Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, Chief of the Defence Staff, recently shed light on the operational readiness of the Royal Navy’s surface escort fleet during a recent meeting with the Defence Committee.
During the discussion, Sarah Atherton MP, a member of the Defence Committee, asked Admiral Radakin about the current capacity of the fleet.
She queried, “There are 17 major surface escort ships available, and we have received evidence that, to fulfil your commitments, you need substantially more. How many of those 17 surface escort ships could fight tonight?”
Admiral Radakin replied, “We were at 19 frigates and destroyers, I think, when I appeared before the Committee as First Sea Lord, and then I subsequently wrote to say that we were reducing some of those numbers because some of those ships are really expensive and so that we could take those crews to help with the transition that happens throughout this decade. We are now down to 17 frigates and destroyers.
Of those 17, some will be in maintenance and some will be in deep refit, so probably 11 or 12 are actually available to go out on operations, and those are sufficient for all the operational commitments that we currently have.”
His answer states that the Royal Navy operates a strategic rotation of readiness levels across its surface fleet. Aiming to have about a third of the Navy at high readiness, another third working up to that level, and the final third coming down from it, the Royal Navy ensures a continuous state of preparedness.
Although there is a reduction in the overall number of surface escort ships, Admiral Radakin suggested that the remaining ships are more than capable of fulfilling the Navy’s current operational commitments.
‘Not enough frigates’ says Defence Sub-Committee
A discussion concerning UK military procurement was held during a Defence Sub-Committee meeting on Wednesday, 21 June 2023.
The central theme under examination was the intricate balance between the procurement of domestically manufactured, high-end equipment and the acquisition of off-the-shelf alternatives.
The Committee is chaired by Mark Francois MP and was attended by Sarah Atherton MP, Robert Courts MP, Richard Drax MP, Tobias Ellwood MP, Emma Lewell-Buck MP, John Spellar MP, and Dame Meg Hillier from the Public Accounts Committee.
Robert Courts commenced the dialogue, setting the tone for the subsequent discussions, saying “If you want something that is bespoke, UK‑manufactured, exquisite, high‑end and all of that stuff, but it takes too long and it costs too much, you end up in that awful and frankly artificial situation where you are thinking, ‘If it is going to be in budget and on time, you are going to have to buy it off the shelf’. That is the last thing we want.”
James Cartlidge, Minister for Defence Procurement, responded to Courts’ concerns by agreeing that a balance must be struck.
“If I can give you a good example, the T26 has been described to me as a submarine on the surface…this is something that we want to have sovereign capability in, but there may be other areas where, although it is still important, because it is not absolutely critical to be sovereign, we are more relaxed about purchasing an off‑the-shelf option.”
Courts, however, swiftly reiterated his concern about the scarcity of high-end military equipment, stating, “But we do not have enough of either Type 26 or Type 31. That is the point I am making. You end up with very small numbers of high‑end kit. You do not have enough and it is delayed and it is over budget.”
Cartlidge, acknowledging these concerns, nevertheless put forth the argument for reliance on NATO alliances in managing large-scale war-fighting situations. As he argued, “the most important point on mass is about NATO…ultimately mass in terms of potential war‑fighting situations comes from us and our allies. We cannot expect to do everything ourselves.”
The Chair, Mark Francois, added a historical dimension to the discussion by challenging Cartlidge’s argument about dependence on allies.
“Historically, the 1981 White Paper slashed the Royal Navy… Then, a year later, Argentina invaded the Falklands and, if we had stuck to your argument, we would not have been able to retake them.”
Towards the end of the discourse, the discussion circled back to the original issue – the tension between maintaining a small number of high-end equipment and a larger mass of off-the-shelf purchases, along with the need to keep the procurement process within budget and on schedule.
Courts refocused the attention on this critical matter, querying Cartlidge, “The original question I am asking you is how you square this circle between having small numbers of exquisite kit and large amounts so you have the mass, and how you are stopping everything being delayed and over budget.”
In response, Cartlidge suggested an innovative approach that strikes a balance between the need for top-notch equipment and the practical aspects of procurement. He quoted an officer from the Irish Guards,
“When we were talking about procurement, he said words to the effect of, ‘Well, we need to go for 70% not perfect and then spiral the rest.’ He put it to me in a nutshell. That is where you strike the balance; by not procuring something that is perfect and exquisite from the outset, you recognise the importance of spiral development. You sprint to 70 and then you spiral once it is with the Army or the Navy or the Air Force.”
You can read the full exchange here.
I watched the defence sellect committee meeting and to be honest with you the spin is getting thin.
“… those are sufficient for all the operational commitments that we currently have.”
In other words, we only make commitments that we can do. If the RN was twice as big we would make more commitments.
They all talk the same language to each other by the sound it. It is a “committee” after all. Lol.
Like I’ve said on other posts we need to Get our defence spending up to 3% at lest to Get the kit we need and want.🙄
One could get to 3 percent. But then there need to be some serious cuts in the overall national budget. No government has demonstrated any will to do that.
I listened to Keir Starmer this morning on the Today Programme. He was challenged on calling for a strong national defences. Would you spend more money in real terms, he was asked. “When we were last in power, we did have good levels of spending,” he responded [failing to note that holding steady around 2.5% of GDP is only good compared to Cameron and Sunak]. “I’m going to make clear going into an election exactly what our costings are…” He was then asked, are you saying you are going to back this [Strong National Defences] with real things like money… Read more »
I don’t believe or trust either of them. I’m getting the impression it’s an opinion increasingly shared.
On defense no, as the general public doesn’t priorites it over other government expenditure or tax cuts. Can’t really blame either party for that, as they are meant to represent the voters.
I was surprised when the Ukraine war was boiling up that a big increase wasn’t announced as it would have then been popular but from what I have read the public wallet is pretty empty and so I suspect there just wasn’t the money to do it.
MP’s are not meant to represent the voters every view – our government is not set up to work that way.
MP’s are elected to provide many things and defence of the realm (for want of a better word) is one of them…without adequate defence there can be no democracy.
They just choose to ignore it.
If they cannot highlight that and get electoral backing for ensuring that defence is fit for purpose now considering what is going on in Eurpoe then they never will.
Agreed.
On anything bud. I’m with Grizzler on this, this isn’t really how our system is set up. Not really the forum but I’ll be brief; Defence is a vote winner if they can follow through – look at how many stories in the press these days. Why? Because people care again so it sells papers. If they did what the public want though, how come 60+% of the public want to lower immigration, so popular it affected the last election, but 1.2M net arrived last year…? Lab or Tory are the same. I used to think they both wanted ‘what’s… Read more »
Most of the population don’t care about immigration their focus is on cost of living. It’s a loud but small number that do. Even in core conservative voters it’s not a priority. It is however being used as a smoke screen to keep people from talking about the elephant in the room and why our economy is doing way worse than all the other major ones. Same with defense, ask the average voter if they think it’s important and you will get almost all saying yes. Ask them if they want to pay more taxes to pay for it and… Read more »
Not really the forum bud. With the greatest respect, will agree to disagree. We were told Brexit won because ‘racist’ backlash to immigrants. So there’s 52% that care enough to vote on it. Was in the Tory manifesto. They won. By a lot. Think a lot don’t discuss it for fear of being labelled ‘racist’ but a good number do care. Defence in the polls; I think it could easily be used as a weapon. For example, Lab use the NHS as a weapon every election “save the nhs” etc. even though Tories have been in Gov for most of… Read more »
Empty when it comes to things that don’t go into their supporters pockets!
” labour is always strong on defence” When? Every Labour government since WW2 has taken an axe to Defence spending. Think Sunak is bad? You ain’t seen anything yet.
To be fair the Attlee government did invest in a British atomic bomb! The 1998 defence review also had a lot of great stuff in it which was unfortunately then derailed by Afghanistan and Iraq.
All the biggest cuts where under the Tory’s, front line first in the 1990’s and Thatcher’s draconian cuts in 82 that caused the Falklands war.
You need to have another look at this Jim. Front Line First was all about closing redundant bases and spending the money on new equipment, hence the name of the review. John Nott’s review , which in any case didn’t take place, was also about switching the emphasis from keeping older ships to building new ones; improving air defence and buying Trident. Contrast this with what Labour did.
What did labour do? So the Tory’s never cut the budget then, sorry I must have missed that 😀
Your picking out words Jim
I didn’t say the Tories hadn’t made cuts.
I was comparing them to Labour. Have you forgotten TSR2; HS 681; P1127. Ordering F111 to replace TSR2 then cancelling that using Buccaneers from the R.N. before they scrapped the carriers and more. All three services had further cuts under Callaghan. Tony Blair: Ships taken out of service prematurely, scrapped, sold; goodness knows how many aircraft lost.
It may not suit your agenda but you should know by now that I can always back up with facts.
We had this conversation last week and I backed it up with video interviews.
The Cons made a horlicks of TSR2 and Labour had no choice but to cut it along with other programmes.
Not to forget other infamous cuts instigated by the Cons such as… Beeching.
You mentioned, ahem, facts, Geoff.
Don’t forget they cancelled the sedan chair production line in1784 and then there was…… I didn’t realise that Beeching was a defence minister. On the TSR” was labour’s cancellation, after they had been in power for more than a year, before or after they lied to the work force saying they had no plans to cancel and then did precisely that the following day. You want facts. Try that one.
Ah but Beeching does come into play.
Railway connectivity delivers £32Bn into the GDP of the Economy.
Rail has the ability to reduce pollution thus easing the strain on the NHS and thus allowing investment into Defence.
Are you catching my drift?
UK Govt in the round is the responsibility of the UK Govt.
Beeching did untold damage to our economy and allowed certain Cons to siphon off money.
Labour has always had to pick up the detritus of Con Govt and take hard decisions, in the round.
Utter Horlicks Brown left the country on its Knees, an un-elected person emptied the piggy bank. no better than anyone else.
Think you’ll find it was a world banking crises – banking equity built on sand.
All hail the unregulated free market.
You disagree?
Another fan of Orwellian doublespeak? Disciple of the Ministry of Truth
Labour over emphasis on the USSR doomed the Armed Forces to huge cuts.
When your only main focus disappears, how can you justify no cuts?
Labour over emphasis? You’re a fan Orwell, right?
Yes Labour over emphasis.
Labour defence reviews in the 60s and 70s reduced the military to focus on Home Defence, BAOR, ASW and nuclear deterrent.
The British army struggled to deploy anywhere other than Germany. As seen in the Falklands with the Guards battalions, and seen in the Gulf where only 2 brigades were deployed, and more soldiers deployed in the later Iraq war despite the army being much smaller.
As Geoff says below, I don’t think you will let facts get in the way of your agenda.
My agenda?
Falklands?
GW1?
Who were the ruling party?
Are you in your own personal echo chamber, Golum?
I have already explained why the army struggled to deploy in both of those theatres, and it is because of decisions made by Labour.
All army equipment issues now are because of Labour. WFM and reserves inability to deploy formed units is because of Labour.
Can you think of one issue the military is suffering now that doesn’t stem from Labour?
All army procurement issues can, T45 issues, small numbers and without maximum armament can, splitting of T26 order can, low numbers of SSN can, lack of shipbuilders can, low numbers of fires and air defence can, RN recruitment issues can, etc.
TSR2 was a very fine aeroplane; I’ve walked under one. Magnificent. But the wrong plane at the wrong time sadly.
Sorry Andy. You’re right. I’m done. 😕
👍
Tartan Tinted Specs from the SNP Health Service means you cannot see shite
Know need for specs here. All I see is a load of my party is better than ur party pish.
There will be a few MPs wanking one off as we speak over this chat.
Front Line First was opposed by a lot of brass at the time. The Nott review never crystallised to building anything other than T23 – it would have been a bloodbath if implement. The man is a total idiot – I know him. There was no understanding about cost and value. There was also an issue around terrible industrial relations in ship building and the politics of keeping yards open. The major issue was to turn warship building into a commercial exercise. That has only just happened with T31. The consistent problem has been an incapacity to cut to create… Read more »
2004- Blair Govt. West as 1st Sea Lord ( Where does he sit now and backs who?)
Cut three Type 23 frigates, three Type 42 destroyers, four nuclear submarines, six minehunters and reducing the planned purchase of Type 45 destroyers from twelve to eight. West said “We must continue the shift in emphasis away from measuring strength in terms of hull numbers and towards the delivery of military effects… I am confident that these changes will leave the Navy better organised and equipped to face the challenges of the future.”
And how did that work out…
I agree
Other than T45 – Labour didn’t back volume warship building at all.
Until Brown realised that not more RN ships meant no more Rosyth and Govan….suddenly QEC was ordered, much to everyone’s surprise, and what is now T26 accelerated.
No great argument from me. The start to this discussion was the claim that somehow the opposition has always been sound on defence which is laughable but the Tories have not been blameless.
I think both sides have been duplicitous but there isn’t clear cross party agreement that defence isn’t a party political football. I’m afraid it is the ya-boo-sucks nonsense without any clear commitment to fix things that turns we off UK party politics completely. Loads of unrealistic promises, from both sides, no ability to face up to unpopular decisions that need to be taken. Why are public services so bad when they swallow so much money. The answer isn’t more ‘investment’ – the level of disorganisation and disinterest is terrible mainly because ‘management’ is carried out not by real managers with… Read more »
There are three services in this country that I think we would probably all agree are at the top of the important list, namely defence, education and health ( alphabetically). I am long enough in the tooth to remember back and I’ve been involved in the first two. We have now had forty years of constant change, one political party after the other, and we have achieved nothing. If anything it is worse now than before. I don’t know about you my friend but given the choices ahead of us I fear for my grand children in the future. Who… Read more »
Agree the Tory party has historically cut cut cut much much more than any labour government. I’m half expecting them to request Wagner PMC support
HMS Ocean is probably the worst recent military decisions under the Tories.
The Swan Hunter option was to military standards so would’ve lasted 30 years, the Kvaerner option the was pursued simply couldn’t.
Failing to choose Swan Hunter closed one of the most if not the most successful shipyard the UK has ever had, with excellent facilities that are now all gone, never to return.
So Swan Hunter didnt have a part finished Hull removed due to cost over runs. Ocean needed a complete Overhaul to meet the power requirements for the Modern RN same issue that is now killing Type 23s lack of modern power there Iphones
Swan Hunter was a strong yard. It went into receivership after the Ocean order went to Kvaerner. It was later bought and didn’t build a single ship until the 2 Bays.
Swan Hunter at its state in 1993 was building nearly 2 ships a year and had modern facilities and a strong workforce.
Swan Hunter in 2006 was barely even a shadow of its former self.
Its why Labour run Councils are Bankrupt. cannot run to a Budget and just buy there way out.
What nonsense. Conservative run Croydon council goes bankrupt for the 3rd time.
Thurrock conservative led council on the brink of bankrupt.
To make it out it’s all labour councils is misleading.
Ahh see Now Harriers, were Grounded by BAEs. in a pissing contest over MRA4 and getting its heavy arse off the runway. Ark Royal was scrapped early yes to provide Engines and Gearboxes to Lusty, due to another Pissing contest with BAEs over MRA4 getting its arse off the runway. Governments don’t ground aircraft or airframes. Remember Airbus and Concorde, remove its flight hours and its done. Ocean was at the end of her RN Lifespan and couldn’t be upgraded due to power restrictions within her Hull, BAEs lost there right to lead bid on any MOD procurement and had… Read more »
Labour Defence Ministers in my life time who were good at the job were Denis Healey and Roy Mason.
That is a blatant lie. Between 1997 and 2010 the army, RAF and Navy were cut by 13%, 44% and 40%, with the size of the army likely being saved by GWOT. MCMV were cut from 28 to 16, SSN from 12 to 7 with the cancellation of FASM. Escorts were reduced from 35 to 23 with destroyers halved and 3 T23s with an average age of 12 sold off. Sea Harriers were cut along with Invincible. Over 50 pumas reduced to 22, rapiers in frontline units reduced from 80 to 24, and Jaguar cut. Nimrod was reduced from 21… Read more »
Using your login of Nott…
Puma WAS life expired a la your Nott methodology (alaynm)
Jaguar was not all weather alaynm
No role was envisaged for Challies and Fires
MRA4 – Haddon Cave.
Rapiers were crap.
Harriers and Carrier cut alaynm.
22s cost too much to run and man.
Orwell is truly your God.
Puma was upgraded and is still in service.
Sea Harrier was not obsolete.
Rapier wasn’t crap by the time it was cut and even so are 80 crap AD systems or 24 crap AD systems better?
23s we’re practically brand new when cut.
Nott cut one obsolete thing- escorts. You have mentioned 9 things there and it isn’t even all of them.
A very good factual response Loius but I don’t think Jim and Co. will let facts get in the way of their agenda.😉
Aye all thanks to those crazy socialist scallywags called Labour who bankrupted the country in the mid 70’s leading to winter of discontent , 3 day working week , cap in hand to IMF …… actions have consequences alas no political party can be trusted ,all as bad as each other now. Doesn’t really matter anyways as the WEF run our nation now & have done since the days of Tony B he was a product of their young Global leaders programme. anyhoos I do think out of the 3 services the RN seem to be getting a grip and… Read more »
Indeed. Bemoaming Labour is just standard Tory form, claiming they’ll always do worse. Bit like the Nazis saying, “you thought we were bad? It would’ve been worse under anyone else!”
They’ve been driving the country over the cliff while their mates & backers have wrung as much wealth out of the nation mercilessly.
If Labour or anyone else gets in & messes up defence, we’ll hold them to account too. Since Thatcher the Tories have been all about allowing the sharks to rip us off.
so you forget in that period Your mate Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. who did what exactly, all as bad none fit to govern yet other one can only BLAME and not fix the problem
Labour delays in the Combat ships and the cuts in place have led to the shortages today, under Labour. Labour ordered and set the design for the Type 45, which the Tories are trying to fix Now, Labour fixed and design the QE class carriers which the Tories are trying to Fix Now. Even Maggie Thatcher didn’t send Soldiers to war in un armoured land rovers. SNP and your bitter anti Tory drives you. even when they support the un-grateful workforce. SNP run SCOTLAND badly, Labour run Wales Badly, Stop blaming one there all SHITE and your grandad voted for… Read more »
To be fair though Jim, the 1990’s cuts were “the peace dividend” and was appropriate at that time. The rule of thumb for NATO and Western powers was to cut force led by circa 50%.
It was good relative to every other country as well. The UK had the second largest defence budget in the world under the last labour government.
Yet they axed Jaguar, Sea Harrier FA2, Tornado F3, Greatly reduced GR4 numbers, and Harrier GR7/9, RN Escorts ect. Labour made big cuts. Army numbers largely protected due to Iraq/Afghanistan. But didn’t increase the Army when it was under huge strain. Labour are no angels when it comes to defence. Though I do believe Starmer will be far more pro defence compared to Corbyn.
I am very glad he didn’t get his red mitts on the defence budget. 😆
Maybe but what was our choice last election on defence? Labour has to present us with electable candidates otherwise they share the blame as the main opposition. Its highly unlikely key capacities would have been maintained had Labour won, Nina Griffiths set it out in 2019 at RUSI, major peace keeping focus and it wasn’t pretty. Labour only commit to 2% at the last election so no better than the Tories, but its also what the 2% would have been spent on that’s as concern. I really don’t see any relevance in claim and counter claim based on history. Labour… Read more »
Yet still sent soldiers to War in Land rovers. or soft skins, and then spent on replacements that were no better. ordered 2 Carriers that Tory gov is trying to Fix. Budget not spent wisely is like a Scotsman thinking. rare
Good old racism. Arguments lowest level has been reached.
No difference between both party’s sadly
yep agree there all shite, Look how quick the SNP has fallen apart now we jimmie Krankie has been found with a her hand in the shortbread tin. Ripped off Scottish and English hand over tiny fist. and they all fell for it.
Labour is going to commit to massive spending on renewables, 28b per year from around 2026 I believe, they’re also saying NHS is underfunded so more money will be ploughed in can’t see that being les than 20b per year. Windfall tax on big energy will most likely be less lucrative by 2025 with energy prices dropping and with big players pulling out the market, Shell already selling its domestic energy business. Companies aren’t choosing to invest in the UK, that’s unlikely to change under Labour unless they promise incentives = government funds or lower taxes(not happening). We’re paying over… Read more »
Thinking maybe I should throw my hat into the political ring.
Vote for me and you’ll get “SDSR2025: Army wants, Army Gets!”
Agree with that.
NHS budget for the Year is currently £32b its operational budget is £20B 75% of that Budget is spent on Cancer treatment and leaves 25% for the entire rest.
The NHS Budget is what ????/ https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget
I thought you wanted an end to Politics on here ??????
I’m not an appeasenik, thank you.
Labour is strong on defence? Gordon Brown had to apologise to a Public Enquiry for lying because he said defence spending had gone up in real terms every year. It had in fact gone down in real times in some years despite the government choosing to fight two major wars on a peacetime defence budget.
Or actually closing off tax loopholes and getting those with most to spare, to use it in UK instead of squirrelling it away in off-shore tax haven hard disk drives.
If I’m not mistaken, to the best of my own Inquisitive Searching and Knowledgeable Insights into my Mother’s Own Searching For Details and Information Surrounding the Brief Wartime Experiences of her Only Brother in the Senior Services of Britain’s Royal Navy, It would seem that he Volunteered purely by Coincidence during the day Pearl Harbour was Attacked by the Imperial Japanese Military Forces, With, by Hindsight, Seriously Advanced Deliberations and Planning. And, Returning To Topic of George Allison’s journalism article on the Readiness of the British Royal Navy for A Fighting Season on the High Seas across the Globe, Contexts… Read more »
English?
Apologies, that was a bit harsh, but shorter sentence would be appreciated.
Not sure what your post has anything to do with what I’ve posted very sad for the loss ,however good history lesson 🤔
In 1939 we were spending 8% and were entirely reliant on the French army to do most of the fighting.
The UK can spend 3% and it won’t make a blind bit of difference to NATO, it will serve to further hollow out UK infrastructure spending because that’s were the money will be coming from as health and other departments basically have a fixed budget and the aid budget has already been largely reassigned.
I would disagree Jim, 3% would make a huge difference, adding 12 billion plus from our current low base.
My major fear would be that the defence political/ industrial base would swing into action and squander the lot on hugely expensive bespoke programs…..
Centralise planned command economies don’t have a great record in arms manufacturing to be honest, competitive industrial country will outproduce them. UK massively out produced Germany’s centrally controlled industry for instance.
The RAN won’t be retiring the Collins class Submarines any time soon!.
We need the Collins down here! UK can build its own and why doesn’t it for more regional patrols? Won’t be gone from the RAN until the SSNRs comes in and I believe all six will be getting upgrades up to then. Good to see the Philippines looking at getting a couple of diesel subs for a first time too, and I read somewhere that they may need a couple more Wildcats for some new corvette/ frigates.
After what happened to Sanders last week, Radakin is deffo not going to rock the boat and say that he hasn’t got enough ships
He can say whatever he wants right now. For Ben Wallace to lose one Chief may be regarded as unfortunate; to lose two would look like carelessness.
Agree with the argument the % of gdp needs to increase BUT gdp is down, massively, so 3% of what it is now is no better than 2% of what it was a few years ago.
GDP is not down it’s up. Inflation is up and that boost nominal GDP.
Obviously the carriers are excluded from the headline, unless, of course the USMC can provide a squadron of F35Bs. What is really required is more nuclear attack submarines. The visible surface fleet is obsolete now due to the Russian/Chinese hypersonic missile threat.
Quite correct. If the Ukraine War has taught us anything , it is that Russian and Chinese Ships AND hypersonic weapons are invincible.
We should scrap our surface fleet and stop buying F-35Bs. All useless. Even the Irish Navy would wipe the floor with the RN.
Yes, We’re obsolete because the Russian Navy is at such a high state of readiness with its cutting edge ships and *cough ‘Carrier’.
Better still we should live in fear of the Russian states’ true potent and unparalleled military skill, making models of ships it wishes it could have!!
ah but that’s why we have two
We are already doubling the SSN fleet as part of SSN AUKUS. Your comment on the USMC F35B squadrons remains nonsense. The entire point of QE class is that it can easily operate allied aircraft for the US p, Japan p, Italy and Singapore in addition to the 80 odd aircraft the UK is purchasing. Unlike a CATOBAR carrier it can and also will operate large fleets of helicopters including Merlin HM2, Merlin HC4 and Apache E. There is an active drone program considering UCAV’s, MALE and AAR drones. In most real world operations for a QE class if operating… Read more »
Deluded and factually incorrect on every point.
Some great analysis there FredieB, 😀
Thanks for your insight I think we all benefit from your detailed outlook and well researched opinions 😀
Not sure which comment your referring to though 😂
Oh lets just make it simple for you, I’m referring to all your comments here.
Double the SSN fleet, Large fleets of Helicoptors. UCAVS MALE and AAR. Two CSGs all available tomorrow.
In the words of Mary Ellen, goodnight Jimboy.
I agree but IRL 24 F35B is more like the number required – achievable, at war surge, from UK inventory assuming 2/3 deployable.
QEC is huge and can keep 12 F35B in the hangar and 12 topside with plenty of discs for cabs and other toys.
“We are doubling the SSN fleet” Are We ?
Yes, I think he’s paying.
👍
Stating that 11 or 12 surface surface ships are available for operations is a bit misleading or optimistic. As the excellent Navy Lookout helpfully reported there are currently 7 frigates and destroyers active (1 in The West Indies, 1 in The Med, 1 in The Gulf and 4 around the UK) with 3 more undergoing maintenance which could be deployed given a few days if necessary. That gets you 10 at the very most with a couple of those far from home. The rest are in LIFEX or PIP and who know’s if Westminster will ever get a refit and… Read more »
11 or 12 seems a bit dream state to me given one we are over 10 thrn we are talking fully dismantled ships with systems removed and holes cut in the hull / decks. That said – ‘who are fighting on our own with a better force?’ Surely, that us the immediate question? However, given the bizarre US and Franco German reaction to Ukrainian events the UK being able to shape and lead is critical. But for Boris and BW – Putin would have been appeased by Micron with the Germans wringing their hands on the sidelines and the US… Read more »
Thank you for your very technical response: with which I concur.
Anyone else alarmed/disgusted by the statement; “We cannot expect to do everything ourselves.“?
I was, yes like the Americans and the French always have our interests at heart. Course not. What’s the point of us having a navy if it cannot shape events in our interest, either have an effective force or let’s not bother. If you can’t field enough escorts to protect a carrier for some action that is specific to us (yes let’s say falklands but could be anything) so it stays in port for fear of loss, then it is not effective and is just a giant mobile car park, er no, plane park, no there’s too few, ok a… Read more »
We can field enough escorts for a carrier strike group easily. If we were fighting a war tomorrow we could send two.
We can’t send frigates all round the world doing little more than flag waving and anti submarine patrols but now we forward deploy frigates and OPV’s getting much the same effect without 36 escorts.
Jim, please step away from this site, you really don’t have a clue. This comment alone shows a complete lack of knowledge and awareness “If we were fighting a war tomorrow we could send two (CSDs)” Tell us all how you would manage to sail HMS POW tomorrow ?
Hi FredieB, if you can’t engage on an intellectual level on the site is suggest you go else where we do expect a bit or a higher level of debate than what your currently sharing and you don’t need to insult people.
The point being made is about escorts not carriers so yes we can send 10 out in a war situation which is sufficient for two carrier strike groups.
Suggest you read what your commenting on instead of just trolling.
Well I’ve been reading your comments here and I have to say you seem to lack any understanding of the subjects being discussed and what’s more you are obviously not too intelligent as you fail to understand when you have been corrected.
Which pair ? just so that I can understand your view point on the discussions had between all the members here . Personally, I’m backing Animal as he shares a similar viewpoint whereas Jim seems to be rather lacking in facts and knowledge.
Conversely I don’t care who you are or why you feel the need to get involved either…. Get It ? …. now then lad, get this, I’ve been commenting on this site since it was first put up, you have no idea just who I am, what I’ve done or how much I know …. I’ve read your posts for many years, never really challenged you, pretty much left you to post freely without reacting, quite why you feel like commenting towards me this way is now is frankly beyond me but I guess you really don’t understand.
The trouble Jim is you are not a video gamer and your critics are.
What, why, where and when never cross some people’s minds. It distracts from their immediate enjoyment. It’s like asking train spotters to run a railway. They would not know where to start.
He’s not trolling, you’re typing sho!te.
What two CSGs could we deploy and having met all our current commitments with what we have, where would two sets of escorts come from?
I’m also at a loss as to how we could sail POW tomorrow.
Some ocean going tugs & lotsa chewing gum to plug the holes might do it! Assuming they’re still mid repair work.
Don’t have a clue mate. But I do know we are in WW3 at the moment, lol, apparently, lol again, reckon she will be able to sail tomorrow though with a full compliment of F35s and masses of Merlin’s. I was told that earlier.
I don’t, and now, I don’t believe anything you post on here….. shame because I have happily read and followed so many of your comments over the many years….. Oh well, never mind, just another poster making throw away comments whilst being oblivious to the whole scheme of things. Shame really, I used to upvote pretty much every one of your comments back in the day.
On the hush hush, she’s been fitted with propulsor drives, an SMR, and nuclear photon torpedoes for self defence.
That’s between these four walls, mind!
Lol 😁
Hi, I said to dominate a conflict zone. A single (or even2) destroyers and 2 T23s may be enough on paper to provide bare protection to a carrier strike group but if one goes down, the lot has to sail back. Not sure how you get the ability to field 2 strike groups, that’s not possible and in reality it would be at best 2 carriers in one strike group, there isn’t enough escorts for 2 groups even if you could crew both carriers. You say ‘easily’ very casually, but 10 is not enough at all. In a war response… Read more »
Well hopefully you will also wake up and see the errors of your Medication induced comments …. hopefully.
Exactly what ‘two’ could we deploy?
Escorts or CSGs?
Yes, but we need to deploy escorts also to do just that, escort merchants etc & perform many other tasks necessary in wartime. So two CSGs each with 4 escorts(2FFG, 2DDG) leaves just1-3 for everything else. Though it is unlikely we’ll be operating 2 CSGs simultaneously. The point of having 2 carriers is that we can operate 1 while the other rests, refits & restores to be ready when the other finishes ops. We no longer have numbers of recently retired escorts that could be refitted & bought back into service in an emergency. When we last sent a CSG… Read more »
Very fine points. Would just like to add; USN CSG typically have 6 escorts. The French CSG ‘Clemenceau 21’ had 6 (3 French, 3 allied).
Begs the question, could we actually generate a full 2 CSG alone? I’m thinking not.
We will be going well in that direction with Mk41 VLS on our T26 & T31 frigates entering service in a few years. Probably on T32 too & T45s might be retro fitted.They will have cruise missiles for long ranged strike. If the T83 destroyer-cum-cruiser arrives, even more cruise missiles will be carried.
But these awful weak days of our escorts sometimes carry zero AShMs & no land attack missile capability while even Russian corvettes carry cruise missiles, can’t end soon enough.
To take any missiles any enemy lobs our way so we can be suitably surprised & offended. Death traps in any conflict they find themselves in. Can’t defend themselves from surface warships except maybe small boats, can’t defend themselves from air strikes, can’t defend themselves from any submarine.
Most other nations OPVs outgun & outrange them too.
You just can’t ever be sure you’ll keep them out of harms way. Enemies often do unpredictable things, but such weak vessels are always in danger of finding themselves way out of their depth.
Providing “presence” is all they can do. No deterrence.
A good old biff to a scroat. Funny you should mention the prison service, my father also had a stint as a guard at Wandsworth in his fifties, I got the impression when they had a ‘difficult day’ is was because he was having a ‘good day’. I’d say RIP dad but he was horrible and he’d probably rise up and bellow at me for being soft. 🙂
In 1815 at the battle of Waterloo at the zenith of our power as the largest empire on the planet with an untouchable navy we could not do everything ourselves. We needed the Prussians.
The US Military that spends the best part of a trillion dollars a year on defence if fighting in Ukraine could not do everything itself, it’s army is tiny by mobilised war standards and there is only so much you can deploy across an ocean.
Are you on Drugs ?
Lol. Looks that way, Waterloo, Prussians, Empire, I’m guessing LSD.
Enoch Powell of all people, pointed out Great Britain (a purely geographical not political term) was never a great power; we could not and did not try to take on the major Continental powers alone.We made alliances and played a shrewd diplomatic game – Palmerston to Queen Victoria: ‘We do not have friends Mam, only interests’. The Empire defended itself; people who had had barely a claim to a their lands became nations because of the first international rules based system; the British Empire was the first to make its critics richer. The great gift this island possesses is its… Read more »
I think the Vikings, Romans, Chinese etc could lay claim to inventing expeditionary warfare.
I think I see your point but I don’t think Waterloo was the Zenith of our power & we were taking on the most powerful land army on the planet at the time. We played the continental game for centuries through careful alliances so this was to be expected. Anyway, my point was; the chap is basically saying we’ll never fight alone again so don’t need to be able to. Well, we fought alone after the fall of France, we had to fight alone in Falklands, we fought alone against the Armada & at Trafalgar, the Nile… we (the UK)… Read more »
Agreed Stu, Waterloo wasn’t the zenith for Britain, it was the beginning of hegemony for us ending at WW1. Agreed also on us having the ability to unilaterally act. Or why bother spending 50billion.
You summarised beautifully. Agreed sir!
I’ve been banging this drum for years; if we have a public discussion & decide we do just want ‘defend ourselves only’, fine. Let’s sell carriers, reduce navy to 4 or 5 ships, bin all tanks, half the air force and let’s save our money. But politicians better not be involving us in another Iraq/Afghan!
OR, we agree we want X, Y and Z capabilities, then we nut up and pay for it.
But, did I miss a meeting? Because I don’t recall the discussion where we decided to become 3rd rate.
Thank you Stu, Plus the sheer mismanagement of procurement and short sighted industrial policy and poor short term politics. All of which is well understood on this forum. Bin the lot if it’s just equates to a pawn on the chessboard, fix it and spend more if it can be a queen or even a bishop.
Even a small increase in new ship numbers would make an obvious difference. Are they even still thinking of “24”, where’s the drive get out of the sub 20 box? An extra T26, now they’re in build, would be a very handy ASW asset for the RN which I think was the original number asked for?
Hi Quentin,
Unfortunately, to get that extra T26, the Navy would be expected to cut something else. There is no new money for defence and there won’t be – plain and simple. Sunak has no interest in defence and Starmer will be a disater. Either way, the Armed Forces are screwed. Do more with less.
That’s does sound a bit depressing. But the upgrading and up arming as with the T45s and T31s is a good start. And we all wish was done sooner.
I don’t think the frigate building programs can be made much faster in the next couple of years. It looks like the problem year is 2015, when Westminster would have completed her Lifex. HMS Glasgow ISD is 2016 I think. And Venturer 2017. I think a cheaper way to increase ASW frigate numbers might be to build the last 2 Type 31 with ASW quieting. In the meantime we could put a towed sonar et al on one of the GP T23s.
I like the idea of ASW-ing some of the T31s, even AAW-ing some too, plus order a few more. And there’s still some life in the ol’ T23s yet. Lol. 😆
Where’s Gunbuster when you need him?
23s are dead.
Okay, three knackered and the rest on their last legs.
Still here…Bit busy as I have been back in the UK on my holibobs…By the way what a depressing S**t hole the UK has become over the past year.
Anyway…You can ASW anything you want . A T22 with a tail wasn’t exactly quiet . Modern systems like 2087 ( which is LF Active) help with longer range even on “Noisy” platforms.
Into the 2030s, yes. Meanwhile it will get as low as 14 or 15 escorts over the next year or two. HMG has allowed meantime the RN to be recklessly run down way below anything sensible at a time of extremely dangerous global threats. The Army & RAF similarly too. The plan is for 6 T45s, already with the fleet, 8 T26, 5 T31 & 5 T32. That should acheive 24 escorts by the mid-late 2030s, IF there’s no cuts to that program. Some time in the 2030s the T45 DDGs will be replaced by T83s. Let’s hope our enemies… Read more »
Small points…but…realitically, 7 vessels tonight and another 2 to 3 within 48 hours. (3 are in maintenance)
Tonight no T 45 in UK waters ready.
Isn’t the real number 7 of 19. Just because 2 of the fleet are withdrawn due to very poor condition / costs doesn’t change the current sanctioned fleet number being 19….that being the case availability tonight is about 38% and about 50% inside 48 hours.
https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1676506857601482753?t=VtJ5GNljpAOFZfNpZnldxw&s=19
It’s actually down to 16 as 3 T23s are too far gone, I fear a couple more might shortly follow.
Too far gone for what? This is for fighting world war 3 not a global patrol during peace time. In 1982 we pulled Hermes out the breakers yard and had her sailing for the south Atlantic in days.
Yorktown went from being a complete wreck to fighting in the battle of midway in three days.
I can list plenty more examples if you like.
“Too far gone for what”? you say, my word you really have no Idea what you are talking about. He’s referring to HMS Montrose and HMS Monmouth which have both been withdrawn from service and in a dreadful state awaiting disposal and HMS Westminster which was recently found to be in a similar condition leading to cancellation of the refit. I trust you now understand.
Lancaster is going to be flogged hard in The Gulf for a few years and then scrapped but I wonder if Westminster really is in such a terrible condition whether Argyll or Iron Duke have been better looked after and could have a TAS reinstalled.
Not sure how complicated and expensive that would be, but I guess it would require a chunk of time back in refit which wouldn’t be ideal.
Hi Challenger, he’s right about Westminster and I believe it best not to throw good money at her, as for Argyll and Iron Duke my best guess is they will be worked as long as possible. I’d love to see HMS Iron Duke alongside HMS Warrior but It’ll never happen.
V expensive and time consuming…You would be looking at 2 years min with the funding and dockyard manpower fully turned on. Total stern rework for the tail and active transmitter. New 600v power system to run it. Refit out the Sonar room. Refit the hangar and helo service systems to take Merlin.
I don’t think you will get a direct reply to that, so far he has failed to respond to me with any actual facts and more likely he’ll call you a troll. It’s the standard response from those who post such stuff.
I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware that WW3 had started, can you enlighten those of us without your superior Intel ? HMS Hermes was due to be decommissioned but she was not actually in any breakers yard, USS Yorktown was indeed at war and the US was on a war footing with the focus on getting every available ship to theatre. I’m still waiting on your reply as to how you feel that HMS POW could be sent to war tomorrow, it’s just that she is currently in dry dock under going repair , I know it’s only a little thing… Read more »
Replacing a wooden deck on Yorktown must have been undertaken by a branch with roots in forestry management, it… 🍃 one to belief that they were skilled arborists before WW2.
We need a bigger navy. Having 3-4 SSNs, 10-11 surface warships of escort class available isn’t going to intimidate or deter any of our enemies. Nor is it adequate to protect our EEZ or national interests. The only way out of this mess is a rapid and urgent build up. Put the type 26 order back upto 13 Order another 5 type 31s Get SSNr/ AUKUS into service asap with concurrent construction alongside dreadnought class Order at least 5 or more type 32s Get the littoral/ offshore subsurface infrastructure protecting ships ordered asap or better yet just order a civilian… Read more »
Well said 👍
The biggest problem in UK defence is the failure to make choices. The UK cannot maintain a credible land capability and sea capability at the same time. Essentially the choice that needs to be made is to leave the land defence of the continent to the Europeans and invest in creating a real navy with solid maritime air support. The other choice that needs to be made is to cut nonsensical and totally wasted spending like “climate change prevention” (which is pure political pretending) and cut foreign assistance in order to have the capacity to create real defence capability at… Read more »
Absolutely. Spreading capabilities thinner and thinner in an attempt to do everything with retention, depth of stockpiles and training all suffering in the process.
Procurement is also a mess. Very little spiral development of existing kit, tailoring systems to our niche requirements rather than adapting to an 80 or 90% solution and having an eye on export potential to sustain UK industry.
Way too much overlap of capabilities and development in silo’s. One only has to look at the profusion of drone and missile projects across all 3 services.
I appreciate what you say and agree largely that attempting to remain a mini superpower with global reach but in dwindling numbers reflects a lack of strategic decisions. But it is worse than that: we have compounded the difficulty by making some bad individual decisions. The commitment to 2 large carriers, budget@ £3.5b, actual cost £7b was signed off just before the financial crisis broke. Escort replacement was delayed for years with the result we all deplore. The size of the carriers was largely determined by the desire to match sortie rates to help the USN. There was little clear… Read more »
I have to say although I supported getting the carriers at the time your point about wanting to try and match the sortie rate and slot into wider American task-groups rather than looking more broadly about what Britain can/should look to achieve is pretty valid. They do increasingly look and feel far too large and ambitious when part of a steadily dwindling fleet and more threadbare military as a whole. Starting to think 3-4 Trieste-America class size LHD’s instead of 2 CVF and 2 Albions would have been a better fit for our budget and ambitions. Guess hindsight’s a wonderful… Read more »
I see the problem is less the carriers but rather the failure to maintain what the carriers require. When the carriers were conceived they were conceived in conjunction with 32 escorts, 10 SSNs and the requisite air arm. If that was the objective, then it was clear that choices would have to be made: smaller army, foreign aid within reason and reflective of the national interest (instead of nailed to an artificial goal of .7% of GDP) and controlled domestic spending. Those choices were never made and instead defence (and the RN) became the victims of continuous salami-slice cuts. It… Read more »
Mr Bell, I absolutely love your energy and enthusiasm for “more”!It’s bursting at the seams everytime! Hopefully some defence planner types are reading this site and it’s contagious! Any incremental growth of the fleet, airforce and army, would be good for morale and help us do more in more places.
Quentin- yes I’m enthusiastic, because I can see just how the UK could easily get back into a position of being a very credible medium power with the ability to project force over the globe but also defend our own national interest and nation. The situation currently is simply untenable, the defence cuts need to be reversed via continuous construction and investment in delivering real world hard power and capability. The force posture has got to change from…what can we afford? to what do we need to do the job- eg NATO commitments, BMD of UK home territory, deployable elite… Read more »
The problem is that when a senior leader of a service says we can manage with what we have…while the service is asking for more and is not managing at all it just allows the Political leadership an easy out by saying no you have the resources you need.
senior leaders need to have the courage to say we are not managing and this is the risk we are running. Seen this so much in the NHS..where senior leaders paper over the capacity demand gap so their service looks good.
Even though the ships now are much more capable than the ships they replaced the fall in numbers causes its own problems. As the RN ships have become more capable unfortunately so has any potential enemy. They keep mentioning NATO constantly all the time now. This may be the acceptance that outside nato the U.K. would struggle to accomplish much. Just about all navies in nato have shrunk so somehow expecting them to make up the shortfall is not going to happen. European defence force is coming through due to lack of other options. It’s like the NHS getting a… Read more »
Hi Monkey.. I think we can say some potential potential enemies have improved capabilities but that’s not alway the case, in reality western systems have accelerated far beyond the capabilities of other nations. If you look at nations like Argentina and Brazil ( as regional powers we may come in conflict with) far from increased their capacities they have vastly reduced them. Argentina simply no longer has a navy worth the name, having once been a navy that could support a carrier group,Brazil is another navy that has moved from carrier ops and a good fleet of frigates to not… Read more »
We could meet current commitments is NOT the same as ready to fight which would be an additional commitment; should I mention additional reserve?
About time Radykin stood up defended the Services.
“11 or 12 are ready to go out on operations”… No they are not! 😄
Starting at a completely inadequate 19, now at worse 17, “Sufficient” is delusional whitewashing. Seems to sometimes be ignoring ships in long term refit/repair, regarding them as routine, as though those PIPs could be cut short if necessary. If your hull side is wide open, other systems displaced & your new ehgines on the dockside, a quick patch up job won’t be possible.
Maintaining an effective fleet is always expensive.
Far cheaper than failing to, seems to be lost on the treasury. We’re playing Russian roulette with the nations security.
Let’s just put this out there the first priority of government is defence of the realm. Whether it be Lab Con or ukip etc.Well in 1914 we had the start of WW1 and we were not ready the gov cut the forces to the bone, then came a little corporal called Hitler and we were not ready, after WW11 the gov cut the forces to the bone and continue to do so. And surprise surprise we now have another manic called Putin and we are far from ready but no matter the MPs will be OK just the working man… Read more »
Slightly “On Topic”, Naval Technology, 7 Jul is reporting that the 24 CAMM is “behind” the Aster silos not in front. Typo? Wonder who’s right? Still bugs me why they can’t up the CAMM to 32-36 or put some down the sides of the Aster silo or even over the hangar but 24 is better none and with the NSM.
I was going to say Naval Technology were wrong but thinking about it,,bearing in mind SC is Cold Launched it might make sense to put the Mushroom Farm behind the existing VLS,would mean far less work to carry out id think – who knows,we will find out in due course.
https://www.naval-technology.com/news/hms-defender-pip-rectification-sea-ceptor-upgrade-cost-68m/
Yes – found and read that before commenting ☝
A partial and quick route imo is to upgrade the Batch 5 OPV’s to take at least some of the 17’s task list from the bottom of said list.
Also slightly off topic there is a really good article in todays Mail online about Polands upgrading of her ‘Military-well worth a read.
In a real emergency I suspect something like that would happen. Martlet and Sea Venom would miraculously get certified on Wildcats flying off River 2 OPVs which would also acquire a detachment RMs with Starstreak, Martlet and Javelin launchers. Rivers can also re-arm and refuel Merlins.
The B2 Rivers already do that: patrol, constabulary duties, presence & flag flying, HUMINT, HADR, etc. They spend far more days on task than any of our warships (only equalled by HMS Protector). What more do you want?
The ability to pack a heftier punch and more of it. Replace the 30mm with a 40mm and replace the mini guns with 2 30mms
Take the 57mm off the T31s and put them on the Rivers. Up arm the T31 with 5″. Take the forward 40mm off the T31s and put 2-3 on each carrier. Room then for forward MK41s of more CAMM like on the recent Babcock T32.
Sorry-meant 5 Batch 2 OPVs
This comment “those are sufficient for all the operational commitments that we currently have” illustrates the inadequate thinking of the past 10 to 15 years government. We might just be able to support current activities, but the whole point of defence is to have sufficient available at reasonable notice for MORE than the current commitment! Exactly the same approach to health, policing and more. They all fail to realise that defence as with health etc it is about having contingency reserves, which also means time. So if the services are sitting at around 100% capacity now (maximising efficiency and productivity)… Read more »
Could the RN deploy those numbers overnight. Probably not, but definitely within 48 hrs. Ships alongside for maintenance periods ( Fleet Time Support Periods- FTSP) usually stay bombed up, fuelled and with the crew onboard. Notice for sea remains short, usually less than 100hrs. I have been on T42, T22 and T23 who have all been activated for short notice ops. Recalled from leave I arrived at the ship to find dockyard mateys and FMG swarming all over. Wagons arriving on the jetty and all sorts of Fit To Receive goodies appearing from the bowels of the earth to be… Read more »
That’s still a top photo above. The T45 looks really sharp at speed. Very nice. Roll on PIP and the Aster, CAMM and NSM upgrades!
Absolutely,even without PIP the Type 45 easily exceeds its design speed.
‘almost two thirds’ meaning just over one third!!