The MoD’s failure to ensure the timely delivery of the Crowsnest radar system leaves the carriers with less protection than planned in its early years, warns the Public Accounts Committee.

In a report published today, the Public Accounts Committee commends the Ministry of Defence for delivering two aircraft carriers that form the bases for Carrier Strike but says this success risks being undermined by failure to provide the capabilities essential for the carriers to do their job.

The report states the following referring to the Ministry of Defence:

“The Department has regarded the Crowsnest project—which will provide a new airborne radar system to protect Carrier Strike—as a very high-risk project from the start. There were problems with it between 2016 and 2018, including slippage against milestones. Then, in January 2019, the Department realised that Crowsnest’s initial contracted capability would not be delivered until September 2021, 18 months later than planned.

It has told us that the problems were because the sub-contractor did not understand the technical risks and had been overly optimistic when reporting progress. The Department assures us that there will be a “credible baseline capability” when Carrier Strike deploys in 2021 and it will be able to respond to potential threats. Although it plans to improve incrementally the radar capability by 2023, it could not assure us that it would achieve this.”

You can read more about Crowsnest here.

The recommendation from the PAC states: 

“The Department should write to the Committee to advise how it has addressed the challenge of not initially having a fully operational Crowsnest system, and on the timetable for enhancements. More broadly, it should advise the Committee how it has improved the oversight of sub-contractors in the light of this case.”

Chair’s comment

Meg Hillier MP, Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said:

“As things stand the UK has two world-class aircraft carriers with limited capability because the wider debate about the UK’s strategic defence capability – and funding – has been repeatedly delayed. This debilitating lack of clarity threatens our national defences yet it’s not likely to be resolved when the strategic defence review and the comprehensive spending review look likely to be out of step with each other once again.

The MoD and the nation it’s responsible for defending cannot afford for this rare beacon of success, in delivering the two carriers, to descend into yet another failure to deliver defence capability. The MoD must recognise that is a real risk, a real risk to a vital part of our national defences, and it must demonstrate now a clear plan to capitalise on the massive investment the UK has already made – and deliver Carrier Strike.”

Read the report here.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
103 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Liam

Cat n trap could have meant Hawkeyes.

Robert Blay

And even greater cost and delays.

Andy

We had been out of the cat and trap game since 1979 .
You need to be certified for carrier operations every 6 months as a pilot and after a gap of 40 years the FAA and the RN did not have the skills to operate cats and traps.
The FAA has no fast jet pilots only the RAF has fast jet pilots and they don’t have enough to man there fleet of fast jet.
There was not the money to rebuild the skills.

Liam

We could have worked alongside the French and Yanks to train up. The lack of cats n traps restricts us when it comes to supplies, refuelling, AEW etc. That said we made the decision so more money and effort should have gone into Crows nest. A carrier without its own AEW should be a no go, no matter how good the T45s are.

Andy

There was no money to do what you suggest, you forget the invincible class through deck cruisers only got past the treasury because they thought they were helicopter carriers and embarking the harrier was a after thought . And what you are suggesting makes zero sense we are going to spend £50 to £70 million a year for 35 years embedding FAA pilots and RN personnel with the USN to maintain skills that we don’t have the money or resources to use on the off chance we might actually decide to build a proper aircraft carrier in the future. It… Read more »

Liam

I am not arguing that point. We do what we Brits do: half bake things. That’s probably fine in peacetime but not if a war breaks out. That said there’s a fair argument that we would be part of a coalition that might well cover us. However my main point was that Crows Nest should have been given priority. Frankly given it is based on two proven platforms why on earth should it be problematic to get it done.

Andy

Because the MoD changed the specification 3 times and then did not order it until 2018 and did not fund it fully until 2019 .

Ring any bells?

Paul C

You are right about the Invincibles, these were the best design the RN could get away with under the prevailing ‘no carriers’ rule. As originally conceived they were ASW helicopter carriers only with no fixed-wing aircraft embarked. The RN had to fight tooth and nail to get them approved, which was skilfully done by convincing the government that a conventional cruiser with aft flight deck and hangar was inadequate for the ASW mission.

dan

Yep. A few E-2Ds would have been a huge capability leap over the helo borne AEW. Just look at how effective the help AEW was in the Falklands War. The enemy aircraft were flying all over the British task force. That can not be allowed to happen again and especially in a near peer conflict.

Liam

I agree that was supposedly the lesson to be learned. Instead we got a mixture of vanity project, political bribery, indecision and bad planning. That’s not to knock the RN. But imagine a QE class getting hit by an ALCM. Such a loss would be immeasurable.

Glass Half Full

There was no helo AEW in the Falklands War, so you are incorrect to suggest it was/is ineffective. The precursor to Crowsnest didn’t deploy until just after the war ended.

4th watch

Yes and we got it done in 3 months! But that was because it was critical. I maintain its critical now.

Glass Half Full

I’m certainly not going to argue on criticality. The risk is low, but that’s no excuse for what should have been a relatively low risk program, on a CSG table stakes capability.

George Royce

Well, we need to build more ships to do the job and still protect trade routes as well. We only have 6 destroyers and some outdated frigates. 6 subs as well.
I mean it comes down to more funding or just pack it all in.

Airborne

The type 23s are old but certainly not outdated, they have and are being upgraded, and with a Merlin in the air, the ones with the towed sonar are the best ASW asstes in the game, aside from Astute.

Dern

I like how his argument is that the 13 frigates being ordered and build don’t count somehow. XD

AlexS

There are not 13 frigates ordered. there are 3 Type 26 and 5 Type 31 ordered.

Dern

No Alex, there are 13 Frigates ordered. What you mean is the contract hasn’t been finalised for the final 5 Type 26’s but that’s a very different thing. The long lead items such as the engines for the final 5 are already signed for and paid for and begining production, and the contract for the next 5 won’t be signed until lessons learned from the first 3 can be absorbed and intigrated into the contract.

Meirion X

6 Type 26 frigates have Not been ordered yet, only proposed. Three T26s have been ordered, 2 in build now, one to start build by April. The MoD does Not have the budget to order the remaining T26s yet.

Meirion X

A Correction.
6 T26s, should be 5 remaining T26s.

Meirion X

You are right that the long lead components of the 5 T26s have been ordered and paid for.
It is just the construction contract and the order of the remaining components of the 5 remaining T26s has not been fully negotiated yet.

Meirion X

If only 3 further Type 26 frigates are ordered in 2021. There could be a prospect of 3 further T26s ordered in 2025.
Only my wishes! This would meet the ‘Rule of Three’.

Monty

With the economic fallout of COVID the military will be extremely lucky to get any more funding..

Patrick

Exactly, we’d all love to see the defence budget go up and not only properly fund existing projects but expand on them.

But with this upcoming review, it’s an apprehensive time.

Steve R

That said, some more investment in defence, spent on more UK-built assets would help preserve or even grow local economies around the country where defence equipment is built; shipyards, aircraft factories etc…

Cameron and Osborne showed that austerity and cutting just doesn’t work. Investment needs to be made to grow both national and local economies. Defence is a part of that and supports tens, if not several hundred thousand jobs across the country.

DRS

Absolutely, you use defence as a stimulus to the wider economy. We need capex projects for the next few years to stimulate post COVID. They may be controversial but from HS2/3, to if ever a bridge to Norther Ireland, to Constant drum beat of defence orders, we can go at the cheaper end and add more T31s or River batch 2 with some moderate weapons upgrade to take away the jobs from the bigger ships, and perhaps re-enter into the non nuclear submarine build out so we can also hopefully convert those to overseas orders too.

Andy

From what I understand, and that’s limited building a whole new line of subs is something that will never be funded, I think pushing to build everything promised (fleet and plane) is going to be hard enough, any spare cash shoul go towards arming properly like other nations

AlbertStarburst

Agreed.
If we decided to purchase “British” then the $$$$billlions spent on defence would stay within the wider UK economy and not go straight out the front door. So rather than subsidising wages, or big social security pay outs, we would at least have a strong design and manufacturing base, and not be so reliant on numbers of coffee shops, and bargain retail stores. After the 2008 crash Cameron agreed to re-structure the UK economy away from Finance and Retail….but never.

George Royce

Agreed

julian1

I can see the cruise to South China Sea being rerouted next year, perhaps taking a wider birth.
Why? 1. Biden has no wish to antagonize the Chinese and may decide this is a gesture to better relations, 2. UK is not really capable of doing this right now. Too few escorts/auxiliaries, no AEW, too few F35

BB85

You either antagonise the Chinese or appease them. If the tour is cancelled it will be seen as a sign of weakness by the Chinese and a signal to do whatever they like in the South China Sea. They have already shown their intention to end the two system approach to HK, their focus will then switch to Taiwan when they see the US less likely to challenge them. After that who knows what other historic grievance they will want to put right. India, Australia and Japan are extremely nervous about Chinese agreesion so the tour is absolutely necessary. Why… Read more »

julian1

perhaps, but Biden may want to take stock for a period rather than drive likelihood of an incident so soon into presidency. This could be too soon for RN.

pkcasimir

Biden will find that his options on dealing with China are limited once he takes office. There is now a wide consensus in the US that China must be confronted and Biden just cannot turn back the clock. The most likely scenario is that the Republicans will control the Senate and be only five or six votes shy of controlling the floor in the House where they only need five or six moderate Democrats who just barely hung onto their seats to vote with them. Biden still has his son’s “dealings” with the Chinese hanging over his head and one… Read more »

Peter S.

Asian Pacific countries with reason to be hostile to China actually outnumber it’s population and match its GDP. Why would they be so helpless as to need an underequipped UK carrier? We have no business in the Pacific and if a cruise there is the best use we can come up with, then we hardly need the carriers at all.

julian1

i don’t think operating in the far east was in mind when ordered. personally i would have gone for 2x ASW light carriers equipped with F35 and 2xocean type carriers with a focus on N. Atlantic, Baltic, Med and Gulf. Then perhaps we could have had a couple more escorts and a couple more SSNs

Paul C

Large carriers are far better in terms of capability v cost. A plan to build 4 small carriers would have cost as much or more than the QE class. So 1 or more likely both the Ocean-type carriers are cancelled and the RN is left with 2 ~35-40,000 ton carriers (anything smaller is not worth bothering with) offering less than 1/2 the capability of the QE class at 2/3 the cost. Extra escorts and SSNs unlikely given they are ~£1 billion and ~£1.5 billion a pop respectively so would cost as much as the carriers themselves!

Julian1

The argument holds up until you include the air assets. With 4 smaller carriers we already have enough aircraft to ensure 2 of them can be at sea. At the mo we don’t have enough a/c for one QE and that position won’t change for years to come

A bigger order for T26 would have made them cheaper and failing that T31 is far cheaper. Right about astute though. But at least we would have a better balanced fleet for the same budget even if we didn’t have any big boy pants to play in the SCS

Paul C

We would never have got 4 small carriers though, only 2. The choice in SDR 1998 was between 2 large carriers, 2 small carriers or no carriers. They eliminated the small carriers option early on because these did not offer the flexibility and surge capacity to justify the still considerable capital and through-life costs. Realistically a carrier 1/2 QE size would have been a lot more than than 1/2 the cost. With the QE class at least embarking a credible air group is possible. Given that coalition operations are far more likely than unilateral ones numbers can be made up… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli

Yep, agree with this.

Dern

It doesn’t even hold up with Air Assets though. 4 smaller carriers do not generate the same sortie and tempo rate as larger carriers. They have less time on station (smaller ship means less operational endurance) duplicate efforts, and because of internal layouts getting 2 smaller carriers does not mean the same hangar space divided by 2. Even if you have smaller airgroup the larger carrier is still more efficient because you don’t have to move airframes around as much to get them into maintenance, launced, recovered etc. And this is before you realise you’d have to duplicate a lot… Read more »

Meirion X

We would of still had a leg to stand on in Pacific, if we had not given away Brunei to an autocratic ruler. We could of developed democracy there, and Brunel still remained part of the UK with Devolution there.

Dern

Pitcairn Island still calls out to us….

dan

Biden has very good relations with the Chimcoms. Not to mention his son Hunter is employees by them. So basically he does what they say.

Glass Half Full

The US isn’t going to stop freedom of navigation exercises in the SCS. The UK, Australia and other parties aren’t likely to either. We are fully capable of sending a CSG to the Pacific, we just did an exercise to practise this. Calls at Singapore and Japan are likely, so its very possible the CSG will transit through the SCS, unless it heads south to Australia and then up to Japan.

john

There is no one left in number 10 who knows anything about defence or for that matter anything at all.

julian1

Carrie does 🙂

Ron5

Certainly knows more than that “box of frogs” Cummings

David Flandry

The government needs to fund the MoD adequately instead of pissing around with glorified job programs and other political nonsense. Else abolish the MoD and quit pretending.

mikeytee

I suppose the truth is we spend a shed load of money and get less bangs for our bucks due to an extremely poor defence procurement programme, A situation that has deteriorated over the last 20 years plus.

Andy

Totally right we seem to spend more than any similar nation and except carriers get zero value for money

The Big Man

When you think it, it is just so inept. The UK Gov is happy to send a capital ship of immense value on a mission that could get quite tense after failing to support the vessel and the rest of the fleet for that matter for what in reality is small money. When tooled up these ships come in at over £6 BILLION each. We are forever hearing that they cost £3.1 billion, but put 24 F35B’s, 8 Merlin and 8 Wildcat on board plus ordnance and other kit and you easily reach £6.0 billion. Send one out with almost… Read more »

The Big Man

Meant to say, plus the 1,500 crew on board who deserve the best.

Frank62

With you all the way Big Man. With friends like this leading us, who needs enemies. We are a very wealthy country with a large population yet fail to adequately fund & man a navy which is a tiny fraction of what we once had from a much smaller population.
If nothing else our sevicemen & women deserve the best kit we can give them. The gutless inefficiency & madness at the top has got to stop.

Last edited 16 days ago by Frank62
Harold

Dear dear, it’s all so very worrying…….. perhaps the cost of these things should have been considered before they were built. Vanity projects if ever I saw them. The money would have been better spent on proper patrol vessels instead of building something which is unsustainable. Reality will finally strike home and the excesses of defence spending needs to be brought under control as it doubtless will. Wee Britain cannot afford a ‘blue water’ navy, expeditionary forces and nuclear weapons. The country is massively indebted. Cuts will come and rightly so,

Meirion X

Lord Haw-Haw, yet again making a Trolling effort on behalf of his Master Putin!

You certainly don’t make all this Trolling for nothing, really!!
Obviously you are rewarded very well by your Master Putin!

Have you said goodbye to agent Cummings yet?

Harold

I am extremely well paid by President Putin thanks. You can but dream of the wealth and fortune I have been paid by Russia to troll this very, very important website which really frightens Putin and the whole politburo. No, agent Cummings has been replaced by another agent of the FSB so anticipate even further convulsions inside your wee Westminster government. Now, about those defence cuts…

Harold

PS. I think you are getting geographically challenged. Lord Haw Haw was American born and took German citizenship. Not a friend of Russia. Thought you would have known that but there, not terribly bright, are you?

Meirion X

No, it’s you who is Geographically challenged here!
William Joyce was born in the US, but raised mainly in Ireland. He was living in England when war broke out, but fled to Germany when tip off of his impeding
internment.
He was a senior member of the British Union of Fascists at that time.

So who is Not very bright here!
Russian agent Posing as a fake Scot, aye!

Harold

A little like people who pose as clinicians, eh?

Airborne

Oh dear wrong again, pretty much default setting for you old man.

Airborne

I love the way he throws in a bit of Scottish terminology to try to shore up his rather weak and sad credentials. He cannot resist biting to posts and replies can he, so easily baited and hooked.

Harold

Ooh. I love it when you talk all rugged. Wear your little red beret when you masturbate looking at the wee tank pictures. You naughty wee neanderthal. Don’t forget those defence cuts are coming, snip, snip, snip……

Airborne

It’s a maroon beret, red is for the RMP ….oh dear, wrong again old man….sigh!

Harold

But you are a wee tosser aren’t you?

Airborne

😂😂😂

Meirion X

I agree Airborne!

Airborne

Help is out there Harold, you don’t have to be so lonely during lockdown.

Andy

I’m not regular on comments but are you in need of psychiatric help, “wee” Britain? WTF? We are in debt but I believe we have fifth or sixth biggest economy in world, before I ask if your a traitor can I ask if you have any logical thought process? I apologise to all if I offend and moderators, maybe cos I’m new but what Harold says doesn’t make sense,

Airborne

He is a troll, his only comments are silly and child like. I know I should leave him alone but I cannot resist reeling him in like a little fat SNP fish.

Trevor W Hogg

Andy I agree, size does not matter, Its not what you’ve got it how you use it.

Geoffrey Roach

Also include in my submission to the ISDR….” both carriers are poorly defended. Apart from rumoured problems with the Crowsnest radar there is their armament which for ships of their size is woefully inadequate. I recommend that as soon as it is practical each should be fitted with at least two 12 silo CAMM launchers for AA defence. For local defence I also recommend that the 30mm cannon be partnered with the Martlett SSM launcher.

Harold

Do you think they will listen? Have you costed your proposals?

Airborne

Hmmmm SNP defence policy….costing proposals….you are hilarious, sad, old, irrelevant but amusing.

AlbertStarburst

I still stay we need some relatively low-cost STOL aircraft to provide area defence and free up and let the F35s do their thing.

Surely, given the amounts already spent, cobbling up say 24x Sea Harriers and retraining of pilots, would be worth it. Or even develop a simplistic Sea Harrier II. for low-level grunt work

Andy

I think the cost of even recoiling anything, testing, training certifying would cost more than modern platform, doesn’t make financial sense. Similar idea to restarting f22 production. Cheaper to start again

AlbertStarburst

IMO it would depend on a number of factors: e.g.
1) Who does it – I have argued elsewhere on here for a UK (CANZUK) organization tasked with strategic capabilities.
2) Not re-inventing the wheel and only using the appropriate level of technology for the job.
3) A modular design that is fixed in spec, until major upgrade later.
These things can be done. it just needs a bit of will… but not Mr Cummings by the sound of it.

Dern

Would be horrendously expensive for limited increase in capability. Harrier is on the way out world wide, it’s rapidly becoming obsolete. The USMC is replacing it’s AV-8’s with F-35B’s, the Italian Navy is doing the same, even the Spanish Navy is looking to replace it’s Harriers with F-35’s, and India replaced theirs with Migs a few years ago. Reintroducing Harriers, with the associated spares, logisitics, training, OCU, etc that would be required to keep them flying would be anything but cheap, and you’d be lucky to get as many airframes out of it as if you just kept buying F-35’s.… Read more »

Citizen

Imagine the ridicule that would be heaped on the MoD if it decided to reinvest in a platform that it sold off for peanuts a few years ago. That alone is reason enough to show the absurdity of the idea.

Dern

I mean ridicule should never be a reason to do the right thing, but yes in this case they’d deserve the ridicule if they did that.

AlbertStarburst

My point really is not about a SHAR per se. It is about plugging a gap of capability and taking advantage of the new world in which we live by promoting investment in domestic aerospace, and doing it context of a wider UK (CANZUK) organization that nurtures key strategic capabilities. (we can go into funding that on another thread). The sort of modular design would be along the lines promoted by this lot. https://aeralis.com/ Or do we just roll over and ignore our industrial heritage and potential and have a pure consumer-only society, but all our stuff from overseas, in… Read more »

Dern

So F-35 and Typhoon.

AlbertStarburst

Not really. They are doing different things and and we don’t have cats ‘n’ trap on our carriers. IMO with regard to our carries there are 2 fixed-wing capability gaps. Low-level wide area defence/patrol out beyond say 200miles (could be SHAR-II or drone), and a long-endurance, long-rage, blue ocean STOL AEW. I’m suggesting a low-cost approach to develop 2 aircraft platforms to fill those needs. Even Tempest – if made STOL – would not fit the bill as too high value an asset.

Dern

What’s Cats and Traps got to do with it? Oh right it is actually about Sea Harrier and not about native industry, and you where just deflecting got it.

AlbertStarburst

Sorry but I don’t understand what you are trying to say?

dan

A helo borne AEW capability is fine for operations against low end threats like in the Falklands, ect but against near peer threats like China/Russia is is sorely lacking no matter if it carries an AESA or not. Things like very short range, endurance, operating altitude, time to reach operating area, ect. My guess would be when the big showdown with the Chicoms come the U.S. or another ally will provide the British CV fixed wing AEW coverage.

Tim

I don’t think anything less than 24/7 30-day coverage is acceptable. 5 helos cannot do that. Big radar for medium and high altitude, and lots of drones for over the horizon low altitude can. ScanEagle weighs just 22kg, we could have 40 of them for the cost of 1 Merlin.

DRS

Could we plug some gaps with s100? I think it has limited AEW, it is more of a ground SAR radar but still 4xS100s would help https://schiebel.net/products/camcopter-s-100-system-2/

Challenger

They do like to state the obvious! Half as many destroyers and roughly two thirds as many frigates, SSN’s and ASW helicopters as planned in 1998, an inadequate AEW solution and only light-caliber guns on the carriers themselves – of course they aren’t as well defended as expected!

DRS

Need to add martlett to the 30mm cannons for sure. I presume we have torpedo countermeasures fitted as well you never see anything about that, I know the us carriers abandoned the anti torpedo torpedo, but we must have something at least. Plus CAMM etc as per above comments.

Andy

As I think last sea lord said why would we cut up the carrier to add missles. It will never be without 2 x t45 so just arm them properly. Or swap three phalanx on carrier for sea ram?? What do people think? Never gunna fit sea crept or to carrier

Dern

No, we should go back to the days of properly arming carriers damn it! I want Lexingtons with Eight 8 inch guns on them damn it!
In fact while we are at it:


FuriousSP_89.jpg
Andy

I don’t often post I prefer to read but I’m just betting as I read down the comments how many “fantasy fleet” comments there are, “let’s order ten t26 and ten t31 arm them like death stars and destroy China. Let’s get a grip, build everything promised, no cuts and upgun them with more of shelf kit.
Talking about ordering more in current climate just fantasy

DRS

We need to order an buy up systems, know is precisely the time when we need economic stimulus. If we can’t go with top end assets let’s go with More t31 And rivers b2 to at least take some pressure for the existing high end assets.

Colin

Crowsnest was a doomed Project from the start AEW during the Falklands was a bolt on project what is the
state of the Osprey AEW

Andy

I might be wrong but crows nest was not used in falklands it was ordered after?
Osprey never gunna be option for us, would be nice but horrendously expensive

ETH

There is no Osprey AEW. An AEW version (EV22) was proposed for the British carriers but was deemed too costly. No other nation is funding it.

Branaboy

The more I read and think about this is of AEW for RN carriers the more I am starting to believe the solution lies with a Leonardo AW609 tilt rotor. Yes I have read on these pages how cramped it is inside (5ft height cabin) and not being militarized. I however see merit in this airframe for the AEW. 1. It comes from Leonardo manufacturers of the Merlin helicopter being used for cross next. 2. AW609 is being listed at $25 million, cheaper than a Merlin at35 million. So I say agree to a militarized price same as the Merlin.… Read more »

Ron

So lets look again, from my understanding there will be three developmet type Crows Nest on the QEs deployment next year. These are not the final production versions but the ones that would need to be tested under active conditions. Not ideal but a step in the right direction. Second the Mod and MPs knew two years ago that Crows Nest is delayed. With that being the case then why did they scrap all the Sea King Crows Nest. Surely it would have made sense to keep the older system until the new one is fully operational. What I find… Read more »

Dern

You need to be really careful looking at the Tharon di Revel class though, they come in 3 flavours, Light, Light + and Full. Only 2 are being built to the “Full” specification, the rest are roughly equivilant to the Type 31 class. As for the Italian Navy vs the RN, it’s a bit of an Apples to Oranges comparison. The Italians have some very good surface escorts, and some very old ones. The Italian Navy is a short range navy that’s very much optimised for fighting in the confined waters of the Med, it has good short range sea… Read more »

Ron

I did look carefully at the class and the three specs all are capible of the full weapons fit, light + has its full A-70 launchers but not anti ship missiles and as for the Light version it looks like gun, only all missile systems for the light is FFBNW. As for the destroyers the two older ones are being replaced by two DDX an 11,000 -13,000 ton very capable ship to work with the two Horizons they have at the moment. All the older frigates will be replaced by FREMM class frigates. The DDGs and FFGs have a range… Read more »

Dern

Yes yes, fitted for not with. Just like Type 31 is capable of housing a full VLS farm amidships that doesn’t, or cannister launched missiles but doesn’t. Doesn’t change the fact that only two PPA’s will have the full fit, while, as I said, the other two are like Type 31’s. Sorry I don’t think you understand what I mean by being able to operate at reach. Yes they have Frigates and Destroyers and that means they can yes go out of the med. But the Italian Navy isn’t set up to operate at reach. That means being able to… Read more »

Last edited 16 days ago by Dern
Ron

Morning Dern, In a round about way you made the points that I was trying to get across. 1 . We can build and outfit the T26/T31s quicker if the Government would let them. 2. Leave the MoD budget at its current 2.2% and put the SSBN cost back into the treasury where it always used to be. That gives the MoD an extra £31 billion to play with. 3. Fit the limited amount of ships we have with the systems and weapons that they should have rather than FFBNW. Even if there is not the weapons stocks to fully… Read more »

Dern

No, you clearly don’t understand the what operating at reach means. No Frigate can operate at reach. Doesn’t matter if it’s a Type 26, FREMM, whatever. The fact you are not grasping this shows that you missing the point. Yes, the Italians, just like the Americans can send a FREMM Frigate across the atlantic, but without the logistic support to keep it working once it gets there it will pretty soon have to head back to Italy, or rely on it’s allies to keep it working there. This has nothing to do with the design of the FREMM per say… Read more »

Last edited 16 days ago by Dern