The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

I'd imagine it's just easier on the aircraft themselves and cheaper overall for maintenance to boot, I mean I get that they're designed to cope but it must still have an impact. Then there's the other side, i'd imagine reducing the aircraft in a CAW would then lead into other repercussions like decreased pilot/maintainer requirements leading to "potential savings" ready for the chop.
 
RobWilliams said:
I'd imagine it's just easier on the aircraft themselves and cheaper overall for maintenance to boot, I mean I get that they're designed to cope but it must still have an impact. Then there's the other side, i'd imagine reducing the aircraft in a CAW would then lead into other repercussions like decreased pilot/maintainer requirements leading to "potential savings" ready for the chop.
Click to expand...
especially as now one CAW is in ordinary due to sequester anything to keep the costs down especially on the tired Marine F/A 18
 
Heard a great story on deck crowding from an F8 driver - they left port with four more aircraft than they could physically get on deck. Literally, hangar, flight deck, they're all full, four birds in the air. CAG is just smiling and drinking coffee. Lots of coffee.

"It'll be fine..." he keeps saying.

36 hour later, it's not looking great, CAG looks a bit tired. 42 hours into the cruise, there's a *tremendous* thump as someone 4 wires and trips, punches right into a pack of four parked aircraft. Rough landing, semi-bolter but not quite. Splat, boom...sounds of munitions cooking off..

CAG smiles sadly, finishes his coffee and basically announces his work here is done. There's enough room on deck for what they have.

At the end of the cruise, there's bags of room. Acres.
 
harryriedl said:
The USN is adopting a similar posture what with the massively reduced decks compared with the past with most of the aircraft hangared rather than on deck what with at least 50% cut compared with the Cold War days. With give or take 48 FA plus the extras.
Click to expand...

It's been a significant cut, but 50% is a bit of an exaggeration.

The real cuts came from retiring A-6's and S-3's...the capability loss of those aircraft was probably more painful than straight numbers.
 
RobWilliams said:
ANaval units from France, Denmark and Norway will take part with the Danish taking the lead on HDMS Absalon.
Click to expand...

I wonder what Norway will send, there's only 1 working Nansen at the moment, one has been cannibalised to supply spare parts and the other three are in various degrees of maintenance, plus they don't have enough sailors to crew them.
 
I read that the Norwegian navy says it's the other way round: three working, one in maintenance, & one in 'extended readiness', which may have had parts removed pending delivery of new spares.

They seem to have admitted not ordering enough spares or ensuring a long-term supply. & having to buy more, & being short of sailors (hence the ship in reserve)..
 
Accoring to some folks I know the one that has been used as parts is pretty much a hulk (Otto Sverdrup), it's been stripped of almost everything to keep the others going. The Norwegian govt didn't buy a support and spares package from Navantia, now they are suffering. The operational frigate (Fridtjof Nansen) is on anti priacy patrol and the other three are tied up in Bergen for maintenance and lack crews to operate them, as are the Skjold class, all tied up with no crews.
 
Helge Ingstad has taken part in exercises this year, & the last report of her moving I've found was September 24th, near Bergen. Note that the Norwegian press reports claiming that three frigates are out of action said that Helge Ingstad is operative, but berthed at Bergen. There's been no claim I can find except yours that she's unusable.

So, we have -
(1) One frigate on operations, three non-operational for maintenance or lack of crews, one stripped to a hulk - according to people you know.
(2) Norwegian press reports that say one frigate is on operations, two non-operational for maintenance, one operative but currently (as of September 30th) berthed, & one stripped of important parts.
(3) A Norwegian navy statement (reported by Janes 2nd October: in the current JDW) which says three frigates are operational (but not necessarily on operations), one non-operational for maintenance, & one in reserve & temporarily short of parts.
 
I personally think the current situation is embarrassing for the Norwegian govt so they are bending the truth somewhat. The person I heard this from has a son who is a serving officer in the RNoN based in Bergen.
 
In other cases I've heard stories about situation X or Y from people who were there, which were flatly contradicted by other people who were also there but saw it from a different angle.

I can believe that the Norwegian navy & MoD might be putting the most optimistic spin on things, but outright lying seems unlikely. One can imagine, for example, that one of Roald Amundsen or Thor Heyerdahl is undergoing significant maintenance, while the other is berthed for lesser maintenance & theoretically capable of putting to sea if needed, & Helge Ingstad might be undermanned while some of the crew are on leave but also theoretically capable of putting to sea - & this is interpreted by those who've heard the scuttlebutt around the base as all three ships unusable, while the navy prefers to (truthfully) say that two are usable, while keeping quiet about certain details which explain why those two ships aren't going anywhere for a little while..

That sort of clash of information & interpretation isn't exactly unknown.
 
swerve said:
In other cases I've heard stories about situation X or Y from people who were there, which were flatly contradicted by other people who were also there but saw it from a different angle.

I can believe that the Norwegian navy & MoD might be putting the most optimistic spin on things, but outright lying seems unlikely. One can imagine, for example, that one of Roald Amundsen or Thor Heyerdahl is undergoing significant maintenance, while the other is berthed for lesser maintenance & theoretically capable of putting to sea if needed, & Helge Ingstad might be undermanned while some of the crew are on leave but also theoretically capable of putting to sea - & this is interpreted by those who've heard the scuttlebutt around the base as all three ships unusable, while the navy prefers to (truthfully) say that two are usable, while keeping quiet about certain details which explain why those two ships aren't going anywhere for a little while..

That sort of clash of information & interpretation isn't exactly unknown.
Click to expand...


Many in the press and of course the cynics of anything military, even the coast guard, are quick to point out not every asset is available at any given time. Never mind the fact that alike any fleet of trucks or buses or cabs, not everyone is available at any given time. The military have rotations, even the front lines of World War I had four rotations, so one can add the army into the picture as well. Simply put the press and the cynics know not of what they are talking about.
 
It's not a bad thing as long as the MOD gets to roll the underspend into next year's budget, which it has been allowed to do this time. Hopefully the MOD and the Tressury can come to some sort of arrangement about future underspends as well, it will certainly make for better management of the MOD finances.
 
I'd rather have underspend than spending every penny of the budget and having no room to account for problems (which WILL happen) and having to bin projects. It seems a much more secure way of running the budget.

My main concern is that hopefully the underspend doesn't go straight back to the Treasury.

NB: I do appreciate i'm sat in a nice comfy armchair in this situation however. I just think that it's just a bit of a cheap tactic leveraging people's anger at troop cuts against what actually is sound financial planning IMO.
 
Completely agree, the article is quite balanced, but they always ruin it with the headline....cash pile scandal!!

Still it probably helps to explain why Hammond seems so confident about both QEs being active....70m is certainly not a lot out of 2bn.

Lets hope the efficiency drive can be maintained, that sort of level could cover run & acquisition costs for a fair old wish list.
 
I got the impression that the underspend was at least in part due to the difficulty in spending some money on projects due to the lack of staff to oversee and manage said projects.
 
StobieWan said:
I got the impression that the underspend was at least in part due to the difficulty in spending some money on projects due to the lack of staff to oversee and manage said projects.
Click to expand...

It sounds similar to the situation in Australia for the last few years, underspend every year. It wasn't that the ADF didn't need the capability the money was meant to pay for rather than the government decision making and implementation was too slow and not delivering. It was actually a sign of problems rather than efficiency.
 
Doesn't seem to be the case here though, since Hammond came to the position (Maybe Fox said it too maybe, IIRC it was a SDSR 2010 plan) has always been that there will be a £8bn underspend over the next decade to allow for unplanned equipment procurement, covering program cost increases and so on. The equipment plan has been modified as such to allow this to happen, so here it's not that the UK Govt is incapable of making the decisions, they've planned the decisions they're going to take and giving themselves some wiggle room.

I've always thought the underspend was part of the plan, after all, if the plan is to have £8bn of funds spare over a decade then we will be seeing that underspend right now after all.
 
StobieWan said:
I got the impression that the underspend was at least in part due to the difficulty in spending some money on projects due to the lack of staff to oversee and manage said projects.
Click to expand...
Which seems odd, since one problem our procurement system seems beset with is too many people. Compare it with Israel, for example, & the numbers of people employed in proportion to the equipment budget & number of projects. I suspect very strongly that a lot of our procurement staff are doing things which would probably be better not done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top