In response to a query regarding potential increases in the Royal Navy fleet, Minister of State for Defence, Maria Eagle, has indicated that the future size and composition of the fleet will be determined by the forthcoming Strategic Defence Review.

This review is expected to outline the roles, capabilities, and necessary reforms for UK Defence to effectively address the challenges of the twenty-first century.

Eagle confirmed that the review will take into account the available resources as the UK aims for a defence spending trajectory of 2.5% of GDP. She stated that the review is “deliverable and affordable within the resources available to Defence.”

Heres what was said in full.

“The Strategic Defence Review will determine the roles, capabilities and reforms required by UK Defence, including the Royal Navy, to meet the challenges, threats and opportunities of the twenty-first century, deliverable and affordable within the resources available to Defence within the trajectory to 2.5%. The review will report in the first half of 2025.”

The Royal Navy has managed to enhance the availability of its frigates and destroyers despite concerns over crewing and the reduction in overall numbers. Currently, approximately 47% of the Royal Navy’s escort vessels, comprising Type 45 Destroyers and Type 23 Frigates, are active or immediately deployable.

This figure reflects the rigorous demands of maintaining a modern, technologically advanced fleet while managing crewing challenges.

The information comes from a dataset created by an Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) expert who monitors Royal Navy fleet activity.

In terms of specific classes, there are six Type 45 Destroyers, with only two currently active. HMS Dauntless is conducting trials, while HMS Duncan is deployed in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Type 23 Frigates show a slightly better availability rate, with five out of nine vessels currently active. HMS Lancaster is deployed in the Persian Gulf, while HMS Iron Duke and HMS Somerset are operating in the Channel.

Notably, the availability of Type 45 Destroyers has increased by 17%, while the Type 23 Frigates have seen a rise of 26%. Earlier this year, many of these vessels were undergoing maintenance or refit. The recent improvement in operational availability suggests a shift towards more effective fleet management and possibly more efficient maintenance practices.

The overall trend within the Royal Navy indicates a strategic focus on maximising the utility of existing ships, ensuring a greater percentage are prepared for immediate deployment when needed.

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

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

82 COMMENTS

  1. The Navy is doing well with what they have with many new ship on the way. Of all the armed forces it seems fair the best with recent improvements which is great to see. Much new kit, weapon systems etc coming in to service.
    Not sure if overall ship numbers will go up or more will be useable. No navy has 100% or even 80% of ships working and ready to deploy.
    Delays in refits and repairs seems more down to lack of dry dock space then money.

    • They are doing well with what’s on order but every program has been delayed by years waiting funding leaving continuous capability gaps.

      SSBN held back for a decade
      frigates held back for a decade
      FSSS years late and units were paid off in 2015 that are desperately needed now.

      • You keep trying Jim so you won’t mind if I keep putting you rght. More cancellation, cuts, postponements and selling off under Blair/ Brown than under the Tories.😉 .pound to a penny we won’t see any new orders now for years, if at all.

  2. It is absurd to take so long to complete yet another defence review. What are you going to know next year that isn’t known now.
    All that is needed is a quick stocktake of existing approved programmes that will use all of the available funding for the next 10 years and decisions on as yet unapproved programmes included in the 10 year equipment budget.
    Could be concluded in a couple of weeks.

    • I suspect something like that has already happened as part of Ms Reeves’ review of the finances. The defence review is about providing the strategic and political framework for all UK security risks; the rationale for dropping or enhancing capabilities. Would another 4 Type 26 help if Russia was planning a biological attack? Am I the only person who noticed that in the run up to the election we saw failures in systems that manage on-line grocery delivery systems, airport flight systems and on-line banking? Co-incidence?

      • The UK’s needs to change it very laid back approach with all critical structure IT.
        I have seen comments from guys who run IT support firms that when they take on a new customer they usually find there new customers IT system is lacking critical software updates.
        I have come to conclusion they really should have to pass an IT MOT. This sounds heavy handed but experience seems to indicate it is necessary.
        Critical structure IT should include all Governments departments and local Government and quite a bit of the private sector to include supermarkets etc.

        Unfortunately they also need to stop the selling of mobiles etc which are no longer supported to help protect individuals – not sure that would happen.
        It certainly needs a big shake up and should be included in any defense review of capability.

        • Would it not be better to undertake a completely stand alone survey of our IT vulnerabilities? They affect far more than our traditional defence assets. The trouble with drawn out defence reviews is that they try to be all encompassing and end up, like the Integrated Review, producing very little of practical use.

          • You can be pretty robust with IT security in government, but trying to ensure a uniformly good standard among private enterprises (including the government’s supply chain), is pretty tricky. e.g. can make it a contractual requirement that a supplier to MOD meets certain cyber security standards, but what about their suppliers, or their supplier’s suppliers?

        • I’d agree with the proviso that, just like MOTs, the govt set the price on the cost of the test.

          IT seems be like, think of number add a couple of zeroes or more.

          I have to interact with several IT systems and have been told that it is too expensive to improve even what we have. Now, 2 systems are protected, one is subject to a new roleout, 1 is in the ownership of another Branch, BUT two are based on MS Access and are the most problematic, and it costs too much to automate my day time job?

          Crazy. Latvians and Czechs would have it figured in a couple of weeks and at a fraction of the cost.

          Oh, but security old boy, security. Taps nose.

          They ARE COTS databases, only we have access to any information that would in the future be stored on them…

          Hey Rachel, I’ve found you a cost saving which you can use to fund UK Armed Forces; early retirement? Don’t mind if I do.

  3. It is absurd to take so long to complete yet another defence review. What are you going to know next year that isn’t known now?
    All that is needed is a quick stocktake of existing approved programmes that will use all of the available funding for the next 10 years and decisions on as yet unapproved programmes included in the 10 year equipment budget.
    Could be concluded in a couple of weeks.

    • Totally Peter, they should be well rehearsed in all this review process by now. They should have a “sensible sense” of what is truly needed, and not just go with some easy dumb reduction option. T26 and T31 in build, why not take advantage of that and if they want the RN to be a sustainable global force why not decide now to bulk the fleet up a tad especially with a few more T31s and maybe an additional 1-2 T26s with greater MK41s and AAW ability? Anyway we have to leave all this it to the “experts” and see what eventuates and considering the way the world is going in places let’s hope it’s more plus than minus.

        • We’re already committed to building 8 Type 26, but I do agree with you about increasing the numbers of the Type 31s to 8. I’d go further actually, build 10 of them instead..

          • I meant it would be easy and good for our new government to re-commit to 8, seeing as they’ve confirmed that they’re doing a fleet size review.

            And whilst we’re at it, how about 4 (not 3) multi mission stores ships using the Tide class hull to replace the 2 Waves and 3 Forts lost/about to be lost.

          • The government knows we cannot cut back any further as in opposition they kept saying that very thing. If you are referring to the FSS ships, that is something that needs to urgently be addressed..

          • Unless the mythical Type 32 ends up being a radical departure from existing programs, I’d scrap the whole project and just funnel the funding into building more T31s, the money saved on design work and creating new production lines should help towards building more T31s or creating a batch 2 version with smaller improvement that don’t require major design changes.

          • Keep the drumbeat going steady. If that means building a batch 2 Type 31, perhaps incorporating some of the ideas for T32 then I’d go with it.

    • The time is taken in getting through the outcome showing need for more ships Vs the treasury saying how much and then the report be changed

    • And there are a lot of expensively carried out analyses modelling force requirements to counter threats within various plasuible conflict scenarios that exist in the archive, are recent enough to be still applicable, and could be obtained easily on request by the reviewers. The scenarios themselves haven’t really changed- except insofar as some of them have become much more likely.

    • Increase of course. Arrange the following in order of priority. Your time starts now.
      No solid support ships, not enough ASW frigates, not enough MCM and sub-sea infrastructure protection, not enough AAW….

        • Bit of a jaundiced view I think. I am more optimistic. Certainly we likely won’t see any fantasy fleets but I do think the size of the fleet will increase. Radiating outwards from Blighty I see major threats as sub sea infrastructure, submarines, sea supply lines (Singapore > Red Sea). That suggests T32 will happen and possibly more ASW T26 – perhaps even a batch 2 with better AAW capability, although you could argue T31 is a cheaper AAW platform. We need to continue a presence in the Gulf of Guinea and the South Atlantic. The $64000 question is what we do with the US and AUS about Chinese expansionism in the South China Sea. I think the US will want us to retain carrier strike capability and an expeditionary capability; so I see both FSS and MRSS happening. More assault helicopters….sacrifice the LPDs. So, Echo, Enterprise and batch 1 Rivers morph into T32. And Albion and Bulwark morph into 4 more frigates.

          • I agree with all your suggestions Paul, and I certainly hope you’re right. Maybe I’m just cynical from all the rumours in the press at the moment and the trajectory of defence spending over the past two decades

          • The way I see it, the USN is struggling to modernise and replace an aging fleet. I think they would appreciate a robust UK contribution in all theatres. We must complete T45 enhancements and both frigate build programs as soon as we can. Then build the additional hulls. I believe the govt. understands this and the debate will really just be about the minimum spend for the capability needed, urgency, industry strategy and jobs E.g. OTS, commercial vessels, foreign builds where necessary. Only subs, CVs, frigates and destroyers are expensive strategic circus acts. Much else could be bought on price and delivery.

          • Ok, I think the defence review will confirm we need 5 or 6 C3 MCM motherships and the MoD will fund them, probably as the highest priority new spend, and probably as an urgent commercial OTS build. Good enough? 🙂

          • Why is it everyone who suggests an increase in the Navy then falls for the MOD mantra of getting rid of existing ships before their replacements have even been designed let alone ordered or built. The LPDs are key vessels for the RN and the U.K. military and yet people seem very keen to scrap them way before we have any replacements. The MCM force has suffered a similar fate not because we have a fleet of autonomous vessels and motherships now coming into service that is well proven but because paying off ships early saves money and alleviates the navies main problem, which is a lack of people.
            We need an increase (a couple of thousand would be my guess) in personnel numbers for the Navy, RM and RFA combined to allow us to get all the fleet to sea then talk about more and future vessels.
            Forget the T32, 3-5 additional T31’s and 2 Type 26’s would be a great start, MCM motherships x 3-4 and a plan for 10-12 SSN’s.
            Beyond that another batch of Rivers will be required to replace the Batch 1s and then you need something bigger and more punchy to replace the P2000.
            Agree that the FSS and MRSS must also happen. The U.K. needs to be able to project amphibious and carrier air power whether that be across the globe or just the North Sea to support NATO.

          • So, I suspect the MoD mantra is just how the politics works. You have to prove you have some sort of plan for change.
            Agree that increase in crew numbers is essential first step. Also agree more frigates is highest priority and with mission bays and uuvs and usvs can do a lot. But I do think dedicated MCM ships are needed.
            I acknowledge I’m being less ambitious by assuming a smaller net increase in hulls and that something might have to give. I have said the LPDs. I see MRSS as a second converted MV Contender Bezant + 3 large Enforcers. These ships are working as LRG. Agree we keep both QEC. We will be able to assemble a substantial expeditionary capability as and when required. Interesting thinking on the P2000s. Good luck with the 12x SSNs. Cheers

    • It has increased from one ship to two ships….which is what you would expect with six ships…..if you deployed more you’d gagged uneven deployment numbers due to refits.

      So two surgable to four in crisis/war is real world.

      There will always be one that is totally dismantled in dry dock with months of work to put her back to sea.

  6. The interesting bit, because as yet there is no published trajectory to 2.5%, that would suggest to me that part of the defence review will include a firm up of that trajectory…

    ” available to Defence within the trajectory to 2.5%.”

    I may start a sweepstake..I’m going for 2030. As it’s the middle of next parliament and sort of tags along with the conservative pledge so they will not be able to make lots of hay…

    • If you don’t have an

      income curve
      Minus pensions curve
      Minus staff costs curve
      Minus infrastructure costs curve
      Etc

      You can’t calculate an affordable anything.

  7. In a time of increasing uncertainty and threats is it not time to protect the RN from any cuts? Our Navy enables the force projection of our other services. What message does it send (globally) when we cut yet again. Additionally, how does this encourage people to join up in the first place when sailors can’t get placements on ships and develop the experience to maintain the quality and professionalism we have come to expect. I understand the need to balance books etc but of we were in a hot war the gloves come off but then it’s too late.

  8. Quoting statistics, it’s easy to manipulate the perception…. To increase the availability percentage simply decommission several frigates waiting for overhaul…As if by magic the availability percentage increases…but the hull numbers decrease…. Take it to the extreme, and if the Royal Navy had one frigate or destroyer and it was deployed, we would have a 100% availability….

  9. A typical way they may spin it is point to the 13 Frigates planned, on order, or in build, and say it’s an increase from the 8? we have left, our of the 14 escorts remaining.
    Which technically it is.
    That the new minimum benchmark after the Torys cut the 4 T22B3s was 19, and that these 13 Frigates would bring us back to that minimal level if the 6 T45 remain, will be missed by most.
    The new minimum after every review is the benchmark to reach with future reviews, when actually a real increase into the mid 20s is needed.

      • Exactly. 5 more T31. Stop effing about with new designs, build.
        The same shit show is currently happening with NMH where, rather than actually asking the end user what it wants ( army, Blackhawk ) the need for politics and UK build takes primacy, and that leaves so little scope in the 1 billion budget you end up with maybe 25 cabs if we are lucky and 2 companies walking away.

        • As you’ve said before, mate. Industry comes before the need of the Armed Force’s. And I totally get that. We want good jobs and industrial skills and capacity. We just never have the defence budget to do it properly and support both.

          • I still think less gold plate and more good enough might help with mass.
            Do we need 1,000 Boxer, all v expensive?
            Or would the 600 in order and a cheaper vehicle like Patria for support roles save money and provide new vehicles?

          • Or do we just need to do a dirty quick mid life upgrade on all the warriors…with the 600 boxers already ordered that’s plenty of IFV and APCs for the heavy/mechanised brigades and to be honest lighter armoured vehicles wise the army has lots of foxhounds.

          • Also an option. I wonder if the Boxer aspiration for 1000 plus is one to scale back, which might not hit the army too much if an alternate is available.
            Or Warrior. I was asking Graham on his opinion on the realistic possibility of retaining them as is and their condition earlier.

          • Indeed 1000 boxers will cost a lot of money..the money saved from only getting the 600 ordered could do a lot.they are probably the most expensive APC on the market and infact more costly than some of the more budget IFVs.

          • It seems an easy save.
            What is CRITICAL in this review is that we don’t downsize any further.
            Change programs, cut some pricy ones if you must, but put alternates in place.

          • Indeed, sometimes it’s worth a look to see if you can save and if your requirements are costing way over what you need to pay for an adequate 80% solution.

            fundamental is mass, you cannot maintain quantity or a decent deterrent without adequate mass.

          • The army needs about 1300-1500 Boxers and has ordered a mere 623 so far. Of the 623, only 146 are Infantry Carrier Vehicles (ie APCs) – that is not enough for the five Inf Bns in the two ABCTs – it is only enough for three battalions. So many more Boxers must be ordered.

            If no more Boxers are ordered because of Ms Reeves (or not enough), some cheaper alternative must be bought to augment the Boxer fleet.

            The cautionary tale is that the MoD did not get the funding to replace all FV430s in the mid 80s with Warrior variants – so an unbelievable 1,000 FV430s were run on, later mostly being upgraded at sizeable cost to Bulldog spec. and then run on some more – these wagons were originally built in the early 60s!! At the last count we still had 746 of them on the books!

          • Yes. Which is why, if the army managed before with an inferior supporting vehicle, why can it not this time?
            Put the 623 Boxers with the Infantry Bns, get them outfitted, and buy the Boxer lookalike, Patria, for other roles. Could it be done?
            I have read, unsure how true, that you can buy 3 of those for 1 Boxer.
            We could buy thousands if that is true? The logistics and maintenance issues with a different type is another question.

          • I think the culture in the Armed Force’s for a long time now has been to spec for the very best, because they know most projects will get cut. So at least they will have small numbers of very good kit rather than small numbers of average kit. That culture needs to change. The business model for T31 is one of the first examples that lesson is being learned.

          • I am reminded of the plan to de-turret Warriors, which was originally part (a ‘side hustle’) of WCSP, to create 135 ABSVs. It was lost due to yet another defence cut, obviously (Annual Budget Cycle 2016).

            These Armoured Battlefield Support Vehicles (ABSV), were supposedly intended to carry out field repair and recovery roles using a winch and crane attachments but I never understood that logic as the army had enough REME Warrior variants anyway ie Qty 105 Warrior FV512 (Repair) and Qty 39 FV513s Recovery/Repair.
            However ABSVs suitably configured could have replaced many non-turreted Warrior variants and/or FV430s at a fraction the cost of Boxers.

            The army requirement is for 1300 – 1500 Boxers, I forget the number exactly but funding is (or was) available for 1,016 only.
            I am sure we should, as you suggest, buy cheaper APC variants to augment the Boxer order to save money.

          • Personally I think the MODs capital budgets should include a rebate from the treasury for using UK suppliers and manufacturers that support the tax base..if a program is going to push 20-30% or its costs back into the treasury as tax take the MOD should get that back…( its just like the NHS most people forget the single biggest cost to the NHS is staff…71 billion….as the tax burden is 35.5% the treasury get back 25 billion a year just from staff..that’s before corporate tax on all the private providers..essentially the NHS generates tax revenue to the tune of around 30%-40% of its spent budget)…

        • Personally the navy really needs to be at 12ish Type 26, 10-12 type 31 and the follow on for the T45 needs to 9-12. That would provide an adequate base of 2 ASW escorts and 2 AAW for a CBG, 2 ASW and a AAW escort or two for an amphibious group and 3-4 single warship tastings…that is a min for a CBG, Amphibious group, 2 eastern permanent deployments and an Atlantic tasking….the rivers 2 should be used to support infrastructure security in the North Sea..they are good for that..big, flight deck and crane…perfect for a couple of sub surface and air autonomous vessels.

          • With this government I think that’s pure fantasy fleets, sadly.
            I’d be relieved if they “just” keep the fleet same size and build what is planned to get to 19.
            Politicians have no interest in defence till it’s too late.

        • Hi M8 Right now I actually think is the wrong time to speak about actually ordering anything above what is firmly in the spending plan.
          Now that may come as a shock to you but before we throw money around we need to stabilise what we have got, are getting and ensure everything is on track.
          One thing no one seems to be taking into account are the 2 huge programmes that are sucking the life out of the Defence budget now and for the next 5/6 years. I think that right now any increase in numbers is very challenging, but after they go over their cost curve peak it is easier.
          They are Dreadnought / CASD (including the renewal of the supply chain) and the massive investment in the support infrastructure at Rosyth, Clyde and Devonport.

          Right now and for most of this decade all our SB facilities are either full or working back up to being usable. And idea of adding extra yards is both expensive and futile, it’s far better to maximise what we already have.

          Manning and Retention, it needs sorting out ASAP and is probably the most important step to increase Defence that the Government can make.

          T26 is transitioning from one build process to another, it needs to get there and settle down before anyone can confirm pricing or delivery for any future orders (if Norway orders anything it complicates things).
          T31 and Babcock are ……. hopefully going to produce something 🤞🏻and until they do and it passes trials I wouldn’t risk it. And again the orders are full for at least next 3/4 years so pointless ordering any more.

          FSS is vital but H&W Holdings is really a worry, I would continue to keep HMG out of that till the dust settles. (I’d consider doing the same as SFM and take it into National ownership).
          Short term solution ask USN if we can lease a couple of theirs (they can’t man them). If H&W goes plop and can’t be resurrected then go speak to S Korea, they build fast and on budget.

          MRSS ???? That’s a risk due to the Amphibious force age and without H&W it can’t be built in U.K without a new yard (££££). IMHO it’s the one thing that could at risk in SDR, to be honest if it is down to wanting a gold plated tiny force or something affordable I’d happily go for a revamped Bay class.

          Then there is the Big Elephant in the room, AUKUS. Until the overall numbers of SSN(A), the workload split and timescales finalised no-one can work out the costings. That little number determines how many SSSN(A) we get.

          So to summarise right now and for most of this Parliament I think HMG should concentrate on delivery and manning (and sort out the RFA).

          • I agree mate. All sensible. As I said, I’d be happy if we got the 19 planned. So 8 T26 5 T31 6 T45.
            Getting people into the RFA and sorting the MCMV motherships too.
            Don’t build a MROSS2, another OTS?
            What is your view on the report here earlier that T31 might be at risk??? I’d be stunned. Have we not already signed a contract for 5 and 2 are in build?

          • The nasty thing would be a cut to 6 T26 and sell 2 to Norway with a promise of T32 funding.

            My sensors tell me that stupidity could be real.

          • ONG no….
            They pulled that trick in cancelling T45 7 and 8 to “speed up” T26!
            It’s a trap!

          • Of course it is a trap.

            History has a habit of repeating itself.

            Treasury won’t give a cast iron ring fenced T32 budget until design/scoping/planetary alignment are right.

            They know that is a good few years off. So different Def Sec and 1SL can be bamboozled that it was only an aspiration/times-is-ard/budgetary pressures/urgent NHS needs…usual canned rubbish as by that time the priority will be buying votes before the election.

            1SL will say he is comfortable with it as he can’t crew them or some other such rollocks.

            He sighs wearily.

      • The minimum should have always been around 30 for a stable peaceful world, that was the findings of the 1997 review..which was the first peace time/uni polar world defence review…as the world got more dangerous in 2010 it should have moved up…then again in 2014/5 and by the time Russia undertook its second major invasion of Ukraine 2022 it should have been climbing to a Cold War type level.

        instead it dropped by 2010 down to 23 ( when it should have been over 30+ 8-12 type 45, 4 type 22 B3 and 16 type 23).
        2010 should have been that latest point to seen a frigate order of 20 ( with a high low mix)..instead we lost four more frigates in 2010 down to 19..
        2015 saw an inadequate and profoundly late frigate order…leading to the decline we see now and a drop to maybe 15/16 escorts before taking a decade to get back to 19..

        The shame is spreed between all major parties as any one of them could have prevented this.

        in reality, with the geopolitics as they are there should be a massive shift up, development of industrial capacity and crewing capacity and a move to a fleet of 30…any consideration of affordability and sustainability needs to be firmly balanced ( put in second place) against the real risk that the world is now close to likely to be cast into the abyss of a world war that the west cannot loss. Politicians like to play the balancing game..but as any risk manager will tell you balance means nothing when you are facing a likely catastrophe risk ( you don’t think..ooh I will save my energy for later when resuscitating a person..you go all out and crack ribs until your not able to do it anymore or someone can take over)….I know it will not happen and if we are very very very lucky there will be a follow on order of another batch of maybe 3 extra type 31s…

        • that’s a pretty good summary of events and timeline Jonathan. Personally, I’d be thrilled if SDR 25 delivers the RN the current planned 19 surface warships. I just cant see them finding the budget for a Type 32 follow on. (sadly)

    • Someone once stated: “There are lies, damned lies and statistics.” (Then, of course, there are bureaucratic, government reports, which raise the bar of the art form. Happens w/ great regularity on both sides of the Pond. 🙄)

  11. The modern RN. Fitted for but not with any capability or capacity to undertake serious military operations. The same could probably be said for the army and RAF.

    • We have been fortunate that the only Operations since late 2014 have been relatively small scale, mostly non-kinetic and often against non-peer actors. That could all change in a heartbeat and we would struggle to deploy credible forces.

  12. One thing is absolutely clear beyond any shadow of doubt whatsoever. We cannot cut back any further on the number of ships we have currently. We are already at the bone, something the Labour Party in opposition stated on countless occasions. It’s quite simple. We need to build more ships. We are in a transition right now as we begin to bring into service 13 new Frigates and retire the venerable Duke Class. Type 26 and 31’s will not be so maintenance intensive; they won’t need so much constant efforts just to keep them seaworthy as is the case with the rapidly aging Type 23’s. The review aims to establish the force structure required to face a very dangerous and unstable world. And it is clear to everyone in this new Government that we have an very inadequate number of Frigates and Destroyers. To put it mildly, we have been caught with our trousers down. The so called ‘peace dividend’ has been an utter failure. Taking the war in Ukraine aside for a second, Russia is going to rapidly rebuild regardless and could attack NATO Member Nations in the Baltic within the next Five Years, China is rearming rapidly and is looking to dominate the SCS and annex Taiwan, and the Middle east is always a tripwire away from war.

    What will come from AUKUS? Looking 20 years ahead, will the UK benefit from this colossal defence agreement in the form of a much larger class of future SSN’s?

    Whatever happens, recruitment and retention is key to everything. Nothing will be achieved without first looking after our People and that includes the RFA. They have been left far behind. Who can blame them for jacking it in when they can get a much better deal elsewhere? Basically they have been shafted. Something radical is required here and they better get on with it ASAP.

  13. Being a cynic if yet another ‘review’ actually concludes the RN needs more rather than less ships it will be an all time first!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here