Former mistress of the seas: problems of the Royal Navy of Great Britain

40
Former mistress of the seas: problems of the Royal Navy of Great Britain
Aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth


The Royal Navy has faced a number of unique challenges over the past few years. Despite all the optimism and various construction and modernization programs, the general condition of the KVMF is gradually deteriorating. The already limited number of warships will soon be further reduced, which will negatively affect the overall combat effectiveness fleet and the armed forces in general.



Current state


The former mistress of the seas, Great Britain now has a fleet of limited size and combat capability. Currently, the Russian Navy has only 10 submarines, 2 aircraft carriers and more than 30 warships of various classes. There is also a fairly large number of boats of different classes and an auxiliary fleet.

The submarine forces of the Russian Navy have four Vanguard-class nuclear-powered missile carriers, which began service in 1993-99. These are the only British strategic nuclear carriers weapons. Their combat service schedule is designed in such a way that there are 1-2 submarines in patrol areas at the same time. Also in service are five multi-purpose nuclear submarines of the Astute class (delivered in 2010-22) and the last ship of the Trafalgar class mod. 1991


SSBN HMS Vanguard of the same name project

The largest surface combat units of the Russian Navy are two Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, which entered service in 2017 and 2019. The basis of them aviation The group consists of modern American-made F-35B short take-off and vertical landing aircraft.

In 2009-13 The KVMF received six Type 45 / Daring-class destroyers. At the moment, these are the largest multi-role warships in the British fleet. The most popular among the main classes of ships are the Type 23 / Duke-class frigates. There are 10 such ships in service, built in 1991-2002. The fleet also has eight patrol boats of the River Ave. The first three buildings were commissioned in 2003, and in 2018-21. According to the revised project, a second series of five ships was built.

The KVMF can land amphibious assault forces, for which it has two Albion-class landing ships, approximately 20 years old. 2000 years. However, one of them is in reserve, and the second is undergoing repairs. Three Bay-class transports can also be used as landing vehicles. The basis of the mine sweeping forces are six Hunt-class minesweepers built in the first half of the eighties. Also, one Sandown-class minesweeper, commissioned in 18, remains in service. 16 small-displacement patrol boats are in operation. 2022 pennants of the Archer Ave. were built in the second half of the eighties. The remaining two boats belong to the Cutlass project and have been in service since XNUMX.

Objective problems


The well-known list of combat units, to one degree or another, shows some of the problems that the British Navy is currently facing. First of all, it is a limited number. There are only a few dozen ships and submarines of a number of main classes in service, and the number of large combat units is very limited. This composition of the fleet is generally considered sufficient, but it clearly does not correspond to London’s naval ambitions.


Astute-class multipurpose nuclear submarine HMS Ambush

A significant problem is the age of the ships. The buildings built in the eighties are still in service. At the same time, over the past 10 years, starting in 2014, only a few ships have been commissioned - two aircraft carriers, the second series of River patrol ships of five units and two Cutlass boats.

Maintaining even such a fleet involves large expenses, and there are also difficulties in financing. Over the past years, it has been repeatedly reported that the Ministry of Defense and the KVMF will not be able to implement all programs and plans while maintaining the current level of costs.

Like the armed forces as a whole, the KVMF faces a shortage of personnel. The flow of recruits willing to serve in the army or navy is declining for a number of reasons. By now this had begun to lead to problems with crewing. It is not always possible to have available human resources to assemble a full crew of the required composition.

Attempts to solve


The command of the armed forces and the leadership of the Ministry of Defense sees the current situation and is trying to find a way out of it. Various types of measures are proposed to improve the situation in certain areas. At the same time, it is often necessary to make compromises and sacrifice various indicators.


Type 23 frigate HMS St Albans

In the spring of 2023, the leadership of the Ministry of Defense turned to the government with a request to urgently increase funding for the KVMF. In addition to the existing budget, £11 billion was requested for the maintenance of existing ships and crews, as well as for future projects. The financial situation of Great Britain cannot be called simple, and therefore the fleet received only 5 billion. According to known data, this money was spent mainly on the purchase of weapons, as well as on the development of promising projects for ships and submarines.

Despite limited funding, the KVMF is implementing large ship construction programs. Several years ago, two aircraft carriers were added to the fleet, and now shipbuilders are working on hulls of other classes. So, in 2017-23. four promising frigates of the Type 26 project were laid down. There is also a contract for the next four. The lead ship will begin service in the second half of the twenties, and the rest will follow.

In April 2022, the keel of the lead frigate Type 31, characterized by its smaller size and displacement, took place. Two of the five planned ships are already being built for the KVMF. The entire series is planned to be completed and delivered to the customer no later than the beginning of 2030.

Newly built ships will gradually replace decommissioned pennants in the KVMF's operational inventory. Due to this, they will get rid of morally and physically obsolete equipment, as well as reduce costs. In addition, it recently became known that the ship decommissioning plan has been changed to optimize the crew training process.


The frigate HMS Somerset after modernization and rearmament, December 2023

In early January, British media reported that the fleet would retire the Type 23 frigates HMS Argyll and HMS Westminster earlier than expected. Their crews will undergo retraining and in the future will begin service on the first Type 26 frigates. As it turned out, the KVMF in the current conditions does not have the opportunity to form completely new crews and is forced to take not the most successful measures.

Since 2019, repairs to the landing ship HMS Bulwark have continued. During the work, part of the crew was transferred to other pennants, and its full restoration is now not possible. In this regard, it is now proposed to complete the repairs and send the ship to reserve. As a result, both landing ships of the Russian Navy will be incapable of combat, although they will be able to return to service if necessary. As a result of such events, the landing forces will use only Bay-class transports.

Due to the complexity of their design and the specific nature of their operation, ships must undergo regular repairs. By the end of the year, one of the existing aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth, will be put into dry dock for the necessary work. The time frame for completing the repairs and restoration of the ship has not yet been announced. Until the end of these events, the KVMF will have only one combat-ready aircraft carrier.

There is a schedule for the alternate temporary decommissioning and repair of other surface ships. As a result, the actual composition and strength of surface and submarine forces will differ from the list. The fleet's potential will be reduced accordingly.


HMS Daring - lead ship of the Type 45 project

It is likely that work on individual ships will take several years. Problems with financing or supply of necessary units may lead to an increase in these deadlines. In addition, taking into account the latest experience of the KVMF, one cannot exclude the risk of reducing the crews of ships being repaired in favor of those remaining in service. Accordingly, the actual results of any planned repair may be very different.

Reasons for concern


Thus, the British Navy is faced with a number of characteristic problems that do not allow it to show the required level of combat capability, and also hinder further development. The number of ships in service barely corresponds to current strategies, their operational capabilities are limited, and the number of personnel is insufficient.

The UK Ministry of Defense is trying to take certain measures that, it believes, will help maintain the main indicators at the desired level, and then increase them. However, such optimism may be unjustified. The problems we are seeing now have been formed and accumulated over time, and dealing with them will be more difficult than it seems.
40 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    29 January 2024 04: 03
    Great Britain was for centuries the mistress of the seas for only one simple reason: the presence of colonies. As soon as the colonies broke away, that’s it... Dominion came to an early end
    1. +1
      29 January 2024 05: 16
      Quote from: FoBoss_VM
      The dominion has come to an early end

      I would like Britain itself to see a similar rapid decline. wink
      1. +3
        29 January 2024 10: 33
        The Royal Navy is probably now a tactical unit of the US Navy. Two groups to the 2nd and 4th fleet.
    2. +2
      29 January 2024 07: 20
      Quote from: FoBoss_VM
      Great Britain was for centuries the mistress of the seas for only one simple reason: the presence of colonies. As soon as the colonies broke away, that’s it... Dominion came to an early end

      Now the USA is in its place, unfortunately.
    3. -1
      29 January 2024 14: 08
      -but it clearly does not correspond to the naval AMBITIONS of London
      That's the whole story ..
      1. 0
        30 January 2024 21: 36
        The author would also like to indicate what he understands by “Great Britain’s naval ambitions” and why does Britain even need more than 2 AUGs when it is in NATO and in the event of a serious war it will be part of the NATO fleet.
  2. +6
    29 January 2024 04: 51
    The number of ships in service barely corresponds to current strategies, their operational capabilities are limited

    You need to understand that the British fleet is just an integral part of NATO, without any strategic objectives or illusions of its own. And as an integral part, it is the most important European partner of the Americans (taking into account aircraft carriers, air defense/missile defense destroyers and MAPL), and more has not been required from it for a long time...
  3. 0
    29 January 2024 07: 40
    Britain is no longer an empire, but it maintains a pretty serious fleet. The Falklands showed that this fleet is very combat-ready.

    Hard to say. Why do they need such an expensive toy now?
    1. -2
      29 January 2024 08: 22
      Quote: S.Z.
      The Falklands showed that this fleet is very combat-ready

      The Falklands rather showed the backwardness of the Argentine army, air force and navy
      1. +5
        29 January 2024 09: 02
        Quote: Dutchman Michel
        The Falklands... showed the backwardness of the Argentine army, air force and navy

        Few doubted this. Who in their right mind would bet on Argentina? The Falklands gave much more reason for thought: 1. carrying out a naval operation on the other side of the world is extremely difficult, 2. even multiple superiority in forces does not guarantee an easy victory, 3. there are always few ships, and when the time comes hour X, there are catastrophically few of them, 4. ammunition purchased somewhere from someone can “strangely” fail, 5. the fleet needs to be prepared in peacetime for a heavy battle, and not for imitation/parades, 6. outdated, at first glance, a weapon can seriously punish someone who ignored it, 7. even a much weaker enemy can sometimes be defeated only by exerting all one’s strength, 8. aviation once again showed who is really the boss at sea, etc. .
        1. +1
          29 January 2024 10: 24
          "Few doubted it."

          I read that our military leadership was confident that the British would lose.
          1. +2
            29 January 2024 12: 34
            Quote: S.Z.
            I read that our military leadership was confident that the British would lose.

            The Soviet political leadership in general was initially very skeptical about the geopolitical “games” of the Argentine junta; they even gave Argentina a ride at the UN Assembly, abstaining from voting. And this despite the fact that they traded with it very seriously, 3/4 of Argentina’s total agricultural exports went to the USSR...
            They didn’t show much attention later either, limiting themselves to PR campaigns. There were many more important problems: Afghanistan, Poland, etc., not up to the Falklands. They were also septic about the British chances of winning. In a word, it was not that important, and therefore not interesting.
            Militarily, the USSR did not create any illusions as soon as the operation began. The quantitative advantage of the British was undeniable: 4 to 1, and technical too, which is what five nuclear-powered ships are worth...
            1. 0
              30 January 2024 12: 23
              The CPSU Central Committee looked at the situation through the prism of ideology, rather than geopolitical benefits. Although the fleet watched the war, it was interesting. A classmate served in the Navy aviation; they flew from Luanda to “have a look.”
        2. +3
          29 January 2024 11: 25
          The Argentos had a chance if they were preparing for war, and not hoping for a quick go-stop.
          1. +1
            30 January 2024 12: 18
            Something it reminds me of.
        3. +2
          30 January 2024 11: 05
          Quote: Doccor18
          4. ammunition purchased somewhere from someone else can “strangely” fail,

          Because:
          Quote: Doccor18
          5. the fleet needs to be prepared in peacetime for heavy combat, and not for imitation/parades,

          Problems with Spanish bombs during low-altitude drops had been known since August 1981. But the army and representatives of the manufacturer, Explosivos Alaveses, spent the entire pre-war period not on bringing the ammunition to perfection, but on finding the culprits. The army accused the Spaniards of poor quality fuses, the Spaniards accused the military of improperly installing the fuses and not maintaining flight parameters during release.
          As a result, the Spanish bombs had to be abandoned during the war and replaced with... British 1000-pound Mk.17. And then the args got another problem:
          The kinetic energy of the massive Mk.17 when dropped at a speed of 800–900 km/h was excessive; according to all calculations, it pierced right through the hull of the British destroyer before the fuse went off. In this regard, the pilots were recommended to take a combat course at an angle of 45 degrees to the center plane of the ship, so that a more extensive internal space would be in the path of the bomb that hit it.

          Meanwhile, the dialogue with the Spaniards finally moved into a constructive phase - and the Spanish bombs in the assault version received as many as three new fuses - two mechanical and one electric. Moreover, both types of mechanical fuses were placed together, in different places on the bomb, for reliability. But the first bombs appeared in units only the day before the start of the Battle of San Carlos, and were greeted by the pilots with understandable distrust. So for the first few days of the fighting, the argi flew with the British “stitchers through and through.”

          The funny thing is that the much-maligned American Mk.82 “Snake” worked flawlessly. The shadow of Spanish bombs just fell on them.
          Why didn't the Args switch to them? So there were few American women - only the Skyhawks of the Argentine Navy had them.
      2. 0
        29 January 2024 10: 22
        Exocets and Superetandars are quite modern weapons, the defeat of Sheffield confirms this, and other ships suffered too. Admiral Belgrano was unaccompanied, it is true, but the British were able to take advantage of this. This outdated cruiser, if it arrived where it was needed, could greatly hinder its outdated artillery.

        The fleet provided communications for thousands of miles; it was a complex and risky operation. The Gurkha riflemen who took Goose Green had to be delivered, supported and covered, this was the job of the fleet.
        1. -2
          29 January 2024 10: 28
          Quote: S.Z.
          Exocets and Superetandars are quite modern weapons

          Only France refused to supply them to Argentina

          Quote: S.Z.
          it was necessary to deliver, provide and cover, it was the fleet

          If Argentina had good armed forces, dedicated to war, and not to fight students and those dissatisfied with the regime, then there would be no, as you say, “support and cover.” Preventing a war with a state located thousands of miles from the Falklands requires a lot of effort. wink
          1. -1
            29 January 2024 13: 05
            Quote: S.Z.
            Exocets and Superetandars are quite modern weapons

            Only France refused to supply them to Argentina

            What sank Sheffield and the container ship? France refused to supply during the conflict, and before that it managed to supply, in my opinion, 5 Exocets. By the way, Argentina had land-based Mirages, and the British were forced to use aircraft from an aircraft carrier (except for the Vulcan bomber), and these are still simpler aircraft.

            There was no “massacre of the infants”, there was a stubborn struggle, look at the ratio of losses - if you subtract those killed on Belgrano in particular. Sheffield alone is worth it.

            It is impossible to deny the better training of the British; their fleet performed well in difficult conditions.
          2. 0
            30 January 2024 12: 28
            If the Argentos were seriously preparing for war, then the chance would have been pretty good. But they hoped that they would land on the Falklands and the Britons would dry off, and that would be the end of it. In fact, they received an economic blockade from Europe and a cool attitude from the United States, which was expressed in the fact that England got almost everything it wanted from the mattress makers, and the Argentines got absolutely nothing.
        2. 0
          29 January 2024 11: 26
          The Admiral Belgrano was accompanied by Argentine Type 42 destroyers. The problem is that they didn’t even activate their sonar.
          1. 0
            29 January 2024 13: 07
            Quote: TermNachTER
            The Admiral Belgrano was accompanied by Argentine Type 42 destroyers. The problem is that they didn’t even activate their sonar.


            This is it - unaccompanied :)
            1. 0
              29 January 2024 14: 22
              Not really. If there is no escort, for what reasons is another question, that’s one thing. But if it is there and you didn’t even bother to turn on the GAS, that’s something completely different. Moreover, the Conqueror is not the newest boat. The commander surfaced under the periscope to identify the target and fired Mk torpedoes. 8, WWII era.
              1. -1
                29 January 2024 14: 58
                Quote: TermNachTER
                Not really. If there is no escort, for what reasons is another question, that’s one thing. But if it is there and you didn’t even bother to turn on the GAS, that’s something completely different. Moreover, the Conqueror is not the newest boat. The commander surfaced under the periscope to identify the target and fired Mk torpedoes. 8, WWII era.


                Well, we encountered WWII-era technologies, not counting the nuclear engine of the submarine, but the Asdics were not turned on. The British turned out to be great professionals - well, or less goofballs. It’s scary to imagine what would have happened if the nuclear submarine had been sunk.

                From whom were destroyers without sonars supposed to protect the old man? The question is rhetorical.
                1. -1
                  29 January 2024 19: 08
                  The Argetos type 42 are siblings of the British ones, with some variations, and the GAS on them were quite modern. Why they were not included is the question.
            2. 0
              30 January 2024 10: 35
              Quote: S.Z.
              This is it - unaccompanied :)

              Nope. This means that there was accompaniment - but it was formal. That is, the Argentine Navy's ship composition made it possible to form a full-fledged group... but the technical condition of the ships and the training of the crews made this group uncombatable.
              Parade fleet: signs please the eye of the authorities with the numbers of the presence of "pieces of iron", parades caress the eye with the formation of ships. And when it comes down to it, in the “South Atlantic military zone” officially declared by Argentina, the KRL and its escort walk in a straight line, in reduced combat readiness. At the same time, the group is forced to crawl at 12-14 knots with the sonar and radar turned off - because the main propulsion systems are worn out, the technical capabilities of the escort in terms of anti-aircraft defense do not allow detecting the submarine before reaching torpedo launch range, and one can only hope for secrecy.
              The Argentine ships had worn-out running gears that did not allow them to develop high speeds, outdated sonar systems (the actual range of the AN/SQS-30 sonar system installed on the destroyers did not exceed 25 cables) and anti-submarine weapons (old GB, Mk.44 torpedoes), and its only helicopter, the Alouette, did not carry any means of searching for submarines, so they were not able to sink a nuclear submarine with a maximum speed of 28 knots and a diving depth of up to 400 m, capable of hitting a target with Tigerfish guided torpedoes at distances of several nautical miles, but even disrupt her attack. In these conditions, the only thing left to do was rely on stealth movement, so the Argentinean ships moved quietly, with hydro- and radars turned off... and luck, which was not on their side.

              https://taskforce82.livejournal.com/748.html
              1. 0
                30 January 2024 12: 32
                I must admit, very weak hopes. The Argentos could not help but know that mattress satellite intelligence was working for the Britons. How did the Conqueror discover the Argentos? By the method of "scientific poking"?)))
                1. 0
                  30 January 2024 17: 53
                  Quote: TermNachTER
                  The Argentos could not help but know that mattress satellite intelligence was working for the Britons. How did the Conqueror discover the Argentos? By the method of "scientific poking"?)))

                  If the Yankee intelligence had worked for the Britons, then the blow would have fallen not on the distracting group "Belgrano", but on the shock group - AB "May 25".
                  The Args themselves gave up their location - in the traditional way: chatter on the air + broken codes. It seems that the fugitive Germans bit them. smile
                  In fact, the greatest amount of intelligence information the British, who had access to Argentine military codes, received from radio interception data. Since the Argentines carried on intense and detailed radio communications, it is not surprising that their opponent knew a lot about them. Thanks to this, when moving into the designated combat patrol area at the southwestern border of the 200-mile restricted zone, the commander of the Conqueror nuclear submarine, Commander Wreford-Brown, received fairly clear instructions on where to look for the enemy and in which area the Belgrano group (GT 79.3) had task to head. As he later recalled, the intelligence coming from the headquarters of the commander of the British submarine force in Northwood was quite impressive, it seemed that everyone there knew: the composition of the enemy naval group, planned movements, code names of its combat maneuvering areas.

                  Plus, the Args' longtime rivals, the Chileans, worked for the Britons.

                  By the way, what is highlighted in the quote shows that the satellites had little to do with the discovery of the Belgrano group - they cannot detect the code names of the areas and the planned movements. Unless they look through the window from orbit. smile
                  1. 0
                    30 January 2024 23: 00
                    The Britons love to tell a fairy tale about how they themselves defeated the Argentos. If anyone helped, it was in small ways))) in fact they helped a lot. I don’t know about radio interception and decryption; I seriously doubt that the Argentos are so stupid that they didn’t understand basic things. It’s not for nothing that many German specialists went to them after WWII. Even Woodward openly lies when he writes that the helicopters that landed the SAS men for sabotage at the Ushuaia airbase took off from a supply transport. They took off from the Chilean Air Base, from where, by the way, the British Canberras also flew. So, British sources should be treated with a fair amount of skepticism.
    2. 0
      29 January 2024 11: 49
      With the Falklands they walked the brink, 1-2 more ships sunk and that was it. The Argentines, still those cadres, got into a war with a naval power with only 5 (!!!!) anti-ship missiles in their arsenals, which were also produced by the enemy’s closest ally.
      1. 0
        29 January 2024 13: 10
        Quote: Not the fighter
        With the Falklands they walked the brink, 1-2 more ships sunk and that was it. The Argentines, still those cadres, got into a war with a naval power with only 5 (!!!!) anti-ship missiles in their arsenals, which were also produced by the enemy’s closest ally.


        I heard the story that it was Exocet's bloodline that played a cruel joke. Allegedly, the Exocet was perceived by the Sheffield equipment as its own missiles; the destroyer itself was a guided missile destroyer, in theory, trained to fight flying targets.
        1. 0
          29 January 2024 19: 11
          The OVC type 996 radar, which was installed on the Sheffields, worked very poorly against small, low-flying targets, and the SN type 909 did not see them at all. None of the Exocets were shot down by Sea Dart.
          1. 0
            30 January 2024 08: 34
            Quote: TermNachTER
            The OVC type 996 radar, which was installed on the Sheffields, worked very poorly against small, low-flying targets, and the SN type 909 did not see them at all. None of the Exocets were shot down by Sea Dart.


            As far as I remember, out of 5 exosets, 3 hit (Shefield, a container ship, I don’t remember, they hit it somewhere else) and 2 missed. Not a single one was shot down. But I read it a long time ago, I could be wrong.
            1. 0
              30 January 2024 08: 55
              You are not mistaken, the rest were decoyed as false targets. True, after such a withdrawal, the Exocet re-captured the target and hit the Atlantic Conveyor, which sank after a fire. And there was a lot of “tasty” stuff there; it was both an auxiliary aircraft carrier and a floating warehouse.
          2. 0
            30 January 2024 10: 42
            Quote: TermNachTER
            The OVC type 996 radar, which was installed on the Sheffields, worked very poorly against small, low-flying targets, and the SN type 909 did not see them at all. None of the Exocets were shot down by Sea Dart.

            Moreover, the Args knew about the problems of the Sea Dart, because two Type 42 EMs served in their fleet - one British-built, the second local.
            Based on tests of the tactical properties of Hercules-class destroyers, similar to the British Type 42, the Argentines came to the conclusion that its Type 909 gunnery radar was unable to reliably lock on a target flying below the 50-meter mark.

            https://taskforce82.livejournal.com/7162.html
  4. -3
    29 January 2024 10: 45
    I wonder where the author got the information for the article? There are 23 type 11 frigates on the list, 7 in service. UDC of the "Albion" type - both are in a state of disrepair and it looks like ffsss)))) The Vengard SSBN is hanging out off the east coast of the USA, apparently there are serious problems with the equipment, since the test launch of the Trident, after the overhaul, it still hasn't happened.
    1. +1
      29 January 2024 11: 12
      Who often wrote “let the roosters”, not the first time.
  5. +2
    29 January 2024 13: 45
    We would have such problems for the Russian Navy. Britain has not been building corvettes for 7 years, the aircraft carrier is quite modern, and there are carrier-based fighters of the 5th generation. The author in his own way. Over the hill, everything is bad and we will soon defeat everyone.
    1. +2
      29 January 2024 14: 22
      Britain has been building a frigate for 11 years and it’s not a fact that it will be completed)))
  6. 0
    30 January 2024 11: 16
    Let's forget about naglia. Brexit, Covid-19, sanctions against Russia and all this against the backdrop of two common big problems - decolonization and migrants. There are a ton of facts, just compare the terms in power of the former prime ministers and now Trass/Johnson/Sunak. They understand this, which is why they crap with redoubled force.