The last few posts in this series have thrown up some great comment and as a sign of how difficult it is to plan for future there doesn’t seem to be any consensus on the most important question of any defence review;
WHAT DO YOU WANT THE ARMED FORCES TO DO?
The answer to this question is naturally derived from
WHAT STRATEGIC POSITION DOES THE UK ADOPT?
An excellent research piece from the Royal United Services Institute Michael Codner describes 5 options for the UK, the options are described in A Force for Honour
Option 1 – Global Guardian
Focuses on the continuation of ground operations for robust stabilisation, scaling back on the strike capabilities inherent in high end maritime and air forces
Army ‘win’
Option 2 – Strategic Raiding
Recognising that we will no longer be able to maintain sustained land based operations this option would configure the UK capability for short term interventions using special forces or other similar agile ground forces, maritime and air capabilities.
Navy and RAF ‘win’
Option 3 – Contributory
Recognising that we cannot maintain all capabilities we would concentrate on a small number but do them so well that we would become the nation of choice for such capabilities in an international coalition context.
Option 4 – Gendarmerie
An unfortunate choice of words for anyone that has issues with the EU but is based on contributing to stabilisation operations either on land or in the maritime environment
Option 5 – Little Britain
Not that Little Britain but a strategy based on withdrawal from the world stage and a reduction in strategic commitments with a focus on national security whilst offering some support to overseas operations on a selective and resource dependent basis.
He argues that the propositions on which the 1998 SDR and subsequent revisions must be challenged in the face of the consequences of Iraq, Afghanistan, our influence and reputation.
However, these options are presented as a choice, either one or the other. I believe we can, with the appropriate adjustments and without a sustained, massive and very unlikely increase in defence spending merge a number of these options.
My view is that because of Afghanistan and the likely nature of conflict that is directly related to UK security Option 1 presents the most likely and optimal option, however we must also maintain a degree of strategic sovereignty with the ability to carry out Option 2 at a reduced scale, this also contributes to option 3.
Explicitly recognising that one simple cannot have it all our basic proposal is to bet on Option 1 whilst hedging our bets against Option 2
Option 4 and 5 are for Belgium and Norway, not the United Kingdom.
The next series of posts in this theme are going to cover a number of ideas, suggestions and hair brained schemes on how this can be achieved.
As usual, everyone is welcome.
Can you link to the research please ?
Option 1 is only viable if spending increases, which appears unlikely. I would say a compound option based on 1, 2 and 3, but the whole point is the country does not seem to want to pay for this. IF we chose Option 1 I would the house to pass into law an act that would basically force the government of the day to have a compulsory debate (full 3 line whip) for any deployment longer than 6 months, AND that funding for such a deployment would NOT come from the base defence budget, but would be provided by supplementary funding.
By the way our supposedly “high end” naval forces don’t actually have any strike capabilities, apart from a constantly dwindling number of SSN’s.
Just because Option 1 right now is land locked (Afghanistan) the next battle ground for Option 1 operations may well be (in fact is more likely to be) in the “littorals” – so the army would be screwed when it can’t call on our “coast guard” for support.
A conflated Option 2 and 3 seems to be the best option considering budgets, and all my previous comments about ditching pretensions to “nation building” because we apparently just can’t afford the long term commitments.
Don’t discount options 4 and 5 so offhandedly – it might not be want you want, or what I think is best, but the populace and the leadership of the country might think otherwise !
http://www.rusi.org/fdr/about/
I picked option two, but with the ability to raid in force.
So, the option to launch a nation crippling missile barrage and the option to land up to ten thousand men afterwards.
Which is quite doable with 4 Oceans, 4 Bays, 2 Albions and 2 Lizzies conveted for troop transport and STOVL.
We cant afford option one, to maitain peace keeping forces all over the world, and its questionable just how effective they are anyway.
If we do my version of option 2, we have a unique skill set to provide any coalition, large scale guided missile bombardment, and a very large first wave invasion force, other partners can then provide larger numbers of occupation troops, who need us to capture a port for them to land.
Option 4 I read as scrap the armed forces for some riot police, no.
Option 5 I agree with, but dont see it as a choice in the same way the rest are.
I believe we should operate only in our national interest(5), we should gear our forces to operate for short term but extremely potent warfare anywhere in the world(2), and by doing so, we would be one of two countries in the world with the ability to invade a foreign country that resists our efforts, giving us a brilliant niche capability(3) in the event we operate in a coaltion that doesnt include the US.
If, god help us, we are dragged into an EU defence force, it could be our role to kick the doors down and hold them open whilst the other nations occupiers arrive in requisitioned cruise liners.
Well argued Dominic !
Admin – thanks for the RUSI link
I’ve had a look at the RUSI report and it makes good points as expected. The option i would go for would indeed be number 2 which fits my idea of expanding the Royal Marines. Basically the armed forces would be equipped to do precision strikes to take out infrastructure and cripple a countries economy and fighting capabilities. A Sledgehammer against smaller foes and a scalpel against larger foes so basically im with Dominic in many ways.
The only way to do a massive missile barrage would be via an SSGN which could be possible. Instead of building the normal 4 SSBN’s we could build 5 or possibly 6 to allow one always to be configured with large numbers of cruise missiles. This might be expensive but would be a capable strategic platform for both low and high intensity warfare as it could be used to deploy special forces.
For the Amphib forces i would suggest replacing Ocean before she is out of life with 4 vessels similar to the French Mistral class. I would also expand the RM’s to around 12,000 men and have around 4,000 organised into a rapid reaction force able to be on the move at short notice. Meaning (very much nicking dominics reasoning) we could provide the ‘Break down the door’ entry capability to allies or simply the ability to operate alone to accompish missions.
In regards to option one i think we could sustain a large’ish force away from home but for around a year or at a push 2 rather than 9 solid years. We currently have around 13,000 people deployed and this is stressing our resources and people. I think around 8,000 could be sustained with little pressure (albeit with some changes from present) for around a maximum of 2 years. Remember i do want around 4,000 extra marines so that should be taken into account meaning half of the 8,000 could be marines doing 4 month stints. Although i do think there should be some pretty large politcial roadblocks to overcome before allowing a 2 year deployment of any large size.
I agree with the consensus that the other options are a bit looney although option 5 in some ways sits well enough. I will add however that even if option 5 was chosen i would still want to be able to appear a break some legs when needed to do so.
(Any and all spelling mistakes and typo’s shall be down to the fact i’ve been up for the last, Hmmm! 26 odd hours)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSGN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal_ship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DD21#Arsenal_Ship
I just realised I’d not actualy ever explained what I was wittering on about with missile ships.
The SSGN has the advantage being utterly invulnerable to most armed forces, however its very expensive.
An Arsenal ship could be anything from a modified destroyer to a cargo ship with missile launchers glued on, depending on how close to the enemy it is expected to go.
I’d have to leave it someone who knows more to say whether a single submarine with 120 missiles is overkill or a converted oil tanker with 3000 is worrying limited.
Euan – I hope by the time I write this you have had some sleep !
Why not 6 SSGN, with our SLBM’s replaced with the latest version of Tomahawk with nuclear warheads. I know cruise missiles can be shot down by 1st grade air defence systems – but if our gonna nuke something, nuke the missile sites on the way in ! And if we want a deterrent against rogue states, then they probably won’t be able to stop the Tomahawks anyway.
No don’t replace Ocean with Mistral, we don’t need the wasted space of the stern dock, we have 6 more ships with stern docks and the French Navy does not. I would go for a variant of the commercial Schelde Enforcer class, which is what the Aussies are buying.
Increasing the RM strength would take a lot of time, the bottleneck being getting recruits through bootneck training. So add an Army battalion (or 2 !) to 3 Commando Brigade order of battle. The Army Commando’s could maybe be put through the shorter Combined Forces Commando Course. They could be the ‘armoured’ Commando’s in the BVS10′s or could be air assaulted across the beach, leaving swimming ashore in a force 10 gale with 5 weeks worth of food and ammo with a double edged dagger between your teeth to the “real men”
I’m just against losing submarine launched ballistic missiles on any grounds.
They are our last role of the dice and although cruise missiles would be effective against most powers, they arent effective against all powers, even in larger numbers.
Is anything worth losing that unstoppable retaliatory strike capability?
It might not seem important now, but could we reaquire SLBM’s before Russia could build up its cruise missile defences to the point where our attack could be stopped?
Trident is, in the grand scheme of things, pretty cheap.
Our Current Bay Class (The RFA landing ships) are a varient of the Enforcer, apparently.
With the 6 well deck ships we can already deploy 120 Challenger2s and 100 CVR(T)s, or a more sensible mix of those quickly and without support anyway. If all we want to do is Raid in Force or take and hold a port long enough for an ally/coalition to land the main forces, do we need more than that?
Whereas if we were to instead replace the three Invincibles with three more Oceans, we would be able to deploy the infantry force much quicker and then use them as light carriers, either operating an upgraded Sea Harrier or the Apaches, taking some of the strain off the CVF’s.
Maybe.
With exact force mix we’re getting well out of my depth, however…
If we use the 7 current landing ships, we should be able to land over 800 men by helicopter for the first two trips, by which time Ocean would run out men to move, but could then, I assume, still provide refuelling and repair facilities for the helcopters from other ships, and its own helicopters could pick up men from the other vessels, just guessing here, never actualy seen or read about a helicopter invasion launched from multiple vessels.
The number of men required to swim ashore with a months food could be a relativly small number, with only the heaviest vehicles needing a beach landing
First off Dominic I totally agree SLBM is something we have to keep and we must keep deployed on patrol. The reason why is pretty simple if we do not have standing patrols then we are open to a surprise attack which yes is pretty remote. Also if something happens and we start patrols again it could only be seen as a massive escalation in a crisis, for instance the Missile launches by Iran or the nuclear test by North Korea would warrant a recommencement of patrols and this would be seen as a provocation.
SSGN’s or Cruise Missile equipped submarines are something I would like to see and it should not be that difficult to do, for instance when the Vanguard replacements start being built build more than 4. Building more than 4 would allow for at least 1 submarine on standing patrol and another to be on patrol with cruise missiles, this would in my opinion offer a very strong deterrence to attack.
Jed- Thanks, I’ve gotten some sleep now. The Australians ordered a variant of the BPE “Juan Carlos 1” which is a force projection ship, I think this was an excellent choice and is a very flexible platform. More information can be found here: http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/page/Portal/ArmadaEspannola/conocenos_modernizacion/02_jc_i
The main reason I like the Mistral class is it’s beautiful simplicity in design which makes it a very cheap platform to both acquire, deploy and maintain. The well dock could possibly be easily removed from the design as the ship is built in 2 main blocks. The first block is built in France at the same yard as many famous cruise ships and the interior is built to commercial standards lowering costs, this first block contains all the accommodation, hospital and command facilities. The second block is built in another shipyard in the Baltic region again lowering costs and this second block contains the hangar, vehicle deck and the dock at the rear. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/SHIP_Mistral_Class_Cutaway_Francais_lg.gif The image in the link illustrates the simplicity of the design and also allows you to see where the blocks join. If the UK decided to buy into the Mistral class I would advocate having the front section built in France by the same commercial yard used to building similar things. The rear section could be built in UK yards keeping the politicians happy that the shipyards get some work. Or we could simply just order them from the French and let them build it with any combination of work share in-between keeping an eye on cost.
In regards to amphibious capability it really depends what your plans are, the ideal route would be to capture a decent port that we can get large ships into. Doing this means that the point class could then do the bulk of the carrying and could bring in much more heavy equipment, supplies etc. However the chances of getting hold of a decent port that is not mined, blocked, damaged or otherwise impaired when you are trying to invade someone are pretty slim so having the extra well dock could be handy. Furthermore we will very rarely be able to muster all our ships with out quite a bit of advanced notice and doing so would raise alarm. Also in ‘peacetime’ having the helicopter facilities and well facilities rolled into one ship could be very handy and cost effective for Humanitarian work meaning you only have to deploy the one ship.
I suppose the Army could stand up some commando brigades to support the Royal Marines, you could maybe even start getting volunteers to do all the training and become an RM good and proper. Basically im a big fan of marines of any guise as they are the most flexible fighting force a nation can field. Also let’s face it Royal Marines are almost special forces level compared to most nations so having lots of them would be pretty scary.
In Fantasy land I would like the UK to have CVF with EMALS and F-35C for the high end proper carrier work. Next down the pecking order would be something like the Spanish BPE I mentioned earlier I would love the Royal Marines to have these as proper commando carriers as they could pack everything they need together and even have their own airpower USMC style but with RM’s. This would free up the CVF to do the air defence and deep strike mission as well as AEW. The marines could then use F-35B’s for CAS duties or when needed could do everything themselves against a less well equipped foe but this is fantasy land and would need lavish funding. Bonkers I know especially when compared to the size of the nation etc but it would mean we could happily win the dick comparison competition with the neighbours and could stand on our own 2 feet without the US.
I think we’re starting to diverge here, its probably me being unrealistic again, but, either our aim is a strategic raid, in which case, the purpose behind siezing the port is to threaten to mine it and wreck its cargo handling facilities, or its a take and hold, in which case landing anything beyond our initial raiding force is the job of the coalition, let someone else become an expert in mine clearance and combat engineering.
I do think the majority of the fleet should be sat in port, ready to deploy with a few hours notice, en masse.
Some will obviously need to be at sea on training missions or in drydock being repaired, but I’d end any “flying the flag” operations.
OK so we are all agreed on option 2 so:
1. Land: all heavy armour to the TA – Challenger all rebuilt with 120mm breach loading mortars, co-ax 40mm AGL, 2 x RWS. All heavy armoured artillary to the TA ( AS90 and MLRS). retire 105mm light gun, regular unit to go with xm777Portee and LIMAWS. 5 regular armoured regts to get Cv90120t “medium tank”.
2. Sea: 4 x Cavour class to replace Ocean and CVF – all Harrier Gr9 upgraded with radar and passed to FAA. All Lynx to RN. AW101 as Junglie replacement. All surface combatants replace 4.5 inch gun with Oto-Melara 5 inch with Volcano extended range and guided rounds
3, Air: More Nimrod MK4 multipurpose ISR / survaillance
Dominic you still need a port to land supplies to do a strategic raid you need to land fuel, food and ammo. If you deploy your forces from the sea they will still need a supply of these consumables to operate. I’m thinking strategic raid as in a few weeks maybe a month or so to push inland accomplishing objectives. I’m not thinking a 48hr dash inland and back in time for tea and medals.
Flying the Flag operations i am in favour of, persistent presence is important as it means we are visible and we should know the local conditions. I would like to see the UK undertake more US style regular deployments so that we are a visible force in the world. Doing regular deployments and incorporating Humanitarian work is a good PR and good training. I think that is better than waiting for a crisis to happen and then whack it with a sledgehammer.
Jed, good idea about transferring the heavy equipment over to the TA, I’m guessing the reasoning behind it is that it should be used less often than lighter forces? I agree somewhat with the plan for the regulars to be equipped essentially as a medium armoured force as such they should be rapidly deployable. My opinion is that the regulars should be equipped with medium armour and with helicopters basically so they are highly mobile. Forces so equipped I think would be more useful in the majority of scenarios than heavy armoured divisions and would be more flexible at the same time. One thing I’m not too sure on is rearming the Challenger 2 with mortars, I would rather just change the barrel to the NATO standard smoothbore.
I’m going to lay down what I would want to see happening in the 2012 – 2020 timeline in the naval arena this will be one hell of a long post. This is my thoughts and opinions based on the UK primarily following the Option 2 laid out in the RUSI report. Although in some ways i should wait and add this to the Individual flavoured posts but here goes.
At sea I would advocate more Submarines 12 SSN and 4 SSBN would be a start although I would like at least another 1 SSBN. Increasing the submarine numbers has clear benefits both military and industrial, the industrial would be a solid build schedule of one new submarine every 18 months based on a life of 25 years. This should lower costs as there should be no long breaks between classes and would keep employment that most important aspect for politicians stable. Next I would want the CVF to be equipped with catapults and at least 60 F-35C bought to equip them alongside an order for some E-2D Hawkeye for AEW. This should not be that expensive as the F-35C is already looking like the cheaper option and training could be shared with the USN same with the E-2D, not to mention this choice would be more effective.
In the amphibious area I would want to of course keep the current vessels but I would consider retiring HMS Ocean early and selling her the reason is I would rather have a common class form a cost and supportability perspective. My choices would be between the Mistral class and the Canberra/JC1 class the mistral class would cost roughly £294mln per unit and the Canberra class £550mln per unit. If we wanted a simple HMS Ocean LPH replacement the Mistral class would win hands down as it is the cheaper option to acquire and operate although it is a less capable platform. If we wanted to acquire the high end and really boost the power of the RN the Canberra class would allow the Royal Marines to operate much like the USMC providing its own airpower and being able to act in many cases without carrier cover. I do think however that buying the Canberra class and the aircraft to equip them would really make the RN overpowered for the UK and its needs. For instance it would be far more powerful than the 2 largest EU naval powers combined which while being nice to have would be hard to justify and cost a pretty penny. Although this would fit perfectly the idea of strategic raiding with 2 CVF equipped as proper carriers and 4 Canberra class vessels we would be a desired partner in most situations requiring amphibious capabilities and could do it on a reasonably grand scale. For anyone wondering “why the number 4?” the answer is pretty simple one to replace HMS Ocean another to replace RFA Argus another to replace HMS Ark Royal in her secondary role and the final one is mainly to add numbers and capability.
Next up and maybe the most realistic part of this ramble is the future surface combatant fleet which is in the process of being replaced. The current plans are for 6 Type 45 destroyers which just about anyone who has an interest in the maritime domain acknowledged this is not enough. I would advocate an additional 6 Batch Type 45’s in an ideal world if we were following the Option 2 line of thinking these would be needed to protect our larger naval force. The majority of the surface fleet including Frigates down to mine hunters is covered by the FSC program which advocates 3 different hulls. http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/RDS_Brunton_Feb09.pdf The C3 platform is not strictly part of the FSC program but I will include. Starting off with the C1 the simplest option would be a derivative of the Type 45 destroyer hull which would be cheaper to support in the long run and is a proven low risk design. The C2 which is perhaps the hardest to pin down what it should be but I think the Absalon class or a derivative would be the best way to go as it is a capable proven platform available at extremely low cost. There is also a possibility of using the Absalon derivative the Ivar Huitfeldt class as the C1 but it need the same redesign work as the T45 hull but should be cheaper than a T45 derivative. 12 is the number of hulls I would like to see in each class and this would give a total of 36 Surface Combatant’s 4 more than was laid out in the 1998 SDR if memory serves.
The C3 design is perhaps open to the most interpretation and option as it is meant to replace a wide variety of vessels from small 500 ton mine hunters to the current leased River Class patrol vessels at 1,500 tons. Therefore the C3 proposal could be anywhere from a small vessel focusing on mine warfare or a much larger global corvette as It was once meant to be, although what must be taken into account is the evolving mine hunting equipment which is moving away from dedicated ships and systems. I personally would lean towards the larger vessel as steel is the cheapest part of a vessel and a larger vessel would be able to fulfil the Global Corvette concept, the idea being that almost all standing commitments could be assigned a C3 rather than a much more expensive destroyer or frigate. BMT designed the Venator concept specifically for the role and has some very interesting studies to detail why it is what it is; I think they are worth reading. Basically the C3 in my opinion should be along the lines of the Venator and my choice would be the VT C3 proposal which is based on the Project Khareef for Oman. The VT C3 proposal is based on a slight stretch of the hull and is very low risk and a proven design available in the UK for a reasonable price and could be a success on the export market. The question of hull numbers again is something that is subjective and in this case I would place the number at 28 to replace current assets one for one as well as a slight increase in numbers. I would also suggest building extra hulls for the suggested paramilitary coastguard and hopefully with the large production runs some could be bought on the export market.
Well I think I should give the keyboard a rest now and hopefully there are some comments forthcoming, if you want sources for how I worked the rough prices just ask same if you would like to know about the BMT studies. Thanks for reading.
“I’m thinking strategic raid as in a few weeks maybe a month or so to push inland accomplishing objectives. I’m not thinking a 48hr dash inland and back in time for tea and medals.”
Well, I was thinking 48hours, maybe a week tops.
Missile strike to break enemy command and control capability and airforce.
Land an “in force” raiding party with a view to provoking an engagement with now badly controlled enemy forces, win said engagement.
See if you can provoke anyone else to reveal themselves to your temporarily overpowering force.
Bugger off before the enemy can get its act togther and deploy properly since it outnumbers you at least 10 to 1 and could quite possibly get to 100 to 1 once its called back its reserves.
The landed troops are to provoke the enemy into revealing itself to our naval artilery by looking showey, rather than to accomplish much on its own.
3 or 4 days after the war starts, we have proven we can blow up any target in the country, we have proven we can deploy a brigade level force that can overcome anything in the area with minimal losses, and we have proven we can do this all over again, and again, and again.
Or we could sit back down and have a nice chat about how you will be paying us lots of money for the inconvenience and how you will not be sponsoring terrorists anymore.
As an aside
How did we supply our ground forces in the Falklands War?
I was under the impression it was done with the well deck landing craft and helicopters.
Ah! You are thinking along the lines of a quick hit and run to provoke any enemy into a reaction that would expose their ground forces or air force to allow your air power to eliminate them. Sound idea and simple to pull off and it would really be a small raid as even with all the assets we could gather the chances are we could only land a few dozen vehicles at a time and would need several waves. I was thinking along the lines of a few hundred vehicles and thousands of men which would take a while to build up and put the logistics in place, more an invasion than a raid. Rather than do a short raid and be home in time for tea and medals and persuade them to sign the dotted line I would rather push inland capture the capital then get them to sign on the dotted line and then stay a while for tea and medals, I accept this is not really a raid. To simplify I think your thinking commando raids and I am thinking D-Day or Blitzkrieg from the sea totally different ideas really and both have pro’s and con’s.
The Falklands was a totally different scenario than a strategic raid on an enemy country, for one it was an infantry war rather than a mechanized war. The UK forces that landed were also Royal Marines and Para’s both are trained to fight with very little support and done so, they could live off the land and knew the terrain and climate. We also had the support of the populous that provided shelter, food and other supplies Oh! They also did not want to try and kill us. Many of the supplies they did need such as ammunition and food are high density supplies that could be flown in by support helicopter furthermore there was comparatively little heavy equipment used. Doing a strategic raid would mainly be a mechanized affair so would require vast amounts of fuel, ammunition which would be heavy not nice lightweight high density rifle or machine gun rounds and spare parts for vehicles would also be needed. Yes ammunition and spare parts could be flown into where they would be needed but they would be in smaller amounts and for a large force that would eat into the flight hours available. Helicopters I would task with CASEVAC, command and control, Special Forces work and moving troops around such as flying in patrols or reinforcing key locations. Fuel would be the headache as you would need to land supply tankers and then supply the tankers somehow, ideally you would do this via a small tanker in a port or by setting up a fuel point on land and pump the fuel ashore both of these would take time.
Sort of ideas on what a “raiding force” would comprise of.
The Composition of the Naval Force
SSGN – 100 missiles
Arsenal Ships – 1000 missiles
Aircraft Carrier – 4 AEW, 36 Sea Harrier and lots of UAV’s
6 Landing Ships – Carrying 12 Merlins, 24 RoRo landing ships, 40 Heavy vehicles, 72 light vehicles 600 Royal Engineers and kit
4 Assault Ships – Carrying 40 Merlins, 16 Apaches, 3200 Royal Marines
6 Type 45 Destroyers
6 Type 45 hulls optimised for submarine and ship destroyer roles.
The Composition of the Landed Force.
36 Challenger 2 Tanks
24 AS90 Self Propelled Guns
72 Light Tanks under 5 tons for Merlinable transport
3200 Helicopter Deployable Royal Marine Commandos
600 Royal Engineers, Mechanical, Pioneer and other logistics personnel
The Composition of the Air Force
36 Sea Harriers
4 AEW
16 Apache Gunships
52 Merlins
UAV’s – hundreds
If a mission cant be done by that force in 6 weeks plus travel time, then the UK doesnt do it.
A possible option 2 with no additional resources would be 2 carrier groups and 2 amphip group. The carrier groups with a CVF, 2 Type 45′s, and 4 Frigates. The amphip groups would require a life extension on the ARK ROYAL to a LPH role with each group having 1 LPH, 1 ALBION, 2 BAYS, 1 FORT class plus escorts. This would have 1 carrier and 1 amphip group always avaiable and the amphip group would be second only to a USMC MEU and combined with the carrier group allow for raiding capabilities against most possible advesaries.
Hey Steve that is a very sensible comment but would still need more escorts than what is currently planned, we have 6 Type 45’s and the plans are for 8 of each C1 and C2 class ships. I don’t think anyone will be too surprised if those numbers are cut further as we are apparently no longer an Island Nation so no longer need naval forces. The UK especially needs decent AAW capabilities thanks to the half arsed carriers and aircraft complement. More of any future air threat will have to be dealt with by T45 destroyers which is a problem as we lack numbers to do the job adequately.