Early in 2023, the MoD purchased two former commercial vessels for the Naval Service. Despite their procurement ‘at pace’, RFA Proteus has yet to conduct any useful operations and RFA Stirling Castle is being laid up or ‘paused’ temporarily mainly due to a lack of qualified people to operate her.
Mothership mishap
RFA Stirling Castle was formally named at a ceremony held at Leith in April and so far has conducted some very limited trials with autonomous mine hunting boats in her intended role. Unfortunately, there was an incident with her 10-tonne deck crane which is no longer serviceable and repair will be a complex operation requiring removal from the ship. The crane is the only effective means to launch boats, rendering the ship inoperable in her primary role. It should be noted that Stirling Castle was purchased as the first of several planned MCM motherships and future vessels are likely to have multiple boat launch and recovery options.
Despite the problems with the crane, the more pressing reason for pausing Stirling Castle is the wider personnel crisis being experienced by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Since we last reported on this downward spiral in May, the situation has not improved with sailors continuing to leave while not recruiting enough trainees or qualified seafarers. There is a particular shortage of certificated personnel with technical skills, especially marine engineers and masters.
At least initially, Stirling Castle operated with two crews of 30 that rotate every 2 months, in a change from the manning model used by the majority of the RFA where everyone serves at sea for around 4 months, followed by 3 months off before being assigned to another vessel. Needing around 60 people to operate continuously, about a third of them being the highly skilled sailors that are in such short supply. (When operational, she may embark further RN mine warfare specialists taking the complement up to a maximum of about 100.)
Having already dispensed with all but one of the Sandown-class MCMVs in favour of the mothership and boat model, the unavailability of Stirling Castle will further increase the gap in mine-hunting capability. The ship was supposed to participate in further trials and possibly be involved with the French Navy in bringing the later phases of the MMCM project to fruition.
Seabed warfare woes
Since RFA Proteus was purchased in January 2023 she has spent most of her time in Cammell Laird shipyard (Jan-Sept 23, Dec-March 24, July 24 – present) or alongside in Devonport and Portland. She was supposed to enter service in the Summer of 2023 but this was wildly optimistic and she has yet to conduct any patrols of Critical Underwater Infrastructure as intended. The initial conversion took longer than expected, she then had to return to the yard for for hull certification. After two high-profile visits to London, she is now back in the shipyard.
Unconfirmed reports suggest FOST-mandated stop-start machinery drills upset equipment not intended to be operated that way and further slight damage was done to the ship by mistakes made during routine maintenance. The current work package involves rectifying these defects combined with a capability insertion package which was always planned for this summer. The RN continues to acquire ROVs and off-board systems to equip Proteus, it is probably realistic to expect the ship to begin CUI patrols sometime in 2025, more than two years after she was acquired.
The root causes of these delays, errors and inability to get former commercial vessels more rapidly into service are complex. An insider told Navy Lookout: “The list of failures is long, starting with DE&S acquisitions. The people involved in procurement had limited experience of buying second-hand ships and underestimated the expensive planned maintenance that was due. The previous RFA commodore accepted the ships when there were not the people to crew them properly and an inadequate budget line to support them financially. Mission statements were unclear, all ‘back of a fag packet’ stuff.”
Essentially there has been a failure to properly follow through with what the MoD formally calls Defence Lines of Development. DLoDs are the wrap-around structures that need to be brought together to enable military capability, having eight core elements: training, equipment, people, infrastructure, doctrine, organisation, information and logistics.
Workforce priorities
With a decreasing number of sailors, selecting which ships to lay up is a matter of managing the workforce to against the prioritisation of key outputs. The ability to replenish fuel at sea is crucial so keeping RFA Tidesurge and Tidespring going has been prioritised over Stirling Castle. The 3 Bay-class ships and RFA Argus are deployed overseas and must also be crewed, at least to the safe minimum level.
RFA Tiderace is in long-term lay-up and RFA Tideforce post-refit generation has been delayed due to lack of people. Even RFA Tidespring is not fully crewed at present but has been earmarked to participate in the 2025 carrier strike group deployment. Maintenance work continues on RFA Fort Victoria in Birkenhead under a pre-agreed contract but there is no chance she will have a crew ready for CSG25. Fortunately one of the UK’s closest and most reliable allies, Norway has announced they will send support ship HNoMS Maud on the deployment along with a frigate.
RFA Argus is also nominated to participate in CSG25 (exact role unclear), although this may be somewhat dependent on her material state when she returns to the UK. Along with RFA Lyme Bay, she left the UK in October 2023 and has operated in the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, South China Sea and Pacific.
RFA on a knife-edge
The new government failed its first serious test of its commitment to defence by stalling on the the RFA pay issue. (Meanwhile, junior doctors and train drivers have been quickly awarded very substantial pay rises.) Although a more rewarding career than most jobs in the merchant fleet, RFA remuneration is way below what sailors can earn in the commercial shipping sector. If the total collapse of the RN’s critical logistic enabler is to be avoided, then pay probably needs to be increased by around 30% to be competitive and make up for years of below-inflation rises. More broadly, the UK needs to attract far more young people into seafaring careers whether serving under the Blue, White or Red ensign.
The situation where the 6% pay rise for the armed forces was higher than that offered to the civilian RFA has not helped morale. (The MoD has not been allocated any extra funds by the Treasury and will have to fund pay increases by cuts elsewhere). There is also a feeling that the RN is increasingly leaning on the RFA to take on extra tasks while not allocating appropriate resources and support. RFA vessels typically have even leaner crew numbers and do not have the same level of passive and active protection as warships.
Following industrial action by RFA sailors represented by the RMT Union, RFA officer members of the Nautilus Union staged their first-ever strike in August with another planned for 3rd September. Sources suggest that discussions about RFA pay with Armed Forces Minister Alistair Cairns (a former Royal Marine) have been positive but not yet decisive. There is a recognition in government that something must be done with discussions ongoing at a high level.
I recall leaving in 2014 and thinking I was wasting my career as ‘it can’t possibly get any worse’. Oh how I was wrong and yet so right at the same time. Such a shame what we have become.
But we are good at military marching
While you are probably are correct about the shortage of Senior Engineers, from what I have heard you have missed that there is also a serious shortage of professional/experienced sailors on deck (my friends in the RMT state is about 40% lower than where it should be).
For once I’d agree that this is a problem to solved with a substantial pay rise.
I’d see RFA as far more deserving than ASLEF who were already very well paid. and that shows in the enormous numbers applying to be train drivers.
Difference is that crewing ships is international so the boys’n’girls will toddle off to find a better deal. I cannot blame them.
Proper naval vessels designed for the role is the answer. The British government expects too much and the RN is too politically weak to do defend itself.
MCM matters………
Read the article, the primary issue is lack of crewing.
Which of the T31s would you cancel to get the above fantasy fleet vessel?
Here’s a radical thought. Why not simply spend the money to field a proper military, including both T31 and MCM vessels?
Because with slow growth – not just the U.K. – since the financial crash the only way to do so is to put up taxes.
It’s pretty clear with the ridiculous pay-rises for train-drivers etc than tax rises are already coming this year.
Train drivers …. had no increase for 5 years
Thats why they are getting
‘“ backdated 5% increase for 2019 to 2022, 4.75% for 2022 to 2024, and 4.5% for 2024 to 2025. “
Some of it is even for 2025 in the future . No computer models required.
The train drivers should be thankful they still have jobs, given the amount of taxpayer money spent on rail companies during the pandemic to keep them running. No other industry received the support they did.
As you don’t understand computer models that’s just as well.
What do train drivers have to do here?
Focus on the Royal Navy or discuss the challenges and issues it faces
Ask the Tory die hards who keep bringing up party political claims about their 5 year pay deal
Typical conspiracy theorist jumping to conclusions, making 2 + 2 = 38
It not just Tories that object to taxpayer money being squandered on highly paid train drivers.
Until the personnel crisis is fixed, everything else is facing a force 6, dropping your flies and attempting to empty bladder.
Bit of fag packet calc suggests raising pay by 25% would cost an extra £44M pa, which is peanuts compared to the £1.5Bn just handed to ASLEF…..
Or peanuts for actually generating a force or service or objectives…….
Different ‘pots’
ASLEF has 20,000 train driver members so will be a larger sum and they have had no increase for 5 years
“ backdated 5% increase for 2019 to 2022, 4.75% for 2022 to 2024, and 4.5% for 2024 to 2025. “
is that so terrible when explained rather than taking it from the headlines from Murdochs ‘screamers’
Perhaps if you lived in the UK and had to use the trains you’d understand….
If you undertone how many people applied to train drivers you’d understand that even if a % of the already very well paid workforce left or retired there wouldn’t be an issue.
The solution really is to train more drivers than are needed. The short term problem with that is that they all get paid for driving or not driving.
Nobody is claiming that train drivers are on the breadline. They do a very well paid job. Disproportionately well paid by international standards. However, ASLEF has always been a highly militant union [they opposed rail workers wearing Hi-Vis in the 70’s].
The next problem is the idiotic 1970’s restrictive practices that strangle the rail industry. There is absolutely no way you can defend any of that 50 years onwards.
So no I can’t compare RFA and train drivers. Both do societally necessary jobs. One can be in harms way in a war the other cannot.
Im not comparing them other in the way train services are funded differently to the naval services.
Do you have a rant about over paid airline pilots carrying 100s of passengers too?
As for over supply of drivers …. do try to keep up.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13428265/Teenagers-train-drivers-staffing-shortages-railways.html
The average is 48 apparently , it must have a been a fun thing to do 25 and more years back .
Airline pilots aren’t paid for by the taxpayer, that’s why nobody rants about them. Try to keep up..
The RFA should be better paid but its no use carping about what other sectors are earning. If you want to drive a train go be a train driver ,if you can qualify for a start, then do the hours. The last government are responsible for this RFA mess the new lot just picked up the toilet left behind. Our whole defence thing needs a review, why are we buyng so many F35 at £80million a pop why do we need 140 of em we can’t even afford to pay for what we have so far. And who exactly are we going to fight anyway. Its the usual nonsense of UK punching about its weight. Canada spends a fraction of what it should on defence and who are their neighbours. We are living in a fantasy world we can’t afford.
We can afford it the Government chooses not to which is a disgrace perhaps not spending 11.5 Billion on other countries green issues would provide enough cash
We are not buying 140 F35B.
We have bought 48 and want another 24(ish) to make a credible fleet. 48 isn’t quite enough to do anything and won’t justify the training and infrastructure that us already built.
Really a bit of F35B and Typhoon is needed for the short/medium term as the RAF front line is tiny.
Solve that problem by making the F35B RN control and budget with some land deployments . Rather than the other way round
They will get the full 138, just very, very slowly. I can’t see another new VTOL fighter happening for decades to come. The program needs to be dragged out so the RN has F-35B’s for the life of the current carriers as a minimum.
Highly likely you will see an ongoing procurement at the rate for three or four per year for many years into the future.
Yeah Right !
Spot on. Not many more manned fighters will be developed, and even fewer that are STOVL.
The level of incompetence in the RN/RFA is staggering. Getting rid of mine hunters before any effective replacement, no back up plan to maintain Astutes are just the latest examples of senior leaders unable to grasp what is affordable and continuing the pretence that the navy is a global force. It isn’t and it doesn’t need to be. Indeed, it isn’t much of a force at all. If the most essential tasks are protecting the UK from submarine threats, including to undersea infra structure, one submarine, a couple of worn out frigates and 5/6 minehunters are quite inadequate.
Instead we have 2 huge carriers with a token air wing that, even when operational, aren’t much use. This is not just the fault of politicians. The new black hole in the equipment budget arises,( apart from added DNE funding)from the RN including costs of assets not yet specified much less approved- T32, T83, MRSS,MROS, FAD. If existing ships can’t be crewed,why budget for expansion? More fantasy fleet nonsense.
Having served as a deck officer in the RFA [I was an RFA apprentice back in the day] and a Seaman Officer in the RN, this is pathetic. Does anyone know nowadays how to run anything?
It is genuinely shocking. The purchase of Proteus and Stirling Castle looked an imaginative move when announced. Now both have been damaged during maintenance so even if there were no crewing issues they are unable to operate as intended.
The RN is in a shambolic state. What is the point of CSG 25? Until submarine and escort availability is greatly improved and sufficient support vessels crewed and ready, it just advertises the appalling weakness of the force. It has no military value so just cancel it and fix the real problems.
The trip is mostly about defence diplomacy and promoting defence cooperation and sales. Those are things of real value to the UK generally and the future of defence without Japan and Australia the future of Tempest and the replacement SSN’s would be far less secure.
Defence diplomacy ?
Isnt that the Foreign AND Development office mission
Oh yes, its funded £8 BILL for that
In reality port visits of warships are invisible for the country concerned and are more for the vessels crew.
“In reality port visits of warships are invisible for the country concerned and are more for the vessels crew” That’s totally untrue, when ships particularly large high profile ships make planned port visits on this sort of deployment the MoD, FO and DFT will make a big deal of it. This carrier deployment is likely to look for significant parts of it like a mobile trade fair.
“profile ships make planned port visits on this sort of deployment the MoD, FO and DFT will make a big deal of it..”
Thats an echo chamber.
Those big deals you talk about dont get clicks or views online or other media…so blink and you miss it…. unless its Royals involved and especially the young ones
Stories supplied will just be buried by all the other PR pushing that goes on.
this will get some attention if PoW – the person not the carrier turns up
Apparently Wills in a naval uniform was the 1st time ( Dec 23) in 13 years ..
Hang on there.
Yes, the black hole is there.
But it is slightly fantasy maths as the wish list has just been added up.
It isn’t a black hole of contracted sums. That would be very different.
Exactly. But it means they are unaffordable unless the budget is increased. I can’t see that happening under this government. The nuclear element is now ring fenced, the rest isn’t.
Not a sailor. Work in the Private sector but it’s obvious that if the terms and conditions are better in the Private sector the people will follow. Housing, food, and energy has all increased significantly let alone the Luxury items Holidays, cars, etc. who wants to live a subsistence existence? These jobs should command a premium hard workers will always find decent jobs.
I have just retired early, chronically low pay in the public sector. We have had technical posts unfilled for 4 and 6 years.
I got fed up of covering for that.
Life is too short.
Can things get any worse?
There appears to be a total detachment between wants and means.
Wants and means? Needs and means I think.
Things could be much worse, just look at the state of the Russian military…
The FOST issues sound like the same sort of issues that occurred when Largs Bay was transferred to the Australian’s as HMAS Choules…
Australian FOST equivalent came aboard and demanded a series of evolutions that the RFA Chief Engineer aboard knew would damage the vessel as it was built to commercial standards…he was on temporary loan to the Australian’s as part of the handover….he stopped them, then went to see the Captain to make it clear why he had stopped them, and to get them in shape….whilst he was on his way to the bridge, leaving clear instructions not to do anything, they decided on their own initiative to have another go….and managed to cause millions of AUS$ in damage…
Please tell me someone got court-martialled / fired for this ‘initiative’…
No chance brass hats don’t get sacked just an early big pension
The (Army) 2 star brass hat responsible for the introduction of the recruitment ‘outsourcing’ got series of promotions to 4 stars.
An engineer general as head of Army people tried to sort it all out with reduced outsourcing, but soon the 4 star became the CDS and soon Capita was ‘onboarded’ again.
I have heard a few tales of the transit between here and Oz.
Around that incident there comes the tail that the Ozzies had a habit of walking into control sniffing and saying, ‘Ah, lemon scented…..’ The more junior staff thought they had been sold a pup.
Not true! If you’re referring to the HV transformer it was a class issue and all 4 ships have replaced the transformer, As Largs Bay was first of Class her’s went first. I was the Chief Engineer for the replacement
This is Armed Forces 101 again. The RAF have done it and had to “Gap” capacity, the army are now doing it over IFV and now the RN are falling down the same hole.
We need to stop trying to reinvent the wheel, buy Gucci kit we can’t afford, think we are the best employer in the world when we are not.
We need a huge dose of reality. But I seriously doubt MOD Plc is prepared to hear the truth.
Sorry but this attitude seems to be part of the problem. As someone who was a Merchant Navy officer I am always amazed at the utterly glacial pace at which the Mod/RN/RFA move at when it comes to getting anything done. There now seems to be a culture in the UK, especially the public sector that everything takes a long time and a myriad of middle managers are able to get involved and slow things down.
In the commercial world it is very cut throat and time is money, ship owners/operators cannot afford for ships to be out of service. The availability of commercial vessels compared to naval vessels is night and day. The commercial pressure creates a much stronger can do attitude. Just look at the utterly ridiculous situation the Astute SSN dry dock issue and how long it is taking to iron out. Having any heads rolled because over £7bn of tax payer assets are sitting idle? No.
ORDER OF THE DITCH
I have to make the observation that, on this paticular occasion, your description of “glacial progress” rather over-states the “stunning” rate of forward progress…(or rather, the lack of it..)
Using either “hiberation”, or even “dead on arrival” would have been far more accurate
You are however spot-on with your key remark = that there is no “can-do” attitude….
If the RN + RFA are both so severely short of trained employees… …then can I suggest the following “innovative approach” be adopted……
The RFA/RN could (easily) crew both Proteus and Sterling Castle exclusively with Flag-ranking officers (i.e. those of the rank of captain and above) = because there appears to me to be no shortage of available manpower up near the top of the greasy pole.
Regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
It’s only tax payers money . Yours and mine
Somebody bought RFA Proteus quickly at a reasonable price. Somebody did a good job. RFA crewing is a separate issue involving government policies and the civil service unions; way beyond the reach of that person in the procurement agency. In two years there will be a capability, which is fifteen years faster than say the FSSS. So no it hasn’t gone wrong for Proteus; it was just oversold. Of course it could be faster, but that would require long-term thinking (to build over the immediate requirement for infrastructure and have spare crew around) joined up with quick thinking. Unfortunately upper management rotates and won’t do long term thinking.
I can see why some would rather buy everything in as a service rather than work the individual items: crew, training, maintenance, infrastructure, etc, even if it costs ten times as much that way.
I agree.
Also this is a trials development ship.
So if you build precisely what you think you need you might have a very expensive and wrongly specified ship?
Acquisition acquired and did a good job. The crewing was not in their sphere or remit.
If you can be paid handsomely doing political created BS jobs where results don’t matter, then going to do a job where things have to work needs a premium payment.
But the money is in political jobs side.
I welcome our Merchant seafarers leaving the RFA. That company and the government have been actively spitting in the faces of the people that have done everything they could to make it work for years.
A lot of the people that I know that are left are just waiting for the company to be dissolved so they can get a redundancy package.
If you’re looking to join the MN I would suggest that you think very hard about that and look at all of your options for training. Other MN companies take on Trainees. The training will be better and more organised than what the RFA can offer. And there’s a possibility the RFA will stop existing before you finish your training.
Two opposing points:
A) The RFA isn’t a company, so what are you waffling about
B) It won’t be dissolved as long as the Royal navy exists, though it many descend to operational nothingness.
While i don’t disagree what you wrote it would be more convenient if you did not used my nick name.
Obviously aren’t from the company.
The RFA is in very real danger of being dissolved. There are a lot of similarities between how the RFA has been run and the issues that have been generated over the last few years and the RNXS and RNMS when the RN was setting them up to be disolved.
The RN really doesn’t like having the RFA outside of their organisation/rank structure.
RNMS? Royal Navy Medical School?
Rn minesweeper service. Both the RNXS and RNMS were slowly defunded and run into the ground by the RN until they couldn’t meet demands. Then the RN absorbed their assets and roles.
Same playbook for the RFA. Defund and extend responsibilities until they can no longer operate. Then absorb assets and roles.
One example of the plan in action is they tried designing the FSS to a purely MoD standard, without a lot of the MLC requirements. MCA and trade unions had to get involved to tell the MoD that if merchant seafarers were to work on-board they would need to meet the requirements of the MLC.
The way I see it now is, the RN is using the RFA to build support ships under a different budget line, this is regardless of the RFAs ability to man them. So when the time comes the RN gets 17 modern hulls with a range of capabilities.
You’re rewriting history to backup your conspiracy theory.
The RNXS was formed from the RNMS, RN Minewatching Service (not ‘Minsweeping’).
The RNXS was disbanded in 1994 as part of the “peace dividend”.
The RFA is a mess, but I’d love to know which are these Merchant Navy companies out there for British Seafarers that you talk of. After the RFA, the second largest employer of British Seafarers was P&O Ferries and we all saw how that ended up in 2022. Sadly other than the 1600 odd crew in the RFA, the deepsea British crewed Merchant Navy is gone and after that its just a handful of ferries and research ships that still have a full British crew and not just a Tonnage tax cadet.
Just the ones I’ve worked with this year. Stena, trinity house, nlhb, FSL. All struggling to get british crew.
Just RN must man them. Simple.
To do that, cut MCMVs, OPVs, or an escort. Just do it. Make it clear how short the man-power is. Without such clear message, no additional help will come.
Not simple. RN manning practices mean that for each RFA sailor you’re going to need at least 1.5, if not 2 RN matelots. That’s numbers in the hundreds.
The person who “owns” the problem is one Rear-Admiral Jude Terry who is Director People and Training and Naval Secretary in NCHQ. To be fair to her, the issue has been brewing for at least a decade, but recent pronouncements appear to be having a particularly corrosive effect.
End well this will not.
Thanks, and yes. Even so, RN shall solve it.
In understand MROSS is the sole underwater warefare assets? RFA Proteus is replacement for HMS Echo and Enterprise, isn’t her?
Then, why not accept to put a River B2 into extended readiness (to obtain 70 crew), and activate Proteus (30×2 = 60)? RN will lose 1 out of 8 OPVs (or 1 out of 7 active OPVs), but “lack of MROSS capablity” will be solved.
If, in reality, MROSS capability is NOT needed, then just disband her. My point is, “pretending” RN/RFA has a certain amount of ships is just band.
My impression is that, because RN/RFA/MOD is always saying “we have enough assets to cover our obligation” even though actual ship and man-power number in crisis, always make thing worse. It means, “yes we have a problem but it is not a big issue”. If it is not a big issue, other fields of money shortage will get priority.
The civil service is cut using 1-in 2-out type rules. The armed forces have a numeric upper limits. Neither of these mechanisms is directly budgetary. Cut as many ships as you like and nothing will happen.
“he armed forces have a numeric upper limits.”
While that is mostly true , the Treasury are very careful to only fund actual numbers not maximums- which are falling anyway
The RN can’t operate their one LPD, so where are they going to find crew for even just Stirling Caste, Proteus or the three LSD(A)s, never mind the other RFA’s. Plus Merchant Navy trained RFA crews numbers are far lower the naval ones, as shown by the RAN Bay Class which has over twice as many crew onboard as the RFA ones.
The RN has also got terrible manning issues and struggle throughout the fleet ( or should I say squadron )!!!!!!!
“RN has also got terrible manning issues”. Yes. And RN is “pretending” that it can be solved by putting HMS Echo and Enterprise replacement hull (Proteus) into RFA.
Do not hide the trouble, this is what I mean. Also, Proteus is the sole MROSS. If Proteus is not in action for years, why do UK need MROSS capability? Why not sell her and increase (although not much) the salary of RN/RFA personnel, and officially announce that “because of HMG not providing money, RN/RFA lost underwater warfare capability”?
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
BRITS will suffer from an onslaught of “painful” decisions at the Autumn Budget, Sir Keir Starmer warned.
Its still a promise to raise the budget to 2.5% …the path to that is uncertain.
Doesnt make sense to slash like the Tories did in 2010 with an 8% cut, much more over the longer term
‘Day-to-day spending on defence has been cut by nearly £10bn in real terms since the Conservatives came to power in 2010, new figures have revealed.
Analysis of official data from the Treasury and Ministry of Defence shows there has been a 22 per cent reduction in resource spending of £9.4bn, from £41.9bn in 2010/11 to £32.5bn to the planned spend for this financial year”
‘Resource spending covers day-to-day budgets such as funding for troops, repairs and maintenance of equipment and other daily running costs, and is separate to capital spending..’
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/day-to-day-defence-spending-cut-by-nearly-10bn-since-2010-new-figures-show-3043364
It not a promise it’s an aspiration.
There is no date for the 2.5% nor have they even defined why the financial circumstances that would need to be achieved first. Which means they have no intention of doing so, it was simply in the manifesto to match th Tory pledge.
FOST-mandated stop-start machinery drills upset equipment not intended to be operated that way and further slight damage was done to the ship by mistakes made during routine maintenance.
Hopefully FOST are checking drills again on other equipment, encase we need to take Ships Taken Up From Trade.
The media and journalist complex incentives of lasts decades are coming home to roost……
I actually can’t stand all the bulls**t that comes out at times concerning our armed forces when you read this its a damn good job no one is attacking us. There’s no excuse for these strategic errors and people not having the experience in procurement for goodness sake . Yet I bet we have more brass hats and civil servants in the MoD going from one committee to another and achieving absolutely zero. What are we paying for.
Can someone please spell out in plain English what the problem is exactly? Thank you
https://www.navylookout.com/prepared-for-the-fight-royal-navy-operational-sea-training/
Here’s the problem as I see it. The end of the Cold War coincided with a new generation of politicians that hadn’t gone through the two World Wars. They weren’t afraid of existential crises from warfare nor the amount of damage they do to the country and its economy. So when the chance came to take money away from the military to pay for more immediate things, like health and education, they took it: often referred to as the peace dividend.
Unfortunately two problems arise from this attitude. First, the military shrinks, which might be not such a bad thing if enough is left to regenerate it as risk increases. However, we took too much money out, and as we and the rest of the West (apart from the US) withdrew, other countries saw the opportunity to expand into the space. So we see the rise of China and revanchist Russia. As he dialled down on defence spending, John Major refused to create a sovereign wealth fund (as he had previously failed to do with North Sea oil), which would have at least isolated the extra money coming in from day-to-day spend on health etc. It could have been used instead for capital projects and investments. Now the security risk has risen back to previous levels, the money can not be put back into Defence. In fact David Cameron decided to double down and take even more out of Defence, while fiddling the figures to make it look like we were spending more. So we dropped from spending 5% of GDP on conventional defence capability (core spend) in the mid 1980s, to maybe 1.6% now. For the last 14 years, Defence been chronically underfunded at historically low levels while the global threat has steadily increased.
Everything is degraded due to constant cuts and austerity. We don’t have sufficient military people, and it takes a long time to train the ones we are most short of. We aren’t paying enough in salaries or creature comforts (such as mould-free housing with electricity, heating and running water) to keep those we have. Civil service numbers have been cut arbitrarily, but the work still needs doing and expensive external contracts make sure it’s now done at a far higher price. The money to pay for that comes from further cuts in the military. We don’t have the platforms: ships, tanks, planes to do the role the government wants, much less to deter opposing autocracies and help protect the global trade on which we depend. We don’t have sufficient infrastructure to build enough platforms (shipyards, shipwrights etc). We don’t have enough infrastructure to maintain those platforms we can afford to crew, for example dry docks that our ships and boats actually fit into. So ships and boats lie idle for years awaiting maintenance slots. We’ve had defunct nuclear submarines piling up in our dockyards for the last forty years with no way to dismantle them and are only just starting on a process of clearing them.
Obviously to have a useful submarine capability (for example), you don’t just need submarines. You need to be able to trial them, base them, maintain them, dispose of them, replace them, arm them, crew them, train the crews, research the doctrine by which you’ll operate them, exercise them in a combined/joint arms environment as they won’t only be used as lone wolves. And finally, you’ll need to be able to fight with them and kill with them. (I’ve probably missed out a few, but you get the idea.) Any money we have to buy any one of these things comes as the expense of other aspects of the same capability. So we can build submarines at the moment and are spending a lot of money on that, but we can’t maintain them so they are sat at the dockside. We can buy commercial ships and convert them for logistics and operations, but we can’t crew them. This disjointed capability set is mirrored across the whole of the armed forces, and not just the UK’s. It’ll only take one rich country to get their act together and they can outbuild us, out recruit us, outtrain us, etc, etc. And by us I mean the Western alliance. That has already happened, with China having many years head start on accelerated military programmes.
There are warnings of a possible major war before the end of the decade and we don’t have fast-enough processes or systems in place to gear up, nor will the politicians bite the bullet and pay any more money, so we can’t even start. It’s will be a mammoth task to reverse all this degredation and it will take decades of proper funding.
The answer keeps being given that we can rely on our allies: we are not alone. Unfortunately they are mostly in the same position we are with equally short sighted politicos (some of them even worse than ours). So if a major war came, they will expend their effort on their own warfare priorities, as we will on ours. Their limited industries will also preferentially supply their own armed forces, so we won’t just be able to buy things in from abroad.
That’s the problem in a nutshell. It can only be broken by borrowing (or taxing) and spending. Something governments won’t do for fear of boom and bust and being seen as fiscally imprudent.
I hope that English was plain enough for you.
Jon
Only partly correctly- and frankly “well wrong” when it comes to the question of money…So let me explain….
—————–
During the decade when I first “learnt my trade” (between 1982 and 1992) there were no less than five “big wars”:
What was quite obvious during that decade-long period was that the senior military and political leadership had a very clear idea of what they wanted to achieve = in all five threatres
Very-often, the “how and when” was left to a combination of the mid-ranking military leadership and (quite surprisingly) “solutions from industry” .
During that period there was slightly more money to be spent than there is now. However, especially here in the UK under the leadership of the grocer’s daughter, that money was always very tightly controlled. There certainly was never the “gold mine” that many toiday seem to think there was……
————————-
Then we come to the next three wars after 1992
All three of these big wars were marked by a complete abscence of proper objectives
………and then, just to make them all far worse, all three had a stratagy devised by comedian Harry Enfueld – lets throw loads-of-money them…………..
…thus all three war dragged on for many years, DESPITE plenty of money being spent on them
…………………………….
Same issue today – totally muddled thinking = and thus plenty of money being wasted – – often being spent on crap.
regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
During that decade there was far more money as defence as % GDP as it was 4-5%
Nice graph with yr by yr data points
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=GB
Even last financial year there was a £3 BILL budget line item for a purely accounting move [IRSF 16. leases apparently] but it makes the numbers look good
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8175/
why don’t you pay more tax and stop moaning?
24/25 planned MOD Total DEL spending: £53.6bn, excluding Ukraine.
24/25 forecast GDP: £2,786bn
So MOD Total DEL is 1.92% of GDP including nuclear. (Figures from Cabinet Office publication “Defending Britain”, 23rd April 2024.)
MOD Total DEL currently includes sundries excluded prior to 2014, such as half a billion on non-Ukraine operations.
In the mid 80s we spent 5.5% GDP on core defence. That means we spent at least three times as much on capability in the mid 80s than now. That is not “slightly more money” in anyone’s book but yours.
Between 1979/80 and 1984/85 there was a rise in spending of 0.8% GDP over 5 years, because it was needed. Between 2023/24 and 2030/31 the Tories promised a 0.2% GDP increase in spending over 7 years like it was a big deal. Between 1992 and the 2000s, spending fell from 3.6% GDP to roughly 2.5%. Money spent on operations during the period wasn’t included in the headline figures — because this important measure is supposed to reflect money spent on the maintenance and growth of military capability, not warfighting spend irrespective of Harry Enfield’s involvement.
I stand by my comments.
Jon
I can see where you are coming from…….: and in “percentages of GDP spent on UK defence” = you are 100% correct
However, when talking about the long term trends in any type of public expenditure = one has to be very very careful about using percentages..because “smoke and mirrors” applies…..
(note: the old adage now applies.about “lies, dammed lies and statistic being quoted by politicians ..)
That caution is requried because the UK national economy has signifucantly changed, and also grown, since the mid-1980’s.
——————-
This is the latest House of Commons Research Library Document describing those long-term trends in UK defence expenditure:
CBP-8175.pdf (parliament.uk)
To two key graphs are side-by-side on page 11:
————————
So:
———————–
..
That severe loss of efficency and overall productivity has been caused by a very toxic mixture of excessive MOD bureaucracy and also by a lack of key professional skills (especially engineering) throughout all three of the UK armed services.
Poor leadership (both politcal and military) has further compounded those two long-term trends…….and so they pi****d money up the wall in Iraq and Afganistan (especially Afgan….)
———————-
.So, to now use your very-own excellent example (i.e. given above)
Our small RN submarine fleet still costs us taxpayers a hell of money = the UK’s small submarine fleet costs approximately half the RN’s total annual budget.
However, and for precisely those key reasons that you made very clear in your orginal post = very few RN boats are “deployed underwater”
Frankly, throughout all three of the UK’s armed services, we now get far less “bang for our buck” than we did back in the mid 1980’s.
regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
CPI index for consumer prices has no bearing on the cost of defence equipment prices and wage costs ( which are higher than CPI)
CPI is based on what a theoretical household consumes.
Using that as a ‘real cash equivalent’ is as far from reality as you can get
Example of cost of frigates in 1990s ( Type23)
“According to the British 1992 Statement on the Defence Estimates, the unit cost of the first Type 23 frigate was US$721.5 million. Subsequent ships were at that time priced at US$283.5 million each. The January 1996 contract for the last three ships put the unit price at roughly US$227 million. “
https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=79
Bank of England price comparison shows 227 becomes 441 at 2023 prices
Good luck with that ,a sensible frigate at that cost today , its more like £850 MILL
Defence is about competition against opposing forces, which is why we hear so much talk about pacing threats. We can’t outspend countries like China, whose phenomenal economic rise allows them to do things we can’t match, but we can keep our spending normed against our own national income, GDP.
There are other reasons the retail/consumer prices indices are worse than GDP. When you talk about “true cash” terms, I assume you are norming against Mars bars and flat rentals, which, as Duker points out, is not how Defence inflation works. (If instead you are talking about cash in absolute terms, nothing works that way other than the value of used fifties under the mattress.) GDP may not be a perfect measure, but it’s a reasonably good compromise and the best I’m aware of.
Going back to your other point, I completely agree we get less value for money in general. We have lost economies of scale and have been trying to purchase as though we still have them (particularly in the Army). Of course you can always find exceptions — the unit cost of a Tornado in the 1980s was a lot more adjusted for inflation (RPI or GDP) than a Typhoon or F-35 now. As for the issue of fractured capabilities I talked about in my answer to Tracey, I still can’t see a way past that at the moment without significantly increasing overall spend. Perhaps digital and additive manufacturing will help even out some costs for small numbers of simpler products, but not submarines and escorts. A few decades of constant production would also help, but politicians make the decisions, and long-term consistency is not their forte. They love paying for firefighting because it makes it seem like they are doing something useful and they can make a big announcement about it. The press gives no plaudits for smooth, consistent management.
Jon
We can agree on some key points…especially the most important one
= namely that this country now needs to be properly defended by its three armed services
————-.
However, with regards to the intricacies of “inflation accounting”, we will still agree to disagee….
It must be pointed out, to both you and Duker, that the vast majority of the MOD’s entire expenditure on “total UK defence” is not being spent on the “big-tech /cutting edge stuff” (and it never ever has been)
So, to now pick on Duker, each one of the then-new Type 23 frigates which was puchased back in the mid 1990s’ was purchased at less than 1% of the entire annual defence budget each year….
——————-
Much of the UK defence budget is simply being spent on purchasing “bulk commodities”. For example:
All of those very-many types of “basic commodity inflation” should have been rising, but only very steadily, in line with the overall civilian marketplace (note: over a period of many decades)
However,as Duker quite rightly points out, all aspects of defence inflation have been consistently outsripped the civilian marketplace…
SO = WHY?
————–..
Then, when it comes to military-only supplies, many are fundamently unchanged in their design since being first made back in the 1980’s/1990’s.
…..so let me now take “small bullets” as a very good example…
Thus the price of one box of 5.56mm bullets really should not have increased much (over and above general civilian inflation) in the decades since they were first being manufactured.
Indeed, one could easily argue that, with better manufacturing process in recent years (especially common CAD/CAM) that the prices being paid for those very common types of military-only commodities really should have been falling……
—————–
Even with the bits of high tech / cutting edge kit – like those now being flown by Mr and Mrs and Ms Biggles – there are some major financial economies to easily be made
The key difference is the Swedish design / avaiation engineers had very carefully thought through – proactively – field maintainance…..
…..so today an RAF Typhoon costs about twice as much “per flying hour” than its direct Swedish equivalent..
……..one which, incidentially, is based much closer to Russia….
——————-
Thus, and it has now has to be added “unfortunately” , if Rachel gave the MOD today a really big LoadsofMoney handout , and then told them “go and spend it quickly boys and girls” – the only increase in the UK military’s productivity would be – as somebody quite-rightly pointed on out this forum a few months back – a big increase in 4P
(4P = “Promotions and PowerPoint Presentations)
—————-
So, finishing back on your own excellent example…..the RN will never ever get its act together with its submarine fleet until it invests in two new drydocks at both Falslane and Devonport. (Note: buy proper reinforced concrete ones, please!)
Until they do so, the submarine fleet will langish very-expensively alongside…and the underwater matelots will still be getting paid when feeding the local seagulls.
———————-
Frankly the MOD and the RN now need to get their financial priorities right ….
(especially as we have just avoided WW3 starting in the Middle East: ………..for at least for another week)
regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
I concede your point about the majority not being spent on big ticket puchases, although salary inflation doesn’t go up by RPI either. I also have to admit, I have no idea how much the Armed Forces pays for their toilet paper, and can see no reason why that would be going up in price by more than the rate of inflation. However, you have to look at proportions. If the amount of fuel used by the military is greater as a proportion that that used by the average civilian, the recent hikes in fuel price that drove inflation to double digits will have hit the miltary proportionatly harder. I will say again that GDP is used because of the competitive nature of defence. It isn’t perfect but it’s better than CPI.
I’m in agreement with you about new drydocks, although I’m less dogmatic about their location. I worry about the cost of floating drydocks built for our very heavy submarines.
If the Chancellor agreed to significantly loosen the purse strings, I have no reason to think it would mostly go on promotions and powerpoints. (Assuming you are using powerpoints as a derogatory metonym for external contractors.) In fact I doubt it very much. I think that’s the sort of nonsense the Treasury uses as an excuse to keep the purse strings pulled tight. Of course, we won’t know who is right unless it’s tried.
It can’t go on like it is. You prescribe no cure for the problem apart from efficiency savings and reprioritisation which has been tried again and again and always leads to more cuts in capability. Your point that we can somehow “easily” make savings by redesigning the Typhoon along Swedish lines, is far from practical and sounds more like an “if only” than reality.
Sorry I was going to answer your point on small bullets. As I said in an earlier post, there’s an issue of economies of scale. The smaller our military the fewer the number of bullets we buy. If we have a sovereign capability, the manufacturer will have been getting smaller and smaller orders and will have to have put the price up; their overheads still have to be covered. Could the factory retool to more modern methods as you suggest, leading to cheaper production costs? Of course, but the cost of retooling would have to go into the bullet cost instead. It may not be worth it at the small volumes we buy and the expectation that it would continue to fall. Unless the government guaranteed a specific number why would the manufacturer invest in retooling? And there’s a worse problem.
Manufacturing efficiency comes at the cost of resillience. Moving to a smaller place, firing staff, using slower, cheaper machinery is all well and good until a war starts and we don’t have enough of anything. Our efficient manufacturer can’t increase production by much as they no longer have the space, the people, or the machinery. The military should pay extra for sovereignty and resillience. if they are forced to be efficient, that’ll prove to be another short-sighted Treasury gamble.
It’s all a sorry state of affairs from when I left in 2005. Even then (so I was told) there was a lack of engineers. Its not just the RFA that’s been hollowed out, it’s the entire military, there are gaps everywhere. And actually, it’s not just the military, it’s everything to do with the UK. Doctors, Dentists, local councils, the government… nothing works!!
I’d sacrifice a T31 to pay the RFA what they deserve. We need logistics for a viable fleet.
I wonder if a hull with a stern dock would have been better.
Perhaps sea-states dictate a crane.
As an ex-RNR member who worked at the extreme ends of my service career with 10MCM in the UK and 9MCM in Bahrain, I’ve struggled to shake off some scepticism about the move to far less versatile unmanned autonomous platforms. The tribulations of RFA Stirling Castle hardly ease my concerns. Of course the RN has already, very prematurely, paid off the Sandown’s and most of the Hunt MCMV’s. We seem to be at the stage where the RN doesn’t have the capability to even sweep the entrance to HMNB Clyde, let alone other naval bases and major UK ports.
I presume that RFA Argus is a de-facto replacement for Fort Victoria in regards to operating a flight of 3-4 Merlin Mk4’s. She can also carry a small embarked military force, probably including a RM band! And of course her extensive hospital facilities and large medical team may also come in useful. The net effect may be 200 less personnel on POW, greatly easing pressure on the latter’s accommodation and hotel services. Possibly the JR cabins can even be retained in a “roomy” 6-berth configuration, rather than used as 8-berth. Significantly more pleasant when that is your home for a 6+ month deployment.