Tobias Ellwood, Chair of the Defence Select Committee and MP for Bournemouth East, discussed his desire for a larger navy in ConservativeHome.
“Simply put, the Royal Navy needs more ships. In particular, the escort fleet needs to double in size by acquiring more low-end capability to carry out presence operations and other low-end tasks. We also need more attack submarines to reflect the growing importance of the subsurface domain, the last place on the planet where our forces can really hide from an adversary.
These vessels need to be delivered by British shipyards working in collaboration with Government and coordinating with one another. The Government needs to commit to an adequate, long-term pipeline of work that allows industry to invest in the technology and workforce they need. The Aircraft Carrier Alliance shows what can be achieved when Government properly marshals the country’s shipyards and shipbuilding industry in a truly national effort.”
The Defence Committee recently published a report titled ‘We’re going to need a bigger Navy’ following an inquiry.
The report found that the next decade is one of significant risk for the Royal Navy’s fleet and one in which the UK and the Navy will face an increasingly complex international security environment.
The Committee also found that Royal Navy remains one of the most capable forces in the world and that it will be expected to take on increased responsibilities as it becomes the Government’s “tool of choice” to deliver its strategy of persistent engagement.
However, successive governments’ “failure to fund the ha’porth of tar the Royal Navy needs has literally spoiled the ships”.
The only way you’re increasing submarine numbers any time soon is to buy some diesels, probably from abroad. Seems unlikely.
I don’t think SSKs will help given the increased threat is in the Arctic and Indo-Pac oceans – maybe for Baltic and Black Sea. Short term some XLUUVs to work with the SSNs would be good, convert 1+ Vanguards for special ops / as cruise missile carriers to relieve SSNs of these duties and build more SSN(R) in the longer term.
I agree on the SSKs, but the bombers are barely holding together as it is. Need them out of service as soon as.
Baltic yes but Black Sea no as only submarines from the Sea’s littoral states are allowed under the terms of the Montreaux Convention.
I suspect that agreement would not withstand an invasion of Ukraine
There’s increasing danger in the Atlantic and North Seas too. We’ve seen Russia cutting Norwegian underwater cables, also their subs are increasingly surging into in the Atlantic. That combination should worry us. China produced position papers calling for an Atlantic presence.
UK SSK production will take decades to restore, and even if you are right and the threat currently lies elsewhere in the world, who knows where it will be twenty years from now? Perhaps we should get started on it.
We had the Upholder Class too replace the P and O class and we went and sold them the MOD ( N) wanted an all Nuclear submarine service they saw no need for SSk
So you don’t think that if the Australians went for an Astute build, perhaps with the first couple of hulls built in the Uk, the government couldn’t add an additional one or two boats to the order for the Royal Navy?
Why would they when they are already working on the replacement for the Astute?
Also thats a massive assumption anything remotely based around Astute is even being offered or considered by Australia and that the UK would be able to build one in the coming decade or longer.
My only problem with getting diesel/electric subs is that I would potentially divert resources and funding from the nuclear submarine fleet which needs to be the priority as they are strategically model assets in the way a diesel electric sub will never be.
Although if we can maintain the correct manufacturing drumbeat of nuclear boats to ensure the industrial base does not decline. The rand report from the bringing of the century is good as it looked at our design and production base for nuclear boats. It recommend that the design of a new boat needed to be started 15 years before the out of service date of the present class and there should be a constant drum beat of nuclear sub production of one every 18 months, with a 25 year life span the industry can support ( and needs ) a fleet of around 16 boats of all types, so that’s 12 SSNs, so really that’s what our nation should be supporting and producing if it wants to stay in the nuclear sub game and optimise it’s industrial base, anything more and we simply don’t have the industrial capacity to build them, less and we likely harm our industrial capacity and increase costs ( as we have done in the last 2 decades).
It’s good to see MPs finally raising defence and in particular the RN as an issue in the public domain. It can only do good!
Think he’s a bit off with his view on just increasing low end capabilities in reference to ships, personally, believe any increases need to be across the board where possible, including more high end units.
Agree with him that we need more SMs, but we will not be in a position to build more SSNs until mid 2035 with SSN(R) starts to come online – min 12 are required, but can’t realistically see us going past 8! Can’t see us supplementing our current force with SSKs either.
Support ships (FSSS etc) are a must too, we really need to stop the chat about all of this and actually get on with the doing part, to bring our capability levels to what is required in the quickest possible timeframe.
What if we forward based some diesel subs overseas – would that not alleviate the pressure on the nuclear attack boats?
Yes. In particular in the Gulf and SCS would be sensible
A batch of 5-6 SSKs would certainly help alleviate the pressure on the SSN force. Unfortunately we won’t buy off the shelf as it’s a military product, we don’t have enough skilled people to suddenly start building some even if they were licenced versions.
Given Sweeden’s involvement in Temprst, or our closer ties with Japan. I would turn to them for building the first 3 and the final 3 under license in the UK with Bacock Devonport. We buy planes of the shelf so why not SSKs.
Sorry, only just seen this post!
Whilst the A26/Improved Soryu would be my go-to choices if we were ever to get some SSKs, there are several reasons why it wouldn’t happen.
Building 6 SSKs would set us back about £3billion, HMG whilst buying certain bits of kit from abroad (F35), would never allow this to proceed – I know the tankers were built in SK, but this is a different ball game.
We have been out of the SSK building game for close to 30years, that pool of skilled people has gone, we don’t have anymore waiting in the wings, it takes years to build up the talent pool required.
To me it’s a no brainer to build some SsKs despite the time it would take to get the right skill set in place. It will be quicker then waiting for SSN(R) to start coming of the production line (2035ish).
Unfortunately you need someone in government with some balls to drive something like this through, and of course the small matter of the funds to pay for it.
we’d et them quicker,cheaper and more fiscallysensible preserving ship building at places like barrow.we could even go as far as reopening h.m.s dolphin to accomodate them.there is no way the nation should be held at gunpoint by a navy that is allowed to dictate it would only operate nuclear fleet boats. who are these morons that oversee all this rubbishand why can’t any of us get involved in the process?
the swedish gotland class which ran rings around an entire american carrier group cost£100 million yet we true to form went with the BAE catalgue and went for an unproven£1 billion design. you don’t need a B.A in mathematics to see what the money for 1 astute could have bought usin frigates e.t.c the M.O.D is run by morons who llow themselves to be ‘bullied by retired admirals air marshalls and generals who pocket a huge amount of £ EVERY YEAR I THINK’TANKS’ in the navy’s case the admiralty gets away from blame by banging on about history and ‘global guff’ just about everyone who uses this excellent site could operate the u.k forces in a more efficient and cheaper way. how some of the unknown advisors e.t.c get their jobs is beyond me.
Interestingly deep if you read through the RAND report ( 2008 I think) it basically says that British industrial base needs to produce around 16 nuclear subs every 25 years, it’s not capable of producing more and if it has to produce less it becomes inefficient and risks loss of skilled workforce. So that’s 12 SSN and the 4 CASD boats. The problem is our glorious leaders (of all colours) did not keep the drum beat up. Hopefully sense will be found and the politicians actually read the reports on industrial capacity.
The nuclear fleet more than anything else has a very tiny variation of min max number based on industrial capability.
Our industrial capacity is just right for the the force we need (12+4) as long as political masters don’t create in year money saving delays that end up costing the nation both treasure and capability.
Wasn’t aware of the RAND report, interesting fact that it is. Was basing the figure on what we actually need to deliver what government policy requires the Navy to deliver, and what we could actually afford and crew.
So basically we could have exactly the capability we need, at a cost we could afford, man and have the industrial base supported to the correct level to be fully sustainable. Shame the decision makers ( ministers of state) don’t generally have a clue about the portfolios they lead.
Amen fella. Amen.
neuclear is old hat and not needed when conventional boats run rings around them(according to my son on ambush)
Build a couple of extra bomber hulls and fit them out for TLAM SSGN MISSION like the modified ohio’s?
I would have thought that putting them/ FCASM on ships in a Mk41 VLS, or indeed on F35’s would be a far cheaper and more efficient option. Leave the A boats with some TL TLAM/FCASM for their mission sets. Obviously this idea would never catch on!!!
SSKs in particular seem to a huge force multiplier. All sensible stuff, likely shouting into the void
I also think we should mothball old ships. Could always reactivate them with updated weapon systems and sensors
The broad ambition for a bigger navy is good and IMO the correct emphasis for an island nation with a large trading economy that wants to be globally engaged in a time of increasing tension.
The devils in the detail though. We already have a challenging ambition for 24 frigates and destroyers by the mid 2030’s. First and foremost we need to focus on getting the T26/T31/T32 in service as quickly and as well armed as possible with enough depth to the wider fleet that they aren’t too distracted from their primary roles into things like mine-hunting.
I’d take 24 highly capable escort vessels and 8 or so SD Victoria sized/shaped support vessels for MCM and survey work over 40 ill equipped frigates and destroyers in a hollowed out Royal Navy to pay for them any day!
“we need a bigger navy” says anyone who’s ever studied history or had a single realistic thought about geopolitics.
Exactly.
The publicity is good but it’s just noise.
Like all politicians.
He has no power here.
Have a like.
Mentioning publicity…
I saw this and thought of you:
https://twitter.com/OliverJSY/status/1473017012607754245
Great clips!
Defence needs to raise its game and that means entering the social media arena; this is so low in the interests of the younger generations that it does not generate votes – so pollies are not interested.
Should we be able to revisit build, could the timetables for 26 and SSN be increased to create capacity? (Wraps tin foil around head)
Have a like back!
Possibly the biggest challenge to expanding our navy is personal, the navy has always been a knowledge based service and it take a long time to build up the training pipelines as you can’t just decide to train x number of marine engineers next year. Quit frankly building the ships is probably the easier bit of the equation. Filling them up with the right sailors with the right skills and experience will be the difficult bit.
The 5000 RN cut in 2010. Scandalous.
Yes losing people with specific skill sets, knowledge and experience is always the worst move you can make. Getting those skills, experience and knowledge back is then the work of decades.
The poorly thought out slash and burn of 2010 was so damaging.
It’s worth expanding on 2010 a bit. Also cut were the 4 T22. Batch 3, well armed go anywhere ships, with no replacement. The T45 numbers 7&8 had I think already been cut, and let’s not forget that the Blair government sold the first 3 T23’s to Chile. That programme was supposed to be for 20 ships. There has also been a steady run down of the MCM capability, and we all know exactly how badly the submarine building programme has been handled.
The size and capability of the RN has been steadily run down over at least 20 years, and looking at the Parliamentarians who have produced this report, many of them have been in post for many years, and have therefore connived in this run down. To now weep crocodile tears and say that more is needed is no more than a smoke screen to try and cover up two plus decades of incompetence.
Yes, absolutely.
The PWR3 reactor is likely to make the next RN SSN even bigger. OK for deep ocean, but we need something smaller in coastal shallow seas. Perhaps an advanced, updated Upholder with the Canadian low energy Slowpoke reactor? A joint Canada/UK effort? The reactor produces just enough power to recharge the batteries while submerged. A mixed RN sub fleet of big PWR3 SSNs & nuclear assisted diesel SSKs perhaps?
Could the UK also join any current German-Norwegian or Swedish diesel sub programs to keep things more “local” and be good for interoperability?
🤣
It would be interesting to know why the Canadians abandoned that project. My guess is that they encountered problems getting sufficient power out of the design, as the most powerful one built only generated c. 20kw. They were quite compact though, so I guess a number could have been used and most were research reactors, so not focussed on maximising power generation, but even so, I suspect that was the major obstacle.
Yes, yes and yes, Mr Ellwood. We’ve been saying all this here for ages too! Need more monies, more will and some rescheduling. All the existing programs can be added to and don’t forget some armament. Mr Ellwood fothe next Defence minister anyone?
2021 has been an increasingly disapointing year in terms of any chance of growing the Royal Navy this decade. E.g.:
It’s also worth mentioning that the refit (Long Overhaul Period (Refuel)) of HMS Vanguard seems to have become an unmitigated disaster, with serious implications for the RNs ability to maintain a continuous at sea nuclear deterent over the next decade given the probability that it will now have just two operational SSBNs available for long periods. HMS Victorious will hopefully start her refit in 2022, three years later than the 2019 date originally announced.
The main positive is that the Type 26 and Type 31 frigate programmes are apparently progressing well, and [almost unbelievably given the MODs track record] plans seem to be in hand to seemlessly move to follow-on projects – the Type 83 destroyer and Type 32 frigate.
Arguably they’ll wish Scapa was a naval base
Scapa Flow would probably still be a British naval base had the British had the money to retain the facilities as the modern warships the Royal Navy has could easily fit in her anchorage
I can’t help but wonder what Scapa Flow would look like today if the British had kept the facility
I can imagine the Americans love to have a natural harbour like Scapa Flow with its deep waters that any warship the US has could use with little hassle, close enough to the mainland that transit isn’t difficult with access to the waters that are your backyard and is far enough away from the front lines