Future Royal Fleet Auxiliary

[Tempest414]

well you have clearly never had to defend 2 nurses from a bolke with a knife plus I have sat both side as I have served in the RAF and worked in the NHS and given the last few years with Covid when nurses and teachers had stay in post at great risk to them self without the kit they needed not one that knew turned and left they stood there ground and 3 people I knew died of Covid there is a lot to think about

On top of the above we not talking RN we are talking RFA now I am not saying that all should get the same pay but each has its pros and cons and lets be clear that people sign up and the problem of pay is one that has been coming down the line for some time

No I never served at Hospital. And I know COVID was exactly the war for them.

But, I know tens (or hundred) of thousands of soldiers are NOW dying in Ukraine. Millions of soldiers (and people) died in WW2, including some of brothers of my grandfather.

I do not think it is the same. Just my thinking.

On RFA, I am not totally sure. What is the difference between HMS Shefield, RFA Sir Galahad, and Atlantic Conveyor? There is no clear answer, I agree.

Out and out war is very very different a lot people dye including civvis and that is the way it is we are talking day to to day and member of the RFA is in NO more danger than a front line worker in the NHS and the NAO would prove it I will put money on that more staff in the NHS have suffered life changing injuries over the past 15 years per head than that of the RFA

[Poiuytrewq]

No it isnt. Strategic isolation would be declaring neutrality and leaving nato.

Sorry, can’t agree.

How is NATO even relevant in this context?

Declaring neutrality is simple isolation, nothing strategic about it.

It’s tempting ignore the problem but it won’t go away. The only thing that will stop future conflict is an alliance of nations with such overwhelming military capabilities that any aggressor would not stand a chance of prevailing.

History has many lessons in this regard.

[SW1]

No it isnt. Strategic isolation would be declaring neutrality and leaving nato.

Sorry, can’t agree.

How is NATO even relevant in this context?

Declaring neutrality is simple isolation, nothing strategic about it.

It’s tempting ignore the problem but it won’t go away. The only thing that will stop future conflict is an alliance of nations with such overwhelming military capabilities that any aggressor would not stand a chance of prevailing.

History has many lessons in this regard.

The region that is strategically relevant is the one the country is based in, if it’s not secure nothing else matters that’s why it is relevant and of strategic importance if we stepped out of ensuring its security it would be strategic isolationism. It’s why Churchill went to America to ensure after pearl harbour europe was the priority not the pacific.

We are not ignoring the pacific or the problem but solving the problem is absolutely not about us sending limited military resources to the region which make no material difference to the balance of power and ignoring the reality on our own territories doorstep. We stayed militarily out of Vietnam for example offering equipment and training instead was that strategic isolation?.

We are offering technology and equipment to countries in the pacific while securing our own region so others don’t have to, that’s our contribution to creating an alliance that counters Chinese expansion in the Atlantic, Africa and the pacific.

[Poiuytrewq]

The region that is strategically relevant is the one the country is based in, if it’s not secure nothing else matters that’s why it is relevant and of strategic importance if we stepped out of ensuring its security it would be strategic isolationism. It’s why Churchill went to America to ensure after pearl harbour europe was the priority not the pacific.

Im sorry, I can’t agree. That argument is too simplistic IMO in terms of both geopolitical and practical considerations.

WW2 was a war fought over resources and the Allies won because they managed to retain access to more oil and raw materials than the Axis. The loss of the rubber plantations in Malaysia along with the fall of Singapore was a massive blow to the Allied war effort and the entire North African campaign was fought to secure Egypt and Suez to ensure access to British controlled oil fields in the Middle East.

It’s true that Churchill wanted to prioritise the European theatre but British Forces were fighting across the globe. In 1941/1942 the Royal Navy was hunting Kreigsmarine surface raiders and sinking axis convoys in the Med whilst tackling the U-boats in the North Atlantic and persevering with the Arctic convoys. Clearly the Pacific campaign was a stretch too far with Force-Z etc but there was a real threat to Australia and India through Burma so politically something had to be done.

How this transfers to the modern day is debatable but lessons must be learned. The biggest takeaway IMO is to stop these conflicts before they start and retreating back to within a Northern European bubble won’t achieve that.

That is why I propose keeping a modest RN/RFA presence forward based EoS whilst maintaining the vast bulk of RN offensive capabilities in the U.K. The priority is clear but RN persistent global presence must continue.

Currently EoS RN is conducting Kipion and has forward deployed two RB2s. Argus is due to be forward based to facilitate LRG(S). Forward basing the two Waves to the Indian Ocean/Indo Pacific is just about the most useful additional contribution the UK could currently make.

With a chronic shortage of available hulls, deploying the Waves EoS would be seen as pragmatic but not provocative. It’s also just about the cheapest of all the available options.

Just my opinion.

[SW1]

The region that is strategically relevant is the one the country is based in, if it’s not secure nothing else matters that’s why it is relevant and of strategic importance if we stepped out of ensuring its security it would be strategic isolationism. It’s why Churchill went to America to ensure after pearl harbour europe was the priority not the pacific.

Im sorry, I can’t agree. That argument is too simplistic IMO in terms of both geopolitical and practical considerations.

WW2 was a war fought over resources and the Allies won because they managed to retain access to more oil and raw materials than the Axis. The loss of the rubber plantations in Malaysia along with the fall of Singapore was a massive blow to the Allied war effort and the entire North African campaign was fought to secure Egypt and Suez to ensure access to Bitrish controlled oil fields in the Middle East.

It’s true that Churchill wanted to prioritise the European theatre but British Forces were fighting across the globe. In 1941/1942 the Royal Navy was hunting Kreigsmarine surface raiders and sinking axis convoys in the Med whilst tackling the U-boats in the North Atlantic and persevering with the Arctic convoys. Clearly the Pacific campaign was a stretch too far with Force-Z etc but there was a real threat to Australia and India through Burma so politically something had to be done.

How this transfers to the modern day is debatable but lessons must be learned. The biggest takeaway IMO is to stop these conflicts before they start and retreating back to within a Northern European bubble won’t achieve that.

That is why I propose keeping a modest RN/RFA presence forward based EoS whilst maintaining the vast bulk of RN offensive capabilities in the U.K. The priority is clear but RN persistent global presence must continue.

Currently EoS RN is conducting Kipion and has forward deployed two RB2s. Argus is due to be forward based to facilitate LRG(S). Forward basing the two Waves to the Indian Ocean/Indo Pacific is just about the most useful additional contribution the UK could currently make.

With a chronic shortage of available hulls, deploying the Waves EoS would be seen as pragmatic but not provocative. It’s also just about the cheapest of all the available options.

Just my opinion.

Can’t agree. Your assumption is that deployed military ships is the only way to show engagement. It is not.

We are stopping or deterring conflict by providing our closest allies with the ability to defend themselves and the region. The is not retreating the is being pragmatic and awake to the issue at hand

[Poiuytrewq]

Can’t agree. Your assumption is that deployed military ships is the only way to show engagement. It is not.

I didn’t suggest it was the only way.

RN/RFA is only one facet in a multi faceted approach but there is rather a lot of water in the region.

[Ron5]

Can’t agree. Your assumption is that deployed military ships is the only way to show engagement. It is not.

I didn’t suggest it was the only way.

RN/RFA is only one facet in a multi faceted approach but there is rather a lot of water in the region.

RAF don't like that. Or anything that requires the RN and not them.

[Poiuytrewq]

The RFA crisis continues…

[Poiuytrewq]

What did the MoD expect to happen?

This is what happens when you don’t look after your people. Generous pay rise required and recruitment and retention problem likely solved.

[SW1]

What did the MoD expect to happen?

This is what happens when you don’t look after your people. Generous pay rise required and recruitment and retention problem likely solved.

So how would you proceed?


The headline budget for defence isn’t changing.

So If your incharge of the mod budget as a capital allocator what would do you do. Would you reduce the personnel head count and pay those left more, would you reduce the equipment and support budget or the infrastructure budget and allocate more capital to the personnel budget?

Equipment is obviously useless without someone to use it and if your infrastructure is poor it will affect retention and your ability to generate assets.

How do you square the circle?

[Scimitar54]

If you don’t have enough people, you will be leaning on those that you have to an even greater extent. giving an additional reason for people to leave the service.

Dedicated people will put up with poor treatment (in a good cause) for a while, but there are limits and HMG have pushed “the services” people (and their equipment) beyond those limits.

If a Government treats (any groups of) the people who are responsible for providing what is it’s prime responsibility to the population poorly over a protracted period, then it should not be surprised if it is increasingly difficult to recruit and retain them.

[Poiuytrewq]

How do you square the circle?

Simple, pay a fair wage.

If HMG wants a globally deployed RN then it needs to properly fund the RFA to fully support a blue water navy.

If the MoD isn’t sufficiently funding the RFA to pay a fair wage then it’s a question of re assessing the priorities.

Given how active the RFA has been in the last year or so it’s difficult to see how any reasonable budget has been exceeded.

[SW1]

How do you square the circle?

Simple, pay a fair wage.

If HMG wants a globally deployed RN then it needs to properly fund the RFA to fully support a blue water navy.

If the MoD isn’t sufficiently funding the RFA to pay a fair wage then it’s a question of re assessing the priorities.

Given how active the RFA has been in the last year or so it’s difficult to see how any reasonable budget has been exceeded.

I don’t disagree but I’m asking we’re do you reduce to increase personnel costs.

[Poiuytrewq]

I don’t disagree but I’m asking we’re do you reduce to increase personnel costs.

I am suggesting you shouldn’t have to materially reduce anything due to the low number of hulls actually deploying and the lower than expected headcount.

What has the RFA actually got crewed and operational as of right now today? Fort Vic alone is a sizeable chunk of the crew allocation for the entire RFA.

If the headcount is down by 20% to 30% then adding 10% to the wage bill is peanuts.

[new guy]

It is getting really bad If we can't even crew the Tides, the core of the RFA fleet.

[Poiuytrewq]

Amazingly detailed overview.

https://www.navylookout.com/the-royal-f ... y-in-2023/

[donald_of_tokyo]

Interesting post. By doing this, "cheapish salary" issue can be solved? The moment you out source something, "man-power cost" can be converted into "(service) procurement cost".

However, if the salary of these posts are higher than those in RN and RFA, this action may increase the outflow in them, although just a guess (doing the same thing with better salary).

[wargame_insomniac]

Interesting post. By doing this, "cheapish salary" issue can be solved? The moment you out source something, "man-power cost" can be converted into "(service) procurement cost".

However, if the salary of these posts are higher than those in RN and RFA, this action may increase the outflow in them, although just a guess (doing the same thing with better salary).

"Job advert for Able Seafarer working 5 weeks on, 5 weeks off on an unnamed RFA ship"
That, to me, seems to suggest a UK based RFA with quite short deployments or tasks. Even though tweet states that unnamed ship, I personally doubt it is a coincidence that picture shown is RFA Proteus.

But even if this job advert is in fact just for the Proteus, if it helps relieve some of the RFA's short term pressure on crew then that is still a good thing. Unless, as you say, if it messes up salary bands for such similar RFA posts on other ships.

[donald_of_tokyo]

"Job advert for Able Seafarer working 5 weeks on, 5 weeks off on an unnamed RFA ship"
That, to me, seems to suggest a UK based RFA with quite short deployments or tasks....

I understand ALL RFA vessels are operated as such?

[wargame_insomniac]

"Job advert for Able Seafarer working 5 weeks on, 5 weeks off on an unnamed RFA ship"
That, to me, seems to suggest a UK based RFA with quite short deployments or tasks....

I understand ALL RFA vessels are operated as such?

Ah. Thanks for clarifying.

[SW1]

As many tankers in mothballs as there are inservice

[donald_of_tokyo]

As many tankers in mothballs as there are inservice

Madness - why on earth are we getting them to crew MRoSS and OSV ships when they can’t even provide the basic services they are there for.

[SW1]

As many tankers in mothballs as there are inservice

Madness - why on earth are we getting them to crew MRoSS and OSV ships when they can’t even provide the basic services they are there for.

As someone once said “ a good reminder that to be relevant the RN needs top tier assets that others want, it’s not about making up numbers”

Well there they are tied up…

Edit we have as many tanker and stores ships tied up as the Japanese and Australian navies have combined

[Repulse]

As many tankers in mothballs as there are inservice

Madness - why on earth are we getting them to crew MRoSS and OSV ships when they can’t even provide the basic services they are there for.

As someone once said “ a good reminder that to be relevant the RN needs top tier assets that others want, it’s not about making up numbers”

Well there they are tied up…

Yep

[Poiuytrewq]

RFA vote for strike action.

https://www.nautilusint.org/en/news-ins ... ke-action/

Total disaster and frankly, completely unacceptable for RN to be put in a situation like this.

Highly likely this will just hasten the demise of the RFA as we know it.