The shrinking Royal Navy

[JeremyC]

As well as the rapid rotation of RN officers in and out of key posts there is also a problem that the civil service at Abbey Wood have outsourced an awful lot without really understanding what they have outsourced or being aware of some significant gaps. They think that class does an awful lot more than it actually does do, when things go wrong they instinctively blame class. Now to be honest class does drop the ball at times and sometimes class deserves the criticism, but in most cases class delivers the service they've been contracted to provide and the problem is that the MoD do not understand what class have been contracted to provide and assume they're getting an awful lot more than they are.

It's become fashionable to blame the Civil Service for government foul ups and sometimes it's justifiable, but one of the problems the Civil Service now has is that with the huge cuts over the last few years they have been gutted of a great deal of expertise as those with that knowledge have either taken retirement or left for outside industry. The problem is with specialist items like ships if you have no in-house expertise you can't be an intelligent customer.

When the current ships were built for SFPA/ Marine Scotland it was realised the outfit hadn't the people or the knowledge about the fine detail of such an operation and outside consultants were employed, however we also had our own Marine Staff in the office and the yard, so there were 'in house' people with relevant professional knowlege closely involved. I think I can say the combination meant we had few real problems with the contract or the ship we received.

Edited December 8, 2016 by JeremyC

[jjb1970]

It's become fashionable to blame the Civil Service for government foul ups and sometimes it's justifiable, but one of the problems the Civil Service now has is that with the huge cuts over the last few years they have been gutted of a great deal of expertise as those with that knowledge have either taken retirement or left for outside industry. The problem is with specialist items like ships if you have no in-house expertise you can't be an intelligent customer.

When the current ships were built for SFPA/ Marine Scotland it was realised the outfit hadn't the people or the knowledge about the fine detail of such an operation and outside consultants were employed, however we also had our own Marine Staff in the office and the yard, so there were 'in house' people with relevant professional knowlege closely involved. I think I can say the combination meant we had few real problems with the contract or the ship we received.

I agree there is truth in that, but it goes further than that. Abbey Wood has plenty of highly experienced engineers and naval architects. I was involved in commercial projects where the available resource from ship owners was much smaller than that available to the MoD and for much more challenging projects in terms of marine engineering and naval architecture and which went vastly more smoothly and efficiently than MoD projects. Some of those commercial operators used external consultants but the fundamental difference was their ability to manage contracts and define a good specification. I know the military systems of a warship are extremely complex, but the marine systems are in many cases much less complex than many commercial vessels. A diesel engine is a diesel engine, a gas turbine a gas turbine, a pipe system a pipe system etc. Many of the major issues were not with the advanced military systems but failures in basic marine systems that were certainly no more challenging than many commercial vessels and much less so than vessels such as LNG carriers, DP offshore vessels etc.

The timescales for warships are very long and with the available resource at Abbey Wood there is no reason why the MoD cannot manage these projects. They make heavy use of outside specialists such as BMT, LR, DNV GL, Frazer Nash etc as well as using high quality suppliers. BAE are not thick, they know their business, as do RR. Once you issue a technical specification then that is what the designers will work to. If you specify standards and select the class rules you want to use then again those are the standards which designers will use. If the specification is not right (for example, the inadequate upper sea water temperature operability for the Type 45) of the standards are inadequate then it is no use blaming BAE, RR, GE, Wartsila, LR, BMT etc. Most of these companies actively seek early engagement precisely to mitigate the risks of building in unsuitable requirements which are then carried forward.

The issue is not one of individual competence and capability. Some of the RN engineers are extremely competent and able, as are some of the MoD civil servants. The issue is not one of resource as if you look at numbers relative to the work being undertaken then commercial ship owners would be horrified at the numbers involved and probably reduce them by 80% or more. The problem is corporate dysfunctional behaviour.

[Ohmisterporter]

In case you have not seen this, here is an update from the Save the Royal Navy blog.

 

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/failure-to-replace-the-harpoon-anti-ship-missile-would-be-inexcusable/

[Ohmisterporter]

I have re-read the link above and am left wondering just why the Harpoon missiles are being withdrawn before a replacement is ready. Not being an expert on missile technology I am left wondering if they have a use by or best before date? 

[2750Papyrus]

I have re-read the link above and am left wondering just why the Harpoon missiles are being withdrawn before a replacement is ready. Not being an expert on missile technology I am left wondering if they have a use by or best before date? 

 

I have no detailed knowledge of Harpoon but yes, most weapons have a finite service life, defined in their original specification. 

 

In my time the most common lifed items would be batteries and items from the explosives chain.  Occasionally, "fleet leaders" could be withdrawn for strip-down and examination/testing, which could result in remaining items being given an extended life, or "lifed" items could be replaced if the requirement justified the cost.

[Keith George]

I have re-read the link above and am left wondering just why the Harpoon missiles are being withdrawn before a replacement is ready. Not being an expert on missile technology I am left wondering if they have a use by or best before date? 

This is exactly what I have been thinking.

 

Keith.

[PhilH]

I have no detailed knowledge of Harpoon but yes, most weapons have a finite service life, defined in their original specification. 

 

In my time the most common lifed items would be batteries and items from the explosives chain.  Occasionally, "fleet leaders" could be withdrawn for strip-down and examination/testing, which could result in remaining items being given an extended life, or "lifed" items could be replaced if the requirement justified the cost.

Would it not also be true to say that there is usually a defined date beyond which original equipment manufacturers and/ or suppliers are not willing to support the system?

[Legend]

The article sums it up neatly. The only anti ship armament we have is a 4.5 " gun. That'll be good to send out when the Russian Navy next sails up the channel. might as well send out a ferry with a pea shooter.

 

They need to get a grip . We need adaquately armed capable warships. Not only do we not have enough of them, the ones we have are very under armed. Great radars, at least they'll know what hit them!

[Zomboid]

The article sums it up neatly. The only anti ship armament we have is a 4.5 " gun. That'll be good to send out when the Russian Navy next sails up the channel. might as well send out a ferry with a pea shooter.

 

They need to get a grip . We need adaquately armed capable warships. Not only do we not have enough of them, the ones we have are very under armed. Great radars, at least they'll know what hit them!

Either that or stop acting like we're some kind of military power when we're nothing of the sort.

[2750Papyrus]

Either that or stop acting like we're some kind of military power when we're nothing of the sort.

 

There are those who say we don't spend enough on defence and those who say we spend too much and are living in the past.  But to say we are not "some kind" of military power is just not true.

[pete_mcfarlane]

I get the impression that the current thinking in the Government/MoD is to not throw vast amounts of money at short term bodges, and to accept short/medium term capability gaps in return for putting in place a properly funded long term solution. The Harpoon replacement fits in with that model. It just assumes that we don't need those capabilities in the meantime. 

 

The proposed replacement looks quite good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseus_(missile)

 

As a layman, I'm never quite sure about what the situation is with Western ship-ship missiles. It always feels as if they are portrayed as massively inferior to the supposed super-weapons that the Russians and Chinese have on their ships. 

[Ohmisterporter]

A lot of Russian equipment was underestimated by NATO during the cold war. When the Wall came down and states like Poland and the Czech Republic joined NATO they still had their Russian aircraft and missiles. Testing them against NATO jets opened our eyes to the quality of equipment. Some was as good or better than ours; on the other hand their tanks were of poorer quality, as has been shown in several wars where NATO and Israeli tanks have been superior. What the Russians are good at are artillery and missiles, I don't have much information about the quality or otherwise of their navy, but it does seem to be well armed but quite run down. 

[jjb1970]

The RN has been underfunded and has been spreading the butter as thin as they can to try and maintain sufficient capability to meet the tasking still demanded of it by the government. I do have sympathy for them on this one as it is very easy to be critical (and I am hugely critical of the defence procurement process in many ways) but if you're in a position where you have a budget and that budget is inadequate to do what you'd like to do then hard choices have to be made. They've accepted the risk of some serious short term capability gaps as part of a long term plan to put things on a more sustainable footing, that is risky but in many ways it is the least bad option short of a major review of the defence budget that isn't an excuse for just cutting the pie in a different way.

[Ozexpatriate]

There are those who say we don't spend enough on defence and those who say we spend too much and are living in the past.  But to say we are not "some kind" of military power is just not true.

The RN is generally ranked fourth or fifth.

 

I see a lot of internet 'lists' with the following rank order:

 

1. US

2. Russia

3. China

4. Japan

5. UK

6. France

7. India

8. South Korea

9. Italy

10. Taiwan

 

The question is all about defining the mission and whether (or not) we are in a post-Mahan world for Naval strategy.

[Zomboid]

There are those who say we don't spend enough on defence and those who say we spend too much and are living in the past. But to say we are not "some kind" of military power is just not true.

I'm probably more in the latter camp, but either way, we spend a fair amount of money on our armed forces, have NATO membership and a permanent UN Security Council seat, but if we needed to mount a defense, what could we really do?

Rather than carrying on with boats that don't have proper guns and an ever decreasing fleet, we should consider what we want to be in the world and act accordingly. To my non-expert (and probably ill informed) eyes, we seem to be falling between the two stools of being a genuine global military presence or having a self-defense capability and not much more.

[Ozexpatriate]

... we should consider what we want to be in the world and act accordingly. To my non-expert (and probably ill informed) eyes, we seem to be falling between the two stools of being a genuine global military presence or having a self-defense capability and not much more.

This is precisely the mission question.

 

What are the relative priorities of submarine nuclear deterrence, global force projection, maritime trade-route protection, maritime invasion defense, and home water fishing and immigration policing to Britons in a post-Brexit, NATO configuration?

 

Even the USN is struggling with this question and the 'number of hulls' has long been kicked around on Capitol Hill.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Ozexpatriate

[pete_mcfarlane]

The RN is generally ranked fourth or fifth.

 

There are also lists which place the UK second and France third. I suspect it depends on whether you rank a country by the overall size of their fleet, or by the size of the force they can send on an operation on the other side of the World. The latter will currently favour the UK and France over Russia and China at the moment. I suspect the Chinese could overtake us, but the Russians are on a downward trajectory once all their Soviet era hardware rusts away. 

 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/study-finds-uk-is-second-most-powerful-country-in-the-world/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue-water_navy#Classification_and_naval_hierarchy

[Ozexpatriate]

I suspect the Chinese could overtake us, but the Russians are on a downward trajectory once all their Soviet era hardware rusts away. 

The trajectory for the Chinese and Indian Navies are the largest anywhere.

[Barry O]

Would it not also be true to say that there is usually a defined date beyond which original equipment manufacturers and/ or suppliers are not willing to support the system?

Yes it's the end of the post design services contract. UK companies will do these for many years, but Harpoon isn't UK sourced so.....

 

It's great buying overseas sourced equipment but the after sales service is costly and time bound.

 

And yes, missiles are lived. Falklands war used up a number of close to the end of shelf life missiles.

[Legend]

The RN has been underfunded and has been spreading the butter as thin as they can to try and maintain sufficient capability to meet the tasking still demanded of it by the government. I do have sympathy for them on this one as it is very easy to be critical (and I am hugely critical of the defence procurement process in many ways) but if you're in a position where you have a budget and that budget is inadequate to do what you'd like to do then hard choices have to be made. They've accepted the risk of some serious short term capability gaps as part of a long term plan to put things on a more sustainable footing, that is risky but in many ways it is the least bad option short of a major review of the defence budget that isn't an excuse for just cutting the pie in a different way.

Agreed, they need more money. However I wouldn't throw it at them without conditions. As our armed forces have diminished has the Ministry of Defence or do we have the same number of civil servants as before? If it has declined I'll bet it's not at the same rate as the Navy! I'd start with a root and branch review of MoD . What do you do, how long do you take to do it? I want more value or money. Divert what we save straight to the forces. Don't just throw money at them and watch it be swallowed with no noticeable effect.

[Kickstart]

And yes, missiles are lived. Falklands war used up a number of close to the end of shelf life missiles.

From something i read recently, indcluding some obsolete air defence missiles fudged for use for ship to shore attack

 

All the best

 

Katy

[Keith George]

From something i read recently, indcluding some obsolete air defence missiles fudged for use for ship to shore attack

 

All the best

 

Katy

 

This was the Sea Slug as carried by the Destroyers HMS  Glamorgan and HMS Antrim.

 

Keith.

[PhilH]

As an aside there is an element of this in Ed Macy's 'Apache' which in essence is an account of the rescue of a Marine's body from a Taliban compound (it's the one where Marines strapped themselves to the pods on the Apaches). The armaments sergeant wasn't too keen on them bringing ordnance back especially that which was getting towards its sell by date.

 

What he couldn't have envisaged was that in thirty two minutes of the action the Apaches expended £1,060,794.20p worth of ammunition. It did relieve him of a lot of paperwork though.

Edited December 22, 2016 by PhilH

[Bon Accord]

This was the Sea Slug as carried by the Destroyers HMS  Glamorgan and HMS Antrim.

 

Keith.

 

All because we had a shortage of vessels suitable for NGS; thanks to the grown ups deciding a few years previous that warships fitted with medium/large calibre guns were a thing of the past, plus doing away with said pea shooters would save cash (or so they thought).

[jjb1970]

Agreed, they need more money. However I wouldn't throw it at them without conditions. As our armed forces have diminished has the Ministry of Defence or do we have the same number of civil servants as before? If it has declined I'll bet it's not at the same rate as the Navy! I'd start with a root and branch review of MoD . What do you do, how long do you take to do it? I want more value or money. Divert what we save straight to the forces. Don't just throw money at them and watch it be swallowed with no noticeable effect.

A) fair points. I think it is true of many government departments that there is a real question regarding how much of the perpetual funding shortfall is a genuine shortfall and how much is caused by the money they have not being spent to good effect.