The Shrunken Royal Navy

[Bon Accord]

2 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

It seems the RN is transferring two mine counter measures vessels to Ukraine. The UK signed an agreement to modernise the Ukrainian navy prior to the current conflict including these ships it seems so not a new development. I guess the interesting bit will be getting them into the Black Sea (what will Turkiye want to allow them through the straits?). 

 

This is Chernihiv (M310) exercising in Loch Broom last month, her sister was also in the vicinity.

[Ohmisterporter]

Navy lookout has this interesting article about a pending decision by the RAN for an upgrade to type 26 frigates due to be built in the near future. Note there are already suggestions that the order be cut from nine to six. 

 

https://www.navylookout.com/adding-firepower-to-the-type-26-frigate/

[KeithMacdonald]

On 20/12/2023 at 14:22, Ohmisterporter said:

Note there are already suggestions that the order be cut from nine to six. 

 

Besides the eternal "budgets and unexpected cost increases" challenges, there's also the teeny-weeny of not enough people available to use anything.

 

Why?

 

Quote

Navy has so few sailors it has to decommission ships - New frigates unable to be manned unless two existing warships are taken out of service

 

What?

 

Quote

HMS Westminster, which was recently refurbished at huge expense to the taxpayer, and HMS Argyll will be decommissioned this year. The crews will be sent to work across the new fleet of Type 26 frigates as they come into service. It comes as the Armed Forces experience a significant recruitment crisis, with the Navy having suffered a collapse in the flow of new recruits into the service.

 

When?

 

Quote

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has ordered eight Type 26 frigates, which will be the Navy’s most advanced submarine-hunting warships to date.  However, HMS Glasgow, the first of the new Type 26s, will not be operational until 2028 at the earliest, followed by HMS Cardiff, expected by the end of the decade. The move will bring the number of frigates in Britain’s surface fleet down to just nine until the two new ships arrive. The MoD has ordered six more Type 26 frigates, but they are not expected to start arriving until the 2030s.

 

How much?

 

Quote

HMS Westminster, which featured in the James Bond film, Tomorrow Never Dies, is described on the Navy’s website as having “recently returned to service after one of the longest, most comprehensive and complex revamps in her lifetime” following a 2017 refurbishment, and was set to undergo another £100 million refit. Around the same time, HMS Argyll, the longest serving Type 23 frigate in the Navy, underwent a multi-million pound refit to return her to the front line.

 

Woe?

 

Quote

After being decommissioned, the ships will either be scrapped or sold to an ally.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/04/royal-navy-few-sailors-decommission-ships-new-frigates/

[ovbulleid]

On 02/12/2023 at 15:21, Deeps said:

The issue of Britain carrying out another Falklands type operation is compounded by the fact we may not have the support of NATO. I found it  remarkable that the member states did not rush to support us in 1982. I was down there at the time and it felt decidedly lonely.

 

I later learnt that the reason (I may be wrong here) is because the alliance, as defined by the first two letters of ‘NATO’, is specific to conflict in the North Atlantic. I would welcome confirmation or otherwise.

That’s not true. There was no need for NATO to give us generic support as it was recognised as being outside their core purpose. However multiple NATO countries supplied replacement ships allowing the RN to send a bigger task force (on things like the Armilla Patrol), and the French let the sea harriers dogfight the etendards to give our pilots more experience (besides providing info on Exocets). That doesn’t even cover what the Kiwis tried to do. The truth is our allies had our backs when we needed it.

[johnofwessex]

I suspect that like a lot of things discretion was the watchword.

 

More importantly of course neither China or the USSR wanted to get involved on the Argentine side as they had land borders that were disputed and didnt want to encourage anyone else to do what the Argentines had done

[Deeps]

1 hour ago, ovbulleid said:

That’s not true. There was no need for NATO to give us generic support as it was recognised as being outside their core purpose. However multiple NATO countries supplied replacement ships allowing the RN to send a bigger task force (on things like the Armilla Patrol), and the French let the sea harriers dogfight the etendards to give our pilots more experience (besides providing info on Exocets). That doesn’t even cover what the Kiwis tried to do. The truth is our allies had our backs when we needed it.

Thank you for the clarification.

 

At the time I was somewhat preoccupied with the business of keeping our submarine functional and had no knowledge of the diplomatic wranglings going on back home. As I said before, the crew were dependant on a limited ration of news getting through on the world service, most of which wasn’t very encouraging with respect to allied assistance. It was also disappointing that the BBC seemed go out of its way to broadcast facts that appeared very useful to the Argentinians!

 

I must repeat that we felt very lonely down there.

[jjb1970]

20 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

Besides the eternal "budgets and unexpected cost increases" challenges, there's also the teeny-weeny of not enough people available to use anything.

 

Why?

 

 

What?

 

 

When?

 

 

How much?

 

 

Woe?

 

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/04/royal-navy-few-sailors-decommission-ships-new-frigates/

 

It might not matter if we had governments and armed forces concerned with our own defence. Unfortunately we are saddled with a political establishment which still dreams of being a world power but refuses to fund the sort of armed forces we'd need to have any hope of matching those dreams with reality. Ignoring the ethical questions around interventionist foreign policy, the sort of forces needed to play as a global policeman don't come cheap.

[jjb1970]

One attraction of joining the RN is excellent technical training, which is transferable to other employers. 

[Deeps]

1 hour ago, jjb1970 said:

One attraction of joining the RN is excellent technical training, which is transferable to other employers. 

Very true, but with undesired consequences. I joined as an Artificer Apprentice, undertaking a four year apprenticeship which was highly rated in the commercial world. One problem was that newly qualified ‘Tiffys’ left the navy as soon as possible to pursue a more profitable career in industry.

 

For some (in the1970’s) passing the practical trade test was the primary goal, the intention being to then fail the subsequent technical exams and be discharged from the navy to find employment in any number of factories. As a result, the training program was changed so that you could only undertake the trade test after successfully passing the tech exams (these were equivalent to an ONC), then having to serve a nominal 12 years before leaving the service. It is a sad reflection on the demise of our manufacturing base that skill of hand is no longer in such high demand. There will obviously be exceptions, just ask those dedicated to returning steam locomotives to the line.

 

Personally, I went on to serve for 34 years, so the navy got a very good return for its investment in my training. 

 

The ‘Tiffy’ training was lengthy and expensive so it was no surprise that financial factors led to a gradual decline in the scope and quality of the apprenticeship, eventually ceasing artificer apprenticeships a few years ago. Thereafter, all ratings joined up with the standard intakes and those who demonstrated the desired technical skills during their time in the fleet could undertake specialised training to become technicians more inline with the artificers of old. 

 

The fly in the ointment, as it were, is that the traditional skills given to us were no longer being taught. By that I mean that although I specialised as a fitter and turner in mechanical engineering, I also had limited training in every other mechanical/electrical skill necessary to keep a ship/submarine/aircraft operational. I was a ‘jack of all trades’ but also a master of some. I believe the navy has realised the error of their ways and are looking at reintroducing formal apprenticeships (perhaps they already have?).

 

The navy went the way of other organisations whereby if it was broke, rather than repairing it you replaced it. All well and good if you happened to have the required spare part onboard but not much use if you didn’t. I could ramble on for ages about repairs I undertook which were well ‘outside the box’ but that form of skill isn’t as attractive nowadays as being able to sit in front of a computer doing CAD stuff which, ironically, is as much in demand in industry as the hands on skills were in my day. We seem to gone full circle!

[KeithMacdonald]

This article in The Times might be click-bait. Is it somehow wrong to advertise a Navy job on LinkedIn?

 

Quote

 

Royal Navy forced to advertise for rear-admiral on LinkedIn

Advert for director of submarines exposes ‘shameful’ recruitment gaps

 

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/royal-marine-linkedin-submarine-admiral-job-listing-l6sc8wm2z

 

[jjb1970]

I must admit, I'd question advertising a job like that on Linkedin. The pool of potential applicants for such a post is a handful of senior serving officers and the RN should be capable of having discrete conversations within the selection board and with potential candidates. If they don't have a suitable candidate then it would indicate something really is rotten within the RN and they're up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

[jjb1970]

On training, I think the culture of employment is much more transactional today (sorry for using that buzzword, but it seems apt in this case), people see employment as an agreement and few expect (or even want) much more than an agreement to provide defined services for a defined rate of pay and reward. The idea of loyalty should still hold within military formations, but in terms of employment then I don't blame anyone for honouring their contract and serving well but getting what they need and moving on when the time is right. 

[KeithMacdonald]

5 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

I must admit, I'd question advertising a job like that on Linkedin.

 

Me too.

But that's on top of this:-

 

Quote

Royal Navy now has more admirals than warships - The MOD has said there 34 serving Admirals, Vice Admirals and Rear Admirals and 75 ships - but only 19 of these are operational warships

 

https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/royal-navy-now-more-admirals-2605063

 

It has to be said, that article was written in 2019. What's the score now? If it's anything like the same, why do we need to recruit more Admirals?

[jjb1970]

That's been a long standing problem, I am sure it was used on the classic TV sitcom Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister. The RN shouldn't need many Admirals, although I suspect the Army probably has far more Generals than we might think given the size of it.

[Deeps]

Other things to consider are that it takes a lot of time to train a person to become a competent member of the crew and that training will continue throughout their career. In my 34 years I seemed to be constantly having to learn about new equipment and every time I joined a new submarine I’d have to re-qualify all over again, even if I had served on that boat before. An endless round of oral, practical and written exams; not the sort of thing to encourage someone to remain in the service.

 

In addition, I spent a couple of years as an instructor, teaching young lads about submarine systems and procedures. I was fascinated to discover that most of them hadn’t joined up straight from school but had tried other jobs before. One of them had even run his own computer programming business. In essence, they didn’t necessarily want to remain in the service for a full career but intended to enjoy the experience for the minimum time possible and then move on to pastures new. As implied by jjb1970, I now realise that this is a common process for youngsters. Gone are the days of joining a company at 15, staying with it and retiring at 65 with a gold watch (other ages are now available). Having invested time and money training someone the problem is retaining them, to get a viable return on that investment.

[jjb1970]

I took a lesson at age 26 (I think, may have been 25, it's a long time ago). I was a cadet with P&OCL and swallowed all their guff and was what used to be called a 'company man'. Then they flagged out and got rid of a lot of their British junior officers meaning I had to look elsewhere. At the time I wasn't very happy but I quickly realized that my employment had only ever been a transactional agreement, I sold my labour for a reward I found acceptable, they got my services for a price they were happy with. That was it. Ever since then that's been my attitude. That's not to say I give less than 100% when it comes to my work, I work to the best of my ability but that's as much driven by my own sense of pride in what I do and I've never felt guilty about moving on if a better offer comes along just as I accept that if my services become surplus or two expensive then my employer can pull the plug.

[Legend]

2 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

This article in The Times might be click-bait. Is it somehow wrong to advertise a Navy job on LinkedIn?

 

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/royal-marine-linkedin-submarine-admiral-job-listing-l6sc8wm2z

 

 

I thought they already had more Admirals than boats -in fact that’s part of the problem . Too many chiefs not enough Indians 

Edited January 6 by Legend

[KeithMacdonald]

1 hour ago, Deeps said:

In my 34 years I seemed to be constantly having to learn about new equipment and every time I joined a new submarine I’d have to re-qualify all over again, even if I had served on that boat before.

 

Were you on this one? Reported November 20, 2023.

 

Quote

it has been revealed that a major disaster was narrowly averted involving a Royal Navy nuclear submarine. This Vanguard class submarine, part of the fleet that carries the UK’s Trident nuclear missiles, suffered a critical malfunction while preparing for patrol over a year ago. The heart of the incident lay in the failure of the main depth gauge during the submarine’s dive. This malfunction misleadingly indicated that the vessel was at a safer, shallower depth, whilst in reality, it continued to descend.

 

Quote

The seriousness of this situation was underscored by the fact that the submarine was nearing its “crush depth.” This term refers to a depth at which the water pressure is so immense that it can cause catastrophic structural failure to the vessel. Remarkably, it was the engineers on board, whose primary role doesn’t include depth monitoring, who noticed the anomaly on a secondary gauge. This observant action averted what could have been the worst Royal Navy disaster since World War Two.

 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/disaster-averted-onboard-british-nuclear-submarine/

[Deeps]

9 minutes ago, KeithMacdonald said:

Were you on this one? Reported November 20, 2023.

Time for a pinch of salt I think, although it would be possible to write a book about similar events.

 

I left the navy in 2007, long before this ‘apparent’ incident.

 

The instances of what we called ‘depth excursions’ were fairly common but due to the excellent build quality, proper maintenance and crew training it never resulted in catastrophic failures. I have personally experienced some fairly hairy excursions, once sinking to a depth 1 1/2 times the recommended deep dive depth when we lost propulsion but apart from a few weeping glands everything (obviously) turned out fine.

 

When diving a boat there will be numerous crew members monitoring depth gauges as part of the routine and most of them are engineers, so that part of the ‘journal’ isn’t strictly accurate. At least half the crew are engineers of one form or another. When diving a boat the whole of the crew will be closed up at ‘Diving Stations’, specifically to deal with events such as this. I served on a Trident boat as an engineer and was often manning the ships systems panel in the control room during the dive. I had a number of different depth gauge indications available to me which were generated from different sources, so if one was defective I could immediately check it against another. 

 

Trident boats are big lumps to get underwater and it is not a quick process. Because diving one of these is not a frequent procedure (they would not surface and subsequently dive again whilst on patrol) extra care is normally taken when doing it during pre-patrol preparations, which are normally done in relatively shallow waters. 

 

Having said all that, I am not totally convinced that current crew training is as comprehensive as I experienced (‘it was not like that in my day’) so there may indeed be something of genuine concern in the report.

[KeithMacdonald]

7 hours ago, Deeps said:

I have personally experienced some fairly hairy excursions, once sinking to a depth 1 1/2 times the recommended deep dive depth when we lost propulsion but apart from a few weeping glands everything (obviously) turned out fine.

 

Well done sir!

I have to confess my own glands would have been weeping a lot at 1.5 x recommended depth.

[jjb1970]

There seems to be a lot of gossip on the future (or rather absence of) of Albion and Bulwark. The RN are apparently collaborating with the Netherlands on possible LPD replacements (I think the in fashion name is littoral strike ships or something) but any fruits of such a program are years away. If the problem is lack of crew it'd seem better to put the ships into extended lay up rather than dispose of them.

 

In other news it seems Turkiye is denying permission for the two mine warfare ships being sold to Ukraine to transit the Strait into the Black Sea. 

[Barry O]

We have a number of ships which are a bit worn out (HMS Westminster is one) 

 

There is only 1 LPD active at any one time..  they have to use the other as spares to keep its sister "alive".  Last two surface ships launched off the slips at Barrow.

 

Baz

Edited January 7 by Barry O

[roundhouse]

37 minutes ago, Barry O said:

We have a numbervof ships which are a bit worn put (HMS Westminster is one) 

 

There is only 1 LPD active at any one time..  they havecto use the other as spares to keep its sister "alive".  Last two surface ships launched off the slips at Barrow.

 

Baz

There was a large RN ship, possibly one of these in Falomuth a few days ago.

[Deeps]

10 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

…..I have to confess my own glands would have been weeping a lot at 1.5 x recommended depth.

Having had a bit of time to think about the content of the ‘journal’, and the possibility the event wasn’t accurately explained, I have come up with a scenario which better fits the facts. This is based on incorrect terminology used in the report.

 

My initial response was based on the use of the term ‘during the submarine’s dive’. Strictly speaking, a ‘dive’ is only the process of getting the boat underwater from a surfaced condition. This is a carefully controlled evolution where the whole of the ship’s company would be closed up at diving stations and every depth gauge/indication would be closely monitored, if not as part of the procedure then out of curiosity. As I stated, a Trident boat is quite big and a successful dive is dependant on having got the displacement calculations correct so that when dived the boat has neutral buoyancy. This means that the boats dived mass has the same mass as the water it displaces, so it will not ‘sink’ or pop back up onto the surface. Depth control is achieved by the hydroplanes, which are effective due to the movement through the water as a result of propulsion. It is similar to how an aeroplane changes altitude.

 

Once dived, the submarine will be held at periscope depth whilst leak checks etc. are carried out throughout the boat. This will include depth gauge checks. When all checks have been completed the boat can then be taken deeper if required. This process is not ‘diving’ the submarine but ‘changing depth’ or ‘going deep’. During pre-patrol preparations there will a requirement to check the boat is leak-tight at the prescribed max dived depth, which can vary between boats of the same class due to historical refit/repair work carried out. Again, the submarine will effectively be brought to diving stations for the procedure, even though the boat is already dived, so that all compartments can be checked for leaks and correct function of equipment. The first deep dive would be conducted in ‘relatively’ shallow water.

 

However, if a check at depth has previously been satisfactorily completed, any subsequent deep dives can be conducted ‘on the watch’, i.e. there will be no additional manning of compartments regardless of the prevailing depth of water. I think this may have been the actual scenario reported and the reference to an ‘engineer’ is for the officer in charge of the Manoeuvring Room (reactor and propulsion control centre, back aft) who is formally the ‘Engineer Officer of the watch’ (EOOW). It could be that the depth indication in the Manoeuvring Room was different to that in the Control Room, forward, where the depth change was being controlled from.

 

Another factor to consider is that as the boat goes deeper the increase in pressure will compress the pressure hull, effectively making the boat heavier than the water it displaces. Neutral buoyancy will be lost and unless some of the contents of internal sea water tanks are pumped out there is a risk of the submarine plunging to the depths if propulsion is lost. Blowing Main Ballast Tanks at such depths would be largely ineffective due to the pressure differentials. Even so, the intention to ‘go deep’ will have been broadcast to the crew and most watchkeepers would be monitoring the available depth indication.

 

All I can say is that I am glad I wasn’t onboard! The Royal Navy has an enviable reputation for the safety of its submarines and, unlike the Soviets/Russians or the USA, we have never lost a nuclear boat.

[billbedford]

1 hour ago, jjb1970 said:

In other news it seems Turkiye is denying permission for the two mine warfare ships being sold to Ukraine to transit the Strait into the Black Sea. 

 

Well, yes, if someone wanted to damage an undersea pipeline, a couple of mine warfare ships would be a good starting point. 

Türkiye depends on the Blue Stream pipeline for much of its energy.