The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[ASSAIL]

I note a comment in Boris’ manifesto that he wishes to expand the RAF’s role to include space.
I only hope that this does not diminish resources available for the RN.
The RN has been the recurring means for Britain to maintain power and stature throughout her modern history and as she extricates herself from the swamp of EU bureaucracy and once more becomes a truely independent and outward looking trading nation the RN’s primacy in British defence policy needs to be fully recognised and funded.

 

[ngatimozart]

Not likely to be repeated very soon either - the local council weren't very keen and were asking for a fully scoped risk statement and stuff apparently.

Spoilsports

Suppose they want an environmental impact statement in 15 copies duly authorised and notarised.

 

[StobieWan]

Suppose they want an environmental impact statement in 15 copies duly authorised and notarised.

More than likely - apparently when the force protection plans were circulated, the biggest single worry for the local police was if someone opened up with one of the many GPMG's in port. They didn't seem to be *as* worried about *why* someone might be firing a machine gun - like, that boat full of RPG firing Jihadis for instance..

Portsmouth famously shot itself in the foot when it went "nuclear free" way back when and the RN relocated their nuke training facilities and attack boats somewhere with more sheep and less money. You can still see the old escape tower used for diesel sub training on the local skyline.

 

[OldNavy63]

“Please Mind the Gap”

In Save the Royal Navy’s first posted article for 2020, Naval aviation historian David Hobbs, (CMDR RN Rtd), has provided an interesting summary of RN fixed-wing operations post WWII. He notes that in several operations sea-based tactical aviation was initially the only option available.

David Cameron’s government decided to pay off HMS Ark Royal in 2000, creating a 10 year gap in capability that will only be reinstated nexy year when HMS Queen Elizabeth Is expected to achieve FOC.

What have aircraft carriers ever done for us? | Save the Royal Navy

 

[south]

“Please Mind the Gap”

In Save the Royal Navy’s first posted article for 2020, Naval aviation historian David Hobbs, (CMDR RN Rtd), has provided an interesting summary of RN fixed-wing operations post WWII. He notes that in several operations sea-based tactical aviation was initially the only option available.

David Cameron’s government decided to pay off HMS Ark Royal in 2000, creating a 10 year gap in capability that will only be reinstated nexy year when HMS Queen Elizabeth Is expected to achieve FOC.

What have aircraft carriers ever done for us? | Save the Royal Navy

The problem I have with these essays is the significant bias shown when comparing land based air and carrier based air. To make my position clear - it shouldn't be a competition, and one shouldn't feel the need to undermine the other. The essay reads as someone who is as busy discrediting land based air power (RAF) as selling naval air.

For example the 1982 discussion where they discuss that the RAF required RN support, yet no discussion that the RN fighter sqns has significant RAF aircrew involvement; in 1991 the RAF made a significant contribution which isn't acknowledged at all; same in 2003-2014 in Afghan; in 2011 when comparing Libya and lack of UK carrier based AirPower - its a red herring and incredibly simplistic to insist that the AV-8's were more effective than other land base fighters, with limited requirement for support. The fact remains that unless you are on a planned strike, you are searching for, and developing targets this means time, which means fuel fuel, and often means ISR support, none of which at the moment comes in great numbers from a naval organisation because their assets on the whole lack size, endurance and range; or simply that their isn't a complimentary naval system (RJ, JSTARS, Reaper).

Fundamentally this will cause issues for the F-35B and QE Class carriers. They will generally embark up to 24 F-35B, and supporting ASW and AEW Helos. The lack of cats (and organic AAR and compromised AEW), combined with F-35B strike range will necessitate the carrier being either a) dependant on big wing tankers and ISR (even AEW to an extent) or b) sailing within a relatively defined / higher risk threat area than say the USN.

My gut feel behind some of the issues the UK have had, certainly exacerbated in the last 30 years is a significant reduction in force structure, and a continued lack of funding, leading to the separate forces being competitive rather than collaborative. This, IMHO, is less of a factor in the ADF where force structure has been - relatively speaking - fairly stable for a solid 40 odd years. I feel that there is less issues for example between the RAN and RAAF than their Uk equivalents. (standing by for maps of Australia moved stories)...

 

[ASSAIL]

The problem I have with these essays is the significant bias shown when comparing land based air and carrier based air. To make my position clear - it shouldn't be a competition, and one shouldn't feel the need to undermine the other. The essay reads as someone who is as busy discrediting land based air power (RAF) as selling naval air.

For example the 1982 discussion where they discuss that the RAF required RN support, yet no discussion that the RN fighter sqns has significant RAF aircrew involvement; in 1991 the RAF made a significant contribution which isn't acknowledged at all; same in 2003-2014 in Afghan; in 2011 when comparing Libya and lack of UK carrier based AirPower - its a red herring and incredibly simplistic to insist that the AV-8's were more effective than other land base fighters, with limited requirement for support. The fact remains that unless you are on a planned strike, you are searching for, and developing targets this means time, which means fuel fuel, and often means ISR support, none of which at the moment comes in great numbers from a naval organisation because their assets on the whole lack size, endurance and range; or simply that their isn't a complimentary naval system (RJ, JSTARS, Reaper).

Fundamentally this will cause issues for the F-35B and QE Class carriers. They will generally embark up to 24 F-35B, and supporting ASW and AEW Helos. The lack of cats (and organic AAR and compromised AEW), combined with F-35B strike range will necessitate the carrier being either a) dependant on big wing tankers and ISR (even AEW to an extent) or b) sailing within a relatively defined / higher risk threat area than say the USN.

My gut feel behind some of the issues the UK have had, certainly exacerbated in the last 30 years is a significant reduction in force structure, and a continued lack of funding, leading to the separate forces being competitive rather than collaborative. This, IMHO, is less of a factor in the ADF where force structure has been - relatively speaking - fairly stable for a solid 40 odd years. I feel that there is less issues for example between the RAN and RAAF than their Uk equivalents. (standing by for maps of Australia moved stories)...

The reason for the bias is simple, the RAF has over promised and under delivered.
It’s not the fault of serving pilots and aircrew, it starts at the strategic planning level where airforce leaders have convinced their governments that the primacy of RAF is paramount and that provided resources are given they can accomplish every task.
I believe it began with the amalgamation of the RNAS and RFC into the new exciting RAF.
Failed bombing strategies during the 1920’s, 30’s and WWII were forgiven because of the unforgettable RAF performance during the Battle of Britain followed by the primacy of the nuclear deterrent vested in the V bomber force and so Britains have been at one with RAF more so that the other services during the last 50 years.
(If the RAF is similar to the RAAF, staff work/staff courses at multiple levels has been a focus and the types of deployment, particularly for junior officers has encouraged this - it pays dividends later in careers) This all results in the RAF being able to promote itself as being able to meet every challenge and be resourced accordingly.

I think this was the case in pre ADF Australia. Although inter service rivalry still exists the “jointness” of the ADF since my time in uniform has been a huge benefit and something our British older brethren could consider.

This is all my unsupported opinion from far away from someone who has a keen interest in observing these matters.

 

[south]

The reason for the bias is simple, the RAF has over promised and under delivered.

Not 100% I would agree with this - but even if true does playing the man not the ball support or increase the weight of the argument, or does it distract from it?

Failed bombing strategies during the 1920’s, 30’s and WWII were forgiven because of the unforgettable RAF performance during the Battle of Britain followed by the primacy of the nuclear deterrent vested in the V bomber force and so Britains have been at one with RAF more so that the other services during the last 50 years.

So since the RAF relinquished the nuclear deterrent why haven't the RN assumed this mantle? Alternatively why were the RN and RAF both shortchanged personnel in the last SDSR to maintain Army troop numbers (cap badges)?

(If the RAF is similar to the RAAF, staff work/staff courses at multiple levels has been a focus and the types of deployment, particularly for junior officers has encouraged this - it pays dividends later in careers) This all results in the RAF being able to promote itself as being able to meet every challenge and be resourced accordingly.

I have heard this many times - literally. Either the RAF staffing is impeccable (it’s not) or the RN staffing is terrible (unsure). Either way, if it was so simple why doesn't the RN improve their staffing?

I think this was the case in pre ADF Australia. Although inter service rivalry still exists the “jointness” of the ADF since my time in uniform has been a huge benefit and something our British older brethren could consider.

The UK forces are far more politically influenced than the ADF. Looking good (vice being militarily effective) is much more important.

 

[ngatimozart]

Not 100% I would agree with this - but even if true does playing the man not the ball support or increase the weight of the argument, or does it distract from it?

So since the RAF relinquished the nuclear deterrent why haven't the RN assumed this mantle?

The RN have and done so since the late 1960s. Some very quick basic research using Mr Google would have shown you this.

The UK forces are far more politically influenced than the ADF. Looking good (vice being militarily effective) is much more important.

If by "looking good" you are meaning from a political and MOD civil service point of view yes, I would agree. However I would disagree that the ADF or NZDF are any less or more politically influenced than the UK armed forces. All 3 forces serve at Her Majesties pleasure and all are funded and tasked by their respective govts who determine their respective defence policies. Defence policies are a political statement.

 

[ASSAIL]

Not 100% I would agree with this - but even if true does playing the man not the ball support or increase the weight of the argument, or does it distract from it?


So since the RAF relinquished the nuclear deterrent why haven't the RN assumed this mantle? Alternatively why were the RN and RAF both shortchanged personnel in the last SDSR to maintain Army troop numbers (cap badges)?

I have heard this many times - literally. Either the RAF staffing is impeccable (it’s not) or the RN staffing is terrible (unsure). Either way, if it was so simple why doesn't the RN improve their staffing?



The UK forces are far more politically influenced than the ADF. Looking good (vice being militarily effective) is much more important.

A few quick points ;
I’m not about to talk down the efforts of the RAF. I simply state that their failure to deliver on maritime support is fact despite their chiefs convincing HMG that they can.
The goodwill given to the RAF by the people stems from WW2 and the highly visible V force. This has not been passed to the RN because the SSGN force is invisible and as Britain’s trading status and Merchant Marine has declined “sea blindness” is real.
Re Staff work. Young naval officers spend all of their first 10 years deployed on ships at sea, standing watches away from their families. The same applies to Army officers to a lesser extent. Staff work is only possible by correspondence if your shipboard work allows which it usually doesn’t. This is not true for young aircrew normally domiciled near their bases and only occasionally deploying for multiple months.
(Note the RAF’s response to deploying F35B pilots to the carriers as opposed to the FAA pilots).
I stand by the fact that the ADF has become “joint” without the intense inter service rivalry of the UK. I think institutions such as ADFA, the absence of a Marine Force and the acquisition of the LHDs and formation of the ARG has all enhanced this.

 

[south]

The RN have and done so since the late 1960s. Some very quick basic research using Mr Google would have shown you this.

If by "looking good" you are meaning from a political and MOD civil service point of view yes, I would agree. However I would disagree that the ADF or NZDF are any less or more politically influenced than the UK armed forces. All 3 forces serve at Her Majesties pleasure and all are funded and tasked by their respective govts who determine their respective defence policies. Defence policies are a political statement.

My apologies for being obtuse. I know the RN have 4x Boomers. Was more referring to the implied favour that the RAF had when operating the V Bombers - so why with the Boomers had this not transferred now the the RN operated the strategic deterrent.

The UK political sphere reaches into their forces for parades, fly pasts, demonstrations etc far more often than what happens to the ADF. This even filters down to services then allocating more resources with internal competitors than conducting training etc.

 

[John Fedup]

With regards to the UK‘s nuclear deterrence, the profile of the RAF’s Vulcans for nuclear deterrence (or the USAF’s B-52, B-1 and B-2) have always been higher. Neither the UK or the US talk much about SSN operations and mention of SSBNs is very rare. This is in part due to submarines having almost a 100 year head start in the stealth arena.

 

[south]

A few quick points ;
I’m not about to talk down the efforts of the RAF. I simply state that their failure to deliver on maritime support is fact despite their chiefs convincing HMG that they can.
The goodwill given to the RAF by the people stems from WW2 and the highly visible V force. This has not been passed to the RN because the SSGN force is invisible and as Britain’s trading status and Merchant Marine has declined “sea blindness” is real.
Re Staff work. Young naval officers spend all of their first 10 years deployed on ships at sea, standing watches away from their families. The same applies to Army officers to a lesser extent. Staff work is only possible by correspondence if your shipboard work allows which it usually doesn’t. This is not true for young aircrew normally domiciled near their bases and only occasionally deploying for multiple months.
(Note the RAF’s response to deploying F35B pilots to the carriers as opposed to the FAA pilots).
I stand by the fact that the ADF has become “joint” without the intense inter service rivalry of the UK. I think institutions such as ADFA, the absence of a Marine Force and the acquisition of the LHDs and formation of the ARG has all enhanced this.

Staff work - certainly conducting HQ roles, PR, acquisition, materiel support roles etc isn’t conducted by front line aircrew (much as you highlighted for naval staff) It is conducted by generally O-4/5 ish ranks in dedicated staff positions (HQs, MoD Abbey Wood etc). Strategic management of course is conducted by higher levels, once again though these aren’t t the guys at the coal face operating ships/aircraft. I still struggle to understand why the RAF should be an exemplar of staffwork, while the RN should not. And if it is such an identified weakness shouldn’t it have been addressed by long ago.

Re the RAF/RN difference. the RN and RAF have some large cultural differences they need to work out in order for the Lightning Force/QEC to work smoothly and effectively. I’m happy to be proven wrong but all the UK F-35 aircrew fall under the same parent organisations, within the same Chain of command.. so I don’t think they will be operating under different conditions of service Do you have a link or similar to show me what you mean?

We are in furious agreement on the last paragraph though!

 

[StobieWan]

The problem I have with these essays is the significant bias shown when comparing land based air and carrier based air. To make my position clear - it shouldn't be a competition, and one shouldn't feel the need to undermine the other. The essay reads as someone who is as busy discrediting land based air power (RAF) as selling naval air.

For example the 1982 discussion where they discuss that the RAF required RN support, yet no discussion that the RN fighter sqns has significant RAF aircrew involvement; in 1991 the RAF made a significant contribution which isn't acknowledged at all; same in 2003-2014 in Afghan; in 2011 when comparing Libya and lack of UK carrier based AirPower - its a red herring and incredibly simplistic to insist that the AV-8's were more effective than other land base fighters, with limited requirement for support. The fact remains that unless you are on a planned strike, you are searching for, and developing targets this means time, which means fuel fuel, and often means ISR support, none of which at the moment comes in great numbers from a naval organisation because their assets on the whole lack size, endurance and range; or simply that their isn't a complimentary naval system (RJ, JSTARS, Reaper).

Fundamentally this will cause issues for the F-35B and QE Class carriers. They will generally embark up to 24 F-35B, and supporting ASW and AEW Helos. The lack of cats (and organic AAR and compromised AEW), combined with F-35B strike range will necessitate the carrier being either a) dependant on big wing tankers and ISR (even AEW to an extent) or b) sailing within a relatively defined / higher risk threat area than say the USN.

My gut feel behind some of the issues the UK have had, certainly exacerbated in the last 30 years is a significant reduction in force structure, and a continued lack of funding, leading to the separate forces being competitive rather than collaborative. This, IMHO, is less of a factor in the ADF where force structure has been - relatively speaking - fairly stable for a solid 40 odd years. I feel that there is less issues for example between the RAN and RAAF than their Uk equivalents. (standing by for maps of Australia moved stories)...

well, we need to distinguish between how external observers see the RAF/RN thing and how internal observers report it - I have a friend in Warfare in the RN who reports consistently that the RAF people he's had anything to do with have been professionally focused and has considerable respect for them. Additionally, the RAF and RN have spent more time working together than apart in the last twenty or so years - the future looks more purple than either dark or light blue and in the main, the conversation is more "which is the hammer we can bring to bear more quickly" rather than "which branch has the best hammer ever"

In Libya, I submit having a carrier on tap would have been very useful, taken some pressure off the RAF in the earlier days of the conflict and the two would have quite naturally complimented one another.

I do agree however, the arguments that one is better than another often fall short of describing the entire picture.

 

[ASSAIL]

well, we need to distinguish between how external observers see the RAF/RN thing and how internal observers report it - I have a friend in Warfare in the RN who reports consistently that the RAF people he's had anything to do with have been professionally focused and has considerable respect for them. Additionally, the RAF and RN have spent more time working together than apart in the last twenty or so years - the future looks more purple than either dark or light blue and in the main, the conversation is more "which is the hammer we can bring to bear more quickly" rather than "which branch has the best hammer ever"

In Libya, I submit having a carrier on tap would have been very useful, taken some pressure off the RAF in the earlier days of the conflict and the two would have quite naturally complimented one another.

I do agree however, the arguments that one is better than another often fall short of describing the entire picture.

Stobie it’s not about one being better than the other.
It’s about public perception and influence which is what governments react to and I have no doubt that the purple aspect of UK forces has much improved since my three years on course and exchange with the RN 76-79 when each arm tended to view defence from the confines of their own silo.
As for staff courses these are not the sole domain of those serving or slated to serve in staff billets. I attempted a RAAF Junior Officers Staff Course as a junior Lieutenant but failed to complete due to postings at sea firstly to Far East deployment and then in command of a PB, I simply had no time between watchkeeping and administrative tasks followed by an intense PWO Course and exchange which included being Ops Officer for a FOST work up and STANAVFORLANT deployment. I was on a hiding to nothing.

 

[DouglasLees]

I note a comment in Boris’ manifesto that he wishes to expand the RAF’s role to include space.
I only hope that this does not diminish resources available for the RN.
The RN has been the recurring means for Britain to maintain power and stature throughout her modern history and as she extricates herself from the swamp of EU bureaucracy and once more becomes a truely independent and outward looking trading nation the RN’s primacy in British defence policy needs to be fully recognised and funded.

I hope you don’t mind if, while I agree with your underlying stance, I offer a slightly different ‘take’ on it. Like you, I would wish to see the primacy of the RN in British defence policy fully recognised and funded, but unfortunately there is no immediate sign of a definitive shift in that direction at present.

To address idea your main point: the idea of the UK as a ‘truly independent outward looking trading nation’ is very attractive, as you say. However in the context of the Brexit debate it has been not much more than a rhetorical flourish and a useful counter-argument to those who see Brexit as an expression of narrow nationalism. The reality is, however, that much of the core support for Brexit comes from those who want to look inwards rather than outwards and pull up the drawbridge. This was reflected in the election result where the Tory (which in this context meant pro-‘Get Brexit Vote’) vote increased in areas that are not noted for their openness to the outer world and where there is a strong belief that ‘there are too many people coming in’. (It is a delusion by the way to think that Brexit will stop or even significantly reduce immigration: it will merely change its character and sources).

As for election manifestos, IMAO they should be recycled into toilet paper so that we can use them when we’re doing smelly stuff. That way they would at least have some connection with reality.

 

[ngatimozart]

It appears the the requirement for three new Fleet Solid Support Ships is being reviewed, because the competition so far hasn't achieved the VfM (Value for Money) target that the MOD has set. Already Fincantieri and Daewoo have pulled out, leaving Team UK (a Babcock, BAE Systems, Cammell Laird and Rolls-Royce consortium), Navantia and Japan Marine United Corporation in the running. One has to wonder whether the targets set by the MOD are realistic considering the capabilities required? Or are the capabilities required by the RN / RFA to extravagent for the funding available? Or is it a combination of both?

 

[StobieWan]

It appears the the requirement for three new Fleet Solid Support Ships is being reviewed, because the competition so far hasn't achieved the VfM (Value for Money) target that the MOD has set. Already Fincantieri and Daewoo have pulled out, leaving Team UK (a Babcock, BAE Systems, Cammell Laird and Rolls-Royce consortium), Navantia and Japan Marine United Corporation in the running. One has to wonder whether the targets set by the MOD are realistic considering the capabilities required? Or are the capabilities required by the RN / RFA to extravagent for the funding available? Or is it a combination of both?

It's puzzling - one spin might be that they've decided to designate the JSS ships as reserved for local build and want to reframe the bid accordingly?

We needed these things built like, last year so hopefully it'll be resolved shortly.

Between that and the Type 31 orders, there's a lot of stuff to happen in the near future.

 

[ngatimozart]

QE sailed approx 0830Z 21JAN20, to undertake carrier quals and LSO quals with 207 Sqn, the F-35B training Sqn. Said training will be undertaken in UK waters. Next year QE will conduct its first operational deployment as a CSF comprising of QE, two T-45 DDG, two T-23 FFG, a SSN, a Tide-class tanker and RFA Fort Victoria. The ship will also carry 24 F-35B, including USMC aircraft, in addition to a number of helicopters.

HMS Queen Elizabeth to sail Tuesday for F-35 training

 

[StobieWan]

QE sailed approx 0830Z 21JAN20, to undertake carrier quals and LSO quals with 207 Sqn, the F-35B training Sqn. Said training will be undertaken in UK waters. Next year QE will conduct its first operational deployment as a CSF comprising of QE, two T-45 DDG, two T-23 FFG, a SSN, a Tide-class tanker and RFA Fort Victoria. The ship will also carry 24 F-35B, including USMC aircraft, in addition to a number of helicopters.

HMS Queen Elizabeth to sail Tuesday for F-35 training

The idea of the RN putting that much metal in the water in formation...well, I'm maybe being a juvenile person but there's a tiny, un-British desire to punch the air and go "F**** yeah"

I'll go back to drinking tea and being reserved

It's been a long time coming, very welcome to see the fruits of a lot of hard labour here.

 

[ngatimozart]

The idea of the RN putting that much metal in the water in formation...well, I'm maybe being a juvenile person but there's a tiny, un-British desire to punch the air and go "F**** yeah"

I'll go back to drinking tea and being reserved

It's been a long time coming, very welcome to see the fruits of a lot of hard labour here.

Not a celabratory G&T alongside the tea? I take it you don't belong to the Barmy Army then?