In a compelling piece published on August 7, 2024, Dr Emma Salisbury, a Research Fellow in sea power and military innovation at the Council on Geostrategy, lays out a persuasive argument for why the Royal Navy must prioritize submarines.
Her article, featured in the Council on Geostrategy’s online magazine, Britain’s World, asserts that submarines are not just an option but are imperative for maintaining the United Kingdom’s maritime dominance and national security.
Dr Salisbury discusses at length submarines’ unmatched capabilities, highlighting their stealth, deterrence, and versatility. She writes, “As geopolitical tensions rise and the nature of conflict evolves, these silent sentinels of the sea offer unparalleled stealth, deterrence, and versatility, helping the United Kingdom (UK) maintain maritime dominance.”
The ability of submarines to operate undetected provides significant strategic and tactical advantages, enabling the Royal Navy to outmanoeuvre adversaries and safeguard national interests.
Modern attack submarines, like the Royal Navy’s Astute class, are at the cutting edge of technological innovation. Dr Salisbury highlights advancements in stealth technology, propulsion systems, sonar, and weaponry, which have made submarines more effective and harder to detect. She underscores the significance of the AUKUS partnership, stating, “Further investment in submarine technology via the AUKUS partnership will ensure the Royal Navy retains a competitive edge in undersea warfare, a domain which is becoming increasingly contested.”
Submarines perform a variety of missions that surface ships cannot, including intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR), anti-submarine warfare (ASW), and conventional strike missions using cruise missiles.
Dr Salisbury elaborates, “Their ability to operate in diverse environments, from deep oceans to shallow coasts, makes them indispensable for both defensive and offensive operations.” This versatility enhances the Royal Navy’s operational flexibility and overall combat effectiveness.
It s also argued that investing in submarines also brings significant economic and industrial benefits. The construction and maintenance of submarines involve complex and high-tech industries, providing thousands of skilled jobs and supporting the UK’s defence industrial base. Dr Salisbury points out, “The submarine programme stimulates innovation and technological development, with spill-over effects benefiting other sectors of the economy.”
A capable submarine force bolsters the UK’s influence in international affairs and its role in alliances such as NATO. Submarines support collective security efforts and demonstrate the UK’s commitment to global security. Dr Salisbury argues, “Their deployment in international waters demonstrates London’s commitment to global security and its capability to project power far from home shores.”
Dr Salisbury’s article makes a compelling case for the Royal Navy to prioritise submarines, I encourage you to read the full article yourself on Britain’s World, the Council on Geostrategy’s online magazine.
Yes but just look at the reality of the current situation. I’m no Doctor but heck, this situation needs drastic help.
Go take a look on Navy Lookout, the drastic measures are on hand and progressing. The simple truth is that for nearly 3 decades the Nuclear infrastructure was just ignored, sidelined and left to the next guy to fix.
The Faslane lift is a civil engineering tour de force, when built it was one of the largest and most complicated projects ever attempted in the U.K. Unfortunately it needs renewal and that has been left just like everything else until “Lastminute.com”.
But things are improving and that should start to be reflected with availability.
My biggest grip is why no one ordered the Floating Drydocks 10 years ago 🤔
How long will it take for those floating DD to actually be built and be usable?
Hello, I did take a look and i’ve been following all this on other sites, the fact is just like you say, it should have been done ten years ago. But we are in a terrible position currently and no amount of positive spin can say differently.
Faslane is not the problem, the problem is:
1) the disaster of Devonport…the docks at Devonport are either…permanently jammed up with an SSBN in bits..being rebuilt to be turned into a decommissioning dock or being rebuilt so it can actually refit and repair A boats…
2) the fact the V boats are geriatric and essentially need the Faslane shiplift just to keep them running…
Essentially at present our refit and repair capability for SSNs is non existent and we are dependent on the new A boats coming through to keep any operational SSNs…it’s bonkers.
I agree.
I recall in the Cold War the RN was the most submarine orientated navy in Europe.
SSN are a trump card we should have many more of.
Sadly, successive governments have degraded the force, and almost destroyed the industry.
As I have suggested before, I take an SSN over an escort every time. That is not to say we do not need more escorts, we do.
RN core – Carriers. SSN. Amphibs and RM. RFA. These are the enablers and the escorts the support force.
It’s terrible the state of our armed forces as a whole ATM. To think where we were in the two previous centuries.😓
A State as in lack of numbers, retention and recruitment, yes.
Otherwise, capable, professional, well trained armed forces, with the logistic tail, and the match for most.
Let’s be careful to acknowledge that.
Hear hear
What exactly are you “Hear Hearing” to though Jim? have you actually read this article ? are you even remotely aware of just how terrible the current state of availability is ? Do you have any comprehension of just what the crews of these boats are actually doing or thinking right now ? I think you have no Idea personally, just like your 500 Nuclear warheads post a few days back. You seem to be on another Planet mostly.🤔🚀
Just waiting to be called a Troll now.
On paper but in port mostly, but I see your positive take on this otherwise terrible state.
Fully agree Dainele, must not let the negativity of the main stream media take hold as they do to play down our magnificent military!
Cheers
George
Ha, You do know just how unavailable most of our equipment is ?
And you do? What’s your area of expertise? I haven’t seen you post anything particularly knowledgeable anywhere just lots of short snippets criticising others who clearly do know more than you.
Hello Jim – as you clearly know nothing at all, if you go start your old trick of trolling new posters here, you know what’s going to happen
Is this your site then ?
You act like it is.
When you write stuff that is obviously wrong do you seriously expect people not to reply ?
Hi Daniele. I hope you are well. I am surprised that UKDJ has not commented on the Mail Online article from an authoritative source that states that all six Astutes are currently non-serviceable and that there are no or not enough dry docks to accommodate the necessary repairs! If this is true then it is an outrageous state of affairs not to mention a very poor advert for the broad submarine structure including manufacturing and RN operation which needs to be urgently addressed, particularly in view of future joint projects with Aus and the USA
Kind Regards
Afternoon my friend.
Yes, infrastructure has not been invested in, the shiplift I read is not operational?
And the 2 floating dry docks to alleviate the situation, not heard.
ALL squarely at the Tories door.
Last I heard Harland and Wolff wanted to bid for the floating dry docks. That’s not going to happen anymore.
In this situation, does it not get to a point that we get them built abroad? Who cares about UK build if it is impacting the SSN fleet this way?
If it is stalled like this we could be in a FSS situation, years of inertia.
Yes. I also think we should get a fleet solid support ship ordered in Korea immediately. (Which is also what I thought back in 2018.) Either we support UK industry or we don’t. This faffing about doing neither properly is killing us.
Morning Daniele. Indeed-down to Tory neglect. They used to be the Party that supported our Armed Forces (with some hiccups from Duncan Sandys, David Cameron and even Maggie pre-Falklands) but there now seems little difference between them and Labour!
Navy outlook has an article out today, the issues are largely being resolved and their will be a significant uptick in SSN availability by Q4 of this year.
Absolute tosh, You have no Idea how long it will take to get these boats back in the water. Q4 ? That’s next month, it’s just when facilities might just be available to start the whole process. Clueless.
Q4 is October to December inclusive in most people’s world.
A good percentage of issues which would stop a vessel going to sea safely can be fixed without needing a drydock or ship lift.
We therefore have no actual idea when the vessels will be declared fit to go to sea and guessing based on the potential availability of something required for a minority of potential problems doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Mate don’t try and talk reason with him 😀
Cool, thanks, now go take a look at the backlog. It’s more than a month or two. Let me know when these boats are back in the Sea doing what they were designed for, Yes ?
Martin, the evidence is all there, essentially almost all our entire SSN fleet has been functionally tied up against the wall for almost 2 years..there is no operational or geostrategic reason for that..as the negatives are huge..we have not be saving our SSNs sea time, ensuring increase availability..you don’t do that with your entire fleet…at worst you do what the US has done with its carriers and reduced sea time to about 25%..25% sea time massively uplifts your availability..but means you maintain required operations, training as well as deter your enemies by showing you can deploy..tying everything against the wall is essentially showing your enemies your ability to deploy has collapsed.
ah, not seen. Good.
No, actually it’s not good at all. In fact it’s terrible.
As said mate, not read yet. ABC also suggests things are improving.
It’s really very bad mate…we have had most of our A boats sitting inactive for up to 2 years…infact the only A boat activity seems to be when a new one is commissioned…if we did not have a last trafalgar we would not have any boats operating. I suspect CBG 25 will have a newly commissioned A boat…people keep saying it’s purposeful, but it’s not..you do not tie up your SSNs against the wall just incase you need them.
Now Jim it was only 2 days ago when I was highlighting this very issue, you told me there was no issue with SSN available and I was talking nonsense when I pointed out that every single Devonport drydock was unavailable for SSNs and the Faslane shiplift was essentially tied up with SSBNs..meaning we essentially had every SSN tied up against the wall due to maintenance and lack of drydock issue…this a a real disaster…essentially as we should alway have at least one SSN out at all times doing area sanitation for the SSBNs.
👌
I agree. A good start would be to improve availability of the Astutes that have been alongside for most of the last year awaiting maintenance docks – which are still under construction etc. There is a good feature on current status in Navylookout.com
Hi Nimrod,
Yes I read the comprehensive article in Navylookout, basically it says there’s improvements for the subs in maintenance.
Cheers
George
SSN’s are now so capable that they can in many ways replace surface ship and do it cheaper. 40 years ago if I wanted to take out an airfield i needed planes which needed a carrier and the carrier need half a dozen surface vessels to protect it and the entire task force needed stores and refueling auxiliaries.
Now that can be done almost anywhere in the world by a loan SSN with no escort.
Agree.
The primary ASW asset for hunting submarines I believe is another submarine.
They are sea denial assets.
They threaten land targets with TLAM.
They conduct intelligence gathering.
They are a deterrent by the ambiguity of their presence, or not.
We want 8 and we won’t wait 😀
What a stupid comment
“They” are all awaiting maintenance. Every single one of them.
So I’d read mate. I have not seen this latest NL article detailing the latest?
well go take a look and you’ll see just why I say stuff like “It’s terrible”, seriously, It’s really terrible when you see just what a state we are in, I can’t sit back and read stuff that says we are in a good place when the facts show that we are not. I know Jim seems to type some positives that you and many others agree with but the actual facts are so very much different. Sadly.
Lets have a look…
Yep, agree its bad that it has got to this state, lack of investment in the shoreside infrastructure.
Remedies are underway, so I can only zero down on that as otherwise I’d go and take up birdwatching. No point in wallowing in it mate as we cannot change anything. With the extra 10 and 5 DD, the two floaters, and the shiplift fixed it’ll take a while to level things out but at least its a start.
Yes, It’s a start, I’ll agree but can you now see just why I reply to these rather upbeat comments the way I do ? Just how the hell are we in this state now, given the current and 10 year history we have seen developing ?
We need these boats to be out there now…. we need F35’s in quantity now, we need T23/26/31 now, we need so much more now yet we are still in a downwards spiral.
Governments care little about the military.
It is not newsworthy. They are too busy with their immigration program and subsequent impact on public services as the UK population spirals. ( See other articles ) to give it much attention.
And now we have Labour, who many would automatically think would give it even less attention.
Lets see.
Do you have another record you can play 😂
I think we all aware of the maintenance backlog. It’s in the sun news paper.
If you read the Sun for you defence information that explains why you post so much crap
Good stuff Dan. Also search & rescue of downed aircrew & escorting task groups.
Not fitting Astutes with vertical launch tubes for TLAM was a serious mistake. As it is now they sacrifice torpedoes in order to carry a sizeable missile load for any planned land strike. That’s a serious tactical straight jacket, having to dock to rearm potentiality half the world away from home. That limits their multirole capability severely, particularly with such a small force with availability issues.
Nome of them are at sea…. That’s the real issue.
I think you have made your point m8!
A lot of the people you have been at go at have a lot of detailed knowledge about the sevices than you have through personal experience
I have always appreciated reading their posts over the years so DM et al please ignore the occasional criticism
I’m not having a go at “a lot of people” just one who can’t seem to understand the very basic fact that this is a problem.
i would have thought it virtually impossible for this one person to have actual experience of every single subject across all the services and departments posted here day in day out. Yet he comments like he knows everything and then resorts to insults and name calling.
This site is for discussion and debate and is for people from all walks of life, just take a look at the Admins background.
Don’t throw stones mate, in another tread you said the Kerch bridge was an easy target and could be easily destroyed by a couple of drones!
when I pointed out the difficulty of actually destroying it you got a bit sarcastic, If anyone on here makes a comment then they are sometimes rightly called out and most accept it graciously.
Are you a my way or the highway poster because it doesn’t seem you are tolerant to opinions different to yours.
You know boats with VLS have to sacrifice torpedoes to fit them in. No such thing as a free lunch when it comes to weapons storage.
Make the sub a little longer to fit the vls in rather than taking up torpedo room space. It’s not rocket science.
What do you think the Aukus SSN’s are ?
It is bigger (to fit the larger reactor as per Dreadnought class) and VLS
Complete rubbish as usual
Absolute crap
Good post mate. RN had 28 attack subs in 1982, about 4 or 5 of which went down to the Falklands (Op Corporate).
True including diesel electric HMS Ocelot which you can go round at Chatham.
Thin Pin Striped Line had a really interesting delve into Ocelot’s sneaky history in The National Archives.
Been looking at Sir Hs posts on that. And on a Soviet OP in the Falklands?
Yes, I went around HMS Ocelot at Chatham about 5 years ago. Very impressive.
The real problem with our SSN fleet are the lack of investment in drydocks in Devonport and the fact our SSBN fleet is geriatric..those two factors have basically it seems crippled the SSN fleet to the point that at times we don’t have a single operational boat away from the wall…the fact we don’t have an operation drydock in Devonport for the SSNs is a joke, only made worse by the fact the old and crumbling V boats essentially need to hog the shiplift Faslane.
now some people have said that our entire SSN fleet has been sitting around doing nothing is because we are ensuring they are ready to surge…that I’m afraid is so much BS..you don’t keep everything against the wall because:
1) your not doing your standard tasking, and as the SSN standard tasking is area sanitation to keep the CASD safe..you never ever stop doing that.
2) your enemy has to see you are capable of deploying if your SSN fleet is going to act as a deterrent to war ( the best way to start a war is to let your enemy think you cannot or will not deploy).
3) degradation of skills…what’s happening to your crews and training as your SSNs sit against the wall.
The U.S. carriers are a specific group of ships with reduced sea time to ensure they are Able to deploy 4-5 if needed…but even the U.S. carriers, which are real harbour queens run at around 25% sea time.
I’m looking forward to Deeps comments on this mess.
This is entirely correct. See a lot of comments saying ‘lets bin the useless money-it carriers and get more escorts’ missing the question as to what would they then escort, and the point that the Chinese would pay vast sums to have the capability so many people disparage.
Our allies throughout Europe have capable escorts, but not carriers or amphibs. I can’t think of a scenario where we would take unilateral action without our Nato partners.
From what I can read, biggest problem is in the industry supporting the yard, rather than the Shipyard or sailors.
But I am confident. UK invented industry. UK can do it again. Send engineers abroad, make them come back with fresh ideas and new mindset. Receipes are well known.
As part of a mix , I whole heartedly agree but looking at the broader picture the navy needs a mix of frigates, destroyers, amphibious assault, coastal craft and frankly we don’t have enough of any.
We certainly should not go down the rabbit hole of AUKUS or project Tempest. Both are badly needed. No matter how super dipper a piece of hardware is, it can’t be in two places.
I recall Ben Wallace questioning the balance between surface warships and submarine numbers. AUKUS ensued and we seem to have committed to an increase in subs.
The crucial thing to recognise is the the RN is now an inferior navy, outnumbered by several other countries, some allies, some not. As Germany showed in WW2, the best investment for an inferior navy is submarines. Even the rather limited capability of German u boats posed the biggest threat to Britains survival and required many times the resources to counter.
The capability of modern SSNs is far greater than any conventional submarine- fast enough underwater to match the speed of any surface escorts, unlimited range and still extremely hard to detect and counter.
For a second tier navy like the RN, a larger SSN fleet would increase its capabilities, both offensive and defensive, far more than spending yet more money on aircraft carriers.
How does one define second tier?
On size alone?
Good Afternoon M8, Trust you are well, here is my slant on it.
I’m going to use “Ocamm’s Razor” theory. So simplistically start with the prime deciding factor that separates their capability.
So Tier 1 is a Navy that has the ability to obliterate or render incapable its potential enemy 24/7/365. So USA, Russia, China, France, UK due to SSBN CASD.
Tier 1.5 is India as it’s halfway there !
The next most powerful Navy by quite some margin is Japan so that’s Tier 2
Then just keep going.
🤷🏼♂️
Afternoon mate. I am.
For me, too many ignore capability, training, professionalism, experience, logistics, know how, and all the rest.
Yes, we are too small and other navies are bigger.
And other navies do not have some of our assets or our ability to deploy at distance, long term.
I do not see a navy with SSN, Carriers, Merlin, Spearfish, Sea Viper, Sampson, T45, T26, plugged into 5 eyes re maritime SIGINT, and our sonar tech as 2nd tier!!!
SSN’s all in port awaiting Maintenance, Carriers both on paper avaliable, Merlins, too few really, Spearfish mod 1 just happening, Sea Viper not out there at all in quantity, Sampson mostly inactive im Portsmouth, T45 same, T26 years away, 5 eyes yes but not like it could or should be, Sonar Tech. mostly tied up in various ports along with their platforms.
Sorry mate but that is the actual reality of where we are despite what it might look like on paper.
Am I wrong ?
No, but it is a glass half full half empty thing maybe?
Other navies assets also spend time in port mate.
We still have them, and have spent the money. I’d rather be in this position than some other navy without those capabilities, in port or not.
I’m curious of your 5 eyes comment, as I’m well informed and read in this area ( as well as being a nosy B******d ) Why is it “not as it could or should be?”
“Most” SSNs in port awaiting maintenance not all…but we still have them and operate them…..don’t confabulate a significant issue with drydock availability with not having the capability….
the reality is the RN can still put together a carrier battle group that only one nation could overmatch and one equal.
It’s a difficult one, because you can have a very powerful green water navy ,Japan is the classic example..a very powerful navy…in the western pacific but it’s not a blue water navy…
so what makes a top tier navy…first I would say it must be a true blue water navy able to project power into at least any two occeans at anyone time, but also dominate a green water navy/regional navy in a conflict.
so what does a top Tier navy need…
(I’m actually going to exclude SSBNs as they are not really a weapon of war or navel conflict..they are a geopolitical tool used to deter nuclear war, nuclear blackmail or destruction of a nation…they will never take part in navel conflict..other than to be a resource to be protected ( so someone may just be insane enough to try and hunt another nations SSBNs).)
1) carrier aviation…without carrier aviation it would be important to dominate a green water/regional navy in their own area of operations…so no carrier no top tier ( yes in 2010 the conservatives did let the RN slip for a time from the top tier)…and you could argue that France is not top tier when it’s carrier is in a long refit.
2) SSNs..fundamental due to strategic mobility and ability to strike…SSNs can shut down and deny most green water navies…and can move to any ocean at high speed.( days/weeks instead of weeks/months)
3) high end ASW escorts .. needed to sanitise an again electric boats and other supplies surface area denial ( also need mine warfare capabilities).
4) high end AAW escorts ( to both support carrier battle group and amphibious operations
5) amphibious capability and strategic sea lift…yes you can do strike and or sea denial…but if you cannot land troops your not a top tier blue water navy.
6) at sea replenishment…
7) and or access to bases across the globe
8) finally the nuts and bolts of long range patrol boats and frigates..for the day job of a blue water navy…ensuring access and sealane safety.
so the navy’s that are and are not:
1) US..have everything in spades…
2) china…this is a nation with two navies..a top tier navy that is second only to the US, but also a very large essentially attritional green water navy…only it’s lack of Atlantic bases are its blue water navy weakness….but on the flip side it’s got a spare green water navy that could over power any navy other than the USN…and the blue and green water together..fighting in the western pacific…I’m not sure the USN would win.
3) RN..balanced but small…weakness is well we all know.
4) La Royal..same as RN, but weakness being the one carrier.
then the two almost top tier that are or could be blue water navies but miss something
Italy…lack of SSNs and at sea replenishment is to weak for a true blue water capability..although it can as its showing push a task force into the pacific.
russia…simply put..its fleet is nackered and I’m not sure it will ever have fixed wing naval aviation again. all it is now building are smaller large surface combatants ( 4-5k ton ) and SSGNs…everything else is essentially going to the scrap heap…but the Russian land mass being what it is it can do a lot with SSGNs and 4-5 ton surface combatants…
India..I would say India has a couple of key issues that make it not tier one…1) domestic SSNs not there yet,
2) at sea replenishment
3) access to global bases..
4) INS Jalashwa is not on its own a amphibious capability
But to be honest I don’t think India wants a blue water navy..it wants a navy that can counter china in the very large Indian Ocean…so it’s focus is more a single very large ocean navy, that needs elements of a blue water navy due to the size of the ocean it’s planning to operate in…pretty close to Japan and Australia’s needs really.
then you have the other very large green water navies..like South Korea..essentially a huge navy designed to fight a specific war in a specific sea…or the European frigate navies…that are smaller but designed to operate small operations at long range.
I think we occupy a very odd position in naval ranking that can’t be dealt with using “tiers”.
With most nations, the area in which they deploy scales roughly evenly with the force and strength they can apply (There’s no way the USN could generate that much force if they only wanted to protect their coasts and most small countries don’t cross the world).
However, Britain is in the unusual role of deploying ships across the world without really “dominating” much of the sea at all except those areas we choose to place our limited resources on the Globe.
By rights we should really be a North Atlantic power similar to the way Italy is dominant in the Mediterranean but we have so many interests around the world we just seem to end up “overreaching” the whole time.
That leads into political areas mate. We are a P5, G7 member. That has responsibilities. We cannot just withdraw from the world like the far left want and we are not a superpower either.
Not suggesting you support those options BTW.
Can you list all the countries with first tier navy’s and tell us what your criteria is?
Try my reply to DM !
I agree with your classification, in a real shooting war the ability to bring mass devastation on any enemy target is what it’s really about.
Which given the current state, we can’t.
I don’t think Peter S personally has the definitions – I use the Todd & Lindberg classification postulated in 2015.
The USN is the only Rank 1 bluewater navy in the world.
Designation of Rank 1 – Global-reach power projection
Capability of USN within that designation – USN is able to conduct multiple and sustained power projection missions globally.
Stupid boy – can you?
We have one of the best trained naval forces in the world. Your use of the word inferior can only be used in the context of numbers of vessels we have.To call the Royal Navy inferior is at the best unfair, at the worst a downright lie.
The RN is a Rank 2 bluewater navy as per the Todd & Lindberg classification postulated in 2015.
Designation of Rank 2 – A Navy with Limited global-reach power projection
Capability of RN within that designation – RN is capable of at least one major power projection operation globally.
So only America is rank 1 then? What’s their view on the ability of a navy to launch hundreds of nuclear warheads anywhere on the planet in less than 30 minutes. Do they factor that in?
Please can you say how the RN can launch “Hundreds of nuclear warheads” / as I keep having to tell you, there is normally just the one V boat out there and normally they don’t carry a fraction of that number yet you still keep saying stuff like this ?
I forget. Was it currently ( officially ) 8 MIRV per Trident? or only 8 Trident per boat?
It’s up to 8 but no reason why the boats are not currently carrying 16 missiles, government announced warhead increase 3 years ago but no time table and numbers are state secret.
It’s hard to explain given your limited knowledge but three boats typically carry missiles at the same time not just the one on patrol.
Does that explain it or do you want me to draw a picture 😀
There are four V’s, we all know that at any one point there will be one on patrol, one hopefully ready or working up, one in maintenance and one undergoing re-fit yet you seriously believe that all of these will still have 16 missiles and their warheads on board ?
No picture required here, keep your crayons in your pencil case.
Yes, correct. Your point is a good one, even if you over-estimate the number of warheads that the single CASD SSBN bomber can launch.
Submarine-launched nuclear capability was clearly not considered by Todd & Lindberg. Their rating is clearly all about conventional forces global power projection.
Rubbish
Russia has more SSBN than we do. Are they a tier/rank 1 navy then?
Which is fine as we are not a superpower.
Rank 2 is not to be sniffed at, we just cannot keep putting ourselves down.
Look at other navies.
Exactly, we are not the USA but no one else is either. That’s nothing to turn our noses at despite what the Russian bots and little pinks on here want people to think.
Here you go trolling again
At the time Todd & Lindberg did their classification in 2015 only the RN and the French Navy got a Rank 2 grading. Someone on Wikipedia has since and quite recently added Italy to the blue water navy entry for a Rank 2 grading – which might be debatable?
Italy has: 2 light aircraft carriers, 3 amphibious assault ships, 4 destroyers, 11 frigates and 8 attack submarines, 10 offshore patrol vessels, 10 mine countermeasure vessels, 4 coastal patrol boats, and a mix of auxiliary ships.
On paper Italy might be capable of at least one major power projection operation globally – but in practice do they ever do it?
Have they ever done it?
And do they have the logistics and know how?
I suggest not.
I don’t think they have the political will to grandstand their Navy on the world stage.
Cavour is currently exercising in Guam.
Thanks. EUMARFOR mission, so it is a Carrier Strike (or Task) Group.
They’ve run carrier operations off Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Libya. Cavour strike group is currentlyin the Pacific. I have no idea why you think Italy can’t project power through carriers when they’ve been doing it for the last 25 years.
Ignorance, Jon. I know very little about other nations militaries.
👍
Exactly my point. For a century after Waterloo, the RN was the world’s dominant navy. Even post WW1, it was still comfortably the largest, but the 1921 Washington treaty ended the old 2 power rule, leaving the RN and the USN equal in major capital ships. By 1945, the USN was far larger than the RN, even though the RN was bigger than ever before.
Today, the RN is a small force, able to deploy globally on occasion but still over influenced by its history in trying to be a mini USN.
It is a fact, not a criticism, that the RN is now a 2nd tier navy. Given that reality, the best way for it to ” punch above its weight” is not to emulate the USN with its massive carrier and amphibious capabilities that require large crew numbers and vast build and sustainment costs, but to concentrate more resources on SSNs. AUKUS suggests that is going to happen.
I don’t think the RN is remotely trying to emulate the USN. Many countries have aircraft carriers (at least 13 or 14), be they for launching conventional aircraft or STOVL. Our carriers don’t require the massive crews that US carriers require. We need carriers for our Global Britain role – in fact we need more than two.
Don’t you think we need amphibious shipping for the Royal Marines?
What we do agree on is more attack subs and we should be prepared to have a SSN/SSK mix.
Sorry but second tier navies don’t have and cannot have SSNs….unless like Australia their friends sort them out…only the tope tier blue water navies have SSNs…I think your confusing diesel electric boats and SSNs…as you say a second tier or green water navy if it can would be wise to get electric boats…but SSNs have and do define a top tier blue water navy.
given that SSN’s are immensely effective, difficult to build, require small crews but vast infrastructure to operate and are the number one platform that allows you to control the sea they are the perfect platform for the UK. Indeed they are the Dreadnaught battleships of the modern age. The total cost of Astute build according to navy outlook is £10 billion over 25 years which is about the same as the paperclip budget at the MOD.
We could easily afford to double or triple the fleet even with our reduced budgets.
The MOD should follow the USA’s lead and procure as many SSN’s as British industry can make and maintain irrespective of any other factor. Even if that means cutting capabilities in the Army and Airforce to pay for them.
This is how we survived the last period of great power competition and it’s how we will survive the next one.
Building and retaining a “balanced force” in peace time is a good way to bankrupt yourself and ensure defeat in war time.
Major wars are always won and lost at sea and naval strategy is build strategy.
“Even if that means cutting capabilities in the Army and Airforce to pay for them.”
Hang on hang on!!!
I prioritise the RAF as much as the RN, and what capabilities from the army could we lose?
Having a primarily maritime first strategy does not mean reducing the army further.
Obviously I don’t want to see cuts to the other two forces however the only real threat to the UK is posed by the Russian Submarine force and the only real systemic threat to the West is China. In either scenario the number of soldiers or aircraft we can deploy will be largely irrelevant. The number of SSN’s we can deploy could be crucial especially if we get the fleet back up to the mid to high teens.
Europe has hundreds of thousands of soldiers and tens of thousands of guns and America’s Airforce is bigger than its enemies combined. The US submarine force is outnumbered by Russia and China already and US ship building capacity is tiny on a global scale.
Every SSN will count.
Also if you read most of the war scenarios coming out of the DoD and US think tanks over a future China war then it’s SSN and strategic bombers doing almost everything. Surface ships and fighter jets probably won’t be able to get to within thousands of miles of a real conflict atleast in the early stages.
We didn’t beat Germany in 1918 by building a massive army in 1905.
The same logic will apply in the 21st century.
If we need a big army to fight then we pay whoever boarders the country we want to fight to build it just like we are doing in Ukraine now.
Just like we did with Russia, France and Italy in 1915-1918
My word you do post some complete bullshit
You are thinking too narrowly. UK is not just an island off the NW coast of Europe that needs defending. We are part of NATO which provides security for the Euro-Atlantic region. We have also been in coalition with the US, seeing us operate in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Gulf area around Kuwait. We have provided forces to UN peacekeeping operations in Cyprus and the Balkans etc etc.
None of that even actually makes any sense. “Easily triple the fleet” “building and retaining a “balanced fleet” in peace time is a good way to bankrupt yourself” “navel strategy is build strategy” ? what on earth are you on about ?
We can’t even maintain the handful we have! 🤣
Yes, exactly, nail hit on the head.
Not sure you could cut much more in the army.
This is complete crap
Just to throw something into the mix here… Could the day come, when NATO Alliance members spend their military budgets on their strengths?
For example, the UK decides to focus on the Royal Navy, ships, subs, carriers, fleet air arm and Royal Marines.
Germany to focus on it’s Army.
France to focus on it’s Navy.
Poland to focus on its Army
Finland – Arctic Warfare
Sweden – Arctic Warfare
USA – Air Force
Etcetera etc
Cannot see it. As it hamstrings individual nations from taking action individually if necessary.
Hi Dan… It is a purely hypothetical question, it will not happen now, but 5, 10, 15+ years away?
The theory is not to say that each country cannot maintain other Air, Land assets should they so desire.
My theoretical query, stems from the fact that in reality, the current size of the British Army, and continued efforts to cut its size, makes for a weak NATO asset, other than it’s excellent ability to train combat troops.
Hi Tom.
Sure, point taken mate.
In that case, as you say, if we still maintain other domains, maybe it will.
Isn’t the reality of it evolving in that direction naturally ? France is going Airforce/Navy then Army, Italy is Going Navy/Airforce then Army and Poland is going ARMY BARMY, Airforce and mmm yes a small navy.
So for us and as long as US stays focussed then I’d go Navy, Airforce then Army.
The Geography hasn’t changed we are still an island aircraft carrier and the bulk of USA still has to come by Sea and to defend that we need boats, ships and Aircraft.
But we still do need to have an Army I just wish someone would set a reasonable force level and plan to achieve it. Not back to BAOR but a meaningful contribution, such as starting with properly sized single Armoured Division with all that it needs.
But November 4th may just change my mind.🤷🏼♂️
I don’t know. I keep reading that Labour are sea blind and favour the army.
This is my long standing position mate. RN, RAF, Intell community first, then Army.
But, and a big but, in having that doctrine the Army is not at the level that for me is a suitable minimum for a leading NATO nation.
So yes, 1 proper Armoured Division, plus another proper Division ( No 1 ) and all the extras.
NATO is only one of many alliances that the US supports. The Pacific provides a number of military challenges totally different than those of NATO. And let’s not forget the Americas. There is no reason, other than European parasitism and fecklessness, that the US should spend trillions of dollars and base a substantial percentage of its military strength defending a Europe that is totally capable of defending itself but refuses to make the commitment to do so. If the UK really is a “global power” as it says it is, then it does not need a US fighter wing with some of the best fighter squadrons in the world based on its soil, a thousand miles away from the Russian border.
It’s still a hypothetical question. However, to address one of your points, yes the USA does spend a shed-load of money, commitment and assets defending Europe. But, maybe that’s the ‘hold’ that Europe has on the US, insofar that currently Russia’s threat to the US is on 2 fronts, in the ‘far’ east (Europe) and the very close West.
Mebbe, if the US were to pull out of Europe, in the event of a US/Russian conflict, Europe could (highly unlikely… but with Trump?) say to the US… ‘well you buggered off and left us, a war on your west coast is not our concern.
Just saying is all. As with lots of other hypothetical military possibilities, regardless of how ‘far fetched’ they may seem, it’s not to say it hasn’t been thunk of, further up the food change.
Trump is full of wind. USA is broke, it spends money it doesn’t have, Europe is their one and only real friend other than Israel. Italy, England, France, Germany and the Spanish are the real founding members of this giant global influence, they can never let history go.
That’s an efficient use of resources but will not happen. Nations have interest despite the NATO alliance. It’s like saying me and my wife only need to wear the same trainers to walk about but in reality we waste resources by duplication to suit our own purposes, I have 2 pairs of shoes also and she has 600 pairs of whatever are in all those boxes. But we only have 1 pair of feet to use at any one time….thinking I’m losing the plot with this comparison now.
I agree we should have more and that they offer very unique capabilities, but what do we cut to fund more of them, ASW frigates? Large amphibs?
Tough decisions need to be made and I fear the fact that subs can’t really “fly the flag” in the same way as surface warships will play a role in preserving the status quo in terms of force balance.
Here we are in “peace time”(on the verge of war some would say) with the smallest sub fleet since 1910(smallest escort/warship fleet for hundreds of years), yet none(except the Trident boats) are active & we don’t have enough repair capacity for these tiny few. So If we had active ops we’d need drastically more repair capacity & drastically more subs.
There’s no excuse for inadequate peacetime forces even if what we do have is excellent kit & brilliant servicemen/women. Especially when things are very dangerous internationally. We should have contingency plans for rapid building of more subs & expanding the supporting facilities whenever necessary. Enemies have a predictable habit of not waiting until you’re ready for the next war. Creating dire weaknesses encourages them.
Like most things in the MOD mis-managed and the crews are the ones that have to make do and still deliver. The top brass should hang their heads in shame for letting the Services fall into such a state as they are the ones who manage day to day. Nothing is a quick fix but we do need real hard wear that works for the personnel who will man them. War in 3 – 5 years, well we certainly will not be doing much then with what we have now. Those of us that once served are disgusted by the state of the land we protected. God help us all in the future.
It’s the PMs & chancellors that I’d hold responsable for setting the budget that limits the capacity of the forces to run, replace & service the kit & have ensured drastic, dangerous cuts to our forces. The servicemen are poorly served indeed by aging kit etc & will be most vulnerable. HMG words have been a long way from reality for a long time.
And lots of money wasted over the years (Nimrod x 2 programes for example) and buying kit that is gold plated when there are suitable affordable options, yet we get our crappie uniforms from China which are really substandard. RN working rig is truly only fit for the bin, why do you think the RM’s went shopping in the US to get the kit they needed which is so much fitter for purpose than the uniforms others are having to wear. If you don’t look the part you don’t feel the part. All (well almost all) uniform was passed over to the Army to organise, and this is what we have today. UK Pounds supporting others rather than UK industry. HMG do take a share of the blame for sure but those that run the Services day to day should also take their fair share. Sad times for once a proud Nation who were respected around the World.
Angus, what is all this stuff about uniforms when we are discussing the future of British naval power, especially submarines!
I can’t believe that ‘the army’ procures uniform for all three services. DE&S is the UK’s tri-service procurement organisation and there is a ‘purple’ agency procuring uniform – Defence Clothing & Textiles Agency.
Sad to think we still get uniforms from China – I thought that had been for a limited period and many years ago.
The thing that I am most shocked about is that we need a report to tell us what is patently obvious.
Yes we need submarines and for a variety of reasons. We need a variety of types for different purposes. We also need a surface fleet including carriers & aircraft for obvious reasons.
We need a balanced fleet.
For a peacetime fleet personally I think we are slightly small. For a Cold War fleet we need to be building and evolving to new types of vessel. For war we would need much more.
It’s not patently obvious to most people, including most politicians. You need to have paid attention to something other than yourself and your election prospects. Consider your friends who are nothing to do with the military and not really interested in it (ie. normal people). If you asked them about submarine/surface-fleet balance, do you think they’d even understand the question much less have a coherent view based on facts?
Jon Normal people (as you describe them) would not have read a report about submarines – mainly because it does not interest them. Politicians are not going to bw swayed by an academic report. They might be swayed by the military coming out and saying what they need but probably little else.
That’s a fair point.
What’s the next headline? ‘Rifles used by Army’?
Well Two Tier Kier will have an excuse for this one no doubt.
This issue goes back years. Starmer can hardly fix it with the 5 mins he’s been in.
I see a lot of interest in UUVs at the moment, but I’m still unconvinced that the problem of how they communicate effectively has been solved. Lasers don’t work too well in murk, radio only works at very low frequencies with a correspondingly low data rate, and sound gives away your position.
Somebody else on this board ages ago (sorry I can’t remember who it was) made a good point about the UK and RN punching above its weight, if only it could concentrate efforts on five main shipping lane pinch-points around the word. That way if anything kicked off it could quickly deny an enemy’s access to the sea and its freight lines as a global blue-water navy.
Yes it would need more SSNs and I’m saddened, yet again, if lack of availability of current fleet is true. Its almost like somebody, somewhere is doing this deliberately…
It was a guy named Dave and his mate George who very deliberately did all this in 2010. We are just living with the consequences now.
The UK is the only country that has sovereign territory as well as naval and airbases located conveniently next to everyone of those pinch points. (Note the word sovereign)
It can shut down an advisories global shipping with no warships or submarines.
Rubbish
If you take that approach and consider our most immediate threat is Russia you don’t need to worry about 4 out their 5 choke points,
Russia has (had) 4 fleets, Northern, Pacific, Baltic and Black Sea, the Black Sea Fleet is gone and what’s left is in the Eastern Med near Tartus.
Bosporus forget it Turkey has it covered.
Gibralter it would be a Turkey shoot, and the NATO countries in the Med are quite able to deal with it.
Baltic same as Gibralter but different NATO countries.
Pacific can go over and under the Artic or via the Capes, to do any of those they need to deal with USN.
Which leaves the Norwegian Sea and GIUK gap, and that’s us the Northern NATO countries and the USN.
As for the Submarine fleet being deliberately in this state, it’s definitely not deliberate. IMHO it all comes down to nearly 30 years of incompetence by Politicians. The USN is in exactly the same position as we are but in some ways even worse. Decades of cuts, cuts and the need to keep what little was left was paid for by not investing in the infrastructure.
Frigate refit complex 1973 -76 ?
Sub Lift and Faslane updates 1987 – 93 ?
I can’t remember anything much else new being built or modernised till 2010 when they kicked off the Faslane upgrades.
What I cannot find out is if the refitting of the Synchro lift has upgraded its lift capacity for the Dreadnought. If not they really need to get a wiggle on with the Floating docks.
Yes and to have submarines operational you need to have the drydocks to Maintain them…the UKs are all either in bits or being used to keep the CASD from falling over.
At last some wisdom and common sense
A fool can see that given the UK diminishing funds available a simple strategic review of all of UK capabilities
Quickly reveals the real strength and ability to punch above your weight is by way of the RN and definitely not the RAF or Land forces
Just go and calmly reflect upon every word uttered here
The original article is utterly clueless.
We’ve talked about this before, time for it again. As part of wanting to expand the sub fleet is there absolutely no case for or the remote possibility that the UK would look at getting a small tier 2 fleet of 4 diesel SSKs to operate in the coastal, regional and far north areas freeing up the SSNs to go further afield, to be a more tier 1 front line?
We know they’re slower, shorter range and less capable than the SSNs but the majority of countries operate them. They’d be cheaper to make and operate, have adequate range for patrols are still be very capable. Not just our European allies but what Canada maybe choosing to patrol their vast territories and coast line would surely be good enough for the UK? And there’s German/ Norwegian, French or Swedish programs that we could also join. Or, build a UK design.
And maybe build a new naval base on the NE seaboard, around the Edinburgh area, for these subs (as well as ships, drones, uuv) to have quicker access to the North Sea, Atlantic and further North, and GIUK gap?
I agree with you, some cheaper submarines capable of operating around the UK and across the north sea would be far more cost effective. The latest AIS gives modern submarines quite long submerged times and can be quieter than nuclear powered submarines who have to keep their power plant on line all the time where the AIS system can shut right down and the vessel operate on batteries alone.
Some SSKs could at least cover the Med and the Baltic, are much cheaper to buy and Cammell Laird could build them. We could at least do this whilst waiting for the AUKUS SSN programme to come on stream.
How is Cammell Laird going to build them, they have no recent sub building experience let alone complex warship experience. a small batch would be extortionately expensive because of the amount of learning on the job.
So are you suggesting that SSKs are that complex? And have no relevant skills and experience?
And yet
“Cammell Laird… has played a strategic role in UK shipbuilding for the past 200 years, with recent projects including block builds for the Aircraft Carrier Alliance and critical units of the Astute class of nuclear submarines.
Today Cammell Laird…are delivering units for the Dreadnought class of nuclear submarines and units for HMS Belfast Ship 3 and HMS Birmingham Ship 4 of the new Type 26 class of frigates. These programmes are being delivered on behalf of BAE.”
They havent built a complete submarine there since 1992 or a complete warship since 1983. Its all well and good building bits of them to order from other companies, its very different building any themselves.
And what design are you going to use, were going to have to learn SSKs from scratch or buy a design or whole sub from overseas.
So what? They build a bunch of blocks and assemble them, voila, a whole submarine. And there are plenty of modern SSK designs out there which a) can be licensed and b) where CL can partner with the design company.
If you want additional subs when our SSN build capacity is tied up for many years then you have to think of alternatives.
Or do you just want to sit there saying Non to everything?
Im pointing out that it is not as cheap a wed like to reintroduce SSKs, we have Nuclear infastructure and construction, we dont have it for SSKs and therefore would be included in the cost of reintroducing that class.
Either way we probably wont see any increase in attack subs till the Aukus design, in the short term we have no money, Navy cant afford to build 6 ships for MRSS and has other programs.
this is all well and good but the navy has to be told that the nation cannot afford to pay a billion for a submarine that takes 7 years to build and bring into service. and that it has to be more realistic than it has been since the end of the cold war. We’re building frigates as big as cruiser oversized carrier with commonsense design failings. patrol vessels as big as corvettes. the forces are not big enough, everyone knows it but,, if the nation is serious about increasing the amount of ships the navy has, then there must be a commonsense approach to it it’s often looked like the armed forces are the tail wagging the dog. we don’t need hug frigates so big we didn’t need supercarjers we just need more of everything.
What commonsense design failings. And your obsession with size is ridiculous, the Type 23 is too small for Modern Navies, it’s a cramped tin can that Sailors hate.
The Royal Navy has the situation of what is needed, what is nice to have and what is affordable. Also Britain and Europe can no longer take it as a garantee that the US will or would come to Europes aid if Russia played a bit silly. This is due to people like Trump and who knows what in the future would happen in the US. So Europe needs to look at being able to deal with Russia on its own with a nice to have US help if available. Then again if Europe cannot depend on US help, then the US should not be able to depend on help from Europe. The US should also think, if they did pull out of Europe the US could face China and Russia on there own.
To do the tasks that is expected of the Royal Navy in times of war with a major nation the current submarine fleet is to small. People and Government needs to remember that the Navy goes to war with what it has, it cannot just conjure up some submarines in a few months. Although I would wish that our sub fleet could handle a superpower on its own that is just not possible. Although it should be possible to have a submarine fleet to make any nation think twice.
I for one also disagree with a totally nuclear submarine fleet just because they are to big to operate in some areas. I also disagree that a SSN is used on a patrol line, if the enemy knows where the patrol line is they have a starting point to search. So lets look at first what an SSN should not be doing, operating in the Med, Baltic, North Sea, any choke point for surface ships. However if NATO was at war, the Med, Baltic and North Sea are well protected with conventional powered subs from our allies. So we do not need to be worried about these areas. Choke points and the GIUK Gap picket line, sanitising the area West of Scotland, you can use a SSN for these tasks but is that the best use of these assets? Not really. Also due to the developments of Russian submarine launched long range conventional missiles possibly NATO needs to rethink and have an advanced trip line based on Greenland-Svalbard-Tromso. This would be ideal for SSN operations.
The two European SSN fleets have one major weakness, land strike capability, this does need to be addressed.
So let us look at what would be needed at sea on day one of war with a major nation such as Russia. Well the nuclear deterrant SSBNs possibly two would be at sea, one on its normal patrol and one rushed out. We would need a SSN per carrier group (2), one per amphibious assault group (2), one per SSBN as distant cover (2)(yes I like operating a SSN as distant cover for our SSBNs), operating in the Greeland-Svalbard-Tromso area (2) and an independent roaming SSN. That is a total of nine. Then we also would need a submarine for the West of Scotland, two to three submarines for the GIUK Gap and a submarine for critical convoy escort. That is a further five, however, these could be AIP submarines.
Now to look into some of the requirements of weapon fits. The SSNs escorting the carriers and amphibs should each have four VPMs for 28 cruise missiles, so a stretched SSN-A and eight SSN-As. A nice to have would be 4 further Dreadnought class submarines with 12 VPMs for 84 cruise missiles each. These could be used in the G-S-T area but I would prefer a further four SSN-As with VPMs for this task.
So the submarine fleet the way I see it needs to be is as follows
4 SSBNs, £8 billion each
4 SSGNs with 12 VPMs for 84 cruise missiles (nice to have) £5.5 billion each
4 SSN-As with four VPMs for 28 cruise missiles, if we do not build SSGNs then a further 4 SSN-As with VPMs would be needed. £2.5 billion each. I would prefer the extra SSN-A with VPMs over the SSGNs.
9 SSN-As. £2 billion each
and wait for it
9-12 AIP Submarines. £600 million each.
However, a more realistic submarine fleet that is within our finacial capability would be:
4 SSBNs
4 SSN-As with VPMs
8 SSN-As
and
6 AIPs
As the UK has not built an AIP sub in decades we will need help. I recommend that we ask Japan and base our AIP sub on their Taigei class. We could order three batches. The first batch built in Japan, the second batch built in the UK with Japanese assistance and the third batch built in the UK. It looks like the cost would be three Taigei class for one SSN. Japan also takes four years from laying to commissioning a Taigei sub. In return Japan could invest more into Tempest.
Here is now the issue, cost, cost cost. Yet, for three decades all three services have seen their numbers fall below critical mass due to the so called peace dividend. The cost then to bring the armed forces back up to realistic numbers is high but then should taper of as subs will get replaced rather than building everything from scratch. Also as we would have more numbers they will in times of peace not be worked so hard. I would also hope that by increasing numbers key elements such as nuclear power plants, sonar etc would reduce in cost. Possibly by enough to pay for a large part of the AIP submarines as I would expect about a 10% saving due to the increase in numbers. Although this proposed submarine fleet is not enough to take on the Russian Northern Fleet on its own it will give the Russians something to think about. The other issue that is worth thinking about is that at the hight of the cold war in the 1980s we had 16 SSNs and 16 SSKs. Even then the RN was saying that it did not have enough subs to do all the tasks.
If we could build such a submarine fleet and with two carrier groups, two amphib groups based on two Canberra class LHDs and four MRSS two per LHD. With their escorts of six T83s, eight preferably nine T26s and nine T31/T32s the RN would be able to carry out all of its tasks on day one of war. It would be the major European Navy and would along with our European allies be in a postion not to depend on the US to take care of the Atlantic, Med, Baltic, Norwegian and North Seas. Although I would still like to have from the US a SSN squadron as a nice to have.
It does sound a bit like fantasy fleets, but, the carriers we have, the T26s are in construction, the T83s are being planned for, five of the T31s are either in construction or planned for, a further five T32s are in the concept stage, the MRSS are in concept stage so for the surface fleet we need only two LHDs and one extra T26. As for the submarine fleet four new SSBNs are in diffrent stages of construction, and there has been talks about up to 15 new SSN-As but I am not sure if that includes the Aussie boats or not. If 15 does include the five for the RAN then we need two more SSN-As and six AIPs. So as you can see the RN is almost there