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.

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

96 COMMENTS

    • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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 took 20 years of arguing and planning to even get agreement for the QEC class to be designed let alone built.

          Sorry we don’t have the money or the will to fund our defense properly and we just need to admit it .

          • 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.

          • 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?

          • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

          • 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.

  1. 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.

    • 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.

          • 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.

          • 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.

          • 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.

          • 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’.

    • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

          • 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

        • 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.

  2. 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

    • 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 are we so afraid of them anyway, they export 10 times more to the UK than we export to them due to unfair trade practices. The world needs to stop dancing around them.

      • 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.

        • 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 can expect the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate his and his father’s dealings with them. Biden will find it impossible to fire that prosecutor. Trump will still be around gearing up for a run at the Presidency in 2024 and he has 70 million very enthusiastic voters behind him. He may take control of NewsMax now that Fox News has defected to the Democrats and just cause holy hell, of which he is totally capable. The orthodoxy is that there will be a status quo ante Trump for Biden. There certainly will not.

      • 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.

        • 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

          • 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!

          • 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

          • 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 using F35Bs from allied nations, e.g. the USMC, Italian Navy and maybe in the future Japan. Still a compromise for sure but better than repeating the errors of the past (i.e. Invincible class) for not much money saved.

          • 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 of manning and roles.

        • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

  3. 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.

    • 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.

  4. 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 full load of 48 F35B, 8 Merlin, 8 Wildcat and 6 Chinook (time of crisis and that we have the planes) and you are looking at nearly £10.0 billion. What a prize!
    We need to protect these assets and need to demonstrate that we can otherwise they will never reach their potential and will always be seen by other nations as vanity projects that are not to be respected or feared.
    Furlough has shown the Gov is prepared to invest in supporting people to protect the economy. How about creating the jobs required to do all the military ‘stuff’ and therefore spending less in real terms. I know it is much more complex than that and competition and efficient procurement are vital to drive costs down. We do seem to pay a lot when you compare to other country’s assets versus budget.

    • 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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

    • 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

      • 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.

    • 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. Only these will be obsolete.
      Do we really want to return the Navy to the Way of the Stringbag?

      • 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.

        • 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.

      • 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 which case scrub all defence spending and just do an Ireland and keep our heads down. I know what I would choose.

          • 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.

          • 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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?

  9. 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!

    • 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.

      • 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

        • 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:
          

  10. 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

    • 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.

  11. 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,

  12. 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

    • 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

    • 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.

  13. 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.
    3. AW609 has a stated internal lifting capacity of 2,700 kg (6000 lbs) just slightly less than that of a Merlin listed at 3,050kg.
    4. AW609 has pressured cabin and can fly up to 25,000 ft, Merlin reaches 15,000 ft, so AW609 borne radar has further horizon.
    5. AW609 has longer flight range with endurance about equal (Merlin about an hour better).

    What I propose would be use of the Saab erieye airborne radar which is purported to weigh 1900 kg with 2 operators and 2 flight crew in the aircraft. This configuration would be less than the 2700 kg weight limit. if erieye is not suitable I am sure there is a light weight airborne AESA radar that can be adapted such as the Captor-E on the Typhoons or even the update current crowd next Search water based system.

    My concerns on my proposal are
    1. Would the big propellers interfere with the performance of the beam radar antenna mounted on top of the aircraft?
    2. Could the nose accommodate also a downward looking radar
    3. Is it possible to fold wings and large propellers (rotors) for storage of aircraft below decks.

    Note the Italian navy is also looking to purchase AEW system for its two carriers the Trieste and Garibaldi so may the RN could collaborate and split costs with them.

    Is this proposal feasible and readily implementable within a 2-3 year timeframe at no greater cost than the crowsnest?

  14. 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 that smakes of hypocracy is that the MPs know the MoD and the Armed Forces need more money and more manpower/equipment. Yet these same MPs will not increase defence budgets or cover for what they have now either operationaly, in build or planned for. We the public keep shouting on defence sites such as this to either increase the budget to 3% or remove the CASD from the budget and place that back into the Treasury budget as it used to be.

    I don’t know why but I was looking at the ships, and building plans for the Italian navy, within the next couple of years there surface fighting force will out number that of the RN, just look at the 7 new offshore patrol ships that is coming online. Fully equipped that could take on a T26 for £450million each. As for the two new destroyers that are being designed, 11,000 tons 64 cells with a possible further 16/32 cells FFBNW for anything upto deep strike missiles, that would mean A-70 or Mk41s, 3 76mm guns, a 5inch, two EH101s, VDS, stern ramp, anti ship missiles, anti sub torps etc. They out do our T45s. Yes it means only 4 destroyers, then they will have 10 FREMM, 7 Tharon di Revel class batch one with a further batch 2 as option bringing that class upto 16 ships and don’t forget the new corvettes or the three new 16-20,000 ton assault ships as well as Trieste and their baby carrier with 15 F35Bs, 360 troops and 32 ASTER 15s. The new assault ships is meant to be able to land a Battalion with upto 30 medium tanks( i suspect that would be the B1 Centauro) each, I think we call that a Armoured Battle Group for over the beach landings. That would give Italy 21 surface combat ships or if the option for the Batch 2s is taking up 30 surface blue water combat ships. Can we have 30 surface blue water combat ships, Please. This does not include all the other naval assets or the 40+ Coast Guard boats. Yes the RN has nuclear subs where the Italians have AIP subs but they operate in the Med so AIP is logical. So if Italy can afford such a surface fleet with the state of their national finacies then what are we doing.

    • 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 lift, good surface fighting units, and some small Naval aviation assetts (Note the complete Italian F-35 buy is 15 airframes). Yes their surface escort capability is better than ours, or will be soon, but the RN makes up for this by being strong in Naval Aviation, Long Range heavy sealift, replenishment operations and nuclear submersibles.

      So yeah, Apples to Oranges. Very different things required of two very different navies.

      • 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 of 7,000 miles so are more than able to be used in blue water operations. I agree that the Italian Navy is designed to operate in the Med. As for the F35 the total on order is 60 As for the Italian Airforce and 15 Bs for the Navy. Pack those onto Trieste with its AW101 compliment and 600 Marines it is a fairly powerful all round combat ship. Not sure but I think the Trieste cost about £900 million. Even that ship can be fitted with 16 A-50s which would means upto 62 Sea Ceptors. Again she has a 7,000 mile range.
        So I agree that the RN has a better RAS capacity and a nuclear sub ability. But whats the point of having carriers and supply ships if you can’t fight your way through to where you need to be.
        Or better yet would the RN like to have 16 Tharon di Revel class vessels in addition to what they have. Second question should be how can the Italians spend £8 billion on those ships a further billion on Trieste, £2.5 billion on two new destroyers, four new FREMMs to add to the 8 at a cost of £4 billion they have thats another £2.2 billion and a further £2 billion+ on three new LPDs. All the older ships are to be replaced by 2028. The build program started in 2007. Thats 34 new combat vessels, a baby carrier/LHD, three new assault ships in 21 years. Look how long it takes the UK to build one T26. I forgot to mention two new 30,000 tons support ships for £650 million. Thats a total just on new surface assets of £20 billion over 21 years.

        • 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 keep a fleet supplied and operating far away from home. That’s the difference, the UK has a (slightly) lighter escort fleet, but it can deploy them and keep them operating far from home, where the Italian fleet, due to it’s lighter logisitcs train, can not. Hence the Italian Navy is a navy that is primarily built to deploy and work in it’s own waters, while the Royal Navy is a fleet that is designed to operate, and crucially facilitate it’s allies operations, globally.
          Different Navies, different operating requirements, different strengths.

          How can the Italian afford 20 billion on refreshing their surface warfare capability and the Royal Navy can’t? Well for starters the Royal Navy is investing 30 billion in a new class of SSBN, not to mention the brand new Astute class that are running off the production lines atm, a capability the Italian Navy doesn’t have. The Italian Navy has a weak Air component, limited to 15 F-35’s while the RN is already commited to 48 of them. The RN is building a new fleet of SSN’s, the Italians are making to with their old SSK’s for the moment.
          Look how long it takes to build a Type 26? Now you’re kind of showing a bit of ignorance here, because it’s well known that the Type 26 could be built faster. But if you want to project backwards: The Royal Navy has gotten 36 new ships in the past 21 years, so your headline grabbing numbers aren’t really all that horrifying.

          As I’ve said numerous times, different navies are spending on different priorities. The Italian Navy is looking at primarily operating in the confined waters of the med, and, if it is operating beyond, operating in an allied battlegroup. This means their spending priorities are: 1) GP Escorting surface combatants, 2) Short Range Sealift, 3) Shallow water Submersibles (SSK’s).
          The RN is looking at globally doing globally deployable battlegroups that allies can slot into and securing the GIUK Gap, and CASD. This means our spending prioties are: 1) Carrier Strike, 2) CASD, 3) Logisitics, 4) Deep Water ASW.
          It comes as no surprise then that when we look at the two fleets they priotise differently. And you know what, the best thing is that if the Italian have some good surface escorts and we are deploying a CBG on a NATO or EU tasking, we gain from them priotising different things. Win-Win.

          • 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 equip them at least if they have the tubes fitted no one would know what they have on board. Yes I agree that we have had in the past 20 years 13 major surface ships, 4 nuclear subs, 14 minor ships and 4 Tide’s built. The last SSBN was in 1999, there is a 4 year gap between the last Astute going into operation in 2016 to then next one that is only just starting out on trials. The last LPD was in 2004, the last FFG was 2002 and the last DDG was in 2013. The next FFG is about 2027/28 the next DDG is not on the drawing board, the next LPD is not even being thought of. Between the commisioning of the first T23 1991 and the first T26/31 in 2027 there is 36 years, 36 years of operations for a ship that was designed for 14 years at a push 25 years service. Thats the point, why does it take so long, good god in the days of the BB we could design (all done by hand) build (all done by hand) and commission a BB/BC at a push in two years on average 4 years. I thought computers and robotic was meant to speed things up and make things cheaper.

            As for possibly not understanding “at reach”, I understand very well the concept of blue water, green water and brown water capability. Even in this area we are comprimised until we get the new Solid support ships on line which looks like possibly in five years time. As for saying the Italian FFGs are not capable of Blue water operations the same FFG to a modified design has been accepted for the new USN frigate.

            I agree that the Italian Navy is set up for the Med or what I call Green water (the Baltic, North Sea also comes under Green water) and they are set up well for the area of operations. You bring up the point of the F35B and its limited numbers, agrred but
            you also bring up the point that the Italian Navy is a Med fleet,
            agreed. Again here is the issue, the Italian Fleet would be operating
            under the cover of the Italian airforce. The 15 F35Bs would be enough to hold of most adverseries in the Med until support can get to them from land. Italy is a bloody big aircraft carrier stuck in the middle of the Med. I am still confussed with them as what the hell do they need water tankers for. Ah well. They are more than capable to control ‘their’ Sea.

            Yet the RN is not capable to control the areas of British responsability. I know scream at me but let me give an example. The UK has the 5 largest EEZ in the world at 2.6 million sq miles, (Italy has 209,000 sq miles of EEZ). Ranging from the UK down to the Artic and from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific (Italy is all in home waters). Or about 3% of the world EEZ. The UK and its Overseas Territories have some of the largest Marine Protection Areas in the world, we just the other day annouced the largest one in the South Atlantic. We are as a nation responsable for the protection of our Overseas Territories. Where are the ships to come from to protect 265,000 sq miles of a Marine protected area 4,000 miles from the UK. It like putting the crown jewels in a castle with no burgler alarm. We have just enough to patrol our home waters before leaving the EU let alone after leaving the EU. Oh and by the way I have not mentioned the area of resposability with NATO or our strategic interests. So yes Italy who apparantly have a much weaker ecconomy than the UK is set up for the Med, but that is their area of reponsability which they can handle quite well.
            So I agree with you comparing the RN to the Italian Navy is oranges and apples in the operational sense. What I was trying to point out is if a nation that is a finacial weak as many people say can have the determination to upgrade and implement a naval building program on the scale and time frame they have then why the hell can’t we. Good God, our frigate design is from the 1980s, the oldest one is 30 years old and will need to carry on for another five years. Yes they have had upgrades, but the hull is still 30 years old and the design 40 years old. As for but we have SSBNs well all well and good but can the RN use them? What use are they unless you want to blow up the world.

            There is also something wrong when Italy is designing a 11,000-13,000 ton DDG for Med operations and we have a 9,000 ton DDG for world wide deployment. Then I look at the time frame for these two new DDGs, studies are being carried out now, contract 2023 operational 2028. Eight years from feasability study to fleet operation. Thats the point I am trying to make, the T26 start of feasability was in 1998, first contracts 2015 first ships to the fleet 2027/28. Twenty years between start of design to first ship operational. There is something wrong when Italy can get a ship from the first government request to operational in 8 years when we take twenty especially when that ship is twice the weight and a more capable platform than ours, with a towed array, two Merlin helicopter and 2×3 anti sub torpedo tubes for anti sub capability, anti air capable, Ballistic Missile Defence capable, Anti Ship ability and Land Attack capable as well as gunfire support. Our T45s have no anti sub capability and our T26s have no BMD ability. Possibly we should have fitted SAMPSON to the T26 scrap the mushroom farm and had A-50/A-70 tubes instead.

            Rant over, I do agree with your comments its just that we could do so much more and do it much better than what we are now, if only the government will show the will.

          • 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 and everything to do with how the RN vs the MM invest in their support chain. The Italian Navy’s logisitic train (as I said) is relatively small and can’t keep an Italian battlegroup supplied at any meaningful distance for any length of time. If they want to do that they have to rely on the USN or RN. This is why when FREMM enteres the USN it will be able to operate at reach, around the globe. Not because any huge modifications to the design, but because the USN has a support structure to keep it functioning once deployed.

            Correct, the Italian Navy doesn’t need aircover, because they have land air cover, and instead need a heavy dose of surface escorts because they’ll always be in striking range of enemy land forces. Good you are begining to pick up on the reasons the Italians are putting more money into it’s surface fleet than we are. And hey you know what? If the Italian fleet deploys at reach it’ll still need aircover and then it’ll be very badly placed to provide it, and will probably have to attach itself to an Allied fleet like the RN’s. Another example of how fleet composition, not individual assets, as a hollistic approach, is what defines the ability to operate far from home.

            What use are SSBNS unless you want to blow up the world? Well they guarentee us a seat on the UN security council and help stop WW3, so I’d argue that they’re very important. Btw the Italian Water tankers are to supply their islands, and yes Italy has more than a few populated Islands, with water in the event of a drought or enemy action putting their water supplies out of action.

            Your complaints about our ships coming into service are hollow, again we are prioitising elsewhere, hence we bring other things into service at the moment. You have no problem with mentioning ships brought into service by the MM back in 2001 to serve your point, but mentioning ships brought into service by the UK in the same time frame is bad according to you. Please drop the double standard. Also don’t make me laugh with FFBNW, since I just pointed out how the Italians also FFBNW.

            As for our EEZ, yes… that’s why we’ve just doubled our OPV fleet that is optimised for long endurance operations, maximum days at sea, and minimum crew requirements, unlike most European OPV’s that are none of those things. It’s almost like the RN optimizes itself for the tasks at hand. Please inform me of a threat to the South Atlantic EEZ that can’t be handled by an OPV and would require Italian-esque assets?

            There’s nothing wrong with Italy designing a new DDG that large. The Med has seen 30,000t batteships deploying there in the past. As for your “panicky” judgements, I don’t see any need for the hysteria, and lets wait and see what the design is before anyone jumps any guns, but once again you don’t seem to understand the concept of being able to operate at reach, please go back up and re-read my paragraph on that. If you bring this up again, mistaking individual assets for fleet composition I’m not going to repeat myself and I’ll just direct you back here, because frankly I’m a bit sick of you saying “I understand” while missing the point.

            So please stop making me roll my eyes when you go off about how we do something that is our priority number 10 worse than the Italians do their priority number 1. Our surface escort fleet shouldn’t be our Priority 1, it’s prioritised as it needs to be, and that is good. So stop moaning that we are prioritising carriers, nuclear submarines, and logistics fleets over surface escorts, while the Italians are doing the opposite, it’s neither entertaining nor enlightening.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here