RN vessels have again been activated in the last two weeks to monitor increased Russian naval activity close to the UK.
Type 23 frigate, HMS St Albans was tasked to shadow the Russian frigate RFS Admiral Golovko as she sailed eastbound through the Channel following operations in the Mediterranean. HMS St Albans launched a Merlin helicopter to collect intelligence from the air before handing over escort duties to NATO allies further east.
Russian media confirmed that the Admiral Golovko had completed her long-range deployment to the Mediterranean, having participated in the bilateral ‘Friendship Sea’ exercise with Egypt. The frigate sailed from Severodvinsk on 2nd November 2024.
Meanwhile, patrol vessel HMS Mersey tracked the corvette RFS Soobrazitelny heading westward, supported by the RFA Tidesurge. The Russian tanker MV Kola, supporting the corvette, was also monitored as part of a coordinated operation involving the Joint Maritime Security Centre. The Soobrazitelny and Kola have now entered the Mediterranean as Russia struggles to maintain a small naval presence in the region following their withdrawal from Syria. Major NATO exercise Neptune Strike is underway in the Mediterranean area with the UK Carrier Strike group set to participate very soon.
This was the second activation for HMS St Albans in April, having recently tracked the Steregushchiy-class corvette RFS Stoikiy during a three-day operation. St Albans is also assigned to Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1) while balancing this with Fleet Ready Escort Duties after taking over from HMS Somerset. SNMG duties and monitoring Russian activity are, of course, all part of the same wider mission but double-hatting emphasises the lack of depth, never mind an alternative frigate available for TAPS duties. OPVs, MCMVs and Tankers can help spread the load but the reality is that a single frigate must cover UK, Atlantic and northern European waters.
At the time of writing, St Albans is the only active Type 23 frigate available with HMS Richmond’s departure on the CSG25 deployment and HMS Lancaster in the Gulf region. The other five frigates are in various stages of post-deployment maintenance or upkeep. Of the active destroyers HMS Dauntless is allocated to CSG25 while HMS Dragon is preparing to participate in the major air defence At Sea Demonstration / exercise Formidable Shield (ASD/FS25) which begins on 5th May off north west Scotland.
Reality is we’ll just have to reduce what we’re doing, there is no fix to the situation quickly, wasteful to go and buy some other ship to fill the gaps and unlikely new frigates will come any faster
Have the Treasury and politicians learned the lesson that moving replacement programs to the right will eventually. one day come back to bite you. Hopefully. but only ‘for now’ We are where we are at least for the next 5 years. After that the situation should improve. But we should never have allowed things to get to this point. No one responsible will ever accept responsibility or face any career consequences for their decisions. That’s why ‘for now’
It’s a political choice. A whole series of politicians choose deficit reduction, domestic spending and tax cuts rather than defence spending. You may not like those choices but they were well within the authority of the politicians to make. As a result it’s ridiculous to think they or particularly any service personnel would or should “face consequences”.
perhaps . But some in the RN especially must said ‘ we are Ok with this and can ‘do more with less’ or other hokum. The words of the various SDR can back this up.
I’ ve looked into the Commons investigation of Capita recruiting debacle for the Army ( The naval services dont use them) and one particular 1 or 2 star who started that outsourcing ball rolling parlayed that into a promotion to the very top!
We need to find better politicians or at least find better ways of constraining politicians from making short term, bad decisions. There needs to be regular audits of how well defence is being managed with real consequences for politicians who mismanage or underfund. For example if 3 consecutive audits report identify serious mismanagement then that should trigger an automatic vote of no confidence in Parliament. The party in power would most likely win but the political embarrassment of having that label would be something unpleasant that they would most likely want to avoid. It would at least force them to think and talk about their management of defence more often than they currently do.
Elections are what constrain our politicians. Your plan sounds like special pleading for defence. You could make all the same arguments for health or education. Successful politicians generally good at reading what the population as a whole actually wants money spent on (or not spent and taxes cut).
Stop try to make a special case for defence and try and win the general argument, in the end it’s the only way that will work.
Special case was used for funding ‘war operations’ for 20 years of so.
Contingency funding was outside the normal budgeting process for good reasons.
The current Treasury funding mechanism doesn’t work for defence at all, including the yearly efficiency dividend ( 1-2% reduction on operational spending), the capital charges on capital investment ( money returned to treasury, say 5-8%). The palaver over ‘depreciation’- the reasons why equipment is cut up or taken out of service before the replacement arrives
Student level politics and Treasury civil servants trying to play pseudo business games they don’t understand.
What could possibly go wrong — just about everything.
The Treasury hates UK MIC PLC for all their past failures / price gouging / general whinging and the MOD / RN are just so much collateral damage.
Year on year savings — it is all a game.
The grunts shout for more minutes / time for anything new or different they have to do and then they give back the time to make up that years efficiency saving.
It does come back to bite but unfortunately it is mostly after they’ve left office at which point they stop caring.
One battered old T23 staggering round the Channel like it’s seen one too many runs ashore. Rest of the fleet laid up, on blocks, or scattered.
Did my time on Dukey — knew the feeling. “Fleet Ready” sounded good until you were sweating rust and hoping the next defect could wait.
Russian hulls drifting past, one frigate doing two jobs. No depth, no backup. Just matelots dragging ships over the line because nobody else will.
We’ve gone from absorbing shocks to crossing fingers and hoping today’s crisis holds off till after payday.
Still. Running on fumes, stitched together with cable ties and habit. Wouldn’t trust anyone else to do it.
It’s Taken TRUMP to finally knock some British & European political heads about just how poor our forces are. Our politicians SO SURE! that war in Europe was a thing of the past, Reminds me:of “Brown”saying NO MORE BOOM & BUST! But like all politicians, they never learn from the past.
WHO SAID “PEACE, A PERIOD BETWEEN TWO WARS”?
Brown / he missed out the magic word — no more politically inspired boom and bust.
Tory economics through the ages — get your recession in early.
Couple of tax cuts in Year 4 and the Joes won’t remember.
2% MOD budget — Cameron was last to cut the spend with his nuclear sub build smoke and mirrors.
Main issue is spend efficiency / MOD build economics.
No matter how much you spend you need to get value for money.
Ukraine experience — 300% gap between existing NATO costs and world class cost economics being demonstrated by the bad guys.
Brought on by a lack of money / rampant state capture by oligarchs that needed to be bypassed at speed / desperation caused by daily failure — war certainly delivers innovation and tactical progress.
Was the bust of 2007 political inspired,indeed has there ever been a bust not ultimately been political inspired! I have very little time for politicians,their interests normally (but not always) span only 5yrs! (What ever political leanings ) and they privately take their supporters for mugs!
A society gets the politicians it deserves
They are who we are.
2007 was the US having had nothing to sell but it’s debt — it ran out of the good stuff and then it sold the bad.
UK Banking PLC had gorged itself on cheap short term commercial debt because it couldn’t be ersed to offer credible retail rates to it’s customers.
The music stopped / the tide went out and they were caught short.
Politics — when it becomes a career then we are in trouble.
Shape shifters just following the crowd.
All parties have them.
The establishment does their work behind closed doors.
The media does what it’s owners want.
The Treasury runs the show no matter the party in power.
Politicians are just their public face.
The middle class patronising the working class is always the big issue in the UK — it does takes different forms over time but it is always around.
The forces must have their own angle on all of this.
PS — not a stalker.
Just browsing …
No, it took Putin going ‘full Hitler’ for Europe to increase defence spending.
Nobody takes anything Trump says with any gravity because he changes his mind every 5 mins – just look at the on/off/increased/delayed/ antics with his tarrifs…
I have no love for Trump atall!!! But it was his threat to remove backing for NATO and take over of Canada& Greenland I would suggest that opened political eyes…
Love the ‘full Hitler’ comparison.
Are you saying theres been no wars in Europe since WW2 ?
History says otherwise.
Turkiye ( nato member) invasion and occupation of part of EU member Cyprus
Nation invasion and occupation of Serbian province Kosovo
Isn’t Kosovo an independent nation, not a Serbian province?
That was its previous status, a province of Serbia.
Nato occupies it- actually US Army nationals guard on rotation, and wont allow independence. Sure there was conflict , but that was 30 yrs back.
Northern Cyprus is a supposedly independent nation, but thats only because Turkiye army is present.
Apologies, I misunderstood what you’d written.
Not Trump unless he can time travel back a decade or so, to when the replacements were finally ordered..
Bring back Lancaster, Spey and Tamar to the UK – simples. Then reactivate Argyle
There no crew for Argyle, and it’s probably trashed anyway.
Lancaster is retiring this year
In commercial world , the ‘ambition’ is made clear and then they find the person that can make it happen. ‘Fail fast’ means replaced fast too.
The military has reverse, lack of any ambition for the active fleet ( other than for themselves) is shown by the above’s words!
“I see no ships”.
We need to pull the Rivers back (apart from HMS Forth) and put at least a 57MM on them. Perfect for for UK/Baltic waters.
57mm won’t change their role at all.
57mm will improve their capabilities!
Their capabilities are anti piracy and patrol. Having a more expensive 57mm won’t help them do either
The world is changing very rapidly, “surface vessels” are not the pirates only weapon,with drones in the air and below the surface, Even patrol vessels have to move with the times, and have new capabilities because the pirates won’t stand still! Or their sponsor!
Pirates are not deploying suicide drones , especially since that would be counterintuitive to actually taking a ship
There’s something called the fear factor! The future could be very strange to all of us,remember 9/11
Pirates were not using RPG and AK-47 back then either, just knives and grappling hooks
Still don’t need a gun upgrade for that. There are bigger priorities
If we decided in the future to upgrade them, something along the lines of the Krabi class might be useful.
Could we swap Harpoon for NSM?
“The Thai Navy’s Batch 2 Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs), also known as the Krabi-class, are a licenced version of the UK’s Royal Navy’s River-class Batch 2 OPVs, constructed by Bangkok Dock with support from BAE Systems.
The second vessel of this class, HTMS Prachuap Khiri Khan (552), was launched in August 2019. These 90-meter OPVs are equipped with various weaponry, including a 76mm naval gun, 30mm autocannons, and machine guns.”
Flight deck: Suitable for helicopters like the AgustaWestland Merlin.
Armament:
76mm naval gun.
Two 30mm autocannons.
Two machine guns.
Capable of launching Harpoon missiles (via four launchers).
And why do we need that? It’s still more likely to get blown up in combat than contribute anything useful.
Additions like a hangar or drones for surveillance sure.
But the baseline of combat capability these days is a frigate with a decent number of missiles, anything below is going to be a liability
I tend to think of it as, why might we need that in the future?
Better protection serves as a deterrent.
Sending out ships like RFA Tidespring to monitor Russian shipping appears weak, and you don’t really need a Type 23 or 45 for that particular role.
A Bofors 40mm Mk 4 gun or Bofors 57mm Mk 110 plus, a telescopic hanger might also be a future option for the class.
The future for the class is fishery protection and being replaced by something bigger / more capable / cheaper.
Spend the money on 3D radar / better gun fit out / Cabinet Office funded CIWS / missile launch CFD analysis for low cost / plug’n play stuff if such stuff exists and an ability to launch stuff out the back.
Base crew of 30.
Combat crew of 10.
RM fire crew of 10 for tough gigs.
Mission crew of whatever is needed.
Flight crew for a helicopter onboard would be 5 / 10 / 15 … ?!?
Plus some sort of budgeting transparency with all the contracts the RN / MOD get involved in.
At the moment we have big kitchen sink numbers that tell you nothing regarding value / efficiency / contractor margin.
Another useful option against drones, sea and air, pirates and for fisheries protection duties. In Theory, could these be added?
The Mk 38 MGS is a low-cost, stabilised self-defence weapon system that dramatically improves ships’ self-defence capabilities in all weather conditions, day or night. Installed aboard 14 different classes of U.S. Navy ships and U.S. Coast Guard cutters, it is used extensively by the U.S. military as well as by NATO forces.
A major upgrade to the Mod 3 is the system’s advanced electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensor, which provides 330-degree surveillance capability and three fields of view.
The superior optics allow sailors to monitor the seas and respond to threats even in extremely low light conditions with the benefits of a low contrast, low light level color day camera and an eye-safe laser range finder.
While the EO/IR sensor system is integrated with the Mod 3’s state-of-the-art fire control system, the Mk 38 Mod 3 is unique from other naval weapons because its surveillance system moves separately from the gun system, preventing adversaries from easily knowing they have been detected.
The Mk 38 Mod 3 also provides a range of 2.5 kilometres and selectable rates of fire from single to 180 rounds per minute, and fires all U.S. Navy-approved 25mm ammunition.
It can be remotely operated from the combat information centre or other protected ship structures, allowing operators to remain safe and out of harm’s way.”
VIDEO
No matter the effort put in to deliver a more capable / balanced ship the hull / vessel physical architecture is too small for some form of global presence mission.
Steel is cheap / air in free — rinse and repeat.
Yup not when cruise missiles and drones face them.
I would put a 57mm on River(B2) rather than 76mm simply because we can afford another gun caliber!
They’re never going to be sent into a zone with those as a threat
Would 2x MK 38 Mod 3 machine guns fit in addition to the 57mm?
These are all US systems, we have perfectly capable sovereign equivalents.
My personal ideal would be the BAE 40mm on the Rivers, with most of the money going into sensors and aviation.
I’d much rather the RN were firing Martlet from drones than trying to take out well-armed militia with a big soft ship.
This reminds me of the final episode of “Blackadder”-
“Wouldn’t want to fight Gerry machine gunners without my STICK!”.
Just about anywhere is a threat these days ask baltic nation’s or even Hull!
never?
famous last word, like Titanic unsinkable?
Yes never because it would be neglected to do such
That is likely true. However, a threat will likely seek you out if you are in the area. Great if the risk is low. Not so great if you’re sailing between Singapore and Australia and a Chinese fleet “pops” over the horizon.
I have been arguing that every 30mm mount should be replaced with the Mk4 Bofor’s it seems a sensible upgrade which gives a realistic useful weapon with minimal cost and increased compatibility dropping a whole calibre
It doesn’t allow them to do anything new for an unessecary cost
I’m not sure that is totally true.
Assuming Mr Bad Actor decides to swarm a River with fibre controlled drones. To say ‘we damaged an RN ship’
The advantage with the 40mm is that it can take drones out a lot further away so you never get to an inner ring of saturation.
The Rivers don’t have the power for DEW and it is a mistake to think that EW works 100% of the time.
I can see that being in the thinking of Bad Actors Associated?
Deepsixteen
Great minds think alike……….and all that
I shall now repeat the post I put onto NL this morning (under the OPV article)
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS Nig e – this emoji for your comment earlier this afternoon = 👍
REPEAT
Alex S
Yours are a very good set of points: coming at the end of a very good series of posts
I would add “Straight of Hormus” to your list (and possibly even the “outer extremities of the Red Sea”), not to count all of the “alweys slghly unstable” coastal regions of Africa
Frankly the 30mm was never really much cop, and it often struggled to deal with hostile enemies which had significantly good surviveability charcteristics – such as “killer tomatoes” and many other “very legitimate targets” (note 1)
This will give the OPV very significant increase in firepower – range, accuracy and lethality – and thus “employabiility” and “usefullness”
and, across the whole RN fleet…… only having one gun system in service will give big cost savings on the entire fleet-wide whole-life costs of logistics and maintainence and training etc etc (thus keeping the MOD / RN beancounters “happy”)
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 2
The 30mm system is in the process of change for accuracy reasons anyway!
I’d agree the 40mm is a very significant upgrade.
The problem is that can all the sponsons or deck positions take the forces and dynamics of the larger calibre?
Maybe not?
Supportive Bloke
Frankly, structurally, the proposed change really should be
This is, to all intents and purposes, the current state of play with the RN 30mm
The all-rounder – the 30mm Automated Small Calibre Gun in focus | Navy Lookout
———————–
Mounting weights on the older Oerlikon/BMARC 30mm and the more modern Bofers 40mm are – surprisingly – remarkably similar, both at about 2.2 T each without ammo and just over two and a half with ammo loaded
(Having the ammo included in the mount is a state of affairs which I for one would definitely recommend in the modern world today…Including the ammo would also show “The Donald” we are deadly serious about paying for our own, and Europe’s defences …..)
(Note: both mounts can vary a bit = depending on the exact model)
baes_ds_40Mk4_201808_digital (5).pdf
I strongly suspect that the latest 40mm design benefits from the use of composites (especially the very shapely bit that keeps the seawater out of the moving parts) and also better CAD/CAM manufacturing on the metal bits
– whereas the older GCM-A03 is “a bit long in the tooth” on both points
Recoils and blast effects etc should all be OK to deal with on the deck level.
The Bofers has pretty well shaped and very good sized “gun ring” – which spreads the loads out nicely over a bigger deck footprint. Recoil forces on the Bofers appaer to be better (despite the bigger calibre)
This is hardly rocket science. Both the Oerlikon and the Bofers are both already well-proven on the foredecks of other nation’s small patroi craft
Therefore I reckon I could – with a few sheets of A3; my old “steel designers manual” textbook; trusty pocket calculator (with AAA batteries included); one HB pencil (with sharpener) and scale ruler – design the replacement mounts (i.e. to switch the RN over from 30mm to 40mm) in about three days flat
However it would then take me about three hundred and sixty five times longer to then get my design through the bureaucracy at DES Abbey Wood
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
They are mounted on all sorts of vessels and weigh about 2500Kg I think? Even put them on trucks and I would be surprised if most of the relevant forces were not sorted by the mounting leaving the structure to be strengthened if required to take the weight as the DS is slimmer at about half the weight of the Bofor’s.
As the truck is painted green it could be useful for the land creatures to use and increase there drone killing and helicopter swatting resources.
The main thing is the ongoing maintenance and spares costs.
I agree that army probably do need proper 40mm dedicated AAW as a couple of 40mm air bust will see to the majority of drones double quick time.
Deepsixteen
I hate to have to be the one to have to tell you this …your post is a very rare, but very big, Bo-Bo! …in particular, this sentence…
“DS is slimmer at about half the weight of the Bofor’s”.
😢😢😢
You are not definitely right about the weights!
I checked last night and, once again, this morning.
All the published data specifications for the weights of both mounts all quite-clearly show that both the 30mm and the 40mm mounts are both (subject only to the exact model fitted) remarkably similar in their total all-up weight
at just over 2T unloaded: just over 2.5T loaded
(so both weights are all as per my post of last night)
You can check here for yourself:
United Kingdom / Britain 30 mm/85 (1.2″) GCM Series and LS-30B – NavWeaps
Weights of the existing GCM-A03 model are all tabulated near the bottom of this link.
This all ties up with the two (one old and one new), manufacturers data sheets I orginally used for my post of last night
between the old Oerlikon / BMARC 30mm and the newer Bofers 40mm
so, all in all, a very cheap, quick and easy conversion to do.
Also reduces total RN costs (simply because only one medium calibre gun now needs to be used – i.e. same one fitted across the entire fleet)
My post of last night was ever-so-very-slighly-beer-fuddled:
The huge improvement in effective range is quite staggering….
Navy Lookout reported a few years back that the new 40mm “It has a maximum range of 12,500m, effective to about 10,000m”.
In marked contrast, the 30mm was reported, again by NL: at 2.75km
at a range almost FOUR TIMES GREATER
————–
now…….having just corrected your GCSE arithmetic homework on the very similar weights of the two mounts…. let me move swiftly onto your next suggestion…..
However, if I was doing the design for a mobile AAA gun to be used by all three UK armed services, it would be properly mobile
That way the 40mm AAD gun could easily be used any one of three ways
And a 6m ISO would be instantly fully compatible with all NATO allies!
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1. You can all work out this JFDI TLA for yourselves……
Sadly the two skimmers I worked on as a weapons guy had the relic and antique pictured in the DS30 article on NL before I vanished involuntarily into the submarine world.
So I googled to get the weight and got this; but basically your numbers make it much easier to manage an upgrade to the much more modern version of the 40mm than the one I got to strip down in the workshop in Tamar.
love the whole pallet loading idea just wish that the powers that be would pick this particular thread up.
Deepsixteen
Noted and agreed
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
I have no information about it, but I imagine you are facing an international bureaucratic trend: as there is (?) a large stock of 30mm ammos, it’s unconceivable to not use them first, before changing caliber for the whole RN.
In terms of raw man-hours, the 40mm is actually supposed to be easier than the 30mm to maintain, so there shouldn’t be any crew issues with having it on our ships.
Cost-wise, no idea.
I absolutely agree.
In a world where investment capital is freely available then it is a no brained if the pinch point is man power.
IRL both capital and manpower are severely constrained.
Just having it mounted in a turret should help to reduce the maintainer work load substantially and it will not require more maintenance or operator numbers possibly less.
In terms of quick wins for little money given the already developed nature of the mount and more importantly munitions as opposed to the cost of any improvements for the DS30 to accuracy and aforementioned munitions (lethality) sounds like a winning move given that the type is being adopted already.
So I guess that some of the above might give a bit of offset to the capital cost, and it will take a few years to get it done so capital cost would be spread over the time to achieve the fit. As ever it is a question of priorities and having taken grey ships into action I tend towards not sending sailors into action without effective weapons systems.
Bofors latest edition 40mm gun
Naval — it uses the ships sensors to track and engage targets / threats?
Land / as shown above — it has some sort of local fire control added to the turret?
Any better explanations then please shout.
Looks like some kind of EO on top of the gun to me you could que it from the army’s radar Giraffe? Being turret mounted it should require less man hours to maintain.
Perhaps a green coloured version of the ones from this NL article
https://www.navylookout.com/the-electro-optical-director-eyes-of-the-royal-navy-fleet/
FBOT and Deep Sixteen
Bofers 40mm is basically the entire gun itself, with, as deepsixteen quite rightly says, the weatherproof turrent factory prefitted on it.
The gun controls (ready – aim – fire- etc) can then be tied into many types / any number of sensors
Naval installations overseas – ie the swedes themselves – often use the Saab Giraffe radar system, so giving them a very-effective AAD system
Also possible to use cameras (I personally like the turrented mounted one)- which work well against smaller targets down on the surface
Also possible to “mix and match” – so to have both radar and cameras linked to the guns controls
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Demote some Admirals please.
Those on here or in real life ?
Real life.
We need the Structure of a Large deep water navy, Admirals are required along with the kowledge and experince for a wartime footing- this has always been the case in peacetime we have lots of Flag officers, in wartime they all get postings in various countries to get them on the British campaign. The Navy is the most widley travelled service and the best liked globally thefore Flag officers can be tools as unofficial ambassadors to the state.
Its the state thats the problem letting our fleet get into its current readiness. We need dockyards nationalised so Babcock and BAE Systems no longer have our balls on a plate.
Sad state of affairs,but nothing to do with the professionalism of the men and women aboard our aging ships. Going to be a good few years until the 26s and 31s come on line so there will be more ” making do” absolutely the fault of consecutive government’s, especially Cameron who decimated our forces. Typical of British politicians with no forward thinking and relying on the Americans to come to our rescue. Well, that came back to bite them and now we are playing catch up…as usual. We are going to need more than the 8 26s and 5 31s as well. But can’t see them building more such as the type 32 Boris sort of promised?
Not sure.
1: RN is sending two River B2s, each with 60 souls assigned (40 onboard, 20 at rest) = crews of total 120 souls to Indo-Pacific for 5 years continuously. Before 2010, RN was deploying one FPDA escort (with a crew of 250-300), a half a year. Considering the shrinking of the service, RN is currently deploying (relatively) more man-power than before 2010 to this region.
2: Why not River B1 OPVs, other than HMS Mersey, used for shadowing these Russian vessels? They can be operated with a crew of 30 = very efficient.
Either Tyne and Severn are too much used and crew needs rest or crews are not enough to even operate them?
I’m not sure what you are asking. There’s a rule of three issue with using multiple B1 Rivers at once. Tyne was reported as shadowing the Yantar earlier this year. Severn seems to be used mostly for training.
That ‘rule’ is for highly complex larger warships and subs. Not for OPV. Thats the reason for basic weapons system and radar. More time at sea
Come on. You are being picky. What I meant was that if you have three older OPVs, one of which primarily does training, you aren’t going to see much simultanous availabilty for shadowing from the other two. It was a shortform that I expected Donald san to understand. The exact numbers weren’t the point, and there is no “rule of two” for OPVs.
River B1 is designed with 320 sea-going days per year. Double the number compared to a frigate.
If yes, having two in this task is no problem, because they must be “ready” in 80-90% of their life.
What I meant is, “is River B1 now operated in reduced availability?”. And, I understand so.
Naval / RN payroll
How many people are on the books?
How many are “sailors” as in crew for the ships?
How many are on the water tonight?
Is the headcount needed to support Trident monstering the surface fleet — as in reducing numbers past what is needed to keep the surface fleet credible regarding hulls out at sea?
That would be the politicians monstering the fleet as countless governments have done more with less. Mercilessly cutting numbers and budget time and time again because they are all short term.
This has very little to do with the professionalism of RN seafarers, but does highlight the long running sea-blindness and incompetence of our political classes, senior Whitehall people and sadly the Navy Board all of whom have permitted this awful state to mature.
The Royal Navy Frigate shortage is highlighting why they screwed up when they stopped production of the River class OPV’s. Imagine the Royal Navy having 2 to 4 squadrons worth of River class OPV’s to cover their EEZ.
Screwed up? They didn’t even want the Batch 2 river
Imagine if the US was willing to sell or trade the British such as we give them some of our NCS’s to help guard their EEZ in return the the British sell the T26 to the US
The USN didn’t want the T26. I know BAE didn’t enter into the competition, but if the USN had wanted it and signalled that to BAE, I’m sure BAE would have put it up. Let’s hope the Constellation class will get sorted out soon. I think the USN would fiddle with the T26 design in the same way as it did the Begaminis to try to mimic a lightweight destroyer and it would be no better off. I think we need a higher quantity of smaller OPVs in home waters rather than large ones.
BAE didnt enter T26 because they werent ‘in service’ at the time. That was a base requirement
“Responders to the contract solicitation must propose an FFG(X) design based on a parent ship design that has been through production and demonstrated in full scale at sea.”
‘Didnt want’ is completely inaccurate along with the other claims about ‘signalling’
I wonder what would it take for the Royal Navy to restart production of the River class OPV’s
Not a priority
Of course th USN would want AEGIS, US missiles, a fixed SPY radars in any frigate design.
This just demonstrates that the carrier is a white elephant. Even with carefully planned circumstances they couldn’t line things up to have enough escorts available. Wars don’t arrive to schedule. Yes some of the frigates alongside could be rushed back but that is only a short term solution and assumes the war would be over quickly. This is during a period of the highest risk to a fall out war in Europe in several decades.
They really need to get the escort number back up as quick as possible.
In a major war scenario where a carrier is your only option, it’s likely that the merchant fleet is far more important to protect to keep the nation in food/energy. Leaving the carriers without escorts.
I know it’s partially historic justification of this is how we have always done it and partially cost, but having frigates with short range air defence and destroyers with almost no sub surface capability, results in making the issue far worse, as they can’t step in for each other.
I think everyone agrees that getting the escort number up as soon as possible is a priority. I hope that they are building as fast as they can. Then we can argue whether throwing £100m on maintaining a Type 23 is value for money when HMG is still being too cheapskate to crew them. Lack of crew was the unofficial reason Argyll was decommissioned, wasn’t it? Also why the Albions had to go. The highest priority of all right now is enough crew to ensure that the 13 new frigates the RN will be onboarding over the next decade have enough crew for the process to be smooth.
The same is true for the RFA with FSSS/MRSS and I hope there’s speedy progress on their long term status.
How does it demonstrate that at all. We allowed our escorts numbers to falter, that has nothing to do with the carriers
This may be a rude comment but is there a launch date for the first T31? ‘First half of the financial year’ could mean it is months away and the T31 was supposed to be the quick fix for the RN
Still quicker than 26
Can we be sure?
Yes, yes we can.
We will not get 5 T26 before 2030. Ships 1 and 2 are in docks but ship 3 is still a collection of metal.
In a much shorter timeframe T31 ship 2 is coming up and ship 1 will be launching.
LOL.
‘At a ceremony held at BAE Systems’ shipyard in Govan, Glasgow today, work began on the fifth Type 26 frigate” says Navy Lookout
thats was November last year, so roughly 2 under construction and , Belfast hull and superstructure is almost complete and out of the hall. Plus 2 fitting out down river
Belfast is nowhere close to complete. It isn’t even a whole hull yet.
Let’s hope the pace picks up with the new Sheds!