@@1chish + Bit of banter mucker, had Crab's serving in FAA when we had FRS.1's, never mind F-35's, I know I was there. Had worst than the "sad arsed" comment! But I still think a Navy Officer should be answering questions about the Navy, given this RAF Officer didn't seem to know his ass from his elbow.
@@henryvagincourt4502 I agree the Navy should have had someone there but maybe the Committee didn't pre-advise their questions? RAF type did sort of give the Department's position though. Personally I think Boris just made up the Type 32 for a laugh in sad times and the MoD was like WTF? And yes I know many RAF pilots flew SHARs. They also flew S2 Buccaneers before nicking them from the Navy. ✌😂 All ex Jacks are sad arsed. It goes with too much spare time. I held back on the banter as Fish Heads don't do CrabSpeak....
@@1chish + The whole point of the Defence Select Committee is to ask those sort of question's, problem is this Officer was way out of his depth, and you can see and hear it, makes the MOD and the RAF look stupid. Not sure about Boris, you could be right, it's just the batch 2 order for the type 31 if we ever get it. Are you ex, or just armchair?
@@henryvagincourt4502 Happily @ 73 I am an armchair warrior now but did 15 in RAF ..MD'd out but they gave me my 16 for the pension. When were you in? And yes the Select committee is doing its job. Not too impressed with the virtue signalling SNP twat but whats new. Like the AM was going to know what COVID tier Rosyth was in... 🙄 The AM was just giving the standard non compromising answers they and civil servants do.
That politician has no clue what he’s talking about! He’s speaking to a Navy man who’s TELLING him what’s happening and he’s claiming it won’t! Does he not know we have 8 type 26s on order!!?
Royal Navy1234 + Mucker the guy hes talking to is an Air Marshall, RAF and that Politician is spot on. They have dreamed up the type 32 when we haven't even got a type 26 or 31 in service yet.
He is just trying to make sure what's happened in the last 40 years dosent happen again. What we need is for the number of type 26s to go from 8 to 14, and the type 31 to increase to 6, which would give us 20 frigates. Which is still not that many if I'm being honest compared to what we had in the recent past. We then need to get our 12 destroyers that should have been built in the first place. If by 2030 we can have our count up to 20 frigates and 12 destroyers, and add a couple amphious assault ships like Ocean this would be about right to make sure we fulfill our obligations around the world, and the protection of our country. But that's probally not going to happen. If u want to increase the size and strength of the navy you need to add proper capable ships. As simple as that. The recruitment will come If people start to see the armed forces strengthening.
@@benweeks626 + A few are out now, I doubt two will put to sea again their in such poor condition, never mind the crewing issues. Can't see us getting a type 26/31 until 2024 if we are very lucky, more like 2027. The will be gaps to save money, it's the MOD.
i served in the Royal Navy and left at the end of the 80's i am sad to see the the Royal Navy i proudly served in its current state, only 6 Destroyers and 13 Frigates the Navy has been cut to the bone and into the bone, the fact he has even said out of the 19 Destroyers and Frigates only 10 are in a state of readiness just over half. is a sad situation and tells our potential enemies we are not threat as we cant even muster half our ships. i know we cant afford to buy warships at a cost of $1bn pounds each, but when you look at other countries that are bringing into service more capable warships than some of ours for a lot less cost, why is our equipment so expensive, the fact that Australia and Canada are now buying type 26 Frigates you would think this will bring down the cost of these ships where we could afford a couple more. the Type 45 fleet was supposed to been a class of 12 ships, that was reduced to 8 as a deal to getting the much needed Carriers, but the class was then reduced to 6 ships to save more money, and the ships we got all being it very capable with the exception the sea harpoons have now been withdrawn from service with no replacement missile yet in place (so no Anti Ship capability) have spent more time in Portsmouth with mechanical and engine issues where the engines have failed when the ships go into hot climate area's, but the tax payer is now paying for these ships engines to be fixed when its the manufactures fault they are in this mess, does the Royal Navy not get a Warranty with the ships as we have paid 1$bn for each of them, BAE systems should be fixing them at there cost not the tax payers. i wish we could go back to having the amount of Surface Combat Warships we had in the 80's, as another war like that, there is no way we could win with what we have now, but its highly unlikely we will ever see that many surface combat ships again i just hope this Government or future labour Government do not sell off any more ships like the limited amount of assault ships we have just two LDP's and a couple of LSL's of the bay class i think 3, we did have 4 but they sold one to Australia or god forbid sell one of the Carriers.
Canada and Australia aren't buying the type 26 they are building there own (and with significant modifications) so you don't get the economies of scale savings. And we haven't retired the Harpoon yet, it has been life extended to 2023, we do move them around though so you will often see ships without them if they aren't on high risk op.
That’s all they need the type45 is meant to defend the aircraft carrier and Britain only uses 1 at a time Royal Navy is still the 3rd best navy in the world
It's all in how you word it isn't it. The difference between ships numbers overall and ships "available to task" seems to be escaping them both. Although I think in the case of the RAF officer it's intentional. In short to make up for a period in the mid 2020s when hull numbers will drop as Type 23 are withdrawn and Type 26 or Type 31 are introduced the RN will increase the tempo of operational deployments of the ships that are in service so there will be no change or perhaps even an increase in the amount of RN frigates actually out of port doing "stuff" rather than in port undergoing system upgrades or routine maintenance or whatever. So the answer should have been "yep the number will be down for couple of years but we're gonna work what remains much harder to make up for it".
There is also a difference between delivery date and FOC or even IOC on the new frigates. So the officer might have been technically right in numbers won't go down because new physical ships exist even if it'll be few years til they are ready.
He is just trying to make sure what's happened in the last 40 years dosent happen again. What we need is for the number of type 26s to go from 8 to 14, and the type 31 to increase to 6, which would give us 20 frigates. Which is still not that many if I'm being honest compared to what we had in the recent past. We then need to get our 12 destroyers that should have been built in the first place. If by 2030 we can have our count up to 20 frigates and 12 destroyers, and add a couple amphious assault ships like Ocean this would be about right to make sure we fulfill our obligations around the world, and the protection of our country. But that's probally not going to happen. If u want to increase the size and strength of the navy you need to add proper capable ships. As simple as that. The recruitment will come If people start to see the armed forces strengthening.
this is a fantasy post unfortunately. we have to ask for realistic improvements. tbh, 6 type 45s is enough. they are purely air defence platforms with no more general benefit than low end frigate for normal patrol. I worry every time a lone t45 goes into contested areas becuase its such an expensive asset which can defend itself from air threats, but is limited offensively and highly vulnerable to subs. they're more or less specifically kitted out to defend carriers from air threats, using them otherwise is a sign of desperation. 6 is enough to do the only job we want them doing, no point having them eat up the numbers for more generally useful vessels. the UK just isnt going to massive l=increase funding to the military to the extent you're proposing, but getting military pensions back out of the defence budget while maintaining the same defence spending would be a major boon. we should focus on more offensive weapons for the ships we have, a faster build rate, and try to get good numbers of the type 32 and design them to be general purpose enough to do general duties and fill in for our more specialised type 26's so they can focus on their asw role. if the type 26s are able to spend most of their time of their main asw mission, 8 should be enough
Do people not get it, T23 go out and T26 is the furthest into production what will come in as the first T23’s go out, T31 is later in production and will replace the later departing T23’s.
In WW2 Harland and Wolff alone built aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers and many more ships all in the space of 4 and a bit years. Seems incredible today.
Tobias has to go, yet again he sided with the French fishermen and France over UK Fisheries and the RN . In 2018 he also said "leaving the EU is like being on an operation and writing home to your loved one incase you don't return " Anyone that has served and lost friends will understand how inappropriate and disgusting that is. He won't keep his seat next GE. He will need to be replaced or the Restore party will wipe the floor with him. Vile man!
The Air Marshall is getting it right, the Pollie is actually not, he is talking about availability not actual numbers in service, the Type 23s are getting old so will spend more time in maintenance, the new Frigates will be far more reliable. You might have a day when there is only 16-17 ships in commission as against 19 currently in service but you will have more ships ready to deploy at short notice because they are much newer. And that Pollie is struggling to understand that, typical pollie.
It's strange to see a politician accusing a member of the armed forces of saying something that is not true. When it comes to saying things that are not true politicians are very gifted. As for expertise the military guy would most definitely know his businesses far better than the politician, if the politician questions anything, you can bet it's the politician who's wrong.
It’s just shocking listening to these politicians, what a state the navy is in , ageing ships , Having just 8 type 26 frigates then adding the cheaper version type 31 to make up the numbers which are substandard to the type 26 . Why we decided on two aircraft carriers god knows . Surely they could have spent the money on extra type 26 frigates and maybe a few more extra aswell .... there’s no point in having two aircraft carriers iff we don’t have the planes , the ships , and the sailors to support them
No. We need a strong Navy, which can place an excellent Army anywhere on earth. Building ships is expensive and time consuming so we need to build while we have the space and time. I speak as a former Soldier. The RN built capital ships (i.e. battleships) between the two world wars because they were expensive and time consuming to build. When war started to become inevitable, the RN was able to start to switch to mass production of escorts and was able to produce them throughout WW2. The UK has NEVER had a massive standing Army, because we've always been a global maritime power. We only ended up with a huge army after WW1 and into WW2, which hung around for most of the cold War. We are returning to a time of maritime enabled expeditionary warfare, such as that which was fought in the Falklands. You might recall that the UK forces deployed to France in both WW1 and WW2 were called the British Expeditionary Force. Placed there by the Navy. Spend wisely now, spend less later.
@@ScienceChap But the UK does not have a strong navy right now, it's ships are under armed, few in numbers, and stretched thin. The frigates are old, replacements are built too slowly, and will be relatively mediocre once they're all in service by around late 2030s. Type 31s are even less well armed than the type 23s that they are replacing. Type 45 destroyers have very poor multi mission roles (anti surface and anti submarine), which the UK needs if it's navy is so small and thin. The Queen Elizabeth carriers are STOVL which limits it's capability to a 2nd tier carrier when compared to US, French, and future Chinese, and Indian carriers. Not to mention the UK will lack sufficient F35Bs to even properly complement those ships for many years to come. This is all happening at a time when all around the world, navies are building more capable ships, more heavily armed ships, and more of them. Even within Europe, UK is losing it's traditional naval edge. French navy has less ships, but each of their ships are better armed and have better radars. The Italian navy will soon have more major surface combatants than the RN, and again, they're better armed, multirole, and with much better radars. This is not all just about cutting the armies and funding the navy. This is a long process of poor planning and poor leadership. The politicians in the UK have no long term vision or planning.
The T32 is just the second batch of T31 , what ever the role . They were known about a while ago as batch 2 T31. As for the £16 billion extra, is that to cover the loss of % of GDP that has fallen this year and may not recover for years to come? And you dont grow a Navy by deleting older ships before the new are in service. Thats a cut and nothing but a cut. More than 24 D / F then i might eat my words . I've seen to many cuts over the last 40 years and one of them contributed to the Falklands War . Double the Defence budget and build the new ships in 5 years and not 9 then i will believe that Defence is important to Governments . Right now i see bullshit .
There hasn't been a cut from the fall in GDP and the £16bn is on top. Some of it will go the current plans that weren't funded though. I don't know why you think you know what the type 32 when it hasn't been decided yet.
@@davidhouseman4328 All the T32 will be is a second batch of T31 with a different role. Probably carrying drones and new unmanned Mine countermeasures craft. Bye bye Hunts and Sandowns , thats more cuts . The rest of the World will not do that . Russia is building new MCMV ships. The £16 billion is just to plug the black hole that has emerged again over the last few years and to make sure some of the projects that were is the red or on the chop list didn't get the chop , or as much. As for being the biggest Navy in Europe or should i say best ? We have a long way to go on that one. We keep disarming our ships , reducing ships and personnel . And now its likely that we will get far fewer F35 for the Carriers. We need a new long range shipborne anti ship missile "now" not in 10 years and leaving our fleet toothless. We must stop building ships with single roles , make them proper multi function like the US and French and the Italians . Let alone the far Eastern Countries etc . I'll eat my words if i'm proven wrong but i've seen it too often . Lets see what the cuts will be in 4 years time . By then we could have another Government of losers .
@@richardnewcombe9449 it isn't a second batch of T31s then, it's a new ship based on the T31, like the T31 isn't an Iver Huitfeldt or Absalon. The £16bn isn't only to plug the hole as the T32 illustrates. And it comes on top of the 0.5% above inflation increases from the manifesto. On MCM vessels, it just sounds like you don't want to progress, unmanned vessels are ideal for the role.
Type 31 isnt a replacement (capability wise) for a current Type 23. Only 3 Type 26's have currently been ordered. The first 3 were order in 2017 and we still don't know when the first will be completed let alone tested and commissioned. There will definitely be a gap unless Type 23 is continued until 2027 and retired from then onwards over a 7 to 10 year period. MoD bullshit on display.
According the the Save the Royal navy website in 2018, the first Type 26 will be inservice in 2027 and will be delivered 18 to 24 months apart. Since nothing has been done to speed this up...all of the Type 23's will need to serve until at least 2028 if not longer.
@@nickbrough8335 The five type 23s the type 31 is replacing are GP version without towed arrays. They are pretty comparable, the armourment is a little worse (though better suited to fast attack boats) but the size and automation is a bit better. The 26 on the other hand isn't close to the 23 being a lot bigger and more capable.
@@davidhouseman4328 Little worse armament ? No ASW missile, fewer (but I suppose slightly better) AA missiles. no ASW torpedo and a much smaller (but more accurate) gun. The Type 26 is getting the same towed array as the Type 23, the same missile fit (although fitted for not with on ASW weapons). Of course, being much more modern the newer vessels are much better hulls with more expansion capability than the Type 23.
@@nickbrough8335 plus side latest news is showing signs that Type 31 will have more modern missile systems for Anti Ship and Surface to Air than Type 23 so by the time they're in service the only major difference will be the gun and no towed sonar array.
@@jono_cc2258 The current design iteration for the Type 31 doesn't include anti-ship missiles in the first place (check out the Navy look out web site if you want a good place. UK owned Harpoons a have reached technical obsolescence; near as is the UK doesn't have any anti-ship missiles in service currently. If you compare the weapons load out between the Ivor Huitfeldt class and the Type 31 you may be quite shocked. The plan was to use the current anglo-french Storm Shadow replacement as a common UK cruise missile to fill this role, but that isnt going to come into service until the mid 2030s. There is a plan to buy an interim weapon system, but that depends on £'s so may well not happen given the austerity measures that will happen as soon as current COVID policy finishes in 2022..
Type 23s start to go out in 2023 Type 26 and 31 don’t come in till 2027 Essentially, a 4 year gap where frigate numbers dip to 12 or 11 That’s a fact as the OSDs stand
@@mrpusser0348 ship don't suddenly become unusable, they just continue to get worse. 2023 is only 6 years after her refit. If they need to delay the decommissioning they will do.
Yes we do. 8 T-26's, 5 T-31's, unknown amount of T-32's, 2 Fleet Solid Support ships and I believe 4 new Submarines. I'm sure plans are being made to add to the 6 T-45's we currently have in service.
@@kirad2234 What about the fleet support ships? Just down the road from me is the Fort Rosalie and the Fort Austin. They have been sitting their for years with no crew yet apparently the navy considers them to still be in service
@@squiffy7058 we also have Littoral Strike Ships on the way too. Development has been approved they're just awaiting the go ahead and for the exact design to be chosen.
Meanwhile Bojo and co spaffed over £12 Billion up the wall on dubious track and trace, and HS2 (overpriced vanity project) will cost _well_ over £108 Bn. With that in mind, the £16 Bn defence budget increase recently _for all branches_ is fine and all but only 25% more than has been spent on track and trace. Every increase in defence spending is good, though would frigate development even remotely be a problem if they had billions more to work with? Would the Type 31's be anywhere near as controversial, keeping in mind they've been considered underpowered, 'bargain basement' frigates by some? (not an opinion I fully agree with though; naturally the Type 31 isn't supposed to be as good as the pretty spectacular Type 26's coming along, though what if each ship had ~100 Million+ spent on them to improve them in as many ways possible?) Type 32 seems like a modified Type 31. Makes sense but it's possibly better to, you know, _even name the first Type 31_ before rushing into the Type 32. Iron out the problems with the prototype first-in-class (Type 31) before committing to a concept for the modified version? Minesweeper? Light escort frigate? Littoral Strike Ship?
Type 26 and 31 are not that high tech, it's all pretty much mature systems that are already in service. That is there isn't risk from development of novel radar or weapons. Like we had with 45.
I'm glad someone else realizes, the type 26 will be obsolete by the time the last ship of the class enters service in the late 2030s. Imagine what ships the other major navies will be fielding by that time. Even the Italian PPAs (light frigates) have AESA radars where as the type 26 will still be using the old Artisan. The Type 45 are also very under armed compared to most modern destroyers out there. As for the Type 31, they'll be big empty hulls with even less arms than the Type 23 it replaces.
