The Defence Select Committee recently heard evidence on the operational readiness and challenges of the British Armed Forces.

The session featured discussions with Admiral Sir Ben Key, First Sea Lord, and Rear Admiral Steve Moorhouse, Director Force Generation of the Royal Navy, highlighting the strengths and areas for concern within the Royal Navy.

A significant issue addressed was the decline in readiness levels across the Armed Forces. Committee member Gavin Robinson MP expressed dissatisfaction with the provided data on readiness, stating, “the aggregate data doesn’t give you any sense when it gets down to individual ships, or effective readiness.”

Admiral Sir Ben Key elaborated on the concept of ‘sustainment’ in the context of naval operations. He defined it as “an ability to remain deployed and effective,” which involves considerations like “the onboard holdings that you have; the holdings that you have available in the locality or task group; what your supply chain looks like and whether it can ensure that you remain deployed and readily capable.”

Speaking about the Royal Navy’s current sustainment capabilities, Admiral Key pointed out the advancements with newer ships: “With the new ships—the Type 45s coming through PIP and all the rest of it—we are moving into an increasingly better position.”

He acknowledged the difficulties in maintaining older vessels, praising the naval engineers for their resilience and skill, but also noting that “The old 23s are very demanding ships to maintain, and their supply chains are under a huge amount of pressure.”

Rear Admiral Moorhouse highlighted the Navy’s unique global deployment capabilities, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, stating, “We are also one of the very few nations in the world that could deploy a carrier task group to the other side of the world in the middle of covid with very little host nation support anywhere, and sustain that for seven months.”

The session also addressed the challenge of a national shortage of engineers, which impacts the Navy’s operational capabilities. Admiral Key remarked, “I think it is down to the fact that the nation is short of engineers.”

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

231 COMMENTS

    • That was always the intention. We have two carriers so that one can be deployed whilst the other is in maintenance/training. Deploying two carrier strike groups at the same time has never been the goal.

      • Indeed. Similar logic applies to the US- 12 carriers implies 4 on operations, 4 in refit and 4 in the training cycle getting ready to relieve the first 4. At the moment they’re down to 11. 5 of these are based on the Pacific coast, one in Japan and the rest in Virginia. They’re too big to go through the Panama Canal, so surging capacity between oceans is not straightforward. This puts a significant strain on the availability of carriers to meet the USN’s existing commitments, which is probably why they were so keen to help the RN regenerate its own capability.

    • As I’m sure you know, the idea of having 2 is that 1 is available all the time. The intention was never for both to be always on tasking.

      We’ll have enough F35Bs and drones by the end of 2025 to make a very credible CSG. Beyond that, if a second CSG is needed for operations then we have allies. Other European NATO partners have escorts too. The USMC has plenty of F35Bs.

      Looking further ahead, a second batch of F35Bs will improve matters further, meaning we could put 2 CSGs at sea if needed.

      All reasons to be positive, especially given the 50 year expected lives of these ships.

      • and in war one sits about unused? , why can you not admit our navy is too small, RNFA is too small. Spinning it out does not hide that. You do not keep have your assets just in case. There are also not enough RFA ships to support 2. There are not enough ships, personnel or planes.
        And likely not that much ammo either. We are a hollowed out nation. Big expensive toys but not the means fully equip them.

        • I made no mention of the size of our navy. It is too small, SSNs, escorts, and support ships especially. We should be getting more F35B. It seems the lack of SSNs is hitting home, we may see more than 7 when Astute’s successor is built. In the meantime they seem to be investing in research for unmanned assets. FSS is finally happening.

          The RN could be in better shape, there is a lot of promise but it’s all in the future. Still don’t think it’s as bad as all that now. See recent investments in NSM for example. I’m happy to be corrected by those in the know.

          in war our second carrier would be a NATO asset.

          • which are refitting then, seems half the fleet is for ever broken, and not all type 23’s are being upgraded, no LHA are working why the MOD thinks about what to do with them. Its not talking down the Navy its worrying about how run down it is. Just like the Army, yes new kit on order but over due, while the antics road show hobbles on with 40 year old kit.
            Most of which is short of spares, we want all the great toys but seem to have rob Peter to pay Paul. And order it as slowly as possible.

          • Not broken, you do not seem to understand the system by which most navies maintain their ships (With the possible exception of the PLAN). They check the ship from time to time in order to prevent breaks, which is much cheaper than waiting for the ship to actually break. This takes time and is the reason for most ships becoming unavailable. The rest is actual fixing and upgrades, like the T45 PIP

          • Longer, just consider the size of the fleet before the Falklands. It was the cuts to defence at that time that encouraged the Argentine Junta to believe that the UK wouldn’t be able to defend the islands and if they had been able to wait even another 12 months they could well have been correct.
            Politicians on all sides only care about one thing. How do I get elected and then re-elected. None of them care what actually happens to the defence of the realm.

          • It is completely blinkered to blame it all on the current useless govt as historically they have all been as bad as each other for decades. If you think for a moment it will get better under the next likely govt you are lining yourself up for a massive disappointment.

        • This was not about war this was about global deployment….you can never deploy all your ships…as ships aways spend a part of their time in bits in a port. If their is a war then you would see a max effort and if it was not in to many bits they would Try to delay the second carrier….as for to few escorts etc..generally agree.

        • In war especially a long one then your lucky if one sits in port being unused. In WW2 we could barley maintain a single carrier in the eastern med much less two until 1943. The US had loads more than 3 carriers when it fought at midway. Ships break and need to be fixed. A ship sitting in port is still useful and I might add for much of this year we have had two carriers running around the North Atlantic at the same time. QE class was always designed to be a flexible FOB not a one trick pony strike carrier.

          • We could never deploy two if we wanted to, but yes we have two working at the moment though their air arm is a bare minumine

          • Yes, it’s the bare minimum to keep the ground crew practised and qualified. The pilot training is largely incidental and for qualifications. I’d argue that for training deployments such as this, the deployed force is a side issue (see the huge range of aircraft that the US have flown from PoW this autumn)

          • Martin, I am sure you know that the Air Wing for the deployed carrier is growing as LM build more UK F-35Bs.

          • I’m not sure about the examples you give. The Eastern Med was not a pivotal point in the war, whereas Midway arguably decided the course of WW2. But definitely agree with you, this year has shown where the QEs are at in terms of maintenance and it’s looking hopeful.

          • The Eastern Med kept Britain in the War. When Italy declared war in June 1940, Britain’s oil supplies were seriously under threat, because they had to come from the ME through a corridor between Libya and Italy OR round Africa. Arguably, without a British Naval victory to keep the SLOCs to the ME open, Britain couldn’t have kept fighting through to 1942 and the US entry to the war.

            No Britain, no second front against Axis in Europe, no US involvement in Europe, and a very different outcome. Arguably, India would have fallen to the Japanese – and then who knows what would’ve happened in the Pacific.

          • It’s amazing to think by the end of WW2 the RN had 75 carriers, which included 10 losses. Granted not all of these were Fleet or even Escort carriers. But it does show what was achieved.

          • The UK and Canada built around 260 Flower class corvettes between them just before and during the war.

            We even transfered a few to the USN in 1942 under Lend Lease. Not to mention the Spitfires, Beaufighters and, if I remember rightly, some tanks… Of course, the vast majority of Lend Lease stuff went the other way.

            Cheers CR

        • Yes one sits unused- or more accurately, it spends its time getting ready to relieve the other one. Whether there’s a war or not a ship can’t just deploy indefinitely.

        • No point in your argument Martin. I’ve been trying for years saying the same thing but complacency wins every time. The navy is under equipped; we have the smallest air force for decades, way behind most other western nations and the least said about the army the better.

      • Oh dear, where do I start ! ….. Why is it that (nearly) everyone here seems to offer excuses and talk down to others when the basic fact is that we have so far only managed to embark 8 F35’s…. We are talking about a 25 year project, 6 years in service so far, a glacial F35 purchasing program, Chaotic Pilot training program, a paltry 48 confirmed orders of aircraft (138 initially), Harriers and Carrier capability gap of at least a decade, Tornado all retired, just about 100 Typhoons, Frigates down to 10,maybe 5 available, Destroyers maybe 3 at most, SSN’s, Forts, Tides mostly in maintenance, Not enough crews and a World seemingly heading to hell in a handcart…… and here you all are offering excuses and talking down to those who are actually concerned………. Wake up and smell the cordite or maybe turn on your TV’s. History, It tends to repeat itself, yet we learn nothing about History.

        • You seem to have made a lot of assumptions about my opinion on all things defence. I’m not talking down to anyone (you just did that), nor am I saying everything is rosy. It isn’t. We do however have many good things going on.

        • I think everyone would like to see more frigates, f35s etc. but we are where we are and at least the contracts are signed to get 8 and 5 frigates. If there was a war you would be surprised how many type 23s become available and both aircraft carriers would suddenly have all the f35s available on them which would be nearly the entire fleet. War time focuses the mind and what seems impossible suddenly becomes possible.

          The Royal Navy has it’s problems and is depleted but can still pack a punch and as discovered recently, on paper a lot of countries have far larger militaries but have few actually serviceable ships and tanks etc.

          • Exactly – you can fix the unfixable quite fast when the rule book is thrown out of the window and the cheque book is fully opened.

          • You are Joking right ? We are currently down to just Ten T23’s with another 4 in no fit state and are you seriously suggesting sending brave souls to sea in decrepit ships ? Deary me mate.

        • 137 Typhoons and 32 F35Bs now.
          3 Tides out of 4 are available so that’s not most.
          7 T23s and 3 T45s are available, with a further T23 and T45 bearing completion of refits.
          2 SSNs are at sea, with 2 more alongside which are theoretically available.
          Fort Vic is available for an unplanned CSG deployment (although will be in a poor state after CSG 25).
          Very good availability rates that the RN is achieving, of course everyone wants the RN to be larger.

          • 137 Typhoons in total maybe but the T 1’s are being phased out and a fair chunk of the rest are subject to upgrades and maintenance. 32 F35’s now and it’s taken how many years so far ? Tides, last I heard only one was ready and active, 7 t23’s at a real push. not sure how many T45’s thought it was only two and reports a while back mentioned not one SSN at sea, I know at least one is. Add it all up and you will see just how bad things are. or maybe not.

          • Just been reading today that the ‘strike’ capability of the F35, Spear 3 missiles, may now only be getting a 6 kg, maybe 10 kg max, warhead. Originally was touted as <100 kg class missile with a 30kg warhead. Now looks like brimstone III with slightly longer legs.

          • I don’t think the design has changed. There is a possible unpowered glide bomb variant that loses fuel and range in exchange for a larger 30 kg warhead. The powered version was always intended to have a smaller <10 kg warhead.

          • Cpn, we know how small we’ve become. I still cling to the positives that came make a difference mate. As the size isn’t changing anytime soon.

          • T1s are leaving service in 2025.
            3 Tides are available, 1 was with the CSG, another on FOST and a third was up at Loch Striven not so long ago. The fourth is in refit at CL.
            Dauntless is in the US, Dragon in the med, Diamond back from CSG 6 days agoDaring is also very near to the end of PIP.
            Portland, Northumberland, Lancaster and Somerset are at sea.
            Kent came back from CSG 5 days ago, St Albans has finished LIFEX and is now being crewed, Richmond came back from Norway 3 days ago, Iron Duke arrived back a week or so ago.
            3 T45s, 3 Tides and 7 T23s have been at sea in the last week or so.
            2 Astutes are at sea, with two alongside. I have no idea when Anson was last out, but Triumph was last out 2 months ago.
            All 3 Bays are at sea, as is Argus. Scott is at sea and both the new RFAs are available and have been at sea in the last week, but I’m unsure if they’re at sea now.

            I think it doesn’t have to be spun to be shown as positive. 10 out of 16 escorts have been at sea in the last week. This is despite the T23s being knackered and going through LIFEX, and T45s through PIP.
            It’s a great sign for the future of the availability rates the RN will be able to achieve with new and more frigates and PIP completed.
            Crucially here, every escort and Tide that hasn’t been at sea in the last week is in a major, planned refit.

        • Mark One,
          All eye’s should be on our back door, we dont want anyone walking through it telling us ! we would like to review and maybe change your language and culture !
          Those Bears that test our responce times kinda make me nervous !
          Gov needs to shake a leg and crack on repairing the damage they have done, stop spending on things we dont need eg HS2 and so on.
          Think i should have learned Russian and Madarin😉🤣

        • Ok lets by 75 F35 B at what would be the equivalent of Mk 1 Cortina Mod state. Or buy a few, learn to drive , relearn the basic operating principles with them and then get more at the Sierra Cosworth level.

          T31 and T26 production pace and T23/T45 refit/maintenance pace has been improved at the request of MOD (Not widely known or reported).

          Allies its all about working with allies.

          • Not arguing the capability of the aircraft or the operational status of the ships, more the current numbers, Order and planning process, Allies ? it’s all about having to work with them…. Good job the US has a decent number of “Cortina’s” to lend us.

      • Having just 2 carriers does not guarantee that 1 will always be available, especially as the carriers become older. I think the Navy once stated that we have a 67% chance of 1 carrier being available.
        We needed a minimum of three.

        • Good evening Graham, I’m not sure if this post will be allowed, but I thought you would be interested in reading it along with one or two others on here!

          “The challenges for the Navy to dispose of the former USS Enterprise have driven the service to stand up a new office to deal both with “The Big E” and the pipeline of Nimitz-class carriers to come.
          To lead that charge, Breaking Defense has learned the Navy has set up a new office just to focus on the inactivation and disposal of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.

          While a spokesman declined to comment on the status of the new office, the Navy believes its decision will save millions of dollars, years of man-hours in labor and crucially, precious dock space at the public shipyards.”

          LINK

    • So one carrier with two squadrons of 5th Gen aircraft onboard sent to the other side of the world with two AAW destroyers and 3 Frigates and an SSN is not enough for you?

      Who else can do that?

    • You are correct Martin as I believe others are! Not ONLY do we not have enough escort ships but you also need a sufficient number that you are prepared to sacrifice, otherwise the whole fleet will be held out of the conflict zone by 300 miles, thus severely limiting all their strategic, tactical and operational ability. Even when (if) we get both Carriers in operation, we will require American Escort Ships so we will be at the behest of them (again).

      • More escort are needed simply because some will be lost, sunk, damaged etc, the Navy’s just enough policy a bad idea. We have just enough if every ship works which no navy ever has. Same policy has set in for the RAF and Army.

  2. What good is it to be able to send a carrier around the world if you can’t support it? The UK doesn’t have the carrier support group infrastructure the US enjoys.

    • Well it has access to it, being the USN facilities if needed. Granted, FSS ships are more than a concern at present. The first isn’t expected in service until 2031. Eight years of relying on allies is a long time, but can be done.

      Fort Vic’s fate seems uncertain. News is hard to come by, but she is officially available for a CSG if required.

      • thats us, no AWACS, not enough ships, etc etc, always relying on others because we want nice toys but on the cheap. We want to look good rather than be useful

        • It’s the biggest navy in Europe fact . And how many others navy’s have nuke subs . Attack subs . Aircraft carriers . Destroyers . And much more . That’s without the Royal Marines . The Royal navy in a very good position compared to Russia who don’t have a blue water fleet . Japan got more surface shops ok but no carriers or nuke subs . Take a totally untested China out of the equation and Mighty US fleet no other navies could give the Royal navy or French navy a fight .

          • I think you are talking it up a bit, its looks great on paper but its not as it really is, its undermanned. Escorts are along side waiting to be modernized or scrapped. All the 5 working attack subs were in port. Not all the type 45’s work. I carrier group is every thing we have. Then it has no AEW aircraft just a cheap mod on helicopter, There are not enough ciws to equip all the ships at once. Same with Harpoon launchers

          • deluded, all those points are facts. get over it. And check your facts. Tell me what facts are wrong? and counter with real facts. If you can not counter with real facts then kindly be quite and take your meds.

          • I think you may be too serious and have limited banter, may I assist? Also are you concerned for Martins feelings as I replied to him!

          • “There are not enough ciws to equip all the ships at once.”

            There are 43 modernised Phalanx units and a large number of 30mm with 40 & 57mm on order for T31

            “Same with Harpoon launchers”

            Harpoon is being replaced with NSM in the short term 11 sets are on order.

            Add to that the Mk41 VKS for T32 and T26…..

            A30 system for T45

            and Sea Ceptor for all fighting ships.

          • CIWS 2 per ship, 3 pre carrier and the RFA’s whats on order is no help its not here yet. Are all Type 23’s Sea Ceptor equipt? no they are not.

          • Correct – every single T23 has Sea Ceptor – T45 is getting Sea Ceptor and both T26 and T31 will be fitted with Sea Ceptor.

            Sea Ceptor may also be part of the PODS program.

            Sea Ceptor is a massive upgrade from Sea Wolf.

          • Yes with anti ship capability also, so now every vesell can have a point/small area defence capability which can double as a medium anti ship missile as well.

            It’s the best weapon we have produced since the 17pounder 😀

          • As far as I am aware, Phalanx is moved between ships, so ships in long term maintenance or not expected to require them, have their Phalanx removed for those that do need them.

            Which T23s don’t have Sea Ceptor that you would want to have? The T23 were all fitted with Sea Ceptor with the exception of the three sold to Chile and HMS Monmouth, which was decommissioned early. Of course they don’t all have missiles in place at any one time. If Westminster is out for a number of years and very possibly never coming back into service, would you expect it to keep CAMM missiles on board until it is decommissioned? That would be bonkers planning and probably rather dangerous.

          • Don’t you know that every other navy packs every VLS full of weapons even when the ships sitting in port or on trading exercises in the attic getting bashed about by waves. 6 million Anti air missile just love this environment and navy’s love throwing them away 😀

            Worth noting that CAMM is small enough to be flown to a ship by helicopter and reloaded by hand. Not many VLS weapons can do this.

          • Yes the t23 are sea ceptor equipped and yes there are 43 ciws enough for every destroyer carrier and rfa ship

          • All the type 23 have been fitted with sea ceptor for a while.
            Also 43 is enough for carriers rfa and t45, the t23 I believe don’t use them so 43 is plenty I think

          • Learn what Operational Capability is and how Fleet HQ tailor ships and deployments using OC to achieve tasking.

            You dont need HMS MASSIVE to do an up-channel escort of one of ivans corvettes

          • What nice PR reply. How many ships are on duty in UK waters? And mean ships not River class or RFAs. We would struggle to have two war ships in UK waters.

          • On most occasions, several I’d think? The FRE, those working up, port visits, FOST, Thursday war, and so on.
            Russia’s surface fleet isn’t going to mass in UK waters. In war they’d barely leave their bastions north of the Kola.

          • Agreed but i do feel the navy are trying to hide the real in service working amount of ships and yes no navy ever has 100%, but running costs, slow re fit, lack of full crews and delay replacements have hollowed the navy and. A lot on order but not here yet.

          • Yep. The military is utterly hollowed out.
            Yet we still have a good, capable military few can match.

          • Interestingly Japanese media is bemoaning the lack of surface combatants in their navy and the fact they have to send OPV’s to monitor Chinese fleet exercises.

            Same shit everywhere except apparently Russia, Iran, China and North Korea where everything is fine strangely enough.

          • Japan has 2 or 3 carriers, just calls them destroyers & is in fact converting them to full F35 capable, just smaller than our QE’s. They have an escort fleet we can only dream of. Far east navies can’t afford our dismal complacency, when a rapidly growing PLAN is on their doorstep.

      • Fort Vic is available for an unplanned CSG deployment. Ship specific crew is a bit of an issue but there are plenty of RFA crew that could be pulled off the Bays or Tides.

        It’s better this way round than deploying her and having periods when she cannot be deployed at all. Post 2025 after the CSG 25 deployment, the RN will have a serious issue as Fort Vic will be knackered after the deployment.

          • Presumably they will try to get her into a state like she’s in now, with 1 more major deployment before decommissioning. Whether that will be possible or not I don’t know, but I don’t hold too much hope.
            Hopefully the FSSS build is on time. At least a ship in RN trials but not yet commissioned can be quickly accelerated into service.

          • Agree. It is the glacial pace that concerns me.
            Cameron needs shooting for cutting Ft George In 2010.

    • An 100% sure the first sea Lord knows a bit more than you pal . I watched the report it’s total rubbish what you are saying .

  3. The estimable Forces News YouTube channel has posted a very interesting vid of Ajax being tested last month on Salisbury Plain by the Household Cavalry Regiment

    Some very positive comments from officers and men of the Blues and Royals about reliability, capability etc with no injuries being reported. Its well worth a look but due to links being moderated, i’m going to post the link underneath this post

    Youtube – Forces News – Rare access to British Army’s monster new battlefield vehicle

    • As I suspected, the youtube link has indeed been moderated, but anybody interested should be able to find it using the info in the first post

    • Just watched it. All very positive I’d say. Despite all the problems and delays, the army seems to be getting a good piece of kit.

      Get it in service and ensure all the issues have indeed been fixed. If so, we could do worse than using the platform as a base for tracked IFV. Commonality of parts etc.

      I’d also like to see it have Starstreak/Martlet, Brimstone, and Trophy. At least the recon Ajax versions.

      • Changing the design halfway through the build as well as moving the assembly from Spain to Wales caused most of the issues with Ajax. Apparently the 40mm cannon tracks and fires ok. Maybe Starstreak etc later, once they get to understand how it works? There’s a lot of optics etc on top of the hull and turret

          • I agree totally, even if it’s only shoulder launched. The Primary sight (on top) can be replaced with a Self Defence weapon (Kongsberg 153) which can be made to carry 2 missiles I believe.

          • That’s something. Although replacing the primary sight isn’t ideal. I’m looking forward to see it in service now.

          • How much more kit does everyone want to bolt onto Ajax! So far we have from RobW – Starstreak/Martlet, Brimstone, and Trophy. Now Starstreak as well!

            Its a recce vehicle. It should move covertly and stealthily – and hopefully not (often) be seen!
            It won’t have much time to do recce if it is killing drones, helicopters, fast jets and tanks.

          • It won’t have any time to do recce if it gets taken out by a drone that it has no defence against. If it gets seen it will most likely be by a drone.

            It’s not a tank, but sending it in with no defence seems bonkers. Perhaps it doesn’t need APS, maybe not an ATW, but it does need something to counter the drones that will be seeking it out.

          • That would depend on MOD buying the Anti-Aerial-Airburst round from CTAi. The RWS with a stabilised 7.62mm and good optics may do the job.

          • Yes, well sort of!

            The MoD has a number of projects on the go for anti-drone protection. It comes under the Land-Ground Based Air Defence (GBAD) counter-small unmanned aircraft system (C-sUAS). But also is part of the Future Armoured Vehicle Survivability (FAVS) program.

            The first part is giving the infantry soldier some means of protection. This comes in two parts which is a backpack carried active jammer and secondly the SMASH sighting system for individual and section weapons.

            The second part is for vehicles. From an DE&S statement: “development of a hard-kill capability based on the Protector remote weapon system and a platform-agnostic soft-kill capability. It could also leverage C-UAS potential from other platform-specific subsystems, such as armour protection systems.”

            There is also a third part. This is where a GBAD situational picture is networked together from individual sensors. Possibly via the Bowman network or the future Morpheus system.

            Reading between the lines. The MoD due to the lessons from the Ukraine War, are urgently looking at leveraging the high elevation angles of the RWS and marrying it to a search and tracking sensor. Then using that to take out the drone before it can drop a weapon on the vehicle. Furthermore, They are also looking at the sensors that APS use. Which may then be configured to control a RWS to counter the drone threat. Also included would be an active jammer, along with using the obscurants to try to hide the vehicle from above.

            I have heard that Blighter, a UK radar manufacturer specializing in border security systems, might be involved.

            For Ajax, we may be looking at using the extant sensors or including additional ones. I have yet to hear if Ajax will get an APS, whose sensors could form the basis for the C-UAS, as it could then be used to target the drone using the CTAS or the chain gun. Or Ajax may yet also get a RWS, whose optics etc are then used by the Commander as well as being used to search for and track drones.

          • Everyone is super-worried about drones. Should all our vehicles down to the humble land rover have an anti-drone capability then? …or just high value assets?

            Is Ajax defenceless against drones? Surely a 40mm cannon
            and a L94A1 7.62mm chain gun (RWS) will do some damage to a slowish flying drone?

            A drone is an aircraft – very few (almost none) of our vehicles have ever had a purpose-built anti-aircraft capability.

            Defence against aircraft has been by point and area defence systems operated by the RA.
            Additionally, vehicle crews take anti-air measures as best they can – cam when static, moving stealthily using covered routes where possible, use of unit LLAD, calling in counter-air assets by FAC/JTAC. No-one has ever called that bonkers before.

          • I agree with Graham’s point on recc vehicles.
            I also see how easily vehicles are now negated by drones in Ukraine.
            So, yes, it should have, in my totally ignorant view, a means to defend itself.
            Maybe Starstreak is over the top and best kept for helis?

          • Recce vehicles do operate alone in British doctrine – they always have done. Our recce vehicles have never before had a dedicated anti-air system. What’s changed? The advent of drones? Then do you advocate all armoured vehs or even all vehicles (including soft-skinned) should have anti-air systems?

            Do you think Ajax should have an anti-tank capability as well?

            Then we should add APS as well, according to many others.

            Where will this all end? Vehicles that are multi-role with over-worked crews – and being unaffordable.

            Recce vehicles are meant to see and not to be seen.

          • Overlearning the lessons from Ukraine is a risk, but it has shown that all vehicles are susceptible to drones. Those that operate alone at the front more so. I also think Ajax should have some ability to prosecute targets if the situation requires. DaveyB has alluded to some kind of APS sensors possible being fitted, although perhaps not a full APS suite.

            I would assume that the SHORAD programme will provide cover for everything else as and when needed.

            It will be interesting to see how the vehicle develops in future.

            Your last point, is that possible in the modern battlefield? Genuine question, your knowledge on the subject is obviously rather greater than mine.

          • Drones are not new. The British Army fielded its first drone, the Radioplane BTT SD-1 Observor in c.1955, then fielded its replacement, the Canadair CL-89 Midge in 1970, and then Phoenix et al. What has changed is their number and capability.
            When I served in the army 1975-2009, both on exercise and on operations we were always aware of the air threat (from drones, helos or fast jets) and operated to minimise exposure; recce guys were especially good at this – it was their bread and butter. I would guess that most of the time recce vehicles were stationary, observing the enemy from tree lines (later called wood blocks), from buildings (veh being parked inside the barn) etc. Clearly they moved as necessary, but only when necessary. Their cam when static was always exceptional.

            Recce might operate beyond a SHORAD envelope – too bad – life isn’t perfect.

            Is it possible nowadays for recce to see and not be seen? – if it is not they are f**ked. Some recce will be spotted and taken out – hopefully not enough to render them ineffective. I am sure that if an Ajax crew spot a drone near them, they might give it a burst of 40mm and 7.62 chain gun fire – drones are not immune to cannon shells and bullets.

            I don’t recall many Scimitars being destroyed or even severely damaged in combat, in part due to the skill of the crew in minimising exposure to enemy air (and ground) threats.

      • Rob, I am sure you know that MoD has decided that the AI is not going to get a tracked IFV (ie WCSP) – Boxer is now having to cover that remit!

        I cannot see that recce Ajax should be engaging tanks with ATGW. That is a job for a Tank Destroyer ie successor to CVR(T) STRIKER – it can of course be an Ajax variant, just not the recce wagon. Recce is recce.

        • Yes, the whole point of Ajax Recc variant is to reccon for the DRSB so Deep Fires can do their thing.
          Maybe the armoured cavalry need that Brimstone variant embedded like they had with the Striker Troop.

          • An Ajax Recce Tp also recces for the armoured regt in the ABCTs as we know.

            We need a STRIKER replacement – maybe on ARES. Brimstone is good.

          • Yes, certainly.
            Assume the Recc Pltn in Boxer Bns will only have Boxer going forward? Warrior AI Bns I think had Scimitar.

          • Certainly the Recce Pl of the Warrior AI Bns had Scimitar as that was the army’s armoured recce vehicle, as did the Recce Tp of the armd regts.

            Not sure what the Recce Platoon of a Boxer Bn will have – I had not heard that we had ordered the Boxer CRV recce variant. Has someone in the procurement world blundered? Surely not!

        • Hi Graham, as you well know, CVR(T) is used for recce. But it is also used for a number of other roles, including force protection etc. Ajax will be no different.

          • Yes. An additional role for armoured cav is often flank protection.

            Does not mean that every recce Ajax needs to have a dedicated anti-tank weapon system though. In my view we need a CVR(T) Striker replacement – could be Brimstone on an ARES platform.

          • An Ares version fitted with a battery of Brimstone, for me is a no-brainer. Where it can provide both overwatch and an anti-tank role for a heavy brigade (as per Striker), I would also like to see a Boxer version, for the same reasons, but for a manoeuvre group (can’t say Strike Brigade!).

            Would I like to see a ATGW mounted on the Ajax’s turret, Yes! I think the lessons learned from Ukraine, is that if a target of opportunity presents itself, either offensively or defensively, your vehicle should have the means to attack it. Ukraine has been using their Bradleys with the TOWs in this capacity. Where a single Bradley has been enough to halt and make a Russian attack retreat after taking out a leading MBT with a TOW.

            It doesn’t mean an Ajax becomes an active tank hunter, but it does give it the capability to not only defend itself. But also be better at protecting the flanks, when its tasked to do so.

            The next question would be what missile to fit. Brimstone would be an obvious choice, as it will hopefully be chosen for the protected overwatch missile. Plus it is target agnostic, so has a very wide range target set. It is also a lot faster than most other ATGWs and has a fire and forget mode. Which means the Ajax could shoot and scoot, before being detected. I guess Spike would also be a good choice.

          • ATGW on Ajax.
            Certainly the US M3 Bradley CFV operated by Cav carries TOW with an impressive 12 rds (2 of which are in the launcher).
            Really need to be clear as to whether this is to use the veh as a Tank Destroyer or to provide self-defence against tanks.

            I favour a seperate veh as a TD (replacement for Striker ie the Ares/Brimstone) so the recce veh concentrates on recce, a task requiring to be stealthy, to see and not be seen. Wanging off missiles rather gives your position away.

            If ATGW is carried as self-defence, it is worth asking why the recce vehicle has allowed itself to come into close visual contact with a tank or tanks. Something has gone wrong – the recce crew are not doing things right. Then they had better hope that it takes a very short time to acquire the target and engage and that the missile is fire and forget.

          • For the heavy brigade, there must now be a solid case for an Ares carrying Brimstone. If Poland can have it, why can’t we? Again, Boxer would also be another obvious choice, as it could carry more reloads compared to a Supacat.

            Don’t get me wrong, Ajax should remain as a recce vehicle, though at 40t, can it really be sneaky? In some respects Ares with its dismounts can be sneakier. But I do believe it should have a pair of ATGWs mounted to the turret. Primarily for self-defence. However, it all depends on how the Army see it being utilised in the future. Similarly, Ares with a Gimpy mounted on a RWS, is that going to be sufficient in a future conflict? Perhaps there is now a case for Ares to be fitted with an unmanned turret mounting the CTAS?

            Could Ajax also be used as an infantry support vehicle, much like the US Army’s M10 Booker? Where the combination of the CTAS 40, 7.62mm chain gun and some ATGWs, could be used to soften up hardened targets? Using its superior optics and networking to give the commander a better situational picture of the battlefield.

            According to press releases, the Army is going to have 245 Ajax and 127 Ares vehicles, all doing reconnaissance! Which is nearly 2.5 recce vehicles for every Chally 3. Which for an heavy formation is bonkers. Granted that Ajax and Ares will be tasked with other roles away from supporting the heavies. Such as teaming up with Boxer and force protection etc. But there is still a disproportionately high number of “recce” vehicles for the future force structure.

            As shown in Ukraine, the biggest threat to both infantry and armoured vehicles is discovery by UAVs. That can either be used in a suicide, or bomber role. Or more likely used by artillery to bring the hurt. Ajax is perhaps the best vehicle the Army will have, that can be used in the counter UAS (cUAS) role. Though it will need further development.

            With Brimstone, you can acquire and engage a target at very sort range, by using the semi-active laser homing mode. The radar mode needs a bit more time to acquire the target. I might of mentioned before, but Brimstone can be used against aerial targets, such as helicopters, but also drones.

          • We have two heavy brigades in FS, or ‘armoured brigade combat teams’ to use the US-inspired verbiage that the MoD seems to like. There has always been a case for a Tank Destroyer based on a tracked chassis and with 10 or more LR ATGW – which was why we had CVR(T) Striker. Supacat is not the right base vehicle for a TD for an armoured brigade. It needs to be ARES for the armoured bde, not Boxer as that belongs to 1 DSRBCT. Certainly a Boxer TD would work in 1 DSRBCT.

            I am glad that you agree that Ajax can remain as a recce vehicle as that is what it is. Our recce vehicles have had a cannon since 1971, and Scorpion had a 76mm gun. The weapon system enabled both self-protection and the ability to engage and destroy enemy recce if that was part of its mission. It is a retrograde step to replace Ajax by Ares as the principle recce vehicle. Is Ares that much more stealthy? – it stil weighs 40 tons and is of similar dimensions to Ajax – and the engine note is the same. You would have to re-role the very expensive Ajax vehicles that we have have bought and paid for.

            In an ideal world, a recce vehicle would not meet a tank at its engagement range. So why give it 2 x ATGW? Would you fit 2 x ATGWs to other vehicles that should not be encountering tanks?

            In the old Strike brigade concept then Ajax were working with Boxer and seemingly providing them fire support as the Boxers only had a puny MG. This was the wrong use of the army’s recce vehicle in my mind. The US M10 Booker is different to Ajax – it has a 105mm tank gun and is described by the US as an assault vehicle.

            ARES with a MG – a variant is of course differently configured to Ajax. It has been deemed not necessary for it to have a cannon, just a MG in a RWS – it delivers specialist teams to their AO. I would guess it would be operating at least one tactical bound behind Ajax recce. I have no issue with it not having a cannon.

            I am not sure why you are puzzled at the numbers of Ajax in the recce and strike role (Qty 198). We had thousands of Scimitars and Scorpions doing recce.
            That 198 fleet will comprise: Vehs in armoured recce regiments; vehs in the trg org in UK (RAC and REME); vehs in specialised pools overseas (BATUS, the two depots in Germany); vehs in UK depot Ashchurch in the Repair Pool; vehs in UK depot Ashchurch in the Attrition Reserve.
            Hence, you can see that there are not 198 Ajax in 3 Div.
            Those Ajax that are in the armoured recce regiments (much fewer than 198) are spread across three brigades – the two ABCTs and the one DSRBCT.

            It is misleading to ratio the number of Ajax to the number of CR2/CR3s in the way that you have done. Ajax does not solely exist to provide recce to tanks, as you yourself allude to.
            Each tank regiment (of 56 tanks) in the two ABCTs has a Recce Tp of 8 Ajax – that is a reasonable ratio.
            The other Ajax in 3 Div are doing other stuff – formation recce at bde and div level – and working with the artillery in 1 DSRBCT – or perhaps doing that flank protection that you mentioned.

        • I think that’s it, I have always struggled to see that Ajax will be just used for recce given the planned make up of the army. 148 CR3, 600 odd Boxer with little in the way of kinetic effect based on ordered variants. Even now 198 of the 245 Ajax vehicles are described as “recce and strike”. Maybe I’m getting mixed up in terminology.

          • Rob, I do not follow. AJAX replaces CVR(T) SCIMITAR as the army’s new (armoured) recce vehicle. Other variants in the Ajax family loosely do what the other CVR(T) variants did. The other variants are not providing kinetic effect as that is not their job – eg. ARES is a carrier for specialist small teams as SPARTAN did, ATHENA does C2 as SULTAN did, ATLAS does recovery as SAMSON did.

            During the development of Ajax, Strike came along as a concept, now largely discredited. In over-simple terms, Strike was combat by a Strike bde using medium weight vehicles. In the two army Strike brigades (once mooted, but not dropped) tracked Ajax were to have a different role to their core recce task and to work with Mech Inf in wheeled Boxers, delivering 40mm fire as Boxers just had a weedy MG. (Of course other Ajax would still do their traditional recce role in the ABCTs). So much wrong with the Strike concept and the original Gen Carter plan for two Ajax/Boxer Strike bdes has been dropped.

            However 1 Deep Recce Strike Brigade is in the Future Soldier Orbat and includes Ajax cueing artillery fires and they might be described as being in a (revised) Strike role. This too has its critics but the army under Gen Sanders seems to have stuck with it. Of course, other Ajax will be operating as classic recce vehicles (Recce role) in the two ABCTs.
            So some Ajax doing classic Recce in ABCTs and some doing (revised) Strike in 1 DSR bde.

            It is of course common for armoured recce to periodically do flank protection for a brigade or div as an additional role. Some people think I forget about that. It still means that Ajax is primarily a recce veh.

            The Armoured Infantry who work alongside tanks in ABCTs were meant to get upgraded Warrior (WCSP) but that programme got cancelled and Boxer will be used instead in the ABCTs but so far only a RWS that cannot take cannons (only MG and/or GMG) has been ordered. So they will either come with a MG or someone will quickly change the RWS order to allow cannon-capable RWS to be ordered. Who knows?

            The Ajax that are not in the Recce and Strike role (Qty 198) are:

            Qty 23 Joint Fire Control (Ajax)
            Qty 24 Ground Based Surveillance (Ajax).

    • There is a good site on YouTube ‘War Machine TV’ worth a visit for British armour on Salisbury plain including Ajax on Exercise

    • Thank goodness, if they can start the deployment of Ajax sooner that’s at least one army modernisation programme working, with the new fires coming along, there seems to be some traction at last.

      • Sorry but I have to smile at the fact that you used Ajax and working program in the same sentence.
        Lets not stretch it too much just yet shall we..In fact we should never say its working as that just ignores its many failings.
        It has been and will forever be a shining example of how not to run a project.
        No matter what the end result is.

      • Yes, likely the biggest takeaway if we’re witnessing a coordinated approach to the design & introduction of new equipment. Get one, very challenging, programme working and others SHOULD follow in sequence. Hopefully an example of “lessons will be learnt” finally having a meaning beyond what we’ve come to expect to date.

    • OT but interesting. A pity that Tpr Smith called it a tank!!
      6 Bn REME (my old unit) also gaining experience with the REME variants.

      • Yes, I noted that. Please.
        Maybe he got indoctrinated with the strike bde doctrine when 2 Regiments worth were to be medium armour.

    • Ajax etc is a very good bit of kit, Challenger 3 will be great, Boxer will be great all when they get here. Not sure no tracked mcv/ifv is a good idea though. And possibly no tracked tube Artillery either. If the Boxer variant idea is chosen to replace AS90.

  4. I watched the committee meeting and, not to make UKDJ a little envious, but Mr. Francios mentioned ‘Navy Lookout’ at least twice 😉

      • Including a certain Mr Francois it seems! I’m going through the comments section to see which user he is most likely to be! The grumpiest I’d bet.

        • Also probably not the best informed and unable to listen to or accept reasoned logical arguments !

          I’ve figured out who a few of the regulars on here are.

          It is also quite amusing that there are two handles that post pro UK/MOD/RN but from the spelling (distinctive) and grammar variations it us very clear there is more than one person involved.

      • One article every few days, instead of the 2-4 a day that George is pumping out (Great work, by the way). Articles are longer and more cohesive, but most of the comments are ranters, much lower quality than UKDJ
        I can be found on both

  5. Other News – NATO have signed a deal to replace their fleet of 14 E3 Sentries with the E7 Wedgetail. Just been announced by Reuters. Seems they are getting 6 and wanting them in service by 2031. Wait and see if that’s the final numbers ordered.

    • Thanks for the update, wondered if/when that decision would occur. Six a/c is a reasonable initial order, hopefully increased in due course. 😊👍

      • There’s a good in-depth look at the E-3 replacement with the E-7 on The War Zone. It also has a brief look at the Saab contender.

      • Agreed its dificult to see 6 aircraft as their final buy given the current use of AWACS around NATO countries. One concern will be Boeing’s ability to set up and man a production line able to deliver the USAF and NATO orders for c 20 aircraft which will be further complicated as these will be based on new build airframes.

    • Hi Davey, question, if NATO can get six why is there a hold up with the three for the UK? Was Boeing waiting for more orders to get things rolling again, maybe?

      • I believe from what I’ve read is that there is a number of issues. One problem is between Boeing as the design authority for the aircraft, the sub-contractor doing the modifications to the airframe and the MoD’s Military Airworthiness Authority (MAA). Who require evidence of paperwork needed to certify the flight safety risk.

        All aircraft have a log book, this is where the aircraft’s flight history, servicing history, fault history and modification history is held. From my understanding that one or two of the airframes has either missing history or the sub-contractor has found modifications that have not been recorded and missing from the drawing set.

        Either way, Boeing as the aircraft’s design authority has to find either the missing history or explain why the modifications are not recorded. Then sign off either/both, to satisfy the MAA, that the aircraft will be safe to fly. Without satisfying the MAA, the aircraft will not be cleared for flight!

        Another issue is the lack of experience the sub-contractor has at modifying aircraft. If Marshalls were still involved the modification process would be a lot quicker. As they have experience from working on the Hercs of doing big modifications, eg main wing spar replacements. It was telling when Marshalls pulled out of the bid, they never really explained why? However, the team doing the modifications will be learning how to improve, as they progress through the three airframes.

  6. Ajax would have been plenty good enough for properly all the world’s armed forces before any improvements it’s always got to be a drama the trolls loved the delays . It’s not long ago trolls out in force claiming no T26 / 31 will ever be built. Same trolls the Navy will never see Astute. The F35 will never fly. The Navy won’t have a anti shop missile until 2028. It’s endless all the trolls fake news and lies and that is fact . Everything Russian a wonder weapon rubbish .

    • Well, we won’t have a genuine heavyweight anti ship missile until 2030, but NSM will do until then. Astute is the navy’s quietest success story, being pumped out regularly by BAE and replaced with Dreadnought in the programme and, eventually, SSN-AUKUS. Talk about a drumbeat!

      • Heavyweight Missile ? It’s all about targeting the soft spots . I think a lot on this site think we are going to be one day fighting a supper power with wonder weapons can anybody name that enemy ? It’s certainly not Russia and I would have a good guess China are no better . Only super power USA and we won’t be fighting them . .

      • NSM is a 350kg missile that travels at 320ms it’s got a titanium penetrator and 120kg blast fragmentation warhead…with a waterline attack profile..it’s not quite as clever as spear 3 is going to be,,,but any warship hit by 19000000 J of kinetic energy followed by a 125kg warhead causing blast fragmentation damage…as well as burning fuel and waterline flooding is going to be a mission kill almost undoubtedly a mobility and probably not going to be saved…if it is it’s out of any war…and that’s just one missile. Even a couple of very small missiles..hitting the right place say a spear 3 ( which are very very clear swarming missiles that can hit specific parts of a ship) is quite able to mission kill if it hits… an 8000 ton US AAW cruiser was mission killed by a close hit ( not a direct hit) from the 60kg fragmention warhead of a single anti radiation missile accidentally fired by its own side…..

          • The Anti-Ship variant of FC/ASW still has to conform to the size of the VLS it is launched from ,MK41 and SYLVER A70,so compared to NSM it might not appear much bigger,it will be Supersonic though.

        • A Spear 3 swarm especially if flying in consort with spear EW would probably be very difficult for any ship to defend against and one small hit on the radar and any escort is mission killed and probably in port for 6 months. A hit on any large Russian ship and it’s probably fires breaking out all over the place.

          • Indeed, if you think about what a small clever swarming missile means it’s probably more effective in a lot of situations, after all you fire 4 to 8 large missiles against a task group with modern integrated air defences your like not going to succeed..after all the whole point of a ship like a T45 is that it can manage large numbers of targets ( where as a pair of T42s would not have been able to)….so you need to a large saturation attack, that’s what spear offers..and the swarm targeting id individual systems means it’s small bang can easily mission kill…for bigger fish like a carrier you would still likely need a larger missile, but a few spear 3 would still likely stop flying ops for a while….also s swarm of small boats will be better managed by a lot of smaller warhead….

            people also forget that the kill chain at sea is still limited and ships just don’t attack each other with missiles at 100km….the radar horizon is still only 20miles ish….you need larger missiles for strike.

          • Spear-3 could quite easily mission kill a carrier like the Ford or Nimitz Class. Like you said it could target specific points on a ship. For example if the missiles targeted the 3 or 4 EMALS rails. How easy are they to repair?

            Does that mean the ship can no longer launch aircraft? Could a F18 do a conventional take-off using the full length of the flight deck? If so, what about an armed one?

    • I’m not sure the navy has an anti shop missile…although I suppose you could get a NSM to take out an Asda or two…and harpoon was known for blowing up the occasional Nordic holiday camp..which is close 😂🤣😂

    • Hi Peter, I don’t believe the naysaying is completely wasted. In 2021, during a Defence Committee hearing. The Committee stated: “When ships do get to sea they act like porcupines – well-defended herbivores with limited offensive capabilities”. What offensive capabilities these ships do have will be reduced even further in three years’ time when the Government retires the Harpoon anti-ship missile without a planned replacement.”

      This statement was brought about because the Navy were planning a gap (capability holiday) between the retirement of Harpoon and its replacement. With the aim of saving some cash. This decision was ripped to bits, discussed and lambasted by both this site and Navy Lookout, quite a lot prior to the Committee’s meeting. This Committee statement reached the Press, who went to town on both the Navy and Government. Who eventually folded and looked to NSM as the “interim” solution.

      I do firmly believe that the Defence Committee, probably through their researchers, get some of their information from these forums, which lead to the questions put to the Defence Ministers, Civil Servants and Military Heads of Departments. But rather than being a Troll about it and say a piece of equipment or decision is shite! We should definitely discuss both the problems and the positive achievements, of new and legacy equipment to be used by our military. Importantly we also need to discuss the failures and the possible reasons why? There are quite a few on here who do have either a lot of military experience or business/manufacturing experience. Where their input can put some rational thought and perhaps some level headiness with some of these programs.

      A number of times when I have googled a piece of equipment, A UK Defence journal link pops up. Which then makes it easy for a researcher to see people’s opinions and possibly facts on equipment or decisions. You never know who is reading these posts!

  7. The nation is not short of engineers, it is short of groups willing to employ engineers to do engineering. Of my graduating class, ten years on only four of us are actually in engineering roles.

    Continue to abuse your remaining staff at your peril because they can and ‘will’ leave for greener pastures. The desire to be something more than just a contribution to some hedge fund line does not carry as far as it used to. A few months ago I talked a friend out of leaving the service. Having seen how they have been treated since I should have pointed them at roles with us and further afield. I expect when they return the discussion will go another way.

  8. I read earlier today that… First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Ben Key, has admitted that all six British submarines designed to hunt Russian subs were docked simultaneously in September.

    That about says it all.

    • Says it all? It doesn’t begin to cover the 1SL’s point: there were no required operational taskings for submarines that day, so why should it matter that they were not at sea? When told you can’t hunt Russian submarines in the North Atlantic when alongside, Sir Ben asked, if there were no Russian submarines in the North Atlantic, why would we have submarines hunting them?

      I paraphrase that answer from memory, but to me it was rather telling. It implies a healthy level of confidence in us knowing when Russian subs are in the Atlantic and when they aren’t. Might that be bluff and bravado? I don’t know.

      Thinking about how Russian subs might get into the Atlantic, it’s fairly believeable to me.

  9. Lack of engineers… Same thing in France. Lack of technicians as well most likely. These shortages when we have too many useless people like layers, bankers, psychologistes and so on, all owners of bullshit jobs… that’s… a major educational failure. Look at how many engineers you have to invite from other countries…

  10. And no discussion was had on RFA availability.

    ‘I meet the taskings I am asked to provide’ paraphrase.

    So a top end AAW Destroyer is appropriate for HIDR, the Russians are screwing our underseas cables – Astutes were alongside, but, we weren’t tasked… ask local towns how things are with no neighbourhood police because the police are intelligence led… how are our interconnectors?

    He’s a good pollie in the making.

    • Time for adding a small diesel sub fleet for the local undersea patrols in the North Sea, Atlantic, European neighbourhood? Plus the UUVs in the works.

  11. ‘addressing the challenge of a national shortage of engineers, Admiral Key remarked, “I think it is down to the fact that the nation is short of engineers.” ‘

    Amazing insight there.. that the shortage is down to a shortage.. You just made me less intelligent.

  12. Going off the Topic guys seen David Cameron on sky news this morning in Kiev, having a meeting on more Arms AD etc hope he doesn’t get carry away and give them our few Sky Sabre Batteries.Army top brass will be worried knowing is record 😕

  13. So we can deploy a carrier task group to the other side of the world. Essentially we have spent vast sums to build a capability we hardly need rather than maintain/ replace the assets that we do. Only the injection of the extra £16b by Boris has prevented the situation from being even more dire. And that won’t have full effect for years until the T26/31s are in service.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

By submitting this comment, you agree to the storage and handling of your data by this website in accordance with our Privacy Policy.