Robert Clark is the Head of Defence at 878. Before this he served in the British military for 18 years, including frontline operational tours of Iraq and Afghanistan.
If most analysis of the condition of our Armed Forces is inevitably about the British Army, it was refreshing to see attention turning to the Royal Navy over Budget Week, with two centre-right think tank papers out in rapid succession.
Let’s begin with ours, at 878. Featured in The Times last week, our new briefing The Condition of the Royal Navy & the Threat to Britain Briefing 1. The Submarine Fleet is the first in our Royal Navy series.
Our navy has suffered a severe but needless decline in its capacities, with falls in overall mass as well as readiness, but the submarine fleet shows the worst vulnerabilities. This has created unique threats to Britain’s security. This decline has been allowed to happen as Russia’s submarines, warships and shadow fleet are increasing operations off Britain’s coast, and Royal Navy operations to monitor Russian activity had to increase 25 percent in July alone.
Ministers have confirmed that Moscow had been using “commercial proxies” to threaten our undersea infrastructure, with recent analysis finding 500 incidents of Russian civilian vessels loitering over undersea cables, demonstrating how Russia deploys trawlers for spying. Yet Britain’s frigate and destroyer fleets are aging, deployability is low, and the navy’s transition to “Hybrid Navy” automation is of questionable utility.
What about our subs?
First, the Astute class. These subs’ main roles are anti-submarine warfare and protecting the nuclear-armed Vanguard class. Despite maintaining a fleet of five vessels, reports show not one Astute-class submarine was operationally deployed in summer 2026, with all five laid-up in British harbours. This means a lack of escorts for Britain’s nuclear deterrent.
Next, the Vanguard class. Because they carry the deterrent, HM Government rightly does not comment on these subs’ deployment. But it is widely believed that the fleet has been in bad shape for some time. Deployment length has risen dramatically, straining vessels and men.
Meanwhile, the Royal Navy is about to begin demanding parallel submarine build-programmes, including four Dreadnoughts, the replacement for Vanguard, and the new subs for the AUKUS (Australia-UK-US) project, through the 2030s. Given the glacial speed of Navy shipbuilding and a workforce deficit of thousands of engineers, Britain now risks being the weak link in the partnership, worrying Australia and the US.
As our briefing makes clear, HMG needs to begin by urgently increasing resources for the failing Astute-class. The Russian threat is growing and Britain risks seeing the “sovereign” nuclear deterrent become dependent on friendly navies’ escorts. The Government should also commit to the Defence Investment Plan’s maximum recommendation for twelve SSN-AUKUS subs. Our submarines are the last line of defence, and cannot fail.
The other paper out this week is worth mentioning for different reasons. We commend our friends at the Prosperity Institute (PI) for trying their hand at navy analysis – the more awareness of the problems, the better. But their proposal that the Government should pay for it by effectively destroying the British Army is irresponsible.
In a strange turn of events, Reform UK’s policy chief Danny Kruger even put his name to Reclaiming the Waves: A Maritime-First Defence Strategy for Britain’s National Interests, which proposed shrinking the British Army by fifty percent to only one Division, at a time when both Labour and the Conservatives have pledged to increase the British Army. We must assume he misunderstood, because even suggesting this is harmful.
To reduce the British Army to a single fully-funded division displays a lack of understanding of the British military. The logic is that it is better to resource a single war-fighting division – 3 UK Division – than to continue pouring money down the MOD sinkhole.
However, what this paper did not grasp was that a single Army division would only entail roughly 30,000 soldiers. We currently have just shy of 70,000. The other division, 1 UK Div, is needed for a wholly separate function, integral to national security.
1 UK Div is the British Army’s Global Response and Light Forces Division, for agile crisis response and high-readiness operations. While 3 UK Div provides a heavy, tracked armoured division designed for high-intensity warfare expeditionary, 1 UK Div allows rapid manoeuvre, lighter forces and operations in varied environments. This is crucial for NATO in Europe.
For his part, in East Wiltshire Mr Kruger represents the most garrisoned constituency in the land.
The proposal would be a gift to our adversaries, especially Russia, effectively ending the British Army’s ability to lead the Allied Response Force. It is still possible that Reform UK will be in Government in some way in the next few years.
To be fair, the boys at PI seem simply not to have properly considered their suggestion. In the hours after the paper’s release, they claimed they were merely starting a “conversation” about “trade-offs”. They started the wrong one. The question should not be trade-offs within the military – robbing the Army to pay for the Navy – which is called declinism. It should be about cutting the welfare budget to fund all defence. So get your papers peer-reviewed if you don’t know your ground.
The signal this gives to our adversaries is serious. This is not a game.
Robert Clark is the Head of Defence at 878. Before this he served in the British military for 18 years, including frontline operational tours of Iraq and Afghanistan.
If most analysis of the condition of our Armed Forces is inevitably about the British Army, it was refreshing to see attention turning to the Royal Navy over Budget Week, with two centre-right think tank papers out in rapid succession.
Let’s begin with ours, at 878. Featured in The Times last week, our new briefing The Condition of the Royal Navy & the Threat to Britain Briefing 1. The Submarine Fleet is the first in our Royal Navy series.
Our navy has suffered a severe but needless decline in its capacities, with falls in overall mass as well as readiness, but the submarine fleet shows the worst vulnerabilities. This has created unique threats to Britain’s security. This decline has been allowed to happen as Russia’s submarines, warships and shadow fleet are increasing operations off Britain’s coast, and Royal Navy operations to monitor Russian activity had to increase 25 percent in July alone.
Ministers have confirmed that Moscow had been using “commercial proxies” to threaten our undersea infrastructure, with recent analysis finding 500 incidents of Russian civilian vessels loitering over undersea cables, demonstrating how Russia deploys trawlers for spying. Yet Britain’s frigate and destroyer fleets are aging, deployability is low, and the navy’s transition to “Hybrid Navy” automation is of questionable utility.
What about our subs?
First, the Astute class. These subs’ main roles are anti-submarine warfare and protecting the nuclear-armed Vanguard class. Despite maintaining a fleet of five vessels, reports show not one Astute-class submarine was operationally deployed in summer 2026, with all five laid-up in British harbours. This means a lack of escorts for Britain’s nuclear deterrent.
Next, the Vanguard class. Because they carry the deterrent, HM Government rightly does not comment on these subs’ deployment. But it is widely believed that the fleet has been in bad shape for some time. Deployment length has risen dramatically, straining vessels and men.
Meanwhile, the Royal Navy is about to begin demanding parallel submarine build-programmes, including four Dreadnoughts, the replacement for Vanguard, and the new subs for the AUKUS (Australia-UK-US) project, through the 2030s. Given the glacial speed of Navy shipbuilding and a workforce deficit of thousands of engineers, Britain now risks being the weak link in the partnership, worrying Australia and the US.
As our briefing makes clear, HMG needs to begin by urgently increasing resources for the failing Astute-class. The Russian threat is growing and Britain risks seeing the “sovereign” nuclear deterrent become dependent on friendly navies’ escorts. The Government should also commit to the Defence Investment Plan’s maximum recommendation for twelve SSN-AUKUS subs. Our submarines are the last line of defence, and cannot fail.
The other paper out this week is worth mentioning for different reasons. We commend our friends at the Prosperity Institute (PI) for trying their hand at navy analysis – the more awareness of the problems, the better. But their proposal that the Government should pay for it by effectively destroying the British Army is irresponsible.
In a strange turn of events, Reform UK’s policy chief Danny Kruger even put his name to Reclaiming the Waves: A Maritime-First Defence Strategy for Britain’s National Interests, which proposed shrinking the British Army by fifty percent to only one Division, at a time when both Labour and the Conservatives have pledged to increase the British Army. We must assume he misunderstood, because even suggesting this is harmful.
To reduce the British Army to a single fully-funded division displays a lack of understanding of the British military. The logic is that it is better to resource a single war-fighting division – 3 UK Division – than to continue pouring money down the MOD sinkhole.
However, what this paper did not grasp was that a single Army division would only entail roughly 30,000 soldiers. We currently have just shy of 70,000. The other division, 1 UK Div, is needed for a wholly separate function, integral to national security.
1 UK Div is the British Army’s Global Response and Light Forces Division, for agile crisis response and high-readiness operations. While 3 UK Div provides a heavy, tracked armoured division designed for high-intensity warfare expeditionary, 1 UK Div allows rapid manoeuvre, lighter forces and operations in varied environments. This is crucial for NATO in Europe.
For his part, in East Wiltshire Mr Kruger represents the most garrisoned constituency in the land.
The proposal would be a gift to our adversaries, especially Russia, effectively ending the British Army’s ability to lead the Allied Response Force. It is still possible that Reform UK will be in Government in some way in the next few years.
To be fair, the boys at PI seem simply not to have properly considered their suggestion. In the hours after the paper’s release, they claimed they were merely starting a “conversation” about “trade-offs”. They started the wrong one. The question should not be trade-offs within the military – robbing the Army to pay for the Navy – which is called declinism. It should be about cutting the welfare budget to fund all defence. So get your papers peer-reviewed if you don’t know your ground.
The signal this gives to our adversaries is serious. This is not a game.