The Ministry of Defence has suggested that a future icebreaker could form part of Britain’s long-term Arctic strategy, though no firm commitment has been made.
In response to a written question from Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty about whether the UK would procure an icebreaking ship to complement HMS Protector, Defence Minister Luke Pollard said the capability is under consideration.
“While an icebreaking capability does not form part of the Atlantic Bastion plan,” Pollard said, “the UK recognises the increasing strategic importance of the Arctic and High North.”
The Atlantic Bastion concept, introduced in the 2025 Strategic Defence Review, is the Royal Navy’s plan to secure the North Atlantic against what the Ministry describes as a “persistent and growing underwater threat from a modernising Russian submarine force.” HMS Protector, the UK’s only polar-capable vessel, primarily operates in the Southern Ocean.
Pollard added that “future icebreaker capabilities are being considered to deliver the Strategic Defence Review vision” and confirmed that “all capability requirements [are] considered as part of the Defence Investment Plan, which will be completed in autumn 2025.”
While the minister’s answer does not confirm any new procurement, it indicates that the UK government is actively weighing the need for enhanced high-latitude capabilities. A future icebreaker, if approved, would strengthen the Royal Navy’s ability to operate year-round in increasingly accessible Arctic waters.
Maybe the 3% increase will help break the Ice, I can definately see the UK warming to the Idea, let’s hope this renewed Arctic Interest is just the tip of the Iceberg.
“HMS Endeavour” ?
Babcock are developing an ice hardened hull version of the Arrowhead A140. Perhaps a T31/32 with ice hardened hull is the alternative?
Is that still happening with the T26 now being offered to Norway? Either way it could be good for a class of 4-5 ships.
Sensible for the UK to have some artic presence to share operations in the far north. Wonder if a Canadian Harry Dewolf type AOPV might be useful or might that be too small?
I welcome another ice breaker for the Navy if it happens , but when we’re losing to Assault ships ?
Finland has more ice breakers than anyone, I just can’t see this as a priority at the expense of something like an amphibious ship or auxiliary.
Shouldn’t the Atlantic Bastion plan also include an Ice Breaker capable ship, given that ice must encroach on what will be the Bastion area of operation? Making it a hardened hull Arrowhead 140 option, as John states above, would give us added flexibility but we ‘absolutely’ need an eventual replacement for HMS Protector for the south, World politics is showing us the need to strengthen any presence in both Northern and Southern oceans.
This is an old chestnut.. Over the decades the Navy as drawn up many staff requirements for having an icebreaker. We dream…we await Treasury rejection again.
So a standard HMG comment.
We are looking.
We are assessing
We are considering.
We are keeping under review.
So in reality nothing changes, we are not buying anything, especially in this Parliament, the forces will remain too small, and all the hollowing out comments from Healey and Starmer have mysteriously dropped away now they’re in the hot seat.
WHAT a surprise.
On Icebreakers, why? Our SSN already operate under the ice, or did. And the area is dominated by Russia, who have the resources and the bases in close proximity.
I’d rather spend the money on the RM and an amphibious capability, which we have currently lost. Every single LSD(A) I read is out of use at this time.
Yup, It’s just Words, “all talk and no action.”
And this will give you the shits….HMAS Choules (was it ex HMS Lymes Bay?) seems to be okay here, tied up in Sydney, but not doing anything by the look of it.
Hi M8, Until the DIP is announced in the Autumn that’s all we will get, lots of waffle, so be patient they will have to announce something or other definite soon.
As for this Post I take a slightly different view on this one (no surprise there), and I’m going to challenge you a little bit on your thinking (feel free to challenge back).
Defence capability isn’t all about things that can bang and also we need to start to adapt how we see defence spending. You are looking at this as a drain on the defence budget, but to quote Bob Dylan “the times are a changing” and we need to take those changes onboard.
Sometimes Defence is just a matter of presence and surveillance that’s needed, and in the case of the Arctic and Antarctic you don’t need a full on heavily armed Warship (in fact that’s a very bad idea). We need something reliable, great seakeeping, is tough as old boots, plenty of sensors, a Helicopter and just a minimum armament. You just need to look at what Canada, Norway, Denmark and Chile use to see what’s needed.
By any definition it’s a Defence / Security function and would be of enormous benefit if we can afford it, BUT it’s not directly combat related.
Now to quote yourself “I’d rather spend the money on the RM and Amphibious capability”
Sorry M8 but I think that’s an obsolete way of thinking about Defence spending, it just got revolutionised and most folks aren’t thinking ahead about what’s just happened. NATO and Trump just re wrote the rule book, so by 2035 we need to be spending 3.5% on direct Defence PLUS 1.5% on indirect security and defence matters so we need to get our heads around how we now use 2 separate buckets of money 🤔
I see this as a way of increasing the effectiveness of the 3.5% budget by digressing itself of support roles into the 1.5% budget. Put simply the 3.5% is for Fighting and 1.5% is for support and enabling !
The effect of doing that would be huge as you really would be concentrating all of the 3.5% on direct Defence (inc Pensions and CASD). But you also ring fence the support functions that have been repeatedly cut over the years to ensure the front end is paid for. By putting them into separate budgets which NATO monitors you stop Political meddling (just watch immigration being put in category 2).
So maybe in future anything you don’t think is a Direct Defence bit of spending your answer could be “that’s a great way to spend money to indirectly boost defence and security, budget option no 2 please !”.😉
So why not build 3/4 Polar 5 class Ice Hardened Patrol / Surveillance ships and assign them, the RN OPVs, fishery protection etc into a modernised / enlarged Coast Guard (just like everyone else does). Then put that along with RFA, GCHQ, security services, housing, infrastructure etc into the 1.5% budget ?
Now back to the actual ships, we could tie this up with a Norwegian T26 buy package (we really don’t do Ice Hardened ships), the Canadian “Harry de Witt” ships are just a very expensive version of the Norwegian Svalbard Coast Guard OPV. So we a licence for the design get them to project manage it and they build some parts along with CL, HW (Appledore).
Everyone concentrates on Frigates, Submarines etc but we do need other less glamorous ships and preferably built here. Which is why I think it would be a great way to keep the smaller less Fighty shipbuilding ticking over because we will need new MCMV, MROSS OPVs etc etc.
No worries my friend.
It is certainly a great way to boost mass, and I like the idea. But will they actually think the way you do?!
I think they have already shoved the SIA, so Security Service, the SIS, and GCHQ you list into core, as part of the 2.6% so good luck wanting it in the 1.5%
1.5% the way things are going, will be things like rural broadband and as much non real defence related stuff as possible, like Italy, who want to put a multi billion bridge into theirs.
And as for the 3% you really think they won’t try and put as much other stuff in it as possible to avoid spending on actual core military kit?! They’re already treating core budget as an industrial subsidy exercise, have done for years, and seem to be expanding that.
We now have the DNE, Pensions, Ukraine aid money, ops money, and the SIA in it. So far.
I recall a similar idea when people here years ago called for new RFA vessels that could do HADR be put into the aid budget, like the 1.5% a neat idea.
I’ve no faith it’ll happen, this government are as smoke and mirrors as the last.
“You’re looking at this as a drain on the defence budget”
Not so, my friend, I just don’t think Ice breakers for the RN are necessary. Sailing it into Russia’s backyard in a war it would last 5 minutes as that area north of the Barents and Kara seas is a Russian bastion. Our SSN have operated in the far north, they didn’t need an icebreaker AFAIK?
I’d not want any RN surface units up there, I’d want SSN up there.
On fighty things, a gentle reminder I always call for more CS CSS and enablers as much, or more than, the fighty bits, Army wise, and the same goes for the RN RAF, and MoD infrastructure, so I’m not being put in the only interested in fighty things corner.😉
Yes, the mythical Autumn statement.
Before SDR, it was, wait for the SDR. Now, we wait for the autumn.
I predict very little. Remember this convo, we shall see in the autumn. The money is being channeled elsewhere to what HMG prioritise, industry, not for the expansions in conventional capability people are dreaming of.
Waffle, waffle, waffle….We are planning a gigantic potential fleet but not actually ordering anything and can’t anyway for five years at least until the 3 per cent of ??? becomes available….maybe.
A useful addition to the fleet if the money is there.
A bigger navy (25+ escorts), a bigger RAF (3+ more squadrons), and fuck the army is where things are heading.
‘the capability is under consideration’, that comment covers 90% of every thing these days, its all under consideration yet we buy nothing, order nothing just talk about it. AS90 out of service yet no replacement ordered. Just one example, Warrior being phased out, nothing yet ordered. LHS both scrapped yet nothing ordered. Puma helicopters scrapped nothing ordered. A lot window shopping and hot air about most things but no orders or even trials to decide what to order. Just deluded nutters saying we are ready to fight Russia, with what?.
CVR (T) retired its replacement 8 years late, less than half built, AEW aircraft scrapped no replacement yet ready and only 3 being built. Challenger 2 running out of spares and its ammo no longer made no C3 yet built let alone fully trialed.