Will the Type 26 frigates be based in Devonport?
On 6th June, MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, Luke Pollard opened a Westminster Hall Parliamentary debate on the base-porting of Type 26 frigates. A cloud of uncertainty hangs over the future of Devonport and the MoD is under pressure to make an early decision on the basing arrangements for the Type 26 and Type 31 frigates.
In an earlier article, we looked at the overall issues that Devonport faces. Worries over the future of the amphibious ships, a reduction in Royal Marine numbers and the end of submarine basing increases the pressure for frigates to be homeported in Plymouth.
Earlier this year it was announced the base-porting of the Type 23 frigates would be rationalised so that the 8 ships fitted with the towed array sonar tail will all be Devonport-based. The 5 that have a crew gym in the space where the towed array should be, and referred to as general purpose, will be Portsmouth-based. Making Devonport the centre of ASW excellence makes sense and would point to the 8 specialist Type 26 ASW ships replacing the Type 23s in Devonport.
Portsmouth's future is very much more certain as the home to two large aircraft carriers, the 6 Type 45 destroyers and the 5 new OPVs. On the debit side, HMS Protector moved from Portsmouth to be a Devonport-based ship in 2016 (but as she spends several years away at a time this is of limited benefit to Plymouth). The rationalisation of the Type 23s will also see Devonport gain one frigate at Portsmouth's expense. There remains an unpleasant possibility that this balance could be upset by the Modernising Defence Review, if the RN is forced to axe a couple of Type 23s in order to keep other assets.
There is no doubt that the Plymouth has suffered a big reduction in the size of its defence estate and in personnel numbers over the last 20 years, on an even greater scale than Portsmouth. The 5 GP Type 23s that will soon all be Portsmouth-based will go out of service first and are the first Type 31s are supposed to be available ahead of the first Type 26s. Basing the Type 31s in Portsmouth seems like the obvious choice and would approximately preserve the status quo. The projected fleet operating doctrine suggests that one or more of the Type 31s are likely to be permanently forward-deployed more often than the Type 26 so would spend much less time in their home port.
Luke Pollard was joined by other MPs from the Plymouth area; Gary Streeter, Johnny Mercer and Kevin Foster. There is strong cross-party support making the case for Devonport's future. Valid points were made about the suitability of Devonport with good access to the Atlantic and decades of investment in infrastructure and facilities. As well as the civilian jobs, many naval personnel (and ex-naval personnel) and their families live in the Plymouth area, contributing to the economy and social fabric of a region that suffers from being distant from the economic driver of the South East.
The debate raised issues specific to Plymouth but the needs of the navy should be paramount and balanced with the view from Portsmouth. Luke Pollard argues the case for the Navy with greater clarity and understanding than the majority of MPs but over-stated his case by demanding "We need a commitment to make all the Type 26s and the Type 31s Devonport based as well". While he may be entitled to fight for his constituents, the decisions must be made in the context of the needs of the whole surface fleet. Former Portsmouth City Council Leader, Donna Jones has made similar sweeping demands in the past calling for all 13 frigates to be based in the city. It was rather surprising that no Portsmouth MPs managed to attend the debate while a few Scottish and DUP MPs with an interest in defence were present.
The support conundrum
The Type 26 is very much a BAE Systems' product and they are likely to win the contract to support the ships in service. BAES have a considerable presence in Portsmouth where they support the surface fleet there and it would suit them to have the Type 26 in Portsmouth. Babcock own the dockyard at Devonport (as opposed to the Naval Base area which is MoD-owned) and are rivals to BAES in many areas of the UK defence business. Should the Type 26s be based in Devonport, either the support contract would have to go to Babcock or BAES would need to establish its own facilities in the Dockyard. The Type 31 competition currently hangs in the balance but it is quite possible that these frigates could be Babcock products which would dovetail nicely with their support facilities in Plymouth. It may appear that Type 26 is a natural fit for Devonport with the Type 31 home-ported in Portsmouth but the arrangements for supporting these vessels in service may add complications.
The minister responds
Guto Bebb, Minister for Defence Procurement, was on hand to answer some of the questions raised. Most surprisingly, he said something his boss the Defence Secretary has resolutely refused to say until now. Responding to another question about the future of the LPDs, rather irritably he said: "The honourable gentleman should be aware that HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark are safe until 2033 and 2034 – that's the decommissioning dates for both vessels." If this was not a major gaffe then he has pre-empted the results of the MDP and confirmed these ships are safe from cuts. Such a statement was so unexpected that it has not yet been widely reported in the media – perhaps some are reluctant to believe it.
Guto was fulsome in his praise for the passion of the Plymouth MPs and, very encouragingly has promised that a decision on the future of the Type 26 basing will be made before the end of 2018. This should at least help Plymouth make plans for its future economy. It should be remembered that the needlessly extended Type 26 construction programme will not see HMS Glasgow in the water until 2025 and be arriving in her homeport for the first time in late 2026.
Sadly the Minister also repeated the falsehood that everyone hoped had passed out of use when Michael Fallon and Harriet Baldwin moved on. "We have a growing Royal Navy for the first time in decades" he claimed. By any measure, this is patently not true. He is right to point to a major new equipment plan and that the defence budget is rising by 0.5% above inflation. Unfortunately, the equipment plan is around £20Bn short and defence inflation runs well above the main inflation rate. Despite new construction, the number of vessels in the RN service is declining and there are considerable gaps in equipment and capabilities.
Luke Pollard should be commended for securing this debate and doing much to highlight the plight of the navy. All things considered, it would be something of a surprise if the Type 26 frigates are not Devonport-based. Any other decision would probably seal the fate of the naval base, a disaster for the RN and the resulting fall-out would be political dynamite.
Video of the June 6th Westminster Hall debate – Base-porting of Type 26 frigates
Pressure mounts on Labour MP to back Type 26s being based in Portsmouth
(Portsmouth News)
Defence minister says HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark 'are safe' (Plymouth Herald)
Will Devonport naval base survive the next round of cuts to the Royal Navy?
Progress on extending the life of the Royal Navy's Type 23 frigates
Royal Navy frigate programme update
Upgrading the Royal Navy's nuclear submarine support facilities
Article Tags: Babcock Devonport Future Royal Navy Modernising Defence Program 2018 Naval Infrastructure Politics Type 26 Frigate
Black british guy
I'm joining the royal navy. I don't want kids and I'm not getting married. I will have alot disposal income. I will do the full 22 years.
Reply to Black british guy
Keithdwat
wut m8??!??
DOCKYARD DAVY
I REMEMBER WHEN DEVONPORT WON THE CONTRACT FROM ROSYTH TO RE -FIT TRIDENT SUBMARINES,THEY WERE ON THE NEWS BREAKING OPEN THE CHAMPAGNE. THEY COULD NOT CARE LESS ABOUT THE FATE OF ROSYTH DOCKYARD SO WHY SHOULD ANY ONE CARE ABOUT THEM NOW PORTSMOUTH AND FASLANE SHOULD BE ALL THE DOCKYARD'S THAT WE NEED IN THE FUTURE
Reply to DOCKYARD DAVY
1 all caps does not make for easier reading but it does make you look like a knob. 2 So because they dared to celebrate bringing in a contract which would bring prosperity to their constituents they and their constituents deserve punishment?
ROSYTH DOCKYARD WAS STABBED IN THE BACK BY MALCOLM RIFKIND AND THE CONSERVATIVE GOVERMENT OVER THE SUBMARINE RE -FIT CONTRACT ,HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF POUNDS WERE SPENT AT DEVONPORT TO MAKE THE DOCKS READY, I DO NOT REMEMBER THE PUNISHMENT OF THE ROSYTH WORKFORCE BEING MENTIONED, DEVONPORT ALWAY'S GOT LOOKED AFTER. ALSO I AM USING CAPS SO THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE TO USE YOU'R ROSE TINTED SPECTACLES TO READ THIS
Dude, lay off the caps or don't comment at all. It is very annoying. Behave yourself and be courteous and perhaps we can have a civil discussion about this.
Reply to Frank
O k Frank , I am just a little bitter over the way that Rosyth was treated over the submarine re -fit contract and find it very ironic that Devonport now face an uncertain future as well ,I Believe that R.N. ships will still be re -fitted there but I think that the Naval base has a fight on it's hands to stay open I have to think that Portsmouth has been favoured for some time and that the writing could be on the card's to close Devonport Naval base but keep the yard open for re-fitting work as happened at Rosyth. Sadly for Devonport it all begins to look very familiar
There are plenty of ships for all 3 major bases. Carriers, Destroyers, OPVs and type 31s at Portsmouth. Thats 18 ships. Subs and MCMVs at Faslane. That will be 19 ships/boats. LPDs, and Frigates at Devenport. Thats at least 10 ships. There are still 5 survey ships at Devenport as well and 3 LSD and 6 tankers to stash somewhere along with 3 Forts/FSS.
DAVID, I think it is important to separate the ship repair /re-fit side from the naval base,side of things I think that Devonport will alway's have a role re -fitting naval ships but I think that faslane will be expanded to accommodate more surface ships and the country will then only need two main naval bases , one in the south at Portsmouth and one in the North at Faslane, and please do not forget our expanding presence in the middle east/Bahrain with more ships going to be baseported there . So I think Devonport has a secure future but only as a re -fit yard not as an naval base, I think that a nail in the coffin has to be that our new carriers cannot get into Devonport I think that not being able to access one of our major Naval bases cannot be a good thing
But do you not think there is some credence so the idea that if Babcock get the contract, than they may well be based in Devonport? It does not seem completely outlandish to me, but I am ready do be convinced otherwise. You seem to know more on the issue, so I am ready to listen.
Babcock also run Faslane Naval base it could be that ships type 31 would be based at Faslane and re-fit at Babcock run Devonport just as nuclear submarines based at Faslane are now re-fitted at Devonport with crews moving back and forth if as is possible that Babcock international build them and obtain a through life maintenance contract and that Bae run Portsmouth re-fit the type 26 built by Bae on the Clyde with a similar through life contract this would make financial sense if Devonport naval base were to close
Does anyone remember Chatham Dockyard? So you see things aren't all a plot to diminish Scotland's naval infrastructure. In my opinion the pain has been suffered equally. Chatham built early SSN's. I think there is enough work now to go round.
I am old enough to remember Chatham closing, in fact I worked with a lot of the workers who transferred up to Rosyth when Chatham closed, they were the salt of the earth, almost all are now retired or have transferred to the great dockyard in the sky.
This country has to get back to being a great shipbuilding nation again before old men like me take our skills to the great Dockyard in the sky, which is why the type 31/26 build program's are so important. as well as stopping the lunacy of building the fleet solid support ships in a foreign country, Devonport could be well placed to build or part build ships in the future as they have been in the past . Diversification is the key to survival
Could we create six squadrons of three or four escorts each? Two such squadrons (1 x Type 45, 2 x Type 26 and 1 x Type 31 each) could be based in Portsmouth, as the permanent 'Carrier Strike Groups', attached to HMS QE and PoW?
The other four squadrons could all be based at Devonport, and rotate the duties of long deployment overseas, home waters patrols, RM duties etc. I guess BAE is the big halt on this because they want the Type 45s in Portsmouth, but – if they get a big enough piece of the pie in the Type 31, especially – surely it is in their interest not to have everything lumped into Portsmouth?