Subscribe
Notify of
guest

73 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steven Alfred Rake

Good luck to Lancaster and her crew/s and let us hope she has as much success as Montrose.
Its just a shame that Montrose will now be written off, yes I know she has been flogged for the last 3 years, but with just 11 frigate’s and 6 Destroyer’s with less than half that number available at any one time I am just wondering if we will ever see more that 20 escorts in the UK fleet again.

Rec

Given the current situation in Ukraine and the delay in T26 production. It would make sense to give Montrose a refit and in service.

David James

Like everything else about the UK our governments are hell bent on leaving us toothless in this increasingly unsafe world, My view should the worst come to pass then anyone in the ministry of defence should be held to account, maybe charged with treason, excessive maybe but at least the people at the top would think twice before leaving us defenceless.

William Pellas

You are of course assuming that should the worst come to pass, there would still be someone alive who could hold them to account.

Steven Alfred Rake

I believe that we should make politicians and civil servant’s accountable for their decisions along with forcing the political elite to a long term strategy on defence, energy, food and water management as well as the NHS. It might mean that these departments be taken out of the control of political influence to stop the 5 year swing. We also need to look at previous decisions and decide if there is an element of treason in the decisions or decision makers if so they must be held accountable. The UK has the 4th largest budget on defence in the world and we have what ?, 2 state of the art aircraft carriers with no aircraft, 5 SSN’s 6 destroyers that brake down when under pressure. An army that can barely deploy 1 armoured division and an RAF that struggles to train pilots and have less that 100 fighters. All that along with no long term policy on Energy or Agriculture.
It seems to me that we (the UK) have been subverted from within, Is this all part of Mr Putin’s and Mr Xi’s master plan or are our political elite just inept!!.

Jon

If civil servants are inclined to arse protection when they aren’t held responsible, imagine how much worse they will be if they are held criminally responsible. It’s a recipe for paralysis. As for treason, it’s an offence which requires proof of intent. Show they’ve been paid by Putin and you can have a trial right now, but sending in a witchhunter to search for an “element of treason” is taking us back to the Star Chamber.

If it was easy to sort the problem, it would be sorted. Clive Sheldon QC is heading yet another procurement inquiry, this time on lessons learned from Ajax. I wish him luck, but I’m not hopeful.

Steven Alfred Rake

It is only my opinion, but I believe there is an element within the CS that bat for the opersition. The UK has (in the past) had a bit of a history of high ranking political/CS personnel being recruited into the Soviet system but since that system has now collapsed we have stopped looking.
As far as the Ajax debacle is concerned I believe that it is simply down to ineptitude from the MoD and the Army but will there be any one held responcible, I very much doubt it. Like most of the so called investigations the people at the top will get a promotion and the British Forces will end up with a 3rd rate product that costs twice the amount our allies are paying for similar products that do the job far better.
The proof of intent that you are looking for is that if the UK went to war today we would struggle to last 2 weeks before the ships at sea ran out of ammunition, the 1 armoured division we can now feild has run out of spear parts and ammunition and the 100 fighters the RAF have left also runs out of missile to fire and fuel to get them airborne.

donald_of_tokyo

1: HMS Montrose is virtually replaced by HSM Argyll, in their decommissioning timeline. As Argyll was originally planned to be decommissioned on 2023, it is NOT a big problem. Anyway, Montrose’s crew is needed to man (maybe) HMS St Albans (see Argyll’s crew, when went into refit, moved across to Iron Duke).

So, although HMS Monmouth loss is a real loss, HMS Montrose’s is as just planned. Anyway, RN active escort number is now limited by the number of crew, not the hull number (this is partly because the T23 on Kipion is assigned double crew.)

2: Then, the issue is, the fate of HMS Montrose. To be sold, or to be kept as a spare-parts provider. I think, the latter is very important for RN. (the same applies for Monmouth). Last year there was a report that lack of spare parts are casting significant delay on escort maintenance. If Montrose can mitigate this problem, it will be very nice.

Supportive Bloke

Ben Wallace did make it clear that is No1 priority was increasing availability of ships for deployments and part of that was to increase spares availability.

OK some of this is going to take a while to get all the inventory back up to decent levels as for years a lot of it has been zero inventory of critical but cheap bits and relying on just-in-time contracts for manufacture on demand backed by STOROB.

RN has made major strides on this, which is why RAF does look a little silly in that they were told to improve pilot training and availability nearly 3 years ago and have not done so.

X

RAF pilot training has been up the wazoo for nearly 2 decades.

Again from the best in Europe to a joke in just a few years.

Supportive Bloke

Indeed and Wallace said fix it.

The problem is so much of it is contacted out and there are so, so few resources with the T1 being retired.

T2 frames are a bottleneck in themselves.

Duker

The military arms wonder when the Secretary of State says ‘fix it’ but doesnt ask for the plans to do so nor provide the funds
The contracting out was the previous means to ‘do more with less’ and the contractor having the sole aim of having a certain number of wings graduates per year

FormerUSAF

Always thought it would be an intriguing experiment to force those who hold decision making power (both senior civilian and military) to be accountable for errors by forcing their personal participation in unfolding events. Many issues w/ budgets, schedules, absurd procurement decisions, etc. would be rapidly resolved. Believe it is human nature that if your own ass is literally on the line, there is a powerful incentive to perform xorrecrly. F**k up the procurement of the (fill in the blank) weapon system? Welcome to the front line and the opportunity to use it under combat conditions.

FormerUSAF

… correctly…🙄

ATH

Very true. I’m not sure a lot of the people who post the various ideas to increase the size of the RN fully understand just how tight the services manpower situation is and is likely to stay for at least a few years to come.

Supportive Bloke

It is tight but it is getting better.

At least all the training intakes are now pretty full. That also pushes quality up as RN can be more selective.

The plan for fleet expansion (hulls), PM and 1SL’s words not mine, needs to mesh with manning.

The elephant in the room is RFA manning which seems to be really struggling ATM.

X

It’s not just recruitment but retention. Probably the latter is the more serious problem.

Supportive Bloke

That is very true too – keeping the experienced boys n girls is vital.

Better accommodation in T45, QEC, T26 and T31 will help as will a lack of sense of decrepitude.

What always used to get me down was working with something ancient that you knew, when push came to shove, wouldn’t do the business. Mind you I am very end goal orientated!!

X

There was a surprising amount of ‘something ancient’ in the Cold War navy.

Teves

It will be interesting to see which uav they go for my fav is the s-100 as it does all the that other others can but it’s more compact and will carry 2 martlets as well. They will probably go for the aw hero as it’s the only one with a NATO stamp of approval. We are very late to the uav party hope they get it right. As for retirement montrose, the crew will probably be required to dual crew one of the T45, not sure where the crew will come from for the first T31 which will hit the water next year as they will be required to shake the 1st ship down for 2 years.

Jon

Why would one of the Type 45s be dual crewed? I’d have thought once out of PIP, there would be less need to do that. The crew of the Type 31 should be about half that of a Type 45 or a Type 23, and I wouldn’t have thought they’d be needed before fit out is complete in 2024 for an in-service date of 2027. There should be time to get the crew sorted out.

I’m surprised there was no bid winner announced for the FTUAS UCR. There was a recent article on Naval News regarding Bristow’s handling the S-100 provision for the Coastguard, so it’s not like we don’t have companies capable of providing and servicing Camcopters.

Last edited 3 months ago by Jon
Teves

I believe 1 T45 will be based in the Pacific region, as for the T31 some crew will be part of the final build with some assistance of the Danes as they were involved with there build if the over huidfield, it’s all part of getting these into the RN quicker than the norm.

ATH

I doubt a T45 will be based it the Pacific. With ships in re power and then in Sea Ceptor fit out together with the requirement to have 2 worked up ships available for duty with the carrier there is no slack. My guess is 1 but more likely 2 T31’s will be based in that part of the world.

Duker

Leonardo Hero , from naval news

Isnt the Schiebel Camcopter S-100 too small to be carrying missiles like Martlet?

Leonardo-AWHERO-first-Ocean-2020-sea-trial-demonstration-770x410[1].jpg
Duker

Diminutive S-100

20200225ran8061448_230[1].jpg
Jon

Martlet only weigh 13kg each, so a couple of them can be fitted to this class, which has around 50kg max payload. Thales have already test fired them from the S-100. The AWHero can carry a similar payload, maybe a little less on a full tank. As they’ll probably be carrying a 30kg I-Master radar, EO sensors and the like, I’d have thought neither will carry Martlet as standard.

Now the obligatory wiki picture of Martlet on Camcopter:

1280px-S-100-OE-VXX.jpg
Last edited 3 months ago by Jon
Gunbuster

Why arm it?

Use it just for ISTAR.
Let the Wildcat come in with a full load out of 20 odd Martlet to ruin your day.

Jon

It certainly won’t be armed in the Gulf where these are going.

The original urgent requirement (2020) was for contractor owned, the second attempt (2021) was for military owned. In both cases

“The requirement is for a capability to FIND, FIX, TRACK and ASSESS Fast Inshore Attack Craft, Crewed and Uncrewed, operating alone, in large numbers.”

They want a flying sensor package.

Last edited 3 months ago by Jon
Supportive Bloke

I think the usual mistake is being made in assume that a room is just the missile itself without any of the rest of the electronics needed to use it effectively.

If you use all the payload for weapon and it’s subsystems where is the sensor and target identification from.

Could be another unit used in parallel I suppose.

But yes, start with a dedicated sensor platform.

Duker

Yes. Plus the missile needs a launcher to carry it , maybe another 10kg ?
Its says its been test fired , but that rocket is going to destabilise the drone helicopter and provide a visual line of sight from the launching point

X

20 Martlets have as much bang as one Sea Skua and only a third of the range. Against a peer the Wildcat would be toast. Crap missile.

Duker

Isnt it the Skua designed against a well armed naval fast patrol boat or FAC while the Martlet the much smaller speed boats of irregular forces .

X

I know what Martlet is designed for. Still crap.

Skua works well against small combatants (see Iraqi navy) but struggles with anything over 500 tonnes (see Argentine naval assets).

Dave G

Not what martlet is intended for! They are for multiple small boats with light weapons only. For bigger boats, they are also getting fasgw heavy (sea venom?)… for major combatants, they should provide targeting data for the mother ships ssm if/when they have one.

2 venom and 10 martlet is a good mix with the option for 4 venom when appropriate.

X

Oh………

Sunmack

Totally agree. An anti-swarm missile which isn’t fire and forget is severely compromised. Sea Venom looks to fit the bill for its assigned mission but Martlet and Spear 3 are just job creation schemes

Last edited 3 months ago by Sunmack
X

I never could understand why the RN never procured Marte for Merlin.

comment image

Last edited 3 months ago by X
X

It needs more range about 10 miles at least 10lb warhead. The guidance system does give me pause.

Teves

It may be smaller but that will make it harder to hit in the gulf , range is better, loader is 5 kg better and it has 2 hard points for martlets also useful in the gulf region for self protection.

Joe16

The right choice, if they can tie it to the other requirement out there for the larger Firescout-size unit. Long-term development with the same company can be very beneficial- as long as you can keep them honest contractually somehow!

Jon

There was a video from about 18 months ago that shows Yeovil have been thinking that way. I’d still want to know if it can operate out of a NavyPOD on the hangarless Rivers. It only claims to be transportable in a twenty foot container, whereas S-100 claims to operate from one.

Gunbuster

Everyone on a T23 is trained and SQEP on T23 equipment. Machinery, Command System, Weapon Systems. To put them on a T45 would mean months of training in Sultan and Collingwood doing PJT packages just to change their SQEP.

pompeyblokeinoxford

Be nice to see it equipped with LMM launchers fitted to its 30mm mounts.

X

A few more cannon would be useful seeing where it is going. And even more ‘machine guns’. Willy waving really but it would give some pause.

Supportive Bloke

It is always Willy waving until you need to fire off at something urgently in self defence…

X

True.

Gunbuster

So a 4.5 directed by an Electro Optic/thermal imaging /Laser range finder director , 2 x 30mm Chain Guns with dedicated Electro Optic/Thermal imaging and laser range finder directors, Sea Ceptor in Surface mode, 50 cals, 7.62 Mini Guns, GPMG and 5.56 Guns isnt enough?
I didnt add in Royal with his toys but they are available as well as are the 2 x Sea Boats with a GPMG and the Wildcat with Martlet and M3 50 cal.

In the years Montrose has been out here she has not had an issue nor any RN vessels prior to that. I work closely with the crew on a regular basis ( I was onboard yesterday in fact!)

Jon

We’ve been told Sea Venom and Martlet are both IOC. When it comes to something like Sea Venom, what’s the practical difference between IOC and FOC? Does it take time to roll out to different ships/copters, we haven’t got full stocks yet, or does it mean they are still likely to need tweaking to get best results?

X

No. There is enough small arms. I spoke about small and light weapons why do you include the Mk 8? Sea Ceptor in surface mode? You have been to the Gulf haven’t you? Have a think. Sea boats with GPMG didn’t Cornwall much good did it? Simply doubling small arms and being more visible is cheap. Sea Ceptor is surface really? Good grief………..

donald_of_tokyo

Only on Sea Ceptor anti surface capabiliy. I understand it is now official. It is also listed on the official brochure.

see file:///Users/nakazawa/Downloads/2021-Sea-Ceptor-datasheet_web.pdf

Gunbuster

I now live in a Gulf nation. I have served on ships deployed to the Gulf many times. I work on USN, RN and RFA vessels on a daily basis. I will be at Montrose this morning infact.

I included all of the above because they are all part of force protection. Train a 4.5 at someone and it real focuses their attention, far more than training a hard to see Mini Gun does.
Sea Boats with GPMG are part of Force Protection. Cornwalls incident was an aberration and should never have happened. I know why it happened and the report wasnt a good read. I was 2 I/C of HMS Marlboroughs boarding team around 18 months before Cornwalls incident. A similar incident almost happened with an Aussie boarding team when we where in the NAG. They however pulled up the boarding ladders, their boats hightailed it and the team told the IRG to do one. A helo turned up and the IRG sailed off to their base. Our teams tactics where the same.

And yes Ceptor has a surface mode…

X

I will add we are in different place geopoltically now than we were in January never mind over the last 3 years. Sea Ceptor in surface mode……>larf<

William Pellas

Kudos to the Royal Navy for this highly professional and well planned deployment. This is certainly getting the most out of the RN’s limited number of ships. But again, the number is simply much too low. Dangerously so. I don’t understand why the MOD doesn’t just build a corvette – small frigate type of vessel and have done with it. Ideally you’d have 16 – 20 of these, but I would settle for 12 at this point. Even something along the lines of the RAN’s new patrol boats would work, provided they were upgunned and networked so they could make some kind of meaningful contribution in an actual hot war scenario.

Duker

RAN operates in South Pacific and small islands of Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. More benign seas – but can have cyclones- so the the RN needs to handle UK and North Atlantic waters, the Mediterranean and Gulf are other countries responsibility for those with light frigates- corvettes, especially Italy has a use for a corvette type vessel like this Commandante Foscari

1280px-thumbnail[1].jpg
Will

Fair point about the rougher waters in the Atlantic, but the old Type 14 Blackwood-class frigates were roughly comparable in size to the new RAN Arifura “patrol boats” and they had an “Atlantic bow”. I still think something along these lines would work for the UK as a mostly home waters force. You could even call it the “Home Fleet”, though in reality it would be more of a flotilla.

Still, the point is that with, say, a dozen of these, together with maybe six AIP SSGK’s and the Poseidon patrol jets, you would give Ivan enough to think about while freeing up most of the high end assets for deployments further afield, ie, in the Far East and Persian Gulf, etc.

HMS_Malcolm_(F88)_in_1958.jpg
rec

I served for a brief period when I was in the RNR on one of the the last of the T14 it had been hastily recommissioned out of the standby squadron It was really underarmed and the Hull did need strengthing. They were not a general purpose design, but AS specialist, they had half the power plant of a Whitby class but the same sonar and as armament and were single screwed. The corvette of that period were the Type 81 Tribals a GP Frigate designed for operating in the Persian gulf. A far more comfortable and better armed ship than a T14. Although single crewed, they could accommodate a Wasp helicopter, had seat and 2 sing 4.5 inch guns as well asa Limbo as mortar znd 2 20mm.

Duker

Thats a late 1940s design optimised for chasing Soviet Whisky class subs with heavy AS mortars which might throw a km or so.
The sensors, weapons and large crews that the designers were able to shoehorn into a small hulls back then was amazing , the Rothesay version of the T12 frigate was 2600 tons full load.
Design standards and space requirements for crew and equipment has changed enormously since then and it would be a T26 size nowadays. The lighter frigate end is the T31 size.

Im not sure of this but warships used to be measured as DWT, as opposed to merchant vessels being GRT which is a volume base rather than displacement. Has the RN moved over to GRT sizing as well for surface ships ?
T21 Amazon frigate was 117m and beam 12.7m 3200 tons
T31 is 138m beam unknown

William Pellas

rec, many thanks for sharing that vivid recollection! Being that you actually went to sea in smaller surface warships such as we are discussing here, I am curious if you think the following sketch would work for the RN as a “heavy corvette” or “light frigate” ship primarily for home waters, the North Sea, and the GIUK gap.

Length: 300 – 350 feet.

Displacement: 2,500 – 3,500 tons

Armament: 57mm super rapid fire main gun. You could use the same mount the Canadians currently have on their GP frigates, or you could go with the American version which currently equips their big Coast Guard cutters. 2 Typhoon stabilized mounts for 30mm autocannon. Probably 4 to 6 GPMG’s and/or Gatling miniguns.1 RAM launcher or Phalanx mount (either would be of the latest upgraded standard). Small SAM VLS along the lines of the old RAN modified “Perry” class frigates (probably 8 cells). 2X4 canister mounts for SSMs, either newest Harpoon variant or whatever the RN decides on—I would go with Harpoon myself because it is a cheap, proven system and can be fired from just about any platform the RN has or will have in the couple of decades. (Note that a networked swarm attack fired from several of these ships acting in concert with Poseidons and/or other nearby platforms could be achieved, which would augment the firepower of a Home Flotilla made up of these types of assets.) For use against submarines there would be 2 lightweight ASW torpedo tubes with a couple of reloads; perhaps you could fit a couple of RAT’s in the VLS depending on the size of the cells though last I checked I don’t think the RN still has any of these lying around and it might not be worth the money to re-develop them.

Aircraft: UAVs which would serve as scouts and could also drop ASW torpedoes or fire shorter range AsuW missiles. There could be a large enough flight deck at the stern for a Wildcat to land for refueling or rearming, but there probably wouldn’t be a hangar large enough to accomodate a helo of that size. Too bad you chaps don’t have a few Kaman Seasprites in storage somewhere. They would be perfect for a ship like this. Maybe Kaman would build you some? This would add some difficulties to the logistics chain (not as much commonality as you currently have with just 2 types of helos), but might be worth it.

I would think you’d be looking at a very basic towed sonar array for submarine detection and tracking. I saw something recently where there is an Australian company that has developed a containerized towed system which would be a lot of bang for the pound if obviously a sizable notch below what you would find on the big frigates in terms of overall capability. Again you could do networking with dipping sonars from nearby helos. I don’t know that rotary UAV’s could successfully operate equipment like this, at least not yet. So that would be a limitation of the design.

Anyway, that’s thinking out loud and painting with broad strokes. All in all this would be broadly similar to the latest Israeli large corvettes (the Sa’ar 6 class) but with an Atlantic bow and lesser emphasis on SSMs. Note however that the Israeli ships will evidently go to sea with two (2) 8 cell SAM batteries (one on either beam) and might still have sufficient space for a few larger VLS cells. However I don’t see any dedicated anti-missile or CIWS other than VLS, where the RN version would have both.

Last edited 3 months ago by William Pellas
Rec

On Corvettes/patrol frigates isn’t that what the type 31 is. And the BAE/CL Leander design that lost out was basically a stretched Vosper Corvette. The issue is man power and a tight budget. I agree about SSKs .

X

The important thing for the RN is too be able to operate Merlin and similar sized cabs; preferably more than one.

Corvettes are too small.

Will

What about UAV’s? Couldn’t they operate a couple of these instead of a Merlin? Alternately, the proposed “Black Swan Sloop of War” with a 3,000-ish tons displacement was supposed to be able to handle a Chinook (!!) on its flight deck.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/658163/20120503-JCN112_Black_Swan-U.pdf

X

Why does everybody here think these drones are going to be so much smaller? Because the sensors are still going to be a certain size. They are going to still require so much power. Weapons aren’t going to get any smaller.

A helicopter sitting on a flight deck isn’t the same as a helicopter in a hangar is it?

Or do you think maintainers are up for doing major work out in the elements?

What about UAV’s?

Salty Dog

Exactly my thoughts X, Drones are only as small or large as the intended mission requirements, losing an MB seat or two makes little difference if the intention is to carry heavy weapons. I believe the successes of drones in recent conflicts might just be due to the failures of the opposing forces and their outdated capabilities.

donald_of_tokyo

I think UAVs discussed here are aiming only at FIND. FIND is long duration and boring task, best fit for unmanned vehicles. Because of this nature, UAV must be simple (to stay long flying/steaming), which is also good for less maintenance load. Cheap and less maintenance directly means more units on-air/at-sea, which is important for FIND.

“Weapons aren’t going to get any smaller”, and therefore those UAVs are NOT mainly intended for ATTACK.

When the system gets larger and complex, the system gets expensive, maintenance load becomes high, and thus number of units gets smaller. Long endurance becomes not easy (for something to fly), and thus exhaustion of crew becomes not important. Thus, ATTACK is more suited with manned assets.

William Pellas

Fair points. I would think we’d be looking at a small hangar that could serve as a repair and storage garage for small to medium-sized UAVs that would have limited but real armament. Say, 2 lightweight torpedoes or smaller, shorter ranged AsuW missiles. Unless the RN would want to go with a smaller manned helo, I would think that’s what we’re looking at here. Either that, or you’d have strictly recon – detection platforms for extending the reach of the ship’s onboard sensors.

Last edited 3 months ago by William Pellas
Jon

I think one reason for calling it a sloop was that you don’t have to call it a corvette or a frigate, both of which conjure up particular mission sets and have headspace baggage. The Black Swan’s limited expeditionary capacity relative to the Rivers (in terms of marines carried) might have been a reason to not go for it, as well as the very short notice due to lack of planning from all involved.

I’d hope the T32 ends up being what the 2012 Black Swan Sloop should have been.

William Pellas

If the T32 ends up being essentially a Batch 2 T31, it will be defeating the purpose of this thought exercise. In other words the 32 would still be a large frigate, where what is being kicked around here is “a large corvette or small frigate” that could be built much more quickly and in sufficient numbers to solve the RN’s dangerous shortfall in surface vessels. Between 12 and 20 of these hypothetical in-between ships would also give the RN much more “distributed lethality” by spreading out weapons among a larger number of launching platforms rather than concentrating them in a small number of high end vessels.

Last edited 3 months ago by William Pellas
Duker

Being smaller doesnt become ‘built more quickly’.
Plus the RN doesnt have the funding to build a dozen or more of the light frigates- say 2300 t- that you desire.
The money has to come from somewhere else and even worse the Admirals know the Treasury will say ‘ you have these capable light frigates, which then means that the bigger frigates are superfluous’ and they would be put up for sale quick as a wink.
The Navy doesnt really exist as being a primarily a sea going armed force anymore. The numbers either capable of going to sea or being trained by or trained to do so might only be under 1/3 the manpower, (maybe someone has a better estimate.?) .
Say 33,000 actual strength

Sure, there will always be the long tail of the ‘land lubbers’ but even if it was 1/3 what is the purpose of the missing 1/3

Jon

“If we become better the Treasury will take away funding so we shouldn’t become better” is not a smart argument. If the Treasury want to challenge the Royal Navy on what ships are necessary, the onus is on them, and I look forward to reading the Treasury’s updated naval doctrine that proving their case.

Duker

They wont get the funding in the first place for ‘more ships’
I dont know where you got the idea it was about ‘ if we become better’
?
They have to ‘do less with less’ all the time – thats why Montrose is going out of service rather than having a post Lifex refit like Argyll is having- so that it would continue in service until the new frigates are operational. Clearly the idea of more ships that the new frigates were going to introduce is another hollow promise before the first is even in the water.

Sunmack

The T23 has been a fantastic ship.

When they first came in I thought that their only weakness was the lack of a CIWS to back-up Seawolf. Although VLS Seawolf was a first rate system for its time, the need for terminal guidance limited the number of targets that could be engaged simultaneously. It was also disappointing that 5 of them lacked a tail as part of the ‘peace dividend ‘ and a view that the demise of Russia meant the end of the submarine threat.

Decisions since to sell 3 of them to Chile and now begin retirements without replacement hulls are also disappointing.

The loss of SSM’s on most of them is disappointing but the modification with Sea Ceptor and a better radar makes then decent in AAW self protection and those with tails and a Merlin remain first class ASW platforms.

It’s a testament to the design that new radars, sonars and SAM’s have kept them current and the loss of SSM’s is for cost and not technical or operational reasons as they could easily take modern cannister launchers for something like NSM.

Even without a tail, the hull mounted sonars on the GP versions still make them decent ASW platforms. Indeed, it’s astonishing that the 30 year old GP’S are superior in every aspect of warfare (NGS, ASW, AAW and ASuW) than the Type 31’s which will replace them.

FormerUSAF

Appreciate the opportunity to extend to HMS Lancaster’s dual crews, Godspeed and a wish for fair winds and following seas during her extended deployment. Sailing (or flying), potentially in harm’s way, in a region where conflict could erupt w/ little advance notice, is a sobering proposition. Caution the crew to continually check six while in the Strait of Hormuz; the Iranians are a fundamentally deceitful, untrustworthy and dangerous collection of religious zealots.

Gunbuster, presume you, and your crew, will strive to the utmost to maintain her in a shipshape (Bristol?) manner?

FormerUSAF

Sorry, just checked Wiki, realize the correct terminology is shipshape and Bristol fashion.