The Royal Navy - purpose and procurement - Defence Select Committee hearing
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 жов 2024
- On 3 November 2021, the House of Commons Defence Select Committee held a lengthy session covering a wide range of issues relevant to the current and future state of the Royal Navy.
The witnesses were: Jeremy Quin (Minister for Defence Procurement), Vice Admiral Chris Gardner (Director General, Ships Domain, DE&S) and Admiral Tony Radakin (First Sea Lord).
See our article here:
www.navylookou...
I got 28 minutes in and as far as the Chair (Tobias Ellwood) talking across an Admiral who was rightly correcting Francois that CSG availability was over 90% in spite of the T45 problem and sarcastically suggesting 'Well yes but half the ships are foreign'.
There are 9 ships and a boat. 2 are not UK ships: The USS The Sullivans and the HNLMS Evertsen. That is 20% of the CSG fleet. And its less now the USS The Sullivans has departed for refit to Mayport.
THIS is why politicians and especially Ellwood should STFU and let the experts speak.
"politicians.. ..should STFU and let the experts speak"
I agree, but tbh then, it would be better if the serving naval officers, and especially the 1st Sea Lord, were at liberty to answer more bluntly. Including by provision of expansions, explanation and (Gods forbid) even acknowledgement if the MP actually does manage to make a somewhat valid observation. As Francois in fact did, albeit not altogether fairly by putting them to officers constrained by conventions that too often impose requirements to conform to ministerial positions, instead of directly to the minister himself.
As for your own point re CSG21 "There are 9 ships and a boat. 2 are not UK ships", it's unfortunately rather misleading in view of even a cursory look at the broader facts. Not least as of those 9 ships, 2 are RFAs and another is the carrier herself, all three of which the escort group is, in any case, there to screen. Accordingly, when 'Diamond' was obliged to drop out and no other T45 was available to replace her, the UK escorts were reduced to just 3, including only one advanced AAW destroyer. While for several utterly inexcusable reasons, no genuinely 1st rank ASuW-capable UK surface escort was ever deployable at all.
In short, the two allied ships (USS The Sullivans and HNLMS Evertsen) not only constituted fully 40% of the available screen on a simple numerical basis after Diamond had left, but a significantly higher proportion of its aggregate AA/MW capabiity. While (embarrassingly) they represented a yet larger proportion of its ASuW potential even while Diamond was still there!
That is NOT very encouraging given the RN's (and HMG's 'supposed') aim to once again meet the country's real need to possess the most capable NATO navy in Europe. So while Francois may be somewhat self-defeatingly boorish at times and invariably irritable, the irritability at least is wholly justified.
1chish + Ellwood is ex Army, Royal Green Jackets, go a little further and listen to the First Sea Lord regarding the replacement of Harpoon, he seems happy for a gap from 2023 to 2030, expert as you say! He is correct re the CSG21 that the strike group was joined by other Navies throughout it's deployment, filling gaps in RN capabilities. Then trying to bullshit his way through re the escort numbers, making out we can do more with less, fact is we haven't even got 13 T-23's available now, two are stripped, never to sail again.
Crap u know nothing, it’s cost waste of cash , I’m s n p
@@henryvagincourt4502 Uk just sold one t23
Ellwood pushes hard but he is trying to cut through the political speak of government and the high military command, both to hold them to account on procurement mistakes, but also to bring to attention the capability gaps of our armed forces and where more funding is needed. He is trying to get the military more funding
We need more ships! Built and designed in Britain!
We need long dead Kings to stay dead
@Royal Naval Study hello RNS
Very interesting. I would watch more of this type of content. Thanks for uploading it.
MP's keep wanting more with less...ships breaking down which is obvious when there are so few doing more work...19 ships what a joke
The ratio of sea time to shore time for sailors is very important as it will effect the wellness of serving sailors and their families . More sea time for sailors = more stress for sailors and will effect sailor retention rates.
Never watched these before; but I'm finding them more interesting than I'd have predicted.
to have a strong navy and army raf we need are mp to put at least 100 billion a year in its the only way
6 daring class only 1 working...not fixed until 2028...jeez
3 are operational (Defender & Diamond with CSG and Dragon exercising in the North Atlantic) with a 4th working upto operational status (HMS-Duncan).
@@Autofleet4429 Still not good enough, we should have 12 working, reliable destroyers.
@@stabilis8895 I'm all for more hulls but when it comes to AAW vessels the RN actually has more than the average amount of AAW vessels for Western navies 5.1 not including the 11 Cruisers being decommissioned and counting the 4th AAW for the French navy under construction).
the UK - 6 Type-45 Destroyers spread for 2 Carriers.
the French has 2 Horizon-Class AAW-Destroyers & 1 AAW version of the FREMM Frigate (another one under construction) for 5 Flat-Tops.
the Italian Navy has 2 Horizon-Class AAW-Destroyer & 2 older Durand de la Penne-Class AAW-Destroyers for 2 Carriers.
The Spanish Navy has 5 Álvaro de Bazán-class AAW-Frigate for 1 Flat-Top (they also rotate them through NATO/International formations)
The Royal Netherlands Navy as 4 De Zeven Provinciën-class AAW-Frigates
The Royal Australian Navy has 3 Hobert-Class AAW-Destroyers for 2 Flat-Tops
the Japan Maritime Defence Force has 8 AAW-Destroyers or the Maya, Atago & Kongō-classes for 4 Flat-Tops
The South Korean Navy has 3 Sejong the Great class AAW-Destroyers for 2 Flat-Tops
The German Navy has 3 Sachsen-class AAW-frigates
The US Navy has 22 Ticonderoga-class cruisers (they serve as the main AAW Vessel in the CSG with the AB-Class serving more as General-Purpose vessels, they also plan on retiring 11 of the cruisers with the freed up money and spares keeping the active 11 going for longer) for 11 CSGs.
Paul + Madness, and I'm ex Royal Navy!
We should harvest the scrap metal from the billions of Supermarket trollies at the bottom of our rivers to build a Megacarrier 3x the size of a U.S Carrier, then invade Iceland, this is the only rational option I see.
I love your thinking. Tell me more of this fairytale 🤣
Despite unanimous agreement that the world outlook is bleak in next 5-10 years….The most used word was “gap”. That’s not good.
Giving them more money will mean the MoD will only piss it away on abject failures. Holding them to account is the only way to stop them wasting more money. The Ajax debacle is just a symptom of the underlying cause of too many twats in cushy jobs taking back handers from defence contractors. That is the only way I can explain Ajax getting through the competition in an unworking state, they should have bought BAE's CV90 MKIV which has been updated continuously since it's launch.
We have 98,000 buildings (1:50) but only 72,000 troops!! The mind boggles.
100000 With Reserves.
@@rockinwackyidk Aye but (from experience) they only turn up some weekends when the weather is nice to partake of their hobby. I think you're missing my point.
Wow, here we are in January 2024. No ability of type 45 to strike land. Here’s why…. 1:30:26 1:10:51 1:29:30
All very much over stretched navy , for example HMS Daring a capital warship laid up at Portsmouth since 2017 a badly needed ship , now only just going through a re fit and having generator up grade at Camel Laird . Too slow . A type 23 frigate decommissioned on the quite , another ship gone from the very small navy fleet. Too much reliance on foreign NATO fleets to protect us . A sovereign escort for the carrier if that one vessel does not break down ! If it does no other sovereign escort will be available. All Managed by a sleazy corrupt government, with a clown in command . I can go on and on , too much currently wrong with the country at the moment. Thanks for uploading this . Just goes to show what a state this country is in.
A question I would like to see them answer is why, if the goal is to replace the GP T23 with T31, why does it only have 1/3 of the defensive missiles, a smaller gun & 100% less offensive missiles... Shouldn't we be trying to AT LEAST match capability with capability?
because its role is to defend merchant routes anti drug and so on it costs alot less than the T23 , 4 too 5 times cheaper why would they need a proper war ship for it
@@icutthings649 4-5 times cheaper than a Type 23?
First off... No. Without the first of the class (which always costs more), Type 23s apparently cost between £60m and £96m. If we assume that the range is because of inflation over the period they were built, so the £60m was for Hull #2, laid down in 1987, then accounting for inflation, that's equivalent to £140m in 2021.
Evern if it were the other way around and the ships got cheaper with each hull, £96m in 1987 is only £224m in 2021, but that means that the last ship cost £60m in 1999, or just £93m in 2021.
Type 31 is meant to cost £250m each... How is that 4-5 times cheaper than £140m?
It's 4-5 times cheaper than a Type 26, but that's a much more expensive ship than the Type 23 ever was.
Secondly, yes it is meant to protect merchant shipping, but against a swarm of say Iranian fast boats, it's really going to struggle with just 12 Sea Ceptor cells when a single fast attack craft can carry a handful of exocets and a 76mm gun.
@@sergarlantyrell7847 hah sorry man i got mixed up with the type 23 and 26 im really sorry for being so dumb also I was very drunk while writing so please excuse me :)
@@icutthings649 I would say because to defend merchant routes it would need an anti submarine and anti surface capability.
The first sealord was a lot more patient with Francois than I would have been.
Going on about having submarine availability that's "only" as good as the USN... I would bet that no other nuclear submarine force (so French, Russian or Chinese) has better availability than the USN.
And then complaining about availability numbers for the T45, but then seemingly demanding that they all undergo PIP simultaneously, meaning 0 availability.
"When are we going to materially improve the availability of our nuclear attack submarine fleet? The key question asked around 1:19.
Yes I 👍 agree whith you.
Love how the First Sea Lord said we would put the type 31's in harms way then goes on to say it won't have any offensive weapons aside from it's main gun and 2x30mm remote guns as it will be fitted for mk41 VLS but won't have them installed. Lovely they are just going to be floating targets then albeit able to defend themselves until they run out of ammo.
Yes, amazing admission, though one can feel sorry for the navy professionals who're constrained not to "rock the boat" instead of accepting the pittance they get for ludicrously underarmed "fitted for but not with" ships from vile politicos who prefer virtue signalling over still bloated foreign aid budgets.
@@squirepraggerstope3591 I'm with you on the virtue signalling crap, it needs to end as does wastage at all levels on virtue training bollocks and making sure someone of a particular type gets recruited stuff. Can we not just have people employed because they are good at that job instead of being part of a group some box ticker approves of?
I guess 'Airmiles Andy' will skipper the National Flagship!
we don't need a UK Flag Ship (e.g. a mini Royal Yaught) the fact its going to cost the same price as a type 31, why cant we just build another type 31....its madness this new UK Flag ship is a waste of money and going to be a White Elephant
The first sea lord talk's like a typical middle manager, instead of a leader of men and women.
This 1SL is probably one of the better Admirals we've had in quite a while. He's a visionary and a proactive leader. The Navy is changing rapidly under his command. There's a reason why he is where he is. 😉
@@commercio3564 it's good to here a different opinions,but I've been on the planet long enough to hear a career man instead of a outright leader,but that's my thoughts on the man.
It's widely observed that once Captians get promoted up the ranks they have to start talking like politicians. Radakin has impressed me since his his address to the RN in 2019, and has delivered on everything he has so far promised.
@@eyesofisabelofficial let's hope as CGN he kicks the shit outta the MoD procurement people who are clearly not upto the job and wasting billions.
A navy has to reflect the economic strength of the nation, to sustain it, over decades of steady investment. As the UKs economic decline, and demands on climate emergency needs gathers pace. Sustainability is optimistic.
Delighted some got 28 minutes in..
Talk talk talk.........why are so slow at getting stuff done.........takes us years to do anything.
Dozens and dozens of words to say that nothing is being done.
Why the type 23 gonna retire its pure corruption or just loss of taxpayers money i don't know cause the way that they are refitted its not a problem at all being in service till 2027 or 28 at least whith all those radars air defence systems missiles and even engine replaced pfff I don't know really why are they being sold cheap.
I propose more spending for more QE class, more Type 45(or AB class)more F35s, more nuclear submarines, and 1 nuclear flagship carrier.
Nuclear carriers are expensive to build and run. You only have to look at the latest US carriers and all the problems they are having. They have a crew of 5,000 against less than 700 on the QE class. Recruitment is a big problem for the RN. The US are now looking to build smaller carriers in future because of the high lifetime cost of the nukes.
There are not many friendly ports that allow nukes should they need them. It takes at least 8 hours to raise steam for a nuke to leave port, you don’t have that problem with gas turbine/electric. Both types need fleet support ships for aviation fuel etc.
@@billydonaldson6483 Always that one person.
"They have a crew of 5,000 against less than 700 on the QE class."
Why lie? While nuclear carriers have more people onboard, they are much larger, have larger air wings, you literally left out the entire air wing...
"679 crew, not including air element; total berths for up to 1,600"
"The US are now looking to build smaller carriers in future because of the high lifetime cost of the nukes. "
I guess that's why the Ford is bigger then the Nimitz.
"There are not many friendly ports that allow nukes should they need them."
Like where? 99.9 percent of the world allows nuclear carriers.
" It takes at least 8 hours to raise steam for a nuke to leave port, you don’t have that problem with gas turbine/electric. Both types need fleet support ships for aviation fuel etc."
It's like you love to make stuff up or have no idea what you are talking about. Nuclear reactors don't shut down, and are always producing steam... 2) Nuclear carriers are literally the support ship for the CSG and literally refuel and feed the entire CSG.
Souces:
"The ships normally carries enough food and supplies to operate for 90 days. Four distilling units enable NIMITZ-class engineers to make over 400,000 gallons of fresh water from seawater a day, for use by the propulsion plants, catapults and crew. The ship carries approximately 3 million gallons of fuel for her aircraft and escorts, and enough weapons and stores for extended operations without replenishment."
"Australia allows them.
"tourism Minister, Mark McGowan today welcomed more than 5,000 senior officers and crew aboard USS NIMITZ (CVN-68) to Western Australia."
Italy? They allow them...
"For years a dozen Italian seaports have been decrying the risks they run as bases for nuclear powered or nuclear armed U.S. warships (submarines, aircraft carriers): Augusta, Brindisi, Cagliari, Castellammare di Stabia, Gaeta, La Maddalena, La Spezia, Livorno, Napoli, Taranto, Trieste, Venezia."
Germany? The UK? France?
"Nimitz conducted her second abnormally dangerous navigational detail of the deployment as she transited the English Channel (with its high volume of shipping) en route from Wilhelmshaven, West Germany, to Brest, France."
Japan?
"Ronald Reagan made five deployments to the Pacific and Middle East between 2006 and 2011 while based at Naval Air Station North Island. In October 2015, Ronald Reagan replaced USS George Washington as the flagship of Carrier Strike Group Five, the only forward-based carrier strike group home-ported at Yokosuka, Japan, as part of the United States Seventh Fleet"
South Korea?
"U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Michael D. White, the commander of Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 11 and Rear Adm. William McQuilkin, the commander of U.S. Naval Forces Korea, pose with local dignitaries aboard the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68) in Busan, "
India?
"The carrier departed North Island for its thirteenth deployment on 2 April 2007 to the Arabian Sea, relieving USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in support of OIF. It anchored off Chennai, India on 2 July 2007 as part of efforts to expand bilateral defense cooperation between India and the United States."
We desperately heed more hulls to carry out the tasks the RN is expected to perform. Successive governments - especially this current Conservative collection of clowns - have let the UK armed services down BADLY!
Unfortunately, it's no good having more hulls without the personnel to man them!
We can't retain people in the Navy, so we'll never have enough!
It’s Radakin’s ‘ol closed hand(four fingers curled in like a fist) with the thumb resting on top of the pointer(unlike a 👊 🤛). Petty nuance? Maybe. But the delivery style is like a politician aka Bill Clinton and a sign of BS. It’s the same kabuki theater year after year. It seems like those who get promoted is based upon the ability to pretend everything is A-OK.
j
Tibias needs to go.
Why because he asks the right question's, ex Navy myself, 12 years in mucker.
Should double the Type 26’s from 8 ships too 16 of them