France and Italy seem to have a pretty good working relationship that resulted in the FREMM class. The UK still thinks that they have special needs and drop out of multinational projects, yet they don't order enough hulls anymore to make it cost effective. Spain (Navantia) is good at marketing their products for export. The Australian Hobart-class and Norwegian Fridtjof Nansen are variants of the Spanish de Bazan class. They all are equipped with versions of the US AEGIS system with Mk41 VLS.

She also comes complete with her own pub. Anyone who has been in the USN has to be a tad bit jealous.


https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-u ... 1828896580

LMP737 wrote:

She also comes complete with her own pub. Anyone who has been in the USN has to be a tad bit jealous.


https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-u ... 1828896580

The RN has always been a 'wet' navy... alcohol has always been allowed onboard (though limited), and it wasn't that long ago that RN sailors had a daily rum ration as well.

johns624 wrote:

France and Italy seem to have a pretty good working relationship that resulted in the FREMM class. The UK still thinks that they have special needs and drop out of multinational projects, yet they don't order enough hulls anymore to make it cost effective. Spain (Navantia) is good at marketing their products for export. The Australian Hobart-class and Norwegian Fridtjof Nansen are variants of the Spanish de Bazan class. They all are equipped with versions of the US AEGIS system with Mk41 VLS.

Except BAE won the ANZAC replacement contract in Australia with Type 26 and they are odds on favourites to win the Canadian order with the same vessel. All up that’s 35 type 26’s being built which is more than all the FREMM and de Bazan ships combined. Type 26 is also a (very) long shot for NZ’s ANZAC replacement project.

CVF was also an Anglo French Project, the French version was called PA2, it was canned in 2013.

Kiwirob wrote:

Except BAE won the ANZAC replacement contract in Australia with Type 26 and they are odds on favourites to win the Canadian order with the same vessel. All up that’s 35 type 26’s being built which is more than all the FREMM and de Bazan ships combined. Type 26 is also a (very) long shot for NZ’s ANZAC replacement project.

Which is what I said in post #47. However, I believe your math is a bit off. Australia is getting 9, the UK is building 8 and if anyone thinks the Canadians will buy anywhere near 15, they don't know the recent history of Canadian military procurement. If they get more than 10, I'd be surprised. There's no way NZ can afford 2 Type 26s. It's too much ship for them, double the size of their current ANZAC class. That being said, NZ needs to wake up and realize that the Western Pacific of today is much different to the one 30 years ago. They just need to look to the north. Australia, Japan and the US can't do all the heavy lifting. Their only current procurement program is for 4 P8's. With no combat planes and a minimal army, being an island nation, they need to put their money into the navy. That's their first line of defense.

Another thought--it's good that the UK has found some buyers for the Type 26, but they are the first foreign sales in 40+ years. Those were two Type 42 for their "friends", the Argies. It's not like the old days when everyone and their brother was buying Leanders and their derivatives.

ThePointblank wrote:

The RN has always been a 'wet' navy... alcohol has always been allowed onboard (though limited), and it wasn't that long ago that RN sailors had a daily rum ration as well.

Yes, I was aware of that.

johns624 wrote:

Another thought--it's good that the UK has found some buyers for the Type 26, but they are the first foreign sales in 40+ years. Those were two Type 42 for their "friends", the Argies. It's not like the old days when everyone and their brother was buying Leanders and their derivatives.

They aren’t though, corvettes have been sold to number of countries, Brazil, Oman, Thailand.

Corvettes don't count. I'm talking about ships used by the RN.

The corvettes are variants of the River Class opv’s, which are used by the RN.

Awfully pedantic today, aren't we? How about "major surface combatants". Modified OPVs with a 30mm main gun, and no missiles or ASW capability count.

Old thread posted due to relevance. Not a good day for the PoW. The ship has taken on a significant amount of water after reportedly a fire main burst.

Navy’s new £3bn aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales stranded for six months after second flood blows electrics

THE Navy’s newest aircraft carrier will be stranded another six months after a second flood blew electrics. HMS Prince of Wales was due to sail to the US to train with F-35 jets. But the £3.1billion vessel has been banned from leaving Portsmouth on safety grounds until spring, a year after she last sailed.

The flood was caused by a burst fire main. Thousands of gallons of sea water poured into an engine room and submerged electrical cabinets for over 24 hours. Miles of cables are being assessed. The 1,000ft ship, the Navy’s biggest, relies on electricity produced by diesel engines and gas turbines to turn 33-ton propellers.

A source said: “It’s embarrassing. The America trip took years of planning and we’ve had to say we can’t come. "It will take months to repair the damage. Costs will run to millions.”

...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13400921/ ... -stranded/

Will potentially be up to a year until the vessel can deploy again...

Well, since some have said that the whole carrier thing was a "make work project" for British industry, I'd say that the PoW has succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

Ozair wrote:

Old thread posted due to relevance. Not a good day for the PoW. The ship has taken on a significant amount of water after reportedly a fire main burst.

Navy’s new £3bn aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales stranded for six months after second flood blows electrics

THE Navy’s newest aircraft carrier will be stranded another six months after a second flood blew electrics. HMS Prince of Wales was due to sail to the US to train with F-35 jets. But the £3.1billion vessel has been banned from leaving Portsmouth on safety grounds until spring, a year after she last sailed.

The flood was caused by a burst fire main. Thousands of gallons of sea water poured into an engine room and submerged electrical cabinets for over 24 hours. Miles of cables are being assessed. The 1,000ft ship, the Navy’s biggest, relies on electricity produced by diesel engines and gas turbines to turn 33-ton propellers.

A source said: “It’s embarrassing. The America trip took years of planning and we’ve had to say we can’t come. "It will take months to repair the damage. Costs will run to millions.”

...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13400921/ ... -stranded/

Will potentially be up to a year until the vessel can deploy again...

Would not read too much into this.

POW was already undergoing dockyard work for the better part of the year following her sea trials. The goal was to bring the ship up to standard with any changes or updates that had been lined up since the design was finalised.

As can be imagined when the ships were built and the design frozen, things have evolved, so like all major ships, when there has been a delay of a few years between design freeze and entry to service, there are various changes and improvements that could be needed.

The dockyard work period was originally supposed to last more than half a year; and with COVID, I can easily imagine work being delayed even more.

It is entirely possible that even if the leak had not happened, then the ability to put the ship to sea for more trials would have been impossible or extremely under the current COVID situation. The Royal Navy takes their COVID security measures extremely seriously, and with the number of people needed to crew the ship and the number of people moving on and off the ship during trials, it would create significant challenges regardless.

The general sense I'm getting is basically everyone is shrugging their shoulders because they knew the ship wasn't going to put to sea anytime soon for a variety of other factors. It's an annoyance, but in the greater scope of things, it is a small blip on the radar.

johns624 wrote:

Well, since some have said that the whole carrier thing was a "make work project" for British industry, I'd say that the PoW has succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

I am sure the powers that be are also glad that the ship was not christened Prince of Scotland......

Yes, but, they stll named their ship "Prisoner of War"??

(Or is it Pool of Water?)

The UK Government have declared that the Carrier Strike Group has passed IOC. This essential means the UK are now confident they can deploy a Carrier Strike Group within a defined period of time and be able to utilise the capabilities available.

Carrier Strike Group hits important milestone

The UK’s Carrier Strike Group (CSG) has achieved a major milestone ahead of its first operational deployment this year. The CSG has reached Initial Operating Capability (IOC), meaning all elements of the group from fighter jets to radar systems to anti-ship weapons have been successfully brought together and operated.

Both the air and naval elements of the CSG have now met this milestone, which includes qualified pilots and ground crews being held at short notice for carrier-based operations and trained to handle weapons and maintain the equipment.

Another marker of success at this stage includes the ability to deploy Anti-Submarine Warfare capabilities such as frigates and destroyers, as well as both fixed and rotary wing aircraft including Merlin helicopters to operate alongside the carrier.

...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/carr ... -milestone

But can they do it without some USMC F35Bs?

johns624 wrote:

But can they do it without some USMC F35Bs?

You seem to have mistaken a training exercise for IOC, said exercise being 'pre IOC'.
As this article states, the training was as much for the USMC as the RAF/RN, in using the ski jump, ensuring their F-35 system's etc align with QE's.
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/us-mar ... elizabeth/

A post IOC deployment is the next stage, a different thing, though doubtless QE may well host allied choppers and possibly F-35B's too along the way.

My point is that they still don't have enough of their own F35Bs to do a "real" deployment.

johns624 wrote:

My point is that they still don't have enough of their own F35Bs to do a "real" deployment.

Well the definition of IOC is important, IOC is Initial Operational Capability.

Initial operating capability or initial operational capability (IOC) is the state achieved when a capability is available in its minimum usefully deployable form.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_o ... capability

The RN/RAF/UK Government will be able to declare FOC when they have sufficient F-35Bs, and likely the new AEW Merlins, to support that deployment but at this point they have the minimum required to meet the mission goals required.

So, as of now, the HMS Queen Elizabeth has a slightly higher level of deterrence than Cunard's ship of the same name?

johns624 wrote:

So, as of now, the HMS Queen Elizabeth has a slightly higher level of deterrence than Cunard's ship of the same name?

The Invincible class rarely deployed with more than twelve Harriers so I see the QE with twelve UK F-35B as adequate for IOC. CSG21 will likely deploy with twelve British and twelve USMC F-35B so again more than adequate. Those 24 F-35B is more fighter aircraft than a French carrier usually deploys with and the same number as the Russian Kuznetsov typically deploys with. Additionally the US has and does deploy Wasp class vessels with ten F-35Bs into the South China Sea with no big carrier support in a model similar to the UK CSG (the whole naval strike group with the Wasp as the aviation centrepiece).

The QE class is considerably larger than the Invincible or Wasp. They were at full capacity at that number. I doubt if either of the two British carriers will ever get near full capacity. It appears that "B" quantity at any one time will only be around 48.

johns624 wrote:

The QE class is considerably larger than the Invincible or Wasp. They were at full capacity at that number.

Sure the QE is larger but Inincible could take 18 Harriers and a Wasp is capable of more than 20 F-35B just like a Nimitz is capable of taking more than the 70 aircraft they deploy with today.

johns624 wrote:

I doubt if either of the two British carriers will ever get near full capacity. It appears that "B" quantity at any one time will only be around 48.

The total UK F-35B commitment is likely to be between 70 and 90 aircraft and not the 138 first envisioned. Even then QE and PoW are not meant to deploy together, the two vessels allow one to always be available for operations. With a total fleet of 70 to 90 F-35B the UK will be able to fill a QE with 48 aircraft should they desire, still retain a training unit and manage attrition replacements if required.

Ozair wrote:

johns624 wrote:

The QE class is considerably larger than the Invincible or Wasp. They were at full capacity at that number.

Sure the QE is larger but Inincible could take 18 Harriers and a Wasp is capable of more than 20 F-35B just like a Nimitz is capable of taking more than the 70 aircraft they deploy with today.

johns624 wrote:

I doubt if either of the two British carriers will ever get near full capacity. It appears that "B" quantity at any one time will only be around 48.

The total UK F-35B commitment is likely to be between 70 and 90 aircraft and not the 138 first envisioned. Even then QE and PoW are not meant to deploy together, the two vessels allow one to always be available for operations. With a total fleet of 70 to 90 F-35B the UK will be able to fill a QE with 48 aircraft should they desire, still retain a training unit and manage attrition replacements if required.

That estimated figure is the same as a LM UK Rep reckoned when I had a chat with him at the static park of the RAF 100 Flypast in London in 2018, next to a full scale F-35B model.
(He was probably keen to have a conversation with the public that wasn't 'what is this plane?')
He also reckoned that the final figure would more likely be in the region of 110 frames, the balance being an adapted F-35A, Cheaper to buy and operate of course and the RAF would no doubt like a couple of squadrons, allowing force level maintenance when older Typhoons go, assuming a 70/40 split. Might as well has the extra range once the QE class are covered.

That was two and a half years ago, so the idea that the 138 total is set in stone seems to be as wrong as the certainty that only 48, or maybe 60 will be brought.
And this from someone there to sell the thing, as soon as I asked 'do you think we'll get 138?' he shook his head.

With the F35B force being mixed RN/RAF, who is the arbiter on how many planes get used where? The RAF has always had much stronger political clout than the FAA, so I could see them starving the Navy of all but a minimal number.

GDB wrote:

Ozair wrote:

johns624 wrote:

The QE class is considerably larger than the Invincible or Wasp. They were at full capacity at that number.

Sure the QE is larger but Inincible could take 18 Harriers and a Wasp is capable of more than 20 F-35B just like a Nimitz is capable of taking more than the 70 aircraft they deploy with today.

johns624 wrote:

I doubt if either of the two British carriers will ever get near full capacity. It appears that "B" quantity at any one time will only be around 48.

The total UK F-35B commitment is likely to be between 70 and 90 aircraft and not the 138 first envisioned. Even then QE and PoW are not meant to deploy together, the two vessels allow one to always be available for operations. With a total fleet of 70 to 90 F-35B the UK will be able to fill a QE with 48 aircraft should they desire, still retain a training unit and manage attrition replacements if required.

That estimated figure is the same as a LM UK Rep reckoned when I had a chat with him at the static park of the RAF 100 Flypast in London in 2018, next to a full scale F-35B model.
(He was probably keen to have a conversation with the public that wasn't 'what is this plane?')
He also reckoned that the final figure would more likely be in the region of 110 frames, the balance being an adapted F-35A, Cheaper to buy and operate of course and the RAF would no doubt like a couple of squadrons, allowing force level maintenance when older Typhoons go, assuming a 70/40 split. Might as well has the extra range once the QE class are covered.

That was two and a half years ago, so the idea that the 138 total is set in stone seems to be as wrong as the certainty that only 48, or maybe 60 will be brought.
And this from someone there to sell the thing, as soon as I asked 'do you think we'll get 138?' he shook his head.

I know you have shared the above previously and thanks again for it. My assessment besides taking in your comments has come from the recent article in Defensenews which covered future UK F-35 orders.

British F-35 buy is still a moving target, defense ministry tells lawmakers

…

“We know we need to increase the number of F-35Bs to support the [Royal Navy] carrier through to its out-of-service date. The precise number will dependent a bit on the work we do and the investment we are making on the FCAS,” he said, referring to the UK-led Tempest program. “We expect to make a definitive judgement around the total future fleet in the 2025 timeframe,” Knighton added.

…

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... lawmakers/

As for numbers on board this is an interesting quote from the article,

The British plan to only deploy one carrier at any given time due to a lack of resources. Some 24 jets are expected to be the full complement of fighters on board even though senior Royal Navy officers have said the ships could operate with up to 72 jets at a squeeze. Knighton said the British “will be able to operate up to 24 aircraft from 2023 onwards, that’s been the milestone for some time.

So 24 aircraft is the expected operating number and the UK expect to be able to operate that from 2023. That sounds like the expected CSG FOC requirement. Also pretty impressive that they think they can squeeze 72 in to one QE!

Overall I'm becoming less and less convinced the UK will operate F-35A via the RAF. Had they decided not to retain the T1 Typhoons then it would have been more of a certainty but now it seems unlikely. A potential delay to Tempest, so taking a lot longer to mature and a delay that is visible far enough out may change that. Some early 2030 F-35As with Blk 6 mods and AETP engines would be incredible aircraft to operate...

johns624 wrote:

With the F35B force being mixed RN/RAF, who is the arbiter on how many planes get used where? The RAF has always had much stronger political clout than the FAA, so I could see them starving the Navy of all but a minimal number.

I really don’t think that is an issue. For example parts of the above article were from testimony by Air Marshal Richard Knighton who was the deputy chief of the Defense staff for capability. So a very senior RAF officer serving in a joint command position talking about supporting carrier aviation. Additionally this unit structure isn’t new, Joint Force Harrier was operated from 2000 and included both RN and RAF personnel in combined units operating the Harrier from land bases and the UK Carriers.

If the UK itself was under air attack I expect the F-35B would be used to support that at the expense of the carrier but most carrier operations will be deployed beyond UK shore based air support and therefore the RAF having a presence in that conflict is as important to them as the RN.

johns624 wrote:

With the F35B force being mixed RN/RAF, who is the arbiter on how many planes get used where? The RAF has always had much stronger political clout than the FAA, so I could see them starving the Navy of all but a minimal number.

As Ozair says, the RAF are beyond all that now, they have got a 5th Gen LO aircraft because of an essentially RN driven requirement. 18 years before JFH the last time a RAF pilot shot down an enemy aircraft was in a RN Sea Harrier, they have not forgotten that.
Besides, they have to follow the orders of the Chief Of Defence Staff, a rotating position filled by the then head of the Army or Navy or RAF.
(A Prime Minister can instruct the CDS to plan and/or carry out an operation but cannot give direct military orders, as an aside that means only the CDS can authorise nuclear release, if I may gently suggest the events in DC in the last 24 hours might show the wisdom of only allowing the head of your JCS to be able to do the same going forward).

I was just asking because I remember the RAF sacrificing the Harrier to keep the Tornado in operation for a few more years without the RN having much of a say in the matter. I'm sure the lower ranks got along great but where the "political" decisions are made, maybe not so much.

johns624 wrote:

I was just asking because I remember the RAF sacrificing the Harrier to keep the Tornado in operation for a few more years without the RN having much of a say in the matter. I'm sure the lower ranks got along great but where the "political" decisions are made, maybe not so much.

In the 60's the RN were trying to kill off the TSR2 to safeguard their planned new CVA-01 carriers, the RAF likewise with the carriers, neither got what they wanted.

In 2013 when the first F-35B unit to be named was the RAF's 617 Sqn, the 1st Sea Lord, himself an ex FAA pilot, declared his approval as that unit 'had done it's best work over water, the dams raid of course, the Tirpitz and will do so again', he also announced that the 2nd front line unit would be the FAA's 809 Sqn. Itself a famous Squadron in UK military aviation.

With QE deployed on NATO exercises and then on to it's worldwide deployment, it's sister ship Prince Of Wales has been conducting trials off the UK, first with WAH-64D Apaches and now the first F-35 has arrived;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJjsGtOv0Nc

Very cool video. It looks like a Bush prop taking off at such short distance. Does it mean the regular thrust versions of the F35 are a no no on this carrier type? I haven't been tracking the details but I'm not seeing any cable-type rubber bands.

wingman wrote:

Very cool video. It looks like a Bush prop taking off at such short distance. Does it mean the regular thrust versions of the F35 are a no no on this carrier type? I haven't been tracking the details but I'm not seeing any cable-type rubber bands.

Correct. They can only operate the B model.

wingman wrote:

Very cool video. It looks like a Bush prop taking off at such short distance. Does it mean the regular thrust versions of the F35 are a no no on this carrier type? I haven't been tracking the details but I'm not seeing any cable-type rubber bands.

This raised an interesting question, ‘theoretically’ I think the F-35 could operate off the POW (VERY theoretically, severely limited in load, fuel etc and only calm seas I would imagine, plus a whole load of other limitations). Supposedly f-35a has a 168m take off and 213m landing (shorter than the POW), add in air over the flight deck. After all the Mig 29s work off carriers with not cat.
Please don’t have a pedant on here telling me this is stupid, I know it is, just wondered if it was possibles.
Maybe if lost out at sea, though I read if that happened with a Nimitz they would just eject the pilot and rescue them. Maybe easier with a through deck and ramp (help bleed off any remaining speed?)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalki

giblets wrote:

wingman wrote:

Very cool video. It looks like a Bush prop taking off at such short distance. Does it mean the regular thrust versions of the F35 are a no no on this carrier type? I haven't been tracking the details but I'm not seeing any cable-type rubber bands.

This raised an interesting question, ‘theoretically’ I think the F-35 could operate off the POW (VERY theoretically, severely limited in load, fuel etc and only calm seas I would imagine, plus a whole load of other limitations). Supposedly f-35a has a 168m take off and 213m landing (shorter than the POW), add in air over the flight deck. After all the Mig 29s work off carriers with not cat.
Please don’t have a pedant on here telling me this is stupid, I know it is, just wondered if it was possibles.
Maybe if lost out at sea, though I read if that happened with a Nimitz they would just eject the pilot and rescue them. Maybe easier with a through deck and ramp (help bleed off any remaining speed?)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalki

the C model and even the A model would be able to comfortably take off with a good load and a full length run up. The problem comes with recovery. The QE class do not have any arresting gear. So you either hover in and land vertically, or you take advantage of a trick the B can pull and come in slowly for a rolling landing, stopping with your brakes.

The QE class was originally intended to be easy to convert from STOVL to CTOL. But the UK government failed to keep an eye on the builders and when they actually wanted to convert them, the UK government discovered that it was going to cost about as much as just building a new pair.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

The QE class was originally intended to be easy to convert from STOVL to CTOL. But the UK government failed to keep an eye on the builders and when they actually wanted to convert them, the UK government discovered that it was going to cost about as much as just building a new pair.

The wonders of military procurement.

While a set of cats would likely be obscenely expensive, I have to wonder if just doing a set of traps and just operating her as a ski-jump only carrier would be insurmountable.

GDB wrote:

With QE deployed on NATO exercises and then on to it's worldwide deployment, it's sister ship Prince Of Wales has been conducting trials off the UK, first with WAH-64D Apaches and now the first F-35 has arrived;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJjsGtOv0Nc

Asked this before and I got a negative answer, still doesn’t sound right though, do these carriers have an emergency crash barrier that can be erected in case a vertical or rv landing cannot be made due to a failure of the lift fan mechanism on the F35B


Seems like a worthwhile precaution

Max Q wrote:

GDB wrote:

With QE deployed on NATO exercises and then on to it's worldwide deployment, it's sister ship Prince Of Wales has been conducting trials off the UK, first with WAH-64D Apaches and now the first F-35 has arrived;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJjsGtOv0Nc

Asked this before and I got a negative answer, still doesn’t sound right though, do these carriers have an emergency crash barrier that can be erected in case a vertical or rv landing cannot be made due to a failure of the lift fan mechanism on the F35B


Seems like a worthwhile precaution

No, it's not a 'thing' with VSTOL another 'bigger' VSTOL carrier HMS Hermes, which of course was a former conventional carrier until 1972, in it's final conventional guise it carried 12 x Sea Vixens, 7 x Buccaneers (and that was pushing it given the size of the carrier), 5 x Gannets and the helicopter units.
After a period as a LPH or ASW carrier, it got the ski jump for the Sea Harriers. And was the flagship for the Falklands Task Force.
Nor did the Invincible Class, nor any other Harrier Carriers.
It's just not part of VSTOL, I would guess one answer as to why not aside from how it's not needed, is that the whole point of VSTOL at sea is not having the need for these mechanical devices.

To the question of having ski jumps and arresting gear, didn't the Soviet/Russian carriers go down that road, as have adopters of the ships/aircraft concerned (all bigger than a Harrier up to and including Naval SU-27 versions so much more in the F-35 size/weight ballpark).
My understanding is that these have not worked all that well.

GDB wrote:

To the question of having ski jumps and arresting gear, didn't the Soviet/Russian carriers go down that road, as have adopters of the ships/aircraft concerned (all bigger than a Harrier up to and including Naval SU-27 versions so much more in the F-35 size/weight ballpark).
My understanding is that these have not worked all that well.

India is also considering the F-18 and Rafale as possible options for their STOBAR carriers. viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1452131

Max Q wrote:

do these carriers have an emergency crash barrier that can be erected in case a vertical or rv landing cannot be made due to a failure of the lift fan mechanism on the F35B

If the lift fan breaks while airborne, the pilot would eject and be recovered from the sea. Risking damage to the ship just isn't worth it.

RAF F-35B's have conducted their first operational combat missions from HMS Queen Elizabeth;
https://www.navylookout.com/first-comba ... elizabeth/

After the loss of the 617 Sqn F-35B last week, with thankfully the pilot recovered, flying operations resumed shortly afterwards;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF9OXtYBli4

Today two Italian F-35B's landed onboard, leaving afterwards;
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/italian ... t-carrier/

I just read that 2 more Type 23 frigates have been paid off. This was sort of expected, but still a little alarming. While the class originally had 16 members, now it's down to 11. It will be at least several more years before their replacements will be commissioned. I'm afraid of the political thinking that "we've gotten along with 11 the last few years, do we really need to replace those two?". I know these were the un-upgraded GP versions, but it's still fewer hulls. The First Sea Lord said the replacements will be available "before we need them". I'm glad that he can see into the future.

johns624 wrote:

I just read that 2 more Type 23 frigates have been paid off. This was sort of expected, but still a little alarming. While the class originally had 16 members, now it's down to 11. It will be at least several more years before their replacements will be commissioned. I'm afraid of the political thinking that "we've gotten along with 11 the last few years, do we really need to replace those two?". I know these were the un-upgraded GP versions, but it's still fewer hulls. The First Sea Lord said the replacements will be available "before we need them". I'm glad that he can see into the future.

Which two would these be? I've read about decommissioning of HMS Monmouth, the remaining 12 seem to be alive and kicking. For now.

HMS Montrose.

johns624 wrote:

HMS Montrose.

Yeah, I see she's due for paying off. But right now, she's actually in the thick of it, deployed in the Middle East.
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organi ... s-montrose