The Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) has introduced a new uniform insignia to honour the critical role and prestige of command within the service, according to a press release.
The inaugural Command pins were presented during a high-profile visit to RFA Proteus, one of the fleet’s newest vessels, at Portsmouth Naval Base.
The ceremony, attended by Minister for the Armed Forces Luke Pollard and Fleet Commander Vice Admiral Andrew Burns, saw Proteus’ Commanding Officer, Captain Martin Jones, and RFA Commodore Sam Shattock receive the first pins. The insignia, which mirrors the Royal Navy equivalent, features two heraldic sea horses, a trident, crossed swords, and a naval crown, symbolising maritime power and responsibility.
Commodore Shattock commented in the news update: “It was a pleasure to receive the Command pin from the Fleet Commander today onboard RFA Proteus. The award of the pin to RFA Commanding Officers is an appreciated recognition of the continued professional development, skills, leadership, and management required of RFA Captains, along with the many years of seafaring experience.”
He also highlighted the importance of the insignia, adding: “The management and operation of large, versatile, and specialist vessels demands similar attributes to those of our Royal Navy colleagues, and this pin is an appropriate visible demonstration of that.”
The introduction of the Command pin, say the Royal Navy, coincides with the 120th anniversary of the RFA, which was established in 1905 to sustain Royal Navy operations at sea by providing food, fuel, and supplies. Over the years, RFA ships have expanded their remit, supporting humanitarian aid missions, peacekeeping, and anti-drug operations.
The Command pin initiative underscores the professionalism and contributions of the RFA while strengthening its ties with the Royal Navy.
Before clicking on this article I was looking at the thumbnail image of it. My first thought was why have they got a smiley cartoon alien character holding two handguns as the centre point of their new insignia. Even now enlarged I simply cannot un-see that image centred around the standout red elements. Was the designer a woke peacenik aving a laff I wonder.
As someone who had designed stuff like this, what you are seeing is personal to you and thus your assumption of intent (wokery) is silly. The design is good and a good basis for simplifying into other purposes. I was only thinking last month the RFA need a design and uniform and branding reboot to bring them closer to the timeless nature of sea travel and closer to the RN, so was happy to see this post today.
Ah, my favourite name for a missile is back! Haven’t seen you for a while
I don’t know what came before this, but I like it.
Good job they were given these pins after being awarded a pay rise…
AA
This is good, but it really does highlight how far HMG are pushing the roles of auxiliary vessels and crews.
I’ve said it a few times but it’s really important to note the laws governing auxiliaries are not the same as the laws governing commissioned warships.
Auxiliaries have all the risks in law attached that are attached to commissioned warships, in that they are always valid military targets no matter what they are doing ( as an example Argus could be acting as a “hospital ship” but according to the laws of war it would still be a valid target, where as a civilian white painted hospital ship is not.
Auxiliaries are allowed to defend themselves if fired on and attacked.
But and this is very big, according to the law of war Auxiliaries are not allowed to initiate belligerent actions of any kind. It cannot fire first, it cannot be the base for an attack to be launched etc.
The U.S.N is particularly strict on policing this within its own forces due to the risk of legal attack even though it has significant impact on cost and efficiency. The RN and HMG ( due in my view to the negligence of HMG in capitalising the commissioned warship fleet) has gone down a rout of almost ignoring the law of war in regards to the legal limitations on auxiliaries
Couple of good quotes from a paper.
“U.S. Navy auxiliaries have been intentionally designed and utilized to perform only supporting tasks which fall well within current legal norms. These include providing logistical support, or serving as air or seaborne launch pads to transport troops and ammunition. But there is an increasing desire to expand the functions which auxiliaries can execute, including electronic attack, intelligence collection, command and control, and mine countermeasures. To the extent these and other missions could be construed as belligerent acts, the current rule straitjackets auxiliaries in armed conflict. As the potential list of activities performed by auxiliaries expands, the legal restriction against belligerent acts by auxiliaries has imposed an unnecessary hurdle in operational planning and execution.”
“the U.S. continues to restrict auxiliaries from committing belligerent acts based on its interpretations of the law of naval warfare, while also recognizing them as lawful targets in international armed conflict. It carefully scrutinizes the intended mission of each ship to determine if it needs to be ready to commit belligerent acts. If it does, it is commissioned as a warship (i.e. with a “USS” designation) rather than brought into service as an auxiliary (i.e. with a “USNS” designation). Any changes in mission may require adjustments in the ship’s status. Although seemingly just a paper drill, the reality is that it significantly impacts manning, maintenance, planning, and operations, and reduces the flexibility of the operational commander in executing desired missions.” (Commander David Lee, military professor, Stockton Center for the Study of International Law 2019)
I know the law of war bores a lot of people and Im sure some will comment of there is no law in war and we will use wherever we want how we want. But “kinetic” open formal war is part of a continuum of geopolitical conflict not a single event and an important part of geopolitical conflict is political warfare and a really important part of political warfare is lawfare. Using an auxiliaries in a potentially unlawful way as a belligerent walks into a political warfare trap as your enemy can work to delegitimise you on the international stage.
In reality the RFA should be focused on doing what it was designed to do..deliver the stuff and people needed in war. Or the UK needs to work to get the international law changed…it would be widely supported because most nations would love to have the restrictions on their auxiliaries removed.
A pay rise and a new patch wont solve the issues