During a parliamentary debate on the state of UK defence, Dave Doogan, MP for Angus and Perthshire Glens, expressed concern over what he described as decades of underfunding of the armed forces by successive governments.
Referring to the Defence Secretary’s announcement of planned retirements of ships and helicopters, Doogan questioned the state of the UK’s naval and air capabilities.
“Servicemen and women will have listened with despair to the Government and the Opposition argue about whether the strategic and catastrophic underfunding of the armed forces was over the last 14 or the last 30 years,” Doogan remarked.
“Either way, it results in the situation of defence of the realm that we find ourselves in.”
With the retirement of another Type 23 frigate confirmed, Doogan pressed the Defence Secretary, John Healey, for details on current naval readiness: “Can he advise how many escorts and frigates will be available—subject to the power improvement project on Type 45—before Type 31 and Type 26 are available?”
He also raised concerns about the delays in the procurement of the AW149 medium-lift helicopter: “Why is this Government moving at a snail’s pace, as the last Government did, on new medium-lift helicopters?”
Doogan criticised the removal of 31 rotary platforms and five Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships from service, asking: “What message does this send to the outside world? What will the strategic defence review do to bolster that situation?”
Finally, he questioned the reduction of consultancy spending in the Ministry of Defence (MOD): “Some £300 million less is being spent on consultants, but can the Secretary of State advise what the consultancy spend will be now in the MOD?”
In response, Defence Secretary John Healey defended the decision-making process, pointing out that HMS Northumberland was not operationally viable: “The decision on HMS Northumberland makes no difference to the availability of the Royal Navy ships at sea, because that ship was not capable. Refitting it in its current state, as planned, could have cost hundreds of millions of pounds—that is also behind my decision.”
Addressing the question on medium-lift helicopters, Healey reassured that “the process for the medium-lift helicopters is under way and continues.” On consultancy spending, he confirmed: “It will be £300 million less than it would have been before.”
At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
Labour or consertative the goal is step by step to scrap the Armed forces.
RN totally clobbered again.
If the Government were serious about defence, two more T26 or at the least two more T31s would have been ordered.
I don’t support what they are doing, particularly over the Albions and Tankers, but I think what they are doing is separating the cuts from the announcements in SDR in an effort to make it look like an investment.
I think the tankers are fine, in reality we have ordered all the new tankers we will ever have, these two are just sitting in extended readiness, with no crew and not replacement planned for the next four years until they are scrapped…best to just get rid now and save the cash..
The Albions are a different story as we are waiting for their replacements and I don’t agree with getting rid of both ( I think we should have kept bulwark active and got rid of Albion as in reality she was never going to get another refit and have another active cycle)..but I think what it says is the review has decided we are having 4 MRSS and they will be crewed by the RFA..I suspect the review has already decided the RN was not running 2 of the MRSS and the RFA would only have 4…so I think as we have seen with this government once they decide they do.
The Tankers are not fine if you wish a global navy. At present the RN and Nato are struggling with Lack of tanking assets. The only reason they were in extended readiness was lack of RFA crews caused by lack of a decent payrise over 20 years and Government and RN mismanagement. Wave class AO’s are more flexible that Tides and faster. They are also easier to keep at sea. A great shame for ships that cost the tax payer £253Million when they entered service in 2002.
Totally agree with you and more waste by paying off assets with years in them we have paid for because we need? to save a few million a year in running cost.
The reach these types of vessels gave the RN was why we were a true blue water navy second only to the USN.
I despair
Yes but they were due to go out of service with no replacement in 4 years anyway..the government was trying to flog them off in 2018, there was only one in service by 2020 and both out of service by 2022..with never any plan to get them back in service before scrapping in 2028..these ships are old an have not been replaced.
We keep shedding assets, and the Tankers are fine mate?
I do not believe that they are flogged out old wrecks.
All to save a paltry amount over 5 years so Labour can fund what they prioritise.
What I do agree with is that the Tories left this for Labour to sort out, and that Northumberland was an easy cut given its state, and Albion too. Not Bulwark.
Some here were clearly hoping that Labour would “sort it out” along the lines of investing in, and crewing, what we have, over thin air.
I was kind of hoping for that too, but with no confidence, as I have a VERY long memory of Labour 1997 to 2010.
It’s pointless ordering them yet, they wouldn’t be built for years. Wait for the SDR, we’ll have more answers then.
Agreed. This announcement is overdue housekeeping and clearing the decks for the SDR. The axe has finally fallen on the LPDs – something of a relief really – the SDR will give us info on design and number of MRSS and the shape of our future expeditionary capability.
More like the cuts to MRSS
Yes , we,ll have more answers, more cuts, have you ever seen a S.D R. without cuts ?
The state of british defence is pathetic.
Healey has already said this not the end of the bad news.
Knew it would be like this; he has the right name for a axeman Labour Defence Minister…
Stop talking sense
Why wait for an in-depth defence review when we can just buy some frigates ten years from now 😀
Yeah, because the review is really gonna see that happen 🙄
The SDR won’t provide answers, its pre cooked and will tell the government what it wants to here and give them something to quote themselves against to justify their direction. Its rather obvious when so many decision are being taken before the review is complete.
the outlook for the RAF is not that rosy either!
The statement that it would have cost hundreds of millions to refit Northumberland is a little surprising. Over £100m wouldn’t be too surprising, but “hundreds” is. To me that implies at least approaching £200m. Am I reading too much into it? Was he just inflating it for the sake of rhetoric?
Iron Duke cost £103 million to refit, cost of naval refits keep going up and T23 keeps getting older so £200 million is entirely possible.
Of course the costs are going up government has just hit defence suppliers with 100s of millions in NI hikes 🙂
NL has stated that her Keel was completely rotten,so the cost vs benefit equation would never stack up.
Dear Labour and Tory party.
You may think you can wait until the barbarians are at the gate to do something about defence but , newsflash YOU DINT!!
Please stop insulting our intelligence by saying retiring equipment early is only a temporary gap in capability until new kit is produced. We both know it won’t.
The number of New RFA vessels being built will be cut then cut again. The two amphibious vessels will not be replaced by new ships with fancy titles . They will never get off the drawing board.
Helicopters and drones will never be replaced.
So please don’t take us for fools. If you were serious about defence. Supporting Ukraine would not be coming out of the MoD budget, it would be directly paid for by the treasury.
This is what I call ‘The Cameron Gap,’ where he scrapped the Invincible class and Harriers before the replacements were available. Will this cut result in a net asset reduction just at a time when they may be needed most?
This is a bit of a non-story really. I am not sure who we are planning for the Marines to invade anytime soon? The Chinooks and Pumas are going to be replaced and you can’t just shove them in a hanger in case we need them later because as each year goes by there will be less pilots who can fly them and ground crew to service them. The drones need to be sent off to Ukraine ASAP, they will strap explosives to them and rattle Ivan’s cage with them. We need to be speeding up procurement as it is already too late with crazies to the left of us and crazies to the right and only when Ivan is sitting on the Polish border will we wake up and get serious about defence whilst praying its not too late.
“The drones need to be sent off to Ukraine ASAP, they will strap explosives to them and rattle Ivan’s cage with them.”
At £5m per drone I hope you’re not suggesting they be turned into suicide drones? Not sure they are capable of carrying much of a stand-off weapons load given their relatively small size.
WatchKeeper is really a Gen 1 drone, the technology has advanced so rapidly in the last 5 years leading to that style of UAV being pretty much defunct now. We have a lot of projects and procurement ongoing with UAVs of all types; heavy, unarmed and expensive surveillance drones have already gone out of fashion on both the UA and Ru sides of the ongoing war. They will be replaced by a whole spectrum of smaller, more survivable, scalable on mass and lethal drones and I have no doubt the numbers of larger MQ series UCAVs will also be addressed with the navy being bought into the game with the pending SDR.
If the alternative is scrapping then being stripped down and used as one way weapons by Ukraine doesn’t sound so daft.
If functional then storage for possible future use makes sense as we’ve seen from both sides in Ukraine how even ancient obsolete junk can often be used to create a headache for the enemy.
But others have attempted to explain why this isn’t practical, maybe they are right or maybe there aren’t. But darn sure the Ukranians could use them for something even if it is just to persuade Russia to expend another battery of SAMs.
So this Labour Government can find £22 billion for a hole in the ground as a tribute to its net zero god, but cannot find money for winter fuel allowance or new ships & helicopters. I fear this new SDR will just be spin ,covering cuts.
Had a think about this
The Albion cut suggests to me that the review has already looked at the future of the MRSS and decided that it will be four ships all run by the RFA and that the navy will not crewing the MRSS..essentially it was a question that always had to be answered who would crew the MRSS when you had 2 RN amphibious vessels and 4 RFA. So we now have an indication of the answer a bit early, I did say in a few comments and threads they would have to decide this question, as it would be illogical to have 6 of the same ship with two as commissioned warships who could take belligerent actions and 4 that were RFA and could not. Personally I think all amphibious vessels should be commissioned so they can take belligerent action. But it also indicates that the MRSS order is likely to be 4 , and infact did we really need 6 amphibious vessels and 2 carriers when we only have planned 19 escorts..moving to 4 amphibious vessels may not be something we like but if it helps rebalance the fleet and if it in the end secures a second order of T31, it would be worth it ( this is what I will look for in the review). Personally I would have for now simply cut Albion and kept Bulwark..in the end Albion has gone into its period of extended readiness and will not come out of that without an expensive refit..so in reality Albion was never coming out of extended readiness until the MRSS was built so May as well scrap now..bulwark has just come out of refit and could keep going until the first MRSS.
Not so bothered about the Waves, they are due for scrapping in 4 years, will have no replacements, are sitting in extended readiness, have no crews ans we have 4 spanking new tankers..so why keep them.
I suspect the rotors are all airframe hours out or in bits for spares anyway..
Watchkeeper..they just need a new drone simple as
T23 we all know the issue we all know it was never getting a refit.
So for me I’m a bit pissed we did not keep bulwark..but the navy has made a choice to run two carriers together over a carrier and an Albion so it’s going to spend most of its remaining time in extended readiness..Albion was never coming out again and if they have decided MRSS is all going to the RFA they RN clearly wants to get out of crewing amphibious vessels.
The last government all but announced that MRSS will be three ships, they confirmed a need for 3 and a desire for 6 which means 3.
Personally I think three big ships along the near 40,000t design BAE has outlined is the way to go. Cheaper to fit missile defences to three ships than six and larger ships are more survivable.
Steel is cheap and air is free.
Three large MRSS along with two Queen Elizabeth class carriers is actually a big upflit in tonnage from where the fleet was before.
Our current amphibious capability is an utter mess anyway, it needs a serious shake up. As modern conflicts have proven time and time again since 1982 rotary wing aircraft rule the amphibious theatre now, ship to shore is an after thought for moving heavy equipment once a beach head is secured. As it stands only Argus has permanent aviation facilities, the oldest vessel as well.
The Albions were built on the cheap completely miss the hanger deck for budgetary reasons and solely rely on the outdated landing craft to fill the role, our NATO partners LPDs all have hangers for 3-4 aircraft, larger well docks and are less crew hungry (whilst being built to warship standards as well) they are disgraceful ships. The Bays are cheap and work, plus can have temporary hangers to negate the design flaws – arguably the three Bays being the new focus will offer all round capability than a single Albion being operational and have fantastic readiness rates to top it off. Everyone here discussing the RM has forgotten Argus is the ‘new’ LSS that was slated to become the future commandos main vessel, the last years she’s been cruising Asia and Africa with a huge complement of RMs and 4 Merlins doing just that – also sporting new armaments as well.
We’ll be better as you say getting 3-4 substantial LPDs built properly (accomodation for 2-4 helicopters, sufficient self defense armament and modularity for future surface vessels or insertion craft) than a hodge podge of 6 small token merchant standard ships which lack the sorely needs aviation and defensive capabilities as we currently possess.
The bays really dont offer all round capability, massive loss in landing craft capacity and are we really calling a tent an aircraft hangar. Thats before considering the RFAs imminent collapse.
Argus is ancient, she was in dock twice in that deployment and wont last till 2030, also are we calling a single phalanx a credible armament.
You make good points Jonathan. The Bays, absolutely no-one surprised here.
The Conservatives just kicked it down the road for Labour to sort out.
MRSS, I would agree with your hypothesis, an
order for 4, all RFA.
Westminster, again, no surprise…
We will see if we have learnt any lessons in SDSR25, procurement of Watchkeeper replacement, will it be off the shelf, or another utter waste of money.
Puma replacement, alas, it will be another hole filled with money at Yeovil.
Setting up a production line to procurement ( probably) less than 25 AW149, when Poland has a production line already running, is an insane waste of tax payers money.
The only way Leonardo should be allowed to do this on my taxes, is if they can demonstrate significant export orders to underwrite the costs and make it viable.
If they are green lit as is, we will end up paying double the cost of a Polish 149…
Sadly with the AW149 the government really missed the boat, they were actually promised the whole export line for the AW149 if they ordered it…and it’s actually turning into a bit of an export success… now there is the Italian and Polish lines running…so the chance of getting an exclusive export line is diminished. But if it can be agreed that all exports come from the UK, that would actually be quite a big thing..the AW149 is new and gets orders.
Ireland maybe looking at a few AW149 for the Air Corps fairly soon.
Umm…er…believe it is in reality HMS Northumberland. Otherwise, concur w/your assessment.
I found the old Blackhawk offer brought up on Twitter again the other day.
Back in the mid 2000s or before, we were offered SIXTY Blackhawk, and spares package, for 400 million, to replace Puma.
Instead, they spent hundreds of millions upgrading it, and bought your fav heli for over 1 Billion.
Yet more examples of how MoD pay top dollar for everything if it means industry gets its nose in the trough and that Yeovil MPs are happy.
An MP in Plymouth was at it again the other day, seemingly more concerned with refit work in his constituency than the fact that HMNB Devonport is now a ghost town as HMG have cut most of the ships that used to be home ported in it.
Its fine removing capabilities if they are going to be replaced but gapping capability has a risk. We shouldn’t be gapping anything the defence budget must be robust enough to allow upgrades and new capabilities run in parallel with keeping old kit ready for action. Even old kit is better than fighting with nothing, which is what will happen if we went to war during the gapped period.
Yes people want to give a positive spin on this for what ever reason but its really not excusable. We only need another crisis and programs get extended and those gaps get even bigger or even capability get canned, no way to manage defence of the realm irrespective which political party is in power.
To my mind the really important capacity loss was Balwark and that was a really bad and stupid move…there rest were never coming out of extended readiness until they were scrapped…
What they should have done was focused the money on keeping Balwark operational until the MRSS programme delivered and they should be speeding that up.
No great surprises, my only issue is why not just keep Bulwark in maintained reserve as we have already spent serious money refitting her. It’s a gap in our capabilities that may just come back to kick us and let’s face it regardless of what design or numbers are decided for MRSS it’s a decade away.
FSS is next ship in the NSBS pipeline and they need to get a wiggle on with it, sort out H&W PDQ. Unless of course someone has quietly decided to save lots of £££ by allowing the present contract for FSS to implode and then just shift it to S Korea after all they are pretty well practiced at building iteration of the BMT designs.
As for the Tankers well we can’t man the tides so it’s a no brainer, but I do wonder if someone could do some out of the box thinking here but it requires the ability to engage entrepreneur’s.
US company Omega operate a fleet of Aerial refuelling tankers, which provide capacity to various Airforces, NATO is very short of RAS tankers and mmmm we just happen to have 2 going spare. In fact why not just bite the bullet and privatise the RFA ? And before anyone screams about that idea, just think about how we operate the Point class ! No issues with crewing as the cost of paying decent wages is down to commercial necessity.
Agree, Albion was never going into active service again and saving keeping it in extended readiness and a pointless refit was worth it..Balwark has just been readied for 8 years of service and could have been kept at extended readiness and moved to take over from the Elizabeth’s as they go into extended refit…that could have kept the capability until MRSS came along..In reality I suspect the RN just decided the MRSS was going to be RFA and they could not be arsed to stay in the amphibious game, when they are inevitably leaving it anyway.
The Waves were never getting replaced that was decided a long time ago..so keeping them At extended readiness for another four years was pointless, we a know the issue with the T23 and the rotors were probably all junk and stripped anyway..
The only real concern here was Balwark…which is a pissing stupid move really.
Albion was in service less than 18 months ago. No offcial assertion that it couldn’t sustain a refit has been made. Why then assume that it wouldn’t have gone back into service? It’s only the budget, right?
It’s arguable that none of those platforms are of any use in real-world scenarios, but interesting that any serious commitments on fielding capabilities will apparently have to await the outcome of the latest defence review, while it’s somehow fine to move forward with cuts immediately.
Well, they are certainly more useful than the fresh air that will replace them.
You cannot say that of Bulwark, it’s a better capability than the bays…I suspect the RN was more interested in keeping 2 carriers crewed than keeping Bulwark..a mistake to be honest.
Labour have no idea on defence. Lets look at the reduction in helicopters and the 1998 defence review. I always thought that it was intended to order another batch of Merlin helicopters but in the 98 Review they simply wiped this requirement out. Three years later Tony Blair took us into Afghanistan and we needed more ‘copters. We bought 6 Merlins on the production line for Denmark and 6 Puma’s which were ex South African Air Force. THe current Puma’s need to be repalced not scrapped. The Leonardo AW149 needs to be ordered. We also need to rtain more pilots and buy more Typhoons and upgrace the older one – like Germany is doing. As for the Navy the aged frigate yes but the amphibious ships shoukd be kept on in reserve or one in reserve and one operational and the Waves are vital too.
The Russians seem to have kept quite large reserves and we have none. In view of the time it takes to build / acquire new stuff reserves are critical
Jonathan makes good comments. When the Swedes reduced their armed forces they looked at the whole structure and how it could be increased in times of need.
We have had 35 years of the so called peace dividend and now we need to rebuild our forces. Defence spending needs to be at least 3% or more.
Bold choice, needed to be made. The last government should done but want to look good on defence which they never were. All the out going kit is due to be replaced any way, and really are we going to invade any where with a few thousand Marries with some snow vehicles and a few light guns?
Save the money now and see if it really put back in to defence. All SDR’s are cuts we know that but best cut the stuff now than pay for it for the next few years to do nothing. Watch keeper was waste time and those that demanded it enter service are the same mind as those other crap brought in just because they were in charge.
Total waste, not very good, like most rubbish the artillery get, poor choice, poor leadership, money wasted.
Always jam tomorrow!!!!!!
Just seen Healy say our equipment is s**t so he’s scrapping it, but that make no logical sense, better to fight with something rather than nothing. Surely he should be standing up to the treasury say yes I’ll cut this but give me what I need to replace it first. Seems yet another Defence Secretary who doesn’t have what it takes. Makes me wonder when we will actually get a defence secretary who actually cares about defence. Both Tory and Labour aren’t capable of producing one.
Healy is not in 2tiers inner circle apparently so he is doing what Rachel from accounts tells him to do and say!
There is a bigger picture on these cuts. The new Chancellor has ordered all Government departments to make cuts to their budgets, to free up money to fund the increase to the NHS, service pay and suchlike.
Each of the services has had to decide what to contribute to the savings. They have all gone for the low-hanging fruit of retiring elderly, obsolete or problematic equipment.
The RAF is cutting 31 transport helicopters. This is a blow, as it will be many years before the new Chinook ERs and NMH are delivered.
The Army has offered up the Watchkeeper fleet – and of course the AS-90s. This is another blow, as it will be years before we have enough new drones and Boxer RCH 155s to equip the three regiments now left with no equipment.
The RN has sacrificed 1 T23, 2 Albions and 2 Wave tankers. Again, it will be years until there are enough new frigates and MRSS in service.
And the MOD has offered a cut of 5,000 civil service jobs.
None of these cuts are defence-driven, they are solely driven by the Treasury. As are the cuts to winter fuel payments to pensioners, etc., etc. There us no doubt that the public finances are in some disarray due to a black hole, of whatever size, bequeathed by the previous Government.
However, we are facing a serious military threat at the moment, with Russia ramping up
The loss is not just 82 more equipments, because we have already axed 6 Sandown MCMVs, the last 34 AS-90s, with 26 Tranche 1 Typhoons being withdrawn at the moment, so a total of close on 150.
At the same time, we are facing a marked escalation of the Russian attacks on Ukraine and direct threats to the West. It does not seem a sensible time to be cutting 150 legacy equipments years before their replacements are anywhere near ready. Most of the equipment being axed should be placed in reserve storage, or ‘alongside’ as the RN terms it, in case we need to re-arm rather quickly, while a pretty small cost in the overall scheme of things, the Treasury money-grabbers won’t permit it because they want every last cent squeezed out of defence, regardless of the current military threat to the nation.
To cover this latest chapter in defence cuts, Reeves and Healey have to get the increase to 2.5% of GDP cast in stone, with a clear plan and timetable for achieving it. Such plan has to be insulated from continual Treasury meddling, cheeseparing and accountancy tricks with the defence figures.
Remember that such % or 2.5% is something HMG hide behind. It has the DNE, AUKUS, GCAP, money to Ukraine, and Pensions in it.
AUKUS and GCAP are primarily to support British industry. What do the military gain from them beyond high tech expertise, up to 100 jets, and 7 if we are lucky SSN, the same paltry numbers as we have now. Even if by some miracle SSN numbers are up to 10, whoopy doos, the rest of the military is falling apart.
I support both by the way, I just like to point out what impact they have if we want larger forces AS WELL.
The DNE is ringfenced, and rightly, as it is our primary weapon and has the added bonus of allowing the British Government to do some serious grandstanding and bum waggling on the world stage, which they all enjoy.
I was horrified to read it has 100 billion plus allocated the next decade.
Pensions should not be in it, nor should UKR money which should be supplementary from HMT reserve or from overseas aid, which this is.
Where is the pressure from any area to have that removed?
Take that lot out, what % of the huge MoD budget is spent on the conventional forces, the part of defence which we have been concerned with for decades as it slowly unravels?
Oh, and add inflation while we are at it.
HMG do not give a toss, Healey is just another of a long line of punters.
Although somewhat OT for a post re this specific article, have been curious re certain aspects of British iarmaments policy, specifically, the elimination/disposal of all equipment deemed obsolescent. Graham Moore has explained the policy on more than one occasion, but it still seems somewhat irrational. One relevant example contrasting American and British policy: There are literally thousands of M1-A1 MBTs in US storage, awaiting potential retrofit to the M1-A2SEPv3 (latest configuration) standard. Whereas, the British intend to convert 148 CR-2 into CR-3, and salvage all remaining hulls. Then complaints occasionally surface re lack of British war reserve equipment. Duh!!! This policy almost qualifies as deliberate self-sabotage. Multiple examples of the same process could be noted across British Army and the RAF. It would seem intuitively obvious to retain equipment which could be retrofitted more inexpensively and quickly than the acquisition of new equipment, especially for a chronically underfunded military. Storage and maintenance expenses could not possibly be a decisive factor in the retention critical weapon systems. British inventory policy changed radically at some point post WW II, because many WW I surplus items were utilized at the beginning of WW II. Certainly willing to be educated by the knowledgeable on this issue. Please discuss. 🤔😳
I tend to agree.
I’m willing to put money on the LPDs and the two Waves going on to serve for years elsewhere.
It’s getting really scary. Putin seems to have a particular hatred of Britain and his threats could at the press of button could turn into hypersonic missiles heading towards key military bases in the UK (disable 5 air bases and that is the RAF completely out of the equation), underwater cables broken, massive cyder attacks taking down power stations and critical infrastructure, GPS and other wireless frequencies jammed, and satellites taken out. In the meantime its business as usual for the government, i.e. another round of defence cuts implemented immediately, some promises of new equipment that won’t enter service in the mid 2030’s (unless quietly cancelled before them, anyone else remember the Littoral Strike Ships announced in 2019?), and countering any difficult questions by claiming that all concerns will be addressed by the next Defence Review – which may issue a report in as little as 8 months from now, but don’t count it! Plus repeated commitments that defence spending will definitely increase to 2.5% of GDP … but only at some unstated date long in the future when it’s “economically affordable”.