26s and 6 T45s gives you the tip of the pyramid capability for the carrier battlegroup.. but is a 1 billion pound global combat ship/ASW frigate what you want doing the EEZ TAS role or looking after a load of drones in the Atlantic or doing a patrol frigates job in the Middle East/Africa and eastern Indian Ocean..

      The truth is maritime conflict is a game of numbers.. yes you need your high end fleet but that’s not what wins or losses.. it’s the just adequate for the job and eve utterly shite but turns up when the enemy does not that wins maritime conflict..in the end the maritime war between Britain and Germany was decided by small boats with a few handfuls of crew that were just adequate to do a job, not battleships.

      So if the RN took the opportunity of shifting 2 T26s to Norway and then shift that 2 billion to cheaper combatants maybe they would be right ? If on the other hand it was just treasury in years savings and jam tomorrow sod that.

      • An interesting potential upshot of giving 2 of the first tracnhes to Norway, would be that if 2 (or potentially more) were added to the end of the order to maintain the UK numbers, they would be significantly cheaper than the first tranches, being only material/labour costs. So we could get a fourth reduced cost tranche before changing all the manufacturing lines over to focus on the 83. 8 high end ASW really isn’t enough for TAPS, the CSG, the MRSS, and one at high readiness. Building some slack into the fleet would pay dividends over time in hull wear, as well as allowing us to actually respond to events rather than react.

      • Further, the only consistently funded part of Russia’s Navy is the Northern Fleet, and it looks as though they are more or less on track to get their 12 Yasens by 2035. Having at least 8, and preferably 12 T26s in the fleet to meet them would certainly be worth the extra money spent, especially with the tapering price point at the end of such a long run of the same ship

        • Yep the 12 yassens are probably the core threat.. but I suppose it’s about what is the best way to combat them.. is it a defuse network of autonomous sensors and air based effectors as well as SSNs or is it ASW frigates.. remember an ASW frigate cannot really chase down an SSN is more about denying an SSN access.. you kill an SSN with another SSN or with AirPower. You want ASW frigates protecting the things you don’t want an SSN near.. but you find it and hunt it with a sensor network and aircraft if you can… after all it’s essentially defenceless and can only run..

          • It is typical that we get a top rate ASW asset, but then don’t arm it against SSNs. There’s always retrofitting sting ray, and why they haven’t done that is beyond me. It would be great if they tweaked a HW spearfish to be ship launched. Give a T26 even two of them, and they’d have a formidable set of teeth.

            I see your wider point about force design and trade offs, but with the insane rise of China’s SSN capability, future contest for the HIgh North will become an important arena and having the ASW slack is very useful. If we want to protect larger assets like CSG and MRSS we’d need at least 1 each, and then there’s the CASD, High North patrol and a high readiness vessel. That’s easily 4-5 potentially simultaneous use cases for ASW, I just can’t see 8 being enough. But if budgets force a choice between 3-4 P8s and a 9th T26, I’d probably go for the P8s.

            All depends on the DIP – we’ll never get full fat, but hopefully they’ll at least wrangle the semi-skimmed plan

            • To be honest for the Atlantic we don’t need something like a T26 .. it’s a do everything vessel.. Russia no long longer has a surface fleet worth shite and the risk of air attacks in the Atlantic is low.. so maybe what they need is something more like the original T23 was going to be.. essentially a ASW TAS boat.. make it quite, give it a good TAS, a fight deck and hanger for a small ship flight or drone to prosecute the kill.. then pop a 57mm and maybe a 12 CAMM for self defence.. 3000 tons crew of 50 build plenty.. perfect for protecting the EEZ and Atlantic..

              Essentially build some very good ships for the battle fleet ( CBG) and build everything else just good enough.. but build a lot.

          • The problem with the Yasens is that they are SSGNs rather than pure hunter killers. Russia still has satellites and they have TU95s for targeting so it’s perfectly possible for them to volley 20 anti ship missiles at a frigate in their way and have enough left over to cause a lot of damage to land targets on the other side. So yes we need ASW frigates in numbers but they also need to be able to defend themselves well so T26 is a good solution. Yasens also have enough torpedoes that they could ‘waste’ a few on the larger USVs if necessary.
            I also think that your cheap as chips towed array tug could quite easily be a USV or extremely lean manned vessel. A big SWATH of 1-2000t along the lines of the US and Japanese ocean surveillance ships could pull a CAPTAS-4 around no problem and would sit under the AAW protection of CAMM-MR armed T26 in wartime with a radar helping to provide the sensor picture.

      • “The truth is maritime conflict is a game of numbers.. yes you need your high end fleet but that’s not what wins or losses.. it’s the just adequate for the job and eve utterly shite but turns up when the enemy does not that wins maritime conflict”

        What utter bollocks. I can’t think of any naval war that wasn’t decided by expensive tier one assets. Without battleships WWI would have been lost by the UK in an afternoon. Without battleships cruisers and carriers WW2 would have been lost by the UK in 1940. Without carriers and SSNs the UK would have lost the Falklands campaign before the islands were even assaulted by the UK’s forces.

        You continual arguing for dumbing down UK defence and disposing of irreplaceable assets would do credit to a Putinbot.

        As for poverty striding the streets full of old cars and rented TV’s in cold war England. I think you may be thinking of the Eastern block.

        • Umm so the 22 battleships in the RN would have won the battle for the Atlantic ? The 113 British ships of the line in the napolonic era shut trade from Europe and starved the French empire…get a grip.. napoleon was starved by 800 small ships.. the battle for the Atlantic by many hundreds of small escort..

          If you would grow up and listen instead of reacting like a child, you would note that I said we need both .. yes you need the high end, but the navy that does not have the middle and bottom of the pyramid will always loss the war.. because the large ships win a battle, small ships win maritime wars and you will see that through every single maritime conflict.. numbers have always dictated the outcomes of maritime wars throughout the ages.. and in most of the wars the RN won it never had the best ships, in fact its ships were almost always inferior.. but it had more.. in world war 2 you could have removed half the battleships in the RN fleet and it would have made zero difference to the outcome.. if you had removed half the flowers class corvettes it would have been devastating.

          Admiral Karl Dönitz was always very clear Germany made a strategic mistake in building its capital ship navy.. it did so in the mistake belief it would not be fighting a war of destruction with the UK.. he was always clear if he was going to win a maritime war with the Uk he did not need battleships or aircraft carriers or cruisers he needed 300 uboats and if the navy had not built its capital ships and had just built 300 uboats the UK would have lost as is merchant fleet would have not survived the first year of the war.

          So you are falling into the western paradigm that it’s the big set piece battles that always win wars.. and that is bollox… it the small engagements that happen every day in every place, it’s the slow destruction of a nation’s ability to fight.. if winning wars was only about winning battles then the use would not have been defeated in half the wars they have lost… Russia is not going to fight some set piece naval battle with the UK.. it’s going to sneak in and sabotage in the places our T26s or T45s are not.

          So sorry your talking bollox and their are plenty of very senior naval leaders who have written about numbers and small ships.. Nelson never asked for more ships of the line but he famously stated that if died at that moment, “want of frigates” would be found stamped on his heart… so if donitz and Nelson spent all their time looking for more small ships.. then I think I know where I will put my money.

          • This is all very well but look at Irans small ships and look at the US Navy’s big ships. We’re small ships useful in winning world war 2. To a degree but actually they were more useful in not loosing it. Plus the thing about small ships is that they can relatively easily be built quickly when you need them (look at the RN in ww2 or even the type 31s now which relatively speaking are cheap crappy ships). The bigger ships cannot be built quickly (even the US failled to build a battleship in world war 2), you go to qlear with what you’ve got. Yes drones will be important but they’re going to be complimentary to what already exists. Not replacing it, just like Ukraine is still using tanks and IFVs with drones and artillery.

            • TR yes small ships are utterly necessary..

              WW2 it was the small escorts that won the naval conflict between the UK and Germany.. if Karl Dönitz had gotten his 300 uboats before the war started the UK would have been completely cut from sea supply, the US and UK wpuld have been starved into submission..

              In the napolonic wars, its was the Runs 850 brigs and frigates that squashed trade to Europe.. meaning napoleon’s empire could go nowhere but invade Russia…

              It’s not to say battle fleets are not important..they are, but in the end the largest fleet numbers wise always wins because maritime warfare is a game of numbers.. and people who insist otherwise have not studied naval history..let’s put it this way no matter how good an SSN is it can only be in one place at one time and can only fire about 30 weapons .. in an existential peer war that’s spitting in a bucket.

              It’s why when the serious navies in history went into peer conflict they went in with a core of a battle fleet backed up by huge numbers of not very good vessels.. even the Cold War USN had a very large numbers of just about able to do the job ships.. between 1963 and 1989 the USN built and operates 116 frigates..on top of their fleet of 80 destroyers and cruises.. and may of these frigates were crap.. even the best the OHP was just about ok.. as an example the Bronstein class FFG was decommissioned in 1990 and it was a bigger heap of crap than some of the low end RN frigates 76mm gun, asroc and light torpedos.. zero AAW defence no helicopter.. just a gun towed array and asroc… they did this because the navy with less ships ALWAYS no off no buts in an organic peer war that’s existential the small numbers navy always losses.

              From the best summary study in this area…

              ‘not only does quantity have a quality all its own, but it also almost always proves decisive in naval warfare when professional competence is equal.

              Using technological advantage as an indicator of quality, historical research on 28 naval wars (or wars with significant and protracted naval combat) indicates that 25 were won by the side with the larger fleet. When fleet size was roughly equal, superior strategy and substantially better trained and motivated crews carried the day.Only three could be said to have been won by a smaller fleet with superior technology’

              And size creates quality in leaders and crew

              ‘operating a large fleet generally facilitates more extensive training and is often an indicator that leaders are concerned with strategic requirements. In the Napoleonic wars, for example, Vice Admiral Horatio Nelson may have been more brilliant—and braver—than his French and Spanish counterparts. His captains and crews were better trained. However, Great Britain dominated the war at sea because it had a larger fleet it could concentrate or disperse as conditions warranted. French warships were superior in the technology of ship design and construction, but ultimately, it was the large numbers of Royal Navy ships that prevented Napoleon from crossing the channel’

              ‘It was the overall might of U.S. industry and the size of the U.S. fleet (particularly its logistics and amphibious ships) that ground out victory over the Imperial Japanese Navy’

              ‘decades of research have brought me to this conclusion: In a naval struggle between near-peers, mass (numbers), and the ability to replace losses bests technological advantage. As the mass of one opponent grows, the chance of its defeat reduces. At a certain point of imbalance in mass, the larger naval force cannot be defeated, even when the opponent attacks effectively first in any one engagement.’

              ‘The dominant joint concept that there is a separation between maneuver warfare and attrition warfare—and that maneuver can substitute for attrition—is invalid in naval strategy. Maneuver is inherent in naval operations’

              ‘There are no fixed lines to defend, breach, or avoid. There is no operational defensive. Therefore, attrition is the sole goal of naval warfare, As Hughes repeated throughout his years of research: attack effectively first. One might assume that superior ship capabilities rather than mass can provide this effectiveness. But that is not what operations research indicates.’

              ‘Based on historical research, claims such as “numbers don’t matter” and “our ships are more capable and therefore we need fewer” have no basis in evidence. Such claims are assumptions that ignore historical evidence, but as Hemingway wrote in A Sun Also Rises, “Isn’t it pretty to think so.”’

              ‘In expressing the reality of mass and operational competence in the Royal Navy, Admiral Lord St. Vincent stated in 1801, “I do not say the Frenchman [Napoleon] will not come. I only say he will not come by sea.”32 Applying St. Vincent’s logic to the findings of my research: I do not say that a smaller, technologically superior fleet could never defeat a much larger fleet, I only say that—with the possible the exception of three cases in the past 1,200 years—none has. Historical evidence shows that smaller fleets lose. In the “ends, ways, and means” formulation of strategy, mass (or numbers) is one of the most important “ways.”’

              This is from the US naval institute: Bigger Fleets Win
              In naval warfare, a smaller fleet of superior quality ships is not a way to victory. The side with the most ships almost always wins ( jan 2023).

              • I’m not going tonargue that a bigger Navy doesn’t win wars. In general that’s painfully obvious. You have better facilities better equipment generally more practice at beign at sea. All of which are due to having a bigger fleet of warships. However there is a limit. Nelson frigates were generally comparable to those of the French Fleet, they did poorly when outclassed by the Americans overbuolt frigates as did french ships when confronted by Razzy frigates in the Royal Navy. You can argue that the bigger fleet still won and yes it did when you can put 3 similar ships along side a vessel that is individually superior then you will nearly always win, I forget the name of the 64 that parked itself at one end of Santissima Trinidad whilst Neptune parked herself at the other, but that is an example. Similarly the Royal Navy’s battleships hunting down Bismark. The point though is that these were a fleet of warships. The R class battleships whilst not great were battleships and ended up ountering the surface raiders. A SSN may only have 26 or so weapons but it can establish sea control for a whole war (as Conqueror did in the Falklands) one SSN (most are really now ssgns) is capable of sinking a whole or convoy protected by OHPs etc. building a whole Navy of poor ships will just lead them being sunk. I woukd take one T26 up against the entire French and spanish navies from Napoleons day and expect to win comfortably.To quote one of the Admirals involved in the Falklands we learnt you shouldn’t have ships in your Navy you’re not willing to go to war in. We are in danger of producing a Navy that is inadequate to protect us. Drones will undoubtabky be part of the future but building a drone that can get to the middle of the Atlantic (let alone further) and be effective needs fuel engines, or to be able to RAS. Before long youre looking at something large enough to be too valuable to be disposable or you need a mothership to carry and support it, we need a core fleet of good warships to do what warships do. As you say the Navy with the most **warships** wins. We need to build them.

                • And yes I’m not arguing that you don’t want some high end capacity neither is the recognised expert in the field and senior naval officer I was quoting from.. what he says and proves is the navy with more mass always wins even if the smaller navy has better ships.. simply put the evidence is incontrovertible and only a full would build a navy against that advice, that’s not me saying it’s the US naval institute.

                  What that means is you need essentially a fleet that is a pyramid

                  At the top and in smaller numbers you have the very high end capability
                  Then you have a more numerous middle ground of ships that can do the job but are not gold plated, finally you have a lot of just about adequate… that’s how the navies that won wars have been constructed.. because contrary to popular belief it’s not the big single set piece battles that win wars it’s the ongoing attritional campaigns which is why numbers win..

                  Look at the USN in the Cold War, a navy designed to survive and win a peer war, its major surface combatant fleet was essentially constructed on this attritional, be in many places pyramid..

                  10/11carriers
                  20-30 cruisers
                  60 destroyers
                  100-110 frigates

                  And make no mistake the US had some profoundly awful frigates.. far worse than the RN frigates.

                  The guy who wrote the paper I proved the quotes from was essentially warning that the present US fleet of 11 carrier and 80 top end gold plates burkes was heading to a possible situation in which it could not win against an ever growing PLN.. and that if with its present numbers it had to face a PLN with many hundreds of surface combatants, even it its technology and ships were better it would very likely lose.. and this is from the US naval institute..

                  And remember in the war of 1812 yes those big US frigates won some engagements but in the end the US lost that maritime war.. and never challenged the RN directly again.

                  So no, I never suggested building an entire navy of inferior ships..but what I’m saying is don’t build tiny navy of the very best ships and expect to win a war against a navy with more OK ships than you.. because the evidence is you will lose through the maths of attrition and the fact the enemy will be in places you are not.

                  So the question of would it be better to sell 2 T26s and build 4-5 reasonably equipped T31s in their place is not a stupid question it’s valid..

                  After all the US scrapped a high end frigate program to build what are by all measures a pretty shite ship that can be mass produced to try and keep up numbers wise with the PLAN.

                  Personally I would like to see

                  6 T45
                  9 T26
                  15 T31s
                  15 patrol and mine warfare ships..

                  But that’s not going to happen so for me if we have the high end AAW and ASW to cover a CBG and then as much second line ASW and AAW as we can get… with a large well armed patrol presence for the EEz.

          • It’s the battle of the Atlantic. Part of a 6 year long naval war. One battle is not the war. One battle is one battle. The War required expensive top end capabilities to win.

            If you check your history books: Trafalgar stopped Napoleon from invading the UK. And Napoleon was defeated on land and was captured and sent into exile. The English blockade was not war winning on its own and certainly did not force Napoleon into Russia.

            You arguing for lots of cheapo warships is a recipe for disaster. Especially as its based on very flawed historical understanding.

        • Did you live in a house in the sixties and seventies.. because my dads petty officer pay.. got an old banger, a rented tv, second hand cloths and money worried

      • I read them all, as you should too. It’s important to understand what different sides of the political spectrum are saying, rather than retreating into the comfort of your particular echo chamber.

        • Or you could read British media that is regarded as impartial and that would give you time to be less parochial in your reading; eg France 24, Der Speigel, CNN, etc

          (The hilarious thing is, you believed what the Telegraph claimed.)

          • I speak German, mate. I’m all too aware of the quality of Der Spiegel.

            Anyway, are you aware of the basic meaning of the phrase: ‘If these reports are true’?

            • If you know Der Spegel’s quality then difference in standards must be even more obvious, so why waste time on a rag like The Telegraph?

              I’ve heard that used that phrase with respect to flat-earth too, you going to suggest that might be true?

              Here’s a thought, maybe worry about things that are known to be true (of which there’s plenty) rather than unattributed fairy-stories by those pushing a political agenda. 🤷🏻‍♂️

              • As I’ve said above, the Telegraph are occasionally right with regards to defence matters. For example, their prediction of the F-35A nuclear role procurement. That’s one reason that I read them.

                A secondary reason for reading them is to understand how stories are being framed across the political spectrum.

                In response to your flat-earth comment, I’ve also heard the phrasing used in the context of rises in average global temperature. Are you suggesting that climate change reports are false?

                Do you see the absurdity of your ‘flat-earth’, comment, then?

                If humanity only worried about things that were ‘known to be true’, we’d be in a weird place right now.

                😂

                • Presumably you have some broken clocks at home because they’re right twice a day?…

                  Sadly there’s no need to read the likes of The Telegraph these days to find out the framing across the political spectrum. Pretty much the only way to avoid political extremist framing from both the left and right is to avoid going online at all.

                  I’ve not heard that about climate-change, and I bash against deniers more than most. So I think you’re the one making that up.

                  We’ll go on and worry about dragons, alien invasions, goblins and ghosts and let the rest of us deal in the real world.

                  As for Matt Oliver’s claims I’m the Telegraph. According to him there are some people who have the worry that the order might be cut. So a complete non-story, but you fell for the click-bait.

            • Well it’s very American, so it has a natural bias to being pro-American, but when you filter that out it’s politically well balanced.

              Smoking, both habits of the terminally stupid.

  4. With so many Surface ships scattered all over the world (Portsmouth, Devonport and that Pictish place just over the wall) It’s a no brainer to be able to keep track of them all.

  5. Once the AMBER satellite array is deployed for the MoD this will allow naval vessels the ability to track ships directly at sea from space. Quite a capability to have especially in a world of extended range munitions.

    • Jim, you do bring knowledge to this site, but really – ”…naval vessels the ability to track ships directly at sea from space.” – sorry, how many vessels are you counting?

      I’m done with this particular brand of Labour Govt, good CO in charge IMHO, but in charge of a 400 schoolies who are all in touch with their inner socialism without any reality check.

      And here we face the travails of modern day politics – the Cons conned for as long as possible and the country tilted violently to the Left, the Left looked at the lottery tickets and shouted, ooh me, me, me and then gave Starmer a good kicking rather than getting with the programme – ”I’m a Socialist to the core, brother and sister!”

      What’s next is anyone’s guess, we can invent another sky pixie and pray to them for Farage the garage to have an aneurysm that is mis-treated by the NHS, but that is truly living in hope rather than reality.

      I have no idea how you get the PLP into line on benefit cuts and defence spending ups. Your thoughts?

      • The PLP is very much up for Defence spending rises, I have never heard any one say any different and I don’t know a single back bencher who is not screaming for the the DIP to come out.

        The problem is very much within the MoD and Treasury. The Treasury is right that the MoD is terrible with its budgets. There really is a hard wall on UK borrowing too. It’s easy to say cuts benefits but the reality is most benefits are hard to cut. Most people don’t understand what the two child benefit cap was (it’s has nothing to do with child benefit) but it was a very unfair benefit cut and scrapping it for around £2.5 billion a year cost raised anything of up to 300,000 children out of poverty. I bring this up because it’s the only bone that has been thrown by the treasury to the PLP in this parliament and £2.5 billion a year would touch the side on MoD spending. The other nine the treasury throw out was raising defence spending to 2.7% of GDP in this parliament (previous government plan was 2.5%)

        The only “benefit” that can really be cut is the triple lock on pensions. I put quotation marks around it as most people don’t see it as a benefit but a right. The reality is it is very much a benefit and Reform have decided to play the same game as the Tory’s and gold plate it as well.

        Defence spending will rise to 3% of GDP, I doubt it will ever get any further. The MoD needs to live with in that budget. The country cannot afford sustained defence spending beyond 3%. Outside of the Cold War it had never done so in peace time.

        • First, I will commend you in answering the question with your thoughts, well done.

          Govt have faced several back bench revolts over spending including the winter fuel allowance, PIP curtailment, a reigning in on Benefit spends.

          Of course the rather infantile Labour back benchers want a Defence spending increase but without reigning in an out of control benefits bill, it is obvious that it is not going to happen, so I hope you were not being disingenuous in trying to deflect, which on first read, it seems you were.

          The Labour back-benchers need to get out of their prams, spit out their dummies and grow a pair and tell their constituents to get up, get out and get a job and pay into the economy; then they can tell the pensioners, their goose is cooked and foxtrot oscar the triple lock and winter fuel payments for those who do not need it – and you can just hear the Labour back-bench grate their teeth as they think of their razor thin majorities slipping away – and I was a Labour Town Councillor.

          Both the NHS and Social Spending need a combine harvester to cut them down to a size the nation can afford and that allows the Defence budget to gain credible traction.

          • I don’t disagree, needs to be much harder to get put on to disability benefits but the amount of cost saving anyone ever generates from cutting non discretionary benefits tends to be small. The Tories tried for ten years and the bill only went up. Cutting the NHS is hard because the UK really doesn’t spend much on health care relative to other G7 countries. We can cut the NHS but then people need to make up the short fall.

            I suggest you might find the Labour Party a bit of a different beast these days, every MP I know is in favour of reducing migration, cutting the number of people getting disability benefits and increasing defence spending. Trouble is none of these things are easy, no one agrees on how to do them. Labour cut one tiny benefit for old people (winter fuel allowance) and it was a disaster in the polls. There is no way the British electorate accepts reduction in NHS spending or Pensions. If you don’t tackle those two everything else is just noise in terms of shrinking the state.

          • I wouldn’t hold your breath. I doubt there will immediate cuts in health or benefits to increase the spend in the DIP. What will likely happen is some desperate compromises like cutting T26 numbers to keep T83 and GCAP on track. T1 and maybe some T2 Typhoons might be cut to fund M-346 and another F-35A buy. Might the CR2 to CR3 upgrade be deferred – an increase in actual CR2 numbers might be a more meaningful spend.
            Agree though that fundamental changes are needed; e.g. triple lock and health funding. Those who can afford it need to start paying for services. ..most insurance policies have an excess.

        • In the end this country has to face its aging crisis.. the numbers are the numbers.

          1) we never paid for our state pension.. we paid for our grandparents state pension..
          2) since 1980 life expectancy has gone from 72 to 82..
          3) the increased life expectancy has not seen an increase in quality of life years.. we are living longer through costly medical interventions not better health.
          4) the percentage of pensioners is ever increasing. The percentage of the population over 65 in 1980 was 14.9% in 2025 it was 20% by 2045 it will be 25%

          This means we have a smaller and smaller percentage of the population paying for the healthcare and pensions of a larger and larger percentage of the population.. when you tot it up the 20% of the population over 65 essential take about 280 billion of the total government spend directly on pensions and benefits for pensioners.. 55% of the welfare bill goes to the over 65s and 40% of the healthcare bill..

          Essentially this is unsustainable we are failing under the fact though significant expense in healthcare we can keep people alive in illness for an extra decade…

          Without a massive rethink we will never get our finances in order as the cost will go up and up.. the next generation will essentially have nothing due to the pension and healthcare burden of the old if we keep going…

          We either go 1) Logan’s run 2) remove free access to curative healthcare after 65 3) means test the state pension..

          If we don’t do one of those our nation will go bankrupt as the over 65 population grows and grows.. and raising the pension age is bollox because our healthy life years are not increasing and old is old… there is a reason we used to make nurses retire at 60… hint they get wise and experienced but they are not much use running around a busy acute environment doing day and night 12 hour shifts..

            • It’s readily available data and the impact of the aging population was one area I’ve studied in depth so I know in more detail the actual impacts.. but you just do you my little friend.

          • As always, adding to the conversation, well done Jonathan.
            Access to benefits for the over 65s/67s/ etc needs to be means tested and that includes their housing; we need to re-start a Housing market where people hang-on to homes long since redundant given their children have moved on.

            There is no point in a triple lock where OAPs have such largesse through benefits and then feel entitled to the Winter fuel payment – Labour’s previous attempt to, rightly, withdraw this benefit was just epic communications mismanagement – I still remember the then Lady Cadogan taking child benefit from the Post Office because she was entitled… (Cadogans own Chelsea btw – the whole of it, except the Harrods footprint).

            NHS – I’ve seen the groups of ancillary staff walking around Whitehaven Hospital doing SFA – why? I’ve seen nurses at Newcastle Regional Hospital rushed off their feet – why?

            Millionaire GPs? This is your territory Jonathan, but, the State can not afford it and the junior doctors say – ”We want more!”

            Where it ends is appropriately in bedlam and farage State where given their ineconomics, there will be chaos. The situation needs addressing and addressing now. Pity the Armed Forces, given their chronic mis-management by Braid, they are well down the list of worthy recipients.

        • “The PLP is very much up for Defence spending rises”

          What utter tripe. I expect you think the Guardian and Morning Star are running headlines every day demanding more frigates jets and tanks.

          Most PLM member can’t spell defence let alone vote for it. That’s why the DIP is taking so long.

            • You have zero evidence that the majority of the PLP are in favour of increasing spending on defence. There’s scads of evidence to the opposite.

              On the other hand you just copy and past the rubbish you read in Workers Daily or whatever left wing fish and chips wrapping that you read.

      • I do t know about Jim, but I’m counting 2 Carriers, 6 T45s, 8 Type 26s, 5 Type 31s, 3-6 MRSS 🤷🏻‍♂️

        • It’d be good to get some extra MRNP type T31s to do smaller tasks than the MRSS’s. What about the 12 SSN’s? Are 12 absolutely necessary, why not 9-10 and a small fleet of 4-6 SSK’s?

          • I was counting ships we have, are building, have issued contracts for, or have commitments to build. That is, I was looking at reality rather than the yet another fantasy fleet post, of which there’s been billions, all equally pointless.

            SSNs are ‘boats’ and not ‘ships’

  6. Imagine, the “fleet” can talk to each other when they are tied up in dock. Cutting edge but cheaper to use Tesco mobiles ( £7.50 a month )

  8. If I was cynical I would say that with the shrunken fleet – 12 by the end of the year – it is the cheapest time to do it……

  10. God. It’s just horrible reading these comments. I was in a pretty good mood until I came here. Is there ANY good news for the RN?

    • They have he satellite communication but this is different, it’s the ability to get a direct data feed from a satellite in orbit. They will be able to get live image directly from a satellite rhey wat they can with a drone today.

      • That is not what JREAP-C provides.

        This is the conversion of Link 16 J series messages into IP so they can be transmitted on more bearers than just the usual RF Line Of Sight. This takes you outside the link architecture and opens up how you can move the data around. For the RN I imagine a low latency LEO Satcom would be ideal. This is not new tech, plenty of others have it across land, sea and air, but it can be difficult to integrate.

        Direct data downlink from a LEO ISR Sat would likely need a dedicated tracking antenna. Not sure the antenna used for GEO or LEO Satcom would work even if they had the right frequency range.

        You could get the ISR data from the satellite to a dedicated ground station and then get the data through the JREAPC connection the story is about, as the message sets do exist. Alternatively the product could be sent by standard Satcom data channels.

  12. Good news for European security the anti western pro Putin government in Hungary has just had a massive defeat.. the eastern NATO border and EUs ability to support Ukraine and combat Putin has just increased…

    • He is better than the previous occupant Mr J but, that twat FICO is still in Blava and until mini-Meciar goes, EU security is still in the doldrums.

      Wouldn’t count your chickens too soon.

      • Yes the most fascist left wing socialist in existence.. I’m not sure how you can be a raging right wing fascist and raging lefty all at the same time but he somehow manages it.. infact hes my proof that the far left and far right are just different sides of the same destructive authoritarian coin.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here