Delaying delivery of a vessel to the RN so that the Royal Norwegian Navy get a vessel earlier is not at all a problem.

Realistically, the Royal Navy has still to overcome it's manpower problems which seem to be more fundamental than the age of its ships (though the age of ships is an issue), so this gives them more time to sort out recruitment, while given how close UK and Norway tend to be on defence matters, each navy will tend to support the other anyway.

The deployment of the UK's two aircraft carriers routinely includes one or more vessels from the UK's alliance partners - the current PoW Carrier Strike Group includes a Royal Norwegian Navy vessel.

Instead of a fleet of 8 Type 26's crewed by Brits, there will now be a fleet of 13 Type 26's manned by Brits and Norwegians. That's good for both nations.

The manpower problems won't be resolved any time soon, because (if we accept various recent surveys) the majority of young people of today aren't actually willing to fight for their country. Successive governments (and much of the media) seem to have pulled every possible lever to undermine patriotism in general, and the military as a career, and the Tories even sabotaged military recruitment by giving it to Crapita. Youngsters now aspire be social media influencers, work (somehow) in sports, or "creative media".

>> because (if we accept various recent surveys) the majority of young people of today aren't actually willing to fight for their country.

Why do you think Sunak was so keen on National Service? The softened option, not at all compulsory (until it becomes compulsory). With moneybag Tories like General Sunak at the top, and all the plebs at the bottom. Over the top you go, yelled Sunak. I'll be right behind you. About a thousand miles.

It is a difficult question - why would young people fight for this country? It's a half-arsed democracy, unjust, unfair, very little freedom, full of hypocrisy, with very little stakes for the average Joe.

I expect those downvoting to be first in line at the recruiting office. Or is it another case of "somebody else will do it"?

Why do you think Sunak was so keen on National Service?

Because it appeals to the sort of people who are voting for the ascendent Reform party who will tell you "back in my day" - even though most of them are too young to have done NS themselves and don't even understand why we had it (not for national security!). 1

It didn't have to make sense - the Tories are running terrified of Farage and have no ideas of their own, so just offer a watered-down version in the hope of clinging onto right-leaning centrists. It's not like they were ever going to have to figure out how the British Army were actually going to accommodate 50,000 NS personnel when they can barely accommodate their regulars.

Of course the right-leaning centrists are now voting Labour or Lib Dem because the Overton Window has moved wholesale to the right, and anyone who actually leans left is looking at the Greens (who, amazingly, had the most competent manifesto at the last GE - proposed to engage in infrastructure renewal and investment, whilst working to insulate the UK from global energy/gas price fluctuations!).

1. The point of National Service was to tie up young people for 12-18 months when they left school, which is why most people who actually did it will tell you that it was an utterly pointless waste of their life - square bashing and (re)painting the kerbstones on the parade ground. At the end of WW1, we repatriated the bulk of the British forces, which then created a socio-economic crisis. Aside from the economic difficulties of transitioning to a peacetime economy, the women who had joined the workforce found they quite liked their economic independence and didn't want to "get back in the kitchen". This led to all sorts of unpleasantness, including the abuse of women in the street of "you're taking a job from a man!", even when they were just working on the cosmetics or lingerie counter in a department store. There were also difficulties with apprenticeships and education - servicemen who had been called up during the war when they turned 18 were now looking to come back and take up an apprenticeship, attend university or otherwise enter the workforce. They were in competition with all the 16-18 year olds trying to do the same. Having learnt from this, NS was introduced in WW2 as part of our conscription mechanism, but then latterly to tie up young men who hadn't served. This left a load of capacity in universities and the workforce to soak up these returning troops. The fact we had to set up British Forces Germany to face off the Soviet Union was also quite handy as it provided an excuse to retain some people operationally in Germany. By varying NS from 6-18 months depending on trade they evened out lumps, and they also tried to slow down the repatriation of some troops - my great uncle flew naval Spitfires and spent 6 months on Bondi beach sunning himself on the Navy's account. Notionally it was because the RN were busy repatriating POWs from Japan - and certainly they prioritised wounded and POWs. But it also meant he missed that year's intake and deferred his university entry to medical school another year, smoothing the curve. They were probably also hoping that a few people would choose to stay in the Antipodes permanently.

Of course some NS personnel - particularly those without a trade who ended up as infantry - had really bad luck and ended up being deployed to Korea or other combat theatres.

Although NS notionally ended in 1963, it was being wound down by 1957, at which point the UK economy was back on a more level footing and the new world order was settled.

"Of course the right-leaning centrists are now voting Labour or Lib Dem because the Overton Window has moved wholesale to the right, and anyone who actually leans left is looking at the Greens (who, amazingly, had the most competent manifesto at the last GE - proposed to engage in infrastructure renewal and investment, whilst working to insulate the UK from global energy/gas price fluctuations!)."

I find it is more likely to be Lib Dem as Labour are too authortarian. Actually locally, a lot have gone Green.

Ex Conservative Centrists are also more likely to be pro EU, as I said what is the difference between Sunak and Starmer, both are similar placed about EU. Well it wound up a Labour supporter!

It's a half-arsed democracy, unjust, unfair, very little freedom, full of hypocrisy, with very little stakes for the average Joe.

It's a democracy that (as David Mitchell put it) kept vomiting out the shit PMs.... seems better than many others. Some places may only have a president for 4 years, but they're impossible to get rid of.

As for the 'fairness' and 'hypocracy', that's been there since the year dot. That's what humans are... cunts. (See virtually all episodes of 'Yes Minister' for examples...)

I do take issues with 'very little freedom' though? What can't you do that you wish to do in the U.K. that you're free to do in other countries? Where would you rather live?

This country's very run down at the moment and a lot of people are pissed off, but I'm not sure there's a huge lack of freedom?

e.g. We don't in the UK have freedom of speech, but I'm happy to criticise our government, much more than I would if I were a US citizen in the US at the moment, especially if I was a US citizen of the wrong 'background' or gender.

A lot of the issue is perception: News reports and social media conveying messages that are often misleading if not outright lies. This shapes perception and people are inclined to believe what fits their world view, and disbelieve anything that is contrary to that.

People see Migrants, for example, and think of illegal migrants (those entering the county without permission) getting way too much help when regular people: Those born here: Get nothing.

And complaining about a topic: Going out and protesting it: That's being stifled. Plus idiotic laws being introduced that force people to hand over rather personal information to an untrusted third party just to access things that is legal simply because some parents are seen as being too thick to actually parent: Children getting access to 'inappropriate' or 'harmful' material (like that's even new??? Gee, guess we never got hold of 'adult' books and magazines and things when we were kids...).

Perception is like that. You think the country is well run: I think it's not. You think we've freedom of speech: I think that's being taken away from us. But that shows we're different people with different perceptions, different lives, different beliefs, and more importantly: Different sources of information. Seems there's a lot of vocal people out there who have a similar perspective to me, but not exactly the same. And each of us gets one vote when it comes to who is next to represent us to the clown house called Parliament. Ah, well.

As if most young people are perceiving anything from the news. They're getting on with their lives. I'm sure many would happily join the Royal Navy if it only paid well. Instead it pays little more than a decent 9-5 while 'joking' (I honestly can't tell if it's a joke) in it's recruitment info that you don't have to pay for rent or holiday travel because it's part of the job.

Our country is extremely free and young people enjoy that, even if the direction of the precise level of that freedom might concern some of us sometimes. On board a Navy ship however you don't have very much freedom. Go figure there needs to be big incentive before you consign yourself to a floating prison for 9 months at a time.

>> This country's very run down at the moment and a lot of people are pissed off, but I'm not sure there's a huge lack of freedom?

I call mass state surveillance a lack of freedom.

Hmmm... perhaps we also need to introduce incentives, such as: You can't stand for political office unless you've served in the military? Perhaps making things like the right to vote dependent on service to the nation, too.

Add in officers needing to work their way up through the ranks so they know what it's like as a squaddie: So no soft options there.

Obviously, gender neutral in selection: Can't discriminate!

Ah, those wonderful sounds of wailing from the political elite...

I know: Pipedreams. Or I've spent too much time watching Starship Troopers. Reminds me: Need to go get the book so I can compare that with the film.

You can't stand for political office unless you've served in the military?

[1]Service Guarantees Citizenship!

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jO1vWxUqpFI

You can't stand for political office unless you've served in the military? Perhaps making things like the right to vote dependent on service to the nation, too.

Fuck off. While I have few problems with letting those who want to serve do so, I have absolutely no desire to live in a country run by such people to the exclusion of everyone else.

Fair.

Me: I have a problem with how our elected representatives ignore us and just represent their own views. Or whatever their party tells them to represent.

But mostly it's the idea that regular folk get sent to war while politicians sit in safety.

>> But mostly it's the idea that regular folk get sent to war while politicians sit in safety.

The secret bunkers in WW2 - built for the government. They were "concerned" that the plebs would go down the shelters and not come out. Only after much cajoling did the government feel it necessary to build shelters.

Protect and Serve? More secret bunkers for the government. The plebs were given a few sheets of paper to read.

>> You can't stand for political office unless you've served in the military?

What uniquely qualifies somebody for political office if they have been in the armed forces? The ability to get up in the morning and give/take orders? I don't doubt that some people in the armed forces are suitable for political office, but the same goes for bus drivers, electricians, and farmers.

I did say it was a possible incentive - that if you want to go into politics, you have to serve your country. This was a response as an alternative to the idea of reintroducing national service.

But okay: What would that mean as a qualification? How about it shows you believe in your country and are willing to lay down your life to defend it? Plus you've had training on how to keep your head while under (literal) fire.

However, if it was considered as a pre-requisite for politics, then I'd suggest adding in other things like serving in any emergency response service. Mostly because you won't get so many of the Oxbridge crowd getting into politics as a result.

As MPs get a diamond encrusted pension for what in any other employment would be a fixed term contract job, how about just having had to live on a normal company wage* for five years provided by a firm that has to operate under UK taxation & employment regulations, ie. a slice of the reality the rest of us live by. Then they get audited when standing for office.

*Not in any way government funded, ideally at or below the national average.

Sunak wouldn't fight, he would grab his African passport and go back running to inlaws mumsy in India !

Youngsters now aspire be social media influencers, work (somehow) in sports, or "creative media".

Funny how it's always the fault of the youngsters. Never the politicians.

The US had all sorts of problems with the draft during the latter half of the Vietnam War when the general public were acutely aware that it was a bloody waste of life, and had lost patience with the government.

It's hardly surprising that appetite for military service is down after 15 years of conflict in Afghan/Iraq, which are popularly considered to have achieved sod all, given that the casual removal of Saddam left a power void for ISIS, and the Taliban waltzed back into power the moment we left Afghanistan. Don't invade countries without an exit strategy.

The fact that Crapita have actively obstructed the recruitment of willing volunteers only compounds that problem. BuT tHe PrIvAtE sEcToR iS eFfIcIeNt.

The RN have also had difficulties in the period without carriers because at leats now they can leverage sexy topgun flight ops for recruitment, which they couldn't for 10 years.

At the end of the day, this is the systemic and repeated failure of government to abide by the convenant incumbent on them. If you want people to go and fight for you, then you have to make it worth their while. You have to pay them reasonable salaries, keep them (and their families) in good quality housing, provision them with good quality kit and only ask them to risk their lives for worthwhile causes. There will always be some controversy over any military deployment, but such things should not be done trivially.

Alas, service salaries have lagged like the rest of the public sector, service housing is a coin toss and you might be asked to go and get shot at for no good reason based on the capricious whims of a fuckwit like Johnson. The military also used to offer a lot more opportunities. People got commissioned in from National Service. You could be a pilot officer even if you had another trade - for instance, there were doctors who got paid through university and then had the opportunity to earn their wings and do a bit of flying on the side.

These days, you get to pay your own way through uni, and then landed with £60k worth of debt, you get to work for RAF salaries rather than the (better, though not by much) NHS salary, which at least then comes with the option to do private work on the side. Entry level pay for enlisted should be ~£28-30k/yr if it had kept up with inflation since 2010 - but it's more like £26k. Officer salaries are better - starting at £34k and rising to £40k pretty rapidly. Still below where they ought to be, but very livable.

And I say all this as someone who did try to join the military as a 21 year old, but was knocked back thanks to Osborne's austerity...

I draw my learned friends attention to the following - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahgjEjJkZks

Norway's need is greater, since one of the boats they're replacing has sunk and the others may be in danger of doing the same. Since we cooperate already and are increasing that, it won't make much short-term difference in defence capacity beyond whose flag is on the boat.

Since both countries are perhaps more short of crews than boats, maybe we could get creative. We've had an influx of young men in small craft who might be persuaded to do a stint on something bigger for a path to citizenship. That would take the wind out of the flag-shaggers sails.

So I have to ask... is Norway paying more than the RN? Google says they apparently are. If so, that's to be expected, no?

Surely depends on the spec and priority. I can't see any reason why BAES should be charging the UK government less for the same thing, maybe Norway are paying more for getting theirs early.

It depends what they're paying for. E.g. does the headline Norwegian price include a support package for x years where the RN one doesn't? Given the RN have already partly paid is it all in the same year currency, otherwise inflation plays a part in the headline figure.

More ultimately for the Exchequer, that's what matters. Reading between the lines Norway wanted one asap (to get training on/familiarising with?) so one of the earliest laid will go to them. Those early ones cost the UK the most because of the early R&D investment so might even be sold at a loss, but surely worth it to secure the entire deal with the tax take and jobs and headlines and greater potential for future export that entails.

"Those early ones cost the UK the most because of the early R&D investment"

Errrmm, R&D costs, including the "bash it until it fits" costs of the first few should be considered across the total number built. Even then it's a treasury bean counting way of looking at the cost of military kit. We'd be better off regarding development costs as separate from the marginal build costs.

Yea, that's why it makes sense to sell one on. I should have added 'notionally' - there were two MoD orders and per unit price in the first order was greater because er it was the first. Between that and the domestic economic benefit the question of who's paying more for one is not at all straightforward.

You don't know the marginal build cost until the last one is built, particularly when these things take so long to complete. Each build is a new round of R&D as you refine processes and achieve scaling efficiencies. Plus all things being equal you might prefer to pay more for one earlier. It's all just different ways of bean-counting in the end.

A good reason to keep steel production in Britain? I.e. not close steelworks, don't import steel.

Up to a point, but I'd imagine there's a whole range of critical components that will have to be imported, from the advanced to the arcane. Moreover, since commercial industry won't voluntarily choose expensive British made steels (especially under the government's glorious net zero steel plans) then the steelworks won't have any reliable demand, and costs will be extortionate.

Mind you commercial industry are (or should be) shitting themselves at the prospect of the "Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism" which is party of the Uniparty's efforts to make the UK carbon neutral even if it bankrupts us all. What CBAM will do is from January 2027 add a carbon tax to all imported carbon intensive materials. Obviously that'll work wonders for engineering and construction programmes (HS2, housing, Sizewell C and other energy sector programmes etc).

You may as well just say the problem is the cost of energy in the UK. If energy was cheaper, steel production would be cheaper.

Sizewell C doubled in costs over a 4 years period. Very funny - the 'government' confirmed the 'estimate'. I wonder how much more the estimate will rise.

Frigate shipbuilding rate in the UK for many decades has been more about keeping the yards open, the five batch 2 River class OPVs were quite literally ordered to keep the yard going until the T-26 order was ready to go.

The new build hall allows two hulls to be built completely under cover at the same time as a third is built as two halves in the existing building (triple the previous build rate), it doesn't take much of an additional acceleration to have one hitting the water every year. Belfast is slated for launch next year which will allow the first Norwegian ship to start construction.

Exactly, the current build rate is basically determined by how much money the Treasury will allow the MOD to spend in any one year. Which does also tend to make the total cost higher but hey, what's a few billion between friends.

"the five batch 2 River class OPVs were quite literally ordered to keep the yard going until the T-26 order was ready to go"

And the River class illustrates everything that is wrong with British defence procurement planning - armed with a single 30mm pop gun, a couple of belt feed machine guns and a heli platform. Evidently they were never intended to have any real military purpose.

Now, for the same sort of displacement the Israeli Sa'ar 6 corvettes pack a 76mm gun, 2x 25mm weapon stations, 32 launch cells for Barak 8 SAMs, 40 launch cells for C-dome AMMs, 16 anti-ship missiles, 2 torpedo tubes and a helipad and hanger (meaning up to a Seahawk can be routinely carried and operated). If you were a naval officer, which would you want on your side, and which would you be hoping your opponents were on?

And the real kicker? If my wrangling of the reported project costs is near enough correct, the cost of the Sa'ar 6 was around £146m per vessel, the River class around £130m.

While not disputing your points generally, I will challenge the idea that the OPVs have no real military purpose.

Most warships do not, in fact, spend much if any time actually at war. There are plenty of real military tasks for which an OPV is perfectly fit for purpose. OPVs are cheaper to run and provide a route to first command for junior officers which are perhaps a bit more expendable if the officer screws up.

A smaller vessel like an OPV can often be quite diplomatic: it shows that the navy concerned is taking an interest, but in a way that is not threatening or escalatory. When Venezuela was making threats to annex a chunk of Guyana, the Royal Navy sent an OPV - that's less threatening that an aircraft carrier, but implicit was that the rest of the RN could follow up if necessary.

Yes, but a small corvette like the Sa'ar 6 is able to do the same flag showing actions as a River class, still without the threat implicit in sending a carrier or other large vessel, but it is still a competent military asset if the core purpose of the navy get called upon. By comparison the River class has no effective war capabilities, by the choice of MoD.

And for extra embarrassment, the River class main armament isn't that different to a Houthi-engineered pick up truck (link below), excepting that the Houthi pick up has a higher fire rate.

https://defence-blog.com/yemens-houthi-built-crazy-pickup-with-30mm-cannon/

Again, I agree, but...

The Sa'ar are warships, they carry their crew plus weapons. As far as I am aware, they have no capability to carry supplies, troop, etc, other than jamming what ever will fit onto the open deck.

The River Class OPVs are, as you note, not really 'war' ships, but military ships, They have about 1/3 to 1/2 the crew of the Sa'ar, I think, plus have the ability to carry troops, civilian mission specialists, supplies, etc. OPV's should probably be viewed as militarised work boats.

So in a shooting war, yes, the Sa'ar is far superior, the OPVs are not remotely close in capability, but they weren't designed to be.

"So in a shooting war, yes, the Sa'ar is far superior, the OPVs are not remotely close in capability, but they weren't designed to be."

And there was me thinking that the Royal Navy was a military force. Instead we launch almost unarmed ships, paint them grey, and hope it scares potential adversaries.

As I said, most warships spend little if any time at war.

The army have lots of vehicles painted green - some are tanks, a lot are trucks, which are entirely unarmed and unarmoured, but vital nevertheless.

The air force have all sorts of aircraft - some are combat aircraft, others are trainers and cargo carriers with no weapon systems fitted.

I fail to see why every ship the navy has should be expected to be a combat vessel designed to fight a full scale war against a peer-level opponent. Anti-piracy, anti-smuggling, routine survey and patrol are all tasks of a military force, and can be carried out by a 'lightly' armed vessel (* a 30mm cannon and a Wildcat helicopter armed with LMM is likely to be plenty heavy enough to deal with smugglers or pirates).

The Type 26's are for scaring potential adversaries, the OPVs are for doing the day-to-day routine stuff.

And there was me thinking that the Royal Navy was a military force. Instead we launch almost unarmed ships, paint them grey, and hope it scares potential adversaries.

The Royal Navy runs various types of ship for various types of role. Just as the RAF operates the Grob Tutor for training and other aircraft for non-combat roles, so the Royal Navy has transport ships, survey vessels like HMS Scott and Protector, and workboats like the Sea-class.

Yes, the River is under-gunned compared with the Sa'ar 6. But then the Israeli Navy doesn't have any actual destroyers or frigates - much less carriers. The Sa'ar 6s are the largest vessels in their fleet.

We still overpaid for the Rivers, and they're not as flexible as they should be, but they're not designed to be a combat-oriented warship.

There's also the issue of serviceability:

• The more complex it is, the more effort needed to keep it working.

• The more complex it is, the harder it is to actually operate it - especially if you are struggling to recruit.

• How often are you likely to need the more sophisticated firepower.

Think of the many past military/police operations where insurgents in pickups (famously the Toyota Hilux) were running rings around the maxed out Hummers, etc.

Whilst you wouldn't carry a knife to a gunfight (well, not as your primary weapon), it would give you an advantage in a fist fight. Better an OPV than a kayak...

"Think of the many past military/police operations where insurgents in pickups (famously the Toyota Hilux) were running rings around the maxed out Hummers, etc."

I think that supports my argument more than yours! A tooled-up Sa'ar 6 at 2,000 tonnes and £146m is the naval equivalent of a tricked-out Hilux. The British naval equivalent of the Hummer is the Type 45 destroyer, 8,000 tonnes and a billion quid a pop. The Type 45 should be far more capable than the Israeli corvette, but the actual armament load isn't much better. There's a whole range of defence tasks we might want in a war that a River class can't do (by virtue of having been specified by a pacifist), but that we don't have enough destroyers or frigates for.

Bolting a 76 and or missiles onto the Rivers is a fairly straight forward change but the treasury would've taken one look at the 'big' shooty bits and decide that's all the Navy needed, ignoring the fact that OPVs & Corvettes are not really meant to go very far from their home base.

Maybe the gun can be upgraded, to have missiles the vessel would need structural work to accommodate the now-normal vertical launch cassettes, more importantly it needs C&C capabilities to deploy the missiles. That wouldn't be in any way straightforward or quick. All of which is moot anyway, the River class have been specced and delivered as under-armed overly purpose specific vessels and there's no prospect of that changing. MoD are so useless at all defence procurement I have to question which nation they work for.

The Batch 1 Rivers are only 70m in length - much smaller hulls than the Sa'ar 6 or even the Batch 2s (both 90m).

They're different beasts. The Rivers can be run with a complement of 25-30, whereas the Sa'ar 6 has a crew of 70 (unsurprising given the additional weapon systems). For the UK, this is a good thing, providing a smaller, lightly crewed vessel for young officers to cut their teeth on before they ground a destroyer somewhere. The weapon systems are more than adequate for your standard offshore and coastal patrol roles. A 30mm cannon and a couple of MG posts are more than sufficient to support customs and fisheries enforcement, haul up to dodgy-looking fishing trawlers and generally be seen cutting about. They deliberately left a lot of deck space for use in pollution control or disaster relief work. They simply weren't conceived for doing any sort of significant fighting.

We did overpay for them, but that's mostly because we leased the Batch 1 Rivers for years, because UKGov is terrified of actually buying assets. Same as we leased our C17s for several years before we paid through the nose to actually acquire them.

It's entirely fair criticism of the Batch-2s, which are 90m and 2,000tons - bigger than the Sa'ar 6. For some reason we've decided it's important to be able to embark 50 marines instead, even though there's no hangar - which would significantly help the Forward-Presence flag-waving role that they're literally designed for (where you are unlikely to be supported by another heli-carrying vessel) since you could put people ashore, fly dignitaries out, etc. You don't even need the whole missile complement and Israeli loadout. A 76mm and a helicopter would make the difference there.

Cost is not the ship's fault and more that of a political regime in which everything must be done in the most expensive, protracted way possible. I blame Treasury.

There is also the problem of people struggling to buy groceries, so nobody thinks of commissioning a ship.

Looking at what we pay for things and how we get ripped of, if it was us ordering we would not even get a ship for £10bn

By the time the keel is down it would be 11bn, then a few weeks later 12bn, add a strike or two, 15bn

The finally "costs have gone up mate" £20bn

We need to build ships, but have no ship yards, no a very smart short sighted moves by politicians in the 80/90s closing down places like Tyne/Tees yards, who historically built a large proportion of our ships and allowed the skills to be lost, rather than pass down by to the next generation as had been done for hundreds of years !

Actually we've almost the shipbuilding capacity we need for the military, we just don't use it wisely, or procure with supply chain needs in mind. That's why the batch 2 River class were bought, simply to keep yards ticking over because there is no coherent naval procurement strategy, and part of that has been the continual shrinking of the Royal Navy through successive "strategic defence reviews".

The UK military is in a shocking state all round.

Less than half our F-35s are ready to fly / fight. They are ridiculously expensive and the spares situation is horrific with delays for basic parts. Even a tin of radar absorbent pait has to be supplied from the US and is typically 2 months delivery. I've actually been up close and personal with the F-35s. We got rid of the Hercules transports for the A400M which still has issues with parachute drops (and has had reliability issues) and we don't have enough other aircraft or spares to defend our shores let alone go into combat abroad.

As for the army, we don't have enough AFVs and the £500M wasted on the cancelled warrior upgrade was then spaffed on the nearly unusable Ajax project. " The Times reported that in June 2021 the problems with noise and rough handling were so serious that trials involving the Ajax had been suspended." There are still major issues despite having spent £3.8 Billion by 2023.

As for the Navy, the Daring class destroyers spend most of their time broken and in dock. At one point we had 2 out of 6 actually operational. The Darings suffer from over-complicated machinery "in order to minimise their carbon footprint". They are, from all accounts, also a nightmare for major maintenance. E.g. to remove the generators you have to cut a hole in the side of the ship!

I have to laugh when we send an OPV to escort a proper Russian war canoe through the English Channel (because we have nothing larger available). All the Russian ship has to do is increase speed and it would leave the OPV in it's wake. They are not much better than the armed trawlers that the Navy used in WW2. Yes the Batch 2 are more capable, but they are not able to defend themselves against anything larger than a Boghammar and even then it's doubtful. They would probably be a good match for the Icelandic coastguard in the event of a 4th Cod war. And yes, I do believe that they should have basic defensive equipment e.g. anti-air missiles.

Which brings me to the other elephant in the room which is the MOD's procurement policy and running of projects (and yes, I have first hand experience).

* Over complicated procurement processes

* Technical requirements that are bleeding edge rather than leading edge

* Incomprehensible technical documentation

* Specific MOD standards which sit on top of normal (non-military standards) and don't add anything to the job

* Lack of understanding of commercial performance standards

* Failure to properly check on the performance of contractors

* Use of the same contractors despite continued poor performance

* Will take a good design and then redesign it at massive extra cost without any performance benefit because it doesn't meet MOD standards

I could go on here and give examples, but I need a coffee.

[/off rant]