HMS Portland tested her ability to engage underwater targets off the coast of Scotland recently, culminating in a test firing of a torpedo.
While a routine occurrence, we believe it’s important to highlight that the fleet is always training and perfecting its capabilities.
Consistent practice of weapon drills is vital in ensuring that naval vessels uphold their combat proficiency.
Torpedoes Away! An action packed day spent perfecting our Under Water Warfare skills in the beautiful waters of Northern Scotland @RNinScotland. Practicing our weapon drills regularly ensures we maintain our fighting edge.#practicemakesperfect@RoyalNavy @RN_engineers pic.twitter.com/YIifaBDd4k
— HMS Portland (@HMSPortland) February 22, 2023
HMS Portland is a Type 23 frigate of the Royal Navy which has been in service since 2001. The ship is named after the town of Portland in Dorset, England, and has a crew of approximately 185 personnel.
The vessel has been involved in a range of military operations, including counter-piracy operations off the coast of Somalia, enforcing sanctions against North Korea, and providing humanitarian aid in the Caribbean.
The ship is equipped with a range of advanced weapons systems and sensors, including a 4.5-inch Mark 8 naval gun, Harpoon anti-ship missiles, anti-aircraft missiles and anti-submarine weapons.
It’s always been beyond me why the decision to fit torpedos without rocket launch to type 23 was made. I believe the system it replaced was rocket launched. Not sure if I would ever want to get with in stingray distance of a submarine on a frigate.
should get some RUM-139 ASROC to put in Mk41 (4 ASROC / 20 land attack). I know Merlin best option to keep Sub at arms length but having no alternative in case helo is down makes it pretty useless in role if protecting deterrent.
Just remember that Chinese, Swedish and Italian AIP subs have all managed to evade the escorts of USN Carriers and get really close. So just think that the GP T23 and T45’s aren’t fitted with high end Sonar it is possible that could happen to them.
Would the T23/T26 with tailed sonar not be an integral part of our carrier groups? Plus an Astute and Merlin of course. Probably the best ASW combination out there.
Well you just made my point. T45’s do operate solo on occaission so if the Helo is out what else do they do re ASW ?
Pray a lot. Last I heard their sonar wasn’t being supported. Unbelievable tbh. Even a baseline sonar is useful i’d imagine as it can be used for mine detection ( which I think what their sonar was developed from). And if no sonar what is cueing the anti-torpedo system ??
Amen to that, it is nuts. The odd thing is they will be getting NSM for surface warfare but not even a basic self defence ASW capability. Which is a direct contrast to the Horizons that do.
Very good point. At a billion pounds plus, makes you wonder where all the money spent has gone to.
Half of that was R&D as the Franco Italian collaboration fell apart.
I’m flabbergasted how the MOD can spend billions on ‘high-end’ programmes like T45, QE carriers etc etc and rely on a paper-thin defense in the form of a towed-array frigate (two if we’re lucky) and the odd Merlin and, as ABC says, not fully heed warnings like the “Chinese, Swedish and Italian AIP sub” incursions. Now by saying ‘paper-thin’ I’m not denouncing the capabilities of towed-array or Merlin, I’m certain they are capable systems, it’s just the lack of contingency in the system that bothers me. All it takes is for one of these systems to go U/S and we’re then potentially down to the basics on sub-hunting. It’s not just the RN that worries me in this respect, the ‘3’ E-7 Wedgetails, not replacing Hercs, the token gesture 148 C3s. When it’s been reported in the past that some Admirals were concerned we need to think very carefully about whether we can afford to replace the Invincible class carriers, it will sap capabilities and resources from the escort fleet, I can see their point. T45 not having a reliable and capable sonar is negligent in my view. Now I know there’s a budget we need to stick to but we need to look at the bigger picture of capabilities and be mindful the Cold-War is back on, with ice-bergs! We need to have overlap and contingency in any system and Anti-Sub is near the top of this list, given the numbers of Russian and Chinese subs around. If T45 (carriers also?) had a capable system then surely it could be meshed into a combat system controlled by the primary ASW frigate in the CSG (or other fleet) to provide a robust undersea awareness? The more assets that can contribute to the mesh the better.
I should correct myself here, to avoid Chinese-whispers, I’m not aware of any specific issues with reliability or effectiveness of the T45’s sonar, I’m just going on what others have said on here about its sonar, sorry!
CSG21. T23 was holding ChiCom subs at very, very long range.
The Sonar crews where from first hand dits, loving it. They owned anything that China put out under the water.
There are reasons why the USN has binned its own LF Tail development and has gone for 2087/CAPTAS 4. CSG21 was one of them.
That info went out over Link. Everyone knew where the subs where. Every unit with a Merlin, Wildcat or Sea Hawk could have launched and dropped on them at any time.
T45s have bow sonar, but it sounds like you are making the case that all ships should have a full tailed sonar ASW setup. That would make them all very expensive.
No not a full bore ASW setup with TAS, but something that can provide an effective ASW and Mine self defence capability.
As far as I am aware the MFS-7000 is a pretty basic set based on an EDO so are designed for detecting mines for Brazil.
Last I heard they were operational but not supported or manned !
Which is just ludicrous.
They need something better but not a 2150.
Anyone know if they could be fitted with the 2050 systems that coming off the T23’s. I know they are pretty old but still a good system.
2050’s issue is obsolescence in terms of parts. It has got very hard to support.
The cost of the support, was by all accounts, eye watering.
Then you have the issue of a separate training setup.
I’d not believe everything that various people wrote a few years ago about T45 sonar. It is upgradable in that the hull penetrations and inner compartment exist as well as allocated sonar office space. It might be done quietly. Not everything is widely advertised as there is a war on!
Thanks for be so informative and supportive. So many folks just do not understand that a ship does need self defence.
Looking back now I just shudder at the very thought of Duncan and Defender visiting the Black Sea.
Do you know if the 7000 is in use again or if it has some ability to detect mines.
I was very surprised when, a while back, a previous poster claimed that the T45 sonar was inadequate and inoperative. If only from an OPSEC perspective. The less the opposition understand about what is / isn’t there the better. I’m not saying the post was accurate although the claim has been widely repeated.
As we are in an unstable military situation in Europe, and more broadly, I don’t think commenting on current status would be sensible. It isn’t a good idea also, as even people in the service compartment this kind of info and it can be worrying for others and loved ones if odd rumours do the rounds.
Contrastingly I’ll happy comment and lift the lid on things that have been overtaken by history where there is no possible value to anyone of knowing an idiotic decision long since reversed. But this isn’t that kind of case.
So there it should rest.
Nuff said 😉
What is the US version of the type 23 and 26? Do they have dedicated anti sub ships anymore or is it just the AB class which seem to just have everything thrown in there.
Its just the AB, although they do have towed arrays.
How come the USN doesn’t really do specialised escorts like European navies?
I remember reading somewhere years ago that working on there escorts are not very nice as they are so cramped with all the different weapon systems and upgrades that have been put into like a 50 year old design.
It’s a WW2 Cold War legacy. The RN job and most of European NATO was to hold the GIUK gap from Russian submarines. The USN has always had the pacific to worry about. It’s ships were deployed further away from home so they were more general purpose and generally larger due to range. Plus they could afford to have big general purpose platforms with lots of land attack capability.
No it is not a “ww2 cold war legacy” !? it is a post cold war legacy when USN wanted to be “relevant” and do “peace missions” with a coastal 40kt frigate size ship.
Obviously too compromised – to not talk to various other failures like weapon modules etc – to be relevant for the now peer to peer with China and Russia.
The fact that they also build only AB for 40 years made them loose know-how, so they had to make an FFG competition that Italians won over US shipyards designs.
Russia’s navy is not a peer on peer opponent to the US navy far from it.
True they are but the T45 was actually built to accommodate these systems, just never fitted due to cost.
It is a bit like the T23 every single one started off as an ASW Frigate with but with Harpoon fitted.
But we couldn’t afford to upgrade all of the ASW systems, the Radar and install CAAM plus Harpoon in all 13 so 8 for ASW and 5 GP.
The USN has such deep pockets it can afford true GP ships, but unfortunately they wasted so much money on ideas that don’t work they have to keep building the same design even when it is over stretched.
Complete and utterly wrong on so many counts its staggering.
Post Cold War the peace dividend came and the question was asked Why fit 2031 to a frigate that wasn’t going to use it to passively track subs because …well …Russia is friendly!
All T23 s are EXACTLY the same bar the tail. Same quietening and systems are fitted to tail and GP.
Same GT and DG Sets.
All have Sonar 2050/2150 ( refit dependent)
All have Harpoon.
All have CAMM
All have Artisan fitted.
Tail equipped had the 2031 removed and refitted with the LF Active/Passive 2087
All have SSTD
Some are Merlin Capable others Wildcat Capable.
All have MTLS and a magazine full of Sting Ray.
Its hilarious that people think that because you dont have S2087 fitted you cannot do ASW. S2050 is a very good active set with a lot of other features. 2150 fixes a lot of the maintainability issues 2050 had with spares availability/obsolescence.
I have done ASW on an LPD…we didn’t even have a Sonar or a Helo embarked! LINK lets everyone see the tactical picture and if you have the picture you can use all of the Assets available to you to prosecute a Poss Sub.
Err I know all that about the T23 except you are wrong on 2 counts. They are not all identical, the GP / ASW have engineering differences since the ASW versions were upgraded to MTU.
And they do not all have Harpoon, just the opposite.
A for LINK it brilliant, but only if there are suitable assets in the area to link with.
Stingray is also carried in the Mags of T45 so why not add the tubes to launch the darn things, then it becomes an asset via LINK.
I just do not sign onto the argument that as the Helicopter is the prime ASW asset you don’t need any back stop.
It needs to refuel, rearm, be maintained etc. And we really do not have anywhere near enough of them to fully equip the fleet.
Ok yep I will ignore the minor differences on the 2 that I served on for a total of 6 years, the T23 System engineers course which lasted 2 months that I had to complete, the Officer of the Day duties I conducted where I was the COs rep onboard, being an NBCDQ, FDO, OOQ oh and I can also ignore Boarding Team 2 I/C , OPS room WE Manager…back up Harpoon, 4.5 gun, Gyros, CRW maintainer and also knew my way around S2050 and S2031…
Because there are no missiles bolted to the frames Fwd of the bridge doesnt mean they dont have the Harpoon system. The operators console, SFCs, and all the other harpoon bits are all still in place in the power room. Every T23 has that.
Not everyone has the MTU sets only the Tail equipped ones coming out of refit. The remainder still have the DG sets from build. The legacy units are still raft mounted and in acoustic enclosures as are the MTU units so it doesnt matter that much.
ASW in the real world is a team game. Doing it on your own is a sure fire way to fail. You use passive and active units and helos of every ilk and fixed wing to prosecute a sub .
Where on a T45 would you like the tubes fitted? You need an ammunition route to move a 300+ kg weapon and its wheeled torpedo trolley. If you want to lift it up decks you need a swan neck davit and hoist. T42 had that and it was a nightmare to use and load the tubes, especially moving weapons around the upperdeck waists. T 22 had a dedicated weapon lift from 01 down to 4 deck with fold down ramps and deck plates to move weapons and it was still a nightmare.
You could put the tubes on the flightdeck but that effects helo ops and what if you get a Crash on Deck? AVCAT+ 4 or 6 Sting Ray( in tubes) = Major/ Massive incident. Not because of the warhead which is now thank god IS compliant but because of a battery fire. You are talking about losing the flight deck, hangar and most of the aft end of the ship.
Where would I fit them ? I’d fit them exactly where they were designed to go and where the space was reserved for them.
It was another fitted for but not with job, and if you look at the Horizons they have the tubes fitted and working precisely where they should have been on the T45.
A single internal tube mounted in the forward end of the hanger block. So it uses the same system for moving Stingrays as the Helo does.
Have a look at the French or Italian Horizon and you’ll see what I mean.
On a T45 there isnt anywhere to put a tube. The TAS Mag is Fwd Port side of the hangar and adjacent to a passageway. Again you don’t want a torpedo tube on or near a flight deck due to crash on deck issues. T45 also has the boat bays in the area you mention.
Constellation class FFG, in the future? 🤔
Yes for much the same reason it built the Perry class in the 70’s. It can’t afford to make everything a battleship when faced with a peer threat. Even before ww2 the USN was always capital ship heavy and light on destroyers and smaller craft. This makes sense when congress starves you for peace time funds when you need to build capital ships but you have a massive industrial base that can knock out small warships by the hundreds during a war.
The Constellation’s look amazing, it’s just a pity they did not start earlier rather than messing around with LCS.
It’s the Arleigh Burke class destroyer, they do have a towed array and their new system is comparable with Type 2087 however due to the general purpose nature of the AB and it’s big radar it has a much higher power requirement meaning it’s noisier than a T23 or T26. AB/Sea Hawk is the better all round combatant while T23/ Merlin is the better pure ASW platform.
In general the USN likes multi-role ships, not specialist ships. Currently the ASW role in the USN is fulfilled by Burkes, which while noisy are (mostly) fully equipped for ASW. All Burkes have hull mounted sonar, currently all but 6 of the 70-odd Burkes have towed arrays as well, and even those six will get towed arrays in due time. Flight IIA and III Burkes have hangars for two ASW helicopters as well. All Burkes have Surface Ship Torpedo Tubes, which I’ll admit are a bit archaic looking compared to the above photo. Burkes also use VL ASROC.
The Constellation class frigates are the nearest thing we will have to the Type 26. The Constellation class will focus heavily on ASW, but will still be fully capable multirole ships as well with good air defense, anti-ship, and even strike capabilities (Congress recently forced Tomahawk capability onto the class). They will have the CAPTAS 4 Variable Depth Sonar that the RN uses (Sonar 2087?), but will use a different towed receive array. The Constellations won’t have a hull mounted sonar, but the receive array “tail” they will use (Multi-Function Towed Array or MFTA) has active as well as passive capabilities and will apparently make up for the lack of the active hull sonar.
As far as torpedoes go, the Constellation class will kind of split the difference between Burkes and Type 26. Like the Type 26s, the Constellation class won’t have Surface Ship Torpedo Tubes. Like the Burkes, they will have the ability to use VL ASROC. Of course the Constellations will have helicopter launched torpedoes like both Burkes and Type 26s do.
Problem is the Torpedo. The USN ( And the RAFs P8 Aircraft) use Mk54 which is a bastard son of a 1960s era Mk46. Its no where near as capable as Sting Ray and is a massive area of concern for the USN and has been highlighted in many reports as failing to meet the contractual requirements for performance.
It uses a new homing head on the front of an Otto fuelled Mk46 back end and the same blast warhead. Its speed, diving depth and warhead performance are all reasons why the UK binned it and developed Sting Ray.
The Constellation class is the new ASW vessels for USN. Based on the FREMM.
Sorry, just seen this has already been mentioned below.
Hopefully the upcoming Constellation class frigates will upgrade the USN anti Sub capabilities.
Hopefully too here in the UK we will get away from being budget driven where we try to get away with the minimum fit out & actually produce escorts that are up to the job needed with some built in redundancy. Defence done on the cheap/stingey only leads to defeat. We desperately need the proper tools to both deter aggresion & get the job done when conflict occurs.
Except you’re overlooking the glaring fact that the GP T24 frigates and the T45 air-defence destroyers aren’t thereto protect the CSG from submarines. That’s not what they’re designed for.
The purpose of the ASW T23/ T26s and Astute(s) in the CSG to deal with submarines.
What is a T24 ? And yes the T45 was originally designed to have ASW capability but as a secondary capability. The is fundamentally the same design and is fitted with a UMS4110 hull mounted sonar and ASW Torpedo.
We just didn’t fit them due to cost.
T24 is obviously a typo…
Point still stands, the the Astute and ASW T23 / T26 are in the CSG to handle submarines.
Next you’ll be complaining that the Astute is incapable of providing air-defence to the CSG 🤦🏻♂️
But they don’t always operate as part of a CSG or with an SSN. In fact there are some parts of the world which they operate where the first one isn’t allowed to go and operating the second is a seriously bad idea.
Black Sea, Baltic, North Sea, Gulf and that’s just for starters.
And as such they presently have no self defence a capacity not even against a mine.
The T45 was designed originally to have these features, we just didn’t do so due to cost and the Threat evaluation.
At that time it was a sensible and reasonable approach to funding issues, now it is indefensible.
I think this is no different to the case not to have an intermediate replacement for Harpoon. Vaguely justifiable 18 months ago but not now.
As for the all mighty Carrier and SSN just don’t forget that there are several examples of Submarines sneaking smack into the heart of USN carrier groups. And they were full bore ASW exercises and knew some of them were about.
We aren’t at war, that’s why they can operate alone. 🤦🏻♂️
They are AAD, that means their specialty is defending a group of ships. In war, that’s what they’d be deployed to do.
Russian submarines aren’t going to try and sneak into a CSG to fire a torpedo. We’re not going to be fighting WW2 again.
As RUSI identified, Russia is pivoting from SSNs to SSGNs. If they were going to attack a CSG, it would be using a sun-launched guided missile from hundreds of miles away. Good luck with ASW stopping that.
What each ship does does not influence who or what is going to shoot at it. Every naval ship is going to be vulnerable to hypersonics, AShMs and torpedos. The RFAs are even more vulnerable.
So you want to up arm every single RN and RFA vessel to be capable of dealing with every threat it might theoretically face, from submarines to hypersonic missiles? Congratulations, you just reduced the fleet to 5 ships each cost several billions each.
No Sean, that’s silly. But all our major combatant ships should have at least some decent ASW ability and I’ve also said an additional 1-2 T26s would strengthen the fleet, as would some more Merlin’s and upgraded Wildcats. Not sure what ASW ability the T32 will have but that’s still on the drawing board. All the others already exist and it’s the ASW mix that’s important across the whole fleet. And if ASW suites can be containerised, including weapon systems (ex, like the Qube/POD systems) then yes, even RFAs could deploy these systems if required.
Exactly my point, it’s silly.
But the T45 is an AAW destroyer, it’s role in wartime isn’t to operate independently but as part of a group. Better we have have ships that are specialist at AAW or at ASW then all out ships being mediocre at both. Theses ships T45/T26 are the high-end of a high/low mix.
I’m not saying low-end vessels T31/RFA shouldn’t have any ASW capabilities, but as it’s not their specialty it should be defence-orientated rather than offensive as on sub-hunters like T26: these vessels shouldn’t be actively hunting for subs unlike the T26.
All good. I think we’ve ended up in the same place. Always good to see the RN getting old ships made new, new ships, subs, armaments, uavs. Waiting to hear on the Australian defence review down here too, subs, ships, missiles, sovereign manufacturing, the lot. They’re treating the China-Taiwan, general Chinese regional encroachment, US-China tensions pretty seriously and the need to rapidly up-arm, especially the Navy.
Yes, I think simply a difference in emphasis/ focus.
Australia’s call to go nuclear was absolutely correct, given Pacific distances. Though SSGN might be more appropriate than a pure SSN design. Alas it’s likely to take decades to have a force operational…
I think the USN/RN/ RAN need to think about a common design to reduce costs, we’ve seen this trend in surface ships already. Possibly with tweaks such as larger weapons load-outs for USN version compared to the more cost conscious RN version.
Autonomous systems open up new possibilities too. We should treat manned systems as high-end systems, with autonomous as the future low-end high-volume portion of the mix. Problem is, China’s vast manufacturing capabilities means they could deploy even greater numbers of drones…
Ummm…yes, concerning the PRC and Taiwan…Pentagon announced deployment of up tp 200 personnel to Taiwan to conduct a ‘training program.’ (Additionally, becoming an unstated but obvious tripwire.) Now, certainly not a great admirer of ChiComs, but wonder re the wisdom of waving the red cape in front of the bull deliberately. My preferred path would be to walk softly, but carry a very big stick. Massively and obviously rearm, w/ enough platforms and munitions that the ChiComs realize if they twitch, they’re history. Then conduct quiet, polite but firm diplomacy. Dunno,.seems fairly straightforward…🤔😳
Wisdom is a great word. But if there is one bit of wisdom the present conflict highlights it is the strategic lack of wisdom in most western countries.
Same issue as the Pandemic we continue to build strategically vital items in countries that may not be cooperative or in Taiwans case even exist.
PPE, Chips, vehicle spares etc etc etc. And here in Europe we have Germany and Switzerland telling end users what they can not supply to Ukraine.
On the other hand it makes sense to buy within a certain close community of like minded nations.
The U.K, US have been doing business on a very trusted basis for years. The F35, Harrier, M777, are all excellent examples and not to forget Trident.
It always makes me laugh the dear old U.K. exploding 1 H bomb in 1957 did more for Anglo / US relations than being allies in 2 World Wars 🤣
The US IMHO tends to be a bit insular in its mind set regarding China. Fact is when you add the Navy’s of S Korea, Japan and Australia to the USN it is quite an impressive masse.
Agree that the collective West should reduce/eliminate dependence on tech supply chain centered in Taiwan; initiatives are underway to accomplish that. That is the economic side of the case that Taiwan is of strategic importance. The other side is the political question whether 20+ million should be abandoned to the fate of being assimilated by the current ‘Borg Collective,’ in a manner analogous to Hong Kong. The truth of the matter is that no one knows how Taiwan would react to a ChiCom invasion, whether it would be in the manner of Ukrainian resistance (hopefully), or Afghani resistance. Absolutely applaud the announced efforts of Australia and Japan to increase defense spending and increase capabilities. However, when deterrence fails and war begins, ultimately it becomes an issue of prevailing over an opponent, across the spectrum of warfare. Believe there are a strictly limited number of nations that can guarantee that China ceases to exist, if absolutely required: U.S., U.K., France, possibly India,. (Russia and Pakistan are currently nominally aligned w/ China). Other countries should be encouraged to assist in deterrence to the extent of their collective abilities, but the real responsibility falls to those capable of unrestricted warfare. My argument is that the allied countries that are capable of resistance should be expending every possible effort to rearm, thus ensuring that possible/probable enemies are not tempted to cross red lines. The MAD Doctrine works reasonably well, provided there are rational participants. All parties then tend to be reasonably contemplative in strategic moves. 🤔
And also ignoring the upgradability of both T31 and T45?
It is perfectly possible if access routes to the watertight internal sonar compartment are good enough, given that kits shrinks by the year, that the upgrade could be done at the dock wall?
The fibreglass sonar dome is in place from the builders. So a dry dock insertion period isn’t necessarily needed.
Obvs you try not to open the semi wet sonar compartment at sea as the dome is a weak spot even if it is accessed through a double door set.
Don’t forget, GP Type 23’s aren’t fitted with a TAS but their Bow Sonar is still pretty high end.
That is not good to know. Hope they do something about that. Improve the ASW suite on the T45s and maybe add an additional T26 into the mix? Surely a basic general sonar is better in and on than none! Is the T31 getting a sonar? If not can it be added or attached off the stern? Sure hope the T32/T83s do. We can’t really afford to lose any key ships in any given scenario, in peace time or wartime, as it will affect the deployed the CSGs.
Although a Merlin crew did a very good job of tracking a Chinese submarine during one of the recent episodes of Warship – Tour of duty.
Thats because the USN is really poor in the ASW arena.
T23 , even a GP is streets ahead of the USN units. Sonar 2050 in active will let you prosecute a target at a really long range. Not tail long range of say a Sonar 2087 equipped T23 but still enough to keep it at arms length whilst a dipper or pony vectacs the thing to death.
T45…yep your screwed!
When your ship has torpedo projectors your ship is hunting the submarine putting itself in harms way, when it just has normal torps its close in protection and the helicopter is doing the job of hunting it at a safe distance.
providing it can fly ?
That’s what it’s designed to do, it’s a helicopter. 🤷🏻♂️
Can’t find the link now, but I’ve read in the recent past that there’s not been a single reported occasion where a ship’s Merlin was not available when required.
Which is fine except we do not have enough to equip all of the ships with them. Hence the T45 tend to have a Wildcat which isn’t much to reply on to protect such a valuble asset.
With you Rodney. I think there should always be a worse case scenario where ships don’t have a helo to rely on and how do they then defend themselves against subs especially if in isolation. Obviously safer in CSGs, but not sure that all shipping Ops are done in pairs or more? A basic sonar update for the Wildcats would be better than the nothing at the moment and if they’re not going to produce more Merlin’s. I think the Korean Lynx’s have a sonar kit. It’s doable.
Yes but the ASW T23s/T26s with the T45 will have Merlins.
The T45 is an AAW, in wartime it won’t be operating alone. Lone warships only need point air defence, not area air defence. Operating the T45 on its own would be a gross waste of its advanced AAW capabilities.
If you want to know what is a gross waste of a valuable AAW asset it is to leave it without any self defence from any underwater threat.
Do you seriously think that in Wartime there will sufficient ASW assets available to escort anything other than a CSG.
The ASW assets will be tasked to 3 things :-
Which leaves diddly squat !
I just do not understand why anyone is so single purposely against adding a defensive capability to a ship which was designed to operate it.
It doesn’t detract in any way from its prime purpose, it just helps to defend it.
And by adding pointless systems to existing vessels we won’t have the money for additional vessels.
Wrong.
We won’t have any vessels hunting ships, subs, in our EEZ. If the Russians have gotten that close we’ll have seriously failed elsewhere. Yes the P8s will monitor our waters as they overfly them.
The bulk of ASW assets will be closing the GIUK Gap. Do that and there’s no subs to threaten our EEZ or SSBNs.
Other ASW assets will escort the CSGs if deployed.
In your panic, your forgetting we’re part of NATO, the most powerful military alliance in history. It wouldn’t just be U.K. ASW assets closing GIUK.
And we’ve previously seen NATO vessels deployed to protect the CSG, just as RN vessels have been deployed to protect US carriers.
One of the beauties of being in an alliance is, if it appears you suddenly need more assets if a particular type, in a particular area, chances are there’s an ally nation that can help to supplement.
We’re not buying “from the BAE catalog every time. Of the projects you name only one is BAE…
• Ajax is General Dynamics
• Astute is BAE
• F35 is Lockheed Martin
Yes but you don’t need a warship even a river, basically anything that can take a Merlin helicopter can do ASW work. Towed array I’m not convinced on anything other than warship with noise reduction.
It would be very expensive to fit more weapons to Batch 2 Rivers.
It would need suitable magazine capacity to store the torpedoes with the required blast and fire suppression systems to meet naval regs, same as bolting on antishop missiles, 56mm guns or anything else. You create a floating coffin because they are not designed for that role.
Then the TAS needs to talk to the combat system, needing more crew, consoles and wiring.
You would take them away for their core patrol role to train crew for an event that may never happen, a mission that feasibly would involve a diesel power OPV with no Hull quietening trying to creep up to stingray range on a sub.
Sounds pointless.
In the realm of routine matters, does anyone know whether HMS Portland has completed PGMU? If not, has it been scheduled? Always considered optimized propulsion a useful feature for warships. 😳
IKARA was a winged rocket launched Mk 46 torpedo. Fitted to Bristol and ikara mod leanders. It was a horrible system to work on and didnt really bring anything to the party.
ASROC carries the same 1960s era torpedo out to around 20km. ASROC cannot carry Sting Ray.
I have never understood why the T45 Destroyers do not have Torpedos or a Decent hull mounted sonar. OK ASW is not their prime function but as high value targets that do work solo at times, self defence would day they need them.
And before anyone shouts that’s what the Helicopter is for or an Astute. They can’t always fly and SSN’s do not go everywhere a T45 does.
Other than money is there ant technical reason they don’t other than being a bit noisy pre PIP.
Yep, especially as T-23/26 with tail will not be in close when escorting CSG needs planty of sea room to allow tail to not be swamped by Carrier / Destroyers / RFA noises especially as none a designed to be ‘quiet’ like dedicated ASW hull, so having the ability to fire at snapshot at an in close SSK threat is a necessity not a luxury. as with everything defensive you need layers, for ASW P8, Merlin, ASROC, fixed ship torpedo. would rather they spend few million on Torps that might might be used than lose 50% of carrier fleet 2 couple of torpedo from an SSK.
Absolutely right. We’ve operated T45’s on their own in the Black Sea and Gulf where there are submarine threats. T45 normally deploys with Wildcat which has no ASW detection gear.
Folks often pile on to these sorts of comments to say T45’s purpose is AAW but I don’t see them arguing that their should be no SAM’s on T23 because it’s purpose is ASW.
All other Western navies give their AAW destroyers a decent secondary ASW capability; usually a good hull sonar and a helicopter equipped with ASW detection equipment.
Even more criminal is the construction of the diesel powered T31’s without a sonar when the GP T23’s they’re replacing have quietened machinery and an excellent hull mounted sonar. I can’t recall another instance where a brand new frigate is hugely less capable in something as critical as ASW than the 30 year old ship it’s replacing.
The only reason why the GP T23s that the T31s are replacing had quietened machinery is because they shared the same design as the ASW T26s which needed them. If they included this on the T31, there’d be no point in building them instead of more T26s. However instead of getting 5 T31s we’d get 1 or 2 extra T26s instead.
This is a major reason why T31 is cheaper than T26.
T31 is equipped with Sonar 270.
Sean, the reason T23’s had quietened machinery was because they were designed for ASW work from the outset.
GP23’s just don’t have the’tail’ that their ASW counterparts do. They are in all other respects the same.
Exactly my point, which is why the T31 which isn’t designed for ASW is so much cheaper than the T26, which is.
SteveP’s suggestion if adding ASW capabilities to T31 just pushes the price back up to the T26 level.
Which is why the RN decided to build 8 T26s and 5 T31s rather than 13 T26s with 5 without tails.
That’s my understanding of what happened with T23 as well Sean. All 16 were supposed to have a towed sonar but the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Russian military power meant a significant decrease in the submarine threat so we didn’t fit it on 5 of the class. That made some sense in the context of the time; it’s okay to reduce capability in line with a reduction in the threat.
That’s no longer the case though. Russia is investing heavily in SSN’s and will sell SSK’s to anyone with money (Iran has some). In the context of an increasing submarine threat it makes no sense that 60% of our escort fleet has no ASW detection gear.
As you’ve said in other posts; it doesn’t matter in an integrated task group but we do deploy T45’s independently in potentially hostile situations with an underwater threat (Black Sea and Gulf). And we are discussing putting T31 into the Gulf as a regular assignment.
I agree with you that the capabilities of the T31 are dictated by a cost ceiling and not a capability requirement assessment. What annoys me is the amount of money we waste in some areas which leads to taking capability gaps in others. The £3.4 billion (£4 billion in 2023 prices) spend on the MR4 would have paid for 5 T26. Instead we embarked on what politicians were warned was a high technical risk project for job creation purposes only to end up with no planes and all of the jobs made redundant.
The most galling point of the failed Nimrod MRA4 project (£3.4b) was that it followed the equally disastrous Nimrod AEW3 project (£1b). You would have thought after the AEW3 project that they would have questioned the choice of the Nimrod/Comet airframe…
We do deploy T45s independently currently in peacetime, in part due to lack of frigates. But it would be insanely wasteful in actual wartime to do so.
As for the Russian submarine force, although its large it’s ability is limited. The SSKs are intended for shallow sea operations, Black Sea, Baltic, and Mediterranean. Only in the latter might the RN encounter them. They’re hardly knocking these out, the latest Lada class submarine delivered in January was 12 years late.
With expensive nuclear submarines Russia appears to be pivoting away from SSNs which would have to dodge our ASW assets, towards SSGNs. This is the sea equivalent of current air policy: the Russian Air Force avoids flying over Ukraines air-defences and simply fires off cruise missiles from over Russia’s territory. Rather than try to close and fire torpedoes, future Russian submarines look to fire missiles from long distance at targets.
This is the area where Russia appears to be investing, and the West’s approach to ASW is going to have to change to address this SSGN threat.
Great reply Sean. Thanks for taking the time to put up such a comprehensive point.
Totally with you on Nimrod AEW but as always, politicians only hear the bit about job creation when making procurement decisions and ignore the risk and capability points.
I’d been vaguely aware of Russia’s transition to SSGN from SSN but I’d not really considered it in the context you mention. Definitely something worth thinking about.
I still worry about T31 in the Gulf though given the Iranian submarine and mine threat
Thanks for that 🙏🏻 I did a bit of research to check I had my thinking right… there’s a good paper by RUSI on the Russian move from SSN to SSGN.
Its going to mean that RN ships will only face a torpedo threat when they actively go looking for these SSGNs that are taking a bastion approach of sitting close to shore firing off missiles. However this means our ships would then be exposed to Russian land-based aircraft…
I doubt we’ll ever see a repeat of the WW2 Battle of the Atlantic with ships and subs battling at close range.
Seems the Russian strategy in future is keep expensive, limited assets as close to home as possible, being defended by other systems, whilst lobbing long-range missiles from them.
I’d hope the sonar fitted to the T31 plus its air component, helicopter or drone, would be sufficient if attacked by a submarine – even if not sufficiently high-end for it to deliberately go hunting subs like a T26.
Though obviously as Iran’s navy becomes more advanced it may require high specs or replacement by a T26 for that theatre.
RUSI paper
https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/rusi-defence-systems/yasen-m-and-future-russian-submarine-forces
That’s brilliant thanks Sean. That paper and the shift in Russian tactics had completely passed me buy. I’ve been focussed on Ukraine and land warfare (about which I know not more than the square root of nothing) when going onto the RUSI site. That’s a great link.
No probs, glad to hear you find it useful and interesting.
I know this is just a forum, not a scientific paper, but I think it always helps if people can provide links backing-up their facts/ position.
The original driver for Exocet being fitted to RN vessels was to kill Echo/Juliet Class subs that needed to surface to launch cruise missiles. When Charlie and Oscar boats appeared that requirement diminished but we still had Exocet.
Nobody except subs are going to go hunting ivans SSBNs in the Kara Sea . Thats a really good way to die really quickly. A CSG hitting the Sub bases, port and airfield infrastructure around Murmansk would be as close as it gets.
So is it time to consign to the dust bin any ideas of T32 just being a batch 2 T31 then? If this design is so ‘noisy’ then it’ll just end up being a beacon, whether they accompany a CSG or not? I know, I know, that will probably mean the 5 T32s outlined might then shrink down to something like 2 …. but with Cold War 2 now with us, is there any sense in just putting out more ships that just fly the flag in peace time, we’ll have enough of these in the OPV batch 2 and T31s won’t we? Time to get serious and get a bigger defense budget I say!
Would be interesting to know if the T31s are any noisier than the T45s…
If not then no problem with them sailing with CSG, though not sure what their usefulness would be as T23/T26 and Astute would cover ASW and T45 would cover AAW.
The parent design is reasonable for ASW.
I’d *guess* T31 is quieter than the parent simply because COTS rafting and containment has improved in the mean time. T45 may also be quieter post PIP as it has modern DGs in modern enclosures.
Simply have quiet propulsion doesn’t, however, make it an optimised ASW hull.
It was suppose to be fitted for both then they went over budget, cut boats 8 and 9 and invented the phrase “fitted for but not with”.
Actually I believe it was exactly at this point on the T45 build that phrase was first used. Original hopes were for 12 T45 with a very much general purpose destroyer layout including land attack VLS, Torpedos and Sonar.
Indeed it was meant to be a fully rounded destroyer.
It only really came to pass because T42 fleet was falling apart and AAW cover could be justified for Blair’s wars.
Mk41 VLS – went due to there being no TLAM stockpile due to the Storm Shadow decision so the original bulk purchase deal fell apart.
ASW – went due to budget cuts that had to be made pulling out of the joint French/Italian venture. But also in the ‘90’s when T45 matured the Russian sub force was mostly rusting and selling whatever it could to anyone with cash. The Chinese force was a joke as it was based on Gen #1 Russian nuclear tech.
155mm gun – went due to budget cuts that had to be made pulling out of the joint French/Italian venture.
Let’s not forget that RN was given £6Bn, which was a sensible budget for 10 ships including R&D when part of a larger international program. The program fell apart and the budget was eaten by the R&D, design and integration costs.
I remember sitting in a meeting 15 years ago and some non military twit pondered that T45 would fire its Cruise missiles etc for offensive capability and that it was well protected by this. I then shot that down by rather acidly remarking that in that respect it was well protected by 48m3 (I made the number up on-the-fly) of fresh air.
The point I’m making was that the amount of kit and capability that was removed from T45 hadn’t permeated to the top of Whitehall. There were some very raised eyebrows around the table.
But, and it is a big but, RN was 100% right to get SAMPSON right and to make it the very best AAW destroyer around and keep a big hull that can accept all the goodies – as it is doing now over the upgrade cycle.
In fairness on the 155mm naval gun everyone who tried that got burned. Look at Zumwalts. 4.5inch has been fine. But yes agree on everything else.
The Zumwalt was a bit different. The munitions design was properly bats in the belfry.
The BAE 155mm would have been able to fire the same munitions as AS90 but had the physical size to take the programmable concepts of the time as well as other ideas, such as sonar bouys, that have been rattling around as long as I can remember.
The main 155mm advantage is, as I’m sure you know, range and payload.
As T26 has gone 5” that is all out of the window and the Barrow 155mm manufacturing facilities’s status is moot and is now only doing maintenance and overhaul for existing systems. As I discovered through a bit of online research recently. But times are a changing: so it may be warmed up?
Assuming there is any 155mm left!
Make no sense. Return to bags in naval artillery? 2 rpm against 32 rpm of a Italian 127mm or 16-20 rpm of an US one?
AS90 according to Wiki
“It can fire standard charges up to 24.9 km (15.5 mi) using 39-calibre long barrel and 30 km (19 mi) with 52-caliber long barrel. The maximum rate of fire is 3 rounds in 10 seconds (burst); 6 per minute for 3 minutes (intense); and 2 per minute for 60 minutes (sustained).”
The whole point of the navalised 155mm was water cooling etc for sustained rates of fire.
However, if you do have charges that big, there is a lot of heat to get rid of and it comes down to physics of getting rid of the heat vs acceptable softening of the barrel / wear as well as not distorting / stressing the shape of the barrel due to the large temperature differences between the coolant and the efflux gases.
So you can fast fire but for a limited time only.
The Italian 127 is water cooled and i think also the US one.
They do have torpedos. They have an air weapons mag full of them for use on the Wildcat as a Pony.
And again..I will say it…in the decades I worked on FF/DDs doing Air Weapons ( Mk 44/46/75 torpedo’s, DC Mk 11, STWS/MTLS and the associated passive and active sonars, Wasp/Lynx/SeaKing/Merlin/Wildcat) we never missed an ASW ASuM sortie for a helo defect or bad weather. If the helo cannot launch for weather its to rough to detect anything anyway.
Hi Gunbuster My apologies.
After scratching my head about your comment, I reread mine. I missed out tubes after Torpedo !
Which changes the whole context of this discussion.
IMHO T45 should have a set of tubes just like the Horizons do. That way she has a self defense capability and can use LINK info to add volume to a group ASW capability.
Moral don’t type at silly o’clock ☹️
More importantly dont drink and text…been caught out by that plenty of times by Mrs GB ” What the hell where you sending me!”…I looked and it was random letters emojis and the odd word…
Agreed that’s why I am ABCR Wife MK2 Block 1
“The ship is named after the town of Portland in Dorset, England”. There is no town of Portland in England. Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought this was a Duke Class frigate named after the Duke or Earl of Portland.
Portland was a RN base in Dorset .
Also a RNAS – HMS Osprey.
Go to Weymouth then keep going across the beach road. You will find the town of Portland at the other end of Chesil beach. Its where all that Portland stone for building London came from!!
Sorry town isn’t called Portland the first/biggest town on the Isle of Portland is Castletown
Actually you are correct, it’s not a town as such , but a collection of villages – Easton, Weston, Southwell and Fortuneswell.. Castletown isn’t really a village, but grew up around the castle and dockyard, so not really sure what you would call it?
Anyway, to answer @JH question ,yes there is a place in UK called Portland.
Officially Portland is the isle.
I think you are right about this HMS Portland being named after the Duke of Portland, but there’s a Portland Island near Weymouth and it’s run by Portland Town Council, so it’s reasonable to call it a town.
From Wikipedia:
HMS Portland is a Type 23 frigate of the British Royal Navy. She is the eighth ship to bear the name and is the fifteenth and penultimate ship of the ‘Duke’ class of frigates, and is named for the currently extinct title of the Dukedom of Portland, and more particularly for the third Duke, who was Prime Minister.
I know this isn’t particularly relevant to the topic of the article, but I’m disapointed that George should make something up. It detracts from the otherwise high standard of UKDJ.
Indeed Portland is an isle..with I think 8 villages.
I assume this drill is for a worst case scenario where the sub has managed to get within range of ship launched Stingray: or the helo can’t launch. I dunno, waiting on the sea bed perhaps; some of these modern non nuclear subs are pretty quiet I believe.
When pinging away and you get a contact the first thing you do is a wreck check.
You check the contact against the known register of wrecks. Its one of the more obscure reasons for having a Hydrographic part to the RN…keeping an up to date record of the sea bed for objects. Helps with ASW and also MCM work hence MCMV do lots of route surveys looking for changes in known sea bed objects using their high def sonars.
Ok a sub could use a wreck to hide next to but you ensure that you pay particular attention to the contact to eliminate it as a Pos Sub threat.
Every day is a school day. Thanks as always for the info.
7 OCTOBER 2022
UK Spearhead plans accelerated capability insertion for Sonar 2087
“The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the Royal Navy (RN) have unveiled plans to fast-track a series of enhancements into the Sonar 2087 low-frequency active/passive variable depth sonar fitted to the RN’s eight anti-submarine warfare (ASW)-optimised Type 23 frigates.”
Schiebel Corporation has detailed the development of a larger variant of its Camcopter S-100 unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) at IDEX 2023, being held in Abu Dhabi from 20 to 24 February.
The Camcopter S-300, a larger variant of the S-100, is designed to meet the requirements of customers seeking extended range, higher endurance, and enhanced payload-carrying capabilities.
Schiebel’s chairman, Hans Georg Schiebel, told Janes that “Schiebel started the development of the S-300 to provide heavylift solution for land and maritime domains, perform better anti-submarine warfare operations, and have scope to integrate various types of radars”.
https://www.janes.com/images/default-source/news-images/bsp_53971-jdw-20792.jpg
They literally just scaled up the design and moved the camera forward to make way for belly cargo. 😀
Hopefully a big belly!
Every warship should have several such systems with over head radar providing AEW and a CEC with SeaCeptor to intercept sea skimming missiles.
A very useful addition to our armed forces that’s for sure!
2 per escort and maybe a squadron for each carrier 🤞🏻
Why do you need CEC with Sea Ceptor? Its an active homer. Fire it and navigate it to where you want it and let it get on with it .
No tracker illuminators needed.
Search radar is used but not necessary but you can use a number of information sources to launch with.
It’s also worth looking at sonars designed for surface and subsurface drones which can be carried on and launched from Type 31s.
The Navy trialled KraitArray passive towed array sonar from the experimental XLUSV Manta. And a couple of days ago I read a piece in Naval News about Atlas’s new compact active variable depth sonar SeaSense, which can be used on the Navy’s ARCSIM surface drones (medium frequency for coastal waters).
They aren’t as capable as Captas 4, especially in the deeps, but it will interesting to see how well they work in multistatic groups.
Thank you for the links Jon, there are some very interesting developments taking place in this area currently, something we should be pursuing for the RN without a doubt.
The usual services briefing each other seems to have expanded now into Ministers briefing against each other. Veterans Minister (whose in the Cabinet Office rather than MoD) says the armed forces have plenty of money after Wallace says they need more, then the VM wife says Wallace is being mean to her husband and veterans.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64744783
Pathetic.
Doris’ £16Bn smoothed things over but didn’t reverse 30 years of underinvestment starting from Options For Change.
Im sure Army has plenty of money to replace 50+yr old vehicles? That would be news in Salisbury.
Were you ever on an Oberon?
A week spent on board would rapidly change your view point.
Cramped, smelly and unsophisticated are words that spring to mind. They were glorified WW2 boats.
Crew retention would be rock bottom.
There is a minimum size to pack in the kit needed and give the accommodation standard required….
SB wrote:
Thats very interesting, I was in Stanley in 1982, and as a Combat Support Boat operator was based off the Public Jetty.
When the Subs came in, we would be tasked to run the crew ashore (and take them back at night) and it was noted that they always had a lot of steam to blow off (as in doing really stupid stuff) The RMP/ Shore Patrol on catching one doing something, would simply drop them off with us and we would run them back to their boat (I think thats the correct term) . The thing is, once on the back of the CSB, they would quieten down straight away.
Very effective boats tho I gather. As for accomodation standards – it humbles me to think of how resilient our blokes were in the past. Hummocks, open bridges in the Atlantic winter etc. Just wonderful decent people – like many others ( both in and out of the forces) in blighty quietly doing their duty.
Yes, they were very effective. Very quiet both mechanically and electronically and, for the time, excellent ELINT capabilities.
I was just sent onboard for a week.
I’m quite tall and banged my head, a lot!
Keeping the Upholders would have been a better option, a generation newer. There’s an argument for diesel electric in a primarily defensive anti sub role in the North Atlantic, freeing the nuclear boats up for operations further afield.
👍👍
Agreed. They would be invaluable for training both crews and SBS plus littoral operations. I’d love to see the Astute design modified to conventional propulsion and ideally built at Cammel Laird but that’s probably a pipedream. If the Sub fleet is boosted it will probably be with UUV’s. But for the foreseeable future they won’t come close to what an SSK could offer.
The Australians don’t use the Upholders though, their Collins class is based of a Swedish design from memory, only the Canadians use the Upholders and they have had issues (both self inflicted and otherwise).
The T22 issue was mainly running costs due to crew size and very, very dated machinery outfit.
Some of the machinery designs dated back to the 1960’s and were obsolete by the time B3 was laid down. In the manufacturing consolidation and decline of the ’80’s the parent companies ceased to exist and it became close to impossible to source parts with various bits having to be custom made at eyewatering costs.
With the withdrawal of T42 the T22B3 were mechanically orphaned (there was a little cross over) and so that little group of frigates would have had all of the support costs lumped onto them. The budget lines therefore looked very, very unattractive.
The more bonkers decision was getting rid of the three T23’s. Whilst they were due expensive overhauls they still had plenty of life. This was a stupid decision based on terribly blinkered long term analysis and a short term cash crunch. As well as being driven by the unique ELINT/EW capabilities, at the time, of the T22B3. It looks even more stupid, looking through the lease of the, load it put on the remaining T23 coupled with the, unknown at the time, poor availability of the T45 put unbelievable wear and tear onto the T23 hulls.
Amongst other ships I had 3 x T22 during my time and 2 x T23. I paid off Beaver and Marlborough.
T22 where a mechanical dead end. Basically a T42 machinery outfit that was unsupportable. As for the T23 we paid off it was a money saving exercise. All needed extensive refits and they where cut to save that cost. B2 was elint equipped with RN Outboard amongst other stuff
Sorry yes, I confused the T22B2 and B3’s function.
But I agree that supporting T22 B3 would have been a nightmare.
However, I stand by the point on the 3 T23’s that were sold and the effect that had on the T23 fleet. Yes, they were due refits but it wasn’t a good long term decision and was based around there being 8 T45 and the frigate program going a lot faster.
Marlborough was on the way back from a Gulf deployment when the announcement was made. The CO was to be honest a little shocked.
All the ME and WE engineers knew already. We, the Warrant Officers, had made up the work package for the refit already and submitted it and where adding amendments when Abbey Wood told us to stop, we where wasting our time as it wasnt going to happen. We then moved to a “How do we pay off a ship” mindset . Luckily I and a few others had previously been involved with doing the same thing on Beaver and the other T22 B2s a couple of years earlier so we had experience of what was involved.
elect boats are a completely different capability than a Nuclear boat and have a different purpose. Electric boats are essentially area denial weapons and not strategically mobile platforms that can perform any number of functions. 90 days endurance and freedom from any suppport needs with a potential ability to transit at 25+ knots is beyond tha ability of any other type of platform on the planet. We don’t really need hoards of electric boats hanging around our coastline.
basically electric boat=local area denial platform.
nuclesr boat= strategic platform with world wide reach.
Also the Russians don’t have 100 submarines, they have at most 58 and most of these are not active..they have these spread between the northern fleet/Baltic fleet, Black Sea fleet and pacific fleets. With 21 electric boats and 11 ballistic missile submarines. Leaving 26 SSN/SSGNs spread over all the major oceans of the world..so the RN are not facing overwhelming odds in the north sea/north Atlantic.
Also the Russian submarines are old..it’s really scary how old they are..even the most modern SSN of which there are only 3 are basically soviet designs that are almost 50 year old designs. Infact Russian has pretty much given up on the idea of facing western ASW and submarines and is fitting all its subs to operate as part of a bastion ( they are all reffing with large long range missile systems) with a plan to sit in the northern oceans behind lots of protect and us missile attacks against NATO targets….effectively an electric boat has absolutely zero use against the Russian bastion approach..the only thing that has the range and endurance to hunt Russian submarines in a bastion is a western SSN.
Agree 100%, RUSI identified that Russia is moving from SSNs which have to get close to targets with torpedoes to SSGNs which can fire off missiles at long distance, eg bastion approach. It’s going to require a change to our ASW.
Personal politics aside, with the backing of the Labour party after this statement today, Rushi has no excuses not to increase defence spending to the level required. 3%/4%?
Government needs ‘reset’ on defence spending, Labour says
“We’ve been hearing from Defence Secretary Ben Wallace this morning (see previous post).
Labour’s shadow defence secretary has also now spoken to Sky News.
Asked to comment on the defence secretary effectively ruling out sending fighter jets to Kyiv, Mr Healey said: “The most important thing over the next weeks and coming months is to get Ukraine the military support it needs to survive the Russian onslaught and also to be able to mount its own offensive as the weather improves.
“It’s the coordinated efforts of the West that counts, each country doing what it can, so the government has our support when it says ‘we’ll train fighter combat pilots,’ but of course, the fighter planes the Ukrainians really want are the F-16s, which the UK doesn’t have.”
Asked if Labour would commit to significantly higher defence spending, he said: “You interviewed Ben Wallace, he said in the Commons earlier this month that under his watch over the last 13 years, the government had hollowed out and underfunded our armed forces.
“What’s needed now is a reset, particularly in light of Ukraine and as a Labour government we would always, as we have done before, spend what’s required to defend the country and keep the citizens safe.”
“Spend what’s required to defend the country”. As an Armed Service redundee’ under a previous Labour Government I find that statement a load of ……..
It’s got nothing to do with Labour or the Conservative’s past performance, but an opportunity for the Government to increase defence spending with Labour giving the go-ahead to do so publicly.
Now it’s up to the current government to do what’s required, increase the budget.
That is the very point I was trying to make but was obviously failing so to do’. Must try harder.
It was most probably me!
There are some Russian ships conducting underwater warfare at the moment.
Please can someone tell me why shouldn’t GENERAL DYNAMICS get a single penny of UK money for up to no a failed product,they should also pay for all UK personal who have damaged hearing because of the AJAX