The Shrunken Royal Navy

[Ohmisterporter]

You may possibly have missed this article from Real Clear Defense about the state of the Russian navy. For a change, the criticism comes from Russian sources. Letting the majority of the fleet run down whilst concentrating on big prestige projects sounds familiar. Hope you find this of interest.

 

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2019/04/26/russian_navy_ever_less_capable_of_supporting_putins_war_plans_114368.html

[Bon Accord]

2 hours ago, peach james said:

No.  Not a "courtesy".  They are _Captain_ of a unit, and have (at least in the RCN) very distinctive powers, as they are in command of a unit.  Mostly important with regards to discipline powers, a Captain of a ship has considerable powers over the crew which a Commander, Lt Commander, or lieutenant (N) does not have.   The powers of punishment of a Captain of a unit are generally comparable to those of a Captain (N), because they have been entrusted with a complete unit.  That goes all the way down to when I sailed on the PB's, where it was a Lt(N) who was CO, and Captain of the ship.  Fortunately, I got my good behaviour gong right at time .  I spent no time in front of the CO doing a hatless dance

They'd be referenced as Captain (N) around here, vs Captain.  AllyG and Huron had Capt (N) as Captain back when I was on them, ~1997-9.  (HMCS Algonquin and HMCS Huron), but since then the seagoing units have had Cdr's as Captains.  

 

Never forget to salute if you doubt...that'll only earn you a boloxing if you salute a flowerpot or some other plant.  Much easier than getting one for not saluting...

 

PO2 James Powell RCN, (Retired)

 

 

 

The term of Captain applied to non 4 stripers is indeed a courtesy in the UK at least, as their official designation when in command of a unit/vessel etc regardless of their actual rank (even if they are a 4 striper) is simply  Commanding Officer or CO. It is the same thing as your "Captain of a unit" in practice, however we do not use the same terminology and "Captain" is not used officially. PB's in the RN are usually commanded by a Lieutenant or Lieutenant Commander and very occasionally by a full three ring Commander if the latter is senior man and so in command of a squadron and they are only ever officially CO, never "Captain".

To muddy the waters further in UK terms, the term OC (Officer Commanding) is also used for those in command of smaller units (but not vessels - they are always CO).

[jjb1970]

As a member of RINA I receive their magazine Warship Technology (it's a great magazine, if you're interested in warships I'd recommend asking your local library if they can get it) and every issue the Russian's take out a large double spread (or more) advert. Clearly the Russian defence industry sees it as the publication to advertise in if they want to reach the dashing young chap about town who is looking to buy a stealth corvette or submarine. This issue the Russian weapon of the month is the Pantsir M CIWS, it's a mightily fearsome looking system, I can't help thinking that the QE should be fitted with two or three of the systems.

[Ohmisterporter]

More about the sacked commander of QE. This from the Daily Telegraph. It appears he let his wife use the car for personal trips while he was away. 

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/23/navy-captain-allowing-wife-use-ships-car-emerges-reported-crew/

[Bon Accord]

8 minutes ago, Ohmisterporter said:

More about the sacked commander of QE. This from the Daily Telegraph. It appears he let his wife use the car for personal trips while he was away. 

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/23/navy-captain-allowing-wife-use-ships-car-emerges-reported-crew/

 

If there is any semblance of truth in that article (Tele - so usual disclaimer applies), then he must have been really hated by some of his own people for them to report him, either that or there are some real troublemakers amongst his crew.

In years past a misdemeanour as trivial as this would absolutely have never caused such a storm and certainly would never have made it into the papers, in fact it probably wouldn't have been regarded as anything naughty at all provided he was paying for the petrol etc.

After all, who out there has never bent the rules slightly with regard to job perks/expenses or at least played the system to their benefit?

[TheQ]

14 minutes ago, Bon Accord said:

 

If there is any semblance of truth in that article (Tele - so usual disclaimer applies), then he must have been really hated by some of his own people for them to report him, either that or there are some real troublemakers amongst his crew.

In years past a misdemeanour as trivial as this would absolutely have never caused such a storm and certainly would never have made it into the papers, in fact it probably wouldn't have been regarded as anything naughty at all provided he was paying for the petrol etc.

After all, who out there has never bent the rules slightly with regard to job perks/expenses or at least played the system to their benefit?

Or did his wife start throwing her weight around... "i'm the CO's wife and you'll do what I say"   ?

 

Certainly for such a minor event such as reported it wouldn't have been regarded as removal from command time, just a little word in the ear if that. I highly suspect that there is much more to this..

[Mike Storey]

After following the issues around the RN Type 31e, this is very interesting:

 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/its-official-us-navy’s-littoral-combat-ship-complete-failure-58837

 

[Legend]

2 hours ago, TheQ said:

Or did his wife start throwing her weight around... "i'm the CO's wife and you'll do what I say"   ?

 

Certainly for such a minor event such as reported it wouldn't have been regarded as removal from command time, just a little word in the ear if that. I highly suspect that there is much more to this..

 

The joke on facebook is that's he's taken the Queen Elizabeth out to nip up to Anstruther for a fish supper!

[Legend]

Faced with declining hull numbers and not much armament on our ships its refreshing to note the US and Russian Navies have the same , if not more, levels of bumbling incompetence . That's our saving grace !

[alastairq]

2 hours ago, Bon Accord said:

After all, who out there has never bent the rules slightly with regard to job perks/expenses or at least played the system to their benefit?

 Although now out of the ''real world'' for nearly 3 years....the tightening up of rules, processes, and penalties for breaches, have been increasing over the past 5 years or more...certainly within the Civil Service, and also within the Armed Forces. Tolerance has become intolerance. [witness the Army's attempts at eradicating bullying, racism, heightism , ageism, etc]

 

 

Dismissal means exactly that, nowadays. For a decade or more, Civil Servants have been under the pressure of no longer having a secure 'job-for-life'.....[contrary to what public opinion & urban myth would have you all believe]

Before I retired [some would say, ran away?]...from the Civil Service {MoD], There were a spate of sackings for the simplest of misdemeanours.....which likely arose because of the ignorance of line management over the rules pertaining, etc etc.

Whereas, a decade or more before, that carpet would have been lifted, and all sorts swept under it.

 

As I understand it, the individual concerned has been disciplined [he could have been sacked, he's lucky!]....on the basis of equality for all.... a junior rank doing the same thing should expect to receive punishment..why should a senior person not expect the same?

There are [or, were?] rules, which needed to be complied with.   There are no longer exceptions within the public service, or armed forces.

The problem is, everything in that world is subject to eventual auditing. [Joe Public demands it..its called, 'accountability?']

A discrepancy was doubtless found.....the result of which would be disciplinaries....which must be seen to be conducted.

Because those are the rules of the job, civil or military.

[Barry O]

It doesn't  matter if the new dry support ships or not if they are required to ensure the safety of the nation the OJEC rules don't  apply. But then travelling to Scotland isn't as nice as a few trips to Spain or Japan....

[burgundy]

3 hours ago, Barry O said:

It doesn't  matter if the new dry support ships or not if they are required to ensure the safety of the nation the OJEC rules don't  apply. But then travelling to Scotland isn't as nice as a few trips to Spain or Japan....

With respect, the OJEC rules do not allow quite such a wide exemption. See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-european-union-defence-and-security-public-contracts-regulations-dspcr-2011

I have always rather enjoyed the irony that the UK was one of the most enthusiastic advocates of open competitive tendering - particularly where it applied to benighted foreigners...….

Best wishes

Eric  

[Mike Storey]

4 hours ago, alastairq said:

 

As I understand it, the individual concerned has been disciplined [he could have been sacked, he's lucky!]....on the basis of equality for all.... a junior rank doing the same thing should expect to receive punishment..why should a senior person not expect the same?

There are [or, were?] rules, which needed to be complied with.   There are no longer exceptions within the public service, or armed forces.

The problem is, everything in that world is subject to eventual auditing. [Joe Public demands it..its called, 'accountability?']

A discrepancy was doubtless found.....the result of which would be disciplinaries....which must be seen to be conducted.

Because those are the rules of the job, civil or military.

 

I thought the Commodore had been removed pending further investigations, according to the MoD PR statement?

 

A far cry from when I was nearly disciplined for NOT using the official BR vehicle, when responding to an incident. Whilst my old Austin Maxi would not have won many races, it would have easily beaten the Area Leyland Sherpa parked half a mile away, whose third gear seemed to have gone walkies. All because I claimed mileage (perfectly legit), for what in the end required about forty miles of driving, back and forth and between places. Fortunately, they did not take away my command.....

 

[Barry O]

3 hours ago, burgundy said:

With respect, the OJEC rules do not allow quite such a wide exemption. See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-european-union-defence-and-security-public-contracts-regulations-dspcr-2011

I have always rather enjoyed the irony that the UK was one of the most enthusiastic advocates of open competitive tendering - particularly where it applied to benighted foreigners...….

Best wishes

Eric  

Eric

 

Chapter 4  8a is the loophole..no one else puts out OJECs for their forces equipment..it is only the UK who can't get their heads around the fact that you don't need to OJEC all Defence material.

 

Baz

[rockershovel]

13 hours ago, Barry O said:

Eric

 

Chapter 4  8a is the loophole..no one else puts out OJECs for their forces equipment..it is only the UK who can't get their heads around the fact that you don't need to OJEC all Defence material.

 

Baz

 

You are missing the point. Tendering ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING in the expectation that at some point, the claimed benefits will appear, is an article of faith in British politics since the 1980s. The fact that thirty-odd years of this have completely failed to produce the desired result, is neither here nor there. 

 

 

[Barry O]

No tendering everything follows civil service rules...and loads to nice trips abroad for some..it happens with all governments of all political persuasions 

[jjb1970]

The down side of all the procedures that now govern conduct etc which have undoubtedly served to provide greater consistency in how people are managed and reduced the scope of martinets to bully underlings or for people to work the system for their own advantage (in my opinion anyway) is that it has also reduced the sort of flexibility that would have seen you invited into the office with the door closed behind you to receive a thorough dressing down over something like abuse of a company car and with it going no further (assuming it wasn't habitual). I'm unsure about it at times, I do think that modern management is mercifully much less inclined to the sort of bullying that was once prevalent (I sailed with masters and chief engineers who were borderline psychopaths in my younger days) but I must admit I also found it hugely frustrating to basically manage by HR procedure when it came to much of the people side of things.

[Mike Storey]

2 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

The down side of all the procedures that now govern conduct etc which have undoubtedly served to provide greater consistency in how people are managed and reduced the scope of martinets to bully underlings or for people to work the system for their own advantage (in my opinion anyway) is that it has also reduced the sort of flexibility that would have seen you invited into the office with the door closed behind you to receive a thorough dressing down over something like abuse of a company car and with it going no further (assuming it wasn't habitual). I'm unsure about it at times, I do think that modern management is mercifully much less inclined to the sort of bullying that was once prevalent (I sailed with masters and chief engineers who were borderline psychopaths in my younger days) but I must admit I also found it hugely frustrating to basically manage by HR procedure when it came to much of the people side of things.

 

I agree with all of that. There is a case for action having to be taken in this case, as, if correctly retold, the infringement was reported by one or more of his own crew (perhaps someone who had recently been disciplined? We don't know.) So the RN must be seen to have been scrupulous in applying the same level of justice to a senior rank as to any. But the action they have taken seems to be completely out of proportion to the apparent offence - surely a reprimand or "fine" or whatever, would have been ample. I do not understand this, unless there is much more to it that we don't know.

 

[Bon Accord]

3 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

The down side of all the procedures that now govern conduct etc which have undoubtedly served to provide greater consistency in how people are managed and reduced the scope of martinets to bully underlings or for people to work the system for their own advantage (in my opinion anyway) is that it has also reduced the sort of flexibility that would have seen you invited into the office with the door closed behind you to receive a thorough dressing down over something like abuse of a company car and with it going no further (assuming it wasn't habitual). I'm unsure about it at times, I do think that modern management is mercifully much less inclined to the sort of bullying that was once prevalent (I sailed with masters and chief engineers who were borderline psychopaths in my younger days) but I must admit I also found it hugely frustrating to basically manage by HR procedure when it came to much of the people side of things.

 

Like most companies now we have such a thing as a "performance policy" coupled with an absurdly complex appraisal system and all the associated procedures and processes. The net result is that if you've got someone who is absolutely dire at their job/waste of space/bone idle etc then it's now near impossible to get rid of them as to even officially rebuke them requires acres of paperwork and that then only puts them onto the 1st stage of the process whereupon everything has to rest for a further 3 months to permit them time to "improve". This despite this part of the process coming after the informal and formal warnings as to their conduct. HR wanting an easy life as they always do, then transfer them somewhere else, especially if said individual claims they are the subject of bullying (which is the common get out of jail free card), this then continues ad nauseum with them being passed from pillar to post over a long period.

I had a particularly odious and bone idle individual inflicted on my ship a few years ago who caused all manner of mayhem onboard amongst the ratings and so I was forced to go into print, interviews, declarations etc etc and sent all this off to HQ - the paperwork alone took me a day and a half to fully complete. He then left my ship never to be seen again and three months later was promoted to PO on another vessel, where according to those onboard he hasn't changed his ways and is yet again claiming victimisation and wanting a transfer. This is far from an isolated case with one individual.

Accordingly most of us don't even bother with following the correct procedures anymore as it's just not worth the hassle for no gain, therefore we sadly have to put up with the wasters and in appraisal terms everyone gets one of two types regardless of how good/bad/indifferent they may be - an average one or a good one. Writing a bad appraisal only incurs more paperwork and pointless grief.

These days the only way to remove someone for definite is to get them on a D&A infraction, but the real problem children are all savvy enough to avoid that and indeed it only ever seems to catch out the good guys.

In many ways I long for the days where there'd be an invitation to the Masters cabin for tea and no biscuits, giving someone 7 days notice and informing HQ that they were being booted off next port and that you didn't want to see them again under any circumstances.

 

EDIT: There seem to be a rather annoying spellcheck thing going on where Bulleid is being replaced by Bulleid, is this some kind of internal site process as I can't seem to change it even with the edit process?

Edited May 27, 2019 by Bon Accord

[The Stationmaster]

On 24/05/2019 at 19:16, Mike Storey said:

 

I thought the Commodore had been removed pending further investigations, according to the MoD PR statement?

 

A far cry from when I was nearly disciplined for NOT using the official BR vehicle, when responding to an incident. Whilst my old Austin Maxi would not have won many races, it would have easily beaten the Area Leyland Sherpa parked half a mile away, whose third gear seemed to have gone walkies. All because I claimed mileage (perfectly legit), for what in the end required about forty miles of driving, back and forth and between places. Fortunately, they did not take away my command.....

 

Well at least when I was in the centre of Newport one day in a BR Escort (together with a young lady clerk clerical officer) and the gear lever came off in my hand we were only a few hundred yards off my official patch.  Just as well it hadn't happened when we had been exploring various country lanes roads between Newport and Marshfield (for 'On Call' access purposes you should understand ).

[alastairq]

As jjb & Mike storey both mention, this is the environment civil servants, and military, now work under.

 

Removal from post...[sometimes referred to as 'suspension'] was a standard process whenever a disciplinary potentially arose.......removing the 'subject' from the working environment pending investigations....supposedly in the interests of the so-called 'accused'.....but often 'seen' as a punishment before the fact. [This, despite the fact the 'subject' was on full pay whilst suspended..including a loss of potential{?} overtime...in my last job, an incredibly expensive, yet completely essential , and requested, part of our working practices]

Very often, the 'complaints' were proven to be unfounded.....and the 'subject' returned to work....but, sadly, not as if anything had happened.

If complaints were proven unfounded [or, downright lies, as I often noted, but not personally affected]....then the subsequent actions which management of both colours really didn't like, would be when the 'subject' individual then proceeded, by Legal means, to extract what I can only describe as 'retribution' on the false claimant. 

 

The current topical subject may not have in fact been 'reported' upon by colleagues......the matter may have been discovered during routine audits?   Discrepancies may not have been hidden..or covered up....[why should they be?]....thus the audit trail goes into overdrive....Once any discrepancies in the audit have gone 'public'..in other words, beyond the immediate workforce.....then the disciplinary system has to  be followed through.  

In my last job, random audits were frequent....covering all aspects of our work processes.....including frequent validation. [This to sift out the dinosaurs, in effect]...audits conducted from quite afrar. too.....

 

But.......the inflexibility of the system [policy documents, especially]....was sometimes used to enable other policy requirements to be met.......I can think of [in my personal realm of employment], disciplinary procedures being used to effectively...and cheaply, cut workforce numbers?  Cuts which could not occur otherwise, due to the in-built costs of redundancy, early retirement, job sharing, etc etc...costs all governed by 'national' policies [as distinct from local ones], therefore trumping  everything.

 

A situation where I, and quite a few others, ended up feeling, ''there but for the grace of [choose your deity]....go I''..........personally, I'm glad I wasn't in the market for a push bike!! [say no more[]

 

Edited May 27, 2019 by alastairq

[Mike Storey]

Cost-cutting by using the disciplinary system was attempted by Railtrack (IIRC - it may have been early in NR days), when a significant number of middle managers, in a short period, found themselves either being sacked or on gardening leave, for reportedly minor, or in some cases, fabricated accusations. I personally knew one of them, and tried to help, but was warned off by my boss, who disliked what was going on as much as me, but feared the worse would be done to anyone who got in the way.

 

The Directors may have got away with it too, but the gung-ho attitude to HR policies, which were largely ignored, meant proper process had not been applied. This allowed a large number of Tribunal wins by the accused. The policy was abandoned as quickly as it appeared.

 

 

[jjb1970]

I worked for one company in electricity generation who were quite ruthless in using their capability procedure to weed out under performing people. If people weren't performing then they would quickly face HR and a hearing. The same company was also unusual in taking the probationary employment period very seriously. In some ways it wasn't very nice way to work but they were transparent about it and the procedures were punctiliously applied (well, at least the ones I observed). The thing that came out of this very clearly to me was the different strengths of unions. The union representing professional grades was as useful as a chocolate fire guard in the annual pay negotiations but were actually very professional when it came to supporting their members in capability procedures and as often as not these people would drop out of the other side of the procedure still in their job and with the benefit of training and development. The union representing the non-professional staff was brilliant in the annual pay round negotiations (they were a bit like an RMT-lite) but were cringe inducingly awful in capability (and disciplinary) procedures. Invariably they'd open with some florid defence of their member and a denial of any wrong doing, to my simple answer was that nobody has said they've done anything wrong, we're here because of concerns they're not capable of performing their role. No matter how many capability procedures I was involved with that particular union either couldn't or wouldn't understand the difference between a capability and a disciplinary procedure. Mind you, in one procedure it was so bad and I felt sorry for the operator in the seat that I ended up basically feeding arguments to him as I wasn't comfortable seeing him potentially be dismissed simply because his union rep couldn't construct a coherent or sensible argument.

[Ohmisterporter]

An update on the BAE Leander concept for the Type 31 contract. Latest improvement includes removal of Phalanx CIWs and Harpoon ASM. 

 

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/bae-systems-issues-updated-imagery-of-leander-type-31e-frigate-concept/

[Mike Storey]

4 hours ago, Ohmisterporter said:

An update on the BAE Leander concept for the Type 31 contract. Latest improvement includes removal of Phalanx CIWs and Harpoon ASM. 

 

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/bae-systems-issues-updated-imagery-of-leander-type-31e-frigate-concept/

 

Is your comment sarcastic, or is there a reason to say it is an improvement? I am honestly asking, not making a point, because I simply don't know. When you read through all the comments below the article, even assuming you understand half the abbreviations and other expert lingo, there seems to be a wide range of opinion.

 

But what puzzles me even more, is that many of the comments refer to the need to keep to the £250m to £350m price tag. I thought we saw a post on here recently which suggested the MoD have accepted that £350m per hull is inadequate for the Type 31e? But there has been radio silence since, as to where they would get the extra money. I presume they are awaiting the postponed Departmental Spending Round settlement (as are so many railway schemes)?