UK Defence Forum

Poiuytrewq wrote:

Lord Jim wrote:....right now the only real solution is to form a multinational force under the command of US CENTCOM and organise convoys for ships wishing protection through the Straits.

Personally I think the answer is to provide RM security parties for all UK shipping transiting the choke-point.

I really can't see the Iranians boarding a UK flagged vessel knowing full well that a meaningful number of Royal Marines were aboard. It would seem like a proportionate response without escalating tensions further. We may not have additional escorts to spare but we have the Marines and we should use them.

Load a few M2s, Starsteaks and Javelins on with them, and those boats/helos couldn't touch them. Not without committing undue levels of force.

Embarked RMs is part of the answer, but so are supporting Wildcats (sea or land based) and convoys covered by a small number of warships.

RetroSicotte wrote:The note about "they are slowed by the tankers anyway" isn't accurate. It's not a case of them accompanying the attacked one. There's not enough forces out there for that. Montrose has to speed to whichever one is attacked. River classes needing to stay with it would not be able to keep up with that.

clearly one T-23 racing around the gulf has worked hasn't it. With all the best will in the world it can't be in the right place all the time. but putting 6 or more tankers in convoy with 1 T-23 and two up armed Rivers with air cover from 2 or 3 Wildcats with LMM would mean the RN ships would be where they were needed.

Lets say you have 6 or 8 tankers that need escorting you set it as so one River class leading 3 to 4 tankers the T-23 in the middle followed by 3 or 4 more tankers with the second River at the back allowing all ships to be under the CAMM cover and in LMM cover. If Iran was to attack this group of ships it could only be seen as an escalation plus in real terms they would have to use SSKs or anti-ship missiles to do so as the CAMM cover goes out to 25+ KM's form the middle of the group and the ship mounted LMM cover reaches out 5 to 6 km's 360 degrees around the group. Add to this if this group was to be attacked it would pretty hard for the US navy not to be dragged in

Tempest414 wrote: but putting 6 or more tankers in convoy

That's a big change from before. Putting them in convoy, then yes, surge other ships in.

But I was under the impression you weren't meaning convoys with the initial idea.

Somewhere in amongst all the dancing around the question is a realisation that the cuts have gone too far and a rebuilding process is needed. This is a common theme now with both serving and ex government ministers.

I wonder why the HMG didn't allready organised convoys trough Hormuz, at least from Abu Musa to the end of UAE Waters? That's about 110 nm, a convoy should be able to pass it in a 7-8 hours, so once a day in each direction. Even with just HMS Montrose there they should be able to organise that provisionally.

It’s not (just) about cash. It’s a lack of strategic direction for UK military power since the days of Blair when he criminally put UK forces in danger without funding them. If the future direction of the RN is part of a UK strategy of mid level global engagement which seems to have been the plan up to 2010 and from 2015, the problems can be traced back to the first decade of this century where Blair and Brown moved scare resources to land wars and started to cut ships numbers (current and future).

I see some people in press still playing the “carriers are sucking funds” card - I absolutely reject this, without the Carriers there is v.little point trying to play on the world stage, you might as well halve the budget and navy and become a North Atlantic (ASW focuses) navy.

RetroSicotte wrote:

Tempest414 wrote: but putting 6 or more tankers in convoy

That's a big change from before. Putting them in convoy, then yes, surge other ships in.

But I was under the impression you weren't meaning convoys with the initial idea.

Sorry if I was not clear but this is what I had in mind all along

To be fair, Blair wasn't the one who failed to properly fund the military whilst Labour was in power, it was the self proclaimed financial wizard Gordon Brown who utterly failed to fund the 1998 SDR and then continued to use the MoD as a "Piggy Bank".

Lord Jim, possibly true, but Blair was the boss and it happened on his watch.

During the Blair years UKs defence spending was 2,1-2,3 percent of the GDP.

abc123 wrote:During the Blair years UKs defence spending was 2,1-2,3 percent of the GDP.

Yes, whilst fighting two simultaneous significant land wars for which the British Army was not equipped.

Repulse wrote:

abc123 wrote:During the Blair years UKs defence spending was 2,1-2,3 percent of the GDP.

Yes, whilst fighting two simultaneous significant land wars for which the British Army was not equipped.

I wanted to say that it was way too low.

I am not a fan of Blair and as pointed out he was the boss, but Gordon Brown was given almost total autonomy when it came to the country's finances. All Blair was concerned about was if Brown's decisions were difficult to put a positive spin on or not.

But for me it is the actions of the supposedly defence friendly Conservatives over the past decade, even when still fighting Blair's wars that is really a damning indictment. They didn't even cover the costs of running the wars with extra money but rather told the MoD to use its existing budget and they would be paid back later at some point. Now that really helped pay for things not.

The buck stops with the First Lord of the Treasury. End of story.

Scimitar54 wrote:The buck stops with the First Lord of the Treasury. End of story.

IIRC, it's Secretary?

abc123 wrote:IIRC, it's Secretary?

SKB wrote:

abc123 wrote:IIRC, it's Secretary?

Yep, your'e right. My bad.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/0 ... ught-gulf/

Some sense from Penny Mordaunt in the Telegraph, argues for the need of a long term vision, the importance of manpower etc and the need to stop focusing on design initiatives and low build numbers per class.

I’m taking this as more T26s and Rivers, and scrapping the T31

Repulse wrote:Some sense from Penny Mordaunt in the Telegraph, argues for the need of a long term vision, the importance of manpower etc and the need to stop focusing on design initiatives and low build numbers per class.

Seems like every day someone else goes on record to demand more ships - apart from Boris Johnson. It appears his priorities are elsewhere, time will tell.

I’m taking this as more T26s and Rivers, and scrapping the T31

No chance, wishful thinking I'm afraid but the ultimate decision on fleet enlargement will surely get pushed back to SDSR2020.

Before SDSR 2020 the pragmatic approach would be to proceed without delay within the current budget framework and order four T31's for the allocated £1.25bn @ £312m each. This should allow for four credible GP frigates. HMG could then commit to a second batch of T31's to be confirmed by the SDSR. The SDSR could then look to achieve the optimum balance between T45/T26/T31/OPV's.

In the meantime the priority must be to increase manpower by at least 2500 in the next 4 years.

Poiuytrewq wrote:

Repulse wrote:Some sense from Penny Mordaunt in the Telegraph, argues for the need of a long term vision, the importance of manpower etc and the need to stop focusing on design initiatives and low build numbers per class.

Seems like every day someone else goes on record to demand more ships - apart from Boris Johnson. It appears his priorities are elsewhere, time will tell.

I’m taking this as more T26s and Rivers, and scrapping the T31

No chance, wishful thinking I'm afraid but the ultimate decision on fleet enlargement will surely get pushed back to SDSR2020.

Before SDSR 2020 the pragmatic approach would be to proceed without delay within the current budget framework and order four T31's for the allocated £1.25bn @ £312m each. This should allow for four credible GP frigates. HMG could then commit to a second batch of T31's to be confirmed by the SDSR. The SDSR could then look to achieve the optimum balance between T45/T26/T31/OPV's.

In the meantime the priority must be to increase manpower by at least 2500 in the next 4 years.

If budget increase is coming couldn’t the T26 build rate be increased with first speeding up the build time line and then adding extra before dropping in to the T45 replacement ?

What do you think £312m would get you in terms of a GP frigate ?

or the flip of that and it could be more T-31s for me right now with every thing that is going on I would go for( money, man power willing) a build program like so


9 x Type 26 followed by a T-45 replacement on the same hull form ( built in yard 1 )
8 x A-140 Type 31 ( fitted with HMS , 3 x 57mm , 2 x Phalanx , 24 CAMM , 4 Harpoon 11+ (built in yard 2)
8 x MHPC multi-mission sloops ( Built in yard 2 )

Poiuytrewq, I’ve seen some references to a throw away comment from BJ when addressing a question from the 1922 committee on Iran stating the RN needs more ships. Also, the fact that Jeremy Hunt was offered the MOD job perhaps gives an indication that he is sympathetic to the view, which would go down well in the Tory heartlands. Maybe “perfect” timing for a RN related drama when a new PM is coming in.

I do however disagree on going ahead on an order for the T31 - BJ could call for an immediate interim defence review reporting ahead of Oct budget.

My view is consult with BAE on accelerating and ultimately expanding the T26 back to 13 ships (numbers depending on budget) perhaps utilising modular building techniques, and then ordering an evolved B2 with a hangar to be built by CL to replace the 4 B1 Rivers (keeping HMS Clyde in the interim) on a 1 for 1 basis.

As some have said, IMHO the first priority is to try solve manning. That will mean more money, either as salaries or enlistment/retaining bonus. First thing is to try do more with what RN allready has.

So, say 20 000 pounds as a bonus for 2-3000 new sailors, that's 60 millions. Another 10 000 as bonus for 30 000 allready serving (if they accept to stay for another 5 years), that's 300 millions. These are one off costs. With maybe additional 10 000 after 5 years.

Also, giving them legal advantage for government jobs, like police and similar after service?

BJ doesn't give a damn about the forces. He still think he's just the Mayor of London. It's all he cares about.

Manning is always the big thing. But I'd like to think any post can always be presumed to be including that when stated. Or we'll be prefixing everything with "First manning". :p