In this article we look back at a difficult year for the RN, summarising the key events, achievements and issues for the Naval Service in 2024.
Shifting geopolitical realities
Russia continues to be the most dangerous adversary, and the war in Ukraine has continued unabated. At a terrible cost in casualties, Putin’s forces are making small territorial gains in the Donbas, but Ukraine managed to seize part of the Kursk region in a stunning campaign. Broadly, the war is a bloody stalemate that has substantially damaged Russia’s economy, military strength, and global influence. Ukraine has also suffered huge casualties and its war-weary population and troops are also struggling to hold on, having never received the decisive scale of military aid that NATO could supply.
Putin’s desperation makes for an increasingly dangerous situation and drives an increase in ‘deniable’ attacks on NATO with the sabotage of undersea infrastructure and other terrorist or subversive attacks against nations supporting Ukraine. While most Russian conventional forces are in a worsening state, its submarine and seabed warfare capabilities are the exception and pose a particular threat to NATO.
The much-changed strategic balance in the Middle East seems, for now at least, to be broadly in the UK’s favour with the malign influence of Iran weakened by the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria and the near-destruction of its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas in Lebanon and Gaza, respectively. However, the multinational fight against the Houthis in the Red Sea continues. Their ability to threaten merchant shipping remains and traffic using the Suez Canal route has diminished by more than 50% in 2024, a situation that a much stronger USN and RN would never have tolerated if this had been the case in the early 2000s.
The RN contributed to the Red Sea mission from late 2023 to April 2024 with the fine deployments of HMS Diamond and HMS Richmond. Unfortunately, the lack of fleet depth saw the UK simply abandon the fight. The only available relief, HMS Duncan never entered the Red Sea as planned, instead operations in the Mediterranean were the higher priority in the second half of the year.
Despite their economic problems, there has been no let-up in China’s massive military build-up. Besides launching many other combatants, the PLAN began sea trials of its third aircraft carrier (conventional, EMALS-equipped), and is on track to become a dominant blue-water navy in the early 2030s with at least 435 major vessels. Mirroring the RN but on a larger scale, the USN is struggling with a ‘perfect storm’ of ageing vessels, an inability to deliver effective new warships, infrastructure, and recruitment issues. The AUKUS pact as a buffer against Chinese dominance makes great strategic sense, but despite its ambition, may deliver too little too late. HMS Prince of Wales will visit Australia next year, but the CSG25 deployment will require the best part of the RN’s available fleet as well as support from allies.
Fears realised
In the review of the RN in 2023, we highlighted three areas of growing concern: personnel, declining hull numbers/availability and a lack of pace in the delivery of new capabilities to the frontline. The inability to address these issues resulted in very negative consequences in 2024, perhaps even worse than we might have predicted. While recruitment has improved this year, outflow is still too high. The loss of skilled people is profoundly corrosive and is the single biggest factor contributing to the sharp decline in output.
In May 2024, it was officially confirmed that HMS Westminster and HMS Argyll would be retired, reducing the total number of active frigates to nine. In August (as we predicted) severe structural problems were found in HMS Northumberland and in November, it was announced that she was beyond economical repair, further reducing the frigate fleet to eight.
RN SSN activity was notably low in 2024, with the five Astute-class submarines managing only about 90 days at sea combined in the first half of the year. There were several periods when there were no SSNs at sea at all. The situation improved slightly towards the end of the year and there are signs that 2 out of the 5 will be routinely active in 2025. The reputation of the Submarine Service as a whole took another battering with further stories of sexual abuse and appalling behaviour enabled by a few bad leaders emerging into the media. The First Sea Lord had the courage to make a personal apology to one victim and has vowed to raise standards.
HMS Vanguard finally regenerated back into the fleet but the failure of a Trident missile during a test launch did not make for good headlines. (The issue was actually event-specific relating to telemetry equipment and not a cause for wider concern about Trident’s wider reliability). CASD has been maintained but as the boats are ageing this has only been sustained by conducting very long patrols, up to 6 months in some recent cases. This is a very unhealthy situation, putting undue stress on boats and crews.
The new government also confirmed what had been suspected for some time, that the two LPDs HMS Albion and Bulwark, would be axed, primarily due to the relatively high crew requirement. While some see the LPDs as vulnerable and outdated, the immediate consequence is that RN amphibious capability is drastically reduced, and the Littoral Response Group concept (North and South) is pretty incoherent and hollowed out. It also slightly undermines the MRSS program as it is always harder to argue for replacements for ships that you are already ‘managing without’.
The shocking decline in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary has accelerated this year. For around just £30M per year, RFA pay could be made competitive with commercial equivalents. Rather than find this relatively small sum, incremental pay increases and tinkering with terms of service are all that have been offered. The damage to RN capability is out of all proportion to the money involved. Both Wave-class tankers are going to be disposed of and by the end of 2024, the RFA can find crews for just 5 of its 11 remaining ships.
Harland and Wolff, a key future supplier to the RN endured a very turbulent year. The coherent vision for the company presented by its former CEO, Jon Wood could not be realised. Boris Johnson had made promises of Treasury support to underwrite investment, but the new government refused to provide a £200M loan guarantee. At the end of the year, it was confirmed that Spanish-owned giant Navantia had bought the company, primarily to ensure that it keeps hold of the £1.6Bn contract for the 3 Fleet Solid Support ships. Details of the deal have not been made public and whether this represents good value for the taxpayer in the long run or a sustainable future for the 4 yards remains to be seen.
Unless the RFA can rebuild its workforce in the very near future there could be no crews for the FSS upon which so much money and effort has been invested. Perhaps the main reason RFA Fort Victoria, laid up in Birkenhead, has not been axed is that the RFA will need a sea-going platform to train a future generation of sailors how to perform heavy jackstay transfers (replenishment of solid stores at sea). This is a complex evolution and a perishing skill that needs to be exercised regularly. The number of people left in the RFA (and RN) who have actually performed a heavy jackstay transfer must be rapidly diminishing.
Doing less with less
The RN still achieved some considerable successes this year. In January HMS Diamond shot down 7 drones in a single action and in April she became the first RN warship to shoot down a (medium-range) ballistic missile during combat in the Red Sea. HMS Richmond followed with the first kills for the Sea Ceptor missile, destroying two attack drones. Lessons from these engagements were disseminated quickly and software changes were applied to the Sea Ceptor system fleet-wide within days.
The value of having two carriers was demonstrated in February when HMS Queen Elizabeth was withdrawn from NATO exercise Steadfast Defender at the very last minute as a precaution following corrosion discovered on a shaft coupling. The UK’s maritime contribution to NATO is a high priority and in a remarkable achievement, HMS Prince of Wales was brought to readiness and sailed as the replacement flagship just 8 days later.
HMS Prince of Wales participated in Exercise Strike Warrior in October, the first big step in preparing to take over as the fleet flagship and lead the CSG25 deployment. The duration and scale of this exercise was relatively modest and a total of eight 809 NAS F-35s joined for the exercise, still far short of the 24 jets (2 squadrons) expected to participate in at least part of the CSG25. The Lightning Force continues to be hampered by a lack of spares, trained aircrew and engineers, together with an inability to focus purely on naval aviation due to other taskings.
The Littoral Response Group (South) finally conducted its maiden deployment in 2024. RFA Argus and RFA Lyme Bay, together with Royal Marines of 40 Cdo and three Merlin Mk4 aircraft, sailed in October 2023 but ships remained in the Mediterranean for several months before heading East of Suez. They underwent maintenance in an Indian Shipyard and then went to Singapore and Australia. Argus returned home in August but RFA Lyme Bay visited ports in West Africa, finally arriving in Gibraltar in December having sailed 40,458 nautical miles during an epic 414-day deployment. The group demonstrated a useful capability and conducted valuable training and defence diplomacy work but lacking escorts, would have had to integrate into an allied formation in the event of a real conflict.
Other positives for the RN during the year were the continuing achievements of the five Batch II OPVs deployed around the globe delivering a soft power impact for the UK disproportionate to their running cost. On the procurement front, there was positive progress with the Dragonfire LDEW which will be operationalised. The Peregrine RWUAS finally went to sea on HMS Lancaster and the much-delayed Sea Venom light anti-ship missile was successfully test-fired from a Wildcat helicopter. The Type 26 frigate programme is now in full swing with HMS Glasgow expected to begin initial sea trials in 2026. The third Type 31 frigate has been laid down, although neither the RN or Babcock will clarify whether first-of-class, HMS Venturer is now behind schedule or not.
The bald statistics are not encouraging, in 2024 no new vessels were ordered or commissioned while 9 vessels went out of service. The RN and RFA combined now comprise a total of about 54 ships and submarines (P2000 boats should not be counted in the RN ORBAT). Depending on how you categorise a fleet, the UK now has a smaller navy than France. Since 1990, the number of attack submarines has declined by 76% and surface escorts numbers are down by 69%. More encouragingly the RN has 13 frigates, 2 SSNs, 4 SSBNs and 3 solid support ships either under construction or funded and should be in better shape in 5-10 years time.
Outlook
As the 2025 defence review looms, the context does not encourage optimism. Public finances are in a terrible state and government economic policies are unlikely to encourage the growth that is needed to lift the UK out of debt and decline. The real increases in defence spending remain ‘an aspiration’ only and there is no real political or public will to cut other departments’ funding in favour of properly protecting the nation. With President Trump back in the White House demanding Europeans pay their share on defence or US support for Ukraine and NATO could be withdrawn, there could be some very difficult times ahead.
The defence budget is already locked into several large commitments, leaving very little room for manoeuvre. The RN’s Dreadnought submarine programme, Tempest/GCAP for the RAF and the Army’s £11 billion vehicle programme will take the lion’s share of the procurement funds.
The RN must ensure that the existing Type 26 and 31 programmes are delivered while it has to argue for several other large capital projects that need to be funded and begun promptly. These include FADS/Type 83 destroyer, SSN-AUKUS and MRSS. Additionally, the RN needs to invest more in upgrading the carriers to operate uncrewed aircraft and acquire a diverse range of UAS and RWUAS. The FCASW missile programme needs to deliver new weapons as soon as possible, and a large stock needs to be purchased. Block 2 of the MHC programme is also not fully funded, while many MCMVs have already been withdrawn. Further investment is needed in infrastructure, spares and through-life support for future platforms.
It is difficult to believe all this can be managed from the existing budget by a procurement system that is short of people and in many cases, is neither cost-efficient or able to deliver at the pace required. There are strong rumours that the team conducting the SDR, led by Lord Robertson, have submitted their recommendations but were told by Ministers to go away and re-write it because it suggested expenditure above 3% of GDP was needed for a credible defence policy.
Ubi sumus sumus.
God help us.
Where we are, We are ?
We couldn’t be anywhere else could we?
That’s a huge question that needs a huge amount of analysis and some proper honest debate given the past 30 years or so of the “Peace Dividend”
Taking the risk of lowering the tone of the conversation, China launched the 50,000 odd tons Type 076 LHD on 27 Dec, what is the aim for all this amphibious capability?
Note the defensive arrangements
It’s all part of their PLAN !
Very good!
Al
This “direction of travel” for Red China’s foreign policy has been very obvious since at least the summer of 2008
That was when the Chinese spent more on their fireworks for the 2008 Bejing Olympics than the whole of that year’s UK annual defence budget
We should have taken the hint……
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
To silly for words . The construction of dedicated Olympic sites wouldnt even come close, plus the new non sport facilities such rail and a large new international airport terminal.
Fireworks …lol
They are low cost makers and even have a fireworks ‘city’ with a 1000 or more related businesses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liuyang_firework
It’s not even a hint, they have effectively told the west they plan to go to war..the only real question is how far will china take that war when they trigger it. Will they seek to limit or will that go for broke.
Worth considering that China also appears to be starting a “nuclear sprint” to drastically increase the number of bombs and warheads it can launch from “the underground great wall of China”. It’s truly amazing what Beijing can build with all of the American money that has been siphoned out as “american” companies close all their factories in the US and then reopen them in China.
Indeed they have now countered the US nuclear arsenal and have effectively achieved MAD. Contrary to Russia, China does not and never has seen nuclear weapons as a potentially offensive or defensive weapon of war, it’s simply there to deter any use of nuclear weapons against Chinese forces via MAD. China knows very well the US was profoundly close to using atomics during the Korean War and when it kicks of its next war with the US its planning to make sure the US has no nuclear option without mutual destruction.
There is no need for debate whatsoever. The “peace dividend” was nothing more than an excuse for profligate and frivolous spending and insider graft. Same as it was over here in the US.
We are where we are.
Yes…. That’s what I thought he said too….
MRSS should be prioritised.
I’m not sure. To me it definitely comes below T83 and Submarines.
Both the destroyers and submarines are relatively new. Meanwhile the amphibious fleet is 3 now 2 overworked auxiliary’s and a 50 year old cargo ship
You have no need of amphibs if you can not control the sea….and of course the air space over it.
Again, we have modern destroyers, we have no real Amphibs
Arguably the RN can achieve its core missions without amphibious vessels. The biggest risk the the RN failing its core function is the piss poor state of the major surface combatant fleet.
So we abandon amphibious capability entirely? No
Besides, the Navy isn’t planning to build T83 anytime soon, that’s the reality
In reality the RN have already abandoned the RNs amphibious capability. The bays may have limited well decks and large flight decks, but they don’t have the command and control fit for a front line amphibious combatant. Also a very important fact is they are not commissioned warships, this means they are not legally according to the law of war allowed to undertake belligerent action..essentially you cannot us a Bay class to launch offensive amphibious operations against belligerent nations, it would breach the laws of war and the nation the belligerent action was made against, if it captured any of the ships crew could legally treat them as insurgent none combatants and execute them. They are simply logistics vessels with a well deck and flight deck to support that transport of men and material where there is no formal port.
The RN has moved to
1) supporting a raiding model, this could essentially be supported by modern escorts with mission bays.
2) supporting a logistics based model of supporting the northern flank and allies..simply moving stuff via logistics vessels.
So it does not have an amphibious warfare capability beyond that.
personally I think we will potentially see the MRSS being an GP escort focused on littoral and raiding operations..a limited well deck with mission bay, large escort sized flight deck for 2 rotors, land attack missiles, medium guns and CAMM fit. Basicly able to operate with with a RM company. I think it’s very unlikely the RN will build and crew a full fat assault ship..especially since they have made the choice to get rid of them.
MRSS is described as large and non complex, does not lend itself to frigate sized or well armed
In reality it’s still in concept and some of the concepts coming forward are essentially large frigates with a well deck and facilities for a raiding force. I really think this will be the way the RN goes.. essentially it will not want large single use amphibious vessels, it does not have the capital budget or the manpower and essentially if they did build a large none complex vessel it would end up with the RFA and therefore not able to take belligerent action..
Only one frigate concept came forward by Stellar and they shortly after went out of business.
Also. The Amphibs have a lot of crew for a reason but that doesn’t mean you can cut the head count, Bays are sub 100 and French LHDs are less than 200.
On top of that, just because it’s larger doesn’t mean it’s more expensive, Bay class are cheaper than our T31 frigate.
And enough with this belligerent action nonsense, no one’s going to care in a war, did you miss the time when RFAs landed troops on the Falklands and then got bombed by the enemy?
They will very much care in a war the Uk is not going to start randomly break the rules of war..you example is not relevant..it’s not a belligerent action to land troops on your own soil.
also auxiliaries can be attacked and are legitimate targets, they can also defend themselves if attacked..but they are not allowed to attack..a nation that uses auxiliaries to attack, will probably end up on the wrong end of global geopolitics and law and that does actually matter.
The U.S. takes the issue of auxiliaries very seriously, there is a massive legal difference between a commissioned warship and an auxiliary. That’s why no one has assault ships or true amphibious warfare vessels as an auxiliary vessels, they are all commissioned warships…because there is a difference.
The politics and legal side of war is very important. Look up lawfare. It’s when nations attack each other using legal systems
definition: the use of the law by a country against its enemies, esp by challenging the legality of military or foreign policy
i did not say they would not be large, I stated a large multi purpose surface warship ( frigate does not mean small neither does a destroyer..they can be any size you want) , what I said was i suspect they will not go for a large single use amphibious vessel as that’s a crew for a single use ship. The fact is the MRSS are going to be designed to support wider littoral operations and are not going to be pure amphibious vessels, so there is a reasonable chance it will have CAMM, a medium gun and long range surface strike missiles…what the RN would consider a GP frigate armament….but to have that and 2 landing spaces, we’ll deck and support for a company your looking at 15,000 tons. So not small…but armed as a frigate.
what they go for is all speculation as neither you or I know..neither does the RN at present….but what I stated about the law of war and the limitations on auxiliaries is fact and not something you can ignore..If the UK launched a raid operation on a foreign nation from an auxiliary vessel it would be a legal nightmare for the UK in the international courts and that does matter.
Going forward and accepting that there is no more money coming on defence expenditure:
1) Cancel the ludicrous plan to have an SSN we can’t afford to release based in Australia
2) While our CSG should deploy wherever it’s needed, our day to day focus should be the North Atlantic, the Gulf and patrol missions in the Caribbean and Falklands
3) Keep one carrier in service at any time and one in refit/reserve with the two being rotated
This releases crew.
4) Cancel 2 x T31 to generate savings and release crew
5) Sell 3 Batch 2 River’s which also releases crew. Use the proceeds from sale to put a good quality hull sonar on the remaining 3 x T31
6) All 48 F35’s to transfer to the Fleet Air Arm. The priority for these aircraft should be to maximise the number on an aircraft carrier that can take them anywhere in the world.
7) Cancel the intention to buy 24 additional F35’s. In a country whose airspace is surrounded by its allies, tactical fighters are not a priority. 100 Typhoons to defend UK airspace from unescorted long range Russian bombers and 48 F35’s for expeditionary warfare is enough.
8) Use the savings from not purchasing further F35’s (which is well over £2 billion) to build 3 x extra T26. Rosyth to build modules for T26 ships when they have finished the 3 x T31. This will speed up T26 production and replace the loss of work from building three rather than five T31.
1 and 2, sure
3, is a terrible idea, it results in one carrier overworked and the other rusting away and being scrapped like the Albions
4, that’s barely any savings, will just drive up costs of the other 3
5, rivers are hugely valuable, that won’t gain you more than 100 crew, and for what
6, RAF won’t allow that as there is very little chance of any more jets till Tempest
7, without those additional aircraft the F35 fleet is defunct, not enough aircraft to support 2 squadrons plus training and maintenance.
150 aircraft is nowhere near enough
8, you’re hilarious if you think money saved on F35 will go to the navy
The FAA struggle with F35 crewing, aircrew and ground crew and this has helped contribute to the slow build up of the F35 force (manpower numbers is affecting the light blue side aswell). Only 48 airframes would certainly affect the longer term viability of the F35 force aswell.
As you point out F35 funding stream is drawn mainly from the “Combat Air” budget so any savings from canceling that last tranche would fold back into that budget in theory, however canceling that Tranche of F35 would realistically just see that finance return back to Treasury coffers.
Keep one carrier in service at any time and one in refit/reserve with the two being rotated
This releases crew.
That’s the plan. We only have two in commission now because neither has been for a big refit because they have hardly seen in use or been in repairs.
Constantly amazed about how many here who comment don’t know anything about ship rotation.
Ship rotation is all very well and good if you have enough ships to rotate though. It strikes me that the two QE’s are being shown off in their early lives but we all know what comes next…. don’t we ?
WIZ
Thank you for explaining what “ship rotation” really is…..
I had always though that ship rotation was an specific RN term for what most naval architects usually call “capsizing” (note 1)
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1.
And that phrase, in turn, is not to be confused with the phrase “Cape Sizing”….
At last.
A short post, relevant, and quite funny too!!
Just out of interest, gonna try to summarise the 3 main Euro navies before we drop out of that bracket:
UK:
2 Stovl Carrier-31? Jets /72 capacity, 48-74 planned
3 LSD (1 Laid up)
1 LPH/Hospital
4 Tankers (2 effectively laid up)
1 AOR (Laid up)-to be replaced by 3 AOR
6 Destroyers (Daring yet to return to service)
6 ASW/2 GP Frigates-to be replaced by 8ASW/5GP
6 MCM
8 OPV (3 are mainly coastal vessels)
3 Survey ships
1 MCM mothership
5 SSN (3 out of action for long term)-2 more under construction
4 SSBN-to be replaced
Italy:
1 CVL
1 LHD/Stovl-40 jets planned
3 LPD-to be replaced
3 destroyers (1 is obsolete, 2 more on order)
6ASW/4GP Frigates, 8ASW/4GP planned
4 Light Frigates, 7 total planned
10 OPV, to be replaced by 8 armed OPV and 4 OPV
10 MCM- to be replaced by 5+8 MCM
8 SSK-planned increased to 10
3 AOR, planned increase to 4
France:
1 Catobar CVN, 41-53 jets, 3 AWACS
3 LHD
2 Destroyers
6 ASW/2AAW/6GP Frigates
25? OPV
5 SSN-6 planned
4 SSBN
17 MCM
2 AOR, 4 Planned
Some things I missed but especially in the case of Italy you can see how little procurement we’re doing
Why T31 are frigates but PPA are light frigates and FDI are not light frigates?
I wasn’t going into specific fit out
But in that regard, T31 has the most potential for armaments with space for 32 cells and 8 canisters, but no ASW
FDI can have 32 Slyver but these are only getting 16+ ASHM presumably, diesel gen set plus ASW gear
PPA, 16 cells+ashm, and electric motors plus full sonar kit on the full version
So I suppose Light frigate might not be correct but they are also not designed for long distances.
Trieste has just been delivered and at 36,000 tons , if you thinks thats OK for 40 F-35B plus vehicle decks plus a stern docking well then you have been too much prosecco.
For readers info the Trieste hangar deck is
107.8×25-21 m and the air wing is up to 20 including helos
The RN QE class are 155m x 34m hangar deck size
this took me 3 min to find, but I suppose its even easier just to make it up
PPA are designed for longs distances , they even have been deployed in Pacific.
Duker, i think probably formatting issues, Hugo probably meant: Cavour+Trieste= ~40 jets.
Its decent range, but then compare to 9000nmi on the T31 instead of 5000 on the PPA, smaller ships obvs but even the Fremms are less than 7000
FDI frigate has also 5000nm too but you considered it a frigate despite being lighter than Italian PPA’s and those can fire an Aster 30 BN 1T.
It appears that you are trying to manage a way for RN to have more frigates than anyone else.
No, I’m not. Seeing as Italy has 12 Fremms they nearly match our entire frigate fleet before PPA, wind your neck in
Many people have a blindness around the Italian fleet and the fact its major surface combatant fleet is now larger than the RNs and will be even after both navies have finished their planned building programmes ( RN 19 Italian navy 23) seems to trigger denial. Infact I’ve had people tell me flat out it’s not bigger because PPAs are not frigates and so cannot be counted as major surface combatants even though they are almost 6000 tons, have long range area defence missiles, anti ship and ground attack missiles, 2 medium guns with guided anti air rounds, a small ship flight good ASW and in most cases will have a towed sonar as well.. apparently because the Italians have put the word patrol in the name they don’t count as large surface combatants🙄
I wasnt talking about air wing size, i was talking about total ordered
He gets it all wrong in his haste to cause yet another argument.
So Hugo, what don’t you understand about General Purpose Frigate!? We have 3 types AAW, ASW and GPF, have done for something like 30/50 years?
There’s General purpose and then there’s hugely under equipped in comparison to allied vessels
The next tranche PPA EVO, will be moving to probably 32 silos.
I’ve heard 64? Either way nuts how quickly Italy is gonna overtake us.
64 is apparently the number of silos for the last 2 PPA, the so called « PPA EVO », replacing the two ships of the Thaon de Revel PPA class sold to Indonesia
3 LSD(A)
The Bays were never designed to be the pointy end of the stick.
Steps that should be taken:
1) Pay the good people in the RFA, and compensate the people
2) Fund support infrastructure to make sure the submarine crisis never happens again
3) Speed up escort deliveries
4) Order 2nd tranche of F-35B
5) Get MQ-9B STOL for AEW
6) Order replacements for Point class
7) Secure MRSS programme
8) Expand MROSS fleet
9) Order enough MHC ships
Not sure if 5 is yet possible, but fantastic if so.
Plus there still needs to be lessons learned re RFA Proteus so 8 might have to wait.
Otherwise, I’d have to agree with the priorities and order.
Should we actually get a few more’ ’Point’ style vessels. A lot of the stuff the navy has to do (rescuing hostages, disaster relief) really just requires a logistics vessel with a hanger and flight deck)
Evening Ladies, I foresee a great future for the RN next year, “In Labour we trust”.
I have a bridge for sale if your interested🤓
Well after reading all the above the only thing left is a revaluation, Or the return of Jesus
I would prefer the latter.
You can’t pin this on Labour.
You can’t just pin this on the conning Cons.
Defence procurement needs gripping but that also means officers need schooling in Agile project management and leading projects for at least 5 years so their homework can be marked and their promotion prospects aligned accordingly.
No officer should be allowed to leave service and enter employment with a contractor, subcontractors, ever.
Finally, Defence needs more money.
The peace dividend is over – it never began and Defence should be the first priority of Govt.
What was I pinning on Labour ?
All
First of all, an excellent summary of what has, mostly, been yet another CRAP year for the Royal Navy
(Offical MOD terminology: CRAP = Continuing to Reduce Actvity and Personel)
Four points about “NEWS”
MOD
This must now officially be renamed = to stand for “Management Of Decline
H&W
A very interesting one-liner (above) saying that Spanish working practices (including presumably Paella in the canteen) are soon to be introduced into Belfast’s H&W yard. That sounds to me like being the one (and only?) very-much-needed, and also long-overdue, good development…..
Barrow
It seems that even Navy Lookout has joined the “conspiracy of silence” surrounding the fire damage to the brand-new RN SSBM being built at Barrow (on the 6th Oct 2024)………..
Not even a mention! (note 1)
Money
Not actually much of a shortage………. however most of the wonga ££££££ is being spent in the wrong places:
HAPPY NEW YEAR
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1
Very amusing as usual and I even agree with some of it, but I really don’t get your dislike for GCAP. Is it just because it is a big project and those are expensive?
Also yeah, there is something fishy afoot with Barrow.
Love it.
Bazza,
I do not dislke the GCAP progamme – also known as Tempest – just because it is very expensive
I for one fully accept that the development of any new and big defence programme, especially anything right at the very cutting edge of aerospace, will always be eye-wateringly expensive (note 1)
——————————–
Over the past ten yeras Tempest /GCAP has morffed from being simple Typhoon replacement into being a mothership for controlling drones into being part of a swarm – or whatever – all now controlled by completely unproven (but very trendy) AI
Thus GCAP is rapidly heading towards being a jack of all trades: and therefore it will be a master of none
Back in 2014: it was formally announced at Farnborough that the first test flight of Tempest would be in 2025
watch this space….
—————-
Overall I belive that Tempest / GCAP is a classic example of a very expensive MOD R&D programme having being started for no better reason than a bored and over-promoted senior Biggles thought that the RAF really ought to have a cutting edge aerospace programme in their portfolio… (i.e. at the top of his or hers CV)
…..and so they go out and spend lots of money – in the BAE toyshop…
That is why I compared it to the UK’s 1960’s aerospace fisaco called TSR
Same key (underlying) issue occured with TSR as is nowdays occuring with GCAP= very muddled thinking at the very top of the RAF about what their cutting-edge sixth-gen warplane is really supposed to (eventually) do “out there” when it is fighting in a hot and dangerous peer-on-peer combat zone….
————————-
I really cannot see that,as of today, GCAP (tempest) is now offering the UK any extra value over and above (ie a improved capability beTter than) the existing F35..
…… which we have already paid for ……and which we (probably) need few more of
———————————-
The clue is in the “G” (Global) = GCAP is now trying trying to be all things to all men….
Accordingly my key objection is a very simple one, which can be summed up by this very simple question:
“What is GCAP / TEMPEST ultimately supposed to do in a big fight?
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1.
Hence the memorable scene in the 1990’s film Pretty Woman, where Sir enters the up market fashion shop on Rodeo Drive, with his beloved, and the salesman says, as their opening line:
“Is sir thinking about spending a lot of money: or an really obscene amount of money?
I stopped watching after Julia grabbed hold of his Stick Shift and launched the Esprit down sunset boulevard..
Slippery Suckers not withstanding.
Jim
I must admit that, until you pointed it out yesterday, I had not appreciated that the Lotus Esprit used in the Pretty Woman film was a stick shift model
…….Julia Roberts really is a hugely talented actress!
...both driving on the wrong side of the road and, simultaneously, using a stick shift
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
I think GCAP IS very important. Britain has the 2nd or 3rd largest aerospace sector in the world – with very little support from the Government compared to nations who would love to have our level of skill (France, China, India). GCAP is critical to retain that, especially in the fields of jet propulsion (where we lead everyone except the states).
However I totally agree that all this ‘systems of systems’ stuff will lead to way to many requirements. Tempest needs to be an F35 which overcomes the F35s shortcomings, specifically
1. Lack of range
2. Lack of internal weapon carriage
3. Over complex software which the US won’t let us update
4. Lack of UK weapons integration.
So a bigger aircraft, with more effecient (VCE) jets, with similar stealth characteristics and AESA radar.
As an aside we complain our navy is in bad shape but it’s still bigger than any in Europe. That cannot be said for our airforce which is smaller than Spains, Italys, France and Germany now in terms of Combat Air.
It’s not bigger than France or Italy
Yes it is. Just google. Only old declinist fantasists think it isn’t. But the facts say otherwise. We are the only country in Europe with 2 65k ton aircraft carriers and 6 AAW destroyers. Everyone else relies on glorified landing craft and frigates (except the French who have 1 aircraft carrier). Not to mention our submarine capability which is an order of magnitude better than everyone else (again only the French come close with inferior subs). So yes by size and capability we have the most capable navy in Europe.
Why are French SNAs less good?
It’s all well and good to see 7 nuclear submarines, but if it’s because there are 2 that work, I don’t see how we can say that,
I also remind you that you have more amphibious capacity, you have fewer ships than France and what’s more, they are less efficient!
You only think that everything is rosy with French submarines because you are ignorant of French defence talk and assume they don’t have the same issues. As for fewer ships, fewer old ships maybe. As for efficiency. Really?! Have you been to France?
Correct. It’s frustrating that Only fractional additional amounts would be required to make sure our navy had the depth to go with the strength. (Like paying the RFA sailors, reactivating the waves, keeping the LPDs, a couple more T26s, and a decent number of helicopters)
We have 2 carriers with less aircraft than the french have for their single carrier,
6 malfunctioning AAW destroyers that are still being fixed
And what are you on about glorified landing craft, you realise we have basically scrapped our amphibious fleet.
We only have 2 working SSNs, the rest are stripped for parts or waiting for a drydock.
“We have 2 carriers with less aircraft than the french have for their single carrier,
6 malfunctioning AAW destroyers that are still being fixed”
We have 5th gen aircraft on 65k ton carriers, the French have 4th gen aircraft on 50k ton carriers. The kill rate for 5th gen over 4th gen is 20/1+. You do the math. I know which side I’d like to be on!
6 of the best AAW destroyers on the planet that were designed around a futuristic American recuperator which never lived up to spec and has been replaced. Which are now being future proofed with new generators giving excess electrical energy and enhanced ballistic missile capabilities. Do try to keep up.
“And what are you on about glorified landing craft, you realise we have basically scrapped our amphibious fleet”.
We are transitioning our landing craft to better reflect our operational needs. Get used to it, the future happens. In the interim, should an emergency arise, we have the 2 biggest “landing craft” in Europe.
“We only have 2 working SSNs, the rest are stripped for parts or waiting for a drydock.”
You obviously have a Putinesque relationship with reality. We have SSNs which have been backlogged for repairs because of essential repairs and upgrades to drydocks. This happens every 50years or so. Shit happens and then we move on, we don’t get hysterical!
Well to address your points;
““We have 2 carriers with less aircraft than the french have for their single carrier, 6 malfunctioning AAW destroyers that are still being fixed” We have 5th gen aircraft on 65k ton carriers, the French have 4th gen aircraft on 50k ton carriers. The kill rate for 5th gen over 4th gen is 20/1+. You do the math. I know which side I’d like to be on! 6 of the best AAW destroyers on the planet that were designed around a futuristic American recuperator which never lived up to spec and has been replaced. Which are now being future proofed with new generators giving excess electrical energy and enhanced ballistic missile capabilities. Do try to keep up.
“And what are you on about glorified landing craft, you realise we have basically scrapped our amphibious fleet”. We are transitioning our landing craft to better reflect our operational needs. Get used to it, the future happens. In the interim, should an emergency arise, we have the 2 biggest “landing craft” in Europe.
“We only have 2 working SSNs, the rest are stripped for parts or waiting for a drydock.” You obviously have a Putinesque relationship with reality. We have SSNs which have been backlogged for repairs because of essential repairs and upgrades to drydocks. This happens every 50years or so. S@Владимир Темников@t happens and then we move on, we don’t get hysterical!
Stop kidding yourself, 20/1 kill rate with only 2 missiles per aircraft, so far we’ve only managed to get 8 of our own jets to sea, that is nothing to be proud of, and damn the tonnage.
6 good air defence systems on 6 barges, even after PIP they’re still malfunctioning.
Transitioning is a word government likes to use to hide budget cuts, neither the new landing craft or amphibious ships have been ordered.
And are you referring to the carriers as the 2 “landing craft”. There are no plans to operate them with marines onboard and all they have is the aging Merlin to get them there.
The submarine situation is trash, no other way about it. Brand new class of subs eith numerous design issues and years of maintenance back log is nothing to be proud of or normal.
Each F35 missile bay can carry up to TWO missiles each side, the F35B cant have the sidekick adapter which adds a 3rd… each side
Far as I’ve seen only 1 AAM can be mounted per bay, or 2 with sidekick.
Each internal bay has two weapons stations. Normal use may be one missile and one bomb. Sidekick adds a second on the door station only but not for F-35B
The wings can carry extra missiles and bombs in the same manner as the Rafale !
Haven’t seen AMRAAM being mounted on the wings, though causes issues with stealth anyway
Some less informed commentators seem to believe that all F-35 missions are “stealth” missions and thus it is limited to carrying stealth load outs at all times. This obviously displays ignorance in respect of the F-35 and it’s mission profiles.
It is preferable to be in stealth though, depending on the mission. Otherwise why did we pay so much for these jets.
Doesn’t change what I said, haven’t seen anyone mount AAM externally
yes
2 carriers with less aircraft than the french have for their single carrier””
The air wing on CdG is low 20s
Hint for stopping that Cyrillic ” ínvasion ‘on your link: delete your site cookies
Our air wing is currently 8 so we can’t talk
Yes. The Tory government/RAFs slow walking the F-35B purchase is reprehensible.
But MN Rafale have been operating from the carrier since 2004.The Queen Elizabeth first operated jets in Oct 2019.
Not aware that Cdg can carry even 30 Rafale.
“Responding on 29th October 2024, Defence Minister Lord Coaker confirmed the anticipated number, stating, “It is anticipated that the UK will have 41 F-35Bs on inventory by May 2025.”
We’re never going to get 30 F35s on the Qnlz class so again, not a win.
The 48 F35s currently on order will only get us 2 squadrons of 12, and only a 3rd squadron when the 2nd batch of 27 is ordered.
You seem to believe in toy soldiers! Why would you put 30 5th gen aircraft on a carrier when you’re not at war? We will have 41 by mid year and we will be ordering a second batch next year. The second batch has funding and will probably be the same as the first batch. Your Jonah act isn’t going to change that.
The 2nd batch was supposed to be ordered this year, now it’s entirely possible to be cut in the SDR.
41 is nothing to be proud of, it’s barely keeping the squadrons we have active.
And again, even with 74 getting 30 on the carriers is hugely unlikely to happen with the RAF also requiring the F35 for missions
Some less informed individuals seem to think that buying as many as possible F-35s is a sensible strategy. However, the mod have been extremely wise in buying the absolute minimum early F-35 and avoiding necessary upgrades in view of the constant delays to Block 4 and TR3. Some of these believe that it’s like buying sweets from a shop. Weapons procurement is extremely complex and for once we have got it spot on, despite the incessant braying of the uninformed.
So you’re ok with only deploying 8-12 F35s for the next 10 years?
If we were sensible we’d get the minimum required, which is more than 74 but say 74 and then upgrade them as nessecary, otherwise all we are doing is playing at having a carrier navy when in reality we’ll have a giant empty box
And that’s the great thing about the Elizabeth’s that most people miss. A CATOBAR carrier must be flying its full airwing at all times due to carrier qualifications..this burns airframes, crews and money. The F35b fleet can spend amost all its life sat at home and only needs to go on the carriers for specific purposes, as there is amost no burden around carrier qualifications…most people ask the question why the British carriers run empty, the answer is because they can….
There’s empty for good reason and then there’s empty because we have no airframes. It’s currently the latter
Yes but the RN has a massive imbalance around major surface combatants…an that imbalance is that it has lost a huge number since 1997. It should have 20 frigates and 10 destroyers…it will soon be down to 6 and 6. That’s a problem.
Not sure what you are on about. For the last 50 years we have had AAW, ASW and GPF. We have now T45 AAW, in build T26 ASW and in build T31 GPF. T26 & T31 will be bigger, require less crew and be more capable, than their predecessors. And we are still moaning.
What I’m meaning is the RN really needs around 30 major surface combatants for its commitments and it presently has 14.. that will likely drop to 12 and even by 2035 will only be 19. That’s a profoundly inadequate number for a blue water navy with commitments across every ocean. How effective they are is irrelevant to the inadequacy of the numbers.
Grant,
I agree with your points, especially your summary:
“So a bigger aircraft, with more effecient (VCE) jets, with similar stealth characteristics and AESA radar.”
Personally I would like to see a largeish but low obserable (i.e. stealthy) combat aircraft that is fully optmised as a very long range offensive bomber = so one that is easily capable of carrying very wide range of big and heavy stand-off munitions inside a very large internal bomb bay.
Reason being = that type of warplane is what is now essential to be able to accurately hit – and “take out” first time – key strategic targets that all lie deep inside Russia, China, North Korea and Iran: all four of which have some “pretty-decent” intergrated air defence systems
(except, quite possiby, Iran after the recent Israeli SEAD acivities)
Equally importantly to the Tempest programmes sucess is to completely ditch the now-obsolete key requirements that are still currently in the GCOP specifications
Because
——————
Unfortuntely = yours and mine New Years Day Wish list is not where the UK / multi-national GCOP / Tempest progarmme is now – as of the first day of 2025.
Instead Tempest has become very-dubiously specified “jack of all trades / master of none”..(just like TSR in the mid 1960’s)
and worse…it is being developed by the buffons
—————————-
Thus, without a major rethink, along the lines you and me are proposing,I believe Tempest is, very soon, going to be running into a technological cul-de-sac
….and therefore it will be an easy target for the politicos to cancel…..
…which, as you quite rightly pointed out, will be a disaster for UK aerospace industries and also the UK armed focres
Unfortuately that is what always happens when there is very woolly thinking at the very top at the very start of a big new and expensive defence programme…
……….and current thinking about Tempest is really supposed to do out here in the real world is “very woolly”
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
I agree with this analysis… as if a commander in their right mind would use what will be a £150m asset for close air support: yet the capability will be designed in….
Like you I can see it getting cancelled, or worse us throwing in with the Europeans!
Can i ask where the money for developing GCAP is coming from if it has little support from Government ?.
Little support ? Its been funded for around 5 years and continuing in future
Paul T
See below for media releases about Tempest spending
– one from Leonardo back in 2023 and one from the Independent newspaper at the back end of last year
Multi-million pound Tempest funding set to advance the UK’s future Combat Air Capability | Leonardo in the UK
Starmer hails progress on next-generation multibillion-pound RAF Tempest fighter jets amid funding worries | The Independent
so plenty of taxpayers mooney has been spent over the past ten years…..
…….for very little effect……
……….and, as of today, with very little to show for it…..
…which is why I suspect it might (soon?) get cancealled.
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
In the meantime, to add insult to injury, two sixth-generation stealth fighters took to the sky in China in late December by surprise
Are they ahead of the game?
.
Hawker
Spot on
= the Red Chinese industries are designing building – and now testing – at laest two types of next generation combat aircraft…
…..whilst the UK is falling further and further behind
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Where to get a Tempest when you need one? 😉
Museum?
Alex
The 1940’s era Tempest (i.e. museum piece) would be an excellent bit of kit, espcially for two key and very relevant modern requirements:
Where can we get some? obviously to reactivate them quickly!
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
It seemed already was shooting down V1’s back then.
https://youtu.be/BoWx94mA2QM
Agreed a Tempest like would be useful for anti drone, but needs sensors.
If GCAP is now nominally ten years old, and it has been sucking up pounds sterling for that length of time, that is much too long—and it has had a deleterious effect on the rest of the MOD budget in the meantime.
The time to start a 6th generation fighter program would be later this decade or maybe 2030. In the meantime, you could have fleshed out your F-35 numbers while also developing loyal wingman and other drones, including AEW to replace Crowsnest (which is, however, still an admirable “can do” interim solution).
Why is UK defence procurement such a grossly corrupt and dysfunctional mess? Doesn’t anybody hold these clowns accountable?
A treaty was signed with Italy and Japan in December 2023 for the development of the GCAP. With an optimistic in-service day of 2035 at the earliest, more likely in the 2040’s, 9000 people worldwide are supposed to be working on it already.
Is this Putin speaking? We are honoured to have you and your clones at any time!
Interesting if true that the government have dismissed the defence review findings and lord Robertson has been asked to rewrite it . Another fudge when it comes to the defence of this country
The only way we’ll know is if it gets leaked by Robertson or a subordinate. One of those “which comes first” situations, party or country? Robertson is staunch Labour but he also appreciates the importance of defence.
His SDR in ‘98 also came in above budget, due to New Labour committing to stick to the Tory spending plans, so this sounds like history repeating…
The Strategic Defence Review White Paper
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP98-91/RP98-91.pdf
Its interesting to read the RN section and the commitments for new builds and some cuts
Compare to SDR2010 when it was all cuts and only ”completion” of existing building program and a feature of Tory defence policy the absurdities and somersaults such as ‘catapults”‘ We saw this most recently with on on off on NSM
Reading between the lines of 1998 I can see the budget holder decision which has been disastrous as it made Treasury acolytes the actual decision makers
The VCDS was gelded by losing the TLB for procurement
First all the bad news. By next spring there’s a 50-75% chance we’ll be in recession. Later in the year Donald Trump will demand european members of NATO raise defence spending to above 3% or face crushing tariffs on our trade with the USA. It’s been leaked that HMG is offering to pay Mauritius £800m per annum plus reparations to take the Chagos off our hands. The only hope is the US vetoes it but even if they do the money will not be going to defence. Now for the good news
Why do we want it off our hands?
It seems sensible to keep, and the uk control has enabled creation of a vast nature reserve that benefits the whole planet
International court rulings say so. No more rules for thee but not for me.
The Chagos have been considered part of Mauritius colony since the dutch control – Prins Mauritz van Nassau was a son of William of Orange.
The more northern Maldives were run from Ceylon as a dutch colony and under British control were only a protectorate run by the local Sultan.
The more westerly Seychelles were also initially part of Mauritius colony under the french and british, but became a separate crown colony around 1903.
BIOT was a fabrication under US pressure when Mauritius got its independence. UK got Polaris missiles in exchange
Good Wiki search.
Its in the comment rules
‘Feel free to present any opinion, but make your case using facts and evidence.
and evidence is everywhere
Chagos Islands: UK’s last African colony returned to Mauritius
https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/10/1155326
“It’s been leaked that HMG is offering to pay Mauritius £800m per annum plus reparations to take the Chagos off our hands. “
Complete fantasy and factual nonsense
Britain doesnt use the Diego Garcia naval base- its US navy that hold the current lease and thats the requirement that has to remain under Mauritius control
The RN is happily going to station its nuclear subs at HMAS Stirling just outside Perth alongside USN sub usage as part of AUKUS
Get someone in who knows the front line and the importance of an island navy. You can’t put a budget on defense. Ut costs what it costs. We’re a laughing stock throughout the world at the moment and it gas to stop. How can a nation, who’s population is increasing expeditiously is struggling to recruit. Its not rocket science. And even if it was, its not too difficult to work out. Get rid of the dead wood who have no idea and bring in people with balls
It seems many present day Britons are cowards or pacifist but statistics are even worse for other European nations.
Could be the leftist/pacifist influence in education and media that needs to be undone to change attitudes and values.
https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/fostering-will-fight-has-be-natos-next-priority
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48473-more-than-a-third-of-under-40s-would-refuse-conscription-in-the-event-of-a-world-war
Is it cowards, or just so far removed from knowledge of threat to country that they have became soft.
Combine that with large proportions of population either only educated with belief that Britain had never ever done anything good for the world; or are only in uk for economic reasons with no ties to the nation, and we are where we are
In an era where we have many under 40’s who are foreign born, dual nationals or who have allegiances to their parents homeland what do you expect. They are in reality not Brits but they see their residence in the U.K. as a convenience and a benefit.
We have disenfranchised many of the most important group for our military and they are young working class men. In many ways they are portrayed by politicians and the media as a problem group.
Why would they want to fight for a country that sees them like this. However, I have no doubt if the country was in real trouble it would be that group that would bare the largest burden of sacrifice just like their forefathers.
SJB1968
Once again, I find myself agreeing with you
Overall the UK is, very rapidly, becoming a refugee camp for homeless and displaced persons arriving here from all over the rest of the world
Population of the UK by country of birth and nationality: individual country data (Discontinued after June 2021) – Office for National Statistics
They stopped publishing these statistics when it became too embarrassing..
————–
However, in support of your key point…..this key statistic was published quite recently by our very own Office of National Statistics (ONS)
That 42% of ALL people living in London in 2022 were NOT born in the UK!
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Unfortunately the truth behind these sorts of polls is more complicated and perhaps rather awkward for many people and in particular our politicians.
Calling youngsters cowards and pacifist’s is just out of touch and insulting. The same was said in the 1930s about the Oxford Union.
I’m surprised it so low.
London has been a Global capital since …forever.
In 13th- 16th century there was Hanseatic enclave or kontor who made their own rules and spoke german.
The british empire did the same with trading ports all over, often a first step to becoming a protectorate or colony- hence the Royal Navy
English even has a term for foreigners who have lived long enough to have the rights of citizens
Denizens
Spot on, Sjb. Our birth right has been given away by venal politicians of all stripes. No doubt who the burden will fall upon if push comes to shove.
Axing the LPDs was a real stab in the back for JEF allies.
England…a once world power now a joke on the world stage. Trying to maintain a seat at the table on the world’s stage. They can’t defend their own shores for the foreseeable future. What a sad state. They need a budget audit and see where all their treasury is going. News flash. With a limited economy, you can’t be a nanny state and a military power
It is numbing to consider that when Margret Thatcher sent the fleet to reclaim the Falklands in 1982, the service sent 2 aircraft carriers, 8 destroyers, 14 frigates, 4 SSN’s, and 22 RFA’s.
And to think that when the PoW CSG sets forth next year, she will take the bulk of the RN surface fleet as her escorts. Consider that.
The defence budget was 4.5% or so of GDP back then and much of the fleet was paid for earlier when it was even higher. Even back then Thatcher had her ‘City trained** naval expert’ Nott doing serious damage by cuts. Rinse and repeat after 2010.
**Nott , a barrister worked in the City and as a Treasury minister and privatisation as a Trade secretary before coming to Defence
That’s a cool story from a very long time ago. . Let’s try to stick to today, shall we?
It is all part of the cycle.
Boom and bust in defence.
The message said
..reclaim the Falklands in 1982, the service sent 2 aircraft carriers, 8 destroyers, 14 frigates, 4 SSN’s, and 22 RFA’s.’
The GDP on defence was much higher. Even starting this year it was 2.1% excluding Ukraine direct spending.
This is the CORE problem
Much of the fleet, support ships and infrastructure was paid for with the older higher budgets.
And before construction in the UK cost integer multiples more than on the continent.
It is more numbing to consider that was going to get rid of half of it.
What’s actually sad, is the kit we have now is actually way better. Instead of the compromised t42s we have the world class t45. Instead of pocket carriers flying harriers we have full sized aircraft carriers which have stealth fighters. Prior to the retirement of the LPDs you could say the amphibious capability was stronger too…..
The problem is we just don’t have enough of it, and what is tragic is we would only have to spend a tiny bit more to have the depth which goes with the strength…..
If the rumours about Robertson’s conclusions are accurate, it should be good news for defence but a big headache for the Treasury. With major programmes- Tempest,Aukus, FCASW- locked in by international agreements and little left to cut, a slow rise to 2.5% of a flat GDP was never going to be enough.
There’s also been a rumour ministers are not accepting it and a rewrite has been requested. Hopefully some honesty will come out and not the cut today jam tomorrow as other defence reviews have been, only for them to unravel within 2 years when the money is asked for
I thought they would look at the £ needs defined in the SDR and act accordingly rather than dictate. Little point otherwise
Excellent article but the US armed forces have met their recruiting goals for the last 2 years reversing the trend from the last few years.
No they havent . Just no longer 1/3 short just 20%
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/368528/us-military-army-navy-recruit-number
HMS Indefensible is looking more and more likely
Is it time to say that the RN is no longer a global power and should concentrate on the seas in and around Europe?
Making promises you cannot keep is far worse than not making the promise in the first place (Carriers in the Pacific/SSN’s in Australia).
For interest, what is the separation rate (% wise) for both the RN and the RFA?
The separation rate will tell far more about what is possible than the recruiting figure, (Recruits are unskilled but you lose skilled people and that is a big difference).
As to new ships, on the current trajectory, the UK is on track to build a lot of ships it cannot man! Bargain for South American countries.
This is a Grand Alliance, it is very unlikely that China or Russia would attack it independently.
UK should definitely focus on North Atlantic freeing US capabilities to the Pacific.
OK but when the fleet is recapitalised with T45 [PiP + Sea Ceptor] /T26 [in build] /T31 [Mk41 VLS included in budgets] all with various flavours of VLS it will be a strong fleet of surface combatants.
I would prefer to see the next order for 2 x T26B3 and 3 x T31B2 to bring the fleet up to 24 combatants.
My current biggest problem is the total lack of urgency in fixing the RFA mess and instead of spending change solving it further reducing the number of RFA ships that could be stepping into roles that have to be vacated by the lack of combatants. An RFA is fine with some 30mm on it for constabulary work.
Yes I would agee sort the RFA out first.
agree on another batch of T26 and T31 but I think the very long term goal ( by the 2040s) should be to return the escort fleet to 30, so 2 more T26 for 10 ASW frigates, 5 more T31s for 10 GP frigates and then actually consider a high low mix of 10 AAW platforms maybe 3-4 T83( 10,000+ all singing heavy destoyers) then 6+ smaller cheaper AAW frigates
Depressing but interesting read, also 👍 for pointing out that the P2000’s should not be counted in Orbat, i was stunned when they slipped that in years ago, they’re URNU training boats
True. We’ll be including stone frigates before long to make up the numbers. However I’d rather include the Archers in the ORBAT than HMS Bangor or HMS Victory. There are only 49 real ships/subs over 100 tons in the ORBAT.
2 carriers
8 frigates
6 destroyers
3 Tides
1 ice patrol
8 OPVs
2 LPDs
1 amphib/medical
9 subs
6 mine hunters
1 hydrographic
1 ocean surveillance
1 MCM mothership
In addition: in long term lay up or not expected to return to service.
1 Bay
1 Tide
1 Fort
1 Sandown
HMS Victory
Which brings us up to 54. There’s also a couple of former commissioned ships used as static training vessels.
Generous calling the Bays LPDs, barely got a well dock
‘Tis the season, after all.
2 carriers – hardly any aircraft, p*ss poor ASaC / AEW, too few tankers for a solely national operation.
8 frigates – falling apart
6 destroyers – no ASW, PIP outstanding on some, under armed.
3 Tides – they are new. But a navy with a pair of 70k tonne aviation platforms needs twice as many
1 ice patrol – old, no helicopters
8 OPVs – decent ships, but poorly armed, poorly packaged, there were better designs out there even when B1 was ordered.
2 LPD – gone
1 amphib/medical – my love Argus is getting on.
9 subs – I know personal numbers are bad but surely the RN has more than 9 sub-lieutenants? Oh you mean SUBMARINES. SUB-MARINES. The V-boats are getting on. The A-boats don’t have the world’s best availability do they? How many months did we have NO boats at sea?
6 mine hunters – going
1 hydrographic – yes I suppose. Needs a new direct replacement, Scott too important.
1 ocean surveillance – In service? Does it work?
1 MCM mothership – Good grief.
The current surface fleet of 40 ships >100 tons could continue to fall to about 32 by the end of the decade. To boost the numbers I foresee some early commissioning between 2027 and 2032, as ships that are not yet fully operational will still count as active. I wonder if Glasgow might even be commissioned as soon as the end of next year (2026).
The carriers, the destroyers and frigates are the only ones that can be properly be classified as “warships”.
“Public finances are in terrible state”. Not really, 1.1 trillion was raised in taxes and 1.2 trillion spent including capital expenditure. The sums needed to maintain our armed forces and grow their capacity are tiny within this context. Before someone says NHS that’s only 200bn of that total…
The real issue is that the Elite like to control the 98% of the rest of us….. yet it’s the 98% who do all their dying.
Waiting for anyone to argue that.
123 *general* officers who died between the British entry into the war, 4 August 1914, and the armistice of 11 November 1918.
says CWG who have records and run the cemeteries
Yours is a common view of those following the ‘led by Donkeys’ meme which is incorrect, but makes good comedy for say Blackadder or Hollywood movies
420,000 British casualties in the Battle of the Somme alone.
MATHS not your strong point either it seems.
Who’s the Donkey now ?
Many of the commentators on this forum remain steadfastly inumerate and contextually illiterate. The UK still has the second largest budget in NATO, commentators pretend it is the smallest. All NATO countries have tight budgets and reduced navy’s. All NATO countries have recruitment challenges and armed services in renewal transition, due to the end of the “peace” dividend and the newly assertive Russia and China. All NATO countries have armed services that find project management problematic and large projects, to a greater or lesser degree, non-aligned with their core operating environment. Just because many readers are unaware of the machinations and mis-steps of other armed services, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Ignorance is not bliss. Commentators should stop pretending otherwise and indulge in less self-flagellation.
You have had a decade to prepare and adjust, invasion of Crimea, start of the Chinese buildup, more if you count invasion of Georgia.
Budget means little, only what it buys and it has not been that much in Europe.
Without plans and capability for mass mobilization of industry and population the Russian and Chinese threat cant be checked.
Nuclear first strike is not a viable policy against peer threats with second strike capability.
At most the deterrence saves you from occupation, not defeat by treaty.
Whilst that is true it is also far too small a budget for our ambitions.
The main problem is 30 years of underinvestment.
So the capital hole to be filled 30 years of say 0.5%?
Which is a scarily large number of 15% of GDP. You could argue the investment black hole is even larger.
The relatively good news is that it can be fixed for far less than that – provided it isn’t all swallowed by new mega projects and funding is preferentially allocated to smaller investments first. This way the boys’n’girls at the sharp end see the investment and change actually happening rather than more jam tomorrow promises.
I’ve been recently looking into the developments and projects that China have been active in since the early 2000’s, It’s pretty staggering in all honesty, we haven’t a hope in hell of getting ourselves in any position to realistically venture into their AOI other than in peacetime.
A single Type 055 would probably be enough to turn back a QE CSG in times of war.
USA has had a wakeup call on their 6th Gen aircraft program too.
It’s the West that has funded China’s economic and defence drive, time we woke up now.
A single cruiser isn’t going to turn them around
It is when it carries as many YJ-21s as a T45 does Asters.
And there’s no way we get a 1-1 target-interceptor ratio against that sort of missile, so two destroyers in a carrier group will barely cut it, with probably several leakers.
Supportive Bloke
I agree with your points, especially the last one
However the first thing the RN needs to do “corporately” is to appreciate that fully 50% of its entire annual budget goes on Submarines (£4 billion out of a annual total of about £8 billion)
= and despite that huge expenditure the RN can get very few boats out to sea!
Accordingly, the RN’s four new year’s resolutions for Jan 2025 ought to be to resolve, once and for all, these four issues:
The RN needs to invest in the right places…..
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5804/cmselect/cmpubacc/451/report.html
this is what the Tories left office with!
Where do you get the 8 billion RN budget from? The Defence Nuclear is separate now and I presume thats infrastructure to do with warheads and naval reactors
image is from ‘Ministry_of_Defence_annual_report_and_accounts_2023_to_2024.pdf
Interesting graphic. The government spends about $150bn on capital expenditure and £1,050bn on operating expenditure. What this shows is that defence actually gets over 10% of that capital expenditure, but 3% of the operating expenditure.
That will always drive a behaviour of buying new shiny things rather than looking after kit already paid for (like the Waves, Albions etc.), on the promise new kit will have lower operating costs, as well as skimp on a £30m pay rise of the RFA at the same time as having 16 ships and 5 submarines on order with a value that must be something like £50bn!
I would actually suggest changing the balance of expenditure so that more is on operating expenditure… good motivated people are the hardest thing to acquire.
Thanks for that. The recent german approach seems to have separate tagged capital expenditure fund of Eu 100 bill for ‘must haves’ . It would also seem that Bundeswehr doesnt have capital charges to repay Treasury annually as ‘rent’
The processing required for making chicken nuggets begins with deboning. The chicken is cut and shaped to the correct size. This is done either manually, or by a series of automatic blades, or “Canberra” is derived from the Ngunnawal language of a local Ngunnawal or Ngambri clan who resided in the area and were referred to by the early British colonists as either the Canberry, Kanberri or Nganbra tribe
Again, whilst I appreciate that you are one of the less hysterical “it was better in the old days” commentators, these glory yesterdays are illogical. The Soviet Union is no more and half of the Soviet Union is now in NATO. What does this mean? It means that we don’t need a hundred destroyers/frigates because we now have more allies to make a contribution. I don’t know why this is so difficult to sink in for the old guard.
Exactly, just one Type 26 can do the work of 30 Leander’s.
Quite why all the Old Duffers cling on to such thoughts is beyond me….
What are you on about.
Much rather have 30 mid ships than a single wonder ship.
T26 is a wonder weapon.
Jim and Okamsrazor
I would just to point out to you two that – one year on – we are still loosing a shooting match to “little Yeman”
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Temporary Acting Sub-lieutenant Irate , you are recalled to active duty to participate in the invasion of Yemen. Report for duty immediately
IRL because we have so many T45 in deep refit and upgrade.
We also have to husband the wear and tear on the T23’s very degraded hulls so they last until some T26 come into service.*
Even T26 would be good for that role with Sea Ceptor.
*I do wonder if a T31 launch date might be announced? Or I will start to suspect an NK produced product!
2 out of 6 T45 on ops is healthy.
1 deployed
1 in deep refit
1 returned/at rest/working up/maintenance
This is basics. Take it aboard.
“2 out of 6 is healthy ”
Are you serious ?
Of the 6 T45 , one has been laid up for 7 years and probably never will go back in service, 2 probably in deep overhaul and none on deployment currently , that has merged with the rest/ working up category
Any 3 month maintenance period seems to blow out to 18 months for ‘reasons’
And one type T45 is worth four T42s.. just as long as the 4 T42s stayed together in a blob..it’s just a shame they have not fitted a quantum anti observational device to each T45 then they could be in more than one place at the same time until they were needed.
see below
Half of Soviet Union is not in NATO, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are the only ones.
Ukraine is fighting for its survival against Russian invasion, Georgia and Moldova are partly occupied by Russia.
Belarus has a union with Russia waiting to be annexed.
Warsaw Pact nations are in NATO but even the largest ones with access to sea, Poland and Romania, are focused on land power and their naval component to their own littorals in the Baltic Sea and Black Sea regions.
The natural role for Britain would be projecting naval power over North Atlantic, North Sea, Baltic and Arctic.
You need to expand your budget a bit more to do it globally.
The global influence would come from economy, culture and the contribution (regional naval dominance, nuclear deterrence) within the Grand Alliance = NATO + Asian partners.
Ukraine has already lost dear. Blackrock and Gates have already bought it up.
Shame you were so wrong about Putin having any plans to invade them….. Hope you can sleep well at night with so many deaths.
The CIA got so many things wrong over the years, they even predicted Kyiv would fall in weeks while Kabul would last 3 months!
https://theintercept.com/2022/10/05/russia-ukraine-putin-cia/
I said Putin wouldnt invade because I knew Russia couldnt win and Im right! You cant account for Putins mind, or GW Bush & TCL Blair
“I said Putin wouldn’t invade because I knew Russia couldn’t win and I’m right”
OK, couple of things here, Why are you answering on WIZK’s behalf ? Are you actually him as well ?
And what happened to the other comments ?
Common sense and western thinking would have said he was not going to invade.. unfortunately dictators of authoritarian totalitarian nations never seem to use either common sense or western thinking. Personally I was pretty convinced he was going to invade, just as I’m convinced China is going to invade tiawan in this decade .. once these dictators have built up a particular political dialogue and invested a lot of capital they essentially have to follow through no matter the cost to their nations as their drivers are about personal survival and in the case of Xi being a brainwashed believer himself ( he’s scarily close to the nutters of the 1930s in that regard) l.
The point was trying to make is that too much of MoD budget goes on massive shiny new projects and too little is spent on day to day maintenance and spares to keep what it has in tip top condition.
I don’t hark back to the days of the huge and largely useless surface fleet that I knew at first hand. Most of the ships were hopelessly vulnerable. The crews were amazing people. I do think that a surface fleet of 24+ escorts is what is needed as per SDSR 1998. I don’t think that is an insane level for UK to fund.
The main thing is that if RN’s budget goes proportionately from 2.2% to 2.5% not to let it be swallowed by the mega projects. Actually adding 0.3% of free cash would make a massive difference. BTW I confidently expect Robertson to come back with 2.75% of which Kier will map out how to slowly ramp up to fund the 2.5% in this parliament and leave the problem of how to find the other 0.25% to his successor.
The one thing I will say is that if you look at the photos of T23’s that have been extended all the little bits and pieces are in superb conditions – which is why the refurbs have been so expensive. Shame about the hulls falling apart. But you still end up with eye watering refit costs.
Ok. 24 or so escorts, if others pull their weight (looking at you Germany/Poland) we agree should be the target, and looks like we will get there in the early thirties, with a dip in between. But we will have a world beating escort fleet, in terms of quality.
Would also remind that if we re-start the growth trajectory (can Labour do any worse than the Tories?) that means a larger defence budget 2.5% or not. Growth is much more important than an arbitrary %.
Type 31 is yet to be funded for mk41 or given a timeline for that upgrade, T32 isn’t happening anytime soon.
Personally I think MK 41 for the T31 may never happen. As long as they get NSM for land attack and a mushroom farm of 24 CAMM with their decent medium gun fit they are still a very competent surface combatant… personally over MK41 I would prefer to see them get a hull mounted sonar. Topped off with budget allocation for a batch 2 and an order for a batch 2 when hull one has finished trails.
Sonar would be useful but a batch 2 isn’t going to happen, where’s that funding coming from. But there’s been no mention of either so we can only hope to see mk41 at the very least
Yes. The core problem is the Treasurys requirement for an annual efficiency dividend from operational spending. [Alongside the capital spending annual ‘rent’]
So if you have say a $50 mill pa private contractor for ship overhaul, the contractor has to reduce that by 2% every year. This is achieved by doing less, year on year. Any sea vessels run down very fast it upkeep isnt meticulous
The MoD and services keep the efficiency dividend- but its called new money- but return to Treasury the capital charge- hence the push to retire ships or equipment (EOS) rather than keep in reserve
Wait where does the number 24 come from? I guess that must include Type 32 or a repeat of Type 31?
Sorry for being dense
John
We don’t have 100 no one is asking for that.. the last serous defence review ( 1997) made it very clear why in a peaceful world we needed 30 escorts.. that need has never gone away. But the RNs escort fleet is now 14 heading to 12 and at best will be 19…. The long term goal should be returning it to 30 so the RN has a hope of generating 10ish major surface combatants. 3 AAW, 3 ASW and some GP frigates. If it’s planning on having a CBG, amphibious group and some escort, single surface combatant deployments in a major war that’s what is needed.
The main issue is not the money in absolute terms, even if a higher budget would clearly help. As PeterS remarked below, what is really negatively affecting the Royal Navy size and operational availability is shortermism, poor planning and terrible decision making, including the involvement of the Treasury in Navy’s technical decisions and planning.
I just hope the defence review recognises that the UK cannot now do all things. It needs to specialise. We all know that means for an island nation. Unfortunately the army has to cut its cloth and invest in its strengths. UK infantry and special force skills are world renowned. This should be its specialist contribution to NATO. Leave armoured brigades and divisions to Poland and Germany.
Realistic fantasy fleet? Retain two QEs, and buy 74 aircraft. Look to get a 9th Type 26 to meet the rule of 3. 1 more Type 31 for the same reason. Getting more than 4 MRSS is fantasy.
After that it has to be a focus on mine warship deal with Norway – in return for them selecting Type 26.
The big future decision is how many AUKUS?
We tried that in the early 80s. Then Galtieri called.
If we don’t project power to help allies, then who will want to protect us?
Cold hard realism demands a versatile armed forces.
I sometimes think historians we sill the Falklands as the point the British government finally gave up on real defence. The UK sends a portion of its fleet and a few spare battalions of infantry to the other side of the planet, fights a war with glaring gaps in capability, wins the war, and then decides that Europe is still the be all and end all. BAOR was already starting to rot by then and in the 90s would have required a massive programming of rebuilding across the board from barracks to tanks and most things in between if the Cold War had continued. Surely somebody back then must have known the Soviets weren’t coming? Vested interests I suppose.
Find the funds for the RFA. The small amounts needed is just ridiculously low.
Maybe if you want to retain man power, stop making RN service about just the women and diversity as if we exist just to be a rally for victim culture. The mod should not have social politics involved …it should be removed from it. The general populace are biased hate filled extremist and inept. A flood in a ship or sub does not give a damn about what gender you are …just that you have the will power and strength to fight it.
Women should face the same test requirements as men for the job …not for their specific sex which is sexism ….
Competance veteran men should not be fired to be replaced with inefficient women….
By all means hire women who meet our grade and can keep up with us ….
Leaders right now alongside are a mass of salty sea dogs who hate and blame everything on those new recruits coming in ….ignoring their own leadership failings and restricted acuity.
When I served we all had to listen about women being the face of the navy, despite still not stepping up, “if you don’t like political LGBTQ matters then you’re bad and we challenge you” when we are just trying to relax in the off watch office and how new recruits just don’t want to stay in the RN, that they join up not for a career ….. I even had a run in with a trans admin PO …who tried to claim i was committing hate speech because I mentioned that I don’t know all the ins and outs of admin work because I was trained as an engineer.
When the forces became an extremist liberal political mess, that’s when it declined. You focus too much on recruiting those that won’t stand up and focus too little on the men that sacrifice and bleed…
Also what’s not good is the illegal hiring based on race and sex …. Which you currently force to get diversity numbers up, a woman recruiter for the air force left because she say what the forces were doing … And all that was stated in response was ….”we don’t hire illegally”
You do .. when diversity quotas are forced and you still have the same ratio of women applying like before ..you have to change other parameters to fit the quota… It’s obvious to anyone without indoctrination.
The populace, despite you giving them an inch to a mile by listening to them …hate the forces more than ever.
You’ve done a poor job showcasing why you are needed ..and have presented our efforts similar to an easy oceanic strut.
Talk to the general populace …they don’t respect us as much as the other forces ….the other forces have much more media of a specific type from earlier decades that still gives them weight ..we have police women taking charge over our subs in TV series and female commanders of subs in the likes of Johnny English ….
We can make jokes of ourselves once we have a serious foundation of respect …
I had a comment on UK Defence Journal deleted because I said:
I know no male rating who hasn’t at least one story where they have come worse off due to some female rating using her feminity to get around a senior rating or officer for her own ends.
And I know no female rating who hasn’t at least one story where they say they used their feminity to get around some senior male rating or junior male office to avoid some duty or gain something.
This comment will disappear from here too.
Well it looks like your comment has survived whilst hundreds have been removed.
AGAIN.
The only positive in a shocking year for RN has been NSM on 2 vessels
It is a depressing state of affairs that will only be partly remedied by 2030. A lot of the problem has been the inadequate budget and the delaying of projects to save money in the short term, only adding to overall costs.
But poor choices have been made that have exacerbated the problem. We didn’t need 2 QE size carriers- adequate replacement for the Invincibles should have been half the cost. The decision on power plant for T45 has been disastrous and expensive to fix. The delay in defining the future surface combatant over a decade or more has led directly to the current frigate shortage. Even the Astute programme was a choice of a new and expensive design over a Trafalgar based upgrade.
A toxic combination of political incompetence and lack of realism on the part of RN leadership has created the current mess. Spent properly, the UK defence budget ought to be sufficient to fund what we need to defend ourselves.
That’s an insidious idea that the Treasury loves: if only MOD spent its money properly we wouldn’t need more money, but it’s untrue. First, all spending on new equipment designs involves risk and therefore will always involve failure. It is impossible to spend money as efficiently as some theoretical post-hoc analysis suggests might have been doable if only. If only politicians butted out. If only we all had 20/20 foresight. If those were true there would be far less disagreement in Navy Lookout comments.
Furthermore the idea that more efficient procurement, affecting only a tiny fraction of the overall bill, can somehow make up for lack of spending is itself unrealistic. We spend about £1.5bn a year on the surface fleet purchases. Even if we could save all of that money, getting new ships for nothing, we would still be far shy on overall budgets as we don’t spend enough on equipment, people, maintenance, infrastructure, operations, training, etc.
Final point is that “defending ourselves” militarily is only a fraction of what we need our military to do, and arguably over the last 35 years it has been of lesser importance. I’m sure you know that in 2022/23 the government spent £60bn subsdising energy costs because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and even that didn’t stop inflation reaching double figures. Wars in far away places affect us here in the UK more than governments like to admit, and stablising the world helps keep deaths minimised, prices stable, international trade going, and asylum seeking to a minimum. All that and it’s a moral obligation too. Deterrence really matters.
I agree 2 carriers was a good idea and glad it succeeded. But I disagree that the 2% us enough in these troubled times, we need to go back to twice that.
You wish it would’ve been half the cost, we were getting 2 carriers no matter what, and they weren’t going to get 2 pocket escort carriers that can’t fight anybody if that was their limit
All militaries are governed by bureaucrats and are not going to be as efficient as they could be, so let’s not blame them too much for being any more inefficient than other parts of the govt.
Sadly the UK right now, even more than France and Germany, is going for more taxes and government and less private enterprise, scaring entrepreneurs away, both parties are equally responsible. The number of world class British companies is steadily decreasing, indeed there are no Googles or Metas etc anywhere in Europe, why do you think that is? Sorry, too much taxes and bureaucracy.
But if more taxes are ordained from on high, we can at least advocate that some of them go to the main responsibility of any govt, defense. If not, it might be time to change the name of this site back to Save the Royal Navy.
Cheers
John
The opening of this year in review contains two paragraphs talking about how awful Russia is and how magical Ukraine is. What does a land war have to do with the Royal Navy? The year in review makes clear the Russian Navy’s submarine capabilities, you know the stuff the UK really needs to focus on, remains a potent threat. So…why the blathering in the first two paragraphs? Makes it hard to believe the balance of what I’m reading. Keep it on topic, fellas.