The Ministry of Defence have listed how many ships of each class are operationally available or are in maintenance.
The following was in response to a written question submitted in the House of Commons.
Mark Francois, Member of Parliament for Rayleigh and Wickford, asked:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what is the sea-going status of each of the 13 Type 23 frigates; and which of those ships are (a) operationally available, (b) undergoing maintenance and/or a refit and (c) temporarily unavailable due to propulsion problems.”
Jeremy Quin, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, responded:
The information requested is provided below:
| Class | Upkeep/Maintenance | Operationally Available | Total |
| Type 23 | 4 | 8 | 12 |
| River Class Patrol Ships | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| River II Class Patrol Ships | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| RFA Tide Class | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| RFA Wave Class | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| RFA Landing Ship Docks | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Sandown Class | 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Hunt Class Mine Counter Measure Vessels | 2 | 4 | 6 |
| HMS ALBION/HMS BULWARK | 1 | 1 | 2 |
In his response, Quin added that “to maintain operational security these figures cannot be broken down to the level of detail requested”.
Why are there only 12 Type 23 Frigates listed?
The long laid-up HMS Monmouth has left the fleet leaving the Royal Navy with 12 frigates.
You can read more about that by clicking here.
What about the Type 45 Destroyers?
The Ministry of Defence has listed the status of each Type 45 Destroyer in the fleet.
“HMS DEFENDER is currently deployed as part of the Carrier Strike Group (CSG21) while
HMS DIAMOND has experienced some technical issues and has detached from CSG21 for maintenance, inspection and defect rectification.
HMS DARING and HMS DUNCAN are currently undergoing planned deep maintenance.
HMS DAUNTLESS, the first of the Type 45 Destroyers to undergo a Power Improvement Project upgrade, is expected to return to sea for trials this year.
HMS DRAGON is undergoing a period of planned maintenance in advance of further operational commitments.”
You can read more on the Type 45s by clicking here.
hang on what happened to daring and dauntless? is it the stupid engines again?
Regular scheduled maintenance that all ships go through for one, and the new powerplant being installed in the other.
Apparently Dauntless has finished PIP and is on its way back into service…
Are you sure? There have been no reports of her going to sea for trials.
Engines have been fitted, running trials to commence this week.
Not too bad for the numbers we have but that’s always the problem isn’t it. Given her recent state Montrose is no real loss but the T45 situation is ridiculous. One AA vessel to cover the globe! If the RN is to be are showpiece to the world we have to invest in it. As things stand we are only going to have two T45’s at a push.. Maybe the time has come to look at alternatives and I don’t mean in fifteen years time. If the French can turn a FREMM frigate into an AA asset surely we can do something similar with a T26? A follow on for 2 or even better 4 ships would make a real difference.
But they only have three of them so they can field one at a time with no reserves if they have say a GT failure.
Nobody has found a good & cheap solution to AAW – it is technically highly complex.
You can provide a bit of capability for less money but the outputs decline faster than the costs do.
T45 is fine and once PIP is done it will be a fantastic asset particularly once it has its Ceptors added and 8 x AShM (hopefully) it will be a very heavily armed ship.
They started breaking down TWELVE years ago and at the moment we have one available. I’m not suggesting cheap. I’m suggesting augmentation. We should have had eight or ten to begin with, although considering their faults maybe it’s just as well we didn’t.
I think we focus on fixing what we have. It has taken a disgracefully long time for PIP to start. But once it is done the rest of the ship works very well.
PIP was awarded in March 2018; all six ships will be ‘PIP’d’ by mid-2020s. That’s incredibly fast compared to an army AFV upgrade programme! CR2 upgrade (to the CR3 standard) will not be finished until 2030, and Warrior upgrade (WCSP) took so long that it was canned.
I’d agree it is fast by army standards…..anything looks fantastic by army standards……
Actually it was originally going to be a class of 12, but when the costs rocketed they cut it to 8 and then the Navy did a deal with the government to sacrifice 2 additional ships to secure the purchase of the two carriers,
will there still be space for the 16 extra vls. because on paper it seems more logical to add 16 more capable vls because then we could just quad pack the sea captors in to give a total of 112 missiles.
No, you can not quad pack Aster 30 missiles.
Sea Ceptor will have their own launch
tubes.
i never said u could quad pack aster. i said if u quad pack sea captor into the mk41s then that 64 missile and then add that on to the 48 existing missiles that 112 missile.
The Dutch have made a success out of De Zeven Provinciën-class frigates, reliable as well.
True but it isn’t as good as T45 and it isn’t a lot cheaper!
You are correct. A deeply flawed design that shows a disturbing lack of foresight in planning in view of current propulsion issues.
Oliver, I understood that the T45 engine problems were largely down to one faulty USA designed and supplied sub-assembly (the intercooler). Does that make the whole design flawed?
A bigger issue is the apparent difficulty of accessing the engines or changing them – in REME days we would have said ‘poor maintainability’. Is it true that hull structure needs to be cut to remove a defective engine?
Happy to stand corrected on the above as I am no T45 expert.
I think having to cut the hull open to insert more powerful diesels is a pretty serious flaw in design! Surely these matters and environmental questions were considered in design? Whatever the weapon and sensor fit if they cannot move, or they lose power, there is a big problem.
Given that we will only have 8 ASW frigates, it might be better to look to the T31s to augment our air defence capability. Increasing the planned number of SeaCeptor would be straightforward. If SeaCeptor ER could be fitted, we would have a very capable second tier AAW fleet.
With the stated ambition of operating a CSG and LRGs, the T45 fleet is too small to provide protection to all three.
Good alternative Peter. Have to watch potential exports of course in terms of price but compared to the money being spent on some tenuous programmes at the moment an increase to eight ships at under£300 million apiece isn’t out of order… four more AA capable and four GP versions.
Nice idea but I was simply thinking that uprating the AA capability of the 5 ordered ships would be an affordable step in the right direction.
I know you were Peter but I can dream!
As we know Geoffrey, the RN had a solid case for twelve Type 45s at project inception, but then had to fight their biggest battle with the Treasury for the money – and lost!
Agreed, but 12 years ago under the then Labour government. The idea of upgrading a T31 seems quite sound to me at a fraction of the cost of a T45.
Under the cloud of the biggest financial crisis the world had seen… yes, it was probably prudent.
Spaffing £37 Billion on track and trace by the Cons, £Bns spent on unused PPE, by the Cons…
Why did you mention Labour?
Because that’s when it happened. I wasn’t trying to make any particular political point. Why did you mention the CONS?
First cut from 12 to 8 was in 2004. Second cut from 8 to 6 was, as you say, in the financial crisis, ie.2008.
Fair point. Thank you.
If T31 can be configured as an Air Defence asset to even just 90% of a T45’s capability and for less money, that’s worth doing.
T31 is a very underarmed version of the A140 design, developed from the Danish IH frigate, which is a AAW frigate. The bones are there. The T31 is capable of 32 mk41 or Sylver missiles cells & a better radar longer ranged radar (NS-200), if you want to pay the money. This is not your 90%, but still way cheaper than a T45.
If accurate that’s pretty decent levels of availability – 100% for the OPV’s and at least 2/3 for everything else.
I imagine operationally available means crewed and ready to move at relatively short notice but not necessarily deployed on active ops.
This is a good illustration of the utility of the OPVs, with 100% availability. I know some will say that they are relatively new, however maintenance on them is not that complicated (compared to the big boys) and availability is likely to remain high, releasing high end vessels for higher end tasking.
Bolting on extra weapons would only decrease this, whilst increasing running costs.
AA
They may be availuable but their capabilities are such that their deployment and roles will be very limited.
I am afraid that no one here will agree on the amount of capability they possess and wether it is sufficient or not. Likely they will bow out in 30 years time having fulfilled their patrol role without having been found wanting, and only then can we say they were correctly equipped.
Perhaps. But with a single (admittedly advanced) primary weapon system, and limited other capabilities, they are surely a hostage to fortune on such a distant deployment. Shades of Prince of Wales and Repulse. Moreover I simply do not see the justification for taking on an ‘East of Suez’ role with such limited overall resources.
A bit like the town Bobbie driving around in a Vauxhall Astra and the Armed Response team powering around in a BMW X5. Both appropriate for the task in hand and both able to work together.
As has been said on here many times, the Rivers are capable of stopping any merchant ship, small rogue boats and peer vessels. Or we could chop them all in for one Type 26.
And talking from experience the town Bobby will do a hell of a lot more jobs and be far more effective than an armed response team!
Normally the high readiness units at immediate notice to sail, (say 8hours notice) are the duty TAPS for towed array.
Everything else outside of being in Dock should be available at less than 48hrs notice.
That said if called into use and you only have 2/3 of the crew back you go with what you have and deal with it.
A certain T22 sailed for 3 months in the med with only one tyne and 2 olys and only 2/3 crewed . It achieved all it was sent out to do without issue, which was to monitor the Turkish S300 missile deployment on Cyprus… As with the current S 400 system they have bought, the Turkish have previous on buying Russian anti air systems.
This is the rather depressing reality that lies behind the airy global Britain spin. Even if there is some future growth in the escort fleet, that won’t be for 10 years and in the meantime hull numbers will fall further.
With a fleet this small, Britain cannot tilt to Asia Pacific and maintain forces in other key areas closer to home. The whole ambition is nonsense: there is no military case for it so attempts are made to justify it as presence- a publicity stunt in effect.
Agree. I cannot see the practical utility of basing two gunboats long term in the pacific.
Because they will be flying the flag, engaging with allies and having ‘eyes on’ a very concerning enemy – thus maintaining the case for a stronger presence to replace them as new builds get under way. Retrench at home and the Treasury will ask what we need an expanded fleet for?
Spot on. “Global Britain” is just hot air….
Haven’t we always been ‘Global Britain’, even before the slogan?
We have a strong international posture, a strong and global economy and globally deployed and deployable armed forces.
I am encouraged by the availability – under the oft-cited ‘Rule of Three’, I was only expecting a third of each class to be deployed/operationally available.
You mention a small fleet but surely HMS QE CSG is tilting to the Asia Pacific region right now.
Taking with it the only 2 now 1 available AAW destroyer. That’s really my point We just don’t have enough escorts for the ambition of deploying 3 task groups, all of which are likely to need both AAW and ASW protection.
1 on task, 1 with a defect, 1 available with the crew on leave, 2 in deep maintenance, 1 in refit. That’s not as bad as you are portraying.
I think it is. 6 was never enough to guarantee protection for the carriers which have very limited self defence capability. Whilst there are now welcome plans to increase the T45s armament, there are just too few of them.Hopefully, once the propulsion problems are sorted on all 6, availability will improve. But there isn’t much margin for error.
You mean besides the fact that despite 3 being in maintenance, and 1 had a technical problem we still have 2 available for tasking? So we actually have enough to guarantee protection for the carrier despite a break down.
But nothing for any other task which in future might include defence of the proposed LRGs and POW.
Well PWLS (not POW) isn’t supposed to be active at the same time as QE so that’s a non-issue, and if you can surge a ship that’s supposed to be in maintenance while the other is at sea you can do the same with the escorts.
So we are working off planning on 1 CSG and 1 LRG/Amphib group at sea at any one time… which means 2 Darings deployed to escort them and 1 in hand to deploy if needed.
Still seems like enough to cover to me.
Distance, dear person, distance… bit of a hindrance. One can’t be everywhere at once.
Well 2 CSG’s can’t be everywhere at once either, and we have enough AAW escorts to support both so… moot point condescending person.
@Dern, I was not being rude.
However, we do not have two CSG, pushing that fallacy would make you into a speech writer for Bluffer Johnson.
Peace.
We do, one in maintenance and one at sea on normal rotation. We have enough assets to surge 2 CSG’s if required, though that will have a knock on effect on maint cycles.
Stating that simple fact is neither a fallacy, nor is it a political statement.
Can we agree to disagree?
And where are the aircraft for these two flat tops? We don’t have enough for one now or for foreseeable. So you will only ever have one at sea (unless the USA will provide the CAG).
The RAF currently has 2 squadrons of F-35, one of which is deployed, so if you stood up a 2nd CSG the airwing would be based around the 2nd F-35 squadron.
Hi Peter,
I think you hit on something; perhaps the lack of Type 45 coverage for the CSG could be offset – at least in part – if the carriers had Sea Ceptor fitted. I agree, their own self defence suite is paltry to say the least. Given Sea Ceptor is soft launched can only help the case for.
Still, I think the RN do a phenomenal job with the resources they have. We as a nation should be very proud of them – and all our Armed Forces at that. We have some of the finest men and women in uniform anywhere in the world and I for one, am very grateful. I thank you all for your service!
When the type 45 ships went to the middle east, they developed over heating problems. The answer from the engine makers was,we didn’t know they were going very hot areas, hence new engines all round.
Thanks Peter. I had not heard the ambition of deploying 3 task groups – thats mighty ambitious, or just preposterous, unless 1 or 2 of those are tiny. Was this covered in the 2021 Defence Review?
Global Britain does not mean spend shit loads more on defence. But yet 16Bn has been added to the defence budget. And we have capabilites at sea that would have been a pipe dream 10-15 year’s ago.
Steady on that sounds suspiciously positive to me. We’ve no place for that kind of language in this country.
I agree entirely that we have significantly upgraded the fleets theoretical capabilities. The problem is that it has cost so much that we can’t afford to make full use of them.
The£16b extra was needed to cover the huge shortfall in the equipment budget. As the NAO report identified, most of this shortfall arises up to 2024 and results mainly from overspends on naval vessels both surface and submarine.
Given the dire state of army equipment and the commitment to Tempest, the RN will struggle to get additional funds to make maximum use of its new assets. We have delayed the final tranche of F35s actually ordered to 2025.
Even if we manage to spend the budget less wastefully, I still think it will be insufficient to avoid further damaging cuts within a few years. The alternative is a permanent increase in the defence budget. I would vote for it. Would the electorate at large?
Cheers
‘Most of this shortfall from overspends on naval vessels’ Type 26 a year ahead of target. Type 31 ? Thank god the Army haven’t had any problems with Warrior and Ajax ! !
Such an Astute (ahem) reply which you you could catapult off and sink the argument, but, beware the traps.
TOBa honest, the RN have had procurement issues as well.
Agreed. But !
Why not bring back National Service, let the youth learn a trade and see the World while they regain their pride in the United Kingdom. It’s about time that we support our Homeland instead of criticising it.
What is the state of the RN? Answer – too small, under equipped, ineffective
What is the state of the RAF? Answer – too small, under equipped, ineffective
What is the state if the British Army? – too small, under equipped, ineffective
Oh dear, someones knowledge needs to be updated…maybe small, yes, all three, but ineffective, no way, cheap throway comment which shows a lack of subject matter knowledge. The RN very effective, as with the RAF, the Army, maybe not so, but thats an issue we all see and hear about most days.
Yes effective at colonial police actions. It all depends on what is seen as a threat. The problem nowadays is that it takes decades to procure equipment to counter potential threats unlike until mid 20th c when all we needed to do was make sure we had enough boots on the ground, in the air or afloat! That can happen in weeks if not a few months unlike what they will need to fight with.
Colonial actions? wow. I think you along with JJ are confusing having an effective force, (or none effective as JJ states) with a well balanced and multi capable force, with the known issue of regeneration of (reduced) assets and people.You can have a very effective force, but an inability to continue fighting for extended periods, two different issues, albeit closely tied in on both the tactical and strategic level.
We are not sized for any multi major actions. Perhaps I shoild have used ‘police’ instead of what I said which is in fact what I intended. An inability to fight at scale for long periods is what most people take as effective. If we only intend short duration conflicts against ‘inferior’ foes then that is what I meant by police/colonial actions. Perhaps in the back of my mind also is the inferred political agenda of re-engaging with our ’empire’!
That I agree with no argument from me, I moan about the lack of depth and ability to both sustain and regenerate possible combat losses much of the time, but effectiveness can be judged in many different ways, from low level tactical level through to strategic level. Cheers mate.
Who do you think is arguing for ‘re-engaging with our empire’ because I thought we were re-engaging with old friends who don’t happen to be in the EU. None of whom would take kindly to that description and certainly wouldn’t be co-operating with us if they thought that was what we were doing.
Sadly those old friends were the empire! They were ours as long as there were resources to plunder and money to be made. Times have moved on.
Dpn’t know enough to comment on 18th-19th century. But when Harold MacMillan became PM in 1957 he ordered the then Colonial Office to do a cost benefit analysis of the Empire. The result was devastating it was costing us huge amounts in net cost. Now maybe that was just the 1950’s or even post war but one thing about successful politicians is that they never ask a question the answer to which they don’t already know.
Nick,
I’d point out that the US military is coming to terms with the fact they are not equipped to deal with two major multi actions and they have a lot more gear than us!!!
We have no depth to take combat loses. and to continue fighting. As the Germans found out in WW2 its fine having the best kit, but it can’t be everywhere at once. Numbers matter.
WW2 WAS 75 years ago, need to move on, look how much the country has spent over those 75 years on KIT THAT NEVER GOT USED, and there is your answer.
Correct it was, but thats not the point. The point is numbers matter to not to be beaten after 1 engagement with only modest losses.
Who are we going to war against?
You didnt say that, you said they were ineffective, which is incorrect and totaly different than the ability to regenerate assets.
They were ineffective because of the lack of numbers. A situation we are heading for.
If we are talking numbers we are already there and have limited ability to take combat losses (read my previous numerous posts about that matter) but that’s different than effectiveness depending on task or requirements! We have very effective forces, both trained and technically equipped, and very effective TPPs, so very different than your initial throwaway statement JJ, cheers.
Not at all, being effective also means having the ability in depth to absorb losses.
Effective – successful in producing a desired or successful result! Nothing about numbers here just about the correct use of assets and people to effect the result.
So let’s say a deliberate Coy assault, against let’s say, 3 known enemy positions, 1 in depth, using all 3 platoons correctly, with the FSG doing overwatch, up on the high ground, the FST with the Boss, correct OS in position and plans made and the lads briefed and correctly equipped! Takes a couple of hours but all 3 positions taken, area cleared, job done, casualties extracted, re supplied and next phase began. I would say that was effective wouldn’t you? Numbers mattered correct, but so did the plan, the people and the assets used. Therefore a desired and successful result ensued. Therefore I repeat once more your use of the term none effective was incorrect, and I’m sorry to say efforts at trying to quantify that statement by general elaboration doesn’t wash……but as I’ve said before our depth is limited, and combat and maintenance losses would impact capability but that’s not what none-effective means.
Leave the grunt stuff to the Pongos like you. Maybe instead of assaulting an enemy position the hard way, you would like a nice man in a fast jet to hit the target. To save your sorry axxxx from risking casualties. But sorry you can’t have that because we don’t have enough close support jets because the RAF is too small and hence not effective.
Oh dear, rather an immature reply, but that’s right, you best leave the scary “grunt” stuff to those of us who have the professional skill and knowledge, oh and big bollocks, to do so. Oh and by the way the very effective RAF also has nice ladies in fast jets….oh dear you do seem many years out of date, oh dear, how sad never mind.
JJ requires an update on the gender of their pilots before calling in fast air.
“What it’s a female? No, turn the plane back.”
Would seem so mate ;0)
Also, that’s at best a very surface level analysis of WW2, and at worst pretty much outright wrong.
Capability is everything. And the ability to deploy it, which we can do very very well. If you don’t have the capability, we will politely be told to stay at home. Some nations have huge armies (Egypt) but are largely useless, because they do not have the capability and tech and the ability to deploy it beyond it’s own boarders. And superbly trained men & women. Which is worth it’s weight in gold. And we are the gold standard when it comes to the quality our personnel.
Thanks Robert as I’m losing the will to live…….😩👍
It’s getting a bit ridiculous at the min. Some new names popping up with some proper schoolboy opinions.
Exactly what I was thinking, don’t mind a bit of a laugh and banter but some child like chuff is coming about, sounding like the red top headline knowledge level.
The reality is western nations would not accept significant combat losses. So even if we had the depth to accept some form of attritional warfare we would not. Issues of dept are more about being able to sustain forces at a particular level over a particular time, without overly stretching and fatiguing them and making the other guys suffer the attrition.
Then, given your premise, where would we make a stand with an incursion into the Baltic States? Withdraw and wash our hands of it?
Hi David as for all of these issue it becomes a question of political will. Luckily I don’t have to answer that question, it’s for the poor guy or girl who’s priminister at the time And parliament. But I think we only have to look at Syria to understand where we are at present. remember National will to fight and take casualties changes over time.
Well, colour me cynical, but, I think political expediency comes into it as well.
Unfortunately, it often detracts from the heroic, sometimes ultimate, sacrefices made by our people at the coalface.
Your not being cynical if it’s evidenced in real life as normal.
We wouldn’t make a stand David…. Nato would…
The German’s thought they had the best kit. They certainly did not. What makes the best kit? Technology does not guarantee the best kit.
Germany had so many models and variations of equipment that it became a spares and repairs nightmare for them. Servicing in the field was at best problematic and worst impossible. Even the munition supply was struggling as there was little commonality across the field.
We too often think, wrongly, that Germany had the best kit. We need to define what best is.
Thanks Airborne.
Certain US senior officers and politicians made a case that the British Army in Iraq and Afghanistan was ineffective or ‘had failed’- I disagree but it was said by them repeatedly and earnestly, and we have to accept that we did not rack up tactical success after tactical success and leave strategically victorious. A lot of that was mainly due to lack of numbers throughout and initially inadequate kit, but there were other reasons.
I see the Navy on an upward trajectory from ‘The Year of the Navy’ in 2017 to today and beyond.
As we know, the Army is suffering from drastic manpower cutbacks and a very dated equipment inventory and not a lot of good news about on recapitalising fleets, certainly no signs of growing vehicle fleets or manpower.
Totally agree mate, as we ended up in Iraq doing a half hearted, half arsed job without the right kit, the right people allowed to do their job and the right numbers. If we do something we need to either do it right and with the will and ability to do it hard and if need be, nasty! Numbers do count and as I have harped on about many times we have no depth to take combat or even maintenance losses. That’s very different than being effective though, as we do have the right kit, people etc and with the right leadership, both political and military, we can be very very effective depending on task requirements. Cheers mate.
how did we not have the right? (by the way i am just curious) wasn’t it British tornados that took out some important airfields on the first day of the air war. and i maybe wrong but wasn’t it because of shity US commanders that the 1st armoured div ended up doing nothing on the first except maybe just scratch the iraqi.
Where did I say we didn’t have the right, read my comment once again and ingest the information mate.
sorry mate i ment right equipment
No worries mate, but nope we didn’t have the right kit for the insurgency afterwards, but we did have mostly the right kit for the land war.
Well its the most capable fleet out of all our allies and will soon have more firepower as they start righting some of the last 10 years of mistakes and cuts.
Show me a country except china/USA that can do more?
Yes we would like more but where does the money come from?
Cut your cloth to meet the available budget.
ya sure ineffective. like we totally don’t have the most well armoured tank on the planet, oh did i forget to mention that we don’t have one of the best sea based air defence assets, oh and we definitely don’t have world leading multirole aircraft.
Despite the smallness of all three services, we surely have the second best capability in NATO, overall, to the US.
Clearly nowhere near enough type 45s (or real equivalent). There must be something wrong with these b****y ships!
Channeling a bit of Jutland there are you?
The lessons of history that people never learn!
Sadly at one time we had a fleet of 400 odd ships, colonies & dockyards world wide, many of them I was lucky enough to visit during my service.
Yes but time changes and more importantly so has war. Everyone now has fewer men, platforms, weapons but they are far more destructive and capable, force multipliers, SF, the days of U.K. having 400 ships are long gone till we match usa defence spending. Until public see war isn’t a thing of past then that won’t happen
Same ol, same old. Short-sighted, narrow minded leadership. Then after feebly ‘negotiated’ agreements on what the UK can get away with, the ‘bean counters’ and hopeless procurement ‘operatives’ get involved.
The British Army couldn’t mount let alone sustain an operation like Afghanistan again. The Navy could possibly do another Falkland sized gig. The RAF … good for home defence … well actually no, not really … way too small for even that.
When it comes to the size of our armed forces … I am starting to wonder whether lots of commentators before me in this field were right after all.
Keep our noses out of things we no longer have the capability of getting involved with.
And … why oh why is our only carrier group on the other side of the planet. What good is that to UK defence. I vote to get HMG noses out of defence control. Just need to tied them up legally to maintain GDP-based budget. Seems to work that way with overseas aid.
Bang on, however HMG will never agree to get their noses out of the Military Procurement trough! If we are to continue down the road of ‘attempting to project’, we really do need either another QE type carrier, or maybe a couple of smaller types. Come back Ark Royal, all is forgiven.
MOD Bosses in charge of there own Budget without any process. spending taxpayer’s money on what they fancy. the last captain of QE couldn’t even pay his petrol in the ships car. give the a £B budget.
the ark royal was an over sized LDH (no offence to anyone who severed on it). the QEs are much better twice the number of aircraft, more updated sensors, and better looking frankly, (again no offence).
British Carrier groups exist to deploy globally – they do not patrol the Channel and the North Sea.
If you are going to stay local you don’t need a carrier, that’s what airfields are for. The point of a carrier is to deploy far away from home and provide an airfield.
… also only? We have *checks* another carrier. *check* another F-35 squadron *checks* more Darings and Iron Dukes *checks* and more Astutes. Soooo…. it seems like we have more than one Carrier Group.
Ummmm I think you will find that its HMGs job to actually defend the nation and oversea how public money is spent and ensure things like to armed forces are accountable to the electorate.
i mean that kinda that point of a carrier, to project power. no use just keeping it 2 miles from your shore. at least that what i think it is for. i sure Robert or gunbuster will correct me.
I hate to point out that the point of a CSG is to deploy world wide and stick our nose into trouble spots. If we stop u can kiss it all good by. If we aren’t on the seas pitching in to enforce western law and way of life why do we need f35 and carrier group? Government won’t pay for it to sit of U.K. coast u know.
Tom,
Interesting point about Afghanistan – it was only just over 6 years ago that we withdrew from the Op Herrick mission.
In what way has the army’s ability to mount a brigade-size operation diminished? All the army/joint enablers are still in place.
Could we really not deploy a brigade group of 5,000 – 6,000 plus a hundred or so individual posts and roulemont this every 6 months? [Herrick was 5,200 in 2013-2014 but had been higher previously at around 6,500+]
You really are getting me worried!
During the course of the whole operation, 2001-2014, over 100,000 UK forces were involved in Afghanistan. There are less than 74,000 in total in the British Army today, regardless of whatever spiel alleged ‘experts’ or government types come out with.
That 74,000 ish figure is not all combat troops. What the true strength of ‘boots on ground units’ is, I have no idea.
Most regiments in the British Army are undermanned, more now than ever before. There are those even looking at the reality of possibly having to combine regiments because of lack of numbers. It’s going on every day.
Fact, not one Guards Regiment is up to full strength! The premier units in the British Army cannot field an entire Regiment without the help from others!
It’s truly shocking, but not shocking enough for the powers that be, it makes no difference to them. When all said and done its all about money. 6,000 below the 80,000 ‘target’ or however they refer to it, is 6,000 salaries not required to be paid out.
Sounds cynical, however its the plain honest truth of the matter.
It’s only ever about 1/3-2/3 in relation to combat troops, CS and CSS. So the 74000 figure is a moot point as even with around 100,000 in the Army any of us did 3-4 plus tours of Afghan. Be aware that the combat support arms (CS) are made up of the RA and RE and these people do get involved in the thick of it (as do the Combat service support arms CSS certainly in the asymmetrical counter insurgency ops) so the line between these arms gets slimmer all the time. Not sure what you class as a “boots on the ground unit” just infantry? Armour? CS, CSS?
Also there has very rarely ever been an occasion when every Bn or Reg is fully manned (aside from the Parachute Regiment may I add) and that didn’t utilise Plt and Coy sized units to back fill for ops (even we have had to do that). Certainly not from the late 90s onwards when operations stated coming thick and much faster than ever before for the Army.
Not being derogatory in regard to your post, just really want to agree in regard to the fact we are limited in numbers but that has been going on for such a long time, it becomes the norm. Every review comes up with something different, some new concepts, new tech which can justify reducing the assets and people we have. Yes much of the tech can assist in deploying fewer assets and people but their will always be a minimum “cannot go below” line, but sadly I do think we are there now and any further reduction will make the Army as an organisation ineffective and ineffectual for any future tasks. Thank you and cheers.
I am totally aware of the supportive elements of Infantry. I was a long range sniper (RA) myself, so it was no deliberate attempt to ignore them.
To be totally honest with you, I support your view about the ineffectiveness … It’s just that I do believe we are at that point now, and no one in Government give’s a … fig about it.
Can the T23’s continue to be called anti-sub given that they can no longer directly sink an hostile sub. I believe they no longer have torpedos and are limited to using their helo’s if possible.
T23’s still have the onboard ASW weapons and can go on ALL of them. We need to add some to other Fleet units. and of course lets get the ASW helo fleet up to real numbers (double what we have now).
I read that the 2 tubes for the Stingrays had been removed. I am not aware for any other ASW carried, apart from Stingrays on their Wildcats..
Interesting comments reported in the FT from Lloyd Austin. He clearly doesn’t see a great deal of value in Britain’s tilt to Asia Pacific. Rather he would prefer European powers concentrate their limited resources closer to home to deter Russia. I obviously think he is right.
It is Not good either to have all our eggs in the European basket! Diverse some of our interest and activity to the Far East.
Russia is both a European & Asian power. If the European powers concentrate only on Europe, then perhaps USA & Canada should only concentrate on Asia? A number of European NATO members better up their defence spending, if that’s the case.
Canada’s forces are too small to do much in an area as vast as Asia-Pacific. They do very good UN peacekeeping – and more. Perhaps they should continue with the UN work and provide stronger High North/Arctic cover, with some Western Atlantic cover.
I wonder if our army is now strong enough to be more than a token force in defending Continental Europe and should just concentrate on the more distant expeditionary operations.
Fully agree about other European NATO members upping their defence expenditure.
Still the most effective in Europe….
Too true, which makes the RN second most effective in NATO – we still punch above our weight! I still think we need more ships, though.
George, I also saw the piece on state of the F-35 fleet. Perhaps we need a state of (meaning combat availability) the army’s various AFV fleets – I bet it would be sobering as so much kit is ancient and not modernised, so availability must be low, I would think.
This is lunacy, the so called most advanced destroyers in the world and the Royal Navy only has 1 of six ships available, I have never know a time in Royal Navy history when it places 66% of a major class of ships into maintenence leaving just 2 active ships and now one of those has got major issues.
We now have lost a Frigate on the quite, no announcements made..so down to 12 and soon to be 11 without replacements not being anywhere near available and now we learn they giving them to Greece so much for the minimum compliment of 19 Frigates and Destroyers all in the hope Greece will buy the type 31 Frigate.
How can the Navy do its job properly when it had already been cut into the bone.
If an aggressive nation wanted to start a war now we would have no chance with a high proportion of our combat ships out of action, its a joke how the Royal Navy has been treated