The Ministry of Defence has announced that HMS Duncan is being sent to join HMS Montrose protecting merchant shipping in the Arabian Gulf. Here we take a look at how events in the Middle East that have placed a spotlight on the strength of Royal Navy.
Action off Gibraltar
On 4th July, under the direction of the Gibraltar government, the tanker MV Grace 1 was impounded in Gibraltar waters. Royal Marines of 42 Commando and Royal Gibraltar Police, took control of the vessel. The Marines were delivered onto the forecastle by rapid-roping down from a Wildcat helicopter flying from RFA Tidesurge. The Grace 1 was believed to be delivering oil to Syria which is banned under an EU policy of economic sanctions against the Assad regime. It soon emerged the tanker and its cargo was Iranian, signalling wider international implications. The arrest of the Grace 1 was perceived as ‘piracy’ by Iran which quickly threatened take retaliatory action against British merchant ships.
There is some dispute as to whether the US requested Britain seize the tanker as part of their economic stranglehold on Iran, or the action was an entirely unilateral decision by the UK and Gibraltar to uphold EU sanctions. The UK’s stated foreign policy is to maintain the Iranian nuclear deal and try to avoid being drawn into Trump’s growing conflict with Iran.
Warned off
On 10th July HMS Montrose was escorting the BP tanker MV British Heritage through the Strait of Hormuz. Close to the Iranian-held island of Abu Musa, three Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) boats attempted to intercept the tanker. HMS Montrose trained her 30mm guns on the boats and warned them off by radio and the boats wisely withdrew. Protection of trade is the Royal Navy’s most fundamental role and the incident demonstrates the value of vessels on the scene to provide deterrence and reassurance to merchant vessels. For whatever reason, the MoD has refused to release imagery of the interaction with the Iranians. This seems like a missed opportunity to corroborate their version of events and to clearly demonstrate to the British taxpayer how the Royal Navy is delivering at the sharp end. There seems to be little hesitation about releasing imagery of RAF Typhoons intercepting Russian aircraft during tense encounters, why is this scenario any different?
A change of plan
Following this incident, on 12th July the MoD said: “As part of our long-standing presence in the Gulf, HMS Duncan is deploying to the region to ensure we maintain a continuous maritime security presence while HMS Montrose comes off-task for pre-planned maintenance and crew change over.” This is slightly misleading, until the recent rise in tensions the plan had been that HMS Montrose would be the sole escort in the Gulf region. When she had to come alongside there would not be any other RN vessels to provide a ‘continuous maritime security presence’, hopefully, coalition warships would be available to assume the task.
HMS Duncan sailed from Portsmouth on 9th March for what was expected to be a 6-month deployment in the Mediterranean and her third visit to the Black Sea in two years. As the nearest Royal Navy vessel to the Gulf, it is understood she had been on standby to go East of Suez for a few days but completed her participation in the NATO/Ukrainian exercise ‘Sea Breeze 2019’ before transiting the Bosphorus on the afternoon of July 12th (Main image above). A journey of nearly 4,000 nautical miles from the Bosphorus to Bahrain will take HMS Duncan about two weeks before she can reinforce or relieve HMS Montrose.
Arriving in Bahrain during April, HMS Montrose will spend the next 3 years based at the UK Naval Support Facility with her crew swapping every 6 months or so. The ship’s company of HMS Duncan, who might have expected to be home in August, may now be away for a considerably longer. The new crew of HMS Montrose trained together in UK waters aboard HMS Monmouth, before flying out to join the ship in the Gulf. Swapping the entire crew of HMS Duncan for that of another Type 45 to extend her time in the Gulf might be theoretically possible, but not something the RN is prepared for right now.
The Type 45 destroyers have been routinely operating East of Suez and in the Gulf for the past 5 years. Minor workarounds and operating restrictions, developed under the Equipment Improvement Plan (EIP), has allowed them to successfully deploy in hot climates, despite propulsion issues. (HMS Dauntless will be the first Type 45 to have the Power Improvement Package (PIP) engine cure when she is towed to Cammell Laird this Autumn to receive three new diesel-generator sets.)
The arrival of HMS Duncan will be a considerable increase in capability, although should not be interpreted as a sign the UK wishes to escalate the conflict. The powerful radars and air defence system carried by the destroyer will be a welcome asset but against the asymmetric naval warfare tactics employed by the Iranians so far, for deterring small boats the two DS30M Mark II Automated Small Calibre Guns (ASCG) may be the most effective weapons. Duncan also carries a Wildcat helicopter and it is unfortunate that the Martlet Lightweight multi-role missile (LMM) will not enter service until next year. The Wildcat when eventually armed with up to 20 of these missiles, would be a good antidote to a swarm of small boats.
The laying of sea mines or further attempts to place limpet mines on merchant ships by IRGC special forces should not be ruled out. The 4 Royal Navy minehunters and RFA support ship based in Bahrain are effective, well trained and integrated with coalition forces, although would need protection in action.
Even if both warships are available they would have their hands full escorting every British-flagged vessel in the area and co-operation with US and other aligned nations protecting shipping will be needed. There was widespread satisfaction that the arrival of HMS Montrose meant an escort permanently assigned to the region and seen as a sensible way for the RN to balance its resources. Unfortunately, recent events have highlighted again just how slender those resources are, however wisely deployed. An escort force of just 19 vessels, of which around 7 or 8 are operational right now is simply inadequate and can’t be remedied quickly. The redeployment of just a single destroyer from a stretched force, attempting to balance global commitments, will affect ship’s programmes across the fleet and impact summer leave arrangements.
While campaigning to win the Tory leadership, Jeremy Hunt has been arguing for greater defence spending. He recently said “It’s time to put our money where our mouth is on defence funding, starting with the Royal Navy… when you look at this week’s events it shows that in recent decades we have run down the navy too much”. The son of Admiral Sir Nicholas Hunt is absolutely correct, although such strong public support for the Navy was not so forthcoming during his many years as a cabinet minister. Unfortunately, our new naval advocate seems to have little hope of becoming Prime Minister, given the popularity of Boris Johnson amongst the Tory faithful.
Related articles
Iran’s illegal seizure of a British tanker – a failure by the Royal Navy or a failure of strategy?
What is the state of Royal Navy land-attack missile capability?
Royal Navy deploys HMS Richmond to bolster UK naval presence in the Gulf region
HMS Diamond sent to the Gulf in response to rising tension in the Middle East
For me it’s interesting how this incident sharpens the mind on the possible ways that Iran can threaten our warships if things go hot. We are just protecting shipping lanes and yet the reality is we need high end warships to do the job with a reasonable amount of safety for the crew.
I see this job as a role for River B2’s and the upcoming T31, however, neither will be armed sufficiently to deal with the potential saturation attack and lack the radar power to track the many targets that may be presented.
We should not be having to put a billion pound warship meant for high end blue water warfare in these scenarios, and I really hope the outcome is a better armed T31 and some defensive capabilities for the Rivers. I think a couple of B2’s to react a high speed backed up by a T31 to provide a defensive shield would be perfect for this current scenario. If a T45 is there, it should be well back and screening for ballistic missiles, but again a gap in our capabilities. And then there’s the question of how we would retaliate should any large scale attempt be tried. How would our current ships take out a launch site on shore or take out a swarm of tens of missile boats? T45 will have 8 harpoons and no land attack missiles.
It’s definitely not an ideal situation, but at least theres a growing desire amongst politicians to actually fix it.
IMO using OPVs to plug the gap is a non-starter. They’re needed in home waters for a start, where there’s a lot more space and far fewer threats that need to be patrolled. Plus, with no missile defence capability they’re just not worth risking if something did kick off.
Definitely a T31 role though, especially if we get lucky and we get a second batch ordered.
The Type 45’s can be fitted out with some Sylver A70 cells, which can launch Tomahawk, SCALP, Aster 30 Block 1&2(NT)(BMD), which means both ABM capability, and land attack capability.
If it was tens of missile boats, the carriers would deal with them. It would be a slaughter.
Doesn’t even need the carrier. A Wildcat loaded for bear with 20 Martlets would be enough to ruin any IRGC swarm attack. I’d be much more concerned with the Iranians’ fleet of mini subs, which likely require dedicated ASW assets to counter (which are unfortunately in desperately short supply)
How about 21 boats in the swarm attack?Even 20 would be an enormous amount of faith in missile technology. The Iranians can be expected to put some thought into this.
Well the helicopter goes back to rearm, or the escort uses it’s cannons. Yet any force that takes that level of casualties is highly unlikely to continue to press the attack. Morale tends to suffer
I hope the UK Govt have realised that they have kicked over the hornet’s nest here. Iran operate the Mach 3 + Sunburn missile with a 90 mile operating range and with the Strait of Hormuz being 40 miles across they can target any vessel including carriers from the back of a truck. No vulnerable launch site required.
They can also close the Hormuz with mines or give their Kilos some work. Remember the point here is to protect the tankers and other vessels, not the warships.
What Iran should do is sign a deal with Russia giving them free access to build bases along the coast and watch the West squirm.
.
That’s exactly why the chosen T31 design has to have the same offensive punch as the current GP T23, these events are a clear warning that a capable enemy with intent, could overwhelm a poorly armed ‘patrol’ frigate with swam attacks
It strikes me that this is the sort of scenario in shallow and congested waters that T31 (at least my ideal version of it) would be perfect for.
A main-gun, secondary 30mm mounts (perhaps the Seahawk Sigma variant of for a bit of extra punch) and a Wildcat to ward off surface threats to shipping – but with Artisan / Sea Ceptor and a CIWS to be able to look after itself if thing’s turn hot.
T45 & T26 need to primarily focus on carrier group ops where deep open ocean and skies require area anti-submarine and anti-air capabilities.
Another reminder of just how much the carriers have sabotaged the RN and our wider Defence capabilities. Carriers would be pointless in this scenario – and vulnerable. The money wasted on the QE class would have been invested in more frigates and released more manpower back into the fleet.
Hunt is right to advocate a bigger fleet but wrong about the F-35. We need more ships for the RN and the vastly more capable F-35A for the RAF.
The RN has been starved of escorts due to a mix of political shortsightedness, a lack of funds and the huge price-tags for things like T45 & T26.
I think extreme overkill is a better wording than pointless. Whoever said the carriers would be a perfect fit for each and every scenario that comes the RN’s way?
The are the big stick you can wield when all attempts at dialogue and containment fail.
Fat Dave#
I agree with you that the RN needs new and more frigates.
But the carriers will have their limelight role in a future scenario!
The Royal Navy needs a diverse fleet of types of vessels for varied roles.
You go On about it, As if 10 carriers have been ordered!!
A One size fits all navy, would be useless to the the Royal Navy.
I do havea shopping list of other types vessels that would be useful to the RN!
Quite wrong. Its just that we don’t have the anti-ship missiles we require. No F35B launched, No helicopter or surface ship launched. In other words a clean sweep of uselessness. Anyone can see that. The need is for more F35B to give the flexibilty we need. F35A airfields would be taken down in the first wave of any attack with little or no warning.
Upset at the delay to Sea Skua replacement.
It is irritating but not a disaster, if a crisis blows up that needs the capability it is amazing what can be done via a UOR quickly!
Seawolf was brand spanking new and they had Marconi engineers aboard in 1982 to fix radar issues in the Falklands. Same as how the technicians were aboard Prince of Wales when she went toe to toe with the Bismark
I don’t care about the downvotes or childish insults. The fact is that the type 23 is quite suitable for this task and we have spare ones lying around rotting while people rant about a shortage of ships. There is no substitute for a proper strategy whatever your veiws on total defence expenditure.
The type 23 IS quite suitable for the task and it is notable that HMS Montrose is a General Purpose Frigate so the Type 31 would be ideal for such a task; the govt just needs to get its` finger out and build the bloody things ASAP. Either way the incident in question is an explicit demonstration as to why we need the RN. So much so that it would appear that the penny has finally dropped and Jeremy Hunt is promising to augment the RN. But…..what politicians promise and what they deliver are quite different things.
The problem though is that the Type 31 as currently proposed has inferior armament to the General Purpose Type 23s it’s meant to replace…
Grubbie#
The RN does Not have any spare Type 23 frigates lying around! HMS Iron Duke is now in refit and being repaired.
HMS Lancaster has been refitted, and now re-crewed, and is getting ready for sea trials. Two more T23s are due to have their refits completed in the next few months.
Only HMS Daring, a T45 destroyer ,is laying around out of service. A decision has been made for HMS Dauntless, which is in refit, to be the first T45 to have their engine upgraded in October.
Meirion X-san
Yes, many T23 are in refit, but are there really enough crews waiting for these ships, while RN is keeping 1 T45 in extended readiness for years? I’m afraid there is no such extra crew, and when the T23s come back from refit, similar number of T23 or T45 will just go into “extended readiness”.
Also, average sea-going days of RN escort is now 80-90 days per year, which was 140-150 days before 2015. Reduced by 40%. I understand 11% (2 of the 19) is shown as, one T45 in extended readiness, and one T23 in “similar” situation. But still another 30% reduction remains.
Man power issue is much more important than ship building for RN, I agree.
The Type 23s are good for the task…the problem isnt that they are just lying around….they havent got the manpower to crew them all and some are in refit ? Personally I would bet the Argentine Admiralante Brown class Destroyer would be better at dealing with FACs than the type 23 frigate (Not that the Type 23 is bad or anything but for the sake of overkill lol) by virtue of their 4 Twin fast forties lol 8 40/70 radar guided BOFORS with 4000 rounds of ammunition = Brown Trousers for Boghammers ( Operation Preying Mantis ) ?
You are missing one subtle point, the Argentine Almirante Brown class are barely able to leave harbour let alone perform a global deployment. The general material state of the Argentine navy is woeful and they are suffering from a lack of decent time at sea to train. The Almirante Brown are also suffering from a lack of spares and ongoing engine issues plus their ordinance has reached its expiration date. Their issues are further exacerbated by their international creditors attempting to impound their vessels when they arrive in foreign ports.
So all in all an unlikely scenario…
I know the Argentine Navy is in trouble ? my statement was more about the design if it were operating at 100%. I specified the Argentine part as the Meko 360 class has 1 ship in the Nigerian Navy built slightly differently ? You are very right about the issues you mentioned ?
HMS VIctory has superb anti swarm weapons. 😉
Any WWII destroyer, a Tribal or Fletcher with modern fire controls would
stand a better chance a against a swarm than the 23 or 45.
A Fletcher would massacre swarm boats…it would be a game between the 5inch gun crews and the 40mm Bofors crews on how many kills they get ? Just imagine the slaughter a WW2 fitted Iowa class BB could cause? ? ( The 1980s refit removed 2 twin 5 inch turrets and all Bofors and Oerlikans but added Sea Sparrow, Tomahawks and 4x Block 0 Phalanx 20mm (Block 1 on Wisconsin)
Why don’t they get on with the PIP upgrade? Everything moves at a snails pace. Unacceptably so in my opinion.
The sets of diesel generators, were only ordered last year! Dauntless is first now to have new gens, because she is already near the end of her refit.
Don’#t know for sure, but I guess it’s unfortunately a bit of a vicious spiral; we need to have escorts available for their deployments and crew training (can you imagine the uproar in the press if none of our T45s was in the water?!), but we don’t have enough for more than 1 to go in for a complex refit like PIP, and have the rest going through the normal cycle of standard maintenance, training and deployment. It’d take too many out of the standard cycle.
Bear in mind that PIP involves cutting holes in the hull (I believe) to get the new gen-sets in, and then patching that hole to an approved standard which will require detailed weld inspections etc. Those gen-sets will also have to be run up and thoroughly tested (probably before the hole gets plugged in case they don’t work!). I don’t think this is a quick process at all.
Presuming a type 31 will replace the current frigate, two more type 31 orders specifically for the region plus the basing of one of the future litrrol strike ships with merlins and wildcats, would give the RN a significant, meaningful and reliable presence in the region. Not only would three frigates allow for at least one on constant patrol. But with the FLSS they could not only maintain an immediate quick response force through its helicopters, but could also secure the amidiate cost line of distable areas such as yeoman, where none state actors have used rockets to attack shipping from the sure. Also if HMNBs Juffair is expanded it would mean the salers families could join them, removing the need for rotational crews.
There will be no families in BHR.
It would cost money to put MQ accom and the support infrastucture in place etc. One of the reasons UKNSF exists is that the accommodation on site means that the personnel no longer get put up in “Hotel” accommodation ashore.
Fair enough. But to have a proper influence in the region (i.e not just a single frigate, with a rotational crew out of are already deprived man power), we need as pwr usual to properly invest in it.
Reading the comments and the article I keep coming up with the same conclusion The US and the UK do not have the right ships/boats for the situation of operating off a possible hostile shore in confined waters. Yes the T23 is a very capabile warship as is the T45 but they are blue water ships, their defence and attack systems are designed to see and then engage at range, they also have the freedom to manouver. In coastal or confined waters they do not have that advantage.
Sometimes size does not matter but flexibility and the ability to operate in the conditions.
With that in mind possibly the RN and the MoD if they can get the Parlimentarians to understand needs two types of new classes of ships/boats to operate in confined waters the corvette and the fast missile boat. That would leave the frigates and destoyers to operate along side the carriers and assault ships.
The ships that I would suggest is something like the Sa’ar 6 corvette and the Hamina class missile boat in its rebuilt form. For every three missile boats there would be one corvette as a heavy sensor and weapons platform, these would form squadrons and operate as a squadron. With three squadrons the RN could protect critical areas of its maritime interests whils leaving the blue water fleet to do its job. The cost of this construction would be for 9 missile boats and 3 corvettes coming to about £1.5 billion. Yes that is expensive in the short term but look at it a diffrent way, a type 26 frigate will cost almost £1 billion, its Artisan radar has a range of 200km giving a coverage of 125,664km armed with 48 Sea Ceptor missiles, 8 Anti ship missiles and a 4.5in gun plus some other things for the Mk41 VLS. With what I am suggesting at the cost of 1.5 T26s we could put 12 ships in the water with Artisan radar having a range of 150km (reduced range due to the lower height of the main mast), one ship would cover 70,685km multiply that by 12 you have a coverage of 848,220km. They would bring to battle 168 Sea Ceptors, 84 anti ship missiles, 3 helicopters, 3-76mm guns, 9-40 mm guns and 15 torpedo tubes plus some other stuff such as 25mm bushmasters, mini guns etc. A single squadron would have a radar coverage of 214,018km and bring 56 Sea Ceptors, 28 anti ship missiles etc as well as being able to do 33 knots working in a confined area.
The cost of a squdron to build is approx £500 million and that is on the high side. Please don’t think I am suggesting to replace any of the frigates with these small ships of war I’m not, they don’t have the range or the duration at sea time, but what I am suggesting is that for the cost of 1.5 T26s I can be in 12 diffrent locations bringing a punch whilst able to defend themselves, protecting British interests whilst freeing up the blue water ships.
One squdron could be based in Singapore to protect the Straits of Malacca, one in Oman or Bahrain protecting the Straits of Hormuz and the third could be used for other purposes. The Sa’ar 6 and the Hamina class vessels also have towed array so possibly they could be useful in the North of Scotland protecting the submarine base, undergoing refit and repair etc.
The Sa’ar 6 is the latest design for Israel so possibly we could just buy the design and build them here in the UK whilst the Hamina class is getting on a bit so we could use the design and modernise it. As for manning, to give each vessel two crews 930 men would be needed. I am not sure how mixed crews would work as there would be no space for separate heads, berths etc.
To get the fast missile boats to the area a heavy lift ship such as Blue Marlin could be used.
That would give the RN a surface combat fleet compisition of 2 CVs, 6 DDGs, 8 FFGs T26, 5 FFGs T31, 2 LPDs for blue water operations and 3 corvettes, 9 fast missile boats for coastal operations. That to me seems then a more ballanced and flexible fleet at the extra cost of £1.5 billion. With a 5 year build plan that would mean 1 squadron being commisioned every 20 months at £300 million per year, surely we as a country can afford that.
The right tools for the job makes the job easier and safer.
Pretty sure that T26 is getting the Mark 45 5” inch gun, not the 4.5” in current use with the RN.
(I even think there were plans to replace the 4.5” on the T45s too, but that’s probably not happening now, just like the fitting of the extra VLSs…)
I wonder if the T23’s old 4.5” guns might be recycled for use on the T31…?
The T31s need the 5″ inch gun much more then T26s!
At the moment it looks like the T31s might only get nerf guns…
Nerf Guns??? They better bloody not ??Gun systems like the 57mm Bofors mk 3, 76mm SR (Strales would be nice) and 5inch mark 45’s mod 4 should be in the running (They are used by the US and many NATO allies and so will be very helpful in logistics ? unline the 4.5 inch which is no longer so widespread as it was with its Mark 6 mount like on the County and Leander classes)
It beggers brief, that the MoD are going to fit out T26 frigates with a 5 inch gun. I would have thought the T31GPs would be more useful for coastal bombardment?
Kinda like an AWACs with F15s….the high end Corvette commanding a squad of low end missile boats. I like this Idea….Adm Elmo Zumwalt hi/low fleet style ? Yes smaller combatants. Take a look at the Pegasus class Hydrofoil that thd USN had….modernize it and that would be great for your suggestion
Having been the Ops Officer of HMS Manchester in the Gulf in spring/summer 1988 and having worked in the Combat System Design Team of the Type 45 for almost 5 years I have no idea why anybody should think the Type 45 should be limited to ‘blue water’ operations- it was a design requirement for it to operate in the Gulf! It’s systems are exactly what is needed there and it is extremely manoeuvrable. The EO/IR sensors, 30mm guns and Phalanx all provide excellent close range surface capability and the very small RCS is a great asset. The Aster minimum range is entirely appropriate to the area as well. The highest threat is probably mines and EO/IR has a capability there.
One more thing. The Type 45 has very good Link 16 capability. The sensor coverage of the NATO/coalition units that operate in the Gulf theatre is essentially gapless given the various data exchange mechanisms available especially with data from airborne platforms. The article does not consider this aspect at all and it should!
Don’t forget Artillery fire ? using Phalanx for Surface work detracts from its AA in that in a combined arms attack with Sea and Air…it would/should prioritize Air threats.
As far as I know the Phalanx surveillance radar is not used in the surface capability and is free to continue its threat detection role. it is very straightforward to switch back to AA.
Surface mode is EO/IR….while it is easy to switch between modes, I was suggesting a Simultaneous attack from Swarm boats and Missiles. Phalanx only has enough ammunition for 20 secs of continuous fire followed by a 5 min manual reload. True the Ku Band radar system phalanx has will continue to scan and track, the gun can only shoot at 1 target at a time and prior engagements against swarm boats will seriously hamper the system if followed quickly by Missiles (IE the system depleting its ammunition drum) – This issue Prompted in part Raytheon to improve the System with RIM 116 IR/Passive Radar missiles in their SeaRAM mount so they can fire at multiple targets simultaneously.
I suggest 4500 rounds is enough to defeat quite a few surface targets!
To defeat cheap and numerous fast boats, pretending to be fishery boat, several 7.62mm mini-guns and 12.7mm RWS will be good enough.
To defeat a dozen of fast boats armed with missiles/rockets, a Wildcat must do.
If it is more numerous (say two or three dozens), intelligence MUST predict it so that allies shall prepare a few Wildcats and Romeo, or even F16s or Typhoons, in ambush.
A single ship will never be required to handle “alpha-strike” of a modern nation.
Judging by previous conversations Sam believes that every Royal Navy vessel should be able to take on every concievable scenario in the name of “self-defense” up to and including an attack by the entire Russian navy at once… while unprepared… and under swarm drone attack.
4500 rounds would be…but Phalanx has only 1500…with 20 secs worth of fire ?
Got to say the Scandi navyiens (hope you see what i did there) seem to get all the cool corvettes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skjold-class_corvette being a particular example. Clearly they have the coastline to make best use of them but the firepower to cost ratio is impressive.
If looking not for a “one size fits all approach” but rather tools specialised for the job, it is an intriguing way forward….
Take a look at the Swedish Visby Class, a stealthy little SOAB ?
A very interesting posting – can you tell me what the crewing requirement would be?
@RON
The USN does have enough assets in the Gulf region to handle escorts and coastal/confined riverine type of operations. They have Cyclone patrol ships and MKVI boats in the region.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone-class_patrol_ship
https://navaltoday.com/2019/05/23/us-navy-fields-new-mark-vi-patrol-boats/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_VI_patrol_boat
They’re part of the 5th Fleet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._5th_Fleet
Not counting other US forces, which are substantial, that are in the area that provide toward security operations.
More,more,more,it’s just a constant shopping list like a high maintenance wife.How can the RN and it’s advocates expect to taken seriously without a viable strategic plan?RN one of the most expensive navies the world and the UK is not even the biggest nation in Europe.The carriers now need over 300 more people than was declared, so now we are actually in the position of having too many ships. Obviously we need more ships, apart from anything the T23 should be leaving service already in order to maintain an efficient build strategy.
The type 31e is a dreadful plan,being pushed through by various vested interests.
@Grubbie, I agree with you in many ways however, it is not that the RN wants more more more its that Parliament did not implement the strategic plans from 1998-2000 which was to have a destoyer/ frigate force of 31 ships. This then got reduced to 25 then to 19. The original plan was to have 12 T45s and 19 frigates, this then got reduced to 12 T45s and 13 T26, then reduced further to 6 T45s and 13 T26s now it is 6 T45s and 8 T26s with 5 T31s. The reasons given was such things as the T45 radar system is the equivliant of 5 T42s which is true, but the ship can only be in one locastion not five at the same time. What was the result of the changes to the T45 contract an extra cost of £250 million per vessel as the technical research into Sampson etc had to be covered.
The other issue is that in the normal running of the MoD budget, the SSBN cost would be in the treasury, however G. Osborne in his wisdom took the short term measure to place the cost in the MoD budget without an increase to said budget. Not only that but the MoD has also been left with pensions, injury claims etc what is even less know is that a part of the MoD budget is used for international aid/ desaster relief.
Would it be nice to have the agreed 31 DDGs/FFGs yes can we afford it no, that would be an extra £8-10 billion for the extra 12 hulls and 3,600 extra crew for two crews for each ship. Can we afford that, no could we man it, again probably no.
What I have tried to do is come up with a reasonable solution in cost, man power and flexibility leaving blue water ships to do what they are designed to do and to have ships that is more brown water capable. Basically giving a big ship small ship fleet. To aid with the manning I expect that only one carrier will be operational at any given time unless there is a full scale war. With that being the case I suggest that the carrier battle group operates as a fixed group of CV/DDGs/FFGs when the CV is in for refit repair etc the complete group goes in at the same time and is stood down. The carrier goes to sea the group goes to sea and so on. That would mean that at any given moment in time there is a carrier group out on operations one is stood down the same with the Amphibs one at sea with a FFG one in refit repair with its FFG.
This would mean that the small ships would not have a manning issue and could possibly save costs as the big ships would not always be needed.
As for the cost of the RN to the size of the nation, I think you need to look at this in a diffrent way. France, Germany do not have the same dependency on the sea as the UK does, they have land borders food can come into their countries via these borders unless they are at war with everyone. The Uk depends on the sea not just for luxuries but for survival. The only other nation that has the same dependency on the sea as the UK is Japan and look at their navy, 4 helicopter carriers, 26 destroyers, 10 frigates, 6 corvettes, 19 attack subs, 30 minesweepers, 3 landing ships and many more smaller and Aux ships. These main combatants are modern well equipped and heavily armed, their latest destoyers have for example 96 Mk41 VLS ,that is twice the capacity of a T45. They also do not have the world wide commitments of the RN.
The Primary Armed force for the UK should be the Navy followed by the RAF and lastly the Army. This country needs a bigger fleet, I can just see the Type 45s replacement sitting at 2 or 3 ships when built in the future?
FAKE NEWS!
From Grubbie!!
The T31 frigate plan, will allow the RN to increase the frigate fleet in the future to more then the current 13 frigates.
A One size fits all fleet, will just restrict the frigate fleet. The GP fleet could be expendable to 8 frigates for a cost from
around £750m, giving the RN more worldwide coverage.
The issue is now, to choose the right contender for the job!
I mean, from £750 million, on top of the £1.25 billion for 5 T31 frigates. So, from £2 billion for 8 T31s.
Cool! Then we just need to fix the recruitment and retainment problems and find a budget for that too…
I knew this would happen I’ve been saying for ages we need a destroyer in the area as well as a frigate, shame she can’t stay for a few years.
Moor HMS Belfast there ? then strap a dozen Phalanx to her lol
Or let’s just get an Eastern fleet again like we once had, huge fleets, and we were no where near as rich as we are today… it’s a choice by government…
This article omits to mention the Phalanx capability of the Type 45. The version carried by these ships has a good surface capability!
yes it does…You beat me to it!
Block 1b phalanx has surface attack modes but its only an additional feature…it doesnt specialise in that role and also in a combined Sea/Air attacks Phalanx should always focus air threats ? Also Phalanx has a limited range of 2ish Kilometres
Doesn’t our phalanx only carry about a minute odd (or maybe 30 seconds) of ammo? And how do they reload? At sea? Do they have extra onboard?
1500 rounds of APDS Tungsten with a rate of fire of 4500rpm. 20 secs of fire with a 5 min manual reload that requires 2 crew to go out on deck to reload ? the drum at the bottom of the gun is a big mag.
Portsmouth evening news, which is quite reliable,reports serious propulsion problems with QE2
QE2 is a cruise ship so not very relevant is it
Exactly lol
A ticklish business this T31 requirements and tendering thing but getting it right and getting on with building them would mean we don’t need to send a billion quid high-value unit to be the tripwire force in these circumstances; this just seems crackers IMHO. We don’t have that many of them so losing one would be a big deal in terms of both capability loss and egg on face (loss of life is not mentioned here as it’s terrible regardless of the thing you happen to be floating around in) – just ask the Norwegians.
Trust me Iran won’t sink or atack our destroyers or frigates, we have hundreds of battleships behind us Iran doesn’t… why do retards think Iran will atack our huge destroyers with little boats? It’s obvious they haven’t the balls. Or ever will have.,, but so many retards on here think “oh crap swarm atack” bullshit….
“We would be perfectly happy to leave here in 3 years time without having fired a single shot “-John Reid defence Secretary ,prior to the Taliban handing the British army it’s bottom.
Had you had a few before writing that?
HMS Sutherland has tested LMM onboard her 30 mm turrets.
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2019/july/16/190716-navys-new-anti-ship-missile