“We’re going to need a bigger Navy”

[RogerRanger]

The Defence Committee publishes its report “We’re going to need a bigger Navy” following the Committee’s inquiry into The Navy: purpose and procurement.

The report finds 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 finds 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 fleet will continue to suffer from well documented problems with several key assets for at least the next few years:

• Delays to crucial procurement programmes mean that old ships are becoming increasingly challenging to maintain and spend too long unavailable for operations.
• Even for newer ships maintenance projects take too long. At one point in July 2021 only one of six Type 45 destroyers was not undergoing maintenance: three vessels were in refit; one was in planned maintenance; and one was “experiencing technical issues” (in layman’s English, it broke down).
• The budget for operations and maintenance is tight and will likely lead to yet more ships sitting in port, failing to deter our increasingly emboldened adversaries.
• “When ships do get to sea they act like porcupines - well defended herbivores with limited offensive capabilities”. What offensive capabilities these ships do have will be reduced even further in three years' time when the Government retires the Harpoon anti-ship missile without a planned replacement.
• Three important vessels - RFA Argus, RFA Fort Victoria and HMS Scott - will also retire without replacements: the Navy will likely lose its current ability to provide medical care, replenish vessels at sea, and monitor the sea bed.
• The fleet is increasingly reliant on allies for many capabilities, with a limited scope to act independently, and the Government needs to do more at the political level to ensure this support will be provided when needed.

You wait six years for a new warship then three come along at once​

The report finds that in 2027-28 the Navy plans to introduce three new classes of vessels (Type 26 frigates, Type 31 frigates and Fleet Solid Support ships) simultaneously. These projects must all be delivered on schedule in order to exit the period of risk that budgetary restrictions have placed the Navy in. However, they face many structural and project-specific risks, and the Ministry of Defence's track record on delivery is far from good.

On Watch​

The Committee calls for better scrutiny to ensure vessels are delivered on time. It calls for the Government to report annually to Parliament on the availability of vessels, its shipbuilding plans, and the progress of five key programmes: the construction of the Type 26 and Type 31 class frigates and the Astute and Dreadnought class submarines, and the Power Improvement Project to fix engine issues in the Type 45 destroyers.

Not enough small ships or submarines​

The report finds that the Navy cannot fulfil the full ambition of the Integrated Review with its current fleet. The report calls for the escort fleet to double by acquiring more low-end capability to carry out low-end tasks, and for the Government to increase the size of the attack submarine fleet.

Supporting British Shipbuilding​

The Committee finds that to deliver these new ships, the UK requires a strong domestic shipbuilding industry. It calls for the planned refresh of the National Shipbuilding Strategy to finally take on board the consistent recommendations the Government has been given over the last fifteen years: provide a steady pipeline of work for British shipyards, prioritise building vessels in the UK, work collaboratively with industry, promote exports, and actively intervene to support the modernisation of shipyards. It emphasises that the Fleet Solid Support ships that are currently being competed must be built quickly in UK shipyards.

Chair of the Defence Committee, Tobias Ellwood MP, said:​

“The Royal Navy has a long and proud history protecting our nation at sea. To maintain our position as one of the leading global navies, the Government must deliver a rapid programme of modernisation and growth.


“The next ten years will prove a test for our naval fleet. The UK is faced with an increasingly hostile and unpredictable international environment but the Government is still reducing funding, retiring capability and asking the Navy to rely on increasingly elderly vessels for the next five years until new ships come in.


“The timely delivery of these new ships is crucial to plug the hole in our naval capabilities. However, the Ministry of Defence has a poor track record projects like this. We need a firm hand on the tiller to navigate us through the next decade.


“Overall our Navy needs more ships, armed with more lethal weapons and the most up to date technology. We have the shipyards and the knowhow to build them: the Government just needs to place the orders and give UK shipbuilding the commitment and confidence it needs to deliver.

“Of all the Services, the Government is most ambitious for the Navy. However, if the Government does not deliver the ships and capabilities the Navy needs, that ambition will be holed below the waterline.”

“We’re going to need a bigger Navy” - Committees - UK Parliament

<p>The Defence Committee publishes its report “We’re going to need a bigger Navy” following the Committee’s inquiry into The Navy: purpose and procurement.</p>

committees.parliament.uk

 

[Gary]

Shipbuilding has been a source of concern for US, UK and Australian navy due to the rise of the PLA Navy.

So far we have seen little progress in this particular issue.

 

[RogerRanger]

Shipbuilding has been a source of concern for US, UK and Australian navy due to the rise of the PLA Navy.

So far we have seen little progress in this particular issue.

Yeah they bring it up in documents all the time. Then never implement protectionist policies to force companies to build ships in the US or UK, so they build them in East Asia, basically ship building has moved from Britain/America/Germany to Korea/Japan/China. Something not taken into account in government ship building police. The overall fishing and merchant fleet in Britain is tiny, so why would we build ships here. So the government ends up having to pay massive costs of ship building to maintain programs and slow down the procurement of ships to keep the ship building capacity going longer, rather than just building more ships at a lower per unit cost and opening space for newer ship classes.

I am less worried about Chinese ship building, as Britain is on the other side of the world. I am worried about the totally loss of British industry or it being bought up by foreign companies/states. Then moved to the other nations. Its just a failure to invest in the navy and cutting it to make savings, which were not really savings because the unit cost goes up. Basically the British state knows all the problems, but other political/economic controllers don't want the state to do anything about it. In the case of Britain, its the EU and US constraining the British because they fear the British navy becoming dominant in Europe again, its the American/European/British mulit-national corporations who don't want to be limited by having to build in Britain.

Britain has 7 great ship building cities all across Britain, very well suited to building ships for the merchant and fishing fleets of Britain, and in doing so the Royal navy. However the British gave up the merchant fleet because of the less of the trading empire and loss of fishing grounds after the Suez expedition. Now they all worried about China/Japan/Korea having massive fishing fleets/merchant fleets/greater naval ship building capacity. It wouldn't shock me if the Philippines, Viet Nam and Bangladesh become the next low cost commercial ship building centers after East Asia now. As the companies will move, the difference is the China/Japanese/Koreans will then control the multi-national companies, not the west or English hegemony. This is how global shifts in power take place.

 

[Ryder]

Yeah they bring it up in documents all the time. Then never implement protectionist policies to force companies to build ships in the US or UK, so they build them in East Asia, basically ship building has moved from Britain/America/Germany to Korea/Japan/China. Something not taken into account in government ship building police. The overall fishing and merchant fleet in Britain is tiny, so why would we build ships here. So the government ends up having to pay massive costs of ship building to maintain programs and slow down the procurement of ships to keep the ship building capacity going longer, rather than just building more ships at a lower per unit cost and opening space for newer ship classes.

I am less worried about Chinese ship building, as Britain is on the other side of the world. I am worried about the totally loss of British industry or it being bought up by foreign companies/states. Then moved to the other nations. Its just a failure to invest in the navy and cutting it to make savings, which were not really savings because the unit cost goes up. Basically the British state knows all the problems, but other political/economic controllers don't want the state to do anything about it. In the case of Britain, its the EU and US constraining the British because they fear the British navy becoming dominant in Europe again, its the American/European/British mulit-national corporations who don't want to be limited by having to build in Britain.

Britain has 7 great ship building cities all across Britain, very well suited to building ships for the merchant and fishing fleets of Britain, and in doing so the Royal navy. However the British gave up the merchant fleet because of the less of the trading empire and loss of fishing grounds after the Suez expedition. Now they all worried about China/Japan/Korea having massive fishing fleets/merchant fleets/greater naval ship building capacity. It wouldn't shock me if the Philippines, Viet Nam and Bangladesh become the next low cost commercial ship building centers after East Asia now. As the companies will move, the difference is the China/Japanese/Koreans will then control the multi-national companies, not the west or English hegemony. This is how global shifts in power take place.

Why do the British constantly sell stuff.

I mean their industry i see its foreign owned in nearly everything.

Pretty crazy because in the long term this is going to put Britain on its knees especially military while the government just constantly cuts or delays.

 

[Domobran7]

Why do the British constantly sell stuff.

I mean their industry i see its foreign owned in nearly everything.

Pretty crazy because in the long term this is going to put Britain on its knees especially military while the government just constantly cuts or delays.

Same reason why the US and rest of the West do it as well: their governments are owned by international, globalist plutocracy - and large capital only cares for profit, not for nationality or anything else. So destroying a country is perfectly fine if they profit from it - and this means that Western political classes, which are their stooges, are also perfectly ready to destroy their own countries for the sake of their masters.

Of course, there is also an issue of any bureaucracy being inherently self-destructive.

 

[Saithan]

Need I remind you how GB managed an empire where the sun never set, with ships.

I think it's equally important to understand what your own country needs compared to what you can sell.

As every country in the world grows and develops capabilities themselves the need for having so many shipyards will dwindle. We've seen it in Denmark. But that's why it's important to optimize and keep strategic assets.

giving cheap loans to countries in return for buying from you is one way to do this. But you have to be willing to sell what the costumer wants.

Africa is the continent being fed upon atm due to all the internal strife. More countries and continents used to be in the same bin, but that all changes as education and progress takes over.

The next step is Space, we just need to be able to maintain the peace on earth. China knows this, and that they can grow bigger and badder as long as no wars erupt on their doorstep. China needs not do anything but continue with their policy for western democracies to implode.

 

[RogerRanger]

Need I remind you how GB managed an empire where the sun never set, with ships.

I think it's equally important to understand what your own country needs compared to what you can sell.

As every country in the world grows and develops capabilities themselves the need for having so many shipyards will dwindle. We've seen it in Denmark. But that's why it's important to optimize and keep strategic assets.

giving cheap loans to countries in return for buying from you is one way to do this. But you have to be willing to sell what the costumer wants.

Africa is the continent being fed upon atm due to all the internal strife. More countries and continents used to be in the same bin, but that all changes as education and progress takes over.

The next step is Space, we just need to be able to maintain the peace on earth. China knows this, and that they can grow bigger and badder as long as no wars erupt on their doorstep. China needs not do anything but continue with their policy for western democracies to implode.

The main problem is Britain is a dominion of the US, we have a support navy for the Americans. However nobody accepts or talks about this in Britain, they just say we are a global power. Britain is actually a regional European power and we would need a very different navy to the one we have now as a regional European power.

The building, crewing, aircraft for the two fleet carriers are a real problem, as are the Type 45's and Astute class and new replenishment ships. As a support navy for the Americans this is good, but if we want to be an independent nation as a regional power you need more brown water ships. We aren't investing enough to have a blue and brown water navy at the same time. We would have a navy similar to Japan right now, not the one we have which we can't operate without American support in terms of crew/aircraft/escorts.

The Parliamentary committee's keep talking about large patrol boats and the need for more of them so the escorts can actually escort the carriers. Then saying we need better weapons on the escorts, basically meaning ASuW capabilities. They haven't combined to two into the need for missile boats/ASW corvettes and ASuW light frigates. And the need for SSK's. The missile boats and corvettes and SSK's would be build to operate in the waters around Britain so could be more heavily armed because they don't need to have the range. Then the ASuW light frigates would support the carrier escorts to make up the lack of ASuW capabilities. The idea of the carrier is you use the F-35's to attack energy ships, so the need is actually for a full compliment of F-35's to be bought.

Yeah everybody has 'space forces' now, the British need something like that, just don't call it a space force.

 

[Nilgiri]

China knows this, and that they can grow bigger and badder as long as no wars erupt on their doorstep. China needs not do anything but continue with their policy for western democracies to implode.

How so?

PRC is hitting a ceiling fast and cant create a new credible one....definitely not with the ticking time bomb of their demographic problem (again self-inflicted by the CCP over decades past a gentler natural demographic transition).

It is causing real machiavelian fissures in the CCP between the Xi and Jiang factions (the latter have been progressively silenced and are fighting back in other ways few outside PRC know about much less pay attention to).

The severe problems (from their particular miasma of rushing to develop without proper caution) with them of say releasing viruses to the world is now even more established....and further shies people away from already low numbers wanting to learn Chinese (and thus world talent attraction capability) compared to the already vast size (and fast growing) that English occupies here.

A first basic step would be to unpeg the Yuan, make it more credible weighted asset and see it expand (freely) in ownership worldwide.
i.e to build up actual materialised trust and pit it against the West.

Yet it is simply not being done and so PRC slaves itself to US system and the ceiling imposed by doing so.

Evergrande is just a small delayed fuse from 08/09....lot more to come....as PRC simply is fairly worthless at innovating relative to investment input at the higher tiers needed (due to the aforementioned self-inflected ceiling, monolithism and opaqueness).

Heck they are already clamping down on tech sector in big way for being whatever problem to the govt. This will already cost trillions of dollars of production this decade.

Polymatter's series is really worth watching when you have some spare time btw, to get the structural issues PRC has made for itself:

China's Reckoning - PolyMatter Series

One of the best, detailed analysis series of China's looming serious challenges (highly linked to its authoritarian system's inertia w.r.t facing up to grand errors it made) behind the constant projection, veneer and facades. The content creator has really impressed me with the level of...

defencehub.live