Construction has begun on the 57th segment of the 8,000-tonne HMS Glasgow, the first of eight Type 26 Frigates to be built on the Clyde.
The Royal Navy say that it’s almost two years to the day that work on Glasgow began in the yard on the Clyde, with many of the completed sections pieced together in one of BAE’s assembly halls.
“Work began on this last section of ship as another £100m of contracts were placed with the vast supply chain needed to build the world’s most advanced submarine hunter. Firms in Glasgow, Hartlepool, Nottingham and Dorset will provide a range of services and assistance with the construction of the class, including painting, cabling and insulation – work all essential to the outfitting of the ships – and the eventual float off when a barge lowers the frigates in the Clyde.”
The eight ships will replace the eight dedicated anti-submarine Type 23 frigates which will reach the end of their active lives by the mid 2030s. In addition five Type 31 general purpose frigates are intended to replace the general-duty Type 23s currently in service and also coming towards the end of their long careers.
Never fails to surprise me when an 8000 ton ship is described as a frigate.
Yes. But what new nomenclature should we have?
The Type 26 frigate’s primary role is anti-submarine warfare, so these types of vessels have traditionally been frigates in the past
True, but frigates in the Napoleon wars didn’t have that role, obviously.
Errrrmmmmm………..now you’re being daft.
Why ?
With a small number of ships quite often acting alone the ships really need to be multi-role and perhaps we could then call them “a necessity”. I suspect these submarine destroyers were originally something else and were quickly adapted to meet the new threat.
Originally they were torpedo boat destroyers.
Destroyers where originally “Torpedo Boat Destroyers” Torpedo boats where small steam powered boats armed with 1-2 torpedos that could meneace battleships, the TBD was meant to engage them well away from the Battleship and keep them from launching their torpedos. So they where slightly larger since they had to sail around the world with the fleet, rather than sit in a cove and wait for a few ships to sail past they could ambush, and had to be better armed than the TB since… well they had to win after they engaged them. the Torpedo Boat’s small size and limited… Read more »
and I realised I used ‘ instead of ” to denote inches just after I hit post…. that’ll teach me for posting in Imperial when my brain usually works in Metric. Of course all the gun and torpedo calibers are in inches not feet.
Succinct summary.
Interesting history. Thanks for posting.
I read here that even our B2s would have been destroyer sized in ww2.
Sound familiar? ?
“The Weapon-class destroyers was a class of destroyers built for the Royal Navy towards the end of World War II. They were the smaller counterpart to the Battle class (which followed them) and were the first new destroyer designs for the Royal Navy since the Second World War Emergency Programme. 20 ships were planned, of which only 13 were laid down and 7 were launched, but the cessation of hostilities resulted in only 4 being completed for service.”
I don’t think you are being fair. The war was over, hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded and millions were about to be demobbed. Thousands of planes and tanks and vehicles were on the point to be scrapped. Thousands of houses were bombed out.
The cuts then were due to the end of the war, after we had built up a vast fleet for a world war. So what ever we want to discuss about our future forces I don’t think it’s fair to compare with the end of ww2.
There are other confusions also to be fair. The capability of an aircraft, a tank, a ship are enhanced now, including their costs and complexities. We also have the inefficiencies of procuring these modern weapons.
My initial reply was tongue in cheek which I wrongly assumed people would understand!
The Battles were starting to be deployed in the Pacific in 1945. They preceded the Weapons which preceded the magnificent Darings. Even then people asked why the Darings weren’t called Cruisers with their 10 TTs and 6×4.5″ and bofors 40mm, A/S mortars etc. Fitted For and With.
Depending on what you class as a WW2 destroyer River B1’s are larger than many of them. Evarts Class DE = 1300t displacement, River B1= 1700t
Even a B1? Oh. Thanks. Not an area I have much knowledge on.
awwww my little history of the Destroyer seems to have been deleted 🙁
I do think we need to reclass our ships and roles!
If T31 is a (GP) Frigate,
Then surely the larger T26 should be a Destroyer ;P
The RN did reclass the type 26 It was originally known as the global combat ship before T26 I believe. For me we should have the following classes Global Combat Ship (T26 in all its flavours) Global Mission Ship (T31 in all its variants) Multi Mission Ship (replacement vessel for MCMV’s and rivers) For mr the last category is critical, as it is essentially a corvette. The navy could order 25 of these to replace the hunts, sandowns, rivers and echos’ and standardise on a platform such as the visby class which is composite hull, or something like the c-sword… Read more »
Too late now but it is exactly the ship classes you list – Hunt, Sandown, River (B1, Clyde & B2) and Echo – that I wish could be consolidated into a single class. Surely the streamlining of training, logistics and maintenance would have yielded significant savings from consolidating 6 separate classes (counting the Rivers as 3 classes) down to a single class? To me the missed opportunity was the forced-on-us River B2 builds due to the T26 delay and not having time (I assume) to select much other than an off-the-shelf design. I do realise that it is only a… Read more »
Actually Julian its not too late as we need to be planning now for the replacement f every ship. The navy should have a planning horizon of 25 years which literally means that when a new vessel is launched its replacement is scheduled into the build cycle. I know you have a commercial background and this all makes sense to you but it doesn’t seem to for HMG and the MOD. In NSS parlance this is grip and drumbeat. It also stabilises budgets and gives some confidence to industry who in turn must perform better. Using this process the uk… Read more »
Well, we’re definitely on the same page. I’d say that what it would also need where it to ever happen though is the “QEC defence”. I’m not sure if I would be giving the Government of the time too much credit for deliberately structuring the contract in such a way that, when a subsequent Government was looking at cancelling the second carrier it turned out that contractually that would have been more expensive that completing the build, but as the stories go that might just have been what saved the second carrier. Any UK government that were to commit to… Read more »
Julian, its the stop/start of our defence policy that’s possibly the most frustrating. Its just a massive pissing competition between the two parties and as defence is generally seen as a bit of a sideline there seems to be a lack of accountability/scrutiny. I know the MOD have been taken to task over recent projects (Good ! About bloody time) but we still don’t seem to be able to move away from short termism. While we wouldn’t need the numbers of the Arleigh Burkes, the idea of turning out the one platform that covers a number of bases (even if… Read more »
What drives this scatter brain approach is the election results, every 4-5 years someone new gets into number 10 and they have their own ideas. In my opinion, the M.O.D should be left alone and to follow their own path after cross party agreements.
Those in power should agree on a 10-20 year strategy and bloody well stick to it regardless of who wears the trousers. If we did that it should start settling things down and create a more stable department.
There’s a lot of sense in what you say but I can’t see any party going with it, especially just with defence, it might set alarm bells ringing about an unchecked military. They’re unlikely to do it with the NHS etc either as if all the departments were running themselves they’d be out of a job. I guess what we have is the downside of democracy.
https://www.bmt.org/news/2017/bmt-introduces-venari-85-a-revolutionary-mcm-concept-design/ Bit like this?
That’s the one Steve. There’s a lot more detail in this PDF document where about the first half of the document is a general discussion of mine warfare, USVs etc which is pretty interesting in itself … http://dsei.bmt.org/media/6889878/BMT-VENARI-85-Technical-Brief.pdf I am most definitely not an expert, I’m just someone who can see the attraction and benefits in terms of simplicity, flexibility and commonality of skills/training/maintenance procedures etc were it possible to consolidate multiple classes into one common class. I threw out my V85 observations for comment and challenge rather than as a “the MoD should have done this” statement that I… Read more »
I understand exactly what you mean but the M.O.D and the Royal Navy like to do things their own way, even if it’s at odds with everyone else in NATO.
Pacman27 – If a Corvette is required surely the MOD could just jump on the EPC (European Patrol Corvette) programme and hope it bares fruit.
I do have preferences on how to do this as most of us do, but ultimately the point is how can we get into a situation where we build ships to fill a gap in the schedule and for those ships to be the wrong type at the wrong cost. Ultimately I want the RN to get a grip on this and make sure this never happens again. I would be much happier if the 1FSL was given £10bn per year and told to get on with it. Same for the other services give them the budget and let them… Read more »
Nick Carter is your archetype senior officer of recent years and having listened to him being questioned by the Defence Select Committee I came to the conclusion he was selected by the politicians as CDS because he is ideal for them. How he got to the top of the UK military establishment is nothing short of amazing and a joke.
The RN had by far the best candidate but then most UK politicians struggle to get passed the ‘Battleship’ level of understanding.
I’ve never liked him to be honest, he’s a typical “yes man”…….unlike people like Lord Dannant and Mike Jackson. Because Dannant was openly critical of certain things the crappy Labour Party and their yes men were doing, they didn’t like it.
They treated Dannant like crap and Jock Stirrup even blocked him from being CGS because of things he’d said……even though everything Dannant said was 100% correct.
IIRC they never where classified as “Global Combat Ships.”
GCS was just a name for the Project, until the names “Type 26” and “City Class” where chosen. They where always going to be classed as Frigates.
Not sure what a C3 “armed to the teeth” translates to but if it means something similar to a light frigates armaments and sensors, along with the additional headcount of specialised personnel to support that capability, then I’d just standardise on the C2/T31 frigate platform for probably not much higher purchase and operating cost. The long legs and operating economy of the T31, combined with the higher sea state stability of the larger platform and number of potential roles given its mission bays and storage, seems far more suited to UK aspirations for increased global deployment and forward positioning. The… Read more »
Also long sea legs and maximum sea days per year are two things that the RN really needs from it’s OPV’s. Replacing the Rivers with something that is “armed to the teeth, and doesn’t have long sea legs” is the exact opposite of what is needed from that class of ship. Similar for MCMV, why do you need it to be armed to the teeth if all it is is a tug to deploy USVs and UUVs off? Wouldn’t it be better to fold that role into some sort of mothership like a LPD/MCMV-mothership hybrid? Personally my ideal view for… Read more »
Op Kipion in my view illustrates the challenge with our current fleet. We have nearly a third of our MCMV fleet on this one mission, plus a Bay and periodically a tanker. But currently we also have a T45 and T23 because the MCMV aren’t fast enough or adequately armed to provide safe deterrence as escorts in the current political climate and can’t carry a Wildcat. In future we might have a Bay, or even a Wave, operate as a mothership for the MCM mission, with 2x T31 for the escort role or additional host MCM capability if conditions allow.… Read more »
There is no T45 on Kipion.
There is however 2 x T23 at present along with 4 x MCMV and a Bay. i know this because i have been working on 4 of the 7 ships!
Thanks, I should have checked or just generically noted that deploying a T45 for this role has been relatively common in the past. The point as you noted is needing to have two escorts in addition to the MCMV and Bay.
Sounds to me like you have just justified the UK having a visiby class corvette, albeit with some slight modifications.
this would allow the escorts to move to other tasking.
Its fast, made of composite materials, well armed (or can be) and has a relatively small crew.
this design is capable of doing the MCM role and so much more.
Not trying to pick an argument Pacman but not sure how you arrived at my justifying a Visby class solution, its much too small and short ranged/short endurance for RN use beyond niche applications that would then limit broader RN flexibility. It also doesn’t have adequate air defence or hangar. That platform would also be likely to drive an increase in RFA logistics support to keep at sea if used beyond the local littoral domain it was designed for. If you address most of those issues then you end up with something more like the new Finnish Pohjanmaa class corvette,… Read more »
Small Vessels like the Visiby will be disadvantage in the future, with the coming of the age of laser warpons! They will Not have the capacity to meet the energy demands of high powered laser warpons and rail guns.
How would they defend themselves?
The USN have plans to produce a 600KW laser warpon.
Maybe so. There is always something else but unless a laser can take out 30 attack craft at once or in short order I do see the value in having a mixed fleet Lasers need power and I am sure they nines will continue to increase the efficiency of that is the case then a visit could have a laser You may well be right. But all I am doing ultimately looking for is a clear strategy for the surface fleet and funding aligned to this over 25years With 1bn pa we could order 13 T26 and 25 T31 and… Read more »
Can a Visby take out 30 attack craft all at once? A laser armed T45X fitted with Sampson would see them coming in good time, and launching longer range missiles first, and finishing off with both rail gun and laser.
Love to see this kind of show!
I read somewhere the RN has plans to fit a laser to the Type 26 frigate, above the hanger door, in the future.
I think the key to this discussion is that it isn’t a set of large numbers, the numbers are more or less the same as we have now, when taken across the fleet. My rationale for a corvette sized asset is that we need a set of assets and capabilities that allow for progression of command, whilst also offering cost effective solutions to low end tasking activities. It is with this in mind as well as the ability to maintain a key strategic capability that is driving the volumes. We must have the ability to absorb losses and our current… Read more »
Maybe I’m overlooking something but our fleet incl current plans seems to be 6x T45, 8x T26, 5x T31, 5x B2, 3x B1, 6x Hunt, 7x Sandown and 2x Echo, totaling 42x hulls. Your proposal of 13x C1 + 13x C2 + 25x C3 totals 51 hulls, which is significantly more hulls. I agree that our ambitions seem to either need more capable ships (not necessarily more ships) or we need to rein in those ambitions. Assuming the former though, doesn’t in my view drive the number of hulls, or the mix that you’re proposing. Say we replaced the 13x… Read more »
all fair comments and you can cut it differently if you wish to 13 of each class = 39 ships (a saving of 3 hulls) or we could go for 8 T26 (upgraded to AAW to replace the T45) cost £1.2bn each 13 T31 (to replace the T23 like for like) cost £400m each 25 corvettes cost £200m each. Total cost of each set up is as follows 3 x 13 = £23.4bn 8+13+25 = £18bn Now this is an increase in hulls (which is good) but a decrease in overall cost, which is also good. (assumption being T45 replacements… Read more »
I’ll spare you another long answer, but it seems in this proposal that you are giving up the T26 high end ASW capability for everything except CSG escort. Defaulting to T31 ASW for the rest, including North Atlantic doesn’t seem wise. I don’t disagree with MoD in general using multi-year spending commitments and budgets to get away from in-year budget balancing driving up the cost and reducing numbers/capabilities. However, I am guessing that the MoD might be hoping/expecting to see a reduction in T26 costs for the last 5 hulls, based on the increase in WW numbers helping to reduce… Read more »
I don’t have an issue with anything you are proposing GHF at least you are thinking about it. ultimately I have always been a massive supporter of the absalon and hutfieldt classes. Ultimately the difference between us is that I believe in a class around the 80-100m length in part for cost and in part to allow captains to gain experience as they move up the ladder. You also believe in long range for all assets and I don’t (but I do for T31 and T26) I suspect the RN could get something that meets both our requirements if they… Read more »
Fair enough. For me, as you may have gathered, flexibility is a key attribute for our GP platforms, both operationally and from an ability to scale a platforms capabilities up or down and that drives the T31 preference.
don’t get me wrong I really do think the T31 is amazing, but its a big step up from a P2000 to a T31 if we have nothing in between, and that is one of my concerns.
A C-Sword 90 or Visby are not only good platforms they do offer that step up and can do an awful lot of tasking.
I do veer between this and a T31/T26 only fleet, but it is that jump in capability and the cost differential that keeps bringing me back to a corvette.
I understand the “graduation” through smaller classes position because I’ve had similar thoughts in the past. But we already accept the absence of that with our nuclear submarine platforms, as do the USN and French submarine fleets, since none of us operate SSKs. If it was simply a case of seamanship of smaller versus larger surface ships, then the commercial world seems to handle that, since displacements of even large escorts are relatively small versus commercial vessels, and with far greater maneuverability. So I wonder if the maturing of personnel into larger more capable ships isn’t just a function of… Read more »
I’ve heard the Norwegian-built Skjold class Corvette is at the top of the best 😛
To be honest, if there is as you say a gap in the types then maybe a corvette like above may help and boost numbers.
A future B1 type vessel without a heli pad could have a extra gen to meet the demand of one light laser gun.
A future replacement of the T45, will need to be even bigger then a Type 26 frigate, to accommodate the energy generation and storage requirements of future high powered lasers and ‘rail guns’. The USN is already testing high powered lasers, and has plans to deploy them in the future.
Paceman points were fair enough untill you raised yours. But how big then do they (T45X) become? They are already touching 10,000 tonnes. How big does an ‘escort’ become before it becomes a capital ship? Is there a logic in putting a AA missile ship and a laser weapon on the same platform … assuming laser means are effective. There still seems to be a point for upgrading T26 to an AA role however.
I would say there is logic of having the AA missiles on the same platform as laser guns, if you already have a high powered rader system a successor to Sampson on the vessel.
It looks like a T45X will be approaching 15K tonnes to accommodate 2 MT 30 type gas gens + 6 Diesel gens, or even maybr powered by Hydrogen.
Well!! 15,000 tonnes? If we have to go that big then why not go for broke and build a 20,000 tonnes flat top of some sort that is flexible and could carry various types of helicopters? Such a ship is likely to be dedicated to a carrier group so surely it makes sense to be able to carry helos… even if in extremist.
A flattop would be un-suitable as a destoryer armed with lasers, the helo ops will most likely get in the way. And less space for missiles as well, I think.
You mean rerun the Invincible project?
Been there done that too many compromises.
Also we do have two state of the art flat tops.
What we need are 2 x Ocean specialist replacements…..which I suspect will eventually be merged with the Albion replacements……
Why bigger? The current T45 is not just having 2 new DG sets to replace the current ones but having a third DG set put into a machinery space that was never designed to have one. They can do that because they built them with lots of space. That Machinery space is big and pretty much empty. You could have put a squash court in it! Power generation is not the issue. Cooling systems for lasers are the issue ( they need a shed load of cooling) along with power storage be that flywheel or capacitor banks. Anyway, dont get… Read more »
Thanks for that info GB!
Could a T45 take another MT 30 Gas turbine? To give it another 35MW?
It look like in Hynes manual of T45, it was stuffed full!
If laser AAW systems develop to the point when they are viable (and hopefully in many aspects superior) all-weather alternatives to missiles at non-trivial ranges, or even just viable alternatives to CIWS but that must be at sufficient range for a missile disabled by the laser to not still have sufficient momentum to hit the ship carrying enough kinetic energy to do considerable damage, then I definitely agree that the power generation requirements and energy storage requirements will throw the whole shape and size of AAW vessels up in the air and may well end up with whatever generation of… Read more »
I’ve tried twice now to post two youtube links, but each time it disappears so presume it is the spam filter.
There are two short, but informative videos from Curious Driod that explain both Directed Energy Weapons and Rail Guns. It explains some of the physics that make these technologies a long way off and in some case probably not the solution for the future.
Rather than post the links again simply search: Will Directed Energy Weapons be the Future?
And
Electromagnetic Railguns – The U.S Military’s future Superguns – 200 mile range Mach 7 projectiles
Hi The Big Man…
“There are two … videos”
That might be your problem. I’ve found that if I put more than one link (to anything, not just to videos) in a comment it gets flagged for moderation and that can take a while such that sometimes I don’t even realise it has been approved and posted a day or two later. Now if I want to put in more than 1 link I do one in my main comment then immediately reply to my own comment with the second link.
Thanks for the pointer re the videos.
No, because in modern comenclature ‘Destroyer’ = AAW. As indicated here, size is no longer the arbiter. For instance, 18-19th Cen Frigates were essentially Cruisers, a complete turnaround to what we came to regard as such. Furthermore, previous naval generations would probably think we build nothing but Cruisers as major combatants nowadays. So, as long as the function is understood, probably best to go with the current flow.
Regards
Does it really matter? Call it a tug boat for all I care, what’s important is it’s role and capabilities.
You have a point – many European countries call their destroyer sized ships frigates. When in reality they are destroyers. I think a lot of this is political as they avoid using the ‘D’ word with their politicians and treasuries. Rather like us calling the Invincible class a ‘through-deck cruiser’.
We should call T26 Destroyers and T31 Frigates. The T26 is closer to a USN destroyer then a T23 given the big gun, mk41 vls.
A T26 frigate is still short of a USN destoryer with 96 Mk. 41 vls!
Yes it has a bigger gun, at least!
No John, the Royal Navy like to do things their own way. Look at the Type 45 as an example, it is huge for a Destroyer and is only focused on one thing really, air defence. Most other Navies have a destroyer that can multitask and are smaller than the Type 45, the US Navy Arleigh Burke as an example.
Why do the Royal Navy do this? I have absolutely no idea mate. They purposely design warships for one main role, it is at odds with almost everyone else but they do it regardless.
i think they were labelled a frigate to enable their construction, if they had been called destroyers they would never have been approved since we already have 6 destroyers, a bit of high level hoodwinking for the pen pushers
In ‘old money’ its a cruiser. Nothing wrong with that but maybe it says something about the warships ‘return on investment’. I think we will be looking at ‘loyal wingmen’ en masse screening the escorts.
What would the ‘loyal wingmen’ use as warpons?
In the same context of laser armed warships?
Good point, they will at least have some additional range to carry out a strike capability from carriers in future.
First sight of buddy store on MQ-25A unmanned refueller
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/first-sight-of-buddy-store-on-mq-25a-unmanned-refueller
It is a frigate, what else is it….a cruiser, destroyer?
The Royal Navy have been using Frigates in the ASW role for decades and as they’ve specifically designed the 26 as an upgrade on the ASW Type 23, it is……Ta Da!! ….FRIGATE.
Yes it is a larger than normal design, so it can multitask, but it is an exceptionally capable ASW frigate.
While frigates vary greatly in terms of size, many of the top frigates such as Russia’s Admiral Gorshkov class and Germany’s Sachsen class are smaller than destroyers, measuring in at around 130m-150m in length. They are roughly the same width as destroyer vessels. “The key distinction between frigates and destroyers is the size and, by extension, function,” says Dr Sidharth Kaushal, a research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies. “By virtue of being larger, destroyers can more easily carry and generate the power for more powerful high-resolution radar and a larger number of vertical… Read more »
This is true, but originally a “destroyer” was a torpedo boat destroyer… a quite small ship. I’ve been on HMS Cavalier, a 1940s destroyer, which is a bit over 2000t. It looked quite big to be at the time.
The size of these modern ships are as large as cruisers. The modern role of these ships are anti aircraft detection and defence, anti submarine search and destroy and general purpose ‘cruising’.
There also seem to be a plethora of names and acronyms for ‘amphibious’ flat tops. I suggest we bring back the “rating” system.
Agreed. We should not name the type by 70 year-old standards. An 8000 ton is a by-damn cruiser.
I don’t care what we call them. A real commitment would be take the number of 31’s up to at least eight and preferably ten. Job creation retention alone would make it worthwhile.
Me neither. What I care about is that just one Russian ‘frigate’ has enough bang on it to sink half our fleet. Reliability issues aside, they have a knack for squeezing weapons into every available space.
Then there’s China who have more long range anti ship missiles than we have credible counter missile defences.
What do these new ships have? A long gun that isn’t really effective for anything, a handful of medium range defence missiles and a will they won’t they 40 year old anti ship missile. Oh, and some 7.62 belt fed. Sweet.
Oh well at least they look prettier than the ship’s they will replace. Apparently that’s the priority across the pond these days.
Disagree with that Reaper , going by I what think Gunbuster said is that the Russian radar and weapon systems censors are inferior to NATO ships hence the fact Russian navy ships are jammed pack with weapons for a saturation attack.
There are No plans to fit the 40 year old Harpoon on the Type 26 frigate.
They will be fitted with Mk 41 VLS and Sea Ceptor.
It has not be decided what to arm the Mk 41 with yet.
The Russians stuff their warships with weapons knowing not all will reach their targets!
And that most of them don’t and therefore won’t work.
And that those that do work are so old hat that they are easy meat for ECM.
The Russian do a whole different style of FFBNW…….
And in the Falklands war we had just the same issues: Temperamental mark 8 4.5″guns, obsolete sea cats, salt encrusted jammed sea dart doors, no CIWS guns which were standard on Soviet ships, too few light AA guns(rectified after the war & then forgotten again-the 30mm we now use have barely any AA capability unless enemy aircraft hover nice & still). Plenty of our super duper, high tech kit failed at times or throughout. Even sea wolf was countered by weaving attackers. I doubt modern Russian or Chinese systems are that far behind ours & some probably exceed them. We… Read more »
I did not serve during Falklands, but did have access to files on missile performance beforehand (just about safe to mention now, I reckon). The outcome for the escorts at that time did not come as a total surprise, regrettably; but,conversely, I had confidence in the Carriers.
Still have, you may have noted.
Regards
The Falklands was a huge lessons learnt for the RN. All of the above points where rectified shortly thereafter. As I have said before I was on a T22 a few months after the end of the conflict testing the software mods that stopped weaving targets ámongst other things breaking lock …we also shot down an exocet on the same trial along with a large number of low level height keeper rushton targets simulating missile targets and the ubiquitous 4.5 inch shells fired at us. 30 mm guns are , to put it bluntly arse at AA. 4.5 Guns are… Read more »
I agree with hypersonic ASMs and you can also add anti-ship ballistic missiles. You need all your ducks to line up in a row to ensure the missile hits the target. Take Iran for instance they have stated that they have a ASBM capability! How will they target a CSG in the Arabian Sea? They have recently put a satellite up in to LEO which is equivalent in size to a Cubesat. If it has any surveillance capabilities, its resolution will be very poor, but its a start. They have had a series of launch failures prior to this one… Read more »
GB, I agree with your threat assessment of hypersonic weapons today, including maneuvering ballistic missiles; specifically the lack of adequate support systems to locate and target with low latency. The issue is what that threat looks like from perhaps 2030 onwards, when its possible that Russia and/or China may have the kill chain necessary; especially the latter which is able to afford to throw resources and money at the problem. Our defensive sensors, weapons and doctrine will have to address that threat. Russia and China would only need to implement low cost rocket launch capability (desirable but not necessary) in… Read more »
2 F35s could sink your frigate and they would not see them coming. Its airpower what we need and its appropriate missiles
Think you will find they would see them coming, just may not be able to target them.
It will also depend on the tactics the F35s are using? For example, I won’t expect a F35 to overfly a ship and drop a LGB Paveway let alone a dumb bomb on an operational warship. There will be a point where any radar will see the F35, but for a ship’s X band tracking radar, it will be significantly well within visual range. By which time the F35 will have already fired its weapons and bugged out.
Added to which one “clean” F35 with no external armaments can do all the sensing/targeting at higher altitude while a second F35 below the ship’s radar horizon can launch ASM, either from weapons bay or under wing stations.
Reliability issues aside….?
Think where they have to transit from – some of the worst weather conditions on the planet.
No wonder they want Tartus! Then there’s just the Med gauntlet to run…..
The all singing all dancing new frigate has a range of around 4500miles…thats HALF the range of a T23. The Russian navy is seriously lacking in suitable tanker and stores ship support. If you think the RFA is in a bad way look at Russia.
That said they do pack a lot of systems on ships. The new corvette/patrol craft have VLS systems for Cruise missiles. In effect these vessels have become mobile strategic systems capable of using Russia’s river systems to stay mobile and out of harms way.
I’m with you Geoffrey, no point getting bogged down in nomenclature, especially over the size of them. There has been a steady increase in size of vessels fulfilling a task over the years as we try and cram more stuff into them, it is what it is.
I agree on that as according to the RUSI papers… Dated November 2019, Requirements for the UK’s Amphibious Forces in the Future Operating Environment It states “Given that the LSG would likely deploy to regions where the Royal Navy retains a sustained presence, it may be assumed that a Type 23 or Type 31E frigate would already be on station and would therefore not excite much comment by appearing near the area of operations. However, by attaching the frigate to the LSG it would become possible to provide the force with some protection against attack by surface combatants or air… Read more »
A stockpile of 250 equates to $750,000,000 at 3M £586,326,825. Cost of 1x Type 26, £1Billion. Fitted to Typhoon, P-8 and Types 26 and 31, we could have a very useful deterrent! I’m sure the US would give us a good deal? AGM-158C LRASM “In service 2018 to present[1] Used by United States Navy United States Air Force Royal Australian Air Force Production history Designer DARPA Manufacturer Lockheed Martin Unit cost US$3,960,000[2] (FY 2021) $3 million[3] Specifications Mass 2,500 lb (1,100 kg) (air-launch)[4] 4,400 lb (2,000 kg) (w/ booster)[5] Warhead 1,000 lb (450 kg) blast-fragmentation penetrator[6] Maximum speed High-subsonic Launch… Read more »
Type 23’s in the offing for an AShM upgrade by 2023?
“The latest version of the Saab RBS15 Mk 4 ‘Gungnir’ (Odin’s Spear) looks closest to hitting the RN’s ‘sweet spot’ for price, size and punch.
Given that the I-SSGW must be fitted to Type 23 frigates (without massive modifications) and have terrain-following land attack capability, the possible candidates are being narrowed down to three likely options. All three of these potential candidates are subsonic, optimised for use in cluttered littoral environments, can follow complex attack profiles, use stealthy composite materials and are resistant to electronic countermeasures.”
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/more-details-emerge-about-plan-to-replace-royal-navy-harpoon-anti-ship-missile/
Of the three, I still favour the Kongsberg NSM/JSM. Some of the reasons are that it will have the software integration to fit internally on the F35A and C, but also externally on the Bs. Japan, Australia and I believe Norway are stumping up the integration costs. The integration software is rolled out to the whole F35 community. Therefore, for our F35Bs the main integration hurdle will already be done, so our costs should be much lower with just the weapon’s purchase, training and maintenance. The second reason is the issue concerning the rules of engagement (ROE), which currently states… Read more »
Cost of fitted for but not with equal 0 and i suspect that will be the purchase.
I fear as details of the new missiles are not beginning to come out, indicates that there is no plan.
I read this,
RBS 15 Gungnir missile guidance and navigation
The J-band active radar target seeker on-board the Gungnir is integrated with a highly accurate inertial navigation system (INS). The state-of-the-art target seeker offers all-weather operational capability. It provides a greater degree of precision while discriminating targets and engaging them even in the most adverse conditions.
“A new data link installed in the missile system enables the operators to retarget the missile during the flight. The missile is also equipped with an anti-jam global positioning system (GPS) and other advanced autonomous technologies that enhance its survivability.”
https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/rbs-15-gungnir-next-generation-anti-ship-missile/
“The surface launch version of RBS15 Gungnir uses the all-new RBS15 Mk4 Surface missile. This provides greater range, enhanced defence penetration and electronic protection as well as a more advanced target seeker, allowing it to engage any target, in all conditions. The RBS15 Mk4 Surface missile is used in both the sea system and the land system of RBS15 Gungnir. It is designed to provide commonality through easy integration on both land- and sea-based platforms of almost any size. The system is fully backwards compatible, so an investment in Mk3 today opens a smooth path to transition into Gungnir tomorrow.”… Read more »
The issue is still the “basic” radar it uses as a primary seeker. If you look at the LRASM it uses two sensors to home in on the target. It uses passive imaging infra-red (IIR) as its primary sensor, but is backed up with a passive radar surveillance sensor. It also has a two way data-link so the operator can see what the missile sees. The IIR sensor will look at the image and compare it with a stored library image (same as NSM). The RF homer can lock -on to either a ship’s radar or its radio broadcasts. The… Read more »
In short, you get what you pay for hence the reason for potentially opting for the RBS15 Gungnir Mk4 as the article on STRN tends to imply!
As I’ve already suggested above, a stockpile of LRASM and accompanying MK41 VLS would give us a very useful deterrent/strike capability.
For ASMs available today, I’d place the LRASM at the top of the shopping list, followed by NSM, before I had to choose a radar guided version. Mainly because the LRASM and NSM observe the current ROE and have a stealthy approach to the target, thereby having the greater chance of getting past a ship’s defences.
Can NSM, or any of the other contenders for that matter, be launched vertically from a Mk41? There seems to be plenty of space on a T31 for 2 x quad canister launchers but I’m not so sure about T26 – unless we get to the point where T26 goes into service still with the MoD having procured nothing to go into the Mk41 silos in which case maybe we could just put some deck plating over the 24 x Mk41 tubes and mount canister launchers there. (That last bit was a joke – or at least I hope it… Read more »
Quad (4) NSMs at 35cm diameter each, will Not fit in a Mk. 41 at 53.3cm diameter.
2 NSM standing side by side will take up at least 70cm!
I wasn’t suggesting quad-packing but I can see why, when I was talking about the standard deck-mounted 45-degree canister launchers (which are quad), it might have been confusing and you thought I was asking about a VLS quad pack whereas I was actually asking whether NSM was mk41 certified at all e.g. as a 1-per Mk41 tube munition because if it’s not then I don’t see how a T26 could use them apart from my tongue-in-cheek suggestion of plating over the top of the Mk41 silo and bolting down canister launchers there.
Might be able to squeeze in canister launch NSM above the T26 mission bay, aft the second silo of CAMM missiles. But I suspect the intent would be to wait and qualify Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASW) for the MK41, not NSM. I can’t see anyone else qual’ing NSM for MK41 myself.
Yes Julian, I did misunderstood you! Yes the Harpoon launchers are in quads. I would thought NSM would be certified for Mk 41. The the Mk41 silos on Type 26 are very close to the Sea Ceptor silos, so I very much doubt the RN will plate them over! there is an area at the rear of ship, for box launchers forward of the hanger near rear twin masks.
The Destroyer/frigate thing differs from country to country. In the UK its a job description so Frigates= ASW and GP work. Destroyers = AAW. Dit on….One of the Batch 3 T22s which was a hugely up armed version of the original T22 B1 and B2, once sailed into Guzz having rolled down a canvas cover with a large C painted on it to cover up the F in front of the pennant number. Much fun and guffawing was had by all in the dockyard except the CO who was invited for a cup of coffee with a group of Admirals… Read more »
It is an optics thing as well.
Cruisers say big and expensive – which then leads to “let’s make them smaller and cheaper”.
Frigates are “smaller“ vessels – remember T23, according to the idiot Sir John Knott, economy frigate?
Bigger is
-easier to maintain, just move around in to fix things in a hurry.
-more flexible in future rearming & up arming.
-more stable and therefore taller mast & a higher radar horizon.
-more survivable as it has more compartments.
-better living conditions on board….
Hi Supportive Bloke,
I would suggest that Cheaper to maintain as well. That was something that was finally learnt with the Astute class SSN’s and appears to have migrated to the surface fleet with the T45 and T26 classes.
Steel is cheap, space is free, so even if you don’t immediately arm them to the teeth you get lots of war potential and sheaper running costs. Not mention the improved living standards on board certainly helps with crew fatigue and might contribute to keeping some in the service longer…
Cheers CR
While I completely understand the discipline issue, the wider UK naval community, from sailors to naval historians, do seem to have an actual hatred of cruisers and battleships. Other than the occasional field-day by aircraft in WW2 (often exaggerated) leaving a historical and institutional trauma, I can’t understand why. I’ve read widely on this issue and it confuses me a bit.
I apologies, I am off topic, but I have just read in “Defence News”, that UK has signed a $630 million deal for a secure communication satellite Skynet6. More even to that, this is part of a $7.5 billion project. I do not recall this being mentioned on tv or newspaper news… yet it is an enormous project which is to replace/update Skynet5. They receive little comment. My other point is that these satellites are vital and we forget about them, but the MoD are spending large sums on them and it involves ground stations in places like Australia. My… Read more »
There’s a recent article on this site about the Skynet 6A announcement – https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-awards-skynet-6a-military-comms-satellite-contract/ I agree it’s important but the news that seems to have 100% slipped under the radar here, apart from a very few commentators including me mentioning it in off-topic comments on other articles, is the Oneweb investment. That has the potential to be one of the most significant developments in UK military comms in at least the last 50 years or so. It could all go horribly wrong of course but if it yields the results that I hope it will then it could result in… Read more »
Hi Julian,
The golden share is interesting and supports what you suggest re the military communications etc. I would suggest that they would probably need to up their security systems if the UK was to use the network for critical secure communications (even if the signals were encoded prior to transmission).
I have also seen a number of reports quoting experts in the field suggesting that the network is too low to be effective using existing GPS architectures / systems so is a high risk option in this regard.
Cheers CR
This is interesting as post COVID/Brexit I do think we need a sovereign wealth fund to invest in and take benefit from strategic investments. We should be looking into quantum computing and other areas that derive strategic benefits.
So from my perspective a very good investment
Yes, yes, yes! i agree we desperately need a Sovereign Wealth fund. We also need an industrial strategy that recognizes the need to keep spend within the UK economy and nurture strategic tech, infrastructure, and resources. Some much defence expenditure is on stuff that fritters money away to overseas. So many of our companies are now foreign ownned. Should be a limit on ownership and take-overs. e,g, should never have sold ARM etc.
Yes ARM should of have stayed in British hands, if so will could of denied the Chinese the use of Android, and produce our own Android phones.
D. Cameron was very short sighted indeed!
Also, if the UK had control over ARM, start manufacture ARM microprocessors and rise the security strandeds to make hecking harder to do.
I think you may misunderstand ARM’s business. ARM doesn’t make or have others make processors on its behalf that it then sells. It designs processor building blocks and then licenses the IP to others to use in their own designs. Also a lot more to building the SOC for a cell phone than just the processor, Qualcomm controls a lot of that other IP.
Hi GHF – You beat me to the draw on the ARM business model clarification. In fact ARM offers two types of licence, the first is licensing those ARM-designed processor building blocks that you spoke about but there is another licence under which it licenses the right to create a design based on the ARM instruction set so essentially it is just the permission to copy the instruction set that it is licensing. Apple for instance has actually progressed through those two types of licence during its implementation of the ARM architecture(s). Apple’s early A series chips in its earlier… Read more »
Hi Julian. I was tempted to post about the two tier licensing but a combination of laziness and lack of detailed knowledge forestalled that. I also understood the architecture license is very expensive and so is taken up by very few. Don’t quote me but I believe it also requires periodic renewal and is not just a one-off.
Hi CR. Actually, there have been some limited-geographical-area experiments with LEO GPS and in some ways it’s better than MEO GPS since the reduced height means much better signal strength on the ground so better indoor performance, harder to jam, and also with constellations being so much bigger there tend to be more satellites within view at any one time and more redundancy. The biggest issue seems to be getting the positional accuracy as precise as the more traditional MEO systems since part of that equation is knowing the position of all the satellites very accurately at all times and… Read more »
Hi Julian. Upvote for perseverance on this topic. Much more interesting that how big the gun should be on [insert name of air, sea, ground platform of choice]. As to determining accurate location of LEO satellite. If LEO satellites implement satellite-to-satellite laser communication as planned then they will need 3-D space location data, where each satellite will need to know its own and adjacent satellite locations precisely. I suspect that location data will come primarily from knowing precise locations for “ground stations” for at least part of each orbit, i.e. the inverse of the usual GPS mode where its the… Read more »
Hi Julian,
Thanks for that comprehensive reply, very interesting.
I am also very pleased that the UK is being ambitious and hope that a coherent space programme continues to evolve going forward. The UK Space Agency appears to be increasingly effective at co-ordinating what is a rapidly growing space UK space effort at least in terms of scope. Not sure about Government funding, but there certainly seems to be considerable commercial interest in the UK space programme, which is quite an achievement for the Agency.
Cheers CR
Hi CR. Some of those experts might not be as knowledgeable as they suppose. The linked article discusses US planned use of LEO satellites for hypersonic advanced warning system and includes the following, “Agency officials envision the Navigation Layer to provide US armed forces alternative position, navigation, and timing (A-PNT) capabilities in GPS-denied environments” … and we could probably do with a hypersonic missile warning system too. The UK’s OneWeb investment may provide multiple options for future tie ins. 1) Piggyback on current planned satellite network for military comms and as soft power benefit for comms in poorer nations. 2)… Read more »
Hi Glass Half Full, Your detailed post of the potential challenges for generating accurate satellite locations highlights what the experts were alluding to I think. They did say that the LEO system was a higher risk rather than impossible. I personally do not have a problem with taking technical or indeed commercial risks provided due diligence is undertaken and everyone understands that failure is a possibility. In the technical arena its called research and development and failure is part of the learning process implicit in R&D. Of course, in politicals failure invites a good (verbal) kicking in PM questions, but… Read more »
Yes, I also think this is an appropriate level of risk especially because the consequences of failure are potentially still so good let alone the consequences of success. If the potential GPS accuracy issue can be addressed to deliver a system that is as accurate as US/Galileo MEO systems then we would not just get our own fully-capable sovereign GPS system but would very possibly also leapfrog everyone else’s system because we’d have better signal strengths on the ground (better indoor performance and more resistant to local jamming) and with a much bigger constellation size it might well be more… Read more »
Hi Julian,
Nice summing up, mate, and I totally agree.
I’ll have a read of the paper, thanks for the link.
Cheers CR
Hopefully the example of SpaceX’s success by embracing failure as an acceptable cost of rapid and low cost development will help in addressing critics. It does seem like a number of key enablers are coming together around LEO capabilities for the UK space industry. A low cost, efficient “conventional” two stage launch vehicle from Orbex, local to the Scottish space port. The less conventional Virgin launch platform (and perhaps a future Reaction engine powered version if the technology matures) that may provide a more robust and less weather dependent horizontal runway launch capability from Cornwall, eliminating the conventional first stage.… Read more »
Hi Glass Half Full,
I wasn’t aware of the Carbonite-2 mission I obviously need to do some reading 🙂
SSTL are an impressive organisation – wholly owned by Airbus I see. Lets hope it stays in the UK as so many of our industrial assets have been off-shored.
Cheers CR
I wonder if this was the reason which prompted the recent UK response for the alleged testing of a space weapon by Russia?
“UK and US say Russia fired a satellite weapon in space”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53518238
My guess is coincidence. This isn’t actually new. It’s the first time that Russia have done such a test but China created a similar outcry way back in 2007 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_missile_test). The concern then, and I think now, was the space debris that such tests create. It was estimated that just that single test added 150,000 pieces of orbital debris and that stuff isn’t all trackable and can damage other satellites and manned missions. Presumably the recent Russian test also added tens or hundreds of extra chunks of orbital debris into the equation. The nightmare scenario is that this escalates out… Read more »
Clearly the smart option is to be able to disrupt communications between the ground stations and the satellites they control during a period of conflict?
No doubt all sides will be working towards this too!
Are the Russians ‘mining’ the atmosphere with debris?
SKYNET 5 was a success story. New satellites, ground stations and SCOT systems for the RN. They even rent out bandwidth to other navies to use on the system. If SKYNET 6 follows the same way all will be fairly good. If they sort out the cost of bandwidth over the system which was costing a huge amount then it will be Very Good. Nobody quite envisioned the amount of sat time that everyone would suddenly want . Rear Link pictures, data links, voice, Video links, telephone, Intel links, 5 Eyes data, Navy Star, UMMS, Modnet and especially all the… Read more »
Gunbuster, Satcom is generally pretty good and Command seem to favour it for most long range comms. While a lot of the ‘black art’ has been removed from HF it can still be more affected by atmospherics. Its great to have options of course but I can’t see past satcom being the preferred option for a while yet.
As Julian sort of hinted above satellites can be very vulnerable to a direct kinetic attack. The do have a reserve of fuel on board to maintain station, which can be used to change altitude, to move them further out of harms way. But this reserve is limited and once used up can’t be restocked (at present). Beyond line of sight (BLOS) communications predominantly use HF or the lower end of the VHF bands. Both of these suffer from atmospheric degradation. However, there is another issue using these frequencies which is the lower bandwidth and the slower data handling speeds.… Read more »
And there’s Oneweb which potentially has huge overlap with both Zephyr and cubesats but particularly the later. In a test in July last year with the relatively few LEO sats already in orbit OneWeb demonstrated a persistent >400Mbps 32mS average latency point-to-point data stream which included seamless hand-off between satellites. I can see Zephyr still having a place as an as-required additional deployment but with an initial constellation of 648 1m x 1m x 1.3m 150kg satellites (which is about what the Oneweb sats are) that should have a lot more capability than a typical cubesat cluster with constant 24/7… Read more »
French have a similar system called Syracuse which is the product of a joint venture between France and Italy. They also lease spare bandwidth to third parties. I don’t know how Skynet and Syracuse compare but i would expect Skynet 6 to put us ahead of the game again. Satellites is something we do well and another very stupid move by BAE Systems to sell out of them like they did over commercial aviation.
I am a bit puzzled. These look like photos of the same sections that were shown a few weeks ago Sure they are not of the 57th section that is the subject of the article?
*Surely
I’d guess limited publicly available (and royalty free) photographs simply means that the choice is: use old pictures or use no pictures.
I think you’re right!
Not complaining, George does a terrific job and getting better with every passing year.
Off-topic I know, but some more good news for our armed forces!
“Household Cavalry Regiment receives British Army’s first Ares AFVs”
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/household-cavalry-regiment-receives-british-armys-first-ares-afvs
Saw the video of them have a play about with it 😛
They do look good and would love to get up close to them and have a look
Am I right in thinking the machine gun is removed and to be fitted whenever?
Most APC’s machine guns are removed and stored in armouries (at least in the British Army) when not in use.
Think about it: Imagine the fall out if someone stole a machine gun off a APC in the vehicle park? For legal purposes you’d probably have to have someone stagging on the vehicle park 24/7.
Well yes, that would be a normal procedure but with them being shown to the camera’s and people doing write-ups I thought they might have put the guns on for a bit a show.
But we have progress and some nice shiny kit that is the future. ;P
Depends on the situation, eg here it looks like they’re being unloaded from transports after a road move. I’d have questions if someone decided to leave the weapons systems mounted for a road move on civilian roads.
That’s assuming that where-ever they’ve come from has a stocked armoury, and if the press has been invited to witness their delivery I can’t realistically picture everyone pausing, opening up the armoury, getting a bunch of guns out, fitting them to the Ares’s and then telling the press “okay you can take pictures now.”
On a semi connected topic, I’m surprised there hasnt’ been a post here on the debate going on around the British deployment to Mali. Based on what i have read and quotes from General’s etc, it seems we are deploying troops to a insurgency war again with inadequate equipment. If reported correctly the decision has been made that we do not have any appropriately armored vehicles to travel on sand and so instead we will use the much more dangerous roads. Additionally as the decision to cut the Mastiff has been made, they will be using less armoured but faster… Read more »
Don’t know enought about it in terms of mission objectives etc to have a huge opinion on it tbh. I know Light Dragoons and Anglians are usually equipped with foxhounds and Jackals so that might be a reason for it. As for Jackal being less armoured than than Mastiff yeah, but it’s still a vehicle purpose designed to deal with IED strikes, as is Foxhound so it’s not like they’re driving around in WIMIK’s (besides Mastiff is a very big heavy vehicle, so if you’re complaint is you can’t go offroad, switching to Mastiff really will not help). My *ASSUMPTION*… Read more »
I would not want to be going into a counter insurgency warfare, where ambush and IED is the main style of combat, in a vehicle that is mainly open and providing the crew with very little side protection and one that failed to protect soldiers against IED. At least the Mostiff had proven success at keeping soldiers alive. Both options are meant to be poorly designed to go off-road in sand, so if they are going to have to be stuck on roads either way (more predictable routes, easier to plan ambushes), then a little slower and a lot more… Read more »
Well it seems you’ve made up your mind based on very limited publicly available information, and nothing I will say will change your mind Steve. But for what it’s worth: I will point out that Jackal was specifically designed for a counter insurgency war in which ambush and IED was predominant, and it did well enough for us to want to retain it afterwards. (Igonroing the fact that by far not all of Mali is impassible sand dunes). Again the equipment picked suggests primarily a scouting/find mission, something Mastiff is TERRIBLE for. As for Foxhound: You do understand that Foxhound… Read more »
The Mali situation is a good topic to discuss and like our intervention long overdue!
As far as I know, UKSF is likely already there or on their way.
Says they will report on the situation there
Then we send 250 to help in a “non-combat role”
Conducting patrols in Jackal vehicles to provide situational awareness and intelligence
Not sure what other vehicles are being sent as mention think they also use Foxhound
So point at the enemy and tell the French where to shoot?
Heard conflicting stories on what they can do…
Judging by what the French have been using in both Chad and Mali. I’d say about 95% if not all of their combat vehicles are wheeled. They range from the ALTV which is a bit like a Hilux with a WIMIK kit on it, to AMX10s, Griffons (bit like a Mastiff), Sherpa light trucks, VBLs and VABs. They have even deployed their new 8×8 VCBIs. The topography of Mali is very mixed. The country can be divided in to three parts. The majority of the country (about 2/3) in the north is desert and part of the Sahara. The remaining… Read more »
My assumption is the British forces will be targeted when they deploy, as any sensible opposition would want to get some early casualties, in to ensure there is a negative public view about deploying more troops. I would think a scouting role, is ideal for this, as the troops will be operating in less controlled territories and likely isolated from support. I am actually pretty surprised post Iraq/Afgan that there was any political desire to send troops into another combat role (not just training soldiers in bases). On the flip side the French casualties are pretty light so far, so… Read more »
Initially there was not a requirement for boots on the ground. As part of a UK/French agreement we would provide helicopter support in exchange for maritime support of our ( continuously at sea deterrent (CASD). As expected, the situation on the ground has changed. I have a number of friends operating in Mali now. The British contingent are centred around Gao in the south east of the country. They are part of a multi-national force headed by France. What was once a local Malian dispute has turned far nastier. As there has been an influx of islamist fighters who have… Read more »
Aagghh…..A Royal Navy ship being built on the Clyde, it is yet another example of the UK London based government forgetting, ignoring, victimising, persecuting the Scottish people……or so the loony left SNP will have you believe.
Other shipyard workers from around the rest of the British Isles would saw their left arm off to have the guaranteed work like the Scots have been getting. They’ve had billions and billions worth of work and it’s going to continue by the looks of it, I’m not anti Scottish at all but this subject and the SNP seriously p@$s me off.