With nuclear there seems to be a pattern in UK , Barrow, Sellafield and Hinkley C all have massive on ongoing delays.
Not sure if the usual reasons given are true.
The contractors have zero motivation to complete the contracts and due to the complexity easy to find excuses (Hinkley was threatening to down tools because of a rat infestation...good excuse for having to redo wiring if any of the wiring looms got nobbled ...typo I meant nibbled)
Managers dont seem up to the job and Unions unfortunately do seem up to the job (fair play to them)
I recall Dominic Cumming hinting that there are big underlying issues with the nuclear side...the weapons too no doubt.
For me, the responsibility ultimately lies with the politicians who allowed this to happen. The armed forces don't get a free pass to choose their budgets. The Conservatives are the worst because they passed themselves off as putting the nation's interests first (Yes, I am biased). Labour is trying to pick up the pieces but seem scared of their own shadow. Our forces defend our freedom and the cost is high. Time to bite the bullet.
I totally get your frustration. I despised the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review too, with sheer intensity. It gutted core capabilities and left long-term scars. But if we’re being fair, it’s a bit rich to pin the blame solely on the Tories.
Let’s not forget that from 1997 to 2010, Labour also consistently underfunded the armed forces, even while committing us to two major wars. That, in many ways, was worse. Iraq and Afghanistan placed enormous strain on personnel and equipment, while political dithering and denial led to troops being sent in under-prepared. The Army’s reputation took serious hits, especially after Basra. In Basra, Army was put in an impossible position and took much of the blame for what was ultimately a failure of political leadership in Whitehall.
And here's the kicker: had Labour properly funded the armed forces and not overstretched them during their time in government, the scale and severity of the 2010 SDR might not have been necessary. As it stood, the review was brutal, but arguably unavoidable given the dire state of defence finances, years of neglect, and the wider economic crisis. Let's also not pretend that in 2010–2011 the country was swimming in cash.
No party has clean hands here. The forces deserve better, not just in funding but in clear strategic direction. We ask a lot of them. We owe them more than short-term fixes and political buck-passing.
Crewing is the main issue. How to recruit people: Pay them more. We need to attract talent and use a commercial approach to solve the issue. Something needs to drastically change. This cannot be allowed to continue.
Recruitment is only one part of the equation. Outsourcing of recruitment has slowed things down (not good) but the issue for years has been retention (not being able to keep people). That’s not just pay; it’s a shrinking fleet and barely changed commitments, ergo people are stretched too thinly (and the money doesn’t compensate). Boosts in recruitment or increases in retention need to be combined as net outflow: the closer to zero of that number the better. In the interim it would need to be negative in order to get back up to strength.
Playing the blame game is ultimately unhelpful, and I understand that. It is a pity there is no cross-party unity to be found regarding defence. Short-termist politicians really need to adapt to the long-term threats our country faces.
I agree , playing the blame game can only go so far, and ultimately what matters is fixing the problem, not just pointing fingers. But understanding how we got here does matter, if only to avoid making the same mistakes again.
You're absolutely right about the lack of cross-party unity on defence. It's one of the few areas where long-term strategic thinking should transcend party lines but instead, we get short-term political calculations, budget raids, and constant resets. Meanwhile, the threats we face aren't going away. If anything, they’re evolving faster than our ability to respond.
Until defence is treated as a national priority rather than a political football, we’ll keep swinging between overreach and retreat with the armed forces paying the price every time.
But people are people and politics is politics. I doubt much will change, at least in the short term.
Yeah the army is even worse. 15,000 infantry, maybe 20 operational tanks, no mobile artillery, but 112 generals. Even the ‘Head Chaplain’ is a general. You couldn’t make it up really.
Surely this article simply underscores that preempting scarce resources to build and commission two massive aircraft carriers (white elephants?) with their needed supporting infrastucture/cast and their associated opportunity costs was a gigantic mistake, not really picked up on in wider discussion.
What is the point of their apparent Far East deployment?
How does it serve UK strategic defence interests to project UK hard power (illusory) in the South China Seas when the priority is to ensure home security through European security?
I think that argument oversimplifies a pretty complex strategic decision. The carriers were far from a perfect project. Yes, they were expensive, and yes, there were opportunity costs, but calling them “white elephants” ignores their actual utility.
Carrier strike gives the UK flexibility, reach, and political weight it simply wouldn’t otherwise have. That’s not illusory; it's a recognised form of strategic deterrence.
As for the Indo-Pacific tilt, it’s not about pretending to be a global superpower.
It’s about showing up for alliance-based security in a region that matters to global trade and stability.
The South China Sea isn’t just someone else’s problem; it’s tied to the same global system we rely on. Showing up alongside allies like the US, Australia, and Japan isn’t posturing — it’s solidarity.
You’re right that European security should be the top priority, especially now, but that doesn’t mean global reach is irrelevant.
And let’s not forget: European security doesn’t just mean boots on the ground. It means maritime security too.
A carrier floats just as well in the North Atlantic as it does in the South China Sea. Its presence in NATO waters can be just as strategically significant.
The real issue isn’t that the UK has carriers. It’s whether we have the sustained investment to support and deploy them meaningfully.
What does anyone expect with Corporal Francois and his ilk in charge of UK defence 'thinking'? He's about as useful as a military expert on Antiques Road Show or a battlefield re-enactor at Chalke Valley.
Where are the raw materials and energy resources to maintain any kind of heavy scale ships? Not in U.K. peak coal coincided with world ware one. Imported oil kept mechanised war going, and a bit of North Sea maintained momentum for a while, but peaked long ago and in terminal decline now. So when we find out what we’re going to build and fuel this kit with we can talk about anything more than a few oil burners haemorrhaging remaining resources while pirates of the world wait to sink them with 10K missiles and drone swarms , against which there’s no real defense, and won’t be. Same on land and the air. Why spent billions in manned aircraft (hangar queens like F35b) when unmanned jets are loads cheaper, lighter faster and deadlier, see the recent India pak spat. Same with heavy metal in the field, legacy kit, vulnerable (see Nagorno-Karabakh )…. And infantry lol…go to those places which supply 6’ 120 pound grunts. Junkies and barbering scams , benefits and fatties with motability claims.
With nuclear there seems to be a pattern in UK , Barrow, Sellafield and Hinkley C all have massive on ongoing delays.
Not sure if the usual reasons given are true.
The contractors have zero motivation to complete the contracts and due to the complexity easy to find excuses (Hinkley was threatening to down tools because of a rat infestation...good excuse for having to redo wiring if any of the wiring looms got nobbled ...typo I meant nibbled)
Managers dont seem up to the job and Unions unfortunately do seem up to the job (fair play to them)
I recall Dominic Cumming hinting that there are big underlying issues with the nuclear side...the weapons too no doubt.
Well done Britsky too
For me, the responsibility ultimately lies with the politicians who allowed this to happen. The armed forces don't get a free pass to choose their budgets. The Conservatives are the worst because they passed themselves off as putting the nation's interests first (Yes, I am biased). Labour is trying to pick up the pieces but seem scared of their own shadow. Our forces defend our freedom and the cost is high. Time to bite the bullet.
I totally get your frustration. I despised the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review too, with sheer intensity. It gutted core capabilities and left long-term scars. But if we’re being fair, it’s a bit rich to pin the blame solely on the Tories.
Let’s not forget that from 1997 to 2010, Labour also consistently underfunded the armed forces, even while committing us to two major wars. That, in many ways, was worse. Iraq and Afghanistan placed enormous strain on personnel and equipment, while political dithering and denial led to troops being sent in under-prepared. The Army’s reputation took serious hits, especially after Basra. In Basra, Army was put in an impossible position and took much of the blame for what was ultimately a failure of political leadership in Whitehall.
And here's the kicker: had Labour properly funded the armed forces and not overstretched them during their time in government, the scale and severity of the 2010 SDR might not have been necessary. As it stood, the review was brutal, but arguably unavoidable given the dire state of defence finances, years of neglect, and the wider economic crisis. Let's also not pretend that in 2010–2011 the country was swimming in cash.
No party has clean hands here. The forces deserve better, not just in funding but in clear strategic direction. We ask a lot of them. We owe them more than short-term fixes and political buck-passing.
Crewing is the main issue. How to recruit people: Pay them more. We need to attract talent and use a commercial approach to solve the issue. Something needs to drastically change. This cannot be allowed to continue.
Recruitment is only one part of the equation. Outsourcing of recruitment has slowed things down (not good) but the issue for years has been retention (not being able to keep people). That’s not just pay; it’s a shrinking fleet and barely changed commitments, ergo people are stretched too thinly (and the money doesn’t compensate). Boosts in recruitment or increases in retention need to be combined as net outflow: the closer to zero of that number the better. In the interim it would need to be negative in order to get back up to strength.
Playing the blame game is ultimately unhelpful, and I understand that. It is a pity there is no cross-party unity to be found regarding defence. Short-termist politicians really need to adapt to the long-term threats our country faces.
I agree , playing the blame game can only go so far, and ultimately what matters is fixing the problem, not just pointing fingers. But understanding how we got here does matter, if only to avoid making the same mistakes again.
You're absolutely right about the lack of cross-party unity on defence. It's one of the few areas where long-term strategic thinking should transcend party lines but instead, we get short-term political calculations, budget raids, and constant resets. Meanwhile, the threats we face aren't going away. If anything, they’re evolving faster than our ability to respond.
Until defence is treated as a national priority rather than a political football, we’ll keep swinging between overreach and retreat with the armed forces paying the price every time.
But people are people and politics is politics. I doubt much will change, at least in the short term.
In the Royal Navy there exists the rank of Commodore, while in the United States Navy the equivalent rank is Rear Admiral (lower half).
If the Royal Navy used USN ranks, it would have more than 100 admirals to command its much diminished fleet. This seems a tad on the top heavy side.
Yeah the army is even worse. 15,000 infantry, maybe 20 operational tanks, no mobile artillery, but 112 generals. Even the ‘Head Chaplain’ is a general. You couldn’t make it up really.
Surely this article simply underscores that preempting scarce resources to build and commission two massive aircraft carriers (white elephants?) with their needed supporting infrastucture/cast and their associated opportunity costs was a gigantic mistake, not really picked up on in wider discussion.
What is the point of their apparent Far East deployment?
How does it serve UK strategic defence interests to project UK hard power (illusory) in the South China Seas when the priority is to ensure home security through European security?
I think that argument oversimplifies a pretty complex strategic decision. The carriers were far from a perfect project. Yes, they were expensive, and yes, there were opportunity costs, but calling them “white elephants” ignores their actual utility.
Carrier strike gives the UK flexibility, reach, and political weight it simply wouldn’t otherwise have. That’s not illusory; it's a recognised form of strategic deterrence.
As for the Indo-Pacific tilt, it’s not about pretending to be a global superpower.
It’s about showing up for alliance-based security in a region that matters to global trade and stability.
The South China Sea isn’t just someone else’s problem; it’s tied to the same global system we rely on. Showing up alongside allies like the US, Australia, and Japan isn’t posturing — it’s solidarity.
You’re right that European security should be the top priority, especially now, but that doesn’t mean global reach is irrelevant.
And let’s not forget: European security doesn’t just mean boots on the ground. It means maritime security too.
A carrier floats just as well in the North Atlantic as it does in the South China Sea. Its presence in NATO waters can be just as strategically significant.
The real issue isn’t that the UK has carriers. It’s whether we have the sustained investment to support and deploy them meaningfully.
That’s where the real debate should be.
What does anyone expect with Corporal Francois and his ilk in charge of UK defence 'thinking'? He's about as useful as a military expert on Antiques Road Show or a battlefield re-enactor at Chalke Valley.
Political aimlessness.
The security of the continent and the seas and airspace that serve it is our existential priority.
Look at what has been attacked by our mortal enemies via active measures and helping along corruption.
Look how we have aquiesced...
The existence of the EU is worth oh.. about 20 divisions, 20 squadrons and 20 ships.
There is concrete, fact based, geostrategic reasoning behind NATO... behind the EU.
But we are being betrayed by politicians in thrall to anti democratic billionaires... Farage, Johnson, Truss... failures and knaves.
That peace dividend was all spaffed away on welfare.
Where are the raw materials and energy resources to maintain any kind of heavy scale ships? Not in U.K. peak coal coincided with world ware one. Imported oil kept mechanised war going, and a bit of North Sea maintained momentum for a while, but peaked long ago and in terminal decline now. So when we find out what we’re going to build and fuel this kit with we can talk about anything more than a few oil burners haemorrhaging remaining resources while pirates of the world wait to sink them with 10K missiles and drone swarms , against which there’s no real defense, and won’t be. Same on land and the air. Why spent billions in manned aircraft (hangar queens like F35b) when unmanned jets are loads cheaper, lighter faster and deadlier, see the recent India pak spat. Same with heavy metal in the field, legacy kit, vulnerable (see Nagorno-Karabakh )…. And infantry lol…go to those places which supply 6’ 120 pound grunts. Junkies and barbering scams , benefits and fatties with motability claims.
We’re kinda cooked . But yeah, Tories,