Future Royal Fleet Auxiliary

[Ron5]

The RFA only has crew to support the 4 Tankers, 3 FSS and a multi-role support ship like Argus. That’s it - the sooner we can to terms with this the better.

3x FSS and 4x Tides is only enough to support a single CSG as one of each will likely be undergoing a maintenance period when required.

Is that now the level of UK ambition even in a maximum effort scenario?

We now have a shrinking Royal Navy and a shrinking Royal Fleet Auxiliary. No point trying to dress it up. It’s a national disgrace and frankly negligent.

When has it ever been the case that the UK had a requirement for more than one CSG?

In fact, the requirement is for one with high availability. Has been since day 1.

[Repulse]

Looks like it, one high availability CSG/Expeditionary Strike Group, forward based low end ships and SSNs.

My fear is actually that they will dumb down the CSG/ESG to a point where it’s irrelevant.

[tomuk]

FFS - completely stupid and completely predictable. The RFA has now lost a 2 Solid Store Ships and 2 Tankers in the past year.

But it hasn't lost them this year the one wave has been id up up for five years already and the two Forts were in the Great Float for years too.

[Scimitar54]

The fact that they have been out of use for so long just goes to show how “undersized” the RN Surface Ship fleet has become! Political response …… let us sell them, so that the shortage of “Front Line” RN surface vessels is less obvious. This is the second of “two wrongs” and neither has been the right course of action.

[Repulse]

FFS - completely stupid and completely predictable. The RFA has now lost a 2 Solid Store Ships and 2 Tankers in the past year.

But it hasn't lost them this year the one wave has been id up up for five years already and the two Forts were in the Great Float for years too.

True, but theoretically they were able to be reactivated in an emergency (appreciate its not as straightforward as it sounds). Now there is nothing.

To me it underscores the folly of getting rid of Ft George, and IMO points to the need for a multi-role AOR to complement the 4 Tides and 3 FSSs.

Future and sustainable RFA fleet of 8 ships feels about right within the current budgetary constraints.

This means moving MRoSS and OSV to the RN (where it belongs), along with any future amphibious capabilities (with support from civilian operators such as Serco for logistics such as the Points and base resupply).

[Poiuytrewq]

Future and sustainable RFA fleet of 8 ships feels about right within the current budgetary constraints.

8 ships!

To support the entirety of the Royal Navy???

When did aspirations sink so low?

Blaming the decommissioning of perfectly useful Auxiliaries with 50% of their hull life remaining on an insufficient RFA headcount is beyond reprehensible. It’s a failure at every possible level and EVERYONE involved must take a portion of the blame. No excuses, it’s a farse.

It’s clear HMG have no ambition to grow anything, numbers won’t rise, they are just leaving it to future administrations to break the bad news.

[Repulse]

To support the entirety of the Royal Navy???

Which has a fleet of less than 30 warships.

Perhaps we have reached the equilibrium of what the public as a whole is willing to spend. The UK military has a choice, it either goes for mass or quality - if it wants to play with the big boys it has to be the latter, though I do think there is scope to remain more globally engaged through low level assets (OPVs/LSVs etc).

[Poiuytrewq]

Perhaps we have reached the equilibrium….

We have and it’s HMT’s equilibrium not the publics.

2% of GDP plus pensions is not enough for a P5 member of the Security Council to spend. The UK can retreat from the world and continue with the creative accountancy or it can invest in Defense to ensure that no major conflict will ever need to be fought due to deterrence.

It’s a simple choice and currently HMG is choosing the easy option which is the wrong one.

The Royal Navy and the RFA are credible but too small.

The RAF is also credible but again too small.

The British Army is an incoherent mess with multiple procurement disaster’s stretching over decades now forcing a reduction in headcount to balance the books.

Currently the ambition is too high and the funding is too low but there is a very simple way to fix that.

[SW1]

Perhaps we have reached the equilibrium….

We have and it’s HMT’s equilibrium not the publics.

2% of GDP plus pensions is not enough for a P5 member of the Security Council to spend. The UK can retreat from the world and continue with the creative accountancy or it can invest in Defense to ensure that no major conflict will ever need to be fought due to deterrence.

It’s a simple choice and currently HMG is choosing the easy option which is the wrong one.

The Royal Navy and the RFA are credible but too small.

The RAF is also credible but again too small.

The British Army is an incoherent mess with multiple procurement disaster’s stretching over decades now forcing a reduction in headcount to balance the books.

Currently the ambition is too high and the funding is too low but there is a very simple way to fix that.

We spend more as a percentage of gdp on defence than France does and they’re a p5 nation.

The US includes pension contributions in its percentage calculus.

Realism and priorities using alliances while not attempting to be everywhere and do everything is what is required. But there is little appetite in defence commentary or more importantly the political will for such a conversation.

And if you step outside the defence bubble the issues ranks a distant 11th in the publics concern and that’s with war in Europe! Defence has to fix itself within its current budget to be credible and sustainable and stop shrinking for more.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... edges.html

[new guy]

Perhaps we have reached the equilibrium….

We have and it’s HMT’s equilibrium not the publics.

2% of GDP plus pensions is not enough for a P5 member of the Security Council to spend. The UK can retreat from the world and continue with the creative accountancy or it can invest in Defense to ensure that no major conflict will ever need to be fought due to deterrence.

It’s a simple choice and currently HMG is choosing the easy option which is the wrong one.

The Royal Navy and the RFA are credible but too small.

The RAF is also credible but again too small.

The British Army is an incoherent mess with multiple procurement disaster’s stretching over decades now forcing a reduction in headcount to balance the books.

Currently the ambition is too high and the funding is too low but there is a very simple way to fix that.

We spend more as a percentage of gdp on defence than France does and they’re a p5 nation.

The US includes pension contributions in its percentage calculus.

Realism and priorities using alliances while not attempting to be everywhere and do everything is what is required. But there is little appetite in defence commentary or more importantly the political will for such a conversation.

And if you step outside the defence bubble the issues ranks a distant 11th in the publics concern and that’s with war in Europe! Defence has to fix itself within its current budget to be credible and sustainable and stop shrinking for more.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... edges.html

UK budget is huge. There most definitely is money and we should focus on how it is used. Obviously there is not enough money to do turn every ambition into reality, and certainly not simultaneously, but PLEASE. It's a bit more articulate than "there is no money".

[Poiuytrewq]

We spend more as a percentage of gdp on defence than France does and they’re a p5 nation.

Whataboutery is not the basis of a rational argument.

[Poiuytrewq]

UK budget is huge.

In comparison to what?

[SW1]

We spend more as a percentage of gdp on defence than France does and they’re a p5 nation.

Whataboutery is not the basis of a rational argument.

But your argument is because we are a p5 nation we need to spend more. There is other p5 nations spending less than us, so that can’t be the basis for wanting more.

2-2.5% of gdp being spent on defence is a lot of money, will it buy all the toys some want no. But it’s more than enough to provide a coherent and credible defence imo.

[Poiuytrewq]

But your argument is because we are a p5 nation we need to spend more. There is other p5 nations spending less than us, so that can’t be the basis for wanting more.

Interesting how two people look at the same thing in a totally different ways.

Rather than a reason to do less it should be a reason for France and the UK to contribute more. Europe should pay for its own security without US involvement unless Article 5 is triggered.

Perhaps all P5 nations should commit to a minimum spend of 3% GDP, that would be perfectly reasonable.

2-2.5% of gdp being spent on defence is a lot of money, will it buy all the toys some want no. But it’s more than enough to provide a coherent and credible defence imo.

It will in your own backyard but Defence is also about stabilising global hotspots before any conflict comes closer to home.

The simple fact is that the UK cannot contribute on the scale it did previously in Kuwait, Iraq Afghanistan or even the Falklands. A vacuum has been created and it is being filled by others.

That’s dangerous and it will lead to further global instability in the future.

Effectively the UK is spending the money for it’s insurance policies on the household bills and eventually it will need that insurance.

[new guy]

Hate to say it, but the UK being a P5 nation is historical and less relevant with every year that passes. France’s position will quickly move to be a EU position, and to it the UN has a chance of remaining relevant India, Japan, Korea, Brazil and others will to be included, probably making it a P9 by 2050. To keep its position the UKs slot should probably be framed as a CANZUK slot.

[SW1]

But your argument is because we are a p5 nation we need to spend more. There is other p5 nations spending less than us, so that can’t be the basis for wanting more.

Interesting how two people look at the same thing in a totally different ways.

Rather than a reason to do less it should be a reason for France and the UK to contribute more. Europe should pay for its own security without US involvement unless Article 5 is triggered.

Perhaps all P5 nations should commit to a minimum spend of 3% GDP, that would be perfectly reasonable.

2-2.5% of gdp being spent on defence is a lot of money, will it buy all the toys some want no. But it’s more than enough to provide a coherent and credible defence imo.

It will in your own backyard but Defence is also about stabilising global hotspots before any conflict comes closer to home.

The simple fact is that the UK cannot contribute on the scale it did previously in Kuwait, Iraq Afghanistan or even the Falklands. A vacuum has been created and it is being filled by others.

That’s dangerous and it will lead to further global instability in the future.

Effectively the UK is spending the money for it’s insurance policies on the household bills and eventually it will need that insurance.

I disagree, even nato suggests 2% of gdp for its members and 3 of them are p5 members.

China and Russian will use whatever magic numbers it wants this year so for them it’s irrelevant.

I think a there has been a vacuum created in so much that we have taken an eye off certain areas of the world to focus on Iraq and Afghanistan which perhaps was could be considered unwise. We helped create that instability particularly in the Middle East thanks to Blair and bush and arguably Cameron in Libya.

If we concentrate on our territories and own back yard while working with our closest allies to ensure they have all the info and technologies need to protect their territories there is not a vacuum to fill.

We have a scale that is very time limited or smaller scale capability that can sustained for a long time. A lot of stuff wrapped up as “ambition” is simply bonkers imo and with pragmatism you could do it so much more realistically all round.

I have read some nonsense about the U.K. not having a blue water navy because these two ships are to be sold. We have/will have 4 tankers and 3 stores ships the French have 3 fuel/stores ships and the Japanese 5 and I bet they are considered a blue water navy’s.

Realism and priorities matter people just don’t want to when coming up with wish lists. If your not prepared to be realistic within your budget and do too much you will become smaller by overreaching

[new guy]

I read the nonsense also that the RN is not a Blue Water navy, or at best a part-time one. For sure it is limited, but it does still have the ability to project a carrier group and SSNs globally 100% of the time, you can count on one finger (perhaps two soon) the other nations that can do this. However, to continue to do this the RN needs to live within its budget and plan / prioritise properly.

[wargame_insomniac]

I have read some nonsense about the U.K. not having a blue water navy because these two ships are to be sold. We have/will have 4 tankers and 3 stores ships the French have 3 fuel/stores ships and the Japanese 5 and I bet they are considered a blue water navy’s.

Realism and priorities matter people just don’t want to when coming up with wish lists. If your not prepared to be realistic within your budget and do too much you will become smaller by overreaching

We currently have just 5 replenishment ships: the 4*Tide Class Tankers and 1* Fort Victoria. It will be a while before the 2nd or 3rd of the FSS are completed and ready for service - probably not until 2030 - 2032.

We need the 4*Tides for supporting the two carriers (only one of which at any time will be operating at any time as a CSG) and also LRG(N). So I believe it would be useful to have even one replenishment ship EoS in support of LRG(S) and Operation Kipion etc.

Both Fort Rosalie class were decommissioned in 2021 and sold to Egypt. Wave Ruler was placed in "reduced readiness" in June 2020. So realistically the only ship that was remotely likely to be reactivated is Wave Knight, which was placed in "extended readiness" as recently as Feb 2022.

With Wave Knight able to provid fuel, food, fresh water & ammunition, able to carry a Merlin helicopter, and having full mdical team and sickbay, she could have been extremely useful, asset to RN even if kept on until the last FSS is commissioned. I am assuming the costs for reactivating Wave Knight would be far lower than her sister ship, who has been out of active service far longer.

So then it comes down to the lack of crew in both RN and RFA, where we have had to decommision both Echo and Enterprise to bring Proteus and Stirling Castle into (much needed) active service. It is a damning indictment we can't find 80 RFA crew to man Wave Kinght and 20 odd RN crew to man the helicopter.....

[Tempest414]

Some of the answer could come from offering overseas nationals a contract that gives them UK residence if they complete 20 years service these crews would operate a Wave Class and one other RFA ship based out of Oman

[Poiuytrewq]

I don’t often agree with Sir Humphrey on a lot of things but I agree with every word of this.

[SW1]

I have read some nonsense about the U.K. not having a blue water navy because these two ships are to be sold. We have/will have 4 tankers and 3 stores ships the French have 3 fuel/stores ships and the Japanese 5 and I bet they are considered a blue water navy’s.

Realism and priorities matter people just don’t want to when coming up with wish lists. If your not prepared to be realistic within your budget and do too much you will become smaller by overreaching

We currently have just 5 replenishment ships: the 4*Tide Class Tankers and 1* Fort Victoria. It will be a while before the 2nd or 3rd of the FSS are completed and ready for service - probably not until 2030 - 2032.

We need the 4*Tides for supporting the two carriers (only one of which at any time will be operating at any time as a CSG) and also LRG(N). So I believe it would be useful to have even one replenishment ship EoS in support of LRG(S) and Operation Kipion etc.

Both Fort Rosalie class were decommissioned in 2021 and sold to Egypt. Wave Ruler was placed in "reduced readiness" in June 2020. So realistically the only ship that was remotely likely to be reactivated is Wave Knight, which was placed in "extended readiness" as recently as Feb 2022.

With Wave Knight able to provid fuel, food, fresh water & ammunition, able to carry a Merlin helicopter, and having full mdical team and sickbay, she could have been extremely useful, asset to RN even if kept on until the last FSS is commissioned. I am assuming the costs for reactivating Wave Knight would be far lower than her sister ship, who has been out of active service far longer.

So then it comes down to the lack of crew in both RN and RFA, where we have had to decommision both Echo and Enterprise to bring Proteus and Stirling Castle into (much needed) active service. It is a damning indictment we can't find 80 RFA crew to man Wave Kinght and 20 odd RN crew to man the helicopter.....

Yea it will be a while but that’s the plan. Stores ships is a problem with only one but its been a problem for near a decade we have stuck our head in the sand and only championed the fighty. bits

The fort 1 class were laid up for years before officially being decommissioned.

The nonsense of LRGN and S would be a gd place to start slaughtering the idea as single entities. We have a high and low readiness task group I would call it an expeditionary strike group just for an idea of makeup (as the usn operate such a grouping) with a stores ship and tanker assigned to each.

That group can deploy to an area and split up or remain together but presently the high readiness group would be assigned North Atlantic and Baltic.

The low readiness group can be in refit. You will need a tanker in Uk waters for FOST and other things. But the 4th could be deployed to the Indian Ocean.

[wargame_insomniac]

I have read some nonsense about the U.K. not having a blue water navy because these two ships are to be sold. We have/will have 4 tankers and 3 stores ships the French have 3 fuel/stores ships and the Japanese 5 and I bet they are considered a blue water navy’s.

Realism and priorities matter people just don’t want to when coming up with wish lists. If your not prepared to be realistic within your budget and do too much you will become smaller by overreaching

We currently have just 5 replenishment ships: the 4*Tide Class Tankers and 1* Fort Victoria. It will be a while before the 2nd or 3rd of the FSS are completed and ready for service - probably not until 2030 - 2032.

We need the 4*Tides for supporting the two carriers (only one of which at any time will be operating at any time as a CSG) and also LRG(N). So I believe it would be useful to have even one replenishment ship EoS in support of LRG(S) and Operation Kipion etc.

Both Fort Rosalie class were decommissioned in 2021 and sold to Egypt. Wave Ruler was placed in "reduced readiness" in June 2020. So realistically the only ship that was remotely likely to be reactivated is Wave Knight, which was placed in "extended readiness" as recently as Feb 2022.

With Wave Knight able to provid fuel, food, fresh water & ammunition, able to carry a Merlin helicopter, and having full mdical team and sickbay, she could have been extremely useful, asset to RN even if kept on until the last FSS is commissioned. I am assuming the costs for reactivating Wave Knight would be far lower than her sister ship, who has been out of active service far longer.

So then it comes down to the lack of crew in both RN and RFA, where we have had to decommision both Echo and Enterprise to bring Proteus and Stirling Castle into (much needed) active service. It is a damning indictment we can't find 80 RFA crew to man Wave Kinght and 20 odd RN crew to man the helicopter.....

Yea it will be a while but that’s the plan. Stores ships is a problem with only one but its been a problem for near a decade we have stuck our head in the sand and only championed the fighty. bits

The fort 1 class were laid up for years before officially being decommissioned.

The nonsense of LRGN and S would be a gd place to start slaughtering the idea as single entities. We have a high and low readiness task group I would call it an expeditionary strike group just for an idea of makeup (as the usn operate such a grouping) with a stores ship and tanker assigned to each.

That group can deploy to an area and split up or remain together but presently the high readiness group would be assigned North Atlantic and Baltic.

The low readiness group can be in refit. You will need a tanker in Uk waters for FOST and other things. But the 4th could be deployed to the Indian Ocean.

Well currently the RN are operating LRG(N) separate from CSG, and once the Argus is ready, that will mark the start of LRG(S). Until global tensions deteriorate further, then I expect one or both LRG operating independantly of CSG.

The reason I mentioned that Wave Knight would have been my ideal choice to operate EoS rather than a Tide, is because Wave Knight has sick bay and medical team, and I believe can carry more munitions, stores and dry goods than the Tide Casll. Thus I thought Wave Knight would be more suited to supporting smaller LRG(S) that would be deploying further afield.

But unless the RN get more funds in the very near future, it will become academic the longer that Wave Knight is decommissioned, as it will be longer and more expensive to get her back into acive service.

[topman]

It seems to be a pay issue, anyone know how bad pay is in the rfa vs the going rate?

[SW1]

I have read some nonsense about the U.K. not having a blue water navy because these two ships are to be sold. We have/will have 4 tankers and 3 stores ships the French have 3 fuel/stores ships and the Japanese 5 and I bet they are considered a blue water navy’s.

Realism and priorities matter people just don’t want to when coming up with wish lists. If your not prepared to be realistic within your budget and do too much you will become smaller by overreaching

We currently have just 5 replenishment ships: the 4*Tide Class Tankers and 1* Fort Victoria. It will be a while before the 2nd or 3rd of the FSS are completed and ready for service - probably not until 2030 - 2032.

We need the 4*Tides for supporting the two carriers (only one of which at any time will be operating at any time as a CSG) and also LRG(N). So I believe it would be useful to have even one replenishment ship EoS in support of LRG(S) and Operation Kipion etc.

Both Fort Rosalie class were decommissioned in 2021 and sold to Egypt. Wave Ruler was placed in "reduced readiness" in June 2020. So realistically the only ship that was remotely likely to be reactivated is Wave Knight, which was placed in "extended readiness" as recently as Feb 2022.

With Wave Knight able to provid fuel, food, fresh water & ammunition, able to carry a Merlin helicopter, and having full mdical team and sickbay, she could have been extremely useful, asset to RN even if kept on until the last FSS is commissioned. I am assuming the costs for reactivating Wave Knight would be far lower than her sister ship, who has been out of active service far longer.

So then it comes down to the lack of crew in both RN and RFA, where we have had to decommision both Echo and Enterprise to bring Proteus and Stirling Castle into (much needed) active service. It is a damning indictment we can't find 80 RFA crew to man Wave Kinght and 20 odd RN crew to man the helicopter.....

Yea it will be a while but that’s the plan. Stores ships is a problem with only one but its been a problem for near a decade we have stuck our head in the sand and only championed the fighty. bits

The fort 1 class were laid up for years before officially being decommissioned.

The nonsense of LRGN and S would be a gd place to start slaughtering the idea as single entities. We have a high and low readiness task group I would call it an expeditionary strike group just for an idea of makeup (as the usn operate such a grouping) with a stores ship and tanker assigned to each.

That group can deploy to an area and split up or remain together but presently the high readiness group would be assigned North Atlantic and Baltic.

The low readiness group can be in refit. You will need a tanker in Uk waters for FOST and other things. But the 4th could be deployed to the Indian Ocean.

Well currently the RN are operating LRG(N) separate from CSG, and once the Argus is ready, that will mark the start of LRG(S). Until global tensions deteriorate further, then I expect one or both LRG operating independantly of CSG.

The reason I mentioned that Wave Knight would have been my ideal choice to operate EoS rather than a Tide, is because Wave Knight has sick bay and medical team, and I believe can carry more munitions, stores and dry goods than the Tide Casll. Thus I thought Wave Knight would be more suited to supporting smaller LRG(S) that would be deploying further afield.

But unless the RN get more funds in the very near future, it will become academic the longer that Wave Knight is decommissioned, as it will be longer and more expensive to get her back into acive service.

The problem with the LRG concept is people are trying to make 4 groups when in reality we one really have the resources probably to do 2. We don’t like the idea of only having 2 so we’re pretending we can do 4.

I maybe wrong but I thought the tides also had medical facilities. On the stores break down I do not know but I guess you could put dry stores in shipping containers that the tides carry.

[Poiuytrewq]

The reason I mentioned that Wave Knight would have been my ideal choice to operate EoS rather than a Tide, is because Wave Knight has sick bay and medical team, and I believe can carry more munitions, stores and dry goods than the Tide Casll. Thus I thought Wave Knight would be more suited to supporting smaller LRG(S) that would be deploying further afield.

Its an absolute no-brainer.

RN cannot afford a major tilt EoS. The money and the hulls are currently not there.

What is there is the two waves, two RB2’s and whatever is involved in maintaining Kipion. If RN can’t maintain even that then the decline is worse than even the harshest critics thought possible. Blaming everything on the CSG simply doesn’t wash anymore. Where is CSG 2023? Where is CSG 2024?. It’s a nonsense.

The Waves would have given LRG(S) strength in depth and a persistent presence. They would have facilitated a group of Allied assets to operate in the region to maintain a presence that other smaller navies could have joined whenever practical. Instead we are going to see an occasional token force which will be tiny in scale and tiny in ambition.

What will selling the Waves actually save? Virtually nothing. They will be sold for the cost of two refits. Expect £50m to £70m. It’s laughable.

I would not rule out a commitment to increase the size of the Auxiliaries post 2035 in the Defence Command Paper but who believes the promises of jam tomorrow anymore. It’s clear the ambitions for enlargement are just lip service to camouflage the cuts.

Perhaps an easy win in the MoD was sought to balance the in-year budget but the implications of scrapping the Waves are much more pronounced than binning a couple of tired oilers. It showcases to the world that the UK isn’t serious, the two decade long cuts have been implemented and the decline is now permanent.

This is the wrong decision and other things could and should be cut before the Waves.