Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

The world is rearming at an unprecedented pace and the RN is having a clearance sale

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

The world is rearming at an unprecedented pace and the RN is having a clearance sale

Old 16th Sep 2023, 15:57
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,150
Received 3,008 Likes on 1,273 Posts
The world is rearming at an unprecedented pace and the RN is having a clearance sale

It does make you wonder sometimes..



https://maritime-executive.com/artic...issioned-ships
NutLoose is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by NutLoose:
Old 16th Sep 2023, 16:47
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 192
Received 8 Likes on 3 Posts
The Hunt class must be fairly old but i agree there seems to be no real defense policy, just live for the day and hope for the best.
1771 DELETE is offline  
The following 5 users liked this post by 1771 DELETE:
Old 16th Sep 2023, 17:10
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wildest Surrey
Age: 75
Posts: 10,859
Received 101 Likes on 74 Posts
I'd rather they kept all of them to deal with 'immigrants'; pity there are no personnel to crew them.
chevvron is online now  
Old 16th Sep 2023, 17:52
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,150
Received 3,008 Likes on 1,273 Posts
I wonder if Ukraine will buy some to bolster the previous purchase, totally agree about the immigration comment, if no crews why not hand them over to another Government department and remove the weapons.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2023, 18:45
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wildest Surrey
Age: 75
Posts: 10,859
Received 101 Likes on 74 Posts
Originally Posted by NutLoose
I wonder if Ukraine will buy some to bolster the previous purchase, totally agree about the immigration comment, if no crews why not hand them over to another Government department and remove the weapons.
Or maybe some of those poor guys who got sacked by P & O are still around and could crew them.
chevvron is online now  
The following users liked this post:
Old 16th Sep 2023, 19:27
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Land of the Angles
Posts: 359
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Or maybe some of those poor guys who got sacked by P & O are still around and could crew them.

On reduced pay?
Hilife is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2023, 07:20
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,605
Received 391 Likes on 233 Posts
End May ORAC I think published

HMS Westminster refit suspended and her return to service in doubt

https://www.navylookout.com/hms-west...vice-in-doubt/

Unofficial naval sources say that the frigate HMS Westminster has been found to be in such a poor state that it would be difficult to justify the expense of repairs and her refit has been stopped, pending a decision on her future.

Westminster was the first Type 23 to have a Life Extension refit, completed in Portsmouth in 2017. After a busy 7 years of service, mostly in European waters, in early October 2022, she arrived in Devonport and initial work began on a refit expected to last less than two years. It was intended she would become a Devonport-based ship and this work package would keep her going until around 2028-29. Westminster is the next oldest frigate (launched in 1992) after HMS Monmouth and Montrose which have already been retired.
RN policy is not to comment on the material state of vessels but a spokesperson hinted at difficult choices ahead saying: “Refit programmes are constantly reviewed to balance availability against value for money. No decisions have been made about any particular unit.” Official confirmation on the fate of HMS Westminster is likely to come at the end of June when the new Defence Command Paper is published. The Secretary of State made a public plea for an extra £11 billion
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2023, 07:22
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,605
Received 391 Likes on 233 Posts
From the same report

Shephard Media reports
the cost of purchasing 5 sets of 32-cell Mk41 launchers for the Type 31 frigates would be around £93M before integration. The unexpected repairs to HMS Prince of Wales are costing around £25M. Besides the headline ship and submarine building programme, the RN has a multitude of other projects underway to develop novel future capabilities, all of which demand funding. Balancing a tight budget is always a series of complex trade-offs, ie. should future capabilities be the priority or refitting an old frigate that may only serve for another few years?
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2023, 09:14
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Fife
Posts: 271
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Unofficial naval sources say that the frigate HMS Westminster has been found to be in such a poor state that it would be difficult to justify the expense of repairs and her refit has been stopped, pending a decision on her future.
Not totally unheard of. When my old man was handed the Charybdis, he, a hull specialist related that she was so rotten the money required to get her seaworthy again would practically pay for a new ship. And so on his word, she was struck off 3 years early.

The trouble is of course, what are the chances that such "savings" are redirected in such a manner as to compensate directly for that capability loss?

Nope, didn't think so.

Cooch
Coochycool is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2023, 15:35
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,605
Received 391 Likes on 233 Posts
the "savings" are needed elsewhere - in fact they're a drop in the ocean
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2023, 21:46
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 535
Received 178 Likes on 94 Posts
FFS.

Four ships, two of which have not been in commission for over a decade, plus two knackered T23. The usual "expert" starts dripping.....
Not_a_boffin is online now  
The following users liked this post:
Old 17th Sep 2023, 21:47
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,928
Received 140 Likes on 65 Posts
Originally Posted by chevvron
I'd rather they kept all of them to deal with 'immigrants'; pity there are no personnel to crew them.
Er, under international maritime law they are obliged to rescue them and land them safely ashore.
Not quite what you had in mind…
pr00ne is offline  
The following 8 users liked this post by pr00ne:
Old 18th Sep 2023, 07:21
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,605
Received 391 Likes on 233 Posts
"Four ships, two of which have not been in commission for over a decade, plus two knackered T23"

yes and the overall numbers continue to decline - you don't have to be an expert to see that Boffin

I understand it pains you - it pains all of us .

I'm sure you REALLY don't want to see the number of vessels in service decline.

But not saying anything about it won't do any good whatsoever. Continuing to "support" the RN as it slides isn't going to help
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2023, 08:30
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 535
Received 178 Likes on 94 Posts
There is a difference between "not saying anything about it" and uninformed pearl-clutching.

Selling off life-expired ships for scrap is absolutely the correct thing to do - see ex-Bristol and ex-Walney. The two T23 are less palatable as a number drop, but that should be temporary as all T26 and T31 are now on-contract (as opposed to just "in the long-term programme". So in terms of DD/FF hull numbers that should be resolved. Ditto, the FSS - all on contract at long last. Losing the SVHO isn't great, but they were approaching end of life (perhaps more than apparent!) and there is the ability to exploit uncrewed systems and MROSS for that.

The more serious issue is manpower - and specifically pinch point retention - which is a pay (and in the case of the RFA, terms and conditions issue). Plus the impact of residual ILS reductions and programme deferrals over a decade ago which mean running on old ships longer than they should have been, with consequent knock-on effects. Something which applies across all three services, particularly in engineering trades.

So - had the thread been titled "What do we have to do to fix retention and how much might it cost?" - that might have been useful.
Not_a_boffin is online now  
Old 18th Sep 2023, 10:37
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,605
Received 391 Likes on 233 Posts
I agree on pay and manpower - it always seems the armed forces have to be reduced to beggary and for large numbers to leave before the Govt of the day (of whatever stripe) very grudgingly coughs up a small amount.

The idea that it's cheaper to keep experienced personnel than spend a fortune trying to recruit replacements seems never to occur to them (or maybe it does....). The report into the loss of the F-35 was full of indications of people stretched to and beyond the limit, desperately cutting and filling to keep things going. 6 months in an SSBN isn't going to improve recruiting either I guess.

In a perfect world the Govt would make the case for a decent financial package to pay people, and to buy AND MAINTAIN a decent set of forces - instead we stretch, and stretch and stretch......... they need to be up front and tell people that they're not going to get the pensions they want, the university places for their kids, lower inheritance taxes or new hospitals everywhere as the country needs defending properly - the primary role of any Govt, anywhere, at any time.

I'm not holding my breath.
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2023, 13:50
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: GMT
Age: 53
Posts: 2,092
Received 190 Likes on 73 Posts
To be fair if we have learned one thing from Ukraine, its that expensive capital hardware such as ships can be negated very easily with an inexpensive drone, or swarm of drones. The same goes for airfields - maybe the RAF needs to revert to the old RAFG concept of dispersal....if only we still had the plastic puffer jets!
minigundiplomat is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 18th Sep 2023, 14:01
  #17 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,150
Received 3,008 Likes on 1,273 Posts
The unexpected repairs to HMS Prince of Wales are costing around £25M
Why is it costing anything, you spend £3 billion and do not even get a warranty?
NutLoose is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2023, 16:30
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 1,715
Received 41 Likes on 25 Posts
Is the disposal of the Batch 1 Rivers expected?
Davef68 is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2023, 16:46
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 535
Received 178 Likes on 94 Posts
Originally Posted by Davef68
Is the disposal of the Batch 1 Rivers expected?
At some stage yes. They're already at their intended lifespan and only got extended because it was thought that they could :

1. Help police post-Brexit fishing areas
2. Somehow "stop the boats"

1 is and remains valid - although whether it's actually an RN (as opposed to DEFRA) responsibility is open to question.
2 was never going to happen.
Not_a_boffin is online now  
Old 18th Sep 2023, 18:30
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Devon
Age: 58
Posts: 69
Received 17 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin
There is a difference between "not saying anything about it" and uninformed pearl-clutching.

Selling off life-expired ships for scrap is absolutely the correct thing to do - see ex-Bristol and ex-Walney. The two T23 are less palatable as a number drop, but that should be temporary as all T26 and T31 are now on-contract (as opposed to just "in the long-term programme". So in terms of DD/FF hull numbers that should be resolved. Ditto, the FSS - all on contract at long last. Losing the SVHO isn't great, but they were approaching end of life (perhaps more than apparent!) and there is the ability to exploit uncrewed systems and MROSS for that.

The more serious issue is manpower - and specifically pinch point retention - which is a pay (and in the case of the RFA, terms and conditions issue). Plus the impact of residual ILS reductions and programme deferrals over a decade ago which mean running on old ships longer than they should have been, with consequent knock-on effects. Something which applies across all three services, particularly in engineering trades.

So - had the thread been titled "What do we have to do to fix retention and how much might it cost?" - that might have been useful.
Hits nail squarely on the head!
The MCMV will find new homes within NATO, most likely up around the Baltic where their sisters are already doing good work, or maybe in the Black Sea. That capability is moving on in a different direction.
Batch 1 OPVs will probably find new homes, they are already on a ‘stay of execution’ so this does not come as a surprise, but they are quite manpower heavy for constabulary roles.
The T23 in question are fit for scrap and nothing else, their hulls are absolutely knackered.
Surprised they pulled the SVHOs so quickly, wonder if they have a buyer for Echo, as the video only mentions Enterprise?
They need to man MROSS, T31 and eventually T26, so something had to give.

But they won’t solve retention until they stop treating JRs like children, particularly at LET level!

Last edited by Mortmeister; 20th Sep 2023 at 21:51.
Mortmeister is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.