The Future of the Royal Navy and the 'Hybrid Navy' Initiative - News, Platforms, Development and Speculation

MihoshiK said:
Build knowledge is not the problem for the Brits, it's funding. It's allways about the money. Or lack thereof.
Click to expand...
To the extent that your counterintelligence agencies (MI5 is internal, right?) should probably be doing a deep sweep of Treasury for foreign agents.
 
Scott Kenny said:
To the extent that your counterintelligence agencies (MI5 is internal, right?) should probably be doing a deep sweep of Treasury for foreign agents.
Click to expand...
I dearly hope this is tongue-in-cheek.
The Treasury acts at the elected government's bidding. If you want to blame anyone, blame the electorate.
 
I was under the impression that the MoD’s pretty decisive call to drop T83 for T9X and CCV meant they’d complete the part of design work. Turns out they’re only just getting started with testing?
 
Reuben James said:
Good point lol. Bit of a lead time on those new ASW frigates, though ;)
Click to expand...
The problem is that we're learning new things (thanks russia!), and as a result there's redesign being done, right before build work was supposed to start.
Sucks from an availability point of view, but I'd rather we incorporate the lessons being learnt right now than not. World's changing and all.
 
The head of His Majesty's Treasury, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, is a member of the British Cabinet.
All of the commissioners in charge of the Treasury, including the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, are part of the government. As far as I am aware, all are Members of Parliament.
 
Arjen said:
The head of His Majesty's Treasury, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, is a member of the British Cabinet.
All of the commissioners in charge of the Treasury, including the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, are part of the government. As far as I am aware, all are Members of Parliament.
Click to expand...
Treasury tells the rest of HMGovernment how much they can spend.

How many conversations on this very site can be summed up as "Defense wanted to buy X, and Treasury told them they could not afford something that expensive"? How many more conversations could be summed up as "Treasury demanded a cheaper solution or would not release funds at all"?

It is my understanding of the UK government that even if Parliament passed a special tax to pay for something, Treasury can still refuse to release the funds to pay for it.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Treasury tells the rest of HMGovernment how much they can spend.
Click to expand...
The Treasury steps in if any of the UK Ministries attempt to spend more than what has been allocated to them by the Cabinet as a whole beforehand.
Scott Kenny said:
Defense wanted to buy X, and Treasury told them they could not afford something that expensive
Click to expand...
Because funds were allocated by the Cabinet for other purposes: nix project / raise taxes / increase debt / cut elsewhere to compensate. Choose.
The Cabinet stays in place as long as Parliament allows it to. Ask Liz Truss. Ask Kwasi Kwarteng.
 
Last edited:
I suspect it'll be a Type 6x command frigate in spirit, but I desperately want it to be a Destroyer
 
Would buying CEAFAR gradually wipe out the UK’s home‑grown AESA radar development capacity for good?
 
zen said:
Well UK now has ....if memory serves.....Thales, SAAB UK, BAE Systems, Selex and CEA.

A healthy competition.
Click to expand...
CEA is Australian, if i understand correctly CEA technologies will work with Qinetiq in "something", but there's (at least not yet) no program of record for buying anything for the UK MOD.
The name "Selex" was droped a decade ago, its now called Leonardo.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
zww11455 said:
Would buying CEAFAR gradually wipe out the UK’s home‑grown AESA radar development capacity for good?
Click to expand...
No.
CEA products are not used on things that fly. Its not a direct competitor to Leonardo Edinburgh.
BAE might not like...

Cheers
 
Sintra said:
No.
CEA products are not used on things that fly. Its not a direct competitor to Leonardo Edinburgh.
BAE might not like...

Cheers
Click to expand...
It looks like it's more likely to be related to their land based battlefield radar in the context of SERPENS rather than naval applications, so BAE can rest easy for now.
 
https://www.navylookout.com/inside-the-royal-navys-new-mine-warfare-mothership-programme/

The RN’s autonom[o]us mine hunting systems will be deployed on board up to three new Offshore Support Vessels (OSV) or ‘motherships’ procured in partnership with Norway.

At the Combined Naval Event in 2025, officials described plans for three minimally modified commercial-design Offshore Support Vessels (OSVs), each able to host a complete mission system. The indicative package then comprised a toolkit of at least three USVs, UUVs and associated command-and-control equipment.

So,
Space rather than sophisticated warship characteristics is consequently one of the defining requirements. Earlier RN development work indicated the need for at least 1,000 square metres of working deck (The RN’s first MCM mothership, HMS Stirling Castle, has a working deck of about 600 sq m). The large open deck will have to accommodate not just existing equipment but have the space and flexibility to host future systems as they evolve.

This is an important distinction from some European MCM mothership programmes like the Belgian-Dutch rMCM ships designed as an integrated mine warfare system based around two USVs carried in dedicated bays. The RN preference has increasingly been for something closer to a floating workshop, transport and command platform with considerable spare volume and deck area.

This might be seen in the context of the British planning to have the 90-series drones already at sea and the RN minehunters might also be versatile ships able to service them or exchange specialised modules at sea - most of the models and renders of the Type 91 and 92 from various companies show containers on their decks.
 

Attachments

  • HIs6OajXEAAEHmD.jpeg
    HIs6OajXEAAEHmD.jpeg
    2.6 MB · Views: 17
  • Screenshot 2026-08-13 at 12.59.34 PM.png
    Screenshot 2026-08-13 at 12.59.34 PM.png
    975.8 KB · Views: 13
  • Navantia-LASV-4-scaled.jpg
    Navantia-LASV-4-scaled.jpg
    348.8 KB · Views: 14
Last edited:
zww11455 said:
I am concerned that this may compromise the sovereignty of UK's shipborne radar capabilities.
Click to expand...

Anything can and might be possible but... I am not seeing the UK MOD killing BAE's radar development capabilities by ordering Aussie kit for the CCV/Type 94.
I could see the RN doing a "German" (AKA buying AEGIS) f there were serious doubts on the ability of the British Industry to deliver competitive systems but i really dont believe that.
 
Last edited:
There's a section of the DIP labelled 'Spending on the Space Domain, which specifically mentions (and provides funding for) working with Australia and the US to develop a global radar network. Might be related to that.
 
TorpedoJ said:
It looks like it's more likely to be related to their land based battlefield radar in the context of SERPENS rather than naval applications, so BAE can rest easy for now.
Click to expand...
The truth is, is that the UK don't have anything like CEAFAR. BAE is promising a lot, but they only have words. CEA have an actual product that can deliver for the UK on the ground and on the sea
 
Sintra said:
Anything can and might be possible but... I am not seeing the UK MOD killing BAE's radar development capabilities by ordering Aussie kit for the CCV/Type 94.
I could see the RN doing a "German" (AKA buying AEGIS) f there were serious doubts on the ability of the British Industry to deliver competitive systems but i really dont believe that.
Click to expand...
It's a good thing. If BAE want to be the sole sovereign producer of radar tech to the Royal Navy then they need to invest and pull their socks up. They can't expect the UK Gov to fund it for them.

There's such jubilation over this news, even the King is getting in on the excitement around the deal
CEAKING.jpg
 
Stellerfella said:
The truth is, is that the UK don't have anything like CEAFAR. BAE is promising a lot, but they only have words. CEA have an actual product that can deliver for the UK on the ground and on the sea
Click to expand...

CEAFAR and CEAFAR 2 development and production was entirely based on Australian MOD money. It might be a surprise to some but usually the development of very high end military radar systems is funded by public money. And if you believe that BAE (or Leonardo UK) cant build a competitive radar for CCV/Type 94 i have a wonderful bridge to sell...
 
Last edited:
Stellerfella said:
They can't expect the UK Gov to fund it for them.
Click to expand...

Because?
Last time i´ve checked the development of every radar linked to AEGIS starting on AN/SPY- 1 going to AN/SPY-7 was heavily funded by the Pentagon, APAR by the Dutch, German and Canadian MOD´s, Seafire by the French DGA, the Kronos family by the Italian Navy, Ceafar/Ceafar 2 by the Aussie one, etc, etc...
If you want a particular system with specific capabilities and have a preference for home grown development (and i really dont need to explain why the UK, or France, US, Australia, etc, might prefer to develop and produce their own high end military sensors, right?) you have to pay for it.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Stellerfella said:
It's a good thing. If BAE want to be the sole sovereign producer of radar tech to the Royal Navy then they need to invest and pull their socks up. They can't expect the UK Gov to fund it for them.

There's such jubilation over this news, even the King is getting in on the excitement around the deal
View attachment 820890
Click to expand...
I heard that BAE Systems is self-funding the development of the Artisan NG radar.
 
zww11455 said:
I heard that BAE Systems is self-funding the development of the Artisan NG radar.
Click to expand...
They are, and the NGTRM with all of its potential capability. The Cowes facility is being revived after a long time after SAMPSON not doing very much, and throwing them under the bus now would be silly.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Treasury tells the rest of HMGovernment how much they can spend.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that UK economy doesn't grow even in terms of GDP, while inflation is very much here, and population grows substantially.
Evel less spending discipline is ill adviced.
 
Sintra said:
CEAFAR and CEAFAR 2 development and production was entirely based on Australian MOD money. It might be a surprise to some but usually the development of very high end military radar systems is funded by public money. And if you believe that BAE (or Leonardo UK) cant build a competitive radar for CCV/Type 94 i have a wonderful bridge to sell...
Click to expand...
Well I do hate to burst a bubble old fruit... But no... Not entirely DoD (we have departments, not ministries)money. CEA invested private capital in its designs as well, especially the first iteration of CEAFAR. As a public company that until a few years ago had a large shareholder, a little known company called Northrop Grumman, invest in the technology. The L band radar did receive a hundred million bucks or so though from Aus DoD.

And I do believe that BAE can't build a competitive radar and even the Royal Navy agrees with me. Their hybrid navy concept pictures are decidedly CEA flavoured.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20260813-211006.png
    Screenshot_20260813-211006.png
    950.2 KB · Views: 7
  • Screenshot_20260813-211305.png
    Screenshot_20260813-211305.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 14
Sintra said:
Because?
Last time i´ve checked the development of every radar linked to AEGIS starting on AN/SPY- 1 going to AN/SPY-7 was heavily funded by the Pentagon, APAR by the Dutch, German and Canadian MOD´s, Seafire by the French DGA, the Kronos family by the Italian Navy, Ceafar/Ceafar 2 by the Aussie one, etc, etc...
If you want a particular system with specific capabilities and have a preference for home grown development (and i really dont need to explain why the UK, or France, US, Australia, etc, might prefer to develop and produce their own high end military sensors, right?) you have to pay for it.
Click to expand...
Coz you the UK is broke lol. And BAE is very much big enough to fund it themselves.
 
The other thing is that the DIP did not make a single mention of a programme to replace Sampson or Artisan, let alone provide funding for one. It does seem more and more likely that the MoD are offsetting submarines with radars.

I would have preferred an imported radar to have come from the US, but CEAFAR2 is fine as well. I just think, if we plan to outsource naval radars, than we probably should've gone all the way and just picked up Aegis, SPY-6, CEC and the Standards to work alongside the CAMM.
 
Reuben James said:
The other thing is that the DIP did not make a single mention of a programme to replace Sampson or Artisan, let alone provide funding for one. It does seem more and more likely that the MoD are offsetting submarines with radars.

I would have preferred an imported radar to have come from the US, but CEAFAR2 is fine as well. I just think, if we plan to outsource naval radars, than we probably should've gone all the way and just picked up Aegis, SPY-6, CEC and the Standards to work alongside the CAMM.
Click to expand...
CEAFAR2 is an excellent radar, and compatible with the Aegis CMS. Might even be better than SPY-6. Being a tri-band array it takes advantage of the strengths of those wavelengths.

A common misconception though is that this is some kind of offset. Britain is not building submarines for Australia. Australia and the UK are building their own Aukus boats. And we've helped to finish off and co-develop SSN-AUKUS to make a boat that fits both our requirements. Hopefully it's better than Virginia's.
Reuben James said:
I mean, even BAE's various renders showed one common thread: distinctly Australian radar arrays.

View attachment 820913
View attachment 820914

Ironically, one of those images is pulled from this article.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/starmer-insists-no-delays-to-type-83-destroyer/
Click to expand...
The first one definitely did. That last concept from BAE with the ugliest mast ever drawn seems to have a more European radar look.

In the end we will see what transpires.
 
Stellerfella said:
CEAFAR2 is an excellent radar, and compatible with the Aegis CMS. Might even be better than SPY-6. Being a tri-band array it takes advantage of the strengths of those wavelengths.

A common misconception though is that this is some kind of offset. Britain is not building submarines for Australia. Australia and the UK are building their own Aukus boats. And we've helped to finish off and co-develop SSN-AUKUS to make a boat that fits both our requirements. Hopefully it's better than Virginia's.

The first one definitely did. That last concept from BAE with the ugliest mast ever drawn seems to have a more European radar look.

In the end we will see what transpires.
Click to expand...
I'm sure CEAFAR2 is great, though I doubt it's objectively superior to the SPY-6. My point was less one of individual capability though, amd more of the ecosystem being bought into. I'm confident that SPY-6 will be well-supported, receive regular improvements, and be operated on a large number of platforms. Purchasing from the US offers a level of stability in product support (not political support) that'll go a long way.

The Australians are building their own boats, but there is a significant amount of British export material and services. The reactors and the sensors are the two that spring to mind immediately, that'll likely be constructed in the UK and shipped over to Australia. Then, there's the contributions to the SRF-W and the use of HMAS Stirling offered to the UK.

I mean, the second BAE concept only requires rotating each panel 45 degrees and you'll essentially have a CEAFAR2-esque design. Either way, I don't think the UK has been moving to quickly on future radar, even if the pieces are all technically there to get started.
 
Reuben James said:
I'm sure CEAFAR2 is great, though I doubt it's objectively superior to the SPY-6. My point was less one of individual capability though, amd more of the ecosystem being bought into. I'm confident that SPY-6 will be well-supported, receive regular improvements, and be operated on a large number of platforms. Purchasing from the US offers a level of stability in product support (not political support) that'll go a long way.

The Australians are building their own boats, but there is a significant amount of British export material and services. The reactors and the sensors are the two that spring to mind immediately, that'll likely be constructed in the UK and shipped over to Australia. Then, there's the contributions to the SRF-W and the use of HMAS Stirling offered to the UK.

I mean, the second BAE concept only requires rotating each panel 45 degrees and you'll essentially have a CEAFAR2-esque design. Either way, I don't think the UK has been moving to quickly on future radar, even if the pieces are all technically there to get started.
Click to expand...
I would definitely prefer CEAFAR 2 to an American system, it's the least bad radar to import. It is absolutely incredible, however, that Sweden with 15% of our population and 13% of our defence budget or Australia with 40% and 60% respectively can develop naval radar systems happily but it is 'too expensive' for Britain to do so.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom