Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Thank the Lord!!!!

We need Scott if we are to operate nuclear submarines to any degree. Probably a more important hull than the carriers.

Dust off the plans and start on a new one NOW.


Agree, a total bonus to keep her, will be worth every penny that her Lifex costs.


She is the reason why we are still at the forefront of submarine operations. Her cost as a percentage of CASD and the SSN programmes is miniscule. Scrapping her would have reduce the value of the rest by far, far, far more than the saving. I can’t believe the RN can’t make a case for her. Across the globe many of our peers are investing in hydrography whilst we yet again seem intent on doing all we can to give up our lead in the field. I don’t agree with folding her role into another platform. This is a singularly important task and needs a single purpose hull.


Um. Thinking about it this is where the T31 money should have been spent. A replacement for Scott (and the Echo’s), a replacement (or two) for Diligence, and a replacement for Protector. And perhaps event the now near mythical hospital ship. Enablers, force multipliers, and surface assets that are not combat vessels


Yes, we dont seem to do well with the enablers bit across the 3 services, particularly our poor cousins in the army!

For a country with a not unreasonable size defence budget, we do seem to struggle getting not only projects across the line on time and price, but also value for money generally.

Much like you I believe we are placing to much store in the ‘age of the drones’, whilst they have their place in future ops, they are not the only answer. You cant stop investing in people and manned concepts – crazy not too.


I try not to think about the Army’s problems.


For example for £300 million………….

comment image

Crew of 32. Huge aviation capacity. Could easily carry a company of Marines plus kit. Or some scientists. 🙂


Its a 23,000 t polar class 3 supply-icebreaker-research vessel for Antarctica
Blighted by mechanical problems since into service just a few years back.


Its everything a Scott replacement ( or anything else) shouldnt be, in fact its ludicrous as the mission should lead the choice/new design.

Australia has this fetish about *its territory* in Antarctica and they pour massive resources into sovereign connections by sea and air


We are talking about how the T31 budget could have been spent not replacements for Scott per se. What I said was the T31 money would have been spent on a replacement for Scott and other hulls that are enablers for the rest of the fleet. I am not saying that ship is a replacement for Scott. I said I am not even talking about that ship specifically it is just an example of a recent build as suggestion for what we could have to replace Protector when it came to cost and what that money could buy. I am not concerned with the actual ship itself, whether it has had issues or not or Australian national interests.


Its just not credible that the T31 budget would be spent on survey ships and other support craft.
Even so there must dozens of different pics in your snaps album to make a’ never going to happen ‘ point rather than choosing an icebreaker


T31 without ASW and rafting is a target it is a waste of money.

You don’t seem to understand how important Scott is to submarine operations. And you don’t seem to appreciate that there are real reasons why we had those support ships. They weren’t luxuries. If the RN wants to operate SSN’s in the Indian Ocean it will need engineering support of the type which Diligence gave. Keeping an SSN forward is more useful than sending to sea a second rate ship that cannot defend itself.

There was no need to speak about Scott’s replacement as Scott is a relative simple ship.

Why an ice breaker? The Antarctic is important. Look how many other states are investing in the region. Protector is not up to the job for a variety of reasons. Navies give strategic reach. A strong hull that has high endurance has high utility.

I can choose to discuss what I want to discuss when I want to discuss it.

Last edited 11 months ago by X

“I have enough trouble with two trolls on here without you giving them help”, It’s not just your site, you may not like anyone else’s opinions or comments but maybe it would help if you refrained from telling people to “Bore off” and “Leave me alone” it might also help if you took your own advice, I’m pretty sure a lot more people would contribute here.


I see I’m not alone in seeing you for what you are X, oh the irony in your comments.

Meirion x

He got me banned from replying to his comments a few years ago! I was just challenging him!
Any clues of what is his website?


The conversation is how (if real) any T32 budget is spent – personally I’d say not on frigates. A second Ice Breaker with facilities closer to the older HMS Endurance would be one area which has merits. Another is to take the LSV requirement, and dust off the MHPC concept as this again is a real requirement.


Yes. I don’t give T32 much credence to be honest. Too far into the future. So yes I suppose we should be talking about how the ‘T32 budget’ should be spent.

Protector is a real step down from the last HMS Endurance. Down there you need helicopters and depth in stores and bunkers. Size brings so many benefits. It’s like going into space help is really far, far away.


Tell us all exactly what you know about type 32 then please.


My case in point.


A Bay would be about £200 million today. Ideal base for an submarine engineering / depot ship or a hospital ship.

comment image


433 million pounds when ordered or 550 million pounds today. The build cost could be higher hidden in the whole package. 300 million pounds if built in the UK with as much UK content because of tax clawback.


Or the Belgians have just ‘spent’ a billion buying 6 of these………

comment image


BMT Salvas could be a good investment. US merged the tasks of repair and fleet tug.
Salvas has so many different capabilities like diving support and firefighting so even if the tight MOD only ordered one, it would give us a lot of capabilities.


Yes. The French are using something similar as a patrol boat in their far flung possessions now.

comment image


This makes complete sense. And for once I’m in full agreement with X, we mustn’t use this extension as an excuse to fritter away the years without progressing MROSS(2).

Last edited 11 months ago by Jon

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day… I’m working up to it.


Nice to see sense has prevailed for once! She must be pretty crucial to CASD operations as well as being useful in lots of other ways.

Looks likely that although there will be a certain amount of overlap Proteus will be more focused on infrastructure surveillance whilst MROSS 2 will be a specialist vessel built to take up Scott’s deep sea survey role.

With Magpie still around to do the inshore/coastal mapping I guess the sort of work Echo & Enterprise carried out will be eventually conducted using off-board autonomous systems that can be deployed from a range of vessels similar to future MCM. Just a shame to lose half the survey fleet before replacement methods are fully mature.


That ship has a lot of deck space. I hadn’t realised it was so big.

David Barry

There are many things that discombobulate me.

Two of them are:
1. For all the minesweeper in NATO, why are there still so many mines left in the Baltic.
2. Scott has surveyed 3.7% of the world’s oceans but, how much has actually been surveyed in total by the Royal Navy?


It’s good that they are not sunsetting this capability before replacement…and I’m pleased they are keeping Scott. But I’m sorry this shows the incompetence of the administrations for the last decade…it’s not like it’s a surprise Scott needed replacing..we should have had the order in 5 years ago and already built the replacement. As is penny pinching will now cost the nation a fortune as we now have to stump up for a costly lifex as well as order a replacement a a decade to late with all the associated inflationary costs in the build.


I appreciate your perspective on the matter, and I can understand how the delay in replacing Scott and the associated costs may be seen as a result of inadequate planning and administration over the past decade. It’s fortunate that the capability is not being discontinued before a replacement is secured, and it’s positive that Scott will continue to be involved. However, this situation emphasizes the importance of proactive decision-making and the need for efficient translation of plans into action, check over here to avoid costly delays and inflationary impacts. It is my hope that future administrations will prioritize timely translations of strategic objectives into concrete implementation to prevent similar challenges in the future.


Does this mean 2 MROSS + Scott or delay of the second MROSS?
Would be a shame if RFA proteus sister ship wasn’t snatched up.

Last edited 11 months ago by Louis

I quite enjoy driving past cammell lairds and seeing the ships there, but RFA Proteus does look a strange girl. She’s currently sitting next to one of the tide class tankers


This major overhaul may include the installation of new engines, among other necessary upgrades, that will further enhance the ship’s effectiveness in its missions, including its role in writing dissertations on ocean dynamics, seafloor profiles, and water columns. If you are researching this topic now and have difficulties, I advise you to contact the thesis writing service to get quality research.