Future Royal Fleet Auxiliary

[SW1]

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.

Yes a number of people have been stating that about the tilt for sometime.

What would you cut instead of the waves?

[Poiuytrewq]

What would you cut instead of the waves?

Which departmental budgets are on the chopping block?

[SW1]

What would you cut instead of the waves?

Which departmental budgets are on the chopping block?

The navy’s

I say that because it’s always easy to cut something else you have no interest in. If your not prepared to say where you would get it within a budget you do care about you can’t have anyone else’s.

[Poiuytrewq]

What would you cut instead of the waves?

The navy’s

Pity.

Work on HS2 would have stopped at 7am tomorrow morning.

I say that because it’s always easy to cut something else you have no interest in. If you’re not prepared to say where you would get it within a budget you do care about you can’t have anyone else’s.

Can’t agree.

HMG sets the departmental budgets and more could and should be allocated to Defence. There should be a minimum spend of 3% GDP per annum in law and very quickly HMT would readjust to cope. If most of the increase was spent on manufacturing in the U.K. to provide the kit required most of the money would eventually flow back to HMT along with the export bonanza that would inevitably follow.

However, working within a fixed RN budget and with the scale of the disfunction I would completely reappraise the entire fleet structure to cut the cloth accordingly. I don’t think RN can do what is being asked within the current envelope.

With a heavy heart I would decommission the next worst T23 that will soon be beyond economical repair. Spend the refit funding on refitting the Waves and Bulwark and get three hulls reactivated rather than one.

Prioritise a RFA manpower increase and get all RFAs back at sea. Work on a reduced crewing model for both LPDs that is scaled for FCF taskings.

Forward base Bulwark and Argus at Duqm for LRG(S)

Forward base both Waves EoS to support RN and allied vessels.

Retain the Kipion T23 and Bay plus maintain the 2x RB2’s to provide the tilt.

It’s credible and affordable but the vast majority of RNs surface fleet remains in the U.K.

Cutting more enablers whilst spending hundreds of millions of pounds on extending the operational lives of knackered old Frigates is strategically illiterate IMO.

[SW1]

What would you cut instead of the waves?

The navy’s

Pity.

Work on HS2 would have stopped at 7am tomorrow morning.

I say that because it’s always easy to cut something else you have no interest in. If you’re not prepared to say where you would get it within a budget you do care about you can’t have anyone else’s.

Can’t agree.

HMG sets the departmental budgets and more could and should be allocated to Defence. There should be a minimum spend of 3% GDP per annum in law and very quickly HMT would readjust to cope. If most of the increase was spent on manufacturing in the U.K. to provide the kit required most of the money would eventually flow back to HMT along with the export bonanza that would inevitably follow.

However, working within a fixed RN budget and with the scale of the disfunction I would completely reappraise the entire fleet structure to cut the cloth accordingly. I don’t think RN can do what is being asked within the current envelope.

With a heavy heart I would decommission the next worst T23 that will soon be beyond economical repair. Spend the refit funding on refitting the Waves and Bulwark and get three hulls reactivated rather than one.

Prioritise a RFA manpower increase and get all RFAs back at sea. Work on a reduced crewing model for both LPDs that is scaled for FCF taskings.

Forward base Bulwark and Argus at Duqm for LRG(S)

Forward base both Waves EoS to support RN and allied vessels.

Retain the Kipion T23 and Bay plus maintain the 2x RB2’s to provide the tilt.

It’s credible and affordable but the vast majority of RNs surface fleet remains in the U.K.

Cutting more enablers whilst spending hundreds of millions of pounds on extending the operational lives of knackered old Frigates is strategically illiterate IMO.

It’s like taxes everyone wants to put up the taxes they don’t pay! In general the amount the government spends as a percentage has increased by a 1/3rd over the last decade or so already.

I do have some sympathy with the scrap hs2 view however infrastructure spend in general across the country is badly needed and seems to be continual held up by antiquated planning.

I don’t believe we need to spend 3% on defence however I do believe we need more uk content particularly with assembly, integration and test.

I agree cutting enablers is unwise however I would also bias more toward submarines from the surface fleet going fwd. I would not put all that east of suez nor am I particularly in favour of retaining the current kipion tasking as is. If I was looking to keep the two waves right now I would remove Argus and a bay to do it. That leaves the afloat hospital requirement I might see if it’s possible to move that to a lpd or carrier in much the same way the mistrals function.

But in general I might look at the overall defence budget composition with different priorities. It like a supertanker takes along time to change and we can’t start with a clean slate.

[Poiuytrewq]

I do have some sympathy with the scrap hs2 view however infrastructure spend in general across the country is badly needed and seems to be continual held up by antiquated planning.

Britain needs infrastructure investment but it doesn’t need £120bn spent on saving 15 mins journey time between London and Birmingham.

£120bn spent properly on targeted transportation infrastructure could revolutionise travel in the U.K.

I agree cutting enablers is unwise however I would also bias more toward submarines from the surface fleet going fwd. I would not put all that east of suez nor am I particularly in favour of retaining the current kipion tasking as is. If I was looking to keep the two waves right now I would remove Argus and a bay to do it. That leaves the afloat hospital requirement I might see if it’s possible to move that to a lpd or carrier in much the same way the mistrals function.

Increased sub numbers is a noble aim but a decision for the distant future. The immediate priority is what RN can actually achieve in the next 10 years.

First and foremost, what can actually last another 10 years? The T45’s, Albions, Bays, Tides, Waves, Argus and the RB2’s are all sound. The RB1s, some of the T23s and Fort Victoria may not be able to carry on that long.

Make the most of what is in the water today.

But in general I might look at the overall defence budget composition with different priorities. It like a supertanker takes along time to change and we can’t start with a clean slate.

I actually don’t think the general direction of travel and scale of ambition is far from the mark. HMT simply refuses to fund it properly.

[Repulse]

Definitely agree that using what we have first has to be the priority. The RN needs to be clever, and there are probably parts of the jigsaw we can’t see currently, but it does ensure it lives within its means and it cannot protect us on jam tomorrow. This is especially important when Labour comes in who will be looking for money to fund election pledges.

[SW1]

I do have some sympathy with the scrap hs2 view however infrastructure spend in general across the country is badly needed and seems to be continual held up by antiquated planning.

Britain needs infrastructure investment but it doesn’t need £120bn spent on saving 15 mins journey time between London and Birmingham.

£120bn spent properly on targeted transportation infrastructure could revolutionise travel in the U.K.

I agree cutting enablers is unwise however I would also bias more toward submarines from the surface fleet going fwd. I would not put all that east of suez nor am I particularly in favour of retaining the current kipion tasking as is. If I was looking to keep the two waves right now I would remove Argus and a bay to do it. That leaves the afloat hospital requirement I might see if it’s possible to move that to a lpd or carrier in much the same way the mistrals function.

Increased sub numbers is a noble aim but a decision for the distant future. The immediate priority is what RN can actually achieve in the next 10 years.

First and foremost, what can actually last another 10 years? The T45’s, Albions, Bays, Tides, Waves, Argus and the RB2’s are all sound. The RB1s, some of the T23s and Fort Victoria may not be able to carry on that long.

Make the most of what is in the water today.

But in general I might look at the overall defence budget composition with different priorities. It like a supertanker takes along time to change and we can’t start with a clean slate.

I actually don’t think the general direction of travel and scale of ambition is far from the mark. HMT simply refuses to fund it properly.

Within 10 years there should be the new stores ship arriving and the first of the new escorts.

The general direction and scale of ambition is over ambitions with a good amount of wishful thinking thrown in as sound bites.

[Caribbean]

Britain needs infrastructure investment but it doesn’t need £120bn spent on saving 15 mins journey time between London and Birmingham.

Way off topic, but "saving 15 mins journey time between London and Birmingham" is only a small part of the HS2 plan. Massively increasing the carrying capacity of the existing rail network by moving ALL high-speed trains to a seperate network is the major goal (i.e. beyond HS2). Each high-speed train takes 8-10 times as much track (for safety reasons) as a low-speed train. It's part of the low-carbon plans, as HGVs will slowly be "discouraged" and replaced by (electrified) rail freight

[shark bait]

The general direction and scale of ambition is over ambitions with a good amount of wishful thinking thrown in as sound bites.

Which part is over ambitious?

The UK spends a lot of money on defense, but isn't building much, and talking a very long time to achieve very little.

[SW1]

The general direction and scale of ambition is over ambitions with a good amount of wishful thinking thrown in as sound bites.

Which part is over ambitious?

The UK spends a lot of money on defense, but isn't building much, and talking a very long time to achieve very little.

Armoured divisions, multiple carrier/amphibious groups, deployments in every part of the world, tilts take your pick

[shark bait]

I don't think any French commentators would call that ambitious for the French armed forces. Our closest peer achieves the above already, while spending less money.

Very little about the MOD is ambitious. The MOD is just chronically underperforming.

[SW1]

I don't think any French commentators would call that ambitious for the French armed forces. Our closest peer achieves the above already, while spending less money.

Very little about the MOD is ambitious. The MOD is just chronically underperforming.

The French don’t attempt to do any of that.

[tomuk]

Work on HS2 would have stopped at 7am tomorrow morning.

All departmental budgets apart from Defence have had no uplift to meet inflation in their budgets.
In transport for example HS2 has put Euston tunnels and station on an 18 month hold where construction will stop meaning when HS2 opens it will only link Birmingham to Old Oak Common in West London.
On railways various stock has been withdrawn without replacement and a number of fleets of stock now becoming spare due to earlier orders are likely to go into store despite passenger numbers generally recovering since covid. And on roads various schemes have been cut in the RIS programme.

[new guy]

STATUS QUO !

[Poiuytrewq]

Good news!

Now time to make the case to get them reactivated and forward based EoS.

[Repulse]

Good news!

Now time to make the case to get them reactivated and forward based EoS.

It’s better than scrapping them, but what happens in 2028? No replacement in sight

[RichardIC]

Good news!

Now time to make the case to get them reactivated and forward based EoS.

There are no people to freaking well crew them. Why is that so difficult to understand?

[topman]

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

[Poiuytrewq]

It’s better than scrapping them, but what happens in 2028? No replacement in sight

It’s a five year stay of execution as well as a pragmatic decision to leave a difficult call for someone else to take the flak in the future.

IMO the Waves are too valuable to leave rusting away although due to the four Tides they are not routinely needed in their primary role.

Clearly the “Tilt” to the Pacific is going to be under resourced for the foreseeable and therefore the Waves are a perfect option for increased presence whilst providing superb utility for a very modest cost.

With escort numbers dropping continuously until around 2030 RN needs to maintain presence in multiple locations without spending big by building more stopgaps. Modest conversions to make them Joint Logistics Vessels (similar to the Canadian MV Astrix) would be money well spent.

That would give the UK a continuous presence EoS but with a very manageable cost attached.

Effectively Kipion would be maintained and LRG(S) would be based at Duqm as planned with RFA Argus. The two RB2’s would be maintained and the Waves could add strength in depth, not least for the FCF.

For a navy suffering from a chronic lack of hulls and an insufficient headcount a mixture of support vessels and OPVs is the best use of available UK resources IMO.

[RichardIC]

It’s better than scrapping them, but what happens in 2028? No replacement in sight

With escort numbers dropping continuously until around 2030 RN needs to maintain presence in multiple locations without spending big by building more stopgaps. Modest conversions to make them Joint Logistics Vessels (similar to the Canadian MV Astrix) would be money well spent.

There was nothing modest about the MV Asterix conversion and the starting point was a container ship not a tanker.

And there are still no crew.

[wargame_insomniac]

It’s better than scrapping them, but what happens in 2028? No replacement in sight

It’s a five year stay of execution as well as a pragmatic decision to leave a difficult call for someone else to take the flak in the future.

IMO the Waves are too valuable to leave rusting away although due to the four Tides they are not routinely needed in their primary role.

Clearly the “Tilt” to the Pacific is going to be under resourced for the foreseeable and therefore the Waves are a perfect option for increased presence whilst providing superb utility for a very modest cost.

With escort numbers dropping continuously until around 2030 RN needs to maintain presence in multiple locations without spending big by building more stopgaps. Modest conversions to make them Joint Logistics Vessels (similar to the Canadian MV Astrix) would be money well spent.

That would give the UK a continuous presence EoS but with a very manageable cost attached.

Effectively Kipion would be maintained and LRG(S) would be based at Duqm as planned with RFA Argus. The two RB2’s would be maintained and the Waves could add strength in depth, not least for the FCF.

For a navy suffering from a chronic lack of hulls and an insufficient headcount a mixture of support vessels and OPVs is the best use of available UK resources IMO.

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? They had to early decommission both Echo and Enterprise just to be able to crew refits of commercial vessels for Proteus and Stirling Castle.

Until either RN or RFA can affod to increase manpower levels by improving crew retention and recruitment, then we can't afford to crew any new additional ships.

[Repulse]

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

[topman]

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.

[Poiuytrewq]

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.