Good News for the Royal Navy
There has been a lot of controversy in recent months over the level of defence spending and whether all of our commitments and current equipment plans are affordable. Despite this, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is pressing on with some very big ticket purchases for the Royal Navy. Just this week, a further £80m of sub-contracts for the two giant aircraft carriers HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales were placed. Around 40% of the value of the build of the two carriers is now committed and full-scale production is proceeding.
The carriers, which will be known as the Queen Elizabeth Class, are being constructed by the Aircraft Carrier Alliance (ACA) which consists of Thales UK, BAE Systems, BVT Surface Fleet, Babcock and the Ministry of Defence.
The carriers will each weigh 65,000 tonnes, be 280m long and 70m wide. A ship of this size is necessary to deliver the quantity of air power required. They will be capable of 25 knots and will have a total complement (with air group) of approximately 1500 people. Their flight decks will support an air wing capable of delivering significant offensive air power to support the battle ashore for prolonged periods of time and will be capable of carrying the widest possible range of aircraft in support of operations. They will be specifically developed to provide a base for the US/UK partnership designed Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.
They will be truly impressive ships and only the US Navy will have anything bigger or more effective. They will put the Royal Navy back on the maritime map but at a huge cost. In order to afford these mammoth ships the rest of the fleet continues to be pared back. The number of frigates and destroyers is likely to fall below 25. They are the backbone of the fleet and do the donkey work of patrolling the high seas and protecting shipping and British interests across the world. They are also necessary to provide defence for the highly vulnerable aircraft carriers. At the time of the Falklands War in 1982 the Royal Navy could muster over 60 frigates and destroyers.
As well as the further orders to build the carriers the MoD this week announced the laying of the keel of nuclear-powered submarine HMS Audacious. The number of subs has also been cut back from about 30 at the time of the Falklands War to 10 now (I am not counting the Trident missile boats). However Audacious, which is the fourth boat in the “Astute” class is an impressive piece of kit.
Weighing in at over seven thousand tonnes, Audacious – which is currently under construction by BAE Systems Submarine Solutions at Barrow-in-Furness – will join sister boats Astute, Ambush and Artful to become a cornerstone of UK defence capability. Astute-class submarines will displace 7,400 tonnes dived and are 97 metres long. Capable of circumnavigating the globe in a single 90 day patrol without resurfacing, they will have six weapons tubes and massively increased firepower (including Tomahawk cruise missiles) compared with earlier attack submarines.
It is great to see these orders being placed but the MoD is facing a cash flow crisis. It simply cannot afford all of the programmes it has on the books. Unfortunately it is likely that some programmes will be delayed and trimmed in order to balance the books in the short term but a full-scale defence review after the next General Election is probably unavoidable. Without a big increase in defence spending the sums simply don’t add up.
9 Comments »
Leave a Reply
About Richard…
Richard is a Conservative Councillor on Reading Borough Council representing Peppard ward since 2007, having been re-elected in May 2011. He previously represented Thames ward from 2001 to 2004. He is currently the Conservative Shadow Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Transport on Reading Borough Council. 
Recent Comments
Peter smith on New YouGov Poll – UKIP F… Richard Willis on New ComRes Poll – Labour… Howard Thomas on New ComRes Poll – Labour… Emanuel Medina on Reflections on the Electi… Wilford Goodman on UKIP’s Racist and Crimin…
“At the time of the Falklands War in 1982 the Royal Navy could muster over 60 frigates and destroyers.”
And yet they could hardly defend the fleet against the 40 plane air force of a 2nd world country.
One Type 45 would do a better job than ALL 7 AWDs that went to the Falklands in 1982.
Quoting numbers doesn’t give an accurate picture.
Strompy – Argentina had some very capable aircraft with some deadly Exocet missiles, supplied by the French. It’s airforce was actually very effective; hence our losses. I agree that numbers are not the whole story but one Type 45 can only be in one place at a time, whereas 7 Type 42′s can be in 7 locations. It is a difficult trade off but the reduction of the order of Type 45′s from 12 to 8 to 6 illustrates the problem facing the RN.
The MoD is probably the most wasteful government department, particularly in procurement and especially since Labour introduced a whole new system for deciding spending priorities at the defence ministry.
What’s worse is that my naval sibling says this new class will be obsolete before the boats are fully operational.
However this creates a dilemma, as there is widespread concern that a continuing economic downturn increases the likelihood of the need to use military capabilities.
On the other hand military spending on this scale supports huge numbers of jobs and was one of the main ways we got out of the slump of both the great depression and the long depression.
So let’s get you straight, Richard: you’re for tax cuts, except where they’re unaffordable, yet you’re for spending increases where you can’t control the costs!
That’s a Conservative recipe for disaster!
“One Type 45 would do a better job than ALL 7 AWDs that went to the Falklands in 1982.”
The commenter obviously believes in the fantasy of unsinkable warships. Historically this doesn’t add up. What about mines or suicide boats, or torpedo armed stealthy submarines? Neither has PAAMS or Aegis for that matter been tested in wartime against a swarm missile attack, with only seconds to react. Placing all of Britain’s hopes in a single untried system which can be sunk or damaged just like any other is calling for disaster in wartime.
Oranje-wotsit get back in your box. Why dont you just post your own articles instead of moaning about other people? You try to put words into Richard’s mouth that he hasnt said and to his credit he usually refuses to rise to the bait.
If I was him i would just ignore your questions. You seem to be only trying to trap him into something that you can then portray as “Tory splits” or “Tory cuts” on your own site.
Incidentally Richard seems to have a much wider range of postings and interests, and writes far more intelligently and in greater depth than you manage. SO GET OFF HIS CASE.
Doodlebug, what did you think of Conservative Party chairman Eric Pickles MP’s public defence of the Additional Housing Allowance?
Mike Burleson, of course a Type 45 can be put out of action it would be ridiculous to think otherwise. I was merely making a descriptive analogy. Though, I must say, I’m fairly confident that a Type 45 wouldn’t get buzzed and hit with GP bombs a la HMS Coventry. Imagine if all the GP bombs(I believe that thirteen didn’t explode) that hit RN ships in ’82 had gone off, Britain would have lost the war.
The ‘supersonic swarm missile attack’ is a bit of a interwebs urban legend. Seriously, who has such a capability? Even with such a capability, the variables of carrying out such an attack are immense.
Its all very well having Type 45 destroyers but in such small numbers (6!) there are ver vunerable and boast as number 1 targets for the enemy. As one the Type 45 fleet is destroyed then our navy is toast.
The royal navy needs type 45′s because there capabilitiy is stupidly good! but the navy needs 10-12 at least to make them effective in war time.
The goverment needs to learn to weigh up capabilities and good old fasion power in numbers correctly.
I agree!