Here’s a brief look at some of the big projects being undertaken by the Royal Navy over the next decade and their current status.
The following table was submitted as part of a follow up to an oral evidence session relating to the Defence Equipment plan.
“The tables in the Annex set out the main changes to the Equipment Plan as previously published following the IR. If not included here it is because the investment will continue as previously published, or the system will come out of service to existing planned dates. The Equipment Plan is updated on an annual basis and any in year changes will be reflected in next year’s report.”
The above in bold is why Dreadnought and other projects do not appear in this table.
| Capability
| No of platforms/ systems
| Dates/ In Service Dates (ISD)
| Comments |
| Type 26 Frigate | 8 | ISD 2027 for first of class | Confirms investment beyond the three Batch 1 ships that are already on contract.
|
| Type 31 Frigate | 5 | ISD 2027 for first of class
| Confirms investment for full batch of five T31.
|
| Type 32 Frigate | Up to 5 | ISD early 2030s for first of class
| |
| Type 83 Destroyer | N/A | N/A | Investment to develop the concept for the Type 45 replacement in the late 2030s.
|
| Mine-Hunting Capability (MHC) | N/A | Mid 2020s | We will invest over £1bn in the next 10 years on up to 9 Mission Systems and associated units. The capability will incrementally be brought into service. Block 1 consists of three operational demonstrator systems, including a collaborative UK-France Maritime Mine Counter Measures (MMCM) programme, and is aligned with the Sandown class drawdown between 2021-2025.
|
| Landing Ship Dock Auxiliary (LSDA) capability upgrade | 1 | ISD 2024 | We will be upgrading a LSDA platform to meet the littoral strike requirements and to support the Future Commando Force. This will also inform the Multi-Role Support Ship design.
|
| Multi-Role Oceanographic Surveillance (MROS) Ship | 1 | N/A | Funded through the shipbuilding pipeline.
|
| Multi-Role Support Ship (MRSS) | Up to 6
| N/A
| Funded through the shipbuilding pipeline to replace our current amphibious ships in the 2030s.
|
| Lightweight torpedo | N/A | Circa 2028
| New lightweight torpedo to replace Stingray
|
| Type 23 Frigate | 3 General Purpose T23 Frigates will have their OSDs extended.
| OSDs extended by up to 6 years from original.
| We will extend three T23 OSD that have already had refits and retire early 2 of our T23s that need extensive refits. By altering the order of which these platforms go out of service, we maintain the best availability possible of the T23s whilst maximising VfM.
|
I thought Radakin said ISSGW wasn’t happening?
It isn’t. The table was lifted from the IR and since then the decision has been taken to can ISSGW…
Cheers CR
A bad decision on many levels not least the credibility of a so called strategic review. How many strategic reviews can a major commitment within months of it’s announcement!
I disagree; Radakin knows what he’s doing; which cannot be said for many senior officers. There is a reason this choice has been made, and since the navy under radakin has significantly improved both its availability and procurement, among other things, this decision will also bring benefit. For example, one reason I might suggest is that the RN believes that no missile is sufficiently advanced to day to credibly challenge Chinese or Russian ballistic or hypersonic, respectively, anti-ship missiles. If LRASM or NSM is outmatched as Harpoon is, it does not matter by how much; the fact is it will… Read more »
Interesting comment on LRASM and NSM about being outmatched. They may not fly as fast and as far as some but is their tech and hitting power that poor? If we’re not going to arm our ships with any interim AShMs we can at least arm our P-8s-8s, F-35, helo’s, drones and subs with as much hitting power as possible.Why let our adversarial others have all the AShM advantage and we can’t return the favour? As others have v said here by others, our sub fleet should be expanded. If we had up to 10 Astutes or some 3-5 diesel… Read more »
Subs i agree, at least they can’t be reached by missiles and, well, the Astutes… they can’t even be found 😂 I agree, that’s our main weapon, and one of the few places we can call ourselves one of the leaders. Though, if the RAN will have more subs than the RN that will be embarrassing to say the least. For the missiles though, fast isn’t as relevant but far is. If a type 45 is 800km away from China, it can be hit but it can’t hit back, whether it has missiles or no. And it’s better that we… Read more »
I wouldn’t be embarassed if RAN had more SSN’s than RN. I’d be happy if they were Astutes. We’re not in competition with RAN.
To be fair, David, we are in competition with everyone. Even those countries that are close. Australia is increasing the size and capability of its navy and with double their economy I do think it would be embarrassing as it would seriously damage the RN’s prestige; even worse if the case was having more of our own boats than us!
Just don’t think we need more SSN’s than Australia or Type 26. As to prestige. Doubt the world would care. We’ll agree to disagree. 👍
“Need”? Guess we don’t need any. Don’t need a navy either.😖
But it is embarrassing. After the cold war ended the RN had 15 SSNs of various classes. Now just 7 (actually 6) . The minimum needed to meet current operational tasks (in peacetime) is 12. So we are short 5 SSNs. This government are utterly hopeless and asleep at the wheel.
Good points Eclipse and love the comment about the Astutes. Why did they ever stop at just 7? It probably all got too expensive but if we had a least 8 then maybe up to 4 could be on the prowl? Hope the FC/ASW does not get any delays and if it can come a bit earlier better.
The RN initially wanted 10 Astute Class submarines, and had the money for them too, but as the costs rose, as they generally do with a World-class product, they regrettably had to reduce the number to what they could afford. 7 Astute Class submarines are the minimum to fulfil the RN’s need. But additionally, the RN would have had great difficult in finding / recruiting sufficient personnel to crew 10 boats.
In an all out war, max range is important, but not in a time of tension/skirmish. There visual confirmation of target, one way or another, will be key before weapon launch. Rebuilding some of UK existing stock of Harpoon to block 2+, would fill the gap, until we get the new shiny fast French gizmo.
What would a few vessels be able to do against Chinese targets in that scenario, the country would have thousands of targets to hit it would be pointless even exposing the ships to such a scenario.
People need to stop this fantasy that we are going to sail up to Russia or China and start attacking land targets, its never going to happen as our ships would be sunk before even acquiring a target let alone firing.
So quit while we’re behind, huh?
I’ve just seen images of the USN Constellation (FREMM) class carrying 4×4 NSM, no bow sonar, with towed array – sounds and looks like a bit of a T32/T32 type vessel type to me. So the USN must value the use and effectiveness of the NSM. One of the recent images of the T31 does seem to include AShMs. Other images seem to be intentionally hiding the CAMM/VLS areas. I guess we’ll know sooner or later.
I suspect it’s just a money topic, they don’t have the budget for an interim missile especially now that they have to pay for and man boris’ yacht
While I agree with it being a factor, I support the national yacht. Even if it ends up costing $500m, almost double what said initially, (£200m) it 1/140 of our massive defence budget. Though we like bashing our spending it is enormous, especially in comparison to Europe. Our budget is more than Italy and Germany put together… who have an economy almost double ours put together. Money isn’t exactly the problem. How it is spent… perhaps. The yacht, besides barely scratching our budget, will also bring in much more money in the form of trade deals signed and business partnerships… Read more »
Money is a huge issue. Firstly the government itself has no money post covid and secondly the MOD is having to do constant cuts because of lack of cash. £200m plus operating costs and crew might be not a huge percentage of the overall budget but it means that money has to be taken from another project or further cuts.
All that for a vanity project / white elephant that will realistically do nothing to boost trade, and just boost governermental corruption even further as they wine and dine foreign companies looking for back handers.
Strongly disagree maximum firing range has advantages but isn’t the be all and end all. Being able to find, select and engage moving targets at massively extended range is problematic (why the army doesn’t still use Lee Enfield rifles with double the effective range of contemporary carbines) and at what point would you ever feel comfortable in investing in a solution with the spectre of the other side having ever increasing range solutions in development in timscales significantly less than seen in the West. Personally, an interim solution, given the range concerns you express, could be the Martel-ER Merlin combination.… Read more »
eclipse-san I can understand your need for range, if countering Russia and China ONLY is the priority. But, how about other theaters? RN must rely solely on SeaVenom? As the long range stealth FC/ASW will be at least more expensive than £4M/unit LRASM, they will never come in number. Super/Hyper-sonic with good warhead and range will be much more expensive. When “a war in other theaters” happens, RN is going to use these precious missiles to sink enemy Corvettes? And, as FC/ASW will not “fill the fleet” until 2036 (until the last T26 comes in), RN is facing a capability… Read more »
Yes, it turns out that Duncan Sandys was right. Missiles were the way to go and not just for SAMs.
Only Duncan Sandy’s was totally wrong about the capability of the missiles of the time he made that statement.
50+ years later missiles have now caught up with the dream that he was (mis)sold at that point in time.
Remember the demonstration that convinced him was Sea Slug shooting down a WWII vintage surface flying in a nice straight line. And any of us with any familiarity with that weapons system know how useful that was IRL….
As an aside smart ammunition has also changed the calculus further. In that medium calibre guns are now very effective for CIWS..
Yeh, I know; a bit tongue in cheek. But the Russians in particular recognized that ( affordable) SAM technology confers political clout.The same is happening with AShM technology and carriers. Several countries possess vessels with missiles which in theory threaten a UK expeditionary assault in East Africa not quite with impugnity but certainly from a problematically large distance. Or perhaps a small flotilla of ( coastal) missile carrying ‘corvettes’ based in Somalia.
https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/k0wpta/a_gateway_to_africa_russias_new_naval_base_in/
We are seeing Russia become more confident and assertive just as we see the US tear itself apart.
I agree.
Exocet being the case in point.
A not brilliant missile alters the whole calculus.
It would be much better if they knew the corvette couldn’t be in range as RN had something to take it out with ease.
I agree about Russia.
In spite of what a lot of people say them a lot of their kit isn’t high end.
I know, but simple in quantity works. AK-47, T-34…
Without any capabilities we make it easy for any foe to strike. NSM at least makes them think, otherwise as any naval intelligence officer will tell you they are extremely clever and will develop a set of tactics that make it easy to destroy the RN before tea. Having some lethal offensive capability carries a threat having none is a disaster waiting to happen. It’s the naval equivalent of snatch Land Rover.
Radakin did the best with what he had. If £250m is taken out of the budget to pay for a National Flagship, a selection has to be made for deletion or downgrade that does the least damage to the navy. Radakin doubled down on hulls in the hope that the government will come to its senses and the longest lead-time items are least sacrificable. That doesn’t mean the missiles are useless or bad. They aren’t only anti-ship. The idea that we we’ll never need an anti-surface capability smaller than a TLAM seems optimistic to me. I can think of several… Read more »
And there you have it.
The key is a multi role missile.
I am pretty sure RN wants a Surface-to-Surface that can do land attack as well as ship attack.
With programmable blast effects that should be easily achievable from a hesvyish missile..
Don’t have to can have them on QE in a week, if we borrow US marine F35bs why not borrow the new vehicle mounted NSM from the marines as well I’m sure they lol be space for it on deck it only a JLVT and can be stored below. And no training as the marines will come with it. I posted before that they strapped a Stryker vehicle to USS America I think when it went through the straight if humouz with its 30mm and Towe missle giving added protection so why not use this method?
We are likely to have no more than one carrier strike group operational at once, based out of the UK and with limited access to certain places (such as the Black Sea). The CGS already has F-35 fighters carrying a potent anti-surface capability, and will in time support FC/ASW (Purseus) on the Type 26s and I’d hope on the Type 83s. We also expect to have 10 high-availablity general purpose frigates, probably double crewed and forward based around the world. At best they’ll have one of the limited number of Wildcats armed with Sea Venom. That’s where the missiles are… Read more »
The F35bs can only carry paveways and asraam at this time, if things got tasty anywhere in next 5-7 years we will need an interim solution. Spear 3 is not operational yet and won’t be untill 2026 when the block 4 upgrade comes out.
As a serving member – I strongly disagree with Radakins stance on how he treats manpower. He has decimated the Navy manpower wise and now has a massive retention problem with those that have decided to stay on and help out (FTRS). jack cannot stay at sea for his/Her whole time in the service – if he had his way that’s how it would be. Young and old just won’t put up with it now a days 😤
Agree. We might get away without ISSAGW if Poseidon can get fitted with LRASM like USAF are fitting out now.
Although not ideal. Agree with defence committee our escort warships are now defensively armed hedgehogs unable to combat other warships. Where is our attacking power coming from?
Unless F35Bs are around and armed with storm shadow or something else we are not aware of.
Agree, we should be exploiting our global air bases in the Gulf by deploying P8’s there and in Diego Garcia, with refuelling capability. Fitted with LRASM they would provide long range influence over large areas of the Indian Ocean.
Name a “strategic review” that did not decrease defense spending and capabilities. Thats correct,none.
When was the oral evidence session. Some date looks outdated…Ashm !
The information was released last June
So are we going to expand our escorts ?
That which is listed would, in time, bolster the escort fleet by around 20%.
Looks like a reasonable shopping list the one thing that is missing from the list is a future Albion/Bulwark replacement. We do need to start looking at it fairly soon.
Hi Ron, I read something somewhere (sorry can’t remember where) that highlighted a significant debate going on with in the MoD / RN / RM about the needs of the Future Commando Force. It seems that many, including the USMC, are moving away from traditional contested amphibious assult. The Falklands are often held up as a justification for maintaining an amphibious assult capability, however, the landings took place miles from the ultimate objective in effect avoiding an opposed landing. I think that far from justifying D-Day style assult capabilities it was a demonstration of the potential of a maritime force… Read more »
Yep, the Multi Role Support Ships (hopefully 6!) will replace both the Bays and Albion’s in time – providing a different level and form of amphibious capability.
As you say it’s effectively a long overdue acknowledgment that brigade level assaults against contested shores are too costly and fraught with risk to contemplate.
Littoral maneuver, special forces raids, helicopter and UAV support or at most company-battalion sized deployments on unoccupied stretches of coast are the future.
Hi Challenger,
With the flexibility to land a brigade sized force quickly onto friendly held territory, possibly with RO-RO support as well e.g. North Norway, which is correctly regaining prominence in our planning assumptions, it seems. Given it is a key NATO responsibility for us, so it blinking should be!
Oh, and not forgetting policing and relief operations… our amphibs have proved very flexible and adaptable and have been hard worked as a result.
6 at least is needed, I’d say.
Cheers CR
Hi Chariot Rider / Challenger, I’d say it’s best to look at the requirements for the FCF and the ability to move an Army Brigade separately. Whilst there is overlap, I think it would be a mistake to overdo the commonality of platforms. Fact is the FCF needs smaller more numerous ships that are more agile and capable of penetrating and operating in an A2AD bubble (through a combination of stealth and electronic countermeasures most likely). This is likely to have to be done for a reasonable duration with limited support. On the other hand the landing of an Army… Read more »
Hi Smithy, Whilst the FCF is being set up primarily as a raiding force it still has the NATO role of reinforcing North Norway. Obviously, the Army commando units would be included in this formation so there would be an increase in ‘weight’, but that does not necessarily mean that there would be a port available as they are well with in striking range of the Russians. So whilst the landing may be unopposed and assisted from the shore it may not be into a ‘port’ or at least into a badly damaged port. Ferries used to be the main… Read more »
Agree with both CR / CH here.
But it must be 6, at minimum.
We have Argus too.
Yeap and you also need an amphibious Bde Grp to do a Bde landing which we no longer have. 3 Cmdo Bde is now an administrative formation rather than a deployable one. 42 Cmdo are spread across the fleet and the other two Cmdos are dedicated to the littoral assault forces north and south.
Splitting the 3 commando’s in that way makes complete sense given the range of threats and our increasingly global commitments. Effectively a reversion towards the fleet protection and raiding specialties the Royal Marines were always about before their more recent use as a unified brigade level formation.
All of the above comments makes sense for the Royal Marines, but at some point we might need to throw the Army ashore with heavy kit. I have often said and still do that there is a place for 2-3 LHDs to operate in the following roles, Army Assault ships e.g Armoured Battle Group capable, escort carriers (baby carrier), Command and Control ships and ASW carriers. We keep forgetting that we are an island nation and sometimes the Army will need to be transported in numbers with their equipment, we might not always have a dock to unload heavy equipment.… Read more »
It does, but also relies on the all important enablers – 30 Cdo, 47 Cdo, 24 RE, CLR, 29 RA to be assigned to each to provide support – plus the aviation, which is bare bones already within CHF.
And as for UAV, stand off long range missiles, loitering munitions, all the gucci kit we keep hearing about, at present zilch.
The EW/Cyber/Sigint area might need enhancing too, unless they’re going to split Y Squadron into 2 or 3 bits ongoing.
Trouble is Daniele that the rerolling of 3 Cmdo Bde has seen the loss of an artillery battery and other net cuts. Now some will see this as cuts by stealth but maybe, just maybe, this is simply change driven by the foreseen ‘new’ battlefield. As I see it (and this is not just the RMs but the Army too) we are keeping ‘heritage’ formations alive whilst cutting their ability to be deployed, supported and their fire power. Who is going to deploy a major UK reinforcement to Norway if 3 Cmdo Bde can’t? Answers on a post card to… Read more »
Agreed.
I have wondered whether an army Brigade could take the lead regards Norway and Arctic.
The enablers would already exist in part in 24 RE and 29 RA if they were redirected from FCF. But that leaves FCF with even fewer enablers.
As it is, 45 Cdo group are the arctic specialists, and that is the reinforcement.
Far too little for a close ally
( geographically and politically ) on NATO’s northern flank.
We saw a report that an “Arctic Strategy” would be forthcoming from MoD. Maybe it will give some surprises.
Yeah. No doubt 45 Cmdo are good, real good, but I’m not sure a small Commando BG is going to deter Russia’s Naval Infantry Division and Airborne Divisions should the worse happen.
USMC 2nd Division would take weeks to deploy whereas a UK Bde days (should it exist). The Dutch MC would deploy a BG too. It’s not enough though for an effective deterrent.
No, it is not. What ever changes.
3 Cdo Bde is non-deployable? Since when? I thought they were still part of our rapid reaction forces.
Catch up. Since the future Cmdo force came into operation 2 years ago. 45 Cmdo trains for and has a Coy forward in the high north. 42 Cmdo is spread around the fleet & 40 Cmdo is currently littoral group south (east of Suez). Can’t all be in the same place at once. 3 Cmdo Bde can’t deploy as a Bde without months of redeployment.
Thanks Rob. This surely just means that 40, 42 and 45 are currently deployed away from the home base (an army brigade does that every now and then), not that 3 Cdo Brigade is non-deployable.
If a conflict arose (eg. re-run of Falklands conflict) that required a Bde based on 3 Cdo Bde, then surely 45 would come back from its mere training task in a matter of days and a couple of Para bns would be co-opted, as happened before.
Hi CR, What would your take be on this? I’ve often thought this would be a very useful interim missile solution for us to have as it will also fit Typhoon and could be used as a support role for the marines as well as the RN. “The US Marine Corps (USMC) is advancing plans to develop a remotely operated coastal missile battery equipped to fire the Raytheon/Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM).” https://www.janes.com/defence-news/industry-headlines/latest/usmc-contracts-for-nmesis-production-representative-models “A few months after having test fired a JSM from a US Air Force 416th Flight Test Squadron (FLTS) F-16C Fighting Falcon, Kongsberg now eyes integration on… Read more »
Kongsberg are on the money with this NSM/JSM. What with being integrated onto the F-35, P-8s, ships, even truck launched. Subs and drones next? It will be interesting to see if the MoD goes for any of this in the Spear program.
I couldn’t agree more, with a limited budget we could equip our armed forces with an initial small stockpile of these should they be required short term and await the arrival of Perseus/Spear by the end of this decade.
Being an island nation, they would be handy to have as a shore-based deterrent.
Hi Nigel, Looking at the Air launched weapons first I would suggest that it would be cheaper for the RAF to integrate the SPEAR 3 onto the Typhoon rather than bring a new missile into service. The UK has already spent close to £1b on developing and produced the first batch of these weapons and Typhoon was used as the test aircraft. The set up was a trials capability so full integration and certification of an operational payload would be required, but Typoon would apparently be able to carry 12 SPEAR 3..! I like the idea of a coastal defence… Read more »
Hi ChariotRider,
Thank you for your detailed reply.
Spear 3 will be a very useful package to have without question, my only concern is we lack range and the NSM/JSM has this advantage over Spear given our potential enemies stockpile of long-range weapon systems.
NSM 185 km (115 mi; 100 nmi)+ (profile dependent) JSM 185 km (115 mi; 100 nmi)+ low-low-low profile, 555 km (345 mi; 300 nmi)+ hi-hi-low profile
Spear 3
80 mi (130 km) or 140km
Surely it makes sense to opt for landing marines on an unopposed beach if possible; may not always be possible though.
Surely you need amphibious assault shipping regardless as to whether one specific campaign comprises unopposed or opposed landings.
Also missing is an LPH replacement. Its a waste of an asset to send a carrier for a helo only operation.
Whats needed is commitment to funding, so it can happen. Dream on.
No comment on a new radar for Typhoon.
Typhoon is navalised? 😉
Too much/ not enough port!
Never say never! I’m guessing this will be a consideration for the UK’s Tempest project and partners when you consider Gripen and the initial interest from Italy. “Typhoon is considered for ‘ski-jump’ equipped carriers only (like QE2 and India’s future indigenous carriers). According to Paul Hopkins, Vice President Business Development (Air) at BAE Systems, simulation tests of a ‘navalized Typhoon’ show the aircraft can take off and land with full mission payload, including two ‘Storm Shadow’ cruise missiles, four BVR missiles, two short-range missiles, a centerline fuel tank and two conformal fuel tanks – something no other navalized aircraft can… Read more »
.
DW wrote:
“”No comment on a new radar for Typhoon.””
Dave, from what I have read, the move towards fitting the Typhoom with an AESA radar is well on tract. The Eurofighter Common Radar System Mk 0. radar will come in 3 flavors :
Kuwait will receive the Mk0
Germany and Spain will receive the Mk1
The Uk decided it wanted a more advanced version and went for the MK2 , with Italy signing up for it last Sept.
More here:
Thank you, I misread the heading.
I self-medicate with port and am having a good day.
Will the Stingray replacement be called the Captain Scarlet?
It’s a Mysteron-ry.
Still no mention of how the unmanned mine system is actually going to get where its needed, when there is a mine exercise by the standing nato mine countermeasures group of Norway, are we really going to send a type 31?
Why, with the Atlas!!
When they are not supporting numerous other areas including many new taskings as the Hercs are removed! 😉
You’d think mother vessels using STUFT will materialize too.
Keep some 130J’s!
“The US Air Force Rapid Dragon Program successfully completed its final system-level flight test on 16 December with “a live fire of a current inventory cruise missile armed with a live warhead” as part of an airdropped palletised weapon system at the Eglin Air Force Base Overwater Test Range, Florida.”
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/weapons-headlines/latest/rapid-dragon-completes-system-level-flight-test-series
Yes!
Nothing new and SSGW overtaken by events but still good to see. RN knows where it wants to be and how to get there. I want to see something similar from Army. Addressing the problems everyone knows exist what the solutions are and in what timeframe. RAF seems somewhere inbetween RN and Army. Big cuts in capability but a logical future equipment plan. But with todays news on A400’s i’d put it much closer to RN than Army.
Is the MROS intended to be a replacement for HMS Scott?
MROSS won’t be one-for-one on capabilities. There was a focus discussed on keeping undersea cabling safe, including carrying various UUVs, but it was also mentioned that wouldn’t be the full extent of its capabilities. I suppose that’s implicit in the name “Multi-Role”.
It’s expected to be capable of patrolling in the Arctic. Whether it will also function as a deep-ocean survey vessel as well, capable of providing seabed information for the nuclear deterrent submarines, is unknown. I really hope so.
Scott is due to be out of service this year, and MROSS come in service in 2024.
I see. Thanks, Jon
FWIW I find the 2024 date hard to believe.
All well and good. But three things will most certainly happen. One, the MoD will so bady mismanage all these projects, they will be years late and over budget. Two, in order to pay for the forthcoming cock-ups, there will be further capability cuts. Three, none of the senior civil serpents from the MoD responsible will be held accountable, because they will have done their two year stint and will have moved on elsewhere. Probably the Treasury, where they will do further damage. The MoD should be disbanded and the money saved given to the uniform branch so they can… Read more »
With hundreds of thousands of people in the UK defence industry thrown on the dole through no fault of their own. The loss of tens of billions in tax revenue for HMG with which to pay for the MoD budget. The loss of billions in exports. Meanwhile the uniforms responsible for Ajax put in charge of buying the ‘US off the shelf’ land forces equipment.
Yup, all agreed. Blame the decades long incomptence of those at the top of the MoD for pouring endess billions of taxpayers money into the bottom less pit that is the MoD procurement system. And the politicians who have presided over it all
Your talking about maybe 1-2.000 people over the last decade being responsible for all the procurement disasters but 100’s of thousands being thrown out of work for something they were not responsible for.
Of course there’s one not mentioned costing as much as all those listed combined. It’s contingency budget alone exceeds the construction costs of the Type 26 programme. But shhh! We don’t even discuss the Astutes these days, much less the you know whats.
Meanwhile on the otherside of the world:
PLAN In Motion: Chinese Navy’s Massive Ship Commissionings In 2021
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/01/plan-in-motion-chinese-navys-massive-ship-commissionings-in-2021/
Is that fitted for but not with 😂 Just waiting for the BLUE WATER NAVY brigade to comment on your post!
“To put this massive scale of production into perspective, the destroyer commissionings alone brought a total of 768 additional VLS cells into the PLAN fleet last year, comparable to the entire Royal Navy fleet in service.”
I can’t see how the LSDA in service date of 2024 can be achieved. As far as I am aware a public tender hasn’t even been launched yet, let alone money released and contract signed. Only way that 2024 is going to be achieved is if they stick an extra crane or two onto the bay and call it done.
It was put on hold.
https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1438764658580721666
Seems a common trend since it was first announced. Some talk about it and then silence for a couple of years and repeat. Either the navy aren’t entirely sure what they want from fine ship or there isn’t any cash available and they are hoping that some will be released at some point or a combo of the two.
Questions from my couch:
Will these 9 MHC kits actually fit into or onto the T31/T32s? And shouldn’t we be ordering more than this? Like 10-12?
The Bay upgrade for the LRG – If it’s relatively cheap thing to do, why not upgrade all 3 Bays for an even greater interim capability?
With the T31/32s – are there enough helo’s to go around for these additional vessels?
Any news on further upgrades to the Wildcats to include a dipping sonar?
If the T31/32s are going cheap why can’t we order 8 of each for a fleet of 30?
Probably. Yes. One of the Bays is playing Mother in the Gulf. A STUFT mothership purchase would be handy to release it as spare LSDA. So I doubt they would bother updating it as they assume will never need all 3 unless a major operation necessitated the combining of both LRG’s into a major amphibious force. Highly unlikely. With only 28 Wildcat and a handful of Merlin in 814 NAS supporting small ships flights, you’d think not. But perhaps when much of the escort force is in refit or alongside at any one time their helicopter flight can be reassigned… Read more »
Thanks for your replies. I’m enjoying everyone’s posts here.
Big story is Russian SSN colliding with Northumberlands towed array. Northumberland was tracking it in silent mode. Question. Is it possible the Russians couldn’t detect it or was it pure good/bad luck.
Old news… kept under very tight wraps as well!
Don’t remember this being reported at time ?
It wasn’t! Hence my comment about very tight wraps – even though there was A TV crew on board!
However, as per Steve, how in heavens did the crew not know the sub was on collision course?
Furthermore, was this a deliberate attempt to disable the T23 capability and finally:
No mention is made of which platform took over the tasking.
All of which makes me think we don’t have enough ASW platforms.
Thanks for that thought I was losing my memory. Got to say impressed with C5 keeping this quiet. 30 sec video on YT shows the Russian was being tracked by Northumberland.
At a guess both the sub and frigate were tracking each other, but only had a vague idea of each others positioning. If they were both passively tracking each other, that might explain it.
Clearly wasn’t doing a good job of tracking it, if it didn’t notice the sub was going to collide with its towed sonar.
The RN is really in a very precarious place. They need to get warships in the water asap. Lethargic pace of construction is a huge worry. China is mass building up a fleet on an emergency war footing. Russia is resurgent and now openly confronting the West with a leader who is more than prepared to launch hybrid warfare, invasion of soverign countries and chemical weapons attacks as a means of assassination. Meanwhile the UK hasnt launched a warship other than our 2 carriers since 2008. Last type 45 launched. A gap of likely 18 years by the time the… Read more »
Type 31 is being built by Babcock who are new to whole-warship construction, in a newly built facility, and in a dockyard, despite its history, where I don’t think a warship has ever been built from scratch. Isn’t that enough risk? Speeding up the first of that class is not a good idea, even if it was technically possible. It’s already too late to speed up Glasgow by much. Let’s just hope the second batch of T26s are ordered soon, to be built at a far faster rate.
I’d like to see Batch2 T26 construction sped up; however, re your point Babcock, Names change, but, the workforce are transient and Babcock probably have some very goodbpeople on board. Calling N-A-B!
And some towed sonar replacements?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59898569