A Tory Baroness has argued for the Government to provide the Royal Navy with more frigates as hull numbers could drop down to seven as vessels leave service.
This comes as analysis from expert commentator NavyLookout reveals that the frigate fleet could drop to its lowest ever level in modern times.
Baroness Neville-Jones said:
“The UK has a strong interest in holding the western alliance together. Over the years we have put a lot of eggs in that basket, and a close relationship with the US, as part of the wider Atlantic community, is part of the fabric of our own polity. No longer being in the EU means we are simultaneously less influential and more vulnerable to the effects of transatlantic disagreement and breaches of trust. My conclusion is that devoting resources to diplomacy in Washington is top of the list of priorities, since failure of the alliance will not just destroy our ability to deal with all the other wider threats that we confront in the Middle East and China; we will face the likelihood of a wider war in our continent.
Secondly, I turn to China. The integrated review recognised the challenge that China poses militarily, politically and economically, and the Conservative Government made an important and constructive move in AUKUS, which helps join the Atlantic and Pacific worlds and increases the credibility of a European contribution to the political and military scene in the Asia-Pacific. I belong to those who believe that we should try to contribute to that part of the world. I hope that, in conducting the defence review, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, in whom I have great confidence, is able to build on AUKUS. There is no doubt that, to keep the Americans with us, Europeans must spend more on defence, especially on the security of our own continent. I am not suggesting that the Indo-Pacific has any real priority. We cannot credibly ask the Americans to take our security more seriously than we do.
I think it is time for the UK to respond to the global balance of power by giving the Royal Navy a greater role in, and a greater reach of, our defence diplomacy—more ships, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord West, particularly frigates. It is also time that we had a China strategy that joins up our political, economic and military objectives. It is something that we do not have and badly need. I do not believe in keeping countries guessing; that is dangerous. We did not keep the Russians guessing about our terms during the Cold War and we should not do so with the Chinese. We need to say what we mean to them.”
Later in the discussion, Lord Coaker, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, stated:
“I thank my noble friend for his important question. Whether it is aircraft carriers and planes, the number of soldiers, technology or other capabilities, you have to have the capability you need to meet the threat that you face. My noble friend is right to point that out.
That is the fundamental principle that underlies the review of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and why he will be working closely with others. I say to all noble Lords that it is an open review and anyone is welcome to contribute to it.”
For more on frigate numbers, let us direct you to the wonderful NavyLookout’s article on Britain’s future frigate numbers.
At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
If only the party this Baroness is a member of was in power in recent times and could have accelerated the Type 26s procurement…
That’s the thing isn’t ‘Government should do this’ ‘So why didn’t you?’
Let’s not forget the Type 32 – what ever happened to that?
Boris who actually seemed to care about the UK and the military was hounded out of office. Wasn’t it £16b extra over 4 years he said he was going to put in
Boris didn’t give a flying ‘you know what’ about anyone or anything other than himself. Nice bloke and all of that, great at a dinner party, but he was more concerned about what people thought of him than doing the right thing.
She’s right. I wonder why they didn’t do anything but cut out armed forces during their 14- years in power?
Please could someone ask the Baroness that?
Should have ordered more type 26s and not cut the order from 13 to 8. Should have placed an order for another batch of 5 type 31s before they left office.
Instead it’s all missed opportunity, incompetence and then pointing the finger of blame at Labour, who have only just come into power and have to sort out the dogs dinner of a mess the Tories bequeathed them
…should have held BAE’s feet to the fire on the T45 fiasco.
Nothing to do with BAE, that was all the MoDs doing
So much talk by people who must have some influence. Why don’t they actually do something about it! Capable ships already in build, make more, is it that difficult? And maybe bring the T83 forward? And what about extra subs?
I can only agree with other posters.
The last government dallied so long the Frigate fleet is falling apart.
No one to blame but themselves.
Labour cut 3 T23s and all the remaining T22 B2s before 2010 as well, so they are also guilty.
But on replacements, she has to look at her own party.
I agree Daniele – both parties are cut from the same cloth when it comes to defence. There is no daylight between them.
It will be interesting to see what the outcome of the SDR next year will be (even though we just had a refresh of the last review in Mar-23). Lord Robertson is someone I respect and I hope HMG truly takes onboard the SDR findings and recommendations and don’t do what HMG always does and simply sweep it under the carpet (remember the National Shipbuilding Strategy Report a few years back – how has that been working out?).
The truth of the matter is, without a significant uplift in defence spending, the demise of the RN – and indeed the Armed Forces as a whole – will only continue unabated. In my opinion, 2.5%GDP is nowhere near enough to undo all the cuts and should be ringfenced at 3% minimum. Unfortunately for the Armed Forces, we have no idea of when spending will increase and therefore can’t plan accordingly so nothing will change……. sad really.
Agreed 👍
Totally, it should be 3%, ring fenced for 25 years.
Unfortunately the Peace Dividend delusion has allowed politicians to safeguard their electoral prospects by shifting Defence spending to social provision and even war in Europe hasn’t enabled them to pivot back to Defence.
The first responsibility of the nation state is for Defence yet Westminster believes that there are no votes in Defence and sadly that may be closer to the truth as the services are allowed or encouraged to shrink. A large majority in Parliament insulates Labour from most issues.
£2.9Bn may be enough to solve historic issues such as facilities maintenance but it doesn’t seem like it will address capability and capacity gaps. I’d like to be wrong about that..
It comes back to the peace dividend that Thatcher claimed back in the day and then the financial crisis precipitated by her Minister ‘liberating’ the financial markets and letting banks bundle debt as assets.
Labour paid the price on that one and had hard choices to make.
T22 was very costly to operate and crew intensive.
Should Labour have pushed through the T26 circa £400,000 – remember that number? It failed.
However, the financial circumstances it found itself in, were of Thatchers making.
Today, both RN and RFA are in dire straights wrt manning, let alone platforms and yet one point raised was using trawlers towing TAPS – which is what the USN have done since the inception of TAPS.
I fear no T32, delays on T83/4 and more T23 ood and laid up. Dire times my friend.
For me , the sale of 3 type 23 frigates Chiles in 2005 was a bad move. They should have been placed in extended readiness and/or rotated with the remaining 13 .The Navy may well have been in a better position with Type 23 platforms in service today.
I’m sure Chile would have been open to buying additional Type 22 batch 2 – they had one or two in service already,
HI DM
The sale of 3 type 23 frigates Chiles in 2005 was a bad move. They should have been placed in extended readiness and/or rotated with the remaining 13 .The Navy may well have been in a better position with Type 23 platforms in service today.
I’m sure Chile would have been open to buying additional Type 22 batch 2 – they had one or two in service already,
Shhhh, we’re not allowed to mention all the Labour cuts pre 2010.
Different times, not vogue to mention.
Only Tories wreck the military. 😉
ha ha – isn’t that the truth!
Did her time in government pass her by ? Goes to show how much she knows when she references Mr West, the most enthusiastic cheerleader of RN surface fleet cutbacks when he was in charge. Idiots.
Surely Adm West did not suggest, endorse or approve of surface fleet cuts when he was in charge (1st Sea Lord, 2002-2006). No senior officer wants to see cutbacks of any description.
These were political decisions – if you protest too vehemently and publicly as a serving officer you are short-toured and denied further advancement – ask General Patrick Sanders about that!
8 x T26, 8 x GP Frigates T31/32 mix and 8 x T45 successor destroyers. I think a maximum of 24 escorts is all that we could ever hope for but even this would likely be decades in the making.
Hi Caspian,
I agree with your points but given the threats we face and the trajectory that the geopolitical environment is currently on I would suggest that 24 escorts, even in the context of NATO, will be far too few.
Cheers CR
We really need to increase the T26/T31 numbers while they are still in build, getting the T31 up to 8 would be a good start, getting both the T26/T31 up to 10 each would be ideal, which with the T45 would get us to 26. I got a feeling the T83 that is supposed to be replacing the 45 will be delayed for a long time, T45 has had its issues but is still a very good platform and has plans to be upgraded.
I’ve got a feeling, because the T83 will more than likely be more capable than the T45, this will somehow justify a numbers cut. 6 T45s, down to 3 or 4 T83? I sincerely hope I’m wrong. Someone in power needs to be bold, buck the trend and flesh out a strategy where we have more of everything. It feels like most in NATO are increasingly relying on the next national to help them out! Some, like Poland, have woken up to this and Germany, not before time, are, ‘finally’ stepping up.
The T83 will no doubt be a fair bit more capable than the T45 but a reduction from 6 would be ridiculous even for a UK government? Hopefully won’t happen, I share your concern. With longer range, faster missiles being developed we need a good number of dedicated AAW ships in the fleet, cannot just rely on CAMM defence.
Forget the T83, buy an off the shelf product from Korea or Japan. It will be on budget on time and won’t breakdown. The difference between a LandCruiser and a LandRover. Best case the Royal Navy will get available, serviceable equipment and BAE will get a long overdue kick up the arse.
A collaboration with South Korea/Japan would be good, but we need to sustain our own ship building facilities. The ships we have isn’t the problem, they are generally top tier with albeit with some fixable issues, it is the low numbers that we need to improve and as you say built on time and within budget.
Of course you are wrong, you are pointlessly expressing a future numbers of a particular ship when the concept is barely on the drawing board
I’m not so sure talking numbers at this stage is pointless. The AAW ship will have certain, specific capabilities and reach. I’d like to think that where we want this in the world is front and centre in any concept phase. We have 2 carriers, the intention I believe is to have 1 either at sea or high readiness at any one time, which means at least 1 T83 the same (and if we’re talking 1 then this means limited anti-air cover resilience from Strike Group frigates, should that 1 T83 break down or be taken out, or relying on an ally which, I don’t think should be in the equation at concept phase. Then we need to think about T83s in maintenance, 1 in short term and 1 in long term. Then there are other AAW capabilities to think about, protecting an amphibious operation, then some kind of notional anti-ballistic defence of the UK and that’s not even considering some kind of AAW contribution to any other NATO, or AUKUS operation in the future. The mindset of trimming to the very bone and relying on other allies has to stop to provide a credible defence.
The Navy required 12 T45s, which was cut to 8 then 6 by politicians.
I imagine they might have a requirement for 12 T83s.
Let’s hope politicians back the Navy, when the time comes to commit to orders, but of course this goes hand-in-hand with sustainable crewing of such ships. It takes so long to get a ship from the drawing board to passing FOST, all this holding off on committing to greater defense spending just feels like we’ll end up with too little and too late.
A nice number, 24. As an interim they could put MK41s into the six T45s for a more serious upgrade besides the NSM and maybe upgrade the gun and sonar suite. And order an additional enhanced T26s if the T83 is still ages away. Yes 3 more T31s. A lot of us here have been suggesting the same or similar numbers.
24 ships that was the number prior to the 2010 cuts. Seems like a good balance you have proposed.
So bloody obvious. So why didn’t her party do anything about it during the last 14 years?
Wonderful – Stating the b——-g obvious as over the past 50 years all the Navy has seen is Cut Cut Cut no matter the Government of the day. We have now run out of capability, surface ships being just one. I suggest we get rid of the Lords and Commons and spend their wages on rebuilding the country including our defence!!!!!
What’s the point in building new warships when the can’t crew the ones already in service.
I know one person who was desperate to join up .he ended up becoming a police officer instead.the process to join the navy took too long.time to bring back high st recruiting offices ,manned by forces personnel,and not by some civvy who couldn’t give a toss
Pretty much nailed it. Time to name and shame CAPITA that are failing and have been failing for the past 12 years on every metric on forces recruitment.
Not the Navy I know but there is still an Army recruitment office in Canterbury city center
Umh…yes. Where were you?
I don’t think we should afford more ships… Australia and USA should worry about China…sell/give one of our carriers and some frigates destroyers to Australia..think more about air defence systems and submarine countermeasures for our own defence
Went didn’t you highlight this when your buddies were cutting everything to the bone then?
Pretty certain not being in the EU is of no relevance considering the EU has only one Aircraft carrier.
The EU has no aircraft carriers, however countries in the EU have at least two and depending on how you count a few more. France and Italy have one each. Italy has a second vessel which can accommodate fixed wing aircraft as does Spain though they may only be Harriers not F35B or France’s modern jet.
When we were in the EU there were sufficient aircraft carriers from EU countries to make sure one was always available in the same way that 4 Vanguard boats means that one can always be at sea.
EU member states are coordinating or even co funding military équipements. No eu membership, none of it.
With AUKUS could we not design a joint future destroyer like we have done with AUKUS subs? Because the Burke, Hobart and T45s are getting on. Would be good to have an expanded destroyer fleet at economies of scale.
That would just end up being whatever ship the Americans want, since they are the largest customer.
I wouldn’t mind that the yanks have some really good kit.
And some bleeding clangers like the LCS…Besides which how many ships do you think the RN would get with the prices of US designs?
Get ready to buy an Arleigh Burke that has reached it’s design limitations and then had them pushed again in that case….
Do you really think the Hobart Class Destroyers are getting on ?.
Sorry you’re right they aren’t. I thought that they were commissioned around the same time as T45 but checked and they weren’t commissioned till 2017.
I am increasingly doubtful that surface escorts are worth the huge sums spent on them. They have little offensive capacity. If you want seaborne AAW build an arsenal ship. If you want surface ship ASW build simple submarine chasers.
Surface warships are now too vulnerable to PGMs that will only get more capable over time.
Far better to spend the money on submarines, which with AUKUS, we appear to be doing.
Tories can now snipe from the opposition bench without having to deliver anything. Be careful as Labour is learning all that sniping comes back to bite you.
There you go again yay!!!!
You really have a bias problem. The comment effectively stating the opposition can criticise without being held to account whilst those who are in power now realise that sniping from opposition has its costs once in power. So equally critical of both parties red or blue. But your conformation bias has kicked in interpreting the comment around your bias. I strongly suggest you websearch cognitive bias and specifically conformation bias. Fortunately it can be addressed with some effort.
So you fundamentally believe that a a party that has been on power for a few months should have been able to solve the problem of lack of ships in the RN and are just as deserving of criticism,? Really? I mean really??
So where did that come from? I made a generic criticism that opposition parties have luxury of commenting whilst having to deliver nothing whilst in opposition that applies to both parties.
Are you OK? I mean you could have asked respectfully for me to clarify my comment if you didn’t understand it . Again I’ll assume you are respectful and decent person and perhaps just rushed or tired.
The problem I have was that Labour were complete pants in opposition when discussing Defence.
Heavens. The present MP for Barrow in Furness didn’t know about the difference between SSN and SSBN and seemed to be careless that no SSNs were at sea. Dire.
They didn’t deliver from the Front benches did they???
Never said or inferred they did they did. Please address your cognative biased for both our sakes.
It’s amazing how this bloody tory,stating the obvious 🙄, it was her pile of crap previous that left us in the sxxt ,labour before that ,welcome to reality 😳, FXXXXXXG IDIOT
Unfortunately since and including
Thatcher the idea has been that if you have all the money you can achieve anything. Technology was not included, neither talented people because non are tory I think the safest thing to do is let Putin walk in and take over for a while and get rid of the pagan gypsy tsars forever and save not only Britain but the world.
The Baroness spoke in July in response to the King’s Speech. How does this qualify for a news article in November? Publishing it now with a present-tense headline and without making it clear that the quotes are from July was always likely to mislead the readership into thinking the speech was recent, as can be seen from the comments. Hands up those who knew it was warmed-up news before they responded!
George seemed awfully proud of moving UKDJ into IPSO certification and I thoroughly applauded that too. Perhaps he should consider the editors’ guidelines (clause 1 section i) before timeshifting “news” in such a misleading fashion.
What she said
In other news, Water is wet!
This is a discussion piece but as a whole could the military not state most critical pieces of kit needed and a secondary need. So example frigates, the navy gets fast tracked on work compared to say replacement of the land rovers? Then once that’s done we have a list of equipment next to work towards allowing businesses to act on next requirements and provide the capability gaps required now? Just a thought instead of the need to lay out plans for 5 years.
State requirements over next 5 years, produce a priority list to the services and a secondary list on money requirements on gaps and do that yearly?
Just sometimes in government when the problem is you don’t have enough money to meet your defence obligations the answer isn’t just cut defence to meet the miserable budget. Sometimes the answer is that you increase the budget to meet the requirement. That simple fact seems to blows most politician’s minds.
The noble lady’s statement may have been made three months ago, but her point remains valid and pressing: we don’t have enough escorts.
The obvious answer would be free up some money and build more. However, she was only looking at one small element of UK defence. She could as easily have said that we don’t have anywhere near enough fast jet combat aircraft and need more Typhoons. Or more Poseidon P8s, Wedgetails, MQ9bs, Sky Sabre systems. Challenger 3s, field artillery, etc, etc.
The point being that, after years of cuts to personnel and equipment numbers, we are short right across the board.
Out of the three services, the navy is far closer to the equipment numbers needed than the other two services, which are now pretty threadbare. 107 Typhoons and 4 deployable army manoeuvre brigades does not make a warfighting force! But it is the RAF and Army that would have to play the main role v Russia if it comes to it and they are both now far too wafer-thin.
Logically, they need to be first in the queue now for equipment and personnel increases. The RN already has 24 new ships and submarines building and planned by 2035. That is 40% of the fleet. Its strength will increase from 59 to about 64 warships and auxiliaries. Escort numbers will increase from 15 to 19. That represents a significant renewal and strengthening of the fleet. That is the naval budget for the next ten years used up and more.
Time now surely to switch to an equally significant renewal and strengthening of the other two services, which have had to play second fiddle to the navy for quite some time?
The Tories had 14 years to build more ships!