Lack of platforms receiving attention

Should the Royal Navy return to a +30 FF/DD fleet?

  • Yes, it is chronically underfunded and undermanned.

    Votes: 29 70.7%
  • FF/DD fleet should be increased but +30 is too much.

    Votes: 11 26.8%
  • No, the fleet is adequate for purpose.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, OPVs and RFA are adequate to take up the slack.

    Votes: 1 2.4%

  • Total voters
    41
  • Poll closed .
Currently airing on the BBC is the Commons Defence Select Committee report on the woeful lack of platforms that the RN can field.

House of Commons - Restoring the Fleet: Naval Procurement and the National Shipbuilding Strategy - Defence Committee

Also featuring in the Telegraph, Royal Navy has 'woefully low' number of warships that risks leaving Britain vulnerable, MPs warn

The Government are responding with the same old same old about the carriers being built and new submarines.

Considering that 7 submarines are replacing 12 and that in fact there are not 19 FF and DD platforms but only 17, and several of those are even in deep maintenance or have ahem, engine trouble, is not surely time that the chronic underfunding of the RN received even more accurate attention?
 

Yokel

LE
Where have the politicians been for the last few years?
 

rasthaus

Clanker
Personally, being able to fully and effectively man the platforms that we already hold would be my first preference. Further discussion about the future size of the RN is pointless without the requisite number of warm bodies. We don't need any more AF platforms.
 
Personally, being able to fully and effectively man the platforms that we already hold would be my first preference. Further discussion about the future size of the RN is pointless without the requisite number of warm bodies. We don't need any more AF platforms.

I would agree with that; realistically, an Escort fleet of c.25 hulls would be more than sufficient IMHO. One of the reasons that the RN is so bent out of shape is that David Cameron refused to take hard decisions in 2010-11.
 

DITA

MIA
Arent the RN woefully short of manpower too?

Is there enough to man what we currently have? If there is, then you have your answer. The Govt arent going to invest in more boats when they arent investing in more manpower.
 
Arent the RN woefully short of manpower too?

I caught sight of this on PPRuNe recently:

A cost (Future carrier including costs) is the redistribution of Naval Service manpower away from RM to RN by approx 600. 43 Cdo to reduce to core Scottish and special escort roles and 42 Cdo to 'rerole' (i.e. no longer to be a full Cdo like 40 or 45) to undertake Fleet protection. So 3 Cdo Bde down to 2 x manoeuvre units.
 

DITA

MIA
I caught sight of this on PPRuNe recently:

A cost (Future carrier including costs) is the redistribution of Naval Service manpower away from RM to RN by approx 600. 43 Cdo to reduce to core Scottish and special escort roles and 42 Cdo to 'rerole' (i.e. no longer to be a full Cdo like 40 or 45) to undertake Fleet protection. So 3 Cdo Bde down to 2 x manoeuvre units.

Ouch. That's going to put some bootneck noses out of joint.

Retention is really not the forte of those in charge of the helm, throughout all three services it would appear.
 

Himmler74

On ROPS
On ROPs
I caught sight of this on PPRuNe recently:

A cost (Future carrier including costs) is the redistribution of Naval Service manpower away from RM to RN by approx 600. 43 Cdo to reduce to core Scottish and special escort roles and 42 Cdo to 'rerole' (i.e. no longer to be a full Cdo like 40 or 45) to undertake Fleet protection. So 3 Cdo Bde down to 2 x manoeuvre units.

It was a post that was made due to some one hearing something whilst running.

For perspective.
 
Personally, being able to fully and effectively man the platforms that we already hold would be my first preference. Further discussion about the future size of the RN is pointless without the requisite number of warm bodies. We don't need any more AF platforms.
Apologies, I waiting for a student and had meant to add manpower, but brain was ahead of fingers and I am not allowed to edit at the moment.

However, determining manpower requirement for a fleet of say 25 FF/DD would give you a figure to aim for when in negotiations with HMG about funding.

There has to be a clear commitment to an increased number of platforms and the concomitant manpower requirement; and in this day and age, cutting the Royal Marines is barking.
 
In the Falklands, the RN lost 4 escorts, including two Air Defence destroyers to enemy air action. If the same scenario happened today, that'd be 20-25% of the escorts in the entire Navy. It was unable to prevent loss of two LSLs and a large cargo ship. That'd be a similar loss ratio for the RFA. I'm sure the argument runs that the ships' defence systems are much superior today, so it comes down to how much faith does the RN have in its technology? If that is misplaced faith, then it's going to be a problem just at the time that you need more ships. You can't replace a ship like that in 6 months. So I'd go with what they are doing. A mixed force of highly capable ships and some cheap 'n cheerful ones. It doesn't take a massively capable ship to police piracy or drug running, but taking on another Navy and/or Air Force is another kettle of fish.
 
In the Falklands, the RN lost 4 escorts, including two Air Defence destroyers to enemy air action. If the same scenario happened today, that'd be 20-25% of the escorts in the entire Navy. It was unable to prevent loss of two LSLs and a large cargo ship. That'd be a similar loss ratio for the RFA. I'm sure the argument runs that the ships' defence systems are much superior today, so it comes down to how much faith does the RN have in its technology? If that is misplaced faith, then it's going to be a problem just at the time that you need more ships. You can't replace a ship like that in 6 months. So I'd go with what they are doing. A mixed force of highly capable ships and some cheap 'n cheerful ones. It doesn't take a massively capable ship to police piracy or drug running, but taking on another Navy and/or Air Force is another kettle of fish.
The argument from @meerkatz is that those constabulary ships suddenly find themselves in high end conflict and are deader than a dead thing, quickly.
 

Fish and Chips

On ROPS
On ROPs
ARRSE experts can't use plain English. It would expose them as the pontificating ******* that most of them are.

Ah,You noticed that as well did you.?
 

Helm

MIA
Moderator
Book Reviewer
Ah,You noticed that as well did you.?
Go on then Spider enlighten us, what you, with your vast experience of the Navy would do instead. It's a sad state of affairs, I can't for the life of me see why they can't see that a ship with no weapons or a bare minimum fleet is going to end badly sooner or later. Could also do with a no idea option on the poll as I don't think it's right but don't feel I know enough to offer a solution
 
Last edited:
In the Falklands, the RN lost 4 escorts, including two Air Defence destroyers to enemy air action. .

Its probably fair to point out that the enemy knew exactly how to Defeat Sea dart, which wont be an advantage they hold on your envisaged re run
 
Its probably fair to point out that the enemy knew exactly how to Defeat Sea dart, which wont be an advantage they hold on your envisaged re run
You trust the French?

;)

Or even the Americans now? The president elect has upset the applecart and for so long, we have read on arrse that our allies will pick up and supply our missing capabilities. That goose is well and truly cooked and the UK must look after herself and her interests by herself. IMHO.
 

Latest Threads

Top