The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Fedup]

Wale's position in the union is somewhat different than Scotland and Ireland - Wales is a principality, not a country. And having spoken to a number of Welsh, I don't detect much appetite for independence.

With Ireland, sentiment appears to be shifting from unionist sympathies and voting is no longer as rigidly defined by sectarian lines as before. So, a move towards unification as a purely pragmatic decisison seems more possible than ever (still unlikely, but no longer as impossible!)

Scotland is the real elephant in the room and managing that is going to be tricky. Simply telling the scots "nope" will push feelings in favour of a referendum even if there's no actual feeling in support of leaving the UK.

On the bases, the SNP have already said they would not be willing to permit the deterrent to remain on Scottish soil- and various figures in the RN have indicated it'd either move to Kings Bay, Georgia, or be co-located with the French. Kings Bay would be trivially easy as all the facilities for handling trident missiles are already present and RN subs already rock up to the front door on a regular basis and collect missiles anyway.

That'd leave abandoning Coulport special munitions jetty and the trident storage facility as a relatively simple task and the attack boats could be relocated to another UK port.

The SNP have already said they'd keep Faslane open to host the Scottish navy (makes no sense, it's on the wrong side of the country but that's what they're saying.

That seems to be relatively simple compared to the headache of recreating the deterrent facilities in the rUK which is a useful tool in defanging the SNPs threat to cause disruption to the deterrent.

On Lossiemouth - I suspect the SNP would be more likely to agree to leasing the base as it's not a nuclear facility and they'd probably want some of the P8 flying under their flag - and having them serviced by the RAF as part of a combined arrangement is a pragmatic arrangement for both sides - expect to see mixed crews in the same we we've had RAF crew serving with the US for instance.

The biggest counter argument to independence is, ironically, EU membership - Scotland exports something like 60% of it's goods to the rest of the UK - and if they rejoined the EU, assuming we don't rejoin the customs union in a few years, there'd have to be a hard border between England and Scotland.

Don’t want to get to OT here but hard borders and no currency were promised outcomes for Quebec separation along with partition for regions not wanting to leave Canada. Very hard to defend separation rights while dismissing partition rights, at least politically.

 

[StobieWan]

Don’t want to get to OT here but hard borders and no currency were promised outcomes for Quebec separation along with partition for regions not wanting to leave Canada. Very hard to defend separation rights while dismissing partition rights, at least politically.

It's hard to unlink the two but in this case, we have a worked example - Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland - in order to preserve the intent of the Good Friday agreement, no hard borders or customs checks were a requirement - but Brexit meant that goods from NI needed to be checked *somewhere* in either direction.

So, while could definitely agree to frictionless trade with an independent Scotland, the moment they talked up re-joining the EU, we'd be back to the same requirements.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

On the bases, the SNP have already said they would not be willing to permit the deterrent to remain on Scottish soil- and various figures in the RN have indicated it'd either move to Kings Bay, Georgia, or be co-located with the French. Kings Bay would be trivially easy as all the facilities for handling trident missiles are already present and RN subs already rock up to the front door on a regular basis and collect missiles anyway.

Even if it is achievable from a military point of view, I'm not sure if it would be politically acceptable to have our nuclear deterrent hosted overseas and therefore subject to the whims of a foreign government. [EDIT: I was thinking of a situation where Scotland agrees a lease at Faslane for SSBNs that has constitutional status.]

There was a lot of screaming several years ago about how the US would be able to "turn off" or "disable" our arsenal (by refusing to service the Trident missiles). Yes it was scaremongering, but it would be like that dialed up to 10 if there was no UK facility for the SSBNs. The most the government could probably manage was a temporary overseas posting pending construction of a dedicated UK port.

Hence why I think predictions of Faslane being closed as an SSBN base are premature.

I suspect the SNP would be more likely to agree to leasing the base as it's not a nuclear facility and they'd probably want some of the P8 flying under their flag

That pre-supposes the SNP would spend more than one groat a year on defence. Scotland is already hugely reliant on fiscal transfers from the rest of the UK, and there's no chance a newly independent Scottish government would reintroduce university tuition fees, prescription charges and all the other things they've made free with taxes not raised in Scotland.

Of course the SNP would demand frigates, P-8s, etc as their "share" of UK defence forces equipment, but they wouldn't buy any themselves - at least not for a while. Assuming they took on their share of the national debt I guess they'd be entitled to one P-8, but that would be it (and obviously not nearly enough to ensure a constant patrol).

 

[StobieWan]

well, we know that the SNP have no interest in spending on defence - it doesn't appeal to their base so they just need a policy that seems reasonable to the rest of the audience - so a fig leaf of a policy where they reinstate some good old regiment names, make suitable noises about maintaining a navy etc will be fine. One way they could do that would be by keeping Lossiemouth open and put some effort into ASW and so forth. Claim a P8, stickl a decently Scottish name on the side and actually fly with a set of distributed crews, part RAF, part SAF would work out mutually beneficial to all parties.

We could take our ball back and run everything from Marham but I suspect a case can be found for Lossiemouth staying open.

Faslane, the SNP have said many times, nope, no way. The cost of relocating would be hideously unaffordable. Either we take deterrent basing to some other country with the right conditions or I suspect it simply becomes unaffordable.

The screaming about the deterrent not being indepedent goes on to this day - and I don't think it's relevant as the only people flapping their gums about it are anti-nuclear anyway - there's nothing you can do do to convince them otherwise as it's a spurious point.

Moving to Kings Bay just seems pragmatic.

I'm not actually sure there's a useful site any where in the rUK anyway - access to a deep water channel with low traffic are some of the requirements and the closest would be Wales - but the available ports all have LPG tankers going in and out all the time,

And in any event, if there's a kerfuffle about shifting the deterrent to a foreign country, leaving it in a newly independent Scotland doesn't resolve that tension.

We could shift it to France and the special munitions jetty at Coulport is at least theoretically moveable but I think just stick with King's bay tbh.

Faslane won't close - not at all - it'll simply be host to the newly independent Scottish Navy- after a bit they'll shift some OPV's to the East coast and they'll end up with a pair of Frigates they rarely run tied alongside.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Faslane, the SNP have said many times, nope, no way.

Legally it doesn't matter. Scotland has no constitutional right to unilaterally leave the UK. It's the same for Cornwall or Aberystwyth. Scotland's status as a "country" within the United Kingdom doesn't change anything. As such, if the SNP don't like the terms offered it, the UK government can stop Scotland from leaving.

It wouldn't be the ideal way forwards, but it would be leverage to get the best deal for the UK. Otherwise what will happen is the SNP will try to skip out on its share of the national debt, because that would be much more valuable than any small share of assets available. There's also the issue of where the dividing line will be for fisheries and oil/gas. Even the status of military personnel would be something difficult. The SNP would be concerned about the UK poaching "their" military professionals, but the British military doesn't have the spare capacity to not absolutely be offering everyone already in the Armed Forces to stay on rather than join a Scottish Army et al. Again, that's not something the SNP can be allowed to have a veto on.

At some point hardball will have to be played by London - Faslane would probably not be the biggest sticking issue.

The cost of relocating would be hideously unaffordable.

That could be priced into a phased withdrawal from Scotland from the UK - Barnet costs the rest of the UK as much as £15 billion a year just for Scotland. If Scotland was allowed time to break away to get its house in order, that could be reduced or axed beforehand as a price of not having Faslane stay open for the SSBNs. That stacks up very quickly into a fat budget for a new naval facility.

The screaming about the deterrent not being indepedent goes on to this day

Indeed. However, politicians are politicians, and when under pressure they can be pushed in ways they'd prefer they're not.

Coming at this from the political angle, Kings Bay might work for the long-term, but it would probably require a treaty with the US and Congress passing it into law to ensure a future President (e.g. Trump 2.0) didn't demand silly money for "rent".

France is a no-go politically. Even when an "Anglophile" French President comes along, they inevitably turn on us at least once when they're put under domestic pressure by fishermen, unions or the Gironde-Sud Mamans Alliance. I'm struggling to think of the legal and constitutional safeguards that would be sufficient.

And in any event, if there's a kerfuffle about shifting the deterrent to a foreign country, leaving it in a newly independent Scotland doesn't resolve that tension.

If SSBNs were to stay in Scotland, I expect there would be a legally-watertight lease (possibly renewing) built into the withdrawal agreement. That would have a higher legal standing than a treaty agreed with the US or France, because it would be part of the terms of which Scotland left the UK.

 

[John Fedup]

Perhaps the UK shouldn’t have off loaded bankrupt Newfoundland to Canada back in 1949. Given the province’s horrible financial condition today, a SSN/SSBN base along with a long term waste disposal site would go a long way to balancing the books.

 

[spoz]

I would have thought that if the only reason to move from Faslane was because the SNP wouldn’t continue it as part of independence, that would be a legitimate charge to independent Scotland......

 

[StobieWan]

I would have thought that if the only reason to move from Faslane was because the SNP wouldn’t continue it as part of independence, that would be a legitimate charge to independent Scotland......

That's one point of view, I'm sure the SNP have another

Let's stick with the defence implications however - getting too far down the political avenues will get us all in trouble with the moderators (and I'll have to get out my own green text and give myself a friendly nudge before too long!)

Scottish independence would mean a shift for the rUK - the deterrent would have to be relocated if we're to take the SNP's previously articulated position as gospel. I suspect we could get basing rights for anything non-nuclear and it'd be in the interests of both parties to work together covering the North Sea and the large EEZ associated with it.

While we'd effectively be underwriting Scotland's defence, taking a pragmatic approach and resigning ourselves to that rather than (as the scots would say) moaning and greetin' about it would seem logical.

Scotland might spin up some light infantry with vehicles for peace keeping operations - it's a money spinner after all, and the ROI has often done the same.

 

[John Fedup]

A the end of the day defence items will be debated and assigned along with debt and a host of other details Separation is really divorce and the outcome will be unpleasant at best or downright ugly.

 

[StobieWan]

It'll be messy - I do have some sympathies for the Scottish, given the total political sh1tshow of English politics for the last four or five years but I also feel we're stronger as a union than apart.

We'll see.

 

[John Fedup]

It'll be messy - I do have some sympathies for the Scottish, given the total political sh1tshow of English politics for the last four or five years but I also feel we're stronger as a union than apart.

We'll see.

Agree but the in the end, endless bickering is why some divorces have to happen despite the negative economics.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Look Out! Maritime Early Warning Innovations: Competition Document

www.gov.uk

There is a requirement to develop a capability that provides air and surface surveillance to enable over-the-horizon situational awareness to Royal Navy assets deployed within the Carrier and Littoral Strike Groups, where not otherwise available in those formations. The capability should provide Commanders with a clear, detailed and enduring picture of the battlespace. It should also support Commanders’ decision-making by providing detection, tracking and recognition of surface and airborne objects within sufficient timescales to react appropriately.

This capability has historically been delivered by sensors mounted on airborne platforms to increase detection range. However, we are interested in any alternative proposals that could match or exceed these capabilities, particularly for low-level and/or signature-controlled threats. Ultimately, we are seeking a potential successor to the near-term capability, Crowsnest (an EW system fitted to the Merlin Mk2 helicopter), which has a planned out-of-service date of 2029.

This is interesting - was anyone else aware that Crowsnest was planned to be out of service in less than a decade? It's only going to get IOC sometime this year.

 

[StobieWan]

Blimey - no - at that rate, it's barely worth fielding. Hang on, OSD 2029 is Merlin HC2 - maybe the kit can be pulled through ?

 

[John Fedup]

The RN’s solids support ship suffered a fire which was quickly extinguished by the crew. Fort Victoria is the only available solids support ship for the upcoming QE group deployment. As the article mentions, cutbacks and delays in awarding contracts for replacement vessels have left the RN in this vulnerable situation of having only one ship. I guess allies could offer assistance if Fort Victoria had been unable to sail.

Minor fire onboard RFA Fort Victoria – highlights single point of failure for Carrier Strike Group | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

 

[swerve]

Blimey - no - at that rate, it's barely worth fielding. Hang on, OSD 2029 is Merlin HC2 - maybe the kit can be pulled through ?

It's all rather weird. How long has it taken to field? IIRC it started out as a relatively quick & low risk development, refurbishing & updating the Cerberus system & Searchwater radars fitted to Sea King & fitting them to Merlin. Quite a few years & tens of millions of pounds were spent examining options before deciding not to be more adventurous. What happened? Will we be pulling through kit pulled through from Sea King ASAC, to carry on into the 2040s? Or has everything been replaced already?

 

[Pusser01]

The RN’s solids support ship suffered a fire which was quickly extinguished by the crew. Fort Victoria is the only available solids support ship for the upcoming QE group deployment. As the article mentions, cutbacks and delays in awarding contracts for replacement vessels have left the RN in this vulnerable situation of having only one ship. I guess allies could offer assistance if Fort Victoria had been unable to sail.

Minor fire onboard RFA Fort Victoria – highlights single point of failure for Carrier Strike Group | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

I could never work out why they withdrew RFA Fort George in 2011 & later scrapped her instead of the one of the older Fort Rosalie class. Cheers

 

[the concerned]

This probably sounds a silly question but with both US and UK F35s on the CV. How do they go about the different weaponry they carry. Also are they permitted to qualify themselves on each others munitions.

 

[StobieWan]

This probably sounds a silly question but with both US and UK F35s on the CV. How do they go about the different weaponry they carry. Also are they permitted to qualify themselves on each others munitions.

The USMC took a very close look at UK weapons and have actually adopted a couple from memory so there's been close co-operation throughout. Additionally, the F35 is an UAI bird - meaning, qualify it on one bird, it's cleared for electrical and data on all UAI aircraft and you just have to confirm weapons carriage and separation on the airframe, no repeat work on the interface.

I'd imagine there's a healthy interest from both sides in what they're doing and I suspect we'll see some interesting fruit borne of this particular collaboration.

 

[KiwiRob]

The Type 31's now Inspiration Class have names, Active, Bulldog, Campbeltown, Formidable and Venturer.

Royal Navy formally announces the names of the ‘inspiration class’ Type 31 frigates | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

 

[StobieWan]

Mm...they're a bit random - no single theme or class letter (and I know from the article that that's intentional)

I'd sooner have a class theme but that's me, bit staid on the names