Second British aircraft carrier declared operational

Presumably that’s for amphib operations. The American assault carriers have only 6 fixed wing planes so that configuration is entirely feasible.

But the plan to spend @£70m adapting POW for amphibious operations has been dropped. Instead we are looking to EMCATS and drones to make up numbers. Quite why anyone thinks that operating unmanned full sized aircraft is going to be easier or less expensive than manned CATOBAR which we opted to avoid ( twice), I don’t understand. Given the limited F35 fleet, the amphibious role looked sensible.

Ah Queens regs, that most flexible and changeable of publications…..😆!

Lots of angst coming from (mostly civies) about the Army banning smoking it seems.
“You can’t stop soldiers from doing legal things, they’re adults it’s their choice. What about alcohol!?”

Meanwhile the Army be like “Is that on informed sports lad?”

What happened to the B3s was a disgrace. The best frigates the RN ever had…

Spot on Andy, the type 22 batch 2s went before their time ,

Correct Graham,25th May Xhxtty day , Argie Press showed Fake Photo of surpossed Bomb damage too Flightdeck of Invincible with smoke emanating from Inside the Hangar. Loss of AC meant no replacement Harriers and Chinos for troop airlift

Loss of Chinooks (bar one) for troop lift meant that the plan had to be recut for 5 Inf Bde – they were not fit enough to do a megatab (they had only just come off public duties – and they were not in the same fitness league as Paras and bootnecks), so they were sailed around to Fitzroy, with disastrous consequences.

Thanks Graham , I know people on this Thread will say that Was 39 yrs ago .So what , Lest we Forget , Bluff Cove could have been averted ,1 RM officer told a senior Army officer it would be best too get the guards disembarked at first light Snd was basically , just ignored , Hope Inter service Co operation has been also Been Rectifed

She was already knackered – built to commercial standards

I think you are missing the point Terry. It should not and will not be up to one nation to defend against dictatorships. The are far more free nations who if they wish to remain free will outpace the advances of any single nation.

China will also need to keep in mind that their economy is built upon the delivery of goods to the very nations which are concerned about their new offensive posture.

Whilst I agree that western nations have been slower to respond to China you must remember that many western contries sustain far higher spending on defence whilst enjoying higher growth in previous decades. Would an attack on a western nation or one of it’s allies not be an economic catastrophe for China?

Point taken however I wonder if Fieldhouse, given the option, would have preferred the superior fire power and resilience of today’s fleet against the numerical superiority available to him at the time? A few type 45s would give any air force something to think about and provide a few more options to the commanders. The much meligned drone technology will provide the option in the future of cheap rapidly produced platforms in numbers not seen before. Victory will definately go to the nations with the most open minded approach.

Graham we deployed 2 carriers because that’s all we had Bulwark the carrier was in the Basin Pompey would have taken 6mnth too bring her too readiness, Illustrious was speeded through all works

Thanks Tommo. My point was that we needed 2 carriers for Op Corporate to create redundancy (avoid all eggs in one basket). Could we deploy 2 carriers again out of a complement of just 2? Hence we need 3 carriers in service.

Thanks got what you meant ,Graham

The Blue Fox radar that was on the SHAR was OK for the time. But it wasn’t really suitable for what it was being asked to do. In typical RN fashion they got the most out of what they had and all credit to them for that.

The SHAR neither had the space of electrical capacity for anything fancier at the time. Processing wise you then had to contend with what a pilot could do on his own in an aircraft that was quite quirky to fly which was, at the time, limiting the processing power wasn’t that compact. So you couldn’t afford the distractions of too much tech.

If you had a couple of F35B’s flying counter racetracks above a UK force you would have a very complete radar picture of a very large area from a very sophisticated radar. Even one on its own would be a very significant data hoover.

Blue Fox was very basic derived from the Sea Spray radar on the Lynx helicopter. Blue Vixen on the SHAR FA2 was much better, but did not enter service until the 1990s. Blue Vixen is the ancestor of the CAPTOR radar on Typhoon.

Thanks Alan. It sounds like you are unconvinced by Merlin/Crowsnest as AEW, yet its endurance is fairly good.

They deliberately didn’t try and go along the runway to ensure that at least one hit it…. The mission was a success. However, one major point was by showing we could hit the falklands with vulcan we also showed we could hit the Argentine mainland if we chose to. This meant they had to keep a significant number of aircraft at home to protect against that option.

Yes, I know all that: hence why I phrased it the way I did.

“Personally I am not so sure: as it showed that if we did heavy dumb bombing we could only achieve WW2 levels of precision”.

I agree SB – in fact, the Vulcan’s main bombing-aid was essentially an updated version of H2S (ground mapping radar) carried by Lancaster bombers over Berlin in late-1943.

Exactly.

The flip side of Black Buck was is showed UK airpower limitations perfectly. If you are doing that there isn’t anything else in the cupboard.

I was always a bit surprised that there was no attempt to link up SF laser designator with the Black Buck bombings. I suspect the problem was the weather conditions. Anyone know?

CAUKUS
no, wait.

CAKES R US more to my appetite!

Haha! When I was battling the ScotNats on the Glasgow Herald ten years back I said WISE for the UK-Wales,Ireland,Scotland,England. One smart ass Nat retorted-SWINE-Scotland,Wales,Ireland North,England.😂 Had to concede a few points on that day!

If Scotland does a runner followed by NI teaming up with Ireland, then what remains should be called KEW, Kingdom of England & Wales. Appropriate given that we like our gardens.

👏Nice one Graham. Impressive fleet with PoW!!

Or maybe good WINES.

Indeed Frank-from the Cape of Good Hope!!

Hey Geoff what’s up -you must have enjoyed the Rugby on Sunday – what a game!

Howsit Klonkie-nailbiter and nice consolation prize for the Boks! Always good to beat the AB’s in their own back yard!
Cheers from a wet and cold(like NZ😉) Durban

Nice one Mate!

😀I think this alliance will be producing the best that Austailia, the US and the UK can produce as new kit. Hand me downs are only relevant when the kit has exhausted its useful life and only then non nuclear tech. Some countries will want to go it alone but some will recognise that they will get a greater quantity and depth of quality kit. You pays your money you takes your choice.

😀That’s democracy.

Their Gaelic flare, won’t cut the mustard, so too speak Come and join The Anglo pact the waters lovely LOL

I know, and it used to carry F35B’s and Harriers. Both helicopters.

Spot on Deeps mk 1 eyeball for recognition Or Jane’s

Yes I know, the point is it used to fly F35B’s, it no longer does.

BHR was not a Fleet Carrier.

No way… three is fat too much…we wouldn’t have any or just 1 if there wasn’t a contractual agreement meaning we would lose all the money anyways. We need more frigates, subs and destroyers first.

Hi fella, while I accept the rationale behind delaying the purchase of more F35s to avoid boating for costly upgrades, I do wonder how much a F25 is going to cost once the Blk 4 improvement s have been implemented?
Currently the cost over runs are somewhere in the region of $2 billion. These costs will be added onto the price of every new build airframe, so one has to hope that that increase is substantially less then the cost of any upgrading of older airframes. Come 2026, it will be interesting to see how much each one is going to cost…..

Wow, I certainly do not wear rose tinted specs unlike the majority of contributers on this site. I was in the royal navy during the falklands war so I don’t need a lesson on that. The plain truth is the royal navy has not got enough ships. The royal navy has not got enough aircraft, fixed wing or rotary. The RAF has not got enough planes. The army has not got enough tanks. But when people keep putting positive spin on everything, and do not face reality that is the issue. So maybe some on here should look at what is actually happening. We have ordered 48 f35b’s. To equip both carriers with there designated compliment, 36 each we need over 90. Reality, that will never happen. You may have different coloured glasses to me. When I was in the royal navy we spent 5.6% of gdp on defence. We now spend 2% with creative accounting on defence. That’s the problem. But with positive spin everything in the garden is lovely.

So keeping a sense of reality that you keeping talking about. Considering the current financial climate, a global pandemic recovery to pay for. Voters far more interested in more money for the NHS and adult social care, education, green energy ect. What would you do about it all then? Or you just hear to talk fantasy fleets,and fantasy budgets from back in the day.

Well 37 billion on test and trace would be a good start. Oh what about the over 100 billion on HS2. If you want a global Britain, and you want to deploy global forces, yes you are right they don’t come cheap. But you don’t put positive spin on things saying you can do things when clearly you can’t. That’s the reality I am on about, be honest with people.

37Bn hasn’t been spent on test and trace.Thats the budget, it doesn’t mean they have spent that much. And during the last 18months, I’m bloody glad that money has been available. Tens of thousands of people have been employed to man testing centres, and administer vaccines. We would be in a far worse position if that money wasn’t available. And the RN has continued to operate globally throughout all of it. HS2 will affect the lives of millions of people. And create a lot of job’s. High speed rail is good enough for France/Germany, so why not us. And Global Britain isn’t about larger Armed Force’s. We have always been a Global Great Britain.

I agree with you on test and trace, which could of been done much cheaper using local council staff using local phone numbers.

I agree that the RN doesn’t have anywhere near enough ships; I doubt you’ll find many people on this site who would disagree with that assessment. I also agree that the root cause is the lack of overall defence spending. I even agree that having 90+ F-35Bs simultaneously would be required for both carriers under sovereign control, operating in full strike mode without any other fixed wing craft. Not to mention additional RAF requirements. While the MoD have already said it’s ordering more than 48, the pundits reckon somewhere in the 70s is likely, so not enough for that.

But the UK is also trying to develop three new types of fixed wing plane at the moment, Vixen/Mosquito, Tempest and the modular trainers.

If the Vixen UAV moves from demonstrator to production, the QE class won’t need 90+ F-35Bs after all for simutaneous strike operations. Otherwise we’ll have to decide if we want to pay more for that capability by getting more F-35s.

Everything in the garden isn’t lovely, but lies won’t increase the defence budget; possibly the opposite. Boris wants wins. The more the services are painted as incompetent the less freedom and money they get.

Hi Peter,

Firstly, thank you for your service it is appreciated.

I think most of us on here recognise the lamentable state of defence that you describe and it is for that reason that so many are pleased to see the carriers entering service. Many of those above have critised the slow build up of the F35’s at some point, including myself.

However, I and many others have come to the opinion that the slow procurement rate may actual work out well in the long run because of the development issues that the programme has encountered.

It is not ideal, but after having no carrier capability for the last ten years to have two 65,000 ton carriers with at least one, if small, air wing is a big improvement.

There is still much to do and we can only hope that the politicians wake up to the developing geopolitical situation.

We are where we are. We should never have got here, damn it I remember thinking 60 escorts was too few! Less than 20 is gross negligence on the part of our so called leadership. All of them!

There has been an outbreak of optimism recently – but it is born from the hope that we have finally hit the bottom and things are now slowly and unevenly – improving.

Hopefully, we are not wrong.

Cheers CR

Thank you for your reply. All I said was it was a disgrace having a huge 65000 carrier without aircraft. I did not expect the Spanish inquisition. We will never have enough aircraft for both carriers. As for unmanned aircraft, drones etc they could be years if not decades away before fully operational. We ordered the carriers in2007 so we have had 14 years to order enough aircraft. My concern is that if the next 14 years are like the last 14 your dream will never be fulfilled.

The intention has never been to operate both carriers at the same time. Having two means one will be available 365 a year to work around maintenance, and refits. The plan was never to have enough jets to put 36 on both vessels at the same time. Even 24 F35’s is a huge capability to take to sea. Only somone from the UK would call it a disgrace when a new 65k aircraft carrier is declared operational. Regardless of how many aircraft are available. This is a good news story after years of hard work, and another step forward down the long road to regenerate carrier strike with 5th gen strike capability.

Well said.

Hi Peter,

Yup, I agree with everything you say and so would most of the posters on here.

I also recognise that the fleet has not yet increased in size and as many have commented on here such is the nature of politics it may not grow ever again! However, there is at the moment at least, a little room for optimism and I guess we are focusing on that for this story at least.

Even without sufficient aircraft the second carrier reaching operational status represents another significant step forward but as you rightly point out there is still much to do. Even so the second carrier adds some level of resilience at within the context of our NATO contributions. A resilient sovereign capability is still some way off…

For the moment we are focused on the great outcome of a lot of hard work undertaken by many people in the services, MoD and industry. Ordinary poeple who turn up to work and do their best – they’ll never get a knighthood those things are reserved for the high ups and the uninvolved 🙂 – so I think some encouragement and recognition from us is justified.

We’ll get back to huranging the politicians and the other incompetents in due course.

Cheers CR

The F-35 program is years behind schedule, Peter because of past development problems with this type of aircraft. That is out of our hands, you need to blame LM there! It has also affected deliveries to the RN over the past few years.
Yes we should of kept some Harrier GR9’s for battlefield support etc until in the future drones can provide this sort of capability.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

The positive is the ship has been declared operational and is now part of the navy. Means other one can have a rest and fix up when it gets back. I’m sure we would all love to see more equipment and funding for the forces and monies to be spend wisely.
With current tax/NI rises about to come in and benefit cuts for lower income people I imagine a further tax rise to double armed forces budget would be about as palatable a day trip to the conservative conference.

Well stop doing then

Someone break your translator there comrade?

😝👍

August 12
The Pentagon is exploring its options for a more efficient and powerful F-35 engine

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/08/12/the-pentagon-is-exploring-its-options-for-a-more-efficient-and-powerful-f-35-engine/

A more comprehensive report (FY2020) can be found here.

DOT&E F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2020/dod/2020f35jsf.pdf?ver=C5dAWLFs4_N3ZLrP-qB0QQ%3D%3D

Pretty sure I read somewhere that those more powerful engines were for the A and C models only. May need an international ‘B’ club working with RR to generate a B upgrade.

Correct! Which begs the question, what will be in place for block 4 software currently due in 2026 after further delays and at what cost to us?

Sept. 10, 2021
GE Says New Engine for F-35 Possible by 2027, but Not on STOVL Version

“While “we think we have a very competitive offering for the F-35A and the F-35C, … we did not design the AETP engine to integrate with the F-35B. It was beyond the scope of what we set out to do,” he said.

While Tweedie did not comment on how hard it would be to adapt AETP engines to this application, he did say it would be “beyond the budget and timeframe” set by the House to accomplish.”

https://www.airforcemag.com/ge-new-engine-for-f-35-possible-by-2027-not-stovl-version/

“Latka said the F-35B’s unique short take-off and vertical landing lift system can’t accommodate the AETP engines.

To create competition with GE, she said, two variants of each company’s engine would be needed, with parallel repair and supply chains. That contributed to Pratt & Whitney’s $40 billion cost figure, she said.”

https://www.airforcemag.com/pratt-pushes-alternative-to-new-adaptive-engine-for-f-35/

You should read your own articles properly. AETP isn’t designed for any F35 version, It’s for a potential 6th gen aircraft, and more than likely, won’t be seen on any F35. Engine upgrades for the F135 are in the works for all current variants of the F35. F135 just like the airframe is at the start of it’s development cycle, with built in growth, just like EJ200 has considerable thrust increase potential.

As I said, at what cost to us?

For the Air Force’s F-35A, “the technology could be remarkable,” Fick said. But, GE and Pratt & Whitney’s AETP engines would “require significant modifications” to fit in the Navy’s F-35C and are “completely a non-starter” for the Marine Corps F-35B, which has vertical takeoff/landing capability. Both engine makers have said the AETP engines will not fit in the F-35B.

It might be possible to alter the AETP engine to fit in the F-35C, and if so, “some cost-sharing there might be possible,” Fick said.

But at a minimum, choosing to put AETP on any part of the F-35 fleet would mean at least two powerplants to manage for the fleet, and possibly three, Fick said.

“We know we have a demand,” and the Block 4 version of the F-35 will need improved performance from the F135 engine, Fick said. Although the first three capability increments of Block 4 can function with the existing engine, “we know that, going beyond that, we need to do something different,” and the all-up Block 4 can’t fully exploit its new capabilities without more power.

It would be unfair for the “Navy, Marine Corps, and [international] partners all footing part of the bill” to integrate an engine in the F-35 that only the Air Force can use, Fick said.

This is also worth noting. At some point, we will find out!

“The F-35 Block 4 upgrade has been included in the UK F-35 programme budget since its inception. Decisions on the number of aircraft to be upgraded will be made on the basis of military capability requirements.

The costs of the Block 4 upgrade are managed through the F-35 Joint Programme Office and, as one partner in the multinational F-35 programme, the UK is not in a position to share detailed cost information,” the minister said.”

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/uk-may-not-upgrade-all-f-35bs-to-block-4-standard

Sounds like the OCU may miss out and therefore only limited potential for an effective surge or reserve capacity. When numbers are low we need all units capable of operating at maximum potential to mitigate attrition risk.

Thank you for your very detailed reply. My concern is you have rightly said the new engine and software is in very early stages. We may not see that come to fruition before 2030. The f35 has enemies in the US. The air force have ordered a new version of the good old f15. The US navy have ordered more good old f18s, only ceasing production in favour of a new aircraft, not the f35. If the f35 is cancelled or production is drastically reduced we will be up the creek without a paddle.

You’re welcome! and thank you for your service.

The F35 was initially designed to fill the gap between 4th and 6th gen aircraft.

Sadly, that has not gone to plan, creating some real headaches for the military commanders to sort out due to China’s ever-growing military capabilities and huge investment in additional military equipment over the coming decade.

Some very tough decisions will have to be made going forward, including the amount of F35’s that the US and her allies will actually purchase in order to maintain a technological advantage over future adversaries.

“According to Janes forecasts, China’s defence budget will grow by about 65% – from approximately USD258 billion to USD426 billion – between 2021 and 2030.”

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/defence/latest/airshow-china-2021

Re “production is drastically reduced”

It appears they are working on fixes for the premature distress of rotor blade coatings, the issue with the canopy and maintenance schedules.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/02/12/an-engine-shortage-is-the-newest-problem-to-hit-the-f-35-enterprise/

It is very unlikely that F35B development would be cancelled given how much of NATO and other allies like Japan, who are mission critical to US foreign policy, are buying it.

If you cancel if then you cancel anyone trusting in joint programs with USA.

You’re off your rocker. The F15’s and F18’s are pork spending to help Boeing, who’s fighter biz is in great peril.

Nigel, how about a retractable or raiseable ramp at the bow(in front of the CAT), for STOVL operations?

That would make a great deal of sense if they could achieve it but the ramp is curved and you would lose a great deal of internal space too.

No expert here, but would it make sense to have EMALS with a reduced ramp across the entire front end?

One for Gunbuster I’m guessing!

Best to ask the Russians. One of their recent model carriers that they bring out to display at shows was designed similarly, with reduced length catapults behind ramps. I like the idea, but you need different undercarriage strengthening for ramps than you do for cats/traps. It’s hard to say if the F-35C could handle it without further adaptation.

Yes, they use tugs now to do the job instead! 😂

Don’t know why you are showing a tug next to an American submarine. Have I missed something.

“And I remember a Polaris boat at the end of its life having helos fly spares out to it to keep the thing at sea”

Yes, clearly a poor attempt at a joke!

Nigel is having a laugh mate, humour……

Thanks Mr Blythe , One has too educate some people that Royal Navy subs have never had planes attached to the Conning tower or Fin (yank slang) Our boats Planes ,are placed either side of the Hull

Complex platforms won’t need spare parts in future? Things really have moved on that we now have 100٪ reliability and availability.

Those boats where a nightmare towards the ends of their lives. Once Trident came online there was an audible sigh of relief from the engineers in Faslane that was heard in GUZ! .
With more modern systems, maintenance regimes and reliability they should never get to the position they where in with the last polaris deterrence patrols.

Thanks for the reply. I once heard that a SSN/SSBN was as or more complex than the Space Shuttle. So, I am not surprised some things break down on patrol. I was in REME for over 30 years so have some affinity with this.

Hang on a minute. We now have 100% reliability and availability. Would you like to reconsider that statement in relation to the type 45 destroyer. Or do you know something that nobody else does.

45s the piece of equipment that you’re referring too Is Guess what ? American And we fell for it as the Yanks would say “SUCKERS”

I was being ironic, Peter, as regards the incoming comment.

I think you will find that most things break down towards the end of life. Apparently according to you things have moved on. Really, did not a type 45 destroyer Break down whilst accompanying the Queen Elizabeth on her deployment, and haven’t these wonderful vessels have a history of breaking down. Did you forget this. Polaris submarines had a hell of a better reliability rate than this. Between 1969 and 1996 the CAS deterrent never missed a day. Something to be proud of. Bloody hell, you have me putting a positive spin on something.

Hi Peter, I think you will find that between 1969 and now, CASD has never missed a day. Something to be said about that I think.
All things are relative of course, MOD pours a lot of money into our nuclear programme to keep it running.

Stuff breaks … there is no denying that and some of it breaks without warning.
However things such as MMS have thankfully gone by the by. The RN no longer takes stuff apart for the sake of taking it apart to check that it will still work after you put it back together.
RCM is a far better way of maintaining equipment.
Equipment is more reliable. The way equipment is manufactured and put together is far better. Solder joints replaced by crimps, Keelering couplings replaced by more modern joints. Electronics replacing valves…

That said the Polaris boats had huge issues at the ends of their lives. Yes they didn’t miss a day but it is doubtful that now, today, they would have been allowed to go to sea with some of the defects they had at the end.

Anything mechanical is subject to failure. Polaris boats suffered towards the end of their lives because they reached the poi t they were designed too. They never got life extension refits. The vanguard class boats are now operating passed their design lives. They are doing this because they received major life extension refits. Otherwise they would be experiencing the same problems polaris boats did. The same as type 23 frigates. All operating way passed their design lives, purely and simple down to lifex. A friend of mine told me that iron Duke was in such a state they considered scrapping here instead of extending here life. Polaris boats did exactly what they were designed to do, and did it superbly.

I was on DLG Hms Kent at the same time. Was also in Norfolk Virginia and I remember the tomcats going over the side. But apparently that was so long ago it doesn’t mean anything on this site. Can’t give history lessons.

And with a spitty attitude like that you wonder why you’re being branded a troll LOL
I presume replying to gunbuster and explaining why experiences from 50 years ago should be relevant would just be too hard compared to complaining to another poster about it.

It’s called experience, knowing what happened in the past allows to to design equipment for the future. Something obviously you know nothing about. Your entire contribution to this debate is to call me a troll. This seems to be the extent of your knowledge. And for your information I was replying to tommo so you can’t even get your facts right. Keep on contributing drivel you do seem an expert at that though.

LoL, once again not actually responding to anything I’ve said instead going off on your own tangent.

But I didn’t call you a troll, I pointed out your spitty attitude was leading to you being branded a troll. And holy crap you can’t even read.

You where bitching to Tommo about someone else in this thread (I assume GB but possibly Airborne), instead of actually having a conversation with GB about why your out-of-date (alleged) experience is relevant. That’s what I was picking you up for, get with the program.

Like I’ve said before ,” If you forget your past then your condemned to repeat it again Ad infintum

DERN ,What I was saying was a reply about the old old Ark And how Nimitiz class 90,ooo tons plus RN carriers 30.000 tons alot smaller but crews more professional and how the yanks lost 2 tomcats overboard Hope the same can be said of today’s QEs class crew a third smaller than the Ford Class carrier not mk 2 cortina

I know, I’m tracking.
It’s Peter complaining about Airborne and GB that’s got my goat up.

Thank god we’ve got two other colours too the national flag of the union Blue and Red if you catch my drift Dern

Pull up a bollard ,and I’ll spin you a dit after you’ve doused that glimpse Mr Blythe

I do wonder if the FIRST Polaris submarines and the first uk Polaris missiles and warheads were actually all ready at precisely the same time.

Selective reading there eh?

Well I do know the answer to that but I don’t think this forum is the right place. I do remember having to sign something to stop me from doing that.

Sure thing comrade. Yes, you’re totally telling the truth. *yawn*

So quite obviously your the know it all. So I am arguing for a big increase in defence spending and you are calling me comrade. As an expert on everything I thought you would have got that right. Maybe if you stopped yawning and woke up you may display a shred of intelligence. Won’t hold my breath though.

You’ve come in here spouting the same tired old misinformation, that is what got you branded a troll (I wouldn’t be surprised if you are Captain P on another fake account tbh given the tone of your insults).

I will continue yawning at you comrade (because that’s what you are if you’re not a troll) when you actually have something that isn’t a tired, boring, debunked cliché to say.

Oh and re intelligence, plenty of people here have posted well reasoned, intelligent replies to you that you simply have chosen to ignore, probably because you’ve got no actual reply, so why would I waste my energy trying have a reasoned debate with you when the only way to converse is to point out your lies and hypocrisy?

So I have come on this site to offer my opinion. I did not realise that I had to get your permission dern. I do not contribute to any other sites, but it does appear YOU seem to have a problem with people who happen to have a different opinion to you. You also seem to be very happy to keep saying comrade. Can I suggest you stop looking in the mirror because history teaches us it’s people like you who hate other peoples opinion that’s the real problem. Your attitude would have gone down great in the old Soviet Union eh comrade. We live in a democracy and people are entitled to have a different opinion to you.

Wow, you can’t even invent your own insults.
You are entitled to have an opinion, and I’m entitled to tell you you’re stupid for voicing it, especially after several other people explained (patiently) that you’re wrong, and, assuming you’re not who I think you are comrade, you’ve been watching this news for long enough to know better.

Grow up. Say stupid things you’ll be called on it. Don’t like it, that’s not my problem.

*Edit* For the record:
“I think we should spend more on defence” = an opinion.
“The Aircraft carrier doesn’t have aircraft” = demonstrably false misinformation designed to undermine the UK.

Just out of interest we’re you on the boats when the 1983 bbc documentary was done. Been watching it on you tube. First episode was perisher, then on warspite still got to watch the 3rd episode title Polaris

I was on boats between 1980 and 1987, before that general service on destroyers.

Thanks for the response and your service. Looked like good times in subs. Drinking, smoking on board. Obviously the job got done aswell. I always thought hot bunking was still going on but the program from 83 said it was no more. That was on warspite anyway

Observed and agreed!

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/second-british-aircraft-carrier-declared-operational/#comment-587906
I believe this is directed at you or GB.

What is the focus thing on the Falklands by everyone. The main thing to come out of the Falklands lessons learned for the RN was the need to improve Damage control and Fire fighting which they did to a huge degree

Its now the same amount of time from the Falklands to today as it was WW2 to the Falklands …40 + years!

As technology moved on from WW2 to the Falklands era, things have move on immensely from the Falklands to now.

Spot on.

Exactly.

But I would add to that – discarding out of date carp weapons systems so you can focus on the ones that you need.

Alright Gunbuster ,WW11 at least they wore Cotton Action working dress , We wore Fxxxing Nylon Action working dress 39 years ago A year after in 83 we reverted back too Cotton We learnt that i things fromHistory Can be the best things too use

The only good thing about polyester 8s was that they didn’t shrink when the dhoby wallah got his hands on them.
When the first new cotton/flamban 8s came in my shirts turned into muffin tops…great on a 18 yr old girl…not so good on a 20 something hairy arsed matelot.

Can drones really deliver the firepower onto land and littoral targets that F35s can, and take on and defeat peer enemy aircraft? That is optimistic.
It all sounds like the comments about the end of the tank etc.
I really could not see senior officers in the RAF or FAA accepting that we should now contemplate the end of manned aircraft. And how about the carriers as a base for multiple manned helicopters. Do you think drones can deliver commandos?

Not only do I think they can deliver commandos but I think that will be one of the next uses.

It is one of the biggest mistakes that all humans make at some point or another. They come to believe they are indispensible. It is no longer necessary for the human and the kit keeping them alive to be lashed to the top of the engine. Indeed it merely increases the cost.

History is full of examples of tecnology moving on. The horse, the machine gun, the tank, the plane, radar, the missile, nukes, the beard and sandals in a toyota landcruiser. Every time we need to stay ahead of the game or lose. Drones are just the next challenge.

And looks like we will hav3 the best F35b platform or decades to come. Unless india showing of decides to build better, indias all about Willy waving,, te have losing assets but do nothing with…

We sold our Last virtually brand new Upholder class ssks so as Britain’ went totally Nuclear in our Submarine Sevice boats Another waste of Taxpayers money I don’t think we made a profit selling them

SSNs, not SONS!

Did it 93/94 not under Nato or the Un but the EU what a waste of Aviation fuel it was Groundhog day everyday

You are on form tonight mate! Crack the troll whip and get them dancing 👍!

You are correct, they are. Unfortunately still not to the levels that were promised – believe the latest figures negotiated between LM and US DOD are somewhere in the region of $33000 per flt hour by 2023. This I think, is still some 25-30% higher then was originally forecast.
Whatever the reasons, LM are currently still unable to deliver on their sales pitch for the F35 programme.
Added to that, the late arrival of Blk 4 increment upgrade, and its associated cost over runs will only increase the price of later aircraft builds as LM look to recoup its development costs. Not a good place to be for LM, it has enough detractors in the US as it is.

I recognise those numbers. I think that the hourly operating cost is @ 3 times that of aircraft like F16/F18. Shortages of spare parts is also reported to be affecting operational availability.
The flight control software seems to be working well. The problems are with other software- ALIS, its intended replacement and the hugely complex sensor packages. Makes me wonder if a more austere and affordable version might be possible.

I wonder if that is one of the reasons behind the USAF wanting a cheaper clean design new fighter to supplement the F35, that and the fact that in some instances, the F35 is too much of a fighter for what is needed?
Might also just be the USAF,s way of getting LM to pull their finger out and start delivering on what was promised!

“the fact that in some instances, the F35 is too much of a fighter for what is needed”

You hit the nail on the head with that as this is precisely what was stated by the UAF chief of staff. The F35 is a scalpel that is designed for high intensity against combat against peer adversaries and it does not make financial sense to use it for missions that can be handled by less sophisticated/expensive aircraft such as the f15.

If that is the case, then it leads one to wonder why the US effectively stopped any future replacement designs for its ‘Teen series’ jets or indeed the venerable A10?
Whilst we have undoubtedly benefited from the production of the B varient, I’m not entirely convinced that the USMC need something this focused or expensive for what is essentially a CAS requirement on their part! Yes it can undoubtedly do the job, but, the costs are horrendous, also, if not the B varient, then what to replace the Harrier with? A conundrum I imagine.

I think you make raise some valid points and from what I have read with the regards to the A10, the USAF do not believe it is survivable against a modern adversary and will only grow more expensive to maintain as time goes by as parts were last manufactured decades ago. Rather than designing replacements for the teen series they have proposed buying even cheaper options for the low intensity and COIN type scenarios.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/10289/three-planes-will-square-off-in-the-usafs-light-attack-experiment

An interesting read tavm. Will be very interesting to see which way the
US decides to go with this.
I think they will also push hard for a slightly more capable design too, a F16 replacement if you like, wIth the aim of perhaps a high-medium-low mix of capabilities. Just speculating of course, but the rest of NATO needs to up its game too, take some responsibilities instead of just relying on the USA.

Search this on Navy Lookout.
The reasons HMS Queen Elizabeth is not nuclear poweredVery educational rather than subjective.

Hi there, A good read but a lot of it you have to take with a pinch of salt, for example in the first chapter “Tactical” the QE is already sailing vast distances around the world and this is set to continue with the current government insisting we show the flag around the world (especially around the Pacific).
Some of the Financial argument is a bit one sided as it dose not take into account the development costs to date of the propulsion systems in the QEC just a one off cost of filling up with diesel, you then have to multiply that by 50 odd years of expected service life.
The costs of deepening Portsmouth harbour and making good the port facilities to accommodate the QEC’s would have been better spent in building a new port away for prying eyes and able to accommodate ships of the QEC’s and the large foreign vessels.
However I do tend to agree with the disposal costs.

The Political argument is a bit mute as the USN dose not get bogged down with what people think or don’t think of their vessels. If there is a problem going into port they just sit offshore out of sight and ferry the personnel to and from the port.

The lack of trained personnel is an ongoing problem for all of our Forces, the government need to invest in people and the nuclear industry as the current shortfall in power capacity in the UK is demonstrating, this needs looking at with an eye to enlarging the UK’s capacity and by having more nuclear vessels would be a step in the right direction as it would keep the training of Nuclear engineers at a steady drum beat for both the civil and military use.
But I thank you for pointing out the article.

I think the constant production run of Nuclear submarines is keeping the training of Nuclear engineers going.

We dont want too many of them as each one is a potential security leak from such programs!

Hello James. We are all potential security leaks, our own government wants to invite our potential enemy into the hart of out Nuclear programme.

No, but we can compare to similar projects in other Navies,
The MN has a similar budget and size to the RN, and has now twice chosen to go for a Nuclear design, in both cases resulting in a fleet with only 1 carrier (plus a heavy reliance on the US for pilot training due to CATOBAR). We can also compare with Gerald Ford. Okay CVN-78 is bigger, is build with CATOBAR and has several new and innovative technologies built in all of which drives the price up, but at the end of the day CVN-78 was twice the cost of both QE’s combined.

TBF it’s a good thing we don’t have a reserve fleet, they take months to get back into running state anyway (if they ever can be) and cost a tonne to keep in a state where they could be reactivated. Better to sink that cash into a navy that actually has utility.

Hello Dern, The RN is also reliant on the Americans for training, Pilots and ground crew are we not.
Plus with only one type of fixed wing aircraft the QEC are very limited to the type roles it can take on, we have gone down the STOVL route so we should be augmenting our carriers with a mix of aircraft like the MV22 Osprey which can fit a hole F35 Engine in is hold, the Merlin’s cannot. It also has for more range and payload than the Merlin’s.

The USS Ford (CVN-78) is I agree well over the original budget and is some 5 years behind but as the American’s freely admit they tried to put too much new technology into a new class of vessel with over 150 brand new untried systems. The USN have now came out and said that in future that there will set up shore side tests before they try to put them into a new vessel.

Having a reserve means you can activate a vessel in short notice if there is a problem with a current vessel in service or to replace battle damage/losses. even if it take 6 months to bring a vessel out of reserve (normally it would be done in lass than half that) it is still quicker that building a new vessel. With the RN running at the present numbers they cannot sustain any losses so instead of giving away or selling off (at give away prices) vessels we should be mothballing them.

Not entirely. We where reliant on the USN to keep our pilots current during the carrier “holiday” we took between 2010 and 2018. Without that it would have taken a lot longer to regenerate our Carrier capability when the QE’s came online. The difference is that during the periods that we actually have carriers we don’t need US aid in keeping our crews competent because 1) STOVL requires nowhere near as many flying hours to be competent as CATOBAR and 2) with multiple decks it’s easier to find the time to keep pilots current.

MV22 Ospreys are ridiculously expensive though and have a horrible safety record. Merlin has shorter range and payload yes, but it’s an 80% solution we can afford, as opposed to a 100% solution we can not afford.

Again the problem with Mothballing vessels is it’s very expensive, and you get nothing out of it (the vast majority of vessels mothballed end up being scrapped without ever coming out of mothballs). Which is why even the mighty USN is divesting itself of it’s Reserve Fleet. If the USN can’t afford it, we almost certainly can’t afford to spend money on a second fleet that is doing nothing.

We are effectively keeping a reserve fleet already as we have a number of T23’s laid up for spear parts and at least 1 T45 has been canalised to keep the others at sea.
The modern Frigate and Destroyer is not designed to take incoming (they have no armour) so with any engagement that involves them taking punishment will soon take them out of the operational fleet with no possibility of replacements around the corner the war of attrition will be a short run affair.
I am not saying we need a massive reserve fleet but what I am saying we need is the capability to replace a damaged/lost ship at short notice.

The MV22 is expensive yes, but if we want the QEC to come to there full potential then we need increase the amount and types of airframes carried as at the moment the QE is at about 50% to 60% of it potential and the PoW is at about 30% to 40% of its designed operating potential. Yes both ships are operational, but at the moment both ships have a very limited strike capability, hopefully that will change in the not to distant future.

The UK armed forces are tied into the USA’s armed forces on a lot of levels good or bad, the USN and USMC helped keep our crews up to speed with carrier operations and the F35 operations/ground grew training as we get our feet back under the table with our own carries then our reliance on the USN/USMC for F35 opps gets less but we are still heavily reliant on the USA for a lot of other things.

Um. 5 Are deployed in UK Waters, 2 are attached to the CSG, 4 are in refit/regular maintenance, and 1 is fwd deployed. This is exactly in line with the 2 operationally available 1 in refit/maint ratio that most navies aim for. None of them are laid up for spare parts. The Type 45’s are slightly worse, with 2 deployed, 1 ready to deploy and 3 in maint/refit. Dauntless was laid up when the RN was short of crew, but it hasn’t been cannibalised and is now having it’s engines upgraded in the PIP program.

Again, the cost of maintaining a mothball fleet, compared to it’s operational output is not worth it. The US can’t afford it, we definitely can’t.

If you want to increase the amount of airframes on the Aircraft carriers buying Osprey won’t do it. Cash is finite and buying a horrendously expensive airframe that fill roles that current airframes already fill will only result in fewer available airframes. As I said, Merlin is the affordable 80% solution that the RN needs.

There are a lot of ways we are tied in, but we are not reliant on the USN to keep our crews carrier trained. We can, now that we have carriers again, do that on our own once again. The French can not, no matter how long it’s been since they’ve got their aircraft and carrier into service because they can’t get the required flight hours (more with CATOBAR) in with their single carrier deck and limited airframes.

Hello Dern, It is common practice to take parts from a vessel that is in refit to keep the vessels at sea going but this practice keeps the vessel in refit longer and just compounds the problem as it take the vessel in refit longer to get back to sea to replace the ones who then need to get into refit.

Crew shortages have played there part but it dose not takeaway the fact that the T45’s have spent more time along side than they have at sea.
With the extremely limited number of vessels the RN has been left with after years of cutback imposed by the governments of the day, every vessel needs to be properly maintained and upgraded, also there is no vessel in service today in any navy that is designed to take punishment and keep on station so any disputes at sea will be a war of attrition and we (the UK) have already hamstringed our selves by having so few vessels that can take the fight to the enemy.

At the moment or until we can acquire more airframes the QEC’s are just Helicopter carriers with a few F35’s to maintain a CAP overhead. So if we are to operate Commando Carries again then they will need the capacity of the MV22 to extend the rang and lift capacity that the Merlin’s just do not have.

We have had Americans and Canadians on our ships for some time mainly due to the lack of specialists (hopefully that will end soon) But what will not end soon is our reliance on the USN/USMC for there support due to the defence cut back the UK has endured over the last 40 years we are left with a shell of our former self having to be supported by foreign personnel and logistical support reliant of foreign powers dose not bode well for us as a supposedly “independent Nation”

So you think it’s commonplace to strip the components of a ship that is being upgraded?

The Type 23’s have also spent more time alongside than at sea, they only average about 180days at sea, so that’s a bit of a moot criticism. The only ships in the Navy that can manage a positive sea-port ratio IIRC are the Rivers.
If anything the RN has gotten better availability from it’s fleet in recent years than other navies, and it works hard to do so. Getting a “mothball” fleet would directly undermine this (again and be expensive something we can’t afford).

Again, we can’t afford MV-22’s, and have assets that do the same thing in an affordable manner. 80% solution you can afford is better than a 100% solution you can not.
The QEC’s are not helicopter carriers, you’re now descending into clickbait troll territory, in fact they’re a considerable step up from the old Invincible class carriers, and are already deploying with bigger airwings than they did. So that’s a moot point.

And sorry but you’re wrong. Co-operation does not mean dependency, sorry you can’t tell the difference.

Hello Dern, The Co-operation as you put it would have a good test if the RN is deployed on a UK only engagement like the Falklands, I just wonder how far that Co-operation would be extended then.?

I agree 100% the QEC are not Commando Carrier but with the present F35 availability that is effectively what they become.
If telling the truth is being a Troll I had better check myself in the mirror and look for horns!!

The availability of ships is improving in the RN but that is as a direct result of the carriers coming on line and for what its worth I believe it is a good thing.
The River class however is anouther kettle of fish. The batch 2’s are a step up from the originals but they are being deployed to fill the gape that our lack of Frigates are leaving but the problem is they are not Frigates.
Frigate’s have in the past stepped into the role of fisheries protection in the last two episodes with Iceland in the Cod wars but failed miserably and have occasionally had to fill the role of guard ship but a Guard ship/fisheries protection vessel should not be expected to fill the role of a Frigate.

By definition “UK only” won’t have co-operation because it’s UK only. If you are comparing to the Falklands, you mean like when the Americans gave us access to their Satellite imagery?

Sorry but you seem to be ignoring what I say, they are not Commando Carriers or Helicopter carriers and saying so is what I’d class as devolving into trolling. They are a fully fledged Carriers which have a better airwing already than their predecessors.

Of course the Rivers are not Frigates, that is why they have such great availability. Rivers don’t fill the role of Frigates, they fill the Role of constabulary vessels and local engagement that don’t require a vessel, at no point is the RN expecting them to “preform the role of a Frigate.”

Pound for Pound the Rivers are probably one of the best assets the RN has.

The Americans also gave use the latest Sidewinders so that we could test them out in the Falklands, but what they did not give us is personnel on board our vessels which is the problem we have at the moment. But with the uptake increasing for personnel hopefully that will be remedied in the not to distant future.

Yes the QE has deployed with more aircraft than were on the Invincible class but it dose not take away the fact that half of the F35’s on board her are from the USMC,

The Rivers are a good class but are being asked to fill the gap that our lack of deployable Frigate’s has left. They were designed for fishery protection and coastal patrolling with little armament, limited surveillance and limited endurance but they are now being deployed around the world with little to no back-up some thing traditionally a Frigate would do!!

River class the RN’s best assets!! Pound for pound the money would have been better spent on more Frigate’s as they can deploy around the world as they do have the armament to at least defend themselves, they have the surveillance capability to monitor what is going on around them and they have the endurance to stay at sea for more than a week.

May-be I am missing some thing, and in a lot of ways I hope I am.

Except that we don’t rely on US personnel on board our ships. We do the occasional exchange program which is co-operation, but if all US personnel went home tomorrow the RN could continue. You are confusing the odd exchange program with “we need the US to man our ships” which we do not.

So where you incensed when Illustrious deployed with a USMC Harrier Squadron on board?

Ho boy, no they haven’t.
River B1s: Doing Fisheries protection and monitoring Channel transits. Does not require a Frigate.
ATP(N) : Humanitarian Relief and Drug interception. Does not Require a Frigate.
Mediterranean Patrol: Counter-Human Trafficking, Drug interception, relationship building in the Eastern Atlantic. Does not require a Frigate.
Falklands Island Patrol Ship: Hasn’t required a frigate in forever. Occasional trips to South Georgia, Fisheries protection, and checking up on isolated Islanders
Pacific: Presence and Constabulary taskings, local knowledge and defence engagement. Does not require a frigate.

The Rivers have long sea legs, 5,000nm and 35 endurance is very good for any OPV and better than a lot of Frigates of similar size (especially the endurance) plus 280 days a year at sea is something no frigate can match (and this is before you include the operating costs).

The money spent on the Rivers would have maybe bought 1-2 Frigates. That’s it. And because Frigates have higher operating costs than OPVs and fewer at Sea Days per year you would not have gotten the same mileage out of them that you would have from a River, which means that you’d gain maybe 2 Frigate hulls, but your frigate hulls available for taskings that actually require a frigate would go down because you’d need to detach 3+ frigates to make up for the shortfall in Rivers.

So yes, pound for pound the Rivers are the best asset in the RN.

*edit 1* hit post before I was done.
*edit 2* BTW, a 2,000t ship that has a 5,000mile range and 35 days unsupplied endurance is not designed for “coastal” patrolling.

We have been cross decking equipment and personnel with the US since WW1 and with other allies as well since the turn of the last century. But it was the Canadian Navy that helped us out in the 2000’s with personnel based on our ships as there was a shortage of RN trained personnel.
The USN and USMC has helped us over the low point in the RNs history since the 2010 government wiped out of UK’s Naval airpower.
We are now starting to stand on our own feet again but to be fully independent is going to take a few more years.
We will still struggle to mount a fully independent Carrier Strike force with 100% UK personnel and vessels.
We have 2 supercarriers but do not have the fixed wing numbers to make them effective as a supercarrier. Until we get our escort numbers up to well above the present number we will struggle to protect our supercarriers in a 100% UK operation and with only 6/7 SSNs we will struggle in that department as well.

The River Class batch 2’s are replacing the Bach 1s but have also picked up taskings that were previously taken on by Frigates as the area of operation is in hostile area so there is a need to up the anti if needed, The Rivers are not built to up the anti and are not equipped to up the anti.
It has been a long time since we had a 2000tone Frigate.

You’re behind on your Rivers.
The Batch 2’s where originally meant to replace the Batch 1’s but no longer, the Batch 1’s are now all recommissioned into the RN.

I’ve literally listed every single tasking Rivers are on, and only one of them, ATP(N) was previously done by a frigate. Please explain why patrolling the Caribbean on constabulary and HADR duties requires a frigate.
Contrary to what you’ve said, the Rivers are perfect for the roles assigned to them.

I know it’s been a long time since we had a 2,000t frigate, that description is of a River B2, which is not a “coastal patrol vessel”

The fact of the matter is that they are being deployed to areas like the Black Sea, Pacific, Middle East were there is a strong possibility of getting incoming so with the lack of armament and sensing equipment we are putting our most precious commodity, our brave men and women who staff these vessels in harms way were if they were on a more heavily armed vessel which has the ability to at least detect incoming they will have a better chance of getting through the encounter.
The River’s are glorified guard ships that should be guarding our extensive coast line from illegal fishing, drug trafficking, illegal immigration, around the UK and its dependency’s. The only batch 2’s that are actually doing what they were designed to do are HMS Forth and HMS Spay and doing it very well.

I’ve posted exactly where each River is posted, what their tasks are and you’ve literally got no response to that, it’s like talking to a brick wall.
None of them are deployed to high risk areas, and if you REALLY are that concerned about it, why not mention of the MCMV’s in the gulf hrm?
(Hilarious btw that you say that HMS Spey (not Spay) is doing it’s designed job, for a number of reasons. Pretty much showing you don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to the Rivers.)

I did not mention the MCMV’s based in the gulf because we are talking about the River class batch 2’s being under armed and with very little sensing equipment being asked to go to places were a better armed vessel would fair better.

So the Black sea is not a high risk area, the Middle East, is not a high risk area !!

To return the conversation back to the carriers, it is the same as sending one of the carriers to sea without proper escort or sufficient aircraft, Oh but that is the current view point.!!

The problem is it will take one of these under armed/under protected vessels to have a major incident before the penny pinching bubble bursts and the blame game stars but sadly highly trained and motivated people will end up dead or injured.

I’d even hose down and conduct a Bod plod rotarblades can avf throw bits of the Anatomy at full revs they would be extinct

Sounds like reality TV to me

I doubt if they at Ofcom would allow a second episode Steve

They allow Jeromy Kyle to keep going!!!

Please don’t Judge me as a person who does not Have his finger on the pulse of Today’s daytime TV society but I’m sure I saw said Jeremy stacking shelves at Tescos Steven

Hello Graham, The numbers banded around at the moment is 48 based at RAF Marham for RAF/RN front line use, also the government have stated that both carriers will be used at the same time or at least one in /one out routine, so with this amount of airframes the turn around is going to be high not to mention the back to back deployments for the pilots and ground crew.
The Tempest is some way off 2030+ in the meantime I would have thought it would be better for the RAF to have a couple of squadrons of the 35A’s as they have better range and carry more ordinance and are a lot cheaper than the 35B’s. This then would allow the FAA to run the 35B’s at their own pace.

Evening Steven, whilst it looks extremely attractive having some A varients if we could afford them, it won’t happen.
Given that the F35s are supposed to be a replacement for both the SHAR (58ish) and Tornadoes (64ish), the numbers we are going to purchase 70-80, do not make it a cost effective choice to have 2 varients.
The B can do everything that the A can, albeit at a slightly reduced range and payload. Whereas the A can’t operate off of a carrier, which is the main requirement for this aircraft.
Perhaps if we were buying say 150+airframes, then a split buy might be viable. Unfortunately we are not, so CS is what takes precedence.

Hi there. I agree absolutely that we need more more airframes the 48 that the government have committed to (at the moment) just will not cut it. If we do end up with the numbers originally talked about (130+) then it would solve the problem but the government are now talking of 100+ over the lifetime of the program but only having 48 for front line duty at any one time. So my read on that (I may be wrong I oftern am) is as the lose airframes from wear and tear/ accidental loss they will be replaced to keep the numbers at 48 ready for service. The NAO has made several comments on the present thinking but seems to be falling on deaf ears at the moment. I do believe that once we get over the financial shock of Covid and take stock of what is needed and what we have then the numbers will increase but the pressure on the government needs to be maintained via forums like this.

Those are some of the key words which flag up on a trolls lap and gets them all excited! Does get boring mate doesn’t it, sad and lonely or Russkie pets earning a few bucket of spuds and 2 litre seed of petrol!

Have you also decided to spell lose with an extra o? 😉

To be fair, the quality and content of your posts are enough to give the trolls loose bowel movements…

XD as long as I don’t lose my bowls.

Thanks Lusty, that’s a high compliment coming from yourself.

Hah!

You’re welcome. Thanks!

The perception people get is that you have posted the usual “negative waves man” and that’s fine but when knowledgeable and experienced posters in that subject matter respond with facts and informative replies you go quiet, don’t address what they said and continue the negativity. That’s fine I couldn’t care less, but on ANY comments site that sort of behaviour is usually trolls. Anyway as for warfare, all militaries are the smallest they have ever been, you show me a military which has increased its manpower and assets. (And before you say China, no China hasn’t, its increased its tech)

Also warfare changes, it’s no longer about who has the biggest bombs the most fighters, tanks etc it’s about tech, simple. Yes, numbers count and I have always argued and agreed that fact, as there is always a minimum number you can never go below and remain effective. But It’s about tech and the ability to pass information, it’s about ISTAR capability, it’s about multiple platforms having the ability to communicate within all 4 spheres, to include space, in order to deliver the effect, whatever the effect is needed. No matter how many platforms you have, the person who can see you, hear you, know what you are doing and know where you are will always win. That in itself is a whole other conversation and with all due respect your service, like mine has done, and things change. Things change fast and even what I knew just a few years ago much will be out of date (I still live in Colchester and speak to the lads often, and still work in an industry where we are all ex mil) We are both behind the curve, possibly you much more than me, but warfare changes and if we dont change with it we are out of the game. Do I want more assets and platforms for all 3 services, of course, everyone who isn’t a troll on here does, but will we get them, probably not. What we all want therefore is the assets we have, or plan to get (in small numbers sadly) are top of the range and have all the modern features and capabilities which will ensure both availability and capability. Cheers.

Perception and assumption on here is rife. People attack others because of it. Because other contributers are in your words knowledgeable and experienced posters does not mean that they are right. Or is they just have the same opinion as you so they must be right. I have never mentioned where I live or what I do for a living but assumptions have been made I am out of touch. I spoke with my son who is in the gulf on the Montrose this morning. There is a place not very far from me who are doing a lot of design work on the tempest. But what do I know. Reading other contributions on this site I see someone else getting attacked now and been called a troll. So you either agree with the main contributers or you get attacked and called a troll. Very evenly balanced.

Mate you need to calm your pants, don’t take things personal. This could go on for ages. I’m not going to chase this boring subject much longer but you have already stated you served pre 80s and during. Now even if you did 30 plus years plus, your personal experience is now outdated, and things have changed. You seem to latch onto certain comments and argue. I’m saying your knowledge and experience while maybe be considerable is now not current. Simple as that. Even if you are the head shed of a certain modern project, you could be heading up Tempest or the dreadnought project for all I know, I’m simply saying your experience of warfare is now outdated and while we can all harp back to the old days, we all have to acknowledge that the speed of change to tech and warfare is immense and changing faster than any of us could ever keep up with if we are not directly experiencing it. I’m still cutting about with blokes in and out the mil, overseas, and I’m shocked at some of the changes to both tech and TTPs even over the last few years I’ve been out.

So don’t take shit personally, if you have a point the argue it, take people’s responses to yours and if need be take it apart with your experience and knowledge. Various people can be SMEs in their field and it’s good to hear their experience and perspective, GB is a good example, as is Daveyb, and Daniele (who hasn’t served but who’s encyclopedia level of military knowledge far outstrips mine) that’s what we can all do if we can or want. Negativity without explanation and opinion is just boring. Most joined this site to read the stories and debate them, both positive and negative. Cheers.

Hi airborne, I aren’t taking it personally. I take it from your name and where you live you are not an ex naval man. Believe it or not technology does not go that fast in the RN. Trident submarines in commission today where designed in the 80’s. Anybody who served in the RN in the 80’s would be very familiar with what’s on board today, I know because I have been on board one. Also the type 23 frigates in the RN were designed in the 80’s. The vickers 4.5 inch gun is 70’s technology, so are the harpoon ssm, due to be replaced very soon. A lot of other equipment on board stems from that era. As I have said my son is on the Montrose now and guess what he has invited me on board that as well. And yes a lot of items were very familiar. I don’t know if you are aware, up until very recently, the main computer system on board RN vessels, whilst a bespoke system was based on Microsoft Windows NT. I can’t speak for the other parts of the armed forces, but believe you me I am very up to date with Royal Navy matters.

Thanks for the reply. I’m an interested observer on regard to the RN, I have to say. My knowledge is I would hope a little more than most but not as in depth as many. But for me the Army was where my knowledge stems from, and while the Army can seem a cumbersome dinosaur on occasion some of the innovations, equipment, tactics and thought process are indeed quite advanced. Even down to the weapons and communication kit can change the way you think and fight, even from section level and upwards to larger formations. My main point was that the longer we are out of the job, the less we are aware and understand the more modern war fighting thought and processes. Warfare does change, we can all agree on that, but whenever push comes to shove, if you haven’t adapted your ways to what is current and capable, and modern you will lose. The point man make in here is that we are all here to read the stories, keep up to date on various kit and training/operations and chat about it. As on many sites you get people or bots joining just to pass disinformation and make negative waves! Yes the British Mil has many issues and problems, much of which we can discuss on here, but we can also be glad and appreciate the good news stories! Cheers.

Thanks Daniele , come come, now if us Brits aren’t queuing, then we’re Moaning .it’s in our National psycic and we’re bloody good at it . Just look at every garage Forcourt naff said too much enjoyment for me and I’ll moan about this little post later

Good lad.

I’ll moan about that reply as well Daniele Could do better

Didn’t see that one coming Nectar points as well unlucky Clubcard holders

THEY DO!!! I got a tip off from the wife yesterday. The queue moved quickly, was minimal, and there was even a member of staff directing cars to pumps.

Happy bunny here, was starting to wonder if I’d get to work later in the week.

You need to cite a source for this to claim it.

The current contract is 1.25bn for the vessels plus 18m per ship of GFE, which is 1.33bn total cost.

It’s a fixed price contract.

Hello Chris, The only part that is fixed is the build costs but even that has gone from £250m/vessel to £280m/vessel with the current CEO of Babcock stating that is now fixed and will raze no more, but the demob and referb of the equipment from the T23s to go into the T31’s is getting bigger by the day.

For the 3rd time, you need to cite a source or you are just spreading fake news.

Hello Chris, The National Audit Office (NAO) is a good place to start.
The only fake new being spread is the belief that the RN/UK’s armed forces is fit for propose, after being slammed by our political elite for the last 40 years it is a shell of its former self having to rely of foriegn powers for manpower and logistical support.
We are tied into big companies to carry out the jobs that were ones completed inhouse, but they look at the forces as a cash cow and double/triple the price of the most basic of services so what little money is being spent on our armed forces ends up in the hands of private companies.
The fake new come from the top.

“We are tied into big companies to carry out the jobs that were ones completed inhouse, but they look at the forces as a cash cow and double/triple the price of the most basic of services so what little money is being spent on our armed forces ends up in the hands of private companies.”

This is spot on in my view. Look at Tempest announcement recently. Yes GB building its own fighter jet is desirable, but the cuts happen right away, and the carrot, will it ever appear.
Meanwhile, the cash has gone.

Hello Daniele, It has happed right across all sectors of the Armed Forces, from using private contractors to ferry VIP officers in Iraq and Afghanistan, to having companies following the fleet around the world to service vessels on deployment.
Yes we have always had a need for specialists from the private sector but we seemed to have gone down this path were the private sector is one of the main beneficiary’s of the Armed forces budget, that and the leaders of our armed forces getting rather large pay rises, we look at the NHS and see the guys on the ground doing 12 to15 hour shifts sometimes 7 days a week and are still struggling to keep there heads above water, yet on the other foot we see the people at the top of the NHS taking home 200,000 plus for a 9 to 5 a lot of these people have never worked on a ward.
The military are now going down the same path most of the top brass on 200,000+ doing a 9 – 5 with more taken on by these self same large companies as advisors/directors.

My rather leading question is do these people at the “top of the tree” put their country first or their life style.
I know patriotism is now considers in the same light as a dose of the clap in these enlightened times but to the best of my knowledge the people joining the forces still sign on the dotted line to put crown and country first.

Most of the extra cost is to factor in cost of a maintenance contract for each T31 over the life of the vessel. Not a up-front cost.

Don’t know why you bother mate! It’s been pointed out over and over on here it’s not all about airframes.
Still if people can’t be bothered to read the whole thread I suppose they will still keep spouting about it.

Honestly I’m amazed I’m as patient as I am.

You’re needed, so keep at it.

Cheers, I don’t like it when I snap though.

Building on your point, if both vessels deploy together, do they mirror each other with a reduced air wing?
Or would one act as a conventional carrier and the other as an amphibious “commando carrier” , with a mixed helo force?
I imagine circumstance would likely determine the mix.

It would be tasked org’d around the available assets and the mission requirements.

Cheers- thx Dern

In fairness, the build rate for the City class is deliberately slow to avoid boom/bust, and to deal with in year budgets. Glasgow will take 7-8 years to build which could probably be sped up to around 5 years build, but then you have the problem in the 2030’s that we had in the 2010’s of “how to keep the workforce on the Clyde.” Now this would of course be somewhat off set by having 5 extra hulls to build, but only creates problems on the other side of Scotland where suddenly the Inspiration’s workforce is unemployed.

While speeding up the build would reduce the overall spending, it would still cost more than the 700million extra per ship that is required for switching from Inspirations back to City class, so we’d see a further reduction in hulls. This is the essential maths that caused the switch from 13 to 8+5 in the first place, and nothing has changed in the intervening decade to alter that (if anything the £ differential is worse because the RN would have to fork out money for cancelling it’s contracts with Babcock).

As it stands, 13+5 followed by Type 83 and Type 32 will provide a healthy compromise between getting the RN it’s ships, and securing the UK industrial base (at least with high end warships), and it’s hard to see, to me at least, without a major budget uplift, how we’d get the same number of escorts at the same speed, without sacrificing a yard.

Hello Dern. We are singing from the same sheet, It is too late to stop the T31’s but what we should be doing that was not done in the 2010s is push ahead with the National Ship Building Program and if we are seen as competitive then that will bring in foreign orders as well. So to be seen as cost affective and value for money we have to keep our build times down to approximatly 5 years/Vessel (frigate/destroyer size) and by keeping the orders books full with confirmed orders we can even look a reopening yards such as Belfast and the Tyneside as we have both the RN and RFA to keep up to date.
I do believe that it was back in the 1960/70’s that we last had a world beating ship building industry which coincided with the last time we build for export (not exporting the design as in the T26) with the old Leander class frigates along with a few T12’s. We should be aiming to reinvent our selves as a net exporter of modern vessels both military and civilian after all the UK is still based on a island economy so ship building should (and have been for the last 500 years) be one of our major strengths.

But building the Type 31’s is in line with the National Ship Building Program, in fact it’s almost a poster child for it. They are cost effective ships that can be build quickly and by the looks of it will be followed by a evolutionary design made by Babcock straight after they finish.

In fairness Belfast is looking to re-open, with a bid for the FSS, so that’s hopefully achieved. Again, the problem is balancing budget, industrial strategy and RN needs. It would be great to have builds take 5 years and spit out ships on the regular and us not have to worry about laying the work force off, but that’s expensive and we don’t have the cash. Foreign orders are great, but the list of countries that are likely to order something build overseas, instead of getting a technology transfer like Indonesia, Australia, and Canada is slim these days.

The NSBP is about having a joined up approach to ship building so that all of the Yards are not wholly dependent on the Civil market or the Military market but hold a mixed portfolio, so the quicker you can build the more likely you are to get more orders. The only exception to that is Barrow as it is the sole builder of Sub’s in the UK and it has its books full at the moment with the present build program but again we could do more by getting other yards building SSK’s for the UK and overseas.

No mention of that in the fact sheet,
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/642419/04092017a_NSBS_Factsheet.pdf

Nor can I see any mention of having yards with mixed military and civilian portfolios in the actual document:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/643873/NationalShipbuildingStrategy_lowres.pdf

Hello Dern.
On the contrary the MoD Fact sheet hints quit a bit at filling the spear capacity in the yard with civilian orders but it is a fact sheet for the military so covers military matters.
It also mentioned multiple yards to be able to sustain the projected build for the RN and the shipbuilding industry but the fact is at the moment all of our surface ships are built in Scotland with the NW of England responcible for the construction of our Submarines, so for the BSBP to come to reality we need to open more yards like Belfast and the NE of England and to compete in the real world for business.

Steven, the link is there, everyone can see it, you might be reading “civilian contracts” into it, but it doesn’t say a thing about it.
Yes, it does mention multiple yards, but geographic location doesn’t matter. Currently the UK has surface shipbuilding projects in three yards under way (Rosyth, Govan, Scotstoun) and CL and H&W Belfast are bidding. That is “multiple shipyards.” Doesn’t matter that they are in the same region, that’s not part of the NSS.

Opening more yards? Lets focus on keeping our current yards in business first shall we, before going off and playing fantasy admiral.

The fantasy element comes into the equation thinking that by building the surface fleet in Scotland will keep the SNP from pushing for independence,
The fantasy element also come in thinking that a ship building yard is going to reopen on the promise of building 4 RFA’s.

The UK need sustainability and with the the vessel number being so low in the RN/RFA we need the civilian and foreign orders to keep the yards open.
It is better to collect the taxes off of working shipwrights than to pay them to site at home on the dole.

Sorry that the fact that we are in a Union doesn’t work for you.
Also sorry that you are not keeping track of the RN’s build programs.

However just because you don’t like that fact, and you aren’t keeping track of them, it doesn’t make them fantasies.

I see that you are arguing that we stop building ships in Scotland and stop acting like it’s part of the union. Which is a non-starter.
Even if it was, you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too: More ships, bigger ships, move the shipyards. Hence why I said you are playing fantasy ships, because you are imagining a limitless budget and just things you want with no consideration to the reality of the situation.

Your troll response is much like what you get when you argue with a flat earther “Just because you have facts and evidence doesn’t mean I’m not right!” Sorry, but that’s just the way things are, and I’m sorry you don’t like it, but that’s not my problem.

At no point have a said we should stop building ships in Scotland, what I have eluded to however is for the UK to have a more measured ship building programme involving yards around the hole of the UK.

I think you need to stop riding around on that high horse of yours and start looking at the world from ground level.
With that its time to bid farewell as I might fall off the edge of the world soon.