In a recent exchange in Parliament, concerns regarding the size of the Royal Navy’s future escort fleet arose.
Yet, an omission in this dialogue has brought forward more questions than answers.
Lord West of Spithead, representing Labour, sought clarity on the government’s assessment regarding the maintenance of a fleet with a minimum of 19 operational Destroyers and Frigates. He questioned, “…whether maintaining a fleet of a minimum of 19 operational Destroyers and Frigates is still realistic and sufficient; and, if not, what the new minimum will be.”
Baroness Goldie, the Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, responded confidently, “The government is committed to modernising the Royal Navy’s escort fleet through the transition of the existing Type 23 frigate force to the Type 26 and Type 31 classes. This will bring the number of destroyers and frigates to 19.” She continued to emphasize the feasibility of this number for the Navy to meet its operational commitments.
However, what became notably absent in Baroness Goldie’s response was any mention of the planned Type 32 frigates, which had been previously highlighted by the Ministry of Defence.
Earlier this month, the Ministry confirmed the Type 32 frigates’ intended service entry in the 2030s. This announcement, combined with the recent exchange in Parliament, raises questions about the Type 32’s future role in the Royal Navy’s fleet.
James Cartlidge, the Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, had previously stated: “The Type 32 programme has not yet reached the level of maturity to publish specific In-Service dates… On current plans the Type 32s are due to enter service in the 2030s.” Amidst speculations, the UK Government had stressed the Type 32 Frigate programme as a crucial part of the future fleet.
The Royal Navy’s ambition to incorporate the Type 32 and potentially boost the fleet number to 24 ships makes the omission in the recent commitment to a 19-ship goal both puzzling and concerning.
Hmm, the money men are in charge again.
Reducing the aimed for escort fleet from 24 to 19 completely ignores the global situation we now live in and the fact it is only going to get worse.
Disgraceful.
CR
When were the initial numbers (24) identified & what has changed that has driven the 20%+ reduction- what rationale has been provided…I would assume numbers are dictated by operational requirement so surely if not T32 then …what ..
and it seems from above that even the 19 minimum previously agreed are now under scrutiny?
We don’t have 19 escorts, 16 at present, excluding one found too far gone to continue refitting, likely to be sold or scrapped.
aah and therein lies the truth Frank- it is 16 and not 19.
Hi grizzler,
I used to be a very small cog in the defence procurement system. The way it worked was that the politicians would set strategic context for future defence posture / procurement. The context was supposed to be based on the geopolitical situation… Even if it was based on geopolitics the prescribed contexts or scenarios would assume that it would be a coalition operation which gave the politicians a very simple lever to pull if they wanted to cut defence – the percentage of the coalition force provided by the UK.
What I see in the article above is the possibility that our politicians are simply ignoring the realities of the current geopolitical situation. I’m no fan of Bojo but at least he seemed to understand geopolitics… This lot appear to totally focussed on their spreadsheets.
Cheers CR
I am sure we know that rationale is never provided for cuts. Similarly, no rationale was ever provided for the tank fleet being cut from 435 to 386 to 227 to 148.
I agree absolutely. The Money men’s slide rule only measures past events not even the present situation in Ukraine or in the Far East.
It seems they are stuck in the 1990’s. 24 escorts should be a minimum especially with our responsibilities and change over to auto minesweeping.
I know what you mean, but it’s still too early to say when it comes to the numbers of Destroyers/Frigates.. Personally I would like to see 3 extra Type 31’s.. So the number would be 22. 6 Type 45’s, 8 Type 26 and 8 Type 31’s. All seems more logical to me, let’s not try to complicate things too much. Also just having the extra 3 Frigates, I would of thought this extra number could be afforded. Money is finite with defence spending, we have to be realistic when it comes to what this country can afford to do.
Go to 4 more type 31s and you have a deal- I’d be happy with a batch 2 type 31 optimised for surface strike and naval gunfire support- add the 5inch BAE Mod 4 gun and keep the 32 cell mk41 vls as per batch 1 type 31s.
Hi Mr Bell.. A very Good afternoon to you! Yes, It just seems to me a better plan is to stick with the Type 31’s.
Hi John,
You may get your wish.
Babcock issued a concept for the T32 a few weeks ago. It was basically a stretched T31 with a smaller flight deck (Merlin capable rather than Chinook capable). The extra space was dedicated to a bigger mission bay.
The good news with this concept is that it used much of the same equipment as the T31 – so same supply chain and massively reduced costs.
Cheers CR
Hi CR, and it also showed a 76mm. So I wonder if it will have a 57mm or 127mm if adopted by the RN? The other thing is its got the vls 2*MK41s in the forward B position and I’m wondering if the 24*CAMM could still be added above the mission bay as they’re not deck piercing? Having all that plus 1*40mm and 2*CIWS is very punchy. And are there enough Merlin’s to go around on all these new ships and carriers?
Hi Quentin
Yes it looked like a good option and would reward Babcock for their investment. An important point if we want others to invest as well.
As for weapons not much detail, very early days obviously. I wonder if the contract would be a repeat of the T31 contract where VLS etc. are Government Furnished Equipment. This approach seems to have worked well with the T31 allowing the RN to find extra funds late (ish) in the day to commit to MK41 VLS. It means the RN / MoD can argue about certain things without slowing down the build – at least that’s how I read what is happening with the T31’s.
With regards to the Merlin cabs I think there are too few to go around at the moment, hence the RN’s push on UAV’s I think.
Cheers CR
A slight correction there, Sea Ceptor/CAMM is a VLS and therefore very much deck penetrating. A mission bay with a load of missiles sticking down into the space wouldn’t quite offer the same functionality
Hi Callum. I was thinking that they could still use the mushroom CAMM six packs (4*6) over the mission bay which I believe aren’t deck penetrsting.
Hi ChariotRider.. Interesting Information. Thanks for the reply.
6 type 45s would be great if they didn’t spend most of their time alongside broken!
What do you mean afford? We spend 168.8 bn quid on the nhs. We print money and issue bonds for 30 years. 54% of our population receives benefits. Taxation at unseen levels since the War. We sack a PM that desired growth, but retain fools that exact wealth from its populace like medieval barons. What planet are people on?! I think it’s now time and tide that Brits owe a duty to to get involved in British politics because the state of play right now is ghastly. Our country is creaking and no one gives a ****
Simple fact is that the UK armed forces are a total joke if we had to fight a war against anyone other than the salvation army, I doubt we could do so for more than a month at best before running out of men munitions and c equipment
Agree- our 19 frigates and destroyers will last approximately 1 day in combat versus the massively expanding Chinese Navy. Add on the threat posed by Mad Vlad and a resurgent empire building Russia and the UK’s fleet is looking inadequate to meet even current peacetime requirements.
There is a complete disconnect between world events and the UK defence posture. What price freedom? well the answer to that question is if unfunded and inadequately resourced the price of freedom is your freedom, right to self determination and democracy.
What a stupid comment same idiots said the same about the Russian fleet . It’s looks crazy now all the over hype Russian fleet idiots . Chinese will be no better than Russian junk and rust .
I wouldn’t write the Chinese ships off as junk. The Russian navy has been in decline since 1990. So every year that went past it got weaker.
The PLAN is made of lots of modern ships with the latest new kit and it’s making its own new tech to put on them instead of buying things like 10-20 years ago. So they’re the opposite of Russian navy as every year they get stronger.
Granted they are not tested and may not operate at the top level yet but the pace of development over the past 10 years is astonishing.
Good commentary MS
And their sheer quantity means the Chinese Navy can be in more places than ours.
The arrogance and hubris is shocking.
Yes. That sort of hubris saw the RN and its support fleet lose 6 important vessels in Falkland’s war against a 3rd rate power
A third rate power using the same or in some cases superior kit, while we were thousands of miles from home. Not quite the same thing, is it?
I’m not saying the Russians should be entirely written off, and I’m definitely not saying that about the Chinese. However, the Russians have failed to conquer a far smaller neighbour on their literal doorstep while their fleet rusts or burns. Their hypersonic wunderwaffen have been stopped by conventional defences. They’re a moderate threat at best and a complete paper tiger at worst
Never underestimate an Enemy Peter 🤔
Honestly what are our government drinking ,there is a war going on in Europe China flexing there military muscle .I am lost for words 😷
Bought and paid for to a man. “Our” political class do not see themselves and are not “in this together” with the rest of us. They have more loyalty to their Chinese and Saudi assets and accounts than to their constituents.
Won’t argue with that 👍
Sadly history repeats. The UK has a long established habit of running it’s military down so much that it looses all deterent effect.
This is why Argentina felt able to invade the Falklands in the 80s, this is why Germany felt able to invade poland in the 30s. Even if that wasn’t the case, it made reversing these setbacks far more costly than they needed to be.
It’s particularly sad to see the senior service reduced to so few main ships. Reality is when you only spend 2% gdp there’s just not enough money. During the cold war Britain spent at least 5% gdpon defence, given that we are entering a new cold war I think the government needs to resume that sort of level of spending.
Yes, 19 is too low, if serious conflict breaks out, then Number 10 will make decisions which will endanger the Carriers.
More to with politics. Tories have funded T32 concept phase but the decision to build will be with Labour so Tories can state Labour cut the T32 program. However its just as likely T32 would be cut if the Tories won.
Remember that Labour will be desperate to win more seats in Scotland at the on-coming G.E.
No reduction, the minister was responding to Lord West’s question of will the MoD keep to a minimum of 19 escorts which was agreed in 2010. He should of asked if that number will be increased on out come of Type 32 frigate concept process completion.
Fair point Meirion,
However, politicians usually big up what they are planning if they think it paints them in a good light. So the fact that the previously trumpetted increase to 24 was not mentioned is, I think, significant.
Cheers CR
‘Agreements’ made as long ago as 2010 will not stand today. The PM said, during that decade, that the army would never go below 82,000.
With you CR, Especially when they could take advantage of the lower production costs of the current, T26/T31’s. Seems like a lack of sense and missing an opportunity here. We know that they’ve got to spend on other everyday and new things too but T32, T83 and new subs are still a way off.
Hi Quentin,
The decline in fleet numbers has driven up unit costs across all the services. The RN is just at the tipping point where numbers are having a downward influence of costs, specially with the export / overseas orders (much of the ships will be built locally) helping to spread the cost. So it seems totally stupid to throw away the oportunty to grow the fleet as there is a real geopolitical justification as well. There is even some cross party concensus given the recent reports from the Defence Committee.
This could also kick a big hole in the National Shipping Strategy…
All very disappointing if it comes to pass.
Cheers CR
A statement that was ‘fitted for but not with’ any clarity .
What she didn’t say makes things extremely clear.
Then there’s the little problem of crewing these vessels or does Parliament think that by cutting service personnel the Box of reservists will suffice for any future operations
Yes not mentioning the 5 type 32 and escort fleet moving to 24 after being asked if 19 is a realistic and sufficient is very telling.
An alternative interpretation of the answer is that there is still a commitment to 5xType 32 but that they are not ‘escorts’. 🧐
type 32 programme reclassified as patrol boat programme of around 2000 tonnes…..I could see that happen…
Didn’t the Italians do a similar wheeze?
But the PPA Full+ is 6000t and have Aster 30. And all “light” 5000t versions will be updated to Full.
So is that like fitting Mk41 to a cheap patrol frigate 🙂
ordering a 6000ton patrol frigate ( yes there are so many 6000 ton Patrol frigates…it’s like standard size for a light patrol frigate don’t you know 🤔🤔🤔) and then accidentally giving it MK41 silos, CAMM, strike capability as well as one of the best gun configurations of any escort……
Yes indeed. That’s why 1SL is in post and we are blogging 🙂
Almost 😀 , but they had planar radars from start, even dual band antennas in Full+ version.
But one thing Italians often do is if the ship has a civil protection function – energy supply to land, medical and engineering facilities it will be paid also by the Civil Ministry etc.
The Italians are clever at ‘playing the game ‘. ..the political game; justifying the funding for a civil defence patrol ship and designing a full fat frigate. Good for them
By the time HMS Glasgow achieves FOC with the RN the Marina Militare will also have 19 Surface Escorts,2 x Orrizonte DDG ( MLU completed ) 10 x FREMM ( 4 ASW,6 GP ) and 7 PPA,a more comfortable position than the RN i’d suggest.
Yes, likely that’s the reason for the Type 32 ; another 5 hulls for the RN. Be interesting to see what roles it is designed for. So far I don’t detect the RN going in the same ‘multi-purpose’ direction as the PPA.
I doubt this government will axe Type 32 in its remaining time, my guess is that it won’t be a frigate as is advertised, it will be a multirole something something as seems to be the trend at the moment. Taken to logical conclusion we’ll have 1 ship that’s a frigate, destroyer, aircraft carrier and minehunter all at the same time.
Tend to agree. No votes in it either way. The Tories have chosen the issues they want to fight on: cancel HS2 and buy votes with tax cuts; paint the libdems and labour as secret eu remainers and their focus on environment as an attack on war on the motorist – aka your freedom and last but by no means least Suella Braverman is in the US giving speeches arguing that our immigration problem is all the fault of the UN refugee charter which defines being gay as a legitimate reason for being a refugee from persecution. Shameless appeal to homophobia. The election campaign is underway…
Yes it’s a pretty shitty looking set of campaign pillars, really is time for them to just pop off for 10-15 years I would say, really look at themselves in the mirror…make a let’s go far right with Braverman mistake and come back with a more one nation Tory leadership in time to rescue the nation from a Labour party that’s gone tonto after 3 terms and so the cycle begins again..
It’s a point for debate; polarisation and confrontation are baked into our politics and attitudes. Its possible the experience of covid, Brexit, Ukraine, immigration and the plateau / fall in living standards, generation rent / NHS waiting lists etc has sobered us up. We will see come the election. Couldn’t help a smile this morning when I read in the DT that Suella has said that British values will not survive immigration. I’ve got news for her..they are already gone…to be replaced by better ones. An anecdote: yesterday a priest born in Manila had a cataract operation on the NHS. The surgeon was Chinese, the nurses were Filipinos and the cleaners were from Kerala. 🙂
With the current bunch of muppets in Sunak’s goverment, suprised she didnt say the Army’ fleet of frigates and destroyers. The MOD are probably still trying to explain to Shapps whats small and whats far away.
Baroness Goldie is not a Sunak muppet, rather she’s the longest-serving Minister currently in UK Defence, coming in with Boris in 2019 ahead of Heappey later the same year.
Let me add: I know she works quietly seeming not to do very much. No fuss, no drama. That could mean she’s really good at her job, or it could mean she doesn’t do very much. I’m absolutely willing to give her the benefit of any doubt. Here’s a public quote as to why:
“You can’t have a sort-of defence. You either have it, designed to work, to deter, to deliver on the business of seeing off illegal aggression, in dealing with self-defence, or you have nothing at all. There is nothing in between.”
How can you not like that?
This is what happens when Shapps is the Defence secretary
Yep holding is ground already 😕
I doubt 24 is enough for a worldwide navy. But yes the statement is the first salvo in cuts by Mr Hunt. If tempest survives I will be pleasantly surprised !
We’re not going to be a world wide navy Labour will win the next election and they have made it clear Europe and North Atlantic are where we’ll focus.
Even worse, if in coalition with the Lib-dems, the price will be to rejoin the EU on much more worse terms than before we left!
Global Britain…. more like Small Britain…
Why the hell the incumbent government can’t just get the T31B2 or T32 happening sooner and get the RN out of the “less than 20 box”! You want the 🇬🇧 to be global, have influence and presence, having the extra available ships to be that, visit ports, fly the flag, support the international rules system and humane missions, and importantly support all our allies, will all definitely help!
Quentin, “Global Britain” is about trade, diplomacy, and defence engagement mate. Not sheer size of a military. We have been “Global Britain” for centuries with the empire, and post empire world links.
Our “Global Britain” military presence now is no different to that of the last 30 years beyond occasional CSG deployments to the Far East.
The “Tilt to the Pacific” that detractors love to bash is about trade.
If you think we are “Small Britain” with one of the worlds biggest economies, a nuclear power, P5 status, G7 status, 5 Eyes status, with a world financial centre, top universities and a whole list of other things that put this country on the map that I cannot be bothered to list, I’ll have some of what you’re drinking!
“Small Britain” is not AUKUS, or getting Japan to join GCAP, a absolutely HISTORICAL event as they always go American.
“Small Britain” is the language of Jeremy Corbyn, he actually used the word in an interview.
“Small Britain” may well be coming soon when Labour get in and concentrate on Europe, leaving others to counter the rise of Iran and China, withdraw the Rivers from defence diplomacy and presence tasks, ignore the worlds trade artery through the Indian Ocean and Gulf, get rid of the LRG concept, and basically withdraw the UK up its own arse as we are “small” and it is best to liaise with “Europe” IKA the EU. Although we have NATO for that so that language is a smokescreen.
Watch this space.
And I’ll add the land domain to that last paragraph. How does this stated plan by Labour impact the British Army’s Hunt Forward operations in the Cyber domain, and the Rangers operations deploying to other countries to counter China and Russia in the Grey Zone?
I doubt Healey even knows himself.
Evening Daniele, thank you for your good posts as always. I think you might have got me a bit wrong. My “Small Britain” comment was being sarcastic and even with a little tongue in cheek nod to the “Little Britain” tv show. Maybe the serious-humour doesn’t mix well. I will try and give the best reply I can. I am not particularly political one way or the other but on all the posts here I do pick-up both a general sense that the incumbent government is not doing enough and the opposition would do even less for defence and there’s vice versa in some areas. Maybe this is simplistic but it’s up to the people to keep the and any government honest and say so. Don’t vote for the buggers you don’t want in. And if the majority do, well you have to make the best of it. Hopefully those when in opposition learn to be better and even make the incumbent better and kept accountable. I think here in Aus the current Federal Labor are exactly doing that to the Liberal/National opposition, it’s quite a nice surprise and refreshing. I know absolutely nothing about UK politics so it’s best I say nothing here other than you hope there’re some decent people in parliament for the right reasons and have a real sense of service to their country and people. Something they could learn from the military.
I’m also not a neo-colonialist and appreciate that the UK’s strength and place in the world is not just the size of its armed forces. But you do need a certain size to have strength and capacity to do and hard power behind the soft power, and you’re way more knowledgeable on this as are others than me, and none of us here want to see anyone in government whittle this sense of place (and purpose) both historical and earnt down through laziness, incompetence or carelessness. I and we all hope that Britain remains “big” on the world stage as an economic, social, political and military force for good and decency and contributes to maintaining international order. Sorry that this has been a general kind of reply, it’s just what came out. I may have to do an additional post on more specific things later.
Afternoon Quentin.
Indeed, no worries mate.
Great reply.
👍👍
Is Labour going to cut the Navy? How do you know?
Second that 👍
We made do with 19 for our worldwide navy for a very long time! But 16 is too few.
As usual, after a cut, the new low becomes the benchmark for new builds to reach.
I hope the lack of T32 is just an oversight on her part.
On Lord West, always rich of him to go on about hull numbers considering what he cleared under his own watch.
Banjo West was my old skipper Daniele unfortunately he fell into the Post Cold war trap of we won let’s rest on our laurels and bye the way do we really need this many ships and personnel against the likes of Yeltsin ,and China was a sideline we still held Hong Kong bet he now wishes that he had got a degree in Hindsight
There Speak out once they leave the service ,although no doubt he was a good Skipper enjoyed reading is book Through fire and water some years ago when he was captain of HMS Ardent 👍 🇬🇧
Thanks Andrew, we were slighty worried when he took command as he had gone from a ton class sweeper, to the Ardent stepping up so too speak as our Ship Bristol was the biggest Destroyer but he was a fair captain and we got some good jollies whilst he served as skipper
I would think it’s an oversight. MPs are not known for being useful on defence matters.
Basically the U.K. will try to keep the same number of escorts that was decided when the last cut happened. Meanwhile the rest of the fleet gets smaller and smaller.
Never learn 🙄
T32 is concept phase only. To be honest 19 is too many for the North Atlantic and North Sea and we don’t need carriers as most of that can be covered by land based aircraft, which again means 19 is to many especially when the rivers are brought home. Our shift to home water under the next government will not be good for the RN imo.
Well, the RN is finished if that happens. I hope we’re wrong.
Personally I can’t see Labour ditching the carriers given the fact that they are new and a great deal of money has/is being spent on them. It would send completely the wrong signal. Maybe rotated in service as Albion and Bulwark currently are and deployed mainly in the North Atlantic? 19 destoyers and frigates isn’t really overkill for European waters and the North Atlantic but on the other hand we are unlikely to see more than that.
If they want to reduce numbers one way would be to retire a couple of T45s early and then prune back the T83 build to 3/4 ships. Overall though I agree with your sentiments. The next government, which is likely to be in power for ~10 years, is probably going to row back on a globally deployed RN so a difficult decade lies ahead. But the crunch will come with T83 and MRSS I think, not the frigates.
As if we haven’t has a difficult 2 decades already, before flipping Labour come in and enact their fantasies.
Labour created the QE-carrier programme.
Of course our navy doesn’t just ‘do’ the North Sea and the North (or is it East) Atlantic. It is a global navy. I haven’t heard Labour plans to shift to home water only – they don’t usually reveal their manifesto until a month before a General Election.
Anyone who still subscribes to ‘the rule of three’ would say that the 19 (but we only have 16 now) means we can deploy 6 escorts.
I think she said 19, because we definitely will have 19 with T45 in service and 13 T26/T31 on order. T32 hasn’t been ordered yet. Hopefully it will come through. 👍
Greetings D. I am concerned how this will play out under a Labour government. Given past history, I cant see them being enthusiastic about the type 32 frigate. I do however hope that I am wrong.
I think the other elephant in the room is the F35. The really do need to start scaling up the acquisition programme. Particularly relevant with the pending retirement of the Tranche 1 Typhoons.
Hi DM
A request on my post here re F35 acquisition. Is the delay a result of the block 4 update? Odd they don’t lock in the the order now for future delivery (74 ish is the planned number). Any insight appreciated,
I think it’s a mix of waiting for LM and Block IV, and for costs to come down before making the 2nd order. Which allows them to kick the can down the road for Labour too.
Meanwhile, infrastructure delays and slow rate of training are also impacting things.
The Carrier capability lack of F35 does not bother me like many others, because it’s a complex thing and it takes a long time to regenerate. And it is doing so, too slow for most here I know.
What is my concern is that Tornado was cut, Typhoon T1 going with them, and the F35s have to do the land Strike role too and that will impact available planes where F35 was meant to be the capability that replaces Harrier, Sea Harrier.
thanks for the insights Daniele much appreciated. Spot on re your ponit on the Tornado cuts and now Typhoon!
24 extra F-35b’s does Not provide two full new squadrons. It leaves out stand-by reseve and war-time reseve. It requires an additional 10 airframes on the basis of what
No. 617 Squ. has, 17 F-35b’s allocated as listed to it.
thanks Meirion. I believe there is a RN F35 sqn due to stand up this year? I can’t see more than a total of 3 operational sqns being practical (plus ocu) on those numbers.
👍
Grant Shapps is a non military,career politician.Defence is very expensive and UK defence procurement is a joke.Odds on Radakin has given up the 32s to get MK 41VLS for the 31s and money to keep both carriers at sea.And let the politicians dodge the tricky questions!!
Lord West has a short memory. During his time as head of the Navy he savagely cut the Hull numbers and the planned future builds. From memory he was key to implementation of a white paper cutting three frigates four, destroyers, four SSN and six mine sweepers. As well as future builds. He did not fight that because he was a yes man.
His message to the RN the navy was it’s not about Hull numbers.
Not a yes man but absolutely committed to the carrier programme above everything else.
Why would Adm West as the head of the navy want to cut in-service hulls and future builds?
In my experience it is politicians and the Treasury that force cuts.
Service chiefs generally then have to ‘make the best of a bad job’.
The first person to talk about cutting sunset/legacy assets was Ben Wallace – he meant tank numbers amongst other things:
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/12/11/british-defense-secretary-says-tough-choices-are-coming-due-on-spending/
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-50864917
Yes they are political decisions. Not one service chief that I can recall has resigned on a point of principle over cuts. By that stage of their career they already have a handsome pension. They have no conviction or principles. West is typical of the bunch ex service chiefs speaking their mind after the fact. He is guiltyof the worst hypocrisy when he speaks of cuts now. The time to speak was when he was first sea lord. If you look at his Wikipedia entry click on his First sea lord paragraph. You will see his message to the RN at the time and the cuts he willingly oversaw. He sings a completely different tune.
I have said it many times, it was true in my day and true today. The greasy pole is all senior officers are intrested in and seeing how high up they can go. They do nothing in terms of legacy.
If the three service chiefs resigned in protest at politically imposed cuts then there would be three resignations per decade or even three per Parliamentary term of 5 years – and the cuts would still happen.
Gen Sanders went a long way in protesting at army cuts.
I think service chiefs should clearly inform ministers about the impact that their cuts will make (I am sure they do) – meaning what military operations we could do and what we could not do – and in the clearest possible terms.
the order for T32 or batch 2 of T31 needs to be placed soon or Babcock’s investment in their new facility starts looking like a poor decision
the facility they have built needs to have a steady drumbeat
I would like to see Govan build 15 T26/83 + 10 corvettes/OPVs every 25 years with Babcock building 10 T31 + 15 corvettes/OPVs every 25 years
this is 50 ships which could be the backbone of the RN – not a crazy number given hunt, T23, T45, Sandown, Echo, River classes will all come to their end of life during this period. Theres an opportunity to rebalance the fleet, create a drumbeat and get some value for money whilst we are at it
Each yard delivering a ship annually should be the target.
HW/CL delivering a large vessel every 18 months would also be good.
An 85 ship navy is the minimum imo.
Babcock Rosyth shall just apply for MRSS, MHC-LSV, and Point-Replacements.
They should go to HW/CL if we have a proper strategy
50 combatants and 25 large support /amphibious vessels (of varying types) + 2 carriers
Add in all the enablers (atlas, CB90, Rhibs etc) and we have a plan
Type 32 was never going to happen, I’ll be amazed if we get the full amount of Type 26 & 31 despite what they say.
Type 32 always going to happen, but might be in 2050 or 2060…
I’d be amazed if we don’t get all the T31s and T26s. They have signed contracts for both and if the MoD have their heads screwed on, both should be more expensive to get out of than to complete.
I will give the Baroness the benefit of the doubt on her answer – for now. Mistakes can be made and we have seen nothing to date to indicate that the Type 32 has been cancelled.
Let’s wait and see.
Agreed.
19 Good Lord ,Remember seeing MR Hunt in an interview when he was going for PM few year ago one thing he did say was we need a bigger navy .I wonder what is Farther thinks as he was X RN Capitan
He was an admiral and by all accounts quite a decent one. He must be a bit miffed about how his son has turned out.
I think we’re all miffed at that!
Part of the problem here is that the announcement of T32 appears to have been little more than a stream of consciousness from Bojo on the eve of the QE carrier group world trip. Nobody had heard of the class prior to then. We’ve all seen what has happened in the past when his fantasy announcements meet economic reality.
Just keep building T31, B2, B3, B4 , etc.
Indeed. The RN repeatedly stated that 19 destroyers and frigates was the minimum total to cover all anticipated roles. There was no serious public debate prior to Bojo’ s seemingly off the cuff announcement of type 32. The fact that nobody, including the RN leadership has yet defined what the type 32 should be, suggests they were rather taken by surprise.
I am not overly concerned by this news( or non news). The RN is still having recruitment and retention problems and would struggle to crew 5 more major surface warships. It is more important to get back to a fleet of 19 as soon as possible and equip them as well as money will allow.
Not just that, but also at the same event he was seen asking attending Naval brass ” Is that a t32 over there? ” pointing at a moored RN warship, as if the class was built and in service. No wonder a government backbench MP asked if the RN surface fleet is being converted to nuclear power or Shapps’ assertion about RAF carriers. None of them know anything.
Agree- we don’t need a new frigate class or number- just keep going with serial batch construction of type 31s like the Chinese have done with their type 54A.
You build them- run them for 10 years then sell them onto a friendly allied state- not Brazil as they are in Putin’s pockets for near full price, wash and repeat.
I think the Bolsonaro government was anomolous and any Brazilian allegiance to Russia will have been dropped with the return of Lula. Brazil were out of step with Russia and China in the Joburg BRICS summit, and even though Putin will hold the Presidency next year, I can’t see him persuading Brazil (or South Africa for that matter) to go anti-Western. India will do what’s in India’s best interest, and militarily that’s not moving in a Russian direction and certainly not Chinese.
You need get better informed. .
Lula is a much stronger supporter of Putin since he is a Marxist by formation and still sees Russia a bit as if it will rise as Soviet Union again. He recently told that if Putin will go to Brazil for G20 he will not be detained. At same time abusing his own power over the supposed independent judiciary and forgetting that Brasil signed the ICC.
“Putin can go to Brazil peacefully. Trying to arrest him is disrespecting Brazil”
He had to backpedal or even risk an impeachment, but shows where he is.
Okay. I’ve been reading up, and I was wrong. I still don’t think Brazil is in Russia’s pocket, but there are strong ties to Russia that are staying.
When we next get in a major war i would love it if the politicians and their children were the 1st sent to the front lines. As that will never happen this eternal lack of prioritizing our collective defence will continue indefinitely. They have no skin in the game.
Now we are planning to expand the SSN fleet, alongside our Antipodean cousins, expanding our surface escort force is out of the question.
The future (based on current funding) seems to be Nuclear deterrent, SSN’s and Carrier Strike.
I expect RM capability to be further watered down, negating the need to replace RN amphibious shipping, with a reliance on RFA shipping and small unit warfare…
Possibly a reduction in size to 5,000 odd….
All rather depressing really….
You may well be right but is it depressing? If ( it’s a big if) the SSN fleet were increased to say 12 at the expense of the yet to be designed T32, that would greatly increase our ability to neutralize both surface and sub surface threats.
If that’s what went, 5 GP frigates chopped in favour of 5 SSNs, first I’d laugh myself silly and hoist a toast to whoever swung that one. All five of those frigates wouldn’t pay for a single submarine.
Then I’d stop and have a think. The problem is that when the cuts precede the purchase, all too often the cuts happen and procurement doesn’t. Look at the cuts to the Type 45s as a prime example. Given that Rosyth might go if there are no further purchases, I’d say order the Type 32s and let the subs take care of themselves some fifteen years later. The two are not sufficiently linked.
Money is already being committed to expand Barrow for Aukus. An increase in SSN numbers is almost certain though by how many, who knows? No one has a clear idea what a Type 32 might look like or cost so comparisons of future costs are impossible. If we could get an extra 3 boats at the price of sticking to 19 surface warships, I think it would be worth it. Other than Aukus, we are not going to build SSNs for export. But Rosyth might get overseas orders for Type 31 to help sustain it.
I still maintain that the Type 32 was a mere slip of the tongue on Boris’s part that he never corrected.
The RN jumped on it and BJ still never corrected it.
There has never been funding.
There has never been a design.
Allusions have been made to possible uses, but nothing concrete has ever been produced.
Much speculation on autonomous mine hunters to mother ships to modified or upgraded Type 31 ships.
The next Government might expose the truth, or it might just cancel a non funded project …..
The Concept Review is still in process for the Type 32 frigate, and it will be completed next year.
The need for a Type 32 new design frigate, or a bach 2 T31, will depend on outcome of Concept Review.
People on here, can huff and puff all they like, but that will not change anything in the MoD!
I think the T32 will be the C3 vessel to complement the T26/T31
Though I would be happy to see more T31 added to the fleet, I suspect the T32 will be a smaller vessel (maybe 115-125m & c. 2800-3000t), built to low-end military spec, probably based on an existing OPV design, reconfigurable via PODs and suitable as a “convoy escort”.
The ship itself will be pretty cheap (maybe half the T31), with the main expense going into the PODS
It has been mentioned that the proposed T32’s role is to do with launching of LXUSV/USV’s.
I doubt anything smaller than a Arrowhead could do this role.
The stern deck is nearly 30m, so most likely USV’s/LXUSV’s stored underneath stern deck in a section of floodable space, leaving and entering though a stern door.
I am being cynical but if the government wants to increase it’s vote share it needs to order five more T31’s now. The contract can be signed and it won’t cost this government a penny. Then Labour have the problem of cancelling it. If we wait for the T32 I very much doubt if we’ll ever see them.
Normally the Torys are in power when the public vote for tax cuts, law and order and defence as their priorities. Labour are in power when the public vote for education, health and job creation as their priorities (What they get can vary dramatically in either case).
We have had 8yrs of ‘pure’ Tory rule during which taxes for the rich have stayed low, taxes generally have crept upwards, police numbers down, prison places down, numbers in military down. I think the Tory’s real priorities are there for all to see.
Now you suggest that on the cusp of an election where change is expected they should try to sign contracts committing the next government to ignore its manifesto to spend more on defence than the Tory’s have chosen to?
I hope it is a safe assumption that a court would strike such contracts down as illegitimate while the Police investigate all involved for possible treason charges.
I very much doubt that it is treasonable to order warships in order to defend your country and contracts are contracts so that would be a Labour problem. I’m more interested in getting the ships built. When it comes to defence expenditure, as I have said many times, we have had twenty five years of indifference by all three parties, don’t forget a Liberal influence in coalition. Expenditure hit a low in 2001 at £41 billion then rose to £51 billion in 2010. It was then cut to £44 billion in 2016 before rising to £55 billion this year and is due to rise by another £5/6 billion over the next two years. So the real difference between the parties? Virtually nothing.
The treasonous conspiracy would be to force the following government to ignore the election and do for the Tory’s something they had chosen not too.
It would be on a moral par with lying to parliament to get a ‘non-binding referendum’ ie. an opinion poll, approved. Then treating it as binding for reasons of corrupt party interest ie. keeping their loony fascist voting base together, even when everyone knows it was not the wish of the majority.
As this government did one it may try the other. I hope Starmer has the balls to stand up to it and go after everyone involved rather than collaborate like Corbin.
Presumably then it was treasonous for Gordon Brown to commit the incoming Tory government to build the carriers? As for “loony fascist voting base” I think, like treason, a touch of unreality is creeping into this conversation so I think I will now stay out of it.
Here we go , the T32,s will be quietly dropped and shipbuilding will be in the doldrums again . Don’t these idiots learn anything , the T23,s are on their last legs ,we can’t put enough escorts to sea to protect the carriers and do other work as it is and they want to tilt towards the Pacific as well . The surface fleet must be increased and a steady rolling production line kept in work
If they cut the retain numbers at 19 destroyers and frigates we can forget any tilt towards the pacific- the RN will be ham strung and quartered and only able to send a token force to support our allies should a war break out against China and president Xi/ Putin’s axis of evil.
We don’t have 19 escorts even now. 16.
That’s why CSG2024 has become CSG2025, to kick can down to the next incoming government!
Oh dear seems to me that the likely outcome, as anticipated, is the type 32 programme is quietly going to be scrapped. Nothing to see here, no we never gave the commitment to build the type 32, I can see Grant Crapps now standing in parliament stating those replies as if they are somehow fact.
HS2 has to be paid for somehow, especially as costs have ballooned and its going to costs north of £80 billion to build- even without joining up to a central London hub station in Euston or the north eastern spur to Leeds.
Seems like the UK cant deliver major infrastructure without an eye wateringly expensive bill. When’s the next election? we need a new government with a bit of vigour and determination.
What we see is the tory government going back on its promise for 24 frigates and destroyers another U turn we will never be a global force and this will leave our aircraft carriers unprotected, we can’t at this time have a full UK F35B we are having to have US f35b on the carriers to make it a force , reduction in every service no wonder we will need the US to come to our aid we,seeing the french with a smaller defence budget yet look at their airforce army navy all bigger than us while countries are spending we are our cutting it the money men who are ruining our defence , Our new defence screetary is proving to be a yes man ,yet now we have more civil service people than we have in our army well over100,000 pen pushers .
With respect, utter cobblers that ignores a whole mountain of variables, capabilities, commitments and geo strategic realities that vary between countries.
There are not 100,000 “pen pushers” and civil servants in the MoD undertake numerous roles behind office based procurement jobs.
The rest, I don’t even know where to start!
Reading the latest “Thin Pinstriped Line” article on the RN carrier capability and the its current point in its regeneration may help, as well as learning about Block 4 in the F35s build and integration of UK weaponry.
I honestly think we missed an opportunity with OPVs. 2000 tons of thin air under armed and would be a joke in a major conflict. Surely a hanger and missile system plus a decent 4.5 a bare minimum. Would be excellent fill ins for the Frigate fleet while we get numbers up to speed.
Do you think perhaps that just maybe, inbetween those commitments being made and now, the fact that they had to spend north of £300b on COVID support might have had an impact on their ability to meet those commitments?
Nothing has been said about T32 being cancelled. So a load of fuss about nothing. We have been at less than 19 escorts for sometime time now, and we still meeting commitments. 19 T45 ,T26,T31 is a big increase in overall capability from what we have today.
👍👍
Hello Robert. My worry is what a Labour government will do with the Type 32s programme. I can’t see it going well, but would be thrilled to be proven wrong.
Hi Klonkie. I wouldn’t really like to guess what Labour would do. I guess it depends on how bad they think the MOD’s finance’s are if they come into government. Labour aren’t traditionally big defence supporters. But a lot of labour votes live in industrial towns that support defence industry’s. I guess if they think T32 is essential to UK defence needs then it will go ahead. Or they might prioritise some else like SSN’s or Tempest ect.
Thanks Robert, you do present a balanced point of view. Lets hope common sense prevails.
I just try to be realistic mate. Politics is a funny old game. When we have general elections, defence isn’t a subject that is high on the priority list. The political party’s know most voters want to hear about NHS, social care, education and fighting crime spending, rather than discussing how many escorts the RN has in service ect. 👍
All the comment is informed; have I missed the poster who has stated we are probably down to 16 at the moment, two by design.
With 26s being built into the ’30s, but, T23s falling like skittles, I doubt we’ll get back to 19 for a long time.
Just wait for the SNP to go nuts ! If it’s only 19 then you can kiss Rosyth goodbye as a 2nd tier Frigate builder.
On the others hand if it was only 19 but the SSN(R) numbers went up to 10 I’d be a happy bunny.
Or the brief she was given was poor, or she lost her place in her notes, or because she only wanted to talk about things that are 100% nailed on. I don’t think it spells trouble.
Agree. That will be for Labour to cancel.
Definitely. You can see it being sacrificed for growth in Army numbers, or something on their side of the fence.
…Confirms Plans for 19…
We need 24
I guess we can forget about the Type 83 destroyers then 😞 🇬🇧
Those are well into the future.
Doubt that. T45s will be too old soon & have to be replaced. Hence the T83 project. May be late 2030s or even 2040s before they get built but they will be needed.
19 is too few, demonstrated starkley in recent years, even in peace time. We don’t even have 19 now, 16 operational or in refit, plus we’re facing acute dangers & threats both worldwide & here with a European war. PLAN growing at eyewatering pace. Russia & PLA constantly probing us for weaknesses.
I think the reality is we can’t afford to be underarmed for peacetime, let alone when major agressors are seeking expansion & to destroy democratic freedoms. They aren’t deterred by forces seeking ever deeper defence cuts; Putin wasn’t & Xi feels very confident.
Enjoy your freedoms while they last.
Pie in the sky again, where is the money coming from there cutting defence budgets.
It is time we stopped playing at being a 1st level military power. We have not been this since the end of WW1. We are at most a regional power along with several others Russia, France, Germany. As such if we concentrate power in our region then 19 escorts is more than sufficient.
To add fuel to the fire see the PM has give permission for Drilling off the Shetland islands ,and we don’t need more Escorts 🙄 .However Labour could revise this I suppose .😕
The new drilling well of only about 100m tons of oil is small compared to the original wells which have produced a few billion tons. Nobody seems to be criticising the middle-eastern producers, pumping billions of tons of oil!
Not criticising the amount of oil been pump ,and yes it is small compared to the middle East ,what I am saying is now there going a head with it having more Escorts would be helpful for the RN to to keep an eye on theses platforms has part of the UK security .🍺
So the minimum remains at 19 and the maximum is likely to be 24. Type 32 is yet to be confirmed so the minister’s statement is correct.
The T32 has been cancelled and the government is lying through its teeth.
Misinformation, the concept phase is still in process, reporting next year.
.
👍
These vessels won’t be built soon, the RN is looking ahead a decades time.
I think as an island the Navy should you would think would be a major priority but consistently Tory governments have tried to reduce the size of the navy , Thatcher was trying to sell and scrap our carriers before the Falklands , another Tory PM wanted to not have any and to borrow from the French , definitely a low point , at their conference the Tories praise Churchill but I think the old first sea Lord would be turning in his grave about some of the decisions that are or have been made.
To have an operstional fleet of 19 at any one time you’d need an actual fleet of about 30 minimum.
The chances of getting a windfall of new frigates, T32 or whatever, are approximately zero.
The RN procurement budget is already at full stretch with T26 and T31 both coming on stream from 2026 onwards. This Goverment has not commissioned ONE new escort for ten years, now it (or its successor) has to fund 13 over a 10-year period. The idea that we could at the same fund a further 5 T32s or more T31s is for the birds.
There is no gap in the budget cycle.to fit in more escorts, as the T83 is the next cab off the rank. The first of class really needs to be commissioned in 2034 to replace Daring, which will then be 25 years old. It will need a drumbeat of one T83 a year thereafter if we are to replace the T45s in a timely way and not get in a T23 situation of trying to operate clapped out 30+ year old ships.
No doubt the RN is hoping for a special injection of more cash to square the circle. But in the unlikely event that HMG coughs up some extra dosh, first in the queue has to be the RAF, followed closely by the army. Both have been treated very poorly by the current shower, while the RN has been able to play the Make Britain Great Again card to get first dibs at the trough.
As a result, the RN is in a reasonably healthy position equipment-wise. The RAF and Army are not and need the urgent injection of additional funding.
The two things everyone seems to forget
1. It doesn’t matter how many hulls you have if you don’t have the manpower, never mind suitable qualified and experienced personnel (SQEP) to run them.
2. With an ever dwindling Royal Fleet Auxiliary to support the current fleet once they’ve been to sea for a week who is going to provide fuel, food , ammo & spare parts to them. Its not like there is an ASDA on every coast!
When the T32 was first mentioned, I thought Boozo had made one of his “mis-speaks”, a mistake when he meant T31. I doubt whether it is, was, or ever will be a real project.
Type 32 was always just a Boris Johnson unicorn that even the navy did not know about. Tis an illusion to think that the fleet will grow to 24 escorts, not on current economic prospects. 19 it is. Aukus, for what that is worth, might grow the submarine fleet beyond 7 SSNs, but that is so far away as to be another unicorn. UUVs and diesel electric subs are the way to grow usable numbers, for home waters defence, freeing the nuke attack types for global missions. The admirals will probably prefer to just get more SSNs.
No formal requirement for T32 has been issued as far as I’m aware- it is at an early concept stage. The Minister is on fairly safe ground reporting on T26 and 31 because that requirement has been nailed down along with a delivery timeline. She isn’t in a position to make any specific commitments around T32 on her own authority at this point.
Boris’ firm statement of intent that we would have 24 escorts bit the dust quickly.
Just don’t get this 19 frigates and destroyers thing , there’s no strategic or even financial rational – it’s just the number we were left with after we prematurely retired the Batch 3 Type 22.
True – its just a number and beancounters like numbers. But there should be some RN rationale for how many frigates and destroyers they need. Years ago, the Navy articulated an operational need for 12 Type 45 destroyers – beancounters cut this to 8 then 6. There must be a RN logic for frigate numbers required – but I have not seen it articulated – however to the layman on naval matters, such as myself, then 13 frigates sounds insufficient (now down to 10) to support a CSG and do all the other tasks that frigates do in isolation.
If the rule of three still has meaning then those 10 ships is really just 3 that can be tasked afresh.
I understand that labour has already said that they would not reduce the army numbers also these and have said that we need a build up in defence we seen our navy cuts to the bone by the tories now we have a problem that our frigates are being worn out before their time the trouble we have is the money men in government this we i am sure will come back and bite us hard , we are seeing that we are having to have US support all the time like on the our carriers as we are short at this moment in time , ,A lot to be said when cameron got shot off the harriers after they had a update to take to 2030s service , yet they are still in service all over the word even the US still have them .
US support on the carriers. Do you mean that we periodically embark USMC F-35Bs to ‘make up the numbers’? The carrier programme (a UK national programme) and the F-35 programme (US-led, multinational) are totally different programmes on different timelines – LM has not built all of our F-35 order and has not built them very quickly. It does not mean that we have underfunded F-35s.
A 24 vessel DD/FF Fleet is highly desirable from a force protection and geopolitical perspective but the unmentioned elephant in the room is the inability of the RN to full crew the ships it already has?