On 20th November the government announced that it would be decommissioning 5 more ships. Here we look in detail at the context and future impacts of these choices.
Downward
Getting rid of ships that are too old to repair or require crews that don’t exist is logical, especially seen from Whitehall or even NCHQ where funding is tight and there is a chronic shortage of people. These can be seen as pragmatic choices that avoid wasting money on old platforms and allow ‘headroom’ to invest in newer technology. While “capabilities are more important than platforms” is true to an extent, the hard fact is that a navy that wants to have an effect in the vast and hostile maritime domain will always need large ships and submarines.
Unfortunately, politicians, Civil Servants and the Navy itself have become so accustomed to the reduction mindset that it has become engrained as normal practice. Inevitably, repeatedly accepting this logic, often in return for promises of new ships to be delivered at a leisurely pace sometime in the future, has had the accumulated effect of drastically reducing the strength of the Navy. Major reform and restructuring of any organisation is needed from time to time but the continuing removal of capabilities long before replacements are in place has put the UK at considerable risk.
This state of affairs is not inevitable and is a choice made by a relatively wealthy nation. Senior officers do not threaten to resign, MPs and Ministers who clearly understand the danger have failed to rebel against the Government and Treasury. Billions of pounds can be found for the NHS (hallowed be thy name), while the MoD has received only modest funding increases. The government line is that we are in a dangerous “pre-war period” and “defence of the nation is our first duty” but neither Tory or Labour actions reflect this.
The dire legacy of the 2010 SDSR still lingers, but the pattern of explainable reductions has accelerated again. In the last three years the Naval Service has lost no less than 15 ships or submarines while gaining just 3 vessels of significance. In every case, apparently good reasons could be given but just one of the vessels removed has been directly replaced. (Autonomous systems have also partially replaced aspects of the survey and MCM capability).
Lost 2022-24
HMS Albion (LPD)
HMS Bulwark (LPD)
HMS Trenchant (SSN)
HMS Talent (SSN)
HMS Westminster (ASW frigate)
HMS Argyll (GP frigate)
HMS Northumberland (ASW frigate)
HMS Montrose (GP Frigate)
HMS Echo (Survey Vessel)
HMS Enterprise (Survey Vessel)
HMS Shoreham (MCMV)
HMS Grimsby (MCMV)
HMS Penzance (MCMV)
HMS Pembroke (MCMV)
RFA Wave Knight (Fleet Tanker)
RFA Wave Ruler (Fleet Tanker)
RFA Tiderace (Fleet Tanker) (laid up)
RFA Fort Victoria (Fleet Solid Support Ship) (laid up)
Gained
HMS Anson (SSN)
RFA Proteus (Seabed warfare mothership)
RFA Stirling Castle (MCM mothership) (laid up)
XV Patrick Blackett (Experimental platform)
Sending signals
President-elect Trump is more determined than ever to make Europeans pay their fair share on defence. It is not a great look for the UK to be formalising significant cuts to the Navy. Trump is unlikely to care about nuanced details about old ships and personnel shortages. Possibly the Labour government brought the announcement forward to avoid making it once Trump takes office. Maybe the decisions of the SDR can then be spun to the new US administration more positively. While the RN can point to a healthy construction programme, cuts to the Fleet of today sends the wrong message to allies and adversaries alike. No wars until the mid-2030s please when we might be in better shape to cope.
As the UK’s most valued and effective contribution to NATO are its maritime forces, cuts to the RN are also dreaded by its European and JEF nation allies. The loss of amphibious capability in particular undermines the excellent JEF construct that relies on intervention from forces delivered from the sea. There is also the long-standing commitment to reinforce Norway in the event of a Russian attack on NATO’s Northern Flank. While UK amphibious resources were never vast, they were at least coherent. Today, the RN’s Littoral Strike capability rests upon just 3 Bay-class auxiliaries and the elderly RFA Argus, if crews can be found for them. These vessels were designed primarily for logistic support and lack command facilities.
There is a completely valid argument that LPDs are obsolete in the face of modern threats and retiring them is sensible. Unfortunately, there are no alternatives in place, at least for the next 8-10 years. MRSS is still in the concept phase and will likely have smaller crews, accept more modular capabilities and have faster landing craft that allow the ship to sit much further offshore, but ultimately they may not be that different from the LPDs.
SDR looms
For the coming defence review, besides funding, there are two key issues; pace of delivery and lack of people. If the SDR does nothing else but focus on delivering substantial improvements in the conditions for Armed Forces personnel, then it would be a major success. The loss of experienced and qualified people is the single most corrosive factor that undermines the Navy. If the Royal Fleet Auxiliary is not to collapse completely, then a 15-30% pay rise is needed. Negotiating the needless bureaucracy and political intransigence that has prevented this being fixed at an annual cost of less than £30M, would be an easy win for the SDR.
It’s taking 11 years to build HMS Glasgow, 4 years to LIFEX a Type 23 frigate, 18 years to deliver the 7 Astute SSNs and there are many other examples of much simpler projects that are also taking years to actually get equipment to the frontline. In every case there may be nuanced “reasons why” but collectively, this inability to deliver anything with a sense of urgency is crippling the Navy and must be addressed. Besides the obvious challenge to industry, this could actually involve employing more skilled project managers, engineers, civil servants and non-frontline personnel. As has been attempted with mixed results before, the new government is committed to major defence procurement reform but plans to reduce MoD Civil Service headcount by 10%. Success will require wider changes in institutional mindset from a cautious, risk-averse peacetime mentality to something closer to a wartime posture.
The premature demise of the Type 23s means there is now zero room for error in delivering the Type 26 and Type 31 frigates. Typically, first-of-class complex warships come with significant issues that might be described as more than routine teething troubles that take time to fully resolve (as was the case with QEC carriers, Type 45 and the Astutes). Simultaneously the RN also has a demanding transition programme to manage, generating trained crews for two new frigate classes, the Dreadnought SSBNs, the switch to autonomous MCM, the new Commando Force model together with whatever MRSS looks like.
Although the ships being retired were not surprising, the timing of the announcement, well ahead of the SDR to be published in Spring 2025 was unexpected. This may be a bad sign that this was a softening-up exercise attempting to mitigate the impact of further cuts to come. Besides keeping the commitments to the existing new-build programme, the RN needs to fend off the irrational attacks on the aircraft carriers and make the case for doubling down on the investment already made. They also need approval for expensive high-end Type 83 air defence destroyers and MRSS. Pulling this off would offer hope its troubles are temporary and the RN can recover its credibility in the 2030s.
“ but ultimately they may not be that different from the LPDs.”
Exactly, yes I know we couldn’t crew them and so on, but the marine raiding strategy whether for strategic or cost reasons is not focused around helicopters, but stealthy waterborne craft, and with the Albions gone we’ve now lost the majority of that capacity, or at the very least the option to even use it. meanwhile between Crew shortages and other taskings like MCM and making up for Fort Vic, we’re not going to have more than 1 or 2 Bays available and Argus is generally on its last legs.
That’s before even addressing the frigate collapse into near non existence and the T45s frankly terrible availability
To be fair following PIP T45 availability will continue to improve and at least we know the hulls haven’t been worked hard which will help us as T83 will undoubtedly arrive late.
Type 45 has been an absolute embarrassment. Radar might be swell. But when the lead ship has been alongside for 8 years… That’s not a world beating warship
The availability of these ships has been an absolute embarrassment around the world.
Marine raiding might be a thing in the Pacific but in the Baltic and Arctic its all about taking points and holding them.
You would think the LPDs would have a lot of value in the Indo-Pacific as well.
But for British security nothing is more important than Northern Europe, these decisions dont reflect that.
Sending British carriers to the Indo-Pacific will do little for the Chinese calculus.
But Russian calculus just changed a lot for Baltic and Arctic operations.
Next years planned trip to the Indo-Pacific is more about training and defence diplomacy than military power projection. The same is in my opinion of all the trips the Invincible class carriers did over their service lives.
Your carriers would be very valuable platforms in the Pacific theater, it is just highly unlikely that if war erupts there that it would not spread in to Europe also.
It also takes a long time to transit to the western pacific from Europe so any UK carrier would arrive after the initial blood bath in the western pacific. Instead I would imagine the Uk carrier force would end up backstopping in the Indian Ocean allowing the US to realise its Indian Occean based fleet into the pacific.
Who are they going to fight , USA,S biggest trading partner. I don’t think so.
Carriers wouldn’t last 24 hours in today’s missile technology.
The “Oreshnik” missile used to attack Dnipro can cover the whole of Western Europe and reach Portsmouth in about 15 minutes from Kapustin Yar launch site
One missile at Mach10 speed with 6 MIRV and each with 6 submunition can sink the whole carriers lot at the pier
The UK has no such capability nor can defense against it
Indeed but if tensions were to the point the UK and Russia were in a shooting war, the carriers would not be tied up they would be hiding behind the Ocean and these IRBMs are a risk but they can only hit static targets.
Wrong , it cant hit moving targets .
The first ship ever hit by an ASBM was the Liberian-flagged MV Palatium 3. Several vessels that were hit are:
MV Swan AtlanticMV Gibraltar EagleMV ZografiaMV Marlin LuandaGreek-owned bulk carrier Star NasiaMV RubymarAn ASBM arrived at a very shallow trajectory, with minimal warning, without a chance for interception, and splashing down around 200 meters from the Eisenhower — CTC Sentinel
Get your head out of your back side for once
Those arent ASBM, Houthis repurposed old AA missiles or Iranian types in a shallow arc.
Plus its in the Red Sea where flight time was very quick, not the vastness of the ocean
“Iran developed an anti-ship version of their Fatah-110 ballistic missile over 10 years ago. This involved fitting an electro-optical /infrared seeker. The missiles are smaller, slower and shorter ranged than their Chinese equivalents, but still potent.” Naval news
You have to actually find them, which is hard as hell in the ocean when they are hiding and if you radiate to try and locate them you will be detected and killed before you can find a ship..even if you are lucky enough to find them you have to track them and report their course without being detected and destroyed until you can fire an effector at them. To kill a carrier you need to find them and get a kill chain across millions of square miles of occean that they are hiding behind ( the ocean is not flat and ships can only see other ships within around 20 miles). Satellites are no good as there is no way anyone has the ability to develop a kill chain from a sat and we know where they all are and the ships can simply not be where they are going to be looking, ships needed to be within 20 miles of each other and aircraft have limited endurance and are easy to spot and kill. The whole killing ships from hundreds of miles away is quite frankly SF nonsense..all ship kills with missiles have been close and within the radar horizon ( 20-30 miles) as that is where our tec base is at re kill chain..
The Argentine Navy Super Étendard found the British Navy in the “millions of square miles of ocean” and sunk the Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyor
They would had sunk more ships had they have more than 5 Exocet missiles
What is this kill chain that you have learned from watching Netflix?
Jonathan
The Russian’s have always had, in low earth orbit, several radar recon Cosmos / Kosmos satelittes: often nuclear-powered birds
These were very reguarly launched and weere tasked precisely for the key role of spotting UK and US carrier strike groups
The first one listed here is nearly as old as me!
1968 – NASA – NSSDCA – Spacecraft – Details
2022 –NASA – NSSDCA – Spacecraft – Details
Their SOP was the sats find the ships – even through cloud cover – then phone home to Moscow; then Moscow phones their subs (SSN and SSGN) and also phones Mr Bear – long-ranged planes armed with air to surface anti-ship missiles: and both then go out hunting at the last known position. And, once found, big ships canoit run away very fast………
Defeating that “modus operandi” was precisely why the T23 was designed for ASW and why it was also fitted with seawolf (very clever stuff this warship design business!)
The standard operating procedures for avoiding detection by recon sats is very clearly spelt out in many naval documents
You need to buy a copy of Tom Clancey 1988’s book “Red Storm Rising”…….. pay Ebay some of your pocket money.
And just to pick up on Jackson’s point:
The Atlantic Conveyor was found by those sneaky Argies by using their ground-based air defence radar to track the UK harriers route back to the two carriers. They were spot-on with their targeting of our fleet. It was only a sheer fluke that the two Exocets were decoyed away from the main carriers – and instead they both hit Atlantic Conveyor
That made the Exocet the single most-sucessful anti-aircraft missile of all time: and the loss of all those helicoptors very nearly caused us to loose the entire 1982 war.
Ask Santa nicely for the excellent book “Harrier 809” for Xmas
…….because not everything you youngssters need to know can be found here on the new-fangled internet!
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Hear Hear! Mr Peter is spot on!
Flight time could be 10-15min for IRBM . Even antiship missiles cued by the volume search of the plane or ship still has to have its own target aquisition for the last 10km or so
The Rorsat program is long dead as are all the sats… you still cannot kill chain using a sat. Still got to find the ship and that’s profoundly difficult. As for the Argentinian attack.. harriers are profoundly short range and were needed in a specific place.. that put the RN carriers dead to rights. The Argentinian airforce still had to get the strike aircraft close enough to get a kill chain and launch.. I’m probably as old or older than you Pete and a mate of mine actually had to jump of the Atlantic conveyor.. I’m also not talking about a well planned attack on a navel force.. Argentina destroyed its own airforce going after the RN, I’m taking about people who somehow think you can wave a wand know were a carrier is in the middle of an ocean and somehow shoot a missile from hundreds of miles away and kill it.. something never done before.. because every other ship in the history of warfare has been killed by something within 20 miles of it.
Volume Search radar on Entendard together with target radar on Exocet
Pray tell what wide area and final target seeker device is used on an IRBM at mach 10 coming through the exo-atmosphere ?
Actually the search was done by something else an old turbo prop.
The Etendard did a couple of scans and then shut down repeat at interval.
Even those scans were picked up and in one case misclassified.
Yes. I forgot about that part.
Argentines had some old neptunes for a short period plus old Grumman S-2A and E Trackers
https://www.key.aero/article/argentine-trackers-worlds-last-grumman-s-2s
If you have to ask then you are to stupid to under stand . Get it into your thick head , ships don’t sink ships from more then 30 miles . The carrier group had aircraft in the sky way ahead to dectect stuff . It’s part of defence . Stick to Netflix
That’s because you’re ignorant of the facts, moron of the month
What you talking about? A 200km range SSM could have even be launched speculatively and turn on its own radar 10-20km from supposed future position of a fleet. With current digital capabilities there is no issue to make a missile to turn on and off its radar from time to time and with dual head use image/ir database to recognize what ship to attack.
ships don’t sink ships from more then 30 miles —
How old are you? Battle of Jutland veteran?
Tell me of one single engagement of ships beyond around 30 miles…you cannot because it does not happen and never has.. kill chain is hard limit and that is still impacted by radar horizons and physics.
What was the war that could occur that and did not?
Why navies have developed SSM’s with 200km range…with helicopters for OTH targeting.
Don’t forget we don’t have many war samples.
Meanwhile
Radar horizons, physics, 30 miles or not —
The U.S. Army successfully used two Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM) against a moving target at sea.
The event, which marked a first, took place during the Valiant Shield 24 SINKEX. 23 Jun 2024
Targets that they had placed and had set up to hit…
Did you get this information directly from US Navy? What else did they tell you?
You said they had undertaken the exercise. I have pointed out all exercises that are live fire follow very exacting rules which include knowing exactly where and when that live fire will occur. so yes they know where the target is and when it will be there, when they will fire their live munition and its route, they have to know that to issue the notice to Mariners and notice to airmen, both of which would be required.
You are right , but for other reasons, the kill chain is detailed here
https://www.twz.com/land/armys-new-prsm-ballistic-missile-hits-moving-ship-for-the-first-time-in-pacific-test
Your PrSM story left out one important part
‘During the Valiant Shield exercise, the missile was fired from an unmanned launcher against a ship with the help of a high-endurance balloon equipped with “electromagnetic spectrum sensors and radio networking equipment,” and an ultra-long-endurance aerial drone, which were part of the kill chain…
You can admit now you have been going down a rabbit hole jackson
Since 80’s you can give OTH data to missiles from helicopters for example. Otomat is an example of that, otherwise what was the point of 200km range.
Indeed, in an enclosed sea, where the ship had to pass through an observed strait. A ship that by law had to broadcast its position.
Iranian small BM repurposed with an infrared seeker in nose or anti ship missile
https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/military-balance/2024/01/houthi-anti-ship-missile-systems-getting-better-all-the-time/
But let’s not forget essentially all of those extended range SSMs are essentially also land attack assets, which is a core reason for long range.
The thing about the small ship flight is essentially the difficultly around it. One small ship fight on a large surface combatant is going to struggle to really find anything unless you know exactly where to send it. If it does find the enemy, you’re probably better just getting it to fire an organic ASM than hang around trying to track a target and maintain a kill chain while the missile you fire from an escort gets to the target.
In the end the big risk is still going to be the air launched ASM, from an aircraft popping up or a torpedo from a submarine and it’s still only really practical to find a ship when it it needs to be in a specific place to do a specific job that you know about..unless a nation has vast ISTR resources it’s able to keep safe on the job, finding a ship that’s trying to hide is profoundly difficult…it’s why Taiwan when it happens will be such a bloodbath because both navies will need to move their ships into a known confined sea..it’s why choke points are so strategically important..it’s that one place you have a good chance of finding your enemy and getting a kill chain..
looking for a carrier in a sea in which your ISTAR assets cannot follow or looking for it in an ocean where it’s not tied to a specific spot is still pretty much not doable unless your very lucky..Russia most definitely does not have the ISTAR assets and what it has could not operate safely beyond its own bastions.
Otomat has never been a land attack asset . Maybe this new version will incorporate it.
https://news.satnews.com/2024/11/22/iceye-to-lead-industry-consortium-to-deliver-advanced-space-technologies-and-analytics/
The British fleet was guarded a landing for f**k sake and had to be in one place.. get a grip
You just carry on as usual…
A lot further out for some sinkings. For the landing the warships were inside Falkland Sound between the 2 main islands
Your point is valid but not all encompassing… sheffield was not in millions of sqkm of ocean. It was about 50miles off the coast of the falklands where it was doing a job that meant it had to be in a relatively small area doing its job trying to make sure other ships were not hit.
Susceptibility comes down to the job you are doing and how you operate to do it (which changes based on the expected threat and the import of the job). In reality, ships are not invulnerable but neither will The entire fleet be sunk in 20minutes.
“millions of square miles of ocean” was NOT originally quoted by him rather, it was used as a metaphor by the other commentor that ships could not be found while in reality naval ships are general known to be operational in a certain area, Mediterranean, Norwegian sea, Arabian Gulf or around the Falkland’s
Neither had I said “kill chain” is not needed, watch the video link, but one thing for sure, long range SSM is the future and not at just 30 miles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo8FhChnyq0
Yes. But the claims were the ASBM were some new wonder weapon, and specifically pointing out the US Army PrSM BM hitting a ‘surface target.
They never mentioned for this test the high altitude LE drone AND the tethered balloon collecting EM
wonder weapon is your word, I quoted that hitting a moving target is possible with BM and the PLA also has such weapons
why would RN upgrade Aster to BM defense with £405 million if BM is not a threat to ships? just give the money to NHS instead then
you are in argumentative self delusion denial of such threats
Ni they didnt, they were in San Carlos water, so very easy to find.
For those Netflix fan
Red Storm Rising — The Dance Of The Vampires
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo8FhChnyq0
Thanks for the link. I haven’t seen that before.
A brilliant book that i have read many times… let us assume the story is real, the carrier was escorting a landing force To Iceland and being operated under the assumption that the Iceland based aircraft would provide an advanced guard which was in reality not there due to a strategically brilliant move by the soviets. The us fleet lost because it was caught out by circumstances not because it was an obsolete concept. The real lesson is war is dangerous, both sides make good and bad decisions and invulnerable platforms and invincible weapons rarely are…
Hat off to you !!!
In wars nothing is certain.
If the ships are in the ocean, perhaps. Not if one carrrier’s stuck in Rosyth waiting for the tide and the other’s in full view of Warrior’s webcam or at a ticketed event in Liverpool. We need to buy into domestic GBAD for our major military assets. SHORAD right now for anti-drone and cruise missiles: 10 Sky Sabre batteries? The time to look at SAMP/T and even SM-3s will come soon enough now IRBMs are in play; we need to lay the groundwork there too.
Indeed. And the ocean to hide in appears to be shrinking!
The Russian IRBM time from launch to its ( fixed) target was 15 min
-Reuters
How far does a carrier travel in 15min
Thats wasnt the longer distances of open oceans either
The simpler Iranian adapted BM with an electro optical IR seeker are slower . These are probably what Yemeni government forces use
It’s pointless developing a long-range Anti-Ship Missile (Tomahawk V) if it’s going to be a useless asset.
Exactly, we might cut the funding now for FC/ASW (Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon) for RN and give the funding to the NHS since long range SSM is worthless
Even Spear3 is pointless with140km range, just cut, cut cut cut for SDR 2025
Hopefully not!
You dont seem to know about the difference between fixed and moving targets. Every missile needs targeting information and unless a longer range has its own radar or seeker of some kind can haave mid course guidance provided to it.
Like your US PrSM test had a high altitude long endurance drone to enable it to hit a moving target at sea. ( Plus the tethered balloon …LOL)
In other bloody word, it proved that is possible to hit moving target at sea with ASBM or otherwise for more than 30 miles, QED
With a kill chain providing all the targeting!
https://news.satnews.com/2024/11/22/iceye-to-lead-industry-consortium-to-deliver-advanced-space-technologies-and-analytics/
https://www.iceye.com/sar-data/use-cases/maritime-domain-awareness
Its an naval land attack missile with ‘some’ anti ship capability when cued by other means such as in flight target updates and its own final target seeker only with the new MST electronics
https://www.militaryaerospace.com/sensors/article/14298548/anti-ship-multi-sensor-missiles
https://www.iceye.com/sar-data/use-cases/maritime-domain-awareness
I’ve often wondered what US military satellites have that we are unaware of!
These are Finnish satellites, they are partnering with Lockheed to combine their AI analytics with them. These are satellite constellations, cheap and small so with enough on station you can get a real time picture.
We can use Scandinavian Allies to get our Royal Marines in to Northern Europe or the Baltics or the Northern waters…I here you were in a right mess but were 🇬🇧 and always find a way…let’s hope we can get the Type 26 and Type 31e operational before a conflict 🙏
At what point do we need to start thinking about Conscription? I know it’s unpopular but our biggest problem is crewing the ships and everything else they have tried hasn’t worked.
They haven’t really tried everything because they’re not willing to spend the money.
Exactly.
John Healey
“We are now facing deep-set problems, and those deep-set problems run over the last 14 years: recruitment targets were set and missed every year; in the last year, service morale fell to record lows and over the last year our forces were losing 300 more full-time personnel than were joining, every month
Conscription might work if the war is of FPV’s , that way you can conscript the gaming, console crew.
Conscription just puts a bunch of 19 year old new unmotivated untrained sailors in the navy. These people would need lots of experienced sailors to train and control them. By the time they’re vaguely useful their 18/24 months are up and 90%+ of them are out the door. Conscription would be a net loss to the RN.
Plus as the last election showed it would be political suicide for any party proposing it. Even Farage’s bunch of nutters aren’t pushing the idea, that’s how bad it plays with the electorate.
Needs accommodation spaces which already are in poor condtion.
ATH, you are spot on. My dad was regular army at the end of WW2 and signed-on for a bit more. He hated the national servicemen; “they didn’t want to be there and by the time they became useful, they left to go back to being civvies”.
Maybe if the navy stopped using out of date BMI for young fit rugby players who they want to lose 15 kgs of muscle to meet there BMI my lad had a nightmare trying to get in I had to pay private for a doctor to say they haven’t got a clue even US navy stopped using it and according to the US navy version he is FIT /ATHLETIC but RN has him as OBESE maybe get into the 21st century only because he 3rd generation navy that we put up with it
At the defence committee hearing some MPs had specific knowledge of constituents sons who waited 12 months ..just to be seen.. That was a first interview!
Yet the recruitment targets are never met in any year and every month a few hundred more leave than are replaced .
Sounds like there are sub quotas within targets , sure some specialities fill easily but still a month should be the most time to be seen
The RN doesnt use Capita for recruitment but Capita “do” the shore training and the RADM who introduced that ‘saving’ is now head of all Defence People and a higher rank.
Agree there are many outdated practices. I believe the new government highlighted this and have taken an axe to many. We shall see. We still have a huge number of applicants rejected, any dent in the recruitment incompetence would be welcome.
Only when we’re engaged in a hot war.
Random Commentator
You are just like all of our politucains and civil servants
= FAR TO SOFT
Conscription pulls in everybiody – which is just hopeless
What we now need is a properly targeted recruitment policy = one that only selects those best suited to a hard life at sea on HM warhsip
So the ONE AND ONLY solution is:
BRING BACK THE NAVAL PRESS GANG
After all, it is what orginally put the word GREAT as a prefix to the word Britain
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
You get more satirical or mad as each day goes by.
ATH
Hopefully both
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
However all joking apart….. there is in reality very little difference between press ganging and conscription. In both cases you will only forceably recruit throughly demotivated young people who don’t really want to be there.
Thus it is definitely not what is needed now….
Press gangs won’t work..they had a very simple “find the experienced hand process”…roll up the victims sleeves and look for the tattoos….almost every gen Z and Gen Y is tattooed to the eyeballs…press gangs would just end up with loads of call centre staff.
maybe they shouldn’t have stopped recruiting white males?
🤣
Kristopher
You naughty boy!
The RN will never ever reach the woke / PC diversity targets that are now set for the UK armed forces IF one keeps attracting and recruiting all of the “wrong types”
Who wants, or actually needs, a fighing force manned (note 1) by people who actually want to go out and fight for their country ?
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1. A very unfortunate slip up…..for which I can only profusely apologise
Temporary doesn’t stretch for decades.
Definitely terminal, which as an former global power means, the bark is worst than the bite!
The UK cannot be countered on by allies and against a middle power would struggle to win alone
… Some would argue the days of standalone military action are over and clearly forget the Falklands; for example, where no ally stepped up to plate. A nation must be able to defend itself and win against a peer nation. The question is in today’s world and the future, who is a peer for the UK? (Rhetorical – it’s clearly a smaller medium one).
So much for NATO-first.
https://www.quora.com/Did-any-Commonwealth-countries-offer-any-military-support-to-Britain-during-the-Falklands-conflict-In-particular-Canada-Australia-or-New-Zealand
Its an opinion thing and I know any actual details from 40 years ago
Our commonwealth friends helped to backfill peacetime roles but the point stands, no one stuck their neck out with putting people or assets in danger to help Britain, I recall at the time the French lying in their news about carriers being sunk and happy with the performance of their Exocet missiles.
NZ offered a frigate to relieve a British asset elsewhere (Indian/Middle East) to free it up for The Falklands, the offer was declined.
Back on topic … perhaps NZ is a peer nation 😉
The offer was accepted for Armilla patrol but not for the conflict zone
this was the one
There’s a reason that the latest model of The sidewinder was released. And amazingly enough the Royal Navy had all the fuel they needed . And then there was all the satellite intelligence… He was just done quietly … Short memories for some people
True and a lot more besides.
Once the task force was committed Ronald Regan was determined that it would succeed otherwise it would have damaged NATO.
Ronald Regan was..but a lot of the administration thought it was the wrong idea and the US seriously pushed thatcher to go for a peace settlement. In the end the US decided full support for the UK was in its strategic interest..but it was not happy.
Yes. Chile was especially helpful and went over and beyond
Yes the latest ‘L’ version was supplied, amongst other weapon systems (Phalanx comes to mind), though they did substantially increase the prices too!
Again, a shoulder to shoulder ally they were not.
I’m too disheartened to reply to the general thrust of the article, knowing at least ASW will get worse before it gets better. I expected Ft Vic to be on the chopping block in the SDR, but maybe that she isn’t already gone in this announcement is a glimmer of hope (have to try and stay positive).
Instead of flogging Bulkwark to Brazil, have we even considered making it a NATO (JEF) ship and asked other nations to contribute crew, learning some NATO interoperability? Six nations, 55 crew each, rotating. Opportunities for some Kiwis perhaps. A real opportunity to serve on a NATO command ship. Someone on an earlier thread suggested Albion as a Bristol replacement. Innovative thought rarely seems allowed to percolate through the system to a point of action. Rarely. Proteus and Stirling Castle – they were new thought. Bravo. Let’s have more of that. Especially in procurement and financing. If the only way the RN is allowed to order new ships is to decommission even more of them first, decline will be terminal.
It would be interesting to understand the current deployed and useable capabilities of the automated mining vessels. We read the names of RNMB Harrier, Hussar, Hazard, Halcyon, and Hydra, then the name Apollo flashes by and Hebe and an order of Seacat UUVs, and they have to be able to do something, right? However, we also read words like evaluation and how Halcyon did trials and how Hazard is developing Conops, and I for one wonder if these boats can actually do any real minehunting or minesweeping yet and if not when will they be able to. I wonder, given the effective loss of the Sandowns to the RN at the start of this year, when we we have restored minehunting capability on a par with them? Are these USVs and UUVs dependent on RFA “Castle” vessels that we can’t crew?
What’s the Minehunting skinny today (outside of the Hunt class) and what the programme milestone dates leading to FOC, which I recall from a previous article here being 2033?
Issue is:
1) economy is near stagnant
2) health care costs are ever increasing
3) social care is near collapse and desperately needs more funding
4) cuts to the scope of either health care or social care are unacceptable to the public
All this points to less spending on defence in future. Meanwhile the armed forces continue to try to do everything everywhere with less and less. MOD need to sort out what they can realistically achieve on a finite budget and adapt accordingly.
Culture, culture, culture.
You don’t get defence with current culture where big part of the country – The Guardian part – hates England.
Trouble is the telegraph reading population don’t want the military either..well they do they just don’t to pay taxes to afford them and want them for free….and the Mail reading part of the population think we should just ignore the rest of the world and let them get on with it and the guardian part think somehow you need two sided to make a war and if we refuse to play then we can avoid a war and live in peace with the predators. Basically almost no one is willing to stand up and stay the truth, from 2014 we needed to have been on trajectory’s up to 3% GDP spend and after 2022 we should have accelerated that to 4-5% GDP.
A Fabian would say so.
HMG is full of money, it just wants to spend in other stuff.
After 14 years shows theres the ‘Thatcherite- City’ wing of Conservative Party who hates the Ministry and defence services.
Boris tried to get around them for the navy but his people in Downing St were a clown shop
With BJ as chief clown.
Churchill had huge personality handicaps and ‘foibles’ but that was managed but it was his leadership that was the primary focus and of course the right person at the right time.
The problem is the the MODs remarks that they continue to meet commitments, having an offshore patrol vessel accompanying a Russian transit through the channel is not meeting commitments for example.
The choice is as has always been, put your money where you’re mouth is or accept you can’t make meaningful contributions to task forces etc.
The RAF didn’t meet commitments from 2010 until P8s became operational as they didn’t have the capability.
Foreign aid? Net Zero? Rainbow Police Cars and Diversity Training? Some money floating around there.
Is it beyond the ability of commentators to be logical? This doomism is nonsense. As all NATO members have reduced capabilities since the end of the Cold War, we are not an outlier. As all NATO members face spending “challenges” we are not an outlier. There is a lot of very capable kit coming on stream in the next 10 years. We are midway through a complete modernisation, from ships to subs, aircraft to drones and tanks to reconnaissance vehicles. I’m not sure there has been such a modernisation programme in a couple of generations and it isn’t clear to me that a cold, clear, dispassionate analysis would show anybody else managing it better.
Labour seem to be taking the modern management approach of making the difficult decisions quickly (see Rolls Royce & TE). Nothing wrong with that.
Stop coping, we are constantly retiring kit before replacements and shrinking our forces compared to nations that spend less than us. Italian Navy is the premier Euro Navy at this point, in fact we’re premier at nothing anymore.
Are we just hoping. Whatever aggressor kindly waits 10 years for new kit
Hugo, I know that it’s not fashionable to rely on facts and data these days, but a quick look on Wikipedia gives us;
This is a list of active Italian Navy ships. The navy maintains approximately 181 ships in service,[1] including minor auxiliary vessels. The fleet has started a process of renewal that will see 50 ships retired by 2025 and replaced by 30 multi-mission ships.[2] Ocean going fleet units include: 1 aircraft carrier, 3 small 8,000-tonne amphibious transport docks, 3 air-defence destroyers, 4 general-purpose frigates, 6 anti-submarine frigates, and 8 attack submarines.
Which suggests, on any objective criteria we would have to downsize the RN quite a bit to compare with the Italian navy!
Actually read their building program and orders, they’re planning Cavour CVL, Trieste LHD, 3 new LPDs, 4 modern destroyers, potentially 6, 14 frigates, 7 minor frigates, 8-10 submarines and that’s just the front line combatants, and difference is all of those are actually crewed
Re the Italian building programme, to throw your quote back at you
“Whatever aggressor kindly waits 10 years for new kit”
You realise they already have most of those ships? And their shipyards are faster.
They’ve got 15 Frigates in service and 3 destroyers, they’ve got 3 functional LPDs, not something we can say, Trieste has now been commissioned, they obviously have Cavour and a fleet of 8 submarines, and they have 4 frigates that will be joining the fleet within 2 or 3 years. That’s looking a hell of a lot healthier than us
Yep, 3 frigates next year, 2 Fremm and 1 PPA and another in 26
And in the fleet above there are only 3 majorly outdated vessels being their oldest destroyers from the 80s-90s and 2 frigates which are being replaced by the 2 Fremm next year
Italy have Cavour, Trieste will enter service in a week or so.
Destroyers are 2 Horizon DLP was retired this year.
Frigates are 8 FREMM+2 being build and + 2 EVO ordered.
They are all modern frigates with electric propulsion.
6 PPA “6000t light frigates/OPV wink wink” with Aster BN1 and planar dual band radars. The initial light ones will be converted to full.
+2 will be sold to Indonesia and 2 PPA EVO will be build.
Submarines are to be build too.
An important point as Hugo says is that they build fast.
RN have advantage on SSN and the carriers, but RN will be still an uneven navy with T26,T31 continuing with one trick pony theory.
—–
On a side note the French are already talking about Houthis AAR’s and their first requirement is more guns in ships.
Yeah but so are we!
So are we what? We’re certainly not doing it as fast as them, and they’re already ahead of us in frigate replacement
The Italian navy has significantly improved its major warships..with very large building programs and will have a far bigger major surface combatant fleet than the RN by the end of the decade.
No they won’t
So where RN came up in 2030 that can cover 2 Horizon, 10 FREMM frigates and 7 PPA?
That assuming their 2 10000t cruisers will not be ready.
Well let’s look see
the Italian large surface combatant fleet of 2025 will be
10 FREMMs ( 6700 ton ASW and general purpose frigates)
6 PPE, which will all be full or light plus weapon fits making them 6200 ton GP frigates in anyone’s navy.
2 horizons class destroyers
1 Durand de la penne class destroyer.
thats 19 major surface combatants vs the RN 8 frigates and 6 destroyers..so 19 vs 14
after both navies have finished there present building programs their navies in the mid 2030s will have
Italy
12 fremms
10 PPE ( all moving to full fit)
2 horizon class destroyers
2 heavy AAW destroyers at 13,000 tons
for a total of 26 escorts
the RN is at present is going to be 6 T45s, 8 T26, 5 T31s
for a total of 19
Even if the RN gets its extra unfunded and not yet programmed 5 T32s it will still have a smaller escort fleet.
It is not expected more than 7 PPA. But 2 of this will be EVO able to take 64 Aster. 2 existing one will be exported to Indonesia.
Count the ships then, they’ll have 12 Fremms, 7 PPA, 2 Horizon, 2 DDX, CVL, LHD, 3 LPD, 6 missile armed EPC, and that’s just armed vessels
The difference is we are cutting at a time when other nations are increasing spending and increasing capabilities. The Netherlands now has a more potent amphibious force than we do.
We also are not learning lessons. Ukraine has shown the value in having reserve equipment that can be used in a crisis. The £50 million annual savings are poor value compared to the loss in equipment and capability.
Defence is always modernising, it never ends, something the Treasury cannot wrap its head around. UK forces procurement has been completely messed up.
T26 + T31 are coming years too late, same goes for FSS that should have been built in tandem with the carriers. Just look at the Astute programme, all of that money building the submarines but nobody bothered to make the proper support infrastructure available, hence no SSNs at sea for six months. Astute is a 25+ year programme, everyone from the MoD to navy top brass knew what was needed yet they allowed the situation to develop.
For the size of our defence budgets and commitments what going on is beyond bleak, our legitimate concerns are not ‘doomism’.
Would you care to give an example of the RN or MOD “budget” being cut in the last 10 years. Or an example of any NATO member outside the US that has a bigger defence budget. I know facts are tedious and emotional decision making is much more satisfying.
NATO figures for 2024: Germany $97,686m, UK $82,107m. We used to come second, mostly because we have the third biggest NATO economy and Germany has been beating itself up for a couple of generations after the Hitler thing. It seems to have stopped a bit now.
We are 8th in terms of percentage GDP.
MOD budgets were cut every year between 2010 and 2016 in real terms, that’s less than ten years ago, but we don’t need to go that far back.
In 23/24 MOD budget was £54.2bn or £56.8 including Ukraine). In 24/25 it is expected to be £54.1bn or £57.1bn including £3bn for Ukraine. That’s not just a real terms cut, that’s an absolute cut. It gets worse when you look at resource DEL in real terms: £35bn last year dropped to £32.8bn this year (in this year’s money), which tells you all you need to know about why the latest cuts. Capital DEL also fell in real terms. [All the figures from the House of Commons Library or a recent HMT publication. However they exclude the “in-year efficiency savings” — so it’s probably even worse.]
Germany, Germany has a bigger budget than us
You may find it instructive to examine what that budget actually gives them.
So – careful with comparisons.
The Luftwaffe has;
85 Tornado
141+35 Typhoon
+35 F35 on order
48+5 A400M Transport
3 KC130J Tanker
70 CH53
+60 CH47 Chinook on order
and
share with NATO
14 E3 AWACS at Geilenkirchen
9+ A330 MRTT Tanker/Transport
In terms of TacAir not according to the Bundeswehr website they don’t.
Homepage – Bundeswehr
Not sure you can man all those cabs with only 28000 people.
Does this really help to solve the issues of RN? So they have a problem than we don’t.
N-a-B
You should have pointed out to ICE that the German Defence Minister – Ms Useless by name and Ms Uuseless by nature – was sacked (ie sent upstairs) very soon after many German newspapers ran front page articles about how the Bundewehr was exercising with boom sticks instead of rifles (i.e. under PM Merkel).
It made our own Warmington-on-Sea Home Guard look advanced!
ttps://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/german-soldiers-used-broomsticks-instead-of-guns-during-nato-exercise/#:~:text=Soldiers%20resorted%20to%20painting%20broomsticks%20black%20and%20attaching,headquarters%2C%20and%20were%20never%20supposed%20to%20be%20armed.
Then when shew as head of the EU Commission, Ms Useless Von de Leyden carried on regardless – by actively encouraging Ukraine to join both NATO and the EU.
This is of course the very same Germany which a certain Mr D. Trump has very heavily criticised for
I personally will not be applying for the job of German defence minister when it becomes vacent early next yaer
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
What matters is having the budget consistently over a number of years. Which they haven’t had yet.
I also believe that this is the “proposed” German budget. Anyone that reads German defence blogs and thinks German defence is anything but a joke should have a word with anyone serving in German forces.
While I take your point, the NL has more crewed amphibious shipping – unfortunately they are big, old, vulnerable, and have old and slow ship to shore connectors, which probably means they are not a “more potent amphibious force” but just an amphibious force…. still, ships are flexible platforms, and they have retained theirs until the replacements are ready, and their terms and conditions of service (including their unionization?) appears to mean they don’t have the RN’s recruitment and retention issues?
HMS Bulwark 19560ton 18knots launched 2001
vs
HNLMS Johan de Witt 16800ton 19knots launched 2006
Which one is older slower and bigger?
Which one is invulnerable to torpedoes, mines, anti-ship missiles, drones or even conventional artillery ? Which one doesn’t require protection of air cover or escorts ? They are essentially the same.
A war is coming.
Look at the production numbers for Russia and China, the decision has practically already been made.
If the Russians where on a defensive posture in the strategical level and Ukraine was an accident they want to end, defense production expansions would look different, their mobilization would look different.
Russians have an demographical problem (even Chinese have it) and their expansionist aims are partly related to that.
But their losses are not as catastrophic as many claim.
They have largely used older reservists or even emptied prisons and their force generation vastly exceeds their losses.
They have larger age classes coming up for the next ~5 years and they intend to train and equip more of them than before in reserve.
And now they have a cadre from the Ukraine war to train and lead them.
Why the panic?
Some of you kept pointing out the crappy Chinese ships and disfunctional Russian weapons
And how wonderful British Storm Shadow is and marvel at Type45 one shot one kill ability
So rejoice, rejoice!
Well I am not one of those people, I have never underestimated neither the Russian or Chinese threat.
I have warned people of China becoming a permanent presence in Europe and Atlantic before we had 100.000 N-Koreans heading for Europe.
That will start NATO planning from scratch so they are waiting out for these last cuts they can squeeze out of idiotic European politicians.
Simply put china is on the road to war, it’s told its people it’s going to war, it’s even told the west it’s going to war, it’s hardend its economy and supply chains which have cost it 1-2% or growth a year, it’s putting the equivalent of the entire RN in tonnage of warships into the water every 18months to 2 years..
It has a plan and once it thinks it’s capable of dragging the USN into a mutual blood bath in the western pacific, it will go to war…it’s happy to shatter the PLAN if the PLAN shatters the USN, because China knows it’s got 260 times the ship building capacity of the US and can rebuild its navy in less than a decade..where as the U.S. would take 40 years. China is a modern powerful threat that can and will go toe to toe with the U.S. and it thinks the U.S. will to fight will crumble before chinas does.
Russia on the other hand is a has been nation, with a crap navy and 40 year old airforce. It’s GDP is tiny compared to European NATO and it’s forces are tiny compared to European NATO if it went to war it would be dependent on its nuclear forces as a backstop to the the European powers not crushing it completely.
The big risk to be honest is china managing to harness Russia, the Russian satellite nations, North Korea, Iran and its satellites into a world war which stretches across the globe and overwhelms the ability of the western nations to respond on all fronts and destroys their economies by removing access to all markets and resources..because the populations of the west will not be willing to suffer a catastrophic collapse in their way of life.the Chinese, Russian and Iranian peoples are utterly controlled and would have not choice..that’s why China thinks it would win…by out suffering the west into submission.
Agree with most of your analysis. However, would add that I read an article recently from a US Think Tank which suggests that a large portion of the Russian atomic arsenal is probably inoperable because of poor historic maintenance. With regard to the Chinese, I think people underestimate the pause for thought that Ukraine has caused them and why they have substantially upped their level of exercise and training. Bearing in mind, outwith their propaganda, their forces are generally untested.
So it can only destroy the world 5 times over instead of 50 times. That’s a comfort.
You seem to think that Russia is the only country with nuclear weapons, not to mention NATO countries actually service theirs!
Not really. Just pointing out that nuclear deterrence is primarily binary. Russia losing a few hundred warheads doesn’t change whether they can or can’t backstop.
Britain and France are only other nato countries with their own nuclear warheads
Germany , Netherlands , Belgium use the US supplied and controlled aircraft bombs
Some boys cost money and those bits can be sold….
The Russian armed forces losses in the few year were from their most highly trained and professional units, when they thought conquering Ukraine would be a walk-over. It’s only in the last year they’ve been using reservists, prisoners, etc in human waves to swamp Ukrainian defensive positions with targets.
As for their casualties, between 500k and 750k killed or wounded, or 2% of the male population between 20 and 50 years of age. (Though they’ve actually sent men in their 60’s into the front-line.)
Their current forces are better than they started with, their permanent casualties are most likely under 500k.
They have lost one age class of manpower in 1000 days of fighting, 30-50% from those are older classes,
Their recruitment is up to 1000 per day for the past 6 months.
They have larger age classes coming up the next 10 years and they intend to train a larger percentage of them.
They are producing ~ 2-3000 MBT per year, ~4-5000 APC/IFV per year etc
When you add the North-Korean production and manpower the situation is not good for Ukraine and NATO.
And in future planning you have to add the Chinese production and manpower.
Hilariously wrong.
The Russian armed forces are significantly weaker and poor than they. Which is why they recently took the crew of the aircraft carrier “Admiral Kuznetsov“, gave them them AK-47s, and set them into battle as footsoldiers. And if Russia were producing 2,000 MBTs per year we would be seeing the wrecks of T-14 Armata tanks littering the countryside, and not T-55s that were previo In museums and used by movie-studios as props.
Ah yes North Korea production, the artillery shells that Russians are afraid to fire due to their high failure in breach. Or the North Korea ballistic missiles than fail 40% of the time because they use parts scavenged from Toyotas…
Nobody has estimated their tank production to be under 1500 for 2024.
That is the same amount they can fit in their garages, have you seen pictures inside of those? Do we assume they are empty?
The ones available outside can people count.
They are mainly producing and refurbishing legacy tanks, T-80 to T-55.
They have expanded every factory and refurbishing base and built new ones.
They have overcome the optics bottleneck, most likely with help from China.
Some estimate that gun barrels are the next bottleneck do to lack of radial forging machines.
I doubt that since they are still using the same machines Soviets bought from the West.
They also bought some just for storage for wartime production.
Until someone can show they where sold during the 90s it would be wise to assume they are now available for production.
Their budget just increased by 25%.
What they will produce 2025 nobody knows but odds for the numbers and models to be similar to 2024 is not very likely.
T-55 works fine as infantry support, especially defending field fortifications.
North Korean production seems to be mainly of Chinese origin, good way to support Russia indirectly.
No point in knocking with Simple Sean there is no one home.
The BBC have told him Putler is evil and the Russians have a zillion casualties per day and with several zillion running away.
He has probably got a little alter set up to Zelensky and Biden where he prostrates himself three times a day in the hopes that the Almighty strikes Putler down.
You would have more success teaching a pet rock astrophysics.
Well Putin is evil and he needs to be taken down.
Accepting that he is winning at the moment is needed to achieve that.
Also accepting that NATO needs to plan for the permanent presence of China and other Russian allies in Europe and the Atlantic.
On current evidence the Russians couldn’t invade Ireland!
Ireland has no real air forces, air defense or navy, army is about 6 battalions and 1 artillery battalion.
Russia has invaded about the same size territory and population that Ireland has.
They are advancing daily, taking economically most important regions in Ukraine.
Thousands of MW in power production, hundreds of millions of tonnes of minerals and production capacity.
No joking matter.
Well unless the UK let them.😄
The question common in my parents’ generation was, if your friends fell into the mud, would you jump in too? As your answer would clearly be yes, I suppose I should ask you, if our friends are already climbing out of the mud, do we still need to jump in? We have always been a naval outlier, because, just look at a map! Someone other than the US needs to be able to take a lead.
Royal Navy modernisation should be a continuous process, not a set of capability-gapped programmes every generation or two. The fact that you see it as a programme of modernisation is already wrong-thinking. I suggest you consider the Parker report again.
As for a modern management approach, you call in the axeman when your company is flabby, not when its on its last legs.
No Jon, you take difficult decisions to cut clapped out kit at the earliest opportunity! What business school did you go to? I know mine gave me an MSc in risk management and they never once mentioned the efficacy of putting off difficult decisions.
It’s clapped out cause of government mismanagement with no replacements in sight.
You wouldn’t want to start from “here”, but here is where we’re at. All the government can do is best move forward in a way that can be sustained. That’s sustained physically in terms of trained people and the ability to train more people and the physical facilities. It’s also means politically sustained there’s no point making plans that just won’t get support in the PLP.
If you want to fundamentally move the dial you need to work to either change the opinion of the PLP or get in a new government in 28/29 that will actually prioritise spending on defence rather than cuts in taxes.
It’s not the speed I object to. It’s the decisions. Far from being difficult, cutting the LPDs is as facile as decision making comes. Several politicians have made the same one on coming into office only to change their minds. Didn’t one of them, Gavin Williamson, say saving them was one of the smartest things he did? Admittedly in his case not a very high bar. Maybe we can disagree as to how clever it is to cease production by cutting your only kit, no matter how clapped out it is, when you can’t replace it for eight years.The RN isn’t quite going that far, but they are gapping what many believe to be essential capabilty for about that long. Maybe I think that lost capability costs more to regain than it would have cost to hang onto it in the first place. Consider barriers to re-entry. My MBA courses taught me to think for myself before applying GIGO formulas and methods.
What does your risk calculus tell you about the CGS’s warning of war in three years? What’s our mitigation? I agree about Northumberland as I agreed about Westminster and expect to agree about Richmond. (I don’t know why Argyll went, but if it was lack of crew as the government implied, that’s not a decision I can agree with.) My question is, three frigates sold, or disposed of without the expected refit, why hasn’t the recovered/unspent money been ploughed into risk mitigation? If Richmond goes early the same way, will we see the £50m saved go into more ASW capability elsewhere?
There’s an awful lot of Private Frazers on here who simply enjoy whinging and whining no-matter what.
..
Glad to see someone got the reference, too subtle for many I suppose. And completely over the heads of the Russian trolls.
Agree, maybe they post together down the pub!
my heart does not want to agree but my head does agree with you on almost all of it.
the only bit of this I don’t agree with is Bulwark, it’s just been refitted and is good for another 8 years. Personally I think Bulwark should have been kept at extended readiness and used to take over from the carriers as they go into their long refit cycle…it would have pretty much lasted until the MRSS were ready to take over.
Albion was done, it was only ever going to stay in extended readiness until it was scrapped in a decad…even if we went to war it would have needed significant refit and would probably never be used.
The Waves have been something the MOD has been looking to get rid of since 2018 and have been in extended readiness for 2 and 4 years..they would need a refit to come out and their planned scrap date was in four years anyway..so many as well get rid now.
The T23 was as we all know scrap anyway.
Those medium and heavy rotors are probably aready out of airframe hours and in bits for spares.
watchkeeper just needs a quick replacement with a modern cheap drone that’s essentially attritional.
I am confident that if Britain would bring the LPDs and tankers the Dutch and Nordic navies would provide most or even all the escorts to any JEF task forces.
These task forces would be a signifant deterrence on station and if needed seize or recover key points in the area of operations at the start of operations.
They would also be the tip of the spear and core force for unopposed or lightly challenged landings that still need screening and reserves.
Which ships would you layup to allow operation of the LPD’s? The RN doesn’t have the people to crew them and the rest of the fleet and can’t have the people before the mid 30’s. There’s no magic wand to fix this.
Such a thing as having a reserve
Why can’t the RN have the people before the mid 30s?
Seems like the cuts were made on the basis that we wouldn’t have people even by then. Plus all the new frigates need crews
Because to be of use you need a proper mixture of new joiners and experienced people. The people who start the recruitment process today will take 10 years till they are have gained the necessary experience.
Seems like a peace time attitude when you should be preparing for war.
Pay more, recruit from poor Commonwealth countries, conscript.
I dont really care how you do it, this is in your national interest also.
Nobody has even mentioned that Chinese might start operating in the Atlantic, what irony if they send LPDs to secure their interests.
Empty the prisons, anyone not an addict and only slightly sosiopatic is fine material.
In a modern technologically advanced navy? It’s not the 19th century.
Modern ships are easier to train and operate than a SOL.
Really?
I served 24 years in the Royal Navy and completely disagree with your statement. Being able to play Sea Power: Naval Combat in the Missile Age does not turn you an Electronic Warfare specialist (my branch) or any other branch in any modern navy or other fighting force for that matter.
Having run my own department on several ships, turning people right out of training into competent operators (of any branch) requires hard work and effort from them and the people in their respective departments to turn them into useful assets.
It seems clear that fixing the manpower issue is a priority to ensure this near collapse is temporary and not permanent.
The present crisis in hull numbers has been entirely predictable. Delays to the ordering of T26, a ship that had been planned for years in the GCS programme, and the 2 year delay in re- running the T31 competition , meant that a bad situation would become much worse as T23 numbers continue to fall and T45s spend more time alongside than at sea.
Effectively there is nothing that can be done to improve the situation over the next few years apart from trying to speed up the build schedules of new frigates.
In the longer term it really shouldn’t be hard to avoid a repeat of the current situation. Modern build times are so long, that losses in combat couldn’t be replaced in any useful time frame. But ensuring we have an adequate number of escorts ought to be easy. If we need @Владимир Темников 20 and assume a useful life of 20 years, we have to build just one new destroyer/frigates a year. If we keep building proven designs, costs and build times should both reduce.
The fact that we haven’t achieved this modest ambition yet is a result not just of political decisions on funding, but the ineptitude of RN senior leaders over years.
It’s easy to say “build proven designs”. Where do you get them from? How do you maintain the necessary skills to identify whether what you’re buying is actually what you need / want?
The issue is actually that we have not conducted frequent enough designs over the years, such that there is a huge skill shortage in the industry. One of the reasons why both T26 and T31 are currently struggling.
There is no reason that the design phase for a complex warship should take more than 4-5 years, other than fighting through the programme bureaucracy to justify the funding.
Sensors and weapons systems need regular updating to stay effective. To get them to sea shouldn’t need completely new ship designs, built inevitably in small numbers. T23 was a comparatively large programme and as a result unit costs fell in real terms. The same has happened with T 26 costs. The US continues to build AB destroyers with evolutionary changes. In contrast their revolutionary new designs, Zumwalt and LCSs have cost way more than budgeted and have been an enormous waste of money. The skill shortage is not so much in design but actual construction. So sticking with a proven design in a long build run should improve build times and costs.
Unfortunately we’re only building them for ourselves in tiny numbers, too many demands to have rolling frigate production
Both Zumwalt and LCS were the result of not having conducted a frigate / destroyer design since the ABs in the mid-80s. That’s a fifteen year-plus interval.
Ask yourself why the Constellation class design was bought from Fincantieri. Then ask yourself why the US is struggling to actually get it into build.
The USN has, put simply, lost the ability to design new ships. The RN came very close – and is skirting the edge once again.
Incidentally, your logic on large build runs is exactly the sort of thing the civil service have been applying for years. You do get efficiencies in the logistics support chain through common equipment. However, in the build phase, the learning curve and hence manpower applied is pretty much flat by ship four.
Whether those savings are worth losing the design skills needed has been proven to destruction by what happened with the USN and to a degree with T26.
My main observation was that building just one new escort a year should not be a problem. I take your point about the cost savings flattening out by vessel 4. But the true comparison is between the cost of vessels 5,6,7 er seq and the cost of 1,2,3 of the next new design. So if we ever get T32, building 5 more T31s would probably be the most efficient and affordable option.
I think that the Constellation programme shows not so much the lack of design skills but what happens when SNOs want to change so much of a proven design.
That’s what a 14 yr escort building holiday gives you.
Also, from the first steps of the FSC onwards, there only was hesitation to spend money on “wrong” things. When the “right” things are turning up numerous breakdowns.
It’s embarrassing.
Maybe we should bring in Italians? The UK opted out from FREMM. A Bergamini is being built.and commissioned in half the time than a T26, and it is better armed. Thaon-di-Revel full variant is much better armed than a T31, and far more advanced. For the next 8 corvettes, there is no RN counterpart. The next wave of AD vessels delivered around 2030 will bring the ratio up to 4:6, if the RN doesn’t cut its force.
In what world does 2.3 times the defense budget give you less capability and is deemed acceptable? Tbh, I smell a huge chunk of corruption.
It’s like debating the NHS and its faxes. We need disruption. A relaunch as a nation.
Arguably T26 wins missiles depth competition but there are other better equipment on Fremms
It’s called BAe Systems and all the other ‘big’ players in ripping off the taxpayer – sorry defence.
Objectively, the RN is in terminal decline. You can pretty much expect that each T23 that comes in for a maintenance period will have defects that render them beyond economic repair and probably beyond practical repair.
That, in terms of surface combatants, leaves the RN with the T45’s and the OPV’s. The ‘core’ has now grown so small it will prove nearly impossible to grow the technical crews for the new frigates (T26 and T31) when they eventually arrive.
You can blame the politicians but the fundamental problem is a mismatch between the navy that the RN wants to be, and the practical budget.
The RN has been running on empty for years but has never been realistic about what was possible.
Absolutely agree with your final point.
Yes the navy is now at the end of life , in the hospice stage.
What is a disgrace no senior admiral or admirals has resigned in protest at this treatment of the navy.
They just want to pocket their fat cheques
Their must be more admirals than frigates and destroyers in the navy.
We had more Flag Rank officers (i.e. Commodore and above) that front line ships when I left the RN in 2013). Truth be told it went pear-shaped about the mid to late 90’s after Options for Change
So its come to this…..we need to respond as best we can to changing circumstances but the pace of response is lethargic and negative. In terms of escort numbers there are perhaps a few short term options: 1. Increase self defence capacity of capital ships e.g. add 2 or 3 x40mm and containerised sea-ceptor to carriers, bays and tide class. 2. Upgrade batch 2 opvs with spare artisan, + 2x30mm, sea gnat systems and either containerised sea ceptor or 4 x nsm. 3. Buy and put peregrin on every opv, frigate, T45, bay, tide and argus. 4. Buy sea guardian drones to operate alongside poseidon and t23 5. Transfer terma radars from opvs onto bays and tides.
These are not particularly expensive (other than sea guardian) especially as a lot of kit is coming free from increasing pace of retirement for type 23s and retirement of lpds . The OPVs can take over fleet ready escort duties and improve surveillance in uk waters (both of the pacific based opvs should be recalled) and to act as escorts for bays if required in lieu of enough frigates where limited top speed is not a problem. This would at least allow frigates and t45 to be deployed to best effect.
Better sensors (artisan) and istar (peregrine) improve capability of each platform. None of these moves are wasteful – containerised systems can always be usefully redeployed. But they do show intent, at least to provide some cover as the fleet rebuilds.
All very sub-optimal but that is where we seem to live today. I know i am going to get torn into for suggesting the opv upgrades – but what other options do we now have in the short term?
One of the reasons that we got rid of missiles on the Invincible class was that firing missiles interferes with flight-deck operations, there were several others including increasing the size of the bomb mag’s and increased deck space for additional aircraft (I was on Lusty when we lost our Dart). Adding Sea Ceptor onto RFA’s increases the Command and Control requirements as well as a significant uplift in manpower for the C&C, maintenance etc. and would possibly blur the line of being Merchant Navy. These points are also applicable to your point 2.
They are already (RN and RFA) on the bones of their arses for manpower where are all these additional AWW / AWT / WE ratings coming from.
I agree the manpower issue has to be dealt with but so too the waste which largely sits with the MOD and top heavy management across the forces. I wish politicians would stop saying we spend the 4th (or whatever) most money on defence. Any idiot can throw money around. Spending money is not the indicator of effective forces or deterrence. It’s like bragging to your neighbour how much you’ve blown on house insurance without comparing cover! Countries with half our budget out match us in lots of areas. The UK arms suppliers also have some responsibility for seeing the British taxpayer as a cash cow and ripping us off for kit because of the outrage when buying kit from overseas. A complete mess that has been decades in the making.
That list of lost vessels – add on the previous 10 years lost vessels and you’ll see a navy that is finished! scrapped ships with no immediate replacements = leave. Why stick around during the best years of your life waiting for 10 years for a ship to be built! Lost ships = lost personnel. Benson/JHC pax aren’t going to hang around in holding for 5-7 years to wait for the new medium lift helicopter to 1. Be announced 2. Delivered
1SL and CDS should resign on principle (Service before self)
Hardly . Nowdays its all about managing expectations or other corporate speak
Decline is terminal in a downward spiral as successive government’s refuse to spend the amounts required on Defence with no light at the end of the long dark tunnel. The Albions arn’t worn out, they simply haven’t been maintained, just tied up in turn and left to rot. Both can be fully serviceable if the money was spent on maintaining and refitting them, but that money isn’t being spent, anymore than It is on the required maintenance docks for the Astutes. We have ships building at glacial pace that will eventually come online years after they were needed, that’s providing of course we can muster a crew which given the current scenario seems unlikely. All in all, without some pretty drastic changes of attitude and large amounts of money being invested, the RN will just decay further.
The Cameron-Clegg Coalition did untold damage to the UK from which it has yet to recover. Cameron aimed to take UK’s defence expenditure down to the then risible level of Germany. Germany is now doubling its defence expenditure with the aim of having the most powerful forces in Europe by 2030 and leading European defence. Its defence budget will be one third higher than the UK’s.
UK is destined to be a bit player in both Europe and NATO.
Since Germany’s GDP is about one third higher than UK’s, reflecting their larger population, why do you think what will be little more than finally meeting NATOs 2% target wil deliver massively increased forces?
All correct, except the proposition: “there is a completely valid argument that LPDs are obsolete in the face of modern threats and retiring them is sensible.”
As a replacement for Intrepid and Fearless, building on hard-won lessons in 1982, Albion and Bulwark are still first-rate warships. The single biggest shortfall in the design was the lack of an aircraft hangar, but ironically as we now delete the class, this is no longer an issue. The ramp to the vehicle deck is wide enough for large rotary wing and/or VTOL UCAVs, and the huge flight deck provides space for significant concurrent aviation operations. The large dock, proving excellent shelter with overhead cranes and a beach, is perfect for operating small and medium sized USVs/UUVs. The C2 facillities are second to none, the large aerial farm provides adequate space for a myriad of strategic bearers along with many tactical mesh data links without mutual interference. And of course as warships, they have great sustainability, combat resilience and survivability.
Beyond that, they remain unparalleled in their capacity for lower intensity defence tasks such as NEO or HADR, and it’s worth mentioning that they are also pretty good for amphibious assault (which I can assure you will still be a thing even 100 years from now).
Bulwark is in pretty good nick for her age, Albion is not beyond her service life. That a decision so myopic as this has been taken beggars belief, but the fact it has underlines the full severity of the situation we face.
Like everything in this country its in terminal decline. The country is done. Finished. On a terminal decline that nothing short of a compete political revolution can halt. Our archaic non representative inefficient self serving system of government is destroying the country.
In decline with no appetite to stop it. The Royal Marines are now without dedicated Amphibious shipping. This shipping is not only AtoB but a full command and coordination vessel capable if axwar and humanitarian footing as well as a floating aircraft platform. Shocking and degrades our military to an unsustainable capability, this situation now is worse than the Falklands situation. There will be conflict now. We as a nation cannot stop that coming. Weak leadership has brought us to thd brink of having NO military presence.
By getting us to depend on them the US disarms us. But that’s been going on so long this wreck isn’t for turning. Even as Sam starts getting a little worried..
The Church of England now has more bishops than ever before (and probably more archdeacons and deans too) but fewer churches and parish priests than at least for several hundred years. These same Bishops are obsessed with LGBT+ issues, BLM, ESG, EDI etc. The sons of CofE priests often joined the Royal Navy or the British Army not now, I think.
There are some 30 serving Admirals and about 70 Commodores (where did they come from?) in the Royal Navy.
Think on the above.
When Rome withdrew its’ army from Britannia the Britons very soon had confirmed what it meant. Anon, so did Rome. Draw your own teeth & you give the tiger his chance!! Or the bear or dragon..
The numbers of operational ships, training, recruitment and retention are all closely related, I think. Young men, and perhaps women, join the Royal Navy for adventure and related deployments. Or, if that is no longer the case, the RN is truly doomed.
With the Nordic countries preparing their citizens for war, told to stockpile food, get iodine tablets etc, and every other European country building their defence budgets and ordering lots of equipment… our government has the appearance of dragging some poor sod in from a bus stop, asking to look at defence, and make savings… completely oblivious to world events?
Every indicator points to war with Putin before a Type 26 is ready for action. Our Marines will be delivered to Norway by ferry, we are unable to escort two carrier groups, and supporting them with stores and fuel by unscrewed RFA ships looks in serious doubt. This is before we even look at missile stockpiles.
What is the answer? Give in to Putin?
If the US pulls out, we could be left leading NATO, supporting Ukraine with just Europe, and holding putin at bay by giving him what he wants.
Putin wants all of Ukraine, at least half annexed and the rest possibly as a satellite.
After that he controls the mouth of the Danube and half of Black Sea, giving him influence from Central Europe to Caucasus and Central Asia.
He will have control over the energy transports in the region and also adding the Donbas reserves under Russia.
He can manipulate world price and supply of grain and steel.
He can then get anything passed in the UN general assembly, like territorial claims towards Georgia, Moldova, Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Norway, Japan and possibly USA.
Yes, an alarming situation.
Yes and they have clearly come to an agreement with China on exclusive or partially shared global spheres.
Related to this article current British territories and bases are something they might have interest in.
They might use subversion and UN lobbying for resolutions or proxies for invading, in a global conflict they will target them directly.
Diego Garcia, Falklands, New Georgia and Ascension as examples.
Britain needs to have an expeditionary amphibious capability for its own security, a gap of 5-10 years is insane in the current situation.
No such place as New Georgia… I spy Russian troll.
There is, in the Solomons.
But naturally ment South Georgia.
I am as far from a Russian troll you can find but happy to move on, your “expertise” on the Baltic Sea is painful to read.
you won the idiot prize of today
Do tell why is that?
meant for the other guy… 😉
🫡
You would think he would see the Chinese intent to seize positions around both Cape routes, Panama and Suez.
For all your stupid posts obviously
And your stupid posts are hilarious to read, I didn’t realise they allowed internet access in psychiatric hospitals.
you won the idiot prize of today
‘Mouth of the Danube’, there are multiple ones, one branch is accessed by Ceacescu era ship going canal which shortens the distance , always important.
They will demand a seat in the Danube Comission, Austria, Hungary, Slovakia and Serbia will support them, maybe Moldova is annexed by then.
Russia will build a riverine fleet, they actually only need to move them from their own river systems.
The Romanian old fleet cant compete with it.
Ukraine is a member yes. but Danube river commission doesnt control the river traffic, just facilitates all that all use , pilots, navigation dredging etc.
“Navigation on the Danube shall be free and open for the nationals, vessels of commerce and goods of all States, on a footing of equality in regard to port and navigation charges and conditions for merchant shipping…..”
Only last year Russia was kicked out of the comission.
There are plans to expand the powers of the comission and its membership.
Even EU wants to be a member as this relates to European internal waterways and connecting them as one.
Even if the war ends today Russia will demand it is invited back.
That is like cancer returning for Europe, they are masters of advancing from within their subversion.
If they get physically to the Danube you can forget treaties, they will make everyone they consider hostile feel it.
“He can then get anything passed in the UN general assembly, like territorial claims towards Georgia, Moldova, Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Norway, Japan and possibly USA.”
Are you drunk?!?!
No but the UN general assembly frequently is.
That stupid comment is sadly the closest to fact you’ve ever posted.
UN general Assembly has no powers in regard its member countries territory.
Its the security Council which does the heavy lifting and even territorial adjustments are out of its ambit
Sudan split to create new nation of South Sudan- essentially a division between the Arab and black parts – was mutual agreement
I know.
The security council is in permanent paralysis.
But China and Russia are intent of getting control of the vote of the general assembly and use it to pressure the West in surrendering to their demands and if that fails legitimize their own actions.
UN GA cant legitimise anything. It it could we would all being riding unisex bikes in Hamas colours and funding climate reparations.
Your idea is just agit prop for the UFWD of the central Committee
We just agreed to fund climate reparations.
Only for those who agreed to the COP circus or Conference of Parties . The GA has no role in that
Reinforcing Norway and JEF nations would be undertaken by Point-Class ships, Bays and commercial shipping. We would be landing at NATO controlled ports and shorelines, as Russia isn’t able to race through all these countries to the North Sea in a couple of days. Additionally, there would be reinforcing airlifts with C17s and A400s.
But these reinforcements can race trough Danish straits and Baltic Sea in time?
If the JEF ambhibious task forces are on station aided by Nordic auxiliarys, like their ice breakers, they could actually react in time to matter in those critical first days and ensure that the second echelon can get trough to NATO controlled ports and airfields.
The ports and airfields maybe under NATO control but not operational, large scale SOF operations, strikes and mining operations are in the Russian playbook to deny their use.
Even getting in to Sweden might prove harder than you might think.
There also certain points in the Baltic Sea region that dont have a major port or airfield but that need to be held or taken.
Cat
I for one am certainly not under-estimating the difficulties of resupply by sea throughout the Baltic………… mainly because it will not ever be happening if we ever have a “big war” with Russia!
At a big military think-tank / industry confence specifcally held to consider this whole issue of European theatre logistics (an event oragnised by the Army last year), it was made very clear to all present that the Baltic Sea is nowdays being assumed to be a no-go zone for all UK and NATO supply transport shipping
I poited this fact out to Sean earlier this year
Thus current UK logistics planning is now assuming resupply of the Army by “various other routes” (i.e. not by taking any ships anywhere east of the choke-point called the Danish mainland)
And, on an historical note: you ough to remember that during WW2 1944-45, five of the all-time” top ten sinkings (i.e ship losses that caused the biggest loss of life) we in the Baltic
And why do you think that the three Baltic staes are now hurrying to build a new strateguc rail railway directly into Poland : “Rail Baltica”
On BBC news ten days ago..
In Russia’s shadow: The Baltics wait for Europe’s strategic new railway – BBC News
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
If that would be true Finland and Baltics would be almost totally cut from the rest of the world as shipping even from Sweden would be impossible.
I call BS on your claim as the new multirole frigates/corvettes Finland and Sweden are building are designed especially to escort shipping and defend sea lanes.
Narvik rail connection upgrade is planned but not existing and even when it opens it cant supply the capacity that is needed for all trade and supplies.
Name the people making those claims?
But Rail Baltica has zero role in wartime logistics, it goes between Kaliningrad and Belarus, they can keep it cut by artillery and rockets alone.
Generally keeping the north to south communications open is a big challenge in the Baltics with the rivers and bridges.
The logistics has to come from sea to shore, if not the defense will collapse.
Cat
Lessons learnt from the Ukrainian war has shown us, once again, just how difficult it really is to protect merchant shipping and ports in “tight” sea areas that are continously threatened by cruise missiles and drones etc
Exactly the same is true in the Red Sea[ where even an entire USN Carrier Battle Group has struggled to “keep the piece”
This is a report from Reuters earlier today
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-strikes-have-damaged-321-ukrainian-port-infrastructure-facilities-2024-11-23/%5D
Pleasse note many of these attacks are happening very near to NATO member Romania
The Baltic Sea is an extremely confined dea area, far more so than the B;ack Sea, Furthermore the normal navigation routes are often highly-constained by both many islands, and for much of the year, thick ice.
Fact of the mattter is that denial of sea areas is always far easier than controlling those sea area
——————
———————
and as you have just accused me of BS’ing = I will now turn it around onto you.
if thsi is the largest UK overseas deployment….. why are the Point class not being used?
So please now give me just one positive sighting of any Point Class ship anywhere inside the Baltic Sea at anytime in the past 1,000 days (ie since the war started in spring 2022)
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
I have no idea where the British in Estonia are supplied from but I can promise they wont be supplied by lorries from Poland if shooting starts.
Finland and Sweden are the safest and easiest locations to supply Estonia and both are intent at keeping sea lanes open in all conditions.
I dont think you have a realistic sense of the military capabilities of Finland and the logistics involved in supplying Finland and the Baltics.
Dont know about your Point class but their Finnish equivalent classes have no problem sailing and moving forces.
The Baltic is a NATO pond since Putin encouraged Finland and Sweden to join. NATO air forces will dominate the air above it, and consequently the sea itself.
Ships don’t have to go into the Baltic to reinforce the Scandanvian states (cf North Sea), and the Baltic states will be reinforced through Poland and the shattered remains of Belarus.
Finland and Baltics will collapse without sea lanes open.
The communications from Poland might be damaged for months after fighting has ended or moved on.
And even if they are open that still leaves Finland behind the sea.
90% of Finnish trade goes by sea, there is no capacity to transfer that to road and rail via Lapland.
That is why escorting shipping and securing sea lanes is the main mission of the Finnish Navy.
That is why 30% of the shipping is Finnish flagged.
https://www.finnlines.com/company/about-us/our-fleet/
The Baltic Sea lanes will be open because it is covered from all sides by NATO countries with modern airforces. The Russia airforce would only last a couple of days if it tries to operate over the Baltic – after 2 years it can’t operate over Ukraine which barely has an air force left!
Russian sea denial in the Baltic Sea, and in general, is mainly based on sea mines, missiles as secondary but drones will take that position.
Dont see them using naval aviation from close range.
Even the Kilo class might be mainly used for mining or they will withdraw them and use only UUVs.
As we speak, Russia has their handful with Ukraine and cannot even supply this war effort with enough domestic manpower. At least, not without losing the support of.the urban elites. The SO forces you fear were slaughtered to the last man at Hostomel.
Finland is well supplied with reserves and will not collapse for a couple of months, even if the Baltics are temporatily closed. You can also discount Kaliningrad, which is a week one target well on the list of the Poles.
Apart from that enclave, the Baltics are a NATO mare nostrum. Also, the green waters between Sweden and Finland cannot be controlled by the Russian Navy. Their subs – OK, it’s only one, really – are useless there, and in the rest of the Baltic Sea outnumbered by at least 4:1. Their surface ships cannot operate without air superiority. The Finns are also masters in mining ops. Baltic fleet will be bottled up in Kronstad, quickly.
Talking about air superiority, Western Europe alone outnumbers Russia in modern planes 3:1, and this will only get worse until 2028. Loss ratio over Syria lately was 11:0 in Israels favor, with the Russians involved, and S-300 ff was useless.
The reality is, Russia tries to deter the West with its nuclear arms, which wouldn’t be necessary if things went well for them. They fear the day when we finally have enough and send troops to Ukraine.
As for the story around a “blood bath battle” in the western Pacific. US stealth bombers armed with LRASM and glide bombs, SSGNs and SSNs with Tomahawks will make quick work with them. The Chinese won’t have 10 years to rebuild their navy. Also, Huntington Ingalls Gulf coast yard is operating at 10%, Bath and Groton are also on low level and Fincantieri is investing billions on the Great Lakes. Every single yard is out of reach for the Chinese, while theirs are bottled up and accessible to attacks.
Also, Korea, Japan and Taiwan combined have a greater production capacity than China. The reason China gets most of the contracts is them dumping their way into the global markets, which is not sustainable.
So, things are not as lopsided as you make them. Unchecked public deficit spending is.
They have increased their defense industrial workforce by 500.000.
They are already using North Koreans and Chinese for construction so not a big step to use in industry.
Finland can survive a year or more with minimal trade but the economy will collapse.
That why there is no intention to let that happen.
In the Baltics the situation is more serious.
If the Poles can take Kaliningrad in a week everything is going perfectly
I can imagine defensive rings around it that all have to be taken by infantry.
They are intending to give more Kilos to the Baltic Fleet but could replace those with UUVs.
Finns have the best mining capability in the Baltic, Russians are second and they will start mining before there is shooting.
Their air defense is too weak now against NATO but look at the expansions in their missile and aircraft production.
Not even the Soviets intended to challenge NATO in the air.
But now we have to calculate in Chinese air forces operating from Russia.
Chinese produce a lot of ships inland also.
I think the Chinese capability of global strike is only just behind US.
Their defense industrial capacity is not even known very well.
I will keep being worried.
Sean
Just to point out that, when sending urgently needed supplies to Ukraine today, the US and many European nations have always shipped them to Poland: stopping just short of the line on the map called “the border”
Then the supplies are taken several hundred miles overland through Ukraine; up to the frontline
Also, the main NATO logistics base in eastern Poland, on what was once a small regional airport, is completelty surrounded ny numerous Patriot, and many other types, of AAM / ABM systems.
US Patriot Air Defense Systems in Poland Protect Aircraft Delivering Supplies for Ukraine | Air & Space Forces Magazine
NATO – News: NATO missile defence base in Poland now mission ready, 10-Jul.-2024
That is necessary because a very serious threat exists (cruise and ballistic and UAV)
Also, please think back to Gulf War One (1990 / 91). Fully half of the total allied service personnel killed in action (so no fewer than 50 out of the grand total of approx 100) were all “made very dead very quickly” as the direct result of one single Iraqi SCUD missile hitting the US logitsics base located at the “very safe” Saudi port of Dahran – which was about five hundred of miles behind the front line (i.e. just south of Kuwait)
Today there is no such thing as a safe port (or airport) many miles behind the lines
And please do not also forget that the Russian’s northern fllet submarines, which have always been very very good, was designed and built for one thing – and one thing only – to sink NATO resupply shipping crossing the North Atlantic (note 1).
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1: During the 1980’s both these Trans-Atlantic convoys and the closely-associated planned airbrdge used to be called Reforger – and protecting Reforger was routinely practiced, on a very big scale, every year.
Sweden is the best logistical hub for reinforcing Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
The decision to get rid of the LPDs makes JEF weaker, maybe that is the idea, get rid of JEF and quick reaction over NATO alliance level decisions.
TLDNR… as usual
Declinism and fatalism is now firmly ingrained throughout the military, political class and government departments, with the Defence Secretary saying there will be still more cuts to follow what is there to look forward to? And of course where are the strategies?
Given all the programmes that are underway;
• construction (Astute, T26, T31, Dreadnought, FSS)
• remediation (T45)
• LIFEX (remaining T23s)
The more relevant questions are, what remaining issues need addressing to restore the RN?
Short-Term:
• Pay and retention in the RFA seems the most pressing and easily solvable
• Review of both recruitment and retention in both RN and RFA to improve numbers
• Get NSM on T23 and T45 certified asap so that more sets can be installed
• Equip all Wildcats with Martlets
• Progress Schiebel Camcopter S-100 (Peregrine) rollout to all escorts, and equipped with Martlets
• At sea trials of Dragon Fire
Medium-Term:
• Increase pace of drone evaluation for carrier use
• Evaluate replacements for Crowsnest
• Expedite the gaining of experience with RFA Proteus and RFA Stirling Castle to better understand the requirements for new build ships
• Progress MRSS project so that they are ready for when the Bays are retired
• Begin looking at replacements for Point class for 2031 onwards when current contract expires
Long-Term
• T83
• SSN-AUKAS
I’ve undoubtedly missed some, what would you add to the list? Realistic please, no fantasy fleets of 60 frigates or 16 inch guns, etc.
A few of these will do nicely
Sergentmajor
An excellent low-carbon solution!
The UK’s new Energy Minsiter, Mr Milliband, will be delighted to fund them obvioisly as part of the UK’s net zero drive!
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Good acoustic signature.
I wonder if something like that might genuinely be feasible for a USV?
There are large sails designed for cargo ships going into service and also small sail powered USVs on trials.
Could you combine the two and have a large towed array USV operating silently with near-unlimited range under sail?
If you go to Portsmouth you’ll see the RN already has more of these than comparable navies…
My altrations and adds for short/medium
Longer Term
Did you forget to add a Magic Money Tree to your list?
Without winning the argument over resources your list is just a game of fantasy fleets. Before coming up with lists of what to spend money on come up with a strategy to convince the present government and its MPs to significantly and quickly increase defence spending.
Winning the argument over recruitment and retention is highly problematic.
However, there’s very little that’s magic money tree on my drunk Friday night bucket list. There are a couple of cost saving measures and most of it’s already on the RN’s bucket list too (although I forgot the planned Archer replacements). If the government wants to use Defence to boost economic growth, as it claims, it’s going to have to spend in order to promote that growth.
One exception will be the cost of creating a rotary drone programme. We saw with Protector how fast costs escalate if you get it wrong, and the RAF already ran Reaper. If Proteus doesn’t get a broad evaluation quickly and is just tested “for ISTAR first”, I believe it will be canned like the USN’s MQ-8C. (I’d be banging down the door of the USN, begging for some free Fire Scouts and control equipment right now before it’s too late.)
The cost of a rolling programme of second tier frigates, AAW and ASW, would be far less than most people think, especially compared with the cost of not having it.
Jon
In the very same week when we all saw and heard the UK Minister of Defence “canning” the £1 billion quid Watchkeeper UAV progarmme……
………..i have to say that your faith in the ability of Qinetiq’s clowns to develop these very complex programmes is – quite-remarkably – completely undiminished !
You must know somethiing I don’t!
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Keeping Watchkeeper would be throwing good money after bad. Flawed programme, that’s finally delivered a product that is already obsolete.
Its mission – Iraq and Afghanistan’ went away’
£1 bill is just MOD accounting …over 20 years service.
The hardware and its software etc likely to be 1/4 of that.
We saw that for the P-8 Poseidin where the US navy publishes yearly contract costs for the block buy of including some RAF planes
This is latest and higher prices than RAF paid some years back
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/03/boeing-awarded-3-4-billion-contract-for-17-p-8a-poseidon-aircraft
Which is US$200 mill each for 2025-26 delivery
Peter, it seems everyone in the MOD are “clowns” and don’t know what they are doing and everyone at BAE/Babcock are idiots. You must be super qualified and had more success than Mr Musk!
Sorry – I missed your reply to me earlier this week!
Okamsrazor
If you care to re-read all of my posts – and please can you re-read them more carefully next time around – you will realise that I have never once said in any of my posts that “everybody in the MOD are clowns”
I do however have very consistent theme to all of my posts…..
That theme is that…….on almost evey one of the complex equipment development and upgrade programmes which the the UK armed services try to develop and deliver – their high level programme / project managment and engineeering skill are either
Thus all big MOD programmes and projects are almost all delivered both late and usually well over-budget.
Quite simply; they fail to understand the key risks
This happens time and time and time again;
It happen simply because there is a complete and utter lack of engineering talent (i.e. professionally qualified expertise) throughtout all three of the UK armed services and our big defence contrcators .
Accordingly, the entire MOD equipment programme is totally shambolic; mainly because it is being run by bumbling amateurs.
Thus all current MOD equipment pricurement practice can best be described by the phrase:
“The camel is a racehorse designed by committee”
And the MOD has plenty of committees: which produce plenty of camels; and cammels; and cammmmels ………
——————————————
As you are, like myself, a well-educated fellow…
…if you want a rather good piece of bedtime reading, I suggest you ask Santa Claus for the rather large book “The Changing of The Guard” for Xmas.
The book accurately describes, in great detail, why the UK lost both recent wars in Iraq and Afgan
It is written by a former quite-junior Army Officer, one who left to become an journalist for the rather-well-connected Economist magazine. Thus he has got to interview all of very senior officers who were involved in both those two wars
In the middle of the book is a big section about how much equipment needed to be ordered by the Army – all on UOR – to fight in Afgan.
Now, fair play to the REME officer who was in charge of ordering three billion quids (£3B) worth of UOR kit – he undoubted a saved a few squaddies lives and he “got a gong”.
However that RME officer was so poorly qualified at O level that he would not have got a job as a car garage mechanic
And so the obvious question was asked many, including HM Treasury – of: “so why wasn’t the army prepared for a war?”
The book finishes off with a comment made by a more senior officer
I heard it at the time, simply because I happened to be attending the same conference, sat quietly at the back:
“The British Army f***ed it right up in both Iraq and Afgan – so what are we going to do for a encore next time around?
He knew he was already on his way out of the door…..
——————-
So, to use your own example:
I my own humble opinion, Mr Musk has only been sucessful with Telsa, Starlink and SpaceX because he always does the exact opposite of what MOD always does = Musk only employs very highly skilled professional engineers ….and then he also pays them exceptionally well and he also motivates them
So, in marked constrast to here in the UK, when I was dealing with the US and European owned defence companies, I would be talking to highly-professional managers: ones whom had been promted up from being professionally qualified, and also very experenced, design engineers
And so, for example, SAAB run rings around BAe in terms of its professional engineering skill sets: and thus SAAB makes much better warplanes; submarines and radars.
——————-
All in all, this complete and utter systemic failure of MOD’s entire equipment programme has, over many decades, severely detracted from the very hard work – often in very poor conditions – which our servicemen and women have to endure “when out there” operating on the “frontline”
To conclude:
You will never find me criticising those fighting on the frontline!
————-
Hence the current sutation in MOD is best summed up by that well-known WW1 phrase:
“Lions led by Donkeys”
I hope that explains my viewpoint on life to you…….
All posted under the heading “Is the RN in Decline?
(Answer – YES!)
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS and, in my humble opinion, Mr E. Musk is heading for a big fall….
PPS and some of my CV is very highly classified:i.e. TPE
I don’t rate Watchkeeper very highly, but I think it’s better than nothing. I would have liked to see its replacement introduced (or even announced) before we got shut. I guess we’ll stick with the Pumas and Wasps until we can evaluate the Stalkers properly.
One of the issues with Watchkeeper, and probably with Protector, is that we like to put our own little spin on them. We couldn’t just take Hermes as was. This not only costs us extra when we buy, it costs extra when we maintain, and it means manufacturer’s upgrades won’t work out of the box, so we have to pay to reintegrate every time. We can’t afford that, so we just let the drones get older. Our small up-front capability gain becomes a large eventual capability loss or as the DefSec put it, overtaken by technology. I don’t blame Thales or Elbit (and I don’t even know where Qinetiq comes in). It’ll bite us on the bum with the cheaper Peregrine too if we don’t buck our ideas up.
Good sensible contribution, sadly increasingly rare here…
• I’d forgotten the Wildcats didn’t have Link 16, definitely a no-brainer to add.
• I’d disagree on Peregrine. Martlet will be aboard ship for the Wildcats so arming Peregrine provides a second, and cheaper, launch platform.
• I don’t think we need more OPVs, the RN shouldn’t get entangled with Border Force.
• Replacement F35 already order if not received, and I think tranche 2 is ordered. As for TR3 and Blk 4, there’s nothing the RN can do there. The entire armed forces of the Western World are waiting on Lockheed Martin.
• The Type 31s are already getting your “capability insert”.
• Type 32 is fantasy fleet territory I think.
• I can’t see a Super Ikara… but maybe drones capable of dropping Sting Rays might suffice?
I forgot… I’d also add speeding up the addition of CAMM to the Type 45s.
Let’s see if the first T31 capability insert survives the SDR. As for the second, to make them properly AAW, there’s lots of talk but no plan to do so, probably for fear of cuts to the T83s.
Maybe add Martlets to the Peregrines eventually, but the stonking multiple that comes with contractor operation as a service, means we first have to bring the skills in-house or it will break the bank. Two Peregrines (according to Janes) for two years on one ship is costing us £20m, and we might not even end up owning the hardware. We have to bring the per item costs down before tampering with the spec. I’m not even sure of the legal implications of having possibly civilian contractors in charge of missiles.
Good sensible contribution, sadly increasingly rare here… surely you are referring to all your stupid posts here
Put country over service and wrest the F35B away from the boys in blue and give them over to the WAFU’s – lock stock and STOVL barrel. The only way to prevent the carriers being the white elephants that the Army and RAF accuse them of being is a full time air group with aircraft that can actually do something – so that means pay for NSM (integration already paid for by Norway) and maybe somehow by-pass LockMart and get BAe working on integration of Spear – because right now, putting Paveway LGB’s on any target unprotected enough to be vulnerable to them is not worth the cost of a carrier group.
What you propose is putting service over country by taking the F35s from the RAF. Plus you’re looking at £500m to £1bn to build a NAS that then service them because you took them away from the RAF. And the delays caused by RAF pilots and ground crewed refusing to be transferred to the RN en masse, so training new crew, from scratch.
The Army and RAF don’t think the carriers are ‘white elephants’ – that’s your inter-service griping again.
You want the NSM integrated into the F35? It’s a ship launched missile. It also doesn’t fit the internal bay of the F35.
And it would be utterly pointless because the air-launched JSM (which fits) is already planned for integration with the F35.
Right, you want to circumnavigate Lockheed Martin and Jerry-rig the F35s to take Spear and JSM as is?
Firstly, NO company (especially not BAE) would do the work.
Secondly you’d end up F35s that would receive no further support, upgrades, or parts from Lockheed Martin, so they’d be junk within a few years.
Congratulations on destroying our F35 force.
@sean You are absolutely right I typo’d JSM into NSM!
I was being tongue in cheek about the FAA but obviously that failed to land, but if you have not seen the media coverage whining about carriers, then that’s on you, I can assure the retired colonels are out in force. Having served in both the RN and the Army, my personal bias is that in my time RN was better organized and better led, but apart from that ……. Please note I did not suggest binning Ajax, or some RAF capability to pay for more frigates etc.
And no, not Jerry rig Spear, where did I say that? LockMart appear to be deliberately blocking because it’s not a US weapon system, BAe are a major partner on F35, why not let them handle for the appropriate price, if that’s not good for LockMart then that leaves JSM – because, right now the air group is toothless, and it can be argued it won’t be much better with Spear for some ops / target sets.
I don’t bother with newspapers, I source my news from more considered sources. But I would imagine there are dozens of retired colonels and captains advocating everything to the reintroduction of public flogging and press gangs. Fortunately the operative word is “retired”, which equates to “irrelevant” in this context.
Lockheed Martin aren’t blocking any weapons. There’s a host of weapons, including American weapons, that are all waiting for TR3 and Block 4 for integration. I suspect from a software aspect, if weapons are integrated for the F35 now, then the work will need repeating after TR3 is implemented. With TR3, the F35 becomes a brand new aircraft internally.
I would suggest increased pressure on LM to pull their fingers out to get TR3 and Block 4 out asap.
(Integration doesn’t work without LM’s cooperation and no manufacturing partner, such as BAE, is going to upset LM by trying to do integration behind LM’s back.)
With the truly awful governments we have had the last 50 years I’m amazed we have row boat left
It should not accept decline as such but all three should drive the changes in their operational domains. They should lead the change and be foot forward, the same way the RN brought about Dreadnoughts pre WW1.
This prevents inappropriate change forced on them (the Services) by the centre ie HM Treasury.
All three services must avoid the wish to “pickle themselves in aspic” and institutional inertia that creates, in so far not let themselves become like the NHS and their inability to change and develop.
Far from it. We must have better integration. I’d get rid of all three star and four star single service names (no generals, admirals or air marshals) and eventually two star names as well. Instead we need commonality of flag position names above one star. You are in HM Royal Military. We need anyone reaching three star and most of those reaching two star to have multi-service experience. You get two postings as brigadier then you get cross-trained for a year before you are off to the navy, air force, stratcom or MOD. Or even industry!
Nobody in control of major budget decisions should be single service anymore.
Excellent suggestion, though I suspect many would irrationally scream blue murder that it was a ‘slippery slope’ to a Canadian style combined military without separate branches.
stopped recruiting white males,
now you need people?
faults your own
Come back and comment once you’ve learnt English.
OIC. So, he’s wrong about that, then.
Firstly, the Carriers are going nowhere.
Too much has been invested in not only them but the aircraft that will fly from them too. Many Billions have been spent, and this entire endeavour is so important to our security, so ingrained into our strategic long term plan that they are simply too priceless to be touched. What will happen is that this and future Governments will heavily invest in them to build up their capabilities and maximise their lethality.
They are a huge Sovereign deterrent and next year, this will be demonstrated by HMS Prince of Wales as she embarks and deploys with 24 Lightnings from 617 sqn and 809 NAS, plus around 14 Merlins and possibly a couple of Wildcats. F35Bs from the USA, Italy and Japan will also visit the ship and fly from her deck.
The Government have already stated that the long term plan is to build the future RN around the Carriers. Yes, we have been hollowed out by successive Governments, and yes, we are not where we should be in terms of the number of Escorts. And we have the recruitment and retention problems with the RFA, and also with the Royal Navy itself. These issues need to be rectified as a matter of urgency.
As I said yesterday, the Royal Navy is currently a bit like Man Utd, in other words, we are in a transition! We’ve got no option other than to just get on with it. There’s no point in blaming anyone now, that’s all been said and done time and again. We need to work with what we have for a few more years and try to manage it as best we can until the new ships come into service. Type 31s should all be in service by 2030 and it’s likely that a follow on order for another class will be built up in the sheds at Rosyth. Type 26 build times will decrease when the new build hall is up and running. They will be able to construct two of them, side by side with none of the difficulty associated with joining two halves outside on the hard standing and then having to work in the freezing cold while they join them up!
Type 83 is definitely going ahead, and these ships will be bigger and more heavily armed than the ships they will replace. This time, there will be no ‘built for but not with’.. These ships will be lethal, forming part of a huge network, system of systems approach. They will be very highly automated, with a much smaller Ships Company compared to the Type 45. And.. it is likely that we will get more than six of them too.
There’s a lot of new stuff coming down the track. The best thing we can do is look ahead, forward, not backwards, because we really do have better times coming!!
The UK’s Royal family has existed for centuries with the mantra “an heir and a spare” and the same holds true for the carriers, which cost in excess of £3 billion each!
Sidelining the carriers won’t return the billions already spent, but another issue is that the Royal Navy largely lacks the escorts to make up a carrier strike group (CSG), which is why NATO warships accompanied HMS Queen Elizabeth during her 2021 deployment to the Indo-Pacific and back.
HMS Prince of Wales was forced to rely on foreign support during her most recent deployment – and cited the Royal Navy’s “staffing crisis,” resulting in the solid stores support ship being unable to resupply the carrier.
An army travels on its stomach, but more carriers have large crews that also need to be fed while aviation fuel and ordnance need to be delivered to the vessels at sea.
The Royal Navy once famously proclaimed that it ruled the waves, but that fact is no longer true – as China and India each now operate two carriers, with the former now conducting sea trials of its third carrier
Clearly, Britain is going to be an unreliable military partner for the foreseeable future until it can get its economic house in order as well as figure out what it wants to do at a strategic level. That won’t happen anytime soon.
In 2021, Queen Elizabeth deployed with two Type 23s, Richmond and Kent, two Type 45s, Defender and Diamond, RFA Tidespring and RFA Fort Victoria, along with an SSN. The Strike Group was strengthened by HNLMS Evertsen and USS The Sullivans. Next Year, HMS Prince of Wales will take with her two ships from the Norwegian Navy, HNoMS Maud, a Nansen Class Frigate, HMS Dragon, HMS Dauntless, a Type 23 and one of the Tide Class Tankers. NATO ships came with us because we are all part of NATO. It’s a win win for them as much as it is for us, because we train together, hone our skills together and strengthen partnerships.
?auto=compress%2Cformat&crop=top&fit=crop&h=580&ixlib=php-3.3.1&w=1021&wpsize=td_1021x580&s=add23c86d338e0ce337e37082bf77b17
The UK Treasury has reportedly proposed mothballing one of the Royal Navy’s two Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers as part of a strategic defense review.
Challenges, including a lack of sufficient escort ships and a staffing crisis, already complicate operations.
The UK’s The Times newspaper is reporting that His Majesty’s Treasury has proposed a cost-cutting plan that would mothball at least one of the carriers.
“It is understood that a discussion between the Ministry of Defence and Rachel Reeves’s department explored what equipment could be cut as part of the forthcoming strategic defence review,” the British paper of record reported – and cited a Royal Navy source as stating that it wasn’t surprising that the carriers were on the chopping block.
Financial pressures and operational risks in regions like the Indo-Pacific make maintaining these carriers challenging. Analysts suggest one carrier may need to be kept in reserve to cut costs, further highlighting Britain’s difficulty in sustaining its naval power.
Finally, to say again… the Carriers are SAFE.
Forget the sensationalist tabloids. They print without factual reality.
Yeah, but your main focus should be in Europe.
Plan sounds either defeatist or treasonous.
The Treasury is not considering mothballing a carrier – that you suggest it shows you don’t understand how the U.K. state operates.
The Times is NOT reporting a carrier might be mothballed.
You’ll have to do better with your dezinformatsiya, comrade.
Come back and comment once you’ve learnt English.
And with the comment you’ve demonstrated that you don’t understand English grammar 😆
Yes and the LPDs could also count to be always escorted by allies.
Especially the JEF nations Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland could provide modern frigates more than enough to continue operating both.
Two things here. The Albion Class are over 20 years old now… Secondly, we don’t have enough Sailors to crew them. The previous Gov had stated that they were both to be kept ‘in maintained preservation’ until their out of service dates.. How much do you think that would cost? Is that a wise use of funds? Better to sell them on if they are not going to be used at sea instead of being tied up rusting away in 5 Basin.
You have a population of almost 70 million, these take ~700 to crew?
Even if you give massive salaries you cant sink much more than 60 million GBP annually to crew them.
If you mean you cant crew them even if you pay people well then your problems run even deeper as a nation.
It is very likely that a major conflict is coming within 3-5 years and giving up these platforms without replacement weakens your deterrence and capability.
And at the same time weakens NATO, at a time it is tested almost weekly now.
I am all for directing those EU common funds to NATO and throwing them also at the Royal Navy, better spent than Italians renovating their homes.
The problem is we need to double down on the carriers, the air wing specifically, and we are not going to do that when the overarching narrative is one of more cuts. The F35B’s ability to deliver palpable “effects” – either ashore or at sea are pretty lame. It’s air defence capabilities are in turn hobbled by constraints of the Merlin Crowsnest “baggers”.
A modicum of investment in MQ9B STOL kit experimentations, NSM for the F35B, and other elements that would hardly break the bank need to make the carrier’s air wing more robust – in the end a carrier is only as good as what it carries….. and right now its all a bit pants…. 🙁
JSM integration for the F35 is planned, the NSM doesn’t fit.
Agreed, we need to start acquiring STOL drones.
Yep, second time I transposed JSM into NSM – sorry ! JSM integration is actually done I believe, paid for by Norway, obviously it won’t fit in F35B smaller weapons bays but underwing pylon captive tests are done, maybe not a live firing yet?
JSM fits in the internal bay, but could additionally be carried externally in beast mode. I know Konigsberg and Lockheed Martin had signed a deal for both integration and marketing of JSM but no idea if that was done with Block 3 or is waiting for Block 4.
Jed, that’s because “ the overarching narrative is one of more cuts” is nonsense spread by presumably people who can’t read or don’t read. Neither the current government or the former government have said that the defence budget will be cut. Both have said it will increase. The fact that the tabloid press, the Russian apologist/propagandist and those retirees steadfastly living in some long lost golden age, says all you need to know about the hysterical age we live in and bloggers that seem wedded to alternative “facts”.
I get your point, but as Healey pointed out the defence budget they inherited is less in real terms than that 2009-10
Plus the insidious Treasury dogma that demands efficiency dividend ( to them) of 2% pa cuts of operational spending
Treasury also gets a an annual Capital charge on assets net value – paid to them again- for use of money, effectively like a mortgage payment for the life of the equipment – hence the cutting of ships a bit before their out of service date.
Part explains the long gestation of the expensive capital assets like Astutes who stay off the books until the very last
So, as the Ukraine situation escalates our politicians pledge support but then wade in with 1/2 billion of cuts.
No cuts, idiot.
Up to a point the senior commanders of the RN have brought this sad state of affairs upon themselves.The madness of the thinking behind the decision to construct 2 aircraft carriers is now self evident, it was a question of pure ego, coupled with an almost childlike adherance to historical glories.In other words a failure to adjust to the current world.We have now ended up with 2 poorly built warships that regularly breakdown and spend a lot of time out of service and also consume desperately needed financial resources to make them seaworthy for another couple of months.On top of that, for many years it has been acknowledged that the RN has been obscenely overstaffed at senior level, and yet this appaling state of affairs of an overly bloated Navy at senior level has never been addressed, regardless of which political party is in power,whilst at the same time the RN penpushers complain they cannot recruit enough ordinary seamen. The Royal Navy is in a crisis yes,but only partly caused by inept government.TO MANY COOKS AT THE MOD IS THE PRIMARY CAUSE.
The Royal Navy went through an exercise in 2020 with two major goals: reduce the proportion of senior officers, and reduce the proportion of shore vs sea positions. It was conducted when the current CDS was 1SL and received a lot of publicity at the time. They got rid of 13 admirals and about 1000 people from the Portsmouth hub. The idea that senior staffing has never been addressed is nonsense.
Where did you get the 13 admirals number reduction by 1SL ?
This was the story at the time
“ December 2019 the First Sea Lord, Admiral Tony Radakin, outlined a proposal to reduce the number of Rear-Admirals at Navy Command by five.
“According to reports, five Admiral posts will be axed as part of the shake-up, leaving the Navy with 37.”
https://www.forcesnews.com/news/royal-navy-cut-back-senior-personnel
Why inflate way above the actual numbers ?
‘Addressed’ is usually a political term when not much is being done
Sorry to admit I googled it and took it from a Torygraph article. Friday evening and alcohol and didn’t put the work in.
The ongoing reason for mod procurement and delivery issues is quite simple. The UK mod civil service is full of committees feeding government commtiees. These committees are full of people watching Thier careers and pensions. I was involved with mod procurement for a while and it’s processes are Dickensian and the people largely incompetent.
Would a British equivalent to French dga help solving the issue?
I wonder if the only reason HMS Bangor isn’t on the list is that if the government can maintain the fiction that it’s okay, they can retire it in 2025 according to the decommissioning schedule and have fewer explanations to make.
They’re actually spending a bunch of money to fix it, just so they can sell it.
Maybe it’s being rebuilt because the unmanned replacements haven’t met expectations and aren’t yet operational. That the RN have scrapped/ sold a bunch of mine hunters is highly premature?
This is appalling. Together with more ships and RFAs abd Chinnocks etc.,, just announced. Last I heard we had people queueing up to join and were waiting so long they gave up!!! God forbid if Russia or North Korea or even the Middle East escalates. Then the Argies are just biding their time too.
Our biggest assets are our subs, But we need everything else too.
Funding is the biggest issue, but waste within our armed forces has to stop.
Just seen John Healeys reply to a question in the defence committe about the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales.
It was straight out of yes minister, so take it that they will be mothballed or scraping one of them.
This is the full quote from John Healy. It was NOT a ‘straight out of yes minister’…
The quote: “We have some really important programmes and capabilities across the board. The Strategic Defence Review, because it is a Strategic Defence Review, is looking across the board at everything. However, I absolutely do not want you to take that as a signal that any part of our programmes and capabilities—to be clear—are in jeopardy. This is an ongoing question, and they are under scrutiny but not in jeopardy. We will take the decisions that we have to, but we will take them in the light of the reviewers’ analysis, when they come to report.”
The Carriers are safe, and priceless. They will not be touched.
His actual words on the carriers not your surmises
“This is an ongoing question, and they are under scrutiny but not in jeopardy”
and more directly about the money
“Since 2009-10, the defence budget has reduced in real terms. Adjusted for inflation, using 2023-24 prices, our current spending on defence is actually lower than it was in 2009-10”
https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/15010/pdf/
Temporary, yes. The government pledges a much increased defence budget by the end of the decade. From a capability or spending perspective, the UK isn’t worse off than most of her allies. She and her allies spend roughly 2% of their GDPs respectively on defence and pledge to spend more following the war in Ukraine.
Terminal, yes. The oblivious allowed the decline, the oblivious will ensure the decline. Why she is no longer stronger than her allies as her reputation precedes, is because she has declined so. Why Britain’s navy has shrunk, is because Britain has shrunk. The days of empire are over, Britain is no-longer top dog. Without its empire it has not the population nor the economy to play centre-stage. Its influence and its duties have shrunk, objecting and expecting her military to remain so strong is stubbornness. Acknowledge the grim diagnosis, or make your excuses and objections oblivious. Then informed, accept that, lament that, or work against that.
Looks pretty terminal to me. Not because there’s no money, but because the political class is completely corrupt, dysfunctional, and unwilling. Just like we have over here in America, except that the corruption has been papered over with astronomical and ultimately suicidal debt spending for the better part of a century.
That’s because you’re ignorant of the facts.
You mean he understands the world while you live in the pink sky world of the mainstream. You are an arrogant nasty little twerp.
Welcome back to the fight
Been realised early I see, I would have thought sheep-shagging too serious an offence to qualify…
You would think in times like this the 4- 5 t23 frigates that are for scap could be parked up along the north sea coast in sheltered bays and offer an air defence roll whilst the country is threatened. Only need small crew to operate gen sets radar and weapons.
If it is to be temporary the we would need answers to several fundamental questions.
Where does the money come from? A fundamental reset of UK taxation rather than adding yet more complication and fiddling around the edges of a broken and bloated historical system.
RFA personnel? The easy one, a big pay rise to a small pool of very useful people. RFA provide tremendous value for money and would still do so even if the crews were paid properly.
RFA units? Either buy from S Korea or encourage S Korea to invest in a UK yard to bring it up to an efficient, commercially viable yard. Probably a bit of both.
RN personnel? Well Compass have had their contract pulled. Now all we need is to sort out training pipeline, lack of critical mass of experienced matelots, accomodation and the shameful reform of end of service pensions
RN Units? Speed up T31 and T26 drumbeat (one per year would be nice), sort out infrastructure to and construction facilities at Submarine yard and speed up Boat drumbeat. Build an SSK yard at Appledore for A26 would rock.
Or just carry on fudging, maybe a Netherlands style Multi-support ship to go with every surface unit; we could probably make them more expensive by using CAAMM, CAAMM-ER, NSM and SPEAR as the missiles.
Arent Compass doing different services than recruiting?
“Through bespoke catering, cleaning and facilities management solutions we support the welfare of thousands of military, police and government personnel who carry out important work, often in challenging conditions.”
Capita dont do RN recruiting either
By jove you are right. My age-addled brain had conflated and confused my experience with Compass Catering many moons ago and an ex-shipmate (still serving) telling me that [Company beginning with a C] had had their recruitment contract pulled. Apologies.
It’s simple v we just can’t afford it . Our days of ruling the waves are long long gone stop watching war movies. We don’t even have a missile defense system for the UK and the way thing’s are moving we really need this. Israel has a very advance system/s we are way behind them , they are needed for more than aircraft carriers that we can’t defend Trident that doesn’t work and is US reliant and carriers that would last a day inba full on conflict,
No. This is question as always of what the government want to spend money. The benefits bill for Greater London is bigger than the defence budget and has been so for years. Net Zero is an utter con and costing billions. We are taxing the farming sector to the tune of an extra £500 million per year yet the same government is sending £500 million abroad to subsidise farming. The wages bill per month for the RFA is £92 million and the government has told them there is no more money yet there are billions for Ukraine. And you can go on and on with this stuff.
We just can’t afford it? Utter rubbish.
😆
Yes you don’t need to remind us that you’re a racist, misogynist, conspiracy theorist, sad, bitter, little man who has achieved nothing in his life.
We know that from your previous posts.
I would probably edit your last sentence and add the words… Many Many previous posts.
It will continue until we are left with 1 ship and the MOD commission a £1b study to figure out how to decommission half a ship. I’m in my 30s and when I left we had the strongest fleet in the EU, now we’ve got about 2 working subs, 7 escorts, 2 carriers (which can’t go very far at the moment) and 4 RFA’s (on a good day).
It’s beyond saving, they reap what they sow.
They will get a good bounty for HMS Victory.
😆
This article should be a compulsory read for our politicians. The really scary thing is that the Lost vs Gained tabulation would be similar for any three-year period since 2004. The contradiction between what our politicians are now saying (“Our armed force are hollowed out, underfunded and poorly equipped”) and what they doing to solve this (Zilch, sorry that’s a mistake – it’s actually more cuts) is a two-faced disgrace that is now jeopardising the security of the UK, Europe, and even the world.
“No wars until the mid-2023s please when we might be in better shape to cope.”
Typo? Should it read the mid-2030’s?
All branches of the armed forces are in decline and have been for many many years. Successive governments have driven short term thinking in to the structure, composition and funding of our navy, air-force and the army. It mirrors the broader the decline of the country. As Putin lobs ICBM’s in to Ukraine, every politician is calling his bluff. Surely he wont? A once proud nation with an army, navy and air-force that punched well above its weight, we are a global laughing stock.
Perhaps the decision to announce the cuts is about getting the bad news out of the way, so the SDR can sound like a good news story from a government desperate to generate some good news about itself. It may even make promises to increase force strength in the long distant future.
Expect promises of cheap unmanned vessels developed under AUKUS adding capability for little spend. The Royal Navy will continue to get worse in the short term, nothing can change that.
Is it a capability gap while new equipment arrives or a continuation of the decline that has been underway for decades depends on whether you can believe that which will be promised in the SDR next year.
And so it continues, did anyone really think Labour would be different, the list of ships in this brief is depressing, even more so when you consider the time scale, there’s not much left now, not much to start with. Why have we reached a position where we seem to reduce ship numbers to match available crew rather than the sensible option of manning up (sorry, crewing up) to meet the available units, no more spare hulls, no need for more people. When the last planned replacements are delivered sometime after 2035 we will just be back to where we were 10 years ago, except that 5 x type 31 are not a replacement for 5 x type 23 so the actual new capability is less, no way will there be more type 31 or 32, There will only be four MRS as you don’t need 6 to replace 4, the chances of H&W building all 3 FSS are slim.
In 1982 Fearless and intrepid were basically gone, not needed, obsolete, no point in keeping them just in case, same with a bunch of RFA, different times yes, relevant recent history for todays politicians, yes.
Do any current politicians really get it, no
I see JMSDF are buying the BMT Caiman FLC. It is funny how the Japanese, Ozzies, and Italians are all investing in an amphibious warfare just as we chuck ours away.
Still that handful of F35 Bravo’s with hardly any weapons will put the fear of God into Putler.
Finland still uses companies and batallions to take littoral objectives and has a full brigade for that.
~100 10-30 tonne fast landing craft to transport ~1500 troops.
Even APCs and 120mm mortars but no LPD or LSD.
Perhaps because the Finns are fighting at home? Can they move that brigade to the other end of the Baltic and do the same? No.
Only by strategic sealift, but for that they have a excellent capability.
The Finnlines fleet is one of the best in the Baltic Sea.
The brigade is composed of a 2500 strong operational battlegroup and separate battalions, specifics are classified.
Cat
The correct definition of “strategic sealift” is, as the first word impluies,
to move miltary furces a long way. That is what the RN reguraly does.
By contrast, the Finns have an excellent tactical sealift: one which is specifically designed to move their own Army / marine units quite short distances within their own homeland.
That naval capability is fully optimised to defend, and then resupply, outlying islands and penninsulas etc: especially in very reomte areas of Finland that do not have any commercial ports.
One only has to have alook at the map of Finnland to see how many islands there areto defend
Hence their inherently short-range “over the beach” capabilities
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
FDF can sealift a brigade or more anywhere in the world, another question is why would they do it.
The capability exists under contract and law, they train yearly both with navy and army.
Finnish Navy wartime strength is +30.000 so they can also arm and crew these with reservists.
Finnlines alone has 70.000 LIMs of Ro-Ro Sealift capacity in Ice Class 1A and 1A Super.
Finnsirius and Finncanopus alone can take +2000 troops.
You can call it tactical if you want, how much LIM does Point-class have combined? 10.000?
If you dont know the Finnish system and capabilities why do you need to argue?
Cat
I do know the Scanadinavian capabilities – very well
You however seen to have learnt them from the internet: which is not the font of all wisdom and knowledge.
———————–
In the case of both Sweden and Finland, their armed forces are fully configured to be inherently-defensive in capability
The Finnish Navy in particular is very much optimised for litterol waters and defensive operations; which is something, frankly they do very very well. = hence a large number of small and fast and shallow draft craft: i.e. what everybody calls coastal
Royal Marines learn to master Finland’s complex coastline
However;
I think you will find that their legal requirement for operativing “stragically” is only in a permissive environment: in other words one where their tranpsort ships do not need to be protected by other warships.
That might well happen when, for example, supporting a UN organised humanitarian aid mssion (which they have done in the distant past)
Finland certainly does not have an offensive amphibious shipping capability i.e. where one can go out and stragiticially “kick the door in” (note 1)
The Finns are very good at what they do……..however that capability exists only as far out as the North Sea
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1. Mind you, after last weeks fiasco, neither does the RN….
“As an example of the capacity of strategic sealift ships, Danish/German ARK ships and UK Ro/Ro ships can each carry around 2,500 lane metres of vehicles and equipment – in other words, if the vehicles and equipment were parked one behind the other in single file, the line would stretch for 2.5 kilometres.”
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50104.htm
Cat
If you do insist on cutting and pasting articles like this one….
….then can I very-politely suggest that you learn to read the small print……
………because the really important bit is what you have missed out…..
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Mr Bestiality is back! Must be the early release scheme to ease prison overcrowding..
Foxtrot Oscar bigot.
That Trident missile out of your backside is the scariest weapon on earth not even we Russian has this absurd and sick idea
You remember when you stated that Putin wasn’t going to invade ? We do and just look at all the deaths and destruction since you rather glibly said it in your attempt to belittle others here who had grave concerns.
You might want to reconsider your own self importance on this otherwise good news site.
It’s not everyone else on here, It’s just you.
Maybe you could return as “Ark”….. It sort of fit’s as a new profile X. (wink wink).
Some western europe intell said the same. I said no invasion and the reasons I gave amoung others was Russian army isnt any good and Ukraine big country and it could fail !
I was right on the reasons but Putin didnt use reason.
CIA and British intell also said Kiev could fall inside 2-3 weeks and were wrong – the US intell said Kabul would last 3-6 months after the full withdrawal too.
The future is essentially unknowable is so right
What ever happened to proving new ships then retiring the old ones.
It is that kind of outdated thinking that stymies the innovation required for a lean service suited to do more with less in a netcentric environment in a challenging modern environment. Next you will be suggesting that personnel ought to have suitable accomodation which maintains their dignity. Or that we should have adequate construction, maintenance and refit capacity. Or adequate stocks of torpedoes and missiles. Dinosaur.
At last a high class satirist
How many hamburgers do you flip each day?
Thre is Grey in my Beard
Why do you need any suitable and decent damp-free accomodation for any naval personnel?
These now obsolete biological intelligence units are all about to be completely replaced by autonomus and colloborative uncrewed systems. These will all be controlled remotely by AI – using only Elon Musjk’s Starlink system for instant communications:
Even as we speak, these top secret UAV’s and UuV;s and USV’s are being developed in record time; by Qinetiq, “somewhere in England”!
I do wish yiou would keep up with modern trends!….EMOJI!
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Until we see some positive action from the Government I’m afraid it’s Decline. I’m really concerned about the SDR not sure the Politicians get it!!! We Need A Bigger Navy!!!! Plus some missile defence PDQ!!!
😆