Ahead of the First Sea Lord’s conference for RN personnel held on 10 September, Admiral Tony Radakin posted a series of Tweets highlighting progress in transforming the navy. This is a brief analysis of his messages and the state of the RN right now.
“The Defence Secretary challenged me to improve availability. We now have Fewer Admirals. A Bigger Navy. On Budget. Recruitment up. Retention up. More Sea Days. More People on the Front Line. More Stability. Better Availability. All Despite Covid. “
The RN has been seen as rather ‘top-heavy’ for some time. There has also been a problem with ‘rank inflation’ with some jobs done by people of higher rank than necessary. The headcount at NCHQ has been cut and the number of managers is now more in proportion to the size of the fleet. What was not always fully understood in the criticism of “too many Admirals” is the number of important jobs with major responsibility, many of which are not operational but managing complex projects in procurement, personnel, the MoD, Joint and NATO commands etc. Cutting Admirals and support roles will only be judged a success in the long run if delivery is maintained and improved. These reforms lay down a challenge to the Army and RAF to do the same and is a popular move with politicians and taxpayers.
The claim that the RN is “bigger” is the more contentious, bigger than the time of Henry VIII? There has been a growth in overall tonnage since the low point around 2015 helped by the sheer size of the carriers and personnel numbers have risen slightly. In terms of combat vessels, besides the carriers, the RN is now down to 12 frigates (with another to go next year), 6 destroyers and just 6 SSNs. The OPVs fleet has increased by retaining the Batch Is but the remaining 11 mine hunters are being phased out in favour of autonomous systems. Although frigate numbers will eventually rise, the RN actually has fewer active ships now than in 2019.
Maintaining almost normal outputs in the face of the pandemic that has made everyone’s lives more difficult is an achievement the RN can be proud of. Both retention and recruitment was improving slowly before the pandemic hit but outflow all but stopped and applications rocketed as a result of COVID. As the UK economy picks up again and job vacancies are rising, the outflow figures will be an acid test of whether efforts to create better conditions for those serving are paying off. Recruitment has almost been too successful, with lots of baby sailors passing Phase 1 basic training but some left kicking their heels awaiting sufficient Phase 2 training places to become available.
“In the Submarine Service, we have maintained unbroken continuous at-sea deterrence for the 52nd consecutive year.”
Because it has been sustained for so long it is almost taken for granted but CASD is a staggering achievement involving surmounting all kinds of technical, personnel and logistic challenges on a daily basis. No-fault of the RN but the decision to delay starting construction of the Dreadnought class will make the next 5-10 years even tougher as the Vanguard boats age. HMS Vanguard has still yet to emerge from Devonport. Nearly a year overdue already, her major refit and refuelling proving more problematic than expected.
“Both Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers are now operational. On schedule. Fully crewed. With jets when required.”
Bringing the carriers into service has mostly been an incredible success story for the RN. Not only Radakin but his predecessors going back two decades and a vast army of contributors have made it possible. At the time of writing, both ships have jets embarked and the RN is becoming a carrier-centric navy again. Everyone would like to see more F-35s at sea and sooner but delivery is constrained by funding, industry and the aircrew training pipeline. In the short-medium term, the ‘tip of the spear’ is somewhat blunt as the F-35 awaits integration of the Meteor BVR air-air missile, SPEAR-3 and ideally a stand-off anti-ship/land-attack cruise missile.
“We are delivering across the board. May and June 21 saw the highest number of days at sea for the surface flotilla in seven years. We are piloting a 25-30% reduction in the next frigate upkeep period, maximising maintenance efficiency and driving up available sea time.”
The CSG21 deployment began in May so it is not surprising that the surface fleet achieved high levels of activity in this period. Unfortunately, this is not sustainable at all times and will likely be accompanied by reduced activity for a few months when the group returns in December as the regeneration process begins. It is the long term trends that are more important. Overall frigate and destroyer availability has slightly increased during Radakin’s tenure (averaging 24% of their time at sea in 2020) but ships still spend too much time alongside. Anything that can reduce the time spent in maintenance is to be welcomed but it will be uphill work. Most of the Type 23s have completed LIFEX refits and more multi-crewing may help in the near term but in the medium term, the ageing frigate fleet will present more, not less maintenance challenges. Only in the very late 2020s with the arrival of new frigates can availability be expected to really improve.
“Type 45 has been a tougher story. Individual deployed ships have improved enormously. And the ships are hugely capable, which is why we are investing more to upgrade the propulsion to allow 4 from 6 ships to always be ready for operations by 2026.”
The medium-long term outlook for the Type 45s is good with the propulsion issues resolved and Sea Ceptor being fitted between 2026-32. The picture is disappointing right now with HMS Dauntless still in Birkenhead as the PIP engineers struggle to integrate the new diesel generators. As the first of the class to undergo the process, difficulties were to be expected but it now seems she is unlikely to be back in Portsmouth before early 2022, the “6-month” project having over-run by about a year. HMS Daring was brought out of the tidal basin in Portsmouth for the first time in 4 years last week. She has no ships company and will soon be towed to Birkenhead to start her PIP. She will then have to return to Portsmouth to complete her main refit and will probably not be operational before 2024. HMS Duncan is in the final stages of a very challenging major refit. HMS Dragon has been active this year and is likely to participate in exercise Joint Warrior at the end of the month. HMS Defender has had an outstanding CSG21 deployment so far while HMS Diamond is set to rejoin the CSG after a delay of 7 weeks repairing a major engine defect in Italy.
“All five Batch 2 Offshore Patrol Vessels are in service and are deployed on permanent operations.”
All 5 of these ships have now left UK shores and are unlikely to return for many years. HMS Forth (Falkland Islands) HMS Medway (Caribbean) HMS Trent (Mediterranean) HMS Tamar and Spey (Indo-Pacific). Relatively large ships, very economic to run with good sea keeping and endurance, they are ideal for constabulary, diplomacy and humanitarian missions. It should be remembered these are in no way a parallel of the Royal Navy’s cruiser deployments of the 20th century and lack the weaponry to contribute to the balance of military power wherever they are.
“At the end of this year, we will have achieved a 60% increase in RFA operational availability over the last 4 years.”
This improvement is largely down to the four brand new Tide-Class tankers overcoming initial teething problems and settling down in service. RFA Tideforce is the last of the 4 ships currently undergoing final inaugural inspection and refit at Cammell Laird. RFA Tidesurge will join RFA Tidespring in supporting the latter stages of the Carrier Strike Group deployment. RFA Argus is due to go in 2024 without replacement and RFA Wave Ruler remains laid up, while the delivery of the first Fleet Solid Support ships slips further into the future.
“We are shifting 15% of our workforce from shore to sea. We are changing our promotion system to be more skill-based than experience-based, allowing our extremely talented workforce the opportunity to advance more quickly. We will employ multiple crew models on more ships and submarines to improve stability and certainty for our people, as well as availability. With multiple crewing of ships and submarines we will give our people more certainty, more stability and less churn.”
No one would argue that the RN should strive to maximise resources on the frontline, although even fewer shore jobs may not be good for retention in the long run. Changes in the promotion system are long overdue, over-dependence on the assessment of just one or two seniors for career advancement is can be unfair and a broad meritocracy is healthy. A really radical option would be to consider sideways entry where candidates with specialist skills are recruited for particular roles and enter at higher ranks, instead of working up from the bottom. The rotating crew system is certainly popular and provides a more predictable routine allowing people to plan their lives with more certainty. There may be some downsides such as reduced crew cohesion and pride in the ship as well as a reliance on benign conditions and commercial airlines to deliver personnel all over the world.
“Climate change is a challenge that we need to play our part to address: greener ships, more energy-efficient buildings and also better utilising the infrastructure we already have.”
Some may perceive this as pandering to the vocal environmental lobby but the UK has a net-zero emissions target of 2050 and like all parts of government, the RN needs to play its part as a good citizen. Besides the environmental considerations, it makes sense to reduce fuel and energy use which will lower costs in the long run as well as have the strategic benefit of decreasing dependence on hydrocarbons. There are difficult decisions ahead, especially around potential higher up-front costs and where ‘dirtier’ technology still holds battle-winning advantage over greener alternatives.
“The three specific areas we will go after to achieve Operational Advantage are underwater dominance, autonomous air systems and Commando forces.”
Should the RN have to fight in a peer or near-peer conflict, the underwater domain will arguably be the most critical. 7 SSNs is simply not enough, however excellent the Astute class may be but there is nothing that UK industry can realistically do to increase that number in the next decade or more. The ideal solution would be to buy German or Japanese conventional AIP submarines but lack of money, political will and manpower issues make this a fantasy. Heavy investment in UUVs is the best hope for the RN to partially offset its lack of boats.
There are big plans in the pipeline for UAS including the very ambitious aspiration for catapult-launched drones to operate from the carriers to complement the F-35. Although it has emerged the Merlin helicopter fleet will have to soldier on until 2040, it is intended that the Crowsnest ASaC system will be phased out to be replaced by an uncrewed system by 2029. What is harder to forgive is the lack of UAS actually in service right now. While the RN has conducted endless experiments and trials with UAS in different forms over the last decade, only the humble hand-launched Puma UAV is actually operational. In the ISR role, there are many very affordable options that could be bought off the shelf and most of the fleet could have been equipped with at least a modest surveillance RWUAS several years ago.
Future Commando Force and Littoral Response Groups concepts make some sense but cannot mask the fact that overall we are downgrading our amphibious capability and reducing Royal Marine numbers.
Cynics might suggest that 1SL’s PR broadside was not just for the internal audience, but part of a pitch for the Chief of Defence Staff job which General Carter will soon vacate. The fact that there has not been a naval CDS for 20 years is not an argument in itself as it is ultimately about selecting the right candidate. Radakin is clearly a strong contender and can point to real progress in reforming and strengthening the RN. The timing of his appointment has been fortunate, benefiting from a helpful political climate, marginal improvements in defence funding and the aircraft carriers beginning to show their potential. The RN is slowly recovering from the damage inflicted by over-emphasis on counter-insurgency operations and the disastrous 2010 defence review and is arguably now in the best shape of the three services.
Given the catastrophic mishandling of its armoured vehicle procurement and muddled strategic direction over the last 5-10 years, any candidate from the Army must bear some responsibility and should be automatically disqualified. The little remaining appetite for foreign interventions involving boots on the ground is fast disappearing and a return to maritime-centric defence policy in tune with the government vision for a ‘Global Britain’ would suggest a naval candidate would be a good fit.
Overall the RN is in better shape than 5 years ago, under Admiral Radakin it has been better managed and is responding faster to a changing world. The Integrated Review confirmed a broadly satisfactory shipbuilding programme with modest growth in hull numbers a real possibility by the 2030s. Unfortunately, the threat environment continues to develop rapidly and the next 1SL will have to work even harder with resources that are still inadequate to match the tasks expected of the RN.
Assuming that the next generation of SSNs will be so complicated and expensive that they will amount to 3 platforms instead of 7, it will be interesting to see what tasks the UUVs are designed for. I live in hope we get at least 5 SSNs though.
We won’t wait. We want eight!
I believe that the Dreadnoughts are currently intended to be a template for the successor SSN i.e. effectively the SSBN with the ballistic missile section removed. If so, this could accord with the kind of soundly researched whilst not overtly revolutionary approach we’re coming to associate fom the RN and it’s engineering partners. So maybe more a 1.5 to 2 platform solution with comensurate cost benefits. The last at least as well as modern technology will facilitate.
Should have been the other way round. The Dreadnought class as a developed Astute class. The missile tubes a single row of 8 ( or 12). maybe with a humpback like the Russians do.
The USN and RN should just collaborate on a shared SSN design, produced in both countries. They utilize systems from each other anyway! BAE Systems is a major supplier to the USN, and several US companies, such as Lockheed, Raytheon, and Honeywell provide systems to RN SSNs.
Fewer admirals? Maybe but there now seem to be commodores skulking behind every office door in the MOD. I used to think that the concept of the then effectively acting rank commodore was a clever way of placing the most appropriate, if not the most senior, captain in temporary local command. The RAF, by contrast, seemed to have an inexhaustible supply of air commodores doing nothing much. Sadly the Royal Navy seems now to have gone down the same path.
I am not too keen on the new concept of promotion to lieutenant commander the subject of selection, an idea which was rejected as long ago as in the early 1900s on the grounds that it would favour the pushy to the detriment of the slow and steady.
.
I fear the Royal Navy seems to be picking up some bad habits of the other two services.
Unfortunately for the past and present Royal Navy the inexhaustible supply of Air Commodores all seem to have one good habit, they automatically head for Westminster and the politicians when decisions regarding procurement arise. Their skills and influence make the Senior Officers of the other Armed forces seem like amateurs.
A friend’s son a submariner on SSN’s recently had no post-deployment leave and then no pre-deployment leave prior to setting off on patrol. Coupled with the fact that he is from the South of the Country and had no time to visit friends and family he is seriously considering his future in the service.
The decision to base all submarines in Faslane is also a problem for him. The attractions of the highlands notwithstanding.
Yes, I’d imagine Covid is making service rough. Things will eventually improve I hope. There is no other real suitable location for the subs and having been stationed there for some years I can’t help but think maybe he should of thought of that first before signing up.
Barrow ?
Dont really need a deep firth or other such drowned valley.
The US Navy does Ok with its Kings Bay Georgia base which is a winding shallow (ish) estuary..
Glasgow’s near by though and has lots to do, but covid screwed that I suppose, and Faslanes not in the Highlands lol
I did not say Faslane was in the highlands
ok mate my bad.
I don’t see how the type 31s, can be classified as “frigates” without any AS capabilities and so they will not be escorts. They are certainly not frigates in the modern tradition which began with WW2 River Class but rather large expensive gunboats with small guns.
The aircraft carries may be complete but they are not operational and will not be without four naval air squadrons of F35Bs; thus far, only one such, 809 squadron, is in the pipeline and then only in 2023.
You still have much to do, First Sea Lord, Sir.
For me it is Crowsnest that is the real gap. What the MoD(N) have purchased is woeful.
I’ve been wondering how they’ve performed during CSG21, even in pre-production guise. Even so, phase out by 2029 seems a bit precipitous.
Odds of developing and deploying a new system and modifying both ships and working up both crews by 2029 seam low to me.
How much further can crowsnest see than the type 45s.
It is more a question of what can Crowsnest see that SAMPSON can’t. I think the latter can look out to 200nm. The much, much smaller Crowsnest lofted a lot higher can see further but with less resolution. We can’t do without it. And it needed a much better sensor.
And having just 3 with the carriers seems like the bare minimum needed..
It is. We need 5 or so for 24 hours to be on the safe side.
Ideally we need enough so we can have two (task) groups covered.
Though somebody here once told me that I was being stupid saying that……..
The question here is radar horizon, SAMPSON may have the output power to look straight out to 200nm but will still be limited by the curvature of the earth, anything below the curvature is hidden.
Examples;
Assuming that SEARCHWATER 2000 has the same performance (which is not) as SAMPSON then
The laws of physics mean at radars can’t see below the horizon. If a potential contact is at say 30 feet you can see it at a massively greater distance from 10,000 feet than from the top of a T45 mast. If you potential contact is at say 55,000 then quality/power of the radar set will likely be the factor that limits range.
This formula is taken from https://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Radar/Radar_Horizon.htm
Simplified Radar Horizon Against a Target at a Specific Height for Earth (English Units)
RadarHorizon = 1.23 * ( sqrt [HeightAntenna] + sqrt [HeightTarget])
NOTE: This equation is inaccurate compared to the full radar horizon equation, but it yields results accurate enough for “back of the envelope” work.
Cheers Tim, was interesting 👍
What is really interesting is that the radar horizon is not the same as the visual light horizon.
But, the Earth is flat !!!!
Rubbish! RUBBISH! We live on the inside of a sphere. It rotates to stop the water sploshing to the bottom. 🙂
steady on old boy, what have you been drinking?
In fact on rare occasions of anomalous atmospheric propagation (particularly in the Mediterranean for some reason) microwave radar can sometoimes detect targets beyond the horizon. Longer wavelength radar waves are diffracted around the surface of the earth to a significant degree and, in the right conditions, can also be bounced off the Ionosphere. Radars which use HF / MF can make detections significantly beyond the horizon.
A primitive form of HF radar was tried out in the Falklands War using the ships’ HF communions aerials but I don’t think much was achieved then. HF/MF Over the Horizon Radar (OTHR) has since been developed further and the Australians have an operational OTHR system, “Jindalee”, to protect their North coast.
I don’t know how much further shipborne OTHR has been taken by the RN recently. Perhaps someone here knows more than I.
Italian Navy developed naval radars for that propose in 70’s, 80’s , but it was still irregular occurrence.
The highly secret experimental radar SPQ-5A “Sarchiapone” installed from 1973 to 1987 on board the frigate Alpino, was able to locate aircraft during their take-off from the aircraft carrier Kennedy at a distance of 350 nautical miles. A further evolution of SPQ-5A “Sarchiapone” was the SPS-702ACo.Ra (Condotto Radar, Radar Duct) installed on board the “Lupo” class frigates toward the end of 1980s and then removed, prior to the sale of the four units to Peru. The task of the Co.Ra was the remote control over the horizon of the Teseo missiles toward their targets, without having to resort to the use of the helicopter. Three more radar sets of this type were based on the coast in La Spezia, Taranto and Venice; the latter was able to intercept, at the distance of about 280 miles, the air traffic of the large Italian air force base Luigi Rovelli, in Amendola near Foggia; they considered the chance to create a network of such “Radar Duct” systems for coastal monitoring throughout the Mediterranean, but the project had no followup because of the inconstancy of the phenomenon and the need to install the antennas at the suited, not known a priori, altitude above sea, sometimes as low as a very few metres.
Sorry, the above is quote from here
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/bbm:978-3-319-00584-3/1.pdf
There is no such thing as an RAF or FAA F35 squadron.
All have personnel from both services and are planned to stay that way. 809 could well have an RAF (or an FAA) boss and will most likely have a majority of RAF people as there are more of them in the F35 force.
We tried that in the 1930s but it did not work well.
And what relevance has that to the 2030’s?
Dont be a prisoner of history.
I think some of the lessons are still relevant though.
In the 30’s the RAF prioritised strategic bombing over coastal command and the Navy was left with obsolete aircraft on it’s carriers.
In recent times the RAF were prepared to dump maritime reconnaissance, VTOL aircraft that could be used on carriers and the Sentinel surveillance aircraft (which were so useful that other countries have borrowed them). Dumping Harriers was particularly irksome as it was done to retain GR4’s whose capabilities were largely already present or soon to emerge on Typhoons.
I think because persons who join the RAF are doing so to stay on dry land. And those who join the RN expect to go to sea. Mind blowing I know. Just as some don’t join the Army because they don’t like the idea of camping on a two way range.
We can be upbeat if:
1) We equip T26 with a ship launched ASW weapon and land attack capability.
2) We equip the F35 with a stand off heavyweight land attack missile and anti-ship missile (that’s not Spear which hasn’t the range to be launched outside the engagement envelope of land and sea based area defence SAM’s)
3) We either sell the B2 Rivers and use the crews on useful vessels such as MCM ships or put a telescoping hangar on them so that they can carry a helicopter permanently and actually be of some use in relieving larger units of SAR, humanitarian and interdiction missions.
3) We ensure all independently deployed destroyers and frigates carry SSM’s and ASW torpedoes as they do in every other major Navy
4) We give the T45 a TBMD capability, equip them with the Co-operative Engagement Capability and return their sonars to operational status
5) We put a data link on the Lynx helicopter
6) We put a sonar and double the number of SAM’s on the T31
7) We never deploy our carriers with an air group smaller than 18 F35’s
8) We buy additional medium helicopters or UAV’s for the AEW mission so that Merlins csn focus on ASW operations
You’d get most of that capability for the £5.5bn we’re planning to spend on Ajax!
Indeed. Good points.
I would go further and suggest that the British Army does not need to be as large as it currently is. The larger the Army the more the temptation for our inept politicians to send it to fight unwinnable wars in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. The defence of the Realm, back up to the USA, assistance to Canada Oz, NZ, Scandinavia, Singapore or Japan or and the freedom of trade can mostly be entrusted to the Royal Navy and the RAF with, of course, highly mobile forces for short term interdiction, special forces, garrisons in Gib, the Falklands, Cyprus, Diego Garcia, home defence and aid to civil power in the UK if (when) required. We are simply not, ever again, going to become involved in major continental wars.
So there is little or no requirement for new tanks.
“We are simply not, ever again, going to become involved in major continental wars. ” Well that’s nice to hear then, can you tell me what this weekends Lotto numbers are now please ?
We are not because we cannot, even now.
“Ever Again” you wrote, that’s the bit I’m on about, seems like a wild sweeping statement especially if you look back a few hundred years.
The age of industrial war has come and gone. We are already fighting WW3 and losing and hardly a shot has been fired.
No need for Aircraft and ships then, not that we have that many !
I didn’t say that.
History does indeed tell a tale.
Prior to the two world wars of the 20th century our army was, compared to other European powers, very small. Tudor attempts to become involved in Continental wars ended badly. Marlborough’s campaigns in the Wars of Spanish Succession were highly successful but largely fought by non-English / British troops. Wellington’s Peninsular campaign was brilliant but again the actual numbers of British troops were not high and his successes were possible only because of the Royal Navy’s near absolute command of the Sea, post Trafalgar. At the other end of Europe Saumarez broke Napoleon’s Continental System and turned the Russian’s against the French with just a small part of the Royal Navy’s total fleet. Most of the soldiers under Wellington’s his command at Waterloo were not British and that battle would have been lost without Blucher.
In the Great War the British Army played the major role in the defeat of Germany in the autumn of 1918 but this defeat was also, in a large part, due to the Grand Fleet’s blockade of Germany thus precipitating its economic implosion. In WW2, our most vital campaigns, at least from the viewpoint of national survival, were the Battle of Britain and the Battle of the Atlantic. Also. In both World Wars, a large part of the British Army was, in fact, Canadian, Indian, Australian Irish or NZ.
I agree that “never” is a long time but after failure (or whatever?) of the Iraq and Afghan wars, and in contrast to the successful Falklands campaign, the British Public has no stomach for any further such campaigns.
I don’t disagree with any of that or events in our earlier history, it was just the use of the “ever again” bit, no-one can predict what’ll happen in the future and certainly no-one on an internet site such as this.
We didn’t have a large army because we are an island. You seem to be arguing from the point of view that a large standing army is something we should have had.
Saumarez’s ‘fleet’ was small. But it was part of a much larger greater whole that was exerting influence elsewhere.
I think you over egged the pudding with a large part of the British Army was, in fact, Canadian, Indian, Australian Irish or NZ.
My point was precisely that Saumarez did not require a major fleet because of the overwhelming global dominance of the Royal Navy after Trafalgar. Admiral Cowan was in a similar position during the Baltic wars of 1919.
My second point was that that we need not require a large arm precisely because we are an island and that the World Wars of the twentieth century we an aberration.
The contribution by the Iimperial forces in both World Wars should not be underestimated. Now, since we no longer have an empire, we should, in my opinion, revert to what we can do which is a maritime defence policy and avoid future commitments in potential continental conflicts.
Fairy snuff. 🙂
that the World Wars of the twentieth century we an aberration.
A point I have made many, many times myself. After WW2 after we had our own A-bomb we should have left the Continent to the French and Germans and returned to the sea.
During WW1, Commonwealth troops included 15,000 from the Caribbean, 140,000 from India & surrounds, 620,000 from Canada, 410,000 Australian, 100,000 New Zealanders & sundry others from Africa. You are looking at around 1.3+ million troops. Looks pretty large to me.
The British Army (home!) had nearly 4 million men.
The only significant defeat of the British Army in Europe was in 1940. Unlike in 1914, the small size and outdated equipment of the BEF meant it was overwhelmed.
In 1918, the British Army including Canadian and Australian divisions was the key factor in the defeat of Germany.
In 1944/5, it played a secondary role to the US army.
I don’t think these different experiences provide a clear answer on how today’s army should be organized and equipped or even how big it should be.
For that we need a coherent strategy and we don’t have one. Global Britain is a meaningless sound bite but in pursuit of it we are deploying all R2 s to areas where they will be neither use nor armament. The rest of the surface fleet is too small and poorly armed to achieve much in a peer on peer war. What can it actually do? Blockade? Too small. Deliver major assaults on land? Army too small and not enough aircraft to deliver control of the airspace.
Our only long range non nuclear strike capability is a small number of Tomahawks on just 6 SSNs.
Rather than frittering away resources in areas where we have no vital interests, we need to focus on defence of the UK and of our near neighbours. This should apply to all branches of the armed forces including the RN.
If we choose an army fit mainly for home defence, then we may as well design a navy that does the same.
If we really want to have global capability, we will need a much bigger budget. I can’t see that happening.
Agreed. Been saying for some time (and was hoping they’d wake up to this in the last review), we need to decide what we want to be. You can’t plan for x, y and z equipment or force structures until you set a capability goal.
If we want to just defend ourselves, could drop out of NATO, ditch the carriers, most of the RFA, any amphibs and half the fleet. Save some money.
If we want to ‘do our bit for NATO’, again ditch the carriers, lose all expeditionary elements & just send token 20 guys when asked. Save money.
If we want to be capable of independently engaging in conflict globally (which politicians like to bluster about), we have to decide what scale and spend accordingly.
Use nor ornament! Armament would be useful.
Well argued, lad! Are you sure you are not older?
We’re all getting older mate.
We are simply not, ever again, going to become involved in major continental wars.
So there is little or no requirement for new tanks.
I agree. But I will say the Army has too few vehicles even for limited actions (such as those France is undertaking in Africa.) And I would say we are already past the minimum even with MBT’s.
“We are simply not, ever again, going to become involved in major continental wars.”
WWI – The war to end all wars.
🙂
Deffo on the ASM for F35bs but fingers crossed we go for the NSM for ships and land batteries and drone ships and then equip F35s with JSM 2 on each wing as it won’t fit inside. Not ideal but covers the basics and is off the shelf.
I would go for LRASM and integrate it on to F35B and P8 Posiedon along with mounting on Type 26,Type 31 & Type 32 giving all these assets a truly viable ASM.
LRSM is big, very expensive & competes with the UK/France missiles under development. NSM & JSM are at the lighter end of the heavy weight AShM & have multiple options (versions) as a family (shipboard canister, shipboard VLS, truck mounted canister, helicopter, fast jet & submarine launch). Also remember that the F35B needs to be able to ski-jump launch & land vertical carrying these things.
Incisive and very relevant comments. Indeed, the £5.5bn should go the distance. Good points well researched.
An upbeat speech, but additional ships have yet to be ordered. Two glaring weaknesses are: 1) The need for a small force of say 5 AIP Submarines, a real force multiplier, 2) Too few Merlin HM2s. Possible solutions could be for 1) sell this as a job creation scheme maybe Japenese / German investment into CL, in exchange for something they need help with. 2) transfer all Wildcats to the RN and equip some with MAD and dipping sonar. The army buying Blackhawks.
How do settle on 5 SSK’s? What availability are you looking at?
Agree the Wildcats need dipping sonar. Cost/benefit is a no-brainer.
Blackhawks though? No. The US is going to start replacing them in 6 years. V280 or similar will be a huge step change in capability. Lets not spend a fortune on new helicopters (especially not in volume) that will be obsolete in 10 years.
We already are, with the Puma replacement (covers 4 helicopter types, some 40-60 aircraft). Unfortunately we cant wait for the V280, so have to get something now.
Fair point. I don’t know enough about how soon things are going to be unserviceable but, knowing how woefully slow our usual procurement is though… Is it possible we could wait?
In the case of the Pumas, the answer is no, OSD is 2023/4, they have already had a mid life update to get them to this date, they are out of flying hours, so a new type is needed.
Merlin’s are good till 2040, and the Chinooks beyond that, so, they will be prime contenders for anything new.
Radakins speech would suggest that he and Admirals before him have played some part in the successful rejuvenation of the Royal navy. If these men had resigned their commission rather than play patsy to mainly Conservative governments defence policies then maybe they would have brought it to the the notice of the country that we no longer possess any maritime force capable of defending our own shores or the lives and property of British citizens abroad, especially at the same time.
Everything that Radakin comments on is said to reassure the Government that he and his Senior Officers are ‘on message’ and not doing anything to rock the sinking boat. Anyone reading this article who can compose a wish list of items- manpower and equipment, urgently required by the Royal Navy and get that list down to less than fifteen items may pass Go and become an Admiral of the fleet.
I’m fascinated by the news we intend to operate catapult launched drones from the carriers. This suggests they need wires and that the weight will be fairly limited. Any ideas what the limit might be and have we done some negotiations with Bae yet?
Suggestion is the system will be much smaller than you would need to land any of the manned carrier aircraft.
Ah, you mean the F35B then, after all it’s the only one we can launch and land, just hope the airframe hours can last the 50 years often mentioned. Would it need another upgrade in 25 years or so ? all this and more will be answered in the next few decades I guess. Unless we just sell the Carriers of course !
I wonder if we added an arestor wire what we could also launch, STOBAR is a cheap and good option too. The Indians launch migs dont they?
Anyways a Navy tempest would be cool to compliment F35b and if it’s STOBAR then no need for heavy STOVL gear, it just needs a longer run up and really powerfull engine. Actually I wonder how long a runway the f35C needs to take of from and the ski-ramp would defo shorten that….
STOBAR is inefficient when it comes to deck space. But saying that we are unlikely to have a lot of airframes and have a big deck so……… 🙂
SAAB Sea Gripen would probably be the better option as a STOBAR fighter. Smaller & lighter weight, quite capable flying CAP over the carrier 24×7 & leave the F35B as the strike fighter.
It’s cheap. But can’t just have Rafael-M instead?
STOBAR kills payload. The Chinese are looking to go catapult having tried STOBAR.
RFI008 AIRCRAFT LAUNCH AND RECOVERY EQUIPMENT
A Pre-Procuement Noticeby MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Published 25 Feb 2021
See – https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2021/W08/745668808
“Potential arrestor solutions ideally should offer:
a. Max trap 47000lbs / 21318Kg
b. Min trap 11000lbs / 5000Kg
c. Energy damping method
d. Potential for energy reclamation
Potential catapult solutions ideally should offer:
a. Max launch weight 55000lbs / 24949Kg
b. Electrical power input required against launch cycle time.”
I thought last nights C5 documentary on HMS Trenchant summed up what happens way too often. A rusty, 30 year old boat which should have long since been replaced soldiering on but unable to complete her mission due to knackered kit breaking down. As ever, the positive part was the calm, can do attitude of the crew. It’s an all too often repeated pattern of great personnel let down by poor or worn out gear thanks to hopeless politicians
Or politicians who have worked out were the majority of the public’s priorities are and are concentrating on those. We are a democracy, we get what we as a majority vote for.
You’re right. Politicians largely use the defence budget for job creation rather thsn defence as that’s what people vote for.
Hardly. The NHS does that and it gets 12% of GDP not 2%
During the Cold War the general trends were Labour liked building platforms (metal bashing) and the Tories liked tech and cutting platforms.
Do we though?
Truth is, with maybe the exception of CASD, neither party make Defence an issue – because they don’t want to – so you never get to see what the public actually want. If we were to have an election or referendum with Defence as the only issue, I think many would be surprised at the level of support it has when you sit people down and have a conversation with the public about it. It’s rarely considered by people as most have been cocooned/insulated/had the wool pulled over our eyes about any potential threats and/or operate on the assumption that it’s all taken care of. Defence is ‘someone else’s problem’.
The media never raise Defence as an issue (goes against their agenda) & it’s never really debated come the hustings.
Given the entrenchment in a two party system – neither of which really want to discuss such things and let’s be honest, they’re both cut from the same cloth at the minute – where no-one really uses defence as a political weapon to cudgel the opposition with, as they do in the USA, the public are never actually consulted on the matter.
It’s kind of like forcing a choice between gruel or porridge & then claiming ‘the majority wanted porridge so that’s what everyone will get’ when actually, if presented with all the options, most would prefer a bacon sandwich.
That’s part of the importance of sites like this & the “cool” photos of BIG ships. Try and have these conversations, try and engage people who don’t even think of these things, try and get the word out there about the state of our Defence so we can remedy it.
Was fascinating. Fridge breaking down too…
Lec are not the best truth be known .
“A bigger Navy” in tonnage yes! But in ships no where near… they need to stop talking Cr*p that’s what they need to do.
I’m with you on that mate, It’s Cut after Cut after Cut either way they try to disguise it. Would be interesting to see Hull Figures rather than Tonnage, after all you can only be in one place at any one time and we seem to be spread rather thinly at the moment, not to mention the next ten years or so. Big’ing up the T45’s is one thing saying just how World Class they are but we all know the reality is they are mostly broken down or undergoing refits, as for the T23’s well yes, we will soon be down to 11 of the original 16 with at least another 2 being paid off pretty soon, not to mention the 11 remaining Mine hunters/Patrol boats and the Batch 1 Rivers too you can bet your bottom Doller on that. Oh and We might just get 8 T26’s but what are the T31’s actually going to be good at ? Then we have the 5 T32’s whatever they may be ? Type 83’s ? will we get 6 or will we get half ? 2 Carriers, or 1? 138 F35B’s or just 48? Merlin’s and Wildcat’s look vulnerable if you ask me. Call me Young and Stupid but heck, Wake up UK, smell the Coffee.
Rant over, for now.
Calm down old boy, you’ll get a stroke.
Have a Drambuie at the Duke of York if you are over 18!
It’s good to rant at times matey.👍
You’re being unfair on the T31. It will be the largest offshore patrol vessel in the world. Just the same as the Batch 2 Rivers are the largest coastal patrol vessels in the world.
I’m sure you’ll agree that the £2bn spent on building these ships and the hundreds of crew used to operate them couldn’t possibly have been better spent on hulls that were actually of some use.
It won’t be the largest. I am the sure China Coastguard have some 10k tonners. And the Japan Coast Guard has 6800 tonners……. 🙂
Don’t forget the Canadians. 6,500t for their artic OPV’s .
Good one! Heck we could also then mention the Norwegians too.
Royal Navy’s ice patrol ship too HMS Protector , 5,000t
🙂
You guys are completely missing the point of the T31.
Exactly mate, cuts everywhere since 2000s, our ships are under armed and vulnerable, barely any ASM on our carrier battle group or even in the fleet, and even down to not fitting the 4 30mm to the carriers is something i don’t understand as we have the dam guns!…
And The MCMVs going without a manned replacement giving the RN even less options and capability as the mines have specialist divers and equipment that autonomous boats won’t and cant have! The mines going will make the RN worse off and have less ships to help train new captains crew and specialists!, and to think we had 30 odd MCMVs not long ago.. 20 odd frigates and 12 destroyers….I hope we get the type 32 to help replace them and 5 minimum or 8 would be great then we can scrap the batch one OPVs or give them away! we like giving assets away. But 24 escorts is about the minimum we need for The RN, but let’s be honest only the type 26s and 45s are true escorts..I hope we get a surprise and the 31/32 are better armed than we think, they are great cable ships if given the right gear.
The 31s missile counts less than the much smaller type 23s and thats almost criminal especially because adding an extra 24/34 to the 12 planned on the huge ships with loads of room won’t exactly break the bank and the 23s we have left will all have new top notch gear and missiles installed so why not take what we can for them .
The 45s getting engines fixed is good and should give us 4 deplorable at once and the extra 24 sea ceptor is very welcome as the 45s 48 missiles were low for something that size and cost. Also do the 45s wildcats always carry the Martlets and wing system now ? And I wonder how many extra martlet the ships carry, if it’s just 10 then the 45s have 82 launchable missiles aboard and Thats a dam sight better than what we started with, now put the sonar back on and get the interim ASM ordered for the fleet.
Thats my Rant over too m8 😆
Evening Cam, yes it’s good to rant, we all do it at some point mate!
We’ve always had AShM in the fleet, certainly since the early 80s, Exocet on Leander’s/B2 Counties, T21 and T22s, then we switched to Harpoon on B3 T22s,T23 and T45s. They are carried as a deterrent as escorts don’t normally go toe to toe with the opposition. The UK uses SSNs to target opposition ships, yes we do not have enough of them and that’s not going to change in the next 20 years.
F35 will help the SSNs against opposition ships in the short term until FC/ASM comes online, and indeed if we do get some form of effective I-SSGM!!
Nobody knows exactly how many SeaCeptor T31s are going to receive.renders have shown anywhere between 12-24, but they are just that, drawings, so who knows.
Totally agree that increase in tonnage is not a good barometer to measure RN improvement, it’s a con, as we all know hull numbers are decreasing and that, will have a detrimental effect on our capabilities, that no matter how many drones we have (defence on the cheap), will not improve it.
Have a few beers mate, I’m having a glass of rouge!
True. But why is it always thought here drones will be cheap, small, and unmanned? They are going to be expensive to do anything serious, big to do anything serious, and will take manpower to look after them.
Wouldn’t disagree X, almost be worthwhile having manned assets instead!!!😂😂
Putting a man in a machine does mean he takes up volume. But if you want to move 10 tonnes of ordnance at over mach 1 you are going to have to build a big plane. Artificially intelligent devices are still dumb. And high end kit still breaks.
Yes, exactly, just like the BAE T650, it can take a Stingray torpedo up to 20 miles at up to 90mph, probably cost an arm and a leg and take a team of Humans to control it not to mention all the others involved in maintaining and handling. Not really getting it personally.
Returning un-expended expensive ordnance is good. Taking what 13 minutes to get to the target isn’t so good.
But what can this Drone do that a Wildcat or Merlin couldn’t ? 20 mile range at full load 90 mph ? Hell even a Stringbag has way more range and speed than that.
Nothing. As I said the only thing it can do is bring the torpedo back.
The Americans were trying out remote controlled helicopters in the 50’s and 60’s. Wouldn’t have the speed of Ikara; if it did and the lift body could be flown back? But no I see no advantage.
An interesting tweet ref AUS binning French built SSKs for SSN with tech from US?UK if true!!
Yes. I have seen a few articles on it. The French boat wasn’t want they needed. It will be amusing if they end up with 8 SSN’s…….
Why have I got visions of the Electric drones coming back with torpedoes not used and hitting the side of the ship or crashing due to battery failure.,,
Hi Deep32 mate, yep had a couple beers, the way the Government treats the millitary almost drives me to booze lol 👍
F35B will have next to no ability to assist the SSN’s unless some sort of fast jet capable AShM (such as JSM) is purchased. Unless you want to just drop bombs (which is pretty much the only current option).
Yes fella I know, but it will be getting Sp3 as soon as Blk 4 is released (2026?) (not a big hitter I know, but carries 8 internally) which will help, which is where I was going with this.
A large AShM is a no brainer to me, but the powers to be might have a different view, perhaps we will need to wait until FC/ASM comes along for that capability?
I approve of this rant 🙂
There was a certain candour in his words – note admission of only 6 fleet submarines, flagging issues with T45 – Jim30’s thinpinstrippedline might want to revisit that one with the guff he published the other month; acknowledges lack of surface and sub-surface fleet numbers not being able to operate all the places or all the time lack of offensive systems on the Batch 2s… and on.
Personally, I enjoyed the realism.
Jim30 is a Main Building shill. The MoD could decide to paint everything fluorescent orange and issue ROE that say the HMAF need to shoot themselves first and Jim30 would spin it as the wisdom of the gods and that anybody disagreeing is an ignorant civilian who should just be bl00dy grateful that the MoD is spending our money.
A really balanced and fair response. Admiral Radakin HAS done a good job. He has helped the RN to fair better than the other services in the recent Integrated Review. (Only fair for the ‘Senior Service’!!)
Is 1SL not SIR Tony Radakan?
I thought drug testing was compulsory? Appears this one slipped through the net!
Is Australia going to get Astute class SSN’s?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-16/australia-nuclear-submarine-partnership-us-uk/100465814
Only if they’re built in the USA so I’m going to say no. Barrow doesn’t have the capacity does it? I believe the US yards do so my guess is a Virginia derivative.
I’m also going to speculate that we’ll only have token involvement with some tech and helping with training where we can.
Good news though!
I would think that whatever type the Aussies select, is going to be built in Australia with lots of support/help from the UK/US.
We certainly don’t have the spare capacity and neither do the US I believe, as they are tied up with building their Virginia class which is expected to go into the mid 2040s.
I daresay Thet the US could slot in some extra builds, but it would be at the expense of keeping their LA class in service for longer, that’s an expensive option.