In March 2022 the National Shipbuilding Strategy refresh was published. Two years on, we consider how realistic this looks and the issues that will influence the future surface fleet.
Based on the UK shipbuilding forecast, by the mid-2030s, almost the entire existing RN fleet (apart from the aircraft carriers) will either have been replaced or a programme for their replacement should be underway. The plan looks sensible but there are 4 main issues that will impact whether these vessels are delivered or if the future navy looks very different. These factors are (1) funding, (2) changes to the current fleet, (3) the pace of technological change and (4) the possibility of a major conflict.
Politics and funding
It looks almost certain that a Labour government will be in power before the end of this year and a defence review will follow in 2025. With good reason, Labour politicians are increasingly critical of the way the Tories have handled defence while they themselves are not promising any significant increase in the budget. As has been the case for a long time, there is a huge disparity between the MoD’s Equipment Plan for the next 10 years and the available budget. The latest assessment by the Public Accounts Committee estimates this to be a deficit of at least £16.9bn.
Large parts of the shipbuilding budget are not currently funded and without a policy change, there will simply not be the cash available to build everything the RN aspires to. Each programme will have to be balanced against other priorities in the 2025 review and either cut, descoped or another solution found. The ‘Cinderella’ Type 32 frigate concept and the Multi-Role Support Ships will be the two biggest projects for consideration in the next review. It is pure speculation but Type 32 will probably be an ambition too far and MRSS may be de-scoped to fewer ships. Whether there is the stomach to fully abandon, fudge a compromise, or retain UK amphibious/Littoral Strike capability will be one of the litmus tests for the new government’s commitment to defence.
With Labour’s links to the Trade Unions and vocal backing for shipbuilding and industrial jobs, any failure to follow through on the promises of the NSbS will be difficult to explain. Against this background, industrial policy may become an even bigger driver of defence policy, propelling ‘unaffordable’ programmes past Main Gate.
The existing fleet
The multiple annotations and light blue capability gaps on the diagram above indicate how the current fleet is contracting due to old platforms wearing out before replacements are available, a lack of sailors and a move towards cheaper autonomous solutions. Historical precedence suggests that when the fleet of today is reduced, it becomes harder to argue for future replacements or expansion. Like the parable of the boiled frog, ‘temporary’ reductions have a habit of becoming permanent and hard to walk back on if implemented gradually, avoiding the shocking headline that drastic sudden cuts produce. If for example, having just 10 active frigates, both LPDs laid up and a solitary solid support ship becomes the accepted baseline, future programmes to replace or increase numbers become vulnerable to the argument that we can make do with this new minimum.
Almost all new vessels will have smaller crews than the ships they replace but if the RN is unable to quickly grip its personnel crisis then every new procurement looks vulnerable. If there are no SQEP ready to operate the new kit then it is virtually redundant. Arguably adjusting the balance between CDEL (Capital) budget in the near term and transferring some to the RDEL (ongoing expenses) budget to improve people’s pay and conditions would pay off in the long run. This is an extremely difficult balancing act because the industrial base needs to be maintained, and ideally grown while the MoD is also locked into long-term contractual commitments.
Pace of change
The era where bureaucratic defence procurement was able to lead or at least keep up with technological change is over. With the exception of the Type 31 programme, UK naval procurement has been painfully slow. The gestation of the Type 26 frigate design took around 3 decades and the Astute submarine programme will not deliver the last boat until around 30 years after the first boat was ordered. This would be bad enough if the RN just aspired to match adversary platform numbers but more fundamentally, naval technology is evolving rapidly with change measured in months not decades.
Where military research and development used to be one of the main drivers of human innovation, the vastly more agile private sector is now outpacing militaries, especially in the digital and autonomy space. There has been recognition of this in UK defence for a while but developing new processes for procurement has been slow or peripheral to the main effort. Added to this pressure, there are also new domains of warfare that increase the number of threat vectors including cyber, space and the battle to protect seabed infrastructure.
Lt Gen Rob Magowan, Deputy CDS told the HoC Defence Committee this week that “we are not going to fight a Ukraine or Bosnia [war] again… the clever bit is to find the themes from them that we can take forward to the future”. The Defence Secretary added that the Ukraine war is the first full-scale ‘drone war’ and there will not be a war in future that does not involve drones. The Russian Black Sea Fleet has been almost neutralised by asymmetric means and the Houthis are having some success in the Red Sea with novel weapons. Although the conditions in these conflicts are unique and the lessons should not be extrapolated rigidly to all naval warfare, there are clearly aspects that are already impacting doctrine and future warship design.
Those who prophesy the total demise of the conventional warship are mistaken, not least because the size and environmental challenges of the ocean constrain the range and reach of autonomous systems. What is certain is that the future fleet will have to be far more adaptable for rapid technology insertion, have the ability to (affordably) defend against drones. While retaining high-end weapons, consideration must be given to how the RN can also deploy its own swarms of cheap weaponised uncrewed systems.
Peer conflict
The relative peace that has existed since the end of the first Cold War where the UK has only been involved in conflicts of its choosing looks to be ending. The Defence Secretary recently said we are “moving from a post-war to pre-war world”. This may be dismissed as alarmist but there are signs that the UK may be involved in a serious conflict even before the end of the 2020s. The best way to deter and avoid, or at least mitigate the effects of this horrifying scenario would be to invest heavily in defence, starting now. Unfortunately, the British public is only dimly aware or does not want to face this possibility while only a handful of politicians are making this case with any conviction.
In the event of a conflict, all bets will be off in terms of the future fleet. Even if there is some warning the lead time for naval procurement means there won’t be time to build a fleet of new warships and submarines or even complete every vessel already under construction. While funding and personnel issues might melt away, it would mostly be a case of utilising what the RN already has, adapting and improvising. It is incumbent on the planners of today to make best use of the funds available and ensure existing warships are properly equipped. There is also a case for doubling down on PODS, modularised sensors, low-end weapons and armed drones that can be rapidly deployed on vessels of opportunity.
Main image: First of the Type 31 frigates, HMS Venturer under construction in Rosyth (Photo: Babcock)
An interesting article.
RN is lucky that T31 happened as well as Solid Stores.
Solid Stores cannot be cancelled as it would cancel H&W and would cost fortunes in contract penalties anyway.
Thing is, another run of T31(esq) ships wouldn’t be that expensive and solves the workflow gap. Shuttering Babcock wouldn’t be politically acceptable as the design is exporting nicely and the T31 isn’t that expensive.
T31B2 will happen and the B1 Rivers will go to free up hands. T31/2 is at least a warship that can go to dangerous places so it bolsters the fighty fleet.
The question is more what BAE are given to enable procrastination on T83? The cheapest answer might oddly be a few more T26 but then frigate hull numbers are unrealistically high. You could say with resurgent submarine threats that more T26 and P8!s are a solution. The alternative for BAE is the Bay/Albion/Argus replacements. Again unacceptable to shutter that sites when it has modernised, with a proper automated plate line, and trained workers at scale. I’d see these as being more like super Bays but that type of build is more suited to Babcock’s site.
However, the tail (cashflow), will wag the dog (operational needs) and ships will be ordered due to cheapness first. Which means T83 is at the back of the queue – plus ca change with T45?
Politically Labour can’t shut down perfectly good shipyards that have been regenerated under the conservatives. The Blair era, Globalisation/services, excuses don’t wash anymore.
You are right that under Labour the industrial tail will wag the capability dog. The navy needs to be smart and put the right options on the table to take advantage of that.
So funny . never heard of the OPV orders that the conservative party forced on the RN- to keep BAE shipyard running ?
So there is precedent for make work shipbuilding….
All I’m saying is that history is likely to repeat itself.
Let’s hope that something that is useful to RN in a war is produced.
Thats was previously for warship ships that were useful and as part of an existing frigate or destroyer series, or at a yard that ‘needed’ an order.
Has your selective memory forgotten who signed the ToBA that made that possible?
This TOBA signed in 2009 ?
https://www.baesystems.com/en/article/uk-naval-sector-restructuring
“In the interim period, a proposed contract for the manufacture of three Offshore Patrol Vessels”
The ‘Tory class of OPV’ were laid down in Aug-2016 to June 2019
Internet data not your memory shows none were ordered for RN just after 2009
Maybe you were confused with the BAE built Amazonas-class patrol vessel, version of the River class OPV 2009-2010
Er, no. One of us understands what the ToBA was and why it was put in place. Something the internet doesn’t always tell you
If you actually understood, you’d know where the Amazonas came from, where they ended up and indeed why the RCB2 were contracted and what they were based on.
But you don’t – as you continually demonstrate.
So you know the reality and yet continue to mislead with your comments. I knew the original order was for West Indies – very suitable also.
I set a trap for you and as expected you sailed in guns blazing with misleading/omissions of the reality
hes the facts that explain why Trinidad-Tobago/West Indies placed an order
the TOBA in action then with the UK govt Aid helping paying for the operations. Part build of sections was done at A&P Tyne yard
https://www.defense-aerospace.com/vt-wins-trinidad-order-for-3-opv-ships/
The deal was cancelled by West Indies as BAE was found by UK SFO to paying a middle man bribes for some radar contracts on this deal.
Thus they were sold – at a loss by BAE- to Brazil when they were almost ready for service in West Indies
Your misleading claim is the later Rivers , built as I explained many years later, were ‘labours fault’
Offer no evidence, which discredits your information every time
The West Indies. PMSL. Keep digging Sherlock.
The RN was still pis**ng about with the T26 design. BAE had nothing to build, but under the TOBA agreement, (signed by Labour), the Government still had to pay them to do nothing. Rather than get nothing for the money, the RN elected to update the Rivers (mainly as there was no other worthwhile design ready to build) as the money was still going to come out of the RN budget.
The cost of the RB2s was actually the cost of the TOBA agreement.
Not correct , the incoming Tories and their notorious defence review put the frigate project on hold -under the political ploy of ‘finding cheaper.’ Then just before the 2015 election the ‘cheaper’ political ploy was dropped and orders for £1 bill each T26 announced
TOBA Rivers to original design were the West Indies/Brazil builds, which included UK government funding.. that fits the time line.
You clearly haven looked up the RB2 construction time line and quite different from the earlier B1 as well
Wikipedia summaries the River B2 differences – a full redesign
Its not credible to say these very different vessels were B1 Rivers TOBA
this is all a diversion anyway as the B@Владимир Темников Rivers were ordered by the Tories to keep BAE busy after the governments long delays on FCS/GCS/T26 orders.
Here is House of Commons statements from the end of T45 builds
2008
It has been a difficult decision, but to ensure our future naval capability and maintain the tempo of work for industry, we are bringing forward the future surface combatant programme, which is the long-term replacement programme for the Type 22 and Type 23 frigates. That decision will result in a steady rhythm of building in our yards—from the six Type 45s, through the future carrier programme and into the surface combatant programme.
Initial Gate for FSC, previously intended to be 2008, was again moved, to 2009.
In 2009, BAE was awarded a design contract for the C1 and C2 element of FSC, the image below shows one of the early C2 designs, much reminiscent of the early Type 26
Still digging and posting random internet links when the reality was somewhat different. Context is everything.
The RCB2 contract was let in 2014 – that’s four years after the 2010 defence review – and had to be based on the Amazonas because under the ToBA the priority was to find work for the Clyde-based steel trades as the carrier work had finished. That meant a ready-to-build design was required. Surely they could have just proceeded with the Type 26 design that was apparently ready to go, just delayed by evil Tories? Oh, wait – perhaps it wasn’t “ready to go”. Perhaps, BAES and MoD were still in their game of chicken as to who was going to pay for completing the design, after BAES had spent all the Assessment Phase money without getting to a design that would pass Main Gate? (For avoidance of doubt, some of that blame belongs with the MoD as well).
Even then, it took another couple of years before they could start to cut steel – primarily because the Amazonas design was based on a set of coastguard requirements and could not meet RN (and LR Naval Rules) certification standards without a fair bit of redesign and specification.
Those in the industry understand what happened.
Who was in government in 2014. Anyway the Rivers batch 2 had to be redesigned as it was substantially different from that constructed with some UK money for West Indies
Trinidad and Tobago is petro mini state
Dont understand your claim about the 2010 Rivers not being RN standard when Tyne, Severn and Mersey were Rivers built for RN by VT 2002-2003, intially leased then bought outright
I think we can discount this claim as rubbish
“primarily because the Amazonas design was based on a set of coastguard requirements and could not meet RN (and LR Naval Rules) certification standards without a fair bit of redesign and specification.
Someone at BAE must have lost all the design and construction plans of the VT B1 Rivers then, that must be it. Of course BAE bought out VT . LOL
Hold on. Didn’t some internet spod up thread suggest that RCB1 wasn’t the same as RCB2? Or perhaps said spod doesn’t actually understand how shipbuilding contract specifications and rule developments work?
Interestingly, the RCB1 were a stroke of genius by what was VT. An offer the RN of 2000 could not refuse. To the extent that the FSC project team that was dealing with the first initial gate in 1999/2000 were pulled off the job to ensure that the VT offer made it through the process.
Once again, if you’re in the industry you understand what’s going on. If you live via the internet, not so much.
I would not rule out the T83 being an AUKUS project. This would enable the RN to save 50% on the design of T83. It is deals like this that will enable the RN to get the ships it needs within the budget available.
More likely a Type 26 / Hunter AAW will become an AUKUS project.
Agree it is a possibility. I still think something new is more likely.
T26 isn’t AAW optimised.
It all depends on how sea skimmers are dealt with.
I agree I imagine a batch 2 T31 is very likely, a completely new T32 is completely unrealistic…the question will be how many..4 would seem a reasonable number for a total of 9 T31 hulls….
re the T83 I suspect that’s a very long way in the future…and if it’s going to be large and very high end, it will be in very small numbers with just enough numbers to support the carrier battle groups as the hub of the integrated air defence system….I suspect we are getting 4 and no more..
In reality the RNs frigates can now manage short range area defence..and so the AAW defence of a task group is more defused and will be more so in the future…
I suspect what we may see is a bit of a French and Italian solution, with a later batch of of T26s ordered and having an enhanced AAW capacity to cover a reduced number of deadicated AAW destroyers and mitigate the gap between the first few T45s retiring and the building of the T83( as the French did with the last FREMMs in creating the FREDA class AAW frigate).
personally it would not surprise me if we did not see..
9 T31 ( batch 1 and 2)
8 T26 ( batch 1 and 2 ASW)
3 T26 batch three…stretched AAW enhanced ( sort of hunt class like)
4 T83 large AAW focused carrier escorts
I also think we may see a big rethink of the amphibious vessels…Ukraine has shown that the littoral is now death (via attritional autonomous vessels) to poorly armed amphibious vessels…I do wonder if there will be a greater emphasis on smaller distributed amphibious capabilities…in better armed faster vessels and or over the horizon capabilities ( an amphibious vessel is going to need to be able to defend against a wife of autonomous vessels) ..20,000 tons of slow moving poorly armed amphibious vessels crammed with troops is not something you want to park in a littoral full of autonomous vessels.
Autonomous wife! Awesome prospect:-)
My wife is completely autonomous…I have no idea what she is going to come up with next..it’s part of the fun.
Couldn’t resist it. But I agree with your scenario. It looks affordable and feasible. A missing piece is how the RN chooses to implement MRSS. The Dutch look like they are going for 6 x 9000 ton Enforcers to replace both their large LPDs and their Holland class OPVs.
4 x T83 is unrealistic with two carriers.
6 x is the minimum given that 2 of those will always be in deep maintenance.
Redundancy is needed if one blows a main driver.
T83 will be the core of a system of systems – an expansion of launching missiles from other platforms. It will be the sensor/command core but it might not be HMS massive with 100’s of VLS tubes?
There is more to this than pure brute force missile numbers BUT the platform has to be present to be an effector.
But we only have one carrier battle group at a time, so I suspect the T83 numbers will be based around min possible needs for one carrier.
I do agree that it may not need to big…but I suspect there will be a push in that direction, I do think more reasonable sized hulls is better than a small number of very large hulls..and defused capability is better than everything in one hull…but I suspect the push will be for a do everything and carry everything hull.
Good morning Jonathan, in today’s news, worth reading.
https://news.sky.com/story/govt-has-no-national-plan-for-defence-of-the-uk-in-a-war-despite-renewed-threats-of-conflict-13106616
I am totally shocked by this…I have always been under the impression our government had a competent plan in place and had been in no way playing it by ear for the last 30 years…
Likewise, however, it appears not to be the case. Increasing defence spending to 3% over the next three years would be prudent given the lack of investment over the past 20+ years and a shift in focus to home defence.
It’s all well and good planning and budgeting for a larger blue-water Navy, but not when you have the potential for war on your doorstep and the lack of a suitable layered air defence as an example.
Tomahawk can be purchased in numbers far cheaper and quicker than building warships and can serve as a very useful deterrent given that Moscow is 1599 miles (2508 km) 1354 nautical miles from London.
The USMC are already looking into the Land-based option.
“The Tomahawk flies near the surface at 550 mph and uses satellite-assisted navigation and TERCOM (Terrain Contour Matching) radar to guide it to a target up to approximately 1,500 miles distant. It can carry either a conventional or a nuclear warhead.”
Block V
Beginning in 2020, the U.S. Navy will rectify and modernize the missile, extending its service life by 15 years, and resulting in the new Tomahawk Block V series:
Block V: A modernized TACTOM with upgraded navigation and communication
Block Va: Block V that can strike moving targets at sea
Block Vb: Block V, with a joint multi-effects warhead that can hit more diverse land targets
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/06/usmc-discusses-land-based-tomahawk-missile-launchers/
Type 31 batch 2, (call it T32 and sell off T31 as the type 32’s roll off the production line) built as per current T31 spec but cw a bow sonar and the NS200 radar option and you have a serious upgrade to RN capabilities at a relatively low cost.
Heavy drones will allow for dipping sonar away from the hull noise.
So producing expensive quiet hulls with a hull sonar *may* not be necessary.
Quietening a hull is a serious endeavour with at least partial IEP and *everything* specified for noise hygiene.
Everything means everything from pumps to electrical switchgear to the galley to the way watertight doors clip back. You then need to consider constructive interference between different bits of the various systems.
To be honest the RN will have enough high end ASW for the threat….there are profoundly fewer military submarines on the planet that there are military aviation threats…by a few orders of magnitude 485 odd military subs vs 55,000 odd military aircraft….
the sub surface threat is also generally focused to specific theatres in specific areas of the world as the vast majority of all military subs are electric boats ( as only two potential enemies have any strategically mobile SSNs). With only specific enemies where the sub surface threat is significant ( a conflict with china in the china seas or Russia in the northern seas)…
The big “but” this is likely to be changing up with attritional sub sea drones…cheap things that can be deployed in the littoral…these will not be a threat in the high seas…but enclosed waters, straights and littoral operations will need to consider these…as will military bases ( strikes by sub surface drones from mother vessels pretending to be civilian traffic may be a future thing….every fishing boat could be a potential strike vessel). The thing is high end ASW vessels are probably not the solution to the new low end sub surface attrition drone threat, a frigate with a tail is not the thing for the noisily enclosed littoral…so our 8 high end ASW vessels are fine for the SSN and electric boat threat.
As you say drones and small ship flights can get any vessel reasonable self defence against sub sea threats…drone based passive listening is probably required for all vessels in a new sub sea drone based threat environment..especially if they are going into the littoral…I would imagine active sonar would also be a thing for sterilising the littoral and you don’t really need a quite hull for active search.
The need to be able to attack and destroy attritional sub surface drones may also need thought…the present air launched lightweight torps are all shaped charge to penetrate pressure hulls, not the best for attacking small fragile drones…so small attritional drones may be more effectively attacked with smaller blast weapons to create pressure wave damage…there may need to be a re look at history with cheap rocket based bast/pressure wave weapons for quick self defence..as well as the kingfisher round for 5inch guns ( the ability to snap dump patterns of small depth bombs may be something that is needed in a world with sub surface drones)…infact the batch 2 T32 could be optimised for the littoral/drone threat with the addition of a 5inch gun..NGFS…something that would be useful in the littoral as well as good against air, surface and sub surface drones…the five inch could be the ultimate anti drone weapon for a littoral fighting ship…add in the mission bay, hanger and flight deck optimised drone warfare…the T31 batch 2 could be the RNS inclosed waters combatant.
I’ll qualify that as being not necessary except for the ASW ultra specialists like T26.
So what I’m saying is that with heavy drones working in relays you could get acceptable ASW performance for certain roles without having to have a Merlin or son of T26.
Although radiating noise is still and issue as it would create a void in the detection zone.
Not a sustainable solution. Towed sonar arrays can be on continuous use for days or weeks and must be able to navigate the thermocline. You can’t fly drones through the weather for weeks straight. Icing alone would put an end to it at high latitudes.
OK, this is about solution sets within likely resources.
We don’t have a lot of T26 so where to we put them? We are unlikely to get more than a few more. So the ones we have cover CASD, High North and CSG.
The rest has to be backfilled with resources we can rustle up and afford.
There is no chance of sub numbers going up for twenty years.
P8’s might well get ordered. Merlin’s might get moved from other roles to ASW.
So the question is then, “how do you leverage what exists to do as good a job as you can in the other areas?”
You know if there is a sub in the broad area because of the fixed sensor lines. If you think you have a tail you can drive over a sensor line. For that to work all you need is a secure radio.
Situation normal in short.
I am not sure how old the heading picture of the first T31is, but if it is recent 2024 launching it by mid year is going to be heaps of fun and totally pointless. The level of pre outfitting is still rubbish.
Perhaps so, but probably the point is to vacate the frigate shed as quickly as possible to allow work to start on the next vessel.
That one is not terribly recent. There was one on the X(Twitter) Feed yesterday (28/3) showing the bow as a completely finished unit. I don’t think any internal pictures have been released yet so I have no idea about the state of the internal fit but a lot of the things to go in her have already been commissioned and tested ready to be taken apart and put back into their final home. Hopefully that means the next part will go quickly and smoothly.
photo is one or 2 months old.
I know at least the bridge is on now as 2nd sea lord made a trip to inspect it in the last week or so
We have to be honest about this. The Danes lost vast amounts of territory 1815-1864 and then they accepted that they basically could not defend themselves. Then they were conquered in 1940.
The Dutch lost maritime supremacy in the 18th century and then their colonial empire in WW2 and they accepted their fall from grace. They were also conquered in 1940.
Every single reduction in our navy will be met with “there’s nothing we can do” and then we will accept our inability to defend our interests abroad. We are no different to anyone else.
How powerful are the Netherlands and Denmark now? What are their long-term prospects?
How powerful are they? By what measure?
How “powerful” do they need to be? Both are home nations of global companies, both are members of NATO and the EU. How happy are they, what services do their taxes get them?How good is thier education and healthcare? I mean, as a Yorkshireman, I wouldn’t mind reverting to a independent Yorvik was part of the Danish parliament…… 🙂
The Dutch still have Marines and amphibs, and are in a joint programme with the UK to replace thier LPD’s and OPV’s. Danish have given a tonne of materiel to Ukraine. So how powerful do they need to be?
UK is huge compared to both nations in GDP / size of economy comparison, we keep getting told that the 7th richest economy on the planet has no money for defence, or giant capital equipment “black holes” – perhaps we could learn something from these non-powerful nations about how they manage to do more nimble and efficient procurement with their much smaller budgets?
7th richest economy. Slipping down the rankings is not good. We need a unified country not a mini Balkans. Go figure.
Going up actually 6th now Passed France and projected to catch Germany after about 15 years
UK is 4th in GDP per person behind US , Canada Germany then UK
https://awbi.in/world-economy-ranking-2024-top-10-countries-in-world-list/
Your Indian English is amazing.
Moderation policy
These silly racists attacks from this sock puppet must cease
The Indian Caste system of censorship.
The system bestowed many privileges on the upper castes while sanctioning repression of the lower castes by privileged groups
The caste system divides Hindus into four main categories – Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and the Shudras.
Many countries not just one specific place
They depend on America for protection like everyone else. How powerful did they need to be in 1940?
The quotation from the Defence Secretary that we are “moving from a post-war to pre-war world” can only be dismissed as complete nonsense and/or gibberish. If he really believed that, would the funding situation for the navy really be what is described in this article?
Yes, as Mr Green doesn’t set the funding level.
He is, for once, saying something I can fully get behind.
The defence secretary lives in real UK political world which is very very far from the war risk analysis he reads every day. He tries to push the government and warn society at large but that is not the current culture.
Remember Churchill of 30’s was the dangerous warmonger for the common media…
What is notable about the Government’s statements is that there is lots of rhetoric about how grave the threat is, followed by absolutely no action. One can only conclude that they do not really believe their own rhetoric.
It won’t be them dying or impoverished.
The current budget says the same
Compare the historical comparison
‘Defence spending began to increase well before World War II. Starting at 2.9 percent of GDP in 1936 it reached 3.75 percent in 1938, and 9 percent in 1939.‘
There is no action because the public/media do not support rearmament.
To have rearmament you cut somewhere or/and increase taxes.
The main problem is the media. Doubling the defence budget would be a drop in the ocean compared to the price to be paid in blood if we do nothing.
Or you could say the main problem are the Tory backbenchers would wouldn’t sand for any tax increases to pay for a bigger defence budget.
Really? if you have no clue that all western societies have too much taxes and it is hitting their creativity and growth…
Maybe you like the huge political economy in our societies…
That silly economic twaddle from the Thatcher years .
Defence is under 2.2% of GDP , even another 0.5% wouldnt fill the gaps
You dont seem to know that US Defence spending is over 3% of GDP and yet …. their ALL of government incl states and local councils is 36% of GDP, the NHS pushes UK higher than that
“public/media do not support rearmament”
No evidence that is the case, any way no one is even expecting even a 1% rise that they got in mid 30s. Properly funding the existing programs and recruiting in a coherent manner would be a start and theres no suggestion thats generally opposed.
Go read the newspapers or TV. They do talk about defence as a normal subject? are the people of the country interested in defence?
I have just one example, how many women participate here in Navy Lookout and UKDJ?
You said they DONT support re-armament .
Now you say they dont talk about it ?
Whats needed is Leadership – Boris had that, while Rushi doesnt – so that its part of the national conversation
I think you are spot on here. What little evidence there is is that the public do support a small amount of rearmament, although I suspect those surveys’ figures were pretty soft. You can’t get hard figures until after you’ve had a proper national conversation, and you won’t get that without leadership.
I’d tend to agree.
Everyone is aware that Mad Vlad isn’t being very nice to Ukraine. Most of the population supports Ukraine.
Everyone I speak to think we are better off making modest increases now to warm up the industrial capacity for weapons and munitions stocks.
I think most people get it.
If we are spending in Washington T&W (ammunition) and Thales Belfast (missiles) not a big problem. If we go to Uncle Sam with the whole piggy bank I’m not so sure the answer is positive. Most people are pleasantly surprised we can make large calibre shells in the UK but are even more surprised when they hear that it has taken two years to get things moving at pace.
How very true. Most politicians were always asleep in the UK after a long period of peace when everyone unsurprisingly wanted that to continue. No one expected Germany to be the headbangers they proved after 1918.
My grandfather for instance was a volunteer without rank to support the Army Medical Corps (in South Africa 1900) when they were in a parlous state. Interestingly Churchill was indirectly involved.
Before that Britain had been almost continuously at war since 1750’s! The 99 years
Continental peace after 1815 was the exception just as the remarkable peace after 1945.
Since the end of WW2 – remarkable peace after 1945 you call it – , 7,190 UK armed forces personnel have been killed in combat theatres
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6059cefa8fa8f545d995f161/20210325_UK_armed_forces_Operational_deaths_post_World_War_II-O.pdf
“Churchill of 30’s was the dangerous warmonger”???
Well he was a newspaper columnist for the common media at the time
Meanwhile Baldwin and Chamberlin ( his Chancellor of Exchequer and then PM) were growing the defence budget from roughly 3% in 1936 to 9% in 1939
One makes headlines and the others funded the rearmament for the services- big program of new carriers, battleships, cruiser, destroyers submarines laid down in that period.
The Defence Secretary isn’t the only one saying we are now in a “pre-war world”. Donald Tusk said it early this year and has repeated it in an interview that is currently the lead story on the BBC website. The difference is, Tusk is Polish PM and Poland is now spending 4% of GDP on defence. The lowly Defence Secretary has no control over the Treasury.
More ‘war talk’ is required to get the public to increase pressure for an increase in military spending. Avoiding the use of the ‘war’ word, as suggested by the Spanish PM, in case it alarms the public is not the answer.
The public SHOULD be alarmed.
Cabinet controls the Treasury and the Budget spending.!
£4 bill was found for Ukraine direct spending over last 2 years- that was after Boris went to Kyiv to pull the rug from under the Istanbul peace talks
Money was found just like that for the sub-postmaster scandal, and same for the upcoming Thames Water re-nationalisation- or even to keep it going until after the election.
The amount of money to increase by 0.1% of GDP per year isn’t massive and is far, far less than has been used in tax giveaways and feeding the ever hungry mouth of the NHS.
Maybe you’d like to explain to some cabinet ministers that they get to tell treasury what to do and then hear peels of derisive laughter?
Most of the time the Blair could hardly control Brown and likewise Cameron couldn’t really control Osborne once he was properly tucked up under his desk.
No one was going to stop Putin’s 3 day War, if they understood the man. Boris or no Boris. Dont kid yourself.
Not kidding myself. Yet there were talks between the two in Istanbul and that was the version by ‘someone who was there‘
• The Cabinet do not control the Treasury, the Prime Minister as First Lord of the Treasury controls it.
• Boris did not spike peace talks in Istanbul. That’s Russian propaganda thats posted across conspiracy groups/ sites/ etc.
• Thames water isn’t being renationalised and it has enough cash in the bank to last it well into 2025.
When are you going to start checking ‘the facts’ you post??
One of those representing Ukraine at the Peace talks confirms it
Horses mouth and all that
“The lawmaker is not only leading the parliamentary faction of Zelensky’s Servant of the People party but was also appointed as the head of the Ukrainian delegation during the initial, tentative peace talks in March and April, hosted by Turkey.
this is what facts look like
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/official-johnson-forced-kyiv-to-refuse-russian-peace-deal/
“The lawmaker recalled that while the negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow were underway in Istanbul, Johnson unexpectedly arrived in Kyiv on April 9th, 2022, telling Zelensky that he
So David Arahamiya, the leader of Ukraine’s ruling party is pushing propaganda ?
or your usual neocon word salads
The money hasn’t been found yet for the Post Office Scandal. Along with the blood scandal there’s currently a lot of head scratching about where the £40 billion is going to come from.
This doesn’t even take into account the money from the women’s pension scandal which is estimated to cost the country another £10 billion.
Funny that – the Istanbul peace talks had already ended when Boris went to Kyiv. Ukraine pulled out of them after they recaptured Bucha & discovered what the Russians had done.
The Government keeps a contingency fund for unexpected events.
A falsehood of the highest order- Im pretty sure you know it too
“As Ukraines lead negotiator/ senior MP describes it
There were a number of different negotiations over a longer time and in the circumstances Ukraine didnt want what Russia offered but Boris made sure of that as well.
The outcome of the classified Future Force Design Review will make for interesting reading when it finally gets published. Hopefully for the better.
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/03/official-reveals-uk-undertaking-a-classified-future-force-design-review/
We are where we are. It won’t improve. The sad thing is the necessary upgrades wouldn’t cost much in the grand scheme of things. A sixth T31 and having them fitted with ASW kit. A ninth T26. Getting a big helicopter launched AShM into service. All peanuts really. But it won’t happen. Let’s just hope the Constellations are a success.
I hear the USN are buying 20,000 sonobuoys.
And the USMC are extending Harrier support out to 2029
Probably because the last batch of 20,000 that were ordered in 2021 were delivered in 2023. Ongoing replenishment.
No they’re not extending Harrier support to 2029. The last class of maintainers graduated end of January, at which they announced Harrier would be completly being phased out over the next 2 years (2026 or 2027 latest).
The transition from Hornets to F35 will take longer, through to 2029.
Read below. Harrier 2 support to 2029.
The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri, is awarded a $13,674,435 cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite-
delivery/indefinite-quantity contract to provide continued post-production support (PPS) for the T/AV-8B Harrier to include readiness improvements, upgrades, correction of deficiencies and issues related to structural fatigue. Outyear PPS is based on developed plans identifying optimum support options for sustaining engineering and integrated logistic support until the fleet is transitioned from T/AV-8B Harrier to the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter for the Marine Corps, and the governments of Italy and Spain requirements. Work will be performed in St. Louis, Missouri (80%); and Cherry Point, North Carolina (20%), and is expected to be completed in December 2028. No funds will be obligated at the time of award; funds will be obligated on individual orders as they are issued. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant with Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1. Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N0001924D0008).
Technology Security Associates, California, Maryland, is awarded a $13,661,338 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to provide program management, financial, engineering, logistics, administrative, security, and technical support services for the AV-8B Harrier Weapons System for the governments of Spain and Italy in support of the T/AV-8B Harrier Joint Program Office. Work will be performed in Patuxent River, Maryland (30%); Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (30%); Cherry Point, North Carolina (30%); and California, Maryland (10%), and is expected to be completed in April 2029. International Agreement (non-Foreign Military Sales) funds in the amount of $13,661,338 will be obligated at the time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-4(a)(2). Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N0001924C0039).
You could read this as being mostly about support for Spain and Italy. In US terms a contract for $13m is peanuts.
Yes. But it still stands what I said, Harrier II support until 2029.
the Harrier/Hornet to F-35 transition is consistent with the 2029 timeframe as laid out in the USMC 2022 Aviation Plan. Harriers haven’t been extended so much as previously scheduled to retire at that point, but it amounts to the same thing I suppose.
AV-8B Harriers being pulled much sooner now, according to 2024 plans , its only got another 2 years.
Ground crew training has already had last class
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/01/30/marine-corps-says-goodbye-decades-old-jet-its-maintainers-hit-fleet-last-time.html
Out of date news.
its the Hornets which will go until 2029, all Harriers gone in next 2 years
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2023/12/28/new-in-2024-corps-gets-last-2-new-harrier-pilots-amid-aviation-revamp/
We could have some back to fill the decks, what? Never too late to say you’re sorry.
Yes. Plus this crucial part ….
No funds will be obligated at the time of award; funds will be obligated on individual orders as they are issued. “”
marines found they couldnt afford TWO types in the phaseout till 2029, and its the Hornets that will remain and Harriers go early.
Makes sense as they already have a large numbers of F-35B , while its the F-35C version in lessor numbers and the skills can be maintained by the Hornets staying
Indeed, a contract has been awarded to BAE systems it appears.
https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/article/bae-systems-to-support-u-s–av-8b-harrier-fleet-to-2029
That’s from 2021, things change.
Nothing in your quote states 2029, nor is there a date on this quote – it could be from the last-century.
The plan in 2014 was to retire by 2026
https://news.usni.org/2014/11/03/u-s-marines-retire-harrier-fleet-early-planned-extend-life-hornets
it was the plan in 2018
https://www.aviation.marines.mil/Portals/11/2018%20AvPlan%20FINAL.pdf
and as of January 2024 it’s still the plan
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/01/30/marine-corps-says-goodbye-decades-old-jet-its-maintainers-hit-fleet-last-time.html?amp
The plan in 2014 was to retire by 2026
https://news.usni.org/2014/11/03/u-s-marines-retire-harrier-fleet-early-planned-extend-life-hornets
it was the plan in 2018
https://www.aviation.marines.mil/Portals/11/2018%20AvPlan%20FINAL.pdf
and as of January 2024 it’s still the plan
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/01/30/marine-corps-says-goodbye-decades-old-jet-its-maintainers-hit-fleet-last-time.html?amp
That was in January 2024, things change, and will continue to do so.
The West Coast squadrons will maintain operations until 2027.
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2024/02/03/last-harrier-mechanics-finish-training-as-corps-shifts-to-f-35/
Thanks for confirming what I said right at the start, the last maintainers have graduated, the last 2 pilots will graduate this year, and the Harriers will be withdrawn in 2 years.
Try and keep up.
Try learning to count, It’s March 2024.
In 2022, the Marines maintained four active operational Harrier squadrons with 14 aircraft each, according to the aviation plan. But East Coast squadrons transitioned to the F-35 in late mid-2022 while the West Coast squadrons are scheduled to maintain operations until fiscal year 2027.
A fiscal year is denoted by the year in which it ends, not in which it starts.
That was the position in 2022 , hello 2024. Even the squadron numbers have gone from 14 to 10 each since then
https://news.usni.org/2014/11/03/u-s-marines-retire-harrier-fleet-early-planned-extend-life-hornets
Time will tell no doubt, they might be needed.
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/01/lockheed-expects-more-f-35-upgrade-delays-tempering-2024-deliveries/
Wrong
https://www.twz.com/air/last-marine-harrier-pilots-complete-training-as-av-8bs-end-draws-near?fbclid=IwAR1cVze_kToli_e6cqL8CFkG0wZCXj03n-RkPIvS57s1fWCJpghNTxhRYU8_aem_AcAe3z38ehzGvGpTE69hA-fNd5Lzrpg56MrLT7ZfnUJsJBu8DKqYWuGFXl9Msgkjb78
Not really.
The “plan” changes all the time, but thanks for sharing!
Once VMA-231 also gives up its Harriers, the last operational Marine Corps AV-8B unit will be VMA-223, the “Bulldogs,” also based at Cherry Point. It plans to continue flying the Harrier until September 2026, including deployed operations as part of Marine Expeditionary Units.
“planning to do something” is correct and usable in written English. You can use this phrase in order to express that you are considering undertaking something or that you intend to do it in the near future.
Read and weep
https://www.twz.com/air/last-marine-harrier-pilots-complete-training-as-av-8bs-end-draws-near?fbclid=IwAR1cVze_kToli_e6cqL8CFkG0wZCXj03n-RkPIvS57s1fWCJpghNTxhRYU8_aem_AcAe3z38ehzGvGpTE69hA-fNd5Lzrpg56MrLT7ZfnUJsJBu8DKqYWuGFXl9Msgkjb78
What for? The “plan” changes all the time, but thanks for sharing!
Once VMA-231 also gives up its Harriers, the last operational Marine Corps AV-8B unit will be VMA-223, the “Bulldogs,” also based at Cherry Point. It plans to continue flying the Harrier until September 2026, including deployed operations as part of Marine Expeditionary Units.
“The personality disorder known as narcissism is marked by an inflated sense of self-importance, a lack of empathy, and a desire for attention and admiration. Five common habits associated with this disorder include grandiosity, entitlement, attention-seeking, manipulation, and lack of empathy.”
The article, published 1 day ago, shows that you are wrong. Harriers will cease operations in 2026, not 2027.
I take it you mean the current plan.
Once VMA-231 also gives up its Harriers, the last operational Marine Corps AV-8B unit will be VMA-223, the “Bulldogs,” also based at Cherry Point. It plans to continue flying the Harrier until September 2026, including deployed operations as part of Marine Expeditionary Units.
“planning to do something” is correct and usable in written English. You can use this phrase in order to express that you are considering undertaking something or that you intend to do it in the near future.
Fincantieri seems to be doing quite well for new orders at the moment!
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/naval-weapons/latest/fincantieri-announces-indonesian-contract-for-two-ppas-amid-funding-uncertainties
Those PPA’s are amazing ships. The Italians are getting a goodly number of them too.
It’ll be interesting to see what replaces these 2 ships being sold from the existing Italian fleet.
Yes I hope the MM aren’t short changed.
With number 6 already in the water!
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/10/fincantieri-launches-sixth-ppa-for-italian-navy/
Fantastic looking things aren’t they?
Futuristic looking you might say!
It’s nice to see a big yard put some faith in a new hull form. It’s the bridge-come-ops room for me.
It reminds me of RN experiments in the early 1950s to operate frigates from ops via a periscope.
Also futuristic looking, and quite a novel idea.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/industry-headlines/latest/steller-systems-reveals-trials-of-offshore-insertion-craft-scaled-demonstrator
Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdq-18ccRUM
Would be nice if we could turn T31 into a similar concept with light, light+ and full.
Light would replace front 40 with 12 CAMM and have mission bay amidships.
Light+ would be original (Current?) arrangement with full guns and 24 CAMM + 8 NSM amidships.
Full would be with 32 mk41.
Lights to replace River 2s with at least a basic defence fit out and also MCM.
Full can replace T23 as ASuW specialist
Light+ is just if you want numbers of patrol frigates.
The basic Danish design is very flexible. This is the weapons deck of the Absalon variant with capacity for 5 Stanflex modules. I am not sure why T31 designs show this plated over apart from the area for the Sea Ceptor VLS.
Didn’t work very well for the recently
6 with a ‘PAAMS-Lite system’ would be a help too in the future.
It will never happen.
But you probably need to get a better radar in T31.
You could put the Smart-L MM like on Iver Huifeldt, that’s an AESA derivative of our S1850s like on T45s and the carriers, that has been used to guide SM-3. Conversion would cost little more than the radar itself plus bending the funnels out to avoid exhaust gas on the radar.
Serious combat issues . not related to the ship itself – for Iver Huitfeld against Houthis drones that even made the ship commander being very “frank” …
-The combat system C-Flex was unable to fire ESSM missiles against drones, commander says that issue was known long ago but nothing was done.
-The frigate was sent with expired 76mm rounds, all of them being more than 30 years old and around half of them exploded prematurely when firing at drones so was needed to fire many more rounds than necessary otherwise.
With also issues with Germany ship i wonder if Baltic water has something wrong :))))
Well yes that is given. The days of major surface combatants toddling about without an area anti-air system are at end really.
Unfortunately that is not what RN thinks.
Sea Ceptor covers a bigger area than Sea Dart IRL.
The MR and ER have longer legs….so this isn’t a very fair statement as all combatants are due to have some flavour of Sea Ceptor.
Except the place they are needed the most; the carriers and their support ships. Right huh?
Why would you want “big helicopters”?!?!
The RN’s ‘big helicopters’ (aka Merlin) are used for ASW and AEW).
If we don’t have the manpower and funding for the type 32s, then rather than increasing the hull size, wouldn’t it make sense to go smaller and build something like the Finnish Hamina class of Stealth Corvette? They’re designed for literal warfare, minelaying, subhunting and have a few strike missiles. The crew complement is roughly 25 people, so much less than a frigate.
They seem to tick most of the boxes and they would be more affordable. You could get 4 for the price and manpower of 1 large frigate.
If the UK was serious about the Gulf they would buy such boats. They would need to be operated in 2 or 3’s. So one division at sea. And one division alongside the wall.
Perhaps a small fast frigate as a leader carrying Sea Ceptor too?
Finnish Navy Trains ASW With Swedish Submarine
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/04/finnish-navy-trains-asw-with-swedish-submarine/
One thing is certain with their sonar sets, torpedoes, and ASW mortars they are better equipped for ASW than T45 now and T31 in the future.
FWIW the Finnish board guards’ larger patrol boats had ASW equipment too at one time.
The T45 is an Anti-Air Warfare (AAW) destroyer, you don’t get many submarines flying at 5,000ft.
Next you’ll be saying the Astutes are rubbish because they don’t have a hanger for a helicopter…
Why does every other country fit ASW kit to their AAW ships then?
Why do countries fit air-search radar and anti-air weapons then to ASW ships if there are no submarines in the air then?
So many questions…………
A history lesson for you Simple Sean.
T45 is a replacement for T42, the previous class of anti-air warfare destroyer. T42 just like every escort since T12M rolled down the slipway was built as a GENERAL PURPOSE escort. That is a ship capable of combat operations to some extent in the air, on the surface, and below the surface. (We leave in EW to one side. Too complicated for you.) Though it should be noted all escorts prior to that could do those things too. T42 used to take part in ASW competitions and often did well sometimes beating frigates. T42 even used the same hull sonar as the frigates. (Frigates that also had air search radar and antiacraft weapons) ASW is the reason why T42 has a helicopter. That that helicopter can do SAR, liaison, gunnery, and surface combat was useful but not enough on their own to justify the cost of an expensive petrol pigeon, pilot and FAA ratings, and designing the superstructure and uppersworks of an expensive ship to accommodate a flight deck and a tin shed aka a hangar. A ship designed solely for AAW would make better use of that space aft to improve sensor and weapons arcs and distribute the ship’s weight to aid in the accuracy of its missiles. See HMS Bristol. The ability to drop HE on submarines was everything.
When the Andrew came to draw up the specs for T45 they wanted a GENERAL PURPOSE ship. A direct replacement for T42. So the missiles went up for’ar and the service still be running by fishheads decided it needed a hangar for helicopter. Being a big beggar T45 would be able to carry the super duper Merlin. And so the Merlin knew where to go T45 was to have a ASW sonar. This was in the confused early 1990s when nobody was sure if those darn Soviets had gone for sure. This was when the UK was still part of the NATO Frigate Replacement for the 90s which would become Project Horizon. The sonar selected for the Project was the UMS 4110 CL and indeed French and Italian Horizon ships carry that to this day.
Sadly the UK decided to leave the Project. The UK needed a big ship and more performance out of PAAMS and for BAE to have a big slice of the pie. Nowhere was removal ASW mentioned even though by this time work had begun on the carrier program. To help RR sell gas-turbines and other services so decided the T45 should move away from proven conventional propulsion system of the Horizons (I think they are CODOG’s) to an Integrated Electric Propulsion. IEP means the prime movers drive generators that make electricity which is used to turn motors. The RN became the only customer for WR21 gas turbine so that helped reduce costs not; never mind like an Oly it couldn’t be just swapped out up through the uptake the blessed things need to be taken apart reducing costs, not. And as we all know there were further problems with the donks too…….
One of the reasons for going for IEP is they are inherently quieter supposedly. There is no psychical connection between engine and water to transmit noise. Fixed pitched propellers can be used reducing noise further as variable pitched propellers with their large boss are a source of noise. Why I mentioning this? Well I often see on sites numpties like your good self talking about noisy destroyers. Now nobody wants a noisy destroyer because they attract attention from the enemy. Yet we British managed to build a very noisy ship which did a lot for our standing national standing in defence circles, not.
Some intimate that noise wasn’t a consideration for T45 when it being quieter than T42 was one of the MAIN DESIGN DRIVERS.
The program staggered on. Hull numbers were reduced from 12 to 8 and then 6 to reduce costs. Equipment was reduced. The RN plumped for a breathed on Mine and Obstacle Avoidance Sonar, MF700s for the main ASW sonar. It is as crap as SAMPSON is awesome. In fact today it is switched off and to help the manpower shortage there is no ASW personnel in the crew. T45’s future is to spend most of their time in site of the carriers within the ASW defensive screen. You see whereas a T23 now, T26 in the future can contribute to the air picture because they have air search radars T45 cannot contribute to the subsurface picture. In fact it could be argued that it is no longer an escort because it needs to be escorted itself. With only 6 T45s there are to valuable to lose. No, um, Sea Viper is too valuable to lose T45 is just the under equipped and under armed barge it is bolted onto. And the hulls features that call back to the original need for a GENERAL PURPOSE ship actually hobble its role now. No hangar could have meat another VLS or perhaps a nice auto cannon or three. It is the reverse of the situation we had with the Counties. They get a bad wrap because of Sea Slug when actually in all other aspects there were excellent ships. Who doesn’t like a wood covered weather deck?
So some ill informed numpty ranting that T45 is an AAW destroyer doesn’t quite cut it with me. All it says to me is that numpty is ignorant. And I am beginning to think wilfully so too.
As I have said above Horizon carries a sonar. Does the RAN’s Hobart class carry a sonar? Yes a hull mounted one and a TDS too. Do USN Arleigh Burkes carry sonars? Oh gosh yes. Do JMSDF AEGIS destroyers have sonars? WOW yes they do. Korean AAW ships? Spanish AAW ships? YES. Dutch AAW ships? Why yes! Yes they do. And so on. Why? Because submarines are dangerous and more and more are being launched each year. Something the RN once the world leaders in ASW and once one of the best submarine operators are choosing to forget..
You are a tiresome ignorant little man.
PS: One of the reasons why I think we need a 9th T26 is that we only have 7 SSN’s and can’t build any more of them at the moment. But T26 is still in production and we could build more. Why? Because submarines are dangerous………..
One thing is certain, any surface vessel trying to sink a submarine using surface launched torpedoes or ASW motors is extremely lucky to be a still float. Only a poor submarine commander would let it get so close, as he can sink the ship from far beyond the range of the surface ships defences. That’s why RN ASW frigates have helicopters, they can get close without getting sunk by the submarine.
Helicopters is, of course, something the Hamina-class lack…
We will just take for read that you know nothing about submarine operations in the Finnish and Swedish archipelagos………..
Or SSK operations in the littorals too……
Hi WIZK as you know from another site I have often said that we could find a good use for this type of boat.
So lets look at your proposal in more detail. A small light frigate, well we could use the base design that was built for Brunei but sold to Indonesian navy the F 2000 class. A 2000 ton, 30 knot corvette or the Israeli Sa’aar 6. However, with a shortage of money I would rather have a further 5 T31s or T32s. The Babcock stretched T31 concept or the Damen Crossover would be suitable of the T32.
As you rightly point out the Hamina type boat with a 40mm gun, 8 Sea Ceptors, 4 anti ship missiles such as the NSM and a towed array with the Saab torped 47 would need to operate in squadrons of three boats per squadron. Depending on where they would be deployed would depend on what ship would be flag.
So lets look at potential areas of deployment, Red Sea, Persian Gulf, Cyprus, Brunei/Northern Aus, Caribbean, Gib, Singapore and Home waters. Three possibly four of these locations would or could require a full littoral strike group made up of a MRSS a T31/32 and three Hamina type vessels. The Caribbean would not need the T31/32 but a MRSS as a Humanitarian Support ship. Gib would only need the Hamina type vessels. As for Home waters a complete restructure would be needed. First the OPVs,P2000s and Border Force cutters etc should become a single force much like the USCG. Paid for by the Home Office as after all they are carrying out policing duties.
Hamina type boats should be based in three possibly four locations around the UK, HMNB Portmouth, HMNB Clyde and Invergordon with the forth being Pembroke. UK based boats would fulfill several functions, such as sanitise the routes into and out of Faslane, become a part of local air defence UK, escort unfriendly ships through the English Channel, replace the P2000 class for sea training, reinstate boats for the RNR and operate out or Norway if war did come to NATO. This would then leave the T45s/83s, T23s/26s and Batch 1 T31s to do what they are designed for and that is blue water operations. I could foresee a requirement of up to 30 Hamina type boats half off which being manned by the RNR and trainees.
As for the MRSS I would really base them on the Ellida type ship, able to support carrier or frigate groups with supplies, or carry 250 Royal Marines and their equipment in the Littoral Strike or act as mother ships for UAVs,UUVs and missile boats. With the added functions of hospital ship/humanitarian aid ship or forward repair ship. Again I could see the use and need for 10 of these vessels to replace the Bays, Waves, Fort Rosalie-Fort George, Diligence and Argus. HMS Albion and Bulwark I would replace with two LHDs for battlegroups from the Army not the RMs.
They aren’t corvettes, the Finnish Hamina class are missile fast-attack boats. Different class of vessels, and misuse of vessels to tasks they aren’t designed for invariably leads to them being sunk.
The RN doesn’t possess any sea mines, so it does not need minelaying capabilities. These aren’t ASW vessels, they have capabilities to detect and attempt to defend themselves against submarines, but they aren’t active sub-hunters.
Their primary weapons are anti-ship missiles, to sink Russian warships encroaching on Finnish territorial waters. If enemy warships are encroaching on U.K. territorial waters then something has gone seriously wrong with the RN’s blue-water fleet, not to mention the RAF.
The idea/doctrine change was to use smaller littoral combat ships in or near enemy waters rather than our Type 31 or Type 32 frigates. These would be used in the gulf or the south china sea, so not our home waters. Laying mines and having divers to disarm mines would be useful, as would having some defensive/offensive capabilities.
Japan has the Hayabusa vessels which might have been a better example
You are probably right about the class being different but I would argue these could be a different strategy than struggling to build 2-3 type 32s.
• The RN has no mines to lay, that’s a policy decision, so why spend money on mine-laying capabilities??
• Use these to deploy divers to disarm mines?!?!? The RN is moving to autonomous systems to deal with mines, it certainly doesn’t endanger its personnel trying to disarm them!!
• How do you get these littoral water vessels to enemy waters? Unless we’re at war with France, Belgium, etc, you need vessels with blue water capabilities to reach these waters.
• What would the purpose of having these ships in enemy littoral waters? They have very limited air-defence and vulnerable to enemy surface and air assets.
• The USN has realised that unless you’re defending your own waters (eg like Finland), littoral craft are of very limited use. Hence the pivot from littoral craft to the new frigate programme.
1) Size doesn’t really determine cost that much. Systems do.
2) Therefore limiting size means limitation of range, sea stability, survivability, growth room, capability, crew comfort, e.c.t.
3) The RN is a global navy that does global operations. Thus the above problems are nowhere nearly worth it.
Spot on.
It would seem that the author is advocating privatising defence. Given the utter failure of privatising recruitment perhaps a crap idea.
It is now more than 60 years since I joined the Royal Navy and during my service, working in the defence industry and now long retired I have come to the sad conclusion that Labour governments are bad for National Defence and, with the exception of the Thatcher Government post Falklands, Conservative governments are even worse.
Especially the Thatcher Government pre Falklands. Something her more myopic admirers tend to gloss over.
Yes, I agree with that. In retrospect Mrs T’s Mrs T rescued us from the Winter of Discontent and won the Falklands War but her policy of privatising essential infrastructure has not turned out well.
Back to the point in hand, Attlee (who had a good war record in the Great War and as deputy PM in WW2) was strong on defence, the Conservative’s 1957 White Paper was a disaster, as was John Major’s “peace dividend” and Cameron’s 2010 “Strategic Defence Review”. However, Keir Starmer (who will almost certainly be the next PM) does not inspire me with confidence that he will be strong on the Defence of the Realm (or much else) at a time when the wider world is a dangerous place.
Lady Thatcher went from being a classic liberal at the start to a conservative at the end of her days.
The “peace dividend” was coined by the hawks Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Like everyone else, they believed after the defeat of communism, the West faced no credible existential threats.
How naive we ALL were…
Yes, sadly, we were. As we have now found out, when you run down the armed services, including the supporting industries, it is difficult to build them up again, not least because of the rundown skilled staff.
Labour tend to like metal bashing, but are poor on procuring systems.
Tories like systems and clever solutions, but want everything cheap.
Neither have any real understanding of military matters. Government is not business.
The only thing defence Labour likes are the jobs to reinforce the unions, but the whole culture of Labour is anti armed forces. They certainly prefer to put money in woke, green, proselytism oops sorry education. NHS etc than thinking about armed forces. Tories voters are more friendly but the political class wants to buy votes and there are not many there.
That may be so but the reality is that, in general, the Conservative Party have cut back defence expenditure more than Labour. As a small c conservative who believes that the defence of the realm is a vital responsibility of government and that governments should be competent and avoid being sleazy (I could put that more strongly), I despair of both.
If the war is to come, very bad situation. If not, not a big problem. I cannot answer here.
But, in all cases, UK needs more ammunition, drones, and spare-parts. Invest there, before asking for more ships.
RN is man-power limited. We must face it.
Keep ships as is planned now even if they stay in port. It will be a good “surge” fleet. For example, keep HMS Westminster, but do not expect her to come back if war does not come (happy scenario). The same applies to HMS Bulwark and Albion.
No need for T32 in early 2030s. It will be needed in late 2040s, when both the T31 and T26 starts to go into mid-life refit, but surely NOT NOW (I didn’t like them from the beginning. Just a pipe-dream). In short, forget about it.
Buy 12 more ARCIMS USVs with 12-sets of SeaSense ASW kit. Leave many of the “near homeland” ASW tasks to them. It will NOT be man-power free, but the team-members will be sitting in air-conditions on-shore building to remote-control the USVs, and they can talk with their family every day. Good for retention. In place, put another escort “not manned” (to be another “surge” fleet).
Buy 8 more SeaGuardian MALE UAVs, also with 8-sets of ASW kits. Also 8 more SkyGuardian with STOL wing option with 8 simplish-AEW kits, to replace Merlin Crowsnest. To earn their “crew”, put 5-6 Merlin into extended readiness (to be another “surge” fleet). Again, improve comfort for better retention rate.
Of course, lots and lots of small drones are needed.
Of course, much more ammunition is needed. Order 500 Aster 30 blk1 NT, 3000 CAMM, 1000 NSM, 1000 SeaVenom, 10000 LMM/Martlet etc.
Do small thing first.
For any navy, the lowest-cost way to procure additional ships is to build more of an existing class. The front-loading costs of vessel design, experience of building, and initial trials means the first ships in a class are expensive but later vessels should have a lower unit cost.
Export sales are another way of driving down class unit costs, and I’m don’t include the T31s being built in Poland & Indonesia. In recent times the RN has been poor at designing ships that other countries want to buy. Look at how successful France has been designing vessels that are attractive to other nations; these exports reduce the unit costs of ships for the French Navy.
For these reasons I think building the Type 32 is a non-starter. There is an opportunity for the UK to add additional Type 31s when the existing production run ends in about 2030-1. If the RN were to buy say 3 extra T31s, equipped with sonar, these would be a useful and relatively low-cost GP frigate and increase the UK’s frigate/destroyer total from 19 to 22. Such a ship (low-cost, flexible, potent) should also be attractive to a country like New Zealand, which will be seeking to replace their two Anzac-class frigates around that time. However, ‘if we don’t build it, they won’t come…’
Perhaps but it takes more than just sonar to make a good AS frigate; for example AS weapons and a quiet hull.
It would be a second tier ASW frigate, not a good one. Helicopters carry the weapons, the hulls are quiet enough.
I think the poles have an arrowhead design that is geared for ASW.
Towed sonar and torpedoes.
The Danish originals and their cousins the Absalons already carry ASW kit.
T32 should have more of an AAW bent – much easier to modify the baseline in that way and 6 AAW ships isn’t enough as it’s clear from the Red Sea situation that they are needed for more than escorting the carriers
Would be easy to add T45’s S1850 air search radar or the SMART-L upgrade to T31 in the same place as Iver Huifeldt has one. Those radars have been used to guide SM-3 by the Danish so would with the addition of CAMM-MR have a reasonably wide area defence capability.
No reason why the shouldn’t carry A30 too.
Other than integrating it with another CMS.
The way round it could be to have A30 locally launched and then given track data from somewhere else.
Morning Peter. Type 32 is a non starter! Why, Babcocks concept of a stretched T31 with a mission bay and flex deck below the flight deck seems like a good concept. If we can get them built using some of the ideas from the Damen Crossover such as space for 120 Marines + equipment, 3 CB-90s or 3 LCVPs to be launched from the flex deck then we would have a good all round littoral frigate that could also act as the escort for the MRSS.
Do I agree that we need more ships with ASW sonar, yes, possibly a containerised CAPTAS 2 or 4. Three or four sets would be useful. An idea could be for NATO to buy 12-16 sets as a pool for European nations to dip into or to equip European navys in times of war.
Whereas I agree with some of thye comments that for a dedicated ASW frigate a quiet hull etc is needed an escort frigate designed say for convoy escort, battlegroup escort and littoral warfare will not need such high hull specs. So a cost effective hull that is a multi function platform could be the way to go to increase hull numbers for the RN.
Unfortunately T31 with X-deck (as Damen call it) would be essentially a new ship.
I do like the concept though. It’s essentially the original LCS (shiver) idea but you bring in specialised crew to operate the modules instead of retraining the crew. One of them even has two heli spots on a 140m hull, something really worth paying for.
Is there no plan for at least another minehunter mothership?
Yes, more are planned.
£29bn of the equipment plan is for ‘Defence Digital’ vs. £23bn for ships. That £29bn is More than for combat air and helicopters combined.
There is plenty of money, it is just being wasted as per usual. And this is before we get to the mass waste across the rest of Government – not least the £50Bn a year spent on public sector pensions.
Why are public sector pensions a waste? They have been earned as part of people’s remuneration package.
Because economically they produce nothing. You are using other people’s money (tax dollars) to generate consumer spending that would otherwise happen anyways.
The difference is they aren’t working either, making the economy smaller.
‘Earned’… absolutely not. Shorter hours, mass absenteeism and terrible public services.
And the point is more that the Government has plenty of money, it just wastes it.
“Mass absenteeism”?!? Don’t believe everything you read in The Telegraph or on Guido Fawkes…
Nothing like that
https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/public-service-pension-payments-net/
53 bill payments minus employee contrib of 45 bill gives nett of 7.9 bill pounds
‘Employee contribution’…. The employees contribute nothing. But thanks for pointing out the cost is even higher!
The armed forces is the only public pension with 0% contribution
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pensions-and-compensation-for-veterans
Why is providing veterans a pension an unnaceptable cost?? (or ‘wasteful’ as you put it in your first comment…) I genuinely can’t get my head around the point you are making here. Adding employee contributions would be a significant effective pay cut, on top of the existing forces recruitment disaster.
Doctors, teachers, police and firemen etc obviously also deserve to be able to retire, and as Duker said, the payments they make from their paychecks cover the vast majority of the cost of public sector pensions. These aren’t the kind of jobs you want to slash pay/pension packages for if you want to live in a functioning society
The majority of that £52bn doesn’t go to frontline staff (and I mean that in the broadest sense – from our fantastic service men and women, to carers and nurses) but to back office managers, accountants, HR and other admin staff who are paid more then those in equivalent jobs in the private sector.
I would love to see all of our frontline public sector workers get paid far more then they do – but there is ‘no money’. There is plenty of money it needs to be used more thoughtfully. The fact that pensions for the civil service is a bigger expenditure item then our defence budget is madness.
The article talks about there being no money: there is money. It’s just spent badly.
The fact that pensions for the civil service is a bigger expenditure item then our defence budget is madness. The article talks about there being no money: there is money. It’s just spent badly.
This ^^^^ times infinity. This is the true and only real issue, pure and simple. It is exactly the same in the US, it’s just that to this point in time, our wonderful government has succeeded in kicking the can down the road to the tune of at least $34 trillion dollars in debt. Let that sink in for a moment when you contemplate the likelihood of “fighting with (y)our allies”, the biggest and most important of which is bankrupt America.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding.
£53 bill payments minus employee contrib of £45 bill gives nett of £7.9 bill pounds that tax payers are up for
About £8 bill pa is the nett amount , which isnt more than defence budget
In other places the Doctors are part of the private sector, the Firemen are often volunteers and if the Police did their job their pension would be fine. While private education already pays property taxes and will pay VAT in future under milk snacher Labour. Imagine! There are alternative ways to run a country, rather than model it on a police state.
Sir, this a RN and related Defence blog.Not the time nor the place for all of your ‘government’ concerns
You think the police, doctors, servicemen, etc, “contribute nothing”…
Yes. Its between 3.5-8% salary deduction
Of course I think they do a critical job but are asmall percentage of that £52bn. I think we need more of those frontline roles and pay them more.
The original point is that there is a lot of money – this was one example and clearly one that has triggered a few people which I apologise for.
What is needed is a hard look at the £1trillon the government spends and what it spends it on – as there is certainly no new money. I suspect most people here would think that more needs to be spent on our armed forces.
There is certainly areas where the money is being wasted in the pubic sector. I recall being on a very expensive cloud computing course recently along with someone the Cabinet Office, it had nothing to do with his job but he was allowed to pick whatever courses he fancied from an in -house catalog. I’m sure we can all come up with similar anecdotes.
Indeed the entire failure of Communism in Eastern Europe showed that state bureaucracies are prone to waste, empire-building, and inefficiency.
But going after ordinary peoples pensions is NOT the solution.
As to what to do with any saved money? Well 4% defence budget, plus an additional 1% for Ukraine until it defeats Russia. After that, reduce government debt, because war is expensive so the last thing you want is to potentially face one with large debts to begin with.
I would love, love, love it if the UK went back to 4% GDP spent on defence, though I think even 3% would go a long way towards curing the many ills we constantly discuss on this site. I would even settle for 2.75 given that the 2% currently and ostensibly spent on the military is almost certainly less than that. But yes, certainly the UK ought to be investing at least 3 and ideally 4 percent of GDP on defence. Even that, please note, is considerably less than what was being done in the early years of the Cold War.
So you want to trigger a mass indefinite strike by the entire public sector, not to mention numerous class action lawsuits for breach of contract, to avoid paying public sector pensions?
Congratulations you just reduced the U.K. to a failed state…
Well spotted. Still they imagine the Home land UK will remain safe from missile attack. So almost uniquely the UK has no missile shield. Its more Unbelievable hubris, but presumably they have a place to run to, even if California is a smoking wreck as well.
The U.K. is a member of the European Sky Shield Initiative, which the Germans hope will be available by 2027, and will use AIM-2000, Patriot, and Arrow 3 for medium, long, and very-long range interceptions.
Another initiative triggered by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Sky_Shield_Initiative
Oh look a helicopter carrying NSM.
Oh look, a mock-up sales model from 2019 of a helicopter carrying the NSM-HL variant.
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/sas-2019/2019/05/sas-19-kongsberg-eyes-helicopter-launched-nsm-missile/
I wonder how many navies bought the NSM-HL for helicopters…
I hope you have seen that the site owner has removed your early post ranting about ‘big helicopters’ and impossibility of defence contracts being agreed because man cannot predict the future?
As I have asked you before please ignore my comments and I will ignore yours.
I won’t ignore people deliberately spinning disinformation… the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
Interesting that the T-31 doesn’t appear to have the forward boat bays as in the conceptual design. Wonder what else will be different.
Wasn’t the concept 1 port 2 starboard?
All the renderings show two on both sides.
No, AH140 renderings show 2 on both sides because that is one of the things Babcock offer. T31 has only one on the port side for whatever reason.
Probably the RN has found a better use for the space that would be taken up by a 4th boat bay.
The T31 renderings on this website show 2 in every release.
For Defence the next election will make no difference. Outside of a handful of (less than a dozen) constituencies Defence jobs are marginal at best. Take a look at attendance at Defence debates in the commons. They’re always in an empty chamber. If you want to know the priorities of the parties follow the history and the money. Who are the biggest trade union donors to the Labour party. The shipbuilding unions are nowhere. It will be the NHS, Social Care, Local Govt and Education with everyone else fighting for the scraps if there are any. For the Cons it will be the same groundhog day of the last 14 years. For me the biggest issue in Defence over the next few years will be Ukraine. We need them to win or at least not lose. Hopefully the people in Whitehall have a better grasp of that than the People in Washington.
The Administrative State is Labour and that is where the money goes.
The conservatives just want to copy Labour.
They aren’t conservative anymore:
“One example of this is the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change, a collaboration of several dozen health organizations which has received £110 million from the British government since 2017. At the expense of taxpayers, the alliance has called for climate reparations and collaborated with the extremist climate group Extinction Rebellion. They have also been involved with public disturbances such as blocking roads to demand an end to fossil fuel use.” from fee.org
I may not disagree with you but this isn’t the place for those discussions.
yes. The Charity he mentions has only begun this year ( check Charities commission records) and its not 100 mill pounds
A non profit charity thats a talk shop for its membership
The charities Commsion says its only established in last 10 months , so not 110 mill pounds from the Government .
Something you have made up – and Im not one of these climate change ecozealots
The “Administrative State”?? Are you using this as a euphemism for “Deep State” that is beloved of Trumpians, or have you actually read Dwight Waldo’s book? If the latter then you perhaps need to reread it.
As for your allegations about the U.K. HACC, I see you’re quoting the far-right American think-tank the Foundation for Economic Education. An organisation that opposed such initiatives as the Marshall Plan – of which the U.K. received the largest amount.
Of course HMG has given funding to the member organisations of the HACC, it consists of bodies such as;
+ the British Medical Association,
+ the British Dental Association,
+ the College of Paramedics,
+ the Royal College of General Practitioners,
+ the Royal College of Surgeons,
etc, etc
Quite frankly, I’m surprised HMG has over 8 years only given these 45 medical organisations £110m – especially given this period covered the pandemic when they would have been even busier than ever!
As for the allegations, Extinction Rebellion is not a member of HACC, and indeed the FEE that you quote offers no evidence whatsoever to support the claims it makes…
Very well said Sean
If Parliament isn’t interested in Defence and attendance suggests that is the case; I suggest its taken out of their hands once they OK a spend level of between 3 -4% GDP. How about that?!
Short of a military coup I don’t see how that would be possible.
Can see the patrol function of the opv giving way to type 31/2, so OPVs being phased out.
But why not deploy mine countermeasures and survey and ocean surveillance from MRSS via unmanned vehicle…allowing an increase to maybe 8 or more MRSS? A single class of 8 to 10 that can also be up-crewed to do theatre entry too when needed.
I can’t because using an escort to do basic patrol work in low threat areas is massively more expensive than using an OPV. Unless HMG removes the requirement for an RN presence in the Falklands, Caribbean and Pacific Islands and a few other places the OPV’s have a roll to play.
I can see the OPVs going too, but not because it’s a good or sensible thing. I can see it happen due to political interference and ministers saying GP frigates can do that so you don’t need to run OPVs as well. But, as ATH says, the B2 Rivers are better at presence work and far cheaper to run than the Type 31s will be.
I wonder how the classified Future Force Design Review will affect the size of the RN?
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/03/official-reveals-uk-undertaking-a-classified-future-force-design-review/
Nothing open sourced that I’ve come across. I wouldn’t expect too much detail to be out for another year.
Hello Jon, fingers need to be pulled out that’s for sure. Now front page news on SKY.
https://news.sky.com/story/its-hard-to-imagine-how-the-uk-could-be-doing-less-to-prepare-for-war-13106724
https://news.sky.com/story/govt-has-no-national-plan-for-defence-of-the-uk-in-a-war-despite-renewed-threats-of-conflict-13106616
MOD can’t pull its finger out on the Future Force Design Review. It’s a hugely complex operation to decide how the UK armed forces will operate and fight in a from-scratch evaluation. We keep saying we will mostly fight with our allies, so not only will we have to see how the different UK domains will fight together, something pretty new for us, we also have to figure how we will fight with our allies. That’s the 31 NATO allies and our many other non-NATO allies. All this with the background of a very fast turnaround of defence technologies which might invalidate our assumptions at any point.
As useful as the review is, it’s no replacement for the immediate injection of considerable amounts of cash, where literally every week counts. It’s not about the more efficient sharing of a constrained budget. If we do only that, any effect will be too small, but more importantly, we signal the world we still aren’t serious and that completely undermines deterrence. Unfortunately our governments have a pechant for using defence reviews as an excuse to not stump up the dosh we all know Defence needs. This particular review not coincidentally kicks the can past the next General Election.
I also wonder if it’s the wrong review. I wonder if we need a review of how to abolish reviews. How do we migrate to a continuously updated process that can evolve quickly and can be implemented quickly? How do we separate out long-term initiatives with multi-year budgets from the fast adoption of new technologies when right now we can do neither?
All good points Jon.
A couple of points.
First the shortfall in the 10 year equipment plan arises mainly from the planned expansion of the AUKUS programme plus the RNs inclusion of the full costs of programmes that haven’t even been defined yet- Type 31, Type 83, MRSS, future air dominance. Over a ten year period, this notional shortfall is trivial.
Second, the article cites the evidence from the Ukraine war of the threat posed by drones but doesn’t ask the really difficult question whether surface warships can survive at all. Even if,with increased self defence, they can, are their high costs the best use of always tight funding?
The incredibly long timescales to design and build new vessels are rightly seen as running the risk of early obsolescence. But they also mean that the RN, along with most other navies, cannot replace losses and therefore has to be risk averse.
The incredibly long timescales to design and build new vessels are rightly seen as running the risk of early obsolescence. But they also mean that the RN, along with most other navies, cannot replace losses and therefore has to be risk averse.
In other words—and cue the broken record yet again—the RN simply does not have sufficient numbers, either to meet its operational goals as set by UK foreign policy or to absorb any kind of significant losses in battle.
So, I will ask yet again: why isn’t anyone in the RN or the UK defence establishment in general talking about building or buying small, relatively cheap units like corvettes or light frigates if you want to call them that? Sure, they would need an “Atlantic bow” but otherwise a ship not that different from the Israeli Sa’ar 6 would be tailor made for this purpose.
I’ll answer yet again. Because corvettes are not as flexible as frigates in global operations and don’t cost that much less, because it’s the systems that are where the majority of money goes. Cost of Sa’ar 6 (with a lot of gunboat-type systems) was about $557m in 2015 or £450m so significantly more expensive that the Type 31 was in 2019 (and still lacks ASW). Israel will never take the Sa’ar 6 into the deep ocean, so having less than half the range of the T31 isn’t a factor for them, but it would be for us. Small is fine for litoral but our requirements are global.
Larger ships are more expandable over time. Cram a corvette full and you can’t add systems when you need them.
Even if we decided to buy ships just for litoral, the disadvantage of having yet another type of frigate or corvette in terms of extra training and operations cost means that buying more Type 31s have a cost advantage that exceeds that of size. The only advantage of going small is crew size. It’s just not enough, and automation is reducing crew size as alternative.
I had in mind that these heavy corvette – light frigate vessels would be tasked with home waters, GIUK, and Mediterranean duties—ideally augmented by a few AIP or even diesel-electric submarines. This would free up the high end of the RN battle line for blue water operations and global power projection.
Certainly building more T31s would be preferable, but if the political will does not exist, now what?
I certainly question whether spending £1b on a surface escort makes sense in an era of cheap and increasingly effective drone/missile threats. Commentators claiming the end of MBTs didn’t go on to recognize that every other less well protected vehicle is even more vulnerable. In the same way, a smaller, cheaper vessel would almost certainly be less able to protect itself than current frigates or destroyers.
Surface vessels close to shore were vulnerable to air attack throughout WW2 and in Corporate. The balance has probably swung even further against them since then. The RM are moving away from amphibious assault because it is seen as unacceptably dangerous.
The counter to SAM defences is seen as stealth. The land counter to drones and UCAVs is probably dispersal and concealment. But surface ships can’t hide and only benefit marginally from stealth features. Only submarines still have the ability to operate without risk of easy detection. Maybe future navies will consist of high end submarines and cheap surface vessels for routine policing or coastguard duties.
Corvettes aren’t cheap, it’s the systems and weapons that ships are outfitted that cost.
BTW Israel was lucky not to lose one of its state-of-the-art Sa’ar 6 corvettes in the Houthi drone attack on Eilat at the weekend.
Not Houthis but a different Iranian proxy: Islamic Resistance in Iraq. It’s all Iran anyway. This drone hit a warehouse in the Eilat docks and Israel is looking to learn the lessons of air defence to bolster it’s GBAD.
After this attack, Sevastopol and Novorossiysk, we need to start thinking about protecting UK naval harbours.
Yeah, but they didn’t (lose the ship).
It seems to me that something > nothing. Some ships that still have some teeth, augmented by some cheaper SSGKs, is the only way forward for the RN to flesh out its numbers UNLESS sufficient political will is mustered to fund a navy and military that is composed of high end assets.
So it’s one or the other. Or, keep on going as you currently are, in which case you might end up with 24 surface combatants other than carriers in the entire Navy. How does this number of vessels constitute global capability? Answer: it doesn’t. Not even close. Sorry, that’s the truth.
They didn’t, but not because of any defensive measures taken by the corvette. There’s actually speculation the warehouse was the target, and that a second drone that failed en route was for the corvette; this is based on the Iranians having built a mock-up of the docks for practice where both the corvette and warehouse were targeted.
(When busy destroying the Black Sea Fleet, the Ukrainians have mainly attacked them in port, but have also targeted port facilities and naval targets ashore.)
In the times we live in; the RFA’s and especially the Points look increasingly vulnerable to irregular attack. They both sail around with high value ordinance and things, but have little in the way of self defence.
I know money is short and the go to idea is still FFBNW but this great idea may have had its day if carried to its extremes on the high seas. Hubris is no defence.
I would certainly agree that given the rising threat-level globally, all RFAs deployed should be fully armed; eg Phalanx fitted, etc.
These need to come back into fashion if you ask me:
Cheap and effective against all kinds of drones. Add a targeting radar and way cheaper than million dollar missiles. Effective on land and sea,
Phalanx does the job already, and at $46 a round.
Not really relevant to the article, but more the image of the Type 31. I see there is no longer a fourth mission bay in the mid section. RN website also says only three mission bays. Does anyone know why? Also, what will be put there instead? Are cold launched CAMMS going there next to the MK41 launcher?
Based on the noises coming out of Labour, I’m cautiously optimistic they will increase the budget. What would make sense would be to remove the nuclear deterrent out of the defence budget, as it used to be in the past. Also, looking at the latest opinion poll, it looks like Labour will retake most of the central belt in Scotland, that means the constituencies with shipyards, will have labour MP’s and will likely get a lot of focus to ensure they remain in Labour hands.
Some say a war with Russia will happen in 20 years or so. In britains case a civil war seem more likely .Swarms of migrants coming across the channel adding to the ones already living in the country who have all made it clear that have no desire to integrate and want to carry on with their 12th century mindset.
Yugoslavia 2.0