Future Royal Fleet Auxiliary

[RichardIC]

I would love it if the Waves could be reactivated, even if just Wave Knight, but I can't see how possible without additional funding. How can the RFA crew them?

Its simply a question of priorities. The RFA headcount issue is easily resolvable with improved pay and conditions. If the will is there it can be solved AND it can be solved rapidly.

This is a place that is frequently filled with stupidity but this is nuclear-grade stupid.

I don’t know who you are or what you do, but I absolutely guarantee you’re not someone who works with people who are highly trained and skilled.

Guarantee it.

[RichardIC]

BTW pay and conditions count. They count everywhere and it’s a highly competitive market.

But “easily” and “rapidly”?

Vapid nonsense.

[Poiuytrewq]

This is a place that is frequently filled with stupidity but this is nuclear-grade stupid.

How so?

[wargame_insomniac]

I would love it if the Waves could be reactivated, even if just Wave Knight, but I can't see how possible without additional funding. How can the RFA crew them?

Its simply a question of priorities. The RFA headcount issue is easily resolvable with improved pay and conditions. If the will is there it can be solved AND it can be solved rapidly.

In recent years RN has started to transfer more and more non logistic and replenishment taskings onto the RFA to try and offset the damage caused by SDSR 2010. This has badly affected the RFA recruitment and retention. This needs fixed ASAP.

As it becomes clear that multiple T23s are not going to make their OSDs then the resources should be diverted into what is in the water. Escorts are much more expensive to operate than any of the Auxiliaries. These figures are out of date but the costs are relative.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... essels.pdf

RN will have no additional escorts to be forward based EoS before 2028 without a gap elsewhere. Therefore the Waves are perfect to fill the gaps whilst adding a highly useful force multiplier for other naval assets operating in the region.

The Wave conversions need not be expensive or complicated, certainly nothing on the scale of a T23 LifeEx. The RAS rigs should reduced by one and the liquid capacity should be reduced to provide extra dry store capacity. The twin cranes should be replaced with a single 30t crane and a large working deck created for mexefloats and LCVP etc. The space in the superstructure should be maximised and extensive medical should be added along with additional accommodation where possible. These maximised Waves would be a fantastic test bed for the MRSS concept before any firm decisions are made again, around 2028.

As hull numbers continue to drop and money is saved on expensive T23 refits, a lack of crew is a pathetic excuse not to utilise the highly capable Waves.

This can and should be a priority.

I can agree that all UK armed services have been cut to the bone, in many cases too far, and we have not only lost resilience but have been losing the specialist logistics chains that all armed forces need, especially if perating away from UK. I must admit that in the first few days of Liz Truss Prime Ministership I did hope that we could hit the heady height of 3% defence spending in the near future. But that faint hope evaporated in the disastrous Chancellor's Autumn Statement and the following financial instability that ensued.

So we are now in the position that it appears no further defence spending is likely in the short-medium term. That means living in the eisting budgt constraints. Specifically for the RN / RFA, the only possible future available budget funding is the 5*T32 and the (potentially) 6*MRSS. BUT no definitive budgeted funds have yet been announced as set aside for the those two acquistion projects. They may yet be revealed to be yet more unfunded programs, an indication of what the RN supposedly wants but not yet backed up by hard cash.

I think most people would agree that all UK Armed Forces Base Accomodatio needs improving. but that will cost. I think most poeple would say that UK Armed Forces personnel need higher basic pay and higher performance related bonuses, but that will cost.

Both the RN and RFA are suffering from lack of suitably trained, experienced crew (all the more frustating when you consider previous non-voluntary redundancies from previous defence custs). Again it would be great to get more crew for one or both. If so then could certainly review which ships are best crewed by RN / RFA / mix. If RFA got more crw then yes, maybe, they could afford to man one or both Waves. But what would you cut to do so??

I would also keep what spending on the Wave's refits to a minimum. If they are only going to serve until 2028 (presumably somehow linked into the date of launching first of FSS) then I would be reluctant to spend too much on them.

[donald_of_tokyo]

RN will have no additional escorts to be forward based EoS before 2028 without a gap elsewhere. Therefore the Waves are perfect to fill the gaps whilst adding a highly useful force multiplier for other naval assets operating in the region.

The Wave conversions need not be expensive or complicated, certainly nothing on the scale of a T23 LifeEx. The RAS rigs should reduced by one and the liquid capacity should be reduced to provide extra dry store capacity. The twin cranes should be replaced with a single 30t crane and a large working deck created for mexefloats and LCVP etc. The space in the superstructure should be maximised and extensive medical should be added along with additional accommodation where possible. These maximised Waves would be a fantastic test bed for the MRSS concept before any firm decisions are made again, around 2028.

Looks huge conversions effort. Money is needed "in addition to" re-activating the Waves (which are suggested to cost a few million).

My question. Why not simply use Fort Victoria?

[donald_of_tokyo]

Its simply a question of priorities. The RFA headcount issue is easily resolvable with improved pay and conditions. If the will is there it can be solved AND it can be solved rapidly.

This is a place that is frequently filled with stupidity but this is nuclear-grade stupid.

I don’t know who you are or what you do, but I absolutely guarantee you’re not someone who works with people who are highly trained and skilled.

Guarantee it.

Richard-san. I guess Poiuytrewq-san is talking about the RFA crew "lost" in the last year. There are hundreds of skilled sailors/officers. They just went away. Pay rise cannot bring them back?

[Tempest414]

I would love it if the Waves could be reactivated, even if just Wave Knight, but I can't see how possible without additional funding. How can the RFA crew them?

Its simply a question of priorities. The RFA headcount issue is easily resolvable with improved pay and conditions. If the will is there it can be solved AND it can be solved rapidly.

This is a place that is frequently filled with stupidity but this is nuclear-grade stupid.

I don’t know who you are or what you do, but I absolutely guarantee you’re not someone who works with people who are highly trained and skilled.

Guarantee it.

Hi mate you are on that moral high horse that has no legs again rather than just calling someone stupid which shows us that you find it hard to work with people skilled or other wise. So show us just how clever you are and how good you are at working with skilled people and lay out the RFA manning issues and what it will take to turn them around and please don't just say more money but how much more money and what working conditions will attract people back to the job and new people in to the job

I would like to know

1) What manning problems the RFA have
2) How many more people would the RFA need to bring back the Wave tankers
3) how much more money the RFA would need and how this would be spent

[Tempest414]

RN will have no additional escorts to be forward based EoS before 2028 without a gap elsewhere. Therefore the Waves are perfect to fill the gaps whilst adding a highly useful force multiplier for other naval assets operating in the region.

The Wave conversions need not be expensive or complicated, certainly nothing on the scale of a T23 LifeEx. The RAS rigs should reduced by one and the liquid capacity should be reduced to provide extra dry store capacity. The twin cranes should be replaced with a single 30t crane and a large working deck created for mexefloats and LCVP etc. The space in the superstructure should be maximised and extensive medical should be added along with additional accommodation where possible. These maximised Waves would be a fantastic test bed for the MRSS concept before any firm decisions are made again, around 2028.

Looks huge conversions effort. Money is needed "in addition to" re-activating the Waves (which are suggested to cost a few million).

My question. Why not simply use Fort Victoria?

My view on Fort Vic is that the RFA don't want to work her that hard she is needed for one job and one only CSG support EoS by keeping ticking over she ready when needed

[Repulse]

I think people find manning issues boring or difficult to understand (or both) in comparison to equipment.

They could crew one (at least until all three FSS arrive) by giving Proteus and Stirling Castle to the RN where they belong.

The navy probably can't crew those anyway. Its 6 or two threes.

The problem is that manning, along with training, stockpiles and logistics are much more difficult to see and measure independently. It was something that the UK used to take more seriously, not necessarily got always right, but differentiated it from other “all fur and no knickers” countries.

I think it started to go wrong in the early 2000’s and took a turn for the worse from 2010. Going to war in Iraq and Iran, without raising the defence budget, distorted the armed forces driving a culture of short term cash savings to try and keep capital programmes going. 2010 when the wheels came off led to a incoherent review that left the services fighting each other over the scraps. Recent times have led to some hope to correcting some of these, but this potential feast (especially with inflation) is false - what’s worse because the public understands fur more than substance, the expectation has been equipment over the getting firm foundations in place. Others will strongly disagree, but opening a 2nd frigate factory rather than fixing and maximising the one we had is a good example of this.

What can be done - my view let’s start with the following:
- clarity of and focused alignment to strategy: the days of allowing multiple and often competing strategies to operate within the forces must end. For example the UK cannot afford to be a global land and sea power (air power IMO supports one of these) - outside of the US and China no-one can.
- honesty and education: the public needs to understand that to meet this strategy it’s more than kit. Wall charts of kit are nice, but as the Ukrainian war has reminded us logistics, stockpiles and moral are equally if not more important.
- evolution not revolution: there are times when new capabilities make current ones irrelevant. Very rarely however these do not come overnight, the forces should be more focused on continuous incremental change over big announcements of big programs. This means use and evolve what we have, with a view to new programs, but remove the jam tomorrow mindset.
- kill the sacred cows: Why do we split everything in terms of each service rather than aligning structures to objectives - for example, why not a single global expeditionary structure under one command. We should also remove the obsession with unaffordable luxuries such as frigate numbers, cap badges, tank numbers, and aircraft squadrons - if it doesn’t contribute to the objective it’s not important.

[Repulse]

My question. Why not simply use Fort Victoria?

With all due respect, it’s a good question but it’s the wrong question.

What is our strategy and what are we trying to achieve?

[Poiuytrewq]

I would also keep what spending on the Wave's refits to a minimum.

Looks huge conversions effort. Money is needed "in addition to" re-activating the Waves (which are suggested to cost a few million).

My question. Why not simply use Fort Victoria?

RN has funding for refitting vessels, my argument is, are they prioritising the correct vessels to provide the strength in depth required in the next 8-10 years?

If major hostilities broke out tomorrow morning the Auxiliaries are a shambles. Fort Vic is unreliable and the Tides can only achieve so much as configured. By maximising the Waves much can be achieved without reconfiguring the Tides which will help in almost every domain apart high intensity CSG taskings.

Is putting a 30yr old T23 into a deep refit for over two years really the best use of available funding?

The conversions need not be highly expensive or extensive and if Argus is retaining the PCRS capability then the medical facilities can be more modest. Two joint logistics ships forward based EoS would be much more valuable than more escorts or OPVs. The availability would also be much higher.

With a likely change of government next year expect to hear a lot more about HADR than has been discussed recently, especially EoS. RN needs to hedge now and base its entire EoS strategy around meaningful HADR or the tilt will in all likelihood be reversed.

It’s not a case of extra funding, it’s a case of making the best use of the funding currently available.

[SW1]

A fundamental issue is to too many tasks too many deployments, wanting to be everywhere.
A lack of focus and priorities of what is important. The use it or lose it mantra often promoted incorrectly or to coin the new phrase constant engagement. Not many are gonna choose work over family especially when there is plenty of attractive offers with flexible/wfh options out there now..

A move back to place more importance on contingency rather than deployments allowing more slack in the system would be a benefit I would think.

[Poiuytrewq]

I guess Poiuytrewq-san is talking about the RFA crew "lost" in the last year. There are hundreds of skilled sailors/officers. They just went away. Pay rise cannot bring them back?

My opinion is that the MoD must get better at managing both RN and RFA manning and skills or the entire structure must be reformed. It must be fit for purpose.

To decommission vessels due to lack of crew is scandalous and totally unacceptable. There needs to be clear career paths from RN into RFA plus much improved incentives to do so. Retaining skills within RN/RFA is paramount and it can be done without delay if it is prioritised.

Could an outsource provider like Serco find the crews for the Waves? If so why can’t the RFA?

If the terms and conditions are generous then the crews will be found in short order. The same applies to the deep sea fishing industry and offshore oil and gas. The upcoming defence command paper must address the recruitment and retention issues without delay. All that is required is the political will to solve it.

Defeatism is a state of mind.

[Repulse]

Defeatism is a state of mind.

Amen to that

[topman]

A fundamental issue is to too many tasks too many deployments, wanting to be everywhere.
A lack of focus and priorities of what is important. The use it or lose it mantra often promoted incorrectly or to coin the new phrase constant engagement. Not many are gonna choose work over family especially when there is plenty of attractive offers with flexible/wfh options out there now..

A move back to place more importance on contingency rather than deployments allowing more slack in the system would be a benefit I would think.

Absolutely, we need to pick a couple of areas and do just them. Europe and bits in the ME, bin off all talk of the far east and indian ocean, leave it to those that can afford it.

[topman]

I think people find manning issues boring or difficult to understand (or both) in comparison to equipment.

They could crew one (at least until all three FSS arrive) by giving Proteus and Stirling Castle to the RN where they belong.

The navy probably can't crew those anyway. Its 6 or two threes.

The problem is that manning, along with training, stockpiles and logistics are much more difficult to see and measure independently. It was something that the UK used to take more seriously, not necessarily got always right, but differentiated it from other “all fur and no knickers” countries.

I think it started to go wrong in the early 2000’s and took a turn for the worse from 2010. Going to war in Iraq and Iran, without raising the defence budget, distorted the armed forces driving a culture of short term cash savings to try and keep capital programmes going. 2010 when the wheels came off led to a incoherent review that left the services fighting each other over the scraps. Recent times have led to some hope to correcting some of these, but this potential feast (especially with inflation) is false - what’s worse because the public understands fur more than substance, the expectation has been equipment over the getting firm foundations in place. Others will strongly disagree, but opening a 2nd frigate factory rather than fixing and maximising the one we had is a good example of this.

What can be done - my view let’s start with the following:
- clarity of and focused alignment to strategy: the days of allowing multiple and often competing strategies to operate within the forces must end. For example the UK cannot afford to be a global land and sea power (air power IMO supports one of these) - outside of the US and China no-one can.
- honesty and education: the public needs to understand that to meet this strategy it’s more than kit. Wall charts of kit are nice, but as the Ukrainian war has reminded us logistics, stockpiles and moral are equally if not more important.
- evolution not revolution: there are times when new capabilities make current ones irrelevant. Very rarely however these do not come overnight, the forces should be more focused on continuous incremental change over big announcements of big programs. This means use and evolve what we have, with a view to new programs, but remove the jam tomorrow mindset.
- kill the sacred cows: Why do we split everything in terms of each service rather than aligning structures to objectives - for example, why not a single global expeditionary structure under one command. We should also remove the obsession with unaffordable luxuries such as frigate numbers, cap badges, tank numbers, and aircraft squadrons - if it doesn’t contribute to the objective it’s not important.

I don't think that's the case, statistics are produced and placed online regularly. Afprb covers those trades that are under the most strain quite often.

[SW1]

A fundamental issue is to too many tasks too many deployments, wanting to be everywhere.
A lack of focus and priorities of what is important. The use it or lose it mantra often promoted incorrectly or to coin the new phrase constant engagement. Not many are gonna choose work over family especially when there is plenty of attractive offers with flexible/wfh options out there now..

A move back to place more importance on contingency rather than deployments allowing more slack in the system would be a benefit I would think.

Absolutely, we need to pick a couple of areas and do just them. Europe and bits in the ME, bin off all talk of the far east and indian ocean, leave it to those that can afford it.

I agree first and foremost european/Atlantic however I would choose the Indian Ocean over the middle east but I would agree it’s one or the other in that regard not both.

[Repulse]

I don't think that's the case, statistics are produced and placed online regularly. Afprb covers those trades that are under the most strain quite often.

Yes, but they are very detailed and too much for a lay person or most MPs to understand. If the MoD / DoS started to talk about these things more and with the same importance, frequency and enthusiasm than they do with kit it would go along way.

Perhaps, given the current pressures in the economy would be things like zero percent / deposit mortgages, or split ownerships. Would give a big boost to recruitment.

[Poiuytrewq]

A fundamental issue is to too many tasks too many deployments, wanting to be everywhere.
A lack of focus and priorities of what is important. The use it or lose it mantra often promoted incorrectly or to coin the new phrase constant engagement. Not many are gonna choose work over family especially when there is plenty of attractive offers with flexible/wfh options out there now..

A move back to place more importance on contingency rather than deployments allowing more slack in the system would be a benefit I would think.

Absolutely, we need to pick a couple of areas and do just them. Europe and bits in the ME, bin off all talk of the far east and indian ocean, leave it to those that can afford it.

I agree first and foremost european/Atlantic however I would choose the Indian Ocean over the middle east but I would agree it’s one or the other in that regard not both.

Is that the RAF and Army also or just RN?

[SW1]

A fundamental issue is to too many tasks too many deployments, wanting to be everywhere.
A lack of focus and priorities of what is important. The use it or lose it mantra often promoted incorrectly or to coin the new phrase constant engagement. Not many are gonna choose work over family especially when there is plenty of attractive offers with flexible/wfh options out there now..

A move back to place more importance on contingency rather than deployments allowing more slack in the system would be a benefit I would think.

Absolutely, we need to pick a couple of areas and do just them. Europe and bits in the ME, bin off all talk of the far east and indian ocean, leave it to those that can afford it.

I agree first and foremost european/Atlantic however I would choose the Indian Ocean over the middle east but I would agree it’s one or the other in that regard not both.

Is that the RAF and Army also or just RN?

Defence in general.

[Poiuytrewq]

Defence in general.

Who are you expecting to fill the vacuum created by such a withdrawal?

[Tempest414]

A fundamental issue is to too many tasks too many deployments, wanting to be everywhere.
A lack of focus and priorities of what is important. The use it or lose it mantra often promoted incorrectly or to coin the new phrase constant engagement. Not many are gonna choose work over family especially when there is plenty of attractive offers with flexible/wfh options out there now..

A move back to place more importance on contingency rather than deployments allowing more slack in the system would be a benefit I would think.

Absolutely, we need to pick a couple of areas and do just them. Europe and bits in the ME, bin off all talk of the far east and indian ocean, leave it to those that can afford it.

I agree first and foremost european/Atlantic however I would choose the Indian Ocean over the middle east but I would agree it’s one or the other in that regard not both.

I would agree that the Army and most of the RAF need to be Atlantic / European based however I would say as an island nation we need to keep trade line open and with ships like Type 31 and River class OPV's if we keep them low cost we can afford and should have ships EoS

For me having say 3 T-31's and 3 RB2's plus a Tanker EoS is not only affordable but much needed

[SW1]

Defence in general.

Who are you expecting to fill the vacuum created by such a withdrawal?

Frankly I don’t really care who fills the vacuum there. I don’t see it as our long term strategic priority.

Assuming you wish to continue with the euro/Atlantic area that is which I think is non negotiable.

You can have one area to focus on it’s either the Middle East, the Indian Ocean or the far east put it really is pick one.

[Phil Sayers]

Defence in general.

Who are you expecting to fill the vacuum created by such a withdrawal?

Frankly I don’t really care who fills the vacuum there. I don’t see it as our long term strategic priority.

Even if we wished to ignore the Middle East, I do not see that we would be able to because the Middle East would not ignore us. See, Iranian attempts to hijack our shipping for example.

[topman]

I don't think that's the case, statistics are produced and placed online regularly. Afprb covers those trades that are under the most strain quite often.

Yes, but they are very detailed and too much for a lay person or most MPs to understand. If the MoD / DoS started to talk about these things more and with the same importance, frequency and enthusiasm than they do with kit it would go along way.

Perhaps, given the current pressures in the economy would be things like zero percent / deposit mortgages, or split ownerships. Would give a big boost to recruitment.

How would you like to see the figures presented to make them easier to understand?

Already do deposits at low interest, 50% of salary upto £20k. Can claim 20hrs/pw/child of free childcare, started this year.