Norway's £10B UK frigate deal could delay Royal Navy ships Norway has ordered British-made Type 26 frigates in a contract valued at roughly £10 billion to the UK economy, but this may delay the introduction of the Royal Navy's own desperately needed ships. The agreement announced yesterday will see at least five of the submarine-hunting warships built at BAE Systems' Glasgow shipyards …
Delaying delivery of a vessel to the RN so that the Royal Norwegian Navy get a vessel earlier is not at all a problem.
Realistically, the Royal Navy has still to overcome it's manpower problems which seem to be more fundamental than the age of its ships (though the age of ships is an issue), so this gives them more time to sort out recruitment, while given how close UK and Norway tend to be on defence matters, each navy will tend to support the other anyway.
The deployment of the UK's two aircraft carriers routinely includes one or more vessels from the UK's alliance partners - the current PoW Carrier Strike Group includes a Royal Norwegian Navy vessel.
Instead of a fleet of 8 Type 26's crewed by Brits, there will now be a fleet of 13 Type 26's manned by Brits and Norwegians. That's good for both nations.
The manpower problems won't be resolved any time soon, because (if we accept various recent surveys) the majority of young people of today aren't actually willing to fight for their country. Successive governments (and much of the media) seem to have pulled every possible lever to undermine patriotism in general, and the military as a career, and the Tories even sabotaged military recruitment by giving it to Crapita. Youngsters now aspire be social media influencers, work (somehow) in sports, or "creative media".
>> because (if we accept various recent surveys) the majority of young people of today aren't actually willing to fight for their country.
Why do you think Sunak was so keen on National Service? The softened option, not at all compulsory (until it becomes compulsory). With moneybag Tories like General Sunak at the top, and all the plebs at the bottom. Over the top you go, yelled Sunak. I'll be right behind you. About a thousand miles.
It is a difficult question - why would young people fight for this country? It's a half-arsed democracy, unjust, unfair, very little freedom, full of hypocrisy, with very little stakes for the average Joe.
Why do you think Sunak was so keen on National Service?
Because it appeals to the sort of people who are voting for the ascendent Reform party who will tell you "back in my day" - even though most of them are too young to have done NS themselves and don't even understand why we had it (not for national security!).1
It didn't have to make sense - the Tories are running terrified of Farage and have no ideas of their own, so just offer a watered-down version in the hope of clinging onto right-leaning centrists. It's not like they were ever going to have to figure out how the British Army were actually going to accommodate 50,000 NS personnel when they can barely accommodate their regulars.
Of course the right-leaning centrists are now voting Labour or Lib Dem because the Overton Window has moved wholesale to the right, and anyone who actually leans left is looking at the Greens (who, amazingly, had the most competent manifesto at the last GE - proposed to engage in infrastructure renewal and investment, whilst working to insulate the UK from global energy/gas price fluctuations!).
1. The point of National Service was to tie up young people for 12-18 months when they left school, which is why most people who actually did it will tell you that it was an utterly pointless waste of their life - square bashing and (re)painting the kerbstones on the parade ground. At the end of WW1, we repatriated the bulk of the British forces, which then created a socio-economic crisis. Aside from the economic difficulties of transitioning to a peacetime economy, the women who had joined the workforce found they quite liked their economic independence and didn't want to "get back in the kitchen". This led to all sorts of unpleasantness, including the abuse of women in the street of "you're taking a job from a man!", even when they were just working on the cosmetics or lingerie counter in a department store. There were also difficulties with apprenticeships and education - servicemen who had been called up during the war when they turned 18 were now looking to come back and take up an apprenticeship, attend university or otherwise enter the workforce. They were in competition with all the 16-18 year olds trying to do the same. Having learnt from this, NS was introduced in WW2 as part of our conscription mechanism, but then latterly to tie up young men who hadn't served. This left a load of capacity in universities and the workforce to soak up these returning troops. The fact we had to set up British Forces Germany to face off the Soviet Union was also quite handy as it provided an excuse to retain some people operationally in Germany. By varying NS from 6-18 months depending on trade they evened out lumps, and they also tried to slow down the repatriation of some troops - my great uncle flew naval Spitfires and spent 6 months on Bondi beach sunning himself on the Navy's account. Notionally it was because the RN were busy repatriating POWs from Japan - and certainly they prioritised wounded and POWs. But it also meant he missed that year's intake and deferred his university entry to medical school another year, smoothing the curve. They were probably also hoping that a few people would choose to stay in the Antipodes permanently.
Of course some NS personnel - particularly those without a trade who ended up as infantry - had really bad luck and ended up being deployed to Korea or other combat theatres.
Although NS notionally ended in 1963, it was being wound down by 1957, at which point the UK economy was back on a more level footing and the new world order was settled.
"Of course the right-leaning centrists are now voting Labour or Lib Dem because the Overton Window has moved wholesale to the right, and anyone who actually leans left is looking at the Greens (who, amazingly, had the most competent manifesto at the last GE - proposed to engage in infrastructure renewal and investment, whilst working to insulate the UK from global energy/gas price fluctuations!)."
I find it is more likely to be Lib Dem as Labour are too authortarian. Actually locally, a lot have gone Green.
Ex Conservative Centrists are also more likely to be pro EU, as I said what is the difference between Sunak and Starmer, both are similar placed about EU. Well it wound up a Labour supporter!
Everyone should be running scared of a jingoistic opportunist like Farage.
Farage isn't the one currently escalating the situation with Russia and talking about deploying trip-wire forces to Ukraine. Unsuprisingly, our youth take one look at the conditions in Ukraine and go 'Nope, you first'.
Not according to JE and his vatnik friends. Its always Ukraines fault. A bit like its always the womens fault because how they dress when they are raped.
Ah, the local khokhol stoops ever lower with his baseless insults. Will you be attending Parubiy's funeral? Curious the way when his death was reported, it didn't mention his neo-nazi background, or his involvement in creating the 'Heavenly Hundred'. His death will be blamed on Russia, but he was one of those chaps that knew too much.
The angry thumbs might want to try educating themselves on some history, and Parubiy's role in creating it-
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-67121-0_4
This chapter analyzes interviews and statements in the Ukrainian and other media and social media after the Maidan massacre of the Maidan protesters and the police by several hundred witnesses, primarily eyewitnesses among Maidan activists and journalists, concerning Maidan snipers, snipers in the Maidan-controlled buildings, and other evidence of the false-flag massacre in downtown Kyiv in Ukraine on February 18–20, 2014. It also examines interviews and statements by 14 self-admitted members of Maidan sniper groups, in particular, about shooting the police and the protesters in various media and the social media. Many Maidan activists and self-admitted snipers publicly stated that they witnessed involvement of specific top Maidan leaders from the oligarchic parties and far-right organizations in the massacre.
It's rather sad that at the time, the Bbc reported about the snipers in the Maidan controlled hotel, yet-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjw6ep37469o
Parubiy was a pivotal figure in the Euromaidan movement, which began after Yanukovych's government refused to sign an association agreement with the EU in late 2013.
He organised and co-ordinated Maidan's "self-defence" - armed teams of protesters who guarded the sprawling tent camp in the heart of the capital Kyiv.
Which kinda glosses over the way Parubiy also organised the snipers..
"most people who actually did it will tell you that it was an utterly pointless waste of their life "
I'm just young enough to have missed it and was quite happy it turned out that way. OTOH I have some cousins who were caught up. One had a couple of years in, I think, the merchant navy and one in the RAF (non-flying) The both enjoyed it, the RAF one was involved with the reserves running the local air cadets for most of the rest of his life. Another was in the army and a bit younger. He ended up in the Korean war and was, I think, affected by it for the rest of his life. It doesn't pay to generalise.
The both enjoyed it, the RAF one was involved with the reserves running the local air cadets for most of the rest of his life. Another was in the army and a bit younger. He ended up in the Korean war and was, I think, affected by it for the rest of his life. It doesn't pay to generalise.
Well yes, there were a diversity of experiences, and of course some people would have been joining the military anyway, so NS was just an early start for that.
If you had some skill - like you did target shooting as a child and aced your range qualification, then you might indeed get picked up and put on a cadet training team, spending your time shooting and coaching at Her Majesty's expense, maybe even getting to accompany the Athelings and cadet teams on overseas tours. Nice if you can get it, but those slots are rare. I do know one chap who had done a diesel engine maintenance apprenticeship before his NS came up and because of that skill he got shipped overseas for 6 months fixing bulldozers on a runway maintenance project. So got to use his civvie skill instead of atrophying, whilst sunning himself in a warmer clime. Nice if you can get it, but also quite atypical. He didn't think any of his schoolmates got anything interesting on their NS.
But some poor sods got sent into actual combat (Korea). For the good and bad at either end, probably the 80th percentile in the middle were bored out of the skulls and just wanted to get on with life. My mum - as a post-grad researcher had a number of slightly older male colleagues who had done NS and they had uniformly spent the time bored, doing make-work, waiting to be allowed to go to uni.
So yes, some people enjoyed it. But we can also generalise about the average experience - which was just time-wasting to delay people from entering the workforce or uni whilst the economy transitioned.
It's a half-arsed democracy, unjust, unfair, very little freedom, full of hypocrisy, with very little stakes for the average Joe.
It's a democracy that (as David Mitchell put it) kept vomiting out the shit PMs.... seems better than many others. Some places may only have a president for 4 years, but they're impossible to get rid of.
As for the 'fairness' and 'hypocracy', that's been there since the year dot. That's what humans are... cunts. (See virtually all episodes of 'Yes Minister' for examples...)
I do take issues with 'very little freedom' though? What can't you do that you wish to do in the U.K. that you're free to do in other countries? Where would you rather live?
This country's very run down at the moment and a lot of people are pissed off, but I'm not sure there's a huge lack of freedom?
e.g. We don't in the UK have freedom of speech, but I'm happy to criticise our government, much more than I would if I were a US citizen in the US at the moment, especially if I was a US citizen of the wrong 'background' or gender.
A lot of the issue is perception: News reports and social media conveying messages that are often misleading if not outright lies. This shapes perception and people are inclined to believe what fits their world view, and disbelieve anything that is contrary to that.
People see Migrants, for example, and think of illegal migrants (those entering the county without permission) getting way too much help when regular people: Those born here: Get nothing.
And complaining about a topic: Going out and protesting it: That's being stifled. Plus idiotic laws being introduced that force people to hand over rather personal information to an untrusted third party just to access things that is legal simply because some parents are seen as being too thick to actually parent: Children getting access to 'inappropriate' or 'harmful' material (like that's even new??? Gee, guess we never got hold of 'adult' books and magazines and things when we were kids...).
Perception is like that. You think the country is well run: I think it's not. You think we've freedom of speech: I think that's being taken away from us. But that shows we're different people with different perceptions, different lives, different beliefs, and more importantly: Different sources of information. Seems there's a lot of vocal people out there who have a similar perspective to me, but not exactly the same. And each of us gets one vote when it comes to who is next to represent us to the clown house called Parliament. Ah, well.
As if most young people are perceiving anything from the news. They're getting on with their lives. I'm sure many would happily join the Royal Navy if it only paid well. Instead it pays little more than a decent 9-5 while 'joking' (I honestly can't tell if it's a joke) in it's recruitment info that you don't have to pay for rent or holiday travel because it's part of the job.
Our country is extremely free and young people enjoy that, even if the direction of the precise level of that freedom might concern some of us sometimes. On board a Navy ship however you don't have very much freedom. Go figure there needs to be big incentive before you consign yourself to a floating prison for 9 months at a time.
Perception is like that. You think the country is well run: I think it's not.
I didn't say that at any point did I? I asked what freedoms VoiceOfTruth didn't have that he required.
You think we've freedom of speech: I think that's being taken away from us.
If by saying "e.g. We don't in the UK have freedom of speech, " then yes, that's what I said.
(I actually personally don't believe in freedom of speech, as most people don't really mean that, they mean 'I should be able to say what I want.').
I still don't think I'm less free to say things than I was 30 years ago though, the things I may say or choose not to say have changed but that's just the turning of the world.
Well, free movement to live and work in 27 other countries, and seamless trade links would be good.
Would you really want to be turned into cannon fodder to protect your government (all snugly hidden away from the action), as disposable pawns in a bit of incompetent geopolitical gaming?
British governments have failed at absolutely everything over the last few decades and you want to put your life at their disposal?
And there is nothing like enforced national service to make young people hate their government.
Hmmm... perhaps we also need to introduce incentives, such as: You can't stand for political office unless you've served in the military? Perhaps making things like the right to vote dependent on service to the nation, too.
Add in officers needing to work their way up through the ranks so they know what it's like as a squaddie: So no soft options there.
Obviously, gender neutral in selection: Can't discriminate!
Ah, those wonderful sounds of wailing from the political elite...
I know: Pipedreams. Or I've spent too much time watching Starship Troopers. Reminds me: Need to go get the book so I can compare that with the film.
You can't stand for political office unless you've served in the military?
You can't stand for political office unless you've served in the military? Perhaps making things like the right to vote dependent on service to the nation, too.
Fuck off. While I have few problems with letting those who want to serve do so, I have absolutely no desire to live in a country run by such people to the exclusion of everyone else.
>> But mostly it's the idea that regular folk get sent to war while politicians sit in safety.
The secret bunkers in WW2 - built for the government. They were "concerned" that the plebs would go down the shelters and not come out. Only after much cajoling did the government feel it necessary to build shelters.
Protect and Serve? More secret bunkers for the government. The plebs were given a few sheets of paper to read.
I know that your Russian and so projecting based upon the situation in Russia, but in the UK in WW2 the Anderson shelter was deployed by the million in urban areas which were being bombed and they held a family in.
The countryside largely didn't bother on the basis that they didn't get targeted.
The secret bunkers in WW2 - built for the government. They were "concerned" that the plebs would go down the shelters and not come out. Only after much cajoling did the government feel it necessary to build shelters.
The government built loads of public shelters. In towns and cities all over the place. The London Underground was also extensively used. Between Feb 1939 and Mid 1940 about 2.5 million Anderson shelters were delivered to families across the country. They came as a kit and many people (my Nan and Grandad) had to bury their own in the back garden. Which saved Nan and my Mum's lives in September 1940 - Grandad was out on fire watching duty.
The Morrison shelter (a reinforced steel table) wasn't invented until 1941.
There was a worry that people would live in the shelters, and the war economy would collapse, but this didn't happen. They ran service trains round the underground during the Blitz, with tea and soup for people sleeping down there.
Also the government didn't build huge secret shelters for themselves. They barely used the Dollis Hill bunker, as they didn't want to leave Whitehall - I think there were only ever a couple of cabinet meetings held there. The Cabinet war rooms were just a converted basement with a small amount of concrete reinforcement - and were nothing like a proper bunker. But they're walking distance from Parliament - which was what mattered.
Was that not our image of WW1? Things were very different in WW2 - there was no hiding place and it was the girls and boys in the C&C centres who were most heavily protected for obvious reasons. I'm no fan of Churchill but he did venture on to the roofs of Whitehall, not a bunker in Scotland. As for Montgomery and Rommel. Were they not especially appreciated by their troops because they didn't hide away?
As for WW3 - well let's hope we never find out.
"I'm no fan of Churchill but he did venture on to the roofs of Whitehall,"
Almost first-hand experience of life in the trenches.
If there was an enforced international law that "leaders", be they politicians, military leaders, "leaders" of industry or anyone else in such roles, had to always be at the front of the front line in any conflict I suspect there would be no more wars.
Almost first-hand experience of life in the trenches
Churchill had actual first-hand experience in the trenches in WWI. After Gallipoli, he activated his reserve commission and served as a major, then field promoted to lieutenant-colonel in charge of a line battalion. Did about a year before returning to politics and then being brought back as minister of munitions in 1917. Plus his actual military service in India and his various bits of flitting around in Sudan and the Boer War.
It's exactly the leadership background required when lives are being lost in large numbers in the name of national survival; been there, got the t-shirt, and will go again if needed puts weight behind the speeches made in a parliament containing a lot of veterans3.
Churchill had more diverse combat experience than any other leader the UK has seen1, He was shot at in the Cuban Independence war, Indian Frontier, Afghanistan2, Sudan (Omdurman cavalry charge), Captured by & escaped from Boers then the relief of Ladysmith in South Africa and finally three months in the WW1 trenches after his Gallipoli campaign failed. In WW2 It required the King to forbid him from going with the D-Day invasion force.
1 I'd put it as more diverse than Wellingtons due to changing technology but the three decades of looking across battlefields gave Wellington a unique authority as PM.
2Swat valley, where empires repeatedly go to die, It's probably where Churchill became such a proponent of irregular warfare.
3Those who have seen the mud & gore up close and really need to be convinced that sending their children into the same is the least worst option.
I'm no fan of Churchill but he did venture on to the roofs of Whitehall, not a bunker in Scotland.
He actually pretty much stayed in number 10, and only narrowly escaped being killed at one point when a large bomb blew in the rear windows and blew shrapnel and glass shards across the kitchen when they were sitting down to dinner.
The King, being rather appalled at the prospect of losing Churchill appears to have developed a persistent habit of sending Royal Invitations to him and his wife (a sort of invitation that one cannot decently refuse) to come for dinner in the basement of Buckingham Palace unless Churchill was working in the Cabinet Office War Rooms bunker or similar.
In percentage terms, 18% of British Generals that served during World War One would lose their lives during the conflict.
To put that into perspective, the British Army fielded a total of 8.7 million men during World War One. Total casualties of killed, captured, or wounded amounted to 1.5 million, or around 17.6%. The rate of attrition for those ranking Brigadier-General or higher is in line with the overall casualty rate.
Commonwealth War Graves Commission
Facts tend to overule BlackAdder.
This post has been deleted by its author
The main one is letting nutjob fucking psychos in who go on to murder, rape and abuse civilians when they get the chance to. Plus the ones who are inclined to help cover that up and lie about it.
I don't mind people joining up who are prepared to kill, but I don't like the idea of enlisting those who want to kill.
I can sleep soundly in my bed knowing rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do me harm but some things disturb my slumber.
>> You can't stand for political office unless you've served in the military?
What uniquely qualifies somebody for political office if they have been in the armed forces? The ability to get up in the morning and give/take orders? I don't doubt that some people in the armed forces are suitable for political office, but the same goes for bus drivers, electricians, and farmers.
I did say it was a possible incentive - that if you want to go into politics, you have to serve your country. This was a response as an alternative to the idea of reintroducing national service.
But okay: What would that mean as a qualification? How about it shows you believe in your country and are willing to lay down your life to defend it? Plus you've had training on how to keep your head while under (literal) fire.
However, if it was considered as a pre-requisite for politics, then I'd suggest adding in other things like serving in any emergency response service. Mostly because you won't get so many of the Oxbridge crowd getting into politics as a result.
As MPs get a diamond encrusted pension for what in any other employment would be a fixed term contract job, how about just having had to live on a normal company wage* for five years provided by a firm that has to operate under UK taxation & employment regulations, ie. a slice of the reality the rest of us live by. Then they get audited when standing for office.
*Not in any way government funded, ideally at or below the national average.
I'll second that proposal.
Back in 1997, I was living in the Midlands and took on a job in London, as did my new Labour MP, on similar salaries. We both knew that this was a hard life if you have to commute, but whilst I accepted it knowing I'd pay for my commuting costs of several thousand a year, she on the other hand got free first class travel back and forth, and also claimed parliamentary expenses for her constituency home by pretending to live with her sister in London. Disgusting woman, entirely representative of the political classes.
No currently serving politician has put his life on the line for his country in either the US or the UK. Not one. He/she might have served during peacetime and had the possibility of such, but wasn't called upon to do so. Or might have served when other politicians decided to put his/her life on the line for SOMEONE ELSE'S COUNTRY.
Why should being willing to have your legs blown off fighting a war in Iraq that said politicians lied us into be a prerequisite for political office? Seems to me that would self select for future politicians who are willing to speak the same lies and send another generation into a situation where they put their lives on the line for another country that's not his/her own.
No currently serving politician has put his life on the line for his country in either the US or the UK. Not one.
Lord Dannet served in the British army, and earned the Military Cross during the fighting in Ireland, when Russian funded IRA forces were blowing people up and shooting at people in Northern Ireland.
Lord West of Spithead had his ship sunk under him in the Falklands war, and was the last man to leave his burning ship, receiving the Distinguished Service Cross for his actions.
That's two, and i'm pretty sure that there are other examples.
...when Russian funded IRA forces were blowing people up and shooting at people in Northern Ireland.
citation needed Especially because at the time, it would have been the Soviet Union rather than Russia. But see also murals of Armalites, NORAID funding, or just PIRA making money from arms, drugs smuggling and general extortion and armed robberies.
I think perhaps you mean Lord Dannatt ;)
I think during his service in Northern Ireland, a good deal of the funding for the Provisional IRA was coming from Irish descendants in the USA via Noraid tbh. Soviet financial support was for the Official IRA and was principally during the 1920s; I am not so sure that there was very much Soviet money going to the Provisionals in the 70s.
Fair point, I forgot about the "troubles". It wasn't a formal war but British troops serving there were indeed putting their lives on the line for their country. So I retract that statement for UK politicians, but it is absolutely true of US politicians.
As much as I respect heroes like former Senator John McCain, he was not putting his life on the line for America. He was putting his life on the line for what American politicians deemed to be in the national interest of America at the time. Ditto for the ones who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"How about it shows you believe in your country and are willing to lay down your life to defend it? "
If people believed in humanity, rather than "their country" (*) there wouldn't be situations such as Ukraine / Russia or Gaza / Israel.
(*) A person's "country" is no more than a roll-of-the-dice accident of where their parents were when the act of procreation occurred, followed by being brought up to believe there is some deep significance to that roll of the dice.
As for laying down your life, that's an emotive phrase used and encouraged by those who conflate being killed with some almost mystical higher destiny, and usually refers to someone else's life being "laid down".
"What uniquely qualifies somebody for political office if they have been in the armed forces?"
I note an inverse correlation between having served in the military and being in favour of military adventurism.
Put another way, it's always the politicians who are most in favour of going to war are the ones who have never fought in one. They are always the most gung-ho when it comes to sending other people's sons and daughters to go off and come home mentally or physically scarred, or maybe not come home at all.
I don't think that only ex-soldiers should be allowed to stand for office but, when they do, I very much appreciate their more sober view about the human toll of putting our young people in harm's way.
I ain't no fortunate one, no
Great song, and still very true. Our warhawks really should demonstrate their committment to escalation by sending their kids off to fight. But then kids can watch stuff like this-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THEG908WHD8
which shows the horrific nature of modern warfare. And being on YT, not too graphic, and I really wouldn't recommend going to Telegram for the raw videos, if you like sleeping. It's a pro-Russia channel, so most of the videos are from Russian sources. But the same thing is happening from the Ukrainian side. But it shows how drones have changed warfare and how the combination of ISR and offensive drones, bombs, missiles have turned Ukraine into a hellscape where survival needs a lot of luck. Once soldiers or vehicles are spotted, they're relentlessly hunted down.
It's why our 'leaders' really need to get serious about peace and not waste more lives.. Or grab a rifle and join in rather than posturing and sending more people to die.
By all means get the book and read it, just don't expect to recognise the story portrayed in the film.
The film was made effects heavy, and lost much of the substance of the book. Heinlen deserved his reputation as a Si-Fi writer from the second wave of the Golden Age, although some of the content of Starship Troopers was criticised for it's militaristic content.
Unfortunately, it is said that Paul Verhoeven found the book too boring to finish, so produced a completely different story heavily influenced by what could be achieved by special effects.
Oh please do. It's over 65 years old and was written as a young adult novel. Admitedly it is significantly more complex than the film but you still might learn a bit. It was also written 14 years after USA's WW2 experience by a naval veteran. Prior to Vietnam and that national shit show of trauma, for both sides. The fillum was simply abyssmal.
Youngsters now aspire be social media influencers, work (somehow) in sports, or "creative media".
Funny how it's always the fault of the youngsters. Never the politicians.
The US had all sorts of problems with the draft during the latter half of the Vietnam War when the general public were acutely aware that it was a bloody waste of life, and had lost patience with the government.
It's hardly surprising that appetite for military service is down after 15 years of conflict in Afghan/Iraq, which are popularly considered to have achieved sod all, given that the casual removal of Saddam left a power void for ISIS, and the Taliban waltzed back into power the moment we left Afghanistan. Don't invade countries without an exit strategy.
The fact that Crapita have actively obstructed the recruitment of willing volunteers only compounds that problem. BuT tHe PrIvAtE sEcToR iS eFfIcIeNt.
The RN have also had difficulties in the period without carriers because at leats now they can leverage sexy topgun flight ops for recruitment, which they couldn't for 10 years.
At the end of the day, this is the systemic and repeated failure of government to abide by the convenant incumbent on them. If you want people to go and fight for you, then you have to make it worth their while. You have to pay them reasonable salaries, keep them (and their families) in good quality housing, provision them with good quality kit and only ask them to risk their lives for worthwhile causes. There will always be some controversy over any military deployment, but such things should not be done trivially.
Alas, service salaries have lagged like the rest of the public sector, service housing is a coin toss and you might be asked to go and get shot at for no good reason based on the capricious whims of a fuckwit like Johnson. The military also used to offer a lot more opportunities. People got commissioned in from National Service. You could be a pilot officer even if you had another trade - for instance, there were doctors who got paid through university and then had the opportunity to earn their wings and do a bit of flying on the side.
These days, you get to pay your own way through uni, and then landed with £60k worth of debt, you get to work for RAF salaries rather than the (better, though not by much) NHS salary, which at least then comes with the option to do private work on the side. Entry level pay for enlisted should be ~£28-30k/yr if it had kept up with inflation since 2010 - but it's more like £26k. Officer salaries are better - starting at £34k and rising to £40k pretty rapidly. Still below where they ought to be, but very livable.
And I say all this as someone who did try to join the military as a 21 year old, but was knocked back thanks to Osborne's austerity...
They haven't been asked to since 1939 in the UK, or 1941 in the US.
The number of people willing to fight to defend their country, versus fighting pointless wars in Korea, Vietnam, or the Middle East that politicians falsely claim are vital for your "freedom" are the reason many people are turned off from military service.
The main issue with manpower isn't really with today's youth - stats show that Recruitment Offices are getting healthy amounts of people through the doors signing up for all three service arms - the issue is with the privatised recruitment system which was originally outsourced to El Reg's favourite: Capita. The system up until a few years ago was essentially broken, it took months even a year to process a recruit by which time they got bored and moved onto something else. Fix the recruitment system and you effectively fix the Senior Service's manpower challenges.
Norway's need is greater, since one of the boats they're replacing has sunk and the others may be in danger of doing the same. Since we cooperate already and are increasing that, it won't make much short-term difference in defence capacity beyond whose flag is on the boat.
Since both countries are perhaps more short of crews than boats, maybe we could get creative. We've had an influx of young men in small craft who might be persuaded to do a stint on something bigger for a path to citizenship. That would take the wind out of the flag-shaggers sails.
It depends what they're paying for. E.g. does the headline Norwegian price include a support package for x years where the RN one doesn't? Given the RN have already partly paid is it all in the same year currency, otherwise inflation plays a part in the headline figure.
I've read that Norway are going to have their own support and refit yard - rather than sending them to us. We built a Type 23 refit hall - which will soon have no use, and so might upgrade that to a similar facility. I think it's too small for Type 26 - so would have to be extended / rebuilt.
However almost all major military sales come with support packages. Although I'd imagine, as part of the deal, that we'll have to buy some of our support services in Norway to compensate them for the sale cost - and perhaps some of the parts for the later ships. It's supposed to be a partnership, makes it easier to justify spending the money abroad. Rather than Canada and Australia building their own Type 26, meaning theirs will cost more than both ours and the Norwegians'.
The other upside to handing over a ship, other than just winning the contract, is Norway operate ASW patrols in the same waters we do, as part of the same military alliance. So it's not like we're completely losing that ship. Plus Norway lost one of their current frigates in an accident - so selling them one of ours might actually increase NATO ship availability in the area, assuming we can keep one the remaining Type 23s operating for an extra year - which is a big if.
More ultimately for the Exchequer, that's what matters. Reading between the lines Norway wanted one asap (to get training on/familiarising with?) so one of the earliest laid will go to them. Those early ones cost the UK the most because of the early R&D investment so might even be sold at a loss, but surely worth it to secure the entire deal with the tax take and jobs and headlines and greater potential for future export that entails.
"Those early ones cost the UK the most because of the early R&D investment"
Errrmm, R&D costs, including the "bash it until it fits" costs of the first few should be considered across the total number built. Even then it's a treasury bean counting way of looking at the cost of military kit. We'd be better off regarding development costs as separate from the marginal build costs.
Yea, that's why it makes sense to sell one on. I should have added 'notionally' - there were two MoD orders and per unit price in the first order was greater because er it was the first. Between that and the domestic economic benefit the question of who's paying more for one is not at all straightforward.
You don't know the marginal build cost until the last one is built, particularly when these things take so long to complete. Each build is a new round of R&D as you refine processes and achieve scaling efficiencies. Plus all things being equal you might prefer to pay more for one earlier. It's all just different ways of bean-counting in the end.
is Norway paying more than the RN?
Almost certainly less. No contract has been signed, the £10bn figure seems to be the "benefit to the UK economy". We hopefully will also end up paying less. Don't know if Norway will get charged full price for ship 3, if they get it, which was about £400m more expensive than the next 5.
We bought the first 3 ships at over a billion each. Design costs, set-up costs - and that led to delayed production. Which was deliberate, as although it makes the ships more expensive, each year's payments are lower and the Treasury appear to be unable to count. Yes I know about the discount rate, but that didn't cover the extra costs of refitting the Type 23s, which were designed to have a short working life - and so were bloody expensive to keep going. Basically you have to strengthen the hull to overcome fatigue - unless which is way more expensive to retrofit, rather than doing it when you build the damned thing.
The next 5 were something like £750m each?
The other extra cost was that we didn't order all 8 together, let alone the original 13, so BAe didn't build the indoor build hall they wanted until the second order came in. This meant the first ship got assembled outside, taking longer and causing problems with the welding, which delayed things. Now we have a build hall and can do two at once, inside - which means they can now go perhaps twice as fast. Plus, with the Norwegian order they might now build the indoor fitting-out hall in Scotstoun that they also wanted, where the first two are being finished off. Hull 2 got launched a couple of months ago.
Also, because we were artificially slowing the build, for normally good reasons of not having the yard run out of work, as well as shit reasons of keeping defence payments steady each year rather than saving money by borrowing extra in some years to make overall cost lower. Now we can now stop doing that and get everything faster. The yard can build these until the mid 2030s when we have have to start on the Type 83 replacement for the Daring Class (type 45s).
If we're really lucky we might get 1 more? Especially if Norway pay full whack for ship 3, that's a profit to the Navy of half the cost of a tranche 2 ship - and Norway's might be even cheaper with economies of scale and the yard working at full speed. 8 was to replace the ASW versions of the Type 23, the other 5 general purpose ones are being replaced with the Type 31s being built by Babcock.
Finally, manning is not as big an issue. The Navy are slowly improving things, but also the Type 26 and 31 are going to take crews of 90-120. Type 23 crew is 180-odd. the carriers were designed for a ship's crew of 600 - which I think practical experience has added 50-odd to that, but even if they're out by a few 50% savings in crew requirements make life an awful lot easier. You can rotate people more as well, thus losing fewer people due to over-deploying them.
Up to a point, but I'd imagine there's a whole range of critical components that will have to be imported, from the advanced to the arcane. Moreover, since commercial industry won't voluntarily choose expensive British made steels (especially under the government's glorious net zero steel plans) then the steelworks won't have any reliable demand, and costs will be extortionate.
Mind you commercial industry are (or should be) shitting themselves at the prospect of the "Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism" which is party of the Uniparty's efforts to make the UK carbon neutral even if it bankrupts us all. What CBAM will do is from January 2027 add a carbon tax to all imported carbon intensive materials. Obviously that'll work wonders for engineering and construction programmes (HS2, housing, Sizewell C and other energy sector programmes etc).
You may as well just say the problem is the cost of energy in the UK. If energy was cheaper, steel production would be cheaper.
Sizewell C doubled in costs over a 4 years period. Very funny - the 'government' confirmed the 'estimate'. I wonder how much more the estimate will rise.
A good reason to keep steel production in Britain? I.e. not close steelworks, don't import steel.
Or a good reason to keep the electrons flowing-
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2025/08/31/norways-electricity-crisis-is-about-to-hit-britain/
Earlier this year, the governing coalition collapsed when the Centre Party left over disagreements with the Labour Party over interconnectors and energy policy. The Centre Party opposed implementation of the EU 4th Energy Package which is a legal requirement, and wants to cancel the interconnector deals with Britain and Germany.
Europe gets hit with a high pressure system, windmills stop spinning, electricity prices rise and because it's more profitable to export electricity via interconnectors, Norwegian energy prices rise.. Which will get worse if Norway is running out of water to keep their hydro plants running. Then the new frigates are needed to run anti-submarine patrols, but also anti-submarine cable sabotage patrols to stop potential repeats of Ukraine blowing up Nord Stream. And then there's a lot of trade protection work that needs frigates, anti-smuggling operations and plenty to keep both Royal Navies busy for the forseeable future. Especially if the Pan-European Defence Organisation also wants ships to patrol the Black Sea.
Frigate shipbuilding rate in the UK for many decades has been more about keeping the yards open, the five batch 2 River class OPVs were quite literally ordered to keep the yard going until the T-26 order was ready to go.
The new build hall allows two hulls to be built completely under cover at the same time as a third is built as two halves in the existing building (triple the previous build rate), it doesn't take much of an additional acceleration to have one hitting the water every year. Belfast is slated for launch next year which will allow the first Norwegian ship to start construction.
"the five batch 2 River class OPVs were quite literally ordered to keep the yard going until the T-26 order was ready to go"
And the River class illustrates everything that is wrong with British defence procurement planning - armed with a single 30mm pop gun, a couple of belt feed machine guns and a heli platform. Evidently they were never intended to have any real military purpose.
Now, for the same sort of displacement the Israeli Sa'ar 6 corvettes pack a 76mm gun, 2x 25mm weapon stations, 32 launch cells for Barak 8 SAMs, 40 launch cells for C-dome AMMs, 16 anti-ship missiles, 2 torpedo tubes and a helipad and hanger (meaning up to a Seahawk can be routinely carried and operated). If you were a naval officer, which would you want on your side, and which would you be hoping your opponents were on?
And the real kicker? If my wrangling of the reported project costs is near enough correct, the cost of the Sa'ar 6 was around £146m per vessel, the River class around £130m.
While not disputing your points generally, I will challenge the idea that the OPVs have no real military purpose.
Most warships do not, in fact, spend much if any time actually at war. There are plenty of real military tasks for which an OPV is perfectly fit for purpose. OPVs are cheaper to run and provide a route to first command for junior officers which are perhaps a bit more expendable if the officer screws up.
A smaller vessel like an OPV can often be quite diplomatic: it shows that the navy concerned is taking an interest, but in a way that is not threatening or escalatory. When Venezuela was making threats to annex a chunk of Guyana, the Royal Navy sent an OPV - that's less threatening that an aircraft carrier, but implicit was that the rest of the RN could follow up if necessary.
Yes, but a small corvette like the Sa'ar 6 is able to do the same flag showing actions as a River class, still without the threat implicit in sending a carrier or other large vessel, but it is still a competent military asset if the core purpose of the navy get called upon. By comparison the River class has no effective war capabilities, by the choice of MoD.
And for extra embarrassment, the River class main armament isn't that different to a Houthi-engineered pick up truck (link below), excepting that the Houthi pick up has a higher fire rate.
https://defence-blog.com/yemens-houthi-built-crazy-pickup-with-30mm-cannon/
Again, I agree, but...
The Sa'ar are warships, they carry their crew plus weapons. As far as I am aware, they have no capability to carry supplies, troop, etc, other than jamming what ever will fit onto the open deck.
The River Class OPVs are, as you note, not really 'war' ships, but military ships, They have about 1/3 to 1/2 the crew of the Sa'ar, I think, plus have the ability to carry troops, civilian mission specialists, supplies, etc. OPV's should probably be viewed as militarised work boats.
So in a shooting war, yes, the Sa'ar is far superior, the OPVs are not remotely close in capability, but they weren't designed to be.
"So in a shooting war, yes, the Sa'ar is far superior, the OPVs are not remotely close in capability, but they weren't designed to be."
And there was me thinking that the Royal Navy was a military force. Instead we launch almost unarmed ships, paint them grey, and hope it scares potential adversaries.
As I said, most warships spend little if any time at war.
The army have lots of vehicles painted green - some are tanks, a lot are trucks, which are entirely unarmed and unarmoured, but vital nevertheless.
The air force have all sorts of aircraft - some are combat aircraft, others are trainers and cargo carriers with no weapon systems fitted.
I fail to see why every ship the navy has should be expected to be a combat vessel designed to fight a full scale war against a peer-level opponent. Anti-piracy, anti-smuggling, routine survey and patrol are all tasks of a military force, and can be carried out by a 'lightly' armed vessel (* a 30mm cannon and a Wildcat helicopter armed with LMM is likely to be plenty heavy enough to deal with smugglers or pirates).
The Type 26's are for scaring potential adversaries, the OPVs are for doing the day-to-day routine stuff.
And there was me thinking that the Royal Navy was a military force. Instead we launch almost unarmed ships, paint them grey, and hope it scares potential adversaries.
The Royal Navy runs various types of ship for various types of role. Just as the RAF operates the Grob Tutor for training and other aircraft for non-combat roles, so the Royal Navy has transport ships, survey vessels like HMS Scott and Protector, and workboats like the Sea-class.
Yes, the River is under-gunned compared with the Sa'ar 6. But then the Israeli Navy doesn't have any actual destroyers or frigates - much less carriers. The Sa'ar 6s are the largest vessels in their fleet.
We still overpaid for the Rivers, and they're not as flexible as they should be, but they're not designed to be a combat-oriented warship.
There's also the issue of serviceability:
• The more complex it is, the more effort needed to keep it working.
• The more complex it is, the harder it is to actually operate it - especially if you are struggling to recruit.
• How often are you likely to need the more sophisticated firepower.
Think of the many past military/police operations where insurgents in pickups (famously the Toyota Hilux) were running rings around the maxed out Hummers, etc.
Whilst you wouldn't carry a knife to a gunfight (well, not as your primary weapon), it would give you an advantage in a fist fight. Better an OPV than a kayak...
"Think of the many past military/police operations where insurgents in pickups (famously the Toyota Hilux) were running rings around the maxed out Hummers, etc."
I think that supports my argument more than yours! A tooled-up Sa'ar 6 at 2,000 tonnes and £146m is the naval equivalent of a tricked-out Hilux. The British naval equivalent of the Hummer is the Type 45 destroyer, 8,000 tonnes and a billion quid a pop. The Type 45 should be far more capable than the Israeli corvette, but the actual armament load isn't much better. There's a whole range of defence tasks we might want in a war that a River class can't do (by virtue of having been specified by a pacifist), but that we don't have enough destroyers or frigates for.
Reality shows that modern naval vessels, in isolation, are incredibly vulnerable—effectively tinfoil—bits of equipment. Witness the Ukrainian success in bottling up the 'mighty' Russian navy.
Grouped together, with aircraft cover, they are considerably more 'hardened', but even so it's a hell of a lot of money to spend on something that has a high capacity for 'going wrong', and is basically absolutely dependent on high-tech defence solutions which in no way provide complete coverage, and being part of a larger group.
But, as always, we pays our money, makes our choice, and live with the consequences.
Reality shows that modern naval vessels, in isolation, are incredibly vulnerable—effectively tinfoil—bits of equipment. Witness the Ukrainian success in bottling up the 'mighty' Russian navy.
That's not entirely a success. Russia moved their ships away from Crimea, put them behind torpedo nets and booms to counter Ukraine's drones and has been using them to launch missiles into Ukraine ever siince. Currently Russia doesn't really need to leave port to do a lot of damage. Sure, Ukraine had more success early on sinking the Moskva but that threat has pretty much been countered. Plus Russia has developed their own drones and hit Ukraine's Simferopol in the Danube last week.
But that's one of those unbottled genies creating new threats for navies to deal with given hostile forces that can use suicide boats or drones. I'm curious if the Type-26 or similar warships in construction or development will go the way of WW2 warships and be fitted with more ship protection systems to counter drone swarms.
By definition that is a 'shore battery', not a 'navy'. :-)
By definition, a shore battery would be.. well, on shore. It's more a bastion where the ships are protected both by their own systems, and shore batteries. But an interesting modern warfare thing. If the leave port, they stand a good chance of being sunk. Ship protection systems have a problem because a lot (eg CIWS) were designed for air threats, not surface and small low profile sea drones, so often can't depress low enough to engage close targets. Have a watch of this video-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsyToPzFVu4
Where HI Sutton talks about drones and how they're changing naval warfare, especially as that knowledge is being shared. I think Ukraine is also interesting because it's basically turned both Ukraine and Russia's navies into targets, or missile platforms. The environment makes it too risky to sail, and there's not much else for Russia's ships to do. There's been speculation that Russia could try an amphibious landing to attack Odessa, but that area is heavily defended and the waters heavily mined by both sides.. Which is also perhaps what Russia's subs have been doing in the Black Sea given they can lay mines safely because Ukraine doesn't have any ASW assets.
But it's a huge problem for navies, so the Houthis have been using small boats, drones and missiles to atack warships, Iran has a lot of those, and information & designs is probably being shared.
Reality shows that modern naval vessels, in isolation, are incredibly vulnerable—effectively tinfoil—bits of equipment. Witness the Ukrainian success in bottling up the 'mighty' Russian navy.
The Slava class "Moskva" was laid down in 1976 and many of Russia's other warships are of similar vintage. It was by no means modern in anything but Russian propaganda, which unfortunately many of us accidentally ended up believing to some degree simply because nobody believed that anybody would operate an unmodernised deathtrap as a fleet flagship and pose with it if it didn't work. You therefore need to be a bit cautious about learning too much from the Russian experiences.
Single European warships operating in the Red Sea have shot down ballistic missiles fired at them without being sunk, and have kept the Red Sea open for trade. The Chinese can actually produce working equipment and probably don't have untrained crews who operate the ships while drunk.
I'm not suggesting that modern warships are defenceless, but they are certainly vulnerable to the old reality of a defensive shield, when the actual target is fragile: "we have to succeed every time; they only have to succeed once." In which case 'few and expensive' (high-tech defences) generally succumbs to 'cheap and numerous'.
Shooting down a single incoming missile can easily be put down to 'good luck' as much as 'good management'; when you can reliably shoot down multiple simultaneous attacks, then you may have something to shout about. As far as I am aware that scenario has remained pretty untested in actual combat. So who knows, for real, how good these 'modern' ships really are, when they aren't dealing with pirates and the occasional random missile?
When Venezuela was making threats to annex a chunk of Guyana, the Royal Navy sent an OPV - that's less threatening that an aircraft carrier, but implicit was that the rest of the RN could follow up if necessary.
Yeah. The Venezuelans were shitting themselves in case Boaty McBoatface eventually turned up to support the OPV.
The aircraft carrier - the one that has working propellors - would have been no threat at all. It still doesn't have any aeroplanes.
BTW, Guyana is a sovereign country. It can bloody well pay for its own military.
Bolting a 76 and or missiles onto the Rivers is a fairly straight forward change but the treasury would've taken one look at the 'big' shooty bits and decide that's all the Navy needed, ignoring the fact that OPVs & Corvettes are not really meant to go very far from their home base.
Maybe the gun can be upgraded, to have missiles the vessel would need structural work to accommodate the now-normal vertical launch cassettes, more importantly it needs C&C capabilities to deploy the missiles. That wouldn't be in any way straightforward or quick. All of which is moot anyway, the River class have been specced and delivered as under-armed overly purpose specific vessels and there's no prospect of that changing. MoD are so useless at all defence procurement I have to question which nation they work for.
Sa'ar is a corvette for running round the Med. It's heavily armed but short-ranged and is designed for a short high-intensity fight.
The River batch 2s are ocean-going long-range, high-availablilty presence and patrol vessels. For waving the flag and doing disaster relief, diplomatic stuff and the like. They've got low crew requirements and nice efficient diesels and are regularly at sea for 250-300 days a year. They're not for combat, but do carry out anti-piracy and anti-drug work. As well as lots of useful diplomatic stuff, and training for junior officers.
We over-paid for them of course. But that was to keep shipyards open while they fucked up the purchase of the Type 26. If we'd already decided to split the new ship purchase into 2 types, as happened later, then it might have made sense to have a couple more Type 31s instead? Which are only 3 times the crew and twice the price - although the real Type 31 price is a lie, because they're being fitted with a load of quite new kit from the Type 23 mid-life upgrades which isn't included in the price of the ship.
The Batch 1 Rivers are only 70m in length - much smaller hulls than the Sa'ar 6 or even the Batch 2s (both 90m).
They're different beasts. The Rivers can be run with a complement of 25-30, whereas the Sa'ar 6 has a crew of 70 (unsurprising given the additional weapon systems). For the UK, this is a good thing, providing a smaller, lightly crewed vessel for young officers to cut their teeth on before they ground a destroyer somewhere. The weapon systems are more than adequate for your standard offshore and coastal patrol roles. A 30mm cannon and a couple of MG posts are more than sufficient to support customs and fisheries enforcement, haul up to dodgy-looking fishing trawlers and generally be seen cutting about. They deliberately left a lot of deck space for use in pollution control or disaster relief work. They simply weren't conceived for doing any sort of significant fighting.
We did overpay for them, but that's mostly because we leased the Batch 1 Rivers for years, because UKGov is terrified of actually buying assets. Same as we leased our C17s for several years before we paid through the nose to actually acquire them.
It's entirely fair criticism of the Batch-2s, which are 90m and 2,000tons - bigger than the Sa'ar 6. For some reason we've decided it's important to be able to embark 50 marines instead, even though there's no hangar - which would significantly help the Forward-Presence flag-waving role that they're literally designed for (where you are unlikely to be supported by another heli-carrying vessel) since you could put people ashore, fly dignitaries out, etc. You don't even need the whole missile complement and Israeli loadout. A 76mm and a helicopter would make the difference there.
Cost is not the ship's fault and more that of a political regime in which everything must be done in the most expensive, protracted way possible. I blame Treasury.
We need to build ships, but have no ship yards, no a very smart short sighted moves by politicians in the 80/90s closing down places like Tyne/Tees yards, who historically built a large proportion of our ships and allowed the skills to be lost, rather than pass down by to the next generation as had been done for hundreds of years !
Actually we've almost the shipbuilding capacity we need for the military, we just don't use it wisely, or procure with supply chain needs in mind. That's why the batch 2 River class were bought, simply to keep yards ticking over because there is no coherent naval procurement strategy, and part of that has been the continual shrinking of the Royal Navy through successive "strategic defence reviews".
To be fair, the last government's national shipbuilding strategy actually looks to be quite sensible. If this government can manage to stick to it, which they should with even small increases in defence spending, then we've pretty much matched our shipbuilding to our needs.
The next step had also been taken with sales of the design of Type 31 to Indonesia and Type 26 to Canada and Australia. Although Australia fucked it up by totally re-designing theirs to make them unaffordable, so they're now buying Mogami from Japan and reducing their Type 26 order from 9 to 6. Also AUKUS has allowed us to increase sub building capacity at Barrow more than had already been decided, so we might get a decent number of subs in our next batch - and at slightly lower cost due to economies of scale in the supply chain.
The next huge and expensive step would be things like this sale. France and Italy build ships for other people, as well as engage in partnerships to build their designs but in cooperation with your yards. One of the tricks they also do is to be willing to sell you their Navy's stuff, so you can have that first ship pretty much straight away.
In the past we've gone for supposedly cheap. Work your ships really hard, run them really long and then scrap them - or sell them for peanuts because they're knackered. Another option would be to buy them a bit cheaper, like Type 23, and not design them for a long life. Then plan to scrap them earlier, and only keep them around for 20 years. That way you can have a stready drum-beat of orders so your yards don't keep having to expensively make people redundent and then train new ones in ten years when you're out of ships and do an emergency order. Then you're not too sad about having to sell a ship, because a new one will turn up next year, you can build at the most efficient rate and don't have to do expensive mid-life refits to keep ships going for 30 years.
If the shit does hit the fan, you can also increase your Navy really quickly. You simply do those expensive refits and keep some ships longer, plus keep all the new ones. And that gives you time to raise yard capacity even more to sustain your new level. If you want to reduce the size of the fleet, just sell-off or scrap your oldest ships.
Given that the hulls aren't the most expensive bit you can always move the shiny electronic bits across to the new hulls from the old. There are many ways to skin this cat, but the trick is to have a policy to keep your industrial base going efficiently. One problem is that very few countries want to buy new ships, they want to build those locally and give jobs to voters. So it may be better to have a ready supply of second hand ships to flog and just accept that some hulls are going to get scrapped earlier than you'd like - but as things get older they get more expensive to maintain anyway.
Having worked at BAE Govan I have to disagree. And I wouldn't put it past them to increase production when required - it's one of the most impressive places I've ever been to. Could I roll a piece of 1/2" steel to a curve so it fitted the rest of the hull being built to within a mm? No I could not. I don't have a plasma cutter the size of a tennis court either. This is a place of proper engineering full of people who really know what they're doing.
No I could not. I don't have a plasma cutter the size of a tennis court either. This is a place of proper engineering full of people who really know what they're doing.
Those are most impressive. I saw a doc about building the Astutes at Barrow where they were cutting components out of large sheets of metal. Looked kinda like making a giant Airfix kit.
"The agreement announced yesterday will see at least five of the submarine-hunting warships built at BAE Systems' Glasgow shipyards"
So that's either Govan or Scotstoun. I never visited Scotstoun but either way the point still stands: they're bloody good at building ships.
Ah, thanks I ain't Spartacus.
When I was there, which was a while ago, Govan had a pipes workshop and cabin fab. They did the fitting on site, but clearly no longer.
One bit that sticks in my mind was the stainless quarantine area: if you leave a piece of stainless against some rusty mild steel, the latter contaminates the former with rust. Like leaving your cybertruck out in the rain.
NXM,
As I understand it, modern shipbuilding means building the ships up in blocks, and you then assemble the blocks into sections - which you gradually add together. This means that some stuff is already installed in the block when it's delivered - and that other stuff is installed while the blocks are being assembled - and you've still got easy access. So that fit-out requirements are reduced - and the ship will be ready more quickly after the hull is launched.
It's also entirely possible that the first of a class gets less pre-installed than subsequent ships, as they're learning how to do it. But as I've read about it, a lot of the pipework should already have been done at Govan, before the hull is floated off to Scotstoun to fit out.
Similarly the submarines at Barrow are built in rings. With most of the stuff being installed in the ring, while it's on its side. Before they're mated together with the rest of the submarine and it's all welded up.
The UK military is in a shocking state all round.
Less than half our F-35s are ready to fly / fight. They are ridiculously expensive and the spares situation is horrific with delays for basic parts. Even a tin of radar absorbent pait has to be supplied from the US and is typically 2 months delivery. I've actually been up close and personal with the F-35s. We got rid of the Hercules transports for the A400M which still has issues with parachute drops (and has had reliability issues) and we don't have enough other aircraft or spares to defend our shores let alone go into combat abroad.
As for the army, we don't have enough AFVs and the £500M wasted on the cancelled warrior upgrade was then spaffed on the nearly unusable Ajax project. " The Times reported that in June 2021 the problems with noise and rough handling were so serious that trials involving the Ajax had been suspended." There are still major issues despite having spent £3.8 Billion by 2023.
As for the Navy, the Daring class destroyers spend most of their time broken and in dock. At one point we had 2 out of 6 actually operational. The Darings suffer from over-complicated machinery "in order to minimise their carbon footprint". They are, from all accounts, also a nightmare for major maintenance. E.g. to remove the generators you have to cut a hole in the side of the ship!
I have to laugh when we send an OPV to escort a proper Russian war canoe through the English Channel (because we have nothing larger available). All the Russian ship has to do is increase speed and it would leave the OPV in it's wake. They are not much better than the armed trawlers that the Navy used in WW2. Yes the Batch 2 are more capable, but they are not able to defend themselves against anything larger than a Boghammar and even then it's doubtful. They would probably be a good match for the Icelandic coastguard in the event of a 4th Cod war. And yes, I do believe that they should have basic defensive equipment e.g. anti-air missiles.
Which brings me to the other elephant in the room which is the MOD's procurement policy and running of projects (and yes, I have first hand experience).
* Over complicated procurement processes
* Technical requirements that are bleeding edge rather than leading edge
* Incomprehensible technical documentation
* Specific MOD standards which sit on top of normal (non-military standards) and don't add anything to the job
* Lack of understanding of commercial performance standards
* Failure to properly check on the performance of contractors
* Use of the same contractors despite continued poor performance
* Will take a good design and then redesign it at massive extra cost without any performance benefit because it doesn't meet MOD standards
I could go on here and give examples, but I need a coffee.
[/off rant]
The tragedy of all those MoD failings on procurement is that they've been the same problems for many decades. All that's been needed to fix the cultural and procedural aspects has been any Secretary of State willing to bring his own department to heel. The failure to do so partly reflects the very low calibre of politicians (Defence minister alumni include such talent as Penny Mordaunt, Gavin Williamson, and Grant Shapps), partly the low time they hold the office for (since 2010 the average time in office has been 1.9 years).
I must say that there's one especially dishonourable mention: Ben Wallace. Not only ex military and from a military family, in post for just over four years. So he should have known the big problem when he accepted office, and had ample time to make a damn good start on fixing it.
While low calibre politicians are part of the issue, the biggest issue is the incompetence of many, and the corruption of a few, civil servants. When the OGC existed, the "best practice" programmes they created for the management of procurement projects specifically allow substantial cost overruns as a default, expected and normal part of the project management process. This means that as soon as contracts are awarded, there is an immediate expectation by the supplier they can charge more without having to explain why. Once there is the smallest excuse to add further cost on top of the automatic cost overruns, these are never properly challenged by the civil servants involved, and so the cost rises start accelerating, while the quality of the product starts to fall once the overruns become so embarrassing that savings have to be found. Of course, the senior civil servants are never actually embarrassed, as they have the luxury of the politicians in office taking the blame, coupled with being able to look forward to their post civil service career "consulting" opportunities with the firms that they have previously signed off approval for the large cost overruns for.
All the Russian ship has to do is increase speed and it would leave the OPV in it's wake.
Which would risk the Russian ship breaking down and then needing to be towed back to base. While the RN has a few problem the Russian navy is in a much, much worse state than they are willing to advertise.
Comical Engineer,
The Ajax isn't nearly unusable. The vibration problems have been fixed, at the manufacturers expense, and the unit is in operational testing now.
I suspect we probably should have kept Warriror, although from what I've read the army's leadership is way more at fault than the politicians. The RAF and Navy have been able to decide what they want, the army keep changing their mind and their programs. The leadership are the experts and so it's hard for the politicians to overrule them on decisions of force structure. They're also getting loads of Boxer, which isn't tracked but is still decent. We can always buy tracked Boxer or more Ajax IFVs if we want to.
The politicians have definitely not funded the forces they've claimed they want - so are at fault for that. But many of the army's recent problems are self-inflicted.
I have to laugh when we send an OPV to escort a proper Russian war canoe through the English Channel (because we have nothing larger available).
That is a completely stupid comment. We escort them to show the flag, and to have sensors on them, to see what they're up to. If we had a coast guard, we might equally send one of those. The RN anti-ship policy has been to use submarines and air power for this role since the 1950s. If the Russians cut up rough in the English Channel they can be dead in a matter of minutes, but it'll be from the air. And they've nowhere to run to. Given that modern ships aren't armoured - and armour doesn't really help against modern missiles anyway - you don't want to be trying to sink an enemy ship from 2 miles away. that's a recipe for mutually assured destruction.
I agree with several of your points on purchasing. But a lot of them are also incredibly simplistic. Several of our weapons systems are incredibly effective for very low prices - and there are severe downsides to going for cheap and dirty in large numbers. In that your forces tend to have to die in large numbers to let that strategy work.
Type 26 is an excellent ship, being built by the same old contractor who's "ripped us off in the past" at a very reasonable cost for what the ship can do. And much of that extra cost is the fault of the Treasury and not either the MoD or BAe. Type 31 is very cheap, and it looks like Babcock have made a small loss on it as well. But they'll make that back on sales to Poland and Indonesia. Maybe New Zealand, and we might consider ordering another couple. Although if the MoD are really on the ball, they''ll get them started on the MRSS instead - which is supposed to be some kind of mutli-role ship that can defend itself while also doing disaster relief or landing small forces by boat and helicopter. Whether it's better to have large landing ship docks requiring escorts on one combined ship is a matter of some debate. Different navies are going different ways on it.
Type45: six destroyers with defective cooling systems. Maybe back in service by 2032.
Aircraft Carriers: Out of service because propeller fell off.
Babcock......Quality......probably not in the same sentence.
Hard to know whether supplying to the Norwegians is a problem....or a relief!!!!
Type45: six destroyers with defective cooling systems. Maybe back in service by 2032.
A faulty generator design, actually. The two diesel generators are being replaced with three more powerful units.
Dauntless and Daring have had this modification, Dragon is undergoing trials, Defender and Diamond are in the dock for modification and Duncan is currently on operations but is going to get the refit in it's next yard period. 50% are done already and Duncan is going to be the last ship complete in 2028.
Aircraft Carriers: Out of service because propeller fell off.
Um? Alternately routine pre sailing maintenance checks identified an issue with a coupling on QE's propeller shaft and so she went into a yard to get it fixed. At no point has a propeller ever "fallen off" a British carrier; were you thinking of the Russian ship which had it's propellers stolen a couple of years ago?
There's a lot of ignorant bollocks being posted on this thread.
We bought two carriers, so if one went down for maintenance, the other could take over the job. This happened. Prince of Wales sailed in a few days, QE got fixed. Job done.
The Type 45 design is now fixed. As well as fixing the engines, their mid-life refit has also given them upgraded radars, more missiles and in fact upgraded missiles too. They're getting the upgraded ABM (anti-ballistic missile) version of Aster and there's another better upgrade coming after that. Plus a bunch of short range CAMM (Sea Ceptor) missiles - which are also getting an upgrade to make them medium range - being jointly developed with Poland.
"You're on the same side, Norway are closer to the threat than you are"
That depends upon which direction you percieve the potential threat to come from. As things currently stand, it is sometimes difficult to figure out whether the bigger threat lies to our east, or to the west. I think we just might be a shade closer to the potential threat from the west ;)
>but this may delay the introduction of the Royal Navy's own desperately needed ships...
Does that mean that - shudder - the industrial manufacturing capacity of the country needs to be increased?
No shit Sherlock...
When defence procurement has been run on a shoe string for decades, and government policy w.r.t. manufacturing (everything from education to tax to planning) has been overwhelmingly hostile too for all those decades, the ability to fulfil even a small external orders in a sensible timescale won't exist.
One either pays for a capability to exist, or one doesn't. Hoping it'll be there without money is wishful thinking.
Industrial manufacturing capacity had already been increased. The article even tells you this. They've built the new build hall - so they can now build ships at Govan twice as fast. If not quicker, given they can build up to half a ship in the old build hall.
Shipbuilding (and submarine building) capacity has been increasing for over a decade.
... we can go back as far as records allow (quite a few hundred years) to see that 'defense procurement' - with occasional exceptions - has always been a venal, corrupt, arse-facing-forwards shambles.
So, we can all calm down, secure in the knowledge that we are following in the footsteps of our ancestors and that it is business as usual.
... we can go back as far as records allow (quite a few hundred years) to see that 'defense procurement' - with occasional exceptions - has always been a venal, corrupt, arse-facing-forwards shambles.
This is actually a fair comment. HMS Victory was a product of this; she was a very old ship and after the battle of St Vincent in 1797 her CO at the time Admiral Jervis suggested that she be retired to a life as a storeship or hospital ship. Somebody then wrecked another ship, and the dockyards reckoned that they could refit Victory for much less than the cost of building a new ship.
She ended up being delivered back to the fleet late and over budget, costing more than building a bigger and more powerful ship. I suspect however that the French and Spanish would be inclined to agree that being late and over budget didn't affect her performance at Trafalgar much though.
I was born in Singapore (RAF Changi, Far East Air Force). Then RAF St.Mawgan, RAF Kinloss and finally RAF Ballykelly (only Kinloss remains a military base). As this was the 1950's and 1960's my family was provided with married quarters where all the neighbours were military families. We used military doctors and even the house laundry was dealt with by the RAF.
By the beginning of the 21st Century, it was all privatised. The so called Cold War had ended and all Governments jumped at the chance to go cheap (when I joined the Royal Navy in 1978 we had 90k personnel).
Military families no longer live in close-knit communitie, everyone is treated like cr@p and the pay is poor. I wouldn't encourage any of my 3 sons to pursue a military career and as for National Service, don't make me laugh!
We are no longer a leading maritime nation, but those who think they are running the country still have imperial aspirations. I say get over it, and use the money for the NHS.
Sail Army; Walk Sideways; Fly Navy!
A grumpy old sod
It's the ever lasting quality or quantity decision, do we get half a dozen of the best equipped or a dozen GP with a far cheaper fit for the same money, In practice you'd probably need the GP ships to go around in pairs (or more) to have the same effectiveness as one dedicated to the job because the submarine really is dedicated to just its one job.
The correct answer to this question is you need enough ships to do any required job, with both the UK & Norwegian navies working in the northern seas they've opted to have a similar mix of the same ship types to simplify the tasking and hopefully have enough between them to do the job.
The correct answer to this question is you need enough ships to do any required job, with both the UK & Norwegian navies working in the northern seas they've opted to have a similar mix of the same ship types to simplify the tasking and hopefully have enough between them to do the job.
Curious what the Norwegian objections are. Destroyers are mainly air defence platforms and I suspect most of the work Norway would be doing is ASW and general interdiction patrolling. The frigates seem more than capable for that task and cheaper to operate.
Peter2,
The frigate and destroyer distinction is somewhat meaningless. The Aussie Hunter class Type 26 is getting all the anti-air bells and whistles and huge VLS capacity. But is staying a frigate. The Canadian River Class (Type 26) isn't getting the bigger hull of the Aussie ship and I don't think it gets any more VLS cells, and yet it's a destroyer. Both will have better anti-air capabilities than base Type 26.
On the other hand Type 26 is physically bigger than Type 45 - which is a destroyer. If we do upgrade the Type 26s with more AAW capability, will we rename them destroyers?
The RN seem to be one of the few Navies that have a hard-and-fast definition of destroyer - i.e. anti-air warfare ship.
Anyway, aren't they all cruisers now? The Germans have just built an 11,000 tonne frigate that's not even designed for high end fighting. The Italians are building a class of 7,000 tonne OPVs which can be upgraded to frigate if you just put more weapons in. And the Japanese have two 25,000 tonne "destroyers" that can carry 15 F-35s. One of them's even called Kaga - I'm sayin' nuffink!
The frigate and destroyer distinction is somewhat meaningless.
I had this conversation with a RN frigate Captain who'd parked outside the office one day. Mainly because there'd been a destroyer parked there a few weeks before and the frigate looked larger. The Captain explained they were defined by role rather than size, with the frigates being primarily ASW vs AD. And both being able to bring about a fair share of destruction with all the missiles carried. Frigates seemed more flexible & versatile though, hence why they're kept busy and we need more. Then there's NATO doctrine and how assorted members contribute to NATO-lead ventures.
Jellied Eel,
The RN do this entirely by role. If you go back to the previous generation of ships, Type 42 was a destroyer, but had a decent ASW fit. As well as Exocet missiles (anti-ship) - but was built as an area defence air warfare destroyer. Everything else was a frigate - even the Type 22 and 23 which had Sea Wolf, then Sea Ceptor - which is decent, but not long range.
Type 45 did get a hull sonar, but was entirely built around the radar - it had to be 10 storeys tall to get the best detection for sea-skimming supersonic cruise missiles - and that dictated the size. It might have got a better weapons fit, if the joint Horizon program hadn't broken down. After the Falklands the RN wanted the best radar possible, France and Italy wanted a top-end ship that could do everything - so they only had the budget for 2 each, and we only scraped 6 by dropping everything else. With the new fit of 48 long range Aster and 24 CAMM, plus 8 Naval Strike Missiles and laser guns, they're going to be very shiny in the next couple of years - but from what I've read the sonars haven't been modernised, so they still can't do ASW.
Other navies work on a combination of size, role, weapons fit or whatever else floats their boat. The Kuznetsov being an "aircraft carrying cruiser", in order to get in and out of the Black Sea - Japan building Destroyers, because "Self-Defence Forces" don't have 25,000 tonne helicopter carriers. Even if they do name them Kaga - and then refit them to carry F-35s...
Other navies work on a combination of size, role, weapons fit or whatever else floats their boat. The Kuznetsov being an "aircraft carrying cruiser", in order to get in and out of the Black Sea - Japan building Destroyers, because "Self-Defence Forces" don't have 25,000 tonne helicopter carriers. Even if they do name them Kaga - and then refit them to carry F-35s...
Back in the Thatcher era the RN only got our Invincible class ships through the defence review because they called them "Through-deck cruisers" - this to avoid them being cut as Thatcher's government wanted to cut all aircraft carriers to cut costs. CVA-01 as a project was scrapped and ships like Ark Royal were scrapped in short order, along with their fixed-wing aircraft.
If we hadn't have had the Falklands war they would have all been scrapped much sooner than they were, the war was a real shot in the arm for the RN.
Jellied Eel,
I meant to reply to you on this. As you say, Norway want top-end ASW. But when they're doing ASW up North, they're getting quite close to Russian air bases. Obviously they can give their ships air cover, but given they've got the budget it would make sense to have better air defence. Ten years ago I'd have been very happy with Type 26, now I think it's going to need an air defence upgrade. Anti-ship ballistic missiles only got their first kill from the Houthis a couple of years ago, but the RN may have over-specialised in sea-skimmers - because of the Falklands experience. I don't know how well CAMM will work against medium range ballistic missiles, which are a lot faster. This is only educated guesswork though, I'm sure the RN understand their capabilities and the actual threats a lot better than I do.
It's also important to remember that electronic warfare and decoys play a huge role, you don't have to blow a missile up to avoid it killing you. Plus the Type 26 will be getting Dragonfire lasers as part of an already planned upgrade. Probably not long after they come into service.
I meant to reply to you on this. As you say, Norway want top-end ASW. But when they're doing ASW up North, they're getting quite close to Russian air bases. Obviously they can give their ships air cover, but given they've got the budget it would make sense to have better air defence.
I think that depends on what the intended purpose is. So if things have gotten to the point that a Russian air threat is real, things have escalated rather quickly and assuming we have enough warning, there'd be air patrols from Norway and NATO. And assuming we didn't have warnings, then the first we might know is Norway's ports and airfields being struck by hypersonic missiles, drones or both and then it'd be a hasty Article 5 followed by WW3 and a lot of instant sunshine. Basically the whole MAD thing, especially if provoked by a real or perceived existential threat to Russia, which is their current doctrine.
Bigger threat is the current economic war and that escalating, so attempts to blockade Russia, or Norway's offshore oil & gas infrastructure suffers Nord Stream style 'accidents', pipelines or interconnectors are cut. Or just trade protection requirements. Norway's still pretty dependent on fishing, and the Norwegian fishing fleet has been shut out of Russian territorial waters where it had previously fished, so perhaps a Norway v Russia Cod Wars.
But the Type 26 is still a pretty potent warship with its mix of launch cells, so in an anti-air role, could carry 72 SAMs, or a mix of SAM, anti-ship and land attack. That's not much less than the Type 45 carries. No idea what the difference in FCS is, so how many air threats the frigates could track and engage vs the destroyer. But Norway's signed the contract, and hopefully they know a lot more about what they're buying than we do.
Jellied Eel,
So far as I know, Type 26 is only set up to operate Sea Ceptor. Which is a fine self-defence missile, with a range of c. 25km (CAMM). They're decently cheap, but as we've seen in the Red Sea, that only defends your ship, or anything in convoy with it. NATO ships have had to roll out the expensive long-range missiles when defending other ships, because the cheaper shorter rnage stuff only protects you - even against some of the crappier drones.
CAMM-ER has a range of 45km, and was developed by the Italian bit of MDBA. But the RN and army (Land Ceptor) haven't shown much public interest in it. However we're selling Land Ceptor to Poland and jointly developing CAMM-MR - which is supposed to be up to 100km range.
It's probably better than the Sea Sparrow the current Norwegian frigates have. But the Houthis deploying anti-ship ballistic missiles leads me to think that the anti-air game is getting harder. And self-defence may require the ability to deal with them now, rather than leaving that to specialist air defence ships. I'm also doubtful that lasers can be the answer to something that fast moving, though they'll be great for drones. Plus the Norwegian Sea ain't the best place to use lasers.
Norway will get Dragonfire when the RN do. They're buying into our Type 26 program. But we've already upped the air defence capabilities of Type 31 since its design - and I suspect Type 26 should get the same. Even the best electronic warfare is going to defend your task force, not an allied ship 80km away.
Finally credibility of deterrence requires that Norway has to build its defence forces to deal with Russian threats. We have to assume a nuclear power are sane, and also don't want the instant sunchine to happen. A decent conventional deterrent makes military action less likely, and that hopefully lowers the nuclear threat - as it's not worth trying anything conventional either.
As you say, it's a good ship. But the RN has ABM capability with Type 45. Norway don't. The main threat it's designed for is still Russian subs though, and I don't think the Russians have a sub-launched anti-ship ballistic missile? So the main threat is still supersonic cruise missiles, which Sea Ceptor was specifically designed for.
So far as I know, Type 26 is only set up to operate Sea Ceptor. Which is a fine self-defence missile, with a range of c. 25km (CAMM). They're decently cheap, but as we've seen in the Red Sea, that only defends your ship, or anything in convoy with it. NATO ships have had to roll out the expensive long-range missiles when defending other ships, because the cheaper shorter rnage stuff only protects you - even against some of the crappier drones.
But it also has 24x Mk41 VLS cells and the full length 'strike' version. So they're one of the best bits of NATO thinking, ie standardising launch containers. So those can fit a wide range of anti-air, anti-ship and land attack missiles. That includes the Storm Shadow/Scalp replacement, which may or may not be getting a rethink in light of those missiles performance in Ukraine. So the RJ10 ramjet variant maybe getting a rethink to make it hyper rather than just supersonic. Hopefully. After all, we did make the good'ol Bloodhound missile which was an early go-fast missile.
It's probably better than the Sea Sparrow the current Norwegian frigates have. But the Houthis deploying anti-ship ballistic missiles leads me to think that the anti-air game is getting harder. And self-defence may require the ability to deal with them now, rather than leaving that to specialist air defence ships. I'm also doubtful that lasers can be the answer to something that fast moving, though they'll be great for drones. Plus the Norwegian Sea ain't the best place to use lasers.
Yup. On the plus side, the Type-26 shares the tall mast design of the Type-45, so that improves detection range. From a quick search, can't find the total height of both to compare. But for sea drones, it's also going to be the downward looking capability, maybe with thermal detection to try and spot those closing in. Then how to engage those, and I'm also dubious about DEW being the solution. Lasers are going to suffer attentuation in warm, dense air and also cold, foggy air with lots of spray. Then if they'll be able to defeat a hypersonic missile that's got a plasma shield and is designed to handle a lot of frictional heating. But if we can generate enough power and have the space, there's always particle beams firing teeny bullets.
Something I've been pondering though is mass. So a laser emitter should be smaller and lower mass than a DS30 or CIWS. So perhaps put those on the mast where they can look down as well as up/out and deal with threats close to the ship that current protection systems can't deal with because they can't depress low enough, or are blocked by the hull. Which is one of those art imitating life things. I have fun with a game called 'From the Depths*' that lets us build ships, subs, drones, aircraft and I build my ships with laser defences high for that reason, and it works.. But of course that glosses over a lot of reality about getting energy from laser generators to emitters. But it's also a problem that was demonstrated during WW2 with Japanese Kamikazi pilots coming in at low level and under the ships guns.
The main threat it's designed for is still Russian subs though, and I don't think the Russians have a sub-launched anti-ship ballistic missile? So the main threat is still supersonic cruise missiles, which Sea Ceptor was specifically designed for.
Russia has pretty much always had those and is doing things like copying from the US Ohio subs to install more cruise missiles in place of SLBMs in their proposed Borei-K, and proposals to replace the Borei's with their Arcturus class. Then there are these-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasen-class_submarine
Which can launch Zircon, Oniks and Kalibr missiles, all of which have been used in Ukraine. So on the plus side, we've seen something of their capability, on the minus, some have proven to be very hard to intercept. Plus/minus claims of successful intercepts, which are often 95%+ which seem implausible, especially when stuff on the ground explodes.. And also if these are 'fair' tests, ie Ukraine perhaps not being given the latest and greatest systems because we don't want to reveal all our secrets. And then Russia's been doing the same, so their success in countering (or not) all the stuff being thrown in their direction.
But Russia's strategy for naval warfare has always been to swarm and overwhelm air defences to try and kill carriers. Countering that needs a layered defence and enough warships to provide screens, which I think is an advantage with the Type-26's versatility. It can be part of a CBG screen, and go chase off or prosecute submarine targets, but also leave less of a hole in the air defences. But as we're living in interesting times due to our 'leaders' creating enemies, we need more ships to perform all the duties they're needed for.. Which is also a sequencing issue, ie we have more territory or interests to protect than Norway does.
* NATO should throw these devs some money. Fun game or physics simulation-
https://store.steampowered.com/app/268650/From_the_Depths/
Want a gas powered warship? Start by building your engine from cylinder blocks, injectors, turbos, then tetris in exhausts. Or build your own submarine block by block, add rail guns with supercavitating projectiles. Then wonder why your mighty capital ship has become HMS Sitting Duck because all your offensive/defensive systems have sucked all the energy and there's nothing left for propulsion. Which I rather suspect is a challenge real-life naval architects face. Sure, we can add all these new systems and features, but then your frigate will become a submarine. It keeps me amused and is one of the reasons I've not given up on Windows yet.
Senior Norwegian officers are already saying these are the wrong type of ship, they are too specific-task oriented, whereas they need more general purpose destroyers.
If true, this is probably because the correct ship doesn't exist. And Norway wanted to buy off-the-shelf not build their own.
The Aussies went the other way, they're building the Hunter Class, based on the Type 26 - but with the AAW armament of a destroyer. Still calling it a frigate though, and the ballooning costs and delays they've caused to the program with that decision mean it's going to come into service after Norway get their first couple of Type 26 and it's going to be so far over budget that Australia are now only buying 6 and making up the numbers with their new Mogami frigates bought from Japan.
Norway and the UK really need a top-end ASW ship. Type 26 is the best at that, by all I've been able to read about it. It's got good self-defence in anti-air. But I think it's going to need quite a quick upgrade, as the threat appears to be moving from sea-skimming cruise missiles to medium-range ballistic missiles. If even the Houthis can deploy them, admittedly as an extension of Iranian policy - then who else might? But that's fine. It's got Mark 41 VLS, so can take loads of different kinds of missiles. It's got the same combat management system as other British ships, so we could either give it Aster missiles (which we'd have to get rated for mk 41 launch), or go for US SM2 - which would require an update to our CMS. Or the upgrades to Sea Ceptor (CAMM) might be good enough? Italy have an extended range version, and Poland and the UK are working on an even longer range one.
The new philosophy of the Royal Navy is to build your ships big. Then you can upgrade them with whatever you need. This also means you don't have to get the design perfect, or worse have to predict the future and keep chopping and changing your design. Hence Mk 41 VLS is being retro-fitted to the Type 31 general purpose frigates. They always wanted it, but the idea was to get the ships built for cheap, and then add the capabilities they thought they'd need later.
Norway can now pressure us into doing the necessary upgrade work, as the ships will be run as a joint program. It may be that this will be part of the purchase agreement. We buy now, but work also starts on an air defence upgrade as soon as we order, for fitting in 2030 when the first ship goes operational.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
