Current & Future Overseas Patrol - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Current & Future Overseas Patrol - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

With the renaming of the Fisheries Protection Squadron as the Overseas Patrol Squadron, and the RNs strategy of power projection primarily via CEPP - is it time we looked at this capability in its own right away from a broader “Escort” discussion?

With an assumed force of 3 B1 and (soon) 5 B2 River Class OPVs, it is unclear from the (incomprehensible) new RN page whether the UK Fisheries role will remain (but will be important during the Brexit transition).

Increasingly there seems to be plans to forward base the new B2 Rivers in strategic points where a permanent (but in some way more subtle) presence gives the UK the capability to protect interests and with allies ensure the security of sea lanes to shipping.

What is it’s future role, does it include MCM or Survey capabilities, or even the sole RN force structure that is permanently forward based? Should we be looking at any future ships (such as the T31) being optimised towards this role rather than just simply GP Escorts?
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Overseas Patrol - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Sack off the lot of it and stand up a coastguard in its place. The Navy have got more important things to focus on.
@LandSharkUK

S M H
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Overseas Patrol - General Discussion

Post by S M H »

shark bait wrote:Sack off the lot of it and stand up a coastguard in its place. The Navy have got more important things to focus on.
In the 1980s serious consideration was given to forming a dedicated coast guard service. covering the then Royal Air Force vessels the Customs cutters. The R.N bird class . The S.A.R. helicopters. With the existing Coast Guard maritime services. The protest my budget from the transfer of funding with the new dedicated service kicked in. The R.A.F were particularly concerned as the nimrod's got funding for fishery surveillance and loss of S.A.R The Navy who initially liked the proposal as in event of conflict they would fall under naval command. The inclusion of some of the fishery protection Island class caused them to change as this would of adversely effect the training for naval officers The possible loss of the remaining fishery protection vessels to New service once established. Then with the change of defence minister it was quietly dropped. The immediate effect was to have the new S.A.R bases were covered by contractor operated Helicopter's As the funding in most part came from the coast guard .. Royal Airforce craft contractor operated. G.O.C.O. with this done through lean manning. As the manning requirement was lower for the new service compared to the service manning levels was a significant saving.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Overseas Patrol - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Whilst the RN page for the new Squadron clearly states Fisheries, it seems like a position that makes no sense with the word “Global” unless it is also going to enforce new Marine Protection Areas (under the Blue Belt programme).
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Overseas Patrol - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

shark bait wrote:Sack off the lot of it and stand up a coastguard in its place. The Navy have got more important things to focus on.
Depends on what this Squadron is for - I think it is (and should be) much more than protecting the UK EEZ and natural resources (such as Fisheries). For me, this could ultimately become the force structure that will be permanently forward based, engaging in regional activities - complementing CEPP and sole SSN deployments.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Overseas Patrol - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

It seems to me that the RN is trying to meet the Governments aspirations for a Global presence and the forward deployment of RN vessels whilst avoiding allocating its increasing small number of available true warships/Escorts to the role. In the mean time we end up with fewer actual patrol vessels in UK waters just when they are needed post BREXIT unless the successor to the Archer class is going to assume this role in addition to those of the Archer has undertaken.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Overseas Patrol - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Repulse wrote:Depends on what this Squadron is for
I don't think it matters at all. The Navy is an organisation under immense strain, it was barely functional before the introduction of two massive carriers, and that's not going to change now they have to operate them.

All auxiliary roles, like fisheries and patrol, should be spun off so the Navy can focus on it's core activities.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Overseas Patrol - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote:and patrol, should be spun off so the Navy can focus on it's core activities.
While I agree with the overall leaning, surely you not proposing that for overseas patrol? It's one things to cease such patrols altogether... what interim form of spin-off would there be?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Overseas Patrol - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

shark bait wrote:All auxiliary roles, like fisheries and patrol, should be spun off so the Navy can focus on it's core activities.
How can patrol duties be spun off? By all means policing can be, but unless you are creating a paramilitary organisation (very bad move IMO), the responsibility for armed patrol requirements of the UK/BOT EEZ and Territorial waters must remain with the RN. Also, as we’ve discussed before, we should expect funding to go with every duty that is being removed.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Overseas Patrol - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

shark bait wrote:Sack off the lot of it and stand up a coastguard in its place. The Navy have got more important things to focus on.
shark bait wrote:I don't think it matters at all. The Navy is an organisation under immense strain, it was barely functional before the introduction of two massive carriers, and that's not going to change now they have to operate them.

All auxiliary roles, like fisheries and patrol, should be spun off so the Navy can focus on it's core activities.

This is all well and good as long as the RN dose not lose funding to pay for a Coast guard which it would and any coastguard worth having would need to be Paramilitary and therefor come under the MOD. So to my mind right now the RN would be a lot worse off on a number of grounds

1 ) Funding
2 ) lose of command rote
3 ) lose of hull numbers

PS was a little shocked that Richard1C like the idea of taking funding and staff away from the navy to form a Coastguard given his strong views on the NHS and a Hospital ship

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Overseas Patrol - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Repulse wrote:How can patrol duties be spun off?
ArmChairCivvy wrote: surely you not proposing that for overseas patrol?
A separate organisation could quite easily chase chase the Spanish round Gibraltar, or wave the flag round the Falklands. Neither of these scenarios require the unique and expensive characteristics of a Navy.
Tempest414 wrote:So to my mind right now the RN would be a lot worse off on a number of grounds

1 ) Funding
2 ) lose of command rote
3 ) lose of hull numbers
None of this really matters. 90% of companies outsource their none core actives and not one of them worry about loosing headcount or management positions, its generally seen as a positive.

Similarly there have been no negative effects on the RAF after outsourcing search and rescue. The Navy could follow a similar path to deliver a more streamlined organisation that is focused on its high value activities.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Overseas Patrol - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote: A separate organisation could quite easily chase chase the Spanish round Gibraltar, or wave the flag round the Falklands
Even if the East India Company might still be in the Companies register, to bring back from dead, they only had an army (and still needed the RN 'support').
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Overseas Patrol - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

shark bait wrote:None of this really matters. 90% of companies outsource their none core actives and not one of them worry about loosing headcount or management positions, its generally seen as a positive.

Similarly there have been no negative effects on the RAF after outsourcing search and rescue. The Navy could follow a similar path to deliver a more streamlined organisation that is focused on its high value activities.
Rubbish and you know it out source the patrol squadrons and the money will go with them and the navy will at best be no better of

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Overseas Patrol - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

They would be better off because they can focus all resources on their highest value activities. This is a well accepted principle;
  • My company does not bother stacking the shelves in our own factory because stock management does not create value, the manufacturing does.
  • Or closer to defence, the Army does not bother shipping its armoured vehicles around the world because operating ferry's is not one of the Army's unique value adding activities. Instead forland shipping do the job for them.
  • Or closer to the RN, the Navy do not bother to operate the Tug boats around its own facilities because its such low value activity
I could go on, point being outsourcing is a very well accepted model used extensively, even in the Royal Navy.

They Navy is crumbling as an organisation, it is struggling to meet existing demands, never mind the new pressures arriving with carrier operations and Brexit. They need to reshape and refocus on the unique value adding activities only the Navy can provide, things like Carrier and Submarine operations, which means ditching things like counting fish and flag waving at the Spanish.
@LandSharkUK

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Overseas Patrol - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

If you said to we are going to reshape the RN to say

2 x carriers
1 x large deck Amphib
20 x escorts
15 x MHPC

I would say get on with it but that is not going to happen, one thing you can't hire a ships commander off the self you have to train them and keep them and you can't do that without hulls and time at sea

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Overseas Patrol - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

I understand what SharkBait-san says. It is reasonable.

But, as Tempest414-san has pointed out, RN is shrinking in its number now and for coming decade. And, RN needs some minor vessels for training (not pure training, but On-The-Job training = grow experienced leaders)

I personally think, MHC hull part number will never reach "12 hulls" of current MCMV fleet. If we have 6 small-LSD like MHC hulls with drone-MCM systems, each twice capable of current MCMVs, I think it is good. But the hull number may shrink.

On the other hand, RN is in near future having 8 River class OPVs, which was only 4, a few years ago. If the "4 more OPVs" can cover the shrinking "training capability", I think we do not need any more.

So, I think current arrangement looks fine. No need to significantly increase patrol ships/crafts, but no need to outsource it much more.

# It is well known that, too much outsourcing clearly damages the company (commonly recognized in Japan), because the skills there will not build up, and relation with company members get more and more "thin", reducing the "satisfaction" of employee. No one is saying out sourcing is bad, but many are saying it must be "well balanced". So, all issues are "at what balance?".

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Overseas Patrol - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

I wonder where she is going - still Gibraltar?

”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Overseas Patrol - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Can anybody tell me what is this? UK announce what about Tristan da quina's sea? 200 nm?


User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Current & Future Overseas Patrol - General Discussion

Post by Pseudo »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Can anybody tell me what is this? UK announce what about Tristan da quina's sea? 200 nm?

If it's an attempt to distract from the political turmoil it's not a very good one. :lol:

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Overseas Patrol - General Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

Tokenism.... virtue signalling... flim flam...

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Overseas Patrol - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

I do not suppose that I am alone in wondering, ust exactly how is it proposed that this area will be protected. To achieve this would require some sort of presence for 52 weeks of the year, otherwise the “protection” could only be either non existent or occasional and definitely not effective. :mrgreen:

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Overseas Patrol - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Can anybody tell me what is this? UK announce what about Tristan da quina's sea? 200 nm?
Hi Donald-san, Tristan includes more than one island, so it's not just a single 200nm EEZ based on a single dot in the ocean, but a combination of overlapping ones (Gough Island is c. 190nm from Tristan), which explains why it covers such a large area

Very good news for conservation efforts. The Pew Trust and the Bertarelli Foundation have volunteered to assist the local people with monitoring technology
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Overseas Patrol - General Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

Scimitar54 wrote:I do not suppose that I am alone in wondering, ust exactly how is it proposed that this area will be protected.
It won't be. It's a box-ticking exercise. The UK Government has "exceeded its target". Job done. It should also be protecting the marine environment around the UK. But it's already "exceeded its target". So it won't.
Caribbean wrote:The Pew Trust and the Bertarelli Foundation have volunteered to assist the local people with monitoring technology
You can monitor until you're blue in the face. Without enforcement it's worthless. And there won't be any.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Overseas Patrol - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

How about (with current and anticipated resources) “It Can’t”. :mrgreen:

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Overseas Patrol - General Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

How about (with current and anticipated resources) “It Can’t”. [/quote]

Exactly. The Chinese distant water trawler fleet is colossal and they don't give a damn about ecology and go where they want. They're already working their way up the west.coast of Africa heading towards the North Atlantic.

This is the global reality that completely seems to have bypassed the Brexidiots who are constantly whining about Europeans stealing our fish.

They should look over their shoulder and see where the real danger is coming from.

Post Reply