Suella Braverman, Conservative MP for Fareham and Waterlooville, recently raised concerns over the lack of ships in the Royal Navy.

During a parliamentary exchange, Braverman acknowledged the success of delivering the UK’s aircraft carriers, which are stationed near her constituency in Portsmouth.

However, she pointed out that despite their importance, the carriers are underpowered and in need of further support.

“One of the big achievements of the last 14 years was the delivery of the aircraft carriers, both of which are stationed in Portsmouth, near my constituency,” Braverman began.

“However, it remains clear that they are underpowered. We need more Type 45s, more Type 26s and more Type 31s.”

She went on to challenge the government’s commitment to increasing defence spending, urging a more robust investment plan for the Royal Navy, particularly in relation to its aircraft carriers. “If the Government are serious about the 2.5%, when will they set out their plan to invest in our Royal Navy and, in particular, our aircraft carriers, so that our carrier strike group can provide a world-class capability?”

In response, Defence Secretary John Healey acknowledged the importance of the aircraft carriers to the nation’s defence strategy. He emphasised that the government is actively assessing the current and future threats faced by the UK as part of the ongoing strategic defence review.

“The aircraft carriers constitute an important defence programme,” Healey stated. “We are considering the threats that we face and the future capabilities that we need as part of the strategic defence review, which will report in the spring, and we will follow that within our clear path and our commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, just as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury told the media yesterday.”

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

100 COMMENTS

      • She’s not the brightest light bulb
        Shows the complete ignorance of defence and the “sea blindness” of our politicians.
        Just stupidity.
        I’d settle for a general purpose/ air defence optimised type 26 hull form. Rather than trying to dig out the type 45 destroyers.

        • Agree with your conclusion but you cannot expect politicians to have the detailed knowledge those from the military have. It is not their role.

          • I dont comment on issues unless I have insight and knowledge in the area.
            It is the first rule of intelligence, knowing when to say “I dont know, but will try to find out”
            Braverman just talks and talks without bothering to gain understanding.

        • “…I’d settle for a general purpose/ air defence optimised type 26 hull form…”

          The hull of the T26 is optimised for the ASW role, and would require a redesign for a AAW role. The result is a new type ship.
          The T26 hull has a slightly narrower beam than a T45, that would affect the stability of the vessel, if a heavy radar is placed high. Because the hull is designed for ASW, it will affect the potential speed, and the total weight of the missiles carried.

      • I don’t think she means that specific ship but the role that ship plays ie. more destroyers. I am sure she would be more than happy with many more T26/T31 with a serious air defence and ASW role. She will be even happier if the trials on T26 and T31 go well – which we have yet to find out.

        Remember she will not have been briefed by the military on the pros and cons of specific ships.

        • It’s an amateurish brief really, if I was her, I would have taken the time to understand the problem, before I stood up in the commons.

          If I was her, I would have started with an apology about 14 years of Conservative defence cuts, own it and put a line under it.

          I would then demand a shift to 3% defence spending and suggest the following……

          We need a balanced surface combatant fleet of 33 ships.

          12x T26 (ASW)
          12x T31 (General Combat)
          9x Air Defence Destroyers (T26 derived platform?)

          All the above very well armed with 40mm mounts and mk41 etc.

          In my opinion, this restores ‘minimum’ mass to the fleet.

          • That is the point though John politicians are supposed to be amateurs. There expertise, on any area, is supposed to be nil. We were spoilt a little with Ben Wallace because he knew what he was talking about. Generally politicians don’t. They are there to reflect the wishes of the man or woman on the street.

            I will not comment too much on your suggested solution other than to say what we need for surface combatant is a jack of all trades master of all. If the T26 turns out to be good at ASW it really needs to be good at air defence as well which then takes it most of the way to a General combat ship. 30-36 ships will indeed restore mass although do we need more now our enemies are becoming more active and we are unsure about our friends

          • “…9x Air Defence Destroyers (T26 derived platform?)…”

            You mean just like the Hunter Class, which is still having development problems, and rising costs resulting in a reduced order! The Australians would not of had those problem, if they had kept the Hunter Class to similar as the RN Type 26 frigate! They would still be able to afford at least 9, or more frigates!

      • Go on then. Assume that a second batch would use MT30s and would be built to modern regs, the latest PAAMS spec with an updated Sampson and S1850M including SMART-L MM technology, perhaps strike length Mk41s instead of CAMM-dedicated silos. Replace the obsolete main gun. Assume we’d be looking at moving three new ships into operation between 2036 and 2039.

        We won’t be ready for the first Type 83 to become operational before the 2040s, because the class isn’t even in Concept yet and I have no doubt we’ll be Lifexing the current T45s. Building batch 2 would derisk the possibility of getting into a T45 death spiral in the way we have with the T23s, and would cover availability during the Lifex process. It would prepare people to think of the Navy having 9 destroyers not 6 and of overlapping capability rather than gapping it. Is that really such a bad idea?

        I can think of several downsides, of course, but I certainly don’t find the idea laughable.

        • I think that once you start chopping and changing important aspects of the design, like propulsion and the radar systems, you might as well start over.
          The whole point of a concept phase is to work out what the Navy actually needs from the ship.
          Skipping that risks producing a useless ship.
          I know it sounds like MoD risk aversion but we can’t just bone headedly carry on the way we always have.
          Even a T26 AA version would be preferable as an interim.

          • Because T45s have IEP not CODLOG, it would be a lot easier to change the gas turbines than you’d think. They aren’t actually propelling the craft, just being one of the sources of electricity for the motors. Updating the Sampsons will be done for the current T45s during the Sea Viper upgrade. Thales (NL) already stated that the MM upgrade could be applied to the current S1850M radars, without affecting the BAES backend processing. I’d take that with a pinch of salt, but it shouldn’t significantly affect the ship’s weight distribution for a single antenna.

            Building three ships of an updated older design that helps fill out what the Navy needs while it argues over what it wants isn’t bone headed. In fact it’s current MOD policy to do more with spiral iteration, so it would be doctrinally sound (at least right now). We don’t have to overuse it like the Americans do.

            Fair enough you preferring T26 AAW. I think there’s a lot more waste in it, but at least it should be up to code and BAE will be able to churn out the quiet hulls relatively quickly.

            Like you, I’m all in favour of getting T32 and T83 through concept, but the Navy is sitting on its hands and has already missed the deadlines in both cases for new designs that directly follow on from current production. The T32 concept was substantially complete over two years ago and would risk needing to be redone from scratch if in year’s time MOD decided it wanted to move forward. The reality is that we’ll get a warmed up T31 or nothing. The T83 was supposed to go into concept in early 2022 according to MinDP in Nov 2021. It’s still in pre-concept 3 years later and there is no published schedule for it to even start.

          • My personal preference is for T31 AAW, fitted to an equivalent standard to the Iver Huitfeldt class.
            Swap NS110 for NS200 and add in the SMART-L MM. You’d need to bend the funnels and possibly also speed up CAMM-MR for mk41 but it would cost a fraction of new T45/46s.
            That also slots in nicely with the end of fabrication in Rosyth and no obvious further orders.
            Three would be a good number, I agree with you there.
            Not enough to displace T83 but enough to hugely improve availability.

    • As I’ve commented before: this forum and NL is more widely read than you would think.

      Which is why the quality of comment and debate is quite important.

    • My experience of politicians was that they could face two ways at once and deny they had seen anything!
      On a more serious note did she mean engines and generators, lack of aircraft or both?

    • Indeed, Tories lecturing about defence spending is hillarious.

      However, in her defence we didnt have a Trump government to deal with then.

    • Although to be fair Wallace did try to push for greater expenditure and was clearly one of the better Defence Secs. the country had seen for some time

    • Good thing about being in opposition is you can say whatever the hell you like…..sometimes even what you actually think!

      Pity the Tories did little in 14 years in the same way it’s a pity most of the things Labour said in opposition are being watered down or completely scrapped.

    • Yeh, the hyprocrisy is incredible.

      The former Tory leader of the Defence Select Committee – now if he came out with that kind of question, firstly, it would be more authoritative and secondly, he and the Committee were calling for a bigger navy years ago…

      Can’t remember his name, but in any event I wouldn’t be surprised if he lost his seat..!

      Cheers CR

      • Ellwood and his successors Courts and Quin lost their seats, but I don’t think any of them had anywhere near the credibility of Julian Lewis, who was Ellwood’s predecessor. He was the first to get an endorsement of 3% of GDP from the Select Committee around 2016 and is still in Parliament, and I believe still chair of the Security and Intelligence Committee.

    • Maybe she was not interested on defence when she was not in leadership

      When you are after PM job things are different and you need to talk about everything.

    • RN wanted to replace T42 1:1.

      It estimated the cost to be £500m per ship. Which seemed a very generous number at the time.

      TreasuryMan(TM) gave RN a fixed budget of £6Bn (approx).

      The rising costs ate the other ships. Not TreasuryMan(TM) or any politicos.

      • It’s why I think the T83 many be a far more modest affair than most people are hoping for. The RN got burnt hard once so they may go ultra conservative on the T83 design to maximise numbers.

      • That’s not fully technically true. BAE systems did offer to deliver a 7th and 8th ship to the RN at significantly reduced price but that option was not taken up. Would have added £1.2 billion (600 million each) to build ships 7+8 onto the type 45 programme.

    • The issue would then become, can the RN crew them all?
      I have doubts of RN able to crew beyond 9 T45!
      The underlying problem, is the fixed establish strength of about 30K of the RN. If you increase it, that will eat into current costs.

      • Actually I don’t really think that RN needs more AAW right now in this fleet iteration.

        What it needs is to focus (now) on ASW with a hot production line and GP frigates.

        T83 is the opportunity for AAW fleet count.

        If you are going to do something do it well. Even if you had wheelbarrows of cash tipped over the problems you’d still need tight focus to regenerate fleet size and capability.

        • I think that’s right – ASW is the priority, especially given financial and manpower constraints. Not just surface assets obviously, let’s not forget sub-surface and air (P8) as well.

          I would also like more spent on the protection of sub-surface infrastrucure as well. In the future, we will become even more reliant on things like undersea power cables (between the UK and other countries/offshore wind turbines).

          Oh, and yes please to reconstituting of our SAM defences, especially for core infrastructure like nuclear power stations!

          • Given what is going on in Ukraine I would suggest that the lack of effective air defence would be one way to get the general public interested in defence..! Once you get them hooked, hit ’em with all the other holes in our defences and how they will be affected if the poo hits the fan.

            A navy too small to effectively guard the sea lanes and there will be a lot of hungry people in these islands.

            Cheers CR

        • Hi SB,

          Whilst I don’t quite agree about the RN not needing more AAW capability this iteration I would agree that we don’t have the capability to do anything about it at the moment, which is a different issue.

          I would like to see us seriously up the number frigates from the current 13 ordered, at least 4 more T26 and 3 more T31 – forget the T32 its just an excuse to generate hot air judging by the time it is taking to have ‘discussions’. China builds fleets, while our lot talk..!

          My numbers above are just for starts, given how I think the threats are developing.

          As for a tight focus – oh if only – pleeease!

          In the meantime I think we should exploit the opportunity that increased defence spending and ship building in particular could contribute to the growth agenda. Increasing capacity at our shipyards for example because a bigger navy would require more ship yard and dock yard capacity than we currently have.

          Hooking into the growth agenda could also allow joined up thinking and investment i.e. increased defence spending could lever off investment funding to create more higher paid skilled jobs and drive up productivity both of which are desperately needed given the fact that for the last 30 or more years we have been racing to the bottom on both of those economic measures.

          Cheers CR

          • I don’t think the 7 extra frigates I talked about would be enough given the way the threats are going. We need to be able to deter and given what is happening we clearly failing to do so. However, I think we need to reflect to foolishness we see in our politics. So yeh an extra two T31 would be welcome…

            Cheers CR

        • The question isn’t what we need now, becuse any new T45s wouldn’t become operational until after 2035, so what will we need in the second half of the 2030s after all the T26s are operational? We always need to think 10 years ahead.

      • If the RN could not crew a handful of extra ships (for it would just be a handful), then the headroom figure for manpower should be increased, along with budget. You can’t just say…we can’t do it.

        The Navy might perhaps also look at whether it could switch some manpower from shore billets to sea duties. They do have 28,920 full-time trained personnel. Officers and ratings. Includes RM numbers.

        • I agree that the numbers caps have to go, but until recruitment and retention issues are addressed, that won’t help. The RN already undertook a significant shift of shore to ship under Adm. Radakin’s tenure as 1SL, so fairly recently. They also reduced the proportion of salad.

        • In that number you also have the FAA, the RM, and the Submarine Service.
          What the RN need are more sailors.
          I read that was one driver behind 42 Cdo going Maritime Security, it removed some RM establishment for more sailors.

  5. A voice from the past; a bright woman. In a December 2015 op-ed, Braverman wrote, “In essence, rights have come to fill the space once occupied by generosity.” 
    She is ‘right’ on so many issues ( my opinion) but did poorly in the conservative leadership election for Rishi Sunak. Looks like she is starting a comeback campaign by supporting a safe position.

    • I don’t really understand “In essence, rights have come to fill the space once occupied by generosity.” 

      Is she saying that benefits like the state pension or unemployment benefit or public services like defence, education or health should be properly considered a ‘generosity’ (or charity!) bestowed by the Crown/Government rather than a ‘right’ of an individual citizen should expect of the Government?

      Conservative thinking is usually something about rights must come with obligations and duties. We give x in benefits or support but you must do y in return. This would take it up another level.

      • Well, I guess you would have to speak to the woman herself to answer your questions. I was pointing out that it looks like she is starting a comeback – a sign of changing politics perhaps. It would have been bigger news if she had said the navy needs fewer ships 😂

      • I think she is referring to the idea that rights traditionally meant things relating to a lack of interference/hindering from others particularly the state.

        The left have redefined it to mean a range of entitlements from others via the state.

        As a Liberal I agree with her that this has been a disaster for society.

  6. What a nerve??? This women is part of the problem. Another MP who fails to understand the threat or UK defence and the people who serve. Insufficient funds in defence over the past 50 + years, just cut, cut & cut with little or no understanding of the requirement. The Carriers should have been nuclear, and they need a proper air wing. They need supporting within a credible task group which means SSN’s, FF and DD’s covering AAW and ASW threats + RFA’s with a couple of fast replenishment tankers and solid support ships. At present the RN and RFA are losing people hand over fist, ships are too few and those we have are tired. Always jam tomorrow unfortunately, tomorrow never comes. Example T23 now at twice their life expectancy with replacements too few (8 x T26), insufficient GP FF’s (5 x T31’s) and T45’s which are rarely at sea and again too few and are now half way through their lives without a proper funded replacement yet (T83). As for support the RFA is in bits and both present and last Governments refuse to fund equipment or personnel correctly.

    • Yup, couldn’t agree more.

      All and I mean all of our political parties share in the blame for the dangerously poor state of our defences. The list of gaps, shortfalls and delays is so long I it would take a book just to list them all with a 50 word explanation / description…

      Putin served notice to the west in 2014 when he grabbed Crimea, 10 years and still we haven’t responded effectively. Worse the threat has got far more intense with War in Ukraine and North Korean troops deployed and engaged in the fighting (reported last week by Ukrainian Intelligence that they had fired on North Korean troops).

      The Russia, Iran, North Korea, China grouping is evolving into something akin to the Axis Powers of the 30’s and 40’s, especially given the ‘Defence’ Pact signed by Russia and North Korea. If Iran and China join at some point in the future… well 2.5% won’t come close.

      My favourite factoid at the moment – Peacetime Defence sending long term average is something like 2 to 4% of GPD, slightly higher in times of tension. In WW1 it peaked at about 48% and in WW2 at 52% of GDP. Deterrence is cheaper than fighting – please note HM Treasury..!

      Cheers CR

        • Too right. I read somewhere that there was a spate of train accidents in the post war period as the train companies had been required to support the war effort.

          The thing is these train companies were huge manufacturing enterprises building tracks, locomotives signalling systems etc. To do all this they had huge factories with foundries, machine shops, assembly halls and, most important of all highly skilled work forces. Just what you need to build tanks, ship engines, etc..

          The trouble was that while they were supporting the war effort they were not maintaining there own infrastructure so post war there were huge backlogs of maintenance work. The problem I believe contributed to Nationalisation and Beeching…

          Far reaching impacts indeed.

          Cheers CR

    • Why should the carriers have been nuclear-powered? So many disadvantages with nuclear and only one (questionable) advantage.

  7. Err, seriously!

    Whilst I totally agree that we need a bigger navy, a much much bigger navy, the aircraft carriers were not just delivered over the last 14 years they were ordered by the previous government

    It anything the aircraft carriers are the perfect example why we need a robust and resilient cross part consensus on defence not the current bickering, seesawing and political shambles we currently have.

    This type cheap and frankly uninformed points scoring framing of the question undermines the vital importance and urgency of the situation. More T45’s indeed..! Perhaps a T46 based on the T45 with the increased power generation, CAMM missiles, NSM and MT30 turbines instead of the failed WR21. Unfortunately, that leads onto the question of where do we build them..?

    We need a bigger navy, but we also need a bigger industrial base and before anyone starts to shout about building over seas, there is a very good chance that any suitably friendly or allied country will need all their industrial capacity for their own needs, given the global nature of the threats we collectively face.

    So frustrating that the framing of this question highlights such a lack of understanding.

    Cheers CR

  8. More type 45’s are a bad idea (and at £1 billion a time) it needs a new propulsion system and post probably a new everything else as the design is far from new. The main question l would have could you have a cheaper ship which does the same thing with improvements before we spend that type of money. Computer power is always getting cheaper and better and that is the expensive bit not the hull etc.
    The aircraft carriers were ordered under a Labour Government – just to remind her.

    • We could try to do something second tier based on the T31, in fact the Iver Huitfeldts are just that, but a new destroyer with a new design would require considerable expense to design it and many years arguing over that design before anyone could build it. You would end up saving nothing in trying to equal the capability of the T45 with a new design over just creating a second batch with all the kinks ironed out (which would save much of the arguing as other than the size of the main gun I doubt there is much to argue over).

      Ideally we should attempt to push forward with the T83 asap to get different and better capability, but don’t expect it to be cheap.

      • Exactly.
        “We need a second destroyer programme” is exactly the wrong thing to say to the Treasury.
        “We need to upgrade our GP frigates in AAW” is much more subtle and will produce more numbers in the long run by not jeopardising T83.

  9. We must take these things as a positive.
    Politicians could not give a stuff for Defence for decade, of ALL parties.

    Now chickens are coming home to roost.
    Sadly the public are still for the most part blind and disinterested, otherwise there would be even greater heat.

    We all see the irony of Tories who lament numbers who for 14 years dismantled the military, and I at least see the irony of people on the Labour side like Healey who presided over it pre 2010.

    Now it’s a subject of interest and they want Brownie points from their followers to look good by mentioning it.

    Which must be a positive.

    • It is a positive, but too little too late. Many Tories came out in favour of 3%, even though it was never adopted as party policy (pace the Truss weeks). My question is where is the chorus of Labour backbenchers right now saying 2.5% is a joke.

      • They’re clueless on defence, and some opposed on ideological grounds, see the Corbyn supporting side of the party.
        Others will be more concerned with the Palestinian situation.
        I’ll get my coat.

        • To his credit, Starmer has been very tough on the left wing ideologues.

          We somehow need to get 3% back into the conversation. Sunak’s parting shot has given Sir Keir all the out he feels he needs for conversations to be about 2.5% rather than when can we get spending back above 3% or is 3% enough?

          • I don’t think 3% is enough although I can’t see current the politicos in Westminster waking up to the threat.

            We are so far behind in industrial as well military capabilities that our conventional deterrence stance is obviously very shaky in the current politic environment. So much so that I think the deterrence value is now being seriously eroded. It will take a big increase in industrial capability, recruitment into the armed forces and increased quantities of military equipment to reestablish the deterrent effect. We are in a race but we are still at the starting line asking if that was the starting pistol..!

            The West needs to wake up and not just the frontline states.

            Cheers CR

  10. The sheer brazen gall of the Tories. It’s really unbelievable.
    So you want more ships? And yet spent 14 years building no major surface warships except the carriers begun by Labour and nearly scrapped on multiple occasions by successive Tory governments.
    Yes we need more type 26 frigates….but the Tories cut the programme from 13 to 8.
    Then pledged the type 32 programme and it’s not even funded, no clear design and no actual contract.
    Yes we need more type 31s as well. Yet the Tory government only ordered 5 vessels despite having had plentiful opportunities to order another batch of 5 ships before they were slung out of power. Principally because of dithering, no investment and no forward progress under the Tories
    So now it’s Labours problem to strive to fix the desperate weakened state of our armed forces. Realistically we need to be at 2.5% this or next fiscal year. Orders for aircraft, ships, artillery etc placed acknowledging the equipment won’t be ready for a few years.

    The armed forces need huge improvement too the recruitment and then retention of personnel.
    So the government need to look at the whole career life experiences of our military personnel and crucially how to improve those experiences.

  11. Funny really saying the last 14 years drove the carriers…as the Cameron government did its level best to get rid of one of the carriers and made regeneration back to carrier ops that much more difficult because of the decisions of the 2010 defence review..also causes a further delay in the 26 programme by around 4 years..without the 2010 defence review it would have been easier to regenerate carrier ops and we would have had the first couple of the T26s commissioned.

    But it’s good so many people are highlighting defence..so I may think she’s being dishonest and party politics with the past..but I agree with what she says is needed..( apart from more T45..from an AAW the RN just needs to tighten up and improve on what it has a already got..so get a medium gun that can do AAW for all escorts focus on increasing lethality of T45 and getting a decent organic inner defensive ring for the capital ships and key RFA).

  12. Does it need to come from him with a bushy white beard and ability to fire lightning bolts as well ?
    Is there anyone that doesnt understand we are an island, and see that the RN in particular is down to bare bones protecting this country ?
    We need to start seeing commitments, not empty words.
    It wont be T45s, but maybe the T83 might get a kick in the jacksie.

  13. If you ever see anyone saying we need to build more Type 45s you can dismiss them as uniformed on anything but the most surface level information.

    • She is obviously uninformed to an extent,i wouldn’t expect her to have a great deal of knowledge on specific matters of Defence,but for the informed a T45 vs 2,0 would not be a bad idea to increase the RN AA Destroyer numbers pending the T83.

      • She should she represents a constituency which has many RN and a few RFA personnel. It looks over the Portsmouth Harbour for heave sake!! 

          • I would expect an MP to know there constituency make up so not a clown comment but common sense. Maybe this is why this country has gone to the dogs because our MPs don’t have a clue or even consider who they represent!

      • I think T31 AA variant is more feasible than T45b2, for shipyard timings and design.
        Interim AAW boost is a good idea especially if T83 is a full fat cruiser, but T45 is not the best way to go about it.

        • Yeh, order 3 more T31 as currently designed to keep the production line and supply chain hot while Babcock come up with an AAW enhancement for a batch 3 of say 6 ships. Whilst we’re at it order 4 more T26, to give the following;

          12 AAW ships;
          12 ASW frigates;
          8 GP frigates.

          Better than current plans and doable with a bit of smart decision making. 32 escorts in a NATO context starts to make a difference. Would it be enough? May be, but I think it would merely be a starter for 10. It all depends on whether or not China gets dragged along with Russia and North Korea, given their apparent desire for a blue water navy one can only suspect China has global aspirations. So a starter for 10 it is… the longer we wait to respond the bigger the response needed to reestablish the deterrent effect.

          Cheers CR

        • Personally,and ive been saying this for a long time,i would refrain from thinking about any more T31’s and any variations thereof until Venturer has been delivered to the RN, and has undergone extensive Sea Trials,then they can see exactly what they are getting and at which price.A de-bugged T45 to me would be a better bet as an interim AAW option as it is a tried and tested Platform.

  15. calamity suella should 5 well aware of the issue, as should everyone else in parliament what also should be highlighted, is the poor infrastructure such as an efficient shipbuilding industry That will Deliver the contract that they have

  16. It is obvious Braverman as a lay person is just talking in generalities. She isn’t speaking about specific classes. It doesn’t surprise me that somebody has to to state that here.

    The RN can’t recruit or retain personnel. There is no budget for more ships. The RFA is heading towards collapse for the want of a few million extra for pay. Yet the government is paying one hotel owner best part of £5 million per week to house II’s. Again there is money but it is where the government choose to spend it is the problem.

    By the time London is commissioned most of the FREMMs will be into middle age.

  17. If we’re talking about making sure the carriers aren’t “underpowered” as she puts it, which I assume means the ability to put together a credible carrier group, my most pressing concern would be the RFA situation – personnel shortages/issues and serious lack of FSS vessels.

  18. Ocean going support vessels that can accommodate module units for increase fire power and flexibility. I think someone mention that larger uncrewed vessels will be tested soon.

  19. Pity she didn’t make the same point during the 14 years her govenment was in power overseeing the disasterous tate the escort fleet is now in.

  20. As a reminder, the British Navy does not have any aircraft carriers, however it does have 2 aircraft carriers!
    The last English aircraft carrier dates back to HMS Eagle!
    1950 to 1980 I think!

  21. After 14 years of her party being in charge leading us to the current situation o she might have a bit of humility.

    The carriers were a Labour project albeit mostly constructed under Tory rule, if they are “underpowered” then I’m afraid that is her party’s fault as there were years when that could have been rectified.

    But all the same, a call for more ships is never a bad thing in current climes. However what the Navy really needs is more sailors because if we can’t even crew the ships we have the what use are more vessels….

    Oh snd the recruiting crisis? Well that’s on her party too….. 14 years they had and arguably things are worse than when they came to power…..

  22. How strange, she has only recently become aware of this. Sure the more immediate goal would be to ensure all the ships already on the inventory are equipped and crewed. To order new ships before achieving this only perpetuates the institutional inefficiency and corruption within the RN, RFA, MoD and Contractors.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here