"Royal Navy does not have enough ships" says new survey.

Mr._Average

Old-Salt
A survey of readers of Naval Technology has found that 93% of respondents think the Royal Navy does not have enough ships. The article contains some interesting stats.



Meanwhile, in other news, scientists have discovered water is wet, the Pope appears to be a Catholic and ursidae are in the habit of frequenting forested areas for their morning ablutions...
 

Mölders 1

Clanker
The Royal sacrificed numerous Warships to safeguard it's two new Aircraft Carriers, As l remember it Commander Tim Lawrence wrote a key report on the subject years ago writing something like 10 Warships would need to be retired early to save money for the two new Carriers.

I'm of the opinion that the R.N. cannot sensibly operate such large vessels and l can see the F.A.A. struggling to keep the F-35Bs in the air for it's pilots to maintain their proficiency.
 
They want to have a word with the sub-editor

Our poll asked ‘Does the Royal Navy have enough ships?’. Of 17,284 respondents, 16,151 (93%) said yes, whereas 1,133 (7%) said no.
 
I'm of the opinion that the R.N. cannot sensibly operate such large vessels a
Why ? Crewing is not far off the previous Invincible class - its not like they've dropped in a Ford Class - and its significantly less than that on the French CdG (which is the size everyone thinks CVF should have been)

They seem to be rather optimal to me - and the call for smaller hulls always seems to be based on flawed assumptions such as size is directly proportional to cost** or manning.


**Often accompanied with the idea that 2 big ones could be swapped for 3 small ones failing to note that you now need to buy enough of the really expensive bits (Radars - Nav Systems - Engines - gear boxes ) for 3 ships not 2.
 

Mölders 1

Clanker
Why ? Crewing is not far off the previous Invincible class - its not like they've dropped in a Ford Class - and its significantly less than that on the French CdG (which is the size everyone thinks CVF should have been)

They seem to be rather optimal to me - and the call for smaller hulls always seems to be based on flawed assumptions such as size is directly proportional to cost** or manning.


**Often accompanied with the idea that 2 big ones could be swapped for 3 small ones failing to note that you now need to buy enough of the really expensive bits (Radars - Nav Systems - Engines - gear boxes ) for 3 ships not 2.
I could well be wrong about this, only time will tell.
 
Was also interesting to read this:

"The Royal Navy also operates a large fleet of mine hunting vessels, however, it is expected to lose this capability in the next decade as the current MOD equipment plan does not include funds to replace the vessels when they go out of service."

I thought that the RN are world leaders in this space? Why are we planning on giving up that capability, particularly as open sea lanes are so vital to us both in home waters and further afield?

To quote our pinstriped civil servant friend:

"The Mine Warfare force for instance comprises 13 vessels, with four permanently based in the Middle East. This force may comprise smaller vessels, but they are some of the most influential and capable assets the RN has, and buy the UK significant influence and access. For instance, the force in the Middle East plays an utterly critical role in keeping the sea-lanes open, and works on a genuine peer basis with their US Navy counterparts. "

 

Mölders 1

Clanker
Was also interesting to read this:

"The Royal Navy also operates a large fleet of mine hunting vessels, however, it is expected to lose this capability in the next decade as the current MOD equipment plan does not include funds to replace the vessels when they go out of service."

I thought that the RN are world leaders in this space? Why are we planning on giving up that capability, particularly as open sea lanes are so vital to us both in home waters and further afield?

To quote our pinstriped civil servant friend:

"The Mine Warfare force for instance comprises 13 vessels, with four permanently based in the Middle East. This force may comprise smaller vessels, but they are some of the most influential and capable assets the RN has, and buy the UK significant influence and access. For instance, the force in the Middle East plays an utterly critical role in keeping the sea-lanes open, and works on a genuine peer basis with their US Navy counterparts. "

If this is true then that is very bad news.
 
If this is true then that is very bad news.
Its probably one of those true but not exactly honest things

The RN is investing a great deal in Autonomous mine hunting trials - As yet its unclear if said systems can remove the need for the dedicated MCM hulls. Its also possibly the case that the MCM teams can work from on shore further reducing the need for dedicated hulls.

It seems perhaps wise then* not to allocate funds and kick off a project until the RN knows which way to jump.
Le MN has decided the Future is offboard systems and is planning accordingly - time will tell if that was a good call or they jumped the gun


*its my understanding funds cant just be allocated as x million reserved for a possible future fleet etc - there needs to be a clear project to be started
 

Mölders 1

Clanker
Its probably one of those true but not exactly honest things

The RN is investing a great deal in Autonomous mine hunting trials - As yet its unclear if said systems can remove the need for the dedicated MCM hulls. Its also possibly the case that the MCM teams can work from on shore further reducing the need for dedicated hulls.

It seems perhaps wise then* not to allocate funds and kick off a project until the RN knows which way to jump.
Le MN has decided the Future is offboard systems and is planning accordingly - time will tell if that was a good call or they jumped the gun


*its my understanding funds cant just be allocated as x million reserved for a possible future fleet etc - there needs to be a clear project to be started
Thank you for the detailed reply.

I guess that in these times when Defence Budget Money is going less and less further, it is getting harder to know when and where to start investing in future systems.
 
It's rather more serious that simply a reader survey for a magazine.

Equipment delays threatening UK military capability – report
(Reuters, by Andrew MacAskill, 18 Mar. 20)

'The fighting capability of Britain’s armed forces is being put at risk by delays in producing important new pieces of equipment, the government’s spending watchdog warned on Wednesday.

'Delays have hit a wide range of projects including the F-35 fighter jet, offshore patrol vessels and battlefield communication systems. A report by National Audit Office (NAO) found about a third of the military’s 32 most important projects are behind schedule. The new equipment is on average more than two years late before it can be at full operating capability, the report said. Failure to deliver these projects on time will lead to overuse of existing assets and increase costs, it added. “Things need to change and change fast. There are risks to national security if not,” said Meg Hillier, who chairs parliament’s public accounts committee. “The whole culture needs an overhaul.”

'The watchdog’s conclusions come after Prime minister Boris Johnson announced a review of Britain’s defence and security strategy, which will include a focus on military procurement. Dominic Cummings, Johnson’s senior adviser, a critic of past procurement, last year described the military procurement process as a farce and accused the forces of “squandering billions of pounds” on unnecessary hardware. According to the NAO report, a persistent problem is equipment delivered either late or faulty by suppliers. The military’s delivery teams are under-resourced and lack essential skills, contributing to delays, the report said. Six of the 32 projects face shortfalls of more than 20% in their programme teams. “It is essential that the MoD improves the way it introduces important new defence capabilities into service,” said Gareth Davies, head of the NAO. “This includes ensuring that pressure to be seen to deliver quickly does not lead to it accepting incomplete projects.”



Additionally, none of this should come as any surprise, as the 'informed' readers of Naval Technology are only echoing the view of the government.

 
Last edited:

Mölders 1

Clanker
It's rather more serious that simply a reader survey for a magazine.

Equipment delays threatening UK military capability – report
(Reuters, by Andrew MacAskill, 18 Mar. 20)

'The fighting capability of Britain’s armed forces is being put at risk by delays in producing important new pieces of equipment, the government’s spending watchdog warned on Wednesday.

'Delays have hit a wide range of projects including the F-35 fighter jet, offshore patrol vessels and battlefield communication systems. A report by National Audit Office (NAO) found about a third of the military’s 32 most important projects are behind schedule. The new equipment is on average more than two years late before it can be at full operating capability, the report said. Failure to deliver these projects on time will lead to overuse of existing assets and increase costs, it added. “Things need to change and change fast. There are risks to national security if not,” said Meg Hillier, who chairs parliament’s public accounts committee. “The whole culture needs an overhaul.”

'The watchdog’s conclusions come after Prime minister Boris Johnson announced a review of Britain’s defence and security strategy, which will include a focus on military procurement. Dominic Cummings, Johnson’s senior adviser, a critic of past procurement, last year described the military procurement process as a farce and accused the forces of “squandering billions of pounds” on unnecessary hardware. According to the NAO report, a persistent problem is equipment delivered either late or faulty by suppliers. The military’s delivery teams are under-resourced and lack essential skills, contributing to delays, the report said. Six of the 32 projects face shortfalls of more than 20% in their programme teams. “It is essential that the MoD improves the way it introduces important new defence capabilities into service,” said Gareth Davies, head of the NAO. “This includes ensuring that pressure to be seen to deliver quickly does not lead to it accepting incomplete projects.”


Additionally, none of this should come as any surprise, as the 'informed' readers of Naval Technology are only echoing the view of the government.

Nothing new about delays to new equipment is there.......!?

The Typhoon for example is/was years behind schedule entering service and went billions of pounds over budget.

The F-35 has been absolutely cursed with technical problems so much so that it too is years late and billions and billions over budget.

The two new Carriers went over-budget.

The list goes on.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
The Royal sacrificed numerous Warships to safeguard it's two new Aircraft Carriers, As l remember it Commander Tim Lawrence wrote a key report on the subject years ago writing something like 10 Warships would need to be retired early to save money for the two new Carriers.

I'm of the opinion that the R.N. cannot sensibly operate such large vessels and l can see the F.A.A. struggling to keep the F-35Bs in the air for it's pilots to maintain their proficiency.
F-35 crewing is joint with the RAF. Much training is now synthetic to keep airframe hours down. Hence no two-seat F-35 and out two-seat Typhoons going out of service.
 
Nothing new about delays to new equipment is there.......!?

The Typhoon for example is/was years behind schedule entering service and went billions of pounds over budget.

The F-35 has been absolutely cursed with technical problems so much so that it too is years late and billions and billions over budget.

The two new Carriers went over-budget.

The list goes on.
True - but an awful lot of those delays and indeed cost increases are regrettably less about technical issues and more about Politics - eg the idea of saving x million a year by extending the build time several years resulting in an overall increase of 2X +Y - but this years figures look good.

Not forgetting the whole we want 90 of X so that's 27% workshare, actually we only want 17 but we still want our 27% workshare shenanigans -leading to delays - restructuring and cost increases as everyone argues about it, mentioning no names Germany
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Nothing new about delays to new equipment is there.......!?

The Typhoon for example is/was years behind schedule entering service and went billions of pounds over budget.

The F-35 has been absolutely cursed with technical problems so much so that it too is years late and billions and billions over budget.

The two new Carriers went over-budget.

The list goes on.
Both the Typhoon and F-35 were produced in an age where safety is paramount. We don’t accept losses like we did in previous generations.

The carriers went over because Brown kept delaying them and there was cost associated with with keeping the yards open and ready to build.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Its probably one of those true but not exactly honest things

The RN is investing a great deal in Autonomous mine hunting trials - As yet its unclear if said systems can remove the need for the dedicated MCM hulls. Its also possibly the case that the MCM teams can work from on shore further reducing the need for dedicated hulls.

It seems perhaps wise then* not to allocate funds and kick off a project until the RN knows which way to jump.
Le MN has decided the Future is offboard systems and is planning accordingly - time will tell if that was a good call or they jumped the gun


*its my understanding funds cant just be allocated as x million reserved for a possible future fleet etc - there needs to be a clear project to be started
This. It follows a trend also apparent in civil marine surveying.

Although the MCMVs are a useful presence, and lots of little boats keeps up sea skills.
 

Mölders 1

Clanker
F-35 crewing is joint with the RAF. Much training is now synthetic to keep airframe hours down. Hence no two-seat F-35 and out two-seat Typhoons going out of service.
I can't see the R.A.F. sharing it's training facilities willingly with the F.A.A.

Those two services have long been at each others throats.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I can't see the R.A.F. sharing it's training facilities willingly with the F.A.A.

Those two services have long been at each others throats.
Then you haven't read numerous posts by various informed individuals such as @Magic_Mushroom - someone who is very machine the know.

The F-35 fleet and operations are predicated on Joint and RAF pilots will regularly undertake onboard operations. Per Harrier.
 

Latest Threads

Top