In 1963 the Royal Navy commissioned 9 Tribal & Leander class frigates – 9 frigates in a single year. Around 50 years later the RN has just 13 frigates in total, has not commissioned a new frigate since 2002 and will not receive another frigate before at least 2024.
The Defence Review currently underway is pondering whether the RN can have the 13 Type 26 frigates needed just to maintain escort ship numbers at a grand total of 19.
It was quickly pointed out that the new Type 45 destroyer and the Type 26 frigate are bigger and vastly more powerful that the Leander and Tribal class Frigates of the 1960s. This is very true but the excuse that “each generation of warship is more powerful that its predecessor so we can reduce numbers” (frequently trotted out by politicians and even the odd Admiral) is totally flawed for several reasons:*
- Most of our adversaries warships are also more powerful and they have upgraded their capability just as we have. It is therefore very unwise to assume we gain significant qualitative advantage with every new generation of vessel. Despite the quality of today’s surface ships, the sophisticated array of threats they face now are arguably more challenging than they have ever been.
- The world’s oceans are still as vast as ever. One vessel can only be in one place at once. New sensors and networking capabilities may have increased in range and coverage but not that significantly.
- Sod’s law still applies. Vessels still suffer breakdowns, reliability problems (even expensive new ones such as the Type 45) & occasional accidents. You need numbers to mitigate this by providing substitutes and a ‘plan B’.
- Numbers offer tactical flexibility. A navy with that plenty of vessels forces the enemy to deal with threats from multiple directions. Fewer vessels can threaten on fewer axis making defence easier.
- Keeping some forces in reserve is a fundamental part of any military strategy. A small navy, however capable its individual vessels, have insufficient ships to form a reserve. A reserve maybe needed to replace combat losses, respond to sudden changes in enemy disposition or offer the option to concentrate vessels together into an overwhelming force.
- A small navy can’t accept losses. The RN has historically been willing to lose ships as a tactical necessity in order to win the strategic advantage. A study of RN history will reveal apparently disastrous loses of ships, submarines aircraft and men but accompanied by equally frequent magnificent long-term victories.
- As ships cannot remain on station indefinitely, a small navy cannot sustain long-term operations with sufficient numbers on the frontline. Many naval operations last months or even years and require a sustained rotation of vessels. An approximate rule of thumb says 1 ship on station requires 3 vessels; one on the frontline, one in transit and one in refit or undergoing training. Supposedly less maintenance-intensive new platforms and creative approaches to crew rotation may mitigate this slightly but not enough.
- Presence and visibility itself can be a deterrent. The dispatch of warships to trouble spots or just frequent visits can be a factor in maintaining peace and stability as well as acting as ambassadors to promote good relations and trade. A small navy becomes invisible, losing this great, but often under-valued benefit to the nation.
Unfortunately as the sophistication of naval warfare has advanced, the price of individual platforms has increased far ahead of inflation. An under-funded RN has therefore been forced to choose between quality and quantity and has decisively gone for quality. Despite frequent criticism, the RN is right to prioritise high end vessels as it is almost pointless having a large fleet of ships lacking the full range of real fighting capability.
Nevertheless there is no escaping the conclusion, what is really needed is the political will to fund a larger navy with additional first-class warships, ideally with an expanded ‘second tier’ of cheaper but more numerous constabulary vessels supported by unmanned systems.
There is some hope that ‘cheaper’ unmanned systems may offer a partial solution to lack of numbers. Unmanned aircraft are leading the way for now with underwater systems developing. The unmanned warship maybe a while off but will surely happen. It is encouraging to see the current RN leadership is embracing this area of innovation.
I think we all can agree our modern ships are vastly superior to their predecessors, and I think that does go some way to make up for the lack of numbers. However that along can not mitigate the shortfalls with the current fleet for the reasons the author mentioned.
Right now with 19 ships I believe the royal navy is teetering on the edge of credibility. Right now, in favourable conditions, we could deploy a strong force alone. However should those conditions be less favourable and we have one less ship available, then the navy starts to fall into the valley of uncertainty, and will struggle with its credibility.
I think the current fleet has to be increased, however I cannot get on board with the 2 tier fleet concept. I don’t see the point bulking up on something that lacks credibility. Small frigates are to small to be multi-purpose powerhouse demanded by a modern surface combatant so lack survivability. If your ships aren’t survivable they lack credibility and therefore is not worth spending the money on.
We could crew 20 T26’s without a change in sailor numbers from out T23 frigates, so lets do that!
I think most people agree that our surface fleet is two small with the exception of the government. But if we insist in getting involved in conflicts around the world . It doesn’t take a genius without the ships and man power we cant be every where at once. Mr Cameron needs to listen to his admirals a lot more as he would do to Mr Osborne about his nations finances .
Dear sir, good morning. I have read your article
& found very rich for futire guidance. By the way I am a retired Naval officer of Bangladesh Navy. I want to communicate with Disposal UNIT OF RN. We will appreciate if you kindly help me giving e. Mail address of a concerned person of disposal unit of RN. My e.mail address .
Kind regards.
Lt. Cdr. Omar ( rtd.) BN.
when we are so short of ships and submarines(apart from the 19 A TYPE 45 AND THE POOR BRISTOL BEING USED ASA SCHOOL PLAYGROUND, IF WE’RE GOING TO TEMPORARILYWITHDRAW DAUNTLESS, HOW CAN WE BUY THE T26? COULD BRISTOL BE DRY DOCKED/ TOWED TO THECLYDE AND REBUILT TO T45 SPECS AND PUT TO THE FLEET AGAIN AS A MODIFIED TYPE 82?
What the Royal Navy needs is a high/lo mix of ships. Such as Light frigates that can protect their commonwealth territories such as the Falklands. Even OPV’s to protect their Home front as well. That’s why I think the Royal Navy should build 4 to 6 River class OPV and should be outfitted to Corvette standards. I’m all for the Royal Navy getting a Light Frigate such as the US Coast Guard’s National security cutter and arming them to a Light Frigate standard. That way they can be put in their territories and be used as a Guard ship.
Always remember a quote saying all ships are expendable but frigates are more expendable than others. That wouldn’t be the case in a modern day sea conflict and as a result the Royal Navy would need to change its centuries old philosophy that ships are there to e fought
it is shameful that we can’t get ONE in 50 years, well that is no true but you try upgrading the Canadian Navy with Modern and Active and Useful fighting SHIPS. the HARPER government, is a traitor, to our NATIONAL DEFENCE. We have nothing, No NAVY , No AIRFORCE, No ARMY. We are now the laughing stock of the world. WE can’t even serve our NATO duties. This is SHAMEFUL , this is a NATIONAL DISASTER.
Er you do know that this is a uk royal navy site!
Canada is in a much worse position than us in defence procurement matters, although none of their army regiments have been amalgamated unlike ours.
their procurement methods are better
to be fair they do have ‘Royal Navy’ in their title as well
Whilst the article raises important points, yet again i need to point out that the most important thing is being missed MANPOWER!
The navy needs 4000 people Before 2017 and has annouced a plan to recruit from eu countries this is a disgrace, surely now a parliamentary backed enquiry into how our armed forces is ran and how it treats its most important resource people yourselves at Save the navy needs to call for this now!
As I say, our latest ships are fitted “For, and not with”, which seems to include a full ships company…….
I agree completely. I have read a number of articles regarding Royal Navy ships deploying without full compliment. The Royal Navy deserves better.
There is a case to have 2nd tier capability, especially SSK diesel / electric subs as well as surface frigates. But this can’t happen at the expense of 1st Tier platforms such as SSN’s and T45 Destroyers! And I rather suspect it would! Remember our 1st tier platforms are fitted “for, but not with” which effectively makes then 2nd tier platforms anyway…. The worst example of this will be the carriers fitted “for, but not with” a full, worked up air wing each!
The Royal Navy matters. The UK needs to step-up and contribute to fighting the ever growing threat from global terrorists and ensure global shipping lanes are open. While the US Navy is still the only global force, there is a need for Europe and particularly the UK to expand its naval presence. The UK has proven itself very capable, always at the bleeding edge of technology; second to none in training and capability. The UK needs to build six more Type 45 destroyers and build at least 20 of the Type 26 frigates. In addition the Type 45 destroyers need to be fully fitted out to meet any contingency…not just missiles, but torpedoes as well. Also…32K personnel in the Royal Navy…get serious. Recruit, expand….make sure ships have a full complement when deployed. As an American I admire the Royal Navy. The US Navy wouldn’t be the naval force we are without the Royal Navy. Note the US Marine Corps will use HMS Queen Elizabeth carriers when they’re available.
using the u.s.m.c to make the q.e worth having is a total disgrace why build carriers you can’t fully equipif the rag heads ever got savvy and started attacking commercial shipping at sea or port then we’d see a real change in policy and attitude to the sea are too proud to buy 2nd hand?.
As much as I concur with Michael above, and 6 more type 45’s and 20 type 26s would be a dream, where is the money coming from? With the carriers in the latter stages of completion, I imagine that £6billion has pretty much kept everything else on hold.
On the manpower front we have recruiting ads on TV daily for the Navy, they just can’t get the intake, especially engineers.
The two tier ships idea is something I can appreciate. For the most part, our forces are not at war or under missile or submarine threat. Our South Atlantic patrol, Caribbean antidrugs patrol, Gulf/antipirate patrol could all be run by lesser ships if the type 31 category. The upgraded Khareef class would be more than capable.
The navy is no longer a force to be reckoned with. Nobody has learnt from history. The politics and bean counters have to be pulled back from the brink. Defence of the UK can no longer be trusted to bean counters. With the brexit vote nobody has any idea what it means. Will we have to go to the rescue of Europe again.
Remember the south Atlantic war. Would Argentina have move on the Falklands had the Royal Navy had more of a visible presence?
Argentina know that we would go after them were they to try that again. Sending a Daring class and a Submarine would keep the island secure. No plan could fly within range and no ship could approach. Two vessels would do the work of the entire task force. Tomahawks would take out any land targets and invasion forces.
People are often living in the 20th century, we don’t need large forces to tackle the same jobs we once did, and although I agree a large capital unit cant be in three places at once, they are far better equipped. Other navies are also having the same problem with wanting so many frigates and then the order dropping by a third or half when costed, even the United States arent getting everything they want.
There is no money to buy the expensive things we want, and if a penny on tax or money was found anywhere, then the health budget followed by education, housing and immigration would all get a slice before the military would.
the navyhasgone techno snobbish, they want so many expensive systems the ships become unafordable. as for the clyde i’d like them telling we want 2 ships per year, or we’ll go elsewhere pompey dockyard built the drednaught battleship in under a year. THATS SHIPBUILDING
Nature of the beast. Our harpoon missiles have come to the end of their life. Yes we could keep them but why when any CIWS worth its name can shoot them down with 100% hit rate.
Same for all other ship systems. It does seem that we could use two fleets, one for everyday use in pirate control, smuggling, disaster and patrol, which could all gave basic shop systems a catapult and and helicopter. Then a couple of ships for war fighting against against tial combat vessels.
two fleets ffs we haven’t got one!!!
I think the Navy ideally need 12 destroyers and 20+ frigates
That’s £27 billion you’re looking at, half the defence budget for a year and more. Hundreds more sailors required and each capital unit then has an annual running cost which couldn’t be sustained.
cnt afford the navy but can afford billions on people who should not be here and killing us from within political class need to grow up and smell the roses lets hope when the mess its the fan we have a lord nelson waiting in the wings
“Killing us from within” is really going over the top don’t you think. Terrorism in this country is only an issue because the media love a good story. 1700 are killed by cars in this country each year, or 107,000 people dying from smoking related illnesses, yet less than a dozen deaths from lone wolf attacks with no connection to but wanting to impress Isis take the news, cause vast costs in unnecessary deployments of police and soldiers, which in itself is a vanity exercise to pasify the public and state “we are doing something”. The greatest combat would be to not report it. Deny the media excitement.
Well said
Good article. It takes weeks for conflicts to brew, and how long to build a ship capable of finding, hunting and defeating a Kilo, Yasen etc? Just 8 anti sub frigates makes them a centre of gravity…sink them and we’re stuffed. Numbers mean a lot.