The procurement method and timetable for replacing HMS Protector remain undecided, more than two months after Defence confirmed that funding had been allocated for a successor to the Royal Navy’s Antarctic patrol ship.
The latest position was set out in a written parliamentary answer to Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty, who asked when a decision would be made on both the method of procurement and the exact replacement timeline.
Defence Readiness and Industry Minister Luke Pollard said: “The Defence Investment Plan announced plans to replace HMS Protector with a more modern variant to maintain this essential presence and support Government activities in the Arctic and around the British Antarctic Territory. Decisions on the method of procurement and the exact replacement timeline will be taken in due course.”
The answer follows an earlier exchange in July, when Pollard confirmed that funding had been allocated for the replacement but said the schedule depended on a procurement route that had yet to be selected. At the time, he said: “The Defence Investment Plan has allocated funding to replace HMS Protector but the exact timeline for this replacement is subject to further work. This will depend on the method of procurement which is yet to be decided.”
The answer, in public at least, leaves the programme broadly where it stood in July, with a replacement funded in principle but the acquisition route and delivery schedule still to be settled. HMS Protector is the Royal Navy’s specialist ice patrol ship and operates primarily in the Antarctic, supporting British interests in the region, hydrographic survey work and wider government activity around the British Antarctic Territory.
The vessel began life as the Norwegian-built Polarbjørn, entering service as a commercial polar research and subsea support vessel before being chartered by the Royal Navy in 2011 as a temporary replacement for HMS Endurance. The ship was subsequently purchased outright in 2013 and has since become the Navy’s permanent Antarctic patrol vessel.
Protector is ice strengthened and designed for work in polar conditions, providing the UK with a regular naval presence in one of the most remote operating environments faced by the fleet. The Defence Investment Plan now commits the Government to replacing her with what Pollard described as a “more modern variant”, with the successor intended to maintain Britain’s presence not only around the Antarctic but also support activity in the Arctic.
Of course not. Why would we make a decision? Far better to cancel and postpone.
Easy option is to delay by tagging on to the Canadian order for 16 Seaspan Multi-purpose Icebreakers (like Norway’s T26 order?).
Gets us onto a tried and tested design for use in both Poles.
And order 3.
The issue I think is there is a difference need between the 2 polar regions.
1) The high north is highly militarised and is very likely to see grey and kinetic warfare in the immediate future.
2) the Antarctic is a demilitarised area where armed vessels are banned by treaty and it requires a support and patrol function.. that just may need upgrading in a medium term future ( I believe the Antarctic will see potential grey warfare as we get closer to the 2048 review date ).
So at present the Antarctica needs an ice breaker that can support a heavy logistics load for all the bases and the most isolated operations in the world as well as some troops ( for outside the treaty area) and a helicopter and drones..
But the high north needs ice breaking patrol ships that can defend against grey warfare and lower level kinetic warfare.. but it does not need the logistic capabilities as it’s less isolated and does not have the base or scientific support function…
Two very very different ships for to completely different sets of geostrategic threat level.
The high north ice breaker/patrol ship will need a 40mm cannon and other light self defence systems.. the Antarctic ice breaker/ patrol ship would not be allowed to operate in the Antarctic with these.