The Defence Secretary confirmed in Parliament today that five RN warships are to be scrapped as a cost-saving measure.
In a move described by the John Healy as “common sense”, and in response to to financial pressures, the ships will be axed as part of a package of measures that it is hoped will save the MoD half a £Billion over the next five years. Although not good news, all five ships have already been inactive for some time and this does not actually weaken the frontline strength of the RN right now any further. In some ways, this announcement is about being honest that laid up ships that have been listed as part of the ORBAT, (in some cases for years) should no longer be considered part of the fleet. The real scandal is that the Navy has been allowed to get into such a state in the first place, with an accelerating decline in the last few years.
The identity of the vessels is no surprise. HMS Bulwark and Albion are the most high-profile casualties. The RN simply does not have enough sailors to provide a ship’s company for HMS Bulwark when she emerges from her long refit. There are strong rumours that an agreement has already been reached to sell HMS Bulwark to the Brazilian Navy but this has not been officially confirmed. HMS Albion is worn out and needs a major refit, most likely she will be scrapped unless a buyer can be found willing to pay the costs of refurbishment.
As we previously reported HMS Northumberland is to be scrapped as she is beyond economic repair. When dry docked in Devonport for a major upkeep period, her keel was found to be completely rotten. There are unconfirmed reports she also suffered an incident at sea in the later part of her last commission due to her very poor material state. This takes the frigate force down to just 8 and if HMS Lancaster retires next year as planned, the force will number just 7 ships, of which 6 have towed array sonar tails. This makes the timely delivery of the new Type 26 and Type 31 frigates especially critical in minimising the dangerous “frigate gap” which must be endured for the next 5 years or so.
Finally, RFA Wave Ruler and RFA Wave Knight will go. Both tankers have been laid up for some time due to a lack of crews and there is no prospect in the near future of that situation changing. Both are in reasonable condition and may also attract interest from foreign buyers. Wave Knight was inspected in Portsmouth by a South American naval delegation in 2023, although when we reported their possible sale this was vehemently denied by the MoD at the time.
More analysis of the impacts of these decisions to come soon.
May as well give up the Carriers as they will never ever have the aircraft numbers to make them truly a viable option. RN heading back to be a ‘Coast Guard’ in the future. Nelson will be rolling cart wheels as his once ruler of the sea cant even catch a fishing boat….. A shear disgrace for a once proud service……………….
What this indicates if anything is that the carriers are being prioritised to stay in service rather than bringing back 1 of the LPDs
If operating the carriers as a CVF and a LHP, the loss of the Bulwark is almost palatable the escort feels is what is expected due to the slow order rate and build rate of the replacements.
I’ve thought for a while ( and posted) that with the RM acknowledging that opposed beach landings are now too dangerous and moving to a smaller scale raiding role, the Albions, with limited helicopter capability, are effectively redundant. Insertion will in future be stealthy or by helicopter from longer range. One of the QEs could move significant forces by Chinook. We certainly won’t have enough F35s to operate both carriers in a strike role for years.
The most worrying shortage is of course the escort fleet. But unless the build schedule of new frigates can be accelerated, we face several more years with inadequate numbers.
And yet MRSS is focusing on water born raiding
We don’t really know yet what they might be. Last description from a senior officer was ” large non complex warships”. The RM have stated that in the age of PGMs and drones, beach landings from close to shore are too risky.
So far very little movement on airborne assault. Lots of on a new landing/raiding craft. More likely landing methods will change than the ships that carry them.
After the intitial landing you need heavy lift to land stores etc. Maybe the Albions are neither fish nor foul. The Waves are a more important loss.
At least we have other tankers. With the Albions gone our amphibious fleet is essentially a joke
The US Marine core is I believe coming to a similar conclusion, the developments in drone technology means putting an assault ship close to shore is highly risky
Been like that since …ever
Anzio Annie , actually a number of german railway guns had the same effect in 1944
.webp
“While the Allied forces were kept pinned down on the beach by the German Wehrmacht after the landing, the massive 280mm shells of the guns wreaked havoc among men and material on the beach and even among Navy vessels within their range that tried to supply the troops. As the Allies tried to uncover the gun’s position (unknowing there were two), the situation turned into a deadly cat and mouse game to find and destroy “Anzio Annie”.
Healy’s non committal answer to the DSC on the future of the carriers isn’t very reassuring. But I think you’re right, not least because it was Labour that ordered them in a non cancellable contract.
How many coast guards have 8 top-end ASW frigates, 5 general purpose frigates, 7 SSNs and 2 carriers?….
And you have forgotten HMS Belfast
and nobody has this one
@Jack Sandeman The main engines are fcuked and they’ve damaged the keel….
Which one, HMS QE or POW?
He means they’ve taken the masts off of Victory and years of being out of the water mean she would break her back if they put her back into it.
Are they finally retiring Victory due to defense reviews?
It sounds like the usual story of RN (T45) engine fcuked and (T23) hall clapped out
The RN FYI has now only got 8 Frigates in total. 6 specialist ASW and 2 GP type 23’s.
We have 6 Astute SSN’s. and one 30 year old. To date 2 carriers but for how much longer if clueless people keep knocking them? I remember how few ships were ordered until at the last moment 3 Type 26 were ordered then 2 more. Pretty desperate stuff.
I make it 6 ASW and 2 GP frigates. Then 6 SSN
Never all available though, most tied awaiting maintenance
And how often are they ready for use Sean?
No fight tonight, FBNW, no crews, and laid up, so maybe next year is the earliest.
Several of which have been tied up alongside for significant periods. Pray tell the whole story Sean.
It is a 400 year old tradition so it cannot be wrong, just don’t bother and raise the white flag at Portsmouth instead.
We actually will have the numbers of F35Bs. We’ll have 48 on strength by this time next year, and funding is in place for tranche 2. That brings us up to 72. And over the lifetime of the programme, the plan is to procure the original order of 138.
No. The 138 was only ever a paper figure for the workshare purposes and BAE involvement in the program
72 is the target, maybe another decade to reach, but that will likely include the first 15 out of service for good.
The 138 is over the lifetime not a peak strength, it assumes replacements for airframe losses and retirement of test and development examples with replacements.
138 was a program number. It assumed the total replacement of the existing fleet with the F-35. It was little more than feel good to keep the US happy and the UK share of the B in play.
72 is an aspirational number and you have to delete the very early aircraft the UK was saddled with, together with attrition. If the fleet ever peaks 60 it will be a miracle and that is a long way off.
So do you have any evidence to refute the statements of various governments or is this just your opinion garnered from conspiracy blogs and alt universe newssheets?
No all warships. Morale is so low might as well strike.
Maybe we could give one Carrier to Australia and then we can keep the Amphibious ships? Indo-pacific tilt etc
Criminal, refurb and then mothball them- we are going to need them soon!!!!
Theyre never going to get crewed before their lifetimes end. Theyre just sitting around rotting. Not saying its good were getting rid of them but those are the facts.
Agreed. The Treasury are traitorous.
No, the economy is traitorous
No it is not the economy that is traitorous, UK have a lot of money and very high taxes,. It is just its media-political complex wants to spend money in other things.
Not high taxes according to reliable sources such as OECD comparisons. Forget about your website of amateur ‘researchers’
UK spent an estimated 2.3% of GDP on defence in 2023
On stationery.
We can waste billions with GD & LM and they are allowed to deliver nothing and not a word is said. On Ajax we pay for a US company’s Spanish factory to be tooled and jigged and create jobs – they deliver atrocious quality we suck it up and find 27 critical defects and we suck it up. FOC is pushed back to 2030 and we suck it up – GD wins orders for vehicles off the tooling we’ve paid for and we get no benefit. So between LM on WCSP and GD on Morpheus alone MoD have wasted over £2,000,000,000 – however because they are US owned there will be no criticism. We will smile and tug our forelock
Understood your point but adding more money will not solve this type of problem.
On “Defence”, yes, meaning handled through the MOD budget plus a few defined extras, but not on the UK’s military capability. It includes expenditure on Ukraine, security, pensions and operations. Money spent on operations doesn’t create capability, it’s extra spending that uses it up. We are really spending maybe 1.8% on capability, possibly less.
Any number between 1.5% and 2.5% is simply not enough. After the Korean War in the fifties the amount spent on defence dropped from about 7% to maybe 6% in the mid ’60s. The percentage dropped again until Thatcher when it was shored up to about 5.5% in the mid eighties (mostly post-Falklands). The drop to 4% at the end of the Cold War in 1990 completes a 40% reduction of the post Korea proportionate spend over 35 years. From 1990 to 2000 we see another 37% “peace dividend” drop over just ten years to around 2.5%. During the Cameron years, a drop to probably 1.8% (according to the Defence Select Committee), but which was covered up by rebaselining what was included and which pushed up the nominal figure to keep it above the 2% NATO target. Another 28% drop over 6 years. Is it any wonder that we can’t keep going as we have?
Seen historically, the 2.3% isn’t really 2.3%, It also isn’t a reasonable level to spend at. The threat is higher than the Glasnost years of the late 80s and the spend needs to move towards 4% or even higher to give a reasonable amount of deterrence. Fiddling the figures yet again to make 1.8% look like 2.5% doesn’t deter our enemies and won’t help us fight the war the cuts are encouraging. If we have to fight World War Three, we’ll be spending many lives as well as 50% of our GDP on Defence, like the last two times.
Thank you for the post, very informative.4% as you say would help to make a difference. Home defence given time schedules and the potential threats we face would now be a priority.
Mobile NSM
This is complete nonsense. NATO calculate defence spending the same way for all members and the UK are the 2nd biggest spenders. All NATO members have decreased defence spending since the Cold War ended. Suggest you stop living in the past and on conspiracy blogs.
Did you honestly think I was saying that the UK’s decrease in spending has by itself caused war? Of course I agree it’s a cross-NATO issue! What do you think Trump’s being going on about? However the UK and France are the only two countries capable of taking an effective leadership if America wigs out or turns its face East. We are the only other NATO countries providing a nuclear deterrent and the only countries with sizeable global colonial remnants. So we are in a special position and other look to us.
According to NATO, in 2024, we are third highest payer in absolute terms ($82,107m) after the US ($967,707m) and Germany ($97,686m) and 8th in percentage terms of GDP. I usually check my facts before posting. My sources are NATO, The Institute for Fiscal Studies, and Macrotrends. For more recent data I frequent the House of Commons Library. They aren’t usually thought of as conspiracy blogs, but you are entitled to your opinion. If you cross check against SIPRI and IISS, I’m sure you’ll find slight variations to point at and pick fault with.
It was 10% of GDP after the Korean war and then the 7% around the 1957 cuts – which in response to that number being unsustainable
https://www.statista.com/statistics/298527/defense-spending-as-share-of-gdp-united-kingdom-uk/
Thanks, I’m obliged for the correction.
As a percentage of GDP under Thatcher it was lower when she left office then when she was entered office, it only went up mid terms due top the Falklands
Yes. End of the Cold War, Berlin Wall and all that. All Mrs T.
At this point I’d settle for 3.5 but I suspect it will be pulling teeth just to get to 3.
No a 2% of GDP Defence budget whilst giving 0.5 % away in foreign aid did it. Not enough money to maintain capabilities meant that this situation was inevitable. Cameron was a clown.
That 0.5% of GDP on ‘Foreign Aid’ was accounting trickery
At least half of it every year was spent in UK on housing non authorised migrant arrivals
Can you prove that, Mr Hamburger?
The crime has already been committed; letting the fleet (and defence in general) get to this point. While I’d certainly argue for the retention of Albion and Bulwark in reserve, Northumberland is dead in the water, and without a serious change the RFA is never going to crew the Waves again. You can’t honestly think we should send sailors into harms way in a ship not fit for purpose?
“Reserve” is only meaningful if you’ve got the people to take them out of reserve. And these days that doesn’t mean generic Jack Tars. It means specialists familiar with all the systems on board – if they’ve been maintained in fully functioning order.
Yeah the Albion class ships are not going to retire until 2033
Theyve changed their mind
Yeah but they are old after all and were due for replacement anyway
But to remind you, the UK military would not be in the mess they face if the Conservative party had not wrecked the British economy with their criminal mismanagement plus the RFA has the Bay class dock landing ships
They’re not that old. Crewing is the major issue that isn’t being fixed.
And the Bay class do not perform the same role and 1 currently has no crew due to an RFA crewing crisis
RFA Cardigan Bay has been in Falmouth the last month, so needs no crew!. RFA Lyme Bay heading home, so 2 available looks possible.
For the Waves, draft in the train drivers and it will be- Britons strike back. Problem solved
Are we still pinning this on conservatives? Let’s just admit they all suck
Yeah cause a lot of the mess we see is a direct result of the Conservative party’s criminal mismanagement of the economy and wasting money personal their stupid right wing grabage
We now have even worst left ring garbage …
Not going to mention Labour bringing economic growth to a halt while trying to bankrupt the people who feed us? Or is your criticism of economic policy limited to the other side of the fence.
The present situation is a result of both parties actions over decades; focusing on frigates, Blair’s Labour spent over a decade twiddling their thumbs on T26 while selling off modern frigates, before the Tories came in, actually settled on a design and plan but delayed everything.
False.
The T45 construction alongside the Astutes was underway during the later Blair/Brown years, so no chance of a frigate build then.
The FSC or frigate was under development funding to follow on in the BAE shipyards when the last T45 completed -launched Oct 2010, in service Sept 2013
All that work on what became the T26 ground to a screaming halt in 2010 when the Tory cuts came into effect for the Navy and everything else. (During a recession you will only prolong it if the government does hard austerity…duh).
So just before the 2015 election the 3 x T26 was announced after 5 yrs ‘looking at cheaper options’… and laid down Jul 2017.
If I recall the election of 2010 came when there was ‘No money left’. That was after the banks had to be saved because Brown lowered their funding requirements and ‘sold the gold’. He did do well with the CVs though.
We now have 7 Frigates actually in build in 2 yards. 6 more to go. One of the remaining Astutes will complete bring it to 7. 4 SSN’s. 4 Tides. Someone has been busy. Hard to see how we could have done more without a crystal ball
.Who cut the T45 from 12 to 6?
Answer is Defence is too important to be left to the Treasury and most Politicians.
We have had 1001 days to prepare. Still none but a handful of Politicians have stirred.
Tories werent elected on austerity but their Thatcherite ideologues knew a crisis was an opportunity not to be wasted.
By prolonging the recession is the worst response and has even higher costs as revenue is depleted and benefits soar.
During the Covid crisis ‘money was found’ in new ways to maintain employment and business activity.
That wasnt the Thatcherite way but the tories , supported by labour did it anyway .
So dont give me your old 70s outdated economic ideas such as ‘no money’
Which part of what I said is false, exactly? No design was even remotely ready for construction by 2010; there wasn’t even certainty on what ships the programme was covering until the Tories. Meanwhile, the T45 programme you’re citing as the reason FSC couldn’t have started was literally halved.
Likewise, Labour DID sell off 3x T23s, including HMS Grafton, which was less than 9 years old!
To be clear, I’m not condoning the choices the Tories made next, but don’t pretend Labour didn’t fuck things up before it even got to that point.
Brexit means Brexit so we must finish the job and another eye-test ride to Barnard castle
Nato means Nato and its military HQ is in Belgium
Yes, I know that.
Your comment is a non sequitur to mine and you won the idiot prize of today
Nato is the european based military alliance.
Your EU military is just a pimple on the backside of nato
Are you taking illicit substances or just incoherent?
Yep,the Tories have done more to ruin the RN than any other party.
remember the Falkland’s….Defence sectary John Nott had to remind Thatcher that she had scrapped “Ark Royal”….
Recession hit the United Kingdom at the beginning of the 1980s. That followed a string of crises that had plagued the British economy for most of the 1970s. Consequently, unemployment had gradually increased since the mid-1960s.
The Conservative Party, won the general election of May 1979, and swept James Callaghan‘s Labour Party from power, the country had just witnessed the Winter of Discontent in which numerous public sector workers had staged strikes.
Inflation was about 10% and some 1.5 million people were unemployed, compared to some 1 million in 1974, 580,000 in 1970 and just over 300,000 in 1964. Thatcher set about controlling inflation with monetarist policies
In the January 1981 Nott became Secretary of State for Defence. Short-term commitment to cost savings meant that defence decisions were made based on affordability at the expense of naval husbandry, the government had been unwilling to consider such a strategic risk.
Time was of the essence and, by prioritising reduced public spending, the government acknowledged the more immediate risk of national bankruptcy against the less pressing strategic analysis of another war
Wrong on both counts – Ark Royal was decommissioned in 1978 during the previous Labour administration and the quote you incorrectly attribute to Nott was spoken by 1SL Lord Lewin informing the Prime Minister that Buccaneer strikes could no longer be launched against the Argentinians because the RN no longer operated traps and cats Carriers
yep! I don’t think any politician understands the implication of a weak military and the consequences of losing.
You haven’t seen nothing about that, but will see soon.
And has nothing to do with economy. The taxes the HMG collects are huge, they are just spent in other things.
Look here , the Brexit project doom team has got back together again, to repeat their failed hype from 2015 but a new target
‘Before the referendum George Osborne published analysis claiming a vote to quit Brussels would “represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy”.
The Treasury documents claimed Brexit would plunge the country into an immediate recession, trigger mass unemployment of around half a million and see firms and households cut spending.”
LOLZ. The tories fellow travellers for 14 yrs have the temerity to preach economic management …..now
Healey voted againgst Trident while with Corbyn.
Thats a big fat lie
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/19/trident-how-your-mp-voted
As Albion is worn out she may hang around for a while, so in theory could have some sort of refit.
The US Navy was said some time ago, to be interested in the Wave tankers. Better to give them to the USN than scrap them.
Plausible, when the USNS Big Horn was damaged off Oman back in September I don’t think they had another oiler in the region to support the Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group. The USN has actually been chartering commercial tankers recently, which is expensive.
That said, Sealift Command has manning issues just like the RFA, so even if they bought these then they might struggle crewing them.
(I’d hope we’d sell them to the USN rather than “give” them.)
A political savvy move by Healey.
When the SDR comes out he wants the headlines to be about all the new capabilities being added, and not dominated by what’s being cut. So the cuts are announced in advance of the SDR.
Some of them obvious –
• the Albions are laid-up already and are supposed to be replaced by the new MRSS
• the Tides replaced the Waves
• Northumberland makes sense too, though we should never have gotten into the situation where frigates were falling apart before their replacements had been built
• Watchkeeper was another poor purchase by the Army and is certainly obsolete by now
Not convinced about the axing of Pumas and Chinooks unless they are really no-longer needed or the airframes are knackered from use.
The Westland SA330E Puma are getting to the end of their service lives
While the Pumas are old, they were given a major/expensive upgrade not that long ago.
That was in the 2000s with the HC.2 upgrade
Yeah Circa 1970 ….you might be right even with the engine upgrade 15 years ago ….should have ditched them and modified the Mk4s but I’m.biaised….
yeah spin as much as you like, but still just only 7 crapped-out frigates with not enough crews,,, Britannia is ruling the waves
I’m not spinning at all, just pointing out Healey’s spinning with this announcement.
As for the 7 clapped out frigates, everyone who has been on this website for more than 5 mins knows the reason for this, and the remedy that is underway (T26 and T31 builds).
But feel free to whinge away anyway.
I missed the Pumas and Chinooks piece, what’s the score there?!
We just recently purchased more Chinook if I’m not mistaken, but there was no talk about retiring (presumably) older ones. They’re a major force multiplier that not every nation has, and we should be capitalising on that.
As far as Puma goes, I realise they’re old, but they’ve not got a replacement on the books yet. I’m hoping this is an early indication that the Medium Helicopter programme is going to be pushed through, if they’re beginning to get rid of some of the current ones. Last I heard though, the numbers were worryingly small…
Replacing 14 Chinooks with the newer version and the numbers will stay at 51 in total down from 60 as far as I’m aware.
The Medium Helicopter programme is due to replace the Puma, the AW149 is looking like the winner at this point in time!
It will also replace the HC2 and Bell 412, the Army Air Corps Bell 212, and the Airbus AS365 Dauphins currently operated by UK Special Forces.
Not any more – the Bell 212 and 412 are now being replaced by 6 Airbus H145. Will the Pumas being retired ealy and only 17 left anyway, I’d expect the NMH order will end up being ~22-23 x AW145s to replace both these and the Dauphins
The Bell 212 and 412 were both retired from service last year. Puma doing their role in Brunei and Cyprus
Hello Craig, will it be the H145M-multi-role version?
Too small. Thats not even Wildcat size as its just under 4 tonnes max TO weight
Wildcat is 6 tonnes and thats in Army AC domain.
AW149 is 8.5 tonnes territory where the RAF operates.
Medium Helicopter programme looks increasingly like not happening.
I’m taking the Puma retirement as a sign that it will, Labour are all about using public spending to support UK industry/jobs, so shoeing in Leonardo to make these in Yeovil sounds like something that would happen.
In which case, we might opt for the small Helicopter programme instead, far cheaper!
AgustaWestland AW-149 Medium-Lift Military Helicopter Desktop Wood Model Small £272.71
Foreign imports indeed! Support Hornby/Airfix.
Jon and Nigel
Can I please ask that both of you only ever use the correct naval protocols – and expecially the correct TLA’s – whenever you are both posting here on Navy Lookout
The £272.71 varient of the AW-149 is properly called a “UAV”
(not “a helicoptor”)
Is there any truth in the well-informed rumours that this UAV will be replacing Watchkeeper?
Peter (Irate Txapayer)
Purely a guess Peter. General Atomics Mojave UAV or Gambit 5.
Yes, a US unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) launched and landed from a UK aircraft carrier in November 2023:
The demonstrationOn November 15, 2023, the Royal Navy’s HMS Prince of Wales successfully launched and landed a General Atomics Mojave UAV. The demonstration took place off the US East Coast, and the Mojave was controlled by an aircrew onboard the ship. The MojaveThe Mojave is a short takeoff and landing (STOL) demonstrator that was originally developed to prove STOL operations at unprepared landing sites. It has a wing span of 52 feet, an endurance longer than 25 hours, and can carry up to 16 hellfire missiles. The significanceThe demonstration was a milestone in proving that UASs can seamlessly integrate with QEC carriers. It also highlights the ability of UASs to operate from warships. Next stepsThe Royal Navy is considering using advanced jet combat drones on its carriers. General Atomics is working on a new concept called Gambit 5, which is designed for carrier launch and recovery
I think the Mojave test was more to do with a Navy aspiration towards the Protector STOL design, which you pictured above, than with an Army requirement for Mojave.
Healey seemed to imply that a cheaper, more clearly attritible UAS would replace Watchkeeper rather than the large and expensive Mojave.
Yeah the likely UAV tanker is regain the capability lost when the buccaneer was retired from the tanker role
Mojave/Gray Eagle is gaining interest from other Navies too.
I wish they hadn’t mucked about with the names by calling the production Mojave, Grey Eagle STOL. The original Grey Eagle, MQ-1C, has an MTOW of about 1.6 tons, and Grey Eagle STOL, aka Mojave, has a MTOW double that. It’s a bigger beast.
Then what’s all this about a mass-production variant of Mojave (as Wikipedia calls it)? GA have only demoed one UAV. The Mojave that flew off HMS Prince of Wales had the same airframe as the Grey Eagle STOL that flew off the Dokdo. They may have tweaked it somehow to make it easier to produce later, but that doesn’t suddenly make the prototype into production, much less mass production. It could be years before they set up a production line. A first customer would be of some use, and as far as we know, Biden is still sending the non-STOL version to Ukraine.
I’d imagine it’s the older Chinooks….they have 60 on the list but rare to get half that serviceable…standfast those in obvious depth or modification events.
Puma has no proper role
I beg to differ
Chinook is gross weight of 25 tonnes ( including fuel and payload) and is oversized for a lot missions
Wildcat is 6 tonnes and thats Army AC category.
The RAF needs something in the 8-10 tonne range as the Puma HC.2 ( upgraded from the HC.1 of which they once had 48 in cold war days) was 7-8 tonnes
The UH-60M Blackhawk is 10 tonnes
Feel free to contact the Admiralty and educate them
Probably too nuanced an answer for you to comprehend.
So get your fingers out and pay more taxes
Were you out there demonstrating with Clarkson – who had much earlier said he bought a farm to avoid inheritance taxes – so as to keep your ‘thresholds and exemptions’ ?
those who have entitlements never think they sponging
Why would I be out demonstrating with tax-dodging Clarkson and the conspiracy theorists who think Labour is “at war” with farmers? As a science denier you’d be far more likely to be out there with him protesting…
Given the farmers USED to pay inheritance tax before the exemption I think this was one of the few things Labour got right in the Budget. Just a shame they didn’t remove the exemption for the Royal Family too.
Can’t even complain as 4 of the 5 were already written off in every way but officially, let’s face it we all new the Albions and Waves were done.
The frigate will be tough though. We are dangerously low on escorts and all of our pre-2028 hopes are pinned on the Type 31s progressing quickly, something which they don’t seem to be doing. Dark days ahead unfortunately.
The good news is by 2030 we will have turned a corner, the bad news is we have to get there first.
Yeah assuming Putin does not start WW3 by then and Trump doesn’t trash our economy with his stupid nonsensical tariff plan
You are very brainwashed.
UK has a 20% Imports VAT– a tax on all imports landed cost including the shipping , insurance plus any base tariffs.
Trump cant explain it properly but thats what he means when the US doesnt have a VAT of its own.
With Bulwark and Albion scrapped. Guess we lose Joint Expeditionary Force (Maritime).
Surely you would keep Bulwark and get replacements in the pipeline.
Yeah i suspect 1 of the Bay class dock landing ships will be assigned to do that to keep that going
Only 2 of them have crew now, stellar situation
Yeah but they are capable of doing it, again we would not be in the mess we are in if the conservatives hadn’t wrecked the economy
Don’t worry, we are buccaneering global Britain, FTA with Albania, Cameroon, Jordan, and Vietnam to name but a few, soon will be sunlit uplands, so up yours EU, brick up the tunnel, scrap the ferries and isolate the continent,
Theyre missing several capabilities of the Albions, but sure, now how is Labour going to fix it.
Build the things to replace the Albion class
Yeh, in like 10 years, and probably only 3 instead of 6
Where would you find crew for Bulwark? She is a big old fashioned large crew ship. In a navy where some frigates can only do short trips due to being “emergency” lean crewed Bulwark was never going back to sea this decade.
That was because the Tory defence policy has locked in the lower RN manning since 2010, 2015 and 2021 reviews
It’s OK.. The Prime Minister feels Rubber Dinghies are the way forward for a Beach Assault, it’s been proven….
Realistically nothing has actually changed then, this is just making the status quo official.
Simply depressing, given the rising global threat, we are sleep walking into global conflict and pretending its not happening, history keeps repeating itself
One thing often overlooked when doing Lifex’s is the impact on Morale.
It’s imperative that people are incentivised to join the military.
Who really wants to work on outdated equipment – no one – its hardly surprising the RN experienced a bump in recruitment once the carriers came online.
Add in poor housing and general conditions and its hard to understand why people would join or stay.
if it isn’t cutting edge and modern the military will continue to struggle with recruitment.
Time for us to really commit to proper fleet management of all inventories and fund it through the Defence Select Committee rather than the government alone
Ive read some of the transcripts , the men/women from the ministry and the services are the world class B/S when being questioned.
I think he means like the US where the congress committees have their own staff experts and work behind the scenes to evaluate the budgeting and procurement process. Impossible dream however .
A USN carrier was named after the long time House of Reps Naval affairs chairman – Carl Vinson
The defence select committee have come up with far more hare brained schemes than the MoD. Plus you can’t let and organisation spend money without it getting the power to tax to pay for its plans. That’s never going to happen.
Parliament already has the power of appropriation. Not a cent can be spent unless its appropriation has passed first. Its a bit more complicated but thats the base line
True and then the low number of platforms to do many jobs therefore always out….Jack gets threaders and sticks their chit in …and why not.
Good lads and lassies but it’s all about balance and that last lot in charge didn’t recognise that …plus no profit in an armed force.
Like the look of Healy…seems to have an element of integrity and intelligence…so he will be replaced…says the cynic in me.
The select committee exists for the single purpose of giving Backbenchers something to put in their diaries.
To be honest I think it’s worth the capability loss of the LPH in the medium term especially if it brings forward the decision on what is going to replace them.
We need escorts to support the floating car parks /carriers otherwise why bother.
In an ideal world we need extra GP frigates to do the patrol/flag waving bit rather than the patrol vessels which are frankly pathetic (good runs ashore though) .
As for the Two waves ….until we know what we want a navy to do why waste them along side.
Pay the RFA a decent wage.
Meanwhile what does Royal think of this?
We’re saving 500 million through this decision, that will not bring mrss forward.
£500m saved over five years in laying up costs (essentially warm storage for ships that will never sail again) that’s being retained by the MoD for reinvestment into other capital programmes. Similarly the replacements for the retired over 50 year old chinook airframes and Puma’s have already been ordered and will be delivered in two years.
The Puma replacment has not been ordered, nor has MRSS, both could be canned.
And 500million is a puny amount
I could buy four through-deck multi-role support ships from Damen for £500m. I could easily replace the B1 Rivers and all of the P2000s to boot. The problem is we won’t do any of that. It won’t go on platforms, and right now we need platforms.
Royal are braced to be re-branded the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Marines due to their reliance on the RFA…
Selling on the Wave class I can understand to a degree, and if Northumberland’s hull is rotten, well that’s no surprise……but to kill off Bulwark and Akbion without replacements in build is just lunacy! What’s next? Get rid of the Royal Marines? It’s just plain sad that this country can have such treacherous politicians in power….
Feels like 2010/2011 all over again.
A generation before that we had ‘Options for Change’ which was equally demoralising. That was a cut of about 20% in terms of frigates and destroyers plus the same percentage of personnel. It led to the first round of redundancies in the history of the RN (or so we were told at the time).
It does indeed, I remember how a dumb idea to withdraw HMS Endurance led to the Falklands War in 1982 Now Healy is killing off our Amphibious capability, without which we are clearly inviting the Argies back for a second more permanent stay….
No it didn’t, HMS Endurance had a couple of 20mm cannons aboard, hardly deterrent to an invasion force.
As for today, the Argue armed forces would be incapable of launching a successful raid let alone an invasion.
ONE PI**ED OFF AMERICAN TAX PAYER. DEFEND YOUR OWN DAM SELF
Ok, we will build more ships if you actually replace your Virginias with a more modern and better performing design rather than keeping building them until 2040 and actually manage to shepherd a new fighter programme through procurement rather than repeatedly cancelling and restarting.
Let me see all the US Combatant commanders and their regions where the US has decided to be policeman.
Europe Command , which is the only relevant one here
Africa Command
Central ( ME ) command – which is really about Israel and Saudi oil protection
Indo Pacific – which is Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Australia protection
Northern Command US and Canada and Alaska
Southern command – central-south America
Pray tell us PO3 Frank why did US want to be policeman in all these different places and as a result spend 3.6% of GDP
I think you are correct. The US wants to maintain it’s hegemony but doesn’t want to pay for it anymore.
Yeah technically the Americans have only have themselves to blame for the mess they are in now
There isn’t really anything in this announcement that we don’t already know.
Firstly, we know that the Albion Class were very likely never to go to sea again. Therefore, what is the point in keeping them? HMS Bulwark is the better of the two and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if she found her way to Brazil or Chile. Maybe they want Albion as well, who knows, but it’s the right decision to move them on instead of having two harbour queens tied up alongside in 5 Basin.
What more can we say about the Type 23’s that’s not already been said a thousand times? I think we are very fortunate that we have any of them still in service if truth be told. They are many many years past their service lives and we must give credit to Devonport Dockyard and Babcock for their magnificent efforts in keeping them seaworthy and running on for as long as they have.
I have said many times, the Royal Navy is like Man Utd… in transition. We have new ships coming to replace those that are worn out, and when you look at the wider picture we don’t have too long to wait until they enter service. What of the next few years? Well, we’re just going to have to suck it up and get on with it. There’s no point anymore in pointing fingers and playing the blame game, it’s all done and dusted..
The two Wave Class Fleet Tankers have been laid up for so long now, they’ll soon have grass growing on their flight decks! There really is no plausible reason to keep them laid up rusting away any longer. Sell them. They are each worth many Millions and those funds can be used positively elsewhere.
So, overall, there’s no surprise here. We have to look forward, not backwards. There are a lot of new ships either being built or about to be started. Think about it.. 8 Type 26 Frigates, 5 Type 31 Frigates and possibly more after that, 3 Fleet Solid Support Ships, up to 6 Multi Role Support Ships, Type 83 in the concept phase, Dreadnought Class, AUKUS and all that comes from it, and tranche 2 F35Bs on the way to add to the 48 we’ll have by this time next year!
It’s not as negative as has been portrayed by the media, who sensationalise and distort everything they get their grubby hands on.
If there are to be any cuts in this Defence Review, the ships above, in fairness were already lined up a long time ago.
I call it common sense.
Carry On.
A sensible reasoned post…
you can expect dozens of comments attacking you for it.
Another idiot predicting the future
I don’t mind. Let them get on with it! I have a thick skin.. 😛
“8 Type 26 Frigates, 5 Type 31 Frigates and possibly more after that, 3 Fleet Solid Support Ships, up to 6 Multi Role Support Ships, Type 83 in the concept phase, Dreadnought Class, AUKUS and all that comes from it, and tranche 2 F35Bs on the way to add to the 48 we’ll have by this time next year!”
Money is so tight that I do not think we will see those numbers. Cut those by 50% and maybe, maybe we’ll see that.
This country does not have the capacity to spend money sensibly.
Of course, cowards like me didn’t join up, which is the root of the RN’s problems.
Unless you serve in the armed forces and have had a large family with a committed long-term partner, there is no point whinging. We are all culpable.
Well I did serve in the Armed Forces, Royal Navy actually, so I do know a fair bit of what’s going on.. These aren’t really cutbacks, because they have already been out of service a number of years. And we already know the state of the Type 23s so there’s no surprise to see Northumberland and Westminster withdrawn.. As I said above, we are in transition between the old and the new. I do agree with everyone else on one thing. It’s a bloody painful pill to swallow, especially in the case of the two 23s. We have no choice but to get on with it.
I should have said I didn’t mean you personally. Sigh. No offence meant. Particularly annoying as I was owning up to my own personal culpability in all this.
I still don’t think we’ll see the numbers promised.
None taken at all. 🙂
How are we supposed to cut T26 and T31?
Those are all fully contracted for.
Not sure about the exact status of FSS, I steer well clear of that fiasco, but similarly unlikely to be cut.
Cut Dreadnought? Seriously?
MRSS Likely to be 3 big, defended LPDs rather than 6.
T83 no idea, could be anything from 4 cruisers to 8-10 upgraded T26.
3 MRSS rather than 6 is a cut in a vital capability. I dread to think what would come after that.
Numbers are so low that a cut in any numbers anywhere will cause serious problems, and servicemen will eventually die because of that.
Having watched Reaction Engines fold for a measly £200 million on the same month that Musk’s Starship repeatedly takes of and lands, I’m kinda losing faith in Britain’s ability to do anything right.
I imagine that the cut in T26 will come from selling some of them to Norway. See the previous article on here which discusses that possibly
I think they got the cuts in early and the review to come will be only ‘happy news’
Possibly extending its build time. Which is already not stellar and downright bad for the first t26
MRSS are going to replace Argus, the three Bay Class, plus Albion and Bulwark. We have the two littoral strike groups, North and South, and these ships will be tasked to those groups with more tasking besides that. So six is the number, building three of them would be a colossal strategic mistake.
How much amphibious capability we need relative to stuff like SSNs and surface escorts is a genuine question for the Strategic Defence Review and we won’t have the full picture re threats and opportunities for the Marines.
We may well end up with 4 MRSS.
Less than 3 would be a travesty. 6 Would be lucky.
“we know that the Albion Class were very likely never to go to sea again”
You know, but forget that HMS Bulwark will come out of a long refit soon enough, ready for sea
More wasted money.
But it’s wasted money keeping them alongside.
The Royal Navy needs to keep a certain level of capability for the fight tonight. There’s more at stake than a temporary fall to the Championship.
We are not ready to fight tonight, hence the ‘transition’ phrase above..
Afraid your peers don’t want sensible logic, they want hysteria and nonsenses. The MOD do have some really good kit coming on stream . And United do have some phenomenal young talent coming through!
Cutting Albion and Bulwark kills a whole capability. You cannot frame this as “looking forward”, because it’s cutting the single most important capability the RN provides for protecting the northern flank of NATO, apart from the SSNs, in a time were war is threatening.
13 frigates and 6 destroyers wasn’t enough in peacetime, and these times are gone. We are now at 16, and if we have the slightest slip in schedule, 14 will be the number for nearly half a decade.
The Type 31 is a vessel without a sonar. It’s helicopters are lacking a dipping sonar. It’s an oversized OPV, not a frigate. The Type 32 discussed here is even worse. MRSS isn’t even close of being funded.
The last surface combatant was commissioned by the RN in 2013. By the time the first Type 26 comes into service, this will account to a building holiday of 14 years. In that same 17 years time frame, the Italian Navy will have added 12 Bergamini class frigates, 7 Thaon-di-revel light frigates and 2 brand new AD-frigates. Japan is adding two frigates a year. Same goes for Korea, albeit building in batches instead of constant drumbeats.
Italy, Japan and Korea are sourcing most of the sensors and equipment from domestic source. Britain has completely starved its industry and is now looking into a hole of being completely dependent.
It’s also notable, how much capability Italy creates with a budget less than half what the UK pays. You cannot explain this by pointing to the deterrence. Even if we paid £20bn a year on nukes, we would still outspend the Italians by £10bn.
The amount of failure surrounding the MoD is mindboggling.
Stay with me here…
ALBION is the clear choice for the BRISTOL Accommodation Hulk replacement. Bris @Владимир Темников 155m x 17m, Moralbion @Владимир Темников 176m x 29m. Quick google maps recce and I think it could work!
Extra 700+ bunk spaces in the Pompey area; leave it docked down and run a ferry down to the dockyard and over to SULTAN; enough room for a dedicated board and search training area for the gunners, big vehicle deck for Sea Cadet parades; strip out all the equipment and load up the Bulwank Vehicle Dock as a wee gift for the Brazilians.
I’ll draft a note to 2nd and expect my MBE in the post.
unsure who my Russian tag is… miss use of the ampersat apparently
It happens often enough to many others too . Theres a security flaw which allows, in my view, Joint Cyber reservists to play around….geeks!
On the face of it, sounds like a good call.
That would also seem to be the end of the Royal Marines.
What is the point of them without having the ability of putting them ashore.
I never understand why the state of our armed forces are discussed in the media. When do you ever see China or Russia openly discussing the state of their armed forces? These details should be kept private.
The difference between living in an open democracy and not…
CUTS AND CAPABILITY GAPS! are all I ever read about in respect of the armed forces. I’m not surprised at the “Waves” and Northumberland going but what I’m suspicious of is the loss of Albion and Bulwark. Does this convenienlty pave the way to RM cuts in the defence review?
More likely to reduce the number of MRSS.
The loss of the LPDs leaves us with a smaller amphibious capability than Spain, France, Italy and the Netherlands. The Yanks must look at us and wonder whether to laugh or cry.
We had a carrier cap (holiday), which is still not completely remedied and are now embarking on an amphibious cap (holiday).
Europe is at boiling point and the grown ups who are now in charge as they like to call themselves decide to cut the military. You can dress it up, however, you like it but that is what it is.
Given also the current recruitment and retention crisis within the military the message is awful and shows a complete lack of understanding of the many themes that attract and keep people in the military.
You can, I do blame the tories for much of the mess and Labour have some difficult choices to make across the board and so far I just see them making a slightly different but just as big a mess of things.
Gap!
I blame both equally. Let’s not forget the escort cuts (6 T45 and 3 T23) under Labour, the waste of £3.4 bn on the MR4 job creation scheme along with slow timing the carrier construction. All because they fought two major wars on a peacetime defence budget whilst spaffing money on PFI schemes that the NHS and school system are still paying for.
Airbus recently stated that the Pumas could go on to 2028, so I’m hoping they’ll be gifted to Ukraine as they’re robust airframes. The Chinooks will presumably be recycled as spares for the rest of the fleet. Hopefully, Bulwark and the Waves will be sold to raise a few quid and serve another navy.
Robust ?
The RAF would want to keep the helicopter maintainers rather than they go to work in Ukraine to keep them flying
Airbus is just saying what serves its interests. A bit like some believed the T23 could keep on going too.
Have you just finished your shift at Mcdonalds?
Sockpuppet who made the same comment under a different name on the Spear post.
just thought of this.
the government had best beef up the defense of the Falklands now, as The Argentine military now know the Royal navy can never reclaim the islands if the Argentines secure them.
Argentina don’t have the capability to launch an amphibious invasion nor does the current president have the desire to
Theres a permanent flight of these based at Stanley , plus more could be in 24 hrs
24 hrs maybe not, They just did a Typhoon rotation last week which ended with multiple diversions to Rio de Janeiro due to weather, Took nearly a week to complete the deployment
Thanks for that. The news I see says 3 Typhoons plus their refuelers was diverted. It was said to be technical issue with a plane which is why the emergency services were on standby at Galeão airport in Rio.
Propping all your defences against a handful of Typhoons is a mistake. Ukraine would seem to show us that you don’t need a large capable air force to cripple an airbase what you need is some cheap drones. I would guess if Argentina has the capability of landing Special Forces within 30KM of MPS we might have some difficulty preventing our Typhoon flight from burning.
Quite right in your comment, he is a person who just artificially copies and paste without intelligence
That’s the thing, though.
They can’t land Special Forces on the islands because the Typhoons and garrison are there.
I doubt very much they have that capability in the first place.
Of course , what would the UK services know compared to armchair generals
And what are you? Chief toilet officer in the military?
I
m off to the reunion of HMS Cavalier next weekend....Ill ask the lads if they fancy going back to sea till the new ship in Glasgow are finished…That was a pub I used to pop into. the Cav.
And I often pee there too
IMHO giving up on the Albions (and in the long run probably the entire royal marines, the bay class ships can’t function in a hostile coastal environment and if you are unloading peacefully you don’t need dedicated marines) makes less sense than giving up on Carrier Strike.
Global Britain is dead (as if it ever really lived) and the UKAF will only be fighting in areas there is no lack of friendly airstrips, while the marines and amphibs have a useful capability even in the backyard.
If…. The government is serious about protecting the U.K. then we need ASW Frigates and more SSN’s.
I think in the next review we’ll see RM being downsized too. And I think in the full on review, there be even more cuts for the RN.
Bad news news comes out first ahead of the good news part…. maybe some more T31 ordered to keep production going ?
Putin,Xi and Kim and Iran’s leader are rejoycing.
This looks more and more to me like a navy that is in a death spiral. This in turn is the direct result of gross mismanagement bordering on malfeasance by a political class that is just not interested in building or maintaining armed forces on anything like the scale that is required. Mind you, the UK can still defend itself, and in its own home waters and on its own home territory it would still be a pretty tough customer.
But AUKUS? “Global Britain”? No. The Royal Navy in particular is nowhere close to fielding an order of battle that would allow it to fulfill those functions, and it is barely adequate for NATO.
None of these cuts are surprising, the writing was on the wall for quite some time, sadly.
What does give me cause for concern, is them being announced #before# the defence review. I’ve never seen a defence review without cuts in it – it makes me wonder which actual cuts will be announced within…
What are These ‘’Clowns” doing.
We Need A Bigger Navy!!! Not a Smaller one. “ When will the Lessons be learned” Old capability is better than NO capability. Ask the Ukrainians.
I Look forward to the forthcoming SDR with Dread!!!
You get what you vote for.
It’s all UK Governments since the 90s fault. None have done the UKs military right.
The UK needs to make some basic decisions. If it keeps trying to generate ‘unique national designs’ eg, the carriers, the T26, the SSN’s, even the LPD’s, there is never going to be the funding to increase numbers. Too much of the available funding will simply be eaten up in development costs.
There is literally no easy way to go.
The T31 is probably indicative of the way to go, pity the project is a year behind schedule.
Does this relegate the RN to being no longer a blue water navy? Without Tankers reliance on allies tankers or friendly ports? What about RAS in general?
The fleet is too small to project power. The QEC have been an exercise in futility, we do not have the escorts or air defence to protect them. They should be sold, scrapped immediately.
Our fleet cannot even protect our sea lanes for vital food supply. Wet dreams of tangling with China have become a sick joke. The body political needs to realise the forces are on the edge of collapse due to thirty years of peace dividends and decide if they want to fund effective defence or not … and no it’s not cheap
We still have the Tide class tankers, these are some of the old ones from a previous generation (we used to operate two classes of tanker simultaneously) that are in a pretty terrible state and laid up at the moment.
It relegated it to just about patrolling the Serpentine.
Martin
Simply Not True…….do not believe anything you see on the Internet
Only trust those posting here on Navy Lookout!
——————
So, what is really happening out there in the big wide world, is as follows:
—————-
(i.e. from France: however he was too polite to mention the “F” word in The House)
———————
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
So you are saying it’s the French fault overall.
We got invaded from the French shores 1066, and again in the present.
France didnt exist back then.
The count of Paris, the Capet dynasty, was only crowned in Rheims as King of the Franks. A ‘leadership’ title rather than a ruling one. Duke William had just defeated the king-count in battle a year or so before 1066.
There was an invasion for about 2 weeks in British Ireland in the French revolution period.- Connaught *Republic*
Well sorry but this is the death knell of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. The reality is that without Albion/Bulwark there is no point having any type of ship borne force. Whilst the days of forced landings such as Normandy are long gone, deploying troops supported by Ship that can carry stores, provide Fresh food, medical care and C4 etc are over. I can think of the African deployment concerning Ebola as just one example or Sierra Leon where the Paras where supported by RN Shipping.
Secondly the Royal Marines are now a completely airborne force. Its helicopters or nothing. So that means the Royal Marines Armoured Support Group is gone. the Royal Marines 29th Artillery Regiment is gone, why because you may be able to fly a L118 by Chinook/Merlin but you are never flying enough shells in unless its from a nearby support ship to provide any meaningful level of logistics support to provide for continued fire missions. No shells and any artillery piece is just a pretty hunk of steel.
I see the future of the RM taking the posts lost in Armour and Artillery plus those who conduct sea boat training, landing craft units etc creating another Commando and air logistics unit. So that the RM can be rolled in with 16AAB and the Rangers into one light (Anything that can be carried by a soldier on a Quad Bike) Air Response Div. To react to world events by Air. Leaving the Gunners of the RM & Para’s along with the Vikings to be handed over to an Army Battalion to form up a a Medium Div based on these and the other wheeled vehicles the Army has to provide a Quick Reaction Force for Europe.
Just ask Australia what the loss of the ability to project forces by sea means. They have spent a lot of money to establish that capability just as the UK throws it away.
The next question is why keep the Bays and the Point Class RoRo Ferries. We are out of the Sea Lane projection of power game. So those might as well go as well. You can forget the MRSA replacement vessels another significant Capital Expenditure. Further what’s the point of Marchwood. We are not loading up Amphibious shipping so ? Another Saving.
We then turn to the Carriers. Exactly what power are their limited air power going to defend ? No landing of Troops unless you’re going to sail your £10bn aircraft carrier within the range of Merlin off a coast. That’s about 200 miles with a reserve. In reality you probably want to be at 10 miles to keep the tempo of logistics support (Water, Bullets, Injured, Food etc). If you think that’s a good idea I’ve got a few relatively cheap Ground Launched Anti Ship Missiles or even cheaper some sea drones as used by Ukraine. Let alone trying to operate slow moving Helicopters around ManPad air defence systems. If one thing shown in Ukraine is Helicopters are very exposed on a modern battlefield.
Finally without the Waves the RN becomes a brown water navy. It is struggling without the Forts to deploy outside of UK waters as it is. Stripping away more auxiliary support is the last thing the Navy needs.
All of this to save £0.5bn over 5yrs or £100m a year. In MOD budget terms a rounding error. The knock on effect to multiple capabilities by removing Albion/Bulwark (Let alone if we don’t have either carrier to provide fleet flagship services and we got lucky last year when QE & PoW had various ship yard visits that the other one was available). Loss of the RM, Loss of a Reason for the Aircraft Carriers, we become an Atlantic ASW Navy. Maybe some would say that is the most important function to defend the UK.
But let me paint you a picture, in 10yrs time after Brazil has bought HMS Ocean & HMS Bulwark, the Argentinians get Brazil to support them in attacking the Falklands. Remember in 1982 it took a lot of diplomatic pressure from us and the USA to stop Brazil siding with Argentina now emboldened by China & Russia via the Brics system. They mount a surprise attack on Mount Stanley Airport, 500 Marines seize the Airport launched by Helicopter from ex HMS Ocean, then ex HMS Bulwark sails in to Port Stanley and unloads hundreds of APC’s and artillery pieces, plus anti air and anti ship missiles. Argentina deploys F16’s to the captured airfield and flies in the troops to be mounted on the equipment shipped in by Bulwark. Who turns around to go collect the next load. What on earth would the UK be able to do ? No amphibious shipping, limited commercial shipping to STUFT (Even P&O Ferries is owned by Dubai) we have one Aircraft Carrier operational with with 24 F35’s who can’t reach the Falklands until only 250 miles away. One Type 83/45 Air defence Destroyer operational and 2 T26’s ASW Frigates. Because no European Country or the USA are going to provide escorts on a mission to the Falklands. In fact France & Spain Support the Argentinian Claim. GAME OVER.
We can not play on the world stage, sit as permanent member of the security council, try to lead the European Joint Response Group etc etc if we can’t put troops on the ground anywhere in the world ourselves with some form of support.
The Big Ginge
“In MOD budget terms a rounding error” = SPOT ON!
I totally agree with you assessment of the inherent usefulness of a proper UK amphibious capabiity -RN and RMC – to project power ashore
That surely is a UK PLC must-have capability (even if the RN is stuggling to man it)
———————
In the current circumstances;
————————-
Furthemore, the key issue with your expanded point about the UK PLC then only having a airborne military fast response force is as follows:
————————-
With regards to the other cuts made yesterday, I would note the following
——————–
Whilst staying o the same topic, ie me moaning about how our elected governent wastes billions of pounds worth of public spending each year….
…….Entirely coincidentially, also reported in the newspapers today…..it was stated that the UK government is now spending £1.5 billion per annum on renting no fewer than 220 hotels throughout the UK; just to keep illegal immigrants in, before processing their claims. That figure is only the cost of the hotels
—————-
Cutting the RN’s key amphibious capability is, once again, yet another classic case of the UK goverment having totally and utterely lost the plot.
Penny-wise and pound foolish ………and it only saved the cost a few packets of peanuts………all announced on the very same day when UK-supplied Storm Shadow missiles were fired, by Ukraine, into Mother Russia (i.e. where North Korea has just sent its crack troops on a winter skiing holiday)
History tells us that every time the politicians think these big amphibious ships are not needed: it turns out that, very son afterwards, THEY ARE.
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
It was the height on incoherent stupidity
So Starmer in 24 hours has escalated the war with Putin and then delivered a devastating cut to our Navy. Some coherent thinking there not.
To be fair, he has only been in office for a few weeks while the problem has been in the making for decades.
He’s managed to make all of the problems he inherited far worse!
Not sure I agree with a lot of this. The primary role of albion and bulwark used to justify retention was to reinforce north of norway in case of russian invasion. With finland and sweden joining nato that need has all but disapeared. What we are left with is the possibility of needing an amphibious capability for a future as yet undefined circumstance; in ships that no longer reflect operational need, have crewing demands that cant be met and with no escorts available to provide them with protection. I would much prefer to take the £500m saving and use it build an ocean class replacement mistral like lph which could be supported by 4 mrss and put additional savings from 2x mrss towards 2 more type 31 orders. That would free up the carriers to be carriers out in the deep blue and increase the escort fleet whilst reflecting more realistic helicopter assault needs. We cannot base our decisions solely based on defence of the falklands no matter how much we feel we need to do so – in fact we may be less balanced and have a lower capacity to deter the more we do so. In terms of sales….obviously dont sell em to south america. Alternatively put some long range shore based asm on the islands and purchase uav wide area surveillance capacity if needed.
It sends all of the wrong messages for a start and is wholly incoherent to swing the axe on our military whilst deepening our involvement in Ukraine.
Secondly if LPDs were so useless, then why does the US and China keep investing in them. They are a large, flexible platform, of which Europe has relatively few and it would make sense to keep them especially with some of the uncertainties regarding the new US administration.
Yes, some LPHs would probably be more useful, but the saving won’t be used for that.
Finally what will the savings be? These ships cost £50m a year to run, but each would probably cost £600m+ to replace (and we don’t have the capacity to replace them – see the FSS debacle), so its penny wise, pound foolish.
Seems like it would make sense for the Fleet Solid Support ships to have the capability to serve as oiler also, like Fort Victoria. On the other hand, there probably will only be two FSS so maybe just have them focus on solid support
KevinR
Absolute non-starter
Two completely different types of payloads require two very-different types of ship
Please can you read the posts that were exchanged between myself and N-a-B a couple of months back (all posted under the main artic;e here on NL about Fort Vic)
They will explain to you why this idea is hopeless
Things have moved on since Fort Vic was designed – way back in the 1980’s
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
The European supply ships are mixed role though
Hugo
These Euro ships are very different in terms of their payload / volumes
The RN FSSS is only designed around one task – to support the UK carrier strike group:
All aircraft carriers use up a quite amazing amount of food, general stores and munitions
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Peter, would it make sense to build 2 FSS since there are only 2 carriers and 1 along European ship lines, maybe based on FSS or Tide design for commonality? 4 oilers really doesn’t seem like enough
KevinR
I have to say “probabbly not”
Three reasons:
SHIPYARD COSTS
Therefore only taking just one of three FSSS out of the shipyard’s order will not actually save us very much money. My own guess – just 20% of the contact value…
NOTES
SUPPLY VOLUMES IN WARTIME
Only having two FSSS in the RN/RFA fleet will leave any large “two carrier” UK CVS short of supplies during war-fighting operations.
CONTRACTUAL TERMS
————-
However, having just said all of that, when (if?) the RN frigate force (eventually) ever gets back up to speed and thus the RN has a few more ships out at sea, then buying a few much-smaller supply ships might well be worth the investment (I.e more suitable to support smaller deployments)
————-
Also not to be forgotten is the big advantges of the UK having remote island bases: ones where ships can resuupply rest up and dispose of gash. These days, also resupply by air transport; and so exchange personel. Nelson knew that = hence why there are so many places around the world called English Harbour and Nelsons Harbour..
…….however the current bunch of clowns running the RN and MOD seem to have completely forgotten that one vital lesson. (i.e. logistics wins wars!)
Hence my previous comments here on NL – about the need to soon invest in basic infrastructure at bases like Cyprus; Gib and Oman = for the benefit of all three UK armed services
I hope that answers your question!
Regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Peter WOW!! Thanks for that great response! Appreciate the effort and expertise!!
Would require another contract and a redesign, FSSS has no space for adding tanking without ripping the plans up. Also the 3rd is a spare, ships aren’t 100 percent available
Do they understand what message this sends to Russia?
To your Nordic and Baltic allies committed to JEF?
JEF is a great concept for defending Northern Europe and showing a united deterrence against Russian aggression.
Both the Albion class and the Wave class are fine contributions in the Scandinavian and Baltic theater of operations.
There are a lot of scenarios where they could be extremely useful to turn the tide at the beginning if deterrence fails.
There would be work for Royal Marines and these ships if things start to happen in the Baltic Sea region and Norway-Svalbard area.
Returning to the initial question, Russians (and Chinese) will lock dates and start drafting plans based on this decision.
You cannot have capability gaps prior to conflict.
Britain cant assume it can protect anything being built or dry docked.
Naturally many others things will need to happen before a conclict starts but this is a major decision bringing war closer than it was before this.
Quarterly service personnel statistics out today… RN trained strength down almost 1,000 sailors in just one year. They have no choice but to scrap these ships, we can’t resource them now or in the short-mid term future (assuming they get a grip of the recruitment/retention crisis at some point!).
Increase recruitment from the Commonwealth?
Concription would solve a lot but I understand people in Britain dont believe it works.
I think it’s more that British politicians know that they will not enjoy the next election or two if they try to bring it in. As for the Commonwealth, given Australia, New Zealand and Canada are also having issues around personnel numbers, where would you suggest?
Service abroad would be only by contract after basic training or after conscript service.
Two points, at start and at the end of service, to recruit more people.
Most people have no idea what they are missing if they dont get the exposure.
Even with very selective drafting you build up war time reserves fast.
I was talking about the other Commonwealth nations where we are talking about immigration policy also.
With Australia, NZ and Canada you should go for a totally integrated navy by treaty.
That could be the third navy of the world with main fleets in the Atlantic and Pacific.
Bases and yards around globe operating and producing shared platforms, Type 26 is good as a first try.
Naturally politicians could never deliver that, it makes too much sense.
You all live from overseas trade, nothing has changed since Napoleonic Wars regarding your geopolitical position.
You have just stopped shipping most of your trade and protecting it yourselves.
There is zero chance the nations would sign up for an “integrated navy”
If nations with the same head of state and shared history cant manage it we can be pretty confident that EU military integration will never happen.
You can be absolutely sure it won’t happen, the idea only comes either from EU Federalists which are a minority or those Anti EU as a boogeyman. Put bluntly, you are never going to get France putting its nuclear arsenal under someone else’s control. At best someday in the future European nations might stop building slightly different specs of the same systems and competing against each other but that’s it.
Again bluntly, the “EU Army” is one of those concepts that’s somehow always “just about to happen”, but never actually does in reality.
Mark
You gretly undestimate the issue
The chances are far less than zero
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
‘Although not good news, all five ships have already been inactive for some time and this does not actually weaken the frontline strength of the RN right now any further..’
The frontline strength is continually weakened due to the real issues not being addressed. The ships being scrapped may have been inactive, but only because there has been no timely investment in replacements, and most importantly, a lack of real will to address the recruiting problems. Politicians have driven this decline and they know why… the eu defence force is coming, and for that, Britain does not need a sizeable military!
Ok, I will bite.
Who will serve in it?
What is the command language?
What is the size and organization of the different services?
I am sure we can still find fanatical federalists but they cant answer even the simplest questions.
In case you missed it, the U.K. isn’t even in the EU anymore.
But remains in Nato , which Britain was a founding member before the EU existed.
‘EU military’ is just Brussels grandiosity
What has that to do with the posters comment about an “EU defence force” being the reason why the U.K. has cut its military?
If all the government can come up with is lack of crews for the LPDs and and the 2 Waves then why can’t the RN and RFA recruit directly (as they used to do) at the same time let the Army and RAF do the same. Yes it would take a year to get enough crew trained up to man Bulwark but at least she could stay in the fleet until her replacement is commissioned.
The complete loss of capacity which an LPD bring to the fleet will be hard to replace. If we look at Nato’s dire need for on-call tankers/replenishment shipping then would it not be a good idea to let Nato run at least one of the Waves as a Nato asset at the call for all Nato navy’s. But again we must allow the RFA to recruit directly and for the current members of the RFA to be given a decent wage rise.
The 30 odd helicopters to be scraped will put a big dent in our lift capacity as well.
The only part of labours statement that make any sense was the retiring of the two T23s and possibly HMS Albian but are they going to accelerate the T26 programme or the T31 programme the answer is no so you have to be quit negative about the whole thing and believe that this is just anouther defence cut.
The T23’s weren’t designed and built to serve for 30+ years and the reality is that they are simply just worn out.
But it’s a very different story for Bulwark and Albion. Top of the range amphibs with low mileage, they should be good for at least another decade of service – particularly Bulwark. Brazil (or India) is set to get a bargain.
As for the Wave’s, great ships but sadly the RN has become so small that they just aren’t needed any more. We may as well sell them and pocket the cash – which I believe will go to the Treasury rather than the MOD.
I read some of the comments and it’s obvious a lot of commenters have zero knowledge on naval matters.
Laid up ships, with minimal upkeep will suffer materially. Fact. That is not reason that a refit to return to service is uneconomical to carry out said refit, especially if you weight up lost capability and cost of replacement to do either (carrier strike been an excellent example).
The same is true of a hard driven ship (thinking Northumberland); with the frigate shortage (fact), remaining vessels lives have been harder than a larger fleet would otherwise experience. Factor in their design service lives (well exceeded) and again it doesn’t take Einstein to work out refit work will also increase – Again, the lost capability in dropping critical mass (sic) further should make the logical case to conduct the refits (even past the T26s in service to milk them – for added critical mass – until they are razor blades screaming out).
I note the media really haven’t given the topic much air time, shame really Joe Public doesn’t do something about that, they surely did over a 100yrs ago (we want 8….), just shows how dumb the public have become.
Ex -Service
I agree to strongly disagree
With the ever increasing complexity of modern warships, it is becoming less and less practical to be extensively refitting most RN warships (the two carriers are ptroiably the only major exception)
That is because of the huge costs of ugrading the sensors, installing next generation weapons systems and improving all the electronics etc etc
Thus the “real” refit costs of refittig most frigates, and even many destoyers, soon starts to get up close to that of building a brand new ship
and also, as yu rightly say, they are then out of service for many months or years ..
That is precisely why the T23 were designed in the 1980’s for a 18 year lifespan = the orginal plan being to get shot of them just before the big refit bills became due
The right future policy for the RN frigates should be to build new – on a well-oiled production line(s) – then use those new frigates both continously and ruing very hard for, lets say, fifteen years – then sell each one onto an allied second-tier navy (South America, South Est Asia etc are always in the market)
That would be a far cheaper policy that keeping the refit dockyards busy driking tea and eating bacon sarnies
The same policy should apply to all military aircraft and helicoptors : replace them all with new build ones after 20 years of hard flying
Big refits are always foolish. They only look good on a bean-counters spaedsheet; when viewed through rose-tinted specs.
It is not the general public that have become dumber…
These days it is the very poor quality of our naval and military leadership = they simply do not understand the technology
———————–
So, to use your own example: the “we want eight” campaign”
a senior serving RN Admiral, Jackie Fisher, developed the concept – which had been being thought about as a good idea for over a decade beforehand – for “all big gun” battleship
Fisher then asked his pet naval architect, whom he had known for many years, to draw up the Dreadnought/ No policy statements with big words in them – just engineering plans:
and the point that is often forgotten was that – in 1906 prices – the all-new Dreadnought battelship only cost 10% more to build than the previous generation of RN batlleships (which had only just come into service) However it had three times the capability
Because Admiral Jacky Fisher was also know for watching the fiscal bottom line…very very carefully..as well as preparing for war…. by scarpping all of the obsolute and ancient ships still in the RN fleet at the beginning of the 20th centuty
And not to be forgotten here was the USN’s top bastard – Admiral Rickover – who ran their nuclear submarine fleet throughout the Cold War and long into retirement – and whom knew the cost of eveyrthing inside”his” boats down to the nearset nickel and dime
our naval and military leadership simply do not understand the costs: CLUELESS
As thuis week’s annoucment conclusively proved!
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS And please don’t ever me started on the quite-staggerring costs and extended timelines now necessary for refitting the RN nuclear submarines: or I really will get very angry (Iyt will be up to DEFCON 1 on the Irate Taxpayers escalation scale)
Argentina might want the amphibians ;-)))
Severe bulls**t is what’s going on ! The cost of 4 x storm shadow missiles will cover albion and bulwark , waken up people !!