Subscribe
Notify of
guest

204 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Julestrooz

A 8 years capability gap in a world facing crisis every 3/4 years is just insane.

Random Commentator

I’m surprised the army isn’t more vocal – after all, these ships aren’t needed to carry commandos – the Bays can carry the whole force. The Commandos don’t have any really heavy equipment either. Have the army put their political clout behind the Point replacements which now have Mexeflotes in their requirement?

I don’t understand all this fuss about recruiting either – people are literally taking any risk they can to get here from overseas so how many volunteers do you think we would get if we said join the navy for eight years and you get guaranteed British citizenship?

Hugo

You think those people are desperately trying to get to the UK just to then join the military? They’re better off making the most of the benefits and refugee systems available to them and only ever having to work the odd job

Supportive Bloke

You are joking.

They are full working full time in the black economy. I live in a nice leafy part of London I have a building site with six new houses being built at the end of my back garden.

The workers ‘keep a very low profile’ the site isn’t visible from the street…

If any one of them are legitimate workers I will eat my hat. None of them can speak a word of english…..

That is what drives the whole thing…..I’m relatively pro immigration to make sure we have the workforce balance that we need…..but……

Hugo

Either way they’re hardly suitable candidates for the forces

Random Commentator

Why? Most of them are young, fit, men. Our capital city has over 50% of its population born outside the UK so why not our ships? They would earn a good wage legally and have a route to citizenship. Couple that with cracking down a bit on illegals and it shouldn’t be a problem.

Hugo

Young fit men with no loyalty to the UK, and what do you want, to “encourage” them to join the Navy. They’re hardly going to put their best effort into training or their service.

Sailorboy

A lack of loyalty isn’t inherent, surely?
Does anyone come out of the forces hating the whole idea of Britain?
Of course, we don’t want to spend MoD money deradicalising people, but assuming that these people are set in their ways is unhelpful at best.

Supportive Bloke

Problem is how do you security screen people who you don’t really have any background for or even IDs?

They will be dealing with guns and things that go bang….so it us a bit of an issue if they have uncertain allegiances…

Next problem is information compartments, people who have other loyalties won’t observe them.

Irate Taxpayer (Peter)

REF: SECURITY SCREENING

Supportive Bloke

Just to point out to you that over the past two decades there have been two very serious cases of persons of Iranian descent . both serving operationally in the Britahs Army – who then went on to be convicted for spying for Iran (and other offences)

Both had passed DV level securty vetting

  • One very recent case from the Royal Signals (you may all remember that he also escaped from Wandsworth Priosn disguised as a the catering lorry’s catalytic convertor and exhaust pipe)
  • A second caes back in 2008 a squaddie who was the translator in UK militray HQ during our active warfighting operations in Afganisatan (Note. the information he supplied to Iran undoubted helped to kill many British Squaddies in Afgan)

BBC NEWS | UK | Army interpreter guilty of spying

Then, just for balance, two UK born natives have been convicted for spying in the same period:

  • One spy inside the Berlin Embassy
  • One spy in the aerospace industry

Both of who did it for money (i.e. neither was motivated by nationallity nor ideology)

——————-

I am afraid to say that the sad truth of the matter is that – like so many other areas of British public policy enacted over the past twenty five years – the UK government (when controlled by either of the big parties) has completely and utterly screwed up (to use the correct technical term) everything whatsoever to do with immigration…….

Peter (Irate Taxpayer)

PS
The MEGA party made its first appearence in the Sunday Times yesterday

Edward Hulme

You must be joking how many translators will a ship need with every given order I think your a little bit stupid pal

Random Commentator

Well we have exchanges from other navies all the time with very little problem and a large proportion of immigrants already speak english before they get here. Clearly adding english language training to their basic naval training before they get anywhere near a ship is easy enough if it’s necessary.

Jonno

They may speak English but they certainly don’t think it! Comprende?

Jim

I was interested to read that the English language speaking population of the World is at a very high level these days and will be the most used language sometime later this century. Apparently China is to suffer a rather decimating population decline due to it’s one child policy.
Not sure if any of that is true but I am sure I’ll not be around to see how it all pans out.

This particular part of the thread has all the usual closet racist’s disguising themselves as something else. Personally I welcome diversity to this country, I just hope the Immigration process is effective in weeding out those of a lesser intent.

Jonno

You along with the liberal mentality do seem unaware of risk. Many of these immigrants pose an existential threat to my old country.

Random Commentator

I’m no liberal – I’m just making the point that if we allow our capital city, our prime strategic asset, to be more than 50% foreign-born what difference does a few foreign-born people on a ship make?

Wasp snorter

Yes the Roman Empire tried that, recruiting Germanic migrants into its legions as not enough citizens were signing up, the legions became a liability and crumbled or defected when crunch came, few fought for the idea of Rome by this point. Beginning of the end.

Jonathan

Agree the big draw is the fact the UK has a very low regulatory workforce that allows a black workforce economy. If we tightened up on ensuring people only employed individuals who are entitled to work it would reduce the flow.

like you I believe migration is fundamental to management of good workforces but in many Areas is stifled the development of a home grown workforce..especially in some area like social care..this has been purposefully to keep costs low.

N-a-B

The army could not care less. They would much prefer all ships scrapped and funding diverted to some nice new shiny tanks and comedy uniforms so they can go back to BAOR.

Duker

All the 6 in artillery AS90 has been sent to Ukraine, and replaced by half dozen Bofors truck mounted scoot and scoot
Nato requirements for Britain and France are the same a reserve corp each

British Army Corps of 2 Divisions with 6 brigades

The tanks are just upgrades to Challenger 2 , not ‘shiny new’
https://armyrecognition.com/news/army-news/army-news-2024/uk-maintains-challenger-3-tank-schedule-toward-2030-full-capability

Of course your Tory friends SDSR 2015 said there would be a new long range ADF radar on Isle Of Lewis. never funded of course even when US authorisation to buy came in 2022
But of course Truss tax cut of £12-18 bill pa for the health social services levy was removed in 2022, funny that

N-a-B

Ah. Private Pikeski is back.

Stupid boy. Politics has nothing to do with the Army’s inability to define what it is for.

Some of us may also be a lot closer to Chally 3 and Archer than you are Once again, internet regurgitation is not knowledge, nor indeed a skill

Duker

The site comment rules require evidence . Thats why I put links.

Plus I enjoy pulling apart your claims to show you are often plain wrong despite your expertise. Remember Navsea upgrades to ABIII buoyancy?

Im usually not interested in the British army stuff, but the Nato Reserve Corps of 6 brigades came up elsewhere a week ago.
C3 modernisation has been around for 5 years or so and is common knowledge, for some but not all.
As the comment rules require…evidence.

N-a-B

Perhaps you ought to read the recent Navsea statements on ABIii, where the hull has run out of margin. Which is why they’re going for a new CG/DD.

Again, those who understand what has been done to the hullform know just how close to the wind the USN are sailing.

Not all that stuff is in the public domain, which is why links do not always constitute “evidence”.

Duker

I quoted the Admiral in charge of Navsea who explained that they changed the underwater hull form to increase the buoyancy- thus restoring the margins to what they had with AB-F1.
His direct quotes carry more weight than your fibs.
Your claims lack evidence because they are false.
The new CG/DD is just a complete design from the beginning, unconnected to changes to earlier flights

N-a-B

Unfortunately, once again Googling is not understanding. I think we’ll rename you the Great GooglyMoogly.

Aside from the fact your link doesn’t work, the underwater changes the Admiral refers to are in a specific location in the ship. What any competent Naval Architect understands immediately on seeing this is precisely what damage stability criterion and damage cases the mod is aimed to counter. That gets one over stability certification – assuming the ship does not grow in service beyond certain assumptions (see T23 for details), but doesn’t deal with the global structural issues (no, not the stuff in the bow which Google will point you at – that’s a local issue). Fixing the global issue means throwing additional steel at it which changes the weight (which affects stability again) and neutral axis, which in turn changes the stress in various members in the ship.

I’d draw your attention to slides 2 through 4 in this presentation.

Microsoft PowerPoint – PMS 460 – DDG(X) Update – SNA 2022 _FINAL (Distro A).pptx

I suspect it’s a little more recent than your non-working link.

You’re welcome.

Duker

I didnt have a link .lol
Its just underlining key words

A decade back the flight III was a $60 bill project probably $100 bill now.
Good luck for DDGX

Reloading at sea is coming along nicely too.
With some lateral thinking from Gibbs and Cox for a re loading platform using self propelled oil platforms
Its Ulithi all over again ?

comment image.webp

Last edited 1 day ago by Duker
N-a-B

No real difference between that and some of the other stuff they’ve tried over the years. In this case its a more stable platform than the OSV they’ve experimented with before. But it won’t be underway and there will still be a wind limiting factor as well as the sheer volume of canisters.

Supportive Bloke

The big army question of ‘why are we and what are we for’ has been rattling round since WW2.

In the era of Bosnia and Sierra Leone it got some definition and the cloak of morality with international law. It almost came either a full Clarke Kent makeover.

In the Sandy Wars era the cloak started to look like Hagrid’s cast offs.

There is a really good write up of SDSR 1998 on Thin Pinstripped Line that covers off army’s ‘role(?)’ in that era!

N-a-B

Yup. Sir H’s stuff always worth reading.

Post WW2 there was a clearly defined role – and associated requirement, partly stemming from the end of war “occupation” roles (ie Corps-level formation and command of NorthAG), but mainly because there needed to be a sizeable heavy armoured formation to resist WarPac forces.

When the wall came down, the IGB disappeared, GSFG and their associates in eastern Europe went home, that rationale disappeared. It has – arguably – not returned, in that the threat is a good 1000km further east and there are a few more larger armies now oriented East than was the case.

That led to the quest for relevance, which is still live. If we believe there is a threat of (real) invasion of the UK, then we need a land army capable of repelling that. However, any threat would first have to defeat most of Europe (assuming the threat isn’t the usual enemy!) and then defeat the Navy to cross the channel. THat isn’t particularly likely, which doesn’t leave much scope for a large field army.

In order to support a large field army, it therefore has to be useful and usable somewhere, which leads to the debate between strategic mobility vs scale and protection. the “somewhere” tends to be distant – as in several thousand miles from UK. Basically, you can’t move heavy armoured forces at scale over significant distances, which leads to the need for lighter-weight more mobile forces (see Balkans) but which are also less well protected (see TELIC/HERRICK losses) which upsets people. It also assumes that logistics in terms of POL, vittles and ammo are all magically available.

The army is still desperately trying to square this circle. It wants to be relevant in Europe, which means heavy armour at scale and associated expense. But it can’t actually justify why that vast expense should be incurred at the expense of the RN/RAF which are arguably more important for our location in NATO and wider responsibilities. Which is why the cry for the last few years has been “smallest army since Napoleonic times”, conveniently ignoring that the German army is still smaller than the current British army.

Supportive Bloke

And so we are happily back to the starting point of the usual defence pastime of trying to make a square circle.

Grant

This is correct. And logically we don’t need that big an army. And we certainly don’t need an army which largely is formed of light infantry. We’d be far better with a smaller, properly equipped army and the focus being the Navy, Marines and the RAF

Jonathan

To be very fair the RN went through the very same issue…the reason it’s now running around in an every decreasing number of decrepit frigates is because it spent 20 years deciding what a frigate was. It’s only really when it was to late and time had flown and money was spaffed that the RN get sensible.

Last edited 2 days ago by Jonathan
N-a-B

Not quite. The RN always knew what a frigate was. The requirements originating in ~1996/7 are actually very similar to the requirements to be delivered in the T26 (if not the underwhelming T31).

What they could never do – and there were at least three attempts to do so – was convince HMT that the programme needed to be initiated asap, instead of “just extending the T23 another X, Y, Z years”.

When they did finally manage to produce that evidence, right at the back end of 2009, the predictions now look very prescient. The cost of dragging the T23 out even further was high, but the deciding factor was the industrial effort needed to conduct the Lifex refits and the associated time in dockyard hands and reduction in available fleet numbers. Incidentally, that work was all about basic hull and outfit work to maintain stability certification, cover off life expriy of cabling, piping, steelwork etc. It didn’t cover what became the PGMU programme, which was an emerging necessity.

What that evidence was unable to control was the flux in what became the T26 design and the associated game of chicken between the MOD and BAES over size and cost. Which added years of delay to the programme.

Jonathan

Yes but each of those programs alway involved some form of odd options that the RN wanted to play around with…like the fast 40knot small frigate..etc if you look at the studies they were out there…very much same as the USN did..the USN just had more money and actually built their stupid ideas….in the end the 23s were lifexed because no one would just sit down and order the first batch of a basic frigate with a gun, SSMs, AAW self defence, hanger, flight deck and tail.

as for the T31..who the hell builds a frigate or any major surface combatant without a hull mounted sonar system FFS.

Last edited 2 days ago by Jonathan
N-a-B

The LCS disease was something we dodged. It was a short-lived hobbyhorse of a single 2* DEC. None of the actual submissions to the IAC/EAC included that particular lunacy.

As one who had more than peripheral involvement, it was not RN folk – with the exception of one senior officer – avoiding the order. That particular officer was convinced that “frigates” could not possibly displace more than 5000 tonnes and refused to accept that the result of the kit list you describe could possibly result in a larger ship. Which in turn led to a very interesting set of descriptions of “displacement” that continues to some degree to this day. The deep end of life displacement for a T26 is a figure you’ll struggle to find, because it frightens the children.

It’s also part of the reason the Hunter class is in the state it’s in…..

Duker

The T26 development was initiated in 2009.

“In 2009, BAE was awarded a design contract for the C1 and C2 element of FSC”
that was projected to be 18 vessels 10 C1 (T26) and 8 C2.

‘BAE didnt get the ‘simpler’ C2 contract which evolved to become Babcock T31

Tory austerity in 2010 stopped that as they played the political game of ‘looking for cheaper’

Last edited 1 day ago by Duker
N-a-B

Nope. Make your mind up.

T26 was (post 2011) intended to be a 13 ship contract – one to one replacement for T23. C1 and C2 died at that point. What became T31 was not based on C2, but essentially exasperation with the ongoing game of chicken, followed by the colossal cost and build time for T26.

The Assessment Phase contract (all £127M of it over four years) for T26 was let in 2010. The thing about assessment phase contracts is that they are intended to take the project to a point where a detailed design and build contract (D&M) can be let. In the event, BAES threw manpower and resource at that contract such that two years in, they’d pretty much spent the lot. There was also a significant change in the design which can be seen if you compare the early versions from 2010-11 with the post-2012. None of which was anything to do with cost-cutting, but everything to do with a certain operational parameter.

However, to properly implement that change and work the design to a point where D&M could be let would require a lot more money than was in the original AP contract that had already been spent. In the event the AP spend was north of £170M and then additional funds were pulled forward from D&M (allegedly without increasing the cost). However, not before there had been an almighty stand-off as to who (BAES or MoD) should pay.

Duker

I never said T31 was based on C2 design. But clearly the simpler frigate concept that was C2 did eventuate via a different process ( derivative of the Danish frigate) and different Company

The 2015 Defence review suddenly cut the 13 ships from BAE to only 8 . Although they were going to be ‘2 grades’ as the T23 were. ASW focused and GP focused.

In the long run it was really to spread out the spending even longer than before and waste money on more Rivers and T23 lifex

Jonathan

You think they would do anything as sensible as buy tanks..they would spaff it all up the wall on more hyper expensive armoured box’s on wheels.

Whale Island Zookeeper

The Bays are specialist logistics ships for moving things like tanks across beaches that hopefully have been secured to some degree.

The LPDs are assault ships for moving infantry and a light scale of vehicles ashore.

Not the same thing.

Jim

“Dates indicative and maybe subject to change” No maybe about it given every other project delays.

Rupert

I suspect much of the recruitment issues are related to “30 by 2030” DEI requirements 🙁

Lord Curzon

We’ll just end up with 4 MRSS to replace the (3 remaining) Bays, the LPDs and Argus. Not ideal, but you have to bear in mind that the amphibious capability was retained in part to help bolster the northern flank in the event of an incursion into Norway by Russia. Now that both Sweden and Finland are in NATO this has all changed.

Hugo

Will we get any MRSS before the entire Amphibious fleet is scrapped. Also 4 replacements depends on if Argus even makes it to the 2030s, or if they count Cardigan Bay which is now also laid up till 2026.

Supportive Bloke

Argus continues to amaze.

She would be over 60 years old by the time she retires….that is some build quality….no expense spared on that hull. The days of blank cheque North Sea oil by state owned BP(?I think?) even then BP was high profitable and could afford to invest properly.

Andrew Deacon

Argus was being fitted for Falklands when I was at school, and I’ll be well past pension age if she really lasts that long!

AlexS

What you talking about. Argus was build in Italy.
And from wiki for a container company established in Bermuda…

Supportive Bloke

I’m not 100% sure Wiki is accurate on that.

My memory, which could have gone wonky, was that she was built in Italy (yes) but for the oil industry.

AlexS

Incorrect. Go check photos of before being Argus.

Contender__Bezant-01
AlexS

Another one

EVFckLgUUAoA-G1
Lord Curzon

There is still going to be MRSS, Hugo…it’s not exactly great but it’s not that bad!!

Andrew Deacon

MRSS could turn out to be lean manned RFA based at Falmouth and Portland, so little for Devonport. You now have to question viability of 47 Commando in RMB Tamar.

Jim

Falmouth and Portland are two of the greatest ports but I do hear that Portland is now rather expensive to use. Having said that though, the South coast has a lot still to offer, especially if we some how miraculously started to rebuild our Navy.
Falmouth, Devonport, Portland and Portsmouth are all top notch ports, not many other countries have such facilities in such a small distance apart and in such a crucial trade and access waterway.

Andrew Deacon

I’m now near Portland and would agree Langhams have a money grabbing reputation.. They put money above morals for the barge, which incidentally went last week, which I reckon was to avoid a large payment if still there in February. They’ve focused on the cruise ships and are in an ongoing battle about buses for cruise passengers using a residential road in Weymouth.

N-a-B

Sadly, the raison d’etre for the LPD ceased when 3 Cdo Bde was essentially disestablished as an operational Bde HQ and the individual Commandos largely took on non-assault roles.

The reasons for this are wide and varied, including :

  1. The RM as a whole are too small to deliver an effective landing force against any sort of threat better armed than the natives of Umboto Gorge.
  2. The inability of the RN to generate sufficient trained crew within its establishment has led them to shift headcount budget from RM to RN.
  3. If you do want to engage in robust discussions with anyone sporting more than a sharpened mango, you’re going to need to do so from significantly further offshore than can be achieved using the Mk 10 upturned skip.
  4. Doing that – with sufficient throwweight – means much larger and faster craft to deliver the same force. Or a smaller force to do something else (see FCF).

One could argue that if we really want a coherent amphibious force then we should be looking very hard at what the Army delivers for its headcount and perhaps having some discussions as to relative force structure. That would however only add to their sense of victimhood – which is bad enough in any case, particularly when you ask them to explain what they are for.

Pollard is an opportunist. Someone ought to explain to him that the purpose of military capability is to deliver effect on the enemy. It is not to sustain jobs in Devonport.

Supportive Bloke

Very well expressed.

A very sad state of affairs.

The engineering team of 60 sounds incredible to me….that is County Class / Hermes engineering manning levels. I’m not suprised that caused issues.

AlexS

Indeed how the hell a ship designed in 90’s with diesels need 60 persons?
what are they for?

Duker

No its not .
T45 and T23 ME manning is 82 and 76 respectively.
That came from an answer to a Commons question.

These days its far more than just ‘engine room’. They have many ships systems including electrical, hydraulics, fire extinguishing (water and CO2) water distill and , fresh water supply, waste water disposal, etc etc

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2016-01-26/24282

Last edited 4 days ago by Duker
N-a-B

It’s actually 62 and covers four sections across the whole ship – everything from the donks, through the motors, shipwide dist of electrickery, all fluid systems, control systems, hull etc.

It’s also heavy on the CPO/PO for section heads and system leads. By contrast, QEC is north of 130.

Supportive Bloke

Thnx for the clarification.

The Albions were quite complex ships, designed in an era before full automation took over or when it was viable for RN to say ‘automation is too expensive’ and throw matelots at the problem…

QEC is at a bit of a different level of complexity as they are huge and have 3 lifts as well as stores handling.

For a moment I thought it was just literally engine room….visions of stokers……!

Duker

lack of Automation isnt a problem. The numbers included shipwide trades as NAB showed. This is why a T45 has about 75
Someone watching dials isnt going to be replaced by automation as qualified ratings still needed in and around machinery spaces

Grant

We should have invested more in the Royal Marines: the army is trying to create something similar with their Rangers.. completely pointless when we already have the capability created…. The army is an incoherent mess of light infantry that would be toast in a peer conflict… having a strong Navy will ensure that doesn’t actually matter.

Duker

Nato requirement is 6 brigades that are armoured or mechanised or airborne ..

The rest is light infantry anyway with some recent ‘Tory army formations’ that arent even that, more ‘gendarmerie’

The RN shouldnt even be out of the North Atlantic or Med on current budget but are only in Gulf because of Saudi oil and arms sales so the politicians want a ‘presence’ or in old fashioned terms gunboat diplomacy

Dern

Future Commando Force and Rangers are considerably different in doctrine and structure. The overlap is mostly the FCF has a SOF capability and Rangers are dedicate SOF. Certainly not pointless having both. Also FCF doesn’t really predate Rangers in any meaningful way, Rangers might have been announced to the Public in 2021 when they where created, but Army SOF had been in the pipeline for more than a few years, and generally had been worked on side by side with FCF.

Not sure what about the Army is an “incoherent mess of light infantry.” In fact the only Light Infantry left in the Army are the 5 Battalions of 4th Brigade, and 16 Air Assault.

Grant

What percentage of the army has protected mobility / armoured vehicles and/or organic artillery or air mobility?

PJS

I have repeated this ad nauseam – This is just one more piece of a clear policy of ‘managed decline’ of our armed forces. None of the political class give a S**T… None of the senior admirals protest enough to resign … and we, who care, are kidding ourselves if you think we will ever see direct replacements ordered and/or delivered on time and on budget. I despair…

OkamsRazor

Whilst the article is reasonably intelligent in its analysis, it is also superficial and at times contradictory. For instance, a complete overview of current and proposed assets would have been appropriate and made the article less emotive. And stating that the engineering team requirement was in the order of 60 staff, but then glossing over this in subsequent “retention” arguments is a contradiction. On the manning issue, two points. The first is that the new government have made a number of changes to address manning issues that seem positive, from day one. The second is that the new generation of surface combatants will have significantly less crewing requirements, even without factoring in the effects of AI autonomy. Me thinks therefore that the author could take a more holistic view.
The case for retention was only ever emotional and the only option, in view of the actions of the previous decade, was gapping.

Irate Taxpayer (Peter)

“A 8 years capability gap in a world facing crisis every 3/4 years is just insane”

SPOT ON!

All

Several points here:

Fleet Capabilities

N-a-B is quite correct that the size of the RN fleet, and also the types of ships in it, should always be determined by operational doctrine

= and thus forfilling the UK’s overall key strategic naval and military requirements….

………it should not be determined by any political lobbying and interference which is solely designed to keep the MP’s local dockyard labour force in a plentiful long-term supply of free tea and biscuits…

…surely, being an island nation, the UK really needs a proper amphibious capacity!

UK Dockyard Capabilities (or rather: the lack of them)

However the key issue with the RN fleet today is that we spend lots and lots of taxpayers money = and in return we get……….very little bang for the buck….

UK defence in numbers 2023 – GOV.UK

In 2023 alone, RN spent £5.5 billon on building and refitting submaines and ships

– yet still, despite that huge expenditure = there are very few ships out at sea

(Note. Weapons and sensors are not included in that total. So add another half a big B.)

Dockyard Efficency (or rather: the lack of it)

Anybody who is wondering why the UK dockyards and shipyards are so f***ing inefficent (i.e. slow and costly) should just look at the ariel photo published in NL (directly above)..

I have seen much better laid out African tribal villages

This is supposed to be a 21st century dockyard (and it is a nuclear licenced site!)

I bet Queen Liz would probably recognise parts of Devonport

(Note. That is the orginal Queen Liz, of 1588 fame: not the more-recently-retired one).

Thus the very first thing the MP for Plymouth should do is get off his backside and get out there and get his local dockyard organised properly…

……. might I suggest that buying a new broom (with bristles) would be a very good start….

………and using it vigerously on the top floor of the dockyard management’s offices.

Force Projection Capability

At the end of the day, what all three UK armed service require is a core transport and logistics capability = which is required to get quickly away from their bases here in the UK and to get out there; onto the potential battlefield

That requires either

  • an RN amphibious capability.
  • or a Eurotunnel Season Ticket.

(sorry: I must get into the habit of calling it a multi-domain battlespace in the 21st century)

Cooperation with the British Army

This recent decision shows us taxpayers that, once again, the officers in all three of the UK armed services have revered to type – young mothers usually call it “they are squabbling amoungst themselves”…..

All three services have – quite sucessfully – retreated back into their own little self-contained comfort zones and thus all three are thus now working inside their own little silos

I see no reason whatsoever why Albion and Bulwark could not be used for deploying two army battalions – both of them fitted out with the new and highly-mobile Ajax and Boxer – and thus training to put both battalions ashore: at a time and place our own choosing

That type of long-range capability would really give an enemy, especially one with a long shoreline, something to really fret about……

Ship Operating Costs (Albion Class)

Back in 2015, in their reply to an FOI request, MOD stated that each one of the two Albion class ship’s cost about £24 million per annum to run each.

That figure is ALL UP; so crewing, mars bars (aka provsions) fuel and minor maintainance

Adjusted for inflation, that figure should be about £35 million today (so, total £70M for two)

That figure really is small beer, slightly more than 1% of the UK defence budget

The MOD openly admits that it spends more on management consultants each year

Replacements by MRSS

Unfortunately, as we have seen over the last decade with our aircraft carriers and their at-sea fixed wing aviation capabilities – regenerating and rebuilding a complete and very complex national capability (both equipment and people) becomes extremely difficult.once the orginal capability has been scrapped (and thus the key skills dispersed or forgotten)

That fixed wing regeneration is costing us a lot of money: and it is taking far longer than the RN ever planned it would (i.e. ten years and counting)

If I was spending my own money, I would like to see the near future MRSS programme as

  • 3no Helicoptor Carriers (LHA / LPH)
  • 3no Bay Class Replacements
  • 4no Point Class replacements

However, whatever those new ships in the new fleet eventually consist of, it is quite obvious (to anybody with a functioning brain cell) that the new MRSS will take a lot longer to get to service than the RN fantasy fleet planner’s expect

i.e the timeline being given above is a complete and utter nonsense: especailly given that the first MRSS ship design / configuration has not even been drawn yet !

Only then, when some of that new capability is in service, should we ditch the Albions

Summary

Accordingly, even though these two Albion class ships are not ideal (and frankly, they never were), all of our politicians and senior officers should not need reminding that it is a very very uncertain world in which we all live in today..

…....even The Donald has recently mentioned WW3….

and let us not foget that all of our politicians – and also all three of our multi-billion pound per annum intelligence services – all completely failed to forecast:

  • Putin invading Ukraine in 2022
  • Hamas invading Gaza in 2023
  • the Houthis attacking everbody’s shipping
  • Both the Houthis and Iran attacking Isreal with IRBM’s
  • Isreal disabling the hands of Hezbulla (quite literally) with exploding radios (I wonder: did Hezbulla buy them with a manufacturer’s warrenty?)
  • and Trump returning to the White House in 2024
  • and North Korean’s being captured on the continent of Europe in Jan 2025

…….therefore the UK cannot now be “gapping” our key amphibious capabilities…..,

…..thus keeping the Albion class is far better value for money than the only other possible UK sovereign option for a shallow water amphibious landing and evacuation capability…..

—————–

The only other option the RN commanders in Northwood now have is to ring up Trevor Osbourne (Note 1) and ask if his cockle boat Renown (note 2) – ideally taking along a few of his mates and their similar boats – can go out and relocate some British nationals…

…..just like in the past..

……when it was realised that WW2 was not being fought in quite the way British Army planner’s expected…..

…so when some rapid – and quite-unexpected – world events overtook them….

..and thus it soon became very necessary to evacuate our nationals who were, until just a few weeks earlier, enjoying themselves on a beach somwhere safe…

….because the only thing that is now certain in the world today is that it is “odds on” that WW3 – or some of the many smaller conflcts that mightwell lead up towards precipitating a really big one – will definitely not pan out the way anybody expects.

Peter (Irate Taxpayer)…..



Note 1.

  • To save Northwood looking it up, quite-probably in their old and faded copy of the yellow pages, Osbourne’s telephone number is (Essex) 01702 477233.
  • If they are busy serving other customers cockles, you have to leave a message.
  • Deployment times will, obviously, depend on the tide being in…..

Note 2. Historical Footnote

  • The orginal Osbourne family fishing boat Renown – a shallow draft cockle boat working in the Thames Estuary – was taken up from trade in May 1940
  • Thus it was not fitted with any defensive armament nor any MCM.
  • Off the beaches of Dunkirk in 1940, it hit a German sea mine and exploded.
  • All aboard were killed.
  • In total, six Leigh-on-Sea cockle fishing boats transported about 1,000 squaddies to safety off the beaches of Dunkirk.
  • ….all because, in 1940, the RN had no landing craft of their own….
Jim

Christ mate…. I need to have at least a weekend spare to digest all that.

Any chance you can prepare a shorter version please ? It’s only Monday after all.

Irate Taxpayer (Peter)

Jim

No = I am not preparing you a shorter version!..

Because everybody reading Navy Lookout.

……is sick and tired of short-sighted and unnecessary Defence Cuts.

Peter (irate Txapayer)

Jim

hang on, I’m only on chapter 3

Duker

“Adjusted for inflation, that figure should be about £35 million today (so, total £70M for two)

That figure really is small beer, slightly more than 1% of the UK defence budget

£70 mill is a bit over 0.1% of defence budget (£54 bill)

Irate Taxpayer (Peter)

Duker

Well spotted

Peter (Irate Taxpayer)

rmj

Your subhead says no people no ships. It should be the other way around – less ships less people. Who wants to hang around when your ship gets sold for a pittance, who wants to hang around an organisation led by donkeys! After decades of cuts to hill numbers does the CoC not get it – it doesn’t free up people they just leave

OkamsRazor

Just for information purposes, this is the type of article that gives proper context to our navel gazing issues (pun intended!);
https://euro-sd.com/2024/11/articles/41315/european-surface-combatant-construction-status-report/

Supportive Bloke

Interesting read.

It is interesting how large some of the combatants are becoming.

T45 was very big by international standards when they were designed and even launched….

GUNBUSTER

The picture of Bulwark in dock in 2010…I completed that refit post Taurus 09 as the WO Weapon Engineer. I was heavilly involved with making up the whole ship refit package and the budget shenanigans during the refit to keep it affordable. That refit came in at around 53 mil then so the figures of 73 mil are probably accurate for the recent extra enhancements.
Regeneration and manpower shortages for LPDs is smoke and mirrors.
The basic core crew is around 300.
You then add in as extras AGRM for the Landing Craft and the FAA deck crew for helo ops. Consider a T22, it was around that figure and a current T23 is around 190. They are ME and Logs dept heavy. WE and OPS deot are not to bad. Being classed as a Capital Ship they do carry extra manpower that could easily be reduced to a sensible level. 2 WO logs? 4 WO ME? Big E commander plus dept LCdrs and numerous section officers? Then OPS dept officers and SRs…

A big issue is equipment support and courses. They are pretty bespoke and the courses for the equipment maintainers are run infrequently. The support of systems is a nightmare. Most is unique and no longer supported. As an example the power supplies for the HF transmitters where made by a bloke in his shed/workshop( true dit…) when he died the RN couldnt get them repaired so had to let a contract to reverse engineer them to keep them going.

The primary task of LPDs is getting Royal to the Northern flank and suppirting them. With the Baltic now being a NATO lake abd Sweden and Finland being in Nato that primary task needs to be revisited. Prepositioning of RM kit at Camp Viking and the ability to fly in RM or usr commercial fast cats has changed the need. Yes out of area capability is nice to have but NATO is core tasking not out of area Amphibiosity.

To save money and crew its a no brainer. The C4I capabilities will be missed but the carriers can take that on.

Lord Curzon

Exactly. Well said!

Supportive Bloke

“As an example the power supplies for the HF transmitters where made by a bloke in his shed/workshop( true dit…) when he died the RN couldn’t get them repaired so had to let a contract to reverse engineer them to keep them going.”

To be totally fair power conversion engineering isn’t as hard as it used to be.

A lot of small outfits that made transformers in small industrial units went to the wall for exactly that reason – you can get small programmable power convertors quite easily – that convert a surprising number of kW for a tiny footprint.

Sjb1968

A really good explanation of the reality of the situation but a few points to add some context:
1. Running two carriers simultaneously was never the plan. The crew has to come from somewhere.
2. We now only have 14 frigates and destroyers so where are the 5 spare crews? I appreciate that is how things work but it’s indicative of a wider problem.
3. That Sweden and Finland joining NATO changes the narrative is true but amphibious shipping was largely dedicated to the high north of Norway to impede an incursion directly from Russia so I am not totally convinced by this argument. Indeed a fixed camp location is now just an easy target as our airfields and ports for highly accurate missiles.
To cut to the chase it is quite easy to see that an Albion is superior to a Bay by every metric except it is more expensive to run. In the accelerated run down of the UK military post 2010 all this is just the next step in that process.
Politics is about choices: £9m per annum for an LPD or £9Bn to give away the Chagos Islands.

Whale Island Zookeeper

It’s not just a question of crewing. At one point one of the carries has to go into deep refit.

To have one ship deployed you need three.

One deployed.
One in deep refit.
One working up or just returned or in maintenance or on trials

Duker

I think its planned to be one medium deployment ( 1 mth-2 mths) per year, With a 2 or 3 short deployments under a month pa. Thats shared between 2 carriers
The rest of the time in port.

And every 4- 5 years or so a long deployment like CSG21 which was 7 1/2 months , 22 May to 9 Dec
Deep refit will be in too hard basket

Duker

Thanks for that .
There was a manning list provided for the T23 and T45 some years back in a written answer in Common’s
Complements of Royal Navy Type 45 destroyers and Type 23 frigates by branch and rank

T45 is 194 total while T23 is 174
Its seems both have 75- 80 for marine engineering
Ill only detail the ME

It shows that a engine room manning of 60 for the LPD ISNT HIGH

Screenshot-2025-02-04-093548
Hugo

You sure that doesn’t include other roles?

Duker

How do you separate out ‘engine room’ from trades or other engineering.
They are going to come under the same boss

Irate Taxpayer (Peter)

“The primary task of LPDs is getting Royal to the Northern flank and supporting them”. 

Gunbuster

Very unusually for one of your posts on NL…….I agree to disagree…….

The PREVIOUS role of the large amphibians was, as you and N-a-B have quite rightly said, was to get a brigade strength unit of the bootnecks delivered up into North Norway.

As we now have two new northern NATO allies – that old plan must, obviously, be changed.

However the Russian threat is still up there…..

i.e. The severe Russian threat is why Sweden and Finland joined NATO!

(i.e. the Swedes, Finns and Norweigians need our expert help)

Far North

  • The north side of the entire very long Scandinavian coastline is still very important strategically: to all of NATO and the UK
  • It still remains very very unaccessible = there are remarkably few roads and railways anywhere nearby
  • and it is all lies remarkably close to Russia; so it is vulnerable .
  • therefore RN amphibians could still be very useful up in the Far North
  • even if their key role is changed.
  • Lets say to use them for the delivery of army units (possibly UK or – most likley and probably much better – some of other NATO allies) into that very remote areas; and then resupplying them
  • With a bit of imgination, what was once called RM 539 could get out to play with the Swedish CB90’s, by floating them out of the LPD’s rear dock….after all, the botnecks have been looking for an excuse to get their hands on a few CB90’s for years.

Far Far North

Over recent decades, the RN has been almost completely ignoring the huge sea area and islands up above north Norway and thus well into the Arctic Circle (except for a few occassional RN / RAF ASW patrols)

However over the past thirty years, global waming has utterly changed the dynamic for shipping – and thus future naval operations – up above the Arctic Circle.

The ice is now further north: and that means a bigger useable sea area

Therefore, over the past several years, Russia has been seriously refurbishing its many, often-long-forgotten, Cold War era bases – with new buildings, fighter aircraft and Maritime Patrol Aircraft – all to support its Northern Fleet

Nobody reading Navy Lookout should need reminding that the Russian Northern Fleet is still – strategically – the biggest single threat to the UK

Thus the UK needs to be considering the Far Far North as its own backyard; especially considering the very obvious role of many Norweigian and Russian islands would /might play as useful military bases. These lie FAR up above the Arctic Circle.

And, politically, with The Donald now wanting to seriously reinforce the few long-standing US military bases in Greenland (i.e. to secure the Arctic Circle region closest to the US of A homeland) us here in the UK securing the Americian’s eastern flank up there in the Arctic would be a very neat and timely political move….

Now is the right time for the RN to make a play for a UK Arctic Strategy

Out of Area Ops

With the passage of time ……there is a real risk that we can quite easily forget the very many challenges with us trying to put any decent sized military force ashore in any third world area that is without either a good commercial port and/or decent airport.

That becomes “always difficult: often impossible”, without either one.

The ONLY alternative is then sealift over the beaches

In many UK operations in Africa since the end of the Cold War (1990), the amphibians have been essential (because neither a port nor airport existed)

So lets look at the recent evacution operation in Sudan. The RAF and the Paras very neatly secured a very old airfield well away from the conflict zone; then they took a few days to repair it (note 1), and only then could they evacuate, by using long range airlift, over two thousand people (mostly Brit’s). Job done!

However what would have happened if that remarkably old airport’s runway had been far more severely crathered: and /or the repir team come under hostile fire whilst repaiing the potholes (Note 1) The only answer then would have been a sealift off from the Red Sea

————-

And,whilst of the subject of the sheer vulnerability of big transport aircraft= Russian failed to win the (now ongoing) Ukraine War in the very first week of fighting…simply because of the Ukranian’s remarkably strong defence of Kiev’s main airport. That one short battle cost Putin a quick and easy victory…

——————-

Thus in these uncertain times, there is definitely a role for amphibians – even it is not quite what MOD’s planners, sitting in their warm and comfortable Whitehall offices – might “ideally” want to plan for
————–

Historical Note

The real issue with Albion class dates right back to the late 1990’s- when they were first specified by the RN / MOD / EDBHS design team

Back then, Ewan DBHS (Double Barrelled Hyphenated Surname) designed them to refight the Falkands War ….where he had personally planned the sucessful San Carlos landiing operation…

……..so EDBS wanted to do it much better next time around …

  • so the Albions were specified with much more long-range lift…….bigger lCU’s …..more comms … bigger galley …much bigger officers cabins etc etc
  • Essentially: Ewan DBHS took the design for the 1960’s era Intrepid / Fearless class LPD’s; he then put those old drawings onto the MOD office photocopier and substantially enlarged them using the +++ key
  • He then added lots of bespoke kit: which is why today they have so many maintainance issues

Accordingly, as I hinted at in my long post of yesterday, even back twenty five years ago, I was personally never convinced that the Albion class was the right solution for the RN.

Back then, I would personally have much prefered the RN to have brought two more Bays (LSA) and a couple more Oceans (LPH) . Those four new ships would have cost roughly about the same as the two LPD’s – and the four would have been far more inherently flexible….. and thus far more useful..

However, it has all changed since 2000.

————-

We now live in very uncertain times

The RN has got nothing on the table anytime soon (ie. in the next several years) to replace these two big ships.

Therefore I believe the RN needs to be retaining the Albions

However, if they are to be retained, the RN and RMC need to very quickly rethink “what and how” the Albions might best be used

And planning and training the RN and RMC for “Fighting Ops” in the

  • Far Far North
  • “Outside of the NATO area

Would fit the bill very nicely……

Peter (Irate Taxpayer)

Note 1.

  • Does anybody know the RAF runway repair team’s phone number?
  • There are six big potholes in our village that now need doing!
Jim

Personally, I think Tottenham should buy this to shore up their defence, at 70 million, it’s a steel.

Disclaimer, I’m not a spurs fan before anyone gets all aggie.

Challenger

To echo parts of the article and a few other responses the Albion’s are yesterdays vessels and the future of amphibious warfare doesn’t call for manpower intensive, costly and vulnerable LPD’s……

It requires more flexible and better defended hybrid platforms that can sit a lot further offshore, with more aviation and fast landing boats inserting smaller clusters of RM’s further and faster.

Brigade level beach assaults are rendered far too risky by advances in technology and British defence needs to catch up to that.

But the ability to conduct rapid strikes to keep an enemy off balance or take out key infrastructure still has a big role to play. There’s a reason all of peer’s are retaining/investing in these kinds of capabilities and you’d just need to ask our Scandinavian and Baltic allies how much value they’d place the UK bringing more not less of this to the party!

BUT!!! Of course binning yet another capability years before a replacement has even been decided upon is reckless and hugely damaging.

Scrapping vessels because we can’t crew them creates a vicious circle of cuts leading justifications for less manpower and curtailing ambition. It’s the tail wagging the dog!!

We could of course recruit more good people if we made the offer more attractive and we could also increase the defence budget to 2.5% or 3% or even more if we wanted to. It’s just not something our political class care about…..leaving all their rhetoric about responding to an ever more dangerous world and supporting our allies pathetically hollow.

Sjb1968

British amphibious strategy has been pretty much to avoid frontal or heavily contested beach landings and any such enterprise always relied on at least local aerial and naval supremacy, the cover of darkness and surprise.
Real amphibious exercises and high end training takes place at night with daytime evolutions used for posed pictures for PR purposes and initial training.
It is not that nobody is ever going to undertake a large scale amphibious landing again but that we have failed to invest in new equipment. The U.K. is using the change of technology to pretend it cannot be done, which is total BS. You need different tools for the job.
If a ship built to full warship standards that could have had additional weapons added along with new ship to shore connectors is vulnerable in this new era can someone please explain why a large RFA manned ship built to merchant vessels is the answer.
This logic defying mentality comes from HM Treasury and not from anyone with an understanding of amphibious warfare.

Supportive Bloke

HMT set the global budgets.

So much of RN’s budget is eaten by nuclear, which is ring fenced.

Take off the enormous spend on LIFEXing T23, V boats and previously T boats, T26 budget and yiu are not left with much.

The key problem is the decision to run the V and T23’s well beyond their sell by has eaten huge amounts of cash. Taken together maybe £2-3Bn.

Let that sink in.

We can be pretty sure T23 LIFEX has cost ca £1Bn

Extending the T boats to cover the slowed Astute program will have been watering.

Refuelling a V boat will have been crazy expensive.

So if effect the money to buy T32 or T26B3 has been wasted by one G Osborne Esq.

Sjb1968

How dare you suggest that short term savings have long term costs that can far outweigh any immediate benefit. HMT has run the U.K. like this for decades! They can’t see a downside.

Duker

HMT merely told by the politicians to find a way to kick the can down the road.
The Treasury mandarins are careerists. The recent top HMT official in the Navy is from Education or something, will move on in a few years to the more favoured Treasury itself.

The MoD doesnt even tell you what the RN or the RM or RAF costs to run. Or even the various parts of the Navy such as Destroyers, frigates , submarines , shore training etc

Supportive Bloke

“The recent top HMT official in the Navy is from education or something….”

You do realise that the UK Civil Service worships at the cult of the generalist? Specialists are sneered at certainly on Fast Track…..

It would be amazing if anyone in HMT was an engineer or knew anything much about ships. I never knew anyone there who knew anything about anything. But they were frightfully bright and they had all the answers off pat as to why any change to the system, as they saw it, won’t work!

To quote the great Sir Humphrey – rotation is castration impermanence is impotence.

Jonathan

It’s actually true..the DOH are nightmares and the NHS and DOH constantly clash of the utter dross guidelines produced by the DOH.

Jon

Alastair Campbell inteviewed Ben Wallace (podcast is on You Tube) and Ben’s asides on the Treasury says it all. They are in favour of no spend and blocking change, which they achieve by witholding a tick in the box. Why bother to argue against something logically when you can just not turn up for meetings, or send someone too junior to do anything. You can delay for months without even having to string a sentence together.

Supportive Bloke

Look in Thin Pinstriped Line.

Very good discussion of the 1998 SDSR negotiation papers now in The National Archives.

Shows that Gordon Brown was telling Robertson what to do. Robertson wasn’t happy. Blair wasn’t that involved other than giving MoD wars to fight.

I suspect Starmer and Reeves bit off more than they could chew getting Robertson to do this review and he won’t let his name be used.

Duker

Having read your link it seems you are mistaken.
https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com/2025/02/when-whitehall-goes-to-war-1998-sdr.html
The Treasury is always looking for cuts under the guise of ‘increased efficiency/more with less”
Thats what Chancellors and Treasury do as their day job. They would do the same with every department. The relevant minister of course pushed his departments case in return

as as the TPL says
The entirety of the SDR really comes down to two key goals set by the PM around not reducing capabilities but modernising..”

“For all the direction issued by the PM, he was kept apart from most of the detail to prevent him being subsumed by it.”

and the final paragrpah
“Today it is regarded by many commentators as one of the most well balanced and effective of all the many defence reviews carried out since WW2. Its focus on a genuine rebalancing of the armed forces, as well as a clear headed look at the priorities that the UK should focus on in the post Cold War world, as well as a broadly policy, not financially driven approach produced positive results.”

Not sure why you took a completely negative tone when its not backed by the information there

Jonathan

The 1998 defence review was essentially the gold standard of the forces we should have for a peacetime world..the problem is it was never implemented because.

1) the war on terror sucked around .2%-3% of the defence budget and causes huge cuts.
2) the RN got confused what it was for due to the war on terror.
3) the army got even more confused
4) 2010 and austerity cut even further and a new review was based purely on cutting
5) as was the 2015 defence review and 2020 update.

the issue is the 1998 review was a baseline for peace..20 frigates and 12 AAW destroyers 12 SSNs 2 Amphibious vessels, 2 carriers, 4 logistics vessels…was for peace time..we are now in a pre war state with both Russia and China and should have actually been growing the navy from that baseline of 32 major surface combatants and 13 SSNs.

Last edited 2 days ago by Jonathan
Supportive Bloke

Then read between the lines of what Brown and Robertson are saying – if you want to understand….

Duker

Oh please … thats Thin Pin Stripes job. Are you saying you are a mind reader too.

OkamsRazor

Duker, that’s because commentators here seem to glory in emotive nonsense; anti-Labour, anti-MOD, anti-Trasury etc and regard evidence, facts or peer comparisons as nonsense to be ignored.

Jonathan

To be far the actual issue with the frigate program stems from the RN..it was the RN that ran development programme after development programme, because it would not decide what it needed its frigates to look like…many many hundreds of millions and almost 2 decades were pissed away on the RN going down rabbit holes instead of building a bog standard 6000 ton frigate..with a gun and SSMs at one end, radar and AAW missiles in the middle and a flight deck and tail in the stern.

Otterman

If the RN can’t crew 8 frigates and an LPD, is it going to be able to crew 13 frigates when numbers eventually return to that level?

Jim

No.

That’s the issue that governs most political leaders thoughts re defence…. It’s a Get out of jail free card… A catch 22 moment, Not enough personnel ? then lets cut the ships… Not enough ships ? the lets cut the personnel. This has been going on for over 80 years now. Ever decreasing circles. Only a War will stop this.

Jonathan

Indeed it’s a zero sum game..no point ordering ships we don’t have crews for, no point keeping crew numbers up for ships we have not ordered.

ships take a long time to build..so if you order them and plan your workforces development correctly by the time it’s built you will have a crew,

Andrew Deacon

Wiki puts crew for T26 at 157 and T31 at 110 which is way lower than T23. That combined with reducing crew when in maintenance should be workable. Incidentally I think some some T31 possible postings like Singapore are currently B2 OPV, so expect a sale of some of those to free up crew! ..

Hugo

River Batch ones will go, they’ll want to keep the Batch 2s for home and the falklands

Andrew Deacon

want to keep” – and how will that go in the current mood. I did say “some” so keep Medway and Forth, sell the other 3.

Random Commentator

Especially when the population is increasing by 1 million a year.

Sjb1968

Don’t forget we have disposed of numerous MCM vessels during this period as well as frigates and whilst those with specific MCM skills will have transferred to the new unmanned systems many will have not done so.
More the reason to believe there is real crisis in retaining key skills across the service.

Bob

They can easily spend up to, and probably beyond, 100 billion on HS2 just to shave 20 odd minutes of a journey from the Midlands to London but it is likely they wont spend 5 billion on ships the navy needs.

Jim

I personally try to avoid going anywhere near London if I can help it. It’s a cesspit, it’s another world, It’s terrible. If London wanted to spend all that money to build a link to my part of the country, I’d leave and go live on Pitcairn.

Jim

Quote…. ” I see no Ships” end quote.

He would be positively apoplectic at the state of his navy now.

Disgusting, disgraceful and utterly criminal.

Defence thoughts

If people like me weren’t lazy cowards, then we’d have people joining the military… which would probably solve the majority of our problems.

This is probably less the government’s fault that people realise- just my cowardice and those like me.

Michael

At the rate Brazil is buying up ships, we shouldn’t be surprised if they propose to purchase the PoW in the next couple of years.

Andrew Deacon

I totally expect them to buy some of the FSS and MRSS which we’ve built, then decide we can’t operate!

Martin

Not strictly on the loss of the LPD’s. But related in that it shows that the RN is going to take the brunt of the treasury MOD cuts.
It looks highly likely that the second undersea surveillance ship will not go ahead. The minster for defence in an answer to this question basically said that it will be decided after the summer revue of defence is published. But highlite that the civilian companies already monitor the their undersea cables. So will be relying on them instead I guess.

JAitch

It does seem illogical to reduce littoral and broader strike capabilities at a time of heightened threats in the maritime domain. Reliance on RFA vessels to fill the potential gap at a time when manning and retention issues are straining support operations is beyond comprehension.

John

Great article as usual.

Hard for me to take any of the politic-speak seriously about “tight budgets” and “sensible” cuts of ships that are currently inactive. We desperately need these ships and more, not less. Britain can afford way much more for defense and needs to attend much less to climate alarmism and socialism, both of which are destroying its own and EU economies.

I don’t particularly blame the new Labour govt, the previous mainly conservative ones have been just as bad and mostly even worse in prioritizing the first obligation of any government, defense. Thinking of the John Nott defense cuts, 2010 cuts, etc among a long succession of others. In summary:

  1. I do think we need to change the site name back to Save the Royal Navy, the humiliating demise of the Navy is now becoming an urgent issue — similar sites are also urgently needed for the Army and RAF.
  2. America will robably soon refuse to support NATO if it doesn’t raise defense spending (and stop padding the books to include intelligence, widows’ pensions etc) to at least US levels of 3.5% of GDP. Otherwise USA may leave NATO entirely, or at least withdraw its forces, so UK, Germany and France will have to step up big time. This of course will affect all 3 services, not just the Navy (the Army’s latest brainwave to regurgitate not even enough Challenger III tanks for a single armoured division will be even more exposed as a joke than it is now).
  3. If all or even some of the above happens, Sir Kier will have to play the same role Churchill did in WWII in trying to win back US support. Back then UK was making the huge sacrifices and drawing sympathy. But now it is wasting all its loot on NHS, govt unions, intermittent wind and sun power (exacerbating the more real British perennial danger of freezing to death), etc so it will this time be a much harder sell.

Keep up thte grat articles on the site, I hope at leat a few govt officials read them,

Cheers

John

Jim

As a Veteran of many such sites over a 15 year period, I can honestly say that no-one in office gives a damn about what us commentators write on these places.

If they actually did visit and take on board all the many concerns, they might just wake up to the fact that we have decimated our armed forces to such a degree that it’s hard to see how anything can now be done to reverse the damage.

One of the things that attracted me to this site was it’s title “Save The Royal Navy”, it seemed like a good place to add my concerns, that was many years ago now and my concerns along with everyone else’s seem to have been completely ignored.

These people come and go and eventually retire in comfort, kicking the can down the road along with all responsibility.

Supportive Bloke

I’m not sure that is entirely true.

This site and UKDJ are well recognised.

What you have to recognise is the Secretaries of State & Minister of State tend to be so consumed with what is directly in front of them that perspective vanishes. Which leads to the old civil service trick of drowning them in detail.

The issue is really that the bulk of the money is spent on massive long programs that there is little control over.

You then have the parochial approach of all three services defending force structures that there is no longer the mass for.

Thanks to sites like this there is cross party support for a bigger RN but you are most likely to get support for T31+ not the Gucci end of things.

Jim

Both sites are recognised, that’s true but I specifically mentioned the Comments section and those of us who express our views.

In a recent article on the DJ site, much praise was heaped upon everyone associated with the site…. APART FROM, it’s many commentators.

Take a look at the FB NL site and the FB DJ site, you’ll see the most ridiculous comments repeated over and over again.
Why would anyone in power take any comments seriously ?

Jim

Bugger me…. That’s about 4 posts deleted now. What’s the point in Commenting here ??????????

Jim

Not sure if you can now see my attempts to reply but there are now 3 comments that I posted earlier appearing as “awaiting approval”

Quite why my comments keep being held and deleted is beyond me to be honest. There’s no abuse, no Hate and certainly no disrespect…. It’s like I’m not being allowed to comment for some reason ?

Jonathan

It happened to me for a while.. I think if someone reports your post for whoever reason you end up getting hit with the filter.

Supportive Bloke

They have had a big problem with spam….which reduced the seriousness of the site….

Duker

‘awaiting approval’ comes for a number of reasons.
A word filter and most commonly posting too fast with multiple comments
They may not be released if they arent on topic or you ( most likely) are using it as a chat room

PeterS

MRSS was first mentioned as a future replacement for Albions, Bays and Argus 4 years ago. Yet there is still no final design. If it is to have similar capabilities to the Albions, axing these now makes no sense. If MRSS is to be rather different, in what way? Bigger aviation facilities? Better self defense equipment? The only description given has been ” large non complex warships “.
With so few hulls available, it would make sense if MRSS is designed to be capable of a wide range of roles. And given the changing role of the RM, does it need to be large, or would an Absalon type hybrid ship be sufficient?

Jon

That it should be multi-role is part of the name. The military will want it to be military spec, the government will want it to be cheap/showy and the Treasury will want it to be cancelled.

PeterS

A ” large non complex” warship is not ideally suited to roles like protection of offshore assets. The Albions have been used outside their primary role of amphibious warfare but it’s an expensive way to carry out patrol tasks. The cooperation with the Dutch ended because the UK wanted something larger than the KM preference.
Just calling it multi role doesn’t mean it really is ( the BMT Ellida doesn’t seem to offer anything new compared with the Albions). IT pmay be that one design to replace Albions, Bays and Argus is no longer the right option. If the RM move to smaller scale operations is permanent, might not something that could carry a company of marines and protect itself be more useful?
The fact that no announcement of a final design has been made suggests that a re think is still under way.
Ii

Eric Denby

If we really cared about defending these islands and protecting offshore infrastructure and if we cared at all about defending our large EEZ, what would be the best vessels to build?Certainly not aircraft carriers – an utter waste of money – and probably not replacements for Bulwark, although, for EEZ duties, the ships possibly might look like a mini-Bulwark crossed with a River class. Ships of that sort, with helicopters, boats and medical facilities, could bring needed facilities to islanders and, if well enough armed, deal with illegal fishing boats, even if the fishermen were actually disguised marines. Also, they could trickle out of shipyards at a slow but steady state, keeping that industry alive. Obviously, this will never happen because any such scheme, addressing actual needs, lacks the prestige of building aircraft carriers which we could not furnish with CATOBAR, can’t equip with a full complement of aeroplanes and, apparently, can’t crew.

Hugo

What you described sound more like security vessels than ships actually capable of deterring missile attack, an enemy fleet or countering any enemy before they attack us

Jonathan

What happens when an enemy state with actual major surface combatants, submarines, long range maritime strike aircraft and aircraft carriers decided to beat the UK into submission by cutting our seaborn supply lines ? The strength of an island is the sea if it can control sea lanes..the weakness of an island is the sea if it’s unable to control sea lanes.

Jonno

I think a lot of very bad decisions are being made by this Government. The madness of the Chagos situation is mind boggling. No one give a monkeys beyond the next 4 years. I’m off.

Duker

Decision was made by previous government for Chagos, it was just held over to make sure they were behind it. The US base remains just a change of landlord.

Oh there was the issue of the International Court ruling against UK

It seems you have become boggled for no reason, not to forget the RN and USN subs are off to the better RAN base just outside Perth .

David MacDonald

You again! I have been to Diego Graca twice, in two different frigates. You have not.
The Chagos Island were ceded to the UK by France in the 1814 Treaty of Paris and confirmed by the Congress of Vienna in 1815.

The UN International Court of Justice can only make a legal ruling on sovereignty if both parties agree beforehand to its arbitration. The UK did not agree. The subsequent UN General Assembly vote also has no legal force. If the UN General Assembly (dominated by corrupt governments wide open to bribery) were able to parcel up the world as its members see fit then this would trigger territorial wars all over the planet. It certainly overrule the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht and allocate Gibraltar to Spain, “return” the Falklands to Argentina, return Ukraine to Russia, allocate the Spratley and Paracel Islands to China and who knows what else?

Peter S

Well put. I read the ICJ judgement and found it totally unpersuasive. The only people who lost out from the original independence arrangements for Mauritius were the Chagos Islanders, descendants of African slaves taken to work the plantations set up by the French.
Britain should refute the judgement and pay nothing more.

Whale Island Zookeeper

But that is thing is it not a judgement. It is at best a legal or judicial opinion.

The ICJ cannot enforce any thing. International law is not domestic law.

Duker

Then Britain cant tell Putin or Xi that you arent following international law.

Invading countries ..check
Fortifying atolls…check
Creating new Colonies in 1965 …check -despite signing the UN charter on Decolonisation in 1960. , and had a great record on that

Malta got shafted as they wanted to remain like Gibraltar and voted against decolonisation.

Many international treaty’s are incorporated into domestic law.
See what the EU did with that.

Anyway the bipartisan decision was to restore Mauritius original territory that it had since the French owned it. national interests always come first but HMAS Stirling is the better naval base than DG.

Whale Island Zookeeper

Because it is not a judgement it is an opinion. It is you not understanding legal terms not what I say.

No case was brought. No judges sat as arbiters of both fact and law.

YOU ARE ONCE AGAIN GOING DOWN A RABBIT HOLE BECAUSE YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND THE TOPIC AT HAND.

And choosing Russia is a bad example anyway. The Minsk Agreements were international law. Russia met its obligations whereas France and Germany did not. So it was the latter breaking international law. International law is not domestic law. Enforcement is voluntary. Parties are expected to abide to those agreements to which they are signatories.

Whale Island Zookeeper

We could look at the current controversy over the Panama Canal. The US says Panama has broken treaty terms by allowing Chinese companies in to operate the canal’s ports and build infrastructure over and near the canal.

What makes a difference in this situation is that the US has the means to enforce the treaty. It is probably the only state that can do that. The ICJ certainly can’t enforce its judgements.

Duker

Container terminals leased by foreign owned companies outside the Canal arent covered by the US-Panama treaty. The canal itself is operated directly by Panama

Theres a Taiwanese one, a Singapore one, and a US terminal as well as 2 from HK based Hutchinson. These are global businesses with LEASED terminals everywhere
Northing required any container ships to use these leased terminals, they can and do go straight through

Theres been bridges over since 1962
Please get some facts instead of candy floss nonsense
Image from Washington Post

Screenshot-2025-02-08-093006
Last edited 9 hours ago by Duker
Duker

https://www.icj-cij.org/case/169/summaries
“Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965Summaries of Judgments and Orders
UK does adhere to judgement of the ICJ. HMG have said so and you arent a Lord Chief Justice

Duker

The International criminal Court has its own UK Act of parliament passed.
International Criminal Court Act 2001

The International Court of Justice has domestic effect under this
“22 February 2017

1. The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland accepts as compulsory ipso facto and without special convention, on condition of reciprocity, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, ln conformity with paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court, until such time as notice may be given to terminate the acceptance, over all disputes arising after 1 January 1987, with regard to situations or facts subsequent to the same date, other than:

its legal jargon to me but refutes your claim that doesnt apply to Britain
https://www.icj-cij.org/declarations/gb

Last edited 1 day ago by Duker
Whale Island Zookeeper

All of this doesn’t spout from a judgement but an opinion. There was no case brought to a court.

Duker

Wrong again. The UK government has accepted the jurisdiction of the UCJ
Heres the Treaty signed by HMG saying so ( its in UN archive but FO would have same)

Screen shot shows the first words
Earlier I showed the judgment of the court

Screenshot-2025-02-08-094101
Jim

Either way, This is a shocking event that Labour are in charge of now. Not one penny of our money should be given over, It should be retained and the US should veto this stupid crazy nonsense…. only a complete fool would think this is a good idea.

Duker

Mauritius gets nothing unless they sign a bases treaty with USN.
Its merely a change of Landlord.
Its in the draft agreement
Under the terms of the original agreement, which was announced in October, the UK would relinquish sovereignty to Mauritius over the archipelago but maintain a 99-year lease over Diego Garcia, home to a major UK-US military airbase.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2ekk2pv1no
Your claims are ‘Baseless’…Lol. and lack evidence

Heard of HMAS Stirling the new RAN- RN-USN submarine base in the Indian ocean. only a fool would have zero current knowledge

Jim

You are the only “person” that seems to think this is a good idea on any site I visit but it’s ok, your opinion is as good as anyone else’s.
I guess you’d be happy for the UK to walk out of all oversees territories if Starmer dictated, including the FI’s.
I repeat my opinion that only a complete fool would think this is a good Idea.

Duker

Why was it a bi partisan political decision to do so?

Many dont understand the agreement only stands if the US Navy maintains the lease and UK has a better sub base now outside Perth.
Some even think going there on a frigate in the 80s makes them an expert.
Im no expert but the facts say its Mauritius territory , even as a crown colony, since even before 1814

Duker

Thats a red herring about ‘agree beforehand’
The Chagos didnt exist except as part of Mauritius in 1814– which also included the Seychelles. Now that was hived off as separate colony over 100 years back and is now independent.

Anyway the previous Tory government found common ground with Mauritius and the new Government has confirmed that. Of course for the USN is only a change of Landlord and they will continue as before. If not Mauritius gets nothing

Your history timeline is an absurdity. BIOT was a new colony created after the UN was created. The others existed as UK territories before . Surely you can follow simple dates .

David MacDonald

As I wrote before, I have been to Diego Garcia and you have not. The Chagos Islands are more than 1000 nautical miles from Mauritius so it is absurd to regard them as one territory. If we gave away the Chagos Islands to Mauritius with a lease back agreement for Diego Garcia there would be nothing to stop Mauritius allowing other nations to build on the other, albeit smaller, islands in the archipelago which would completely negate the value of Diego Garcia as a base.
.

Whale Island Zookeeper

It is like giving the Isle of Wight to Malta.

You have to fire up something like Google Earth to show some peeps how distance the two groups of islands are from each other before the believe it.

Duker

So which is further away from Chagos ?

Mauritius or Britain or US?
By that reasoning Britain should definitely not have the B in BIOT …

Maybe give the Channel Is to France …. as they are closer ..LOL

Whale Island Zookeeper

I AM JUST ILLUSTRATING THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO ARCHIPELAGOES. NOTHING MORE. I AM NOT ADVOCATING ACTUALLY GIVING MALTA THE IoW.

YOUR COMPREHENSION SKILLS ARE P*SS P**R.

Duker

Your comparison reasoning ‘because of distance’ falls flat. Its never been a decider on who has sovereignty where.
After introducing the “Isle of Wight to Malta’ you cant complain that its absurd, its a reflection on your yourself.
Maybe you should shill for Argentina over the Falklands…because of distance

Duker

Its an atoll. Being there is like cruise ship passengers go can say ‘been there’
Doenst hide the fact BIOT was created in 1965 from thin air .

Not along was Chagos Is taken from then Mauritius but 3 atolls were initially taken from Seychelles as well later returned

Aldabra atoll, the 2nd largest in area in the world was the 1st choice for an RAF base to be also used by US
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldabra
Its also different geologically as a ‘raised’ atoll

As for ‘other countries’ a Chinese base is on the other side of town to the US base in Djibouti
Thats also given as a reason for US taking Greenland… to stop the Chinese…lol

Duker

Tell that to the British government which treated them as part of Mauritius colony all that time. The BIOT was created in 1965 so that UK got Polaris missiles and the US got an atoll lease for a naval base.

You are inventing facts

Will

The UK is still one of the wealthiest countries in the world. The problem therefore is not any lack of pounds sterling, but rather a political class that simply refuses to spend sufficient money to maintain an adequate military. Until and unless that endemic rot changes for the better, the Royal Navy and all British armed forces will continue to atrophy across the board.

Martin

In terms of GDP per head we have declined to24thto 29th in those terms
In the worldas of 2023.

Jonathan

in regards to power and military might GDP and geo politics per head is utterly meaningless..it’s all about total GDP, population size and industrial capacity…GDP per head is profoundly meaningless.

after all let’s have a look at the 15 richest nations when considered against GDP per head and look at those Military and political powerhouses that make the world quake..

1) Luxembourg 2) Singapore 3) Ireland 4) Norway, 5) Qatar, 6) UAE, 7) Switzerland 8) USA ( yes the premier super power is only number 8 9) Denmark 10) Netherlands 11) Bruni 12) Iceland 13) Austria 14) Belgium 15) Sweden

essentially the top fifteen apart from the US are filled with nations who could not fight their way out of a wet paper bag or at best are low end second rate regional powers.

It’s not much better for the top 25 although you have France and Germany squeezing into the top 25..the second worlds super power china is 71…

GDP per head…only indicates the likely lifestyle of those that live in the nation not its military, industrial, political or even economic might.

Last edited 2 days ago by Jonathan
Jason

Who will Singapore invade?

Jonathan

Who they invade is not the question it’s how much potential geopolitical power they have..which is a mix of hard military, economic, industrial and political power and that does not come from GPD per head.

Duker

Singapore GDP is boosted as it used by multinational tax havens.

Similar to Ireland ( supposedly 20% more than Northern Ireland) and Luxembourg ( much higher than neighbouring Netherlands and Belgium), which is full of buildings with just business name plates and hardly real presence

OkamsRazor

Don’t try to educate these guys. The doomsayers will never give up their beliefs!

Duker

For every persons comment theres maybe 15 readers . They deserve the background and the facts
I learn a lot from the many informed comments

Jason

Which other wealthy nation has more foresight on defence?

Whale Island Zookeeper

Japan, Korea, Italy, France, Australia, Russia…..

Duker

Thatcherism in the tory party has killed defence as they see it ‘a money pit’ and put city lawyers- financiers in charge to reduce spending
The game is called efficiency but its annual 1-2% savings from operational spending and maintenance.
Then there’s the capital spending which is circus roundabout.

look recently at the NSM purchase to replace harpoon
(i) proposed
(ii) intention to order
(iii) cancelled intention
(iv) reversed cancellation and order placed
Years of delay which was the gameplan all along.

Whale Island Zookeeper

Yes. Government is not business. There are some lessons that can be learned. But you can’t treat an armed service like a factory or a supermarket.

OkamsRazor

Have you ever tried to educate yourself and find out what people who actually live in these countries think of their defence industry and government? No, thought not. Try reading some of their defence blogs, like I do. You will soon be disabused of some of the nonsense spouted. No all is not “rosy” everywhere else! And including Russia is some kind of weird joke.

Whale Island Zookeeper

Actually I do. Perhaps if you spent less time trolling you could learn something too?

Now Foxtrot Oscar.

Jonathan

I do wonder if there will be a bit of a transition around what the future RN amphibious force will look like, now the RM is essentially a raiding force they need amphibious vessels that are more suited to that size operation ( reenforced company level). The RN really need multi purpose ships that can essentially do combat in the littoral and have space for autonomous systems..for littoral patrol as well as mine warfare. It’s also struggling with escort numbers so a craft that can..be a modern patrol asset/autonomous mother, amphibious raider and look after itself to the level of a patrol frigate..

so a 15,000 ton hull, well deck and flight deck to support a company of raiders or act as autonomous vessel mother ship..self protection at patrol frigate level..same gun set as a T31, some CAMM and a long range precision strike option ( NSM). Funding wise they could pretend they are rolling in the T32 and present MRSS programs to support 6 of these…it would alleviate a bit of the escort issue as well as provide amphibious vessels and more patrol/autonomous vessel function.

Jason

They said T32 will guard the LSGs in like 2050s.

Whale Island Zookeeper

The Royal Marines has always been a raiding force.

Jonathan

True but essentially now the are really a company level raiding force.

Whale Island Zookeeper

Yes. It’s all about mass and speed. If this is to be boat centric and with only a few cabs in the orbat then not much is getting ashore. The USMC say the minimum
to get anything done ashore is a battle group. I just wonder how many possible targets out there are there for less than a commando but more than SF team.

I once posted a picture here of a raid on a drugs processing facility in Afghanistan. I explained about how the troops would be deployed and there numbers. I pointed to the helicopters in the picture and talked about other assets.

And the only comment I got in reply was that it wasn’t from the sea.

Jim

NL, Please can you stop deleting posts on here, It’s getting really silly now.

Duker

Evidence please.

Jim

“Evidence” ? What you don’t notice the huge amounts of comments that get deleted ?

Whale Island Zookeeper

Don’t look at me. I have not commented to avoid attracting the nutter here.

So if anything has been wiped me it is not my doing.

Jim

I’m not pointing fingers at you, my comments in reply to Supportive Bloke were all blocked or held which seemed a bit strange. But we do see a heck of a lot of comments getting deleted on many articles, I see all the silliness but unfortunately a lot of sensible replies/comments seem to get deleted along with all the others.
This “Nutter” of yours, apparently he’s a Chinese Wolf thingy trying to stir up trouble before the CSG25 deployment, I read it here many times, apparently he is an agent of the Chicoms but don’t worry, we have a Duke to protect us all.

Please don’t stop commenting, It’s as much your site as anyone else’s.

Whale Island Zookeeper

That nutter has been having a go at me for years now. I live in its demented head rent free. I won’t be driven off. But as the same time I think it is a shame for a site to be crayoned over by an utter lune.

Jim

I think this site has more than one “utter lune” to be honest.

Whale Island Zookeeper

Well look below. I bashed out a comment to see what would happen and hey presto the loon appears. That is not Duker writing that…..

Last edited 1 day ago by Whale Island Zookeeper
Jim

Bashing one out is a bit worrying to be honest, personally I have absolutely no Idea who is who on here anymore, you say that Duker isn’t him but I’ve seen so many odd posts on here lately, I’m clueless to who anyone is. Sometimes I reed a comment and have to stop myself replying as it all seems a bit false. How do we know who is actually who ?
I see that Duker is extremely active all night when the rest of us are asleep, It’s always interesting to see what he has posted in the early hours, but I really don’t have a clue if it’s him or someone else, I don’t know if you are you or that I’m me either.
A while back, a poster called FELIX went pretty full on ballistic abuse mode with a lot of us, that was strange, yet in the morning a great chunk of comments had been removed, he’s not been seen since.

Maybe one day this site will change to allow only genuine people to comment.

Whale Island Zookeeper

FELIX was the same troll. Same as that Chinese one in the last thread. Until a system like Disqus is installed those of us on the periphery here are just easy targets.

Jim

I did reply a while back about Disqus, not too sure it’s the answer really, It’s had some issues over the years. Personally I’d much prefer a FB style set up where mostly our true names and profiles were visible and we could have the ability to block any trolls/arseholes.
I guess it will never happen though.

Whale Island Zookeeper

UK defence is up Poo Creek without a means of manual propulsion.

It seems Trump’s agenda is a lot more radical than even the more optimistic of us thought it would be.

It is going to be two or three years before we know what the world will look in the medium term. I don’t think Trump sees the UK’s future as part of the EU or Western Europe or whatever it will be when Germany collapses.

Starmer’s government is utterly bonkers. I can make little sense of its aims beyond protecting the inner city vote and paying tribute to Brussels.

There is nobody in Westminster who understands defence or security.

I am just hoping the USMC Force Design 2030 bites the dust soon and AUKUS picks up real momentum. And if so that means there will be more work for the RN (and the RAF.)

We are where we are.

Jonathan

you never know, next month he may decide that the UK needs to be another US state.

Duker

Utter rubbish once more from you, are you sure you are on the right site, do you even have a clue about politics, are you a bot ?

Duker

Thats the dupe name back again.
Thats not the real Duker .
Its not shown here but my email address as always had the long version of duker

Whale Island Zookeeper

We know dude. We know. Don’t worry matey.

Random Commentator

I agree with you 100%.

Jim

It’s been up that creek for many decades now, just like all the RN ships that linger up the creek in Pompey awaiting disposal. Monmouth and Montrose currently prominently displayed in all their rusted glory. Intrepid and Fearless lingered there for way too long.

Whale Island Zookeeper

Yes it was always sad to see them.

Jim

Did you ever think that the saying “Up the Creek without a Paddle” applied to that particular place ? I did, yet apparently it wasn’t the case.
I still think it applies though.

You must have had a great view from the Island.

Whale Island Zookeeper

My favourite view of the Creek is from Portsdown Hill.

Jim

Sat on top of Sampson I’ll bet !

Whale Island Zookeeper

……..round and round and round and round and round……..

Jim

Ha ha….. Humour I love it.

Jim

Got to go now, things to do and all that.

rmj

Cut ships and squadrons without replacements – people leave. It doesn’t free up sailors – they leave

Testaert

Might be interesting for the RN to have a look at the french MISTRAL class. Relatively simple ships with an interesting power plant and propulsion line but with huge capability outperforming the Albion types. Typical Swiss knives with huge potential in warfare or humanitarian operations.