Lord Adonis has incorrectly proclaimed that “Britain’s navy is now smaller than Italy’s!” in a now viral Tweet.

This article is part of our effort to correct online misinformation, we believe that no matter the party, organisation or individual making the incorrect claim, the claim must be challenged.

So, what’s the issue? It’s simply wrong and as a result it’s misleading.

There are over 184 vessels in service with the various branches of the UK’s Naval Service and supporting organisations, including; 75 commissioned ships of the Royal Navy, 33 landing craft of the Royal Marines, 63 auxiliary vessels of Marine Services and 13 auxiliary ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

The Italian Navy meanwhile maintains approximately 181 ships in service, including minor auxiliary vessels.

While on the surface, the numbers are broadly similar it is important to remember that unlike the Italian Navy, the Royal Navy is a blue water navy capable of prolonged and significant global deployment with high end assets like large aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines and an extensive logistics, amphibious and sealift fleet.

Ocean going Italian ships include 2 light aircraft carriers, 3 small 8,000 tonnes amphibious transport docks, 4 air-defence destroyers, 3 general-purpose frigates, 9 anti-submarine frigates, and 8 conventional attack submarines. Patrol and littoral warfare units include one light patrol frigate, 10 offshore patrol vessels and two corvettes. In support of the fleet there are 10 mine countermeasure vessels, 4 coastal patrol boats and a small number of auxiliary ships.

For the Royal Navy, 23 are major surface combatants (6 guided missile destroyers, 13 frigates, 2 amphibious transport docks and 2 aircraft carriers), and 10 are nuclear-powered submarines (4 ballistic missile submarines and 6 fleet submarines). In addition the Royal Navy possesses 13 mine countermeasures vessels, 22 patrol vessels, 4 survey vessels and 1 icebreaker. In addition there are 13 ships belonging to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, 6 tankers, 3 replenishment vessels, 3 large Bay class auxiliary landing ships and 1 aviation training & primary casualty receiving ship.

Both navies are designed to do very different things and comparing them is of course like comparing apples and oranges but let’s make sure we get the number of apples right first.

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

194 COMMENTS

  1. Adonis is not one to let the facts get in the way of a good story. I had to laugh at his tweet. He asks if the size of the fleet is the reason UK defence minister didn’t attend Munich conference, before admitting that it was due to the re-shuffle being in progress. Put the lie in people’s mind and they’ll forget the truth.

    • Well the Government is doing this perfectly so why not the Lords too?

      (Obviously it would be nice if all our politicians actually stuck to facts though)

    • I think we will be getting some defence news in the coming months about the need to address the needs of a global Royal Navy? The current plans are based around Britain in the European Union, which as we know, is no more and our thoughts and plans need to change towards a truly global fleet.

      • Our armed forces should be focussed on the balic Scandinavia north sea and the north Atlantic. If we can support Australia and New Zealand, so much the better. We can help in the gulf, but not on our own.

        So I would suggest that leaves us some way from being global.

        • WTO is where the UK is bound, and that means the RN needs the assets to protect UK interest globally. More ships will be inevitable once the trade situation becomes clearer.

          • Robert, the point of having a defence force is to, 1) deter war &, 2) should war occur be able to defend our vital national interests. At the moment we have peace and therefore our trade routes (piracy aside) are secure but that could change. Without a substantial fleet of escorts this country would inevitably suffer economic collapse and famine, not something to gamble upon.

          • All countries rely on trade routes open, litrally thousands of vessels are sailing our oceans daily, a few more Frigates is not going to make much difference. We live in a global economy, we are not going to suddenly find ourselves cut off.

          • Don’t agree. It’s a bit of a Neville Chamberlain attitude, everything is OK now so it will always be fine. A few more frigates will make a great difference. Actually having a small navy makes a nuclear war more likely because if a conflict broke out we could either starve or nuke them – no other options.

          • “Actually having a small navy makes a nuclear war more likely because if a conflict broke out we could either starve or nuke them – no other options.”

            I have seen some crazy sentences on here over the years but this takes some beating, wtaf

          • It sure does, the fantasy fleets, and the fantasy wars against China, and the Russian fleet of hypersonic dog shite gets a little waring. ?

          • I think you mean me. Anyway you have your views and I have mine. Hope your confidence doesn’t result in a lot of people suddenly swimming around in the North Atlantic saying ‘what war?’ or ‘where did that missile come from?’7

          • After serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Invincible class carriers for 14 years in operations around the world , I am more than confident we won’t find ourselves swimming in the Atlantic, or starving to death, or suddenly loosing a warship to a phantom anti ship missile. The Navy knows a hell of a lot more a about defending it vessels then blokes on the internet.

          • That is probably one of the most uninformed strategic comments ever made on here. Of course having limited conventional capability means we need to rely on ‘ultimate weapons.’ Also, as an island nation – you know ‘global Britain’ and all that – we will be even more tied to our Navy for our very existence in times of conflict. Failure to plan for adversity ensure failure in adversity. It’s OK, keep laughing, until it’s too late.

          • What on earth are you talking about it’s a deterrent!

            We won’t be relying on “ultimate weapons” if this imaginary blockade to starve an imaginary country in this imaginary war of yours

            So for arguments sake Iraq miraculously repelled our invasion in 2003, should we then of Nuked Baghdad? Because our conventional weapons did not win

            Our nuclear deterrent is a strategic asset it does not support or make up for anything in our conventional forces you sound like Putin ffs

            I have always said on here that I want more spent on defence in all areas

            The problem with you though is you and guys like Maurice keep going on about protecting this new global Britain trade routes (that we already use) instead of reasonably arguing for an increase in numbers so we can fulfil our standing commitments and patrols as well as the new carrier group, but no you’re arguing for a new fleet big enough to protect global shipping, it’s just pie in the sky stuff I’m sorry, pure WW2 mindset

          • 1.
            All defence planning is based on imaginary wars, that’s what future planning is about.
            2.
            Not arguing for 50 ships. We need 25.
            3.
            If you have nuclear weapons and less conventional weapons then obviously the room for manoeuvre is smaller.
            4.
            Being an island the priority, obviously, should be the Navy
            5.
            I haven’t mentioned Brexit but you obviously have a button pressed here. If we trade more with far away countries, nothing wrong with that, we need to be able to protect our trade.
            6.
            What imaginary war? You know the Russians & Chinese, building all those ships, pointing ICBMs at us….

          • Trevor – The World today is a very uncertain place – were you aware that yesterday Soldiers from NATO were killed in a Russian Airstrike ?.

          • I do not where you get that from. Are we convoying merchantmen all over the place?
            The gulf is a tricky place, but other warships are there beside us.
            Otherwise than that it is absurd to suggest we are swanning round all the place to need to clear away the sea lanes.

          • Australia trades on WTO rules, do they need 50 Escorts to protect it’s trade routes . No, no it doesn’t.

          • Mmm. The Australians are building a new fleet of quiet SSKs and planning a substantial fleet of Hunter Class T26, a gold plated ASW design. They are also buying significant numbers of Poseidon P8, complete with underwing AShM, so it is not true to say they are not protecting their regional trade routes and contributing a policing presence to support the international rules based order which Chinese expansionism might put at risk.
            Remember China is a country where your organs are at risk if you are in prison, where the authorities will burn down your church if you are Christian and where you will be sent for reprogramming so you see things the Chinese way if you are a Muslim.
            It would just be plain foolish to ignore the self centredness of China.

      • Don’t expect any good news. The government’s budget is under pressure, and a defence review is always about saving money.

  3. Lord Adonis is a very easy target and I get that people like to bash anti Brexiteers. The real truth is, whatever the comparison with Italy is, the Royal Navy is too small.

    The escort fleet of 19 is too small, too old and not being replaced soon enough.

    • I think we’ve thrown the P2000’s into the ‘patrol boat’ numbers too which can be a bit um, ‘misleading’.

      If the UK wants to have a smaller Armed Forces I’m cool with that, if they want to prioritise the health service or whatever, fine but if the UK Government are wanting to be all ‘Billy big baws’ about our Armed Forces then they need to put the money in. This ‘death of a thousand cuts’ does nobody any good.

  4. Yes, he is technically wrong, but what he is trying to imply isn’t incorrect. The Royal Navy is too small, especially if we are looking at involvement in the South China Sea.

      • Hi Trevor,

        That’s because it isn’t clear, mate. In fact one reason for us supporting the US (a key reason for being there i of itself) is that the West is desperately trying to hold up the rules based geopolitical structure because there is nothing else to replace it as yet. It is increasingly difficult and dangerous given the Grey Zone issue (see the related post on here recently).

        Also, for the UK there is the ghost of Neville Chamberlain’s ‘Peace in our Time’ Munich deal which sums up the misunderstanding of events in Europe in the late 1920’s and 1930’s. In short, the question that we face at every turn is this; is an apparently isolated incident just that or part of an emerging long term strategy? As in Europe in the 30’s. In China’s case, who are masters at the long game, the latter has always got to be your starting safe assumption. So that determines how you see their actions and determine your preparations. Your go, no go decision (to wave the flag rather than shoot I hope!) will be determined by your interests in the locality. The SCS is a major trading route and any constriction or adverse influence on the flow of goods will have an impact. It is no accidant that Japan, another seafaring island state is building up their naval forces at the moment. We also have a number of treaty relationships in the region, backed by history and culture.

        So yeh I’d say we have good reason to be interested in the SCS, but the rationale is complex and by its very nature constantly evolving. A tough one for the Foreign Secretary to deal with, fortunately the FCO is one of the most experienced on the planet and pretty good at what it does. Don’t let the bad headlines fool you, when it comes to the FCO good news is definately no news as far as the press is concerned – muppets!

        Cheers CR

        • We can support Australia and America, we are allies. Our immediate defence needs are the north Atlantic and Baltic. And… A frigate in the gulf. A frigate supporting Australia. We do our turn in the black sea. There are limits to what we do.

          But why should China block sea lanes.

          The main activity that involves China is Taiwan and the US 7th Fleet is there.

          • I guess it would depend on how any possible China/US conflict over Taiwan panned out, as NATO members an attack on one the other NATO countries have obligations to defend. If China knows that the US would come to Taiwan’s aid then a preemptive strike on US bases could be something they would consider. Certainly letting China know that NATO nations have the capability to support the US in the far East is a good deterrent to a future conflict. Wars occur when one side believes it has the upper hand and there would be limited response from opposing side. Plan for the worse hope for the best as they say.

          • I think you have forgotten that China has essentially annexed the entire South China sea and is rapidly militarising it.

  5. Lord Adonis might be wrong in his figures, but he might be right in drawing attention to the shrunken size of the Royal Navy at present.

    Then again, his grand plan for HS2, worked out on the back of a fag packet is now going to cost us three times over what he initially promised: enough for 3 Royal Navies at current numbers!*

    *this is an exaggeration for dramatic and comic effect; I have not attempted to work out exactly how many ships could be built for the HS2 overruns ?

    • The offcial estimate for HS2 is £106bn.
      Inflation adjusted purchase cost of the Navy (2 QECs, 6 T45, 13 T23, 3 Astutes, 3 Trafalars, 2 Albions, 3B1 + 3B2 Rivers, 13 MCM, 17 Archers, 2 Scimitars, 2 Echos, 1 Scott, 1 Protector, 1 Magpie, so excluding RFA, RM and nuclear deterrent) £31bn.
      So three times is no exaggeration, unless you wanted to include to hyper-expensive nuclear deterrent submarine programme, that costs as much as the rest of the fleet put together.

      • Once the HS2 (irrespective of what the actual cost is) stops then so does the money. What ever we commit to in defence is ongoing.
        Whatever we spend in investment we hope to get a return of some kind. Without a growing economy we will struggle to support defence and other services.

        • Of course the money stops. The trains run on fairy dust and the high-tech UBTs (unmanned buffet trolleys) never break down. So the money stops after HS2, just like after Crossrail, because the £40bn Crossrail 2 is a myth. And after HS2, there’ll defnitely be no HS3.

          Rail costs to buy, to maintain, to operate, to update and to replace. Annual train subsidies have fluctuated between about £5bn and £7.5bn a year since 2005.

          If rail was a one-off purchase, the existing track from London to Birmingham wouldn’t need enhancing. So feel free to argue we need the new rail-links, but don’t kid yourself it’s some one-off payment. The comparison with naval procurement is fair game.

        • Hi Trevor, my reference to HS2 was tongue in cheek, and it wasn’t a discussion about whether it should be continued to be built.

          My point is that it was poorly thought out in the beginning when Lord Adonis was SoS for Transport, and that has led to the cost estimate ballooning from £36bn in 2010 to £106bn in 2019.

          I was therefore using it as an example of Lord Adonis’ poor judgement to show why he should not be taken too seriously. I could also have used university tuition fees as another, as he was the principal policymaker at Millbank in the 1990s who devised that.

          That being said, while Adonis is factually wrong about RN numbers, he is right to highlight the shrinking nature of the fleet. But again, while he crows about it on social media, he forgets that it started with the Labour Govt he was part of:

          3 T23s sold in the early 2000s; 6 additional T45 orders not taken up with the reason given being that the money would be used to bring forward the T23 replacement, which then never happened; QEC order delayed until it became an electoral necessity for Gordon Brown.

      • I don’t think the official estimate is 106bn its a cost that we could incur. That would be the amount if all risks materialised.

      • Typically politicians will kick any difficult decision down the road if they can, if they can’t they’ll allow their optimism to drive the business case delay as much as they can and make sure they have moved onto bigger and better things when everything comes shambling home to roost. Preferably in the private sector and for big bucks…

        I’m sure they play ‘kick the can’ in the back yard of No.10! He or she who kicks their can the shortest distance has to step up and make that days difficult decision! The Doomed Ones!

        The smartest kicks their can just far enough to avoid making a decision and not so far that the look indecisive! The High Fliers!

      • Hi Paul P, I believe the original forecast was £30-36bn in 2010. Agreed, a lot of the overrun is linked to HMG putting the risk on industry. But also as highlighted in the Oakervee Review, HS2 Ltd greatly underestimated the cost of the works and how much would be needed to be spent at the beginning. Whether they did so deliberately to win the contract or were just plain wrong it is not possible to say.

        In fairness to govt I would say that there has never been any official wavering over HS2, unlike most defence projects, if anything there has been an almost fanatical adherence to the scheme across 5 ministries of different political backgrounds (Brown, Cameron’s Coalition, Cameron, May and Johnson).

        There have been opponents of the scheme, and reports of spiralling costs have led to the independent review, but the work has always continued throughout.

        I agree with Oakervee, given where we are, we should proceed. But my original reference to HS2 was to highlight Lord Adonis’ poor judgement for rushing HS2 into construction in the first place, which I would argue was done because Labour Party strategists wanted a big ticket infrastructure project in the provinces to support their bid for re-election in 2010.

        I say this as I believe (although happy to be corrected) that HS2 is possibly the only big transport infrastructure project to be built in the last 25 years that was a clean sheet proposal and not a legacy plan from decades earlier. Crossrail, Channel Tunnel, Heathrow expansion/relocation, Jubilee Line extension, etc can all be traced back through to at least the 1970s, if not to the reconstruction plans during the Second World War or even earlier. In comparison, HS2 was drawn up pretty quick!

        And of course, returning to the topic of defence, from which I’ll admit I have strayed, it is always galling to see other big ticket govt spending projects go massively over budget and behind schedule and it is accepted for what it is and the Treasury pays for it, while whenever a defence programme runs into difficulties, no extra money can be found at the Treasury and MoD is told to make do with what it has!

        • Well, lots of pertinent observations m’lord.
          I am happy to believe your hypothesis that Labour party support for HS2 was driven by a desire to garner votes in the North. For what it’s worth it is my view that our issues with EU freedom of movement arise from the fact that Labour and Conservative conspired in an unholy alliance to accelerate EU immigration; the former because they anticipated more supporters, the latter because they anticipated more profit based on low wages. Both took the view of I’m alright Jack but screw the longterm interest of the country as a whole. The Lib Dems are a moral 5th column working for Satan himself. It was they who introduced abortion on demand and the constitutional virus of the fixed term parliament Act which paralyzed the Brexit process.
          If HS2 has received continuous support through several administrations it probably means the Civil Service think it is a good idea. Take that however you prefer I suppose.
          Agree on the way the Treasury seem to discriminate against defence contractors. This is probably a parochial view arising because there is no direct return on investment in terms of tax revenue from a new frigate. Treasury thinking is ‘Me,me, me’ spun as looking after tax payers’ money. It is encouraging in this regard to see how Boris Johnson is ‘reprogramming’ the relationship between No 11 and No 10. One dog, one bone as my grandmother used to say.
          My personal views on HS2 are a) we are a long thin country and need a high speed rail backbone. b) historically most our inventiveness, spirit and wealth creation has been from Scotsmen, Brummies and Northerners. We need the regional rail plans for the Midlands and fhe North. The effete Southerners are good at creating money, not wealth.
          I think Boris sees that.

    • Yet for an Upper House lord, the substance of the whole tweet is silly. Say something sensible for your expenses, or I’ m more than willing to see the vast majority of them pastured.

      • Difficult in this day and age to justify an upper house populated on the basis of patronage. House of Lords should be an elected upper chamber whose members are elected by PR to represent major cities and regions.

  6. “While on the surface, the numbers are broadly similar it is important to remember that unlike the Italian Navy, the Royal Navy is a blue water navy capable of prolonged and significant global deployment with high end assets like large aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines and an extensive logistics, amphibious and sealift fleet.”

    According to Wikipedia Italy is classed as having a blue water navy?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue-water_navy#Examples_of_blue-water_navies

    • Nigel, the argument between the RN & Italian navy is just weiner waving and isn’t an argument that we, 1) need or, 2) is helpful. What is important is the question – does the current structure & size of the Royal Navy match our global ambitions? The answer is obviously not so we need a significant uplift in spending and capability and this must be delivered by the new government. Anything less is a big fail.

      • Agreed, we either need to climb back from using the Navy as a way to demonstrate global ambitions (since realistically it doesn’t really matter, trade is based on what you have to sell and the price, not what ship you have packed in what dock) or we have to build more ships, spreading so thin means that if the worst did happen, we would have real problems as we would take months to get the navy back together and equipped, to create any meaningful taskforce.

        • I get your point about a task force but that is really only a fraction of the problem. Imagine a war where a task force (carrier strike and amphibious group is needed – a bit like the Falklands). We would still need to do:

          Nuclear deterrent
          Counter Russian nuclear deterrent (that’s attack subs)
          Convoy protection in the North Atlantic
          British overseas territory protection / policing
          Fishery protection
          UK maritime patrol
          etc…

          As Well! A fleet of 19 escorts doesn’t cut the mustard. Either 1) dispose of the blue water navy ambition or 2), fund it properly.

          • Even at the time of the falklands, we received support from NZ to help with the standing roles. In 2020, a task force would be a struggle, for sure standing duties would need to suffer, which in theory is what the river2s are for, but clearly they are only useful in peacetime.

        • There is a solution: more money. The problem is the government won’t allocate it.

          19 is far too few. We should work our way back up to 25 as a realistic number to reach. This is achievable with Type 31 as it will cost a fraction of Type 26. Hopefully we’ll be able to build more of them and these can take some of the less fighty roles, freeing up the Type 26s and Type 45s purely for fleet defence.

          Ideally we might even get some export orders, increasing the number of ships built and driving down the cost further, which could enable us to buy even more, or to up-gun the ones we will have. Or both.

          Could have batch 1 as the current design. Not very fighty. For anti piracy, drugs, etc, then a second batch with greater armament, say 24 Sea Ceptor, main gun and NSM, either in VLS or quad canister launchers bolted onto the deck.

          • Steve R, its not just the initial cost of the platforms though, we need to crew them and equip (and fuel) them….. it all adds up. I’m not arguing against you by the way, I see 25 escort platforms as a minimum too and agree with your logic of using the 31’s ‘on station’ to free up the more capable platforms. It will take will power from Government and its not very headline grabbing unfortunately.

            Then there’s the problem of where we’re going to get all the extra matelots from, plenty of options for kids these days.

          • ‘Then there’s the problem of where we’re going to get all the extra matelots’ – better pay & conditions (more money of course) and more emphasis on the privilege and honour of serving.

          • I’m going to go out on a limb here HF and say cash goes a lot further than some nebulous “privilige and honour”… I didn’t know anyone who joined up for noble reasons, we all do/did it for our own ends, whether that was the ‘adventure’ side or because there weren’t a lot of options or whatever. I can honestly say I never served with anyone who joined up for ‘Queen and Country’.

            I could go on a rant about what I think would help recruitment and retention and the two are linked but I’ll try and limit it. Guys who aren’t happy aren’t encouraging their mates to join, at least in my fairly recent experience, they’re also not sticking around themselves. I’m meeting a mate for a few beers quite soon who’s round my neck of the woods doing his resettlement. He’s not a dafty, just had enough of getting mucked around for no real reason, its a common theme, its not just about money although that helps, people put up with more if they’re well paid (golden handcuffs) but a lot of people aren’t leaving for more cash as such, they might toss that into the ‘reasons to leave’ list but the navy (can’t speak for the other Forces) hasn’t really moved with the times, they’ve ticked some boxes but fundamentally you have ‘managers’ who are only interested in their own careers so will have a very short term interest in those under them. I have no answers that the navy would be interested in hearing and while I still have an affinity with the Navy, I’m firmly in the ‘reap what you sow’ camp with their current manning problems.

            Too ranty ? probably, apologies.

          • 🙂

            Don’t get me wrong, I know people who will take any ‘nobility’ kudos going, but that’s people for you I suppose.

            Nah for me it started off as the ‘Commando Comic’ stuff, then became the ‘one of the lads’ stuff, work hard, play hard, then became a slugfest hanging in there for the pension. I’ve got mates who are still in basically because they’ve reached a level of seniority and pay that they would struggle to get outside and are also institutionalised largely.

            Even the ‘golden handcuffs’ stuff only works to an extent, you trap people into staying, a lot still aren’t exactly loving it.

    • Wikipedia clearly states that the Italian Navy is a Regional Blue Water Navy. They have Amphib, Naval Aviation et al but limited to the Med

      • Blue Water Navy, that’s correct.

        This article tends to suggest otherwise which was my point.

        It says further down:

        51 Today the navy possesses two aircraft carriers (Cavour and Giuseppe Garibaldi) as well as a modern fleet of surface combatants and submarines. The Marina Militare routinely deploys to the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf as part of multinational anti-piracy missions such as Operation Ocean Shield and Operation Atalanta and is capable of deploying a carrier battle group in support of NATO or EU operations such as during Operation Enduring Freedom (2001) and EU Navfor Med (European migrant crisis). in 2015 scholar Sarah Kirchberger has mentioned Italy as a blue-water navy capable of operating in the high seas far from its home.

    • Nigel, note where it says “regional blue water” Navy, the Royal Navy is Global……..always has been, always will be…….

      • That’s correct Steve H, but you seem to miss the point I’m trying to make!

        “While on the surface, the numbers are broadly similar it is important to remember that unlike the Italian Navy, the Royal Navy is a blue water navy”

        The point is, the Italian Navy is classed as a “BLUE WATER NAVY” and the article tends to suggest otherwise.

        The fact that it is a regional blue-water navy and the RN is Global is irrelevant.

  7. I believe he was responding/reacting to another post that i saw somewhere, which was talking about the reduction in hull numbers thanks to the delays in the t31. Although he slightly misinterpreted it to talk about today rather than in a few years time.

    Currently the RN has 19 destroyers/frigates with 2 in extended readiness (mothballed effectively), so practically 17. The Italian navy has 17.

    So if 1 or more t31 go out of service before the corresponding t31 comes (which i understand from the current delays its likely 2), we will be less vessels than the Italian navy.

    Clearly this ignores capability of the hulls, but it is still a point worth making, the royal navy has been cut back too far.

      • If all goes to plan!

        “Manufacturing will commence in 2021, and the hull of ship 1 must be in the water by 2023, although she will not be fully operational until May 2027.”

        • “If all goes to plan” 🙂

          Give’m a break, mate. They’re at the enthusiastic stage of the project all rushing around excitedly getting stuff done. They’ll get to the “blaming the innocent” and rewarding the “uninvolved” sooon enough, about 2025 and 2030 respectively, I’d say… 🙂 It’ll be here before yer know it 🙁

        • You’re welcom. Joking with Nigel aside I hope Babcock cut a lucky break and get a couple more orders, one from the RN to take fleet numbers to 20 or 21 would be a good if modest start.

          As I have said elsewhere I do not see Babcock or HMG supporting this type of investment without something in the wind. Might be letting me optimistic streak to be getting better of me on this one but I think we might get a modest batch 2 T31 order – provided nothing goes too badly wrong in the meantime…

  8. As yes Lord Adonis, the guy who proposed HS2 and told Brexiteers he didn’t want them to vote Labour… He’s a walking, talking example of why the House of Lords should be scrapped.

      • Well he did change his mind on the ‘Brexiteer votes not wanted by Labour’ point after it was pointed out to him it was political suicide: I suspect he probably got a call from Labour Party HQ too ?

      • Adonis has no credibility and is about as popular as a dose of gonorrhea. He has no right to even make comments on defence, let alone criticise the current governments defence policy. I use less polite language but I won’t.

  9. The real question we should be asking is how Italy gets so much on a third of our Budget. The standard answers is always nuclear submarines and weapons but these take up less than 5% of the defence Budget we are told.

    • The Italians are about to pay off a number of ships aren’t they? Their escort numbers are to be reduced to 12 in due course.
      I think everyone needs to keep out of the Fake News stakes.

    • I am not sure Italy has more capability. Their army and airforce do not compare. They do not take part actively in combat overseas, just a token force to say they are onboard. Their navy seems to be better equipped than their other services with Fremm, Horizon and OPV, but that is about it. Their “carriers” are nothing more than LHDs and not close to QE class, very little in amphibious or capacity to project power anywhere, very little in terms of AWACS or Maritime patrol aircraft, subs etc… there are many capability gaps, so Italy cannot do what the UK can.
      Italy have a good navy by EU standards, but clearly not on the same level as the RN. But that doesn’t mean the RN doesn’t need more ships. I think it would have been smarter to have more Type 26 (or better equipped Type 31) than a 2nd carrier if the RN cannot fully man / equip /escort 2 carrier groups.
      My 2 cents

      • It has never been the intention to equip 2 carrier groups at the same time, the RN has always stated that having 2 means we have 1 in active service. In conflict we would of course build up a second group but with the help of our NATO allies. It would be great to have 2 fully equipped CSGs but in reality we do not have the hulls or the budget, so it has never been the plan to do so.

        • I am not saying the contrary. But having a second carrier which will spend its time docked is not without cost. That money could have been better spent on something more useful like a few more type 26.
          My 2 cents

          • Having a 2nd carrier enables us to have one available at all times. Otherwise we are like the French navy; their carrier Charles de Gaulle is only available half the time.

            With 2 carriers we are ready for war at any time. With 1 carrier we have to hope that if war comes it’s not while it’s undergoing maintenance.

          • CDG has 85% operational rate, it had just had an extensive midlife refit. I know french bashing is a national sport but 50% is not even close to reality.
            The UK has had no carrier for a decade since the Harriers were retired in 2010. And the QE is still not really operational since it still awaiting deliveries of F35B aircraft. Has the world ended?
            Anyway my argument still stands. You have approx 85% carrier availibility. The lack of 15% avalability can be counterbalanced by Nato or accelerating the repairs if need be. But £3B for the 2nd carrier could have been spent on 3 (maybe 4) type 26 or a bunch of T31 better equipped than RN is currently planning, because a 6000t frigate with only 12 sea ceptor, no sonar etc… is a slap in the face
            My 2 cents

          • I’m not French bashing, but ships need time in maintenance just like aircraft do.

            I think 85% is high, probably exaggerated somewhat. Even if true that’s more likely due to just having an extensive refit. And that’s the whole point of having 2: if one is in refit we still have another.

            That’s just for planned refits and maintenance, to say nothing of things going wrong. What if a system goes kaput on our one and only carrier? We have zero power projection capabilities while it is undergoing repairs. These are complex ships and things can and do go wrong on occasion. To say nothing of accidents, battle damage, or if SHTF completely and we were in a situation where we did need two carriers, even if one is carrying mostly helicopters and marines?

            Unlikely, but the option is there if we need it. With a single carrier we are limiting ourselves.

          • Not a fact. It has undergone 2 overhauls in maintenance of 15 months each (refuel + modernization), and a couple of shorter repairs (transmission and resurface of landing deck). 3 years for almost 20 years of service, that is approx 85% operational

          • That doesn’t count standard maintenance in port after coming home from deployment. The ship doesnt just sit idly in port with nothing being done to it, waiting and ready for the next trip out. There will be months between deployments and a fair bit of that time will be in standard maintenance.

            Even with that it would be hard to get ready quickly. In 1982 we scraped together a fleet with 2 carriers in a rush, and we had 4. If we had only 1 or 2 at the time we would have been screwed.

          • True but QE class are not nuclear so do not need long and delicate refuel operations, so they should have better availability than nuclear carriers. Anyway even if the QE operational rate was a low as 50% (which i highly doubt) in case of emergency, the work could be postponed accelarated. And you don’t just send a carrier into battle without planning and preparation of all navy assets, so it wouldn’t just set saio the next day. RE Falklands, 2 carriers were sent, but they were much smaller carriers with a lot fewer planes. The QE can carry more aircraft than both Invincible carriers combined.
            I wish for 2 fully operational carrier groups, but since funding won’t allow it, i would have chosen to have more front line frigates than a 2nd carrier that spends half its life at dock.
            Anyway MoD chose differently and it’s their call not mine. I was overuled lol

          • They are not nuclear but that only affects during a midlife refit where they remove and replace the nuclear fuel. The QE ships, conventionally powered, will still have to undergo plenty of maintenance.

            No, you don’t just send a carrier into battle on a moment’s notice, but the Falklands fleet was put together rapidly and shipped out. That couldn’t happen if it was a single ship halfway through a maintenance cycle. Otherwise, we would have sent 3 or even all 4 carriers. We couldn’t do that however.

            Ignoring France, let’s look at another navy with a single carrier: Russia’s Admiral Kuznetsov. Ignoring how old it is, it has been taken out of action by a crane crashing into it’s flight deck and will be out of action for months, if not years. They now have no carrier. If this happened to the CdG then the French would be in the same boat – pardon the pun!

            Accidents happen; that could have happened to the QE in theory. Or if not that, a missile strike in combat, or an accident of some kind. But if one of those does, we have a spare in the PoW so whatever happens to QE, we have another carrier.

            Same reason we have 140 odd Typhoons but only field 7 squadrons (84 planes). We have spares to cover aircraft in maintenance or to replace those lost/damaged in battle or in accidents.

            If you have one carrier and it’s either sunk damaged, or is in maintenance/refit, then you have no carrier!

    • I would have thought that those who support a larger Royal Navy would be only too glad of Adonis’ comments. Mind you, if I remember correctly, I think it was Adonis that negotiated the PFI deal for RAF tankers 🙁

      • No such thing as a free lunch. The NHS budgets are having to pick up the PFI hospital funding scam. Ask yourself who benefited? Adonis social circle I’ll bet you .

      • I’m not sure we can add the PFI Tanker deal to his list of crimes… though proposing both HS2 and Tuition Fees is probably enough to condemn him.

        • HS2 is a much needed infrastructure programme…..you either want Britain to move forward or remain in the C19th with shit on the tracks! Tuition fees is another issue….few people like the idea, but give me a reasonable alternative if you want to increase participation in higher education.

          • What will make far more difference to the travelling public and economically to the regions is better commuter services in each area, rather than long distance services you might use once or twice a year.
            Yes there is a capacity problem on the West Coast mainline, thanks to Beeching axing the Central Mainline – the last to be built and virtually on a straight path to the Midlands. But we don’t need a line that can handle trains of 400 km/h – especially when the trains for the foreseeable future can’t reach that speed.

            Too many people now go into higher education doing nonsense degrees: media studies anyone?. We have ‘academic institutions’ which are essentially degree shops. Scrap fees, cut general funding, but reintroduce maintenance fees for STEM subjects, and increase grants to real universities for research.

          • The point is Sean that by removing intercity services from the west coast line allows for more commuter and freight services. It isn’t a matter of massive transference capacity but more a freeing up of slow vs fast services. As far as HS2 is concerned, it seems to me that it only makes sense if it is part of a larger network stretching to Scotland. If you are going to build a new railway why would you build a slow one…you build for the future. I agree that the Great Central line should be reinstated and that would help provide much more capacity. But on its own it is not a solution. Have you seen the size of its London Terminus…Marylebone…it’s tiny. Most of the C19th railways were a tangled structure of independent railway companies linking districts together. In terms of long-distance travel they are really inefficient routes.
            As for education, don’t get me started… I have been teaching in the further education sector for over 20 years and firmly believe that apprenticeships are the right route for many of our students. Alas, I have to deal with students with grandiose ambitions that can barely construct a coherent sentence….yet get places at 3rd rate universities! Bloody waste of resources….’I want a degree…but don’t like reading books’….

          • I don’t believe they’ll remove InterCity services from the West Coast Mainline, so commuters wont see any benefit. The speed of the line simply makes Birmingham a possible commuter dormitory for London!!

            I think massively expanding the coverage of the Tyne & Wear Metro, building high speed commuter lines between Northern cities (York, Leeds, Bradford, Manchester, Sheffield, Liverpool), the metro system on Merseyside, etc would have greater economic benefit to these areas than a 400km/h HS2 line between London and Brum.
            And the 400kmh will only be possible on the first stretch to Brum, after that the line meanders too much to allow those speeds. (Unless we go Chinese and build in straight lines; destroying towns, castles, SSSI, etc in the process.)

            Rebuilding the Grand Central would be impossible. Unlike in the USA where closed track alignments are protected, in the U.K. many closed lines have been built over – hence the prolonged head scratching over how to reinstate the Oxford to Cambridge Line.

            Blair was misguided in trying to get so many going to university. It’s great if it’s appropriate. I was, back in the 80s, from an impoverished working-class family and thanks to the maintenance grant the first to ever go to a Russel Group university for a computer science degree.
            But for many academia its the wrong direction, it’s not where their talents lie. So instead of developing in a direction that’s appropriate for them, they end up somewhere, possible finishing with a poor inconsequential degree, and a huge debt ?‍♂️

            It’s a shame that the polytechnics and higher education colleges turned themselves into universities chasing income from foreign students instead of sticking with their more technical and vocational emphasis. ?

          • Your last point is spot on….poly’s and higher education establishments were directly connected with the educational needs of the country. Becoming 3rd rate universities was a poor move by many of them…and the government (Labour) was sucking on its own anus in approving it!

          • “Tuition fees is another issue….few people like the idea, but give me a reasonable alternative if you want to increase participation in higher education.”

            Herodotus, my preferred way to spend the ‘graduate money’ would be to issue bursaries for needed qualifications. X thousand maths, Y thousand physics etc etc, its not a hundred percent fair right enough, there might be a lot of unhappy kids who weren’t able to get one of the 3 media studies bursaries. I suppose those with rich enough parents could pay for them, those who can’t might have to apply for a bursary in something that the country deems more useful. A percentage could be set aside for certain categories (financial/gender/race, whatever) to level the playing field.

            I’ve always found it historically bizarre why further education was treated differently to other career paths, want to do some bollox degree, cool, have some cash. Want to be a scuba instructor, pay for it yourself. I know things have changed in that regard but there are still a lot of graduates with (no offence) worthless degrees who aren’t going to be paying any of the money back as they’re not earning enough. We still have a system that ‘we’/government is paying for that generates large numbers of the ‘wrong’ degrees while struggling to fill positions in other graduate roles (proper ones, not just a job that gets a graduate in it). Its not fair on the kids either, they’re being fed a lot of rubbish about it all too.

          • Some interesting information from someone that half understands the present situation. As it happens, I have a 1st class degree in history from Bristol University, I understand that this is not a bollocks degree. As a teacher in further education can I point out that we only teach to level 3. We do offer some undergraduate courses but they are increasingly rare. As for funding non-mainstream courses, that ended many years ago under New Labour. Everyone has an opinion about education….go teach for a while and then tell me about it!

          • Apologies if I’ve touched a nerve Herodotus, all I can say that as a teacher in higher education, you might have a vested interest in the status quo. It certainly doesn’t mean your opinions are right and others are wrong. Take a couple of marching paces and reread what I wrote, nowhere did I say that some subjects were worthless, I used a ‘catch all’ expression of “bollox”, which I didn’t clarify, I did allude to Media Studies but you’ve got to give me that one. We’ve got gazillions of them bless.

            Funnily enough ‘the artist formerly known as Mrs Andy P’ had a History degree (St. Andrews), the current title holder has Chemistry from Embra (plus another OU one), I’m a bit of a black sheep in my social circle for not being a graduate, I can still have an opinion on it, I’m sure there’s plenty on here who have never donned a uniform but have plenty strong views on defence.

          • You haven’t touched a nerve, just vocalised some common misconceptions. As I pointed out, I teach in Further Education not Higher Education. If you don’t understand the difference ask the Mrs. As for my opinions not being any more relevant than anyone else’s ….well, what’s the point of experience. The trouble with education is that everyone has an opinion regardless of how uninformed it is!

          • “The trouble with education is that everyone has an opinion regardless of how uninformed it is!”

            …..So the same as every other aspect of society. I’m sure you have fairly strong views on things you’ve no direct experience of, we all do. If you choose to appoint yourself as an expert on a subject, that’s up to you, don’t be surprised if the rest of the planet doesn’t fall in three deep behind you.

          • I haven’t appointed myself, I happen to be an experienced teacher in the post 16 sector and therefore informed about the subject that I am commenting on. You, are an arrogant know all that always has to have the last word on every topic….regardless of whether you know stuff all about it.

          • Oh Herodotus, sorry if I’ve stolen your thunder on the last word….
            Is a nurse an expert on the NHS or is she an expert on nursing, is a soldier/sailor/airman an expert on the Armed Forces…. is a lecturer an expert on Education…..

            You keep telling us how clever you are (and have a good line of condescension) so you figure it out. Its just possible that just because you’re part of the system, it doesn’t make you an expert on that system. That you can get drawn into an online spat on it with an “arrogant know all” suggests to this smooth pimp daddy that you’re maybe not as secure in your wisdom as you think you are.

            So to turn it on its head, what do YOU think would be the way ahead.

          • To be honest I don’t think we need to increase participation any more. Approx 1/3 of kids go to uni now and the value of a degree has dropped.

            I graduated from university in 2006 and couldn’t find a decent job after. I was stuck on a checkout in Sainsburys for 5 years. Didn’t help I failed application to join the army on medical grounds.

            Problem is that there are only so many graduate jobs around, and when every man and his dog has a degree their value goes down.

          • Yes Steve…..I sympathise with your viewpoint. Of course, a university education is, hopefully, more than just about getting a good job. But it would be nice to think that there are jobs out there that are appropriate. Many graduates are now finding that the degree itself is not so useful and undertake post graduate training of some sort. A degree itself is no longer the passport to a successful career as it once was. Apprenticeships are the way forward….including graduate apprenticeships!

          • I agree, i think apprenticeship is the way forward for a lot of the young now.

            With regards to the forces I think maybe they need to start showcasing the training they provide, free of charge whilst also being paid.

            In a world where the cost of a degree can now put you in close to £50,000 of debt, the military should be more visible in offering a debt free career path and chance to learn a trade and skills.

      • I agree H, who really cares if his assertion has arguable accuracy (many on this thread have already justified what he said.) Whether you spin it pessimistically “The RN is smaller than the Italian navy” or “The RN is second only in NATO to the USN” – both can be argued to be accurate. The fact is a senior politician is stating the RN is too small and bringing attention to the fact. And that from a member of the Labour Party. It’s good news…now lets increase the size of the RN!!

        • Indeed….I have recently re-joined the Labour Party in order to take part in the next leadership elections. We need someone that is electable…..only Kier Starmer, of the options available, can bring Labour back to the centre ground of Social Democracy!

          • I think everyone on here understands that the fleet is too small and that is the important thing. Now defence spending is never popular until it is actually needed, by which time it is too late. Politicians (of all parties) need to get the message across to the public that as an island nation our Navy is very important and that an uplift is now necessary. I’m not advocating breaking the bank or taking large amounts away from the NHS or education but rather a small correction towards 2.5% of GDP, a figure which is well below Cold War levels. It is also about more than money though, the build rate for the T26 & T31 is ridiculous – spreading out the build saves money in the short run but makes the TOTAL spend (& thus value for money) more. We could also try and recruit more sailors from the Commonwealth. The overall message from this mess which is the frigate replacement programme is that all the dilly dallying, bluff and delay makes the problem worse not better. Clear thinking earlier on SAVES money.

          • Sure, I agree with most of what you say! But we desperately need a cross party consensus on defence issues. Defence cannot continue to be a political football when the modern world demands a long-term strategy. We have wasted billions on political dithering….it can’t go on. The people of this country need to know the absurdity of some of the decision making. Perhaps the Daily Heil could do something useful for a change (supporting fascist dictators must be out of vogue by now) and promote a better understanding of the issues amongst the general public!

          • Yes a cross party consensus is desperately needed, trouble is we need this in defence, social care, NHS spending, university education (not to mention the B word), etc, etc but all they want to do is take swipes at each other.

            The SDSR must be realistic and not completely treasury led. The defence select committee need to make sure the MOD & FO are kept ‘honest’ throughout – I’m not holding my breath though because money, with all the things we have going on in the country just now, isn’t going to be easy to secure.

          • Yep…I agree with most of that. But a consensus should be deliverable as long as it based on the strength of the economy. Their is no point in massive capital projects if they are not sustainable. I have yet to be convinced about the efficacy of large carriers. I think we would be far more effective militarily if we concentrated on our regional responsibilities….most of which could be covered by land based aircraft.

          • My money is on Kier Starmer, and if he becomes Labour leader I could see myself voting Labour in 5 years time.

            That said, no idea what his views on defence are.

          • I have no idea either….but the battle at the moment is to wrestle the party out of the hands of the left and make it electable again. I would like to see factions like momentum expelled from the party and Labour to become a true social Democratic Party. Momentum is nothing more than a frontage for the SWP…….if those bastards want a neo communist party then they should bloody well start their own…I’m sick of them trying to hijack the Labour Party.

    • That is only the operational running costs (now being stated as 6%), which the government like to throw around to make it seem like a small amount. That is, but it hides the numbers, which the MOD is very good at (11th worst department out of 18 for transparency, Treasury and HMRC are the worst).
      It is entirely unclear what is included in that 5-6%, and it definitely doesn’t include for conventional security for the deterrent. It may not include base maintenance costs and other associated costs.
      The Dreadnaught programme and Trident replacement are coming out of the MOD’s core equipemnt budget, so that’s not included in the 5-6% either. If you were to include that, it’s more like 14% of the defence budget spent on our nuclear deterrent. It doesn’t acount for all ofthe discrepancy between us and Italy, but it’s certainly a start!
      I’d expect Italy’s defence budget not to include pensions (another 1-2%), and they have a weird set up when it comes to what’s police and what’s military- I’d imagine that there might be some element of difference there. There’s probably other stuff too, but I think it still comes down to the fact that there’s a lot of wastage in the MOD budget.
      My source for a lot of the above: https://www.basicint.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/How-much-does-the-UK-spend-on-nuclear-weapons_-Web.pdf

    • His father was a Greek-Cypriot…his real name is Andreas Adonis. The Lord bit is a courtesy title for those that have been elevated to the second chamber. He, like most of the House of Lords, is not a British aristocrat…..his father was a waiter!

  11. Comparing Navies in terms of number of hulls or total tonnage is of course but a crude tool. Clearly if one factors in firepower, reach, the general capabilities of crew and equipment and of course the nuclear deterrent then the RN remains up there.However I agree with the general opinion here that numbers are too few. Factoring in the certainty that a ship or aircraft can only be in one place at a time, no matter how modern and powerful, then on a relatively fixed budget you have only one option to increase numbers and that is to sacrifice capability.So for example would we opt for 8 extra Type 31’s in lieu of 4 extra Type 26’s? Either the strategy is keep a core of high end assets and produce more corvette/Type31 hulls or find a lot of extra dough to retain quality and increase the total. It really is that simple-‘ceteris parabis’ of course in terms of competitive buying etc..
    One budget from which we could steal a Billion or two is Foreign Aid although there are definitely hidden benefits to the UK in broad terms from at least some of that spend.

    • Geoff I was scanning down the comments to see if someone was going to make the observation that its not just hulls and tonnage. For instance I believe at surge capacity with 2 carriers we could deploy close 90 5th Gen Stealth Strike fighters and conduct 220 sorties per day. Only the US could actually beat that. Others can deploy 3 carriers but with 4th gen aircraft atm.

  12. I watched an intresting documentry on You Tube the other day ‘1400 Zulu’ looking at the ships and fleet operations in the mid to late 60s, basically when I was a kid.
    They were explaining the role of Fleet headquaters and how they commanded and dispatched over 400 thats right 400 ships on world wide operations whilst explaining that they did not always have enough to carry out the tasks of Government. The smallest they were speaking about were minesweeprs not landing craft as is mentioned in this article. So in my life span we have gone fro the second most powerful navy in the world to one that is in the top 20, I have taking into account the age of most of the major units. One that could put battlegroups in multiple locations to one that can deploy a single ship, maybe. One that could strike anywhere at anytime to one that Oh wait a minute we need a few weeks to put a group together and then respond.
    What would I give to have a 150 combat ship fleet now. In some ways the current Italian navy is bigger than the RN. My reasoning for this is simple with the area of responsability of the Italian Navy they have the ships to do the Job, the RN is a blue water world wide operation yet the bulk of the commissioned fleet is made up of P2000s and OPVs, which are good for policing not fighting.

    • 150-ship Royal Navy isn’t realistic though, we would have to quadruple the defence budget and then some.

      Realistically with some more investment in the navy we could get up to 24-25 frigates and destroyers. If we went up to 3% of GDP maybe peak at 30. That would be the best we could hope for.

      • I know, its just a pity. What I would hope for is an increase as you said to 30 destroyers and frigates, possibly two flotillas of SSKs and some say four flotillas of fast attack missile boats (Hamina class style) over a ten year period build period. Its wishful thinking but with the UK creating a new future for itself in the world possibly the RN could be at the forefront of Global Britain.

        • Back in the 80’s the government commitment was to a 50 ship navy. But that was the days of the Cold War when defence spending was over 5% of GDP before falling to 3% after John Major blew a fortune trying to keep the U.K. in the ERM ?‍♂️

          • When I was done south in 1982 we had 2 baby carriers, 2 LPHs 8 DDGs, 15 FFGs, 6 subs, 10 RFA tankers, 6 RFA logistic ships, 5 RFA supply ships, a whirlybird support ship, minesweepers, survey vessels and a complete fleet of STUFF. Plus we still had ships for out NATO commitments and home waters.
            I think the biggest issue for the Royal Navy and in fact for all UK forces is the collapse of the Warsaw pact. No one thought that there would be any further future threat. So defence was not only cut it was butchered. Now with a re-arming Russia, China flexing its muscles and having some old axes to grind. They also have an axe to grind over the first and second opium wars and the boxer rebelion with the UK. Whilst the world seems to be filled with unstable countries sabre ratalling. The UK as well as several other nations needs to rebuild their armed forces. The issue is now this, if you have a large navy then you have the numbers, and the industry to maintain it, ships will need to be replaced which will cost but much less than having to rebuild a fleet from scratch.
            So what does this mean well using my idea it means an extra 5 T31s, containerised systems for these extra ships, 8 SSKs, 2-3 HMAS Canberra class, 12-16 advanced Hamina class and possibly 3 extended T45s or T45 without a hanger but a second bank of SYLVER A50-70 launchers making her a AAW cruiser so call it C21.
            If we could build all of these in the same period of the T26 project is built say 2036 that would mean an extra spend of £12.45 billion, if we started the build now it would mean an extra spend on the RN percurment of £779 million per year. So what would that mean in 2036 for the RN, 2 CVs, 3 LHDs (Canberra), 3 C21 cruiser, 6 T45s (to be replaced), 8 T26s, 10 T31s, 4 SSBNs, 7 SSNs, 8 SSKs, 16 FACs, these would be the front line combat ships of the RN 2 carriers three assualt ships, 27 blue water combat ships and 16 Fast attack missile boats for brown water operations (English Channel, Persian Gulf, Malacca Straits, Gib) etc. In finacial terms if I have got my maths right means an increase of 0.02% of the defence budget per year for 16 years from today or 0.05 % for maintaince and recruitment or 2.18% of GDP for the armed forces with the RN increase, no increase for RAF or Army, bring it upto 2.5% of GDP and all servicies will get a massive boost. Is that to much for a maritime nation?

          • Politicians bought into the narrative of them peace dividend’ with. The collapse of the Warsaw Pact, they stupidly believed there’d be no more opponents.
            Funding should return to Cold War levels minimum.

          • I agree, I think that the defence budget should be somewhere around 3.5%GDP or 3.2% without the SSBNs in the budget.

          • The number of ships you suggest being built is perhaps too ambitious.

            I’d say build at least two batches of Type 31 frigates. 5 each. Make Batch 2 more fighty – 24-32 Sea Ceptor, main gun, and 8 NSM in canister lainchers bolted onto the deck wouldn’t cost a bomb but would give them significantly increased capability.

            I like the idea of a fleet of SSK. Even 6 would do. Bolsters our sub numbers dramatically and unless we’re talking deployments in the South Atlantic or in the Pacific then range isnt too much an issue. We could always base one in HMS Juffair aling with a Type 31 to give them more range in the Middle East and east of Suez.

            I wouldn’t bother with more Type 45 destroyers; the production line is closed and the cost of reopening it would be so expensive, not to mention time consuming, that it’s not worth it. Instead we should focus on their replacements, namely making sure we don’t make the same mistakes. at least 10 should be ordered.

            I would also say build a 9th and 10th Type 26.

            This would result in 6 Type 45s (to be replaced by at least 10 Type 4Xs), 10 x Type 26, 10 x Type 31 (half of which are fighty). That’s a 26-ship escort fleet evetually growing to a 30 ship escort fleet. 10 in each class. Basing that off the rule of 3: 3 ships at sea, 3 in training at shore and 3 in maintenance, plus one for luck! Could be a 27 ship fleet with 9 in each class.

            After that I would say more Merlins and Wildcats to put on the ships.

  13. Lord Adonis is correct if you take into account that we are meant to be a “blue water” navy whilst Italy isn’t. It will be interesting to see how we get on with forming/manning our Carrier Strike Group and yet commit to operations elsewhere in the world.

    Also, I am pretty sure it was a humorous tongue in cheek dig at the Tories. No need to take it too seriously.

  14. Agree that it not fair to compare with the Italian Navy. But the RN needs more ships in my humble opinion, yet still operating as if it were the 90s.
    The Berlin wall fell and peace was at hand, however since then we have seen powers around the world get very assertive and remilitarize, Russia, China, Iran, N. Korea, Turkey, Saudi etc…

  15. To me the question really is, how do the likes of Italy, Japan and France get so much more and spend less in real terms, both in terms of number if hulls and weapons fitted? Let aline faster build rate?

    Long term planning and an industrial strategy perhaps?

  16. The Navy is too small is because they have prostituted themselves over the past years in order to finance and man 2 obsolete aircraft carriers.

    We would all, I assume, want to see more money spent on Defence?

    But there isn’t any extra money nor will there be much extra, if any, from the Integrated Review.

    Defence has to cope with existing resources, so the Navy wants to grow, it has to find the money itself – by selling one or both carriers – or money has to be taken from the other two Services.

    It’s “sacred cow” time, as people have mentioned recently.

    Instead of us all going on about Defence needing more money, when the government has clearly prioritised the NHS and the north, we should be considering how Defence should reconfigure to reinvest back into the front line.

    Scrap Strategic Command, sell the carriers, reduce the size of HQs, move Defence Establishments from to the south to north, reduce the size of the army, scrap the Red Arrows, scrap the Para Regt, scrap the Marines, scrap the RAF and only have RN and Army or scrap the Army and only have RAF and RN.

    Probably not all of them though at the same time.

    • The carriers are not obsolete other wise why would everybody want them? The yanks are still building , the Chinese , the Indians , the Russians would love a decent one France relies heavily on the CDG, Japan is building them in all but name cos they know the name of the game .Over a 50 year lifespan I’d say 6 billion quid cost of build is pretty good value for money especially when you consider how lean manpower intensive they are with a 5th less crew needed than any of Joe Blows carriers. Scrap scrap scrap you sound like a man that has no house insurance ?

    • “Scrap Strategic Command, sell the carriers, reduce the size of HQs, move Defence Establishments from to the south to north, reduce the size of the army, scrap the Red Arrows, scrap the Para Regt, scrap the Marines, scrap the RAF and only have RN and Army or scrap the Army and only have RAF and RN.”

      Good Lord. I could write several paragraphs on each of those points.

      “2 obsolete aircraft carriers.” So if they are obsolete how come so many nations wish to have them?

      “Scrap Strategic Command” What, completely? Do you know the joint assets it comprises, and that it is in reality JFC? So you’re happy we get rid of DSF and our cyber and intelligence elements then?

      “sell the carriers” Yes, what a morale booster, and waste of billions. Goodbye ASW, and the reason for F35B. Sea dominance is achieved through air power and submarines, not vast numbers of escorts of which few can be high end like T26. Meanwhile, other nations of course keep their carriers, or keep wanting to build them.

      “move Defence Establishments from to the south to north” This is the biggest gobsmacked one for me. Seriously? Do you have any idea how much that would cost and how they are joined together? Like GPSS as one example.

      “scrap the Red Arrows” That old chestnut. They cost little compared to their role in Soft Power, national pride, recruitment. And again of course other nations keep their national teams yes? This sort of stuff also rears its head concerning the Monarchy. Their cost is far outweighed by their benefits to the UK.

      “scrap the Para Regt, scrap the Marines” Great. So we scrap our elite infantry who’s training and reputation are respected worldwide and keep all those Light Infantry Battalions with no supporting enablers. Goodbye rapid intervention oversees, whether that is raids, rescuing British nationals, support to DSF, and plenty more.

      “scrap the RAF and only have RN and Army or scrap the Army and only have RAF and RN.” I give up….

    • Would you consider yourself a radical Dave? Not much chance of any of that happening, although the future of the carriers remains a concern. But there again, General Ludendorff became a pacifist towards the end of his life….anything is possible! 🙂

      • By reading Fat Daves comment I seriously doubt the following, firstl,y his knowledge of the existance and use of grenades, and secondly, the ability to locate said pin!

    • I’m surprised you didn’t finish with invest in white flags!!

      The carriers won’t be sold. Even if HMG wanted to, all the nations that can afford to run them are busy building their own. Zero market for them, especially with them limited to flying the F35B only.

      I’d certainly pull all land forces out of Europe, where they help the local economies, and instead garrison them in the north.

      You wouldn’t scrap elite units like the Paras and Marines, if anything you’d expand them while reducing regular forces. When it comes to expeditionary actions it’s the elite and special forces that lead.
      For home defence any enemy first has to get past the RAF and RN.

      • He’s baited you and you have all been hooked.
        As Meirion X said, the comments are not compatible with the values of this site.
        Ignore.
        On another matter, I do think the fact that all the tickets for POW went in a couple hours shows the public desire for Navy Days to be reinstated. What better way of inspiring our youngsters to grow up and play with great bits of kit, being part of something meaningful.

        • That’s great to hear re the tickets – even considered travelling from London to Liverpool for the day to try and see her.
          The RN needs to up the public relations like this if it wants to convince the politicians to spend more.

  17. I seem to recall a similar incident some time ago, when it was pointed out that Hoseasons, had more boats afloat that the RN. They have nearly 300 in the Norfolk Broads. The are also a “blue water” fleet, as I believe that the water is very clear as it is filtered by all the Reed Beds. I would have posted this on Twitter, but I don’t have an account 🙂

  18. A few of us have been batting around the costs and benefits of different weapons systems to arm UK aircraft and vessels, and a lot has come down to cost. I thought some might find this piece interesting, basically a breakdown of missiles and bombs with their pricing based upon US military proposed budgets for 2021.
    I know that a lot of the items we’ve talked about (Mk41 VLS for instance) aren’t on there, but it does include JASSM and LRASM, which we certainly have.
    https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32277/here-is-what-each-of-the-pentagons-air-launched-missiles-and-bombs-actually-cost

  19. “While on the surface, the numbers are broadly similar it is important to remember that unlike the Italian Navy, the Royal Navy is a blue water navy capable of prolonged and significant global deployment with high end assets like large aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines and an extensive logistics, amphibious and sealift fleet.”

    Nothing more needs saying other than he is at least right to highlight that the RN is too small.

  20. Why let facts get in the way to make a political point.
    I despair when a so called responsible source make a statement that he hasnt bothered to research , he should join the SNP to join with fellow hucksters.
    Adonis however has always been a man of limited intellect promoted to levels beyond his capability.

  21. LPD’s are not major surface combatants, nor are aircraft carriers. The numbers are pretty close and given that many fit more into “naval service” (not combatants,) the error is negligible.

  22. The Italians have been making sensible decisions quickly. Since time =money they have got good value. They teamed up with France on Fremm, took the basic design, customised it to Bergamini and built it in numbers in Italian yards. Good work. Plus two light LHDs with F35B ski jumps and now PPA, the Italian big hull capable of being fitted out as an offshore patrol ship or a GP frigate. Type 31 anyone? Adonis is right to draw attention to their strategy. What’s ours?

    • To try and be all things to all men without the budget to pay for it. Basically heads in sand until something goes wrong, sadly.

      • My two pennyworth.
        Britain is finally finding a post WW2 role. We have lost the Empire but while Scotland and Ireland prefer to see themselves as culturally ‘European’ nations, England does not. Walter Scott’s Ivanhoe says it all. The spirit of the England Christened in the North by Bede and built and defended by Alfred, Aethelfaed and Athelstan is still alive, despite centuries of oppressive post Reformation state control from London and latterly Brussels.
        The economic reality is that Scotland ( and to a great extent Ireland) are joined to England by history and geography. As England finds Herself they will benefit. Warship building in Scotland and the Boris Bridge are two immediate examples.
        We are an island trading nation defined by Dane Geld and Beunnanburgh. We need a navy ( and airforce) which has primary responsibility for
        a) protecting our fishing waters ( River 1)
        b) providing presence and reassurance to overseas territories (Bay, River 2)
        c) ensuring sea lanes across the Atlantic in times of war (SSN, T26, P8, POW)
        d) ensuring gas supplies from the Gulf (T31, T45, MCV, Bay)
        e) ensuring a place at top table in international diplomacy.(SSBN)
        Additionally we ought to do our share of policing the Indian Ocean, ensuring political stability in the ME and restraining Chinese over exuberance in the South China Sea in support of the US and Australia (T31, occasional QE)
        It is also in our strategic interest to be able to intervene in an expeditionary way in Africa where we should look to be the major investor…Carrier group. Not sure this requires LPDs if we have QE and LSDs.
        Nice to have…LPD expeditionary capability Norway and Baltics.
        Summary.
        Must haves…Build all 8 Type 26 and build an additional 5 T31 armed as GP frigates (5in gun, Mk41) rather than ‘patrol’ frigates.
        Ideally….persuade the Australians to buy POW and replace her with 2 new design hybrid ships…40,000 tons… Garribaldi sized LHDs with F-35B ski jumps and well decks to replace POW, Albion, Bulwark and Ocean. Named Eagle and Ark Royal.

        • How poetic…linkages back to Bede, Alfred and the Danelaw. Topped by Dean Acheson 1962 speech about Britain having ‘lost an empire but not yet found a role’. How comforting history can be….looking back is so much easier than planning for the future….too much guesswork involved. To be honest, I really thing we would have been better off with a couple of Garibaldi style ships rather than the QE class. I wonder what Alfred would have made of it….perhaps he would have favoured Boris’ ‘get it done’ attitude?

          • A Garibaldi type carrier would Still Cost about £2 billion each to build, with less that a Quarter of an QE’s class capacity. The QE class is better value for money.

  23. Ok so we have slightly more ships, of higher quality, however our G.D.P Is much higher than Italy’s. So why don’t we have more?

  25. It’s of interest to note that, like the UK and France, Italy is updating its destroyer/frigate fleet. By the mid to late 20s its navy will consist of:

    2x AAW Horizon class
    2x AAW FREMM-IT
    4x ASW FREMM-IT
    4x GP FREMM-IT
    3x GP PPA frigate (with HMS and tails)
    4x light PPA frigate
    3x corvette-style PPA

    I imagine the 10 PPAs will be able to cover most Med and Horn of Africa deployments, leaving the 12 FREMM/horizon for the blue water work.

    • Bob2 – The Marina Militare also has Two Durand de la Penne class Destroyers scheduled for replacement in the 2025-2030 timeframe with what could be Two 10,000 tonne Horizon + enhanced Ships.Also of note is that in the 2015 SDSR it was decided to reduce the Type 26 order to 8 and create the Type 31 Programme,roughly at about the same time the Italian PPA Programme started to get off the ground with funding etc.Next month the second PPA will be launched,with another in December – the difference in urgency is obvious for reasons we are all aware of but it still beggars belief.https://i.redd.it/qs1yyezcl4d41.jpg

      • Mike,

        Thanks for the info on the Horizon+ destroyers. I was not aware. I think the 3-tier design PPAs should have been considered for T31. The average cost for the first 7 PPAs is about £470M (x2 full, x3 light+, x2 light). Maybe we should have just joined in with the Italians instead of t31.

        Are you suggesting that the Italians need new ship more urgently than the UK, or that the UK needs A slow ship build rate for financial reasons?

        If the later, I wonder how the Italians can afford such a fast build rate.

        • I cant answer how the Italian’s fund their programmes,but they have areas of responsibilities like many Countries,obviously the Med,North Africa and the Horn of Africa to name a few.The PPA would have made an interesting alternative to the T31 bid but it falls short on price (on paper at least) i will be curious as to what price the T31 comes in at once they are actually delivered,if its near £250 million each then fair play.But the PPA shows what can be achieved when you have three organisations (MM,Govt,Shipbuilder) working together in harmony to effect a Fleet Renewal programme.

          • Total price for the five t31 appears to be £1.98B, so the average PPA price is not to far out, especially as this is the average price for the three different types of PPA and that they all come with both 127 and 72mm guns.

            The current t31 fit out is probably somewhere between the light and light+ PPA.

  26. We need to decide who we are and what we want to do in the world, then build the forces to match. We will only get better value with long term procurement and build strategies and let’s just hope to God this point comes out in the upcoming assessments.
    I would look to identify a set of key defence technology areas that we have a requirement to have a sovereign requirement and/or a technological lead already in place to allow industrial success. The government then will need to put some money in for the short to medium term to allow research and programmes to get underway. But once industry has long term security, investment in facilities and modern build techniques will take place. This along with the benefit of economies of scale and steady drumbeat of work should then drive costs down. The defence budget can then be reduced gradually whilst we have a slightly larger, well rounded military with the kit they require.
    Specifically for the Navy, I just wish we could see an extra 2 billion a year for the next ten years. This would allow us to commit fully to steady drumbeats of work in each class of ship and support a small but secure shipbuilding industry.
    2 competing builders of complex warships, with the best getting the more lucrative build programme of T26 x12 and T45 x8 over 25 years. Aim of an average unit cost of £6-700 million, or 500 mill per year over 25 years.
    The losing company getting the build of 12 patrol to medium frigates plus OPV’s and minehunters. Aim of average unit cost of £250 million, one a year.
    Both programmes build a hull every 12-18 months.
    We then have one government owned yard to build medium to large hulls to cover our RFA, amphibious and carrier requirements. Only the design stage would be competitive, with the winner taking on project management for each ship type. Common 20,000 tonne hull for a multirole amphibious support and logistic ships x 6, 30-40,000 tonne hull for tankers, FSS and LPD or LPH requirement, and then the occasional bespoke carrier. One hull every two years. Aim to build at average unit cost of £500 million, £250 mill a year. Carriers would be bolted on every 50 or so years and outside of these coatings.
    That gives us an average bill each year of just £1 billion! But we also get a fleet of 20 highend escorts, 12 low to medium escorts, 8 OPVs and 4-5 future minehunter platforms, 6 Multirole amphibs, 4 tankers, 2 LPH, and 2-3 FSS. For one billion…… a balanced fleet with capability and capacity.
    The remaining billion would be used for manning, maintenance and additional helicopters and off board systems.
    How is this not obviously achievable????

    • The issue is also the capacity to build, I don’t think it is possible to build more then 10 Type 26 frigates in future, without a significant increase in shipyard infrastructure.

    • The issue is the government knows where they want to do in the world but cant’ afford to pay for it.

      The national debt wont’ be cleared in our life time, assuming it ever starts getting cut, so we as a nation are paying huge interest payments on that debt which could go to hospitals etc or ships, but in the meantime our GDP makes us look a lot richer than we really are.

  28. Quite a few navies are bigger than our RN in terms of escorts. S Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Turkey, India off the top of my head; in addition to the obvious USN, PLAN & Russian fleets. Japan & India have over twice the escort force we do. Many near equal navies have better capabilities such as the Italian Merlins having anti-ship missiles where ours have none. Most other navies(& especially those we’re likely to encounter as enemies) OPVs have 76mm guns & some have SAMs & AShms as well. There’s a frightening amount of corvette sized warships that carry AShMs which would be a nightmare for any of our ships.

    I love our country & our navy, so it is very painful to see it reduced to a tiny 2nd/3rd rate in many terms by short sighted politicians who still boast & spin as though we have numbers they ditched decades ago. It’s hazarding our nation, our few remaining ships & those who so faithfully serve in them, as well as diminishing our ability to protect our vital sea trade.

    It’s great we’re finally regenerating several essential capabilities, but to gap them as we have done is gross dereliction & incompetance people should swing for. The weaker we allow ourselves to become, the bolder those who plot mishief become & the sooner we’d have to resort to nuclear in an existentuial threat.

    • By my counting, Adonis is actually correct. Italy has a marginally larger fleet.

      The RN currently has 56 warships – 4 big ‘uns, 10 submarines, 19 escorts and 23 minor warships.

      The Italian Navy has 59 warships – 5 big ‘uns, 8 submarines, 17 escorts and 29 minor warships (including 3 survey ships, which we include in the RN but they list in their auxiliary fleet).

      The two fleets differ because of their different roles but the Italian navy constitutes a core capability on NATO’s southern flank while we have very few ships to spare for our role on NATO’s northern flank.

      If we wonder why Italy, with a smaller population, GDP and defence budget has an equal or larger navy, the big picture answer s:

      a) We have a ruling party that is ideologically wedded to ultra-low public expenditure and has accordingly hacked defence spend to the bone over 5 successive reviews

      b) The naval procurement budget over 10 years is:

      Submarines: £45 bn
      All other ships: £19 bn

      Basically, the cost of Successor is not “5% of the budget”, it is more than half the procurement budget, because it also has to include the costs of AWE, dismantling Dounereay , leasing Trident missiles from the USA etc.

      Add in the 2 vanity carriers and the bloated cost of Astute and it is hardly surprising that there is not enough money to retain the current size of the fleet, let alone to increase it..

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here