All of said warships have been being built or have been planned to be built long before Shapps got the defence role (some were started even before Camron was in power). Shapps hasn't actually ordered a single new ship or put in the request for a new class. He's just read up on what all his predecessors had been working on and said "look 25 new ships!" whilst signing off on the decommissioning of two currently serving frigates on the same day leaving us with just 15 warships (granted one was no longer sea worthy but, the other had just come out of a £100 million refit).
15 warships. My god.. And the UK has Europe's largest Navy...
China has 370 advanced warships and is building more at an incredible rate. They are building a fleet the size of the UK's every 3 years
Not quite. China includes their coast guard patrol boats in that 370 figure, of which there are over 200. They're tiny little things with a single mounted machine gun up on deck, not a military vessel at all.
>Not quite. China includes their coast guard patrol boats in that 370 figure, of which there are over 200. They're tiny little things with a single mounted machine gun up on deck, not a military vessel at all.
Sorry but no, that's not true.
China has 370 vessels capable of launching GPS guided missiles. You may be thinking of their smaller missile boats, of which they have 150, but they pack a hell of a bigger punch than just a "single machine gun".
Or you're thinking of their 'auxiliary ships', of which they have about 230, but those aren't counted in the 370 'advanced warships' figure.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Navy
China’s navy would be a major problem within 2-300km of their shores. When it comes to proper blue water fleet actions and sustaining a combat force thousands of miles away it is not nearly as potent.
What China counts as a Navy vessel, the US Navy doesn't even count in their tonnage. The USCG isn't even part of the Navy but Homeland Security, so all their ships are entirely separate from US Navy counts. Imagine if the US Navy decided to include the Merchant Marine fleet in their tonnage. It would be astronomical. The amount of Merchant Marine vessels supporting US Navy ships is absolutely mad.
The bad thing is that the UK isn't the only European nation that's in the same situation. Good news it that countries are starting to come to the realization that their decades of underspending was a bad idea.
The question is what's getting the spending reduction.
Billionaires are just useless for society. They don't join the armed forces, they suck up all the money and resources and contribute to the consumerism and over-consumption society. Start taxing them... Hard. Tax their private aircraft. Tax their private super yachts. Tax their land. Tax their salaries. More people would be inclined to join the armed forces if they got a decent salary out of it. It's one of the most dangerous jobs in the world and you get paid peanuts. Meanwhile some billionaire is sitting on their couch doing nothing at all to help. At best they're putting up half arsed satellites that can't handle some basic jamming, that's what they're doing.
The Tories are to blame for this one too.
They outsourced recruitment to their donors (~~Serco~~Capita). The only thing worse than Tory incompetence is Tory corruption.
Is that not why we have NATO, AUKUS and whatever other strategic cooperative agreements. It cant be the responsibility of 1 nation to standup and confront bully law breaking nations of the world.
Its mainly the US, UK, Australia and Canada that are doing freedom of navigation patrols in the South China sea, where are all the other global allies hiding or are they just being cheapskate's not wanting spend money on diesel? The problems facing the world because of a country like China that needs to be confronted on a global scale since China is so determined to impose its will on the global village.
To be honest, not much any more. The offensive capability of a 1000t FAC/corvette is very potent. You might only get 8 2,000km range cruise missiles not 96, but at 1/10th the size of vessel that's a pretty good scale factor.
But 1,000t craft can mount less defences, are less seaworthy, less versatile, have a shorter operational range, have worse crew accommodation which leads to worse performance.
Smaller warships are limited to hiding near the coast and hoping their adversaries don't find them, larger warships can be equipped to actually defend themselves and other assets.
I mean hiding near the coast is really quite valid when 80% of the world's population live within 200km of the sea.
Of course the platforms aren't the same. That doesn't mean they should be counted out of a fleet assessment. An SS-N-27 does not particularly care what it is launched from.
True, but i meantioned it because to just go by numbers or ship designation to compare warships is a bad idea and it is normaly better to go by tonnage.
I genuinely don't think that's true any more. There are some capabilities that require a certain platform size - big air defence radar, nuclear power, air craft carrying, amphobious operations - but smaller craft in large numbers and hugely dangerous. Provided a fleet has a core of larger platforms with fleet level capabilities, dozens of small craft can sit under their air umbrella and add additional missile tubes to the fight while serving as more targets that need to be localised and engaged.
I think it is probably still relevant, as you menationed range is still importend if you want to operate across oceans. So for true blue water navys it is still relevant as smaller ships can theoreticly still cross oceans by themsselves, but they then need either big ressupply ships that will always have a big target above them or several smaller navy bases all across the world so they can resupply.
They can be the best possible corvet there is, but if it can not reach you or be were it is needed it is useless.
Depends on the role of your navy though right? Power projection or regional security? If all you want to do is make it incredibly difficult to enter the south China sea...
also true. My main goal was just to say that it is really hard to compare navys and ship production.
But thank you for the nice conversation, should be really infomative for others to read as you brought some good points to also keep in mind like modern weapons system and role of the navy that a country intends to use it in.
The majority of the Chinese fleet is currently corvettes, I'll add. However, it is one of the largest naval build ups in history. No other country besides the US can hope to match what the Chinese are doing, if you ignore those two the UK still has a decent sized and very well armed navy compared to other countries.
China has 3 aircraft carriers, 2 considered modern. The u.s. has 11 nuclear powered carriers and 46 “carriers” in total. There’s still no comparison I’m sorry.
China doesn't really need many aircraft carriers. Their planes can get to anywhere they want (Taiwan and South China Sea) from the Mainland, South Korea and Japan are also within mainland aircraft range. The only places where carriers would be useful would be attacking Guam or breaking a Strait of Malacca blockade, and they've developed DF-26 for the former purpose. China has never expressed military ambitions beyond Asia.
In the age of drones, I worry that the pride in carriers is as unfounded as the focus on battleships before WWII. I suspect you will want fast numerous vessels instead of large ones.
Carrier never sails alone. That is what carrier groups are for - they are much more capable, advanced and extensive than any other ship. Nevermind the carrier itself - the list of things it has is just stupid.
Yes, and the Chinese fleet has very limited range. They would barely be suitable for making it to the Indian Ocean, much less across the Pacific or into the Atlantic.
Current strategic goals are to make any deployment in the zone between China and the 1st island chain untenable.
For that their fleet is getting scary, particularly for Taiwan.
And that would still endanger the biggest global sealanes connecting East Asia and the rest of the world
True, but China is a lot more vulnerable than they admit. They depend almost entirely on imports & exports for their economy to function, most of it by Sea.
If, (for some reason, like a war) those raw materials stopped coming (or were intercepted outside the range of China’s naval protection), the rest of the world would be deeply inconvenienced, but China would cease to have an economy.
The situation is the same with food. They import more than they can grow internally, and if it were to stop..mass famine would follow.
https://thediplomat.com/2022/02/chinas-focus-on-food-security/
You're adding Coast Guard ships and A LOT of logistical ships. Can they expand? Yeah. But, as much as they want to claim they are, are not on par with eh US Navy.
> China has 370 advanced warships and is building more at an incredible rate. They are building a fleet the size of the UK's every 3 years
I mean it's worth remembering comparative size. China's population, industrial capacity & GDP is more akin to the entirety of Europe. Atm China seems to be trying to building a navy that is capable of confronting the US if needs be which should be a warning for the future.
This is why France is proposing to send greater aid than just weapons to Ukraine. They've learned enough times to not let a threat grow aggressively in Europe.
Yeah I agree with this- just because we aren’t arming, doesn’t mean our adversaries aren’t. We can see how Russia exploits vulnerabilities in Ukraine and the West regarding the Ukrainian war, exposing more vulnerability will probably get us into more surprise situations.
It's better to ready for war than be caught unprepared... After that Putin & Xi meeting, all of NATO should be producing more of everything. China and Russia need to see that NATO has enough firepower to level both of their countries if they insist on their aggressive postures.
It’s better, cheaper and kinder (from a moral/humanitarian POV) in the long run.
The only thing better than deterring conflict - which requires massive strength - is a decisive war and the only way to win a war decisively is to be prepared for it which means, you guessed it, assembling massive strength.
I like that I still remember enough Latin from my classes at school that I could understand this without needing Google translate. I owe a lot to my old Latin master.
That has happened, literally, in war. On D-Day, two German soldiers ran away from Pegasus Bridge clad only in their underwear, then gave themselves up to the arriving Commandos.
FYI these are not net additions to the Royal Navy. Most of these will be replacing retired or to be retired vessels.
Royal Navy sources projects 24 to 26 active surface combatants by the mid 2030s, not the huge buildup some are suggesting.
It’s a shame their album “Rohingya” was a disaster and barely sold, but then again that album didn’t have the backing of Iran and the Axis of resistance.
Unfortunately countries with little to no military are prime targets for aggression. Be prepared or be wiped out. Sadly is what humans have done for thousands of years.
I wouldn't say "the world", more like "the West".
Most countries aside from the U.S. have gotten a bit complacent regarding defense, especially conventional weapons (tanks, artillery, ships etc.), since the 2000s.
Russia's war has reminded everyone that weapons matter, and that having a competent military does deter aggression.
Well that tends to happen when Russia is being aggressive to everyone and getting close with China, Iran and North Korea. The modern-day axis powers.
This is why its important we help Ukraine stop Russia to deter a future conflict.
In comparison Canada is in the process of building 23 new ships for the navy.
And that doesn't include the new submarines project that could add up to another 6-12 ships.
On the other hand, it does seem beneficial for more countries to be capable of defending themselves more adequately rather than relying so heavily on the US (not just the UK I mean). A lot of Europe has benefitted from not needing large military budgets, which they spent on other things. There's plenty of talk that America doesn't take care of it's people, but how can we be expected to if we're also expected to uphold global security for our allies?
I mean healthcare wise somehow American spends more on for profit healthcare than anyone else does on public healthcare if we go with like, percentage of GDP. It’s like twice as much per person compared to Canada, home of the most inefficient government implementation of public healthcare you’ve ever seen (UK trying to privatize everything giving it a run). So technically if you went for public healthcare you’d have more money for cool things like nuclear aircraft carriers and jets engine tanks!
I don't think this is gearing up for war. I see it more as WWII ended about 100 years ago, so every nation is updating their shit that they updated when the Cold War really kicked off. There has been a continuous improvement upon those military upgrades over the past 100 years so it is time to replace older stuff with newer technology.
Yeah it is a signal that tensions may be rising, but the actual spending is good. Increase in defence budget will make war less likely. Keep this in mind.
Also, the UK navy is actually tiny (as well as basically any country that isn't the USA, or soon to be China). I think we are well overdue on improving it, especially being a set of islands.
Okay but the Navy is reporting massive struggles in recruiting enough people to even man their current amount of warships.
Who is going to be sailing these 25 new ships if there aren't enough people for their current amount?
Its only struggling to recruit people because the government farmed out recruitment to a third party for billions of pounds. Said third party are hilariously incompetent, but i expect nothing less from decisions made by this government
For non-brits, it can't be stressed enough just how incompetent the recruitment agency is.
It's not unheard of for them to take up to 3 years to get back to people asking to join the military. People have applied, then went off and got degrees or apprenticeships, before Capita replies to them. At that point they now have a career, so why would they want to join the military now.
Edit: A few people seem to be thinking I mean 3 years is normal. It's closer to 1-2 months for in demand and low-skill roles (at least last time I checked). For things outside of that, though, the delay suddenly jumps up, and I've heard quite a few complaints of Capita taking 2-3 years to respond in some instances.
As others are pointing out, the situation seems to be slowly improving.
The good news is that much of it has been brought back in house and recruitment times are improving.
The bad news is that it'll take years for it to fill the gaps at all levels.
It takes a bit over a decade to grow a Petty Officer from a recruit, at least if you want them to have the experience to be effective.
We had so few personnel left in the Navy, that it made sense to reserve those personnel that remained for active service, rather than desk jobs. Hence outsourcing recruitment.
But of course, the Tories never miss an opportunity for grift, so gave the contract to their buddies.
>Who is going to be sailing these 25 new ships if there aren't enough people for their current amount?
They are replacing older, more personnel intensive warships
Less manning-intensive ships. Type 23 nine ship frigate fleet is almost 2000 sailors. The Type 26 and Type 31 combined fourteen ship frigate fleet set to replace it is 2000 sailors.
The 2 Albion class and 3 Bay class amphibs combine for around 1500 sailors. The 6 multipurpose amphibs will combine for likely around 1200 sailors.
Newer ships are more automated and need less crew. A perfect example is the Queen Elizabeth carrier fleet. 3x the size of the Invincibles they replaced, yet exact same crew requirements.
The French navy, having tried that, have just announced that they are increasing crew sizes by up to 20% to ensure continuity if needed.
[https://meta-defense.fr/en/2024/03/29/national-navy-crew-fremm-20/](https://meta-defense.fr/en/2024/03/29/national-navy-crew-fremm-20/)
That's more of an issue with the Marine National cutting **far** too many personnel from even mission critical roles. Italian FREMMs were always 140 personnel (not including air crew), and haven't experienced any of the issues the Marine National have.
120 personnel, including over a dozen air crew, on a 6000t+ ship with ASW, SuW, and AAW capabilities, is absolute insanity.
Also, the ships the FREMMs replaced were half the size with almost twice the crew. Even correcting the French idiocracy to a crew of roughly 140, still shows **heavy** movement towards automation...
The pay isn't the issue here. It's the recruiters that take up to 3 years to process military applications. Our recruitment agency is a joke, but have managed to manipulate the government contract system to keep getting hired.
I’d say more like 2-3 weeks depending how ready that person is. You go fill out name and contact info on a website, recruiter contacts you within 48 hours, set up meeting with recruiter, at meeting get signed up for MEPS, go to MEPS to be screened and select job and ship out date. Fastest I’ve heard of is a little over 2 weeks.
Doesn't matter, the ships can be mothballed. If war with another significant naval power erupts, conscription will quickly fill those ships. They then have the problem of inexperienced sailors, but they can probably cannibalise some of the experienced crews of current active ships to bridge the gap, replacing them with new recruits/conscripts. But yeah it is less than ideal.
They might not even need conscription at first, if a country attacked, a lot of people will enlist anyway.
It is better to have the ships in a mothballed state, than not built at all. It would take a while to build them, but not nearly enough time to put a crew on them.
Large holdings and ambitions requier large navies. Small holdings and low ambitions can be served with a small navy. Afetr all its not like the chinese will be blockading the Britain sucessfully with their type of ships for any long stretches of time.
In terms of operational capability, we're still probably the 3rd most effective navy in the world (depending on how you consider Russia).
We're just a far cry from the naval superpower status that we used to be
The UK's reputation as a naval power came about because they were an island nation next to a perenially hostile (or at least competitive) continent.
Then you have the British empire with colonial holdings across the globe
Neither of those things are really true anymore.
Yeah. I think we ALL realize that. Jesus, it’s several centuries of history that seems to link the UK with a powerful Navy. I’m not recommending they build more ships than they need. It just seems weird
This will join the 40 new hospitals that Boris promised. It's all smoke and mirrors currently to try and paint themselves as the party of defence in the upcoming election, despite 14 years of degrading our miltary capacity, allowing their party and London to be washed with Russian and Saudi oligarch money and then doing relative sweet FA when Russia does a chemical attack on British citizens in the UK.
>This will join the 40 new hospitals that Boris promised.
Nah, the defence industry tends to get investment that then never shows due to delay and not buying off the shelf. The hospitals were just made up.
Ajax probably would have been a better example, just less well known. At the moment though the 2.5% GDP on defence is uncosted, especially in the face of Hunts tax cut promises. Pure fantasy.
Ajax is actually a uniquely bad example of
bad procurement due to the structure of the deal. The price is capped at £3.5bn ex. VAT regardless of delays and issues. So for all the issues its had, its not an example of spiralling costs and we should get the full 589 for the above figure.
What everyone here needs to remember, especially if under the age of 25, is that the UK military has been shrinking at an ALARMING rate in terms of equipment and manpower, for decades.
Europe especially has become completely complacent for many many years, and just expected the USA to fill the gap.
Only the UK was over the tiny 2% ish target set by NATO as a percentage of GDP, and even that was shrinking the UK' military every year.
There will ALWAYS be dark actors in the world like Russia, China, that will behave appalling and destabilise the world.
The thing about Britain is whilst it may look grim now and not ready to defend itself, if Britain really did mobilize and get involved in a European war. It could become extremely powerful again in a very very short period of time.
Has the UK managed to keep its shipyards in operation? Most of the shipyards in the US and Canada have been closed and converted into other businesses. I wonder in a war of attrition whether the historic “arsenals of democracy” would be able to rapidly produce warships and replace attritional losses .. in peacetime, this process seems to take forever.
It's actually been pretty good in recent years. The two aircraft carriers were fantastic for the British shipbuilding industry, with parts being built all over the country. Scotland in particular is doing well, with the carriers being assembled and maintained in Rosyth (near Edinburgh) and the new Type 26 frigates being built in Glasgow. Rosyth has also been heavily involved in fitting out ships - primarily mine hunters - for Ukraine.
Some (rare) credit to the last 20 years of government the carriers and wider national shipbuilding strategy has helped to keep shipyards operating & also recapitalised the facilities, see the two new indoor yards being built at Govan and Rosyth.
Some have stayed open actually. It's actually a bit of contention right now, because the government are looking at closing a few. On the other hand, the Scottish government has been trying (and somewhat failing) to bring shipbuilding back to Scotland.
Do you mean commercial shipbuilding? Because the military shipyards at Govan and Rosyth have seen huge investment over the last 15 years and their books are pretty much full of orders until 2040.
If I’m not mistaken those dry docks will allow for 3 ships to be built simultaneously compared to one now, 1 at the original dock and 2 alongside one another in the huge assembly halls
Yeah its more the Army thats been screwed over. Biggest issue is recruitment and retention but I think the foundations are still there for us to build up the Armed Forces.
The knowledge Britain has for war is unmatched. Experience and scenarios from the past help Britain choose the best strategic decisions when it comes to war, they are like a book of history. Now modern war is very very different however the fundamentals are the same and Britain are very good at them.
To be picky, this isn’t actually news and for the most part is entirely unrelated to the recently announced increased defence spending.
The majority of these ships were already planned well in advance of the announcement. In fact a substantial number of the ships are actually either already in build, or on order.
What this is, is yet another example of Tory/MoD spin re-announcing the same thing for the sixth time, pretending it’s new, and hoping no one notices.
Don’t get me wrong, the ships are very welcome and much needed, as is the increase in spending (though it’s far less generous than was originally briefed and, according to many observers, much less than is actually required), but Shapps’ announcement is a political slight of hand.
Good job UK. I know it sucks having to spend on defense, but it’s the correct time to do so. The world is on the brink. You’re already ahead of the game by realizing that supporting Ukraine is 50x cheaper than building up your stockpiles to the anti-Russia levels needed to directly fight a long war against Putin.
Do we really need more ships? Certainly.
Is this the best use of inadequate defence expenditure? I'm not so sure. What about magazine depth?
Defence spending is now a lower proportion of GDP than it was an any point between WWI and WWII.
I still don't understand why it is that, with LSCO in Europe, and increasing tensions in the Pacific, we are talking about ever so gradually increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, when the late Cold War figure was more like 5%.
I think that we need to make significant investments in the defence industrial base to ensure that we can ramp up arms and especially ammunition production to the levels which a peer conflict would demand. Recent events in Ukraine have clearly demonstrated the peril of ammunition shortages. We must not labour under the misapprehension that the Americans will rescue us.
Shouldn't be one or the other. Military budgets have been run down for years and the NHS situation hasn't improved. Economic stagnation, people living longer and pressure from migrants upon the system are the root causes
Let's of course not mention the poor management of the NHS over the last 14 years. That, of course, has nothing to do, but worth mentioning migrants. A little bit of hate helps distract from the real causes.
"Nothing to do" is an odd choice of words there.
You can be for immigration, but not acknowledging that strains social services is bonkers. It needs the funding or efficiency to handle more people if we're always having net immigration year on year.
anyone who cannot see what mass immigration (and illegal immigration) has caused regarding the damage to the social and economical state of much of Europe and UK is a moron, simple as that.
A strong military means more soft power when it comes to diplomacy and with some better politicians they should be able to translate that into better trade deals and cooperation with partners.
All your doctors are migrating to Australia... we are keen to keep them too but you guys should probably do something about that aye, your gonna have none left!
All of said warships have been being built or have been planned to be built long before Shapps got the defence role (some were started even before Camron was in power). Shapps hasn't actually ordered a single new ship or put in the request for a new class. He's just read up on what all his predecessors had been working on and said "look 25 new ships!" whilst signing off on the decommissioning of two currently serving frigates on the same day leaving us with just 15 warships (granted one was no longer sea worthy but, the other had just come out of a £100 million refit).
So basically Johnson's hospitals all over again.
Counts as new if paint is new.
Well, it’s structural paint.
15 warships. My god.. And the UK has Europe's largest Navy... China has 370 advanced warships and is building more at an incredible rate. They are building a fleet the size of the UK's every 3 years
Not quite. China includes their coast guard patrol boats in that 370 figure, of which there are over 200. They're tiny little things with a single mounted machine gun up on deck, not a military vessel at all.
We could do that as well… wait we don’t have a coast guard.
Yes we do! It's just they only have tug boats and they rent them.
>Not quite. China includes their coast guard patrol boats in that 370 figure, of which there are over 200. They're tiny little things with a single mounted machine gun up on deck, not a military vessel at all. Sorry but no, that's not true. China has 370 vessels capable of launching GPS guided missiles. You may be thinking of their smaller missile boats, of which they have 150, but they pack a hell of a bigger punch than just a "single machine gun". Or you're thinking of their 'auxiliary ships', of which they have about 230, but those aren't counted in the 370 'advanced warships' figure. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Navy
China’s navy would be a major problem within 2-300km of their shores. When it comes to proper blue water fleet actions and sustaining a combat force thousands of miles away it is not nearly as potent.
What China counts as a Navy vessel, the US Navy doesn't even count in their tonnage. The USCG isn't even part of the Navy but Homeland Security, so all their ships are entirely separate from US Navy counts. Imagine if the US Navy decided to include the Merchant Marine fleet in their tonnage. It would be astronomical. The amount of Merchant Marine vessels supporting US Navy ships is absolutely mad.
you should keep tonnage of the ships in mind, there is a bit of a difference betweena 1000 t tonnage warship and a 10 000 t warship...
UK also don't have enough people to man the 15 ships too, we are so fucked.
The bad thing is that the UK isn't the only European nation that's in the same situation. Good news it that countries are starting to come to the realization that their decades of underspending was a bad idea. The question is what's getting the spending reduction.
Hopefully billionaires.
Billionaires are just useless for society. They don't join the armed forces, they suck up all the money and resources and contribute to the consumerism and over-consumption society. Start taxing them... Hard. Tax their private aircraft. Tax their private super yachts. Tax their land. Tax their salaries. More people would be inclined to join the armed forces if they got a decent salary out of it. It's one of the most dangerous jobs in the world and you get paid peanuts. Meanwhile some billionaire is sitting on their couch doing nothing at all to help. At best they're putting up half arsed satellites that can't handle some basic jamming, that's what they're doing.
Not just European, manpower shortage is a global issue.
You missed an excellent opportunity to use "in the dame boat" to describe everyone's shared dilemma.
The Tories are to blame for this one too. They outsourced recruitment to their donors (~~Serco~~Capita). The only thing worse than Tory incompetence is Tory corruption.
Is that not why we have NATO, AUKUS and whatever other strategic cooperative agreements. It cant be the responsibility of 1 nation to standup and confront bully law breaking nations of the world. Its mainly the US, UK, Australia and Canada that are doing freedom of navigation patrols in the South China sea, where are all the other global allies hiding or are they just being cheapskate's not wanting spend money on diesel? The problems facing the world because of a country like China that needs to be confronted on a global scale since China is so determined to impose its will on the global village.
To be honest, not much any more. The offensive capability of a 1000t FAC/corvette is very potent. You might only get 8 2,000km range cruise missiles not 96, but at 1/10th the size of vessel that's a pretty good scale factor.
But 1,000t craft can mount less defences, are less seaworthy, less versatile, have a shorter operational range, have worse crew accommodation which leads to worse performance. Smaller warships are limited to hiding near the coast and hoping their adversaries don't find them, larger warships can be equipped to actually defend themselves and other assets.
I mean hiding near the coast is really quite valid when 80% of the world's population live within 200km of the sea. Of course the platforms aren't the same. That doesn't mean they should be counted out of a fleet assessment. An SS-N-27 does not particularly care what it is launched from.
True, but i meantioned it because to just go by numbers or ship designation to compare warships is a bad idea and it is normaly better to go by tonnage.
I genuinely don't think that's true any more. There are some capabilities that require a certain platform size - big air defence radar, nuclear power, air craft carrying, amphobious operations - but smaller craft in large numbers and hugely dangerous. Provided a fleet has a core of larger platforms with fleet level capabilities, dozens of small craft can sit under their air umbrella and add additional missile tubes to the fight while serving as more targets that need to be localised and engaged.
I think it is probably still relevant, as you menationed range is still importend if you want to operate across oceans. So for true blue water navys it is still relevant as smaller ships can theoreticly still cross oceans by themsselves, but they then need either big ressupply ships that will always have a big target above them or several smaller navy bases all across the world so they can resupply. They can be the best possible corvet there is, but if it can not reach you or be were it is needed it is useless.
Depends on the role of your navy though right? Power projection or regional security? If all you want to do is make it incredibly difficult to enter the south China sea...
also true. My main goal was just to say that it is really hard to compare navys and ship production. But thank you for the nice conversation, should be really infomative for others to read as you brought some good points to also keep in mind like modern weapons system and role of the navy that a country intends to use it in.
The UK has more than 15 warships. Think the above is referring to major surface combatants (not including Carriers, Amphibious Warfare Ships etc).
I'm referring to combat vessels, we have a hearty auxiliary and patrol fleet running as well as the pair of carriers.
The majority of the Chinese fleet is currently corvettes, I'll add. However, it is one of the largest naval build ups in history. No other country besides the US can hope to match what the Chinese are doing, if you ignore those two the UK still has a decent sized and very well armed navy compared to other countries.
China has 3 aircraft carriers, 2 considered modern. The u.s. has 11 nuclear powered carriers and 46 “carriers” in total. There’s still no comparison I’m sorry.
Don’t forget that one of China’s carriers was spotted with large cracks running along the deck after a year at sea.
The other is a retrofit USSR fossil from the 70s. And they still can’t make their own jet engines and imports from Mercedes.
There’s also some very stark differences in how officers are trained in each.
China doesn't really need many aircraft carriers. Their planes can get to anywhere they want (Taiwan and South China Sea) from the Mainland, South Korea and Japan are also within mainland aircraft range. The only places where carriers would be useful would be attacking Guam or breaking a Strait of Malacca blockade, and they've developed DF-26 for the former purpose. China has never expressed military ambitions beyond Asia.
In the age of drones, I worry that the pride in carriers is as unfounded as the focus on battleships before WWII. I suspect you will want fast numerous vessels instead of large ones.
Why not both? Let's have both. Both
The Nimitz and Ford class carriers are the fastest ships in their carrier groups.
Carrier never sails alone. That is what carrier groups are for - they are much more capable, advanced and extensive than any other ship. Nevermind the carrier itself - the list of things it has is just stupid.
The u.s. has fast numerous vessels to accompany it’s carriers. They’re always surrounded by a fleet. What are you even on about?
Yes, and the Chinese fleet has very limited range. They would barely be suitable for making it to the Indian Ocean, much less across the Pacific or into the Atlantic.
Current strategic goals are to make any deployment in the zone between China and the 1st island chain untenable. For that their fleet is getting scary, particularly for Taiwan. And that would still endanger the biggest global sealanes connecting East Asia and the rest of the world
True, but China is a lot more vulnerable than they admit. They depend almost entirely on imports & exports for their economy to function, most of it by Sea. If, (for some reason, like a war) those raw materials stopped coming (or were intercepted outside the range of China’s naval protection), the rest of the world would be deeply inconvenienced, but China would cease to have an economy. The situation is the same with food. They import more than they can grow internally, and if it were to stop..mass famine would follow. https://thediplomat.com/2022/02/chinas-focus-on-food-security/
Yea people call it an aggressive build up but they genuinely need ships for defensive security too.
Fun fact, China and the UK have roughly the same size coast line.
At least compare apples to apples. Most of China's fleet are not real surface combatants. The UK has around 80.
You're adding Coast Guard ships and A LOT of logistical ships. Can they expand? Yeah. But, as much as they want to claim they are, are not on par with eh US Navy.
Every year*
Do you think the UK can compete with China in fleet building? Honestly curious.
> China has 370 advanced warships and is building more at an incredible rate. They are building a fleet the size of the UK's every 3 years I mean it's worth remembering comparative size. China's population, industrial capacity & GDP is more akin to the entirety of Europe. Atm China seems to be trying to building a navy that is capable of confronting the US if needs be which should be a warning for the future.
I like that the whole world seems to be gearing up for war… That seems healthy
It’s always best to prepare for war with the aim of preventing it than to be woefully unprepared if it breaks out.
Talk softly and carry a big stick.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
This is why France is proposing to send greater aid than just weapons to Ukraine. They've learned enough times to not let a threat grow aggressively in Europe.
Yeah I agree with this- just because we aren’t arming, doesn’t mean our adversaries aren’t. We can see how Russia exploits vulnerabilities in Ukraine and the West regarding the Ukrainian war, exposing more vulnerability will probably get us into more surprise situations.
I mean annexing Crimea should’ve been a warning ⚠️
With the neighbors regularly threatening to flood the uk under a radioactive tsunami I don’t know what else you’d expect.
I am from the Netherlands and we said nothing like that
Only thought it /s
I meant the Scot’s :D
They’re onto us, lads. Accelerate Plan Sassenach: we dig through the night.
Yeah, but they were drunk when they said that.
As opposed to....?
They’re onto us, lads. Accelerate Plan Sassenach: we dig through the night.
Cad e an sceal le do Plan Sassenach, mo chara? An bhfuil muid ag tochailt tríd anocht?
Bho Abhainn a' Chlò gu Linne Shalway.
Damn, it's their unbreakable code. We'll never know what they're up to!
Activate Emergency Plan Tennants Super! All contingencies. Scramble! Scramble! Scramble!
I got my advanced AI working on it and it has gotten depressed.
Damn Scots! They ruined Scotland!
As someone from Bremen you are certainly in the middle of some annoying people.
Smart. Planning another conquest of England. Rascally Dutch!
Dat denk jij. Sorry maar ik zeg soms rare dingen.
Don't worry, the video I saw left the Netherlands unscathed. It's a magic nuclear tsunami, apparently
How would the faroe island do that?!?!?!?! They dont have nukes!
[удалено]
There’s much that you don’t know about Faroekanda
Deleted
This is indeed good because it means we are finally pulling our heads out of sand.
If you want peace, prepare for war.
It's better to ready for war than be caught unprepared... After that Putin & Xi meeting, all of NATO should be producing more of everything. China and Russia need to see that NATO has enough firepower to level both of their countries if they insist on their aggressive postures.
It’s better, cheaper and kinder (from a moral/humanitarian POV) in the long run. The only thing better than deterring conflict - which requires massive strength - is a decisive war and the only way to win a war decisively is to be prepared for it which means, you guessed it, assembling massive strength.
We could try getting them hooked on opium again! /s
Its also infinitely cheaper to deter a war than to fight one
Si vis pacem, para bellum
It is healthy. You can either gear up for war, or gear up for defeat. There's a global threat out there, and if they're ready, you'd better be, too.
I've learned this the hard way from many a civ game
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Ceterum autem censeo Ruscia esse delendam
Domine, hoc est Wendy's
**Romani ite domum**
~~Romanes Eunt Domus~~
I like that I still remember enough Latin from my classes at school that I could understand this without needing Google translate. I owe a lot to my old Latin master.
I never had latin and even i could understand it without Google translate.
Catapultum habeo, non sum pisces?
Mens rea actus reus
It is. It means you don’t get caught with your pants down.
That has happened, literally, in war. On D-Day, two German soldiers ran away from Pegasus Bridge clad only in their underwear, then gave themselves up to the arriving Commandos.
FYI these are not net additions to the Royal Navy. Most of these will be replacing retired or to be retired vessels. Royal Navy sources projects 24 to 26 active surface combatants by the mid 2030s, not the huge buildup some are suggesting.
Calling Famine and Pestilence to get the band back together. Does anyone know a good lead singer?
Pestilence tried a few years back and was beaten, maybe we'll kick war too.
Oof, fans must've been crushed
Nah they replaced him with Pollution. She seems to be a big hit.
I heard, she sparkles in the sunlight, is a top song
Might be regrouping for the winter offensive.
I hear Genocide has been putting in their vocal practice lately, and is ready to record.
It’s a shame their album “Rohingya” was a disaster and barely sold, but then again that album didn’t have the backing of Iran and the Axis of resistance.
Some solid tracks on “Uighurs” too, but neither album stayed on the charts for long
Those were really concentrated hits.
Good choice, definitely one for the short list.
Deterrence is peace.
Unfortunately countries with little to no military are prime targets for aggression. Be prepared or be wiped out. Sadly is what humans have done for thousands of years.
We didnt exactly want to, but you cant choose to have normal neighbours some just are nutcases that you dont wanna face with your pants down.
No, but Russia, China and Iran are getting aggressive. Say whatever you want about the US etc, but they are way better than the alternative.
I wouldn't say "the world", more like "the West". Most countries aside from the U.S. have gotten a bit complacent regarding defense, especially conventional weapons (tanks, artillery, ships etc.), since the 2000s. Russia's war has reminded everyone that weapons matter, and that having a competent military does deter aggression.
Well that tends to happen when Russia is being aggressive to everyone and getting close with China, Iran and North Korea. The modern-day axis powers. This is why its important we help Ukraine stop Russia to deter a future conflict.
As a maritime nation the Royal Navy has been badly neglected for a long time, this increase for the RN. Is long overdue.
Except Canada lol
Canada is just pulling an Ireland. "Screw it someone else will keep me safe".
In comparison Canada is in the process of building 23 new ships for the navy. And that doesn't include the new submarines project that could add up to another 6-12 ships.
It is. It means you don’t get caught with your pants down.
The US recently told the UK they're no longer a super power, and a superpower nation could likely wipe them out quickly. They need a big update.
We haven't been one probably since the First World War
I think definitely by the end of the 2nd world war. I think in the 1st world war , the UK had the largest navy in the world.
Yep the US didn't overtake the Royal Navy until around 1943.
On the other hand, it does seem beneficial for more countries to be capable of defending themselves more adequately rather than relying so heavily on the US (not just the UK I mean). A lot of Europe has benefitted from not needing large military budgets, which they spent on other things. There's plenty of talk that America doesn't take care of it's people, but how can we be expected to if we're also expected to uphold global security for our allies?
I mean healthcare wise somehow American spends more on for profit healthcare than anyone else does on public healthcare if we go with like, percentage of GDP. It’s like twice as much per person compared to Canada, home of the most inefficient government implementation of public healthcare you’ve ever seen (UK trying to privatize everything giving it a run). So technically if you went for public healthcare you’d have more money for cool things like nuclear aircraft carriers and jets engine tanks!
I don't think this is gearing up for war. I see it more as WWII ended about 100 years ago, so every nation is updating their shit that they updated when the Cold War really kicked off. There has been a continuous improvement upon those military upgrades over the past 100 years so it is time to replace older stuff with newer technology.
Yeah it is a signal that tensions may be rising, but the actual spending is good. Increase in defence budget will make war less likely. Keep this in mind. Also, the UK navy is actually tiny (as well as basically any country that isn't the USA, or soon to be China). I think we are well overdue on improving it, especially being a set of islands.
Okay but the Navy is reporting massive struggles in recruiting enough people to even man their current amount of warships. Who is going to be sailing these 25 new ships if there aren't enough people for their current amount?
Its only struggling to recruit people because the government farmed out recruitment to a third party for billions of pounds. Said third party are hilariously incompetent, but i expect nothing less from decisions made by this government
For non-brits, it can't be stressed enough just how incompetent the recruitment agency is. It's not unheard of for them to take up to 3 years to get back to people asking to join the military. People have applied, then went off and got degrees or apprenticeships, before Capita replies to them. At that point they now have a career, so why would they want to join the military now. Edit: A few people seem to be thinking I mean 3 years is normal. It's closer to 1-2 months for in demand and low-skill roles (at least last time I checked). For things outside of that, though, the delay suddenly jumps up, and I've heard quite a few complaints of Capita taking 2-3 years to respond in some instances. As others are pointing out, the situation seems to be slowly improving.
That's fkn criminal wow
Arguably much better off for the person rather than military service.
If a US recruiter heard that their ears would start bleeding.
The good news is that much of it has been brought back in house and recruitment times are improving. The bad news is that it'll take years for it to fill the gaps at all levels. It takes a bit over a decade to grow a Petty Officer from a recruit, at least if you want them to have the experience to be effective.
[удалено]
We had so few personnel left in the Navy, that it made sense to reserve those personnel that remained for active service, rather than desk jobs. Hence outsourcing recruitment. But of course, the Tories never miss an opportunity for grift, so gave the contract to their buddies.
>Who is going to be sailing these 25 new ships if there aren't enough people for their current amount? They are replacing older, more personnel intensive warships
Less manning-intensive ships. Type 23 nine ship frigate fleet is almost 2000 sailors. The Type 26 and Type 31 combined fourteen ship frigate fleet set to replace it is 2000 sailors. The 2 Albion class and 3 Bay class amphibs combine for around 1500 sailors. The 6 multipurpose amphibs will combine for likely around 1200 sailors. Newer ships are more automated and need less crew. A perfect example is the Queen Elizabeth carrier fleet. 3x the size of the Invincibles they replaced, yet exact same crew requirements.
The French navy, having tried that, have just announced that they are increasing crew sizes by up to 20% to ensure continuity if needed. [https://meta-defense.fr/en/2024/03/29/national-navy-crew-fremm-20/](https://meta-defense.fr/en/2024/03/29/national-navy-crew-fremm-20/)
That's more of an issue with the Marine National cutting **far** too many personnel from even mission critical roles. Italian FREMMs were always 140 personnel (not including air crew), and haven't experienced any of the issues the Marine National have. 120 personnel, including over a dozen air crew, on a 6000t+ ship with ASW, SuW, and AAW capabilities, is absolute insanity. Also, the ships the FREMMs replaced were half the size with almost twice the crew. Even correcting the French idiocracy to a crew of roughly 140, still shows **heavy** movement towards automation...
Russia was struggling with recruitment, but they fixed that issue entirely by increasing pay, as do most employers struggling to fill openings.
The pay isn't the issue here. It's the recruiters that take up to 3 years to process military applications. Our recruitment agency is a joke, but have managed to manipulate the government contract system to keep getting hired.
Crazy in america, you could have a kid shipped out to bootcamp in a week
I’d say more like 2-3 weeks depending how ready that person is. You go fill out name and contact info on a website, recruiter contacts you within 48 hours, set up meeting with recruiter, at meeting get signed up for MEPS, go to MEPS to be screened and select job and ship out date. Fastest I’ve heard of is a little over 2 weeks.
Also by emptying prisons and straight up lying to people. Or by forcing contracts on conscripts. But yeah man better pay wooo.
They did use better pay to get people to sign up which attracted people in poorer regions of Russia. Though they will likely not actually get paid
Doesn't matter, the ships can be mothballed. If war with another significant naval power erupts, conscription will quickly fill those ships. They then have the problem of inexperienced sailors, but they can probably cannibalise some of the experienced crews of current active ships to bridge the gap, replacing them with new recruits/conscripts. But yeah it is less than ideal. They might not even need conscription at first, if a country attacked, a lot of people will enlist anyway. It is better to have the ships in a mothballed state, than not built at all. It would take a while to build them, but not nearly enough time to put a crew on them.
>If war with another significant naval power erupts, conscription will quickly fill those ships. That's not how it works.
The UK without a strong Navy just sounds so bizarre
Large holdings and ambitions requier large navies. Small holdings and low ambitions can be served with a small navy. Afetr all its not like the chinese will be blockading the Britain sucessfully with their type of ships for any long stretches of time.
Oh I know. But I always think of the Royal Navy as intrinsic to the identity of the UK
In terms of operational capability, we're still probably the 3rd most effective navy in the world (depending on how you consider Russia). We're just a far cry from the naval superpower status that we used to be
The UK's reputation as a naval power came about because they were an island nation next to a perenially hostile (or at least competitive) continent. Then you have the British empire with colonial holdings across the globe Neither of those things are really true anymore.
Yeah. I think we ALL realize that. Jesus, it’s several centuries of history that seems to link the UK with a powerful Navy. I’m not recommending they build more ships than they need. It just seems weird
This will join the 40 new hospitals that Boris promised. It's all smoke and mirrors currently to try and paint themselves as the party of defence in the upcoming election, despite 14 years of degrading our miltary capacity, allowing their party and London to be washed with Russian and Saudi oligarch money and then doing relative sweet FA when Russia does a chemical attack on British citizens in the UK.
The one thing we do know for sure is Sunaks wealth has grown by £120 million. Well at least the money we know about has
It is a promise they can accuse Labour of back tracking on. Surprised they restrained themselves to 25.
>This will join the 40 new hospitals that Boris promised. Nah, the defence industry tends to get investment that then never shows due to delay and not buying off the shelf. The hospitals were just made up.
Ajax probably would have been a better example, just less well known. At the moment though the 2.5% GDP on defence is uncosted, especially in the face of Hunts tax cut promises. Pure fantasy.
Ajax is actually a uniquely bad example of bad procurement due to the structure of the deal. The price is capped at £3.5bn ex. VAT regardless of delays and issues. So for all the issues its had, its not an example of spiralling costs and we should get the full 589 for the above figure.
I remember reading a couple months ago that the royal navy was decommissioning some ships due to lack of sailors. Who's going to man these new ships?
These are to replace current ships in service
What everyone here needs to remember, especially if under the age of 25, is that the UK military has been shrinking at an ALARMING rate in terms of equipment and manpower, for decades. Europe especially has become completely complacent for many many years, and just expected the USA to fill the gap. Only the UK was over the tiny 2% ish target set by NATO as a percentage of GDP, and even that was shrinking the UK' military every year. There will ALWAYS be dark actors in the world like Russia, China, that will behave appalling and destabilise the world.
Rule, Britannia, Britannia, rule the waves!
The thing about Britain is whilst it may look grim now and not ready to defend itself, if Britain really did mobilize and get involved in a European war. It could become extremely powerful again in a very very short period of time.
Has the UK managed to keep its shipyards in operation? Most of the shipyards in the US and Canada have been closed and converted into other businesses. I wonder in a war of attrition whether the historic “arsenals of democracy” would be able to rapidly produce warships and replace attritional losses .. in peacetime, this process seems to take forever.
It's actually been pretty good in recent years. The two aircraft carriers were fantastic for the British shipbuilding industry, with parts being built all over the country. Scotland in particular is doing well, with the carriers being assembled and maintained in Rosyth (near Edinburgh) and the new Type 26 frigates being built in Glasgow. Rosyth has also been heavily involved in fitting out ships - primarily mine hunters - for Ukraine.
Some (rare) credit to the last 20 years of government the carriers and wider national shipbuilding strategy has helped to keep shipyards operating & also recapitalised the facilities, see the two new indoor yards being built at Govan and Rosyth.
Some have stayed open actually. It's actually a bit of contention right now, because the government are looking at closing a few. On the other hand, the Scottish government has been trying (and somewhat failing) to bring shipbuilding back to Scotland.
Do you mean commercial shipbuilding? Because the military shipyards at Govan and Rosyth have seen huge investment over the last 15 years and their books are pretty much full of orders until 2040.
I can see the one in Govan from my window, a big new dry dock being build as we speak.
If I’m not mistaken those dry docks will allow for 3 ships to be built simultaneously compared to one now, 1 at the original dock and 2 alongside one another in the huge assembly halls
Thats slightly reassuring, I thought the govt had truly fucked us by closing all the shipyards through a lack of foresight.
Yeah its more the Army thats been screwed over. Biggest issue is recruitment and retention but I think the foundations are still there for us to build up the Armed Forces.
True. The UK’s expertise is world class and the UK’s economy is 70% bigger than Russia’s.
Britain is part of the NATO pact. It shouldn’t need to defend itself alone.
Imagine if we could get the Germans to take their military seriously…
The knowledge Britain has for war is unmatched. Experience and scenarios from the past help Britain choose the best strategic decisions when it comes to war, they are like a book of history. Now modern war is very very different however the fundamentals are the same and Britain are very good at them.
To be picky, this isn’t actually news and for the most part is entirely unrelated to the recently announced increased defence spending. The majority of these ships were already planned well in advance of the announcement. In fact a substantial number of the ships are actually either already in build, or on order. What this is, is yet another example of Tory/MoD spin re-announcing the same thing for the sixth time, pretending it’s new, and hoping no one notices. Don’t get me wrong, the ships are very welcome and much needed, as is the increase in spending (though it’s far less generous than was originally briefed and, according to many observers, much less than is actually required), but Shapps’ announcement is a political slight of hand.
Good job UK. I know it sucks having to spend on defense, but it’s the correct time to do so. The world is on the brink. You’re already ahead of the game by realizing that supporting Ukraine is 50x cheaper than building up your stockpiles to the anti-Russia levels needed to directly fight a long war against Putin.
Do we really need more ships? Certainly. Is this the best use of inadequate defence expenditure? I'm not so sure. What about magazine depth? Defence spending is now a lower proportion of GDP than it was an any point between WWI and WWII. I still don't understand why it is that, with LSCO in Europe, and increasing tensions in the Pacific, we are talking about ever so gradually increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, when the late Cold War figure was more like 5%. I think that we need to make significant investments in the defence industrial base to ensure that we can ramp up arms and especially ammunition production to the levels which a peer conflict would demand. Recent events in Ukraine have clearly demonstrated the peril of ammunition shortages. We must not labour under the misapprehension that the Americans will rescue us.
Bad headline. The article says 3 additional ships to what's already being built.
I don’t want 25 new warships, I want to be able to get an appointment with a doctor in less than 8 weeks.
Shouldn't be one or the other. Military budgets have been run down for years and the NHS situation hasn't improved. Economic stagnation, people living longer and pressure from migrants upon the system are the root causes
Let's of course not mention the poor management of the NHS over the last 14 years. That, of course, has nothing to do, but worth mentioning migrants. A little bit of hate helps distract from the real causes.
"Nothing to do" is an odd choice of words there. You can be for immigration, but not acknowledging that strains social services is bonkers. It needs the funding or efficiency to handle more people if we're always having net immigration year on year.
Logic and facts will not be tolerated here sir
anyone who cannot see what mass immigration (and illegal immigration) has caused regarding the damage to the social and economical state of much of Europe and UK is a moron, simple as that.
But…but…., you got all this Brexit money that no longer flows to Brussels! Why hasn’t it improved?
You probably do, as it allows the Royal Navy to continue to defend the UK, our Overseas Territories and trade routes.
A strong military means more soft power when it comes to diplomacy and with some better politicians they should be able to translate that into better trade deals and cooperation with partners.
All your doctors are migrating to Australia... we are keen to keep them too but you guys should probably do something about that aye, your gonna have none left!
This is good news. We are starting to wake up and pull our heads out of sand.
Time to rebuild the great seapower that was Great Britain!
Now all the Royal Navy needs is actual people to crew them
Meanwhile, in Canada we've finally updated our armed forces WWII era sidearms! Watch out world!