The 2025 SDR is likely to give much-increased weight to UK mainland defence. The RN has a critical part to play in this defence, in some ways a return to its historical roots but also adapting to new threats and meeting the exponential growth in seabed warfare challenges.
Secure at home
Defence Secretary, John Healy says he is working to make Britain “secure at home and strong abroad”. In the period following the Cold War, the security of the UK itself was mostly taken for granted and forces were focused on ‘defence at arms length’ through global operations. Changes in the geopolitical situation, increased reliance on undersea infrastructure, new generations of weapons and the emergence of sub-threshold warfare tactics have made the UK far more vulnerable to malign actors.
There are four main areas where the RN is involved in directly securing the UK mainland and its economy. These include protecting territorial waters and the wider Economic Exclusion Zone (EEZ), securing ports, harbours and their approaches, contributing to the air defence of the UK and policing Critical Undersea Infrastructure (CUI). In this piece, we will mainly focus on how greater cross-governmental effort and additional resources for the RN are needed to protect CUI.
Over 97% of the UK’s international data such as internet traffic, financial transactions, and communications are transmitted via undersea cables. ‘The cloud’ which underpins the modern internet, part of daily life for the majority of citizens is effectively underwater. Approximately 50 major undersea data cables land in the UK, a critical transatlantic hub linking North America and Europe. While some redundancy exists within the network, disruptions to these cables could result in economic losses amounting to £billions per day from halted financial transactions and commerce. These cables are truly a digital lifeline that must be maintained to support everyday life.
The recent events in the Baltic are unfortunately just far enough away for the danger and the wider implications not to really impact the consciousness of the British public. Increases in defence preparedness and spending in Europe seem to be directly proportional to nations’ distance from the Russian border.
Energy insecurity
Whatever your opinion on the ‘net zero’ agenda, there is no question that political choices have undermined UK energy security and run directly counter to aspirations of being “secure at home”. Exploitation of wind and solar sources must be maximised but can only ever be part of the solution. There will always be periods of light wind, overcast skies and cold weather with the slack mostly taken up by LNG power stations or imported electricity.
Every new wind farm or power line bringing electricity from Europe involves additional undersea cabling and interconnectors. Wind farms have been also been found to significantly impair radar coverage and are detrimental to UK air defence. The MoD is spending about £850M on ‘Project Nord’ which seeks to mitigate the blinding effects of wind turbines on ground-based radars needed to warn of low-level air or missile attacks. The Swedish government recently rejected plans for 13 new wind farms off their coast. The reasons cited were their disruptive effect on signal intelligence gathering and radar surveillance of their waters and airspace as well as the inherent vulnerability of the infrastructure itself.
Natural gas is either imported by LNG tankers or via an undersea pipeline. More than half of the natural gas expensively imported into the UK comes from Norway but this supply has now peaked and cannot be guaranteed forever. Never mind the economic cost, these choices present further attack vectors that can be exploited by adversaries if not protected. Failure to build enough dependable onshore nuclear power stations and the rush to decommission back-up coal-fired power stations leaves the UK dependent on additional foreign energy carried on or under the sea.

Guardians of the digital lifelines
Our previous article, covering recent sabotage activity on in the Baltic region highlighted how easy it is for adversaries to disrupt CUI using low-tech methods. The interference techniques employed may be slightly varied or more sophisticated, but CUI in the UK Exclusive Ecconomic Zone (EEZ) or territorial waters is just as vulnerable.
NATO has established the Maritime Centre for Security of Critical Undersea Infrastructure which achieved initial operating capability in May 2024. The operational hub is based at Northwood in London. The strategic office is based at NATO headquarters in Brussels and is focussed on coordinating efforts between NATO allies, partners and the private sector. The RN would be expected to take the lead in protecting infrastructure in the UK EEZ or territorial waters but clearly does not have the resources to take on this task alone.
This NATO effort aims to “deny deniability” to malign actors through greater surveillance effort. The extent of the infrastructure means it can’t be monitored all the time but there is an increasing network of sensors being deployed.
Besides support from other nations, the commercial entities that own and profit from the infrastructure must be involved in their security, along with other UK maritime agencies. There is a very compelling case for the private sector to contribute significantly to funding of CUI protection and standing rapid repair capabilities.
Data sharing between the RN and the owners of the CUI needs to be enhanced. The infrastructure itself presents opportunities for intelligence-gathering. For example, it might be possible to put cameras on wind turbines and to place underwater acoustic sensors on pipelines, connectors or cables. This would help build up a picture of the normal patterns of activity and ambient noise around them, with anomalies being quickly detected by AI analysis of real-time data.
There have also been developments in smart fibre optic cables that use laser reflectometry and distributed acoustic sensing to detect pressure changes, vibrations, seismic activity or tensions on the cable. While the main value is earthquake warning and scientific research, this technology could also be harnessed for early warning of interference and help pinpoint the location of cables if cut, either accidentally or deliberately.

Ports and mines
In addition to the growing networks of CUI, the UK has around 600 ports and harbours vulnerable to the threat of mines or improvised undersea devices, while uncrewed systems are becoming increasingly important for defensive surveillance, conversely, they also offer malign actors a new way to sow mines in UK waters using UUVs or XLUAVs that would be difficult to detect. Even when Block 2 and 3 MHC is funded and at full operating capability, RN, mine countermeasures resources will be inadequate to match the potential threat.
Although given little consideration by the public and politicians, without regular deliveries of food, fuel, goods and materials the economy would grind to a halt in days. The majority of consumer goods imported into the UK arrive at a few large ports in ever-bigger container ships and an attack at one or more of these mega-hubs would quickly result in shortages because little is kept in reserve in the delicately balanced supply chain. The oil and LNG terminals also present a similar vulnerability to disruption by mines. Domestic production of goods, food and fuel cannot remotely meet the demand of a population that has almost doubled since the UK was last subject to a partial maritime blockade in the Second World War.
Joined up thinking
The challenging new landscape of seabed warfare threats, together with long-standing vulnerabilities inherent in being an island nation, demand a new approach. It is unlikely major additional resources will be forthcoming, at least in the short term, but making the best use of the people and organisations already in existence could go a long way to improving defence.
Besides the MoD, the majority of government departments have a stake in the maritime ecosystem. Within these departments are multiple agencies and public bodies – obvious examples include the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the UK Border Force and Trinity House. In the private sector, there are ship owners and insurers, port owners and managers, telecoms infrastructure owners, offshore energy companies and many other entities and trade bodies. There are also non-governmental organisations, such as the Maritime Volunteer Service and the RLNI that may have a part to play.
There is a strong case for establishing a government ‘Minister for the Sea’ who would have responsibility for the entire maritime enterprise. This role would have two main aspects. Firstly, maximising economic opportunity for UK maritime industries (taking over the role of ‘shipbuilding Tsar’) the second task would be coordinating the defence of offshore, underwater and port infrastructure in a loose federation overseen by the RN.
This should not be seen as an attempt by the RN to take over other organisations, but rather a broad initiative to establish a coherent structure to coordinate and help train stakeholders. The aim would be to increase the level of surveillance and have regularly rehearsed contingency plans to respond to anything from malign ‘sub-threshold’ activities to acts of war. This kind of re-organisation needs sensitive management but would require ministers, leaders and executives to put egos and private empire-building aside and work together in the best interests of the nation.
There is also an argument for expanding and broadening the role of the Maritime Reserves. Perhaps modelled on the former Royal Navy Auxiliary Service, the aim would be to give civilian mariners, yachtsmen, fishermen and others working in ports the skills to be involved in coastal surveillance and mine countermeasures. This need not involve the acquisition of many new patrol ships, although that would be preferable, rather it would focus on create trained teams ready to embark in vessels of opportunity, equipped with military communications kit and uncrewed systems to conduct patrols or respond to incidents.
The scale of the task protecting UK Maritime infrastructure is considerable. This is another compelling reason why the Royal Navy requires significantly better resources, supported by a more coordinated national, cross-government effort.
And just where is all the money going to come from to purchase all the equipment to adequately deal with all these threats ?
SDR may well be delayed until later on in the year, if these threats are to be countered along with all our other commitments, I would expect an immediate increase in the GDP but at what expense ?
Reduction in our bloated welfare budgets and idealogical driven budgets would be a start
Isn’t it something like £15 Billion spent on ODA and £180 Billion on the NHS ? How much on Benefits ? Surely it’s a matter of priorities.
The United Kingdom spent 5.5% of GDP on defense during the Cold War. Today, its 2.2% or 40%. It is not a safer nor gentler world today, in large part because the ‘free’ nations of the world have neglected their responsibility to stand against the threats. Bread and Circuses will not save you from the Horde.
Its 2% now . The extra money is military foreign aid for Ukraine
Thatcher had it reduced to 4.8% in 1981 and a bump just after the Falklands to 5.5% and was down to 4.1% in her last year 1990 during the cold war
1.9% excluding the deterrent. On hansard.
Well they’ve made a start by making the winter fuel payment only for those pensioners on benefits and no-longer universal… and you saw how much a storm of outrage that caused.
Personally, I never understood why it was given to all pensioners regardless of wealth rather than just those less fortunate. After all, It’s not like all pensioners get to live in care homes for free.
Sometimes it’s just cheaper to make something universal because it’s actually cheaper than means-testing the benefit. In this case, they avoided additional means-testing costs by simply linking it to eligibility for other benefits.
Additionally, many pensioners will not want the bind, or have the nounce to go through reams of paperwork to claim the WFA (which is the government’s hope)
If you want to maintain support for a general welfare state its also worth having some benefits like state pension, winter fuel and child benefit that are not linked to income. Everyone needs to feel that they have some stake.
Maybe the RN will get 4-6 extra small, unarmed patrol boats, sometime by 2030 and the politicians will then declare problem solved.
Of course, the numbers will get cut due to cost over runs.
Ha, ain’t that (probably) the truth.
Whether you like it or not, the RN as it exists (and is planned to exist) is a force shaped around the idea of deployment to a battle ground somewhere else. That is, keeping the threat far away from British shores.
If the seas immediately around the UK are to come into the strategic picture, then the RN is going to have to be considerably reshaped simply in terms of the available money and just as importantly, the available manpower.
So what gets cut and what is new?
In most cases you are talking about reasonably shallow waters, close to littorals, where carriers and their support vessels, DDG’s, large frigates and SSN’s are far from the best choice.
If this is more than another thought bubble, some apple carts are going to have to be turned over. The trouble is that plenty of people will see this as ‘and’ not ‘or’.
Public spending is about choices and there is more money available but politicians choose to spend it elsewhere. If you demonstrate how valued those who serve are by paying more, improve conditions people will join and stay. That would overcome the manning issue.
If we choose to have a purely coastal navy then our potential enemies can get a lot closer to our vulnerable infrastructure because we will loose control of the high seas so laying off the blue water navy is not a sane option for an island nation that is totally dependent on seaborne trade.
You don’t have simple choices in defence.
So the need would likely include more inshore patrol boats?
Yes I would suggest something like the Patrick Blackett as replacements for the Archers and batch 1 Rivers, which can handle drones and unmanned submersibles.
With some 600 ports and harbours to protect, we’d need a fair few of those though. Beautiful ships in my opinion and very handy inshore given a decent MCM capability.
You would certainly want two dozen at least but given the loss of the Hunts, Sandowns, Echo, Enterprise, Archers and River batch 1s is that not realistic. A great build project for Appledore.
No I’m with you on this, Losing all those ships without proper replacements is pure recklessness. Not sure of Appledore’s order book but yes it would be good to see them building them and at a mere 270 tons, they could probably be built in commercial yards for fitting out at Falmouth.
Dare I mention Ferguson as well.
Lol, I see you have good memory !
I see the design has merit for getting the RNR afloat for MCM and patrol work.
But the design is too small to replace an OPV like the Rivers. If we are looking more from the coast guard angle I would suggest something like the Finnish Turva. As well as patrol work the design is capable of rescue operations, firefighting, emergency towing and oil recovery. I would even keep the ice strengthening. Remember the government shelved the MCA’s emergency towing capability. Fisheries protection needs to be brought in house too…….
As for Archer well the design always been a compromise for training. I don’t think the FCS 4008 as is is quite right. I would modify the design to add extra accommodation and classrooms back aft with davits for boats. I have always found Archer’s to be pokey.
Turva is slow, pricey and twice the displacement of the R2s. I know the new even larger Turvas have a hangar, but they are also even more expensive at around £200m a pop. We need something cheap that will do the current job of the R1s in home waters. The alternative to cheap isn’t expensive, it’s losing the overseas deployments of the R2s and having them work locally instead, a real pity IMO.
I like the Cape class for the job. Cheap, hot production line, reasonable range and endurance.
With the Cape class you are talking about an entirely different class of vessel.
I am talking about a vessel for the EEZ in all weathers to undertake tasks from patrol to emergency towing to pollution control. Roughly 4 vessels if we use the old emergency towing stations as a guide to numbers.
The Rivers are good ships. I have been aboard all the B1’s except the outliers Clyde. But they are poor package. No aviation facilities. No large firefighting capability. No towing.
I am talking about lorries you are talking about Fiesta vans. The consensus for smaller patrol craft / inshore MCM / training boat is that Damen design.
The real question is what the RN involves itself in? At the moment the RN crews the 3 batch 1 OPV’s, why? Is it really he RN’s job to do fisheries patrol and border protection. What is notable about the UK is how weak the maritime policing function (Border Force is. There is a basic question here what is a military task and what is a civil or policing task?
Icelandic Cod Wars springs to mind.
I would say anything with in the territorial waters is a police matter.
And anything beyond out to the edge of the EEZ is a matter for the navy as we don’t have a coastguard.
For me fisheries protection gives the something to do while out there. The Fisheries Squadron was the oldest in the RN.
Please clarify your statement as territorial waters extend 12 miles whilst an EEZ is usually up to 200 miles, leaving a big gap between the two.
It is a question of law isn’t it? Out to 12 miles the sea is still the UK. Beyond that the sea is legally something different. Want do you need me to qualify? I can’t help the big gap. Suggest you take it up with the UN and see if the will draft UNCLOS for you.
Do the R1s still do English fisheries protection as a permanent role? I thought the MMO now chartered a couple of full time vessels for the job, and the primary roles for the Rivers were patrol and training.
The solution has always been to roll the Scottish Fisheries Protection, Northern Ireland Fisheries Protection, RN Fisheries ships and resources, budget from DEFRA contracted fisheries protection, Border Force inc Cutters, some aspects of HMRC, parts of Transport Police, HM Coastguard and the privately contracted SAR provision…and the full Maritime and Coastguard Agency….into a proper HM Coastguard. Make it a proper Paramilitary Force like the USCG, Guardia Finanzia and US Department of Homeland Security merged into one…add in clear links to RN/MoD, DEFRA, Department of Transport, Home Office, MoJ and HMRC with devolved clear responsibilities.
Make it responsible for Border Protection at the coasts and entry point i.e.harbours, ports, airports, rail…immigration enforcement, revenue protection, offshore infrastructure, EEZ patrols, pollution control, airport infrastructure protection, search and rescue…with a clear wartime role.
There’s enough budget in all of those seperate Depts/Agencies/ALB’s etc to do it…
Leave the RN for other roles…
You are quite right to draw attention to the UK fragmented approach to our Critical National Infrastructures: The Maritime is an integral part of that CNI and it needs to be worked into the mix.
The UK is the third most targeted country in the world for cyber-attacks, much of it associated with CNI and as you point our our undersea telecommunications networks are especially vulnerable to physical attack.
The National Protective Security Authority (NPSA) and the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) are responsible for safeguarding Critical National Infrastructure (CNI) in the UK and they should lead. The Royal Navy is a key stakeholder.
But It needs a catalyst, The Deputy Prime Minister has overall responsibility for cross-sector policy and coordination of the resilience of the UK’s CNI
Angela Rayner should be pressed to do much more in the way you have described eloquently
I think the harbour protection is relatively easy to solve – we have literally thousands of weekend sailors with small motor cruisers the size of the new minesweeping drone boats. Revitalising the RNVR and purchasing equipment that can be fitted to those boats (or even operated from the shore) isn’t difficult. The deep sea stuff is a whole other ball game and perhaps we need to think about more unit operating from oil platforms as well as oil rig support vessels being fitted with modular equipment. Proteus may be gold-plating it – we need mass to cover all that space.
Genius thinking, maybe we could fit a few 30mm to them and patrol the “Landing Beaches” around Kent.
That’s not a military job – arresting people who break the law is for the police and you don’t need anything more than a taser to control that situation. What you do need is a policeman with suitable arrest powers but there’s no reason that the police couldn’t have a maritime reserve section to use similar people.
Obviously I wasn’t actually being serious !
You weren’t being serious, but there’s a lot of the far right in the U.K. who do actually back this
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn8xykr5v95o.amp
Correct, I wasn’t and I see this sort of stuff all over the place, on other defence sites and social media platforms. Mostly Racists disguised as patriotic Brits (not that it’s a wholly British trait).
It’s certainly an issue but mowing them all down D Day fashion is not the answer.
What you have to remember is that racism isn’t just a right wing thing too. Leftists are also prone to it too. In fact if you read your history it will tell you they tend to be racist the most. Not that the Left wing BBC will ever tell you that…………..
As you point out, uncrewed vehicles can operate from shore and we don’t need scores of 300 ton military patrol boats. Something Cutlass sized would be enough.
My point was that many of these people already have suitable boats of their own.
“ There have also been developments in smart fibre optic cables that use laser reflectometry and distributed acoustic sensing to detect pressure changes, vibrations, seismic activity or tensions on the cable. While the main value is earthquake warning and scientific research, this technology could also be harnessed for early warning of interference and help pinpoint the location of cables if cut, either accidentally or deliberately.”
I hate to say this but that was how breaks in fibre optics were detected in the 1980’s!
I remember watching in wonder as a tech pinpointed a break using that technique ‘it is xxx meters from here’
So no that isn’t new.
The earthquake detection thing is newer but was published quite a while back.
The use of RNR to man harbour patrols is useful – if used carefully.
Sometimes just having armed crews in uniform about in grey boats with radar turning and binos looking is a considerable deterrent for lots of things other than sabotage as well.
However, you have to be careful as this is an as dull as ditchwater posting if you want to do other ‘more interesting’ things.
Precedence is important as it allow you not only to deter but build up a local intelligence picture. Now some would say in the RN that is just burning bunkers for the sake of it. That most operations are intelligence lead; we see that in modern policing. But other countries patrol and I don’t think they are doing it for fun.
The UK’s maritime policing efforts (non-naval) in the EEZ are pitiful when compared to all of neighbours accept Ireland. They all do it slightly differently. Some look to environmental security as much as crime or sovereignty infringements.
If we were to go to a full time model something similar to the NPAS but with boats would be preferred option. Probably better as Home Office force than an MoD.
If a reservist or home guard model then I do like the Danish Naval Home Guard, Marinehjemmeværnet. There are 35 flotillas with 30 27m boats, a specialist command flotilla, and 4 force protection units all at one hour’s notice.
But this would still need underpinning by the RN. Belgium has 3 patrol craft to look after a coast line of similar length to that of Surrey. The UK would struggle to get a hull to an North Sea oil rig quickly. Yes get the RNR afloat again. They last went to sea in minesweepers. But as we know the RN has scuppered its MCM capability. Route surveillance around Felixstowe, Southampton, Milford Haven, and Faslane would be useful. As always though it is a question of money.
But that is where the MCM hulls, with a reduced equipment fit would have been perfect for RNR use….as they already existed and had a lot of money spent to replace the Paxman Valentina’s for modern engines.
We have seen these being culled from some 40 odd hulls to just a few now. This is a tragic loss either way we look at it.
Gambling with defence is a huge risk that defies any historical logic.
At the end of Cold War the RN had 4 key competences: ASW, submarines, light amphibious warfare (raiding), and MCM. Now? Our frigates are worn out. We can’t seem to get an SSN away from the wall, the Marines have no ships, and MCM has been thrown under the bus. Latter is troubling considering we have a SSBN base to defend.
Tuned in to your wavelength mate. I just wish that this latest bunch of clowns can see it.
Faslane should be a bastion. We should have a small frigate paddling about with TAS off Western Scotland all the time. Route surveillance should be done and be visible. Heck it should even have its own AA missile system.
Yes I know, I just said that! 🙂
We need something like the Swedish Styrsö class. Take defending Milford Haven. Cardiff RNR (HMS Cambria) and Bristol RNR (HMS Flying) could be assigned one each. I think the RNR actually going to sea would help with recruitment. I imagine they would be sea most weekends.
About 200 tonnes and a crew of 18. I think there would be more than enough volunteers to crew such boats. Perhaps it would even pay to have a pair per RNR unit?
I was in the RNR at MHQ Pitreavie (HMS Scotia) before joining the regulars in 1988. Most RNR units manned the River class inshore MCMs (sweepers) then. Think they lost them during the Options for Change in the mid-1990s, another part of the peace dividend.
Yes. The Rivers went to Brazil and other places. They were designed to go after that particular type of Soviet seabed mine whose NATO designation slips my mind. That’s the sort of capability we are talking about.
I agree with you, The Danish do seem to have a capable force and we should take note. North Sea protection is rather lacking and MCM capability needs to be rapidly increased or we might just as well keel over in any hot event.
Yes there is a lot to recommend it. The whole model is one we should adopt. There is even an Infrastructure Home Guard (Virksomhedshjemmeværnet) which helps with transport, communications, health, water, and power supply.
It is worth spending a half hour or so just having a look how the various European states look to maritime security and safety. It is quiet interesting. And it soon becomes apparent that the UK just doesn’t do this at all well. And it isn’t because we are remote.
Ireland’s custom service set up a maritime unit because of illegal landings getting out of hand. And where did those boats originate from mostly? The Netherlands. The UK coast is wide open. Never mind the naval aspects………
I see what you are saying, It’s such a worry though just where we are heading.
They set up a customs unit because they wanted to have their own little ships, ships that spend most of their time in sheltered areas as they are too small for Irish sea states (something the NS told them repeatedly). It’s just “empire building” by one section of the civil service that had a hump with another section.
Yes. Exactly. But the problems of illegal landings was a significant one. They needed resources.
So are you are arguing then the UK is nice and safe we don’t patrol assets? If we are safe then surely everybody in NW Europe is safe too?
All
One has to say that, reading this, one rather gets the distinct impression that the RN leadership has taken its eye off the ball on this particular topic
= because defence of the UK homeland has always been (and must always remain) the key priority of all three of the UK armed services
– whatever else is written in any short-termist Whitehall policy document
Accordingly, one rather thinks that the joys of a big CSG deployment – so doing the grey funnel cruise liner stuff out in the warm and sunny Pacific, obviously whilst stopping for a few G&T drinks at diplomatic reception being held on a few sun-kissed islands and with palm trees and girls in ra-ra skirts etc etc – has rather clouded the judgement of the RN’s most senior officers…………-
——————
Secondly, very interesting that the RN has not learnt anything whatsover from the RAF
(So ……..it now has to be said………..not the first time that has ever happened )
The RAF last got caught with its trousers and underpants (note 1) around its ankles on 11th Sept 2001: when unarmed (ie. not being loaded with any missiles) fighter jets were being scambled to protect UK airspace against a then-unknown threat of unarmed airliners
So probably the only way on 9/11 the RAF could have brought down an airliner being flown by an enemy Biggles – i.e. one whom had recently qualified from the Al-Queda Pilot Training Academy (i.e. special offer: we only train for take-offs: not landings) – would have been to use their Martin Baker……
Therefore, ever since 2001, not only has the RAF maintained a few missile armed planes on QRA – also the RAF has had, very sensibly, just a few mid-ranking officers stationed inside National Air Traffic Control Centre (NATS) at Swanwick.
They are continously monitoring the regular patterns of UK air traffic, and thus thesedays are pretty good at spotting any anomolies = like a big commercial plane not communicating….
That permenant RAF prescene inside NATS always makes the coordination of the RAF’s QRA reactions – which happen far more frequently than most people realise – much more seamless and joined-up between the RAF and NATS
The RN really ought to be doing exactly the same thing within the Marine and Coastguard Agency (MCA) down at Falmouth: so parking few RN officers posteriors at a few of their spare MCA desks – and then getting them to watch the MCA screens for unusual activity near our CNI
(i.e. so occasions like when the SBS armed boarding party raided a tall masted ship which was behaving very oddly in in the Thames Estuary in the middle of the night about fifteen yaers ago……only to find the scouts on board asking them whether they wanted sugar in their cup of tea. That one never made it into the official RN log entry!)
———-
Thirdly, no mention whatsover here in the Navy Lookout article about oil and gas
However, without both of those, this country grinds, almost immediately, to a halt.
There are plenty of oll rigs, oil pipelines gas pipelines and gas rigs – not to count the seven remaining coastal oil refinaries – which are essential to civilised life
Without oil and gas- especailly vehicle fuel – this nation stops (and cannot even feed its population)
Those oil and gas systems are – despite what the RN and also Just Stop Oil thinks – far more important than
Also no mention of
——————–
whilst on the subject of crabbs (note 2) sometimes the quickest and easiest way to check up on an errant ship is to fly there – either by helicoptor or fixed wing.
However as most of our sea-based critical national infrastructure (CNI) is in the middle and northern parts of North Sea
whilst and most of our bases for Biggles (all types) and Navy ships are, well (pun definitely intended) nowhere near the North Sea
Some more joined up think is probably needed here…
because it is no good having a quck reaction force based in the wrong place;
because that quickly becomes a “Sorry gov: we arrived just too late” – farce
——————–
PROJECT NORD
Another excuse rcently dreamt up by the boffins to keep themselves busy and prosperous -as usual, at us taxpayers expense – 850M quid
(The UK could buy Grenland for less!!!!
So, to help monitor the coastal situation,
……about two years ago here on Navy Lookout, I suggested putting up a long line of tall (150m) wind turbine mast (no blades) planted far off the east coast of the UK – all founded in the shallow waters of the North Sea
Then equiping each one of those few dozen tall masts with an air search radar; a sea serach radar and, quite-possibly sonars.
Because – If the UK’s air search radars are located further out to the EAST – i.e. the Threat direction – they will be beyond those rotatig windmillsso then the windwllis will ot intefer with radar signals
It is a pribnciple called Early Warning
That would quickly protect most of our CNI
I offer to do the whole job for £250M!
————-
Lastly, on the subject of some much needed modern coastal patrol boats, I must say I really do like SJB1968’s suggestion (above)
= to use a few Pat B sized ships for UK coastal defence.
These could be equipped with something a bit meaty – ideally like one of the new Bofers 40mm. Those guns would be ideal to deal with drones, a Russian AGI being naughty, small terrorist craft and also making mincemeat of Just Stop Oil protestors (opps, sorry = I really though you were a terrorist wearing orange drag….).
These could also carry a big rib; half dozen bootnecks as very useful boarding party and even some of the smallest types of minehunting UUV’s (seafox etc)…..
Furthermore the SJB1968 class patrol boats could be funded from, at least in part, from some of the existing RN budget.
All of this listed above will be a good way to keep me warm and safe at home tucked up in bed – and, crucially, with the lights and heating still on – and all without significantly increasing my tax bill.
So, the RN leadership needs to stop dreaming of G&T’s being served under palm trees by people called Stuarts wearing ra-ra skirts
———— and start doing their basic day-job properly…
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1.
Note2
Thanks for that. RAF doesnt need early warning radars on wind turbines in North Sea.
They have E-3 sentry ( to be replaced by E-7) plus Fylingdales base in Yorkshire ( joint with US Space command) with its 120 ft tall 3 face radar panels
They don’t currently have E3 or E7 AEW and even when E7 enters service you’ll only get one. The E7 also isn’t supportable by the RAF’s current tanker fleet. Small fleet with limited endurance means that you’ll end up with minimal service capability.
Also land based fixed radar sites would probably have an operational life of hours in any war. They would be a priority target because their absence would unlock UK defences to air attack. Submarine launched cruise missiles and absence of UK GBAD would have them non-operational very early on.
DJB
I totally agree
Peter (irate Txapayer)
Yes. We are not getting enough to put a bird aloft 24/7 which is what we should be doing.
Good summary, it is well known that the UK bought too few E7 as replacements of E3, even Turkey has four E7, they just have to rely on the French and NATO AWACS.
I guess you are not relatives of Duker then?
Thats what belonging to Nato is all about
The ultra long range radar at Fylingdales is the 24/7 part
You should tell the RAF that that dont have any E-7.
The Tories in their hatred towards the miliary culled the E-3 early of course.
The planes are part of the Nato AEW program, so there ‘wont be just one’
Right now we don’t have E-7….its still years away and has been delayed further due to issues…
Bloody hell mate, took me ages to read and digest all that.
To be fair, Biggles isn’t alone in wearing knickers, I read that a certain member here also prefers women’s undies !
Would the real Duker please stand up.
yeah Jimbo lovely jubbly women’s undies
Moderators please
Please try to stick to the subject matter of the article you are commenting on and above all, avoid personal attacks…
Also no impersonating others
TL;DR
Shame that, I find him rather interesting and funny although I will say this latest epic was rather long !
Mr Peter, the only thing longer than your article is the sentence by Judge Jeffery. By the time I reached the end of your article, I had already forgotten the beginning and with the limited time during my toilet break, it is impossible to digest it while sitting on the bog. Please help me, a smaller lump at a time to aid my digestion. I will be forever in your debt.
Surrey has a coastline?
I do think that we need to lean into the XV Patrick Blackett hull as a replacement for the current home waters fleet.
Carry containerised towed array, A-frame ROVs, RIBs, or even some sort of containerised weapons systems on that wonderful deck space aft and you create a sort of mini River.
I imagine it would make a decent flight deck as well for those giant quadcopters from BAE.
I agree 100% too. Daman need to be added to UK ship procurement ASAP.
I meant Sussex.
Containerisation only helps at refit time.
Plenty of OPV designs both large and small. The Rivers are solid but a pure package, there are better designs.
As for the Blackett how can one ship replace a whole fleet? Don’t be daft.
I meant the design, that Damen series of offshore vessels. Large working deck aft, space for 10-12 crew and decent endurance and seakeeping for the size.
Containerisation works as long as it isn’t a whole-ship job, so nobody needs to be restrained.
Ah! I see. We need a ‘seabed engineering’ hull like the Blackett. Some patrol craft too in a mix of high endurance and those built for speed.
Exactly, if the hull design is good enough for North Sea wind farms and oil rigs, it’s good enough for EEZ patrol.
I’d add on a permanent davit for a RIB on the working boat and possibly also a RWS on the foredeck and you have the universal small OPV.
Edit: There’s even a patrol variant of the same hull, that includes a davit and a bigger crane but no armament.
All
For the avoidance of doubt, I was picking up on SJB1968’s suggestion
So I was proposing
I am definitely NOT in favour of uncrewed / automous vessels for the patrol job in UK coastal waters = simply because they cannot possibly distingish between
(i.e. the on-board Qinetiq-designed Darlek simply going “exterminate” would be utterly disasterous)
One ALWAYS needs human beings on these coastal patrol ship’s – and/or a boarding party – to make the right judgement calls
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Can carry small mine-hunting UAVs – simply dropping them over the side or stern
One of the things that constantly amazes me about this site is how MCM is belittled. It is a surprisingly complex sphere of naval warfare.
Isn’t the point of the unmanned systems, to offload complexity away from the main platform into the drone itself?
I thought it was to avoid putting human beings in the middle of a minefield.
It already happens. It has been happening for years.
There seems to be a vein of thought here that something torpedo sized will be dropped off over the side and left to sweep acres of oceans all by itself dealing with any mines it finds all by itself. We are years off that. And a machined doing that won’t be small as it will have to carry its power source with it, cope with the sea, and carry the MCM systems. Look at the new Dutch Belgian French MCM motherships. They are 2000 tonners. The drones are big boats. Unmanned systems are neither small or cheap. And at the moment they are not clever. MCM is complex.
Legacy German Seehund MCM drones. The Germans have been using these since 1980. The system needs three drones.
I am very familiar with the Damen product line.
Go look at the Swedish coastguard. That’s the sort of mix I think you are talking.
Zookeeper
I see what you mean about Damen having an excellent product line:
Can we buy a dozen of these, @Владимир Темников 60m, please
SIGMA Fast Combatant 6110 – Damen
Even better – if Rachael asks very nicely: they also do hire-purchase
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
It is the sort of thing I would have towing a TAS just off Western Scotland to protect HMNB Clyde and to escort boomers out to the edge of continental shelf.
What I think we are looking at during WW1 would be classed as a sloop or a fleet minesweeper like the WW1 Flowers. These then went on to be the first AS escorts.
The population has not doubled since WW2.. it has increased by c50%. In 1939, a population of c46m depended on imports for 70% of food. By 1982, with a larger population of c58m , Britain was more than 80% self sufficient in all foodstuffs. We were also self sufficient in energy.
Idiotic policies from various governments have allowed food self sufficiency to fall to c60% , and even higher dependence on energy imports.
The latest act of self harm has closed our last coal power station( even if, by choice, we import the coal, it is much easier to store than gas) and decisions to replace aging reactors with SMRs are being delayed. Miliband is just the latest in a line of net zero dimwits that have deliberately chosen to put the country at risk.
Official population 1939 – c41m, 2025 – c70m (many believe it is actually considerably higher due to uncontrolled immigration). Not quite doubled but at least 70% larger. It is a fair point that there has been a disastrous policy of reducing self reliance.
Hello, I do often wonder the true population figures given the decades of said uncontrolled immigration we have seen.
In my little part of the country, it’s seldom heard of any British folk talking loudly whilst on the phone when walking the streets.
You may be right about the real current population. But the number you give for 1939 is wrong. You have used the total for England and Wales only, not the UK. Using official figures, the increase is almost exactly 50%.
Peter S
Critical National Infastructure is all about keeping the entire population in
So overall, the whole point of CNI is very similar to a large scale survival exercise for 69M people (instead of just being a survival course for one person on a few nights camping out in the wild)
So – not only is our uncontrolled population growth a very big problem——
Even more so is the utter lack of spare capacity – and especially resilence -throughout all of our CNI systems
———–
Also worth remembering that here in the UK at the very beginning of the Ukraine War (it started three years ago!) that all oil, gas and raw food prices massively spiked.
We in the UK paid out much more for less: the TV economists called it inflation
However, across much of northern Africa = their vital supplies of Ukrainian grain were cut off by the sea war in the Black Sea..That was their basic staple diet.
That caused plenty of food riots across many poor African country’s – all within the first fortnight
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
“Who has a larder at home today ?” Not me but I do have a Shed load of Cans and much other stuff ready for when the SHTF.
I also still have @Владимир Темников 6000 Bog Rolls bought in a panic before lock down.
Spam and Frey Bentos does keep for a number of years and Hydroponics is great for growing fresh veg when hooked up to solar.
Talking about SHTF, Poo bags are cheap enough but it’s knowing where to dispose of them that’s going to be the big issue.
Foraging is another good skill to have but always make sure you know where you buried the poo bags.
Or did you mean Lada ? never owned one personally but I knew a chap who did.
We really do need to re-develop our self reliance. It doesn’t have to be fancy, but it does need to keep tummies fed, lights on, and factories running.
No nation should be utterly reliant on a long chain of tenuous allies.
Anonymous Coward
I assume it is you that has written the one full-page article in today’s Daily Torygraph
..all about how our UK’s over-reliance on buying cheap electricity from Europe is – very, very soon – going to cause big blackouts (note 1)
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1,
The word blackout is being used in this context of national security policy as
Note 2.
Note 3.
PS
Over the past few years, I have often wondered why the Poles (spelt with one i) are buying thousands of brand new tanks and APC’s from South Korea….. theirs is a very big rerarmment programme
…..so maybe trying to protect their power plants from the AfG ?????
Afternoon. Candles are another important Prepper’s Larder product along with the previously mention Bog Rolls (spelt wit two LL’s)
Having a large stock of Wax and Wicks plus matches and lighters put’s one way ahead of the average Joseph Publican.
Tip for making one’s own Candles, Pour melted wax in the Bog Roll Tubes together with some Wicks and you get to recycle cardboard and help save the Planet.
Greta Thunderpants (Knickers is another option) will appreciate you much.
Correction to your PS. You put i instead of L, it’s a small point but I felt compelled to mention it.
Any Idea what time Happy hour is tonight ?
I have to say it’s great to see so many great and sensible post’s here today. Unlike the last few articles and all the nonsense that was posted.
Good night from me wherever you all are.
Somebody else is also thinking… https://marineschepen.nl/schepen/mss.html
interesting
At some point the UK MOD is going to have to take a brave pill and start doing low cost solutions with an emphasis on speed and getting things done.
Regarding the RN — how many sailors are on the water tonight?
How many are sailing the high seas doing stuff?
Starter for 10 — One thousand / two thousand / three thousand?
HMS Refit and HMS Repair was never a good look.
In fact it tells us much about our own failings.
Regarding cheap and delivered fast, yes, we have to do some of that. One issue is that the budgets for the year are always fully swallowed up, so there’s no money to order quickly. Also the larger platform process always starts with requirement definitions, seemingly divorced from cost, so we never get anything cheap. Delivering 80% solutions isn’t something we are good at.
UK defence — Scottish Fisheries Patrol vs RN vs “Border Force”?
Who is doing the heavy lifting at the moment?
If capability needs to be brought swiftly to bear, then the only feasible course of action is to utilise robotics. Remote sensing rather than crewed patrolling, though some ‘flag waving’ would be no bad thing. The urgent chief threats appears to be cyber and vandalism. All the north western European countries are on the frontline when it comes to sea and undersea threats.
Barry
I totally agree with your last comments – about us being on the frontline
—————–
However l must disagree with your first line: about robotics being the answer
All of these promises about Robotics “doing the business” are increasingly being exposed as ” marketing puffery”
So, as a example directly related to the orginal article: MINES
The brand new robotic RN minehunting capability has been in continuous and expensive development for well over decade
= and thus the RN robot mineshunter is nowhere close to becoming a reality anytime soon!
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
The relentless drive towards ‘optimisation’ is one of our failings here. Far better to have massive capacity and capability in the form of a large, flexible, easily deployed (if relatively low-skilled) workforce.
Sure, you may not get the best value for money in lean times, but you have masses of capability when required.
We’ve simply ‘optimised’ and cut to the point where it either works, or fails horrendously – no inbetween.
No. AI is dumb. And there comes a point where surveillance isn’t enough. Decades away from these things being able to be left to their own devices. Why do you think implementing complex IT and robotic systems can be done quickly?
Talking of all things ‘coastguard’ I see Trump has terminated Fagan’s time as Commandant of the USCG. The man is not hanging about.
I see lots of people advocating various solutions to protect our marine infrastructure: data and energy cables, gas connectors, wind turbines, oil rigs, etc, etc… But isn’t it first worth identifying what they need protecting from?…
Sure the Russians are using tankers dragging their chains to cut cables in the Baltic. And it’s the equivalent of a nation-state committing vandalism, but it’s not something they’ll be able to do during an actual war. At best they might be able to get a handful of tankers to cut cables on the eve of war, but once it’s underway those tankers are gone.
Likewise once a war starts we’re not going to see any Russian Navy surface ships in the North Sea, Channel, Irish Sea, etc. Every NATO air force in range will be queuing up to notch-up an easy kill.
Cruise missiles could take out high value assets oil-rigs, but I can’t see Russian wasting a cruise missile for each wind-turbine. They are also too numerous for special forces, though it’s feasible Russian saboteurs could enter the U.K. prior to war to destroy the stations where the power-feeds come ashore.
So underwater appears to be the primary threat. Either long-range, or pre-positioned underwater drones or submarines. One obvious candidate is the Belgorod type submarine that can carry up to 6 Poseidons. A nuclear blast and associated shock-wave could certainly destroy infrastructure in a wide area. As human casualties may be zero or very small (depending on ships in area), the Russians may think use of nukes in this area to be acceptable and not escalatory in the way tactical nukes are…
“Sure the Russians are using tankers dragging their chains to cut cables in the Baltic”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/01/19/russia-baltic-undersea-cables-accidents-sabotage/
Accidents, not Russian sabotage, behind undersea cable damage, officials say
Cables breaks of all kinds happen gobally a couple of times EVERY WEEK. More likely to be anchors in shallower waters.
Even has happened to Russian cables to Kalingrad- also in Baltic
The physics of a dragging 30 ton anchor by a 90,000 ton loaded tanker , which is 3000 to 1 mass difference means its not noticeable on bridge 650ft back from bow ( on auto pilot)
Comments allegedly made by anonymous officials is at best gossip / hearsay.
Russia has been conducting a below-kinetic ware against Europe since the start of the Ukraine war: numerous incidents of fires and sabotage, the plot to place incendiary devices on cargo planes, the assassination plot against the CEO of Rheinmetall. Destroying data and power cables in a plausibly deniable way fits in with their modus operandi. The unusual tracks and behaviour of the vessels concerned show that these incidents are not as innocent as claimed.
Nice try Dukerov
Don’t forget that certain Oligarchs who were resident in the UK were dispatched quite a few years ago…. and the Salisbury incident. You could also add the long list of Russians who died in his watch
Navalny, Nemtson, Lesin, Berezovsky, Magnitsky, Markalov, Babarova, Estimirova,Politkovskaya and Shchekochikhin to name but a few oh and let’s not forget Pregozhin and all the others on board his plane.
Only a fool would dismiss/deny this is happening.
Whataboutism .
The topic is maritime infrastructure.
The same reasons was found for the chinese flagged ship and its anchor last year.
Negligence, but it happens a couple times each week globally
The Nordstream events was Ukrainian linked according to the germans who issued arrest warrants of Ukrainians as part its investigations
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-issues-arrest-warrant-ukrainian-diver-nord-stream-probe-media-report-2024-08-14/
Poland received a European arrest warrant issued by Berlin in connection with the 2022 attack on Nord Stream pipelines, but the suspect, a Ukrainian man named as Volodymyr Z, has already left Poland, Polish prosecutors told Reuter
Sean
At least in part….. I agree to disagree –
Throughout the Ukranian war – all three years of it – Russia has been using its long range missiles and big drones to hit key Ukranian infrastructre:
Thus, despite a very large number of shooting-downs (of both missiles and drones) by the team playing in blue and yellow colours…. there have been very widespread blackouts
I did see one set of figures – about 12 months into the war – which very strongly suggested that more Ukrainain civilians had died and been injured in 2022-23 as as result of “excess” house fires than had been directly hit by missiles and bombs.
That very high civilian casualty rate was easily explained because, with all the electrical power outages, the civilians had had to resort to burning very improvised wood fires at home i.e. to keep warm and thus just to stay alive in their freezing winters.
Thus they had either gased themelves (CO) or, on many occasions, set fire to their own houses and flats (often with their families inside)
———————
So, as an example of Russia being far better at this Grey Zone stuff than we are …….
…………back in 2014, when Mr Putin invaded Crimera, NATO knew within minutes that it was Russain troops and vehicles and guns without military markings or insigna.
However,as D-SACUER said, at the time, to the PM
” We know its them: but we can’t prove it”
Russian aims are always to cause chaos and confusion in the West – and it does not need to start a big war to do that.
As you have said elsewhere recently, the most likley hig is that they will just ratchet up their attacks on CNI
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS
If you read my post you’d see that I actually did say that Russia would use missiles against high value targets like oil-rigs.
But they’re not going to waste 6,000 cruise missiles trying to knock out every single wind turbine. It would be a very poor use of their munitions, even a Russian could see that. They wound target the distribution nodes; where the power from the wind-farms come ashore and transformers. But these are on land, this discussion is about threats to maritime infrastructure.
During the Cold War, Soviet military commanders had authority to use tactical weapons without referring back to the Kremlin. Putin will think that the detonation of a nuclear weapon far out at sea, targeting infrastructure rather than troops or civilians to be non-escalatory.
Nobody in the West is going to advocate launching Tridents in response to that.
Thats the only reason the RN would want to operate any vessels safeguarding CUI.
So they can cut it later when Tories are back in power and ‘demand 3% cut and make it snappy’
In 1990 the RNXS had a personnel of 3,200.
Did I miss the bit about protecting the coast from the invading hoards…
Russia does not need to invade the West to destroy it – we are doing a very good job of it ourselves.
I think the plan is to pull the plug and then the dinghies won’t float………
The cheapest solution has to be replacing the B1 Rivers with more, smaller, patrol craft and buying craft around P2000 size to roughly double those numbers. Expand the RNR, the URNU and the MVS that would make shared use of these vessels and allow for scaling up in time of conflict for home defence and supplementing RN personnel. At least one more seabed operations vessel was planned and is needed.