Maybe the result of the 2014 Indy ref should have been fully respected. End the pretence ,,, Wave goodbye to Devolution!

No, that would mean we only get 1.

It was taken over by “they will just have to make do with what they are given”?

No Sentinel, so no need for 466 of them! Another 466 for a UAV Squadron! Who are you trying to kid? Which land based silos do we have for Ballistic Missile Defence? Unless of course you mean mobile batteries, in which case where is the increased threat to justify them? If anything the threat from “b...

466 personnel per Squadron!

Seeing as it was Labour that started the rot let us see if anything has changed!

Gate Guardians at RNAS Culdrose, RNASYeovilton and RAF Marham sounds about right to me. They are joint assets after all.

That would probably be Project Cloud Nine though!

Which makes it all the more criminal that 8 x Merlin HM1 are languishing in inactivity, when they could (and should) have been brought up to HM2 standard to provide additional Airframes for the additional (to Merlin) Crowsnest role.

AndyC Wrote:-

So the first Type 23 to retire would now be in 2030

Trouble is the “oldest T23” will have been in commission for 32 years in 2023. You are suggesting stretching this to almost 40! Not impossible perhaps, but very costly and almost certainly a stretch too far.

How do you propose to fit 10 x sets of NSM to 11 Ships.

Remote (Automated) Damage Control sensors not detecting the problem perhaps?

Absolutely Fine, but I would not want to see them acquired (or given) to the RN, only to have them passed to a “third party” Navy.

Flies in the Ointment:- 1) Although there are no doubt cost savings to be had due to efficiencies of scale in the build process, there is also the operational cost of the 2 or 3 extra Frigates for the RN to find. 2) The T23 are already being pushed to a point that is beyond what is reasonable, so no...

No it is not required. The Submersible Barge would need to be used in any case to lower the vessel into the water if it had been completely assembled within the “Shed”. Only difference if being ‘joined” in No.1 Dock would be Floating the two sections into it. (Not required if joining the two section...

Put it into the basin via a submersible barge and float it iinto the dock (a similar process was used for QEC, but in this case without the need for a coastal transit).

Two Red and One Green?

Shame we did not build a third QEC, then the new French Carrier could have been named D’artagnon!

Portsmouth Shed would seem to be just the right size for building T4x, whether Destroyer or Cruiser. It would also be co-located with the T45 “Centre of Excellence” and Base Port. It would need the necessary workforce though. : :

Some media even describing as Warboats !?!?

Or build in two halves and join together outside!

I think the truth is that the lesson of CAVEAT EMPTOR has been well and truly learned by the Brazilians with regard to buying from the French. Note how they went for HMS Ocean (returning to a British Built Ship) rather than something like a “Mistrale”. I do not think that the Brazilians would touch ...

Or Bob the Bruces.

Could not have put it better myself!