Actually, they just said here, clearly that £77 million additional will be invested in renewing and updating the shipyards around the UK so this should be happening. Plus work is currently going to doing this anyway.
@@elnesti1890 The money is still going to foreign nations. The good part of a robust military industrial complex within your country is that the money largely stays in your own economy thereby increasing your own people’s wealth. The French and Americans are particularly good at this.
The inability to see the bigger picture & cooperating with your partners, is exactly why UK stagnates. Instead of Free Market Principles with NATO allies & specialization in military procurement, making us all stronger, you babble about "our jobs" & isolationism. Until you realize that, you will waste your potential - since Brexit, you reap what you sow & it's clearly not working. When will you learn? ^^ With Love ❤, from your NATO ally Slovenia
labour MP saying its a disgrace to british jobs its disgusting. only 10% roughtly will be built in spain and As the guy said Navantia brings alot to the table and will no dout pass the knowledge on to the UK team which will benefit uk in the long run so 10% don't sound to bad now does. it. but was hoping we have them by 2028 not 2032
I'm sure that this will be a controversial statement, but we have to face the likelihood of Scottish independence and start preparing for a larger scale of ship manufacturing in the UK outside of Scotland. Scotland has had lots of investment and the lion's share of RN shipbuilding contracts over the last 20 years in an attempt at appeasement but can't have it both ways. And the same goes for nuclear submarine basing - that will probably mean moving it to the US east coast for at least 10 years whilst a new facility is built and commissioned.
@@adamatch9624 But you really don't want to place your strategic warship manufacturing in a foreign country. And didn't the SNP vote to get rid of the nuclear basing 'at pace' after independence?
Listen i heard that money its all going to UK industry & 🇬🇧 supply chain so were is Navantia, Naval Group or Fincantieri important its that all three of them are being made in the UK so good news for the UK armed forces and exactly Royal Navy if I heard(understood) well!..!
Is my memory right in remembering that the last Royal Navy support ship was only partly built in Northern Ireland, due to IRA/ Republican due to constant sabotage during construction, and had to be towed to a Scottish Ship yard to be completed ?
Exactly. I mean, that does indeed mean that it will take seven years to have all three of them done, but we’ve definitely got to hope that the first one will at least be completed within about two years. Honestly that feels quite reasonable, but they really should be working to build more than one at once, seven years is just ridiculous. By then a war could’ve come and gone. Within that time he single yard should be working towards completing seven ships, not three.
Yes. USS Gerald R Ford was laid down in 2009, floated out of her build dock in 2013 and commissioned in 2017. She's now on her maiden operational cruise. HMS Queen Elizabeth took 8 years from laying down to commissioning. New build warships, even naval supply ships, are complex as they not only have their core job of supply, which has to be fully tested and integrated, but they have to be able to take battle damage and fight to a limited extent. 7 years for a whole class is actually pretty quick. Complex only scratches the surface...!
@@danielwhyatt3278 its fairly fast if you look at the time to build any ship you would see that. These ships are ducking huge you can’t understand the size till your standing next to it. Then to think off all the inside work
@@ScienceChap it took only a few years to actully build it. That's not very long. 4 years for a new and ambitious super carrier is reasonable and it explains the long time till service but 7 years for support ships is unreasonable. These are carriers nor even close to as complex. So 7 years is unreasonable.
Finally the Navy getting some much needed love and not before time I still dont understand why we scrap so much hardware instead of repurposing Take the Type 23 frigates ..we need ships for cable and pipe protection so why not use these instead of scrapping them
they wont be cost affective at the job compared to specialist ships and with the age of the ships themselves being around 30 years old they would be too expensive to maintain compared to new ships
THE " Q.E. - I I , " " HER MAJESTY'S , " STRATEGIC EMERGENCY RESPONSE FLEET , AN EXTENSION AND AN EXPANSION OF " HER MAJESTY , " " BRITISH ROYAL NAVY . " TO BE REMEMBERED ALWAYS AND IN MEMORY OF , " HER MAJESTY , " " QUEEN ELIZABETH THE SECOND " " APRIL 21 , 1926 " - " SEPTEMBER 08 , 2022 " " 2023 " -- THANK YOU --
This is great, but can anyone explain why we need support ships for the carriers? Why can’t the carriers be built big enough to carry everything they need with them?
@@stephenh1322 I would doubt it as the support ships they are talking about in the video are not there only for the carrier but other ships that operate alongside the carrier. A carrier would not operate alone in certain parts of the world as it would be vulnerable to air and subsea attacks. The ships they talk about in the video are not operated by the navy. They are operated by the merchant navy which is made up of civilians.
@@stephenh1322 No there would still be the same amount of support ships for a nuclear carrier they need constant resupply of jet fuel and solid supplies like food, the escorts also need these supplies as well as fuel resupplies it's not really much more of a convenience not needing to Refuel the carrier as well as a result. The nuclear reactors real benefit is that its a glorified steam engine and has high electricity production so it can operate both steam and electronic catapults the carrier should never be in a situation where its operating without an escort fleet.
@@bigtony4829 but all three ships are going to be made in the UK just Navantia will be the head of tender to organize work and transfer if tech like for example the UK Babcock win the contract in Indonesia whith their PAL shipyard making the type 31 for them and transfer of thechnology.... for what I understood man... so good news still for the Royal navy !?!
Ben Wallace has impressed me with the decisions made regarding the equipping of UK Armed Forces and support for Ukraine. When you consider the deplorable actions of his Tory colleagues, he is a breath of fresh air.
Navantia has built carriers, destroyers, corbets, supply vessels for Australia, Turkey, Thailand, Norway, Saudi Arabia and many more countries. The F-100(F-110) is a world class ship and was almost selected for the US Navy.
I know, it was sarcasm, Navantia is amazing. Their products quality/price are some of the best of the world, in some cases the best.. @@techdefined9420
When it comes down to any statement issued by HMG "wait and see" seems to be the best policy. When they talk of dates reaching out over 10 years in the future, that's two parliaments in a politicians mind, they know they won't be around to answer questions. Since Johnson's announcements only a year ago we have gone from medical emergency to financial crisis. Plenty of room for revision there then.
All very well building these ships.....have not enough men to complement them.....more leaving than joining. I live near Plymouth and know of lots of people who have left due to poor management etc.
All shipbuilding should be moved to elsewhere in UK until Northern Ireland and Scotland if they want to stay part of the oldest Union in europe or become colonies of the EU is written down.
@@californiadreamin8423 UK shipbuilding uses all UK sourced steel except for some specialist steels. 50% of steel by value is going into T26 ships. Where a diesel engine is bought from Rolls Royce in Germany that steel is counted as an import.
35% of the steel used on the Type 26 is British steel. All hull steel for submarines is French, even the US buys French hull steel it is the best there is!
Wow still trying to be a first rate naval power with what budget? 1.6bn on support ships along with whatever we paid for 2 Carriers and the new frigates etc, but I thought we were in a recession?
We aren't trying to be a first rate naval power. We're aiming to be second rate, which we are. Naval budget is part of the 2% of GDP NATO guideline which is a perfectly reasonable amount.
It seems that sea drones costing $250,000 can stop Russia's fleet. You may want to allocate 40% of your budget to these. Currently Turkey and Ukraine lead in this technology but the supply chains are international. For the artificial intelligence components, UK, Canada, and France are important. For earth observation including dark ships, Canadian startups and established satellite companies often lead as apparent from Ukrainian destruction of Russian army and navy.
Russia's fleet is very much second rate, and only blue water in theory. Their ships are hiding in the port of Sevastopol in the Black Sea, which is essentially a large salt-water lake, and is regarded as littoral waters. Hitting a stationary ship in harbour is relatively straight forward. Hell the British did it in Taranto Harbour in 1940 with Swordfish torpedo bombers, a raid mimicked a year later by the Japanese at Pearl Harbour (sorry... Harbor!) £250000 drone boats are not much good when.your opponent's Navy is 300 miles out to sea, moving at 30 knots and guarded by high end surface combatants and air defence systems and well trained crews. The biggest lesson from Ukraine is.... don't learn the wrong lessons from the Ukraine war!
Those drones work because Russia's fleet is A) Held in port due to AShMs and B) Hilariously incompetant. They are extremely situational weapons. They are useless on the high seas or in expeditionary warfare. Also the US and UK and others have had those things for years already in other forms, what do you think they were based on?
@@ScienceChap I agree with you but it is also true that, at one point earlier this year, all 6 of the Royal Navy`s destroyers, were in port. The sad thing for me, as an ex-RN from the 1970s, is that we only have 6 destroyers!
The inability to see the bigger picture & cooperating with your partners, is exactly why UK stagnates. Instead of Free Market Principles with NATO allies & specialization in military procurement, making us all stronger. Instead, many in UK babble about "our jobs" & isolationism. Until you realize that, you will waste your potential - since Brexit, you reap what you sow & it's clearly not working. When will you Brits learn? ^^ With Love ❤, from your NATO ally Slovenia
I’d like to jump with joy but I can’t believe almost anything that a politician tells me these days. My gut feeling is that Ben Wallace is one of the better ones but he is politician first and a proponent for good defence second. Figures are given out and then you find out that they are part of something announced months before - effectively giving us the impression that’s spending is double what it actually is. Impartial defence experts will be in a better position than me to confirm or deny this, but I’m told that our servicemen are badly paid, badly equipped and less well trained (for example, being allowed to fire fewer rounds in training) than NATO counterparts. The Royal Marones have a nickname given by the USMC - the borrowers. Not a soubriquet that we could be proud of.
You are seriously Joking here. Servicemen and women aren't "Badly paid" at all. They admittedly don't get the X factor payments other NATO troops do, but they make more on allowances when in action, thus it factors up their individual pay significantly. For example when I was in the RN my take home pay was higher than a technical teacher (Maths and science), and if we worked it out correctly my pay could double while at sea, depending upon where we landed first, and exactly how long we were at sea between dockings. There are plenty of ways of enhancing the pay scale you get so that you end up with almost double your takehome pay if you just get some qualifications. As for the Borrowers, this is because the USA has a stupid budget for defence, and they don't care what they give to British forces (or French forces) who are in action with them. If you can get kit from an ally that is better than ours in certain conditions (Italain Mediteranean kits were better than British ones when I was in service, so I used to buy them, or aquire them if allowed by superior commanders), then surely even someone like you can see the benefits to the exchanges.
@@thetruthhurts7675 my family has served in the Royal Marines since 1880. That includes Boxer Rebellion, WW1, WW2 (47 on DDay) and now a son serving. Now I finally understand their view of so many in the RN.
@@theofarmmanager267 Lol. As if you have any moral high ground by that statement. My Father was in the army his father a miner, his father retired as a Major, and on, and on, and on.... Strangely back to the Time of William the first. One of my ancestors was given a part of the Welsh border region to guard. Does that give me a moral advantage here? Your answer is NO by the way. I also had family on both sides on DDay, My mother was born in Cologne before the war, her father met a certain person, and with his family, and one Brother moved here pretty toot sweet! Your attitude seems to be "OH MY I didn't get promoted in the RM thus it sucks" by the way.
10yrs before all 3 are in service?? We need them now plus enough aircraft for the carriers as well as enough escorts, only half the number planned have been built and 43 F-35 so far out of the 150 odd planned. When are we going to have a Conservative government that takes defence seriously?
@@timmurphy5541 Not at the expense of defence needs, look how long it took to build the two carriers. We have to look at what our enemies are doing, China for example is planning four carriers and I believe they already build more ships than the entire RN every year!
No. The QE class carriers were ordered in 2008 by Brown's government, based on a strategic defence review in 1997 by the Blair administration. Cameron took over in 2010, retaining the programme but tinkering with it, which added 3 (ish) years to the build. However the ships have been completed and both are in service now. Governments may be short term inept, but there is a long established principle of completing huge capital investment projects such as these. QE programme survived 4 Prime Ministers...
I would assume one per carrier strike force and then a spare one that can act as cover or carry out duties elsewhere without depriving a carrier group of dedicated support.
Because we have 2 carriers and only one ship capable of resupplying of them at the moment. So if we ever needed to deploy a carrier in anger it would be logistically impossible to keep it supplied. Which makes having carriers pretty pointless. We need multiple supply ships per carrier group and spares for when the supply ships have problems.
Needing tech transfer from Spain of all places? Oh how the mighty have fallen. Also lmao germany? My brother in christ at one point not too long ago they did not even have a single submarine operational because the dispatch and reliability rate (of the fuel cell aip) was so atrocious. And also their training and maintenance so bad the SM-2 launched from one of their frigates exploded in the VLS. Russian level hilarity
What happened to the design of those 2 pieces of 💩 you call aircraft carriers?, or to the design of the Challenger 2?, Britain should keep its mouth shut about failures in design. As for these vessels watch and learn how Spain builds them, then I will talk you council state dweller.
Why are the Royal navy not protecting our shores from invasions daily, one day there could be an army of terrorists coming to sack folklore or Dover like what happened in Mumbai
Good man Ben. The uk always needed a strong navy
The only popular Tory is Ben Wallace, and for good reason.
Yeah Ben seems to know what he’s doing - navy is going to be all important in the coming years
The UK once had a strong Navy in the past.
He’s the only one I’ll miss, when the conservatives loose the next general election.
Hasn't he resigned yet? I thought he said the 3% defence budget was a resigning issue?
So much history of shipbuilding in Ireland & England. Would have been cool to see those old yards invested in more.
Investment has been going into the refurbishment of Belfast and Appledore since they were bought out by InfraStrata plc some time ago.
Actually, they just said here, clearly that £77 million additional will be invested in renewing and updating the shipyards around the UK so this should be happening. Plus work is currently going to doing this anyway.
Except it is going to Northern Ireland. That's where Harland and Wolf are.
@@Retrosicotte H & W also own Appledore and other GB based shipyards.
oi dont forget us welsh.lining certain ships hulls with copper etc.
Ben Wallace should be PM.
Mr Wallace is doing an outstanding job, despite the clowns in the rest of the Cabinet. Respect to you, Mr. Wallace.
Any money that goes towards building our armed forces is a good thing so a thumbs up for me
Sounds like an investment in UK shipbuilding is needed to have them up to speed and keep pounds in the UK instead.
Why, they are not all three of them being made in the UK I understood like transfer of technology by Navantia in that shipyard in Devon or not???
@@elnesti1890 The money is still going to foreign nations. The good part of a robust military industrial complex within your country is that the money largely stays in your own economy thereby increasing your own people’s wealth. The French and Americans are particularly good at this.
The inability to see the bigger picture & cooperating with your partners, is exactly why UK stagnates.
Instead of Free Market Principles with NATO allies & specialization in military procurement, making us all stronger, you babble about "our jobs" & isolationism.
Until you realize that, you will waste your potential - since Brexit, you reap what you sow & it's clearly not working.
When will you learn? ^^
With Love ❤, from your NATO ally Slovenia
labour MP saying its a disgrace to british jobs its disgusting. only 10% roughtly will be built in spain and As the guy said Navantia brings alot to the table and will no dout pass the knowledge on to the UK team which will benefit uk in the long run so 10% don't sound to bad now does. it. but was hoping we have them by 2028 not 2032
Cammell Laird is the UK's best shipbuilder.
I'm sure that this will be a controversial statement, but we have to face the likelihood of Scottish independence and start preparing for a larger scale of ship manufacturing in the UK outside of Scotland. Scotland has had lots of investment and the lion's share of RN shipbuilding contracts over the last 20 years in an attempt at appeasement but can't have it both ways. And the same goes for nuclear submarine basing - that will probably mean moving it to the US east coast for at least 10 years whilst a new facility is built and commissioned.
Independence’s e dosnet mean we still won’t work together as we almost certainly will
@@adamatch9624 But you really don't want to place your strategic warship manufacturing in a foreign country. And didn't the SNP vote to get rid of the nuclear basing 'at pace' after independence?
@@adamatch9624 you're not getting it and it also means the british government isn't gonna be investing in your shipbuilding industry.
Thank You so much
The fact is that South Korea, Germany, Dutch etc just build Better, Faster, Efficient ships !!!
Listen i heard that money its all going to UK industry & 🇬🇧 supply chain so were is Navantia, Naval Group or Fincantieri important its that all three of them are being made in the UK so good news for the UK armed forces and exactly Royal Navy if I heard(understood) well!..!
Is my memory right in remembering that the last Royal Navy support ship was only partly built in Northern Ireland, due to IRA/ Republican due to constant sabotage during construction, and had to be towed to a Scottish Ship yard to be completed ?
Ben Wallace would be a great PM🇬🇧👍
1:30 Nice little dig at BAE Systems!
Why are we having an RFA built in Spain?
Because Navantia is Top and they will transfer tech to UK
These three ships have been planned for about 20 years but not ordered until now.
Respect
portholes would be nice
Is that Normal for it to take so long to build three ships and put them in active service 7 tears?
Exactly. I mean, that does indeed mean that it will take seven years to have all three of them done, but we’ve definitely got to hope that the first one will at least be completed within about two years. Honestly that feels quite reasonable, but they really should be working to build more than one at once, seven years is just ridiculous. By then a war could’ve come and gone. Within that time he single yard should be working towards completing seven ships, not three.
Yes.
USS Gerald R Ford was laid down in 2009, floated out of her build dock in 2013 and commissioned in 2017. She's now on her maiden operational cruise.
HMS Queen Elizabeth took 8 years from laying down to commissioning.
New build warships, even naval supply ships, are complex as they not only have their core job of supply, which has to be fully tested and integrated, but they have to be able to take battle damage and fight to a limited extent. 7 years for a whole class is actually pretty quick.
Complex only scratches the surface...!
@@danielwhyatt3278 its fairly fast if you look at the time to build any ship you would see that. These ships are ducking huge you can’t understand the size till your standing next to it. Then to think off all the inside work
Liberty ships built in 30 days
@@ScienceChap it took only a few years to actully build it. That's not very long. 4 years for a new and ambitious super carrier is reasonable and it explains the long time till service but 7 years for support ships is unreasonable. These are carriers nor even close to as complex. So 7 years is unreasonable.
Finally the Navy getting some much needed love and not before time
I still dont understand why we scrap so much hardware instead of repurposing
Take the Type 23 frigates ..we need ships for cable and pipe protection so why not use these instead of scrapping them
they wont be cost affective at the job compared to specialist ships and with the age of the ships themselves being around 30 years old they would be too expensive to maintain compared to new ships
Didn't Harland & Wolff build Titanic in Belfast...
Yes.
‘It was alright when it left here.’
Isn`t that a bit like seeing a car smashed up in an accident and saying `Didn`t Mercedes build that car? `
No they built it in Glasgow
THE " Q.E. - I I , " " HER MAJESTY'S , " STRATEGIC EMERGENCY RESPONSE FLEET , AN EXTENSION AND AN EXPANSION OF " HER MAJESTY , " " BRITISH ROYAL NAVY . " TO BE REMEMBERED ALWAYS AND IN MEMORY OF ,
" HER MAJESTY , " " QUEEN ELIZABETH THE SECOND "
" APRIL 21 , 1926 " - " SEPTEMBER 08 , 2022 " " 2023 "
-- THANK YOU --
This is great, but can anyone explain why we need support ships for the carriers? Why can’t the carriers be built big enough to carry everything they need with them?
It would not be viable to make the carrier that big. Support ships carry all the fuel and ammo and food.
@@Biginjapan85 thanks. That’s really helpful. Would there be less support ships for nuclear powered carriers?
@@stephenh1322 I would doubt it as the support ships they are talking about in the video are not there only for the carrier but other ships that operate alongside the carrier. A carrier would not operate alone in certain parts of the world as it would be vulnerable to air and subsea attacks. The ships they talk about in the video are not operated by the navy. They are operated by the merchant navy which is made up of civilians.
@@stephenh1322
No there would still be the same amount of support ships for a nuclear carrier they need constant resupply of jet fuel and solid supplies like food, the escorts also need these supplies as well as fuel resupplies it's not really much more of a convenience not needing to Refuel the carrier as well as a result.
The nuclear reactors real benefit is that its a glorified steam engine and has high electricity production so it can operate both steam and electronic catapults the carrier should never be in a situation where its operating without an escort fleet.
It’s great but why involve the spainish. Should be a thoroughbred British built ships.
They already answered that the Uk is notorious for delays and over spends
They're hoping to learn and improve for future endeavours
@@bigtony4829 but all three ships are going to be made in the UK just Navantia will be the head of tender to organize work and transfer if tech like for example the UK Babcock win the contract in Indonesia whith their PAL shipyard making the type 31 for them and transfer of thechnology.... for what I understood man... so good news still for the Royal navy !?!
Someone has to show you what a shipyard 4.0 is.
@@elnesti1890 some modules will be build in Spain,.
What's a secyatery?
Ben Wallace has impressed me with the decisions made regarding the equipping of UK Armed Forces and support for Ukraine. When you consider the deplorable actions of his Tory colleagues, he is a breath of fresh air.
Wow suport ship has radar aesa?? Very nice
NAvantia Spanish Shipyard building vessels for the Royal Navy???
@picatostesbjd8382 LA pregunta va con retranca
Navantia has built carriers, destroyers, corbets, supply vessels for Australia, Turkey, Thailand, Norway, Saudi Arabia and many more countries. The F-100(F-110) is a world class ship and was almost selected for the US Navy.
I know, it was sarcasm, Navantia is amazing. Their products quality/price are some of the best of the world, in some cases the best.. @@techdefined9420
I dont mind my money being spent on our navy well done ben.
2032, blimey ten years to build three ships, cracking job......!
When it comes down to any statement issued by HMG "wait and see" seems to be the best policy. When they talk of dates reaching out over 10 years in the future, that's two parliaments in a politicians mind, they know they won't be around to answer questions. Since Johnson's announcements only a year ago we have gone from medical emergency to financial crisis. Plenty of room for revision there then.
All very well building these ships.....have not enough men to complement them.....more leaving than joining. I live near Plymouth and know of lots of people who have left due to poor management etc.
All shipbuilding should be moved to elsewhere in UK until Northern Ireland and Scotland if they want to stay part of the oldest Union in europe or become colonies of the EU is written down.
Ten years to buifd three ships? They're really milking the contract
Where is the steel coming from ?
We mostly import from Germany, Belgium and Spain
@@skmo7072 ….and Sweden. Anyway your post doesn’t surprise me. I’ll ask another question…..why don’t we use steel manufactured in the U.K. ?
@@californiadreamin8423 UK shipbuilding uses all UK sourced steel except for some specialist steels. 50% of steel by value is going into T26 ships. Where a diesel engine is bought from Rolls Royce in Germany that steel is counted as an import.
35% of the steel used on the Type 26 is British steel. All hull steel for submarines is French, even the US buys French hull steel it is the best there is!
@@1chish Are you saying that we cannot manufacture the specialist steel ?
Wow still trying to be a first rate naval power with what budget? 1.6bn on support ships along with whatever we paid for 2 Carriers and the new frigates etc, but I thought we were in a recession?
We aren't trying to be a first rate naval power. We're aiming to be second rate, which we are. Naval budget is part of the 2% of GDP NATO guideline which is a perfectly reasonable amount.
Increase government spending in the UK!
It seems that sea drones costing $250,000 can stop Russia's fleet. You may want to allocate 40% of your budget to these. Currently Turkey and Ukraine lead in this technology but the supply chains are international. For the artificial intelligence components, UK, Canada, and France are important. For earth observation including dark ships, Canadian startups and established satellite companies often lead as apparent from Ukrainian destruction of Russian army and navy.
Russia's fleet is very much second rate, and only blue water in theory. Their ships are hiding in the port of Sevastopol in the Black Sea, which is essentially a large salt-water lake, and is regarded as littoral waters.
Hitting a stationary ship in harbour is relatively straight forward. Hell the British did it in Taranto Harbour in 1940 with Swordfish torpedo bombers, a raid mimicked a year later by the Japanese at Pearl Harbour (sorry... Harbor!)
£250000 drone boats are not much good when.your opponent's Navy is 300 miles out to sea, moving at 30 knots and guarded by high end surface combatants and air defence systems and well trained crews.
The biggest lesson from Ukraine is.... don't learn the wrong lessons from the Ukraine war!
Those drones work because Russia's fleet is A) Held in port due to AShMs and B) Hilariously incompetant. They are extremely situational weapons.
They are useless on the high seas or in expeditionary warfare.
Also the US and UK and others have had those things for years already in other forms, what do you think they were based on?
I find it funny how you try tell the military what to buy and what not to buy
@@ScienceChap I agree with you but it is also true that, at one point earlier this year, all 6 of the Royal Navy`s destroyers, were in port. The sad thing for me, as an ex-RN from the 1970s, is that we only have 6 destroyers!
It's is taking companies over a year to repair a pot hole.
Im happy but more money into the military not the people?
The inability to see the bigger picture & cooperating with your partners, is exactly why UK stagnates.
Instead of Free Market Principles with NATO allies & specialization in military procurement, making us all stronger. Instead, many in UK babble about "our jobs" & isolationism.
Until you realize that, you will waste your potential - since Brexit, you reap what you sow & it's clearly not working.
When will you Brits learn? ^^
With Love ❤, from your NATO ally Slovenia
More then 500 million per ship what a waste of tax dollars.
I’d like to jump with joy but I can’t believe almost anything that a politician tells me these days. My gut feeling is that Ben Wallace is one of the better ones but he is politician first and a proponent for good defence second. Figures are given out and then you find out that they are part of something announced months before - effectively giving us the impression that’s spending is double what it actually is.
Impartial defence experts will be in a better position than me to confirm or deny this, but I’m told that our servicemen are badly paid, badly equipped and less well trained (for example, being allowed to fire fewer rounds in training) than NATO counterparts. The Royal Marones have a nickname given by the USMC - the borrowers. Not a soubriquet that we could be proud of.
You are seriously Joking here. Servicemen and women aren't "Badly paid" at all. They admittedly don't get the X factor payments other NATO troops do, but they make more on allowances when in action, thus it factors up their individual pay significantly. For example when I was in the RN my take home pay was higher than a technical teacher (Maths and science), and if we worked it out correctly my pay could double while at sea, depending upon where we landed first, and exactly how long we were at sea between dockings. There are plenty of ways of enhancing the pay scale you get so that you end up with almost double your takehome pay if you just get some qualifications.
As for the Borrowers, this is because the USA has a stupid budget for defence, and they don't care what they give to British forces (or French forces) who are in action with them. If you can get kit from an ally that is better than ours in certain conditions (Italain Mediteranean kits were better than British ones when I was in service, so I used to buy them, or aquire them if allowed by superior commanders), then surely even someone like you can see the benefits to the exchanges.
@@thetruthhurts7675 my family has served in the Royal Marines since 1880. That includes Boxer Rebellion, WW1, WW2 (47 on DDay) and now a son serving. Now I finally understand their view of so many in the RN.
@@theofarmmanager267 Lol. As if you have any moral high ground by that statement. My Father was in the army his father a miner, his father retired as a Major, and on, and on, and on.... Strangely back to the Time of William the first. One of my ancestors was given a part of the Welsh border region to guard. Does that give me a moral advantage here? Your answer is NO by the way. I also had family on both sides on DDay, My mother was born in Cologne before the war, her father met a certain person, and with his family, and one Brother moved here pretty toot sweet! Your attitude seems to be "OH MY I didn't get promoted in the RM thus it sucks" by the way.
10yrs before all 3 are in service?? We need them now plus enough aircraft for the carriers as well as enough escorts, only half the number planned have been built and 43 F-35 so far out of the 150 odd planned. When are we going to have a Conservative government that takes defence seriously?
I think it's better to have the shipyards working a bit at a time for a long time to keep skills than to have a feast of work followed by a famine.
@@timmurphy5541 Not at the expense of defence needs, look how long it took to build the two carriers. We have to look at what our enemies are doing, China for example is planning four carriers and I believe they already build more ships than the entire RN every year!
@@johnallen7807 China and America are not comparable to anyone. The investment is beyond the pale by contrast.
@@Retrosicotte Well, we ain't going to fight the US and I don't want to be run by the Chinese military dictatorship so..............
Spend money on it now, it'll be scrapped in the future and never finished. Keep up the good work.
No. The QE class carriers were ordered in 2008 by Brown's government, based on a strategic defence review in 1997 by the Blair administration. Cameron took over in 2010, retaining the programme but tinkering with it, which added 3 (ish) years to the build. However the ships have been completed and both are in service now.
Governments may be short term inept, but there is a long established principle of completing huge capital investment projects such as these. QE programme survived 4 Prime Ministers...
British should only rebuild the ship not get other countries do it
Devon? Will they be used to ferry more criminals?
Why three
I would assume one per carrier strike force and then a spare one that can act as cover or carry out duties elsewhere without depriving a carrier group of dedicated support.
Because we have 2 carriers and only one ship capable of resupplying of them at the moment.
So if we ever needed to deploy a carrier in anger it would be logistically impossible to keep it supplied.
Which makes having carriers pretty pointless.
We need multiple supply ships per carrier group and spares for when the supply ships have problems.
I didn’t know they still had a navy
4th largest in the world, thanks.
Ben Wallace is the only good to come out of the current crop of Tories
I can see him being the next Conservative leader of the opposition when they inevitably lose the next election. At least as a caretaker
Tories don't mind...corporate socialism.
Ummm construction IN Spain, finished off in UK. FREMS anyone
The UK only bid was a joke this was the best ship being offered.
UK manufactures are always willing to rip off the UK tax payer
And a reminder to Nicola Sturgeon that ships can be built elsewhere
100% Spanish technology and Know-How!
Well done English! 🥰
@Kermit Idiothunter Yes, dig a bit depper and you could see Navantia (Spain) is behind and real mastermind.
Yes lets build 3 brand new ships for 1.6 billion when our own capital is eating itself
Needing tech transfer from Spain of all places? Oh how the mighty have fallen.
Also lmao germany? My brother in christ at one point not too long ago they did not even have a single submarine operational because the dispatch and reliability rate (of the fuel cell aip) was so atrocious. And also their training and maintenance so bad the SM-2 launched from one of their frigates exploded in the VLS. Russian level hilarity
What happened to the design of those 2 pieces of 💩 you call aircraft carriers?, or to the design of the Challenger 2?, Britain should keep its mouth shut about failures in design.
As for these vessels watch and learn how Spain builds them, then I will talk you council state dweller.
@@theantknowsbest367Don't see any aircraft carriers in Spain soooo
They will be OVER BUDGET AND BELOW STANDARD> Send the contract to the Korean shipyard. Built on time and on Budget.
Utter nonsense. All parties have plenty if experience.
Why are the Royal navy not protecting our shores from invasions daily, one day there could be an army of terrorists coming to sack folklore or Dover like what happened in Mumbai
ridiculous waste of money. we all know the delivery time will double and costs will triple.
Building our navy is vital. Wtf do you know?
In a world where russia, China and North Korea are constantly twitching with a finger on the trigger, nothing is a waste of money, clown
That is why NAvantia is involved, thery will arrive on time and within planned costs
🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧