A discussion concerning UK military procurement was held during a Defence Sub-Committee meeting on Wednesday, 21 June 2023.
The central theme under examination was the intricate balance between the procurement of domestically manufactured, high-end equipment and the acquisition of off-the-shelf alternatives.
The Committee is chaired by Mark Francois MP and was attended by Sarah Atherton MP, Robert Courts MP, Richard Drax MP, Tobias Ellwood MP, Emma Lewell-Buck MP, John Spellar MP, and Dame Meg Hillier from the Public Accounts Committee.
Robert Courts commenced the dialogue, setting the tone for the subsequent discussions, saying “If you want something that is bespoke, UK‑manufactured, exquisite, high‑end and all of that stuff, but it takes too long and it costs too much, you end up in that awful and frankly artificial situation where you are thinking, ‘If it is going to be in budget and on time, you are going to have to buy it off the shelf’. That is the last thing we want.”
James Cartlidge, Minister for Defence Procurement, responded to Courts’ concerns by agreeing that a balance must be struck.
“If I can give you a good example, the T26 has been described to me as a submarine on the surface…this is something that we want to have sovereign capability in, but there may be other areas where, although it is still important, because it is not absolutely critical to be sovereign, we are more relaxed about purchasing an off‑the-shelf option.”
Courts, however, swiftly reiterated his concern about the scarcity of high-end military equipment, stating, “But we do not have enough of either Type 26 or Type 31. That is the point I am making. You end up with very small numbers of high‑end kit. You do not have enough and it is delayed and it is over budget.”
Cartlidge, acknowledging these concerns, nevertheless put forth the argument for reliance on NATO alliances in managing large-scale war-fighting situations. As he argued, “the most important point on mass is about NATO…ultimately mass in terms of potential war‑fighting situations comes from us and our allies. We cannot expect to do everything ourselves.”
The Chair, Mark Francois, added a historical dimension to the discussion by challenging Cartlidge’s argument about dependence on allies.
“Historically, the 1981 White Paper slashed the Royal Navy… Then, a year later, Argentina invaded the Falklands and, if we had stuck to your argument, we would not have been able to retake them.”
Towards the end of the discourse, the discussion circled back to the original issue – the tension between maintaining a small number of high-end equipment and a larger mass of off-the-shelf purchases, along with the need to keep the procurement process within budget and on schedule.
Courts refocused the attention on this critical matter, querying Cartlidge, “The original question I am asking you is how you square this circle between having small numbers of exquisite kit and large amounts so you have the mass, and how you are stopping everything being delayed and over budget.”
In response, Cartlidge suggested an innovative approach that strikes a balance between the need for top-notch equipment and the practical aspects of procurement. He quoted an officer from the Irish Guards,
“When we were talking about procurement, he said words to the effect of, ‘Well, we need to go for 70% not perfect and then spiral the rest.’ He put it to me in a nutshell. That is where you strike the balance; by not procuring something that is perfect and exquisite from the outset, you recognise the importance of spiral development. You sprint to 70 and then you spiral once it is with the Army or the Navy or the Air Force.”
You can read the full exchange here.
T31 isn’t high end: it is a great workhouse that will have great firepower with Mk41.
And that can be spiral developed as it has
– space margin
– power margin
– top weight margin
But we need another 3-5 and crews would be handy too.
There is capacity for T32 in the build program.
Babcock have got capacity to produce T32 after T31.
If we don’t get T32 to follow on then Babcock will shut down ship building. We must maintain continuous build programs not feast an famine.
Agreed
Or shift blocks from H&W for FSS to Babcock. H&W do final assembly and off shore energy. Or Babcock do off shore energy directly, £28b a year investment energy infrastructure I don’t think yards will be short of work, just won’t be RN ships.
I doubt T31 will happen, if OPVs, destroyers and Frigates are returned to the Easter North Atlantic and North Sea under a policy change then we have enough hulls.
Agreed 100% constant flow of new units that never need a full refit or service extension beyond that planned at the start (T23 all well past their time and costly to keep going)
It took 4 years because they were intentionally slowed down to retain the work force while they waited for T26 to start build. Makes sense in Tory economics.
Or build em really quick then fire the work force? Better in labour economics eh.
It was labour that signed the continuous commitment to ship building in the first place so what your saying is nonsense. Not sure of your aware of that or if you just like trolling.
Is that your second to choice to making everything political accuse anyone of being a troll if they make a point that the tories arent the devil?
Cameron and Osborn knew nothing about the military other than cost, and cared even less.
I though Babcock said they can build 2 T31 type ships at the same time? I would say the problem is not the physical space but do we have enough skilled workforce.
Steel cutting only started on the 2nd T31 in January. It looks like a phased build to build-up skills there. The first T31 was laid down in April 2022.
Agree on what you say about Echo could be put to some use ,Type 45 batch 2 also sounds good ,but we know won’t happen.
T45 tooling no longer exists – it was scrapped.
Everything is derived from cad models, cnc controls define the shapes to be cut and angles to be formed.
I think he is talking more about components than bits of steel to be cut in a CNC
With regards to a T45 Batch 2, i think that ‘ship’ has sailed. However, the best alternative is to build a Batch 2 of the Type 26 Canadian variant, equipped with the improved Sampson and 1850 radars, for the GSC air defense role. Build 6 to cover retirement of the Type 45, then take the time to develop and build an innovative 15,000 tonne Type 83 ballistic missile, air defense anti submarine, land attack capable cruisers/large destroyers.
Call the Batch 2 Type 26 air defense variant type 46. Rather than 127mm main gun give these ships the 57mm gun from Type 31 and put 127mm on the Batch 2 Type 31s (AKA Type 31). These are more expendable in the event of shore bombardment support requirements.
My 2 cents worth
Heaven forbid they try and build a batch 2 T45. Most of them have spent years alongside waiting for their PIP and while they looked good on paper they have been nothing but trouble since they were launched. And they are so noisy a Russian attack sub can hear them 500 nautical miles away
Build a Type 45 substituting WR21 for MT30 – simples 😀
Thats why it would be batch ‘2’ not the original design.
We could not build a “Batch 2” T45. The tooling has been sold off and melted down. It would require a complete re-design from the bottom up, the length of time it is taking to do a PIP gives an indication of how difficult it would be.
Not exactly, PIP was brought in to fix defects, if they were making a second run of them they wouldnt engineer in the same mistakes.
But yes I agree a batch 2 wont ever happen it will be a totally new design.
The BAE T83 proposal looks like a blend of T26 and T45, kind of. Not sure if it’s a bit risk having just the one central radar cone with everything there. If that ever goes blink you’re stuffed!
I don’t think we need more yards, we need to speed up the pace the existing yards work at, probably by taking more blocks for smaller commercial yards in the UK and accepting blocks to come from foreign yards as well. Not reason why each of our two frigate yards can’t knock out a ship every year instead of ever 2-3 years. This will probably reduce cost as well.
Who would be buying/paying for a ship every year exactly?
The new BAE build halls do far more than allow indoor final assembly.
The existing build halls can be used for aggregating sub blocks too.
So there is a huge increase in parallel (at block and aggregated block stage) as well as linearised working in the big shed.
So build speed and/or productivity should improve massively.
It’s not our Adnirals, mostly it’s dogmatic, ignorant treasury driving a recklessly dangerous tiny fleet, just as it’s been delivering every other public service to critically low levels.
I think you’ll find that the MoD was wasting billions, continues to waste billions. The Johnson govt commanded the MoD to get what they had working, before bidding and asking for more money! Type 45 a case in point.
You will find too that this country does not export enough, where does a nations wealth hail from? That’s right, exports. Do you know how many companies export? 20% export and account for 40% of our wealth. Not enough.
The other point here is that the nation is sick, too many fat people, sick, workshy, benefits, immigrants doing jobs that tech could do. We had this before from the long recession in 1870 and it cost us our number 1 spot to America. Time to shape up or die!!
Totally agree we spent far too long shifting to a ‘services’ biased economy which has also resulted on too many people working in an office sat at a desk answering phones/emails and not being active.
We do make some very high end technically advanced equipment for export but really need to up manufacturing across the board.
Govt should offer subsidies to bring businesses in if they are going to export and help the economy.
Yeah absolutely spot on, Mr James Cartlidge stating that type 26 is made for export, have our yards begun building any for the Canadians and Australians yet lol.
Nothing works here and we are getting bled dry by more incompetence!!
Sadly, that was one of the main reasons I emmigrated.
Totally agree and have seen this at least since the 70s. Socialism I suppose. In my view, people who won’t have work should not be carried cradle to grave by those who will.
Jaguar sold something like 17,000 XE’s globally in 2021, BMW sold 25,000 3 series to UK customers in the same year. We do well to start with getting people in the UK to actually buy home made products. We import £50b of vehicles every year, a large majority of them, there’s UK made equivalent. If you have domestic sales you have economies of scale to complete in other markets. People will say JLR is foreign owned as an excuse to not buy a UK made car, there’s zero logic in that statement.
We forget that when UK manufacturing was at its high we had a captive market in the commonwealth, we left and joined the EU, suddenly some of cars and other products were found wanting in design and quality when we had proper competition.
Automotive is a complex market, taking the XE it is/was a cracking car to drive and a good design. Brand is good, product was good it just never sold in the numbers it needed to in any market it was in, even most the motoring press agreed and no one really understood why. That sedan segment (whilst declining) is incredible competitive and the Germans do dominate it, plus the UK market is heavily biased on leasing, when you have the big european manufacturers giving big residual values on the products its hard to get the numbers right.
At least JLR have managed to get the Defender and Range Rover products working, sadly the Defender is not built in the UK but the Range Rover is doing incredibly well globally.
Maybe but we import 50b in vehicles every year. Honda shut its factory here because it was not at capacity as British people don’t buy British made. The false point so many make it s government policy but really is its tge British publics attitude.
Totally agree 👍
OK we are getting a small number on T26 and T31 – Maybe T32, but how good would they be?
Hulls cost lots of cash. Maybe update 8-10 T22 and that would make the RN credible.
Crews is a problem but every years thousands of Gurkha’s come to UK to join the Army, just hundreds are chosen
You can bed you could find lots of the rest would bite the hand off if offered the chance of joining the RN. Would make a lot of sense.
I know some will say the Duke Class are to old – My answer is update them, they are lethal warships. US uses even WW2 ships.
8 T26
6 T45
5 T31
8 T22 updated – Together = 27 Frigates and Destroyers and maybe T32, who knows.
Oh and more Offshore Patrol Vessels.
We have to do something.
Type 32 will probably be unmanned. But lets have lots of them.
I know for sure, we need a lot more ships. We will have state of the art T26 and T45 – We need more, there comes a point where quantity is needed as much as quality,
A strategy would be useful:
subs at barrow (16)
C1 surface BAE Scotland (16)
C2 surface Babcock Scotland (16)
C3 surface devonport (16)
large RFA at CL/HW (16)
specials spread as necessary (16)
there are c.2.5k other vessels used by the MOD / uk gov so there is enough requirement if scheduled properly.
we are spending the money anyhow, so let’s spend it as efficiently as possible.
this needs about £5bn pa for build only or c.12.5% of the budget
are we really saying we can’t do this?
Totally SB! Even some AWD and MCM variants would be useful. Two MK41s can still put into existing T45s, but that would be way to sensible.
It is a bit odd not putting Mk41 into T45 given that is the way the rest of the fleeting going.
However, I’m sure there is a good reason: in that T45 isn’t optimised for strike.
Evening SB, there’s a variety of missiles that could go into the MK41s, doesn’t have to all be focused on strike. Same for the T31s. Later type CAMM might be quad packed, ABM, hypersonics, Tomahawk, Asroc type missiles, LRASMs and others in development.
I do hope they use the space well and try for more than 24 CAMM on the T45s. If they made the six pack silo an eight pack you’ll get 32, same as the T32s. Anyway what can we do but wait and watch.
Yes, there is a large variety of missiles fire a Mk41 VLS.
But why?
‘Because you can’, is a poor reason to make a very complex warship more complex?
We don’t know which version of CAMM is going to end up in T45 and my bet is that it is a mixture of the versions under development which gives improved defence without busting the bank.
At some point you do have to limit types of missile otherwise the cost of stockpiles rises geometrically.
Hi SB, I don’t think adding MK41s will make the overly complicated that a newer CMS couldn’t handle. Too much specialisation, not good either. All ships have to deal with a multitude of aerial, surface and subsurface threats.
‘A new CMS’ – that could cost fortunes to develop.
Although BAE CMS is having Mk41 for T26.
Yes, newer CMS’ could be iterations of others already in service or currently being developed and they do talk about having “open architecture” so they should be adaptable.
Meant to say.. will not or should not…
Might be too much to ask. A RAM or CAMM might be easier to integrate. Same for the carriers too.
CAMM is part of the PODS concept.
It is very easy to envisage containerised CAMM on an Albion. Albion has BAE CMS and ARTISAN which already support CAMM on T23 – so it would be a low risk integration.
Just 6-12 CAMM would offer a log if defensive punch.
You could potentially, using the same systems logic, add NSM to them as well. Again they are integrated to T23.
Quite hard to envisage an A30 sized container (hint they are quite long) and no point in A15 as it doesn’t offer much more than CAMM.
I was wondering to if they’d ever look at putting Marlett/HVM/LMM on or in the Raytheon mount like the RAM? And if ER it could be quite formidable and have a compact foot print and be linkable to any Phalanx’s.
Totally Andy. Too small and underpowered, non armed training boats.
Agree its role fit. It’ll also be a great platform for autonomous systems.
I’m not sure we need more yards, were retiring because we stopped and started the T31 competition which delayed the build. T26 was also delayed, and we filled the gap with OPVs. We need to get the precontract stuff slicker imo.
Note they are replacing T23 which have 180+ crew and they only need 100+ so our manpower requirements should ease and allow more manpower for more hulls, we have also nearly lost all manned MCMV vessels giving up further manpower. In the near future we will go down to one carrier also with reduced manning whilst the other is in refit etc (thats years). More manpower needed true but you have to offer a positive package that will bring the youth in. We used to go and visit some nice places when I joined up now and for some time that has not been the case (WIGS) was a real plus for us young sailors. Even our ‘new’ onboard uniform is crap and needs a much better quality (made in the UK) as the old outfit was smarter and worked better for us all. We will see, its about having the numbers to have a high visible presence in the end that deters.
I agree that training should be consciously be shifted to warm sunny climes. If only for crew retention purposes. Nothing wrong with making crews happy!
Although I appreciate sub hunting is an Atlantic activity.
We should just commit to ordering a T31 every year……………a steady drum beat for the yard and a steady increase in Frigate numbers.
Two ships per year, apart from years when we are doing carriers, is certainly technically and just about financially possible without more money. It requires planning, prompt decision making and a determination to not bust the budget with wanna-have requirements. That might not be possible unless we hang an admiral from time to time to encourage the others.
Have a read of the new Navy Lookout T32 article. Could be a goer and not just for the RN. Would be great to get theDanes and Norwegians onboard (pun intended) with some new ships. This might be good for NZ, Chile and maybe even India under licence?
What the committee is saying is that if you let the MoD procure the kit it will come in years late, gold-plated and twice as expensive. The same thing can be said about letting the MoD run the UK military; another cock-up, another cut in defence capability to pay for it.
In 2021 the military had 135,000 trained people; the MoD had 60,000 civilians. There is one air marshal or air commodore for each frontline Typhoon. There are more major-generals and brigadiers in the army than artillery pieces; we have 70 admirals in the navy and only 29 seaworthy ships. Across the three services I estimate that there are 400 one to four star generals, though some of these will be attached to NATO. The army is awash with major generals pushing pens – even the head chaplain is a two star on £125,000 a year.
Clearly there are too many chiefs and not enough enlisted people. As numerous Parliamentary Committees have concluded, the MoD needs root and branch reform, particularly procurement.
Agree that the number of senior officers looks absurdly wasteful. It is a far higher percentage of overall manpower than the USA, which has 650 general (OF7 and above) officers for forces more than 10 times as large as UK..
The number of civilians is in line with other countries and, since on average they are cheaper to employ than service personnel, may be good value for money.
We have 134 OF7 and above and
330 OF6( commodore, brigadier, air commodore).
God knows what they do all day.
Doubtless long lunches and nipping off early on Fridays. And planning the Brigadiers’ summer fete
The US has authorization for 852 flag officers on active duty. There are a number of exceptions, and this authorization does not include Reserve and National Guard.
I was trying to work out from various sources how many OF7+ are actually on duty. Including those in joint service roles, I got to @ 650. So the US has @ 5x UK total for forces 10 x as large.
Don’t forget that you will have high ranking officers in charge of back office activities not just front line activities. 😀
I get why we have a load of Colonel/Group Captain/Captain types because of embassy jobs and the like, go up a rank or 3 though and its obscene how many we have, they all ‘need’ a staff too, a flag officer, someone to drive them, a steward etc….
Can’t see it changing any time soon, I guess its something to do with the schools 95% of them went to. 🙅
We spend about £50 billion a year on defence and we have remarkably little kit to show for it, high end or not. The civil servants in the MoD only stay in post for a couple of years, then they move on, gaining seniority and pension rights. They are never held accountable for their cockups, usualy they get promoted and moved upstairs, where they can’t do any more harm.
The civil service works on empire building. The more staff you have, the more important you are. Thats why we have hundreds of obscure departments working on anti-radar paint, or BMW defence, or submersible IEDs, or airfield bird scarers for example – when we could just buy what we need in from the Americans. Patriot is building a very good reputation in UkR and Germany has just ordered the Israeli Arrow 3 system. We should be buying in combat-proven kit like Patriot off the shelf too
I really like NLAW, its a game changer on the modern battlefield. Whoever organised NLAW and Javelin for the Army deserves a promotion
So your plan to to spend the entire budget overseas. and not employ a single tax payer to put money back into the country. yep Labour supporter.
CAMM once fully developed will be better than PATRIOT.
PATRIOT is unbelievably expensive for what it does.
Anti radar paint testing and modelling is necessary – you don’t just slap some in and hope for the best – it is quite technical.
AJAX and a few other programs are not representative of the very many programs that deliver great value and are on track. In the case of AJAX it should have had UK tech in it but have been contract manufactured purely as there is no domestic fighting vehicle capacity to sustain.
CH3 appears to be in track and is being delivered by BAE and Reinmetall who do have design capacity and experience in this area.
https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com/2023/05/rank-stupidity-why-uk-should-not-reduce.html
I think this explains it all pretty well.
He’s pumped that article before and it’s something he loses his objectivity on.
750+ star ranks and circa 72k troops including the Braid; nope, sorry, bullshit that we don’t need less Braid.
I think it isn’t a problem, and it’s made out to be something its not. Usually by people who have a class issue with officers. But you don’t have to agree with him, or me. 👍
Class issues?
I met Gen. Sir Peter de la Billiere, no issue with him and would have followed to the gares of Hell.
Officers of the Royal Irish Rangers were fantastic, one of them was quite inspirational IIRC.
Corps provide solid officers who, generally, know their business.
Met PARA, we had interaction, no issues, other than their lack of control when their blokes got shitfaced – I assume we were treated as recreational training.
Tic tocs? Should a Division ever have to be wholesale reformed, it would be the Officer Corps of the Household Div. met them; they cost a lot of money and from leaving their troops afloat at risk of bombing, to needlessly travelling in the back of vehicles prone to landmines, give me a Booty, PARA or Royal Irish officer, anyday.
That’s not class to be blown up, rather, it is quite crass to have your lads blown up.
I’m not talking about individual officers character or ability. I just think it’s a none story making a fuss about senior officer numbers in our Armed Force’s.
Excuse me. You, for your own reasons were deflecting…
“, and it’s made out to be something its not. Usually by people who have a class issue with officers.”
You, introduced officers in general. Not me.
There is far too much Braid in UK Defence, plus the pensions.
Please see previous comments re. US Mil and Braid ratios.
And please, pretty please, in future, play the ball, not the man.
But the original comment I was replying to was about officer numbers. Like i said, you don’t have to agree with me, or the article I shared. I’ve made my opinion, and I’m sticking to it pal.
The cost of the larger officer corps is trivial.
The issue is that if trim the apex of the pyramid you loose more really good people lower down as the promotion slots are not there.
That’s it mate. Cuts at the top have long lasting consequences lower down the career chain.
Ahhh. Let’s make every ‘trade’ soldier a junior officer.
At a stroke we could attract, pay and retain them more – very good idea for the Royal Navy, REME, AAC, INT, and not to forget the RAF.
Then, let’s ignore those who only want the commission before leaving for better paid banking, IT and mngt jobs.
Should balance out quite nicely and suit your triangle.
I agree with you mate. Regardless of individuals, you need a certain amount of 1* plus. There are too many organisations in the military and wider MoD to not have these seniors.
They have also been cut repeatedly since Front Line First in 1995, and recently Navy Command again made changes.
DSF was an exception, going from a 1* to a 2*, quite rightly given the greater number, responsibilities, and budget that area now includes.
Yep. For once Sir H doesn’t make a very convincing case.
Yes we all know this sadly,Mark francois is right you should not rely on allies that for me is a poor excuse just to get out of the argument .Like I’ve said before on some posts of its a British problem would the French put a ship in harm’s way or any other NATO nations ?
Exactly Andrew.
I’m not against countries helping each other in a pinch but why should others have to pony up their own tax payer funded equipment to help us – not because we can’t afford it but we just choose not to spend what’s needed ourselves – what an insult!
Spot on 👍
👍
Italy has joined the FC/ASW missile program. And two more F35B’s arrived at RAF Marham today 👍 An RAF C17 and A400 flew to Canada to assist with the Titan sub rescue. RIP to those poor souls lost.
Yes, sad. Interestingly, and obviously, IUSS detected the bang when it occurred but this was not released at the time.
Yeah, saw that on the news. At least they wouldn’t have suffered. The chances looked slim from the get go, but they had to try.
The sad thing is, the fact it suffered an implosion was in a way a blessing compared to them being stuck 12,500 feet down for 5 days with no food or water. From my reading the chance of rescue would have been as close to zero as not to have mattered. RIP.
Whoever wanted to pay £250,000 for a trip in a heath-robinson contraption like that submersible needed a psychiatric examination. It had never been tested or certificated for operations at the depth of the Titanic. Very sad that lives have been lost though, but entirely predictable.
I’m glad we have people in our world who are willing to take such risks. Otherwise we would never have put men on the moon, or travelled to great depths. Or have ambitions to travel to Mars. RIP to those brave souls.
all that money, and no common sense. all the things to buy
Just couldn’t Imagine how bad that scenario would have been for them. With an implosion at that depth, it would have been instant.
Yep it would have been profoundly awful, the one that got me was the father who took his son…just imagine if they had been trapped what his hell would have been….knowing yourself your going to suffer for five days and inevitably die is one thing as many people have to come to terms with an unpleasant horrible inevitable death and they do manage that , I know I’ve been Haematology nurse ( blood cancers) and and emergency nurse, I’ve supported or witness well over a thousand people die, so I know it’s something that the human brain can manage….…knowing your actions have led to your son suffering the same fate as you in front of your own dying eyes…fuck me I’m glade it was an implosion as just thinking about what that father would have had to have gone through chilled me ( and I’ve seen just about every way you can die).
https://www.thedefensepost.com/2023/06/23/italy-franco-british-missile/?utm_content=cmp-true the link for where I read the same article
That’s the one one mate. 👍
It’s going interesting to see if this missile will be compatible with MK41, Sylver & cannister plus air launched and even sub launched.
Why are people acting all suprised at this news, its been common knowledge for years that when it comes to the British Miltary there are too few of everything. (except white people in the RAF, were I am informed there are far too many)
Boom! RAF should be renamed to PFAF : Progressive Fascist Air Farce.
AR wrote:
I undertook a course in which to grab the equal ops instructors’ hat to place with my other quals a few years back. First day we meet, broken up into 2 groups, second morning we all walk in and in our classroom there’s an Indian lady wearing a sari with a red dot between her eyes waiting for us. We sit down and are regaled to a diatribe about how the British army (It was a 3-service course) is inherently racist, that coloured people are no different from them and if you cut her skin, she bleeds red blood like the rest of this. This continued until the instructor (A Captain sat at the back) called Naafi break. As we started to get up, she continued rabbiting on about how polarised the armed forces were, then on seeing me (not bloody hard as I was sat at the front) smiled and reading my name off my name tag on my jumper, exclaimed “But I don’t have to tell you that do I ‘farouk!”
I went up the wall, giving her both barrels about how the Military is the least racist place there can be, that we all have lived abroad, so we know what its like to be a minority in a different land, how many marry peoples from foreign lands, how it is us who brough back foreign foods, words and ways of life back to the Uk meaning we relate more with migrants than the average person on the street. I then reloaded and gave her another 2 barrels about how whilst rabbiting on about generalisations, she presumed incorrectly that due to the colour of my skin, that I would support her over the people I would trust my life with, over a cultural, political ideology which whilst it had meaning and a place during the 70s, 80s and the early 90s, has turned into the monster it claims to be trying to eradicate resulting in it setting back race relations tens of years. Noticing the instructor looking at me, I legged it into the back room to grab a coffee fully expecting to be RTU’d .
Whilst availing myself to a coffee and the laid-on biscuits this female Captain approached me, and thanked me for speaking out. She stated, that she had wanted to say something, but didn’t want to be seen as…Racist.
I would have paid good money to have seen you in action in the lecture! The lady clearly knew absolutely nothing about the Forces.
Incredible insightful post Farouk, you not only corrected a pendulum swinging too far that day, but was a hero to others having to endure that lecture also.
Nicely written yourself too.
Thanks Quentin, 🙂
And thats what you call a full blown counter offensive!! Very well said and done sar!
Well said sir 👍
Well said. All forms of racism are evil.
Mate, I wouldn’t worry about it. I failed my diversity and inclusion course for speaking my mind. saying the “mandatory” course was literally just a politically motivated tick box lesson. Didn’t go down well, but then I had just got back from Iraq and was preparing for yet another Afghan tour. So wasn’t in the best of moods.
The big question is why the Type 26?
What T26 does it could have been done with a T31 size ship.
but T31 isn’t as quiet nor does it have the sensors
I did not meant a T31 but a T31 size vessel. and with 2 hangars for 2 AW 101.
Where are the helo’s coming from? RN well short of them now and could do with more that double the numbers so at least a semblance of ASW went to sea. In WW2 the best ASW where the corvettes crossing the pond and doing the bizz, cheap and cheerful but very effective. And drones will not cut it.
.
Yes that is the reason for my post. Type 31 size ships and maybe instead of 8 T26 and 5 T31 it would have been 18 Txx with DE propulsion
No. Only the T26 has the expensive hull dampening of engines etc that allows them to be ultra quiet & provide the best possible ASW platform. That is its purpose. That’s why they’re so expensive. T31s, IF they were fitted with hull ASW sonars & ASW TT, could do basic ASW, but not as well as T26 or dedicated ASW batch T23s.
With such a tiny number of escorts, as an island nation vitally dependant on maritime trade, we must have at least basic ASW capability on all our escorts.
I did say they were T31 sized not T31 based. It would be a new ASW hull/propulsion.
So why does the T26 have a 127 gun and Mk41? A T23 sized ship with a TAS, a helo, some Stingrays, a 57 gun some CAMMs and a Phalanx would be fine.
Because they were originally designed to be the backbone of the surface Navy. Uniformity has its own benefits.
The T23s were originally designed to be a cheap lightweight ASW frigate with no AAW and no real ASuW. We found that not having a multi-purpose frigate failed us and the T23s needed upgrading accordingly. So rather than making the same mistake, the 13 T26s were multi-purpose from the start (5″ gun, Mk41s etc).
Then came the whole we can’t pay for them nonsense and we ended up with 8 exquisite ASW ships that could do multi-purpose, and 5 general purpose that could only patrol.
Should the Navy have downgraded the T26 spec in 2015, delaying it another couple of years while contracts were redrawn although saving us diddly squat, because the delays would have cost more than would have be saved? Or should they have cancelled them and gone back to the failed original T23 concept you seem to champion, which would have added at least another 5 years to the timescale?
It did occur to me that ditching the 5″ guns of the second batch might have been possible, but either uniformity won the day or there are specific plans for the guns.
Originally, 16 T23 and 14 T22, making THIRTY frigates plus 12 T42.
Now, that was a surface force.
We have 4 – 5 available now of both Types.
The change could have been earlier.
While the T26 was to be the GSC – global combat ship so with AAW,ASW,ASuW i never seen a real drawing of that ship even more than a decade ago, i only saw the current Global Very Large ASW Ship.
We can all speculate but id love to know which of the FDI,PPA and Type 31 is the most competent in ASW ?.
None is made for ASW. We can only speculate. Maybe checking who have fixed pitch propeller or variable one. Hull sonar or not. Helicopter or helicopters capacity. torpedoes.
Funny enough I read this the other day:
https://i.postimg.cc/R0wbztJ7/img356.jpg
Warships international fleet review where I grabbed the above from also knocks out a pod cast:
https://i.postimg.cc/sgC3PYzS/Opera-Snapshot-2023-06-23-175313-audioboom-com.png
Link to follow
Link
Pretty much the same as what we’ve been saying here on UKDJ for ages!! 😁
Maybe if the sub committee had more influence at the Treasury, more of what they say might actually happen.
Hi Robert – we deffo need to replenish our supplies of NLAW and Javelin. They are decimating Russian armour and APCs on the southern front
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ-dPezacfg
Ten minutes of UkR guys with balls fighting tanks close up
Not enough frigates, fighters or tanks, massive cuts from the 90,s , here we,ve the consequences.
NEWS FROM THE FLIGHT DECK
June 22, 2023 at 7:17 AM
In a high-profile public spat with little precedence between the airframe and engine giants, Pratt & Whitney executives are formally accusing Lockheed Martin of prioritizing its own bottom line by seeking an adaptive engine solution for the Joint Strike Fighter.
“Jen Latka, Pratt’s F135 program chief, called Ulmer’s statements “very confusing and misleading.”
“Lockheed proposing AETP for the F-35 undermines the customer, the taxpayer and the warfighter,” said Jeff Shockey, senior vice president of global government relations for RTX, Pratt’s parent company. “Once again, they are trying to pull a fast one on Congress, the Pentagon and the taxpayer, at the expense of the warfighter.”
In response, Lockheed spokeswoman Laura Siebert told Breaking Defense that “Lockheed Martin’s top priority remains meeting the needs of our service men and women.”
It’s rare for fights between industrial partners to boil out into the public, but Pratt’s reactions to Ulmer’s comments indicate a long-simmering issue that finally came out.
Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with AeroDynamic Advisory, told Breaking Defense he was surprised to see disagreements between the partners explode into the open.”
LINK
As I understand it Ulmer was saying he wanted both the P&W upgrades for the short term and the adaptive engines for the long term. He’s muddying the waters. He knows that if the argument for adapted is accepted the short-term upgrades might be cancelled. He sees many more decades of life for the F-35 with adaptive and the heck with his customer base for the next decade or so.
It would delay Block 4 by so long, certainly for F-35B, it’s probable 6th Gen would be flying first.
Now I’m just going to say this…..it’s not just a choice between domestically produced exquisite high end equipment or off the shelf…you can actual just procure middle range ability reasonably priced domestically produced stuff…just like the T31….
It’s a shame they didn’t start using the T31 business model about 20 years ago.
I agree. One thing that the MOD and forces seemed to be challenged with was being able to balance the exquisite need with a need for a bit of mass. You do need to have an exquisite capacity to protect your most worst vulnerabilities (you cannot under any circumstances loss a carrier) but you cannot afford to have exquisite capabilities everywhere and at all times to cover every vulnerability…so you need a reasonable capacity to fill the gaps…this has always been true.. AAW and ASW are the classic examples. Where Exquisite capability is not present (and there will always be more cases of not present than present ) you need to have an asset with at least some capabilities to limit your enemy’s ability to function….as no capability gives them unlimited ability to do what the hell they want. A complete unprotected asset is always lost.
I know this is a totally different subject but yall know of that sub that went for a picture of the titanic, it may not have got one but it was the spithen image of it, that Rush fella said it was invinsable and it sank near the same place with the name ‘Titan’ and Titanic just means ‘Titan’. Like I mean they were steering it with a Xbox controller 🤓!
They were thinking about making a new one named ‘Titanic II’ last year well I suppose it was made and the same doom has became of it. But if the ‘Titanic II’ they were gonna make turns into ‘Titanic III’ the volenteerage for a Captain and staff will be low. AND TOURISM NOT BE COMMON! And by then maybe they will have the brains to not tempt fate by calling it ‘Invinsable’ I mean they do say third times a charm but who would have the guts to make it! I wander what they’ll make it off, hopfully they’ll be like the Third little piggy who chose brick
😀
Escort numbers are abysmal. 17 at the moment, 16 by the end of the year. A couple more T23s due to retire before new builds are delivered & commisioned. So while the RN was creaking badly trying to cover our comittments with 19 escorts, we’re covering(or not) those with 14 or 15 for a couple of years at a time when several of our T45s are in extended refits having the PIP engine fix.
Hopeless treasury decisions over the decade have bought us here.
We’re planning to get 8 T26 eventually(by mid 2030s), they’re our high end ASW FFG. The cheaper option, the T31, we have just 5 planned by the early 2030s. Then 5 more T32s of intangible design, likely to be based on T31.
T31 however is a good design that can be upgraded to a more general purpose capable escort, put a proper hull sonar on & there’s reasonable ASW capability, not quite up to T26 standard.
I’d like to see a heavier MG on them too. Why not standardise to the BAE 5″? But at least 76mm OTO.
River OPVs provide token cover were we’re short of escorts, just with virtually zero capability if things turn nasty. Easy targets or cannon fodder.
2 decades brought us here, your just blaming one party where 3 have had a hand, Labour/Liberals/Tories all did this. RN Spending at it highest since WW2. slow speed of modern ships is the cause
Which T23s are scheduled to be decommisioned beween now and 2027? I didn’t think any were. One more before the end of the year, you say? Has a decision been made on Westminster?
Hi Jon. Monmouth was withdrawn in 2021, Montrose in April 2023. Argyll due to go by the end of this year too, Lancaster 2024 & Argyll 2025. All general purpose versions of the T23 rather than the ASW versions.
That will leave just the 8 ASW T23 FFG & 6 T45 DDGs for a nadir of 14 escorts(including some T45s still in PIP refit & at least 1 T23 refitting having radar & Sea Camm upgrade).
The first T31 is due to enter service in 2027, Slippage in the first T26, HMS Glasgow means she won’t enter service until 2027/28.
The remaining 8 T23 ASW versions are due to be retired one a year from 2028.
That’s according to Navy books “British Warships & Auxiliaries 2023”, “Warship World” magazine & Wiki.
So while RN chiefs, MPs & most of us here were angry that 19 escorts was dangerously too few to cover even peacetime ops(Hence building of 4 new batch 2 River OPVs to provide at least a presence), we now have 17, soon 16, 15 next year, 14 the following, then 2 years at that until the first T31 makes 15 & numbers slowly begin to rebuild.
Nato allies we presume we can rely upon have mostly been reducing fleets too.
So we are in a dreadful position with less than critical escort numbers in what could be the most dangerous world situation since 1939 & due to remain so until the end of the decade or later.
If something kicks off requiring immediate action we could extend even further the OOS dates of 2 or 3 of the above T23s, but even then we would still have just 16 or 17 escorts when we need a minimum of 24+.
Our new builds could be accelerated, our T26 builds have been deliberately slowed by the treasury to save funds. 10 years to build a frigate(HMS Glasgow) is ridiculously unprecetended, especially for the world’s premier warship building nation of the last 3-400 years.
Please stop with the GP/ASW version.
The only difference between GP and ASW T23 is the tail and the dedicated WAFU ability to support Merlin helos.
Everything else, Machinery, weapons , sensors is the same. If you took Montrose now and fitted it with a Tail ( and a metric s**t tonne of new steel and paint by the way!) it would be a tail equiped T23.
Hi Guns, Sorry I’m puzzled at your objection, though I always value your expertise. The recently/soon to be retired T23s do belong to the GP subclass, that is their correct designation. ASW subclass T23s have towed array sonar of course. I thought they were the only ones with hull damping on their machinery too, please correct me if the GPs do too. Of course they’re identical in every other regard.
I think it is relevent to mention the ASW’s will be around a bit longer until we get T26s coming into service to replace them, 1 for 1. When you ony have 16 or 17 escorts in the fleet, only having top tier ASW capability in half of them seems very risky to me.
They were designed/built with the damping in place, as well as a tail. 2087 was only fitted to eight frigates, hence the designation. Think of it as a stealth cut, rather than something that originated in the initial build.
HMS Argyll is presently going thorough another refit to extend her life for a few more years.
Thanks Merion X. Ah, I see that’s been updated. Yes, possibly due to HMS Westminster being found in such poor condition that her refit/lifeEx has been suspended. So we retain a GP but lose an ASW version, leaving us with just 7 ASW speciaist escorts(Unless Westminsters towed array is thransferred) until Glasgow enters service c20217/8.
Well breaking news the leader of Wagner the infamous MR P has just come out and said the Ukraine Russia war was caused by the defence minister….he’s come out and said the defence minister made up the threat Ukraine and NATO held to Russia and there was no need to invade…that the defence minister did it all for a power play and he’s been lying to the Russian people and Putin.
someone in Russia is heading for a bullet and in not sure who….but this is really starting to smell like something bad is going to happen…someone like MR P saying the war was unnecessary and the threat was made up…all across the media…that’s not an issue of ammunition and competence that’s changing the whole dialogue in Russia…..
Forget destroyers and frigates. They are like tanks. Visible, vulnerable, short on range, and are purely symbolic. Nuclear powered attack submarines are the future of naval warfare.
Nuclear attack submarines are the modern-day battle ships and can really put the shiters up the bad guys. But. There is a pretty long list of things they can’t do.
Nothing wrong with tanks, used correctly, with trained crews, passive and active defence in a combined arms BG, they are battle winners. Delete tanks, insert Frigate/Destroyer and repeat my last…..Your posts are showing your evident lack of subject matter experience and knowledge Frosty me old special troll!
Maybe pick a multi hull design, bow/stern stay the same you just insert your centre section of your choice to increase size or type
get the hulls built overseas in blocks of 10. shipped to UK and then our yards can fit out.
but you will never get the crew to fill them….
Delete frigates, insert “everything”!
70% then develop. Sounds like something that might have avoided the Ajax debacle and maybe introduce some pragmatism into procurement. Many times we go for the platinium solution but we get it over budget and way overdue . And when it is delivered it has slipped to the bronze solution .
Is Cartlidge a bit of a smart arse pratt or what? What a load of waffle! Yes we get it the UK operates in an alliance but should also be able to substantially stand on its own two feet especially if it wants to exercise leadership and strength in numbers like with the deployment of a CSG and in a worse case scenario, two at once. Alliances are not going to be equally reciprocal. An incremental increase in the RN is surely sensible, necessary and affordable.
Hmm Ajax anyone?! 🫣
What about Ukraine ordering 1000 CV90s and other European nations same too. Chosing quality and reliability. Good on them.
As the minutes describe in the defence subcommittee, the fact we don’t have the same is because of politics, egos and dithering. I agree wholly with the Chair!!
👍
Seems right decision ,however for U.K. 🤔 won’t say the word 🙄
And as predicted we have civil war in Russia.
Find a basic design that works. Keep making it. Improve it.
MPs need to set priorities via it’s Government. Is Defence a priority at the moment or not?
But that’s another problem. Traditionally we haven’t spirally upgraded weapon systems: we’ve let them become obsolescent and then (sometimes) done a mid-life update, before allowing obsolescence to develop again. We simply don’t spend enough on defence for all the commitments we have.
Even the submarine committee think we don’t have enough frigates….
Best thing we can do is double the budget, stop wasting so much on vanity projects, stop wasting money changing designs so more expensive and less capable hardware is needed instead. 2 per cent isn’t enough to maintain a decent core. More needs to be invested in the entire supply chain.
Hi Ladies and Gentlemen! Nothing new here! It’s becoming rather boring! The Defence forces as a whole should be vastly financially supported! Further more the parties in strength should include and agree a sensible budget between themselves to ensure who ever is in power the armed forces have an agreed stable budget without the unnecessary
disruption seen over many years!
Nick ( Scotland) now Gernany
First, never let perfection get in the the way of progress, this is where UK defence procurement has failed trying to cram in too many requirements that cost a lot and don’t offer a lot of additional capability. Then to keep it perfect we change it during the build making it more expensive.
Second completely bespoke too often mean it only of use to the UK, so we’ve sunk any export opportunities before we’ve started and with the opportunity to reduce the costs. High end kit can become off the shelf if its a design other need.
Those 5 new T31s in build must have ASW hull sonar at least. What use is an escort that can’t detect or prosecute subs?
Nice article on A140-T31 based T32 on NL. Also showing 2*MK41s in forward gun position so wondering now if the up armed T31 could potentially have two split 2*MK41s plus 24 CAMM and one less 40mm? All speculation. Interesting comments on joint development work with Norway and Denmark on these type frigates.
Not enough frigates. How many do we need? There used to be a list of Military Tasks that could be used to work out how many assets you needed, whilst recognising that you didn’t or would not need in future to do all of those tasks all of the time.
We have really pushed the surface fleet so low that its going to cost an extortionate ammount of money to get back to 19 and then the envisioned 24 vessels in an ASAP timeframe, the 23s are literally falling to pieces now and it will be a crisis if westminister has to be decomissioned early (especially as it is a asw full variant)- all the penny pinching will have been for nought because we probably would have saved money starting 26, 31 procurement 2-3 years earlier, and not gone down to a bare bones type 23 fleet that is going to to cost a lot of money keeping in adequate numbers till all the 26 and 31s are online. The type 45 destroyers are built for a longer service life and less cheaply in a material sense but i worry that all 6 won’t last till the first type 83 is commisioned in the far off future. The type 31’s can be spiralled a little bit, mainly in anti surface warfare because they dont have the radar to fully utilise aster or sm(32 fc/asw, 24 camm, 16 nsm)but when building the type 32, I would try and fully utilise arrowhead 140/iver huitfeldt potential to build a aaw frigate that can better suplement the destroyers and improve on asw from 31 too- raft mounted machinery and torps for asw, aaw frigate radar specs (sampson instead of apar, s1850 or artisan instead of smart-l), 32 cell sylver for aster 30, 24 camm and 16 nsm)