James Sunderland MP has articulated a strong case for bolstering the UK’s naval forces.

Sunderland, underscoring the importance of the UK’s international defence obligations, asserted, “It is not for me to endorse Trump in this Chamber, but what I will say is that to a certain extent, he is right. It is absolutely right that Europe must take on more responsibility for its own security, to allow the United States to worry about parts of the world that NATO will not necessarily worry about.”

Highlighting the UK’s global military footprint, Sunderland noted, “We have discussed NATO a great deal this evening, but it is not just about NATO. East of Suez, where we have not had a presence for quite some time, we now have bases in Bahrain, Diego Garcia—we have always had one there—and of course Oman. If the UK is to be a bastion of global democracy, it is important for us to have that reach across the far side of the globe.”

The MP passionately argued for maintaining and expanding capabilities to support the UK’s strategic goals and fulfil global responsibilities: “It is imperative that the UK is able to fulfil its global commitments: in the middle east with carrier strike, as well as in the Falklands, west Africa, the Red sea, the Caribbean, the Baltic and the north Atlantic—the list goes on. We are not just focused on NATO, so it is really important that our defence capabilities extend beyond the north Atlantic and fulfil our global responsibilities.”

Sunderland was unequivocal about the need for a larger navy, stressing, “We know that we do not have enough ships—we need more frigates and more destroyers. Quantity has a quality all its own.”

Adding to the argument on modernising the UK’s defence assets, Sunderland highlighted the state of the RAF’s equipment: “We have state-of-the-art equipment in the RAF, including the C-17, A400M, P-3, F-35B, Typhoon, and Tempest to come, but do we have enough of those platforms?”

Sunderland’s contribution to the defence debate is clearly a robust call for the UK to reassess and reinforce its naval capabilities, ensuring it remains a powerful player on the global stage.

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

198 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

JamesD
JamesD (@guest_816797)
1 month ago

I’d take a few P-3 to add some mass

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_816825)
1 month ago
Reply to  JamesD

Umm…er…presume the MP intended to state the P-8, rather than P-3?

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_817044)
1 month ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Maybe – maybe he doesn’t know the difference between a prop and jet?

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_816800)
1 month ago

To have bigger navy you need a culture to sustain it with a political/civilizational objective propose.
Of course that do not exist in a country full of Marxist engineered guilt and Islamist power.

Elliot
Elliot (@guest_816804)
1 month ago
Reply to  AlexS

What?

George
George (@guest_816896)
1 month ago
Reply to  Elliot

Surely the statement is self explanatory.

william james crawford
william james crawford (@guest_816956)
1 month ago
Reply to  Elliot

Yes, what AlexS states is common sense and blindingly obvious. We will not have a cohesive state again in my lifetime. Enoch Powell was so correct 60 years ago; the time has now come.

Elliot
Elliot (@guest_817062)
1 month ago

We have been run by a right wing, kelptocratic capitalist government since 2010, that is hardly Marxist.

Islamist power? How? Yes immigration could be a damn site better but we’ve been bombing Islamic terrorists in the Middle East for decades (rightfully so), we’re hardly an Islamist power ffs.

Pure right wing crap.

William Crawford
William Crawford (@guest_817073)
1 month ago
Reply to  Elliot

Utter nonsense Elliot, the current administration is no more right wing than fly-in-the-sky. And you must be half blind if you have not noticed that a Muslim take-over of our country is well under way.

Elliot
Elliot (@guest_817076)
1 month ago

Just because they’re an incompetent, corrupt bunch of idiots it does no mean they’re not right wing. This country is in a mess due to their cock ups.

Brom
Brom (@guest_816819)
1 month ago
Reply to  AlexS

Sooooo bit extreme there and not justified by the reality of this country

edwinr
edwinr (@guest_816832)
1 month ago
Reply to  Brom

Unfortunately, not all that far from reality. Just have a look at the headlines…

George
George (@guest_816898)
1 month ago
Reply to  Brom

Have you been sleeping under a rock and missed the deterioration of Great Britain and everything we hold dear.

Jonno
Jonno (@guest_817050)
1 month ago
Reply to  George

I believe all UK university professors should sign a document to support the UK not undermine it. I’m sure no more than 50% would sign amidst mass protests and equivocation.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_816911)
1 month ago
Reply to  Brom

I think it is real. The current culture still have people that was born in 1960,1970 still running things. Despite that culture RN is at its weakest and people don’t want to serve despite having the largest population ever.

D.Roberts
D.Roberts (@guest_816979)
1 month ago
Reply to  AlexS

They do want to serve. There’s plenty of Applications but the process takes too long.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_817046)
1 month ago
Reply to  D.Roberts

Agree.

And the pay isn’t superb….and due to low intakes many are overworked….

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_816856)
1 month ago
Reply to  AlexS

With you on your first bit. The UK should want to be seen as a good global citizen and an upholder of international law order, democracy, economic trade, take climate action and the contribute to the economic development of other countries. Other countries are obviously doing the same thing and maybe more so. There’s still competition and jostling for power and influence. Your second bit. If you’re alluding to all the protests going on worldwide, lots of people shouting and blaming others, the government, society, the West, the Middle East. Yes, you do wonder if there is/are a “who” or… Read more »

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_816915)
1 month ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

I noticed you talked about democracy not about freedom. They are not the same thing even if historically have been allied against the Ancient Regime. Now they are splitting. You don’t have a free country anymore when your police have different rules for same felonies and crimes depending on who are the people that are making them.

Expat
Expat (@guest_816933)
1 month ago
Reply to  AlexS

I have to agree with the take on democracy and freedom. We’re a democratic country but freedoms are being revoked by law and by social engineering. China has a social points scoring system where those who stray from what the state deem good are pinished. We have a system evolving where people are cancelled or vilified by organisations or groups so essentially penalised for not aligning with non elected bodies.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_816963)
1 month ago
Reply to  AlexS

Hi Alex, I agree with you. We’re “all meant to be equal under the law” but there seems sometimes more freedom for others than the rest of us. I think the law will eventually catch up with those that cross the line or abuse the system. I meant democracy in a very general, ideal sense and the fundamental right for most of us to vote in and or to remove anybody via the ballot that maybe damaging or inhibiting our freedoms.

George
George (@guest_816895)
1 month ago
Reply to  AlexS

Very well said Alex, on both counts. You obviously have a firm understanding of the problems we face and the solution. More militaristic national pride would certainly go a long way to repair the damage. As would stronger borders and addressing the enemies within.

Proudly bearing arms to protect the interests of ones soverign nation, is the pinocle of Britishness.

Bringer of facts
Bringer of facts (@guest_816936)
1 month ago
Reply to  AlexS

You are right in the sense that Gen-z are following woke / revisionist memes and ignoring/dismissing important parts of history.

Extreme left-wingers taking sides with the Islamists, together they are organising pro-Hamas hate marches every weekend

So we end with a mob consisting of misguided virtue signallers, violent anarchists posing as activists, and emboldened Islamists some of whom are now being elected as MPs/councilors.

The UK and the US have been intimidated into ‘wokeness’ by these loud vocal disgruntled minorities.

Personally, I think we have reached a tipping point, everyone is getting fed up with the mob.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker (@guest_816967)
1 month ago

So the main problem is trying to lump generations into categories. Gen what ever are the ones serving in the forces now so they aren’t all the same. I’m WW2 there was loads of draft dodgers etc but we don’t say everyone from the generation is like that as they weren’t. After that there was the hippies, communists etc but that generation weren’t all like that. In the 70/80s there was the punks, CND mob but not everyone was like that. A massive problem just now is people in power listening to the minority and mistaking them for the majority.… Read more »

Bringer of facts
Bringer of facts (@guest_816987)
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

“people in power listening to the minority and mistaking them for the majority” I think it is more the case of being intimidated by the woke mob rather than mistaking them as the majority. If you dare to challenge woke memes with facts and logic, you open yourself up to being publicly labeled as a bigot, racist, (or some other *ist) Once publicly tainted you are seen as an irredeemably bad person and will probably end up being canceled (fired, defunded, shunned …etc) Ordinary People, governments, corporates are fearful of being labeled or associated with something negative so they pander… Read more »

Meirion X
Meirion X (@guest_817748)
29 days ago

👍Exactly!

Expat
Expat (@guest_816983)
1 month ago

The left wingers need to have a look at Iranian history, in the run up to 1979 revolution the Communists in Iran aligned with the relious faction under Knomeini. Soon after the Islamists gained power they turned on the communists, and other groups that had help over throw the Shah.

Jim
Jim (@guest_816994)
1 month ago
Reply to  Expat

What left wingers are your on about, your inventing political groups that barely exist and are certainly not represented in any meaningful political way. You’re using the same speech patterns and lies as the crazy lefties who call everyone else a Nazi.

Bringer of facts
Bringer of facts (@guest_817013)
1 month ago
Reply to  Expat

The religious backlash in Iran had been fomenting for many decades before the revolution.

There was resentment amongst the Clerics that Iran was becoming too westernised. Getting rid of the Shah was a secondary objective of the revolution the main objective was de-westernisation of Iran.

The 1953 coup unintentionally helped the cause of the Mullahs, but the revolution would have happened sooner or later anyway.

Meirion X
Meirion X (@guest_817745)
29 days ago

There is a new group around, called ‘People for Palestine’ that calls for de-colonisation in Israel. A simplelistic Marxist solution!
They maybe connected to the RCP?

Last edited 29 days ago by Meirion X
criss whicker
criss whicker (@guest_816803)
1 month ago

yes we need more. sooner the better, considering it can take 5 years and upwards of 20 plus to bring most big items from the drawing board, to the production line and into service.

surely at best, its better to have and be ready, than to have not , and suffer the consequences, just my opinion chaps.
we are living in a more violent and destabilising world , and really need to be as ready as possible….

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_816842)
1 month ago
Reply to  criss whicker

Preparation in numbers and readiness in alliances. I think there’s a lag behind in quantity in what’s needed now. Russia, China, Iran, rebels in the Red Sea, Suez area, key international trade and energy supply route connecting the south to the Med and the North. Indian Ocean and SCS tensions could affect east west freight flows feeding into that. Been said by others before, T26 and T31 being built now, prices low, why not 1-3 more for a £2bn spend? And got to fix what we already have first. The LRGs could do with a combatant each and not just… Read more »

Meirion X
Meirion X (@guest_817126)
1 month ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

As discussed before, an T26, or T31 will not be able to fulfil the role of a full fat AAD/AAW T45.

Last edited 1 month ago by Meirion X
Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_817178)
1 month ago
Reply to  Meirion X

Doesn’t need to be full fat tier 1 version. The A140 has an AAW variant which looks very useful and the Canadian and Aus T26/enhanced Hunter types would definitely have a good level of AAW ability. It’s doable and would be complementary to and free up the T45s. But this might be too much of a luxury and we still don’t know the full extent the T32 is to play. With the MK41s becoming more widespread in the RN there’s going to be an increase of SAM capacity as well as strike. I feel a few more T31s would just… Read more »

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_817233)
1 month ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

AH140 does seem more suited to second tier AAW than T26. Babcock show that variant with the SMART-L MM radar, which is AESA and has been used, like Sampson, to provide targeting data for BMD. If Aster is carried into mk41 for T83 then the current 32 would allow a combination of A30, CAMM variants and FC/ASW.

Meirion X
Meirion X (@guest_817794)
29 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

An A140 substitute would require a better propulsion like a MT30 GT, plus DG backup sets. And a better radar setup. And Aster integration.

George
George (@guest_816905)
1 month ago
Reply to  criss whicker

Very well said once again. We need much more of everything. Starting with the industrial capability to churn out weapons at war time rates. Be they ships, planes, tanks, artillery or small arms. Of course soldiers to run them would help too!
As Alex said, it’s going to need a civilisational shift to achieve this in the necessary timescale. Doubling or tripling the defence budgets and a form of rewarded incentivised conscription. To bring us back to a level where critical mass makes our military complex self sustaining once again.

Louis G
Louis G (@guest_817038)
1 month ago
Reply to  George

Any form of conscription is far too expensive and would be political suicide for whichever party introduces it.

Personnel numbers have fallen due to piss poor pay that is falling further and further behind inflation, poor living conditions, mismanaged recruitment (Crapita) and a general lack of desire to join the military after years of war in the middle east and Afghanistan.

This isn’t 1940, there aren’t German aircraft flying overhead to encourae people to join.

George
George (@guest_817108)
1 month ago
Reply to  Louis G

Everything you mention is true and also reversable. But as Alex indicated. It will require a civilisational shift.

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_817142)
1 month ago
Reply to  Louis G

It depends on how and what national peacetime conscription is? If it’s the same model as used post WW2, then yes, the youth of today will not like it and vote out the Government that brought it in or one’s keeping it going. However, if a similar model is used to how Finland do it. Then perhaps it might be viewed differently? Correct me if I’m wrong. But everyone is conscripted into the reserves. They are given basic training. Then specialist training depending on the role they fill. After which they are back in civilian life. Being obliged to do… Read more »

George
George (@guest_817588)
30 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

There are numerous ways to incentivise recruitment/conscription and cancelling student loans is one of them. Lower tax rates across the entire spectrum would be another. Cheaper mortgages, preferential access to social housing and school places for service children are others. All of this requires a shift back towards viewing service to ones country and monarch as a worthy career choice. An honour, if you will.

If I describe that shift as a move towards patriotism and national pride, the marxist and would be socialist commie trolls on here flag my comments. I wonder how long this one will remain. 🕵

Russ Swinburne
Russ Swinburne (@guest_817170)
1 month ago
Reply to  George

Totally agree. Presently, unless we can attract more people into a life at sea, and even if we bought “off the peg” vessels (as we did pre-Falklands), we do not have the manpower to crew existing vessels, nor even the traditional Merchant Navy reserves that once would have been drafted in.

George
George (@guest_817596)
30 days ago
Reply to  Russ Swinburne

There are numerous ways to incentivise recruitment/conscription and cancelling student loans is just one of them. Lower tax rates across the entire spectrum would be another. Dependant on length of initial signing on period. Cheaper mortgages, preferential access to social housing and school places for service children are others.

All of this requires a shift back towards viewing service to ones country and monarch as a worthy career choice. An honour, if you will. Sadly with the current anti-British sentiment and barbarian invasion that followed Blairs “rub the Tory nose in diversity” ploy. That shift is going to be painful.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker (@guest_816971)
1 month ago
Reply to  criss whicker

The Tory government isn’t going to fund any expansion. They have cut cut and still are cutting the forces. Lucky if todays budget is 1.5% of gdp when you take off everything that’s been moved to the defence budget since 2010.
They have a £3billion cut announced deep in the spring budget.

Matt
Matt (@guest_817163)
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Facts please. Like what and how much…?

Jason Hartley
Jason Hartley (@guest_817378)
30 days ago
Reply to  Matt

Pensions , the nuclear deterrent for two both had separate budgets ..not now ..slight of hand economic policy.

Jon
Jon (@guest_817241)
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

If you are talking about the drop in RDEL I don’t think that was a cut. There was a three billion increase last year due to some accounting folderol with respect to leases, boosting the RDEL number artificially. While it will apply to future years leases, last year’s boost reflected all the historic leasing too, which doesn’t get reflected this year. It makes year on year comparisons difficult, but the upshot is that most of that money was never there in the first place. Inflation has eaten away the value of what remains, so there has been an effective cut,… Read more »

Chris
Chris (@guest_817243)
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

It isn’t just the Tory party making cuts to Defence. Both major political parties have used the so-called “Peace Dividend” to justify cutting the Defence budget since the early 1990s. That short-sightedness looks rather stupid now though.

George
George (@guest_817619)
30 days ago
Reply to  Chris

Well said. Stating the obvious is needed from time to time. Lest we forget the lessons of the past. GB should have listened to visionaries such as Brig Enoch Powel and never gone down the road to ruin. Peace dividend and all!

“The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.”

George
George (@guest_817669)
30 days ago
Reply to  Chris

His quote on defence spending cuts due to the peace dividend.
“I do here in the most solemn and bitter manner curse the Prime Minister of England [sic] for having cumulated all his other betrayals of the national interest and honour, by his last terrible exhibition of dishonour, weakness and gullibility. The depths of infamy which our accurst “love of peace” can lower us are unfathomable.”

He hit the nail on the head with that one.

George
George (@guest_817606)
30 days ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

They are Tory in name only. Even Reform and UKIP are falling short of what the country needs to make a full recovery. The rot is so deep, that one general election will not result in meaningful changes.

I suspect that only external world events will ignite the fire of change within Great Britain. We may need to hit rock bottom before bouncing back.

Meirion X
Meirion X (@guest_817122)
1 month ago
Reply to  criss whicker

T45 destroyer design is already on the drawing board. Original design just needs updating with new IEP propulsion units.

Paul T
Paul T (@guest_817148)
1 month ago
Reply to  Meirion X

Agree – imagine having 2 x MT30’s on the T45 instead of WR21,would probably negate the need for an extra DG Set.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_817180)
1 month ago
Reply to  Meirion X

Other than using MT30 it pretty well has a new IEP propulsion system, and with sufficient DG backup.

Brieuc Grangechamps
Brieuc Grangechamps (@guest_816807)
1 month ago

It is worth observing that, despite having been a career Army officer, rising to Colonel, James Sunderland does know what he is talking about.

Jim
Jim (@guest_816808)
1 month ago

We have retained a wide range of capability in the air and at sea, far broader than any one else other than the USA, however that has very much come at the cost of mass. However adding more frigates at £250 million each is relatively cheap in the bigger scheme of things with a small effort the country could easily go back to an escort fleet of 30 ships. We can also add to our fast jet fleet fairly easily by completing our pledged F35 purchase and retaining the older Typhoons in a reserve force. What we can’t afford to… Read more »

Dern
Dern (@guest_816811)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Well you wouldn’t be adding frigates at £250 million each for a few reasons: 1) The most obvious point: Even the T-31’s ended up coming in over budget at about £300+ million each. 2) T-31 costs so little because a lot of the stuff on it is being moved over from decommissioning T-23’s 3) You’d need to increase back end capacity for extra crews and helicopters. Realistically you’re probably looking at something along the lines of £5-700million for additional frigates after the first 5. I also think third biggest Navy in the world is optimistic given that means overtaking India… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_816815)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

The radar and CMS are new.

What is moving over

4.5” nope
30mm nope
Sea Ceptor mushroom farm nope
Harpoon nope
Sonar nope

Other than that I’m struggling on T31….

ARTISAN is moving T23 -> T26 as is 30mm and Phalanx and part of sonar.

Dern
Dern (@guest_816848)
1 month ago

GFE includes the Sea Ceptor Mushroom farm (if you want to use the initial 250m price you have to accept that Sea Ceptor was GFE, the change from a mushroom farm to the new system increased the price). Electronic Decoys are also included in that (upgrading them will be separate project).

Including the various amendments and the GFE the cost of a T-31 is somewhere in the 350-400m£ price.

Rob N
Rob N (@guest_816881)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

I was under the impression that Sea Ceptor on T31 would be quad packed in some of the 32 MK 41 VLS…

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_816882)
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob N

They could potentially have both too, a CAMM farm silo and MK41 mix.

Jon
Jon (@guest_816919)
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob N

We don’t know. The initial drawings had them in the new six-canister modules. However, I haven’t seen a single drawing, statement or artists impression that would have us using the old Sea Wolf conversion mushroom farm. It wouldn’t fit anyway.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_817047)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

Exactly

Pongoglo
Pongoglo (@guest_817064)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

I would be more than happy if T31 rolled out initially with 24 CAAM plus NSM, making them a useful patrol frigate for the Red Sea/Gulf. Will be pleasantly surprised however if it isn’t any more than the original 12 ( 2 x 6) which all official graphics from both Babcock and MOD still portray. To me 12 CAAM isn’t enough to see off one, max two waves of Houhti UAV without having to run to port for more. With 32 strike length MK41 which looks like now will eventually happen ( question is when) , and some of which… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Pongoglo
Meirion X
Meirion X (@guest_817131)
1 month ago
Reply to  Pongoglo

Only 3 CAMMs can be packed in each ExLS. Cell. ExLS is required to launch CAMM from a Mk. 41 system, it is a different launcher for cold launch.

Last edited 1 month ago by Meirion X
AlexS
AlexS (@guest_816926)
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob N

There will not be a MK41 in T31 initially.

Dern
Dern (@guest_816953)
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob N

Well the first few T31’s are not getting Mk41 until a later date, so initially at least no. The T31 CAMM solution has gone through a evolution, initially getting the mushroom farms from T-23 moved over (that was the 250m version) then with their own, improved, modular CAMM farm being made (which is the current 350m+ design) and in the future at some point to have both the CAMM farm and Mk41 (which will add even more onto the cost of the T31s).

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_817048)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

Mk41 of itself isn’t that expensive.

The integration to TACTICOS is already done.

The first two may not have Mk41 fitted from the off but I think the other three will leave the yard ready for it to be craned in.

Dern
Dern (@guest_817070)
1 month ago

I mean it looks to be around 15million for a 8cell Mk41vls system + spare parts and support, so 40-50mil for a 32cell Mk41 seems a relatively realistic ballpark.

Anyway the cost of T-31 has already climbed north of 300mil before the costs of Mk41, NSM, Decoys, etc where added in.

Meirion X
Meirion X (@guest_817129)
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob N

No, that would use up the Mk.41 from other warpons, like CM’s.

Steve R
Steve R (@guest_818829)
26 days ago
Reply to  Dern

That’s still incredibly cheap, mind you.

Bringer of facts
Bringer of facts (@guest_816945)
1 month ago

I used to moan that the T-31 would be under-armed for its size but it should be getting MK 41 VLS, which is a game changer for this design.

Still some concern about the lack of sonar, but it is possible this task could be handed off to UUVs and other drone types.

Jim
Jim (@guest_817000)
1 month ago

No point in putting a towed array sonar on a vessels that too loud to operate it. But then no point in turning T31 into a high end ASW frigate when your already building the worlds highest end ASW frigate with T26.

As you say drones are likely to be doing much of the ASW and all the MCM work in future and then acoustic dampening is not such a big deal.

The ability to operate Merlin HM2 will also make any platform an effective ASW platform as well.

Bringer of facts
Bringer of facts (@guest_817011)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

A bow sonar would be good for navigation and would offer some means to detect mines, incoming torpedoes, UUVs, etc, It does not mean the frigate is tasked as ASW.

Mark P
Mark P (@guest_816818)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

Yeah you’re right that £250 million each is a bit optimistic but a batch 2 t31/32 should still be responsible cost affective as the design is already in place and scale of production should help lower cost and overall running costs of each vessel. Getting enough crew would be the greatest challenge

Dern
Dern (@guest_816849)
1 month ago
Reply to  Mark P

Indeed, but cost effective for a Frigate in the west is more in the 500-700million price range.

John Clark
John Clark (@guest_816890)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

I think you’re in the right ballpark Dern, additional T31 will certainly be in the £650 ‘ish’ million per unit, if we order a few. If we increase mass by ordering an additional 5 or 6 as a block, perhaps a tad cheaper, even better if we can pick up some export orders. I think there is an overwhelming argument now to add another 4 T26’s to the 8 ordered. Re the Russian fleet, they may well have 100 odd escorts on paper, the vast majority of them are little more than floating death traps for their unfortunate crews… A… Read more »

Meirion X
Meirion X (@guest_817184)
1 month ago
Reply to  John Clark

“I think there is an overwhelming argument now to add another 4 T26’s to the 8 ordered.”

The addition of 4 extra T26’s would squeeze out any extra T45 construction, which are really needed urgently.
The extra T26’s would not be completed until later 2030’s, delaying the construction of T83’s.

Jim
Jim (@guest_817002)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

T26 batch two are £750 million each and that easily the most capable high end ASW frigate in the world. T31 is literally costing £250 million each at the moment.

We can get a batch 2 T31 or T32 from Babcock for significantly less than £500 million.

Dern
Dern (@guest_817026)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

They litterally are not.
£250m was the initial price when there was a lot more GFE equipment going into them, and it’s spiraled upwards significantly now.
They will be extremely lucky if the final price for a T-31 sans Mk41 is less than 400m£, and that will still be with furnished decoy systems etc. Brand new they will not come in for less than 500m, sorry, you’re living in a dream world, unless you want a frigate without NSM, decoys, Mk41, aviation, etc etc etc.

Last edited 1 month ago by Dern
ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_817181)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

And that price will not be offered again, Babcock are not making any profit on the present T31 builds.

Simon
Simon (@guest_817295)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

inflation alone will have pushed the price up

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_817031)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

So with £750m to spend the choice is one more T26 or 3 additional T31 patrol frigates or 2 additional T31 GP frigates.

Dern
Dern (@guest_817072)
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Except that the five Batch 2 Type 26’s are contracted for 4.2billion£, or 840million£ each, not 750.

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_817075)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

Well, inflation will get you every time. But you get my drift. What’s the most important / urgent capability we need more of?

Dern
Dern (@guest_817151)
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

I’d put the money into basing, and retainment initiatives, pay etc. so we can deploy what we have, followed by returning 3 Cmdo to a conventional brigade.

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_817152)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

Understood. Be interesting to see what comes out of any labour govt. defence review.

Meirion X
Meirion X (@guest_817185)
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

T45 destroyers.

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_817231)
1 month ago
Reply to  Meirion X

Aren’t there a couple of Samson radars lying around somewhere?

Paul T
Paul T (@guest_817665)
30 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Nope – only spare set sits on Portsdown Hill.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_816985)
1 month ago
Reply to  Mark P

£250m was for an austere fit that *could be upgraded*

It doesn’t include NSM or MK41 VLS.

I’d argue that we’d be better off order 3-5 more of these big hulls with an austere fit and maybe MK41 VLS fitted than to Gucci the things out of budget out of sight and out of reality.

When you start adding big air search radars onto them the costs are going to shoot upwards.

Herman ze Germin
Herman ze Germin (@guest_817164)
1 month ago

Big air search radars, double bedstead from a boot sale you muppet, stealth, really, one in 10 f35 fit for action, counterintuitive frequency searching for rare earth alloys, get with the.programme Shela, a Leander Hull, upto date tech appliquéd onto the old frames and BAE are in the poo, as well as our adversaries When you take an 18 year old, keep him in the warmth of mod waste and at yhe age of 50 send him out shopping and prepping for his retirement you end up with £750m fishery protection vessels. Go to J Marrs in Hull, take up… Read more »

John
John (@guest_816839)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

A large part of why our ships cost so much per ship is small orders. More ships mean better economies of scale and so cheaper per unit cost.

Dern
Dern (@guest_816847)
1 month ago
Reply to  John

FREMM is 600m£ per unit and 20 of them where ordered.
Constellation is nearly a billion £ per unit and 20 are on order.
Talwar is 500m£ per ship and that’s with Indian wage costs.
More ships might be a route to better economies of scale but were not 250m£ per Frigate is not realistic, especially when they’re not replacing previous.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker (@guest_816972)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

What is really important also is running cost, at sea days and capabilities

Jim
Jim (@guest_817003)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

I don’t think US ship building cost are a wide comparison. They paid over $700 million for one LCS ten years ago. They easily pay double the rate of European builds.

Dern
Dern (@guest_817004)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

I disagree. The US can suffer development cost spirals, as is the case for USS Indipendence, but their initial tendering is very much in line with European prices (as proven by the Constellations which have a tender price in line with most European frigate programs).

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_817523)
30 days ago
Reply to  Dern

Yup but wage costs are mitigated by automated fabrication. Which is why, thank god, UK naval shipbuilding is finally going properly automated.

Also the RN ship will fully work whereas the Indian version will have sub thickness steels of the wrong grades, electronics that only work sometimes and have the crew will be ghosts on the payroll and the ship will only work once the backhanders have been paid…..

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_817249)
1 month ago
Reply to  John

Also the idea of what is an acceptable cost effective frigate capability now looks like a Rolex rather than a Timex. The idea of T31 as a £250m ‘credible’ patrol frigate didn’t last very long before Mk41 full of Sea Ceptors and (probably) NSM were added. Back when T31 was being discussed BAE proposed their ‘Leander’; a 110m design which was based on a stretched Khareef. It lost out to Babcock’s Arrowhead 140 for political reasons and because it had no growth potential. But would building a small class of 5 of these make sense when we replace the batch… Read more »

Meirion X
Meirion X (@guest_818268)
27 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

ExLS launchers are required to launch CAMM from Mk.41 system, with 3 cell units.
Not like ESSM.
Much cheaper to launch CAMM from own cell.

Last edited 27 days ago by Meirion X
Jim
Jim (@guest_816999)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

I’m going by gross tonnage rather than number of vessels. The UK is already fourth in tonnage (800,000t) however a large part of Russian tonnage is 40+ years old and should really not be counted. They’re completely incapable of building surface vessels beyond corvettes size. Getting third spot on the global naval terms is very doable for the UK with a little bit of effort. Little bit of effort being something like 0.3-0.5% of GDP being added to the navy budget. We already have every platform developed we just need to add more in numbers. It’s very doable. Yes on… Read more »

Dern
Dern (@guest_817025)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Okay, but the UK is still nowhere near 3rd place (and no it’s not fourth in tonnage because you have to count the RFA to get to 800,000, the actual RN tonnage is closer to 300,000). But just to point out that in 3rd place is the Russian Navy with 1.2million tons (and that’s just their non-auxilliary displacement, if you start lumping in a lot of the stuff we consider part of the RFA that number climbs a lot). Even if you count the RFA adding half again the naval service is not “very doable with a bit of effort.”… Read more »

Jon
Jon (@guest_817253)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

Building ten more tier 2 frigates would not be too dificult — we are building one a year and we’d just have to keep doing that for another decade. £400m a year out of a current surface ship construction budget of around £2.1bn. However, it would be extremely difficult to operate that many unless the government increased the target number of sailors and paid for them.

Steve R
Steve R (@guest_818827)
26 days ago
Reply to  Dern

Most of those 100 Russian ships are corvettes, though.

In terms of frigates and destroyers Russia is equivalent in size to the UK and France combined.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_817207)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

We haven’t had a big army since the Cold War. It needs to be at 120,000 regulars, which was the down-sized army for the post-Cold War world as set out in Options for Change.

Why must we have the 3rd biggest Navy in the world? That is just ‘grandstanding’. That would mean a Navy with 5 times as many ships as it has now. That would make it larger than the Russian Navy, Indian Navy etc. I would settle for having the largest Navy in western Europe.

Chris
Chris (@guest_816816)
1 month ago

And staff them with who exactly?

The RN isn’t even utilizing current assets properly.

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_816904)
1 month ago
Reply to  Chris

Babcock say they are aiming for a crew of 50 for ‘next generation’ frigate e.g. T32. Also if MRSS turns out to be a 2 spot Enforcer the RFA crew requirement would also be about 50.

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_817039)
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

I think that’s operationally illiterate. You need enough crew to land shore parties, prize crews, withstand casualties, fix things when damage occurs & provide daily shifts. 50 is an extreme fetish of low manning.
We’ve got record population, so manning problems are down to sheer incompetance governmentally.

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_817042)
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank62

Well, agree; but I can see the thinking for MRSS; 50 RFA plus RN as required per the mission. As regards the ‘future frigate’ , 50 suggests a base number for a pootling around patrol frigate- bit like a River 2 OPV. I guess the idea would be to add more per tasking…/ helo/ combat / escort duties. Be interested to know if they are exploring this line of thinking.

Craig
Craig (@guest_817137)
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank62

Lean manning in peace, easy to up crew levels in times of increased threat with called up reservists.

Peter S
Peter S (@guest_816823)
1 month ago

This is the kind of global Britain nonsense that makes it so easy to challenge the military budget. Why should British taxpayers fund assistance to overseas territories that not only make no contribution but actively undermine the UK tax system that pays for it all? What are our “global responsibilities” in the Red Sea, West Africa and the Baltic( the last is a NATO obligation but there are others better placed to deliver help)? Why should a “bastion of democracy” be expected to commit assistance to countries that are and will remain socially and religiously backward tyrannies? Instead what we… Read more »

Levi Goldsteinberg
Levi Goldsteinberg (@guest_816914)
1 month ago
Reply to  Peter S

To your point on overseas territories, firstly they are British nationals and thus it needs no justification as to why we should protect them. Second, most (particularly Cayman, Bermuda and Gibraltar) make us an enormous amount of money via London.

To your point on why we need to operate with more mass in far flung parts of the world – trade is international. If we don’t exert our will others will (and do, see China)

Simon
Simon (@guest_817138)
1 month ago

LG saying ‘global Britain’ is a turn off for many on left and future uk govt. Easier to say we want to work with other pro western democracies around the world. We are no longer the world policeman or have the economy to support that. All western countries have to do their fair share. We have the QE carriers and lovely value for money rivers. We will have a sub deployed in the pacific.

Meirion X
Meirion X (@guest_817158)
1 month ago

👍Exactly! We need an global presence to protect our investments in far-flung places.
It’s Peter S, more misguided, as ever!

Last edited 1 month ago by Meirion X
Bringer of facts
Bringer of facts (@guest_816949)
1 month ago
Reply to  Peter S

Keeping the Red Sea open means a shorter transit route for a lot of cargo carriers. Longer transit routes = more expensive products to the end consumer.

D.Roberts
D.Roberts (@guest_816982)
1 month ago

It is open, to the Russians and Chinese.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker (@guest_816988)
1 month ago
Reply to  Peter S

Britain relies on ship trade. Those trade routes need to be monitored and protected. There are other like minded nations that also do this so the load is shared.
It would be easy to just focus on the U.K. but it isn’t self sufficient and it’s economy’s dependent on other nations around the world.

Jim
Jim (@guest_817005)
1 month ago
Reply to  Peter S

The issue is that the UK does not face any threats if we keep the wheels on the western lead order and rules based system of international government we developed in 1945.

The UK could easily get by on spending 0.5% or less on defence like Ireland if we are prepared to let the world go to s**t.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach (@guest_817063)
1 month ago
Reply to  Peter S

Our global responsibility is protecting the £1.760 billion of trade that mostly travels by sea. Having said that,with only two major warships overseas you can legitimately ask what we are acheiving with the existing budget.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach (@guest_816824)
1 month ago

Very little point having extra ships if most of the existing fleet is tied up alongside.

Simon
Simon (@guest_816828)
1 month ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

As you say ,recruitment and retention issues need to be addressed.

Coll
Coll (@guest_817191)
1 month ago
Reply to  Simon

And accommodation.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_816837)
1 month ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

Yes. There’s a whole lot in maintenance and being upgraded and isn’t the RFA on strike? Can it get any worse? Any as someone else mentioned having an extra sub of two could be good too but there’s no room to build.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker (@guest_816989)
1 month ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

Recruitment needs overhauled. The time it takes from applying to getting hired is far too long. Nobody wants to wait 2-24 months to start a job.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach (@guest_817061)
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

M.S. Simon and Quentin. All agreed gentlemen. Capita have maneged to turn away 800,000 applicants in the last ten years, many declined after ‘phone interviews which can take up to a year to organise. Presumably this “success” rate is why the contract is still in place.
As for maintenance all major ships are in dock with three exceptions, a destroyer and two frigates.

RB
RB (@guest_816838)
1 month ago

Talk about stating the bleeding obvious! The key question is whether Labour’s defence review next year will fund the 5 T31 Batch 2’s, aka T32. If so the RN will creep back up from the current completely inadequate level of 15 escorts (6 T45’s, 9 T23s, plus 2 gutted T23’s awaiting decommission) to a dizzy 24 by c.2040. I think the last time the RN had 24 escorts was 2011, at a time when its pleading that 32 was the absolute minimum it needed to meet government mandated operational commitments had just failed. Cameron’s government instead decided the exact opposite… Read more »

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816840)
1 month ago
Reply to  RB

22s were very crew heavy and expensive to run. And I’m not sure how long Sea wolf would’ve remained a relevant missile system.

Last edited 1 month ago by Hugo
Dern
Dern (@guest_816852)
1 month ago
Reply to  Hugo

They’d also be getting very long in the tooth. Think about how hard it is to keep the Iron Dukes running, and then add a few extra years to the tally.

RB
RB (@guest_816861)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

The expected service life of the T22B3’s was 25 year’s with a normal refit cycle. By comparison the T23’s had a 18 year designed service life with unfortunately no provision for major refits, e.g. no physical access to fuel tanks for inspection. Extending the service life of the T22B3s to 35 or even 40 years seems likely to have been much easier and cheaper than the LIFEXs the remaining T23’s are going through. E.g. Once you get over £100 million for a T23 refit that will enable just another 5 years of service, it’s hard not to wonder if the… Read more »

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816897)
1 month ago
Reply to  RB

Issue is T31s are not here yet, so we can exactly just not lifex the T23s and survive with no Frigates.
With the current crewing issues though I question whether we could’ve maintained the T22 past the 2020s. Would’ve needed to decom nearly 2 T23s to keep one T22 fully staffed.

RB
RB (@guest_816858)
1 month ago
Reply to  Hugo

Yes … but the T22B3s were TG flagship capable, had a great C3I fit, and were fitted with high-end “spy ship” capabilities. Of course that meant a big crew. However, only the much larger Invincible’s were their rough equivalent in some areas. The sudden and unexpected demise of the T22B3’s left embarrassing gaps in RN capabilities and meeting our NATO commitments.

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_816899)
1 month ago
Reply to  RB

Certainly they had useful capabilities, but as I pointed out above I don’t think we could’ve maintained running them upto now.

Rob N
Rob N (@guest_816883)
1 month ago
Reply to  RB

An interesting point about Labour… they have criticised the government for not spending enough on defence given the treat from Russia but have given very little detail on what they would do. There is NO commitment for extra funds or any commitment to 2.5% of GDP. I cannot help but think the words are just for the election and will not be matched by action. We may well not get the T32 at all.

DB
DB (@guest_816872)
1 month ago

Diego Garcia and Bastion of democracy in one statement. OK We need more frigates and destroyers, from a con. OK We need P3s – this man clearly has an interest in Defence. OK Well he does have an interest in defence – the Royal Logistics Corps, tip of the spear there, at the fighting front, first into battle. OK What a damn right hypocrite he must be when he has been in his, self styled… ‘Party of Defence’… and as he sees Aldershot goes red finally speaks out on defence from his own seat. He won’t burn in hell and… Read more »

Markam
Markam (@guest_816873)
1 month ago

Unfortunate, we have a lot of challenges in terms of industrial capacity, funding and crewing to do exactly what the minister desires. Fortunate, that we have options in the T31 and T26 for evolved capabilities going forward. Two relatively modern designs on the expensive and inexpensive side of things that can make up our fleet. I would personally redesignate the Type 26 as Destroyers and build a robust fleet of 16+ hulls to do both ASW and AAW replacing the T23 and T45, the overall cost will be reduced due to consistency in design and high volume. You may say… Read more »

andy a
andy a (@guest_817008)
1 month ago
Reply to  Markam

and where are the £billions coming from for this fleet? no political party will slash benefits to pay for this

Markam
Markam (@guest_817028)
1 month ago
Reply to  andy a

You don’t need to slash benefits to pay for it, firstly. Secondly, if we use the Type 26 rather than developing a brand new design for the Type 83, the existing scheduled Type 83 budget can be allocated for 8 rather than 6 hulls accounting to R&D savings, and Type 31 is supposed to go to 10 with the Type 32, so it is just a little more than that. The amount of money we spend on defence can pay for more equipment if it is used more efficiently, and we do not try to reinvent the wheel every single… Read more »

Andrew A
Andrew A (@guest_817034)
1 month ago
Reply to  Markam

T26 can’t mount a decent air defence radar with out major redesign leaving it very top heavy which it why the type 83 is a fresh sheet design.
The altering of defence spending has been talked about for ten years. We spend a fortune and yet we get nothing for it. All that happens is same old thing.
Also the t32 will never happen. Govt will change. Neither of the parties have committed to it.

Last edited 1 month ago by Andrew A
Paul T
Paul T (@guest_817143)
1 month ago
Reply to  Markam

Not enough information is known about the Type 83 currently to make any assessment of potential numbers etc,but a dedicated AAW platform is still more desirable than a Type 26 on steroids.

Markam
Markam (@guest_817222)
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul T

Normally I would agree it needs to be a more appropriate design but I fear the dreaded delays caused by R&D and new ship type growing pains, followed by the inevitable Labour cut in numbers that makes it even more expensive per hull.

Mark P
Mark P (@guest_817009)
1 month ago
Reply to  Markam

The River B 1’s are due to be retired in 2027/28 anyway

Steve
Steve (@guest_816884)
1 month ago

Whats the point of putting your life on the line.for a country that does not let you walk around with the flag of this country your suppose to protect

Challenger
Challenger (@guest_816885)
1 month ago

Loads of bases East of Suez now. Bahrain, Oman (port and army training area), Diego Garcia, Singapore, Brunei.

Just a shame there aren’t the soldiers, ships and aircraft to project power and influence from them!

Jim
Jim (@guest_817010)
1 month ago
Reply to  Challenger

Having bases and infrastructure is the hard thing though, that’s what China does not have. You can always get Allie’s with men and machines but if their no where from then to operate from they are useless.

You can always go out and recruit more personnel or go out and buy foreign weapons which is exactly how we won World War One and Two.

But there is no substitute for global basing and infrastructure.

George
George (@guest_816889)
1 month ago

There must be an election on the horizon, when MPs start start stating the obvious.

Cognitio68
Cognitio68 (@guest_816891)
1 month ago

“We have state-of-the-art equipment in the RAF, including the C-17, A400M, P-3, F-35B, Typhoon, and Tempest to come, but do we have enough of those platforms?” Lets see…(wikipedia is our friend) 8x C17, 22x A400M. (0x P3’s what he actually means is P8) 9x P8’s, 34xF35’s, 107x Typhoons, 0x Tempests since that doesn’t actually exist yet. For the 6th largest economy in the world I’d say no…obviously and self evidently no. I guess somebody who has been in power must have done something stupidly wrong. Maybe those same people should do something about it before somebody notices and calls them… Read more »

FieldLander
FieldLander (@guest_816946)
1 month ago
Reply to  Cognitio68

To blame for the current state of affairs.

John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson (those since have not been around long enough to make a practical difference, indeed you could say the same for TM & BJ) all of the Chancellors, Treasury Ministers and most of the Defence Ministers and I am afraid the Service Chiefs who do not speak up until they have finished.

Hoping the above sentence is not too convoluted.

geoff
geoff (@guest_816997)
1 month ago
Reply to  FieldLander

Actually and from memory Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, Atlee, Eden, Macmillan( resigned at 70 due to ill health and lived to the age of 92!😂), Douglas-Home, Harold Bloody Wilson, Ted Heath, James Callaghan good sort), Maggie Thatcher… also all must share the blame. None of them reversed the tide. Admittedly things had to shrink after WW2 but the process never stopped.

FieldLander
FieldLander (@guest_817020)
1 month ago
Reply to  geoff

Apologies, I limited myself to the Peace Dividend era (post 1989). Maybe I should have included Maggie. I am not inclined to blame those in power in the late 40’s, 50’s, 60’s or 70’s.

geoff
geoff (@guest_817576)
30 days ago
Reply to  FieldLander

No need for apology FieldLander-I was to an extent indulging in a favourite topic-British post war PM’s

Meirion X
Meirion X (@guest_817567)
30 days ago
Reply to  geoff

Warpons & equipment became better in quality, accuracy, in the decades post WW2, and also more expensive.

geoff
geoff (@guest_817577)
30 days ago
Reply to  Meirion X

Absolutely but as the numbers shrank the saying that they could only be in one place at a time begins to ring true to an extent

Cognitio68
Cognitio68 (@guest_817024)
1 month ago
Reply to  FieldLander

To quote my mum. Just because your friend sticks his head in an oven doesn’t mean you have to do so too. At this point in history It’s not safe or tolerable to allow Defence to fall into the trap of low expectations. Just because the last lot were crap and caused a funding crisis doesn’t mean the next lot get a green light to do the same. Defence of the realm is supposed to be the fundamental purpose of government. It’s a must have not a nice to have. A requirement of government is the ability to recognise and… Read more »

IKnowNothing
IKnowNothing (@guest_816908)
1 month ago

There is a quite immediate threat to our East in Russia, and perhaps a slightly longer term but building threat in the far East (China). Timescales to deter the first threat are perhaps measured in a few years at best. Longer for the second. There seems to be very little equipment that could be ordered and fully delivered in the short term needed to deter Russia. Instead, perhaps there needs to be a greater focus on making operational what we have, preparing any reserve equipment for use, building up manpower, etc. New kit orders are just headlines in the short… Read more »

Markam
Markam (@guest_816918)
1 month ago
Reply to  IKnowNothing

If you go by US policy the threat from China is either 2027 or 2035, though this is seen as somewhat alarmist. We’d be screwed in 2027 but 2035 is achievable if we start preparing now.

Jim
Jim (@guest_817012)
1 month ago
Reply to  Markam

China is also screwed in 2027, it’s a question or making sure we are only as screwed as the Chinese are permanently. That the nature of deterrence. Our defence spending does not take place in a vacuum. It’s can only react to what potential adversaries are doing.

Defence spending in a vaccum is what busted the USSR, it’s what’s likely to collapse China as well. It’s the reason that Hitler went to war and it’s the reason he lost.

IKnowNothing
IKnowNothing (@guest_817058)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

In that sense, its worth remembering I guess that the ideal global defence spend is – nothing. In a perfect world we would have no use for ways to kill each other.

Whatever we spend on defence is a reflection of the worst imperfections of human society. We are collectively a bit rubbish at getting along with each other.

Looks like in the next few years we are likely to get worse not better, so spending more becomes necessary I guess

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_816929)
1 month ago

More frigates and Destroyers ,bless him. Like more of everything for all three services and most of all manpower.
For P3s think we’ll give that one a miss 🤗 🇬🇧

DeeBee
DeeBee (@guest_816950)
1 month ago

No shit Sherlock, and more soldiers, aircraft etc etc.

Andrew H
Andrew H (@guest_816964)
1 month ago

Would make more sense to concentrate on developing own frigates, while buying US next generation destroyers?

Harry Nelson
Harry Nelson (@guest_816969)
1 month ago

No shit Sherlock

Expat
Expat (@guest_816973)
1 month ago

There’s the inevitable blame game on this and defence in general. Tories/Labour are poking at each other. But here’s the thing, both parties have in past elections set the standard based on what the others proposing. For decades both parties have lowered the bar with weak election promises of defence putting things like chorinated chicken higher up the agenda than defence of the country. And now they expect us to vote for them based on their defence credentials and how they are so much better than the other party. All too little too late for me tbh.

Bringer of facts
Bringer of facts (@guest_816977)
1 month ago

I think we can agree we need more ships, but need to sort out other problems too:

Solve the recruitment crisis
Add more ship-building capacity.
Upgrade Maintenance facilities and procedures, we seem to have a lot of ships laid up in maintenance right now.

Expat
Expat (@guest_817030)
1 month ago

We have enough physical capacity to build more ships but we’re lacking the skills. But government is determined to also persue net zero for which will need similar skills so unless we have more migration I can’t see how we can do both without it. Or we just say defence of the nation is more important and missing net zero by a few % for a few years won’t actually make that much difference, given that we’re < 1% and shrinking of global emissions. No point in being a leader in net zero when you’re a bombed out wasteland .

Mickey
Mickey (@guest_816986)
1 month ago

How many total Frigates and Destroyers , in the end, is he talking about having in order to meet this idea?

Rob Young
Rob Young (@guest_816991)
1 month ago

Ignoring all the political wittering and getting back to the main issue of the article… Yes, we need a lot more destroyers and corvettes and yes, I think a lot of the recruitment issues are self inflicted. If I applied for a job and was told the interview would be in 12-18 months guess what – I get a different job.

Mark B
Mark B (@guest_817037)
1 month ago

Picking on Frigates & Destroyers seems a little random. There is a whole range of kit needed for all the services. He seems to have chosen the kit with the longest lead times.

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_817043)
1 month ago

Stating the obvious. I’d like to see 30+. We’ve had 30+ years cutting our forces beyond all reaonable sense & all it’s done is embolden all our enemies & make the world a far more dangerous & volitile place.

Darryl2164
Darryl2164 (@guest_817059)
1 month ago

If only the power that holds the purse strings would sit up and take note

DanielMorgan
DanielMorgan (@guest_817060)
1 month ago

Is Trump in everyone’s head in Europe or is Trump in everyone’s head in Europe? For decades American Presidents wailed and moaned about the parasitism of European NATO states on defense, and they were ignored. Along comes Trump and he infiltrates everyone’s brain in Europe. And no European can talk about defense without mentioning Trump. Who’s laughing at who?

Nevis
Nevis (@guest_817100)
1 month ago
Reply to  DanielMorgan

No Putin is. Trump just happens to be around when Putin decided to send half a million men to invade another country. Nobody is laughing!

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_817176)
1 month ago
Reply to  Nevis

Not surprisingly facts do not support the assertion.

Obama : Putin invasion of Crimea
Trump: nothing…it was also the first President to supply lethal armament to Ukraine
Biden: Putin invasion of remaining Ukraine

Last edited 1 month ago by AlexS
Nevis
Nevis (@guest_817255)
1 month ago
Reply to  AlexS

50 per cent of Trumps presidency the world was locked down. Might explain the nothing!

Cognitio68
Cognitio68 (@guest_817283)
1 month ago
Reply to  Nevis

No there is some value in having an egotistical “strong man” President in the office. It tends to deter the other “strong men”. Biden on the other hand…

AHG
AHG (@guest_817098)
1 month ago

If it is a presence required immediately then why not use STUFT? Not everything has to hare about the Pacific. Drones could be carried by most vessels and well… Wasn’t there an article recently about the RN not being able to recruit enough sailors for what exists already?

Rob Young
Rob Young (@guest_817133)
1 month ago
Reply to  AHG

Sure. But the main reason for that is that it takes so long (12-18 months or so) from first applying to being offered a job. No wonder people aren’t interested if they know or believe it’s going to take that long.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_817370)
30 days ago
Reply to  Rob Young

Just read a candidate was refused for recruiting as an Engineering Officer because he didn’t have any A levels. Just a BA & MSc 🤷🏼‍♂️
Which suggest that it’s a Tick box exercise. Some young folks don’t fancy University and go into industry and do apprenticeships so HNC / HND (many do degrees as well and get paid for it).
So you could have a qualified engineer who designs / builds Warships but can get a job in the RN running them.

Mark Cherry
Mark Cherry (@guest_817107)
1 month ago

Two issues if we’ve got the money to build new destroyers and frigates that’s problem number one problem number two is to get enough people to join the real navy to make these variable

Paul rickard
Paul rickard (@guest_817128)
1 month ago

New platforms need more recruitment, how has that gone recently?

Craig
Craig (@guest_817134)
1 month ago

Easy win. 3-4 OPVs to replace River B1s in home waters, keep B2s (maybe add 40mm and camcopter) on overseas patrol stations and use T31s in Gulf/Med etc.

James
James (@guest_817154)
1 month ago

Even if we had more ships we have nobody to crew them anyway. How about we just look after our own territorial waters and that of our NATO allies and stop trying to police the world

Meirion X
Meirion X (@guest_817770)
29 days ago
Reply to  James

The UM is a UNSC member in continum. So you would prefer ruZZia to police the world!

Last edited 29 days ago by Meirion X
Oliver Gilkes
Oliver Gilkes (@guest_817161)
1 month ago

More destroyers anf frigates? No sheet sherlock! Thought that was obvious a decade ago.

James
James (@guest_817165)
1 month ago

The RN could use more submarines and escorts. Problem is timelines. It’ll be into the 2040-50 range before any increase in numbers is likely. Exception, a second batch of Type 31 (or Type 32) could be ready in the later half of the 30’s.

PhilWestMids
PhilWestMids (@guest_817167)
1 month ago

Easy solution is to add 2 type 26 to the current 8 order and double the type 31 order from 5 to 10, wouldn’t cost too much but will add the numbers desperately needed in a decent timeframe. Can only hope we increase numbers soon.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_817182)
1 month ago
Reply to  PhilWestMids

The problem is that we do want exports and Norway may order 5 T26, which slows down the T26 delivery for the RN by about 5 years. But the cost benefits are significant and probably worth the delay. BAe are upping the ante on build time and moving from 18 months between orders to 12 that adds 50% capacity over a 12 year cycle. But the T23 cannot limp on indefinitely, so I’d add just 3 extra T31 as is, and not any T32. The base design is 25 years old and isn’t 1st rate. On the other hand what… Read more »

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_817239)
1 month ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Isn’t Type 26 a bit over engineered for North Atlantic ASW work? What about asking CL to knock up half a dozen Blackwood frigates?

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_817358)
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Nope there is no such thing as over engineered when it comes to ASW. The hull has to be large enough to accommodate everything plus growth margin, it has to be robust and have excellent Sea keeping. The Machinery has to be a marvel of technology, it has to be powerful enough to close the enemy’s position at speed. But as silent and economical as possible for Sub hunting. The weapons and sensors have to be the best available for sub hunting / killing but also sufficient to protect the ship and add mass to any Naval force. And that… Read more »

Meirion X
Meirion X (@guest_817765)
29 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

No, certainly Not! Have you ever been on a small vessel in choppy waters? Not good for the stomach!

Last edited 29 days ago by Meirion X
Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_817809)
29 days ago
Reply to  Meirion X

I don’t know. It’s a good thing I can take rejection. I come up with all these creative ideas only to have them dismissed out out hand 🙂

Cognitio68
Cognitio68 (@guest_817287)
1 month ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

I guess if expediency is our priority (and it is due to increased threat and the degeneration of our Type 23’s), and we can’t easily spool up production of the Type 26 (due to costs and/or export orders) then we’re left with Type 31. Additional builds of Type 31s would plug the ship number gap and help mitigate risk. When and if things calm down in the future we can reshape the fleet to a more optimum configuration by buying more appropriate ships.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_817365)
1 month ago
Reply to  Cognitio68

If Simon Lister is true to his word and BAe can get to a 60month build time and 12 month Drumbeat then that’s mighty impressive. I for one don’t doubt they can do it because they have done it before and with far less new facilities and tech than now. The 6 T45 were all delivered on just 5 years and the build time for Defender wasn’t far off, which is pretty amazing when you consider how 5 of them were built. I did some arithmetic and if they manage to do it then 10 in 10 years is doable… Read more »

PhilWestMids
PhilWestMids (@guest_817487)
30 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

It would be great if Norway and other allies order the T26, they are amazing but I personally think we shouldn’t wait on something that might happen/probably will in the future when the T23 really need to start being retired, we cannot afford to wait on other people to make decisions. I think you are being a bit harsh on the T31, it isn’t a T26 but as a GP frigate it is perfectly suitable for the role.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_817209)
1 month ago

I had no idea that Sunderland was an MP now – we served together in Sierra Leone in 2002/3. He served for 26 years in the RLC and left as a full Colonel in 2019. Interesting that he seemed to say nothing about the army in this speech.

Chris
Chris (@guest_817245)
1 month ago

One option that could work, given the personnel problems faced by the RN is to build more OPVs. An increased number of OPVs would be able to take on the less challenging roles such as drug interdiction patrols in the Caribbean, anti piracy patrols off the African coast etc. With new build OPVs, maybe there is the option to include a rudimentary AAW system?

Expat
Expat (@guest_817269)
1 month ago

But are Frigates and Destroyers the right ships to fight the next war. Would more subs be better or even BAe Systems UXV or Naval Groups Ocean Avenger designs be part of the mix. Discuss 😀

Roy
Roy (@guest_817432)
30 days ago

There is no money.

You can’t do everything that the UK Government wants to do (and Labour will want to do even more) AND also increase the defence budget.

Either you cut some of that broader program spending (which an incoming Labour will never do), or you stop pretending that there is an “imperative” to increase defence capability.

Dave
Dave (@guest_817527)
30 days ago

We need more of everything, we need to get defence spending up to around 10 or 15% of GDP for the next couple of years while we use BRITISH manufacturing from BRITISH sourced raw materials to rebuild our entire armed forces. If we did this we would certainly also get out of recession (buying foreign crap will send us further into recession if you understand economics at all). Post this boost we should never ever ever allow defence spending at less than 7.5% of GDP, not ever, regardless. People say we cant afford it but it appears we can afford… Read more »