Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

Future Direction, RN...

Seaweed - I'm saying that under the current system the CO is responsible for Nav, but there have been systems (and could well be systems in the future) where the Commanding Officer is not responsible for the Navigation.
 
Alfred, are you telling me the Captain is now NOT responsible for safe navigation? Didn't seem to apply to Astute did it? .. I'm only a Greenie, it was Pilot what ran it up the rocks .. Oh that's OK then.

There's a difference between being responsible for and being an expert in. The CO of Astute is also responsible for nuclear safety but is not a qualified MEO with a charge certificate. There are valid arguements to using the OOW/Nav path for junior X branch officers but "Because we have always done it this way" is not the answer to why we should continue to do it that way. Do you really think a Lynx observer, for example, needs to spend 2 years being OOW2 in a frigate to understand the issues of navigating a ship?
 
B - it's because we haven't re-examined the entire point of the RN Career Structure, or if we have it's been consigned the way of every other study ever done.

What do we want to produce, in terms of Officers, at every level? Is the sine qua non of the Appointment process to produce a 1SL every 3 years, and a willingness to ignore everyone else to that end? Or is it about producing a Commander UK Maritime Forces, a 2* who nominally acts as our standing Maritime Component Commander. And if it's about producing a MCC, why do we make RN Warfare Officers stand watches for years and then appoint a Royal Marine to the job who's never had a sea-draft in his life*? Does this mean we can appoint a Marine Engineer to the position of MCC?

Further down, is it all about producing Commanding Officers of ship's at sea? If that's so, how do we thread the needle of 9.5 SO1 Sea Command Appointments every year, with a population of about 450 Officers? Is it time for a Wet/Dry list, so we can manage expectations from a much lower level, perhaps as soon as post-Ops job?

Our man-power management has never been a strong point, and post the SDSR-Shock I doubt we'll be able to make a cogent case any time soon (i.e. within the next 5 years).

*European Union Naval Force Somalia - Operation Atalanta | Chain of command
 
Your posts suggest that you personally don't like watchkeeping and think it beneath you, and think you should be entitled to skip this step.


Correct that I don't like it, incorrect that I think it beneath me, and no I don't believe I should be entitled to skip it however i'm merely trying to question our methods. I'm a WAFU so OOWing doesn't really come into it for me :) If I have to do an OOW job I will, but I really don't see it as an ESSENTIAL part - useful maybe, essential, no
 
To turn to the FAC issue - which I still don't believe is viable, for the RN it is I suppose outside the box thinking, but I cannot for the life of me think which threats we face, or will conceivably face where Visby's or whatever become the best option.

Anti-Piracy/Maritime counter terrorism - no, helo's and probably Bay, more likely DDG/FFG perform this role better

MCM - no, er thats more suited to MCMV funnily enough

Coastal patrolling - we don't realistically face a maritime threat to the mainland UK in the next decade, and don't have the necessary support structures in place for FAC's to operate to their full capability. The Rivers are good enough for now although more would be nicer (as ever)

Possible SLOC protection from an emerging Iranian threat, bolstered by their increased numbers of cheap land based SSM, a second 'tanker war' perhaps - as is their 'interesting' notion of swarm attacks by FIAC's (http://defensetech.org/2010/04/26/hybrid-war-at-sea-irans-great-prophet-5-exercises/#more-6744) in line with "tekirdag" - Now here I see a viable use and the possibility of real use being had, yet FFG/DDG could deal with as well, and be more versatile elsewhere

Confrontation with North Korea - ignoring the difficulties of transporting our squadron of FACs halfway around the world, what possible offensive use could we have for them, what targets that won't already have been bombed into oblivion by massed US carrier aircraft, ROK attacks, harpoon strikes, SSN attacks, sea skua/penguin armed helo's, even 4.5". By the time our little FAC's are close enough... I don't see much of a force left to strike.

Falklands... well, how much use is a FAC down south? and how many would we lose just through damage from sea state?


note that in this i'm using FAC in the conventional terms, not Tekirdags ridiculous aircraft-of-the-sea approach.
 
I think if we try to put FAC into a high-end threat wargame, then they will always loose. They have utility in the riverine/littoral environment (where if you carefully buy the right FAC, they could be transported by LPD/LSD(A)), and generally contribute more to a constabulary force. This type of force seems to be verboten at the moment - see this thread, my attempts on the Naval Review website (if you have access), and in an interesting read-across, a point that is coming out in the UK Forces Reputation thread over in CA.

Until we decide what we want the RN to do, then discussion of FAC (or T26) is a little pointless....
 
It's Christmas (nearly) and I've had a glass of wine.

I had my go at defining what we want the RN to do back on page 1.

Alfred- what do you think the RN is for? I'm not sure you've yet put across a coherent summation of your views.
 
As a Naval Officer, I am agnostic on what the RN is for (as I should be). As a person interested in the place of the UK in the world, I think we probably need to retain a hard-core of high end warfighting (but recognise our limits), but increase our footprint in the wider low end area of maritime operations, and equip ourselves appropriately (without turning into a coastguard)*. I'm not sure that those views would survive contact with the Treasury or those members of the Political Class** who habitually denigrate HM Armed Forces.

* A lesson that could be taken across all 3 services.
*to use Peter Oborne's definition.
 
I agree with the broad proposal Alfred, a smaller but perhaps harder edged core fighting force with a surrounding structure that is broadly in line with what we are actually doing now, more and cheaper (whatever that looks like)

In terms of position the world, I don't care and to be honest I think that phrase is anachronistic, what we should be thinking is what is are interests as a nation, how can those interests be protected and/or advanced, what role do the armed forces play in this and then how does the maritime capability fit within this
 
SO say, one hard high end fleet comprising one of the carriers, a couple of T45's and a couple of T26's, a couple of astutes + whatever LPsomething we can scrape together as a core to go high end shooty...


and then the majority of the fleet based upon something like a Brandenburg class - say three at three locations - Caribbean, Gulf, Pacific supported by 1xRFA with a couple of Merlins to act as a continuous presence and forward based capability? With another 3 Brandenburgs in UK waters for workups, and split the crews a la MCMV
 
Ok, coming in late here and trying to answer thr original post rather than get involved in fish head career path arguments, so here I go;
Firstly anyone that thinks Afghanistan is the be all and end all of service life must be due to leave very shortly. NI lasted 39 years (and then some) and was really only a backwater war compared to what we were preparing for in BAOR. The future is precisely that and with call me dave determined to get ops in Afghanistan over before the next election then the future lies distinctly in planninng for a future of flexibility.
Secondly the flexible future which you all need to be ready for means that careers will have to be weighed against the needs of the job. How many FAA Pilots are there? Compare those figures against current officer numbers in the RN and then do the same for the RAF. What proportion of pilots does the RAF have and how many does it need. Look again at the career paths. Yes this may mean changing your plans and doing duties that you didnt envisage when looking through the careers office brochures but what do you want from the Job and what does it want from you?
Thirdly, forget whaat I wrote secondly as the future of the RN isnt about your future, yes they may be linked but the RN will survive whether you stay or go. In fact it may benefit if you take the brown envelope, allowing new people less hidebound by tradition and open to freer thinking to rise and excell!
 

New posts

Top