The shrinking Royal Navy

[jjb1970]

Very much the case I think - knowing of someone who is a crew member on a large RN vessel it fascinated me to learn that by far the largest amount of what could broadly be called 'engineering' input is not in particularly respect of the ship's motive power but seems to centre around plumbing. heating and ventilation, garbage compactors and such like right down to larger galley machinery.   The 'hotel servicing' demand can be quite a load on the engineers who seem to like getting down near the machinery spaces for a quieter life when circumstances permit.

 

The amount of effort that is required to make warships habitable and provide all of the services that people take for granted is very easy to underestimate. Especially today, people aren't willing to live in hardship or surrender all comfort, if the RN wants to recruit people then they have to offer living standards of a reasonable standard on-board which means space, power and provision of services. This is one of the aspects of cruise ships people seldom think about, most people go "wow" at the size, gawp at the public spaces and maybe get impressed when told about the engine power. Very few will even think about the provision of ventilation, water, sewage and grey water disposal, food etc for 4000-5000 people+ in a ship yet in some respects those are more challenging parts of the design and build than the impressive looking bits, especially now we have safe return to port requirements.

The logistics of war are something few history books and documentaries dwell on. In North Africa Churchill kept berating his Generals for what he saw as a small frontline fighting force out of a huge army, in ignorance of just how many troops were required to keep the front line supplied, keep tanks operational, keep the artillery firing etc. Rommel for all his undoubted brilliance as a front line commander woefully disregarded the problems of supplying his panzer army and decided to blame others (such as Kesselring) when chickens arrived to roost. In naval warfare, ships go nowhere without fuel and provisions. Traditionally the RN relied on overseas bases rather than a fleet train but nowadays it is a pretty simple way of telling if a navy is serious about ambitions to be a blue water navy to look at it's logistic capability.

[AncientMariner]

Here is a little story that may have passed unnoticed. It comes from the RT website and concerns "Ghost ships", that is ships deliberately turning off lights and whatever tracking equipment they may have to operate in a clandestine way for purposes unknown. Some of you with shipping experience may know why they do this. Try to ignore the dafter replies at the bottom of the article. Hope this is of interest.

 

https://www.rt.com/uk/380121-ghost-ships-terrorism-threat/

 

 

The International Regulations for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea (aka ColRegs in the trade) are quite clear.  Unless a vessel is secured to a berth, then navigation lights must be displayed from sunset to sunrise or in restricted visibility.

 

AIS is a requirement for all ships over 300 gross tons engaged on international voyages, and all passenger ships regardless of size.  The AIS transponder must be switched on when the vessel is under way.  A transponder may be switched off if vessel security is considered to be compromised, in which case the event must be recorded in the vessel’s log book, with the reason stated.

 

I believe that there may be instances of ships switching off their navigation lights and AIS in pirate infested areas, but there is no hiding the blob that will show up on a radar screen. 

 

There is radar surveillance throughout the Dover Strait with monitoring from both the French and English side, and at various points around the UK, French, Belgian and Dutch coasts.  When passing through the Dover Straits, ships are required to report to Dover CG when SW bound. NE bound ships must report to the French side at Gris-Nez.  The vessel must state their destination, and amongst other things, the cargo its quantity and any defects.  Dangerous cargoes must be declared.  This reporting is mandatory.

 

In darkness, military vessels are often quite easy to recognise as such simply because:

1. A commercial ship often shows accommodation lights and/or working lights.  On naval vessels, other than navigation lights, the ship is normally completely blacked out.

2.  Very often on naval vessels, the horizontal separation of the masthead white lights is often very short.  Under pre-1972 rules, the horizontal separation of the lights had, where possible, to be at least 3x the vertical separation, but on many naval vessels, this ratio of separation often was, and still is, the other way around.

 

It is perfectly normal for a ship that is waiting for work to sit at anchor in a safe area to wait for its next employment.  In northern European waters, there is a greater need for power and energy in winter than in summer, and this will impact on the movement of tankers.  I have spent quite a few days catching up on maintenance and paperwork whiling my time away at a safe anchorage in various parts of the world waiting for orders, in the meantime the vessel still had to function, which meant taking provisions, stores, crew changes, undergoing surveys, etc., all of which requires the attendance of a launch.  Nothing sinister about this, provided that the vessel is showing the prescribed navigation lights for a vessel at anchor, plus all available deck lights, meaning, effectively, that the decks have to be floodlit.

 

If a vessel is engaged in any nefarious activity, then no doubt they will not be too concerned about compliance with the regulations I have mentioned.

 

I hope this goes some way to answering the question without drifting too far off topic.

 

John

Edited March 12, 2017 by AncientMariner

[petethemole]

Another report here http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/ghost-ships-sailing-under-the-radar/ar-AAo7DFA?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=HPCDHP

[JeremyC]

AIS is a requirement for all ships over 300 gross tons engaged on international voyages, and all passenger ships regardless of size. The AIS transponder must be switched on when the vessel is under way. A transponder may be switched off if vessel security is considered to be compromised, in which case the event must be recorded in the vessel’s log book, with the reason stated.

 

John

On the Fishery Protection vessel I worked on we routinely (and legally) turned off the AIS after leaving port to stop the fishermen tracking us while we were on enforcement duties.

 

Very often on naval vessels, the horizontal separation of the masthead white lights is often very short. Under pre-1972 rules, the horizontal separation of the lights had, where possible, to be at least 3x the vertical separation, but on many naval vessels, this ratio of separation often was, and still is, the other way around.

For many years Scottish Fishery Protection operated the Jura and Westra which were the same design as the RN Island Class (actually it was the other way round as Jura was the first built) and this was one way to tell us and the RN ships apart at night. In daylight the difference was to spot the RN had a gun and no foremast and we had a foremast and no gun! (Obviously if you had a gun AND a foremast you would probably very quickly have no mast.) It was the different arrangements of the masts that was the reason for the nav light differences. Edited March 13, 2017 by JeremyC

[The Stationmaster]

The 'turning off the AIS' story has also appeared elsewhere and appeared to completely overlook the fact that there are (still?) AIS 'black spots' where for whatever reason AIS signals 'vanish' sometimes for several hours or more - part of the North African coastline is one example which you can come across when tracking containerships delivering cargoes of our kind of toys from the Far East but I have also noticed the vessel I follow regularly on AIS 'vanishing' in the North Sea (although that might be due to an onboard fault as I know they have had a problem with the aerial in the past).

 

It is also noticeable that some navigation marks which should show up on AIS don't, for whatever reason.

[Ohmisterporter]

There have been several comments about the cost of defence equipment being a governing factor in numbers of hulls and other hardware to be procured so I thought you may like the from DoDbuzz. It concerns the USMC King Stallion helicopter at $120 million apiece. Not something the British forces will ever need but an indication of the cost of stuff. Much has been written about the escalating cost of F-35 but these helicopters are more expensive by a large margin. And they want two hundred.

 

https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/03/13/marines-ch-53k-king-stallion-set-become-worlds-expensive-helicopter/

Edited March 16, 2017 by Ohmisterporter

[pete_mcfarlane]

I thought the anti-submarine Merlins were £100m each?

[Bon Accord]

I thought the anti-submarine Merlins were £100m each?

 

About that, I think the figure was nearer 90. Most of it in the bulb under the fore part and electronic gubbins therein.

We used to carry them as cargo on a regular basis when rotating them to/from the Gulf and it always made me laugh that whilst you had this very expensive aircraft the first thing it would normally do when it came onboard would be to "drop it's guts" (hydraulic oil) all over the deck and the hi-spec/expensive airframe lashings would unravel themselves if not given regular attention.

[jjb1970]

The USMC CH53's are huge, its hard to appreciate just how big they are until you see one in person. They're impressive beasts.

[adb968008]

If you think the Royal Navy is small, consider that our neighbouring Viking friends in Denmark only have 5 ships larger than our 240 year old HMS Victory..., and even then there not massively larger !

 

Long range aircraft, (and ability to hire commercial aircraft cheaply) makes it easier and faster, the US didn't sail everyone to the gulf, I used to regularly see ATA Boeing 757's at commercial airports in Eastern Europe refuelling enroute between the two.

 

If you look at military strategy these days, first job of an armed force is to secure the local air strip.

 

Navy has its place, but it's not the "railway of the seas" any more the bulk of the burden moved to the sky.

Edited March 24, 2017 by adb968008

[Bon Accord]

If you think the Royal Navy is small, consider that our neighbouring Viking friends in Denmark only have 5 ships larger than our 240 year old HMS Victory..., and even then there not massively larger !

 

Long range aircraft, (and ability to hire commercial aircraft cheaply) makes it easier and faster, the US didn't sail everyone to the gulf, I used to regularly see ATA Boeing 757's at commercial airports in Eastern Europe refuelling enroute between the two.

 

If you look at military strategy these days, first job of an armed force is to secure the local air strip.

 

Navy has its place, but it's not the "railway of the seas" any more the bulk of the burden moved to the sky.

 

The personnel have gone by air since the last troopships were paid off in the '60s, however all the kit - vehicles, heavy items, ammunition, food, accommodation, equipment etc etc - all still go by sea.

Considering how reasonably small the UK contribution to Op Telic was in 2003 (in comparison to the USA), some sixty four merchant ships were still required to get all the kit to Kuwait and Iraq so that we were able to not only invade but also to consolidate the ground we'd taken. Then came all the resupply trips.

[Junctionmad]

The 'turning off the AIS' story has also appeared elsewhere and appeared to completely overlook the fact that there are (still?) AIS 'black spots' where for whatever reason AIS signals 'vanish' sometimes for several hours or more - part of the North African coastline is one example which you can come across when tracking containerships delivering cargoes of our kind of toys from the Far East but I have also noticed the vessel I follow regularly on AIS 'vanishing' in the North Sea (although that might be due to an onboard fault as I know they have had a problem with the aerial in the past).

 

It is also noticeable that some navigation marks which should show up on AIS don't, for whatever reason.

Satelitte based worid coverage Ais detection is fully operational and available to legimate governments and bone fide security agencies. Ais tracking such as marine traffic and others , do not have access to this data and have significant holes in their coverage

 

Correction , I should add that orbcomm satelite AIS tracking is available to paid subscribers of MarineTraffic but only for designated specific ships.( i.e. A fleet operator etc )

Edited March 24, 2017 by Junctionmad

[Junctionmad]

AIS is a requirement for all ships over 300 gross tons engaged on international voyages, and all passenger ships regardless of size. The AIS transponder must be switched on when the vessel is under way. A transponder may be switched off if vessel security is considered to be compromised, in which case the event must be recorded in the vessel’s log book, with the reason stated.

 

And since 2014 , any EU fishing vessel over 15m

[pete_mcfarlane]

The personnel have gone by air since the last troopships were paid off in the '60s, however all the kit - vehicles, heavy items, ammunition, food, accommodation, equipment etc etc - all still go by sea.

As if on cue, here's a piece about the movement of armour to Estonia by sea:

 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-tanks-artillery-armoured-vehicles-arrive-estonia/

[adb968008]

Forgive me, but if it's a merchant vessel hired for the job, then surely it's a commercial move on a government contract, how is this different to any other shipping contract to move goods ?

The ship might be loaded with buses, parts & food to another part of the world next week ?

 

it's not the Royal Navy at work, though it might be their budget and planning behind it ?

Or has all ships, including this one to Estonia always been fully taken over, armed, crewed & maintained by RN personnel under full control and command for a permanent dedicated basis ?

 

Back in 2003 I recall hundreds of tiny freighters hired by the military wandering the gulf, all of them local registered and crewed, supported a whole economy, but it didn't make them military vessels for a western government, just contractors doing a job, much of the time it was western goods air freighted in, broken down and despatched up the gulf by forwarding agents until delivered to their customer (which in this case was military).

 

I don't want to argue about it, but to me the navy is the size it is, and in a modern world of mass commercial transportation it makes more sense to "hire in" or "contract out" as needed, than have a transport system based on the days of empire, when only governments could really afford, and few others could supply on demand, to face a threat anywhere in the world, when communications took months rather than seconds to cross the globe.

 

Maybe it's me, but the threats are different these days, and it's not so common for the rum drinking navy to have to cross the globe to kick out a tribe from some castle that over run a whisky loving cavalry commsnder in some far flung insurgent part of the empire.

 

We need a navy, but one the scale of 200 years ago doesn't make sense, were not going to ever beat China or Russia in a fight on our own, some despot regimes maybe, or supporting a coalition hence a mix of the new carriers, subs etc to fit roles. Our navy, compared to some I've seen is distinctly modern ! I went on HMS Dragon not too long ago, it's basically an armed IT facility.. the days of low height, narrow passages with screw lock doors really are for WW2 films. Modern ships are very much more intelligent, one US ship I went on could show real time HD TV quality live footage of civilian airliners as they fly through the sky.. I could even real the tail...(and no it wasn't a movie... I verified it by flight radar on my phone !)

 

You don't need 20 Catalina PBY's and hundreds of support crew and logistic support vessels to scan a few hundred miles of horizon anymore.

Edited March 24, 2017 by adb968008

[Bon Accord]

Forgive me, but if it's a merchant vessel hired for the job, then surely it's a commercial move on a government contract, how is this different to any other shipping contract to move goods ?

The ship might be loaded with buses, parts & food to another part of the world next week ?

 

it's not the Royal Navy at work, though it might be their budget and planning behind it ?

Or has all ships, including this one to Estonia always been fully taken over, armed, crewed & maintained by RN personnel under full control and command for a permanent dedicated basis ?

 

Back in 2003 I recall hundreds of tiny freighters hired by the military wandering the gulf, all of them local registered and crewed, supported a whole economy, but it didn't make them military vessels for a western government, just contractors doing a job, much of the time it was western goods air freighted in, broken down and despatched up the gulf by forwarding agents until delivered to their customer (which in this case was military).

 

I don't want to argue about it, but to me the navy is the size it is, and in a modern world of mass commercial transportation it makes more sense to "hire in" or "contract out" as needed, than have a transport system based on the days of empire, when only governments could really afford, and few others could supply on demand, to face a threat anywhere in the world, when communications took months rather than seconds to cross the globe.

 

Maybe it's me, but the threats are different these days, and it's not so common for the rum drinking navy to have to cross the globe to kick out a tribe from some castle that over run a whisky loving cavalry commsnder in some far flung insurgent part of the empire.

 

We need a navy, but one the scale of 200 years ago doesn't make sense, were not going to ever beat China or Russia in a fight on our own, some despot regimes maybe, or supporting a coalition hence a mix of the new carriers, subs etc to fit roles. Our navy, compared to some I've seen is distinctly modern ! I went on HMS Dragon not too long ago, it's basically an armed IT facility.. the days of low height, narrow passages with screw lock doors really are for WW2 films. Modern ships are very much more intelligent, one US ship I went on could show real time HD TV quality live footage of civilian airliners as they fly through the sky.. I could even real the tail...(and no it wasn't a movie... I verified it by flight radar on my phone !)

 

You don't need 20 Catalina PBY's and hundreds of support crew and logistic support vessels to scan a few hundred miles of horizon anymore.

 

It's not quite that simple. Even the ships carrying the least sensitive cargoes will normally have at least a Reservist onboard as liaison and to "keep an eye". Those carrying items more vital such as sensitive equipment or ammunition will normally be RFAs or Strategic Sealift vessels which will carry a full crew of reservists. As well as RN planning, the RN also monitors such ships via satellite and other communications methods via Northwood and the likes of UKMCC in Bahrain, with local RN units kept informed should they be required for escort or assistance purposes.

One of the lessons learnt as far back as the Falklands was that there simply was not sufficient suitable tonnage available to the MOD, even at that time when the UK had a large fleet (in comparison with today). By suitable I mean British flag, built to appropriate construction standards for a war zone, able to carry the kind of cargoes required by the modern MOD (Ro-Ro, containers and break bulk), able to work with aircraft in a limited fashion, have specific comms gear onboard and also able to interface with Mexeflote and landing craft.

The 1998 defence review actually addressed some of those lessons from 1982 and 1991 and resulted in the procurement of six such suitable ships of which it was only envisioned three would be required at any one time, the other three could operate commercially and generate revenue for the MOD or at least cover operating costs. In reality 4 were needed full time and occasionally a 5th. Roll forward to 2012 and the new government got rid of 2 ships, stating that if more are required they can be brought in on private charters. Literally 2 months later they then chartered in two ships at roughly 3 times the cost of the "in house" vessels to try and cope with the backlog of kit to be brought home as the result of the drawdown from HERRICK (Afghanistan) - clever eh?! Yes, even British operations in Afghanistan (a land locked country) depended on resupply by sea, usually from the UK to ports in Cyprus/UAE/Pakistan where it was then flown directly in on a short hop basis or in the latter case driven up country.

One of the ships I've mentioned is that seen above (a ferry?!) and is indeed fully crewed by RN sponsored reservists and operated/tasked by what was known as DTMA then DES and is now something partly privatised, but basically an MOD tri-service logistics organisation.

Now, there's little point in having these vessels or any others as part of a supply line or amphibious task group if there's nothing available to protect them and nobody able to organise it all - which is where the RN comes in.

 

[Ohmisterporter]

Save the royal navy blog has this timeline for QEC worked up and entering service. Not the usual wishlist, this is drawn up using published MoD and other timelines. 

 

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/timeline-delivering-carrier-strike/

[jjb1970]

The only realistic way to supply a military force of any size where overland transport is not an option is by ship. The weight of equipment, quantities of fuel and supplies is enormous, the number of air movements necessary to deploy and keep modest sized air mobile units supported is huge never mind a large armoured battle group and all its supporting arms.

 

The problem with chartering ships is that the UK merchant fleet is not that big and the number of suitable ships is inadequate as already pointed out by Bon Accord. Foreign flag ships may agree to accept UK military charters, but they may not and they cannot be compelled as they’re not British ships. If they do accept the work then they’ll expect to be paid handsomely, assuming they’re not flagged to countries more sympathetic to whoever we’re fighting or subject to domestic restrictions against carrying the cargo. The USA has an arrangement with the Republic of the Marshall Islands which means RMI flagged ships are available to the US DoD in an emergency but the UK does not have the luxury of one of the world’s biggest open registers (I think the RMI is now the world’s second biggest flag) having such an agreement.

Edited March 24, 2017 by jjb1970

[Mike Storey]

There have been several comments about the cost of defence equipment being a governing factor in numbers of hulls and other hardware to be procured so I thought you may like the from DoDbuzz. It concerns the USMC King Stallion helicopter at $120 million apiece. Not something the British forces will ever need but an indication of the cost of stuff. Much has been written about the escalating cost of F-35 but these helicopters are more expensive by a large margin. And they want two hundred.

 

https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/03/13/marines-ch-53k-king-stallion-set-become-worlds-expensive-helicopter/

 

The King Stallions will have three times the payload of their predecessors, and include a far superior selection of alternative content, allowing the transfer of personnel alongside materiel. So (given their expected batch production cost will reduce to around $90m, and current value of an equivalent of its predecessor is calculated at just under $50m), the price/value ratio seems good to me - three times the capability for just over twice the price.

[Ohmisterporter]

I don't think it was ever realistic that UK would buy V-22 Osprey for use on the carriers but USMC could certainly use our ships. A short item from The Register on this.

 

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/24/uk_rules_out_v22_osprey_queen_elizabeth_carriers/?mt=1490445296318

[pete_mcfarlane]

An interesting counterpoint to all those 'F-35 has loads of problems, we should keeping buying existing designs' stories: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/navy-fa-18s-face-persistent-oxygen-issue-435731/

[jjb1970]

Something I find amusing is that since the end of WW2 things have gone through the same repetitive cycle for the NATO navies in terms of trying to balance capability and numbers and the search for a good, affordable warship. The Type 14 was an attempt to cut costs by making a pure ASW frigate which was a first rate ASW ship intended to be affordable. The conversion of destroyers into ASW frigates in the postwar frigate was an attempt to build capable ASW ships without breaking the defence budget. The Type 19 frigate was a failed attempt to build a cheap frigate, followed by the much maligned privately designed Type 21. In the late 70's and 80's the Type 24 and Type 25 designs were another attempt to build a cheap frigate, the Type 24 was effectively a towed array ship. All of these ships can be seen as ancestors of the new Type 31 frigate. On the other hand the Country class guided missile destroyers were designed around what for its time was an advanced AAW missile but the ships weren't cheap, followed by the high end Type 82 destroyers which were very capable but again very expensive and ended up replaced by the Type 42. The Type 42 being delivered fromnew with no room for growth to cut costs (glorious looking design though). The Type 43 would have been a large and very powerful destroyer but unaffordable for the RN. And it isn't just an RN issue, all the NATO navies have faced the same issue. Yet for all that there have been notable successes. The Type 12 frigates (including the Leander class) were excellent ships that combined good capability with affordability. The Type 22 wasn't cheap (quite the opposite) but it was a superb ship. And although the Type 23 once earned the "Skoda" moniker (when Skoda was used as an insult) the class was a well designed and capable ship that has given the RN good service.

As well as the never ending cycle of trying to balance cost and numbers there are a few other recurring themes. AAW tends to be easier to sell to politicians as the capabilities are obvious and easy to understand (metaphors about golf balls and all that) whereas it is much harder to get buy in for ASW as high end ASW is much less tangible than high end AAW and unlike AAW systems you don't normally advertise the capabilities of ASW systems. Traditionally good ASW ships have been more expensive than AAW ships despite looking a lot lighter in terms of weapons fit and without the visible capabilities. There is always a problem with people not judging warships from the number of weapons carried and writing off RN designs as over priced and under armed without considering stability, strength, endurance, sub-division and other things which affect size and which are less obvious than the gun count.

[polybear]

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but the R.N. Lynx heli's went out of service last Friday, after 41(?) years.

Spent a good few years working on them....

[jjb1970]

oes anybody else remember the TGA Sirius S90 "short fat frigate" controversey of the 1980's? Probably the only time naval architecture has ever been noticed by politicians and the world. Even now I still meet the odd person claiming it was all part of an establishment conspiracy and that warships should be short and fat in total obliviousness to just what a bonkers idea a fat semi-planing frigate was.

[Ozexpatriate]

The only realistic way to supply a military force of any size where overland transport is not an option is by ship. The weight of equipment, quantities of fuel and supplies is enormous, the number of air movements necessary to deploy and keep modest sized air mobile units supported is huge never mind a large armoured battle group and all its supporting arms.

My emphasis.

 

That's a matter of defining "any size". I guess it also depends on what you refer to as an armoured battle group - if you specifically mean lots of front-line battle tanks, then OK.

 

The USAF Air Mobility Command ships a lot of soldiers and materiel into places like Afghanistan.

 

Is a C-5 or C17 cheap to operate? No. Are ships more economical per tonne of materiel? Of course.

 

I may be arguing from ignorance here, but I'm not sure how much shipping contributes to the deployment of US forces deep in Afghanistan.