Royal Navy ship boosts West African maritime security

Less amazing when you know in 2009 the previous government had signed a Terms of Business Agreement with BAES/VT stating they would pay a minimum annual amount to ensure the Clyde workforce would be there to build the Type 26s. If the Cameron government hadn’t bought the OPVs, they would still have had to pay most of the money.

Thanks Jon. Good info. Its certainly one way to keep ‘naval’ shipyards open.

The less said about Cameron the better.

Like it or not there is one, and it’s right where a hangar would go.

You still need an FDO and capt of the deck. Flyco is a nice to have but not really needed on a single Spot deck

Fair enough, guess it just seems a bit weird that you’d reduce the aircraft management structure to house aircraft to me.

Most ships dont have FLYCOs. You control aircraft launch and recovery on single spot ships from the FDO and the Bridge. FLYCOS are more important for multi spots and are usually operated by WAFU Chockhead officers. There are not that many of them so they must give them something to do!

Mate, you might need to explain what a WAFU is to the uninitiated?

WAFU is a member of the Fleet air arm… My moth was shocked when I explained that it means all wet and F*”in useless

Wet and F*ING useless.

Good memories to look back on

Or two coloured table tennis bats

Hi Jon, sorry I can’t be specific but I think it was a bit way back from a post on here. Yes, I think it will be off all RN ships. We’ll have to wait to see what they’re replaced with.

Probably a very good idea when the Echos, B1s and Argus were supposed to be decommissioned, so even if the Albions remain saved, it was only a couple of ships to be converted. Now it’s half a dozen ships to the end of the decade I wonder if it’ll still be done before then.

😉😆 So here’s to the Batch 3 Rivers-Tiger, Blake, Swiftsure and Lion😃

I loved my four years on Blake. 100 degrees in the boiler rooms and the engine rooms wet air, crushing noise, and loads of brass we were kept polishing🤬

Wow-what a wonderful experience that must have been Andy! Were you old enough to have had some Navy Rum before they stopped it?
Regards from Durban

Surely not pray explain to me that assertion 😄

I mean, it’s all in the link in my post but if you want me to spell it out sure:
River class OPV’s displace the same amount as some Royal Navy Cruisers did.

Cheers mate I get what you .ean, shows to me that some ships are unnecessarily oversized these days, hence destroyer/cruiser sized frigates which cost far More than they need to, and take far longer to churn out👍

That’s the lesson you take from this?
Do you think that the Fletcher’s and Tribal’s where needlessly oversized? More than they needed to?
Just to reductio ad absurdam this baby: HMS Victory displaced only a little more than HMS Pryamus, does it then follow that Pryamus herself was overbuild, since 100 years before the biggest ship in the navy was comparable to her?

My central point is Historical comparisons are just as silly as that last one. The requirements of naval vessels change, and simply comparing to a arbitrary point in history (and it’s always WW2) is silly.

Do you have a link for that latest Leander?

Hi Paul, I’m trying to paste it from my phone… There’re many articles, but it’s a Navy Lokkout one that i’m trying to get to.

NL 30th May, 2019 article. Link below is waiting approval.

Thx. I found a NL article with that date, which was a few months before Arrowhead was awarded the T31 ( patrol frigate) contract. What with the announcement of NSM and Mk41 for T31 it looks like the RN are quick to exploit the growth potential of the Arrowhead 140 hull. Which prompts some questions – does the development of T31 leave a gap in the fleet for the original patrol frigate concept? what is T32 for? Can we afford to replace globally deployed River 2 with ‘patrol frigates’ which need x2 the crew to do the same ‘presence’ role? What threats are we planning for?
What could the BAe Leander offer that a rafted machinery T31 could not provide? It has a narrow hull, a purpose built mission bay and if I recall a quiet low speed all electric drive inherited from the Khareef. Half a dozen affordable frigates optimised for Atlantic ASW work?

Has NSM been announced for Type 31? I think we would all expect it to be ported from Type 23s, it would be crazy not to, the Type 26s will have FC/ASW, so where else would they go but the Type 31s, but I can’t recall if it’s announced policy.

No Jon, you are right. My phrasing wasn’t clear enough. My thought for what it’s worth is that the early build T31s will get NSM while the later ones could forego NSM and rely the new FC/ASW missile in Mk41. Wouldn’t be surprised though to see those Mk41s used to augment T45 load with extra Aster 30 Block 1 and NSM retained for the strike roles on all T31s. Smart move to put Mk41 on T31. Creates lots of options.

The March 23rd NL top-trumps article is also pretty good just to hit the numbers.

Yes, this one too. Thanks Jon.

Thanks. OOW is undoubtedly a period of high pressure and responsibility for a number of hours but is not the same as commanding your own ship or boat.
I also recall that SSKs were commanded by Lt Comdrs?
Not sure what commands the Lts and Lt Comdrs have now.

Well be careful because when I asked a serious question wrt the Gib Patrol boat having a Cmdr I was told it was because of the diplomatic aspects involved… a boat with a gimpy/.50 cal needs a commander…

Then again, 74 ish Generals for 72,000 troops and no longer an Army as such and the same argument is trotted out.

An interesting waste of time is to visit wiki and look at the senior Braid who have no assignment against their names although I’d rather that than one for gender affairs; the Armed Forces do know how to waste money.

Thin Pinstriped Line did a piece earlier this year on the subject, more a justification really. I’m not sure I agree with it in total, but there are a few very salient points made and if you haven’t read it, you might find it of interest.

I did, but, Jim30 roles it out everytime to the extent that he might have left the MoD but, set up his own PR company on 24/7 contract to his former employer.

Why? 74? 75? Generals for an Army of 72K, that is excessive and out of control and the elephant in the room is that the Army is no longer an Army, it is a Defence Force and with that, it needs slimming down on the Braid.

Put a profit and loss line against each Defence Engagement post and show the value added contribution that post holder contributes – bring in sales, that’s a plus, facilitate bi/tri/multi lateral Defence training, have a plus against the post holder and then the pension, expenses, allowances that will be paid out – that’s the minus; what have we sold Hungary? Belgium? Spain? Italy?…

The one point we can acknowledge is Jim’s point on career progression – without senior posts, people will leave. However, with veritable fucktard Army procurement over the last 20 years+, can we really afford for them to stay?

Now, about Admirals and ships… 😉

I can’t defend the number of generals. I wouldn’t even try. It’s outside my areas of understanding.

Asking “why 74 or 75?” is valid and indeed valuable. However, any request that public spending is justified, and that includes spending on generals, is not a logical argument to reduce spending or cut the numbers. In fact it can feel like an attack. The implication is that if when put on the spot people can’t justify the number in public and immediately, there needs to be cuts. I don’t think that’s reasonable.

I think there is an argument to be made that if we are always only well prepared to fight the last war, and if the army screws up requirements gathering time and again, maybe the balance between experience and fresh thinking at the top is wrong. Maybe a flatter structure would serve us better. Alas, it’s too far outside my knowledge base to make it.

Admirals and ships on the other hand, that I might be drawn to have a crack at! 😀

The structure of the army’s Field Force has not caused a high number of Generals.
It is all the other side of the house – ie the ‘corporate’ side – the MoD ‘Head Office’, Defence agencies, defence diplomacy posts. Much is due to our being ‘global Britain’ – but we have been that for hundreds of years!

Your link, which actually supports the points you made https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serving_senior_officers_of_the_British_Army

Thanks David. There are still too many senior officers but it is very hard to work out what posts could be scrapped or down-ranked.

P&L? Do you think the army is a commercial business David? Bring in sales? What are you talking about? Selling old defence equipment? Drumming up exports for new kit?

You cannot evaluate the monetary value of senior staff and defence diplomacy jobs.

Poor army procurement on AFVs in the last 20 years, very true. However not many army senior officers involved in that side of the house…or should I say ‘business?

The number of senior staff acting as DAs in embassies – who then have a staff…

And yes, we seem to put profit lines against almost everything these days so let’s have a similar metric for DAs – who might score very highly in Australia and Canada (T26) less highly in the USA.

Thanks. I served as an exchange officer in Canadian Forces (as a Major) way back in 2004-2006. I reported both to my Canadian boss (Lt Col) and the British DA. The DA to the British High Commission in Ottawa did have a staff – he was army (Brigadier) so doubled as the Military Attache as well. Under him was an Air Attache (Gp Capt). There was no Naval attache as I recall – think the Air Attache covered off naval matters. There was a military chief clerk (SSgt), civilian PAs to the two officers and a civilian junior clerk.

I have no idea how you could put metrics against a DA – it’s not something we have ever done. Got any ideas? How do you put metrics against any military officer? What is the point?

https://www.gov.uk/government/people/gibson-doug

Our DA in the USA of course runs a much bigger staff [BDLS Washington] and has a much bigger job.

Is that part of the problem? Their work is so opaque that it can’t be challenged.

The link you shared shows an MBA, perhaps that person is far more qualified to have a period of self reflection and come up with some self reflection metrics than I am.

Pruning at the top is not about cutting the budget – we need a bigger budget, but we really do need to have a far better value for money regime in place against what is spent – equipment acquisition, retention of obsolete kit, pay, pensions and allowances.

Referring back to another post and perhaps we do need a flatter structure and far more ‘youngsters’ coming through with one given being the alacrity with which young people pick up coding and programming really does suggest a new structure is needed – how else will we pay for the tech savvy? What rank should they have?

And yet, the Ukraine is a blunt affair, but is that because of the lack of air?

A 21st Century is Fuller is needed, does anyone stand out.

(Re the wiki link, it is out of date wrt Brigs, the Provost Marshal has changed).

I am not against challenging UK having an excessive number of senior officers when compared to the size of our armed forces – I fully approve of this criticism. I am not sure anyone’s work is opaque; all posts have job descriptions.

The link I shared showed that the current DA in Ottawa happens to have an MBA – it is not unusual for officers to have degrees (bachelors and Masters), MBAs, PRINCE 2 and all sorts of qualifications. I am not sure you need a MBA to work out metrics for particular jobs. I still don’t get that metrics in a P&L style are relevant to the armed forces. That is for the world of business and the armed forces is not a profit-making business. There are other ways to evaluate whether a post is required and what the rank should be.

There has been de-ranking over the years – we no longer have the 5* rank – and arms and service directors were reduced to1* many years ago. We covered that the commander in the Falklands reduced from 2* to 1* in the mid-90s. Engr bdes are commanded by a Col, rather than by a Brigadier. These are just examples of a wider trend. But there have been new posts created in recent years in corporate MoD that need to be challenged – perhaps some are a bit too ‘woke’.

Flatter structure? I can only speak for the army – on the face of it the army has very many levels in the field force, but that is the case throughout the world. I can see no merit in ‘uninventing’ the rifle section level or the company level or the brigade level – for example. There was an attempt to do away with the brigade level some decades ago but it didn’t work, they came back with a new label (Task Force?), but then came back with their old title.

Fully agree that we need better VfM in defence – across all areas. We get so little ‘bang for the buck’ in equipment procurement as against France, as just one example.

Fuller and Liddell Hart were inspirational – I have a number of the latter’s books. It’s hard to spot modern day successors.

A number of very senior posts were reduced in rank some years ago, such as Arms & Service Directors, reduced from Maj-Gen to Brig.

The Senior officer in the South Atlantic (Falklands, Sth Georgia etc) reduced from 2* to 1* many years ago.

Where a rank reduction can be done, it is done.

So what is the justification for a 1* in the Falklands?

Is there a Brigade?

We are a Defence Force in all but name – when that gets seized on by Labour (stand fast – it’ll be a long time coming) I’d expect some pruning.

The Commander’s post was pruned in the mid-90s from 2* to 1*. It is now known as Commander British Forces South Atlantic islands – CBFSAI – incumbents can of course be from the RN, RM, Army or RAF – current incumbent is army Brigader Dan Duff who took over from Commodore Jonathan Lett in May this year:

There is not of course an infantry brigade of 5,000 or more in the Falklands. What would they do?
There is a major tri-service (purple) Joint Operating Base (JOB) at Mount Pleasant comprising a strategic airbase and various units – together with a nearby harbour (Mare Harbour).
Brig Duff’s remit covers not just the Falkland Islands but South Georgia, South Sandwich Islands and a number of other islands. He also exercises command over RAF Ascension some 4,000 miles away on the equator.

There are about 1,200 service personnel in the Falklands from all three services, plus a number of civilian support staff.
RN has an OPV based at Mare Harbour aka East Cove Port (currently HMS Forth) and is aubgmented by HMS Protector, the ice patrol ship in winter months. A frigate patrolled in the region until 2015. It is possible that a SSN periodically patrols in south Atlantic waters too. There are of course naval staff operating port facilities.

The army component is made up of a Roulement Infantry Company, an Engineer squadron, signals personnel (the major part of the Joint Communications Unit FI), many personnel assigned to the joint logistics and engineering unit – and other supporting services. Additionally there is a RA Det from 16 Regt RA mannning SkySabre defending the JOB. The army (RE and RLC) contributes most personnel to the Joint EOD unit, now reduced to 11 personnel.

RAF has an EAW comprising consists of two flights: Typhoon fighters of No. 1435 Flight RAF and Voyager KC.2/A400M Atlas aircraft of No. 1312 Flight RAF. The RAF operate the ATC, met services, the airhead services of the air bridge, do aircraft servicing and operate the remote radar heads on the mountain top sites. They oversee the chartered commercial helicopters for troop transport and SAR.

There are many joint components including the JOC and the Commander’s HQ.

[I was SO2 J5/J7 to a RM Brigadier for a 6-month tour in 1999/2000].

David, the field force of all three services and the Joint Operating Bases is not, in my opinion, over-officered by senior officers. Neither are training units over-burdened by senior officers.

Criticism is however ranged against the numbers of senior officers in ‘corporate’ MOD, NATO posts and in Defence Diplomacy (DD) posts – but which posts would you cut or reduce in rank?

Intuitively (and based on my own experience of serving overseas) I feel that there is little to no scope in cutting or de-ranking NATO or DD posts.
Corporate MoD – different matter!

A boat with a MG needs a Commander? Surely not. We used to have SSK submarines with umpteen torpedos commanded by a Lt Cmdr. In the army, a Private fires a MG and is overseen by a LCpl.

Fair point about the army having so many Generals – this has been said many times. However there seems to be insufficient understanding of the large number of senior staff roles and defence diplomacy jobs (for a country with global connectivity) requiring a General officer.

Not sure which wiki page tells of senior British officers without an assignment – surely there can’t be that many – there are many reasons for that, such as that they are on a long career course, on a sabbatical, resettlement etc. Which wiki page is it?

The Gib gun boat rank was justified by the need for Defence Diplomacy – which is just laughable.

I am speechless! One rank up on what would be the norm could be expected for Defence Diplomacy reasons but not several.
Archer class were commanded by a Lt (and a number had pintle mounted MGs) – don’t know about River class.

Hmm. Look at the RAF senior for N.Ireland and his equilants for Scotland and Wales.

We’ll have to agree to disagree, but, the UK Defence Force needs a haircut of ‘stars.’

I don’t think we greatly disagree. I am not averse to pruning (or haircut) if required, in fact I endorsed it.
I said that there were too many senior officers in the corporate part of MoD, but that the ‘Field Forces’ (ie the deployable component of the three services) were not burdened by excessive numbers of senior officers) and the same seemed true for NATO and Defence Diplomacy (DD) posts.
What I missed out was the non-deployable posts that are not in the trg org, corporate MOD, NATO or DD – and you have given a very good example of some gross over-ranking. I am not surprised that it is an RAF example.

Had to do some research on your example! Air Officer Northern Ireland is an Air Marshal (3*) (Sean Reynolds).
https://www.raf.mod.uk/our-organisation/senior-commanders/air-officer-northern-ireland/
The link describes his job which has very little to do with the RAF in Northern Ireland. As well as being over-ranked, the job looks like a non-job.
All I could identify as an RAF presence in NI was an RAF Reserve Squadron and a University Air Squadron at Aldergrove. Outrageous then that there is felt to be a need for an Air Officer Scotland.

In contrast the army had a GOC NI post from 1969, a totally justified post. The post was reduced to 2* in late 2007 and Maj-Gen Chris Brown was GOC in 2008-2009. The Post was then axed in 1 Jan 2009 very soon after Op Banner ended. The army ‘plays ball’ and reduces the rank or abolishes the post as circumstances change.

Dear Graham

I feel in the Armed Forces, there will be low hanging fruit…

Did I ever tell you about a highly educated Major (AR) employed full time by Border Force, who boasted how he was being paid to watch tiffies take off and land on full pay… from both Departments?

The next government will have to grip excessive rank inflation, grip the pension payments before they even start (braid scything) and certainly grip misuse of public funds by people on jaunts.

Dear David,

Tiffies? With my REME background – that was short for artificer! Clearly it means something else in this context – what? An individual paid by both MoD and Border Force – staggering!

I hope the next gvernment grip the size of the civil service (CS) – it has increased by 100,000 in recent years
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-civil-service-increase-jobs-2023-zq7b6cz3t

….though none of this increase is in MoD who have cut CS posts. Ruthless cuts at DE&S, which I strongly suspect has contributed to procurement cock-ups ie dramatic loss of QA inspectors in the QA organisation.

Perhaps the new Govt could cut the number of CS earning over £100k which has increased by 88% in the last 7 years:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/08/09/rise-in-senior-civil-service-whitehall-pay-freeze/

and (I agree) curtail politicians and CS going on jaunts – though I think this is less prevalent in MoD.

Tonka = Tornado

Tiffy = Typhoon

Thanks. I have never heard those nicknames before.