The Defence Committee found that Royal Navy remains one of the most capable forces in the world. However, successive governments’ “failure to fund the ha’porth of tar the Royal Navy needs has literally spoiled the ships”.

The fleet will continue to suffer from well-documented problems for at least the next few years, most notably including its very size.

“As we look to the future, the Navy’s fleet is too small and too specialised to meet the demands that will be placed on it over the next two decades. The escort fleet needs to double in size by acquiring more low-end capability to carry out low-end tasks, alongside ships capable of carrying out the Navy’s high-end warfighting commitments.

Attack submarine numbers should also grow to reflect the growing importance of the subsurface domain. Funding, personnel and support shipping must grow commensurately.”

The Committee also say in the report:

“The Navy cannot fulfil the full ambition of the Integrated Review with its current
fleet. It needs more lower-end, adaptable vessels, like the planned Type 31 frigate, to
fulfil the presence operations planned. A large part of the Government’s plan to address this relies on increasing availability, as well as through the Type 32 programme. We are not convinced that increased availability can produce enough vessels to be relied upon in an emergency.

If the Navy intends to deliver all missions, especially the presence the IR specifies, growth of major surface combatants needs to double, with growth from small, adaptable vessels. The resource budget, personnel and the number of auxiliary vessels should grow commensurately. This expansion will require a significant increase in funding.”

Chair of the Defence Committee, Tobias Ellwood MP, said:

“The Royal Navy has a long and proud history protecting our nation at sea. To maintain our position as one of the leading global navies, the Government must deliver a rapid programme of modernisation and growth. The next ten years will prove a test for our naval fleet. The UK is faced with an increasingly hostile and unpredictable international environment but the Government is still reducing funding, retiring capability and asking the Navy to rely on increasingly elderly vessels for the next five years until new ships come in. The timely delivery of these new ships is crucial to plug the hole in our naval capabilities. However, the Ministry of Defence has a poor track record projects like this. We need a firm hand on the tiller to navigate us through the next decade.

Overall our Navy needs more ships, armed with more lethal weapons and the most up to date technology. We have the shipyards and the know-how to build them: the Government just needs to place the orders and give UK shipbuilding the commitment and confidence it needs to deliver. Of all the Services, the Government is most ambitious for the Navy. However, if the Government does not deliver the ships and capabilities the Navy needs, that ambition will be holed below the waterline.”

You can read the full report here.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

125 COMMENTS

    • who are these people? everybody has known about the points raised for years.yet all we get are the usual placitudes of, her majesteys government is aware of e.t.ce.tc yet what will will be done how, when and so forth are not. given even us armchair experts know we could do better because we’ve been there done it etc. how do people get on these comitees? who are they? how did they get there?

  2. With the current defence budget, it ain’t happening, especially not without making significant cuts to an already heavily reduced British Army.

    • Take PIDs from the Army and give them to Royal; Royal would certainly use them and it could form the nucleus of a force fit to fight in Norway and Northern climes.

      • Except any potential conflict with Russia won’t be happening in Norway or northern climes, it will be happening in Ukraine. Now, the Royal Navy may be brilliant, but I am pretty sure fighting that far inland is perhaps something they are not capable of.

      • Nope, the Army need those PIDs, and will and do use them just as effectively as the RM uses its people. The Army is let down by headsheds continuously changing its goalposts in regard to ORBATs and CONOPS.

        • Bud, you were under-manned for years and in the end, the Govt took away 10k at a stroke when just half of those PIDs would have had a huge potential uplift in Royal and a step change in capability: and yes, I spoke to someone from headshed who said they held on because it sustained the COC positions – totally selfish attitude when the other services were crying out for personnel.

    • Lets looks at that bold statement for a moment.

      The two biggest costs are:-

      a) people; and
      b) capital acquisitions.

      People

      • The minesweeper are are going unmanned; and
      • T26 has a smaller crew than T23; and
      • T31 has a smaller crew than T23; and
      • Training is full to the brim according to 1SL / 2SL / MOD; and
      • Retention is getting better with the new crewing patterns.

      So there is a headcount budget for an increase in crewing

      Capital programs

      I’ve sat in plenty of meetings where Treasury look across that table when numbers were mentions and over the refreshments table the questions was “do you think £X really equals £2X or £3X”

      Once £X really = £X then Treasury will be more willing to have more programs running. Cost blow outs are not politically palatable.

      If T31 arrives at an £X = £X solution then increases in build orders can be assured.

      Fleet numbers

      There is a limited number of £1Bn ships that the navy can expect to have.

      £400-500m is a much more real price point. If delivered at that price point.

      Summary

      Everyone accepts that the navy is too small.

      My point being that the navy is doing what needs doing to increase fleet size by using lean manning and cheaper platforms to get more out of the budget and therefore grow the fleet.

      This is a very grown up way of managing things, as opposed to trying to protect localised budgets and hence people can reach out and support this kind of behaviour as extra frigates make better headlines than cuts.

      • Very good post! There is also economy of scale – the USN is bringing in its new frigate at $750m apiece. for a very capable ship with 32 Mk. 41 VLS and 16 AShMs + gun, CIWS and Helicopter. The RN will want a mission bay as well, but while bringing in Type 31 at £250 million base price (£400 mill with GFE) is good, they could get a better deal for 10 than 5. For £4-500 mill for Type 32, they could get a very capable warship.

        • Absolutely James – which is why the Type 45s ended up costing what they did – because we were supposed to get 12 originally – then 8 – then 6. Steel is cheap but the development costs remain the same, whether you have 12 or 6 hulls.

      • Good evening Supportive Bloke.

        Regarding Type 31, the stated cost of 250m/ship delivers – what everyone seems to agree – is a ship with a very basic weapons fit – almost paltry. To be fair, it’s role is not high end war fighting but it’s also fair to say there are better armed corvettes out there. Indeed, you could argue the Type 23s they are supposed to replace, are better armed.

        It’s not my goal to beat up on the Type 31 here but in your opinion, do you think this is clever positioning by the RN to get extra hulls in the water for bargain basement pricing and is so doing, keep HM Treasury happy – and then up arm them later? In other words, they eventually get to the 400-500m ship you mentioned above but by the back door – letting the Treasury think they are getting 5 ships for a song.

        That said, if it’s not the RN’s plan to upgrade later, it seems an awful waste of potential…..

        Thank you Supportive Bloke and enough with that prefect sense larky!

        • We can hope a more balanced sensible fit out appears for the T31s, but history shows us gaps & inadequate weaponry tend to last through most escort lives. Unless we finaly face a real conflict & all the spin whitewashing gets blown away. Usually costs lots of lives unecessarily though.

        • I’m sure we’ve all wondered about this a lot, is it better to get the hulls or spend more on fewer, more powerful ships? Or even spend less and get more OPVs. On balance I agree with the current policy given the current budgets. (Obviously I don’t agree with the current budgets.)

          We had sunk to a point where we couldn’t even do presence, where the Type 23s and 45s were out of service so often that occasionally there were no deployed escorts at all. Increasing days at sea and hull numbers was the right way to go. If the navy can’t even function in peace time, complaining it won’t be good enough in a war is empty rhetoric.

          Sacrificing two high-end ASW frigates, painful as it was, for what should turn out to be ten general purpose frigates may have been the right thing.

          We can even ask what good are the GP frigates over and above the B2 OPVs? Both are blue water, both do presence, both are okay for policing and anti-piracy, and neither are a lot of use against peer/near-peer adversaries. Yet the Type 31 costs double the OPVs, both in capital and crewing. Why not twenty more OPVs rather than ten Type 31/32s?

          As well as the obvious answer — potential, the GP frigates have better resilience, local anti-air coverage in Sea Ceptor, a better fit of guns and sensors and better helicopter hosting. There may be adversaries in the future, where that will be enough to make a difference.

          Nevertheless, I think the obvious answer is the right one. We go with the GP frigates in the hope that they can be upgraded somehow. That doesn’t need to be with permanent facilities. For example, in the same way we have developed autonomous minehunters, we could develop autonomous sub hunters too, perhaps with thin-line towed array sensors. Marry them with a Merlin, base them all from a Type 31 and you have a far-better-than-nothing ASW facility without actually upgrading the ship itself.

          Continue to produce one GP frigate a year, Lifex the Type 45s while bringing six Type 83s on stream in the 2030s, and you’d double the number of escorts by 2040. (12 destroyers, 8 ASW frigates, 16 GP frigates.) It wouldn’t cost an arm and a leg to buy them, but crewing and running them would need significant planning, recruitment and budget.

        • the rest of the wrld sells/buys warships among themselves. we sell, we don’t buy. the wish to retire the t23’s gives the u.k many options to get rid, while still enhancing fleet numbersfor example, the royalnavy is short of submarines ,the australians want to retire their collins class the aussies want nuclear/ we’ve got lots of it, all in devonport or rosyth. the retired trafalgars and swiftsures many still fuelled. the R.N can use this as currencymaybe offer/sell them the above in exchange for the collins boats as they retire. the same things pply to the t23 this real currency. although old hulls the pakistan navy have only just retired its 6 type 21’s these were fully operational warships until recently get them back swap as much equipment from the t23’s to them and get them with their old names back in the R.N. FANCIFUL I KNOW BUT THE MATHS STACKS UP 6 T21’S UPGRADED from already to be retired t23’s would cost peanuts per ship.so just like like running a used car showroom i’ve gained us 6 frigates, 6 submarines for virtually nothing.except i can already hear the harumphing from the smoking room at the admiralty and complaints about stuff being too old or out of date, well those duffers at the admiralty should be given an archer and tootle around pompey harbour or get out and stop wasting the taxpayers(us) time and money the forces on a whole must be told that they will get what the nation can afford the forces for too long in this country have tried and worsely got away with the best of both worlds the best kit.and numerous numbers and they still complain they don’t have enough. for the navy to arbitrarily declare that would operate only nuclear fleet submarines and get away with it was a disgrace, the options i’ve made above might as i say be pie in the sky, but it is more than doable. another option is that there are still some six type 22 frigates still in service with brazil,chile.and romania. these al recieved at great expence(to me and you) command and control upgrades and were barely run in before being sold it was said at the time, that the specs for the t22 were akin to a destroyer getting a couple of these back using type 23’s as collateral in any deal and cross decking as much from them i.e. and designate them as destroyers artisan 30mm’s and sea ceptor see? its easy from an armchair ,but if the navy wereto use its imagination and think more laterally and use some imagination, a fairly cheap and very,very, quick ezxpansion to the fleet could be done so as you can see i’ve found a method to gain 6 frigates, a couple of destroyers, 6 more submarines using vesswls we don’t want any more anyway! then give the batch 2 rivers the H.M.T.S KRABI TRatment i.e a 76mm oto melara rapid fire main gun, two additional 30mm cannon fitted aft of the bridge wings we’d gain 5 corvettes as well. maybe theres a job for all of us in the marble halls? i doubt my one armed, one legged carcass would get a job but i’m here. mr. first sea lord! do you want 6 new/old frigates(t21’s.6 ssk’s,2 or trhee destroyers ex t22’s5 corvettes with a net cost of say half a dozen retired ssn’s trafalgars churchills and swiftsures and a few of the worn out t23’s! i’ll shuttup now and get back to the armchair, nurse is calling me to take my madicine!!!!!

    • The British Army is at an even lower baseline than the RN: half its Cold War size; not able to field a warfighting division; a tank fleet soon to be little more than 1/3 the size it was 20 years ago; not able to send a brigade repeatedly on an enduring operation; many understrength infantry battalions; insufficient and ancient artillery; and with no AFVs delivered to core or significantly modernised for 20 years.

      The RAF has only 7 fighter squadrons.

      Looks like the ballooning social welfare budget needs to be reined in and benefits cheats caught and punished. Or is there anywhere else to get the money from?

      • A mixture of that, reigning in the nice to have pet projects of some vocal group, reducing uk society addiction to benefits (£52k per year and still getting universal credit), ensuring value for money, reducing legal tax avoidance by all from sole traders to amazon sized business.

        Easy

      • Put out the begging bowl to the Americans. They are handing their surplus M1117 & Cougar armoured vehicles to allies. I would rather the British Army was in 2nd hand M1117 & Cougar than open WMIK LandRovers. Perhaps some surplus 155mm M777 from the USMC while we are at it.

        • the missing 600 million paid to an unknown and unfound ‘fixer’ paid to help facilitate the sale of two t22’s to romania has never been solved. so the money is there after all we found £6 billion for a couple of aircraft carriers

  3. One factor that can allow expansion is using the established manufacturing on the Clyde and Rosyth, all that is required are follow-on orders. As for budget, one has to weigh up is what a small navy means to the future of Global Britain, and the long-term financial benefits if the RN were to be enlarged?

    • I’d love see a cost benefit analysis of an enlarged Royal Navy vis gee gees on the Mall and blokes marching up and down in bright red uniforms and please remember one detail, a school friend joined the guards and left as Sgt Major tailor!

      So any CBA needs all the costs including a barracks on prime London real estate.

      • Who is going to ask the Queen (Commander-in-Chief) about scrapping the Household Division and selling off the last one or 2 London Barracks?
        BTW, I am sure you know that they are also combat soldiers – only Americans seem to think they can only ride a horse or wear a scarlet uniform.

        • Ahem, cough, give it a year or two and no need to ask.

          However, let’s turn it around, what’s more useful against a resurgent Russia
          1. Horses against tanks or,
          2. An improved Royal Navy against Russian naval forces?

          May I go with option 2, please?

          Why, British infantry is on the cusp of change – accept it or get buried by a history where a S/Mjr tailor’s pension means we can’t afford a proper defence.

          The Czechs do Royal Guards – Armani designed uniforms no less, costs a lot less than our tik-toks.

        • my nephew is in the HCMR doing all the ceremonial stuff and he is NOT a fully trained soldier yet. He plans to move into the armoured cav force just as soon as he can.

          • Funny, because to ve in the HCMR you have to complete your phase 2, which is the standard to be considered a trained soldier.
            Perhaps you mean he still needs to complete his phase 3 driving course?

          • Yes. HCMR like KTRHA are not deployable formations though. Grahams point still stands, the Guards Battalions of the Household Division are soldiers.

        • This, plus the guards indirectly bring a lot in through tourism, and frankly, we should be doing what we can to keep urban barracks. Why would urban recruits want to go yo the middle of nowhere?

          • Yes keep the urban barracks. As a Canadian we closed the urban bases. Now the regular Canadians never see the CAF at all. Plus it helps in recruiting and retention.

            And one more point if a cost benefit was ever done on the guards you would find it is worth billions of pounds in travel, tourism and showing London as a global city with an amazing imperial past. It would be last thing I would cut.

          • weve closed almost all of our home establishments. look at portsmouth, its a ghost town hm.s excellent,gone,vernon,gone,hornet gone,phoenix,gone,sultan, going.

        • Agreed.

          Not a chance either Wellington or RPB get sold, for 2 very different reasons.

          Quite right too.

          The ceremonial aspects of the Household division and the pageantry around royal ceremonial events is not something I would be prepared to see lost. Ever.

          But as a proud Monarchist that for me is a given.

          The saving would be minimal compared to the billions lost in procurement inefficiencies.

    • global britain? utter rubbish. what spotty teenage ex university graduate (in political soundspeak comes up with this dross. a global britain would have ships based in gibraltar, singapore, and a west indies guardship at bermuda in the old royal navalbase

  4. It’s been noted before on UKDJ posts that historically Britain’s wealth and security was provided from being a maritime power, supported with expeditionary land forces when needed. The World Wars and subsequent need to protect western Europe changed the emphasis. But I’ve always believed we should return to the former concept. Of course we need to have sufficient land based capability and air, space and cyber are also part of the equation. But as pointed out, there cannot be true equity in funding otherwise the capability is spread too thin to be effective in any domain. One force has to be the vanguard and for me it should be the RN.

  5. Double the escort vessels and subs would be lovely but we all know it’s unobtainable without a geopolitical shock that demands a massive increase in defence spending.

    There are incremental and less eye-catching things we could prioritize though – getting 24 well equipped frigates and destroyers, enough F35’s to routinely embark at least 24 jets on the active carrier, improving the manpower situation to get the mothballed LPD back into service, procuring some MCM mothership’s rather than relying on the T32’s and 2 surveillance ships (I swear 2 where originally referred to?) to replace HMS Scott (1 to be used in the high north) would all be serious improvements.

    • The Albion’s are mothballed for cost reason as well as Manning. They are one of the most expensive ships to run and aren’t really that useful in peacetime (their lack of a hanger really limits their peace time roles). I can’t see them reversing the rotation system anytime soon.

      I do however wonder what happened to the plan to convert on of the bays to a commando ship

      • looking at a picture or two of a bay class ship, its not hard to imgine one with the superstructue removed and a full deck fitted and hey presto a HLP. where ocean used to be.

  7. As an American, I would love to see Europe and the UK do more so the US would have to do less; but Britain has already been a great partner when compared to the rest of Europe. The real lack is the rest of Europe not providing enough defense for themselves. Looking at you Germany and France.

  8. Would that be the same Tobias Ellwood MP who jumps up and down spouting about being a “Low Tax Party” every five minutes? MPs should be forbidden to say what the country needs in any aspect of life unless they also promise how they’re going to pay for it. By “pay for it” I mean exactly which taxes they plan to raise, not the usual guff about mythical high-tech efficiency savings and trickle-down economics.

  9. Most people will pay more National Insurance from April to increase the NHS and Social Care budgets. Which tax(s) should we increase to pay for a bigger Navy?

    Increasing taxes is not a vote winner.

    • Spot on and for most people defence is not their priority. This is a site for people interested in defence we all think it’s important. But we’re a minority and not even a large one.

  11. Boots on the ground defending Ukraine against Russia (especially when the war gaming doesn’t ever seem to go our way) doesn’t seem politically palatable?

    I don’t want to say this, but maybe more F-35Bs for ground attack and enemy suppression in an austere environment is what we need? Given their great flexibility we could easily share with RN for use on QE and PoW?

    Perhaps this would be more palatable? I’d like to say, lets grow the army, build a load more C3s but given Ajax etc. and the fact nearly any force we put on the board there would be a token deployment compared to the hundreds of thousands of troops Russia can actually deploy today – it doesn’t seem worth it. Even with great tech, unless we are talking about 50,000 more deployable soliders what’s the point?

    • Because a extra armoured division in E. Europe would actually be useful. The disparity in numbers between NATO forces and the Russians isn’t nearly as big as many like to pretend… as long as the more distant european powers don’t go “oh well not our job.”

      • But why is it our job to fill the gaps left by others who can’t be arsed to contribute to collective defence. France contributes 1 Platoon to the defence of NATO’s eastern flank. Germany, Spain, Italy the list goes and on and on. Do we gain anything other than their contempt by doing so ?

        • Because EFP is not the be all and end all of collective defence, and is widely acknowledged to be a tripwire force. But even then your comment is particularly funny because Germany, Italy qnd Spain are all contributing nations to EFP.

          It isn’t “our job to fill gaps” because other nations aren’t leaving gaps, it’s our Jon to step up to our commitment yo collective defence and not hide and say “someone else please fight the Russians.” Otherwise we might as well get out of nato.

          Oh and we gain a lot, because it says we step up to the plate when it really matters, even with the current tensions it’s important to show out defence links are strong. We show a commitment to NATO, instead of undermining it, and we justify our command of the ARRC. So yes, we gain a lot.
          And having served alongside all four of those armed forces, I’ve never seen any contempt from them.

          • Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen almost always respect others. I’m thinking of politics. Do you think the German ‘1 Battalion’,French ‘1 Platoon’,Spanish ‘1 Company’ etc etc govts care less about our commitment to their defence ? What do you expect from the German govt about the British Army basing a brigade in their country ? Do you expect Spain to change it’s constant shit stirring on Gibraltar ? Do you expect France to stop the endless threats against us and Jersey on our fishing waters ? You see them as allies I do not. We can agree to disagree. Time will show show which of us is right.

  13. Even in my best fantasy fleet mode, I would only add 2x more T31 (Hurricane & Hardy) to make 7. Plus one more T26 (Exeter) to make nine. Upgun them to their export equivalents. So 16 Frigates. The T83 Destroyers should be 8 rather than the 6 T45. 16+8=24 Probably as much as wecould man, or the Treasury would maintain.

    • You have left out T32 or B2 T31which might be a better name for them?

      Up gunning the T26 further is hard to justify. T26 is deigned to be part of CSG. It doesn’t need loads of AAW capabilities, it will have reasonable land attack with VLS + 5” nothing lacking in self defence with Ceptor, 30mm & Phalanx

      You’d be better off spending the money on T31/T32 VLS @ £50m a copy. That would really boost capability.

      • Hi Supportive Bloke – me again.

        As someone on here already stated, isn’t Phalanx really showing its age now? – especially considering when the Type 26s will be fully operational. Maybe the Bofors 40mm slated for the Type 31s would make more sense?

        • I know I am the only one who thinks this, but I really like the 25mm upgrade to Phalanx that Oerlikon built, twenty years ago. We would need all International Phalanx users to agree to it. Not just the RN by itself.

      • I did fancy taking T26 to the Canadian version. That has all the bells & whistles. It is also very expensive. To RN T26, I would add CAMM-ER as well as CAMM. I do not want enemy aircraft with anti ship missiles getting too near. I would also add the inbuilt anti sub torpedo launchers that the Australian & Canadian T26 will have. I also think RN T26 should go into service with full VLS. I do not care if it is Tomahawk, Asroc, LRASM or some Anglo-French thing. Just not empty, please. T31 has been mooted recently to get MK41 VLS. Yes please. To that, I would just add the anti sub torpedo tubes the export versions get.

  14. When I was a cold war warrior.. In the British army, if Cold war had turned into Hot war, would of deployed. North Germany UK Army. Airforce.
    Denmark.. UK Para. Norway.. Royal Marines.
    Under 11 years of Tory Governments.UK Military has been mismanaged and cut beyond the dangerous bone. All 3 services.. Army. Navy & Airforce been slashed and cut. Ranger regiment is just a Scottish Battalion being given a new name. The UK had the Royal Irish Rangers “Light Infantry” back in the day. IMO moving existing Scottish Battalion around and giving it a new name. “The Rangers” to mask it up as new battalion for new regiment. For public consumption. All this at Geopolitical dangerous time Russia threats in Europe. China in Pacific. It was a Labour Government that put order in for the 2x New Aircraft Carriers. Just my thoughts on subject.

    • Allow me to add balance.

      Labour 97 – 2010

      23 Fast Jet Squadrons to 12.
      35 Frigates and Destroyers to 23.
      Army, Tanks, AS90 SPG, Helicopters all cut.
      SSN, down to 8 from 14.

      Those of us here who used to frequent the website “Defence Management.Com” which was a forerunner to UKDJ today used to moan rightly about “Labour Cuts” just as you do now on Tory ones.

      All parties are utterly crap when it comes to defence. It is not a Tory phenomenon.

      • Well put D. Context is important in taking the full picture view . It’s worth noting that the current government halted the ongoing trend since 1990 of defence cuts with an increase in % of GDP to defence. As to weather that’s enough, well -highly questionable.

      • I suppose the difference is many (on here included) state categorically that the Labour party are the enemy of the Forces when it can be seen the Tories are in fact just as culpable-although maybe not for the same underlying reasons. They are def. not the tub thumping gingoists they oft puport to be. Although I do admit Labour under Corbyn just didn’t bear thinking about- Cameron & Boris were/are a pair of arseholes as well.

      • I played a tiny, tiny part in New Labour’s 1998 SDR. That is still a good document on how to have credible, global deployable, balanced forces, at the lowest cost. Sadly, Gordon Brown never funded it & it was cuts all the way, Labour, Coalition & Cameron/May after that. I think Boris wants UK armed forces we can be proud of, but fear Covid will leave us too deep in debt to fund them.

      • In fairness, Blair /,Brown did inherit 2.4% of GDP on defence in 1997 – and leave it at 2.4% 11 years later, unlike their axe wielding successors.

        To be fair, Labour had the 2007 economic crash to contend with, which cut into the public purse considerably. But the main issue I think was that we had a big legacy of old Cold War kit that there was no prospect of replacing from a defence budget that had been halved eight years earlier.

        Agree with you last para though, despite feeling that the Tories have been absolute shockers on defence over their 11 years in office.

    • Gemma your post is coloured by your party affiliations and is quite confused. All parties see defence as low priority, and the Tories are no better or worse than labour. And your comment about the Rangers, is also confused. Look into the concept (I think it’s crap but there you go) but it’s more than a Scottish Battalion and it’s more than just going light! And we used to have more than the RIR in the day as light infantry, we used to have the, er, Light Infantry! All posts are good to read and most are interesting but your opinion does seem to be based in political bias and a lack of knowledge and research into the Ranger concept. Cheers.

    • Obviously been reading a Tory bashing newspaper and done zero research to make that post.

      Which government was in charge exactly when we got led down the garden path into the second Iraq war and also into Afghanistan? Ah yes, now factor in the costs of those two completely unnecessary wars along with the shocking state of finances that Mr Brown signed the country off from the 2008 financial crisis what did you expect to happen to defence spending after this?

      At least somehow during an incredibly expensive pandemic the conservatives have managed to increase spending on defence, would Corbyn’s circus show have done that if he had got in? Course not it would be even worse than any of us could imagine.

  15. Defense budgeting should be done with a simple calculation of counting what hostile nations have and are likely to have that can put conventional missiles or bombs on our territory minus what our allies can stop in their normal deployments equals what we need to defend ourselves. We then look at what we can afford that can best do that.

  16. Type 31 numbers should be increased to 16 hulls – two squadrons of eight- one squadron deployed East of Suez. They must also carry TLAMS and it’s successor.

  17. The only way to do that is by embracing corvettes and conventionally powered submarines otherwise any ships we can afford will be “fitted for but not with” anything bigger than a GPMG

  19. The RN desperately needs a credible, modern antiship missile. Particulary if further deployments to the Black Sea are envisioned. Glib denials from our new First Sea Lord are unacceptable, excellent off the shelf equipment is available.

  20. Our Armed Forces need major expansion. It’s a reality just as the affordability is a reality. How to afford it?

    1. Wholesale review of the cash black hole, the NHS. There’s so much waste, we could insulate ourselves from the annual “crisis NHS needs more cash” every winter.
    There’s £3bn in waste to save.

    2. DWP already loses £6.3bn in “fraud or overpayments”. The fraud element is very small. The mistakes and overpayments that are not recovered could recover £5bn

    3. Taxation, firstly tap down on legal evasion, increase NI on eanings over £70k PA by 2p in £1.
    That raises £10bn

    4. Start applying tax on turnover for non-high street bricks and mortar retailers, Ebay, Amazon, Google, Microsoft etc. The IFS estimates a tax loss of £22bn PA

    5. Apply a special tax on turnover for businesses that use the Patent & royalty boxes, such as Starbucks. Since 2009 it has turned over £24.2bn in the UK and only paid £28.5m in tax. It claims to make a loss! Businesses like Stasrbucks, McDonald’s etc are estimated to cost the UK economy nearly £30bn in lost tax.

    Should those very small loop holes get closed and other measures be brought in, the UK could invest in a military that would be able to match our ambitions.

  21. Be nice to to also double the RAF fast jet jet squadrons, maintain the C130J, and expand the P8 and E7 buy whilst we are about it.

    • Not half. But sensible, realistic head on, keep C130, buy 3 more P8, and buy an AL ASM.

      I don’t get the vital need for putting them on ships as I see fast jets as the primary means of delivering them.

        • We seem to regularly highlight the RAF cuts, not many do on here. Mostly RN or Army.
          The RN should also be priority, I’ve just always favoured the RAF between the two but in reality they should be equal.

          • To be honest with the carrier and F35B and P8 a lot of RAF investment co exists with and complement our navel strength.

            I am with you on the air launched anti ship missile, especially for the F35 B.

            More P8s are a must really, we have a very big bit of ocean we are responsible for, safety of the deterrent is paramount and Russia especially has a big ( if old) submarine force that can hold a lot of critical choke points and shipping lanes vital to the U.K. at risk.

            I would go for more squadrons of F35B we really want 4 deployable front line squadrons. The big advantage of the F35B is it’s surge capacity and easy carrier qualification, that turns RAF front line fast jet squadrons into a navel asset. The mantra of our fast jet strategy should be can that squadron be deployed on our carriers.

            If it’s invested in properly the U.K. has the ability to surge from almost no navel fixed wing assets in peace time mod to having two supper carriers full, placing another nation at risk of pretty much the equivalent of a whole fifth generation first world powers Air Force turning up on their coast. If we had that capability in our back pocket it’s probably one of the best conventional deterrents out there (after all people who know have said that 50-70 airframes is possible on each Elizabeth).

          • Hi D. Being of ex Airforce stock, I have a self admitted bias to the RAF, clouded by Battle of Britain imagery etc. I blame a miss spent pre teen youth engrossed in Warlord comics and Battle picture library. That being said, there is every case to support the RN being front and centre.

            As for the Army , well what a mine field. I truly do not know where to begin to fix this!

          • Evening K. I’m the same. I actually applied to join when I left school. By some total c*ck up they rejected me. Never looked back and did something else.
            B of B. Yes, me too, that is high on my interest list. I remember seething as a youngster reading about thugs who’d mugged a B of B vet, who’d actually rammed bombers when his ammo ran out.
            Those low life don’t deserve to be in the same universe that hero is in.

          • At the beginning of my career I was very privileged to look after some incredibly interesting WW2 veterans. They were all very interesting individuals and utterly marked by what they had seen.

            There was a polish guy who was shot down in Poland made his way in a small boat to the U.K. then flew a spitfire in the Battle of Britain ( he had some great pictures). He felt so sad because he could not return to Poland after the war. He made me realise that not all of Europe was liberated from tyranny.

            Another guy was in costal command and flew Sunderland’s and hunted U boats.

            The nuttiest was another polish guy, he looked at me and said….are you German… I said no….and I kid you not…he looked me strait in the face and said that’s lucky because I hate Germans, I burned them in Italy, they deserved to burn.

            There was always in interesting dynamic when you had 6 men of that generation all in bay. I observed this a lot, but they would alway ( and I mean always) slowly check out each other’s wartime credentials.

            it was a very interesting generation that’s now passed almost into history.

            As for RAF, I come from a fleet air arm family through and through. So that’s always been my interest as I spent a lot of time being smuggled into HMS Heron and sitting in random FAA aircraft as my dad swore at them and waved various tools at harriers ( he did not like harriers much, loved his Sea vixen, really had a love hate with the harrier).

          • Thanks for those snippets, Jonathan.

            Those stories are not surprising considering just what Poland went through at the hands of Nazi Germany. And when Liberation was at hand, the Russians stop on the Vistula and let the SS do their dirty work in obliterating the Polish Home Army in Warsaw who were pro western and not pro Communist.

            And in 1939 they are screwed with Germany on one side and Russia on the other.

            Up the Poles!

          • Yes Daniele I’ve always had a lot of respect for the Poles. Real fighters all and their nation went through so much. We have quite a polish community in our town, they are all workers, in taxis etc, are always interesting and generally very politically aware individuals.

          • What an enjoyable post Jonathan. Now therein lies the true meaning of diversity and inclusion – the finest generation in my view.

  22. The root cause of many current problems goes back to the notorious (infamous) SDSR 2010. Cameron and Osborne were determined to cut the UK’s defence budget. The Army was largely untouchable thanks to Afganistan and the RAF had better PR. So the RN took both barrels, immediatey losing both its strike carrier capabilities and a large chunk of its escort force (the excellent T22 B3 frigates). Longer term, the RN is also still paying the price of making 5,000 sailors redundant, selling a versatile Bay-class LSD(A) to Australia, prematurely scrapping RFA Fort George (boy, wouldn’t she be useful now!) and the general deferal of every RN equipment programme baring Trident replacement – which would now be largely paid for from the RN’s share of the MoDs equipment budget, rather than a separate special fund as had been expected. HMS Prince of Wales only escaped being cancelled because the compensation fee payable to the Carrier Alliance was more than the cost of completing her.

    • Yes the Conservative party ( and labour ) has been lacking in the steely eye senior statesman/woman ready to play Geopolitics as the leader of a leading power.

    • Richard, Not sure the Army did escape in SDSR 2010 – it lost one deployable brigade (down to 5 multi-role brigades) and received no new or upgraded equipment into core and no promise of future new kit into core.
      However I was shocked at the scrapping of all Harriers and carriers and the decade long hiatus in carrier strike – and the attempt to cancel HMS Prince of Wales by Cameron personally.

  24. We have to decide what capabilities we want where vs what we can afford. The Chinese are coming. I think we need an additional ‘littoral response group’ based in Duqm for East Africa. Perhaps that’s the idea behind having both carriers available.
    When the batch 1 Rivers go I would replace them with 3 new batch 2s. Subtle up-arming of the global Rivers and the T31s ( Gabriel missiles?). We need another big flat top. Think about replacing the 2 LPDs with one large amphibious assault ship ( Makin Island) and a fleet of more nimble combat/ landing ships. What is T32 going to be?

    • I agree we should have more rivers, but I would make them a Rivers 3, with a focus on being a mothership for autonomous systems and drones. I think the correct drones would provide any up arming depending on the role for that rivers at that time. I would imagine it would be a good idea to give them a bofors 40 Mk4. They could then do all the small ship tasking, mine warfare, survey, constabulary, showing the flag on station ship, support ASW work, intelligence etc. It would be a bit like the black swan concept.

      I think the up arming of the 31s should be increased numbers of sea ceptors as it’s going to probably be a very nasty anti ship missile, Mach 3 and 100kgs is a lot of energy to dump into a ship as well as getting spear 3 in numbers, as these could be used for lots of purposes are cheap, could be universal on overly ship and will be brutal if they are networked into a swarm.

      personally I think the T32 will need to be a batch 2 31, the RN has two band new large hull type coming on line ( T31 and T26) , they need to maximise these production lines and not piss money on new hull design, line set up and development. Basically one would hope the T32 will be a 31 hull really focuses onto the use of autonomous vehicles. Where as the Rivers 3 would be a jobing mother ship, the T32 would need to be an offensive vessel’s really levering any and all offensive ( and defensive ) autonomous systems we have developed.

      • Agree T32 should be based on T31 hull for speed and cost. Maximise the flexibility and growth potential which comes from choosing the Arrowhead.

  25. acording to the latest reports, things are not as good as we are told,
    i just read this,
    ttps://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5802/cmselect/cmdfence/168/report.html
    enjoy my friends.

  26. sorry, i should have included where it comes from

    Author: Defence Committee

    Related inquiry: The Navy: purpose and procurement

    Date Published: 14 December 2021

    This is the full report, read the report summary.

    thanks

  27. The interesting part is this committee will be majority Tories and yet has been critical of the government in the report for lack of budget and oversight and not just the mod. It seems Boris yes brexit men he built to win the election are beginning to get a mind of their own. Brings the potential for more money being made available to keep the backbenchets inline, unliklely but maybe.

  28. It was blindingly obvious in the 2000’s, 2010’s & now, if not even before. But the cult of keeping all the wealth offshore & in the hands of the few rather than doing good amongst wider society was the “Hard/difficult choice” the money worshipping men made. Meanwhile the world could be on the brink of major conflict & the Army, RAF & Navy have never been smaller or weaker for centuries.

  29. Why doesn’t the Defence Committee have more influence to effect some real change for the better with procurement? They seem to be echoing some of what we’ve all be saying here for ages. Are all the right people in the wrong places?

    • They are like the HoC ISC, which is also powerless. The reports make for interesting reading despite the asterisks!

    • Unfortunately the oversight committees do not have any executive power. They are essentially there to highlight where the executive may not be being its most effective. They are essentially like none executive directors or board chairpersons, lots of power to investigate, and review, but no decision making power.

  30. If the navy needs more escort/utility type hulls it’s going to have to:

    1) lean into lean crews.
    2) really go all out on autonomous drones of all types to allow capability to be plugged into a hull via drones. Capability comes not just as part of the hull but becomes a function of the drones you deploy with it.
    3) Maximise the life of the production lines that are set up, hull designs that we have in place. If the Americans can produce the Burke’s over almost a 50 year run then we can do the same.
    4) maximise the new complex weapons. Seaceptor is a brilliant capability, not only does it give every ship its on a limited area air defence capability but it could to be a brutal anti-ship weapon if it can be fused for penetration, a Mach 3 100kg missile that inevitably breaks up and dumps all its kinetic energy into a ship will be effectively like being hit by a 6 inch shell ( for the purposes of kinetic energy dump, it would be a sort of 6 inch shell hollow point… I know, but just think about it ). The other big leverage would be spear 3, Cheap, small, Accurate adaptable warhead effect and probably going to be swarm enabled, with ships able to carry large numbers ( that’s going to be so hard to defend against compared to Present contemporary missiles).

    So if you have an RN that focusing on:

    1) Rivers, moving to a rivers 3, that would be focused being an adaptable mother vessel for autonomous drones of different types. With very low crew, good global range, a crane, space for ribs, good size flight deck, space for further crew or marines. These would become the navy’s jack of all trade Utility vessels, with the drones and extra crew deployed guiding what its role is ( mine warfare, policing sniping lanes, drug or piracy suppression, search and rescue, if the drones get very good even supporting ASW or surface search/ picket work. With the boffers becoming standard for the type 31, why not give a rivers a 40mm as a good little general purpose gun. This really would be a nod to the black swan concept paper, that with the new investment in autonomous systems my just be starting to need a dust off. Cheap ships with a crew in the 20s mean the RN could get a few of these, little doer ships.

    2) As suggests keep the type 26 line open and when the first eight are finished, start on a AAW version, after the 6 AAW are finished, then start on a upscale process for high end Escorts with a drumbeat of ASW and AAW versions to increase numbers and replace older hulls.

    3) lever the type 31 strait into the type 32, with a focus on autonomous drone operations. The RN got a lovely big hull for the type 31 and we have a two frigates at a time factory so it’s logical to keep theses lines open.

    So this means the RN moves away from developing exquisite new ship Type ever few years and instead focuses on the three hull types ( as a sort of British Ship yard off the shelf pick and mix). This will mean that as export products they are know and we would able to offer national navy’s a package of great escort options.

    I know the counter to this is what about the ship design skills….well the thing is navel architects work in offices and they can be keep their skills up in lots of ways and it’s a cheap skill set to keep up. The production lines and first ship in class is always the expensive bits.

  32. Do I agree that the RN need an uplift in surface comabat ships (and subs) yes, but possibly not all high end units. I am going to make an assumption that the RN will be based on two carrier strike groups and an amphibious assault group. For the escorts for these three groups 6-8 DDGs and 8-10 T26s are needed if they are all at sea at the same time. The the support ships would also need some form of escort to achive this 3-5 T31s/T32s are needed. A further three surface action groups/ Anti submarine groups are required forother duties. So we can get away with 25-28 DDGs/FFGs. We could then build a class that have limited weapons and sensors call them either light frigates, patrol frigates or corvettes I don’t care. They would be designed to hunt submarines and have a limited air defence say 12-16 Sea Ceptors, a limited anti ship say four anti ship missiles but carry two anti submarine helicopters a towed array a max speed of 25 knots a range of 4,000 smi, endurance 21 days. As the main task of these ships in war time would be convoy escort they don’t need stealth, etc they need to be able to stop an air attack at the limit of the enemies air range and hunt and kill subs. Basically a modern Leander class. Small say 3,000 tons, cheap, seaworthy, no luxuries or frills. So a total surface combat fleet of 32-35 vessels would give the RN a good foot print and able to deal with almost anything thrown at it. It would also release the US Navy from its need to support the Atlantic. As for subs the RN does need some more but possibly AIP subs based on the latest Japanese designs. We could possibly get five of these for the same cost as two SSNs. If we could do that it would mean one SSN would escort each carrier group, one for the amphibious group andthe rest do what they are designed to do go and hunt. The AIPs would become patrol subs, form picket lines/barriers etc. With 10 such subs we could have three groups of three, one group on patrol, one group working up and one group in refit, a single sub would be in deep maintance at any one time.

    I also think that we need to start arming our ships with what they are designed for, what is the point of FFBNW if I understand correctly you cannot just drop a MK41 into a ship it need plumbing, electrics, cooling etc. This takes time and in times of war time is something you don’t have.

    As for the RAF I do think it needs to be increased in numbers and types of aircraft. The first type of aircraft the RAF does need is a ground attack, supersonic aircraft in a tank busting role is not the ideal use of these airframes. The army will need sometimes an aircraft that can hang around, be called in do a strike and then hang around some more. The second type of aircraft the RAF needs is a pure out and out fighter, Typhoon and the F35B are good but they have been converted to multi role. Finally if possible the RAF should have some form of long range deep strike aircraft.

    If only I can make dreams come true. I would be happy if we can just get 25 surface combat ships and 10 subs not including the Bombers.

    • “We could then build a class that have limited weapons and sensors call them either light frigates, patrol frigates or corvettes I don’t care.”

      It would be Very difficult and very expensive to build a small compact and complex ASW vessel with all the quieting tech, to make them suitable for ASW taskings. They would be very expensive to maintain, and the living conditions for the crew difficult, with 160 crew squashed into a vessel only 50% bigger than a River Class OPV. It’s survival under air attack is questionable with limited anti-air capability. It would also struggle with just 1 helo.
      Lastly sea going days would be much lower than the present T23’s.

      • Thats the issue and in some way the point, we have all got used to all singing and dancing frigates. However the type of ship I am thinking about would serve two tasks, the anti submarine picket line or barrier line, the second would be convoy escort. In reality the type of ship that is needed in a time of a major war but in peace not really needed. To escort a convoy you don’t need to be super quite as a ‘re-forger’ convoy will make so much noise it will be heard by an old hi-fi system. As for the anti submarine picket line, once the ship is on station then they would be sailing at about 10 knots if not less. Basically an anti submarine armed mobile SOSUS Line. Thats what I am thinking about. However, if I undersatand correctly I think the AbSalon class which are diesel powered are being re-equipped and re-classified to ASW platforms. As these ships could be seen as the granparents of the T31s, so it is possible to build a good ship within a reasonable budget without all the bells and whistles to fulfill a task requirement.

    • “Finally if possible the RAF should have some form of long range deep strike aircraft.”

      That type of aircraft would be a B21, like. We wouldn’t be able to afford many!

      • Again Meirion, an all singing and dancing aircraft. How about an aircraft that can carry say 8-12 cruise missiles or anti ship missiles, fly at low level to say the East Polish border, pop up, launch their payload and get out all at high subsonic speeds. Or back in the 70s/80s I wondered if it was possible to arm Concord with two revolving drums each with 8 cruise missiles giving 16 per aircraft, fly supersonic high level launch the missiles 1,000 miles from the targets and get out. The next question is a simple one have other countries such as Russia or China gone all out down the B21 route?

        • “The next question is a simple one have other countries such as Russia or China gone all out down the B21 route?”

          Yes Ron, Russia is developing the Checkmate bomber like a B21.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here