In this snapshot of the Royal Navy and RFA’s current fleet status, we see the status of individual ships and what they’re up to.
Currently, just over 19 percent of the Royal Navy’s major surface combatants are active or immediately deployable. If ships in maintenance are included, that figure reaches around 43 percent.
This percentage reflects the rigorous demands and complexities associated with maintaining a modern and technologically advanced fleet. coupled with crewing concerns.
When considering the ships currently in maintenance, which could realistically be regenerated and return to sea over a reasonable length of time, the total percentage of ships potentially ready for operations increases to around 43 percent. This higher percentage indicates a significant portion of the fleet is in a transitional phase of readiness, ensuring ongoing maintenance and upgrades are balanced with the need for available combatants at any given time.
The Royal Navy continues to meet its operational commitments, this article is not intended to explain the why, how or rationale for various levels of availability. A special word of gratitude goes to the diligent efforts of Open Source Intelligence analyst and renowned UK naval commentator, Britsky (@TBrit90). We deeply appreciate his permission to utilise information he gathered for this article, providing our readers with an insightful glimpse into the state of the Royal Navy and RFA.
Now, here are the figures.
The Royal Navy
Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers
Total Number: 2, Currently Active: 0 (0% of the class)
- HMS Queen Elizabeth: Maintenance at Rosyth.
- HMS Prince of Wales: Maintenance at Portsmouth.
Albion Class Landing Platform Docks
Total Number: 2, Currently Active: 0 (0% of the class)
- HMS Albion: Inactive.
- HMS Bulwark: Inactive, undergoing refit.
Type 45 Destroyers
Total Number: 6, Currently Active: 1 (16.67% of the class), Currently Inactive: 5 (83.33% of the class)
- HMS Daring: Refit at Portsmouth.
- HMS Dauntless: Maintenance at Portsmouth,
- HMS Diamond: Deployed in the Red Sea, participating in Operation Prosperity Guardian.
- HMS Dragon: Refit at Portsmouth.
- HMS Defender: Refit at Portsmouth.
- HMS Duncan: Maintenance at Portsmouth.
Type 23 Frigates
Total Number: 11, Currently Active: 3 (27.27% of the class), Currently Inactive: 8 (72.73% of the class)
- HMS Argyll: Refit at Devonport.
- HMS Lancaster: Deployed in the Indian Ocean, part of Operation Kipion.
- HMS Iron Duke: Maintenance at Portsmouth.
- HMS Northumberland: Refit at Devonport.
- HMS Richmond: Maintenance at Devonport.
- HMS Somerset: Maintenance at Devonport.
- HMS Kent: Refit at Devonport.
- HMS Portland: Active, operating in UK waters, serving in the TAPS role.
- HMS St Albans: Active, operating in the English Channel during work-up.
River Class Offshore Patrol Vessels
Total Number: 8, Currently Active: 5 (62.5% of the class), Currently Inactive: 1 (12.5% of the class, HMS Mersey in refit)
- HMS Tyne: Active, patrolling in Portsmouth.
- HMS Severn: Active, operating in the English Channel.
- HMS Mersey: Undergoing refit in Falmouth.
- HMS Forth: Deployed in the Falklands as a Falkland Islands Patrol Vessel (FIPV).
- HMS Medway: Deployed in Gibraltar.
- HMS Trent: Deployed in the Caribbean.
- HMS Tamar: Deployed to Fiji, operating in the Indo-Pacific.
- HMS Spey: Deployed in Japan, operating in the Indo-Pacific.
Hunt Class Mine Countermeasures Vessels
Total Number: 6, Currently Active: 3 (50% of the class), Currently Inactive: 3 (50% of the class)
- HMS Ledbury: In refit at Portsmouth.
- HMS Cattistock: Active, operating in Devonport.
- HMS Brocklesby: In refit at Portsmouth.
- HMS Middleton: Deployed in the Persian Gulf, part of Operation Kipion.
- HMS Chiddingfold: Deployed in the Persian Gulf, part of Operation Kipion.
- HMS Hurworth: Active, operating in Portsmouth.
Royal Navy Survey Vessels
- HMS Scott: Deployed in Gibraltar, performing ocean survey tasks.
- HMS Protector: Deployed in Canada as an icebreaker.
- HMS Magpie: Active, conducting shore surveys in Orkney.
Overview of Archer and Cutlass Class Patrol Boats
The Archer class vessels are pivotal to the Royal Navy’s training and patrol missions in UK waters and beyond. Of the sixteen Archer class patrol boats, a majority are currently active, with several deployed on missions outside the UK:
- HMS Archer, HMS Smiter, HMS Pursuer, HMS Dasher, HMS Puncher, HMS Charger, HMS Ranger, HMS Example, and HMS Explorer are all actively serving in various UK locations, fulfilling coastal patrol and navigational training roles.
- HMS Biter, HMS Blazer, HMS Trumpeter, and HMS Exploit are deployed in Norway, participating in joint operations and exercises with NATO allies.
- HMS Express and HMS Tracker are currently undergoing maintenance but are stationed at Cardiff and Clyde, respectively, poised to return to active duty upon completion.
The newer Cutlass class boats, designed for sovereignty and patrol missions around Gibraltar, are both active:
- HMS Cutlass and HMS Dagger are stationed in Gibraltar, forming part of the Gibraltar Squadron. These boats are integral to the Navy’s commitment to securing the strategic waters around Gibraltar.
Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA)
Tide Class Fleet Replenishment Tankers:
- RFA Tidespring: Active, operating in Portland.
- RFA Tiderace: Inactive, stationed in Birkenhead.
- RFA Tidesurge: Active, operating in Portland.
- RFA Tideforce: Undergoing refit in Birkenhead.
Wave Class Fleet Replenishment Tankers:
- RFA Wave Knight: In reserve, located in Portsmouth.
- RFA Wave Ruler: In reserve, located in Liverpool.
Fort Class Stores Ship:
- RFA Fort Victoria: Inactive, stationed in Birkenhead.
Bay Class Landing Ship Docks:
- RFA Lyme Bay: Deployed in the Indian Ocean, supporting the Littoral Response Group South (LRG(S)).
- RFA Mounts Bay: Active, located in Falmouth, supporting the Littoral Response Group North (LRG(N)).
- RFA Cardigan Bay: Deployed in Cyprus, heading to Gaza.
Miscellaneous Major Vessels
- RFA Argus: Deployed in the Indian Ocean, supporting the Littoral Response Group South (LRG(S)).
- RFA Proteus: Active, operating in the English Channel.
- RFA Stirling Castle: Undergoing maintenance in Birkenhead.
The figures on patrol ships don’t ‘add up’. 8 ships…5 active and 1 inactive…??
Two deployed overseas but not actively on at sea.
Medway will probably still be working up post-refit.
Yes but that is different to how all the other ship types are listed. So is the percentage correct?
Because none of the other ship types have hulls deployed overseas that are not at sea.
Ignoring vessels under 500 tons, we have 21 out of 50 active. That doesn’t sound too bad as a ratio, but only 50 vessels with just 17 escorts is too few.
We don’t need escorts if the big ships are all in inactive… One ship for each ocean and a couple of little boats in Norway… That is british naval power 🇬🇧🇬🇧😂
They’re not all inactive. No escorts for Argus and Lyme Bay, no escort for Cardigan Bay.
Whilst there does appear to be plenty of ships in maintenance or refit at this time is that not a good thing. The more we have out of the water the quicker they will be back in the water after PIP or whatever. I would be more worried if the RN was allowing them to limp around and failing to fix what needs fixing.
In that you have hit the nail on the head
So, you think the Rivers should be rated?
In Nelson Ian times, I doubt they would come in as 6 rates.
I exclude Magpie, the Archers and Cutlass classes due to size. The 18 vessels have 16 active which gives a misguided active ratio of 37 out of 68 if you include them. I also think its misguided to say 37 active vessels instead of just the 17 ships that we actually have. And to your question on the Rivers, I think back to just before when we ordered the batch 2s. We had no Gib ship and none in the Pacific. These are new taskings and we knew there was going to be a stretch on the T23s coming up.… Read more »
You are going to get spanked for talking sense.
Severn is nav training ship I think.
Is this a normal readiness profile and typical of other navies, if not this status report is alarming.
Ships will, depending on their state of dismantling, have a plan to get them active in the event if urgent need in anything from a few hours to a week or so. That of course depends on having a full crew. I’d say that the old approach of ‘Jack will sail’ and literally moving people from ship A (as it docks) -> B (as it sails) to make it happen has stopped as Jack voted with their feet. Ultimately we don’t really know how much of it is deployable either from a manpower or a materiel state. But IRL if… Read more »
Most other navies are not declering to be “global” but most have more ships than us… Ie Italy.. And that does make me think… If the shit hits the fan we can count on other to help us… Not.
Yep its normal.
I know how many USN vessels are alongside or doing maint in my area…If anything its 75% alongside but notice for sea is short.
Currently working on an AB thats in for defect repair…
I was criticised once for quoting ‘the rule of 3’, it being said to me that it was no longer relevant; modern ships are far more available (on task or immediately ready for task) than a mere one third of them, as they are far, far more reliable. But is that really true? If you take the 19% figure, perhaps a rule of 5 is required! The devil is in the detail, as ever – hpw many of those ships in maintenence could be regenerated in a matter of days? Of concern is the T45 availability – if only we… Read more »
We’ve been running the fleet pretty hard recently, not surprising that downtime will overlap. Especially when you add crew availability into the mix.
So we do need more then- both ships & company?
In 2021, the Defence Select Committee published a report entitled, We’re Going to Need a Bigger Navy. Since then the Navy has shrunk.
The Defence Select Committee is toothless.
The Defence select Committee is there to critique the Government and generally monitor what is going on. Parliament is sovereign and so therefore is ultimately responsible. However the Government which is appointed by parliament has to balance the needs of all areas of spending. Therefore the DSC tends to work in a ideal world where money is no object.
I don’t think it’s the DSC that hasn’t been living in the real world. The real world has Putin and Xi in it, and they can’t be ignored by sticking your fingers in your ears and adding more money into the NHS if you think that’s where the votes lie.
It’s Cameron and Sunak who fiddle the figures to make the real world look like their fantasies. But the real world cares not one jot if they claim to be increasing Defence spending. The real world knows better and the cuts follow.
Jon, Cameron & Sunak have their faults but fiddling the figures is not one of them. Cameron made himself very unpopular by facing the facts of the financial crisis and tightening government spending to resolve the issue whilst Sunak is very focused on the spreadsheets and making sure everything adds up he has increased Goverment spending on defence to ensure the UK can pay for what it committed to so far plus a load of other stuff. I hear what you say about votes however at the end of the day the buck stops with the voters not the politicians… Read more »
It’s about a share of the existing pie not more pie. It’s about the government changing priorities and having the courage to do that. That’s politics not economics.
😂What a redistribution of wealth agenda? The same policies that ruined the country in the 1970s. Inflation followed by strikes followed by more inflation …… doesn’t work and even Kier knows that.
Mark I think you misunderstand what I’m saying. I was referring to the need to redistributing existing government expenditure not public wealth. The point being that to resolve the pitiful state of our national defence requires more money to be spent on the armed forces. However spending more money on Defence isn’t purely an economic equation. More defence spending does not have to equate to more taxation or more government borrowing. The government has an expenditure “pie” You could increase defence expenditure by increasing the size of the slice of pie that goes to defence. Defence for example should have… Read more »
Ah …. Right. That makes more sense. During the post financial crash the Tory Government tightened most budgets and that was not entirely successful. There were suggestions that they would have been better encouraging business & making businesses more efficient which would in turn have increased tax revenues. It would also have prevented many businesses that work primarily with the public sector from going to the wall. Both parties are planning to boost growth (Labour with their building programme) to make the pie bigger. Once the pie is bigger defence will get a larger slice however I suspect the existing… Read more »
We’ll have to agree to disagree on the numbers. I’m not saying they are the only politicians ever to shift a baseline and pretend something is better, I lost track of the number of times the Thatcher government redefined unemployment, but this is a Defence forum, and we all know that the baseline alterations to what was included in Defence spending were so convoluted that the Defence Select Committee said they had no idea how much was being spent in 2015 relative to the old measures and despite pressing for clarification they got none. Can you tell me what Sunak’s… Read more »
Yes I think that the baselines have changed basically because we were never including stuff in the defence budget which clearly is defence. Comparing our spend to other NATO members clearly was relevant as spending nose-drived across the world. No I can’t tell you what the 2.5% includes although it will almost certainly include the items in the so called black hole and probably a load of R&D work on new weapons. Much of the stuff for Ukraine came out of stock didn’t it. Stuff like storm shadow was probably past it’s use by date so new kit was needed… Read more »
Useless spineless politicians, care more about money saving and fxxxxxxg bankers (Useless bxxxxxds they are)
The whole point of being a politician is you are putting yourself forward as someone who will ensure that the money is spent wisely by the civil service who actually run the country and according to the priorities of the population. To be fair to the fxxxxxxg bankers (as you call them) without their contribution from the internation markets we would have no fxxxxxxg defence budget at all (not so useless after all eh). Personally I think politicians reflect society as a whole with all the same faults and issues. However I think it takes a bit of backbone to… Read more »
Oh is that right on the defence budget, Mr fxxxxxxg knowall,oh I know my stuff ass wipe ,are you of these fxxxxxxg bankers, if I’m reminded it was that same scum that brought this country’s banking system to near collapse in 2008 ,remember that one or is that fantasy?greedy fxxxxxxg bankers world wide,lettuce fxxxxxxg truss, quasimodo quarteng,remember them ,mays action against putin for the novachok ,oh a very strong statement from the so called prime minister, spineless like a tory government,thank God that pile of corrupt pile of fxxxxxxg shit will be gone ,labour will have sort the mess we… Read more »
Doesn’t sound like you know much at all. Clearly you know how undermine your democractically elected representatives. Whilst I’m sure you didn’t vote for them you have to accept that a majority did and therefore they are in power making the decisions and you are not. What exactly did you want Teresa to do – declare war? Yes I very much remember the banking crisis. I didn’t blame it on a Labour Government it didn’t even originate in this country. It caused me problems at a difficult time however I was working hard doing my bit for my family &… Read more »
Your comments are that of pathetic pc brigade shit, people like you I detest to the core,
😂😂😂I had noticed. My mates will have a laugh tonight when I tell them I’ve been acused of being in a Pathetic PC brigade. You’ve made my evening. Thanks.
Well given for example that our LPDs are not sailing because of crews, then I’d say company is currently the big hinderance.
The rule of three these days is a hinderence.
Especially when they keep ordering in 5s, 8s, 7s. Why they can’t just round up a tad beats me!
In what way, Andy? Surely it helps to inform those procuring warships, and those who plan naval operations. Appreciate it is a guide, not a rule, despite the use of that term.
I agree. ‘Rule of 3’ is where reality collides with a Gantt chart. If everything were perfect a rule of 2 would work – but often it doesn’t. At the end of the day it depends on the level of broken bits and non compliances that you are prepared to tolerate as to whether the ship crosses the deployable threshold. Things break that is reality. Crews can fix some things dynamically. Techs can be flown out to fix other things during a deployments. Port calls to the GunBusters of this world are a part of daily reality. RN sets a… Read more »
Hull valves and shaft seals can be done alongside using divers. There is a big push on that from the RN to reduce the dry dock requirement for hull valve changes etc. A big reason why SALMO has had a lot of investment recently. I have done shaft seal changes, rudder replacements, blade replacements, valve replacements in the water using tech divers for various nations ships.
Indeed they can be done by divers…..
I hadn’t realised that RN had reversed decades of policy on that!
Mate of mine, an RN Clearance Diver was seconded to the USN for 3 years. He did lots of in water technical stuff including an in water rudder removal and replacement on a USN Carrier. It can be done if you have the right tools and skill set.
In the UK SALMO have that skill set…and lots of Gucci kit!
Thanks for the details SB. As an army man (and engineer) this is interesting and novel to me. Perhaps the main benefit of citing the rule of three even if the cognoscenti don’t believe it is useful, is that it indicates to politicians and the Treasury that a fleet should be three times bigger than the tasks they might have…and we should only mothball or sell off assets to foreign navies if our tasking has demonstrably been reduced.
I’m pretty sure the Rule of three is still a very good measure…33% in bits and not available, 33% either working up or being maintained ( available for deployment if needed) and 33% deployed You can mess around with this by reducing your % of deployed ships vs increased % of ships on the wall ( available to deploy)..the U.S. has done this with its carriers reduced the number deployed to ensure it has more availability ( its based around the fact that if it needs to surge into the china seas to break a blocked of Taiwan or force… Read more »
Thanks. Some good details. Rule of 3 is not of course a ‘rule’ to decide how many ships to deploy or for how long – that is set by operational need which can vary from month to month. It has its greatest value in determining fleet size when ordering ships and lobbying for the necessary funds.
I think the US figure of 76% to be either deployed or available to surge, for their carriers, is highly optimistic!
Rule of 3 was deployment centric.
With out of UK area basing it died a death somewhat…you only need to consider it every 3-5 years now when doing vessel RIPs.
Thanks GB. I always assumed it was a yardstick to determine future fleet size (and hence funding required to procure a new Class), rather than being guidance for deployment.
Lisa or colleague, can we now have a similar article for the RAF and the Army?
I doubt that’s even possible.
A lot undergoing maintenance, as normal the Type 45 are along side getting fixed as are the two carriers. No navy has 100% ships ready to deploy but our does seem a bit run down/broken or in too many cases tied up inactive.
i’d like to see how many are able to be ready in say 96 hours
Thankfully our survey vessels are 100% active! What a way to run a navy.
1 Destroyer 3 Frigates….
Thank god for the OPVs – close to 90% active / deployed
Useful, but not much in a war. We need a bigger escort fleet & to be able to keep more of what we have manned & ready for action. Our River OPVs are death traps in wartime.
Yeah those 30mm cannon would strike the fear into any destroyer 🤣
Stupid comments to make – the OPVs have different tasks to frigates / destroyers, but they are crucial for UK lower level security and diplomacy.
Radakin was recently reported in the DT as saying that the RN should consider fast attack craft. Replacements for the Archer patrol boats in the offing?
You would hope so. I recalled them being included in the National Shipbuilding Strategy, but when I just checked they weren’t there. It seems between the original strategy (2017) and the refresh (2022) the P2000s were cut from the list.
Given how useful they have become, morphing from a primarily university training squad to encompass Clyde patrols and playing Red Forces in the Baltic and Norwegian Seas, even inside the Arctic Circle, the Coastal Forces Squadron should be considered an integral part of the Navy and taken more seriously.
I think Radakin is stirring it. The deployments of the Archers is evidence that they are needed, that we need their extra hulls. We know they are limited in function and range and they need replacing; co-incidentally so do the batch 1 Rivers. Their replacements might look like this….. cue powerpoints of fast attack craft / corvettes / Black Swan sloops / batch 3 Rivers….I think he is starting a debate to feed into the likely labour govt defence review.
Archers are a pointless waste of diesel. They should be converted to torpedo. Or missile boat’s. If the Iranians can put a cruise missile on a fishing boat, why aren’t we as innovative? E were renown for doing that when we converted the battleships in the early aircraft carriers.
The combat history of missile boats of all types is very poor. Minute something that can fly is in the AO they just kind of disappear, they are not something credible Navys invest in for a reason.
Syria, Iraq, Iran and Libya stand testament to that.
Redakin is a smart operator, both politically and psychologically. Light the blue touch paper and retire to a safe distance. Get yourself interviewed suggesting fast attack craft and wait for the responses arguing for something else. Like a pantomime…Oh yes we do. Oh no we don’t. 🙂
OOoooohhhhh can I be really nit picky: The only battleship we converted into an Aircraft Carrier was HMS eagle ne Almirante Cochrane.
Japan actually had two Battleship conversions, Kaga and Shinano, but for the most part Battleships where found to be rather poor Aircraft carrier bases and the preference was for Battlecruisers, or other large cruiser variants (they where faster and generally longer than battleships even if they displaced less). Akagi, Glorious, Courageous, Furious, Lexington, and Saratoga. Two of those even survived WW2.
Also passenger liners, a few passenger liners where converted into Aircraft carriers.
Your not the only one who knows the difference between a BC and BB. So I’ll be nit picky you forgot a Full Battleship conversion and 2 Hybrids. Bearne (France), Hyugo and Ise (Japan), and I think the 3 RN “ous” were officially “Large Light Cruisers”. When he was re appointed 1SL in 1914 Jackie Fisher wanted large, mini BC’s but in order to get away with it he used that term. He wasnted them to force the Baltic entrance and enable the British to invade the German coast.
Indeed the 3 RN “ous’s” where initially Large Light Cruisers, but: A) they got referred to pretty consistently as Battlecruisers later on (I think possibly after they got reassigned from the 3rd Light Cruiser Sqn to the 1st Cruiser Sqn, but I never found a precise date the “Large Light Cruiser” charade was dropped, and B) “Large Light Cruiser” was a political ploy to get around the admiralty having been banned from building anything larger than a light cruiser anyway. To be fair I don’t really count Ise and Hyuga as aircraft carriers, as you said, they’re frankenhybridmonstrosisties. Bearne is… Read more »
I agree totally mate,if you’re going to include it in warship numbers make it at least something it can be offensive with,a GPMG ain’t going to cut it
The Archers have been useful in assisting other agencies with dealing with illegal immigrants coming across the English channel.
Due to their small size, they can be moored in Ramsgate Harbour.
Is that really necessary? Why not a few more T31s with helos, or, evolved Rivers or, does it need to be something a bit smaller? And even some diesel subs for regional and coastal patrols?
Fast attack for against who? Maybe some “Protector” type patrol vessels like the one being built for Ukraine?
To be honest I don’t know. My best guess is that he is just keeping up a momentum in people’s minds for more hulls. I’m no psychologist but I think the way it works is that if you make outlandish suggestions people react with sensible counter proposals. When this happens you have subtly won your case for more hulls – now people are just talking about what the hulls should be.
You’re giving Mr Radakin the benefit of the doubt. Let’s hope that the eventual and sensible counter proposals actually materialise!
When all these ships are fixed and released there’s going to be quite a blended fleet of new-older and new-new. At least the upgrades are adding to their potency.
The opvs are of course much simpler than the destroyers and frigates. But what exactly makes them so much more available? As I understand it, most maintenance/refits are determined by the needs of the non weapons elements of the ship.
And why, if so few ships are available anyway, are crew shortages cited as a reason for inactivity.
The RN is a shambles.
They are likely more available because; they are newly built; they have straightforward, modern diesel propulsion; they have well proven radars and systems and only ‘basic’ weapons: they don’t need a large ‘hi tech’ or senior crew and I’ll bet there’s a waiting list to get on them 🙂
p.s. I don’t think the RN is a shambles. A lot could happen in the next 18 months: T45s at sea with new engines, Sea Ceptor and NSM and 2 new frigate classes in the water.
Don’t forget about the. Mighty fleet of archers the things that should not have a H.M.S prfix
I hope you’re right to be optimistic. I’m concerned that lack of realism amongst senior RN leadership is as much responsible for the current mess as financial constraints imposed by politicians. From Zambellas and West pushing for carriers we currently can’t even escort, through the years wasted on the FCS, to Radakin happily arguing we didn’t need ASMs ( until we suddenly did), there is a pattern of serious incompetence. T45 cost >£1 b each including R&D, and have been out of action for the greater part of their lives to date. Failure to grasp the reality of UKs financial… Read more »
We are at this low point because of egos looking after themselves and their departmental territories rather than looking after the interest of the country. Fortunately there are alwayd good people working to take egos and emotions out of it and turn things to advantage. Some might say BAE shipbuilding and Babcock are in that category – professional engineers trying to save the politicians and civil servants from themselves. The batch 2 Rivers are an example. So too will be Type 31 – built on a proven hull with low risk propulsion, systems and weapons. T31 availability could be closer… Read more »
Agreed. I doubt that T31 was the RNs preference. Rather it was what could be had for the funding available. I appreciate that diesel propulsion is not ideal for ASW operations but Denmark uses the IHs in that role as well as AAW. So T31 could prove to be an effective multi role vessel.With such a small fleet, we really need to design high levels of availability into all our platforms.
Well, the original RN requirement was for 5 GP T26, but that’s history now. You are not alone in arguing that T31 ought to have ASW capability. Whether 8 T26 is enough ASW is above my pay grade.
Radakin didn’t argue we didn’t need ASMs. He argued that as it was impossible to install new interim ASMs before 2027 and as FC/ASW would be operational in 2028 it wasn’t worth buying the interim.
He lied about the first point to the Defence Select Committee, one of the most blatant lies I can recall in recent years, and were I its chair, I’d have had his arse in a sling over that. I suspect the FC/ASW operational date will prove to be BS as well.
Latest is 2028 for lan attack and 2034 for Anti Ship so glad we have gone for NSM as an iterim but. So interim is for 11 years !
Thank you. That it will only be land attack from the off would have been more than disappointing had we not got NSM, but a TLAM-style capability will be a very useful addition to the fleet. Finally some teeth. It makes a big difference if our forward-deployed T31s can strike from over 1000 miles away. In European terms that’s about the distance from Cyprus to the Khag island terminal, and it’s only 650 miles from the Northern Aegean Sea to the Kerch bridge. The other point that wasn’t made to the Committee was that NSM will be going on many… Read more »
What exactly was the lie?
That we couldn’t get an interim anti-ship missile operating before 2027 (stated toward the end of 2021). He said he wasn’t interested in a sticking plaster, impying (but not stating) that it would be a useless temporary measure rather than the long-term second-tier capability we now expect it to be. Despite the year out before the missile’s reinstatment and despite Somerset’s indisposition, we should have NSM operating this year. Had we gone for it a year earlier, I have no doubt it would already be operational. The difference between it taking less than two years and the 1SL’s estimate of… Read more »
I should say that technically NSM’s IOC was declared last December, which was about 13 months after the reinstatement, but it doesn’t seem to be really true because they stuck it on a dodgy frigate.
1SL would know little about procurement, but he should take advice from a SME. Looks like a lie to me. Thanks for ‘calling him out’ as young people say these days!
The T45 were hampered by the introduction of a revolutionary recuperator for thh GT set, backed up by insuifficuent DG capacity. To be honest other than that they are excellent ships, spaceous, fast and with lots of growth capacity buit in. As for the cost well thats what happens when you have a completely new design, packed with next generation equipment and only order half the original numbers of hulls. The design and development cost is spread out over fewer hulls. By the time the last one was launched BAe was really capable of banging them out, 6 in 5… Read more »
OPVs are designed to have less maintenance and higher availailability. I think the B2 Rivers can be available up to 300 days per year. To make use of that, the smaller ships have 50% more crew (68ish), of which two thirds (45ish) are on board at any one time, the other third being rotated back to Blighty. This is also true of the survey ships. Escorts, on the other hand normally have a single crew who take their R&R during the ship’s downtime, the one exception being the forward-based HMS Lancaster. That has two full crews which alternate, so Lancaster… Read more »
It does help that availability was part of the original contract for the River B1, they were built and maintained by BAe and leased to the Navy. So they built accordingly to avoid penalty payments, the B2 followed on as a natural progression. I do sometimes wonder if all new ships should have availability as a KUR with penalties but also have a usage and maintenance clause. In other words if it breaks the builder is responsible but only if the ship isn’t flogged to death and properly inspected and maintained. Rivers and Bays are the most flexible and reliable… Read more »
Kipion MCMVs and Shore side support do RIPs as well and rotate through every 4-6 months…
Echo and enterprise could be doing some of the tasking that the rivers are doing. More wasted resources
Yes. Not sure how old or what condition they were in but you’d think they could have potentially been repurposed for a mothership of drones, patrol or for border force. Maybe too expensive and monies needed elsewhere, again?
If it is crews that should be fixable. Crews are expensive but they make a navy. If we say an average crew cost to the MOD are £30,000 each. So getting 3 for each £100k. Leaves a bit of wiggle room. So 30 cost £1m, 300 cost £10m, 3000 cost £100m, 30,000 cost £1b. I would add on another £500m for basing costs, housing etc minimum. So it wouldn’t take a massive amount of cash to get the navy a bit bigger. Recruiting seems to be a big issue. The time from applying to starting should be a few weeks… Read more »
So we have 4 active warships , 4 , let that sink in . How did we get to this pitiful state of affairs
Lets hope they dont sink in or we’ll have none…which is only slighty less than we have currently.
,👍👍👍
Beancounters let loose without adequate supervision. And fools who were too weak to refuse to follow the USN has to go through Congress for permission to retire a ship. It should be the same thing here.
So long as parliament put up the extra money needed for the refits and crews. Now shipbuilding is back up and running it would probably be cheaper to get replacement ships instead of trying to fix type 23s past their current dates.
Pity the government doesn’t care. Probably 40% of the cost of the new frigates goes back to the treasury in some form and the lots more of it stays in the U.K. economy getting used, making more money repeatedly.
Because HMG of all sides have been cutting them since 91 Options for Change.
Some in maintenance could put to sea quite quickly I believe, GB explained this a while ago.
some but not anywhere like enough…. unless we are talking low end threat…. In either case, we are at an almost all time low, there’s no getting over it mate, we are a small shadow now of what we used to be and what we should be…… I’ve been saying this on here and other sites for decades,,,, this place seems to ignore any threats and actively encourages all the cuts whilst some actually believe we are some kind of super power….. We aren’t …..
Yep, far too small. My consolation is, as I said, that some of these can deploy and that, as usual, nobody does any comparisons with other nations apart from the USA.
With 13 new frigates and the T45s getting through PIP can only improve now mate, unless Labour do what they usually do and cut!
Just did it again….
You need to. Apparently ever other nations assets are primed and deployed at all times. Or if they’re not, that factor isn’t considered.
Sadly needed for some.
We want eight and we won’t wait?
Plus one more… Lol 😁
Didn’t FSL Radakin or someone make some comment like having “more availability with less ships”. Great, less is now not more when they’re all worn out or being fixed or being upgraded and largely at the same time. On a more positive side, they’re hopefully making some time and cost savings and there is at least a list of progress. The fleet will be quite something when it’s back to full or nearly full!
This seems to be only surface ships. I’d say it’s comparable to any other NATO navy and far from a shambles. A shambles compared to who ? Some 3rd world navy whose ships venture about 5 miles offshore, blaze away at f**k all and then return to port? . Look at the recent performance of the RN, especially in the Red Sea. When other navies have had issues in intercepting hostile drones and missiles, the RN have speared every one that they targeted. That says something. It’s training, capability, expertise that really counts.
It’s the government’s policy not to comment on the disposition of our submarines. Not for security reasons, but because the less they can be held account for the better they like it.
Oh my God…… Google is your friend…. go take a look at the World mate…….
Regardless of any combination of numbers a person read’s, it will come back to the fact that there are not enough of either.
There have been recent periods of higher availability, which can only be sustained for so long, and generally speaking the RN is still very good at keeping its vessels active.
But the deadly combination of increasingly decrepit T23’s, the PIP upgrades for the T45’s and a number of RFA’s (and now both LPD’s) laid up for want of manpower is really starting to bite!
Slightly off topic, but I’m just watching an episode of “The Sandbaggers – Episode Opposite Numbers – 1980) All about the SALT Talks. Seems very relevant to today’s current situation. Recommend viewing if you can find it on Youtube or channel LONDON LIVE on Freeview which seems to be running the whole series.
The poor RN, an absolute shadow of its former self, God help us if anything big kicks off!!
Not exactly the Grand Fleet of 1914 …
Invade now we can’t do anything about.
Shocking!!!!!!! 1 type 45 active and that’s in the red sea type 23 3 active 1 in the Indian Ocean. Proves my point we are not a global power so why bother trying to make it look as if we are.
All it proves is that you have no understanding of Notice for Sea and Operational Capability.
We’re already being invaded!
Yes but we are only a staging post for the Invasion of Eirre !
A little off topic, but staying on the subject of the availability of Naval ships. The German Navy deployed the frigate ‘Hessen’ in February of this year arriving in the Red Sea on the 26th, it ended its mission last Sunday (21st of April) and won’t be replaced until August by its sister ship ‘Hamburg’
and ?
Robert Blay…… Where are you ?????
Even better, GB is here to calm the hysteria….Or maybe not.
The list seems to assume that HMS Bangor has been decommissioned a year early – probably correctly.
The RN’s presence in the Arabian Gulf is at the lowest ebb its been for at least a decade, and probably much longer. Kipion has been robbed of key assets to meet needs elsewhere.
The low number of active frigates and escorts is distorted by the need to surge the force level next year to support CSG25. The lack of any ally volunteering a frigate or destroyer to participate in the full deployment isn’t helping.
Bangor I was told will be repaired.
T45 in Red Sea/Gulf of Aden
RN has 2 Hunts and Harrier in Gulf theatre
T23 in Indian Ocean
LRG , (Argus and LB) are in the Indian Ocean area.
CB on a jolly in the Med 😁.
USN has 4 x MCMV, a couple of ABs and an LCS out and about.
Thats not a bad showing by the RN for the Middle East Theatre
Well Bangor isn’t on the list above. She doesn’t seem to have been formally decommissioned but it also seems very unlikely that she will repaired at apparently a substantial cost for only a few months more service before being paid off next year. The only ships currently in the Arabian Gulf are the two Hunt MCMV’s, that must be the lowest force level for many years, perhaps some point in the 1970’s? For decades from 1980 the norm was two destroyers/frigates plus an RFA tanker. In the late 1990’s and early 2000’s even carrier visits were frequent – almost annual.… Read more »
Woeful figures, years ago we would have had a lot more ships available, THE PEACE DIVIDEND IS OVER,GET BUILDING MORE SHIPS AND START MORE RECRUITMENT
Because a ship is in maintenance (Not Refit…that’s a whole different ball game) means it isn’t available immediately but is available within the Notice for Sea period. Every ship entering an alongside maintenance period gives a “Notice for Sea”. It means that within that Notice the vessel should be able to put most stuff back together, clear the ship of contractors, recall crew on leave or courses and get to sea, fixing stuff at sea as it goes. (Been there done that!) Notice for sea varies but can be 24, 48, 72 or 96hrs or even longer. If a job… Read more »
Bangor is going to be fixed? It was due to be decommissioned next year.
That’s what I was told…
From a reputable source
Repair it, sell it on.
There are a lot of people using ex RN Hunts and Sandown’s. Thats a lot of UKPLC input to the systems maintenance. The Sonar systems alone create lots of work at Templecombe for Thales UK.
Selling it on is the only thing that makes sense. Unless Chiddingfold needs more target practice.
Gunbuster for Secretary of State for Defence.
You know it makes sense.
NEX?
Naval Exchange…Similar to a US Army PX but with a better class of customer and lots of sweatshirts and hoodies with Anchors and ships on as opposed to tanks and guns in a PX
This is as a result of poor government, admirals making daft decisions lack of funding, wasting money keeping old hulls going and not bring new ship into service. When I joined the navy in the early 1980s we had 70 + FF/DDs and now we have about 5 we can use. Well done UK PLC you have achieved something the Spanish, French and Germans could not achieve and left this once fine county defenceless – why do you get paid, lets sack you all for being incompetent and spend your salaries righting the problem!
One destroyer and three frigates,two off the UK. What a flleet. The opposition must be worried sick.
I don’t suppose it’s occurred to you that all this maintenance is going on BEFORE the opposition gets too serious?
No it didn’t. It’s been going on too long. It was bad ten years ago, it was bad five years ago and it’s bad now. Has it occurred to you that it mught be nice if at least half our fllet was avaiable.?
I refer you to GBs posts about what different readiness states a ship is in even in maintenance 👍
According to recent strories deep maintenance can last a matter of weeks or can last up to seven years. But I’m not going to try to convince you. If you’re happy for us to have a navy with two ships overseas so be it.
In 2010 the Coalition Government (Conservative & Liberal Democrat) made a political decision to ‘shrink’ the state. It had nothing to do with the 2008 financial crisis which had been caused by the banks and who had been bailed out with taxpayers money, but that provided a convenient excuse. So for five years in Coalition and then five years in isolation the Conservative Government ‘hollowed out’ public services, the NHS, Schools, Police, Prisons, Social Services, Local Government and of course, the Armed Forces. We stopped training our own people because it was cheaper to import them, we stopped building our… Read more »