HMS Trent (OPV) to be Gibraltar based

One Bay class LSD(A) to be turned into a Littoral Support Ship

Hunt and Sandown classes withdrawn slowly

Possibly more F-35Bs

Two Type 23s to go - presumably this means Monmouth (has been languishing and waiting for refit - and an FTRS skeleton crew) and one of the older non 2087/Merlin ones

20 frigates and destroyers by the end of the decade - does that mean running on other T23s longer to achieve the 24 the Prime Minister spoke of last week, which has slipped to 'early in the next decade'?

NATO commitments continue, with Russia named as the main hostile state threat. Continued commitments to CASD and carrier operations.

Dumb question, was there a theme to this pudding?

I'm a New Yorker, Navy League lifer and often cannot understand the logic of the procurement decisions of the US Navy.
But HMGs defence strategies and decisions are in another realm.
Could someone maybe help put it into a coherent framework?

It could have been worse - a lot worse.

You are so right, that is what is worrisome, more money and less capability.
If this is how they treat the green wood, how will they treat the dry?

Still pretty bad - they didn't cancel the last SSN, they're repurposing some stuff and there'll be a fall (supposedly temporary) in the number of surface escorts.

Only time will tell if they order enough replacements. HMG's record on THAT is not good

Are we creating a precedent in 'running on' existing ships? From the First Sea Lord's message:

We will run on two of the Trafalgar-class submarines.

It's not uncommon - delivery is always later than planned - just about every class of vessel has been run on in the last 70 years. At least they confirmed they were going to build 7 Stutes. personally I'd keep building them at a steady rate

No plan ever survives contact with reality.

Back to 1SL's statement: We will operate both carriers, buy more F-35 jets and sort out the support shipping for the carriers.

That links with the amazing deployment that heads east at the end of May, taking in over 40 countries and 70 visits.

Our carriers are the best design in the world. Our jets are the best in the world.

We’re going to use them in NATO and around the world to protect our allies, our interests and our trade.

Yes - but the days of them not being fully manned and/or awaiting major refits are coming to an end.


See also the RN page about her refit and regeneration.

The revamp of the flotilla, which began in 2014, sees a total bow-to-stern mast-to-keel overhaul of the backbone ships of the Fleet to ensure the 23s can serve into the middle of the next decade, keeping pace with the latest threats and tech.

NATO Foreign Ministers discuss Russia - UK Defence Journal

“While our relationship with Russia remains very difficult, our meeting today demonstrates strong agreement among Allies and with our partners. Despite years of pressure and efforts to engage in a meaningful dialogue, Russia has increased its pattern of repressive behaviour at home and aggressive behaviour abroad. In Russia, we still see violent oppression of political dissent.

And we call for the immediate release of Alexei Navalny and other peaceful demonstrators who have been arrested. Abroad, Russia undermines and destabilizes its neighbours, including Ukraine, Georgia, and the Republic of Moldova. It supports the crackdown on Belarus, and tries to interfere in the Western Balkans region.

Russia continues its wide-ranging military build-up. From the Baltic to the Black Sea. In the Middle East and North Africa. And from the Mediterranean to the Arctic. Allies have called out Russia’s disinformation and propaganda.”

well , yes so really not a good timr to be cutting anything in the front line IMHO on the basis of "jam tomorrow"

Hard to disagree with that - but eleven frigates fully modernised and manned is an improvement over thirteen with a number only partly manned. The RN is in the process of increasing personnel numbers by three thousand over three years.

I am not sure that the cuts to Challenger tank numbers or to the RAF air transport fleet were consistent with increased threats and commitments.

That is really ridiculous or even ludicrous.
Russia has not even half the GDP of Germany. Its commercial strength is rather in decline. Its potential for conquering and permanently occupying Countires which don't have a majority share of ethinc Russian poulation is really limited and rather declining. Its conventional Military does not even fully match continental Europe's.
Only its Nuclear Force is still on par with whole NATO and leagues above that of Europe. So conventionally only a limited Power but a massive Nuclear Power.
On the other hand we have a China which will be replacing the US as #1 Economic Super Power in no time. It is increasing its Military capabilities at a breathtaking rate. It is pretty openly stating its aspirations in the whole Region and acting accordingly. It's increasing its conventional power at an alarming rate and is using that for bullying Taiwan, Australia, Korea and Japan.
In 10 Years from now there will be ~50 operational Russian Stealth Fighters and 500 Chinese. Easily. The same goes for Long Range Air to Sea/Surface Missiles. And wait for the next strategic (Stealth-) Bomber. Guess who will field this!? The next Full Size CATOBAR Aircraft Carrier, to be equipped with Stealth Fighters and Drones? The list goes on and on.

That said our Economic Dependence on China has grown to a point where this can't be openly adressed anymore in the 'West'. Instead we have to blame a deputy scapegoat (Russia) when in reality it's clear who is the real Threat.
White Elefant in the Room....

No ****, Sherlock!

henra

I think you underestimate Russia and the danger that the Putin regime poses. Of course it is nowhere never the Cold War Soviet threat, but that does not mean it does not exist. Putin, Xi, and the Iranian leadership are allies.

The actual policy announced by the Prime Minister noted challenges from all three, but sensibly stated that security in the Euro Atlantic theatre was the priority and the prerequisite for a more Global role.

Jackonicko

Long time no see! Welcome back. I was replying to Asturias56.

Big countries push small countries around - the British did it, the Americans do it and China has learnt the lessons. They're going to be #1 or #2 so you'll see some oppressive behavior - but I don't think they're interested in a fight - except over Taiwan - that's the only thing they'd risk a war over

Hopefully things have moved on a bit since then.

The UK and the international rules based system - Dr Nicholas Wright

The IRBS has evolved as a means of developing – to the extent possible – predictability and stability between states as sovereign actors. At a basic level it can be understood as encompassing three main components: (i) formal structures and institutions – e.g. the UN, IMF, WTO, etc. – and also regional organisations such as the EU, ASEAN and NATO; (ii) rules, treaties and international law – e.g. the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea,[size=8333px] [/size]the UN Refugee Convention, or the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT[size=8333px])[/size] and (iii) the norms and values that have developed around and through these – e.g. support and promotion of democracy, equality, and human rights. Many of these were deliberately established and/or have evolved primarily since the end of the Second World War as a means of managing and regulating how states interact.

I'm sure President Putin (and the lat President Trump) read that every night before going to bed................ :E

The French did it with Indochina and North Africa, Belgium did it with the Congo, Spanish with Mexico and South America, Portuguese with Brazil, Dutch with East Indies, German's with ..... ok lets skip that.

The British and the Americans only differed in being competent at it.

\
After Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd shudder to see what incompetent would look like.