Royal Navy forced to lease a German Frigate due to the lack of ships.

[NutLoose]

I kid you not,

Due to a shortage of ships, London had to lease the German frigate Sachsen to fulfill its NATO obligations. Starting in April, the United Kingdom is supposed to take over as the flagship of NATO’s Standing Naval Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1), a rapid-response force operating in the North Atlantic and the Baltic Sea. However, after the frigate Dragon was deployed to Cyprus to protect British bases, it turned out that the Royal Navy has no combat-ready ship capable of replacing it. Only two destroyers in the British fleet remain capable of carrying out such missions — Dauntless and Duncan. At the same time, three other ships — HMS Daring, Diamond, and Defender — are currently in dock awaiting upgrades to their power systems. As a result, ministers had to turn to Germany to help fill the gap and meet their commitments in the Atlantic Ocean and the Baltic Sea in April. Members of the British Parliament expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of their own military ships, calling the situation a “national disgrace,” according to The Telegraph. As it turns out, we are also “perfectly prepared” for a war in the Baltic Sea. What were you doing during these four years that Ukraine gave you at the cost of thousands upon thousands of lives, guys…

​​​​​​​

X - Formerly Twitter

[meleagertoo]

Originally Posted by Goanna01

The UK appears to have a reasonably large defence budget but very limited conventional capabilities (if what I’ve read on here is correct), is it that nukes are very expensive to maintain or are there other reasons?

The military is massively overstaffed with unnecessary Top Neddies. (ie more admirals than ships) and MoD far far too big for the forces it 'manages' - far far too many civil servants with massive pensions and costs. (more drones in the MoD than soldiers in the Army isn't it?)
Procurement is grotesquely inefficient and wasteful, costs of large programmes, and presumably small ones too are frequently uncontrolled and routinely suffer immense £££££ overruns.
One suspects maintenance contracts are far too lax, non-puniutive especially on timescale (7 year refits for a sub for instance) and therefore cost too.
Procurement tends to buy immensely costly and delicate high-tech when off the shelf solutions could often be bought in far greater numbers and be almost as effective. Where we do buy off the shelf we seem to need to make massive and unnecessary bespoke multi-year long alterations that cause immense extra costs (Chinook/Nimrod for instance).
We spend squillions on the wrong thing - 2 carriers - when we haven't enough skimmers to escort even one of them nor able to afford aircraft to put on them. So we buy far far too few of the wrong over-costly under capable aircraft because blind dogma prevented the ships from being properly equipped to carry proper aircraft and be as useful as they should be.

Nuclear derterrent is admittedly hugely costly.

Basically, inept management and vast amounts of blinkered decades-outdated thinking and self-interest one suspects.

Maybe some of that is not altogether correct, but I fear most of it is. It's an internatiuonal disgrace and shame on our nation, and bloody dangerous.

[meleagertoo]

Originally Posted by Goanna01

The UK appears to have a reasonably large defence budget but very limited conventional capabilities (if what I’ve read on here is correct), is it that nukes are very expensive to maintain or are there other reasons?

The military is massively overstaffed with unnecessary Top Neddies. (ie more admirals than ships) and MoD far far too big for the forces it 'manages' - far far too many civil servants with massive pensions and costs. (more drones in the MoD than soldiers in the Army isn't it?)
Procurement is grotesquely inefficient and wasteful, costs of large programmes, and presumably small ones too are frequently uncontrolled and routinely suffer immense £££££ overruns.
One suspects maintenance contracts are far too lax, non-puniutive especially on timescale (7 year refits for a sub for instance) and therefore cost too.
Procurement tends to buy immensely costly and delicate high-tech when off the shelf solutions could often be bought in far greater numbers and be almost as effective. Where we do buy off the shelf we seem to need to make massive and unnecessary bespoke multi-year long alterations that cause immense extra costs (Chinook/Nimrod for instance).
We spend squillions on the wrong thing - 2 carriers - when we haven't enough skimmers to escort even one of them nor able to afford aircraft to put on them. So we buy far far too few of the wrong over-costly under capable aircraft because blind dogma prevented the ships from being properly equipped to carry proper aircraft and be as useful as they should be.

Nuclear derterrent is admittedly hugely costly.

Basically, inept management and vast amounts of blinkered decades-outdated thinking and self-interest one suspects.

Maybe some of that is not altogether correct, but I fear most of it is. It's an internatiuonal disgrace and shame on our nation, and bloody dangerous.

[Bksmithca]

Curious if it will be crewed by British sailors or will Germany be provide a fully manned ship?

[rattman]

Lease ???? Smells like rubbish

[West Coast]

Back to Lend/Lease?

[Goanna01]

The UK appears to have a reasonably large defence budget but very limited conventional capabilities (if what I’ve read on here is correct), is it that nukes are very expensive to maintain or are there other reasons?

[meleagertoo]

Originally Posted by Goanna01

The UK appears to have a reasonably large defence budget but very limited conventional capabilities (if what I’ve read on here is correct), is it that nukes are very expensive to maintain or are there other reasons?

The military is massively overstaffed with unnecessary Top Neddies. (ie more admirals than ships) and MoD far far too big for the forces it 'manages' - far far too many civil servants with massive pensions and costs. (more drones in the MoD than soldiers in the Army isn't it?)
Procurement is grotesquely inefficient and wasteful, costs of large programmes, and presumably small ones too are frequently uncontrolled and routinely suffer immense £££££ overruns.
One suspects maintenance contracts are far too lax, non-puniutive especially on timescale (7 year refits for a sub for instance) and therefore cost too.
Procurement tends to buy immensely costly and delicate high-tech when off the shelf solutions could often be bought in far greater numbers and be almost as effective. Where we do buy off the shelf we seem to need to make massive and unnecessary bespoke multi-year long alterations that cause immense extra costs (Chinook/Nimrod for instance).
We spend squillions on the wrong thing - 2 carriers - when we haven't enough skimmers to escort even one of them nor able to afford aircraft to put on them. So we buy far far too few of the wrong over-costly under capable aircraft because blind dogma prevented the ships from being properly equipped to carry proper aircraft and be as useful as they should be.

Nuclear derterrent is admittedly hugely costly.

Basically, inept management and vast amounts of blinkered decades-outdated thinking and self-interest one suspects.

Maybe some of that is not altogether correct, but I fear most of it is. It's an internatiuonal disgrace and shame on our nation, and bloody dangerous.

[Hot 'n' High]

Originally Posted by meleagertoo

......... Maybe some of that is not altogether correct, but I fear most of it is. ...............

It looks pretty good to me TBH!

Originally Posted by Goanna01

The UK appears to have a reasonably large defence budget but very limited conventional capabilities (if what I’ve read on here is correct), is it that nukes are very expensive to maintain or are there other reasons?

In addition to meleagertoo's good summary, this looks at UK defence costs with a link in there to the actual report. My focus looks (in passing) at the split between Nuclear and the rest ....... PPRuNers are more than able to draw their own conclusions hence I didn't go on!

And, having been involved in some early studies into what, then, was the "CVS replacement", I recall, all these years on, wondering how we'd ever manage to have a balanced Fleet. Well, we can see the answer today! If I'd bet myself £100 I'd be demanding that I pay myself my Winnings!

[EDLB]

Hope that the steering wheel is not on the wrong side if they man it. Beside all screws are metric, so I assume that they lease the ship with crew.

[57mm]

Who would have thought at the end of WW2 we would be doing this now……

[Biggus]

My understanding is that it's a UK command team for SNMG1 (our turn), but since there is no UK vessel for them to embark in, a German frigate will act as the flagship with the Brit command staff on board.

[DogTailRed2]

Would all the buttons and dials be labelled in German or is English used for commonality?
If glass screen I guess they just set language preference = UK.

[chevvron]

What a sad reflection on our governments both present and past.

[Goanna01]

Thanks Meleagertoo, an excellent answer that explains a lot. I guess the real question is, how do you fix a mess like that? Who’s responsible? Is it the politicians, the civil servants, the top brass or is there plenty of blame to go around?

[langleybaston]

Originally Posted by Goanna01

Spoiler

 

 

Thanks Meleagertoo, an excellent answer that explains a lot. I guess the real question is, how do you fix a mess like that? Who’s responsible? Is it the politicians, the civil servants, the top brass or is there plenty of blame to go around?

The previous governments over 20 years, plus the current government prioritizes increased hand-outs to 3rd generation British layabouts and invaders over urgent intervention.
Plus the service chiefs do not want to risk their seats in the Lords.
Simple but appalling.

[Thrust Augmentation]

Originally Posted by meleagertoo

Procurement tends to buy immensely costly

Just a bit - it's a terminal disease across all arms of government that's spectacular in scale & playing a large part in sinking the country.

[Lonewolf_50]

If I may misquote a drunken Texas oilman I once met, as regards leasing:

"If it floats, flies, or fcuks, lease it don't buy it!"

Maybe the MoD and the RN are onto something!

[Asturias56]

Several yeasr ago some of us forecast that this woud happen when they decided to build 2 carriers. We were given little credit by the optomistis on the Carrier thread - but it has come to pass as forecast.......

[Not_a_boffin]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

Several yeasr ago some of us forecast that this woud happen when they decided to build 2 carriers. We were given little credit by the optomistis on the Carrier thread - but it has come to pass as forecast.......

And for the umpteenth time we gave you little credit because you didn't really understand what you were talking about. Explain again - with reasons - why "the carriers" are the reason that the RN cannot field a 1* capable DD/FF to act as flag for SNMG1. Lets see if those reasons include poor decisions taken in the design of the T45, poor provision of particular spares for the T45 (which knocks on to the ability of HMNB Portsmouth to actually generate ships at readiness), the inconvenient fact that the T23 are not and never were capable of 1* flag ops. The latter is "obviously" the fault of "the carriers", despite the last of class being delivered long before the carrier programme passed Main Gate.

They're already to blame for inflation, Ed Miliband, RAF Akrotiri being vulnerable to attack (oh the irony), Gaza etc. Might as well hear some more.....

[G-MILF]

Originally Posted by Goanna01

Spoiler

 

 

Thanks Meleagertoo, an excellent answer that explains a lot. I guess the real question is, how do you fix a mess like that? Who’s responsible? Is it the politicians, the civil servants, the top brass or is there plenty of blame to go around?

The biggest problem is that there is no real will to do anything about it, political or otherwise. Lots of people talk about reforming the system, etc., but that is all it is: talk. The politicians don't want to do anything about it as it will mean either raising taxes or cuts in areas that will cost them votes, and the vast majority of civil servants and contractors working in the system are well and truly on board the Gravy Train and stand to lose the most.

[typerated]

Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin

And for the umpteenth time we gave you little credit because you didn't really understand what you were talking about. Explain again - with reasons - why "the carriers" are the reason that the RN cannot field a 1* capable DD/FF to act as flag for SNMG1. Lets see if those reasons include poor decisions taken in the design of the T45, poor provision of particular spares for the T45 (which knocks on to the ability of HMNB Portsmouth to actually generate ships at readiness), the inconvenient fact that the T23 are not and never were capable of 1* flag ops. The latter is "obviously" the fault of "the carriers", despite the last of class being delivered long before the carrier programme passed Main Gate.

They're already to blame for inflation, Ed Miliband, RAF Akrotiri being vulnerable to attack (oh the irony), Gaza etc. Might as well hear some more.....

Just follow the money.