UK Defence Forum

Lord Jim wrote:As I stated, we may have 24 available by 2022/23 but I can still only see 12 as a routine compliment

6 harrier was about standard a few years ago, doubling that to 12 will require a big effort, and 24 will be in special circumstances only, at least for the next decade and a bit.

Poiuytrewq wrote:Surely powered folding rotors must now be a priority?

It would be a step in the right direction, the Chinook is becoming an important tool in the Marines kit. Looking at that picture does make me wonder would an F35 fit under the blades lessening the impact of having Chinook below?

Did the UK sell it with the LCVP? Or did Brazil already have them?

A fine looking ship, even in Brazilian colours, looking foward to seeing a HMS Ocean 2 flying the white ensign!

If it were an option I would stop the T-26 programme at six. It's a solution that doesn't solve the problem. The money for the final city class units its not available until the 30's, but the T31 need's extra in the 20's. The other build projects active in the same period as the T31 are Dreadnought...

Escort numbers are clearly far too low and a target of around 24 escort/patrol vessels (blue water) looks like an achievable goal. Whilst my personal sweet spot is also 24, I think the RN should be a little more realistic and focus on getting 19 real escorts. Even with 19 escorts it can still pull ...

If they refused to accept technical data, they did not thoroughly investigate other options.

Are you suggesting that the MOD budget is now fixed out to 2030? No possible divergence at all? The budget could change, but you suggested "cancel hulls 7 and 8 from the T26 programme and add the £1.72bn saved to the T31's". That's very different, and impossible because the money for boat...

Spoke to an E3 operator today. Their choice and preference is clear. For good reason. Of course it is, they want a drop in replacement for E-3 and there is only one option for that. It would be perfect the RAF could afford it. They get repeatedly criticized for not making decision and constantly ch...

Yes, even that old thing went missing for a while, and there is a much better documented example from the Falklands, resulting in lots of dead whale.

Submarines are in the hands of 40 nations, of which around half are NATO / NATO-aligned.

But, when T31s are to be commissioned in mid-to-late 2020s, ASW will be the priority? Or, another Islamic-state like organization might be the major threat on world-trade (sea-lanes)? Not sure. Even if the Russian submarine threat was removed, global submarine activity is still growing, predominant...

Poiuytrewq wrote:

shark bait wrote:You can't bring money from 2030 to 2020.

Why not?

Because the money for Ship 7 & 8 does not exist yet.

I trust you understand where the MOD get their money from? It's not one big finite pot they can use however they like. Its an annual budget, so you cant spent 2031's money in 2021.

My preferred option is to cancel hulls 7 and 8 from the T26 programme and add the £1.72bn saved to the T31's £1.25bn totalling roughly £3bn. You can't bring money from 2030 to 2020. Current T31e requirement is focusing on standing deployments, and not on ASW. The RN is getting out of the business o...

Judging by previous conversions MV Cragside / HMNZS Canterbury we're looking at 30-60 million to convert a ship, that's a fraction of the £250 million the MOD spend on travel expenses each year. They have until 2024 to plan it in, shouldn't be too difficult.

I agree, the massive aid budget is spent terribly, and I don't think some kind of quasi aid ship owned by the MOD helps the cause at all. It only muddies the water further. There is already an organisation that operate hospital ships for aid only, and the biggest non-government owned hospital ship w...

They could change it, but they shouldn't. It's a deceptive and underhand method to boost the defense budget, we should expect better of our government.

It's a bit like funding successor outside the MOD budget, it's bullshit, if we want more money for defense, spend more money on defense.

with this in mind I think this is what we should looking for That would be a fleet fit for purpose in the carrier group future, and the only immediate action required is uprating the T31 to an ASW spec, a true T23 replacement. To achieve that I suggest shelving the third FSS and invest that budget ...

Its the governments rules, the aid budget cant buy military equipment.

Cant start robbing other budgets....or shall we buy some C-17 on the NHS budget because they're used for medevac?

Its a shell only now, all the electronics are screwed and that's the expensive bit.

Starting to look like a write off.

A ship operated by the MOD is military equipment no matter what paint scheme you give it.

Can't build military equipment out of the aid budget.

The Norwegian Tide Class is a good reference, I suggest copying as much of that as possible on the Waves. If that isn't feasible, sell the Waves to Brazil today and buy new in a couple of years.

I agree @donald_of_tokyo, we should use existing hulls, and it is an obvious benefit if the medical facilities can be fitted to more than one vessel. @Aethulwulf has a valid point about not double hatting a logistics platform, it should either operate as a medical facility, or a logistics ship, not ...

Aethulwulf wrote:The reason the bids have not gone this way is because the RN wants and requires 5 light frigates.

No, the politicians want to pretend they're growing the Royal Navy, so they need some patrol frigates to make the Wikipedia page look good.

Are sonobuoys really that expensive?

Is HNoMS Maud (Tide class derivative) a good example for the RFA to follow.