Suella Braverman, Conservative MP for Fareham and Waterlooville, recently raised concerns over the lack of ships in the Royal Navy.

During a parliamentary exchange, Braverman acknowledged the success of delivering the UK’s aircraft carriers, which are stationed near her constituency in Portsmouth.

However, she pointed out that despite their importance, the carriers are underpowered and in need of further support.

“One of the big achievements of the last 14 years was the delivery of the aircraft carriers, both of which are stationed in Portsmouth, near my constituency,” Braverman began.

“However, it remains clear that they are underpowered. We need more Type 45s, more Type 26s and more Type 31s.”

She went on to challenge the government’s commitment to increasing defence spending, urging a more robust investment plan for the Royal Navy, particularly in relation to its aircraft carriers. “If the Government are serious about the 2.5%, when will they set out their plan to invest in our Royal Navy and, in particular, our aircraft carriers, so that our carrier strike group can provide a world-class capability?”

In response, Defence Secretary John Healey acknowledged the importance of the aircraft carriers to the nation’s defence strategy. He emphasised that the government is actively assessing the current and future threats faced by the UK as part of the ongoing strategic defence review.

“The aircraft carriers constitute an important defence programme,” Healey stated. “We are considering the threats that we face and the future capabilities that we need as part of the strategic defence review, which will report in the spring, and we will follow that within our clear path and our commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, just as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury told the media yesterday.”

Avatar photo
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
94 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 day ago

She must be reading all our ukdj posts!!?

Sailorboy
Sailorboy
1 day ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

“more Type 45s”, HAHAHA
Even I could explain, in detail, why that is a bad idea.

Meirion X
Meirion X
1 day ago
Reply to  Sailorboy

Not, if MoD got it right in the beginning!

Rob Young
Rob Young
1 day ago
Reply to  Sailorboy

Certainly need more vessels that do the Type 45s job.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 day ago
Reply to  Sailorboy

She’s not the brightest light bulb
Shows the complete ignorance of defence and the “sea blindness” of our politicians.
Just stupidity.
I’d settle for a general purpose/ air defence optimised type 26 hull form. Rather than trying to dig out the type 45 destroyers.

Mark B
Mark B
1 day ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Agree with your conclusion but you cannot expect politicians to have the detailed knowledge those from the military have. It is not their role.

Barry White
Barry White
1 day ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Are you an expert in everything?

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
15 hours ago
Reply to  Barry White

I dont comment on issues unless I have insight and knowledge in the area.
It is the first rule of intelligence, knowing when to say “I dont know, but will try to find out”
Braverman just talks and talks without bothering to gain understanding.

Mark B
Mark B
1 day ago
Reply to  Sailorboy

I don’t think she means that specific ship but the role that ship plays ie. more destroyers. I am sure she would be more than happy with many more T26/T31 with a serious air defence and ASW role. She will be even happier if the trials on T26 and T31 go well – which we have yet to find out.

Remember she will not have been briefed by the military on the pros and cons of specific ships.

John Clark
John Clark
1 day ago
Reply to  Mark B

It’s an amateurish brief really, if I was her, I would have taken the time to understand the problem, before I stood up in the commons. If I was her, I would have started with an apology about 14 years of Conservative defence cuts, own it and put a line under it. I would then demand a shift to 3% defence spending and suggest the following…… We need a balanced surface combatant fleet of 33 ships. 12x T26 (ASW) 12x T31 (General Combat) 9x Air Defence Destroyers (T26 derived platform?) All the above very well armed with 40mm mounts and… Read more »

Mark B
Mark B
1 day ago
Reply to  John Clark

That is the point though John politicians are supposed to be amateurs. There expertise, on any area, is supposed to be nil. We were spoilt a little with Ben Wallace because he knew what he was talking about. Generally politicians don’t. They are there to reflect the wishes of the man or woman on the street. I will not comment too much on your suggested solution other than to say what we need for surface combatant is a jack of all trades master of all. If the T26 turns out to be good at ASW it really needs to be… Read more »

Jon
Jon
1 day ago
Reply to  Sailorboy

Go on then. Assume that a second batch would use MT30s and would be built to modern regs, the latest PAAMS spec with an updated Sampson and S1850M including SMART-L MM technology, perhaps strike length Mk41s instead of CAMM-dedicated silos. Replace the obsolete main gun. Assume we’d be looking at moving three new ships into operation between 2036 and 2039. We won’t be ready for the first Type 83 to become operational before the 2040s, because the class isn’t even in Concept yet and I have no doubt we’ll be Lifexing the current T45s. Building batch 2 would derisk the… Read more »

Sailorboy
Sailorboy
1 day ago
Reply to  Jon

I think that once you start chopping and changing important aspects of the design, like propulsion and the radar systems, you might as well start over.
The whole point of a concept phase is to work out what the Navy actually needs from the ship.
Skipping that risks producing a useless ship.
I know it sounds like MoD risk aversion but we can’t just bone headedly carry on the way we always have.
Even a T26 AA version would be preferable as an interim.

Jon
Jon
22 hours ago
Reply to  Sailorboy

Because T45s have IEP not CODLOG, it would be a lot easier to change the gas turbines than you’d think. They aren’t actually propelling the craft, just being one of the sources of electricity for the motors. Updating the Sampsons will be done for the current T45s during the Sea Viper upgrade. Thales (NL) already stated that the MM upgrade could be applied to the current S1850M radars, without affecting the BAES backend processing. I’d take that with a pinch of salt, but it shouldn’t significantly affect the ship’s weight distribution for a single antenna. Building three ships of an… Read more »

Sailorboy
Sailorboy
12 hours ago
Reply to  Jon

My personal preference is for T31 AAW, fitted to an equivalent standard to the Iver Huitfeldt class.
Swap NS110 for NS200 and add in the SMART-L MM. You’d need to bend the funnels and possibly also speed up CAMM-MR for mk41 but it would cost a fraction of new T45/46s.
That also slots in nicely with the end of fabrication in Rosyth and no obvious further orders.
Three would be a good number, I agree with you there.
Not enough to displace T83 but enough to hugely improve availability.

AlexS
AlexS
1 day ago
Reply to  Sailorboy

The problem are the AAW limitations of RN T26 and T31, a giant RN mistake.

Even the Italian PPA and French FDI have Aster 30.

AlexS
AlexS
1 day ago
Reply to  AlexS

Manpower issues is one more reason to have multi mission ships and not niche ones.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 day ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

As I’ve commented before: this forum and NL is more widely read than you would think.

Which is why the quality of comment and debate is quite important.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves
1 day ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

as long as she gets nowhere near our navy everything she touches turns to shit

Redshift
Redshift
1 day ago

Shame she didn’t do it whilst she and her party were in government.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 day ago
Reply to  Redshift

Indeed.

But at least MP’s are saying it out loud now.

It isn’t just here and the NL echo chamber.

Last edited 1 day ago by Supportive Bloke
Athelstanthecurious
Athelstanthecurious
1 day ago
Reply to  Redshift

My experience of politicians was that they could face two ways at once and deny they had seen anything!
On a more serious note did she mean engines and generators, lack of aircraft or both?

Rob Young
Rob Young
1 day ago

I’m guessing she meant under equipped in terms of aircraft available and escorts rather than engines!

Geoffi
Geoffi
1 day ago
Reply to  Redshift

Indeed, Tories lecturing about defence spending is hillarious.

However, in her defence we didnt have a Trump government to deal with then.

Redshift
Redshift
1 day ago
Reply to  Geoffi

I think we did … 2016 to 2020 ring a bell??

Geoffi
Geoffi
1 day ago
Reply to  Redshift

Trump was making noise back then. I think we will find Trump 2.0 will be putting action before words…

WSM
WSM
1 day ago
Reply to  Redshift

Although to be fair Wallace did try to push for greater expenditure and was clearly one of the better Defence Secs. the country had seen for some time

Challenger
Challenger
1 day ago
Reply to  Redshift

Good thing about being in opposition is you can say whatever the hell you like…..sometimes even what you actually think!

Pity the Tories did little in 14 years in the same way it’s a pity most of the things Labour said in opposition are being watered down or completely scrapped.

John Taylor
John Taylor
1 day ago

Amazing how quiet she was over this issue when the tories were in power.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 day ago
Reply to  John Taylor

Yeh, the hyprocrisy is incredible.

The former Tory leader of the Defence Select Committee – now if he came out with that kind of question, firstly, it would be more authoritative and secondly, he and the Committee were calling for a bigger navy years ago…

Can’t remember his name, but in any event I wouldn’t be surprised if he lost his seat..!

Cheers CR

RobW
RobW
1 day ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Tobias Ellwood? He lost his seat to Labour.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 day ago
Reply to  RobW

Yes that resonates. Thank you, knew someone would remember.

Cheers CR

Jon
Jon
1 day ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Ellwood and his successors Courts and Quin lost their seats, but I don’t think any of them had anywhere near the credibility of Julian Lewis, who was Ellwood’s predecessor. He was the first to get an endorsement of 3% of GDP from the Select Committee around 2016 and is still in Parliament, and I believe still chair of the Security and Intelligence Committee.

Last edited 1 day ago by Jon
AlexS
AlexS
1 day ago
Reply to  John Taylor

Maybe she was not interested on defence when she was not in leadership

When you are after PM job things are different and you need to talk about everything.

Redshift
Redshift
1 day ago
Reply to  AlexS

She’s been a MP for 9 years, so no I don’t think so.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 day ago

Does she know the RN requirement was for 12 Type 45s?

Last edited 1 day ago by Graham Moore
Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 day ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

RN wanted to replace T42 1:1.

It estimated the cost to be £500m per ship. Which seemed a very generous number at the time.

TreasuryMan(TM) gave RN a fixed budget of £6Bn (approx).

The rising costs ate the other ships. Not TreasuryMan(TM) or any politicos.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 day ago

Thanks. Given that the operational requirement was for 12 ships, surely the TM should have upped the fixed budget.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 day ago

It’s why I think the T83 many be a far more modest affair than most people are hoping for. The RN got burnt hard once so they may go ultra conservative on the T83 design to maximise numbers.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 day ago

That’s not fully technically true. BAE systems did offer to deliver a 7th and 8th ship to the RN at significantly reduced price but that option was not taken up. Would have added £1.2 billion (600 million each) to build ships 7+8 onto the type 45 programme.

Geoffi
Geoffi
1 day ago

We lost hulls 7 and 8 to bring the T26 program forwards.

LOL.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
15 hours ago
Reply to  Geoffi

lol…that went well.

Meirion X
Meirion X
1 day ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

The issue would then become, can the RN crew them all?
I have doubts of RN able to crew beyond 9 T45!
The underlying problem, is the fixed establish strength of about 30K of the RN. If you increase it, that will eat into current costs.

Last edited 1 day ago by Meirion X
Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 day ago
Reply to  Meirion X

Actually I don’t really think that RN needs more AAW right now in this fleet iteration.

What it needs is to focus (now) on ASW with a hot production line and GP frigates.

T83 is the opportunity for AAW fleet count.

If you are going to do something do it well. Even if you had wheelbarrows of cash tipped over the problems you’d still need tight focus to regenerate fleet size and capability.

Tim B
Tim B
1 day ago

I think that’s right – ASW is the priority, especially given financial and manpower constraints. Not just surface assets obviously, let’s not forget sub-surface and air (P8) as well.

I would also like more spent on the protection of sub-surface infrastrucure as well. In the future, we will become even more reliant on things like undersea power cables (between the UK and other countries/offshore wind turbines).

Oh, and yes please to reconstituting of our SAM defences, especially for core infrastructure like nuclear power stations!

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 day ago
Reply to  Tim B

Given what is going on in Ukraine I would suggest that the lack of effective air defence would be one way to get the general public interested in defence..! Once you get them hooked, hit ’em with all the other holes in our defences and how they will be affected if the poo hits the fan.

A navy too small to effectively guard the sea lanes and there will be a lot of hungry people in these islands.

Cheers CR

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 day ago

Hi SB, Whilst I don’t quite agree about the RN not needing more AAW capability this iteration I would agree that we don’t have the capability to do anything about it at the moment, which is a different issue. I would like to see us seriously up the number frigates from the current 13 ordered, at least 4 more T26 and 3 more T31 – forget the T32 its just an excuse to generate hot air judging by the time it is taking to have ‘discussions’. China builds fleets, while our lot talk..! My numbers above are just for starts,… Read more »

Mark P
Mark P
1 day ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

To be honest I would be happy to see just two more T31’s ordered

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 day ago
Reply to  Mark P

I don’t think the 7 extra frigates I talked about would be enough given the way the threats are going. We need to be able to deter and given what is happening we clearly failing to do so. However, I think we need to reflect to foolishness we see in our politics. So yeh an extra two T31 would be welcome…

Cheers CR

Jon
Jon
1 day ago

The question isn’t what we need now, becuse any new T45s wouldn’t become operational until after 2035, so what will we need in the second half of the 2030s after all the T26s are operational? We always need to think 10 years ahead.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 day ago
Reply to  Meirion X

If the RN could not crew a handful of extra ships (for it would just be a handful), then the headroom figure for manpower should be increased, along with budget. You can’t just say…we can’t do it.

The Navy might perhaps also look at whether it could switch some manpower from shore billets to sea duties. They do have 28,920 full-time trained personnel. Officers and ratings. Includes RM numbers.

Jon
Jon
1 day ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

I agree that the numbers caps have to go, but until recruitment and retention issues are addressed, that won’t help. The RN already undertook a significant shift of shore to ship under Adm. Radakin’s tenure as 1SL, so fairly recently. They also reduced the proportion of salad.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 day ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

In that number you also have the FAA, the RM, and the Submarine Service.
What the RN need are more sailors.
I read that was one driver behind 42 Cdo going Maritime Security, it removed some RM establishment for more sailors.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 day ago

A voice from the past; a bright woman. In a December 2015 op-ed, Braverman wrote, “In essence, rights have come to fill the space once occupied by generosity.” 
She is ‘right’ on so many issues ( my opinion) but did poorly in the conservative leadership election for Rishi Sunak. Looks like she is starting a comeback campaign by supporting a safe position.

Tim B
Tim B
1 day ago
Reply to  Paul.P

I don’t really understand “In essence, rights have come to fill the space once occupied by generosity.” 

Is she saying that benefits like the state pension or unemployment benefit or public services like defence, education or health should be properly considered a ‘generosity’ (or charity!) bestowed by the Crown/Government rather than a ‘right’ of an individual citizen should expect of the Government?

Conservative thinking is usually something about rights must come with obligations and duties. We give x in benefits or support but you must do y in return. This would take it up another level.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 day ago
Reply to  Tim B

Well, I guess you would have to speak to the woman herself to answer your questions. I was pointing out that it looks like she is starting a comeback – a sign of changing politics perhaps. It would have been bigger news if she had said the navy needs fewer ships 😂

Chrislondon
Chrislondon
1 day ago
Reply to  Tim B

I think she is referring to the idea that rights traditionally meant things relating to a lack of interference/hindering from others particularly the state.

The left have redefined it to mean a range of entitlements from others via the state.

As a Liberal I agree with her that this has been a disaster for society.

Mike
Mike
1 day ago

What a nerve??? This women is part of the problem. Another MP who fails to understand the threat or UK defence and the people who serve. Insufficient funds in defence over the past 50 + years, just cut, cut & cut with little or no understanding of the requirement. The Carriers should have been nuclear, and they need a proper air wing. They need supporting within a credible task group which means SSN’s, FF and DD’s covering AAW and ASW threats + RFA’s with a couple of fast replenishment tankers and solid support ships. At present the RN and RFA… Read more »

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 day ago
Reply to  Mike

Yup, couldn’t agree more. All and I mean all of our political parties share in the blame for the dangerously poor state of our defences. The list of gaps, shortfalls and delays is so long I it would take a book just to list them all with a 50 word explanation / description… Putin served notice to the west in 2014 when he grabbed Crimea, 10 years and still we haven’t responded effectively. Worse the threat has got far more intense with War in Ukraine and North Korean troops deployed and engaged in the fighting (reported last week by Ukrainian… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 day ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Yes, and the after-effects of world wars were consequential (monetarily) too.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 day ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Too right. I read somewhere that there was a spate of train accidents in the post war period as the train companies had been required to support the war effort. The thing is these train companies were huge manufacturing enterprises building tracks, locomotives signalling systems etc. To do all this they had huge factories with foundries, machine shops, assembly halls and, most important of all highly skilled work forces. Just what you need to build tanks, ship engines, etc.. The trouble was that while they were supporting the war effort they were not maintaining there own infrastructure so post war… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 day ago
Reply to  Mike

Why should the carriers have been nuclear-powered? So many disadvantages with nuclear and only one (questionable) advantage.

Mike
Mike
1 day ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Sustainment and future proof.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 day ago

Err, seriously! Whilst I totally agree that we need a bigger navy, a much much bigger navy, the aircraft carriers were not just delivered over the last 14 years they were ordered by the previous government It anything the aircraft carriers are the perfect example why we need a robust and resilient cross part consensus on defence not the current bickering, seesawing and political shambles we currently have. This type cheap and frankly uninformed points scoring framing of the question undermines the vital importance and urgency of the situation. More T45’s indeed..! Perhaps a T46 based on the T45 with… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 day ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

BOOM.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 day ago

I do like your succinct replies mate. 🙂

Ta CR

Frank62
Frank62
1 day ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Spot on CR.

I think AAW escorts are probably more vital today than even ASW as drones, ASMs & air attack are far cheaper & readily available than sub fleets.

ian white
ian white
1 day ago

More type 45’s are a bad idea (and at £1 billion a time) it needs a new propulsion system and post probably a new everything else as the design is far from new. The main question l would have could you have a cheaper ship which does the same thing with improvements before we spend that type of money. Computer power is always getting cheaper and better and that is the expensive bit not the hull etc.
The aircraft carriers were ordered under a Labour Government – just to remind her.

Jon
Jon
1 day ago
Reply to  ian white

We could try to do something second tier based on the T31, in fact the Iver Huitfeldts are just that, but a new destroyer with a new design would require considerable expense to design it and many years arguing over that design before anyone could build it. You would end up saving nothing in trying to equal the capability of the T45 with a new design over just creating a second batch with all the kinks ironed out (which would save much of the arguing as other than the size of the main gun I doubt there is much to… Read more »

Sailorboy
Sailorboy
1 day ago
Reply to  Jon

Exactly.
“We need a second destroyer programme” is exactly the wrong thing to say to the Treasury.
“We need to upgrade our GP frigates in AAW” is much more subtle and will produce more numbers in the long run by not jeopardising T83.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 day ago

We must take these things as a positive. Politicians could not give a stuff for Defence for decade, of ALL parties. Now chickens are coming home to roost. Sadly the public are still for the most part blind and disinterested, otherwise there would be even greater heat. We all see the irony of Tories who lament numbers who for 14 years dismantled the military, and I at least see the irony of people on the Labour side like Healey who presided over it pre 2010. Now it’s a subject of interest and they want Brownie points from their followers to… Read more »

Jon
Jon
1 day ago

It is a positive, but too little too late. Many Tories came out in favour of 3%, even though it was never adopted as party policy (pace the Truss weeks). My question is where is the chorus of Labour backbenchers right now saying 2.5% is a joke.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 day ago
Reply to  Jon

They’re clueless on defence, and some opposed on ideological grounds, see the Corbyn supporting side of the party.
Others will be more concerned with the Palestinian situation.
I’ll get my coat.

Jon
Jon
1 day ago

To his credit, Starmer has been very tough on the left wing ideologues.

We somehow need to get 3% back into the conversation. Sunak’s parting shot has given Sir Keir all the out he feels he needs for conversations to be about 2.5% rather than when can we get spending back above 3% or is 3% enough?

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
23 hours ago
Reply to  Jon

I don’t think 3% is enough although I can’t see current the politicos in Westminster waking up to the threat. We are so far behind in industrial as well military capabilities that our conventional deterrence stance is obviously very shaky in the current politic environment. So much so that I think the deterrence value is now being seriously eroded. It will take a big increase in industrial capability, recruitment into the armed forces and increased quantities of military equipment to reestablish the deterrent effect. We are in a race but we are still at the starting line asking if that… Read more »

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 day ago

The sheer brazen gall of the Tories. It’s really unbelievable. So you want more ships? And yet spent 14 years building no major surface warships except the carriers begun by Labour and nearly scrapped on multiple occasions by successive Tory governments. Yes we need more type 26 frigates….but the Tories cut the programme from 13 to 8. Then pledged the type 32 programme and it’s not even funded, no clear design and no actual contract. Yes we need more type 31s as well. Yet the Tory government only ordered 5 vessels despite having had plentiful opportunities to order another batch… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 day ago

Funny really saying the last 14 years drove the carriers…as the Cameron government did its level best to get rid of one of the carriers and made regeneration back to carrier ops that much more difficult because of the decisions of the 2010 defence review..also causes a further delay in the 26 programme by around 4 years..without the 2010 defence review it would have been easier to regenerate carrier ops and we would have had the first couple of the T26s commissioned. But it’s good so many people are highlighting defence..so I may think she’s being dishonest and party politics… Read more »

Geoffi
Geoffi
1 day ago

Does it need to come from him with a bushy white beard and ability to fire lightning bolts as well ?
Is there anyone that doesnt understand we are an island, and see that the RN in particular is down to bare bones protecting this country ?
We need to start seeing commitments, not empty words.
It wont be T45s, but maybe the T83 might get a kick in the jacksie.

Bazza
Bazza
1 day ago

If you ever see anyone saying we need to build more Type 45s you can dismiss them as uniformed on anything but the most surface level information.

Paul T
Paul T
1 day ago
Reply to  Bazza

She is obviously uninformed to an extent,i wouldn’t expect her to have a great deal of knowledge on specific matters of Defence,but for the informed a T45 vs 2,0 would not be a bad idea to increase the RN AA Destroyer numbers pending the T83.

Mike
Mike
1 day ago
Reply to  Paul T

She should she represents a constituency which has many RN and a few RFA personnel. It looks over the Portsmouth Harbour for heave sake!! 

Paul T
Paul T
1 day ago
Reply to  Mike

I can see the moon at night,it doesn’t make me an Astronaut,what a Clown comment !.

Sailorboy
Sailorboy
1 day ago
Reply to  Paul T

I think T31 AA variant is more feasible than T45b2, for shipyard timings and design.
Interim AAW boost is a good idea especially if T83 is a full fat cruiser, but T45 is not the best way to go about it.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
23 hours ago
Reply to  Sailorboy

Yeh, order 3 more T31 as currently designed to keep the production line and supply chain hot while Babcock come up with an AAW enhancement for a batch 3 of say 6 ships. Whilst we’re at it order 4 more T26, to give the following; 12 AAW ships; 12 ASW frigates; 8 GP frigates. Better than current plans and doable with a bit of smart decision making. 32 escorts in a NATO context starts to make a difference. Would it be enough? May be, but I think it would merely be a starter for 10. It all depends on whether… Read more »

Paul T
Paul T
7 hours ago
Reply to  Sailorboy

Personally,and ive been saying this for a long time,i would refrain from thinking about any more T31’s and any variations thereof until Venturer has been delivered to the RN, and has undergone extensive Sea Trials,then they can see exactly what they are getting and at which price.A de-bugged T45 to me would be a better bet as an interim AAW option as it is a tried and tested Platform.

Andrew D
Andrew D
1 day ago

Did she speak out when in government 🙄

Andy reeves
Andy reeves
1 day ago

calamity suella should 5 well aware of the issue, as should everyone else in parliament what also should be highlighted, is the poor infrastructure such as an efficient shipbuilding industry That will Deliver the contract that they have

Stephanie
Stephanie
1 day ago

It is obvious Braverman as a lay person is just talking in generalities. She isn’t speaking about specific classes. It doesn’t surprise me that somebody has to to state that here. The RN can’t recruit or retain personnel. There is no budget for more ships. The RFA is heading towards collapse for the want of a few million extra for pay. Yet the government is paying one hotel owner best part of £5 million per week to house II’s. Again there is money but it is where the government choose to spend it is the problem. By the time London… Read more »

Julian
Julian
1 day ago

If we’re talking about making sure the carriers aren’t “underpowered” as she puts it, which I assume means the ability to put together a credible carrier group, my most pressing concern would be the RFA situation – personnel shortages/issues and serious lack of FSS vessels.

Coll
Coll
1 day ago

Ocean going support vessels that can accommodate module units for increase fire power and flexibility. I think someone mention that larger uncrewed vessels will be tested soon.

Frank62
Frank62
1 day ago

Pity she didn’t make the same point during the 14 years her govenment was in power overseeing the disasterous tate the escort fleet is now in.

Basile Berthon
Basile Berthon
1 day ago

As a reminder, the British Navy does not have any aircraft carriers, however it does have 2 aircraft carriers!
The last English aircraft carrier dates back to HMS Eagle!
1950 to 1980 I think!

Bonzo
Bonzo
23 hours ago

After 14 years of her party being in charge leading us to the current situation o she might have a bit of humility. The carriers were a Labour project albeit mostly constructed under Tory rule, if they are “underpowered” then I’m afraid that is her party’s fault as there were years when that could have been rectified. But all the same, a call for more ships is never a bad thing in current climes. However what the Navy really needs is more sailors because if we can’t even crew the ships we have the what use are more vessels…. Oh… Read more »

Scott
Scott
1 minute ago

How strange, she has only recently become aware of this. Sure the more immediate goal would be to ensure all the ships already on the inventory are equipped and crewed. To order new ships before achieving this only perpetuates the institutional inefficiency and corruption within the RN, RFA, MoD and Contractors.