Why the UK's defence cuts mean the frigates being built by Scottish shipyards are more vital than ever

Professor Trevor Taylor, director of the defence, industries and society programme and a professorial fellow in defence management at the Royal United Services Institute think tank, said that at a time when the global security picture is increasingly fraught, the sooner that new Type 26 and Type 31 classes are brought into service, the better.

It comes amid scrutiny of the Royal Navy’s capability in the wake of widespread cuts announced by the UK government, a move that some critics warn could impact national security. On Thursday, John Healey, the defence secretary, announced that warships, helicopters and drones are among six defence schemes that are being decommissioned early in order to save £500 million over the next five years.

Stewart McDonald, the former SNP MP, who was a member of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee and served as his party's defence spokesman, has questioned the timing of the cuts given the global situation and the incoming Trump administration in Washington.

The equipment targeted includes two amphibious assault ships, HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, the Type 23 frigate, HMS Northumberland, and two tankers, RFA Wave Knight and RFA Wave Ruler. Mr Healey said that Britain’s military had been wrestling for too long with “old, outdated equipment” because ministers had not made “difficult” decommissioning decisions, and stressed that the country had to “move faster” towards the future amidst rapid technological advances.

However, there are concerns at the impact of the decision on Britain’s capabilities, especially at a time when the war in Ukraine continues to rage, with growing threats around the globe. The Conservative shadow defence secretary, James Cartlidge, accused Labour of “scrapping key defence capabilities and weakening our national security,” while Dr Andrew Murrison, the Tory MP and former Royal Navy doctor, argued the cuts would result in the loss of “significant lines of contingent capability.”

Much of the acrimony centres around the decommissioning of Albion and Bulwark, which were due to remain in service until 2033 and 2034 respectively. However, Mr Healey stressed the landships had been “effectively retired” by the previous Conservative administration, and that culling their lifespan early would realise a saving of £9m a year.

Prof Taylor told The Scotsman that there were reasons why the ships had been targeted in the savings drive, given the changing nature of maritime militarisation.

“With the sophistication of defences against surface ships and the capacity for surveillance, the prospects of being able to land soldiers from specialist ships against high capability opponents would be a highly risky choice,” he explained. “The utility of landing ships in amphibious operations has always been risky, but now it’s even more risky, and alongside that, there’s the condition of these ships, which are quite old.”

Prof Taylor, a former special adviser to the Commons Scottish Affairs Committee inquiry into military shipbuilding in Scotland, said Mr Healey’s announcement would likely concentrate minds in Scotstoun, where eight Type 26 frigates are expected to enter service between 2028 and the mid-2030s, as well as Rosyth.

“From a Scottish point of view, it’s clearly the case that the sooner the Type 26 and Type 31s can get into service, the better,” he added. “The workforces recognise the national importance of that.

“There are delivery dates, and there is what the contract says, and what is physically possible - if they could be delivered at all early, it would be highly desirable. The construction seems to be proceeding pretty well, as far as I can tell. Certainly, the more of these ships we can get into service the quicker the better, given the threat environment.”

However, Prof Taylor said that at a time when the government would come under significant pressure to increase defence spending, he did not anticipate any major uplifts around Trident, which “already swallows a lot of money,” explaining: “There are wider issues around investment in surface ships and the need to protect carriers if they are deployed implies a significant degree of investment in specialist ships.”

Mr Mcdonald told The Scotsman the announcements by Mr Healey - in the middle of a strategic defence review (SDR) - could be premature.

He said: “If the SDR is to be genuinely comprehensive and mark a positive shift in the UK's defence posture, then one would have thought announcements like this would be unlikely as that work is ongoing.

“The return of President Trump, and an increasingly bleak geopolitical outlook, means that Europe - the UK included - needs to upscale both its spending and capability, and so to announce a savings programme at this stage doesn't just send the wrong message but is a potential backward step overall.”

He added: “If the government wants the public, UK allies and, indeed, adversaries to believe it is taking today's geopolitical challenges seriously, the Chancellor should be outlining the path to spending 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence as a minimum, in fairly short order. That this hasn't yet happened is worrying.”

It comes as David Lammy, the foreign secretary, vowed to continue to “do everything that is necessary” to help Ukraine combat Russia after Vladimir Putin threatened strikes on the UK. The Russian president used a new ballistic missile against Ukraine on Thursday, with Mr Putin claiming the use of the weapon was in response to the UK and US allowing missiles they have supplied to Ukraine to be used to strike targets in Russia.

Following Russia's strike on Dnipro, Volodymyr Zelensky declared the use of a ballistic missile a "clear and severe escalation in the scale and brutality of this war.” Mr Healey said it was “yet another example of Putin's recklessness,” adding: “Since the illegal invasion of Ukraine began, Russia has consistently and irresponsibly escalated the conflict while Ukraine continues to fight in self-defence for a democratic future.”

The missile's range far outstrips that of newly authorised US and British-supplied weapons, which can hit targets around 250 to 300 kilometres away. The distance from Moscow to London is around 2,500 kilometres, suggesting the range of the new missile could threaten the UK.

Sir Keir Starmer’s government has promised a Strategic Defence Review (SDR) within its first year so as to determine the roles, capabilities and reforms required to meet the challenges and threats posed the world over. That is tied to long-term questions surrounding Labour’s goal of spending 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence, with no date set as to when that might be achieved.

It is a point that has been seized upon by some commentators, not least General Lord Dannatt the former head of the British Army, who said Mr Healey’s cuts raised numerous questions. The cost-saving reductions, he reasoned, might have seemed credible were they linked to a commitment to raise overall defence expenditure by a specified date, but any such pledge had been “glossed over” by references to the SDR.

“This review, like HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, looks dead in the water before it has even been completed,” he wrote in a letter to The Times on Friday. “With whichever blind eye ‘Admiral’ John Healey chooses to look through his telescope, he cannot fail to notice how dangerous the world is at present.

“If it is necessary to fire Storm Shadow missiles into Russia then surely it must be necessary for the government to commit itself to a level of defence expenditure commensurate with the threats to our security.”