Royal Navy - Standing Commitments

Discuss current, historical or potential future deployments, as well the defence of the UK's overseas interests.
Post Reply
benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

Royal Navy - Standing Commitments

Post by benny14 »

A list of the Royal Navy's standing commitments. Information on updated commitments and assigned ships can be posted here.

Image

Image
Image

Source - https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... /22113.htm

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy - Standing Commitments

Post by marktigger »

watch 5,7 & 8 quietly merged in next few years

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy - Standing Commitments

Post by benny14 »

marktigger wrote:watch 5,7 & 8 quietly merged in next few years
Pretty sure they already do occasionally.

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

Re: Royal Navy - Standing Commitments

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

benny14 wrote:
marktigger wrote:watch 5,7 & 8 quietly merged in next few years
Pretty sure they already do occasionally.
And nothing wrong with that. Whereas the same will happen with 10, 11 and 13. Call us a regional power, after that. We may have a navy that can deploy globally, but what will there be left to deploy, after the above becoming the third one on this list:
- SN(MC)MG1, and 2...and 3
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)

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy - Standing Commitments

Post by benny14 »

Even with the state of our armed forces, we are still able to meet our tasks and have some change left over. Although with a lower level of commitment than we would have previously had but still enough to do the job.

We have enough equipment in the Falklands to deter Argentina, not that they are capable of anything with the state of their armed forces at the moment. There really is no threat to us in the South Atlantic, so tasks 5,7,8 only require HMS Protector and a OPV for security.

Standing home tasks:

(1) Continuous At Sea Deterrent (CASD) - 1x Vanguard
(2) Fleet Ready Escort (FRE)/Towed Array Patrol Ship (TAPS) 1x Frigate
(3) Marine Enforcement - 3x OPV
(4) Mine Counter Measures (MCM) Support - 2x MCN

Standing overseas tasks:

HMS Protector and 1x OPV can cover all three tasks.
(5) Antarctic Patrol
(7) Atlantic Patrol Tasking South
(8) Falkland Islands Patrol Task

(6) Atlantic Patrol Tasking North - 1x OPV and 1x RFA
(9) Gibraltar Squadron - 2x Fast Patrol
(11) Gulf - 1x Destroyer/Frigate, 4x MCM, 1x RFA
(14) Operation ATALANTA - 1x Frigate
(12) Standing NATO Response Force - 1x Destroyer, 1x Survey, 1x MCN

I think we can consider 10/13 extremely scale-able and will use available vessels rather than have permanently assigned ones. This most likely will encompass a carrier strike group based around HMS QE and a Amphibious group around Albion/Bulwark/RFA. Would use all available assets outside of standing tasks.
(10) Joint Expeditionary Force
(13) Royal Marines and Amphibious Capability

Summary:
Standing home tasks:
1x Vanguard
1x Frigate
3x OPV
2x MCN

Standing overseas tasks:
HMS Protector
1x Destroyer
2x Frigate
1x Survey
2x OPV
2x RFA
2x Fast Patrol
5x MCN

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy - Standing Commitments

Post by benny14 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: Whereas the same will happen with 10, 11 and 13. Call us a regional power, after that. We may have a navy that can deploy globally, but what will there be left to deploy, after the above becoming the third one on this list:
- SN(MC)MG1, and 2...and 3
11 will never merge with 10/13 as that is a separate task and we have a base and a permanent presence in the Gulf. 10/13 may merge depending on the future of our amphibious task force ships, but will most likely be operated together regardless. A carrier strike group supporting an amphibious force of RFA/Albion/Bulwark.

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

Re: Royal Navy - Standing Commitments

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

For about the latter half of the 7 yrs here I have been saying that the self sufficiency (and beyond) in energy is changing the US approach to the Gulf Region.

Central Command will not be acting as the Fire Bde in the same way as before, but rather the US is saying to the European NATO: here's yr standing task n:o 3, all we are going to offer is time for you to rise to the challenge (as it is you, not us, who are dependent on that oil & gas... for the portion that you are not :) buying from Russia).
- sure thing, in the future you can buy from us, too :lol:

If in the future all we can, at short notice, put ashore is one Cdo, one could reasonably say that all that amounts to is a civilian evacuation Op under fire or securing a forward base... not even both at the same time. :(
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)

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

Re: Royal Navy - Standing Commitments

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

There must be Kremlins in the system as I got an email notification of benny's post of 2 Nov... today!

Postby benny14 » 02 Nov 2017, 23:29

Nevermind, as it caused me to reread my post from the following day, which is the kind of stuff now appearing in the newly released US National Security Strategy under the heading "Energy Dominance"
- Russia has reacted to the emergence of a new "Swing Producer" by cosying up :? to Saudi Arabia, so as to have a counterweight (as for the swings - or perpetual change - in the price of oil). Can't ignore 60% of the income :problem: streams to the state coffers
ArmChairCivvy wrote:For about the latter half of the 7 yrs here I have been saying that the self sufficiency (and beyond) in energy is changing the US approach to the Gulf Region.

Central Command will not be acting as the Fire Bde in the same way as before, but rather the US is saying to the European NATO: here's yr standing task n:o 3, all we are going to offer is time for you to rise to the challenge (as it is you, not us, who are dependent on that oil & gas... for the portion that you are not :) buying from Russia).
- sure thing, in the future you can buy from us, too :lol:
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)

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy - Standing Commitments

Post by benny14 »

A very good image showing the current activities of the Royal Navy. With Montrose leaving on Monday for the Gulf, that will be 7 escorts deployed outside of UK waters, with another two active within UK waters.
Image

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

Re: Royal Navy - Standing Commitments

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

benny14 wrote:A very good image showing the current activities of the Royal Navy. With Montrose leaving on Monday for the Gulf, that will be 7 escorts deployed outside of UK waters, with another two active within UK waters. ...
Comparison with January 2018. Zero.
More ships deployed is good. But, I personally think it is just reflecting the "lack of escorts" early this year. So the crew and ship took rest, and now they can go anywhere. Important is the pace of deployment for coming 1 year. (I speculate that around Jan-March this year, operation cost was almost zero and many of the major ships are force to "enjoy vacation"
スクリーンショット 2018-10-29 22.04.23.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy - Standing Commitments

Post by benny14 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:More ships deployed is good. But, I personally think it is just reflecting the "lack of escorts" early this year. So the crew and ship took rest, and now they can go anywhere
As is expected, crew retention is more important at the moment, and the escort force is trying to align itself with the future model involving carrier duties.

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

Re: Royal Navy - Standing Commitments

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I guess the Littoral Strike Groups will become standing commitments and the experimentation carries a middle-of-the-road name: Response, in lieu of Strike

"Named the Littoral Response Group (Experimentation) deployment, the force includes the headquarters and staff of Commodore Rob Pedre, the Commander Littoral Strike Group, flagship HMS Albion, destroyer HMS Dragon and amphibious support ship RFA Lyme Bay.

“This deployment will provide high-readiness, forward-deployed options, provide strategic reassurance to our allies and partners, deter malevolent actors, strengthen NATO, and conduct wide-ranging defence experimentation,” he said.

“We will test cutting-edge technology and innovative concepts such as the Future Commando Force and the Littoral Strike Force concept to ensure our war-fighting edge in an era of constant competition.”

In addition to the ships, the Future Commando Force will be represented by elements from the specialist raiding units of 47 Commando, Marines of 42 and 40 Commando based in Plymouth and Taunton, and the intelligence experts of 30 Commando Information Exploitation Group (Plymouth), and Wildcat helicopters from the Commando Helicopter Force at RNAS Yeovilton.
"
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)

J. Tattersall

Re: Royal Navy - Standing Commitments

Post by J. Tattersall »

It'll be interesting to see if this new model has greater utility than the existing Lead Commando Group/ Amphibious Ready Group model, which while capable can only be in one part of the world for a few months of the year.

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

Re: Royal Navy - Standing Commitments

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:47 Commando [...] and the intelligence experts of 30 Commando Information Exploitation Group (Plymouth), and Wildcat helicopters from the Commando Helicopter Force at RNAS Yeovilton.
Agree, and with that persistence goes the need for integral ISR, which needs air assets for reach (i.e. the LSG ships staying OTH at least until action commences). In this context the additional Viking vehicles that have been purchased as part of the Watchkeeper UAS programme should be noted (47 Cdo operates Vikings and can easily borrow some for WK Tactical Party use' especially as Vikings are again - post-Astan - amphibious ).
- the question becomes then where could the Watckeepers be flying from. In the Med there is Gib and Cyprus. but more of a question mark if/ when operations are taking place elsewhere
- the 6 Wildcats that are part of the Commando Helicopter Force are likely the answer (as they are officially ISR and no other arming options than those in the army configuration have been reported [= nada&zilch]... even though the navy is going LMM :?: )
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)

J. Tattersall

Re: Royal Navy - Standing Commitments

Post by J. Tattersall »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: - the question becomes then where could the Watckeepers be flying from. In the Med there is Gib and Cyprus. but more of a question mark if/ when operations are taking place elsewhere
Not quite sure Watchkeeper could cover much of a JOA operating from Gibraltar or Cyprus, but Protector likely could. The need for a runaway might also well prevent Watchkeeper from being brought ashore with the RM.

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

Re: Royal Navy - Standing Commitments

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Yes, range unknown (endurance 14 hrs). Both better, sure, the edge WK has is that direct comms to a tactical party (moving in a specially-equipped Viking) can be maintained over a 150 km radius, whereas the bigger drones work through "middlemen"

Once a party is ashore, sure long-range fires and AD will also be needed , but the USMC Commandant Berger has listed what they aim to invest into, to be equipped for the preceding stages:
"high-endurance, long-range unmanned systems with intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), electronic warfare (EW), and lethal strike capabilities; and disruptive and less-lethal capabilities appropriate for countering malign activity by actors pursuing maritime ‘grey zone’ strategies.”
- which to me reads as presence and multi-domain capabilities being important, before anything heavier is dispatched, in 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)

J. Tattersall

Re: Royal Navy - Standing Commitments

Post by J. Tattersall »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: "high-endurance, long-range unmanned systems with intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), electronic warfare (EW), and lethal strike capabilities; and disruptive and less-lethal capabilities appropriate for countering malign activity by actors pursuing maritime ‘grey zone’ strategies.”

Out of interest Marines Ditch MUX Ship-Based Drone to Pursue Large Land-Based UAS, Smaller Shipboard Vehicle https://news.usni.org/2020/03/10/marine ... rd-vehicle Wonder what an RM / RN approach to this would be ?

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

Re: Royal Navy - Standing Commitments

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I guess that you know about the MUX
... being not much short of our Rivers; In America everything is bigger

So: the concepts are getting to be more like each other?
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)

BlueD954
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 02 Oct 2020, 05:11
Singapore

Re: Royal Navy - Standing Commitments

Post by BlueD954 »

https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTIC ... HTML&src=0

II.1.4)
Short description of the contract or purchase(s):
Fuels, diesel fuel, supply of bulk marine and marine aviation fuels, for the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD), to be Delivered Duty Paid (DDP) to the British Defence Singapore Support Unit (BDSSU), at Sembawang Naval Wharf (SNW), Singapore. The fuel types delivered under the Singapore fuels project include F-76 (Marine) to Def Stan 91-4 (latest issue) and F-44 to Def Stan 91-86 (latest issue)/JP-5 (Marine Aviation) to Military Spec MIL-DTL-5624 (latest issue).

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

Re: Royal Navy - Standing Commitments

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

BlueD954 wrote: (BDSSU), at Sembawang Naval Wharf
Getting ready for the thirsty carrier & company to sail in :)
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)

BlueD954
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 02 Oct 2020, 05:11
Singapore

Re: Royal Navy - Standing Commitments

Post by BlueD954 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
BlueD954 wrote: (BDSSU), at Sembawang Naval Wharf
Getting ready for the thirsty carrier & company to sail in :)
I don't think HMS Queen Elizabeth can fit into the wharf. It likely will dock in or near Changi Naval Base, built for USN aircraft carriers. Sembawang Naval Wharf can handle up to destroyer maybe LPH eg Albion-class ships, one at a time? Not sure.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy - Standing Commitments

Post by wargame_insomniac »


User avatar
2HeadsBetter
Member
Posts: 205
Joined: 12 Dec 2015, 16:21
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy - Standing Commitments

Post by 2HeadsBetter »

Bugger! Somebody tipp-ex out Vanguard!

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy - Standing Commitments

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Current worldwide disposition of RN and RFA ships:


Post Reply