A National Audit Office (NAO) report on the Ministry of Defence’s Equipment Plan for 2023-2033 expresses concern over the financial challenges associated with the development of new Type 83 destroyers for the Royal Navy.
The NAO report highlights that new entries into the Royal Navy’s shipbuilding pipeline, including the Type 83 destroyers, are forecast to cost £5.9 billion more than the budgets currently allocated.
This substantial gap in funding is a major concern for the development of the vessels.
“For example the Navy has included the full predicted costs of new entries into the shipbuilding pipeline – including Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance ships Type 32 frigates Multi-Role Support Ships, Type 83 destroyers and Future Air Dominance System – which are forecast to cost £5.9 billion more than the currently allocated budgets.”
Also adding later:
“New entries endorsed in the 2021 Integrated Review – including Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance ships, Type 32 Frigates, Multi-Role Support Ships, Type 83 destroyers, and Future Air Dominance System – have been initiated, but costs are £5.9 billion higher than current budgets.”
Britain’s new warship – A Type 83 Destroyer concept surfaces
Gareth Davies, the head of the NAO, expressed grave concerns over the unaffordability of the Equipment Plan in the report, which can be found here.
“The MOD acknowledges that its Equipment Plan for 2023–2033 is unaffordable, with forecast costs exceeding its current budget by almost £17 billion. This is a marked deterioration in the financial position since the previous Plan. Deferring choices on spending priorities until after the Spending Review, while understandable given the government’s ambitions expressed in the updated Integrated Review, risks poor value for money if programmes continue which are later cancelled, scaled down or deferred because they are unaffordable. The MOD should consider how future Plans can achieve their core purpose: providing a reliable assessment of the affordability of its equipment programme and demonstrating to Parliament how it will manage its funding to deliver equipment projects.”
Brief summary of projects either not Included or partly included in the Equipment Plan
The National Audit Office report on the Ministry of Defence’s Equipment Plan 2023-2033 reveals several critical capability requirements that are partly or fully excluded from this year’s plan. These exclusions, despite being integral to the UK’s defence strategy, have no funding allocated in the equipment plan.
Programmes Not Included in the Plan:
1. Land Environment Capability Assessment Register (British Army):
- Unfunded Gaps: Significant gaps in lethality, air defence, C4I systems, logistics, CBRN, and mobility.
- Internal Balancing: The Army is conducting an internal exercise to modernise forces within existing funding.
2. Warrior Armoured Vehicle and Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army):
- Costing Uncertainty: Extensions for Warrior and Challenger 2 are still being costed, potentially leading to unfunded pressures.
3. Land Precision Strike (Strategic Programmes Directorate):
- Requirement: A need for a ground-launched precision guided weapon with at least 80km range.
- Funding Status: Programmed for the end of the decade, but no financial commitment yet.
4. SPEAR Cap 3 Electronic Warfare Air-to-Ground Missile (Strategic Programmes Directorate):
- Programme Status: Initial low-cost capability demonstrator under negotiation; full programme confirmation pending by the RAF.
5. Meteor Air-to-Air Missile (Strategic Programmes Directorate):
- Mid-Life Upgrade: Funding of up to £2 billion required for mid-life upgrade, currently not included.
6. Test and Evaluation Contracts (Strategic Programmes Directorate):
- Funding Shortfall: Insufficient funding to replace two contracts ending in 2028; development and procurement funding gap exists.
Partly Funded Programmes Included in the Equipment Plan
1. A400M Transport Aircraft Additional Purchases (Royal Air Force):
- Funding Status: Some funding held centrally; sufficient but does not align with later years’ spending needs.
2. F35-B Combat Aircraft Third Front-Line Squadron (Royal Air Force):
- Capital Budget Shortfall: Increases by £0.1 billion between 2023-24 and 2026-27.
- Operational Funding Gap: Lacks £0.4 billion needed to operate the squadron.
3. New Entries into the Shipbuilding Pipeline (Royal Navy):
- Projects Included: Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance ships, Type 32 Frigates, Multi-Role Support Ships, Type 83 destroyers, Future Air Dominance System.
- Financial Shortfall: Costs are £5.9 billion higher than current budgets.
4. In-Service Extension of RFA Argus (Royal Navy):
- Implementation: Extension of the primary casualty receiving ship is underway.
- Budget Issue: No additional budget was received for this extension.
5. Mine Hunting Capability (Royal Navy):
- Plan Inclusion: Second phase included in the Plan.
- Funding Shortfall: No additional budget for this phase; additional funds sought for Hunt Class vessels until new capability is operational.
6. Future Commando (Royal Navy):
- Modernisation Funding: £0.7 billion required for Royal Marines modernisation to enable operations from the sea in high-threat environments.
- Budget Exclusion: This funding has not been included in the Plan.
7. Directed Energy Weapons (Strategic Programmes Directorate):
- Status: Novel capability with assessment phase funding.
- Review Pending: MOD to review at the end of the assessment phase; may replace or supplement other capabilities.
Getting rid of some of the 60,000 civilians who work for the MOD might help the budget!!!!
I would love to see all the BS roles that add nothing to the running of the department.
Convert all MOD civvies to active service. That’ll thin them out. Madness that the civvies are almost as large as the Army, and at least double the others.
Several years ago it was revealed that the top two civil servants took home over 80,000 each per year from the government to the drawing pin box. The system is a disgrace and the whole machine should be dismantled and rebuilt into something that actually works.
And how much would that cost? And then who would do all the work?
From the UK taxpayer.
They can often do roles more cheaply than serving personnel, many roles have been civilianised as a result
Aah thank you I didn’t see this before making my comment above. Seems logical to me.
Correct. I’ve pointed out so many times here that many, many of those supposedly useless civilian posts staff important parts of the MoD that directly impact defence.
Perhaps posters can comment on how getting rid of civil service in DD, AWE, DMG, DSTL, DI, as just a few examples would help? Or even more bizzarly, replacing them with serving personnel??
The bits that go bang don’t work without the rear end enabling it.
I think the angst is directed mainly at Main Building and DES at Abbey Wood
And yes, there are both serving and civil service in those places.
What do we do to replace the output of the thousands of civilian posts ? Outsource again? Use military? 🙄😆
Indeed it does amaze me how people just think very highly complex systems just work without any input, direction or management….it’s astounding how many people think their hospital, GP, community nursing services, mental health services would simple exists and deliver if only all the managers were sacked..forgetting someone somewhere needs to:
1) look at what the population needs are now and in a decade
2) look at how many staff, buildings etc are needed now and in a decade.
3) figure out how to train the staff needed now and in a decade.
4) work out how to allocate limited budgets…how many knee replaces this year vs talking therapy sessions etc…
None of this highly complex stuff just happens…and if you ask you GP or nurse to do it:
1) they will not have the foggiest how to do any of the above..as they are trained to diagnose and treat disease not plan how complex systems work.
2) no longer be able to treat you as they will spend all their time planning and managing the system and not delivering patient care.
3) all argue as to what resources should go where as the A&E team will want more money, the GP practice will want more money, mental health will want more money…I’ve worked in every part of the health system and every organisation, service thinks it and its patients are the priority…someone needs to see the whole picture and go sorry people will have to wait for more the four hours in ED as if we give you more we will treat less mental health patients and our self harm rates will go up to much etc…
it’s just the Same in defence…highly complex, decades long planning and projections, limited resources with competing services and needs….you need the organisers and planners and they are not always the same skill set as Johnny on the spot who is delivering the health care or fighting a ship in the gulf….you need both delivery and planning working well together for it to all work.
And call it a sdsr
I have personal experience of this unfortunately. Many government departments are literally overmanaged. This is because they don’t trust the engineers to deliver. Trust people more and we can get rid of all the crap managers that push endless reams of paper.
It’s not the people who are culpable, they are ordinary hard working men and women who are trying to pay the bills and the mortgages, it’s the mindset of the management team and the leadership that they get from the political masters
Well said most civil servants with the MOD have nothing to do with buying tanks and ships, they oil the rest of the whole machine that noth would work without their efforts
Agree – but am happy to listen to solutions that get stuff done better.
DS Hammond years back now was looking at privatizing the whole of or much of the DES operation.
I was horrified, as I just don’t see the benefit.
To me, this situation is a mix of inflation, delaying programs to kick cans down the road so extra spend on in service ageing kit, and failure to get programs through on time.
It still comes back to those politicians at the top for me.
Remove pensions for starters from core budget?
personally I wouldn’t trust a civil servant to run a bath
Totally agree, the point of civies is to keep actually soldiers available for deployment.
Only a side note to your point, but I am still remember a decade ago being appalled at some senior staff in MoD Defence Estates and their complete unprofessionalism and lack of empathy with military heritage and veterans. There are a few pensions of such so-called civil servants that I would like to remove 😉
Many of the ‘Civi’ contractors are ex service personnel, if on returning to civilian live there’s not rewarding roles then it will undermine joining in the first instance.
Don’t slag all of the people off they’re just ordinary people who are trying to pay the bills, they’re not all crusty, dusty old admirals suckling the tit of. The AMOD budget.
The myth of the I was in the services I can get a job easily in civvy street should be exposed to the serving members of the armed forces. A mate of mine is still looking for a meaningful job ten months after leaving the RAF.
Everyone in here should be offered a job in the place. We’d have the best forces on the planet
The contra argument to that is that they cannot be rotated to front line roles in time of crisis.
I don’t honestly think you could cut the support headcount much without massively impacting operational capabilities.
Aren’t civilians for the most part cheaper than military personnel? Assumed that was why the police changed so many roles to civilian.
Probably pension scheme. Military and police have a very good pension scheme vs the rest of the civil service and certainly way way better than the private sector. Pension costs are huge and so not paying them probably halves or more the cost of the person to the MOD.
Most of the civil service pay into their own private pension schemes, ten years ago, the centralised pensions were given over to private companies like centrica. Who, like the rest of the buggered up system have no interest in people.
It’s still an insanely good pension scheme. Way better than you can get in the private sector. The government pays for it, centrica just admins it. The paymaster general office was sold off decades ago.
Admittedly if you compare state or private pensions in the UK vs rest of Europe and we right at the bottom.
I cannot tell you how much I despise the large multinational services companies…they are the one that really feed off the tit of public spending, delivering sub standard or not needed services while creaming huge profits to shareholders and
their profoundly over paid executives…the county gets pissy with paying a senior public sector worker with accountability for billions of pounds and 10,000s of employees a salary of between 100,000 to 200,000 but happy sits back and watch’s the CEOs of these service provision companies earn many multi millions pounds a year on the taxpayer….it’s bizarre, at its hight this government were shovelling 10s of billion into private companies like Capita…who fail almost every task they are given as they have no understanding of it…as an. Example .the 330million contract to capita for Primary Care support services has been an abject disaster and is one of the core reasons General Practice is failing so miserably ( the local NHS once provided this support…but they sacked all the NHS managers who did this job and gave it to capital who have f%ck it up so badly it’s impacted in GP practices ability to provide care).
Paul W
And the civvies are on better pay and work from home
Tank driving in the rain can’t be done from home….
Got to disagree with you there even prison officers are classed as civil servants. The chances of them working from home is scary imagine the wifes face when you bring. A criminal through the door and tell her he’d be staying the night and helping him out with work the next day
Playing fantasy fleets can. It’s more enjoyable too
Im not sure all the people in defra, the food standards agency etc who are out and about doing their jobs will agree with you…there are lots of executive agencies who do things that are considered civil servants…
no they are not…the civilian civil service is not better paid…look at the grading structures
an civil service executive officer earns around £27,500 a year and they would be holding the same sort of responsibilities as an army captain who is on £47.500 +
A principal, grade 7 in the civil service is on around £51,500 and would have the same responsibilities as a colonel in the army who would be starting at £100,000.
Basically to get the same sort of grade civil servants costs you just above half the cost of an officer in the armed forces to do the same administrative function.
Some nerd somewhere “hold my beer”.
When I joined up Paul the said ratio for pen pushers was 2 seatshiners too 1 frontline we all felt so safe and secure that twice the amount of Clock watchers had our backs that was during the 70ts 80ts 90ts when the Navy had up too 100,000 full and reserve personnel. Lord knows what the ratio is if the Navy has only 30.000 plus and also their pension cost
However, is it not akin to break even analysis – whatever the sales, there will be baseline costs that can not be changed.
Should there be 10 or 100 frigates in port, the barrier guard will still be guarding, they will then need a manager and both will need HR and Payroll, and of them will need senior manager – almost like fixed costs.
The question is how does it compare to other nations? In abstract it seems excessive but without a comparison its impossible to give a realistic opinion.
The real pensions issue is we are still paying pensions to all the good men and women who served when forces were much larger.
Without understanding the tail off of that liability it is very hard to understand MOD projections.
Yep, unlike most countries our state pension is not funded, it’s just paid out of current tax income. Meaning if it becomes unaffordable in the future it can be retrospectively cut. Again short termism as funding it properly would involve creating a massive fund that couldn’t be spent on short term political wins.
Which countries do you think fully fund state pensions rather than paying them out of future taxation.
EU countries all finance pension payments on a pay as you go basis, even though some have additional contributory top ups.
Before Gordon Brown started to destroy the private pension system, Britain had by far the greatest funding actually set aside for pensions.
They earned their pensions. It’s not for us to debate about it.
I wasn’t suggesting otherwise.
What I’m saying is there is an actuarial curve of lifespan that will, at some point, show when the number of pensioners alive will start to significantly fall.
Check out the salaries of MOD civvies vs their military counterparts also working in MOD.
An HEO (C2) may be nominally the equivalent of a Major, may find themselves working alongside a Captain and doing an equivalent job, but is paid less than a Corporal (starting salary £32,800 HEO vs £35,700 Corporal). Will you pay them like the Captain they sit next to (starting £47,680)? Similary, you’d have to pay an SEO at least like a Major (£42,000 increased to £60,000, etc). To say nothing of the extensive military bonuses that come along with demanding military can get shipped out to Lord knows where and Lord knows when. Not something we ask of a keyboard warrior.
So how do you expect to afford to convert even those who are physically okay to active service? If you just fire them (and you really can’t), the MOD will have to use consultants to sub in, and they cost even more than the military counterparts.
If you want to reduce the work done and the costs, you need to flatten the MOD hierarchy so you don’t have multiple layers cross checking and signing off everyone’s work and demanding it’s done differently than the layer below required. Also so you don’t have people coming in post for two years determined to make their mark by starting as a new broom (both military and civvy), and demanding it’s done differently than their predecessor demanded.
Spot-on
You would have to pay them twice as much to do the same level of work and the pension would be so much better..contrary to fantasy discussion, the civil service is very poorly paid…
if you had an executive officer in the civil service and sacked him then replaced him with an officer from say the army…the equivalent responsibility would fall to a captain….the executive officer is paid 27,500 the captain is paid 47,900 to 56,500…
that double the pay goes through every matched grade…
Starting with the crusty, dusty old admirals, duffers at the MOD would be the best place to start
Yes, but who do replace them with, Andy?
And please don’t say, nobody!
Do you know what directorates are in Main Building?
Who heads up a department or directorate that normally has a 1 or 2 star, or CS equivalent, has hundreds of staff, and a budget of hundreds of millions? How would that work? You cannot just put the tea lady in charge!
They sacked the tea lady many years ago and franchised it out to Costa.
🙄😏😆
I recall the Defence of the Realm series in the mid 90s that showed that the ministers floor had their own tea man, and he was never late with tea and biscuits for ministers.
..
Empty the jail’s bring back the press gangs put them at school gates , that would reduce the amount of knife carrying hoodies on the streets
Ah yes, get them in boot camp.
I wouldn’t introduce them into our armed forces though.
Perhaps this should be the next UK export to Ukraine.
“Sup, Johnnie. You’re super impressive with that knife. Fancy trying a gun?”
“Hell, yeah!”
“Murder death kill and unlimited Borg.”
“Oh shit. Where do I sign?”
It worked for Mr Putin. Look how well his conscript troops rolled over Ukraine, taking Kiev in less than 4 days.
They have at Birmingham city football club and it’s not improving anything and the tea is as bad as the team looked,
😆👍 Thought you were Villa, Andy.
Directorates are ther,but there’s so many of them. You need a map to find anybody
Replace them with unnecessary admirals in the MOD.
A bin emptying project to reduce unnecessary positions might be a worthwhile one getting rid of posts that bring nothing to the table should be culled
AI might come in handy. Planning and logistical roles could be streamlined to reduce or replace subsequent human intellectual input. Other logistical reorganizations that create preplanned activities with sufficiently addressed contingencies can also help make a leaner, meaner force.
AI can even help in planning all of this, including recommending, sketching out, and detailing the needed changes. Since the key challenges revolve around organizational complexity, coordination, integration, and efficiency, this MoD challenge is a prime candidate for AI to research and advise on workable solutions that may save as much as 40% on costs without reducing overall effectiveness by any appreciable degree.
More admirals than ships sums it up nicely
No it won’t Chris. An effective civil service is vital to the Armed Force’s.
👍
The real problem is way way too much contracting out of work from the MOD in general.
Mess halls contracted out.
Maintenance and repair contracted out.
Vehicle use-repair sub contracted out
The list goes on and on. That is what is crippling the MOD, and heavily impacting on our Armed Forces.
The MoD approach to outsourcing contracts is to ensure that they can commit spending against the Annual Budget Cycle and prevent that money being shifted out of line in future years for other priorities. Outside contracts also give the illusion of being able to outsource risk, meaning even though the final contract may seem poor value for money, the ability to hold an external party responsible provides ‘cover’ for senior staff.
This the same with the NHS, basically privatised on stealth. Including a lot of contracts that haven’t been properly tendered or cost/benefit undertaken because successive governments like upfront savings and don’t care about long term impact or cost.
Agree, and getting consultants in for posts that have been previously chopped. But surprise surprise, the output of that position is still needed for MoD to run and someone needs to do it.
If a football club can spend 30 odd million to buy a footballer maybe ask the owners to buy a couple of tanks and ships for us.
Do you have any stats or evidence to support your claim. Would be interesting to see it.
Stats… The MOD/contractors do not give out those kinds of specifics, however I do know that on plenty of military bases, the mess halls are operated by contractors.
As for the MOD’s own vehicles (landrovers trucks mostly) are held, serviced and issued by outside contractors, as many on this site can attest to.
My son is a current serving MT section driver, organiser.
Do you doubt that there has been a lot of contracting-out? I did a list in a UKDJ post some time ago, and others added to it. It was very long!
Forget all of the above posts.just say that the whole shebang is unfit for purpose. Turn the lights off, shut the curtains,and bar the doors. And start again.
If only we could AR. The MOD will be playing catchup with the 17bn shortfall for years.
There is no real shortfall. The apparent black hole comes largely from the RN deciding this time to include the full costs of ships not yet even designed let alone ordered. The 10 year plan on which the NAO reports is supposed to be a forecast of future costs of authorized programmes against future budget, year by year and over the whole decade. Frankly this year’s exercise is almost worthless.
I think there’s already been attempts to cut the civil service and pretty much ended up in rebellion. There zero chance of it being cut as the next government favours more central planning and bigger role of government.
Google wher the nations foreign aid goes to and who gets how much and it’ll put the whole thing into a better perspective do the same thing with the BBC and when your blood stops boiling, write to the local m.p and demand an explanation
Assuming these non-service types are paid an average 60k, the would equate to over 3.6B/yr. It would take just over half a decade and you would cover that black-hole, conservatively speaking.
Logical, so won’t happen.
Slashing MOD civil service numbers is no magic bullet. Troops don’t get equipment, training, accommodation, doctrine, payment etc by magic. It requires a well resourced civil service to deliver these capabilities. It’s like the tail to teeth argument in the unformed forces. We could probably afford a lot more tanks if we got rid of the tail. However, that armour is not going too far, and/or be sustained for too long in theatre, without the logistics train. The UK can globally deploy
significant force because of the different professions and expertise in and out of uniform. I suspect those who believe otherwise have probably not been in a leadership position in any kind of complex organisation let alone the MOD.
The decision to build ‘workhorse ships’ en mass (well more than 4 at a time) should have been taken years ago.
Bring back, update, renew and improve Corvettes!
And simpler cheaper ones that can be built at a faster rate ate,ones that don’t take ten years to get to the fleet.
The Value for money option would be to buy a commercial of the shelf ship from South Korea or China, but that is contra to the Government’s Industrial Strategy which looks to sustain UK strategic industries such as steel manufacture and ship building on the Clyde.
France seems to have done a very good job with their Corvette along with the new FDI Frigate set to be delivered in 2024 onwards.
LINK
LINK
Echo and enterprise could. Make good corvettes. Big enough able to pull a towed array upstairs. Kit that is already fitted. In the littoral they could do a very good job
They are not designed for that role..It is not as simple as bolt a towed array on the back end and off you go.
Spot on AR. So a new ‘Corvette class’, and the contract to go to the shipyard who can guarantee quick (NO cutting corners) build.
Good idea but most likely Turkish ship breakers 😕
Would free up the larger ships no end if and a big if they could be done economically. Or make some anti sub some anti air and protecting UK could act as additional platforms working as ‘drones’ for the Master vessel or indeed aerial platforms with their superior sensors so covering a far wider area than say CAMM on frigates could alone. We need to be as flexible as possible and I am not keen on the future destroyers effectively becoming launch platforms of this nature as some analysts seem to favour. Too limiting for such large expensive platform that would sorely limit their flexibility that we can’t afford esp as threats may change.
A few months ago I was thinking that Echo and Enterprise could be converted into drone motherships.
I’ve never had an answer but if a minehunter can detect submerged mines, why can’t they be used to protect CASD?
Enterprise and Echo should be used in this role as well.
Not an expert but I suspect clearing a defined area or route of any mines that may be there (possibly static and tethered) is somewhat different to finding an enemy sub that could be coming from many directions and needs to be detected at significant range….
So, as I’ve learned this week, similar to air warfare, there must be different bands to the sonar. Thank you.
Interesting. I suggested a class of Corvettes about three months ago and almost everybody here thought it was a non starter? 🙄
Probably because of the reality of what a Corvette can do vs the ships required for a Bluewater navy with global commitments. I remember those conversations.
If we as a nation wind our neck in, step down from P5, and defend the channel and north sea like some seem to want, meaning no expeditionary capabilities to project further from our shores, then yes, let’s be like Sweden and Norway and have lots of those vessels.
France, the USA, and half the world will be laughing, but we’ll have lots of Corvette ships though!!
I wasn’t suggesting we replace ships planned with Corvettes, more as a supplement, although I think the chances of us getting new vessels beyond those currently building is getting close to zero. The blue water navy is dependent on the carriers with no aircraft to speak of going on a global voyage once every three or four years if we’re lucky, and a handful of escorts, a number of which are tired out. I don’t think that’s good enough for a country like the UK.
I’m disappointed that you thought my post was funny. I don’t much care who laughs at us. The U.S. aside….let the rest of them do better.
Geoffrey my friend, please re-read. 🙂 I was not laughing at your post, but suggesting, as I thought, in error, you were preferring Corvettes to bigger warships. And as the UK has a rather higher standing than a brown or green water navy, other nations would laugh at us for being so tactically and strategically daft by dropping that ability.
So new Corvette types in addition to existing? Again, I’d agree that given the money and manpower issues that is not happening.
Also, as a Bluewater navy, again I’d ask why would we need them? I’d rather we get more T31 or MK41 on ships with missiles in them for the cost of the extra Corvette types.
I find myself getting frustrated which at my age I should probably avoid 😅. However, I have been posting now for five years (?) and I have seen all three services go from adequate (just) to confused with cancellation’s, cuts and delays to the point where we are close, in many areas, to being inadequate. I won’t list the reasons why again and if I did there are many who seem to think that there is nothing wrong. I don’t trust our current bunch, and I include the top brass, to do anything and I trust Labour even less and that’s saying something. I just hope, probably in vain, that there is a politician in one of the parties, once the fiasco of the next year is over, who will say “let’s sort out defence” but I’m not holding my 😤breath.
“and I trust Labour even less and that’s saying something. “
And this is my position too mate, given how bad the current lot have been.
👍 🙂
I am one of those who have changed my mind, and am now going along with the ‘wind our neck in’ philosophy.
It is purely because the MOD has a 17bn shortfall, which will continue to go up and up for years to come.
I’m still against it as when we “wind our neck in” who fills the vaccum?
We are a P5, G7, member that can and should hold its own on the world stage, if only our frankly traitorous politicians would fund it properly rather than grandstanding and only looking to their fat cat mates in big industry.
Great Britain and other allied western nations should be out there shaping the world to suit our interests, not leaving the field for others to step in and do the same for their own purposes.
And they will.
To be fair I know what your saying is right, but the huge fly in the ointment is the massive shortfall. The way I see it is unless that shortfall is addressed within the next 12 months, one of the services will have to suffer even more that it/they are now.
Daniele and Tom. I hope I haven’t given any impression of “winding the neck in”. What I’m talking about is doing four/five first line roles properly. The Royal Navy, properly equipped so that we can run both carriers overlapping globally and it could be done; the RAF with more Typhoons, including “wild weasel” types, more AEW and ASW plus at some near point more transports. That leaves the army. We can but a good brigade together and provide JEF with extra support; we can invest in all that’s best in deep fires to support our allies and we can have the best first response forces on the planet. It could be done with some thought as to where the world is going and any F…… politician willing to get on with the job. 🤔
Unfortunately Tom, we really cannot wind our necks in, we have territory all over the globe and a dependence on trade from the sea more so than many other nations. We are locked in by both our history and our economy..finally we are still an island and that is both a geostrategic advantage if we have a strong navy and a geostrategic weakness if we don’t.
And there you go, we need a very strong Navy and ROYAL, albeit with supporting arms for ROYAL.
Do we really need an Army of the size it is? The Household Division, with their Master Tailors (WO1s), almost three times the number of horses than forecast Chally 3s?
The other day in Defence committee, Heappey stated he wanted four more ranger units – I actually see that as more cuts to any 2nd Bns that are left and Scotland is sure to get the good news.
However, do we still need L/Cols in command? Surely, a Maj could handle the unit?
It is rank inflation when we need to slim down the Braid.
That will release payroll and pension accruals for Opex and Capex, similar story for warships and probably air.
T83 needs to be good. Modern high power radar with cooling weighs a silly amount which needs a large ship, preferably with 96+ VLS and limited sonar.
We will only be able to build max 6, probs 4 of these to allow one per CSG. Therefore we make a load of T31 with Artisan or other radar as an outer missile bus and bulk escort for the carrier.
Artisan is a woefully inadequate radar by modern standards. It’s going on the T26 for cost purposes only.
Ok then, let’s use something else. Does that mean you agree with me in general?
Wasn’t there some upgraded version of T31 radar? I think Babcock (Their AH140 website is fab) have put forwards an AA T31 with S1850 search radar, which the Netherlands have used to guide ABMs with the USN:
https://www.arrowhead140.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/AAW-02-white-02.png
ought to do the trick
Yes of course let’s just go back the original Danish Iver Huitfeldt design which of course is an all singing and dancing heavily armed multi purpose frigate. It has the S1850m radar and carries SM2/6 missiles, plus ASW sonar etc all.
But it’s slower than a T45, has noise issues and will cost twice the baseline T31. Which we can’t actually afford any of the n£ t generation of builds, some of that is inflation, but us adding unfunded extras has outstripped the budget.
Oh and our AAW ship is the T45 and it is a superb ASW Destroyer.
The whole reason for T 31 in the first place was because it was a basic and affordable GP Frigate which is designed for low intensity overseas deployments.
ASW or ASuW for T45?
My main point is that, now we have large carrier groups, we will need a two tier AD system. With a T31 based cheaper ship for LRGs or whatever the acronym is in 10 years and as an outer cordon for CSG, with an expensive, powerful cruiser to carry large radars and a shed load of AA missiles to closely escort the carrier
T31 is still a fighting ship that would be very useful in a CSG with T23/6 and T45 and QEC’s superior sensors.
There is zero point in making T31/2 a T45(lite)/IH. All that does is blows the budget.
If the T83s are delayed past 2035 (and that really should be when not if), there will need to be a programme of T45 LIFEX, reducing the number of available destroyers. Having some second tier destroyers or AAW figates available in the second half of the 2030s will help cover the capability gap that causes.
I’m not suggesting that they are equipped with the latest ABM radars and missiles, but adding an L-Band volume radar to the slightly underwhelming NS100 would be sensible. It would also allow for better coverage as part of an LRG formations, which may not have a T45’s sensors to fall back on.
Search up “Arrowhead 140” They have a website with loads of options for T31 hull
Artisan is a simplified SAMPSON
Yes and it bugs me that once any equipment is a year older than some new whizz-kid stuff it instantly becomes useless.
Sampson is a world leading radar, and will still be a fabulous radar in 10 years time. Ok, there may be BETTER radars by then, but will that make it useless?
Everyone wants to send F16s to Ukraine but its 40 year old design…
AA
Sampson was the result of nearly 20 years of Proof of Principle (MESAR) and subsequent development before it entered service. It was world leading.
I suspect the transmitter technology is now getting on a bit GaNi seems to be replacing GaAs in high power applications.
In order to maintain that world leading position constant evolution and development must take place. I hope it is happening, beyond keeping the existing radars going.
FL. Thank you for that. If they will be considering a third top facing panel then perhaps the panels will be refreshed with the latest technology.?
AA
I don’t want to send F16s to Ukraine!
I want them to have B52s and TLAMs! 😉
In what way?
Artisan only points in 1 direction at a time, to start with. It’s a smaller and lighter radar using the same technology. I don’t know much about particulars, I’m not in the business and BAE aren’t telling
Its the software and track extractors that are the clever bit and they get refreshes on a regular basis. I know of at least 2 Software refreshes on Artisan in the past 5 years.
Backend only. Front end is totally different.
You really cannot compare RT997 and RT1045, other than that they both go round.
I nearly spilt my tea reading that!
Before the T83 they need to get the T45s PIP done, Aster CAMM upgraded and back into service asap. Been said before, why not add more more CAMM, no need to be CAMM-era shy! Side silos or even 20/40′ containerised CAMM, putting two MK41s in the existing slots could useful. POD based 10/20/40′ Containerised CAMM could then go on the RFAs, Carriers, Ablions, even the Rivers and Points. Could even be part of GBAD. If the Israelis can put an Iron Dome system on the back of a 80m Arafura patrol boat surely something similar can be done with CAMM? A few more affordable T31s in the fleet would help the RN be in more places in the next few years…while we wait for the T32s.
The MOD needs to consistently make sure they’re getting value for money for all these big spends.
Who says we can only afford a frankly useless 4 or 6?
Look at the type 45 programme and it’s race to the bottom lead to the delivery of just 6 ships.
As most BMD experts agree a sea based platform is best for intercepting incoming hot rounds such as hypersonics, ballistic and cruise missiles. The USA, Japan, South Korea all have heavy Aegis equipped destroyers able to perform this role. The type 83 should be no different. How many Sejong the Great or JPMSD Maya class ships could the RN get for the budget?
The type 83 should be built with more platforms then type 45 as the lessons from that class are 6 aren’t enough and really only delivers a maximum of 2-3 available warships at any one time. So 8-10 vessels will be needed. We need a paradigm shift from what can we afford by scratching around and finding some cash behind the sofa to a true threats based military posture. Eg what are our threats- China, Russia, Iran, Syria and terrorism. Then equip our military to not just face the level of threat but qualitatively and quantitatively defeat them (as part of an alliance).
My reasoning is that, by all accounts, to carry the radar and defend against hypersonics and SRBMs, the next generation of destroyers are going to be comfortably cruiser sized. This means they will be phenomenally expensive, costing probs 1.5-2x a T45. So therefore it is better to plan ahead for the obvious result that there won’t be many of them, rather than putting unrealistic demands that will get the programme cancelled. The small numbers mean that we need a second tier AA asset to complement the T83s. The AH140 hull is the natural choice for this, being inherently adaptable.
Also, what to call the 83s? I think personally that we have two options, given that the Dreadnoughts have taken the “Battleship” names:
1: The Admiral Class: It’s an old tactic, but I think a class of large escorts named after Admirals of the past would be brilliant. For 10 ships that would be, subject to objections:
2: The Battlecruiser Class: These are going to be impressive ships that should mirror some of the most impressive RN ships ever. For fewer ships, just take the ones beginning with I, but all would do:
Please feel free to reply for more names to add or categories, in here are names that would make a great class, better than T31 names (Formidable was an Aircraft Carrier, for heaven’s sake, and Campbelltown just sounds like you want to sacrifice the crew)
Would the hunter class variant that was offered by BAE Systems to Australia be a possible idea?
Well it does look the business and saves £billions of fresh development costs and maintenance costs.
But it has (according to posters on NL) no topweight left for inevitable future upgrades. CEAFAR is a heavy system, you need a lot of cooling for that much power, so if you, for example, wanted DEW in 20 years’ time, there’s nothing you can do.
I note Bae has broadened the beam on the Hunters, due to CEAFAR, I’m not sure if the AA version they are proposing down the line is the same hull-form as that or further modified but it did suggest that this design is at least in terms of testing the ground, being touted by Bae as having potential for the Destroyer programme with various options up to 128 missiles touted to the Australians.
It’s the exact same hull form as Hunter. The only thing that changes (build wise), is the mission bay module. If you go their 96 mk41 cell (in total) version, you loose all the mission bay, the towed sonar & the propulsion system is changed to a more normal destroyer style within the existing engine module spaces. There are also two less drastic mission bay replacement options than the 64 cell variant, 16 cells & 32 cells, but no details on towed array or propulsion effects of these or how what’s left of the mission bay could be utilised.
Hunter design as it exists now is basically a 10,000 ton ASW destroyer without the AAW cells you would expect on a destroyer. It already has a destroyer class CMS & radar.
I’m still not sure on RAN’s reasoning on where CEEFAR is placed on the ships. The CEEFAR system is made up with 3 sets of individual radars operating in the L, S and X bands (X-band is called CEE-Mount).
Each of these radar systems has at least 6 individual antenna arrays arranged around a singular mast hexagonally. Where they are layered L, S then X at the top.
The question is why have the L-band arrays on the mast? Not only are these really heavy. But they are predominantly looking up above the horizon. As they’re not very good at picking out targets near the horizon. Why not fit these lower down on the superstructure, as per an Arleigh Burke for example? This would then solve some of the top weight issues.
Totally agree having the X-band antenna arrays as high as possible. As they will give a much better uncluttered view of the horizon. As well as following a track over the sea as it gets closer to the ship.
Similarly having the S-band arrays on the mast makes sense. As these with significant signal processing can compliment the X-band horizon search. But also stand a better chance of getting reflections from stealthy targets.
Thanks for detailed reply DB
I don’t know much about how radars work with X-band and whatnot (just learnt how phased arrays work this morning) but I get that some are heavy and powerful and some are lighter. Is there not therefore an argument for having your heavy high altitude radar mounted around the base of the superstructure and a Sampson style rotating array in a smaller band up top? Could have triangular pyramid for smaller blind zones if necessary but still lighter than multiple fixed arrays. Any comment on this idea?
An antenna’s dimensions are defined by the operating frequency/wavelength. Take L-band radars for instance, these operate between 1 to 2GHz which means in classical terms, that the peak to peak wavelength can be from 30cm down to 15cm long. In the olden days, antennas would have used a di-pole aerial length to match the wavelength, as that is the most efficient. Then people got cleaver and realised, you only need to use half of the wavelength. As you could use just the positive or negative half of the wave. Using various tuning techniques, you could set your dipole to the mid-band length of 22.5cm and then vary the tuning mechanically or electronically to either side of the mid band, to increase the operating frequency range.
However, when building an array, you need spacing between each dipole element. Otherwise you get feedback adversely affecting both transmissions and reception. This spacing normally is set at 1/2 or 1/4 of the operating wavelength. Which for the L-band array would mean a spacing between each element of 15 to 7.5cm. Now if you want a nice tight beam, you need to use a circular array, as that means that you have a maximum number of elements around the array’s centre using mutual interference to create the beam.
To make the beam tighter, you need to reduce the beam’s diameter, which is done by increasing the number of elements in the array. This also helps boost the gain, power handling and reception sensitivity of the array. I think you can now see why these lower operating frequency arrays are much larger in area than the higher frequency arrays, such as X-band (8 to 12 GHz and a wavelength of 3.75cm to 2.5cm).
If we are now talking about an active electronically scanned array (AESA). These are made up of individual transmitter-receiver modules (TRMs). Where each module is a complete radar in its own right. Some modules use a shared transmit-receive antenna, whilst others use a separate transmitter and receiver antenna. So now we have antenna elements (slot, horn, dipole etc), again requiring the element spacing. But behind the antenna, you have the circuit boards that make up the transmitter and receiver. You can now also include some form of cooling be that passive or active. As surface mounted components run hotter than pin through components.
So all the weight is now in the arrays. As on pre-AESA radars, the transmitter and receiver would be elsewhere feeding the signal via waveguides to the antenna elements. Therefore the antenna was a lot lighter. Which meant it could be fitted much higher or have a much larger surface area.
The Thales SMART-L (S1850M) used on the Type 45, is a passive electronically scanned array (PESA). This means the transmitter and receiver are not in the antenna like AESA, but elsewhere feeding the RF via waveguides to the array. The SMART-L (S1850M) weighs 7800kg. The new AESA version will weigh a lot more. The weight is the reason why on Arleigh Burke destroyers, the antenna arrays are mounted quite low in the superstructure.
There is hope that the T45’s ABM upgrade, will include a third Sampson array, that is fixed flat and is looking directly upwards. This will fill in the radar dead zone (cone) directly above the ship.
So, in effect, if you want range through large wavelength, you need big elements far apart with powerful cooling, so you end up with a massive slab?
And there’s an effect of the smaller you make it the smaller you can make it?
So therefore having a weeny radar rotating/ stuck around the top of the mast would be useful? And have your slabs, AB style, around the base
With intermediate in between
And then, like CEAFAR, if you want frigate level AA you have only medium, OPV has only weeny tiny one?
Seems reasonable, then 2nd tier AA has a single rotating slab for limited long-range stuff
Yes, it’s pretty much what the T45 has. For very long range and volume search it uses the L-band S1850M near the hangar. Whilst 40m above sea level, on top of the mast is the S-band Sampson. Doing the horizon search and target acquisition. The French/Italian Horizons are pretty much the same, with APAR on the mast and SMART-L on top of the hangar.
The Arleigh Burke’s relied on a single band SPY-1D PESA radar for both volume search and target tracking, arranged using four large arrays, to cover the cardinal points. These are being replaced with the SPY-6 AESA radar. Which will be a dual frequency radar. Though Lockheed Marvin are having issues integrating the X-band part in to the S-band modules.
Due to SPY-6’s much larger surface area over Sampson. It has a significant advantage in power handling and reception sensitivity. But as it’s so heavy it has to be kept low. Which reduces its radar horizon compared to a T45. There has been talk of the Arleigh Burke’s having a rotating X-band antenna placed high on the mast. To give it a better radar horizon.”
Due to atmospherics and physics, you can generate a further detection range using low frequency radar compared to higher frequency ones. Approximately for the same power output a L-band radar will have at least four times the range of an X-band. But a X-band will have much greater target resolution and be susceptible to less clutter interference than a L-band radar.
And dont forget the target illumination that ABs currently require. More trackers mean more top weight…
Too true, both SM-2 and ESSM Block 1 that use semi-active radar homing (SARH), require the target to be constantly illuminated by a continuous wave radar. I believe the Pre-SPY-6 ABs use three X-band SPG-62s. The radar sets with the parabolic dishes.
With the initial upgrade to SPY-6, the first batch of ABs will require an additional X-band radar for their SARH missiles. These ABs are only getting the S-band part of SPY-6. I have heard there’s an integration issue with fitting the X-band TRMs into the module. So you may still see SPG-62s or they’ll fit something else.
ABs don’t have a very high mast to begin with, don’t they?
That seems to be a thing with US, they rely on RAM/ESSM for missile defence, using v. small radar. The specialised AA focus is very much on ABM.
Whereas the T45 is very much an anti aircraft, cruise missile platform with the future option of light ABM.
T45 needs to be a hybrid, with the ability to engage hypersonics, MRBMs at high altitude whilst using a CAMM flavour for cruise missiles approaching at low altitude.
For which we need both high altitude (L-band?) and low-altitude anti-skimmer (X-band?), maybe with a general purpose frigate radar (S-band?) in between
BAe have managed to get the Sampson’s performance to be similar to an X-band radar. Where it can with very good clarity search for and track objects close to the sea. Normally S-band radars will pick up a lot of clutter from wave tops, making it hard to detect a real target, even if it’s moving at Mach 0.8. This is predominantly down to advanced signal processing and how Doppler patterns are analyzed. For the T45, at the rear end are blade boards containing floating point processors. It along with the software, is one area of Sampson that is constantly updated.
The T45s S1850M has proven that it can search for, find and track ballistic objects. Noticed I said objects and not just missiles! It is by today’s standards an older design of radar, as its antenna array is PESA. Which is one area it can be dramatically improved upon. By replacing it with the latest SMART-L AESA version.
If money wasn’t a problem. Then I’d have the T45 fitted with four SMART-L fixed panels. As this would give the same ABM detection as SPY-6, but using less electrical power.
There are number of development paths that Sampson could go down, to maintain its performance. Replacing the front end TRMs with components that use Gallium Nitride (GaN) architecture instead of the legacy Gallium Arsenide (GaAs). Would be a major first step. As GaN components have a significantly reduced self-generated noise, thereby improving reception sensitivity. It can also without degradation, handle higher power levels. Thereby allowing you to up the power output, for longer sustained periods.
Is it really true that a T45 could ‘fry’ Russian aircraft if they pinpointed the aircraft and turned on the power?
Yes possibly. A lot will depend on the aircraft’s electronic shielding. For example, if a fighter type of aircraft, does not have a metallic element sandwiched in the canopy “glass”. RF is free to enter the cockpit. Where it will interfere with display systems. The cockpit can then act as conduit to interference on other systems. But also in some respects the types of components used on circuit cards. The smaller the silicon die scale and therefore the higher the transistor count. These can be more susceptible to induced electromagnetic interference (EMI), especially if they operate at very low voltages.
I do know of a case where a Lynx’s engines were shutting down when flying too close to a T45 on trials at Portland. Plus there are cases when the Tornado F3 were at Leuchars, of the Foxhunter radar frying domestic appliances in Elgin (TVs were always a favorite).
Of the two primary radars fitted to the T45. Sampson will have the tighter and smaller diameter transmitted beam. So it will be the more effective radar at illuminating a target over a smaller area. Which will concentrate the EMI to a particular area. However the radar to watch for electronic warfare is the SPY-6 being fitted to the Arleigh Burke’s.
I’m struggling to understand all, but,would the QECs not be the best place to host an ABM radar and then link to the destroyers?
No not in this case. You want your ABM system to be more mobile. For instance do you want your carrier to be chaperoning a small amphibious group or escorting merchantmen? This is a task best served by a destroyer.
As the recent Houthis attacks on shipping in the Red Sea have demonstrated. They have so far used suicide drones and ballistic missiles. But we do know they also have access to sea skimming anti-ship missiles. Plus whatever tickles their fancy from the Iranian arms catalogue.
If you have a warship in the area. Then it must be capable of not only defending itself, but also providing local area protection. It will be interesting to see how a T23 would have provided protection for the merchantmen, as the Arleigh Burke did?
You my friend have an encyclopaedia knowledge of a number of subjects and systems (I was ok on the di-pole bit of your previous post lol) and it’s great to get you going on a subject. Another reason why this site is great for the various SMEs we have knocking about informing us all/each other of their own specific experiences and knowledge! Cheers 👍!
I guess I can quite rightly say, I had an eclectic 32 year career in the military. Joining as a techie and rising through the ranks. Then making the fatal plunge for commission. Being at one point serving under Army, Navy and Air Force bosses, though not always a good career move. Volunteering for those jobs on the bottom of the payslip. Always meeting new mates, and learning new ways on how to do things. It was always good to see the perspective from someone else’s point of view. Everything can be fixed with a zip-tye, black nasty, a brew and a can-do attitude!
Mate top job, I went LE for the minimum 5 years, dragged it out purely for pension and then left and went back to earn better tax free money in the sand pit! And your last sentence is something which I have noticed is missing here in civvy street lol 😂👍
Hunter is going to use CEAFAR2 radars. The CSC version is going with LM Spy 7 radars. If you want to reduce top weight, change the radar to something else (other than Artisan).
I am new to this forum but as a mature person I feel sorry for our future with this or any goverment. With all the cancelations how long before we are asking Eire to help secure our borders.
Actually not such a daft idea. The Irish are having lots of trouble manning their ships, perhaps we should take a few of them on loan. After all, some were built in Devon!
To do what exactly? The P50s/60s are even less combat capable than the River B2s, what exactly do you suggest they do?
Also I note that Canada has joined the nations struggling with personnel issues for their navy, so it’s not exactly a uniquely Irish issue.
Actually it was intended as a rather tongue in cheek comment. The fundamental problems we have go far deeper.
Actually all of the ones in service were !
Depends if you count the two NZ hulls.
As far as I aware they are being refitted and equipped with Irish compatible coms etc. But can’t enter service due to insufficient trained crews.
Irish comms? Is that Erse?
😉
I thought we already were!
Philip, welcome to our forum! Are you ex-Forces?
Unless there is a seismic change in China’s naval ambitions this report is bad news. The time to build a meaningful navy is considerable and the current building programme is encouraging but must be a seamless process to attain the required types and numbers. Any delays could lead to a shortfall just when the UK will need to make a significant contribution to the international Far East theatre.
Chinas forces are massive. To take them on anywhere near mainland China would be bonkers. I don’t see China as such a threat to the U.K.
sure they have weird ways of doing things and I don’t like the strong man tactics with countries around China but I don’t see them wanting to do a land grab further away than Taiwan. That’s nothing new as both Taiwan and PRC have had taken each other out as a goal for decades.
Best thing the U.K. could do would be to have ships in the area permanently. Doing what the RN have always done. Patrol, make sure everyone behaves. China accepted this as the norm until the navy got too small to be around much. 35 years ago the U.K. still had Hong Kong.
China have been stealthily doing a land grab beyond their northern borders. They have supplied over 20 million people to “help support” Russian mining, agriculture and forestry. There are now new towns totally run by Chinese administration.
I wonder when the international community recognises China as a superpower? Probably once they have a few more aircraft carriers?
Personal I think the whole definition of what is a superpower is a bit of an out dated concept and could only really ever apply the the British empire as was, the US and Soviet Union…in reality a superpower can only come about due to very specific geostrategic drivers…the the Soviet Union could maintain superpower status with only 50% of the US economic and industrial output because of Eurasian position…its land mass proved access to all key theatres…without that geographic position it would have never been more than a stong regional power ( and a strong regional power can challenge and defeat a superpower)….china for all its economic and growing military might will always struggle to project power in some important areas of the globe…it’s never going to power project into the North Sea for instance….this will mean it would be unlikely to never reach the definition of a superpower as defined by spykman due to geostrategic challenges even if it became the preeminent economic and industrial power on the planet.
Thanks Jonathan, a superpower is defined by a range of factors, not solely economic, and the USSR had a range of factors in its favour, including its population size, strategic position, overseas influence, possession of a huge nuclear and conventional forces capability etc. such that it was considered to be a superpower.
You are right that China has limited global (military) power projection so cannot currently be regarded as a superpower, notwithstanding her economic strength, population, strategic position, land mass size, nuclear weapons and conventional force size etc.
China currently is an exceptionally strong regional power with global influence and ambitions. I see superpower status ‘around the corner’ once a significant bluewater navy is operationally ready.
Indeed, I would say the belt and road initiative will aid that move to superpower, levering that to gain bases and power beyond the region…it now has one large scale base in the East African ( with docking facilities for a carrier), as well as owning a couple of civilian ports in the India ocean it’s used as supply bases for war ships moving to and from the gulf..it’s also building a military port facility in the gulf.which will allow it easier deployment into the Mediterranean.
But in reality China has the second most powerful blue water navy…it just does not use it as a blue water navy…. It’s got a fleet of 2 48,000ton fast fleet replenishment ships to support a carrier battle groups as well as 10 25,000 ton replenishment ships as well as 4 15,000 ton stores ships…that’s enough replenishment ships to support a major task group in each of the worlds occeans at that same time. As for blue water surface combatants they have 8 13,000 ton modern cruiser level combatants and about 80 modern blue water large combatants of between 4500 tons and 7500 tons then around 80 lighter surface combatants 1500-3000 tones…add in 3 carriers, 3 helicopter carriers at 40,000 tons a pop and 8 25,000 ton amphibious transport docks…it’s a vast blue water capability…so it’s not so much that china does not have a blue water capability… it does…for some reason it does not choose to deploy and practice its navy at present as a blue water navy….
I’m not completely sure why…but I think china is playing a little bit under the radar to be honest and trying to limit the threat perception..after all if it drove a carrier battle group, with a carrier with an amphibious group of 25,000- 40,000 amphibians and 10 + large escorts ( which it’s numbers says it could do) into the Atlantic and freedom of navigated up the channel and through the North Sea the European nations. Would have a fit….and see the threat more…china is the only nation other than the U.S. that could put large fleets of powerful surface combatants into every navel theatre at once ..but it seems to not be obvious about the fact it could.
I like your assessment that the Chinese have a bluewater navy but chooses not to use it as such – think that summarises their naval side well. What next indeed. Not sure they would do a FON Ex up the Channel, but all other options are on the table, including invasion of Taiwan, once their amphibious side is stronger and well trained.
I think the next thing we will see from china is an extended deployment of a Shandong bases carrier battle group sailing across the Indian Ocean and to east Africa. I do t think this will be until 2025. Because they just did a major carrier battle group deployment: Shandong, a type 55 ( a big 13k ton cruiser) Two type 52D ( 7500 ton Arlie Burke analogues), two 054A frigates ( 4000 ton type 23 analogues) and 45,000 ton fast replenishment vessel) they cruised around the western pacific… exercising strike around Japan, Taiwan and cruising within strike range of Guam and practicing the rotations for strike…basically showing the pacific western allies they can put carrier strike anywhere they need to in the pacific as it was their first proper long range deployment of a carrier battle group..I’m sure they will be taking a year or so to digest everything..
so I think 2025 will see a major carrier battle group deployment….stopping at there base in Cambodia..this is right next to the strait of malacca, which is the major choke point from the India ocean into the pacific…they will be showing the US, Japan, aus and India..that they can close that choke point with a carrier battle group supported by a major navel base….basically a geostrategic play to show they can either block the pacific powers from the Indian Ocean sea lanes or separate india from the pacific ( more on India and its serous risk of navel encirclement and long range strategic blockade latter).
they have a couple more civilian ports they own in the Indian Ocean and I think they will show proof of concept of how those ports could support the battle group.
Next the will move onto east Africa and Djibouti, they have a very large navel base here with specific berthing for a carrier as well as aviation support ( and about 2000 troops)…they will show how they could maintain an large battle group in this area..this will show India that it can be completely encircled..east and west and that china could keep that encirclement up indefinitely if it wished ( this is about making sure India never becomes western focused and an ally of the west in a war…it’s a big stay out and in your own back yard or we will dominate your back yard type message)…they may then go into the gulf/Middle East…they are working on a navel base in the Middle East and so may do a flag visit..this will both show their new friends in the Middle East that they can also put carrier strike and a battle group in that region so are a strong friend and making a point to the west about how china could exert pressure on the Middle Eastern choke points and sea lanes ( really nailing it home to India how they are surrounded by Chinese navel bases) . Finally I think they will do a grand African tour visiting the 16 or so African nations they have invested and built ports in..this will be about showing potential African allies they are a firm bet and a strong friend.
I think this will be the big precursor to a Taiwan showdown in 2027 at that point they will be able to throw two carrier battle groups into the Indian occean, the Middle East and the choke points while the US would need to throw all its carrier battle groups into the western pacific ( china does not need carrier battle groups to fight in the western pacific..the U.S. does) I think therefore 2025-2026 will see china launch a very significant set of blue water deployments..to try and shape the geopolitical landscape before any invasion in 2027 it will be a bit of a warning to the world that getting involved in Taiwan will mean you are not just confronting china in the western pacific…but your shipping and sea lanes will be a risk..and Carrier strike could be anywhere…this will be a message to Europe, India and the U.S. allies in the Middle East.
Thanks Jonathan. Very informative facts and reasonable conjecture about future use of this hardware. I experienced Chinese strategy when I was posted to Sierra Leone in 2002/3.
China had brought in a huge labour force to repair and rebuild infrastructure damaged in the civil war, focussed on barracks and police stations – then topped it off with a huge showpiece football stadium in Freetown – the S/Leone President was mighty pleased – gave him great bragging rights amongst other West African leaders.
In return, S/Leone had to agree to allowing free access to fishing waters for the Chinese factory ships, and agree that S/Leone would import rice (their staple) from China. [Before the civil war S/Leone was the 8th biggest producer of rice in the world – now, zilch, the home industry collapsed due to the Chinese ‘deal’].
Check out what is happening in the Phillipines – very under reported; the question is will the Phillies have the cajones to front the Chinese?
Agree. Every single warship that the Western and allied powers can bring into service is going to be vitally important.
The RN needs desperately to get back upto what was once called the baseline minimum of 26 escort warships of destroyer and frigate classes.
Every single warship built has to be calculated by President Xis China and a countering warship or 2 built to oppose the Western warship.
It seems HMG are utterly asleep at the wheel and steering the UK towards a military defeat. Be that at the hands of China or Russia.
I’m sure the Admiralty planners are fully aware of the China plan. The attitude shown toward foreign shipping in the SCS is proof we need to be cautious. The West can only work internationally to achieve a meaningful naval presence in the Far East and that would include, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. I may be wrong here but aren’t the current agreements (not including NATO) individual commitments and not with a consolidated pact? If so, a more widespread Eastern Ocean agreement will need to be established to create an effective regional force.
Some think that we failed in Iraq and Afghanistan. With smaller forces since then and ageing equipment – failure in our next significant operations (military defeat) is increasingly likely, sadly.
We failed in Iraq because we didn’t have enough forces.
Again, said before, count all the Army, Navy, Airforce, UDR, RUC, 5 and 6 and we had a staggering number of personnel in NI.
We understood the language, the culture, most of the politics.
In Iraq, we had no understanding of anything and few Infantry units.
I think Afghanistan could have been a win – we drew down significantly and yet facilitated the Afghan Army to maintain a lid and keep the place going forward – the American withdrawal was military vandalism; should we have gone in at all? No. SF and Fast Air.
Should the Paks have been shown a red card? Yes.
Agreed, AQ had fucked off to Africa by 2003/4 onwards and we were just scrapping the Pakistan backed locals and crack heads with an AK. By staying there in numbers we created a problem which did not exist and ensured there were lots of NATO targets rumbling around to keep the local 10 dollar Talibs, the few crazy western Jihads and Pakistan IS busy. From 2001-2004 Afghan was a win for the west and for the Afghans, after that it became a political bunfight and an obvious effort at keeping a western backed political leader in power with a future eye on minerals and development. As an aside, I loved Afghan, the country is amazing, its history is in your face right from Alexander the Great onwards and the locals decent people (not the crack heads under the bridges on the Kabul river however) and as many will agree, great but also sad and repetitive memories 👍
Thxs for the head’s up.
You know exactly what I’m saying mate lol!
I was thanking you for post, it was really informative.
I know mate and you’re smart and experienced enough to know we think the same on the Afghan debacle! Cheers and keep posting 👍
Certainly one reason that we are considered to have failed in Iraq was insufficient forces. Initially 46,000 service personnel were deployed during the invasion phase, but numbers reduced soon after due to the changed mission (post-conflict Stabilisation etc), domestic political factors and the later need to resource Op Herrick in Afghanistan.
Our failure was more from the viewpoint of US senior officers than our own. The main failure was that of the Iraqi security forces to effectively replace withdrawn British forces, despite their western training and equipment.
We certainly ran light in Afghan – we needed an infantry division on the Land side rather than a brigade group. We had to go in – Article 5 was called. But your idea of SF and Fast Air only has merit, especially as we could not get the right number of troops on the ground.
We disbanded the Iraqi military and tried to rebuild it – with Iran next door funding the mad mullahs, we were never going to win that one.
Afghanistan just before we left it could have continued on an incremental journey, however, we needed to be invested in it like the Americans are in Korea – SEVENTY (!) Years; that might have brought about a better society except for the malign influence of Pakistan and Iran.
Certainly, both countries need some instant sunshine, creating liquefied glass car parks.
What is it that Iranians have over America? And Pakistan is no western ally either.
Thanks for your views Sir.
Disbanding the Iraqi military was the stupidest thing to do! We had a lot of sympathetic Iraqi head sheds who were quite decent in their outlook and experience, anti (ish) Hussain, and who could have controlled and organised the Iraqi Army into a pro western (ish) organisation!
Alas, western arrogance ensured the men who are experienced military men, with a proud and prominent history, were treated like ditch digging peasants, their experience discarded and their pride ignored, hence the anti west insurgency!
100%
I would say it was the US who decided to and initiated the disbandment of the Iraq military – I agree that it was a catastrophic mistake.
After WW2 we did not hurry to totally disband Germany’s forces – we used many for manifold tasks mainly linked to clearing and rebuilding their country.
Mission creep was a major problem in Afghanistan – initially we were hunting down the AQ leadership who had planned and initiated 9/11 and that included their Taliban backers – we were then dealing with eradicating the poppy fields and then training and mentoring Afghan security forces and then provincial reconstruction including worrying about whether Afghan girls were getting good schooling.
I don’t think British forces should be engaged in reconstruction operations, and forcing democratic institutions ie bringing about a better Afghan society.
Iran sponsors global terrorism and provides many munitions to Russia for their illegal and immoral war in Ukraine. I can’t think why the West (especially the US and Israel) has done little more than impose sanctions, with occasional kinetic exceptions.
Good post Sir.
Iran is an enigma – unless they already have the Bomb.
Mate Afghan was a reasonable plan in 2006, hold the triangle between Bastion, Gereshk and FOB Price (if I remember that deployment to Price in 2006 prior to getting fucked off to Sangin pronto) with the BG and lay the ground for 3 Cdo BG to develop it over the next tour! How it went to shit when the local governor of Sangin reported to Kabul that he is about to get his arse kicked out of the hot seat unless he gets support from the Government, due to the Talibs (no proof at the time or since) hence 2 x chinooks from Price, to Sangin, no kit, no prep, no plan, no support, no attached arms and no logistics, and the epic begins! Many tours later, to include some PMC time, and boom, Talibs got what they want, politics rule, and the military and the west look stupid! Ah no change there then 👍
Hiya AB, I was COS Colchester Gar in 2006-2009, and worked with 16 AA Bde in barracks – Brig Ed Butler was my SRO for OJAR. I followed the story of 16x deployment and remember Brig Ed having said to the Press that we were close to defeating the Talibs in the field. How things later changed.
I deployed Nov 08 to May 09 as an individual augmentee during a 3 Cdo Bde stint to be COS Bastion, and the oldest guy on tour (aged 53!). I was there for the Obama surge and helped the Yanks with orientation and service support while they built Camp Leatherneck next door. We needed their additional manpower and additional air power in Helmand, as we did not have enough ourselves.
Sad to see how it all ended up.
Seconded.
Am I missing something here ? I’ve read the report, the equipment plan and this article and IMHO the headline of this artical is just more than slightly misleading.
It says quite clearly that the £5.9billion shortfall is over “Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance ships, Type 32 Frigates, Multi-Role Support Ships, Type 83 destroyers, Future Air Dominance System.”
Not just the T83 ! Which when you work it out over 10years is £590 million pa.
And if you read source data we are due a spending review next year in 2024 so
“Don’t panic Mr Shapps”.
The absolute killer to the UK defence budget at present is the rate of inflation as it largely drives the interest on the National Debt and that is falling at present.
If I were a betting man then it would be the cancellation of T32 and replaced with just 3 extra T31, that’s an uplift of 3 Frigates. And pending trials I can see them repeating the RFA Proteus STUFT initiative rather than a purpose built MOD “Gold plated” effort.
May just do the trick if combined with a moderate uplift to the budget.
Good lord, a sober common sense way forward…
Gets my vote. Although it leaves another £12b for the other two services to sort mind you so sit back and watch the inter-service bum fight…
Nice post ABCRobney, though.
Cheers CR
Are you talking about 3 PARA mortars and the ROYAL or did you mean a bun fight?
Did someone mention mortars?
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Ooops, bun fight…
Sorry guys,
CR
Bravo. Don’t panic Mr manerwing.
I have just put up a pretty long post you may never want to be nice me again 🤦🏼♂️
You? Never my friend. Which one, I was agreeing with your effort above?
Its the one about Labour having a dig about the ONS report. Just look at newest posts. And the reason this one was late is because I did a copy and paste from UKDJ and got awaiting approval 🥴
In a nutshell I suggest moving the MOD pension funding over to the Treasury, leave the MOD budget alone. Which plugs the Gap and then some. And then tackle the Public Service Pension liability by raising the civil service Pension age up to 67 just like everyone else. After 7 years it saves the same as half the Defense budget.
The numbers involved are staggering.
Had another look and the devils in the detail. The estimated shortfall is between £7.6 & £29.8 billion so a median point of £16.9 billion.
Also and this is your part of world it mentions Warrior and CR2 as unfunded projects and I can’t find any mention of CR3 at all.
Which is a bit weird, also the 3rd F35B squadron stand up costs despite the purchase being in the equipment budget.
Given that it says no decisions on cuts will be made till after a spending review in 2024, the forces do have an opportunity to get their ducks in a row and have suggested changes in place.
My first thought is that the National shipbuilding plan could be tweaked a bit. The T45 PIP fiasco does mean that the T45 have spent a hell of a lot of time tied up (some 6/7 years out of 10/13). So as they have more life in them and are getting some very nice upgrades why not stretch them 6 years ? That completely removes them from this equipment plan.
Just put in a couple of extra T26 builds to keep BAe busy.
Second thought is get BAe to do a proper assessment of a T26 AAW version and see if it saves money vs a new build.
Do those and I reckon the RN budget hole is plugged.
If I were to take a leap in faith, I’d cancel T32, add 3 extra T31’s but let it be known that they are available for export (cost +10%) just like France and Italy did with the FREMMs.
If no one wants them we get 8 T31 and if we sell one then we add another one to replace them and so on.
The world is rearming so we may as well make some £££’s out of it.🤔
CR3 is presumably not mentioned in the piece as it is in the Equipment Plan ie it is funded. This list is about projects either not Included or only partly included in the Equipment Plan.
Run-on of CR2 and Warrior are not in the EP ie are not funded.
Agreed on the 3 extra T31s mate, something I’ve thought about as opposed to the T32 dream! The 3 extra T31s also get a 4.5 from the T23s for possible NGS and general support duties, plus NSM, and you have an increased RN capability for minimum cost!
very good point
Thanks Rodders, got the link and will read in the morning.
The defence funding black hole is re-appearing in spectacular style. All the likely ‘extra’ money has been committed and much more. Salami cuts aren’t going to hack it – some big budget items face the chop. I fear that the ground is being laid for defence cuts in 2025, i.e. after the general election next year. Regardless of what they say, the Tories have never shied from making big defence cuts (e.g. 1957, 1981, 2009), whilst a new Labour government can express dismay at the shocking state of the public sector finances they’ve inherited and claim that they had no choice.
I think the ‘A word (amalgamation) might be on the cards again many nations can’t afford to operate three main military arms, they can’t but they do a good job of g by without one of them can we justify the RAF and the FAA? two separate special forces regiments? I’m an admirer of the way that America has built and operated the multi faceted marine corps could it be a template for the UK?
Canada went down that route and it didn’t go well, which is why they backed out of it.
But you may be on to something if we took another route.
Just expand the superb Muti faceted force we already have and it has far more facets than the USMC.
It has its own Ships, CASD, Submarines, Sea Lift, Mobile Logistic Support, Troops, Artillery, Missiles, SF, Helicopters and Combat Aircraft and all with a world wide reach.
It’s called His Majesties Naval Service.
Yep just scrap the Army and RAF and stick them in their corresponding slots. FAA and Royals.
I like that idea, I like that a lot. And you get rid of a lot of civil servants, cut down on funny uniforms and sack loads of ministers so even more savings.
As for the Guards Division well a lot of Bears would be very happy to see them in RM uniforms. So very environmentally and animal friendly !
Problem is what do we do with the Horses ?
Horses? Sell them to the French…
I’ll get my coat.
Oooh! Hate mail alert Andy!
As a discussion point, using more than two syllables, do we need the RAF as a separate entity?
Army already does helos, navy already does air defence/strike.
The USA marine corps is odd…they have an army, navy and airforce, and then the marine corps… essentially a little version of the whole lot under another badge? Perhaps there is a good reason for this. A marine unit, such as the RM i can understand, but?
Not a great fan of the amalgamation of the services into one, lose the general ethos of the particular service and has not gone down well in the countries which have tried it! But agree the general thought process of tightening up the various particular services departments to include the Armies cap badge mafia! As for SF mate, that’s just an admin case as Hereford and Poole are pretty much just one organisation albeit with a unique role specific training liability. Cheers.
Sheezs this is a bad news day, seems we dont even have enough money, despite being one of the richest countries in the world to pay for a reasonable level of defence. All programmes seem to be in significant financial stress or in fact have zero funding allocated.
There are 2-3 options. 1) put up taxes, 2) find efficiencies- eg cut foreign aide, reduce wastage with too many managers and pen pushers in public services- there really needs to be a bonfire of the quangos you could probably cut 200,000 highly paid managerial jobs from the NHS, MOD, Social services, councils, education dept, home office etc without affecting one percentage of what is actually delivered as public services. 3) Dont increase pensions and benefits with above inflation rises for both- we simply cant afford to maintain the tripple lock mechanism.
Its all about choices and how we spend our taxes
You hit it in your pen-ultimate statement, no triple lock…
Votes, dear boy, votes. The Cons are going to lose, but, by how much?
Sadly Option 4 might well be selected – cancelling a number of both unfunded and funded projects, reducing the numbers of equipments to be purchased and/or cutting manpower and units.
Millions of pounds are lost by the arguments over the specs. And designs how long was it that the configuration of the T31 And the T31 to be finally settled upon a lot of the whole process could be left out by making earlier common sense decisions and sticking to it a batch2 type 445 makes sense. Starting with a blank piece of paper is a recipe for disaster an inflation hammered final cost and ten years AT LEAS before the fleet actually sees one of them.
Even the US effectively just keeps updating existing designs, odd to me that we keep re inventing the wheel for our designs.
You can do that once or twice. Well, once, certainly. The A-Bs are an example of what happens if you keep on going. You lose design expertise in your country and your ships become miserable to work in relative to everyone else’s. The operating costs of newer ship design are typically lower as you have the opportunity to design for fewer crew. You have less chance to do that tweaking something old (I think the flight 2 A-Bs have more crew than the flight 1s, and the flight 3s have more than the flight 2s).
If we don’t, we’ll end up in the same situation as the USN. Where they have had to contract out to a foreign designer for their future frigate program requirement. As I believe they have lost these skills.
Besides there is only so far an existing design like the Arliegh Burke can be pushed. The Flight 3s are now at the limit design wise. Hence the USNs plan to replace them.
Similarly, with the T45 design. If you wanted to include a mission bay line the T26’s. Or look at fitting a Mk41 VLS somewhere in the stern area. Something will have to give. As there’s very little free volume. Starting from scratch has its advantages.
If global warming continues at the current rate the shortest route to China and Japan will soon be via Severnaya, along the northern coast of Russia. We should plan for a bigger navy.
We’re seen this ‘black hole’ before. No way the MOD receives the extra funding. The Type 32 frigate is cancelled, 2 rather than 3 Multi Role Support ships, and six Type 45 replaced with 3 or 4 Type 83.
There were supposed to be 6 MRSS.
He’s confused it with FSS !
I wonder how much we can save by scrapping the ridiculous vanity project of cycle lanes? Roadworks everywhere I live and in at least one area, 66% of the pavement (you know, where pedestrians belong and bikes don’t?) is being taken up. They are never, never, never going to get the population on bicycles, the level of fitness and stamina you’d need to cycle up hill and down dale in Yorkshire is beyond the typical person (me included). And what will all the cyclists do in winter, in the dark and the snow? All we’re doing is blowing money on something to benefit virtually no-one and causing immense traffic jams for everyone else – right before Christmas – while Britain’s enemies are building nukes. Madness!
This is mainly due to inflation. Which is affecting all government departments. And is affecting many nations defence budgets. Its not just a British problem.
At what point does the UK government see threats and the need to spend. Maybe we need to wait and see if any major wars develop in Europe or the Middle East and then think about increasing spending? Oh wait..those are happening and still we pretend all is ok
Think our government live another planet 🌍
Truthfully I completely despair. What more warning signs do they need? And British flagged ship in gulf attacked and we can at least say we are really miffed. Seriously Neville Chamberlain had nothing on this mob of negligent leaders
Agreed, what gets me nothing mention on BBC news what do ever.
I do believe Neville Chamberlain was misjudged by history. Especially following the release of his diaries. Which showed that he kept trying to delay Hitler, to allow the Country more time to prepare for the coming war. He knew full well, that Hitler could not be talked out of his expansion ideas and what that would mean for Europe. The U.K. was not prepared for another land based war with Germany.
I don’t agree, even in 1939 the German armed forces were weak even more weak before.
And frankly in no simulation German Army would have defeated French+BEF.
I think you have to remember what was being displayed publically from not only German propaganda, but what spies could glean. In 1937 to 39, Germany was a closed society and heavily policed. The foreign press were not allowed free rein around the country, but were either chaperoned or shown deliberate information. Such as the tours of the Krupp tank engineering works at Essen. Where they were building the Panzer 1s and 2s.
Which from an outside perspective must have looked like a car production line, churning out tank after tank. Little did we know that the production stopped as soon as the diplomats and press were chauffeured away.
At this point in time, it seemed that the German military were not only rearming, but doing so very rapidly without constraints. In Britain in particular, there was no stomach for another European land war. France also had no stomach for expeditionary warfare. Having local issues with communist terrorists. Which was one of the reasons why Chamberline got our factories producing war material on the quiet.
I agree if the BEF was used in 1938, and pushed the German Army back out of the Rhine valley. It may well have prevented war. But hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Even in 1939 it could have been stopped. Hitler wanted the Whermacht to do a quick East to West shift and hit France ASAP.
Thing was we knew their plans and were actually ready for it, and then a certain person let slip that fact and it didn’t happen.
And even with just their regular Army France could have just just walked into the Ruhr in September 1939, the German Generals half expected it and would have taken out Herr Hitler.
The only thing that makes sense is if that Chamberlain wanted to prepare mentally the country for another war, but he and the political class were certainly not so sophisticated.
And Germany also had significant losses in Poland. Hitler + Stalin started WW2 , but there were a lots of incompetence in West -mostly French – that made it possible to be a real world war and not just stopped in bud by 1940.
It is enough just a stalemate in France for Italy to not enter war. Without that no war in desert and many resources can be put in France.
I read that about France and how the Ruhr was bereft of German forces circa 37 – 38.
Of course, later in the battle a certain French man brought blitzkrieg to a crashing halt in the bocage and with air support could have kept fighting… with the 51st or 52nd (?) in support.
Perhaps that’s why he disliked us so much after the war.
Let’s not forget that the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe had tested and become competent in what we now call combined arms operations and understood the importance of comms at every level! As you know mate this, good training and a set of bollocks and best guess can take an inferior organisation (in numbers and kit) a long way 👍
Hi Mate, I agree, the German Condor Legion’s involvement with the Spanish Civil War. I think was a definitive moment in military history. As it allowed them in relative safety to try out mechanized armoured concepts, such as what Liddell Hart was advocating, but fell on deaf ears in Horse Guards. Where they also introduced coordinated close air support, to form what we now know as combined arms manoeuvre.
It was these practices that they brought home to Germany, then used to great effect to circumvent and immobilize the Czech Army. Which gave them the confidence to try something bigger such as Poland.
The worse part was that Monty was also a firm advocate of Liddell Hart and had been teaching it at Sandhurst. It was even practiced a few times. But Horse Guards politics got in the way. Where the disparaging units of the Army were their own entities and bugger anyone who tried to introduce change!
It wasn’t until Monty was put in charge of the 8th Army, where without interference, he implemented combined arms tactics. Which helped him defeat Rommel. It is one of those great what if’s! If Monty was allowed to implement his beliefs during the lead up to the phoney war in Belgium. As he wanted to go on the offensive rather than being defensive, but was held back by Brooke. Accordingly Monty was less than impressed with his troops readiness. They were then regularly drilled, especially at dawn and dusk or when there was little light available. But using mechanized mobility to get around the battle field. He was big advocate of the Universal Carrier as a battle taxi. For getting troops to where they were needed quickly. But also to be used for probing runs, to figure out an enemy’s strength and resolve. Which all sounds pretty familiar.
He was also active in Rearmament work, both as Chancellor then as PM.
UK Owned, but flag was Bahamas and the other one was Panamanian flagged
Yep was thinking the same. Just been reading twice today infact from the US what I have been saying for years now Trump is getting aspirations of a King and the US Constitution isn’t quite as preventative of that as many have presumed just because previous Presidents and society would not have dreamed of taking what were fundamentally ‘Kingly’ powers instilled in that role up and against the protections nominally created to prevent its reverting back.
Now we hear from Republicans against Trump and others reporting how he is talking in the third person about himself and is threatening to imprison anyone who opposes him for being an enemy of the State. Similar language to Putin a decade or more back which we refused to take seriously to our cost as he eliminated not only all opposition but even the potential for it to develop effectively.
We in Europe esp judging by these defence spending fears, need to get real and serious about mutual defence commitments together beyond NATO or the Atlantic Alliance in case the worst case scenario happens and at least together have some potential clout. Still not convinced the politicians seriously see the dangers esp in light of this in practice meaningless defence commitments to the likes of South Korea as good as they would be if we could actually offer anything worthwhile. Commitments presently all sniff of stepping off of an aeroplane waving a piece of paper to me, delusional at best.
Worse still to the above literally just read that a German Think tank is saying we should expect conflict between Russia and NATO within 6 to 9 years which they estimate will be the time it will take Russia to rebuild their military capabilities. Worse than that Poland is saying expect such an attack in 3 years and eastern NATO Countries must build up their capabilities accordingly. Worrying that serious bodies are talking up these prospects now rather than just mad Russian politicians and TV hosts. Meantime the US is say it will run out of money to support Ukraine by years end though no doubt they will find the means to supply Israel which show where their priorities increasingly lie.
No wonder the NATO Secretary General is saying we must prepare for moments of bad news in the War. Worries me that a Country written off not long ago as having an economy the size of Spain seems able to maintain a resource war far better than a West that on paper is immeasurably wealthier, far bigger economies and populations and more capable militaries. Poses serious questions about what we all do in that 3 to 9 years till that estimated conflict, sleep walking if this Govt is anything to go by sadly. Not helped by not knowing what side certain NATO members are actually on.
The problem with US aid for Ukraine is that the Biden administration refuses to secure America’s borders. The UK’s illegal border crossings are absolutely minor compared to the US’s southern border problem. House Republicans are trying to leverage aid for Ukraine to force Biden to secure the borders. Just why some Brit should be upset over this is beyond me. How many more years must the US solve Europe’s problems for them?
Israel is a very small country surrounded by fanatic enemies. The EU has a GDP and a population larger than the US. But, no, it’s all America’s fault.
Hi Skyinthesky,
Depending on your point of view WW2 started in 1937 when Japan invaded China. The fact is WW2 was really a number of local wars that coalesced into a single hellish conflagration that killed a few hundred million people – the majority of whom died in the far east apparently.
Now if you look at today’s situation WW3 may have already started with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The steadily escalating aggression from Russia looks awfully familiar. However, the really worrying thing for me is that the relationship between Russia and China is not dissimilar to the Axis agreement of the 1930’s. The next ‘local’ war could be China having a crack at Taiwan. That would be two local wars on opposite sides of the world linked be Western Alliances on one side and the Russia / China ‘friendship’ on the other. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to realise what the risks are should that situation come to past.
This situation could develop in any number of ways but here are three that cover most eventuallities. 1) China backs off from Taiwan and it all fizzles out. 2) China does have a crack at Taiwan, but by some miracle it stays ‘local’ and the US / China avoid going all bucket of sunshine on us… 3) China goes into Taiwan draws off US forces so Russia decide to ‘go around’ troublesome Ukrainian defences and thinks NATO, with the US tied up in the Far East, is incapable of defending itself…
If anything like 3) we could find ourselves looking at a very frightening time indeed… In the words of that great philosopher Private Fraser, “We’re doomed…”
Here’s hoping
CR
Please YouTube The Philippines – China have deployed their ‘fishing fleet’ there and are seeking to take a reef.
The Philippines are vital for the security of Taiwan and possibly, the Chinese are agitating for a conflict to nullify that support that would allow an invasion of Taiwan at high tides in April.
There was an excellent economic analysis of a future war on YouTube (Hudson Institute??) which suggests April will be D Day.
Are we ever going to see T32 or T83 ? Do worry what ever government ends up in power may just run the T45 into the ground so to speak .🙄 Time for a Rum tonight me thinks . 🙏
T32 was a Bluffer bluff.
T83? Probably, but, not in meaningful numbers.
I’m a bit confused with all this.
I thought the type 32 was unfunded along with the amphibious replacements.
So is this budget shortfall what they will cost? All that I thought that has been funded is the 26,31,solid stores ships.
I’ve left subs out as that’s another rabbit hole.
I will try and explain :-
Funded Means Contract is signed its actually been ordered, production design being finished, lead items being ordered from supply chain, infrastructure and training on going, build being prepared and then built and delivered. So money now being spent out of the present annual budgets till delivery.
So T26, T31, Astute, Dreadnaught, FSS.
The Future spending plan is the amount of money allocated to fund the future planned projects over the next 10 years.
So T32, T83, MRSS, MROS.
The problem is prices have risen and in some cases Extra capabilities have been added to those projects but not enough funds allocated to pay for them.
Like most things the Devil is in the detail and one of those is nothing is being cut or cancelled till after next years Spending Review.
Meanwhile MOD gets to try and find where they left their Hat and see if there is a Rabbit or 3 in it.
T32 = +3 batch T31 + 2 T26; MRSS = The Bays + a cheap sister ship bulk carrier conversion for Argus; MROS = Proteus +1. Scrap / sell the LPDs, Echo and Enterprise: replace the latter with B3 Rivers. That just leaves T83 to afford.
STUFT for the MROSS.
Bin T32, just buy extra T31.
MRSS and 3 FSS need to remain but no doubt we won’t see 6 MRSS.
4 T83 for carrier work and buy cheaper tier2 vessels to cover, but not Corvettes!
Yay, someone else who believes in Tier2 AA vessels and 4 Type 83
I need your help up top DM, it’s getting hectic
Hi SB.
We’ve not conversed before, pleasure. 😃
I have been suggesting for some time on this journal that the only way I can see of us getting some much needed mass is to get a better mix of quality vs quantity. Which to me means some tier 2 “good enough” assets in certain areas rather than gold plating, best available T26, T45.
So I’m a fan of T31 and River B2.
And to be fair SB I was not necessarily thinking just in the AD arena there but elsewhere too.
We need more mass.
Having said that, as I said to Geoffrey elsewhere on this thread, I’d not want lots of Corvettes either if that meant even fewer escorts, as we are a blue water navy. They are needed as additional, not instead of.
For land domain, Boxer is another one. Do we really need one of the most or the most expensive APCs out there which as things stand only has a MG on the roof? To cover all roles? What is wrong with the Finnish Patria for example for the less fighty roles enabling the Boxers to be concentrated in infantry battalions so more of them can be so equipped.
From a naval perspective, I think that to keep the T31 in its original spec is a waste of a perfectly good platform that can be adapted for a whole host of roles:
Why not, with so many options, build flights of 3 or so of each? Cost is proportional to utility in most cases
The Navy in the latest budget just revealed (partly) has added the costs of all the things it has been asked to build to achieve government requirements. This is not what the Army did; don’t expect consistency.
So although the Type 32 was and is unfunded, it still shows up because we said we were going to build them and the Navy is making a point. If you are going to announce T32, T83, MRSS, etc, etc, to get the plaudits, pay for them!
Deja effin vu. Every single time. Just buy foreign. Tanks, aircraft and ships. Four years to refurb a frigate. it’s utter madness.
The social welfare programme in this country is crippling. The triple lock for the 10m pensioners is ridiculous. Nothing will ever change.
Woke commanders spouting transgender claptrap, one mental wellbeing counsellor for every three traumatised recruits who drop their iPhone down the crapper.
No matter what the hue of the government, they will never get past the self interests of the MOD. Outsource it to China; cut out the middle man.
So sick and tired of the evisceration of our once mighty armed forces, the envy of Europe and counted on by the USA as THE ally to rely on.
Asking for a friend, but do you have any evidence for your views.
On the subject of buying foreign…. acquiring from the Chinese isn’t the answer. They are unlikely to sell you anything military worthwhile as they don’t want their own capability researched and known, and secondly we’d never trust the kit given they are not a friendly power.
Who said anything about buying from China??? As for ‘evidence’ just refer to the NAO report.
As i’ll put on all the NAO report related posts today the sheer number of unfunded or partially funded projects shows (if more proof were needed) just how poorly managed defence procurement is.
There’s always a case to be made for more money…..but first and foremost we need to get good value out of the not insubstantial budget (£55 billion per annum) we have.
Everything contracted out, waste and skimming off the top abundant, duplication and overlap of capabilities, little competition and over reliance on US kit in many areas, a still overly bloated defence estate, politicians writing cheques the services can’t cash and the services themselves trying to do everything with increasingly threadbare/hollowed out resources etc etc etc.
Not particularly hard to identify the problems, a lot harder to do anything about fixing them without grown ups in charge williging to do the hard graft.
Good points but is the Defence Estate really bloated? I see quite quick sell-off of vacated sites. Some downsizing has been too severe. Just one army vehicle depot in the entire country, which is rammed, albeit it is getting some new hangars. Many army units having returned from Germany over the last 5-15 years to find few ex-RAF sites to occupy, so are shoehorned into old and tired existing army barracks alongside existing occupants. Training areas and ranges often too small and too far away from units.
It is not in my view. Hundreds of sites have been sold off over the decades and another lot were listed a few years back.
With closures comes a cost, as the stuff remaining has to go somewhere.
Some sites due to close have been rescinded, as there is not the money for the new facilities elsewhere or what is within those places cannot be moved.
It would be interesting to know who is the freeholder of Wellington Barracks; notice how Guards were brought in by train for the Coronation.
Duke of York’s freeholder was Cadogan’s, and when Gerald Cadogan took over, his CEO made sure to push the Army out… not sure if that was the same at Chelsea Barracks. Bear in mind that Gerald and King Charlie used to play together in the Cadogan Boardroom and bar the current Viscount Chelsea, all Cadogans have been Coldstream Guards.
However, it was the First Earl Cadogan who put the Guards into camp in the vicinity of Wellington Barracks, although that area is commonly associated with the Duke of Westminster, given the age of the Barracks, I wonder what the situation is.
Wellington and Knightsbridge are HUGE amounts of money if MoD is the freeholder…
Interesting, I didn’t know that historical background. Though I’d not put much faith in the money raised helping us buy more kit.
I recall Duke of Yorks, Chelsea Barracks raised a huge sum that vanished with no noticeable benefit to MoD budget. And I thought the same when MoD sold off part of their exclusive patch of the radio spectrum, for billions, around that time.
On Wellington Barracks, I’d be totally against getting rid of it for all sorts of security reasons. There is nowhere else close to Whitehall and Central Government where a large number of soldiers or vehicles can be mustered with security to respond to events. Be they of a ceremonial or CT nature.
And it is right next to or inside the Whitehall central security zone and many important buildings.
One cannot use Horse Guards Parade, or the Admiralty Citadel, and Hyde Park Bks is too small. Woolwich too far away, and Regents Park Barracks has other roles.
On the MoD side, The Old War Office, Northumberland House, Metropole Building, already sold off and everything concentrated in Main Building.
The Army and RAF are primarily centred on Woolwich and Northolt after the MoDEL ( MoD Estate London ) project sold off sites like Mill Hill.
So there is very little left already without another sell off.
I also suspect that Wellington has “other” defensive features in relation to where it is and what’s around it, but that’s just a long held view.
So having said all that, nope, it needs to remain.
Why don’t you do a FOIA request on that, David!
WE need to decide on four or fine roles we can carry out properly, fund them and stick to them, otherwise the current fiasco is going to carry on for another ten years.
Lets be honest the Type 32 never existed except as a brief figment of Boris’s imagination this has been proven in numerous defence select commitee’s where the procurement team have no idea what it is. That not existing should save a bit. Not sure how you can have a cost overrun equivilent to the entire cost of the Type 45’s (which should have been 12 ships not 6 but we paid the same for 6) when they haven’t even designed them yet is beyond me.
Type 32 will be linked to the cheap frigate strategy of the T31. If T31 is successful and remains cheap and can be a platform to adapt to other evolving needs that will be the T32 programme. Too early to say any of that.😀
It’s too early in the lifecycle of some of this stuff to expect it to be in the budget. Some stuff like minehunting is going down the unmaned route so let’s get used to the idea that certain kit might be phased out early. There is likely to be a boost in the defence budget next year plus election commitments going forward. We are in an unstable world at a time of rapid technical advance. Perhaps a lot of older kit needs to be scrapped & replaced by newer cutting edge stuff which might be cheaper anyway.
take it from the overseas aid budget the first duty of government is the defence/protection of the people
The Overseas aid budget does help to defend the UK.
It’s called soft power and the thinpinstripedline is your friend. Gratis
not when its spent on stupid thing just to get rid of the money so they can make the commitment of their spend, or spent on countries like India and china that don’t need it,
At a time when the UK and Nato needs strength and leadership our political elite gives us bull shit excuses of why we cannot afford to defend ourselves we need to find the money and personnel to reinvigorate the UKs armed forces. We cannot keep relying on the USA to bail us out when they (the USA) keeps letting its friends and allies down. Being allied to the USA means you are at the whim of the US political system which is proving to be the down fall of not just the USA but also of Nato and its allies.
It looks as though the US is quite prepared to let the Ukraine die a bloody death the same thinking that pulled the rug in Afghanistan and Syria allowing extremists to take control and prosper.
The UK needs to find the money to have an armed forces that are fit for propose and we also need to start to lead Nato into actually doing what it was originally set up to do “Combat Russian aggression”
I despair,, In the UK we identify a need or a problem that needs fixing, procrastinate about it for a while, and then declare the solution unaffordable.
I so want to contadict you. I really feel like putting on a positive gloss, saying, ah yes but…
I got nothing.
It is not that there is a black hole it is a failure to grasp the obvious. The U.K. government expect a Wurld class armed forces but are not prepared to pay for it.
Projects like the type 83 and 32 are crucial if the Navy is going to be able to counter emerging threats.
It is further indication that either we scale back our ambitions and have a coastal defence fleet or accept the defence budget needs to be closer if not north of 3%.
you have summed up the problem.
Without meaningful upgrades to the Daring Class and the development of the Type 83 to meet future threats the carriers will be sitting ducks.
Although many high profile Russian and Chinese projects have proven to fall somewhat short of the hype. Can we really guarantee that if push comes to shove their anti ship weaponry will not prove effective.
I hope that Labours rhetoric on the opposition benches is matched by action in government but I fear the chances are slim.
Looks like a big shopping list, the best (and only) legacy the Tories could leave us with is to order all this (and more) and have contractual clauses that make it too expensive to cancel or change. 😀
I guess someone in a suit, somewhere in the bowels of the gin palace that is the MoD has somehow drawn a conclusion. Russia is degraded and cannot pose a serious threat for a long time. Along with their Treasury “Blob” comrades they fail to grasp the need for mass, forward planning and investment in quality kit and people. After all, drones are cheap, and we are being told drones are the future. I think the older generation ( Iron Curtain ) appreciated the need for mass. As did a lot of politicians, many having served in WW2. Now? Seem to be a shit shower of people gifted in one thing alone. Gobbledegook.
If the MOD is thinking like that then they are not paying attention.
The Ukrainians are fighting bravely and efficiently, inflicting huge losses in men and equipment on the Russians.
However, it appears Russia is absorbing those losses and just sending more and more replacements, looking at the reports from the recent fighting, Russia does not seem anywhere near exhaustion.
This is their modus operandi, wear the opposition down with sheer numbers.
There was one incident this week when a Ukrainian unit defending a trench north of Adiivka ran out of ammo while holding back the attack waves, unfortunately, the Russian troops took no prisoners.
I am by no means a financial expert but 17billion sounds like loose change compared to the 90 billion quid Northern Rail link or even the amounts wasted during Covid> What is the reason we could afford them (I’m aware the rail thingy is on shaky ground now and that mistakes/Crimes were made during safety kit purchases for Covid) but not national defence? Is there an answer other than political will? I would be genuinely interested to know….
IMHO, lack of political will is one factor, another is the high cost of living in the UK which cost-wise inflates all our efforts to design/produce /supply everything.
Let’s be clear it is the political class that decide how much money is spent and the defence posture of the country….we vote for the government and being a democracy the government tends to prioritise what it’s research says is most important to its voting base as well as the floating vote middle.
Lets not blame the civil service who’s job it is to only enact the will of the executive ( elected government). This is all on the voters who have no interest in understanding the truth or accepting painful messages about how much stuff costs and what is needed and the politicians who constantly tell the voting public they can have something without paying the cost.
I just need to clarify something…there has been a lot of “civil servants are paid more than their service colleagues and equivalents”….that’s not true..if you look at civil service grades against forces ranks and who would be expected to do what in management type roles the civil servant grades are paid consistently and considerably less than an officer in the armed force who my be asked to do the same job…nothing wrong with that (it fitting and correct that service personnel are paid more as they have to also go and do things the civil service don’t) but the whole “ the civil service is paid more to do an equivalent job is just not correct.
All that money and equipment and our poor excuse for a gov. Bring gimmegrants across the channel in rubber dinghy’s.Seems like the enemy is already here,headed up by Parliament!!
Juggwuftamug
Russians are Happy with these poor defence British capabilities. The first task of the governnent is to defend the country but they seem to be traitors, defence is not a priority for them.
There is a lot of Russian money and influence in London, doesn’t take much working out 😊
Are you saying Russian oligarch money in London is influencing military procurement and long term military strategy in the UK? The
Put it this way – after the last 3 years nothing would surprise me.
I just put it all down to incredible incompetence and absolute lack of foresight, planning, ambition or creativity.
Is the Pope Catholic? Did Bluffer party away at an oligarchs mansion in Italy?
London is awash with Russian money and the Cons drank from the chalice.
There have been two acts of war committed on UK territory and we replied by giving the Russians a sternly worded warning.
And Labour have dipped their paws too.
Then, there is the pernicious Chinese…
London is awash with most of the worlds money in reality. In terms of that dodgy peerage by Boris to his pal Evgeny Lebedev, to which I think you refer in terms of parties, he says he sees himself as British these days but it is breathtaking that he’s a lord and owns some our free press and I’m sure Mi6 are not happy. At least the Ukraine war has brought some address to Russian oligarchs using the UK and Western Europe as their fiefdoms.
You could suggest money laundering for Russian gangsters is distorting British politics but you might just end up in court. Check out what happened to Carol Cadwalladr.
One hundred million pounds has been wasted on yet another enquiry in which many lessons will be learned as usual, they always learn lessons, lessons, lessons. Lawyers and no production. Land, labour and capital with a tax base, money spent within a competent productive Country. Or do we import everything as we are not competent. If so, we should not be in this game and go to bed.
Let’s be honest peeps, we are never going to get what everyone wants this government and any after it are more concerned about themselves than defence, everything we do costs to much to do so maybe four destroyers?
As I opined in another article, Britain has been spending money on the wrong things, such as mass unrestrained immigration from the middle east, which is often stated as being comprised of 90% males, of fighting age who don’t work and live off the dole. Chickens coming home to roost but is it too late? Many think UK has passed the Rubicon and is sleep walking into further degradation, lower world standing and poverty. A US defence dept. report went as far to say the UK can now longer defend itself, let alone contribute in a meaningful way with partners.
General Election on the way?
The Cons can’t change PM again;
He could lose the vote next week.
Snap General Election, rally the Party around him?
Announcement at 11a.m. about something.
Get the goons out of the ship yards that are walking round doing nothing and emailing bull too each other allday , there on morsons books who is currently takeing 1 billion pounds of tax payers money every year, its been going on for years get locals back in the shipyards , the money ged mason is makeing at morsons is criminal and certain people that are in his back pocket , that attend all these horse race meeting’s and football game’s to mention, and other corporate events need flushing out aswell .
They are giving away mine hunters subs have limited dry docks for refit. It’s a mess