A new report from the Council on Geostrategy calls for the Royal Navy to prioritise the development of longer-range anti-ship weapons and advanced missile defence systems to maintain its ability to project power and deter adversaries.
The report, authored by Dr Emma Salisbury, stresses that without these upgrades, the Royal Navy risks being left vulnerable in an increasingly contested global environment.
The report highlights the urgent need to extend the range of current anti-ship missiles, stating:
“The development of longer-range and more survivable anti-ship weapons is crucial in ensuring that the Royal Navy can project power and deter potential adversaries. Current anti-ship missiles must be enhanced to extend their range, allowing for standoff engagement against enemy vessels while minimising exposure to counter-fire.”
The report also emphasises the importance of ensuring that these weapons are designed with survivability in mind. “Ensuring these weapons are designed with survivability in mind—whether through stealth features or advanced guidance systems—will significantly increase their effectiveness in contested environments.”
In addition to offensive capabilities, the report warns that traditional defence systems are increasingly inadequate against the rise of hypersonic and ballistic missile threats.
“The Royal Navy must invest in advanced missile defence technologies capable of countering these high-speed threats. Systems that can detect, track, and intercept missiles at various altitudes and speeds are essential to protecting fleet assets.”
The report recommends a layered defensive architecture, combining long-range interceptors with close-in weapon systems (CIWS), such as Phalanx, to create a comprehensive shield over naval operations. The integration of Laser Directed Energy Weapons (LDEW) is also proposed as a cost-effective and versatile solution for addressing a range of threats, including drones and missiles.
For more detailed analysis and recommendations, the full report can be accessed here.
I’d love to know who commissioned this report who paid for it ? It could have been much simpler to say “UK MOD needs yet another report that states the bleeding obvious. So we need more A, B, C etc, but can’t afford them !”
There report summarised where’s my fat fee ?
What I’d really like to know is, has this report been funded in any way by the UK Taxpayer ?
If so please put cancelling any more at the Top of any list of Defence cuts that come out of the future SDR.
The report actually is not really about that at all, it’s about how to move forward British naval shipbuilding for the future and essentially the importance of Britain being able to build better cheaper ships..increase industrial capacity..it then goes into the character of what is needed in these vessels and essentially one small paragraph states that Antiship missile ranges should be increased….
A fair, and I imagine more detailed analysis would feature in the full report, but the highlights there sum things up. Surface warfare might not involve four turrets and a dozen big guns any more, but the principle is the same: the need to accurately hit a target, at a range which favours the attacker where possible, and with sufficient firepower to destroy or disable said target. Nowadays, of course, also factor in getting through adversary defences and countermeasures in the first place. Hard to see past the need for future warships to have far more missile silos than previously… Read more »
Ummm I would say the report is not about that at all and the increased range of antiship missiles is a tiny paragraph in a report on how the navel ship building industry needs to improve and create cheaper, better ships.
Had a skim of the full report and it is so short of anything original or useful it could have been written by ChatGPT. Seemed like an Industry sponsored plea for more money? If you want novelty what matters in a small fleet is surviving to fight, steel is cheap so don’t build any deep water warships smaller than an old fashioned cruiser, put armour belts back on them with thick decks and automated self sealing capability. Maybe introduce catamaran or trimaran configurations so that a heavy torpedo could not back the ship’s back. A couple of well separated nuclear… Read more »
We have 2 brand new classes of frigate coming into service both now fitted with MK41 vls. FCAWS is a programme of record. I don’t think there’s any value in rushing weapons on to T23s. The RN actually seems to be on this. Viper Evolution & T83 are also in the works as long as labour don’t pull the plug. I think we’ll get there.
The T45’s have been dockside Queens, aka Refit and Repair. Meaning they are virtually new and will be good for many years yet. In order to keep the yards busy we shouldn’t delay the T83 but rather we should go ahead after the Frigates are completed. Instead of flogging off the T45’s, we should store them in one or two of the many dry docks lying idle around the UK. They could from there in emergency be recommissioned and utilized for Home Defence of the UK. Tell me this cant be done!
T26 will come to end around 2036 and the T45’s even with all the time they’ve spent alongside will probably need replacing by the mid 2040’s if we want to avoid what’s happened with huge delays and ridiculously costly refits on the T23’s.
So even with a lengthy build for T83 there may be a smallish gap.
Personally I’d very much like to see another 2 T26 tagged on to what will by then be a very ‘hot’ production line.
Very obvious the RN needs more offensive capabilities. With NSM entering service and FC/ASW in development I’d say the MoD is finally waking up to this anyway.