Images show the first of five Type 31 Frigates, HMS Venturer, in her current state of construction at Babcock’s Rosyth shipyard in Scotland.

The images were taken at the steel cutting for her sister ship HMS Active and are shown below.

With work underway on Venturer and Active, alongside the Type 26s on the opposite coast of Scotland – it means Britain’s shipyards are producing two new classes of frigate for the front-line fleet for the first time in more than 30 years. Type 26 will replace the submarine-hunting Type 23s coming to the end of their active lives over the next 15 years, while Venturer and her four sisters will succeed the general pupose 23s.

Each of the Inspiration class – so called because either their deeds or the ingenuity of their designers are milestones in RN history – will be equipped with the Sea Ceptor air defence missile system, a 57mm main gun and two 40mm Bofors, a 4D radar and carry a helicopter up to Merlin size.

HMS Venturer is expected to be in the water over the next year or so, with all five ships delivered by 2028.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

262 COMMENTS

  1. Looking good. That shed is a great investment for shipbuilding. Hopefully it’s put to good use for years to come.

    • Kind of shows the difference in operating out of Rosyth which was the newest of all uk royal dockyards verses traditional British shipyards located next to rivers near the centre of modern cities.

      • Such an investment is easier when you are able to Piggy back your investment onto the facilities and investment by the carrier alliance and refit work rather than a stand alone facility. And all the docks etc were built by past Taxpayers.
        On the other hand it is spurring BAe to build a new much bigger build shed on the Clyde.
        Also when those yards were built they were green field sites.

          • Yes she is presently in the Rosyth Dry Dock being fixed and I think also having a future maintenance period a bit earlier than scheduled.
            My point was that the upgrades to Rosyth necessary for the CA build and maintenance contract have helped the build process for the T31. Hence help reduce the overheads and cost base.

          • Makes sense to rectify any shakedown issues discovered whilst she was active. That snag list would be very interesting to read and what is more, will give a heads-up for when QE comes in for her refit? The transition from carrier build to Type 31 must have oiled the tracks somewhat and retained the excellence of the workforce, which is vital for future builds.

  2. It’s funny to think that barely 5 or 6 years ago British shipbuilding was down to pretty much just BAE on The Clyde producing B2 River’s at an inflated price under TOBA. No new major surface ship project (aside from the carriers) had been kicked off since the T45’s about a decade before and the Tide Class had been tendered out to South Korea.

    Now The Clyde is busy with T26 and will likely get T83 after that, Babcock have invested in a whole new set up at Rosyth to build T31’s, Cammell Laird produced a complex research ship and is busy with repair/conversion work and now H&W in both Belfast and Appledore are embarking on a massive project with FSS!

    The rejuvenation is still far from where it needs to be and further success will depend on a steady drumbeat of orders coupled with diversification into the commercial sector but even so it’s a massive achievement!

    • It’s the difference in changing strategy from land based to sea based. Now we can easily build ships but our land system procurement is a disaster.

      • Yes and yet you see a Company like Supercat and you see such wonderful under employed innovation. The latest kit to turn a Jackal into a light battlefield recovery cayote by adding an extra set of road wheels is lateral thinking genius.

    • You can thank Gordon Brown for the past and thank successive Conservative governments for the present. But hey ho, let’s vote Labour because we want a change.

      • The one thing Gordon Brown did was make sure that Rosyth (which is next door to his old constituency) got the CA build / assembly. At the time I thought it was a short term bit of political self interest, and I still sort of do.
        But it did have some unforeseen happy consequences, Rosyth survived, it got investment in infrastructure, a regenerated workforce and the ability to build blocks and assemble ships (which it didn’t have beforehand).
        The result is Babcock have been able to secure maintainence contracts and Piggy back some new investment onto the CA infrastructure.
        Babcock was thus able to tender for the T31 at a very good price and I suspect give BAe a competitor and real reason to invest in their own yards and reduce the price for B2 T26.

        • Bae is on a cost plus contract for the T26 so all spending has to be approved by the Treasury. They did not approve the original Bae plan to build a modern “frigate factory”. So it wasn’t built.

          Babcock’s was on a fixed price contract and could spend any of the money in any way it saw fit. It chose to build their “factory”.

          • That was nothing to directly do with BAe wanting to build the Frigate Factory, it was how they were going to do it and the Political Dynamite that would at a very sensitive time, So they decided to just stop it in their tracks and let someone deal with the consequences.
            BAe wanted to build a Frigate Factory at Scotstoun but also consolidate the entire build there and shut Govan, which was described as Sub-optimal (not very good in CE).
            Problem was this was in 2014 and would have effected a large Scottish constituency (shutting anything Scottish was Political suicide).
            So just b4 the referendum they announced BAU. I suppose in the context of Defence of the Realm it was a prudent decision.
            And we are now again in the same boat.

          • Reply to myself how the hell did I get Govan and Scotstoun the wrong way round. It was consolidate at Govan not Scotstoun. More coffee !

          • You were right the first time, Bae wished to consolidate at Scotstoun and had partially cleared the site for the new buildings. An impressive facility would have been created to the benefit of the UK taxpayer. But hey ho, who cares about that.

          • 1. There were two frigate factory plans. You describe the first which was the most expensive and the one with the best chance of improving efficiency. The other plan retained Govan. Both were refused.

            2. Bae owns Scotstoun but not Govan so its obvious and very reasonable they wanted to consolidate their operations there.

            2. Why would the Tories care about a constituency they didn’t win?

            3. At least you agree it was the Government that squashed the “factory” not Bae

            1. Well I wasn’t aware there were 2 plans but the end result was the same.
            2. Although they wanted to consolidate on their own site at Scotstoun where else would they carry out the outfitting and dry docking ?
            3. At that point in time they were worried about every single vote in the referendum. And on one hand promising 13 T26 builds on the Clyde but shutting a yard would just be an own goal.
            4. Yep.

            As a matter of interest what did plan 2 look like ? I’m going to guess it was a Big Assembly hall at Scotstoun with all steel fabrication and reduce Govan to outfit and dry docking ! Which is pretty well where it seems to be heading.

            IMHO the greatest mistake was to build on the old John Brown site. It had the space, the width, depth of water to have built a consolidated single yard with space to expand.
            “Oh what dreams are made of !”

        • He took the right decision for the wrong reason. If that’s what it takes I can live with that. There aren’t many politicians you can say that about.

          • He would have cancelled the carriers in a heartbeat if they hadn’t had water tight contracts. As it was, he delayed them as much as he could.

    • Good to see too that money in the levelling up fund has gone to the mid dock shed at Appledore to be turned into a technology centre which it is stated will hopefully feed into the new H&W work going on next door. Just shows what can be done with the proper leadership and common sense leading to forward planning. If the ship building industry can find a new life then so can much else that has been essentially lost here. JVC buying the bus works in NI is another hopeful sign and geez the new electric busses we see in London now are full of great UK innovation even if the company that runs them is French.

  3. This is what investment looks like, a ship per year is a fantastic rate! Lets hope these type 32s will be built, a 31 version 2 seems sensible, less development cost and time and continues the work flow. Even they can build them for 300 million or so, why not build more and keep the workforce active

    • Always a strong market for second hand RN ships. Selling mid age ships and replacing with new build was part of the national ship building strategy. It’s such a good idea the treasury won’t allow it.

      • ‘It’s such a good idea the treasury won’t allow it.‘

        That good Jim!?

        In every way, day by day, looking back we ought to acknowledge 2010 produced one of the worst governments on modern times. The Austerity programme introduced by the then Coalition has led to greater costs long term, much of which is being spent recovering what was thoughtlessly thrown away.

          • RN goes to Treasury: “we want to build a replacement for our Type 31’s, they will cost 300 million each”

            Treasury: “what will they do that the old T31’s cannot do?”

            RN: blah blah blah

            Treasury: how much would it cost to add blah blah to your existing T31’s?

            RN: 50 million each

            Treasury: “Bugger off”

            RN: “But we can sell the existing ships and get enough to buy the new ones”

            Treasury: “How much can you get for your existing ships?”

            RN: “100 million each”

            Treasury: “and shut the door behind you”

          • In actuality, used warships are worth even less than this example and even so, any money from used warship sales is not returned to the RN. The MoD has a budget set by the Chancellor which they have to live within. They can’t increase it by selling things.

          • Have you been involved in MOD sales? The dosh does go back to the MOD to re invest but the amounts are far smaller than you think as often outside agencies are used so MOD only gets a % of the actual sale value. How do I know? Was part of the team.

          • No. The money from the sales goes back into the general tax fund. The MoD is held to its budget.

            A good example would be the extensive sales of MoD property under Gordon Brown. The MoD didn’t benefit from the many millions received although due to VAC did shift some virtual money off its books

      • Anyone ever wondered why Japan which isn’t a low wage economy manages to build very good ships at a decent price despite having to pay the US for a lot of the weaponry ?
        The simple reason is they have a rolling replacement programme based on a 20 – 25 year life expectancy.
        That way they have continuity of production, manning, training and investment. Which translates as lower costs due to economies of scale.
        The flip sides of that approach are not necessarily us but take a look at the extreme opposites in Australia and Canada.
        Boom and bust at its extreme results in eye watering production costs.
        Compare the unit cost of a T26, Hunter and Canadian CSC.

        • Copying japans shipbuilding model would be far to easy. The uk likes to save £20m one year and spend 10 times that fixing it years later.

        • Japanese warships are very far from being cheap. Beware comparing prices with the UK without understanding what is or is not included.

      • I wonder how many years Treasury officials have to run their cars for before they are allowed to replace them. “I don’t know why you are complaining, Chancellor. That car was good enough for Ken Clark and Gordon Brown, and even it it only does 23 miles per gallon and we have to stump up a massive daily congestion charge, it’ll see you through to the next General Election. Another lick of paint and it’ll be good as new.”

  4. Pardon my ignorance but can someone explain the different colours of the steel plating? Is it a marine sealer undercoat? Hopefully not rusting already?! Lol 😁 😬 😁

    • It is rust, and that is perfectly fine in build. You just brush it off before you paint. While you’re working with raw steel it will rust as soon as you look at it, and the thin surface layer of oxide will protect the steel beneath.

    • Some ex-Railwaymen i used to work with who built Wagons explained to me the procedure,fresh Steel is delivered and stored outside and deliberately left to rust,when it is needed it then gets shot-blasted which gets rid of the rust and scale,then it progressed into fabrication.Shipbuilding is different obviously but the Steel is delivered either descaled and primed or just descaled but protected with an oil film,the pictures on this article show the sections in primer ( Red Oxide or modern equivalent).You can Weld through primer but scale poses more problems,best to remove it.

      • Thanks Paul T and others, When I originally said “sealer” I meant primer…lol!. Good to learn. You see a lot of steel product on building construction and railway site looking quite rusty prior to use which I always thought was a bit dodgy!

        • Also common to both T26 and T31 Steel cutting ceremonies the plate Steel pictured is a uniform dull grey,probably pre-blasted and given a light oil protection before use.

        • Steel beams are always coated before using construction.

          Reinforcement isn’t coated before use. In areas where aggressive conditions, like salt, are encountered then the reinforcement can be passive yes.

      • I was thinking more of the ongoing plans and discussions over the past 10 days or so and the implications bearing in.mind a large number of Leopard 2s are in storage in countries other than Germany.

        • Yes though it’s probably at this point that the true implications in what it opens up in the next few days will be seen rather than speculative, and an article therefore a little more current and more informative, I’m sure it’s in motion. I am hoping, with the German ones included maybe around 50 may be given in this first wave or is that too optimistic.

    • True though I did mention it was as good as official, yesterday afternoon/evening on another thread and indeed the fact that the US will be sending Abrams at some unspecified point though I don’t think that is actually officially announced. I suspect it was part of a quid pro quo deal to free up the Leopards. I was surprised to just read in a splendid Spectator article that France and Germany each have slightly less tanks to field than the UK (though France has a few more than us in reserve/storage) that’s madness for a Continental Power. Poland had over a thousand when the War began and is of course buying Abrams and Black Panthers to replace its Leopards to balance against those given to Ukraine. If this war has done nothing else it’s surely made Europe realise how it was sleep walking into potential oblivion.We certainly owe the Ukrainians everything we give them because an easy victory would NOT have stopped there while Russian forces have been reduced to the point, considering general western technical superiority an equal or likely superior starting point to rebuild forces over the next decade despite Russian bellowing and threats.

      • Poland has already sent nearly 300 T72 variants to Ukraine. I think Poland are in a roundabout way paying back Russia in kind for past transgressions.

  6. Bearing in mind she’s supposed to be in the water this year, I’m surprised she isn’t a bit more advanced in build.

    • In the water doesn’t mean it is outfitted in any way.

      I’d be surprised if it was in the water before autumn but as it is block built it more depends on the blocks than connecting them?

    • My thoughts as well. They have a long way to go if she is to be out of the shed by the end of the year. I would think there must be a tight deadline because ship 3 will probably have to start build at about the end of this year if the programme is to keep to time.

    • Pity they didn’t get any courage from the UK deciding to send 14 Challengers or the Poles and Finns wanting to send Leopards, but anyway, its happened now.

      Just hope there is time to do everything before the Russian spring offensive.

        • Grinch wrote:

          “”France was first””

          Actually, the first nations to send Tanks were the Eastern states such as:
          Poland
          Slovakia
          Czech Republic
          Morocco
          The French AMX 10RC which I do believe you are alluding to be a tank is actually a wheeled recce vehicle Recce vehicles are not designed to slug it out with other vehicles, rather they are designed to bug out at the first sign of danger. The fitted weapon is primarily for defence; however, it does have a secondary role of being able to provide fire support. 

      • Suggest deploying the M1s and CR2s around Odessa, which has just been named a UNESCO World Heritage site. Presumably out of harm’s way, minimizing logistical and maintenance footprints and issues, but still available as reserves, in extremis.

        • Ukraine has many areas of Vital Ground and Odesa and routes to it from the east is one of them. It is also important for Ukraine to prevent Russian resupply from Crimea & the Kerch bridge, to make further inroads into the occupied Donbas using manouevrist doctrine and attacking enemy weak points, to protect the approaches to Kyiv especially from the north and north east, to interdict any Byelorussian incursions in support of Russian forces from the north, to protect nuclear power stations, to react to any new incursions from Russia by recently mobilised Russian forces. Quite a job – and not all best suited to using scarce numbers of western tanks.

          Chally2’s maintenance footprint is possibly slightly higher than Leo2s (with logistic footprint being similar) and M1 Abrams very much more for both factors.

          M1 Abrams should only be committed to long distance motoring when it is essential or exceptionally tactically advantageous, in order to minimise the fuel resupply issue – some argue that they should operate within easy reach of the Polish border and be able to access specially established US Army maintenance facilities in Poland – but this is in the wrong area of Ukraine.

          There is merit in initially keeping the western tanks in rear of Ukraine’s T-series tanks ie out of harms way, as you say – but then to commit them to exploit Ukrainian Army success in their break-in battles and to interdict the flanks of major advancing Russian armoured columns and not to plug any holes resulting in the Ukranian ‘line’. True manouevrist doctrine. Tanks to be accompanied by armoured infantry and working with combat support arms – Ukrainians understand this.

    • 32 announced by Pentagon with options for more. I think the Abrams are just a token gesture. I doubt Ukraine will have the logistics to maintain them on any offensive operation.
      Challenger 2 much easier to maintain and super reliable.
      I wonder if further C2 or perhaps some C1s from Jordan are forthcoming?

      • The thing with the Jordanian C1’s is that they havn’t been maintained, by all accounts, for years. Nor have they been upgraded for longer years.

        I am sure it is possible to get them working again by transplanting bits and pieces between hulls but that takes time and ingenuity.

        It may well have been looked at, I’d be surprised if it wasn’t, as it is the right sized tank force for the Ukrainians.

        But does CH1 offer the advantages of CH2 or Leopard? I don’t think so as from memory a CH1 does not have a stabilised gun to the extent that CH2 or Leopard has and CH1 suffers from quite a slow fire control computer – although this might have been upgraded.

        • I had not heard that Jordan hasn’t maintained its CR1s for years – the Jordanian army at least used to have standards. They won’t have used them much either – which can be a good thing or a bad thing.

          They have got (or had) about 390 CR1 tanks so there is much scope for doing swapsies.

          I think the stab kit was OK – we have had stab kit on our tanks since very late mark Centurions. It has a different barrel to CR2 – L11 rather than L30 as I recall. Certainly all the electronics may be at least 15 years older than CR2.

          You would not expect CR1 to have the advantages of a CR2 -it is an older tank, but should be up to defeating Soviet-era tanks, and surviving their fire.

          • I saw a headline last night or this morning, though didn’t (damn it) get around to reading it, that Rheinmetall has offered to update Challenger 1s which I presume would have to be these Jordanian ones right? Hopefully might come across it again but shows that is a considered option or was until the Leopard announcement anyway.

          • I have seen that too, but only on this UKDJ site. Rheinmetall knows CR2 very well but not the Jordanian CR1s, not that that greatly matters.

            Good initiative by Rheinmetall – may still be useful to look at the feasibility of prepping CR1s for gifting even in the light of supply to Ukraine of 14 CR2s from UK, 31 Abrams from USA and a fair number of Leo2s from various European users, including Germany.

            Good thing that Jordan has several hundred CR1s and don’t need any of them now – we sold them about 400, some 20-odd years ago. No idea of their condition – you would expect the in-service ones to be in better shape than the stored ones, in general. Many spares will be exceptionally difficult to source as the vehs are 40 years old.

          • At 40 years+/- do you reckon the Jordanian CR1s would be worth reengineering and updating to CR3 standard? Maybe then could be an affordable gap filler for the UK if increasing numbers are required. Even for the near future. If Russia gets pushed out of the Ukraine they and the West will need a substantial force on the ground, even behind all the Polish tanks, to keep them at bay and out of Europe if when they re-arm.
            I think i have asked this before. With the US Abrams tanks how far back does this stock go as I don’t think the US mm manufacturer these tanks from scratch anymore?

          • Updating CR1 to CR3 is a no-goer in my book,too complex,expensive and would take ages to carry out, and absolutely no need to, seeing as bar the T90M they are more than capable of handling what they would face in Ukraine.I have no doubts it could be done but to me just get a good number of them operational and supply them as is.As i discussed with Graham elsewhere an opportunity to re-use discarded CR2 Turrets from the BA CR3 conversions might be a better idea but again that would take money and time.

          • It is taking RBSL some £800m and 9 years to update 148 CR2s that are in at least a fair condition, to CR3 build standard, having first done a Base Overhaul (BOH) on the CR2s.
            CR1s are about 15 years older than CR2 and wildly different – only 35% commonality betwen CR1 and CR2. Many or most CR1 spares that would be needed (ie not replaced by the upgrade work) would be unobtainable, except from donor CR1s.

            I very much doubt that it is possible to convert CR1 to CR3 – and even if it was, it would take years and cost an eye-watering sum.
            If the UK needed increased numbers of CR3 (Ben W is thinking about this) then more than 148 CR2s should be fed in to the line at RBSL with suitable Contract amendment.

            Much, much better for the UA would be to simply refurbish Jordan’s CR1s using BIR – Base Inspection and Repair, a faster and lesser form of BOH. KADDB in Jordan could do it if given western funding. Rheinmetall has also offered, but they would charge more and would take longer.

            US Abrams – The Lima Army Tank Plant now called the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center, operated by GDLS as a GOCO, is still building M1 Abrams. It nearly closed in 2014 but staggered on and was given a new lease of life by Trump in 2018. It is America’s last tank factory, as the Chrysler military plant in Detroit (Detroit Arsenal) closed in 1996. Egypt build M1 under licence.
            Wiki reports: “some 3,700 M1A1 and M1A2 in storage”

          • The problem with the M1 is the cousins won’t export any with the DU mesh armour? So any sent would have to be very old M1A1 or new build so they are talking about late next year or even 2024 before any arrive in Ukraine.

          • Why is the US reticent about releasing M1s with DU armour – in case one gets captured and the secrets are lost or because of environmental pollution if armour is breached? I suspect the former.
            US surely wouldn’t send new build M1s (built to a non-DU standard)?
            So it would be old M1A1 (built 1986-1992), I guess. I have heard delivery in-country as being this September or Jan 2024. Either way, they miss doing anything to resist the Russian Spring 2023 campaign. Not too impressive from the one and only superpower, if all the above is true.
            Meanwhile 14 CR2s are ready to mix it with Ivan by the end of March (this March!).

          • No idea Graham just read in various places that NO M1s have been exported with the DU mesh fitted in the armour package!

          • We sold on CR1 to Jordan and CR2 to Oman – with the full Chobham/Dorchester armour suite. We treated our export customers with respect!

          • Presumably you have been reading some of the articles; throughput production is limited to twelve tanks/mo.currently and these are remanufactured A1s. There are no new builds. GDSL has existing contracts for 250 A2s for Poland, 108 for Taiwan, now 31 for UKR and, oh by the way, USA orders, to be fulfilled at the grand rate of 144/yr. Not a first-rate mathematician, but predict a supply issue. In addition, US will not supply the enhanced armor package for export. WTF?!? If you’re going to sell someone your frontline equipment, presumably you have done your due diligence credit and background checks! Marvel at how the allies run the respective railroads. 🤔😳🙄😱

          • I read in Wiki that the Lima plant produces 12 tanks/mth – and assumed they were remanufactured (not new) tanks, as US Army needs no more and USMC needs none at all – and I assumed that all tanks for export were remanufatured, not new, tanks.
            Interesting that the US will not supply enhanced armour package for export – guess that accounts for why some were destroyed in combat.
            I recall the security discussions that were had in MoD about exporting just about all our used CR1s with Chobham armour to Jordan (a non-NATO country) – they bought 400 of our 420 fleet at the end of its British Army service.

          • The USMC may rue the day they gave up their Abrams. I understand the reasoning. But you simply can’t beat a MBT for support. Though I did hear that they’d get help from the US Army if tanks are needed. Which I’m sure they’re happy about.

          • I think they have manufactured some in the last 10 years. These were for both Egypt and Iraq. I know for certain that the Iraqi Abrams do not have the full composite armour with the depleted uranium. I suspect the Egyptian ones don’t either. It’s not something that you can easily separate from the composite sandwich.

          • I would imagine that was prior to their own production starting (many, many years ago), and that is quite usual.

          • Good static defence line on the Northern Border, they’ll die without manoeuvre but, they’ll die hard.

          • David, senior moment here! Are you postulating a role for refurbished CR1s if that ever happens?

          • Static emplacement. Easy to bypass, except, rivers, lakes etc mean there is no bypass.

            Be hard one getting by them, and you know that better than me.

            UKR need an Armoured Corps to smash the Russians but, when should they stop?

            This is an enemy that knows only death. It is binary for them.

          • There’s something wrong with those numbers – 190 in service, 270 in storage, totalling 460. We had just 420 and sold about 400 to Jordan.

          • I hadn’t checked the numbers, good spot!

            Why not sell them back to the UK for a nominal sum of money if they are reluctant to get directly involved?

            16 January 2023

            “The Kingdom of Jordan has recently retired its fleet of around 400 British Challenger 1 tanks. This is enough to supply Ukraine with the entire fleet it needs, and the essential spares for battlefield maintenance, without compromising sensitive technologies. It would also be inordinately cheaper for the UK to buy them on behalf of Kyiv.”

          • Not sure that Jordan is reluctant – the Ukraine war is probably not on their radar – or even if it is, they may be daunted by having to refurbish hundreds of tanks in quick order (and they are not a wealthy nation) and possibly train UKR crews and maintatiners.
            Certainly the UK could facilitate. Spares, both to refurbish the tanks and to deliver forward as a support pack, will be a headache, as the tanks are 40 years old and many suppliers will no longer exist…but if they supplied just c.100 tanks then they could rob spares from the other tanks if they still have the parts left on them

        • Chally 1 and Chally 2 have the same turret ring I believe. So in essence the later turret will fit with a bit of fiddling and rewiring. Also there’s a certain Rheinmetall offering that has a universal turret. Which could also be used on the Chally 1. KF51-Chally 1 hybrid. How quickly can Rheinmetall make the turrets?

      • I was expecting Abrams numbers to be more than 14 – they are a superpower after all. It will be a nightmare for the UA to support them from a logistic and engineering standpoint – its the reason we did not select M1 in the (Half Fleet) Chieftain Replacement bid in the 90s and bought CR2 instead.
        I think we should offer at least a second squadron of CR2s.
        Up to Jordan if they offer their CR1s which are at Al-Hussein spec (directly or through UK) – they are 40 years old and not sure what state they’ll be in (at least they won’t be rusty) – spares will be hard to source.

        • I suspect you have answered your own question. It seems (not that I am taking credit 😅) that they are doing what I suggested last week, offer a token amount (same number as Germany ‘coincidentally’ it’s suggested) just to free up the German contribution and thus freeing up many more and give cover to the Russian signalling of threats and the accusation of German tanks thundering towards Mother Russia again not that it will stop them trying it on. Wonder if the French will offer any. 14 or so is probably the right amount of Abrams will pack a punch but more importantly allow longer term training for Ukrainian forces to familiarise and organise support for them so that if this goes on more and more of the 3000 or so they have available, can be brought in.

          Ivan will be somewhat demoralised now to see potential opposition tanks having a deeper backfill and far higher capabilities overall than their own forces can desperately bring on tap. How far that advantage can be realised is a different question but hell there is no longer a limited relatively known number that the Russians can any longer judge. Attrition is no longer obviously in their favour.

          • US is supplying 31 Abrams tanks – enough for a very small tank battalion (US-speak) – not surprised it is more than 14 as they are a superpower – and want to wave a big one. Nightmare for UKR to deliver engineering and logistic support to the M1s.

            Not sure UA need the French to supply yet another tank type!

            I had expected a stronger reaction from the Kremlin to the news that the US, Germany and many other European Leo2 nations are following the UK lead and supplying western tanks. Wait until the West starts to supply fast jets, which might be the next request from UKR.

          • Yup, F-16s are reportedly the next item on the UKR wish list. Remember the concern generated by the attempt to transfer Polish Mig-29s to UKR soon after the start of this debacle? Predict fur flying about for awhile before approval granted

          • F-16s are just what the Ukrainians need – great aircraft for them.

            Our Challys will be in-country by the end of March, some say the US M1 Abrams will get there about September (but pessimists think it could take up to a year).

            How long will more complex F-16s get there?
            Plenty of European operators (plus USAF) as a source of supply.

        • Believe the grand total of pledged MBTs of all models (CR2, L2, M1) is approximately 100. UKR will ultimately solicit for more than 300. Guaranteed. A SWAG on the final tally would be 750-1000. If everyone would please begin to prep their proportional share of MBTs now, including spares complement and especially ammo, the Ukrainians would be most appreciative…🤔😳

          • Wow, 750-1000 western tanks would be amazing. I couldn’t believe we will get up to that figure, though.
            I would be very happy for the UK to send another 45-50 CR2s at least – that would allow there to be one Type 56 or two Type 31 CR2 tank battalions.

            I hear from Wiki that the US has some 3,700 M1A1 and M1A2 in storage – this number will increase as USMC sheds its M1s.
            Report circulating today that the 31 US tanks may not all be delivered to UA for up to a year! Hope that’s not true.

          • Yes, that estimate would account for probable significant attrition through at least this year. Concerned the bloodiest portion of this campaign could be directly ahead as Mad Vlad conscripts massive forces this year in a desperate attempt to salvage a ‘victory.’

            Believe the Marines have already released 400 M1A1, which will be remanufactured to M1A2SEPv3 standard at the sole remaining GOCO tank manufacturing facility in Lima, OH.

            Amusing vignette, believed to be true: Sometime in the mid to late 80’s, USA conducted a worldwide audit of inventory. All was deemed well until review of MBT holdings; horror of horrors X thousand short! Fur begins flying, strokes and MIs abound throughout chain of command, until someone finally checks all the spreadsheets and determines same quantity parked in Europe (Germany probably) as war reserves! 🤔😳🙄😱😉

          • I agree that the bloodiest phase of this war as far as military targets and casualties is concerend is sadly yet to come…and will be when Mad Vlad’s rookie conscripts rock up.

            I am surprised we are not doing much more about Iran who are supplying hardware, especially drones, to Russia.

            I am also surprised that the US only has one tank manufacturing plant – and that nearly shut in 2014 – rescued by Trump in 2018.

            I like your tank inventory story. As Equipment Support Manager for UK’s tanks and tank variants in 2002-3, I kept a very close and continuous eye on where my fleet was and what state it was in.
            Surprised that the German MoD said they had to specially conduct an inventory and status check before they could determine how many Leo2s to supply to the UA and when.

            We have some kit in Germany in 2 locations, one just for exercises at Sennelager and the other for exercises and operations in mainland Europe – plus 2 munitions storage facilities.

          • Curious, do you believe Big Ben will light a bonfire beneath MoD/contractor team to expedite conversions to CR3 standard and/or increase the total number? Predict many data points gathered from all compass headings, and subsequent decisions, will converge in Mar/Apr timeframe.

          • I like calling BW ‘Big Ben’! He seemed to be against tanks over 2 years ago, suggesting that their day was done – but has changed his tune, saying recently that he would look at the 148 figure for CR3 conversions, which is ridiculously low – and doesn’t even allow for 2 tank units plus a decent amount for the RAC and REME Trg Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve. He really does have to jack that number up by at least 20, or very many more if he decides to retain the 3rd tank unit.

            As for speeding up the conversion process – he has said that he wants to do that but I don’t think he has talked about revised dates yet – the programme is far too long – IOC in 2027, FOC in 2030 – so 9 years from Contract Award to convert 148 tanks.

            I don’t agree with how the work was structured – but thats detail. He may be able to shave a year to 18 months off the programme but I am sure RBSL will screw him for a few million more £s. These tanks are of course for the British Army and not for gifting to Ukraine.

            March/April will be an interesting time – the CR2s will be in-country, the Russian conscripts will be through their 3-month training course – and the Russian Spring offensive may have started. Russkies will want to launch it before too many western tanks arrive. I expect the F-16 debate should have been resolved by then.

        • Krok ste krokem as the Czechs would say.

          Step by step.

          The Ukraine does not have time for patience, however, they will bleed blood for ours.

          It is a price for allowing Putin to have become Putin without resistance.

    • Just heard the US is supplying 31 Abrams, enough for a very small tank battalion. I guess Biden has done that purely to kickstart the Germans into relenting on Leopard.
      Did anyone notice the comment that Biden is selling the tanks to Ukraine, not gifting them – shameful!

      • Yes, but it may well be w/ funds that US has credited to the UKR account at Treasury; believe it may be analogous to Israeli account procedures. Accountants…🙄 Perhaps Bill Shakespeare should have included them w/ the lawyers?

  8. Exciting news..and all ships built and delivered by 2028! That’s quicker than it is taking RBSL to simply upgrade a quite small number of tanks!

    • All good news if we include MK41 from the start instead of fitted for but not with as it going to be at present.

      Hopefully the war in Ukraine might change all that.

      On the tank front that you quite rightly mention…

      “Two South Korean defense firms have shipped their first tanks and self-propelled howitzers to Poland less than two months after the $5.76-billion dollar was inked.

      Hyundai Rotem delivered the first 10 of 180 K2 Black Panther main battle tanks, while Hanwha Defense transferred the first 29 of 212 K9 Thunder artillery system.

      Poland ordered the K2 tanks for 16 billion Polish zloty ($3.26 billion) in July, and delivery is expected to be complete by 2025.

      The 212 K9 howitzers, along with ammunition, training, and logistics, are valued at 11.4 billion Polish zloty ($2.32 billion) and are to be delivered over four years.”

        • Maybe someone wants to ask a very good and hugely successful UK company that builds large quantities of Big Mobile bits of Land Machinery if they could build tanks ? I suspect that the answer would be yes but can we paint them yellow.

          Just remember most tanks were not built in Tank Factories.

          • Another JCB fan?
            Currently AFVs are being manufactured or re-manufactured in Britain at GDUK, WFEL and RBSL.

    • All good news if we include MK41 from the start instead of fitted for but not with as it going to be at present.

      Hopefully, the war in Ukraine might change all that.

      On the tank front that you quite rightly mention…

      “Two South Korean defense firms have shipped their first tanks and self-propelled howitzers to Poland less than two months after the $5.76-billion dollar was inked.

      Hyundai Rotem delivered the first 10 of 180 K2 Black Panther main battle tanks, while Hanwha Defense transferred the first 29 of 212 K9 Thunder artillery system.

      Poland ordered the K2 tanks for 16 billion Polish zloty ($3.26 billion) in July, and delivery is expected to be complete by 2025.

      The 212 K9 howitzers, along with ammunition, training, and logistics, are valued at 11.4 billion Polish zloty ($2.32 billion) and are to be delivered over four years.”

      • I am super-impressed with the Koreans. That is very fast footwork. I wish our procurements, especially land equipment, was as fast.

        • Rapid production is a mentality.

          We have lost that mentality and replace it with rooms full of people telling you how ‘complex’ a project is and talking about lead times ‘world beating’ and buzzword soup….

          IRL you can make anything pretty fast, even a warship like T31, if you want to and that is what you set out to do.

          • Sadly as a mature engineering nation we went from the Victorian ethos of we can do that to the increasingly frustrating excuses for why you can’t do that and how it’s best to stick to all those methods the Victorian’s had in many cases actually invented. Other Countries first Japan, indeed almost any Country which came out of war with new visions to re create wealth rather than bankrupt ones doubling down and trying not to spend more than they have to thus preserving old practices, set the new standards to overtake us. We then changed by buying what they produced. The lack of vision was and often still is criminal. And yet when you see the incredible talent and innovation that centres the F1 industry here and still exists in pockets, the space industry, and some defence companies for example it really does show how it’s not the potential here it’s the visionless politicians and much management that holds us back.

          • Seems managers at some companies are better at meetings than solving problems, chasing parts , replacing tools ( takes weeks because they are not allowed to buy from local engineering suppliers ) . Has to be in some stupid approved catalogue at often three times the local price !

        • Bear in mind that the tanks are not the Polish spec’d ones, they were just the tanks that were rolling off the production line at the time of the order, and were then diverted to Poland…

      • Excellent. South Korean industrial base is impressive. Although not surprising the speed they can deliver SPGs and K2s. Both are in serial continuous production.

      • Yes they could deliver them quicker than the Poles could produce their own Krabs and the Poles are no slouches. Mind you I have no idea whether SK took some of these off of their own orders to grease the deal? Anyone know.

        • Actually I’ve seen some negative comments from Poles about the Government doing this order to be seen as “doing something” without even talking to their domestic industry who could have increased their own build rates.

      • Uh?

        Are you trust to say that T31 is simpler than CR3?

        T31 may be a simpler frigate but it is still a honkingky complex piece of engineering.

      • Never said it was simple – just shouldn’t really take 9 years from CA to FOC. Plus, preliminaries were happening before CA (May 2021) – I was working on this project for Rheinmetall in 2016.

        • Clarification – I did say ‘simply’ rather than ‘simple’ – but meaning that upgrading a tank is simpler than designing, developing, building, testing and certifying 5 frigates – from scratch.

  9. Wow she’s bigger than i thought she would be – why are they still calling Venturer a frigate? Cruiser would be better!

      • Ah but its digitally programable with all sorts of ammunition and it has capability that a 6″ gun could only dream about including CIW – let thecomputers calculate the gunnery – put the old Dreyer fire control table in a museum somewhere.

        • But imagine the fire power that a fully automated triple 6” turret could do just with standard HE. Now imagine what it would be like if the barrels were bored out to 155mm, which would give a plethora of guided munition options. It’s enough to makes your knees tremble….

  10. Finally, though only 14…but then they only have 148 currently usable so it’s 10%.

    Now to start working on getting fighters and strike aircraft for Ukraine…

    • Yes but numbers still far short or the 300 Ukraine believes it needs. If Germany only donates 14, we’re in danger of other countries only donating a handful each.

      • Is it a coincidence we donate 14 C2s. Germany donated 14 L2s. If that’s the rule then we need to donate more Challengers. Perhaps purchase back some C1s from Jordan?

        • No it’s not a coincidence, it’s organisational.

          There’s variations by nation, but generally, using US as an example, a tank company has three platoons of four tanks each, with two additional tanks in the HQ platoon; 14 tanks total.

          Personally I’d give the Ukrainians all of our Challengers 2 IF there was something as capable as the C3 available to buy to replace them, but there isn’t…
          The C1 is substantially different to the C2, only sharing around 3% of components. That was before any upgrades implemented by the Jordanians on theirs. Assuming they were prepared to sell in the first place.

      • Hopefully given they’ve now decided to order Abrams (🇺🇸) and Panthers (🇰🇷) for their future tank requirements they’ll see their existing Leopards as surplus…

        • Yes, but not certain how thrilled Poles will be to donate frontline tanks before backfill units are physically available, given current operational environment.

          • Better for the USA to station a large number of tanks in Poland as a stopgap backfill to allow increased Leopard donations than giving Abrams tanks to Ukraine direct…

            I suspect the US Army will need to establish a tank repair facility just inside Poland to repair the Ukrainians’ Abrams. Then there’s the fuel issue, as US Abrams are run on JP-8 and they guzzle a lot of it…

          • That would definitely be the intelligent move. Now let us see whether the parties reach the same conclusion…🤔😳

          • The Abrams is a bad fit. The 31 donated should probably be deployed to Odessa to stop any Russian advance there. C2/L2 up north near Kyiv or on the Donbas. The UA don’t want to have to rely on Abrams as an offensive platform as they will break down or just run out of fuel. I think the C1 should be purchased as a crash programme from Jordan. Refitted and equipped under UOR and gifted to Ukraine.

          • Agreed the Abrams is a bad fit due to the complexity of its turbine and thirst for JP-8 fuel. Though I think it was designed on several fuels including diesel.

            I’d operate the Abrams closest to where broken ones can be towed back to NATO country to be fixed.
            Odessa is safe, the Russians would have to cross the Dniper again and retake Kherson before they could think about Odessa. We’ve seen how well the Russians bridge rivers under fire in the past… 😆

            The battle in the South East has become bogged down into an artillery war. The Russians first choice – a tank war – failed due to their inability to operate tanks as part of combined forces. So they’ve reverted to artillery because they have lots of it. But artillery duels tend to a static situation.
            The Ukrainians now have a tank advantage, both in numbers of Soviet era tanks, and in having western tanks too. There’s going to be a lot of thought, both in Kyiv and the Pentagon of the best tactics for them to smash through the Russian front-line.

          • Agree that the Abrams is a gas guzzler and would need a support depot in Poland.
            Can anybody tell me if and how many Abrams the Americans have in Europe already? Pretty sure I saw footage last year of them deployed in Europe
            The Leopard is the tank to source
            A top tank widely used in NATO and beyond, has an economical diesel, with good range and a good stabilised gun using commonly used ammo.
            The Challenger 2 the Leclerc and the Leopard 2 (in Germany) are only available in very small numbers as their governments did not think there would be a large scale conventional war again in Europe :wpds_sad: 
            The Leopards elsewhere are numerous and 100+ with good support such as Bradleys and Marders etc should check the Russians along with 14CH2 and 31 Abrams hopefully all up and running before the spring offensives :wpds_beg: 

          • Good answer. Sounds like the 31 Abrams are going to Ukraine and not to Poland to backfill them and enable Poles to release 31 Leo2s. Essential that M1s do minimal long distance motoring on their tracks, hence why they may be more useful employed to defeat Russian breakthroughs as a counter-stroke force. The C2/L2s should do the long-distance motoring.
            CR1 – Jordanian decision urgently required. I have a soft spot for the CR1 fleet having been their last MoD Equipment Support Manager – 40 years old but availabke in quantity and with good armour and good gun (still holds the world record for longest range tank kill, although there mught be a challenge to that by the UA!) and very fair mobillity – condition of them is unknown by us but definitely worth checking out. They could be refurb’d in KADDB, Jordan if money comes from the West or by Rheinmetall in Kiel or by RBSL in Telford.

          • Did not realize SK has already delivered some K2 BP. Bravo! Wonder whether SK’s northern neighbor has spurred the SK concept of a spec built inventory continuously on hand? ,🤔😳

          • Sounds more like a very sound commercial decision if you have a country that lives and dies by exports. Buy Korean, comes with a 7 year warranty, service plan, decent spec, very reliable and we can deliver from stock.
            And yep I drive a Kia 😎

        • Agree Poland is already receiving batches of K2 Black Panthers, thereby freeing up donations of L2s and ex soviet block T72 series.

      • I was just wondering if the numbers of tanks proposed by different countries may be quite different to the numbers they actually end up sending? I mean do we really list the precise numbers of tanks and other military equipment so that Putin knows exactly what he’s up against? I would have thought that’s the last thing we want to do?

        • We seem to give numbers, partly to show our nations we’re doing our bit and partly to encourage others that are backsliders.

          As for letting Putin know, I don’t think it matters. The Russians have claimed to have destroyed more HIMARS than have actually been sent to the Ukraine. So they’re clearly incapable of using this information tactically.
          As it is, Russian tankers are terrified of Javelins and NLAWs, so why not dial-up there fears by letting them know how many will be flying at them soon? Same goes for all the other superior Western weaponry being sent.

          • Birthday boys 1,2 and 3
            Mr Burns the Ad-Hoc jock, who minced his word sitting under a Tree.
            Then come Mr Zelensky who would not Flee, and kept his head to make his country Free.
            Then there is Sean who likes to write, he’s a scientist I will have you know, and quite the pro.

            Just a wee ditty from an old has been

          • A great day. I’ve had my haggis for dinner.
            On challenger one I wonder if a full refit to mostly modern standards, probably full strip down required, new bits, testing etc would be much cheaper or faster than just making new tanks of a proven version.

          • I suspect trying to refurb and upgrade the CR1s could be an issue given their age. Their lack of commonality with the CR2s means the British Army couldn’t cannibalise CR2s to get them operational. Not to mention they’ve had various Jordanian specific upgrades.

            But… the Jordanians did have nearly 400 of them which they have withdrawn from service and no-longer need…

        • The precise number of gifted equipments has been published from the first shipment last Spring/Summer. Definitely not clever to have published so much information.

      • There’s a political element to that which can build in numbers over time. Ukraine says 300 but that’s a negotiation figure 100 would probably be all they could handle next few months and would probably be massive to them to get that many new tanks overall. Thereafter it will be about building on that number while providing for replacements and bring up numbers of trained crew for them. Best to just keep feeding them in which will force Russia to draw in more of their T-90s even Amatas perhaps if they get real desperate and that will allow for a clever game of bait and kill which will serious concern the heads of staff if they seriously want to retain some sort of quality for their contrived arguments for needed defence against NATO invasion.

        • Bargaining position? Asking for more than he needs? Don’t think so. Zelensky is trying to save his country not sell a used car. If he says he needs 300 asap to meet the Russian spring offensive, then he does. That’s not a large number. 100 is just enough to kit out a single square brigade.

      • Yes and already have the first delivery of Panthers with Abrams arriving later so in a way within reason the more they give to Ukraine the safer their defence becomes. Again over the months they will no doubt feed more in, they cannot contemplate an Imperialist essentially Fascist aggressor on their border yet again. Funny how Russia thinks it’s the only one that deserves a buffer zone that others are just cannon fodder to their malevolent antics. Poor Poland has barely had 300 years independence free of it in their thousand year existence.

      • Poland, Hungary, Romania and Czech Republic as well as Slovakia are reported to be looking at sending more T72 series. Possibly upto 200 more. When coupled with those captured by Ukraine in their Donbas advance as well as NATO donated weapons then perhaps Ukraine will have the firepower to launch a combined arms assault to push Russia out. Ukraine needs a combined arms army in sufficient size to win this war.

    • Don’t be daft. There are approx 2000 Leopard 2s in service or storage of various models. Germany could easily give all 300 of the requested 300 MBTs Ukraine is asking for.

      • Don’t be ignorant.

        There are 2,000 Leopards held by all nations across Europe. Germany only possesses 300 in total, of which only 148 are usable. Figures are from the Der Spiegel article earlier this month that precipitated the resignation of the previous German Defence Minister.

        • Apologise. You are right. Back in the days of BOAR the German army used to have 2000 leopards but I guess they were a combination of L1s and L2s. I stand corrected. The decline in the German tank force is actually breathtaking. They’ve not just cut their armed forces courtesy of the peace dividend they’ve amputated it.

          • Oh it’s worse than that! They had close to 5,000 tanks in 1989 compared to their 300 current inventory. Though yes, that was all tanks, I don’t have figures of breakdown by type.
            (And that was before unification in 1990 when they inherited all the East’s stock of Soviet-built tanks!)

            Germany certainly seems to have cashed in the ‘peace dividend’ more than other countries after the fall of communism. It was understandable, as they were facing an enormous bill to rebuild the former East Germany.
            Plus the West was tired of over 40 years of Cold War…

            But alarm bells should have started ringing in the West once Putin gained power.

    • I am sure you are correct in thinking the Abrams deal is simply a key turning exercise; Germany will give permission for other countries to send Leopards and the Ukrainians will get more of these than Abrams or Challengers. The British cannot be faulted here. The decision to send a squadron of Challengers put everyone on the spot. Putin has to be stopped now or never.

  11. 12:16

    “Scholz confirms Germany will send Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine Scholz continues his address, saying “there is no mathematical basis for these decisions, we have moved step by step, and that applies to this latest decision,” referencing Germany’s decision to supply Ukraine with tanks.

    “We will provide Ukraine with Leopard battle tanks,” he confirms, adding “it is right that we didn’t just get swept up”.

  12. Makes sense to use this hull design and shipbuilding shed as a platform for the T32 I’d imagine, keep that drumbeat of ship commissioning rolling as efficiently as possible

    • Agree all 5 type 32s need to be in the water by 2032/2033. Then move onto type 32 batch 2. Keep them coming. We can easily sell abroad from production slots once the tempo of construction is up.
      I’d like the type 26 programme to be sped up and a couple more hulls added now unit price down to sub £1 billion apiece.

      • I agree. Here is an opportunity to throw off our era of ‘cultural cringe’ and be more pushy on the international stage.In addition to the revitalised ship yards there will be many (hundreds?) of smaller companies in the supply chain who could commit and bid for more work. I can’t see a dis-benefit to the country.

          • They all have domestic industries to support themselves, they may very well buy the design licence but the chances of them actually using U.K. yards seem slim.

          • NZ does not have the facilities to build such vessels so would go offshore for them and as they are already being produced there they would benefit as the price drops due to more being ordered. Simple really. Which off world do you come from?

          • a. The UK won’t be the only place building them and b. NZ hasn’t bought new UK built ships for eons and c. UK built ships are over expensive and under quality

        • Well since 1990 past buyers include;
          • Brazil,
          • Chile,
          • Egypt,
          • Estonia,
          • Lithuania,
          • Ukraine,
          • Romania,
          • Greece,
          • Portugal,
          • Pakistan,
          • Bangladesh,
          • Indonesia,
          • Trinidad & Tobago,
          • Philippines,
          • Ireland,
          • Guyana

          • Add Canada (Upholders)
            And the derivative design builds of the 24 x T26 Canada and Australia. Which will both have RR supplied power plants.
            And if we include Marine components we can add South Korea, Italy, Holland, Japan and the USN (RR again 😉).

          • Upholders were and we put U.K such as engines in lots of foreign ships. Getting Canada and Australia also involves quite a bit of other U.K such as the RR handling packages and it all lowers our cost base.

          • OK they are not new builds, I’d suggest we call the Upholders ‘Ex demonstrators’ or “Shop soild”.
            And don’t get me started on the absurdity of building them, finding out they couldn’t launch torpedos, fixing the problem, laying them up and then flogging them off.
            They got them for about half price (exchange rate @2 Canadian dollars to £).
            I’m not too sure the Canadians would see them as being cheap 🤔

          • Javid and Sunak were too busy getting done by Brexit. Then there was Covid.

            You might have thought Hammond, a previous Def Sec, could have revisited it, but his training was in the George Osborne school, blind to anything he didn’t want to see. He wouldn’t even accept there were unemployed people or poor people in the UK, so saw no reason to do anything about them. What chance then he’d do something about a ship’s build rate?

          • 7 day working would be a great enhancement to getting them out sooner. Jocks love overtime and that big fat wage packet if given the chance. Anything is possible as each unit would be cheaper and thus releasing funds for perhaps another one or other needed vessels. Business

      • And thus you have struck upon much of the reason SK are so successful. Mind you they had a mad threatening regime on their border enforcing such thinking. Maybe now we have too we can start to enact similar longer term planning and those the fa ilities and technology to achieve it. Hey some of it might even be originated here.

        • “We” meaning the UK electorate don’t give a flying eff about defence spending other than more should be spent on the NHS so less on defence would be super

          • As always, that view changes rapidly when collective arses start getting close to the fire, as does the level of sacrifice we’ll endure.
            There’s nothing wrong with democracies prioritising social issues. After all, it’s a significant part of why we have the system:- and therefore why we’ll defend it far beyond what tyrants, oligarchs & kleptocrats likely credit. We’ll attempt to cooperate far more readily than these Ants, Archs & Crats with their vested interests.
            As said before, to my mind our collective security is under far more threat from assumed internal privilege i.e. the tendency of those to whom we grant power, or do not adequately apply oversight, to gravitate towards the above ‘tres amigos’ status. God knows there’s far too much evidence of that gaining traction here and elsewhere in the West. That little X every few years – and when fundamental sovereignty changes are in the offing – is our only recourse, but of great value nontheless.
            Anyway, I’ll sign off now, lest I start to drone on 🙄

            And then of course, to return to the subject:- there’s always The Emergency Powers Acts!

          • You do talk a load of rubbish. NHS is broken and no amount of money will fix it without major reform. Needs sorting yes but not for more cash. 160,000 vacancies so there is already money there to pay them a reasonable rise without the need for more cash as each of those jobs is already funded but money not spent.

          • All parties will place improving the NHS dead center of their election propaganda. Defence will barely get a mention. What planet do you live on?

  13. About the potential Leo 2 and Abrams going to Ukraine:
    Happy to see more tanks going to Ukraine although we probably could be sending more if we got Czech Republic and Poland to send their modernised T-72s in return for an equivalent amount of Leo or Abrams.

    Ukraine gets a greater amount of tanks that are as good or better than what they already have, but still similar from a sustainment standpoint, and the west doesn’t have to worry about losing tanks in battle.

    • But then qualitatively the Ukrainians army is still fighting with tanks equipped with the turret ejection system that all Ruskie tanks are supplied with. I’m sure the UA lads would much rather not get toasted the minute their tank is hit.
      Still the Ukranian tractor division is doing sterling work petrifying the Ruskies.🚜🚜🚜🚜🚜🚜🚜🚜🚜🚜🚜🚜🚜🚜🚜🚜🚜🚜🚜🚜🚜🚜🚜🚜🚜🚜🚜🚜🚜🚜🚜🚜🚜🚜🚜

      • That’s quite deep in the survivability onion but they come with a lot of features further out in the onion (the Czech ones have CITV so quite arguably more survivable than CH2).
        But most importantly quantity has a quality of its own, and I’m talking about sending hundreds of tanks rather than merely tens.

        • The CH2’s survivability advantage is its Dorchester armor, which is highly effective at countering HEAT penetrators, No T-72, or derivative MBTs have that.

          • Yes but it is better to see and counter the threat first rather than rely on your armour.

            No matter how good the armour is it can’t provide the situational awareness that thermals and laser warning do.

          • It makes a difference and it has been proved in Basra 2003, one CH2 took hits from 14 RPGs and a Milan with no penetrations,the crew survived and the tank was repaired and put back into action, what would have happened to a T-72 in the same situation?

          • I’m not discrediting CH2 armour, it works.

            However something that helps you see first and shoot first, or know if you’re being targeted, is usually going to be better than something far heavier which can shrug off nearly anything fired at its front. Armour is only useful at the very moment you get shot, up until then it’s dead weight.

            Better to have eyes and no armour than armour and no eyes.

    • Surely that is the point, tanks from those sources are being sent but will be drying up pretty soon. In a few months alternative and better supplies of tanks will be crucial not just desirable as now. They are also worried about running short on ammunition for their Russian tanks despite new production being set up for them.

      • As I understand it only one ‘batch’ of PT-91 (out of 232 according to wiki) have been sent by Poland, and 7 out of 30 of the superior T-72M4CZ have been sent by the Czech Republic. Although I just found out that the Czechs are supposedly modernising up to 120 tanks for Ukraine.
        The ammunition shortage makes sense though, no gains to be had in adding more pressure to an overburdened system.

  14. Calling any RN Shipbuilding or repair specialists !
    Has anyone who knows about modern RN warship construction watched the new BBC2 series “Warship Tour of Duty” episode 1 ?
    If so can someone explain why on a brand new welded warship at about 45 minutes into the programme something looks a bit odd ?
    The Commander is punishing an errant rating and behind him and his lectern is what appears to be an untidy of riveted bulkhead like I last saw on HMS Belfast (except those were actually neat and straight).
    Just have a look because it looks terrible and no advert for British Shipbuilding.

    So any ideas why, is it a post build riveted armoured bulkhead or something ?

    • I saw that,im sure its part of the Armour protection,probably Kevlar matting.In Tank language it would be similar to a Spall liner.

      • I did wonder because of the sign behind him “Magazine below”. So maybe it is around an ammunition lift. Still looks a bit shoddy.

          • I kind of thought that was it and it is actually nice to see they actually put some form of protection in them.
            The original Alpha had 3,000 tonnes of Armour in the spec, which is of course why it was unaffordable and then after downsizing (too far) B, upsizing again (but not quite far enough) C we ended up with the present Delta build.
            I just hope someone has put something more than blast and frag protection in. Ballistic lightweight composite armour like the Plasan order for the T26 ?
            Oh and if it was wallpaper I’d sack the decorator 🤣

          • Gordon Brown added a billion to the cost of the carriers by delaying spending to fund something else. More than enough to pay for the Alpha. Effing politicians.

  15. This is great news. To those who worry about sonar etc realise with drones these will carry the hunt to the submarines not ships like the type 31. They will be like stern mounted sonar cables but more flexible. The Type 31’s are going to be the Jeep of the Navy. Building one per year is like we used to build 9 destroyers a year in the 1920’s and 30’s. We could even double up to 2 per year. I am confident we have a winner.

    • Not really. ASW helicopters and drones need to be pointed to an area of the ocean to search. That area is determined by the ship’s sonar. If the ship doesn’t have sonar, the helo’s & drones are useless.

      • The have loads of space for a tail and those are easily fitted and that is what they need even in their present state. When was the last time you took a patrol in the North Atlantic. The T31 will be a positive asset to the fleet and more than many think.

        • That has nothing to do with the point Jonno was making i.e the T31’s would be ASW assets without sonar. He asserted drones could replace towed arrays.

          Your irrelevant point is that the T31’s could be useful assets if equipped with kt they will not have when they enter service, if the Mod & Treasury decide to spend more money on them.

          Doesn’t usually work that way in the UK.

  17. There was a fun report on DW (German BBC World Service) this afternoon about how the French are going to struggle to send Leclerc tanks because half of them are broken down.

    Slightly surprised by the reports that the DE armed forces are still running on mid-1980s vintage analogue radios.

    Being replaced as part of the €100bn.

  18. Germans convinced senile old fool Biden to agree to send M1s or they wouldn’t ok Leopards. Germany once again leeching off the American taxpayers with everything defense related.

  20. Building what was effectively a new shipyard was the only way the UK was going to catch up with European (let alone Far Easter) after 50 years of under-investment by BAES and it predecessors, compounded by century old working practices. The problem is that Babcock Rosyth is now so efficient it can churn out a T31 a year. Without T32 and export orders it will be running out of work c.2028, and facing closure by 2030. The MOD is probably hoping that Babcock gets a nice multi-ship export order from say Chile so it can delay a decision on progressing T32, but if that doesn’t happen in the next couple of years then it and the government have a big problem.

      • In short no chance, as all U.K. subs are Nuclear and that requires very specific facilities they are all built at Barrow. Besides which the build time of the submarine programs is measured in decades and given the SNP anti nuclear stance it will never happen.
        I don’t know if you have ever visited Barrow but the Devonshire Hall is in a completely order of magnitude to the Rosyth Shed. And the other facilities in Barrow needed for the builds are impressive, just watch a hull ring going along a Road is interesting.
        We tend to negate what we do in U.K. but IMHO 3 modern Industrial facilities to make your Jaw drop are The Devonshire Build Hall, the RR Test beds in Derby and for a completely different reason JCB at Rocester (huge facility, beautifully landscaped and the Dancing JCB’s).

        • Agreed, chalk and cheese. I was given a tour of the BAE Submarines Barrow site some years ago, and it couldn’t be replicated without vast investment. The barriers to entry for constructing subs, particularly nuclear subs, are far higher than for surface warships. Hence why the AUKUS project is so expensive and going to take so long.

    • Babcock at Rosyth has not managed to ‘churn’ out anything yet – wait till the Frigates actually get delivered to the Royal Navy before judging their efficiency.

        • The Carrier build is irrelevant,they were built by the ACA of which Babcocks formed a part thereof ,this article is about the Frigate build which you referenced, and Babcocks are the prime contractor.Hopefully they meet their schedule but like i said wait till the product is delivered before making judgement.

        • Which were block assembled at Rosyth but largely built at Appledore, Portsmouth, Cammell Laird, BAe on the Clyde and Tyneside.
          And not be blunt but I hope the MOD have a good warranty on the T31 because so far our 2 CA’s don’t have very good reliability record. Remind of some BL cars 😔
          Fingers crossed that Rosyth excels on the T31 because any real chance of expanding the fleet numbers really rests with them. 🤞🏻

      • >Hope it does but a smart person wouldn’t bet on it.

        Why? They have successfully completed 2 aircraft carriers, a now experienced workforce, modern construction facilities, and are using a largely proven design for T31. Hard to see how they can stack the odds much more in their favour.

        • Here here sense at last as that plonker truly has no idea at all. They are doing a great job and the ships will be more than we know at present. Already they will have an Anti Ship weapon and more. RN knows how to keep a secret which is more than one can say about the other services.

          • Yes I have lost count of the number of warships that have entered the RN with a greater number of weapons and sensors than originally stated.

            Heavy sarcasm.

        • When did the last UK naval project come in on budget and schedule?

          Babcock’s had a shitload of help building the carriers. And they were completed years ago. Do you think the workers stood around and waited for the T31’s to come along?

  21. Looking at the posts about Leopard and Abram tanks it got me thinking how would the army of the Ukraine use them. In a large formation, smaller combat units? I know how I would use them, in armoured battle groups, 14 MBTs to a battlegroup. So that could mean 14 CH2s with 28 Bradleys, 80 APCs, 4 recce tracked such as Scimitar plus support units such as the AS-90, HVM, Anti Tank units, Engineering units and signals.

    With the numbers of Abrams, Leopards and CH2s the Ukraine could create about ten such battle groups.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here