The Government should review whether it has ordered enough Type 26 frigates required for high intensity operations and possible future underwater threats, warns a report.
The All Party Parliamentary Group has launched its report on the National Shipbuilding Strategy, the report can be downloaded here.
“Although new ASW technology is emerging, the best in class for anti-submarine detection remains the Type 26 and 2087 towed array sonar. In planning the future fleet, it is imperative emerging ASW technologies are examined and a balance found. Whilst some argue that developing specialist ASW platforms is prohibitively costly, one developing school of thought asserts that future anti-submarine strategy will centre upon the use of networked UXV’s. These ‘mothership’ vessels would be designed to launch, operate and recover large numbers of small unmanned vehicles for ancillary missions, which may include ASW.
Today, the expansion of ‘big data’, large data sets that may be analysed computationally to reveal patterns and trends, provides the capability to run sophisticated oceanographic models in real time to support submarine detection. As processors continue to shrink, some processors will increasingly be employed on ships, aircraft, UUVs, as well as deployable systems placed on the seabed. Whilst some of these technologies are in their infancy, for the Royal Navy, the Type 26 promises to be a capable submarine hunter and, if adequate investment is made in equipping them with the correct weapon fit, it has the potential to be a global leader in the field of ASW.”
The report adds:
“What is not yet clear is the capability gaps that could be generated by the reduction of the Type 26 fleet from 13 to 8
ships.”
The report concludes:
“Australia’s decision to select the Type 26 to replace its Anzac-class from the mid-2020s contravenes the assumption within the Parker Report that the Type 26 was unexportable due to its high cost. Canada’s decision to follow Australia selecting the Type 26 to replace the Iroquois and Halifax class warships further questions this assumption. Now, emboldened by the SEA 5000 competition success, the UK has an exportable warship in the form of the Type 26. Even if these ships do not get built in UK yards (some future ones might well be), the economies of scale that the UK may develop in conjunction with the Royal Australian Navy and Royal Canadian Navy, put future per-ship cost of the Type 26 on a more affordable trajectory.
The Type 26’s performance on the export market further strengthened the case for this vessel and weakens the case for
the Type 31e, particularly as Type 26 would have a five-year advantage over any Type 31e design. Further, if commonality is developed between navies purchasing the Type 26, further economies of scale could be achieved. Moreover, if the National Shipbuilding Strategy is to be successful, it must maintain support for the supply chain and skills which underpin the Type 26s success. In the immediacy, this must include domestic construction of Fleet Solid Support Ships, which would maintain the momentum of the Carrier Alliance and a provide a firm base for future refits of the carriers. Building all Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships domestically, would act to preserve on-shore, high-skilled jobs and build capacity and capabilities the UK will need for production of the next generation of Royal Navy warships.”
This sounds very sensible…i.e. increase the number of type 26 frigates. The question is how to do that and the answer is naturally the bloated overseas aid budget. If we capped overseas aid to just investment in post-war torn countries only and to emergency aid and then use the rest for defence and peacekeeping….this is an argument very easy to win with the public (even some of those god awful lefties…).
Peter Shaw Very sensible suggestion re. Aid budget however the leftist mob don’t do sanity and would be up in arms despite the average joe public agreeing it’s a good idea.
Oddly, and yes it’s true, Corbyn did comment that the Royal Navy needed more frigates, even though it was a passing mumble. I just don’t get the thought processes in Whitehall, they believe we need less MBT’s to the point we may as well not bother, and to some extent, the same applies to the current new frigate programmes. I fear the current fleet numbers are woefully short of a meaningful operational fleet. When you consider that two or more hulls are permanently off operations for rotational refit, it leaves the fleet wanting. As for foreign aid, there is a… Read more »
My recollection is that Corbyn said more ships, rather warships.
He probably has in mind a dozen or so unarmed OPVs for refugee rescue missions
google where the foreign aid goes to, it will make you confused and very, very angry
Socialist does not automatically equal passivise.
9 out of 10 times it does. lol
Ummm, I think you will find that socialist/communist states have been very aggressive throught the 20c. Communists have been knocking each other and others out since the beginning. communism is not and never has been a live and let live movement.
indeed, agreed
But it definitely does in Corbyn’s case, unless it’s somebody like the IRA or Hamas, in which case he supports their ‘military operations’.
I think Corbyn’s just saying that to shore up Labour’s vote in Scotland. As he gets closer to being PM he’s starting to see why all his predecessors who he liked to criticise from the bank benches followed the policies they did. he’ll prob order the ships built without any weapons systems fitted so they can’t be used for war (although not much change there from what previous governments have done except they did it because they ran out of money!)
no surprise there everyone has been saying it now, since the original target was cut, i’m thinking the t 31 project will be abandoned its been subject to the usual fudging around that has now probably doubled the basic cost. the idea of an expanded navy, lets face it, it won’t happen, we’ll be stuck with what we already have minus the retiring t23’s another hope dashed by the beancounters and M.O.D Mandarins
common sense in a world where politicians do not have much?
Excellent article. Even if we build additional hulls that can be retro-fitted-‘for but not with’ then we have the flexibility to do a quick upgrade in an emergency. You can ‘up-arm’ an asset very quickly-look what was done in a short time with Harrier and Sidewinder for example, but you cannot procure a hull in under a few years!!
Excellent news that we are considering more of the Type 26’s, of which the first will not enter service until 2027. Clearly, we need to get these built double quick time! In the case cited below, think quantity, and not just quality. China is building its naval force at an alarming pace. “The ship is being built in the same dry dock used for construction of the seventh Type 071. A considerable number of modules for the latest ship were evident on the dockside before the seventh vessel was launched on 28 December 2018, which has enabled the hull of… Read more »
POMPEY BUILT THE FIRST BATTLESHIP DREADNOUGHT IN UNDER ONE CALENDAR YEAR THAT WAS IN THE THE AGE OF THE RIVET! FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO GIVE CONTRACT TO THE CLYDE WHICH TAKES 4 YEARS TO BUILD 1 RIVER CLASS O.P.V IS RIDICULOUS, THE CLYDE SHOULD BE PRODUCING AT LEAST ONE TYPE 26 EVERY YEAR.
Andy, I think your CAPS lock has malfunctioned ………
The build-rate is fixed by the client.
T26 production can be ramped-up, if required.
Indeed, there’s a section of the forthcoming HMS Glasgow sitting on the stocks in Govan at the moment.
Yeah i had a feeling we don’t get value for money because the way the Treasury structure the contracts and spread the build out over time.
sorry, my laptop still runs on windows 7, and yes the caps lock key is busted!!
the clyde production rate is a joke, why they get frigate contracts when it takes them 4 years to build an o.p.v is beyond me.they should be churning out a ship per year.
the rank snobbishness of the u.k not to consider upgunning the O.P.V’s to corvette doesn’t help same goes for the navy to announce in the 1970’s that future fleet submarines would be massively expensive nuclear ones £1.4 billion for 1 astute? the gotland conventionally powered submarine produced for£100,000 million which ran so many rings around a whole u.s carrier group was considered so good the americans leased one so they could find out how to find one! 14 gotland type for the cost of one astute, the problem for the forces, is not just the beancounters, its the policy and… Read more »
up arm, the o.p.v call it a corvette and the R.N WOULD have 9 extra ships in no time. i’m all for approaching chile, romania, brazil with a view to the repurchase of their t22’s, six are still active plus one laid up in brazil, maybe using retiring t23’s as a bargaining point. fit artisan and sea ceptor, designate them as destroyers, so 9 corvettes and 6 destroyers would be a great move especially as THEY ARE ALREADY BUILT.
Theres nothing wrong with your enthusiasm for the Type 22 Frigates, but surely there is no logic to buying back all available examples and putting them through a very expensive upgrade,and fitting them with systems and Weapons that the T23’s you would use as bargaing chips are already equipped with.The only ones worth upgrading are long gone now (Batch 3) and even they would have proved too costly.
why are we here? everyday people rightly come on here bemoaning the size of the R.N. 1 o.pv every 4 YEARS FROM THE CLYDE YARDS? even with a clear commitment to more t26, the size of the fleet will shrink by a t23 every year before the first t26’s are even floated.
It might be worth considering a long-range version of Tempest with an increased range for the Perseus missile to combat such a potential threat? “China has been churning ships out at an incredible rate. In 2016 and 2017, China commissioned 18 and 14 ships, respectively. (Some other observers have put that number even higher.) The US Navy commissioned only five and eight ships during those years. As of last year, China had more than 300 ships, far more than the US Navy. The Center for Strategic and International Studies predicts that China could have as many as 430 surface ships… Read more »
ANY NEWS ABOUT THE FOLDING WING NEEDED FOR TARANIS TO BE CARRIED FROM QUEEN ELIZABETH?
Rumours have been circulating about the cancellation of t31e for weeks.
Ditch the t31e and revert back to 13 t26.
I fear Ditching t31 and we lose frigate numbers both short and long term
agreed good post.
especially when you consider the loss of a t23 every year. with no replacement built to take its place
Would be nice Cam but don’t think it will happen unless Jeremy Hunt becomes PM! A more realistic option would be to upgrade the Batch 2 OPV’s and task them with GP duties
i think we are all coming to believe that the type 31 isn’t going to happen
Yes, must increase the Type 26 frigates to at LEAST the original number. The Canadians are getting 15, and the Aussies are building 9. The UK is a wealthier than either of those countries, so the money can be found.
Not on a per capita basis.
Australia is 10th in the world ($53,800 USD)
Canada is 16th ($45,032 USD)
UK is 22nd ($39,720 USD)
The UK has more than twice the population of either Australia and Canada, and a GDP roughly twice the size as well. Bruce is right, the UK is wealthier.
The reason the Aussies and Canadians are buying more T26s than us though, is because we’re also spending our wealth on aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines.
Australia still outspends UK on a per capita basis ($1,123 USD – 8th) versus ($713 USD – 13th). So increase your defense spending and you could afford more T26s.
True UK population is now 2.6 times Australia’s although at the beginning of WWI its was about 8.7 times. By 2050 the ratio will be about 2.2 times.
“Not on a per capita basis” ?
With the world conquering Luxembourg number 1 on that list.
Article states what anyone interested in defence knows. Numbers too small in many areas.
The problem is goverment is not interested. HM Treasury is not interested.
What will it take to change that? War?
Actually, is there an area in UK defence where you could say categorically say we have more than adequate numbers?
E-3 Sentry perhaps? But they’re being replaced with 5.
I suppose OPVs with the retaining of B1s but still small compared to everyone else?
Cyber and Intelligence?
Probably solely air and sea logistics and our communication and observation satellite capabilities and cyber capabilities are above par. Too few ships, fighters, tanks and infantry now really. Our land forces are half the size they were during the Napoleonic era when they were already one of the smallest armies in Europe.
Generals, Admirals and Air Officers….
Their numbers are comparative to what organisations need that command chain.
ISTAR. Transports. Chinooks.
I was thinking ISTAR as well, very few nations have that capability. Im not sure about Chinooks we could definitely use a few more of those.
Remind us all how many the US Army has and how many the RAF have. The second highest number on the planet doesn’t look quite as impressive. P.S. What other celestial bodies does the Chinook operate on?
Intelligence wise we are linked to the USA and other Anglophile nations. I think that speaks for itself.
THE ARCHER CLASS’FANNY BOATS,’GETTING MORE USE BY HOORAY HENRY’S AT THE UNIVERSITIES THAN USeFUL WORK FOR THE r.n i’ve often thought a well drilled archer squadron, based at gibraltar to enable poor old sabre to finally retire would make perfect sense.
What happened to this tender; anyone know?
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/tender-issued-for-new-fast-patrol-boats-for-gibraltar/
I believe if the right people with the right influence get into to the right positions it won’t take much for gradual positive changes in defence policy. I don’t think we are quite there yet. I would use the Huwai saga as a good example. If Hammond leaves the treasury that will help. The man says there is no money for defence then proposes raising the minimum wage to £10.00 an hour. Hopefully when may goes he will move. I also believe, if there are enough instances like Russia buzzing one of our ships (admittedly while in a task force)… Read more »
the type 22 frigates could easily been upgraded to destroyers, WE’D HAVE TOO MANY TO BE ABLE TO PARK! THERE ARE 4 STILL CTIVE AROUND THE WORLD GET THEM BACK, PUT ARTISAN AND SEA CEPTOR ON THEM?
Fantasy fleet is always fun but Ultimately hull numbers are not the biggest issue for the RN crewing them is so we need to sort out recruitment at the same time and realistically plan hull numbers in keeping with what we could actually deploy, otherwise we will have brand new ships going into ‘extended readiness’ or used as training ships. Even the with numbers as they are we have 1 of the world most advanced training fleets because we can’t crew them to deploy
actually Type 26 requires circa 40% less crew than a T23/T45 so should be easier to man a fleet of 20-24 T26 than it is to man 19 of our current escorts.
Its not really fantasy fleet to request 20 or so replacements, set against a current fleet of 19.
It’s fantasy fleet until HMG build it, we’re all guilty of it on here. I’m fully aware of the requirements for crew but we still don’t have enough, IMO you need what is actually required for every ship not in refit or at extended readiness to be at sea then at least 10% of that extra, to allow for losses on operations, training periods, sickness/injury and to provide adequate leave so we don’t over work the crews and lower retention even more. Recruitment is even harder when It comes to the RN and especially the Submarine service, I help run… Read more »
I actually forecast 4 crews for each ship, and so should the RN. This is more representative of the need to offer serving personnel a career that balances peoples expectations and lifestyles.
Agree its fantasy until HMG build it, but T31 was the name created on the Think Defence website and so things do come to reality from forums like this.
Lastly, thank you for putting the hours in to train young people, its just a pity that in outsourcing so much we lose the quality and care that ex serving personnel would bring to the role.
PacMan
True every known then HMG surprise us.
Cheers no thanks needed I learnt to sail there and wanted to give back, i’ve been arguing for your exact point for ages it should be ex-servicemen recruiting their replacements and ideally a large proportion should be the wounded and mentally harmed by their service, as the 1 point that I constantly see when they’re interviewed or write their stories is they feel they have lost the feeling of being part of the team.
after the R.N i was a prison officer for 24 years!!! one of the things we did was to take convicts to schools to tell he kids where their lives went wrong, maybe serving or ex sailors going into the schools to give career talks might induce more to take the oath on leaving school.
it might help if all training establishments ended courses on the same date, this would enable large predetermined drafting to areas most in need
more and more deployments are taking their toll on families especially now they’re talking about putting a t23 in the gulf on 3 year rotation, when i was on the blake(just after the age of sail! we had a 7 month far east deployment followed immediately by 6 months in the americas divorce and dear john letters were everywhere. when i left the R.N nobody ever asked me why are you going? to my knowledge it still isn’t done, so if you don’t know why the sailors are leaving, how can you put it right?
born somewhere, made in the royal navy? if that’s the best anyone can come with then, we may as well bring back the press gangs or national service.
I can save a few million on investigations and committees and boards and knighthoods at the end of the review………its not.
At last – some common sense…
2 things need to happen.
1. Commitment to a proper drumbeat that is properly funded.
2. A fixed price from BAE
3. Commitment to replace T45 with T26 AAW.
If the above comes into action then we can purchase 21 -24 T26, almost certainly at a cheaper price point than the piece meal approach we are taking now.
1 of these per annum will be significantly cheaper than 1 every 3-5 years, if nothing else purely from a personnel point of view.
we’d have to insist on a faster build rate
In truth Andy. The only way we will get value for money is by speeding up the schedule. It’s also the only way to make it sustainable.
3 ships per annum is the minimum.
If we take both the carriers and T26. The carriers incurred £1bn eaxtra cost due to slowdown and I suspect the T 26 is in a similar position
It’s not as if we are building a massive uptick in ships we just need to plan it far better
Another discussion that will end up going down the GP and ASW rabbit hole……..
We will end up with 6 Type 26 and no Type 31e.
The 6 Type 26 and 6 Type 45 vessels will have various refits until a Type 45 replacement is announced. This vessel will be called ‘Type 46’ based upon the Type 26 hull.
Unfortunately I believe that you are spot on the pressure to buy highly capable ‘British’ ships could force the abandonment of t31 and the longevity of the type 26 procurement will lead to less type 23s in service which by all accounts are on their knees. Some government will then assess that t26 is too expensive and as we now only have 8 t23 to be replaced and t26 is so capable do we need a 1 for 1 replacement (this is pretty much the reason we have 6 type 45s) type 42 numbers were reduced from 12 to 8… Read more »
The RN needs to procure quite hulled destroyers fitted out with mark 41 vls. Also to develop submersible or low hulled Arsenal ships to protect a carrier from shore based missile batterys in littoral waters.
or
don’t go into the littoral with a carrier…thats a lot easier and cheaper…
Well my current fantasy fleet, would add a pair of stretched Type 26, to make ten in total for the RN. My T26XL would be pure T26 at the pointy end, but Engadine at the Stern. So the rear would have a hangar for 4 helicopters, say 2x Merlin + 2x Wildcat. The flight deck would be big enough for a Merlin & a Wildcat to operate at the same time. Engadine did this (post refit) with a Seaking & a Lynx.
A couple of VIP cabins, midships & you have a very handy command ship for moderate size ops.
The T26 and Merlin HM2 are a partnership, so need to order more Merlin HM2s , plus ensure that the T26 has shipbourne anti submarine weapons .
If you are just doing ASW. However, if you want multi-role, then a frigate with 4 helicopters is very handy. Yes we have 2 new big carriers, but only 2 cannot be everywhere at once. We might need to send a small taskforce of 2 to 4 ships to a situation, but it does not need QE/PoW, that would be overkill. Having one ship able to operate 4 helicopters is useful in those situations. It is unlikely that all 4 would be ASW. Chances are you would have 1 ASW + 3 transport/attack.
What about using cheaper, smaller LPHs that could carry 4 ASW helicopters? These ships could be work in concert with a Type 26, supplying additional helicopters while the T26 does the computing power. When not needed for augmenting ASW capabilities, they could also be used for amphibious assault disaster relief. Essentially these could be more Bay class ships, at the top end of the spectrum, or at the lower end it could be Singapore’s Endurance class, or the Italian San Giorgio.
John – Another comparison would surely be HMS’s Tiger and Blake ?
Paul, yes. The only snag with those 2, was the high manning levels of a WW2 ship (885?), but same idea, but with modern automation for lower crewing levels, is exactly what I am on about.
Was going to make that comparison that myself!
Indeed,as you would know the idea didn’t prove to be successful in the end,sound idea as it was.
The Royal Navy definitely needs to be increased in size. In the long run I would like to see 8 x Type 26, 8 x Type 45 replacement, 8 x Type 31, 8 x River class O.P.V. and 8 x Astute class submarines.
In the short term it may be best to make the numbers up with Type 31, build a second batch of 5 for a total of 10.
My fantasy fleet to be achieved over the next 15 -20 years would be 10-12 T26, 8 T45 replacements, 5 T31 to be forward based, 4 bay replacements with Command and control facilities to act as mother ships, 2 new LPH that would also replace the Albion’s, and 12 Astute allied to development of a decent number of autonomous subs.
On more than one post, I’ve argued against the ceaseless calls for “cancel T31, order moarrr T26” on the grounds that it’s too late to sustain current escort numbers and its economically unfeasible without major investment in defence.
I’m going to look bloody stupid if the government suddenly defies all previous logic (as it was) and increases the T26 order. Of course, an increase in T26 orders is pointless unless it’s in combination with an increase in delivery speed of the batch 2 and (potential) later ships
About bloody time.
Especially as the T31 is clearly going nowhere…
The timing is interesting, within a week of the leaks that the budget for the t31 was insufficient.
One of two things wouldn’t surprise me
1. they announce that the sub surface threat has grown and decided to instead of building 5 t31 they will instead build 1 additional t26.
2. they will have a committee, and over a tax payers paid lunch the committee will conclude that the threat is indeed there but it is not possible to conclude either way on the numbers and everyone will slap themselves on the back for a job well done.
1 T26 in place of 5 T31s wouldn’t make sense as a way of increasing ASW capability. With helicopters and in the future drones being the primary weapon against submarines, having 5 helicopter platforms instead of 1 much bigger and quieter one makes more sense (with the caveat that we actually have enough ASW helicopters)
Sense and cuts are not two things that regularly fit together.
Announcing cuts is all about spinning and smoke screens, to make it look like it is a positive.
Minimum amount of type 26 for credible asw capability (appreciating asw should be layered)? Think I’d go for 12 26 and 5 31e. That would allow 2 per carrier, if necessary (or an extra 2 for global deployments leaving 1 per carrier), 3 for global deployment, 2 to go with 2 helicopter carriers (also can be used for asw) and 3 for the nuclear deterrent. If funds were stretched, you could probably drop the 2 for the helicopter carriers, leaving 10 26’s. I think for a decent asw capability you would also need two helicopter carrying flat tops of some… Read more »
I don’t see the following as a fantasy fleet but a realistic possibility when you consider reduced cost (guessing approx £350 million per t31) and reduced operating and crew cost of the new designs 10x t26 (possibly 2 command ships with ceafar and aster), 12 type 31 (preference a140), retaining and upgrading of t45. This would bring us closer to post Cold War numbers. I think both fss and the possible littoral strike vessels should be built (possibly for the later converted) in the uk. If possible a deal with Thales to develop tacticos to a uk licensed version with… Read more »
The nation just can’t afford this.
People keep talking about our GDP but that in isolation is meaningless, what you have to talk about is available public income, which takes into account how much money is raised in taxes (each country has different tax rates) and reduced for national debt repayment costs (interest and capital) and also reduced by semi fixed public sector costs like public pensions.
You also have to adjust by cost of living, since some countries have significantly higher cost of livings than others and also by national average wages.
Thanks Steve,
This is about the only credible/sensible post on this thread!
Steve – That depends on how you view your spending commitments,Defence has always taken a low priority compared to other services -NHS,Education etc.Its always been an easy target for cuts since the end of WW2,unless we are at war neither our Politicians or the general public see any need for massive spending,that has always been the case.Looking at the situation today it would only need a modest increase,say 0.5 -1.5 % to make a huge difference,in the whole scheme of things I don’t think this would impact the economy in a negative way too much.You mention Tax,as far as I… Read more »
We’re projected to spend as much on diabetes as defence in the near future.
So rather than pumping more funds into the military and the nhs, we really need to look at why we are becoming more sick and less productive.
It really is about the economy. We can bankrupt ourselves by building ships on borrowed money, although unless we stop the rot, we will continue to lose the capability to defend ourselves.
Guys watch the speech from the new Secretary of State for defence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzDkksu5Ub8. I don’t believe the T31 is going anywhere at this point, there are too many other things in the MoD to be sorted before there is any chance of increased ship numbers. I am hopeful in the longer term, but that is dependant on the new Defence minister staying in post.
Well, 13 Type 26 would have been the way to go but the cost rose to exceed the budget and we are headed for 8 Type 26, 5 River 2, 3 River 1 and hopefully 5 Type 31 of design TBA between 117 and 140 metres! Little to be gained by grieving over the past. We are where we are. The good news is that Parliament has recognized that we may be short of ASW assets, that the mood music from the foreign secretary is about a ‘boost’ to defence spending and that we have a RN reservist as the… Read more »
Similar thoughts to mine, bar scrapping the Albion class ships. I believe the 26s are currently to be fitted with launchers that can house land attack missiles. Unfortunately I can’t see them obtaining any more subs. There was quite a good article on conventional subs on save the royal navy.
I strongly suspect they will end up with 10 26s and scrap the 31es
I remember reading a while back that the Albion class are the most expensive RN ships to run by some way. That’s why I suggest replacing them with a more flexible design like a ‘San Carlos’ type. Of course retaining Albion and Bulwark in addition would be great if we can afford it. In general standardisation lowers costs, so I am by no means against a fleet with fewer types if it can do the job. If we go for 10 Type 26s and no Type 31 and that’s enough to enable 1 QE task force plus 1 ‘San Carlos’… Read more »
Yes I’ve got some dim memory of reading a similar article regarding the Albion’s, but that may have been when they were talking about scrapping them entirely and so were trying to justify it. It would be easier to pitch the replacement of 2 Albion for two San Carlos or mistral types, rather than proposing the two San Carlos as well. Your quite right, if they did decide that an extra 2 26s were better than 5 31s, especially if the costs were the same, I do imagine they would look to upgrade/ produce more opv’s, to cover the lower… Read more »
The running cost of an LPD is high for a number of reasons. There are only 2 of them so there is little buy in bulk savings on spares . They have a higher crew count than a T23 and then you add in the RM manned LCs onboard. That manpower comes out of the budget along with travel cost. So if you fly people home for leave on a ship with 300+ people onboard its going to cost more than a 180 manned T23. Fuel costs are higher on a LPD. Electric drive yes, but the 4 x LCU… Read more »
Happy to see the T31 cancelled, there doesn’t seem to be much point to it if it won’t be ready until after the T26s and we can sell the T26s abroad. As well as building more T26s (and hopefully quicker, and cheaper than the first batch), going forward to would be good to bite the bullet and place a large order for a class of ships so we could benefit from the economies of scale, while at the same time securing a generation of work for the shipbuilders and supplying the Navy with the ships they need in the numbers… Read more »
I’ve never been keen on the type31 concept. The RN rejected the high/low warship concept after it was proven faulty in war. The whole high low debate tends to increase the futher a navy gets from actual experience of war. Don’t get me wrong I have no problem with ships having a defined role and being built for this. So I have no problem with the navy running constabulary type vessels for that purpose ( Rivers is a classic example of a brilliant design with a specific purpose) . But they must clearly be constabulary vessels not sudo escorts, if… Read more »
IMO the defence procurement problems have always been the £££s spent on R&D especially the projects that didn’t result in any new equipment e.g. £320m+ of Army budget spent on MRAV/FRES/TRACER, buy UK design rather than UK build, ‘British is best’ thinking, and vanity projects like the QE2 carriers and Trident 2. I believe that many foreign design projects could have been joined and built in the UK instead: Rotterdam/Galicia LPD instead of Albion class; Makin Island/America/Cavour/Juan Carlos I instead of QE2; New build Resolution NG with Trident C4 instead of Vanguard/Trident D5; Walrus SS instead of Upholder; De Zeven… Read more »
just not going to happen sadly,the pace of warship production from the clyde yards is dismal. pompey built the worlds first battle ship drednaut in under a calendar year, yet, the M.O.D fnds 4 years to produce 1 o.p.v acceptable. shocking.