New CDS [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

Lyneham Lad

7th Oct 2021, 12:18

In The Times this afternoon.

Royal Navy Admiral Sir Tony Radakin named as next head of the armed forces

(https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/44b7302a-2758-11ec-9d7f-240ccd0a3a50?shareToken=ad88cfae2043a785d3df97a0435cc835)The head of the navy who brought in the submarine deal with Australia and America has been chosen by the prime minister as the next head of the armed forces.

Admiral Sir Tony Radakin (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/admiral-sir-tony-radakin-calls-for-top-military-staff-to-stay-in-post-longer-h28dcwl9n), 55, will take over from General Sir Nick Carter (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/admiral-sir-tony-radakin-calls-for-top-military-staff-to-stay-in-post-longer-h28dcwl9n), 62, as chief of the defence staff when he steps down at the end of November.

The First Sea Lord is the first military chief to come from the navy since Admiral Sir Michael Boyce in 2001. His appointment was widely expected in recent weeks despite strong competition from other chiefs, including General Sir Patrick Sanders, the chief of strategic command (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/military-needs-to-focus-more-on-gadgets-and-coding-than-guns-92qq9cx7d), who was well-liked across the forces.

Announcing the decision, Boris Johnson said Radakin had proven himself as an “outstanding military leader” and under his command there were more sailors on the front line, warships at sea — including two aircraft carriers — and the UK was leading a “shipbuilding renaissance” protecting lives around the UK.

He said Radakin would lead the forces “at a time of incredible change while upholding the values and standards that they are respected for around the world”.

Described by insiders as “charismatic”, Radakin had been seen as a likely favourite given the prime minister’s focus on shipbuilding and having a greater naval presence overseas as part of “Global Britain”. He positioned himself as a “doer” who would transform the military.

The Times also revealed last month how Radakin brought in the nuclear-powered submarine deal with Australia and America, which led to the Aukus pact (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/us-smoothes-over-aukus-defence-pact-row-with-macron-nndqmmggl). The pact between the three nations was described by the prime minister’s national security adviser as “the most significant capability collaboration anywhere in the world in the past decades”.

The contest for the post had previously been considered a two-horse race between Radakin and Sanders. Sanders, the head of strategic command which oversees cyber, special forces and military intelligence, was seen as a highly competent chief, a “soldier’s soldier” and mental health champion who knew how to communicate with the lower ranks.

The race for the job was unusual as for the first time a three-star candidate had been put forward after Johnson told Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, that he wanted “radical thinking” and a “broader pool” of candidates to select from, even if it meant them skipping a rank.

Vice Admiral Ben Key, who led the evacuation effort in Afghanistan (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dominic-raab-wrong-to-blame-military-intelligence-for-afghanistan-failure-says-general-sir-nick-carter-k8vf3csgl), applied and is likely to be given the role of First Sea Lord. General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith had also been in the running and was a personal friend of Johnson’s, with whom he went to Eton.

Radakin, whose appointment was approved by the Queen, said he was “humbled” to have been selected in a period of enormous change, saying: “It will be an immense privilege to lead our outstanding people who defend and protect the United Kingdom.”

He added: “The prime minister and secretary of state have demanded reform and we must seize the opportunity the government has given us and ensure we are a global force delivering for Global Britain.”

Wallace said of the announcement: “Admiral Tony brings an unparalleled wealth of experience to the role at a time of significant change for the armed forces and Ministry of Defence.

“We are modernising to address the challenges posed by an increasingly unstable world and I know he will lead the armed forces with distinction in his new post.”

He added: “There is much to be done, at home and abroad, the threats against the UK and our allies are growing.”

MPN11

7th Oct 2021, 14:45

I wish him well. I wouldn't want the job of herding Military cats around Whitehall.

Finningley Boy

7th Oct 2021, 16:08

Happy to hear its a Naval Officer once again after a 20 year gap. I do recall back in the noughties Max Hastings, following the incident with the Iranians seizing the RN Patrol Boat (I think that's what it was from memory), giving his verdict that aside from maritime and aviation related military matters, Navy and RAF Chiefs shouldn't be considered for CDS post, in modern times, as they weren't sufficiently military in their thinking. Then again, Max Hastings was another one doubting the need for the RAF when the 2010 SDSR loomed. Very much a land force man Mr Hastings,

FB:ok:

SLXOwft

7th Oct 2021, 16:39

As he was nearly 25 when he was commissioned in 1990 and trained as barrister (called to the bar in 1996!) I should think he brings a very sharp mind and perhaps a more varied perspective to the job. Although it's nice to see an RN CDS, I think the end of buggins' turn was a sensible step.

It will be interesting to see if, as predicted by the papers, the looker and ex-skipper of Illustrious Ben Key beats the other 3*s (2SL or the Fleet Commander) to the 1SL berth.

MPN11

7th Oct 2021, 18:08

BBC News feed … “Some question his lack of operational experience - he's spent more time behind a desk than driving ships.” ⁉️

I suspect he’s not spent much time pulling 9g or leading a Battalion charge. And ‘not running the ship/boat aground’ is hardly the requirement either. UK needs a CDS with a brain and political savvy (see my herding cats comment above). The uniform/capbadge is utterly irrelevant.

Lima Juliet

7th Oct 2021, 18:25

What will be interesting is the ‘game of thrones’ about to happen from this announcement. Some interesting 4-star, 3-star and 2-star moves have been awaiting this decision.

London Eye

7th Oct 2021, 19:25

Some interesting 4-star, 3-star and 2-star moves have been awaiting this decision.

You’ve changed LJ 🙄😂

Finningley Boy

8th Oct 2021, 10:13

Boris Johnson allegedly overruled military on new Armed Forces Head | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10072117/Boris-Johnson-allegedly-overruled-military-new-Armed-Forces-Head.html)

And the recriminations begin here.:bored:

FB

Widger

8th Oct 2021, 10:31

I do recall back in the noughties Max Hastings, following the incident with the Iranians seizing the RN Patrol Boat (I think that's what it was from memory), giving his verdict that aside from maritime and aviation related military matters, Navy and RAF Chiefs shouldn't be considered for CDS post, in modern times, as they weren't sufficiently military in their thinking.

Max Hastings can do one. In the last 20 years the Royal Navy has played a major part, alongside the other two services in all operations. Most Senior RN officers are fully indoctrinated and used to operating in a joint 'Purple' environment. Whilst I respect his ability to put words on paper, he has no experience of Military service, is just a journalist and therefore is not in a position to comment with any authority.

Vortex Hoop

8th Oct 2021, 13:14

WE Branch Fanatic

8th Oct 2021, 13:34

Looks like Tony Radakin isn't all he appears to be. He bullied and disregarded Maj Gen Matt Holmes and issued diktats over the RM-USMC relationship.

I know the attempted Naval putsch which aimed to get rid of the Royal Marines rank structure was averted, but this looks pretty bad.

Article here (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10070499/Admiral-Sir-Tony-Radakin-accused-undermining-Marines-general-killed-himself.html)

Daily Fail articles frequently do look bad. As I understand it the idea of adopting naval ranks was an idea that was proposed within the Corps, and rejected, and not something that the wider naval Service tried to impose. Likewise, Why would the RN leadership want to denigrate the RM relationship with the USMC when the RN as a whole benefits from a close relationship with the USN and USMC?

Why turn a tragedy into a witch hunt? Is this just a particularly nasty smear campaign?

You may or may not have noticed that there is an epidemic of male suicide in the West, with people that everyone thought were fine falling victim.

Bengo

8th Oct 2021, 13:57

alfred_the_great

8th Oct 2021, 14:59

Looks like Tony Radakin isn't all he appears to be. He bullied and disregarded Maj Gen Matt Holmes and issued diktats over the RM-USMC relationship.

I know the attempted Naval putsch which aimed to get rid of the Royal Marines rank structure was averted, but this looks pretty bad.

Article here (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10070499/Admiral-Sir-Tony-Radakin-accused-undermining-Marines-general-killed-himself.html)

you’ll note at the same time, the dedicated 2*s for submariners, aviators, surface warfare, loggies and engineers also disappeared. The Corps was no more “picked upon”, and no less sad than any of those other communities. At the end of the day, the decision was made to cull a whole host of VSOs - all of whom we retired. examples:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Warrender

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Weale_(Royal_Navy_officer)

ShyTorque

8th Oct 2021, 15:58

I wish him well. I wouldn't want the job of herding Military cats around Whitehall.

Or scared cows.

charliegolf

8th Oct 2021, 18:16

Or scared cows.

Knowing you, that isn't a typo!:ok:

CG

Union Jack

8th Oct 2021, 22:39

Knowing you, that isn't a typo!:ok:

CG
Which it *originally* was at Post #2, and teased about at Post #3!

Jack

Chugalug2

10th Oct 2021, 10:42

The monstrosity that is the Ministry of Defence was heaped upon us by the Royal Navy, in the person of the Chief of Defence Staff, and ex First Sea Lord, Lord Louis Mountbatten. If the new CDS is bent upon reform I wish him good fortune, he will need all that he can get. The abomination that his predecessor perpetrated has cost this nation capability, waste, and far too many lives. I recommend he finds a much larger broom.

It would seem that he started well in his previous job. This one will be much harder, very much harder. Good luck, Sir.

Asturias56

10th Oct 2021, 13:51

Chugalug2

10th Oct 2021, 16:40

Chug - as someone who has spent time on this board illuminating some of the very dark corners of the UK MoD what do you suggest would be worthwhile reforms?

From the outside it looks as bad as the Home Office in terms of accountability, flexibility and performance
Worse I would have thought, but above my paygrade, Asturius. Certainly the constant churning of VSOs making their mark (ie 'savings') during their two year stints and being rewarded by then getting the next rung up the ladder has gravely damaged UK military air safety. The only safe place for that is outwith the MOD entirely in the form of an independent Military Air Regulator and Military Air Accident Investigator, both of the MOD and of each other. The present 'independent' MAA and MAAIB (or whatever the sign says outside this week) don't even begin to meet that description. As to what would be left behind, I defer to those who know their way around the Machiavellian and dingy corridors. A demolition ball perhaps?

Union Jack

10th Oct 2021, 18:15

Worse I would have thought, but above my paygrade, Asturius. Certainly the constant churning of VSOs making their mark (ie 'savings') during their two year stints and being rewarded by then getting the next rung up the ladder has gravely damaged UK military air safety. The only safe place for that is outwith the MOD entirely in the form of an independent Military Air Regulator and Military Air Accident Investigator, both of the MOD and of each other. The present 'independent' MAA and MAAIB (or whatever the sign says outside this week) don't even begin to meet that description. As to what would be left behind, I defer to those who know their way around the Machiavellian and dingy corridors. A demolition ball perhaps?

It would be good to know more specifically at whom you are pointing the finger, if only by Service.

Jack

Chugalug2

10th Oct 2021, 21:38

It would be good to know more specifically at whom you are pointing the finger, if only by Service.

Jack

Jack, my interest in MOD reform concerns returning airworthiness to UK Military Air Fleets. At the moment the default cure for that seems to be grounding fleets that provide a capability seen as expendable, if only for a 'pause'. Thus the ACO gliders and the Nimrods, both the in service fleet and the one due to replace it. Now we are told that the Hawk T1 fleet is to go and very likely for the same reason. The words chickens and roost come to mind because the regulator, the MAA, nee the MOD, is faced with a fait accompli. Airworthiness, which involves a process of unbroken audit, was dealt a crippling blow by RAF VSOs bent on plundering hitherto ring fenced Air Safety budgets in order to recover from a disastrous AMSO policy of reducing spares holdings to unsustainable levels by selling off the 'surplus' for a song which then had to be bought back for a fortune. This initiative was characterised by the Nimrod Review as 'Financial Savings at the Cost of Safety'. They weren't savings at all of course, but by the time that became clear everyone involved was one rung up, with those at the top being rewarded with the traditional bling as they stepped off the ladder. If the cost is only seen in financial terms it must be many billions, but of course it cost many lives too, as well as our Maritime Reconnaissance capability (only now slowly being regained) and now that of the Aggressors.

This subversion could not have happened but for the fact that Operator, Regulator, and Accident Investigator, were one and the same, ie the MOD and its various subsidiaries. Given that the long term cost was in the loss of experienced and highly qualified Airworthiness Engineers and their replacement were inexperienced compliant non-engineers, lack of airworthiness has spread like a canker through the fleets since. The only solution is the urgent separation of Regulator and Investigator from the MOD and from each other. They need to regain the independence that is vital for their work and the technical knowledge to conduct it. I would suggest that would best be achieved by 'sistering' them with their civilian counterparts, the CAA and AAIB, and that they be headed up by civilian DGs with a mix of civilian and service staff. I would further suggest that the service staff belong to new Air Regulator and Accident Investigator branches respectively. Amateurism got us into this mess, we need Professionals to get us out of it.

What has this to do with the new CDS? Everything! If he wants to secure a future for UK Air Power he needs to know this reform is already past its sell by date and is long overdue.

Sorry about the long winded reply, Jack, but you did ask! Or would the answer, "RAF VSOs" have sufficed?

BTW, I never miss an opportunity to plug a good book, never mind two, so The Inconvenient Truth and Red5 by David Hill will both explain things much clearer than I ever could :-

The Inconvenient Truth : Chinook ZD576 - Cause & Culpability eBook : Hill, David, Blakeley, John: Amazon.co.uk: Books

RED 5: An investigation into the death of Flight Lieutenant Sean Cunningham eBook : Hill, David: Amazon.co.uk: Books

Union Jack

10th Oct 2021, 21:57

Chugalug - What a great response - in both the long and short forms! - and all very much appreciated. Recalling that Admiral Radakin's presumed successor as CNS/1SL is an aviator, I hope that he will be equally concerned with the need for necessary reform. Respect too for your book nominations, both of which I have read, but less respect for the villains of the piece.

Jack

Vortex Hoop

11th Oct 2021, 08:57

As I understand it the idea of adopting naval ranks was an idea that was proposed within the Corps, and rejected, and not something that the wider naval Service tried to impose. Likewise, Why would the RN leadership want to denigrate the RM relationship with the USMC when the RN as a whole benefits from a close relationship with the USN and USMC?.

I understood that it came from the Navy and had nothing to do with the Corps, according to RM officers I know and served with in joint orgs.

Radakin is CNS. CGRM works for CNS.
The military is a top-down organisation. You can push back against your boss but doing it too hard, too publically, outside the chain of command, and/or too often is a recipe for getting a new appointment at short notice.

N
The trouble is that senior naval officers know nothing about the RM and are quite happy to see it suffer cuts in order to pay for big shiny carriers. Didn't see many of them in Afghanistan.

you’ll note at the same time, the dedicated 2*s for submariners, aviators, surface warfare, loggies and engineers also disappeared. The Corps was no more “picked upon”, and no less sad than any of those other communities. At the end of the day, the decision was made to cull a whole host of VSOs - all of whom we retired. examples:

This round of cuts still doesn't excuse the appalling approach by Radakin to try and take over the RM-USMC relationship.

alfred_the_great

11th Oct 2021, 10:10

This round of cuts still doesn't excuse the appalling approach by Radakin to try and take over the RM-USMC relationship.

then perhaps Royal shouldn’t have abused that relationship and tried to get the CMC to lobby ministers over things that were none of his business.

I bow to no one in my respect for the Corps, but given that their size and shape has been unchanged since the 70s, I’m afraid the day they were changed was inevitable.

Unfortunately they have a habit of running to press the moment they’re told to do something they don’t like. It certainly wasn’t First’s team to leaked CG’s “unhappiness” to national press when it was happening…

Not_a_boffin

11th Oct 2021, 10:36

I understood that it came from the Navy and had nothing to do with the Corps, according to RM officers I know and served with in joint orgs.

So you're a pongo with an axe to grind that the Pongocracy has not secured CDS again.

The trouble is that senior naval officers know nothing about the RM and are quite happy to see it suffer cuts in order to pay for big shiny carriers. Didn't see many of them in Afghanistan.
Any money from RM cuts isn't going anywhere near shiny carriers. It's going where the money always goes. You may not have seen too many carriers in Afghanistan, but you should be aware that much of the CAS support came from carriers.

This round of cuts still doesn't excuse the appalling approach by Radakin to try and take over the RM-USMC relationship.

What ATG said.

Navaleye

11th Oct 2021, 10:53

As far as the RM is concerned its always a case of "The Navy giveth and the Navy taketh away."

Widger

11th Oct 2021, 14:30

The trouble is that senior naval officers know nothing about the RM and are quite happy to see it suffer cuts in order to pay for big shiny carriers. Didn't see many of them in Afghanistan.

Sweeping statement and utter bolleaux. The RM has benefitted greatly over the years as witness to all the assault capability that has been procured. The RM also needs to recognise that it is those same Senior Naval Officers that have protected the Corps over the years from arguments that they should be part of the Army.

You wont have seen many carriers in the Stan as they were not then in service but you will have seen their assets such as Sea King ASACS, Harrier GR7A, and many support staff such as Dentists, Surgeons, Fire Fighters and Air Traffic Controllers. You will also have seen Carrier and other naval assets, supporting many other events since 1982. Just to mention some, Balkans War operating in the Adriatic, Libya operating in the Southern Med, Iraq 1&2 and continuous operations in the Arabian/Persian Gulf since the 1980s, Sierra Leone, Oman on drug and weapons interdiction, off the Horn of Africa in anti piracy operations etc etc.

This inter service fighting is caused by one thing. Money. The MOD has been broke for many many years and successive governments have not funded their overseas adventures properly. When I left, there was a £30bn black hole which many well meaning and hard working individuals at Main Building were trying to resolve. How can you resolve such a problem without selling the house, the car, the kids etc? Interestingly some time later one of our illustrious politicians declared "its all solved", well what magic money tree did he shake then?

The £38 billion "black hole" in Ministry of Defence finances had been "dealt with" and the department's "hand to mouth existence would come to an end", Hammond stated in February 2012. Ministers had even found £2.1 billion to be allocated to several major spending projects to be introduced in the coming weeks. The money was to come from a combination of cuts over the previous two years, bargaining with industry suppliers and a one per cent increase in the equipment budget.[26] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Hammond#cite_note-28)

Many parts of the three services had their own pet projects over the years, which were all progressed at the expense of the others. The waste of money on projects such as iUKADGE (ioo £1.6bn), NimWACS (up to £1bn), Diving support vessel (£80m), Ajax fighting vehicle (£3.5bn), MRA4 (£3.8bn) and many many other smaller systems. The procurement system, despite the best efforts of the 1999 changes that implemented new procurement strategies and integrated project teams, is still highly wasteful. When you have people working in those offices near Bristol, on a long lead from London, treating projects like "That's 5/10/15 years work for me that is" then nothing will change. Whilst you have Officers with no commercial experience doing the 2/3 year tour in procurement you will continue to have gold plating, requirements creep and waste and continued inter service fighting. Its a system worthy of the NHS!

WE Branch Fanatic

11th Oct 2021, 16:10

I wonder if the same Navy leadership that does not understand the Royal Marines is the same one that has fought very had to keep amphibious units such as the two LPDs and the LSD(A)s, spent money to ensure that there were suitable helicopters for ship to shore lift (yes I know the term is STOM). fitted things like Bowman to frigates and destroyers to communicate with the troops ashore, specified that future warships should have space to accommodate Bootnecks and their equipment, and made the Future Commando Force one of the pillars of the Future Navy?

As for carriers, I am sure that you understand that they have a possible Littoral Manoeuvre role, and that one possible role for carrier aircraft is to protect amphibious forces like the LPD, and then to support the troops when they are ashore?

WE Branch Fanatic

12th Oct 2021, 11:03

I understood that it came from the Navy and had nothing to do with the Corps, according to RM officers I know and served with in joint orgs.

The trouble is that senior naval officers know nothing about the RM and are quite happy to see it suffer cuts in order to pay for big shiny carriers. Didn't see many of them in Afghanistan.

This round of cuts still doesn't excuse the appalling approach by Radakin to try and take over the RM-USMC relationship.

I thought the issue of naval ranks being used by RM Officers (and SNCOs?) had been discussed before - and I was right!

Royal Marine Officers to adopt Royal Navy rank structure....... maybe (https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/royal-marine-officers-to-adopt-royal-navy-rank-structure-maybe.295315/)

It was proposed by RM Officers and the RNLMC already do it.

Mainly it's to stop Nick Carter getting confused and trying to claim the Corps are "just another light infantry" organisation, and thus try to cut them to fund FRES...

(Cf "5th generation Commando Force" designed to put even more clear blue water between a Lt Inf Bn and a RM Cdo)

212man

12th Oct 2021, 12:49

I thought the issue of naval ranks being used by RM Officers (and SNCOs?) had been discussed before - and I was right!

Royal Marine Officers to adopt Royal Navy rank structure....... maybe (https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/royal-marine-officers-to-adopt-royal-navy-rank-structure-maybe.295315/)

It was proposed by RM Officers and the RNLMC already do it.

Mainly it's to stop Nick Carter getting confused and trying to claim the Corps are "just another light infantry" organisation, and thus try to cut them to fund FRES...

(Cf "5th generation Commando Force" designed to put even more clear blue water between a Lt Inf Bn and a RM Cdo)

The RNLMC wear naval ranks but use army terminology- 2 rings is captain, 4 rings is colonel etc

Vortex Hoop

13th Oct 2021, 10:07

It was proposed by RM Officers and the RNLMC already do it.

Mainly it's to stop Nick Carter getting confused and trying to claim the Corps are "just another light infantry" organisation, and thus try to cut them to fund FRES...

(Cf "5th generation Commando Force" designed to put even more clear blue water between a Lt Inf Bn and a RM Cdo)
If you examine this quote more closely, you will find it was posted by (shock horror) the same Alfred the Great above. A Navy person who posts both here and ARRSE. So this is just circular reporting with no verified source. I can find a dozen similar unverified sources which claim this was all the brainchild of 1SL.
So you're a pongo with an axe to grind that the Pongocracy has not secured CDS again.

You may not have seen too many carriers in Afghanistan, but you should be aware that much of the CAS support came from carriers.
.
How dare you. RAF and Joint roles through and through! Pray tell me how much UK CAS came from a carrier...?

You wont have seen many carriers in the Stan as they were not then in service but you will have seen their assets such as Sea King ASACS, Harrier GR7A,

Who's talking BS now?! My Cottesmore and KAF based Harrier sqn didn't operate from a carrier IIRC...!

Not_a_boffin

13th Oct 2021, 10:43

How dare you. RAF and Joint roles through and through! Pray tell me how much UK CAS came from a carrier...?
I do apologise. Your post was on a Monday. I wasn't aware the experiment functioned during "the weekend", so naturally assumed Perce. As for how much UK CAS came from a carrier, you'll be aware of a couple of teensy little issues.

1. The Harrier didn't really have the legs to get there from the IO - although both the USN and MN aircraft did. Nor did it need to, given the GR7/GR9 and subsequent GR4 det at KAF.
2. We had a thing called a "carrier gap" from 2010. So fairly obviously, UK couldn't do that over the second half of Herrick.

Who's talking BS now?! My Cottesmore and KAF based Harrier sqn didn't operate from a carrier IIRC...!
Just because your squadron didn't do an embarkation during your posting doesn't mean other GR7/GR9 aircrew didn't. Or the Baggers. That the Defence main effort was identified as Herrick also meant that a very small force was essentially dedicated to providing a 6 ship det at KAF for the last four years of the Harrier force. At the expense of the maritime role.

Widger

13th Oct 2021, 12:13

Who's talking BS now?! My Cottesmore and KAF based Harrier sqn didn't operate from a carrier IIRC...!

I did not say they operated from a carrier. I said the assets did. i.e the very force that is generated to provide carrier strike, was used in Afghanistan.

Bob Viking

13th Oct 2021, 12:45

MPN11

13th Oct 2021, 13:05

BV, I don’t pay my taxes to fund ‘cool’!! 😉

However, I’m glad UK has reacquired the capability in this increasingly disturbed World … my Crystal Ball suggests that the need for CVA assets could emerge almost anywhere. Particularly East of Suez!

Not_a_boffin

13th Oct 2021, 14:14

Are people trying to justify the UKs Carrier Strike capability on the grounds that it’s aircraft can operate from airfields?!

Why not just all agree to disagree and accept that the UK having a Carrier Strike capability is cool.

Yes it’s a shame that it may have come at the cost of other things but it’s still a good thing.

BV

I think it's just being pointed out that :

1. Assuming that changes to the RM pay for "shiny new carriers" is somewhat erroneous if you know where the money pit actually is.
2. Despite the protestations of some, carrier air power was deployed in Afghanistan (both from decks and from land), although it would be a bit difficult to put the ships themselves in-country, obvs.

langleybaston

13th Oct 2021, 17:56

I think it's just being pointed out that :

1. Assuming that changes to the RM pay for "shiny new carriers" is somewhat erroneous if you know where the money pit actually is.
2. Despite the protestations of some, carrier air power was deployed in Afghanistan (both from decks and from land), although it would be a bit difficult to put the ships themselves in-country, obvs.

Which decks please? I am genuinely curious, as I thought we were deckless, so to speak.

Not_a_boffin

13th Oct 2021, 19:19

Which decks please? I am genuinely curious, as I thought we were deckless, so to speak.

It goes for back enough that even Kitty Hawk, Enterprise and JFK had a tour. Plus Vinson, Stennis, Charles de Gaulle, Reagan. I think most of the USN CVN had a period on line during the last couple of decades.

As post 35 suggests, our CVS / Harrier combo didn't have the legs to contribute meaningfully, although both Illustrious and Ocean supported Op Veritas in the early stages - not with f/w though.

langleybaston

13th Oct 2021, 19:44

It goes for back enough that even Kitty Hawk, Enterprise and JFK had a tour. Plus Vinson, Stennis, Charles de Gaulle, Reagan. I think most of the USN CVN had a period on line during the last couple of decades.

As post 35 suggests, our CVS / Harrier combo didn't have the legs to contribute meaningfully, although both Illustrious and Ocean supported Op Veritas in the early stages - not with f/w though.

Thank you. I thought the decks referred to were RN and ........???????????????

WE Branch Fanatic

13th Oct 2021, 20:19

It goes for back enough that even Kitty Hawk, Enterprise and JFK had a tour. Plus Vinson, Stennis, Charles de Gaulle, Reagan. I think most of the USN CVN had a period on line during the last couple of decades.

As post 35 suggests, our CVS / Harrier combo didn't have the legs to contribute meaningfully, although both Illustrious and Ocean supported Op Veritas in the early stages - not with f/w though.

Ocean also acted as the flagship for TF50 in 2017, and RN frigates, destroyers, and even Bagger Sea Kings based aboard an RFA were part of the carrier groups quite often for over a decade, and contributed to things like coordination of air assets as well as protection.

Not_a_boffin

13th Oct 2021, 21:00

End of the rabbit hole hopefully. Good luck Admiral Sir Tony.

Vortex Hoop

14th Oct 2021, 12:35

It goes for back enough that even Kitty Hawk, Enterprise and JFK had a tour. Plus Vinson, Stennis, Charles de Gaulle, Reagan. I think most of the USN CVN had a period on line during the last couple of decades.

As post 35 suggests, our CVS / Harrier combo didn't have the legs to contribute meaningfully, although both Illustrious and Ocean supported Op Veritas in the early stages - not with f/w though.
That's a bit tenuous, as none of the carriers you list have anything to do with the original point of the RN sidelining CGRM, denigrating amphibious capability, and splurging the family silver on CVFs (which contributed nothing to CAS on Herrick).

Not_a_boffin

14th Oct 2021, 12:59

WE Branch Fanatic

14th Oct 2021, 15:49

That's a bit tenuous, as none of the carriers you list have anything to do with the original point of the RN sidelining CGRM, denigrating amphibious capability, and splurging the family silver on CVFs (which contributed nothing to CAS on Herrick).

Do you often argue that capabilities that did not exist at the time (but most of the money had been spent by that stage) are useless because they could not be used before they existed? Is the A400M useless as it was not used during the Berlin Airlift?

The carriers were originally mentioned in the 1998 Strategic Defence Review - as replacements for carriers and aircraft that had been busy in the Falklands, Cold War, Adriatic, and Gulf - and one of their intended roles was to defend amphibious forces from air or submarine attack. A quick search suggests that he did not get promoted to Flag Rank until 2014 in any case. I do know that when he became First Sea Lord he was told in black and white terms by the Secretary of State for Defence this his priorities were to to get more ships to sea, to get more people in ships, FAA squadrons, and RM units, and to deliver on the 'Future Navy' - of which the Future Commando Force is a key part.

I am not sure why you think amphibious capabilities have been cut. Two forward deployed 'Littoral Response Groups' - admittedly one of them UK based, but that is for a NATO role, a company of 42 Cdo based in/with the carrier, and smaller RM detachments..

..https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E9Kd_Y3XoAIUrmS.jpg

Both the LRGs will, I believe, rotate companies from 40 Cdo and 45 Cdo.

The Royal Marines are part of all five pillars of the Future Navy - an increased commitment to the North Atlantic, Carrier Strike, Future Commando Force, Continuous At Sea Deterrence, and Forward Presence.

I find it nothing short of disgusting that some people who should know better a exploiting a tragedy to push the agenda of - well actually I am not sure, but it is smear campaign against the First Sea Lord. Understandably the RM community has closed ranks, but the question should not be about refusing to adapt, it should be about do senior (and other) personnel and former personnel get properly supported?

langleybaston

14th Oct 2021, 18:34

Please can you distinguish between the black, dark grey and pale grey ships? As presented without [I think} a legend or key, I find it impossible to understand.
Are these ships in early or advanced state of build?

WE Branch Fanatic

14th Oct 2021, 20:42

Not my graphic - but the black ships are the amphibious ones - in other words LPD or LSD(A). It appears that grey ones are the ones we would expect to be assigned as and when. I think the shading differentiates between types of ship, such the two Type 45 destroyers in dark grey and two Type 23 frigates in the Carrier Strike Group section.

All the ships shown are in service. The vessel outlined with the legend of 'Additional Logistic Vessels' looks like one of the RO-RO vessels operated on behalf of the MOD. As no amphibious assets have been cut since 2010, and the RN as fiercely resisted attempts to reduce the capability (which started to wither on the vine during the years when Afghanistan was the main defence effort), I fail to understand the claim of cuts to amphibious capabilities.

Vortex Hoop

15th Oct 2021, 07:31

[...Snip...]
I find it nothing short of disgusting that some people who should know better a exploiting a tragedy to push the agenda of - well actually I am not sure, but it is smear campaign against the First Sea Lord. Understandably the RM community has closed ranks, but the question should not be about refusing to adapt, it should be about do senior (and other) personnel and former personnel get properly supported?
All your repetitive cut and paste efforts still don't excuse the disgraceful way in which Radakin stitched CGRM up and tried to take over the RM-USMC relationship - a relationship which 1SL is patently unqualified to manage.

Not sure you had an original point - other than an attempt to smear the new CDS and trot out some tenuous urban myths as to what funded the carriers. A cursory look at budgets would tell you exactly where the money goes. Let's leave it there.
You are mistaken. Not my smear words, but the words from CGRM himself, outlining how he was treated. All the fantasy accounting you can trot out still can't explain the shocking approach taken to managing the Corps by 1SL and his staff.

Not_a_boffin

15th Oct 2021, 08:22

You are mistaken. Not my smear words, but the words from CGRM himself, outlining how he was treated. All the fantasy accounting you can trot out still can't explain the shocking approach taken to managing the Corps by 1SL and his staff.

1. Linking to a Daily Fail article is not evidence. It's one side of a story.
2. As has been pointed out to you by others, the RM is a military organisation within the Naval Service. CGRM works for 1SL and ultimately has two choices if he doesn't agree with him. Salute and crack on, or resign. Seems he did neither.

The blokes in the ground, can we leave it now please?

Navaleye

15th Oct 2021, 09:27

Having someone from an aviation background as the new 1SL is a big step forward. All we need now is some more aircraft.

Bengo

15th Oct 2021, 10:51

Having someone from an aviation background as the new 1SL is a big step forward. All we need now is some more aircraft.For many years the problem with VSO's in the Senior Service has been their inability to put the right people in place to fight the peacetime battle. Skill as an aviator, driver of war canoes above or below the surface of the sea and outstanding leadership are not, broadly, of much use in Whitehall and Westminster. Navy needs to prioritise ability as a MoD warrior. The ability to make the case for sea power, to take the battle to politicians and the Treasury should be a pre-requisite for promotion, in all branches.

I have no idea whether Ben Key can do this or not, but to me he will have been successful if he succeeds on restoring some balance to the surface fleet whilst maintains or increasing both mass and sustainment capability. The current PM appears to see the need for Global Britain to be supported by more ships, but that has not yet got beyond fine words.

N

Asturias56

15th Oct 2021, 14:58

Skills needed in peacetime are very different from those need in wartime - hence the casualty rate in VSO's of all armed services everywhere in the first 12 months of a shooting war

WE Branch Fanatic

15th Oct 2021, 15:32

Having someone from an aviation background as the new 1SL is a big step forward. All we need now is some more aircraft.

Does it need to be a career WAFU? For example i the new Fleet Commander has a background as a Fighter Controller, presumably in the Sea Harrier days, so will understand the need for a task group to have fighters and other aspects of defence in depth, and the way that carrier based aircraft work with AAW destroyers and AEW aircraft. A PWO(A) should have similar knowledge, as should most Warfare types. A PWO(U) will understand the role of the ASW helicopters and how they work with SSNs and things like MPAs. Submariners should have experience of working as part of a task group, including with frigates and ASW helicopters. Most (surface) warfare types and WAFUs should have at least some experience of amphibious things.

Sadly the system seems to screw over people who do amphibious things - maybe the FCF concept will help? I know of a (now retired) Lt Cdr PWO and Major RM (from the LC specialisation) who got career fouled for it.

Mr N Nimrod

15th Oct 2021, 21:22

I guess getting all of that experience must be so much more challenging with such a small fleet (is it still big enough to be called a fleet?), and so much of it being stuck in harbour for so long because it’s U/S.

Lovely graphics by the way, whatever the shade of grey!

Vortex Hoop

16th Oct 2021, 23:43

1. Linking to a Daily Fail article is not evidence. It's one side of a story.
2. As has been pointed out to you by others, the RM is a military organisation within the Naval Service. CGRM works for 1SL and ultimately has two choices if he doesn't agree with him. Salute and crack on, or resign. Seems he did neither.

The blokes in the ground, can we leave it now please?
1. Just because the political slant of a paper is not to your liking, doesn't mean that the reporting of CGRM's inbox is false. No amount of your magical thinking will change that.
2. Thanks for pointing out the finer points of military hierarchy to me. Luckily we don't have to follow your directives and act like sheep. People like Matt Holmes use their initiative and challenge toxic leadership. Nobody needs a lesson from the likes of you on how to serve.

Asturias56

17th Oct 2021, 08:23

"the system seems to screw over people who do amphibious things"

I have to agree with WEBF (not my default setting ) - certainly seems to be the case in the RN. Probably because they are called upon to do it so rarely - how many times since '45 for example? Read the runup to San Carlos and it's clear they were very short of hands on experience - a few specialists, mainly relatively low rank, trying to beat some sense into the upper echelons as to what could and could not be done across a beach.

Navaleye

17th Oct 2021, 13:54

WE Branch Fanatic

17th Oct 2021, 15:44

The Falklands was a classic example of that. The ideal person to lead that was Radm Derek Reffell. Former COMAW and Carrier Captain and FOF3 so perfectly qualified and positioned for the job. Instead we got a submariner who through no fault of his own knew nothing about amphibious warfare and next to nothing about carrier warfare.

However - Woodward did win and his experience as a Submariner may well have contributed to defeating the Argentine submarine threat. If the ARA Santa Fe had not been engaged during the South Georgia operation, then the Argentine plan was to use her to interdict supply runs between the area of Ascension Island and the task group. - and a couple of torpedoes in one of those STUFT liners full of troops would have ended the war. ASW is just just about sinking enemy submarines, it is more about stopping your own units from being sunk. Additionally Woodward was a former Type 42 destroyer CO and would have known about Sea Dart and how to use it - and of course Fighter Control was one of the missions of the Type 42. The learning point from the Falklands was that because of the run down of carrier aviation in the seventies, task group operations and using a carrier based fighter as a task group weapon had not been rehearsed, hence we had to learn and improvise very quickly. He of course had various aviators on his staff.

If we had not carried out amphibious exercises regularly then I doubt that the San Carlos landings could take place. The mechanics of using landing craft and helicopters to get troops and equipment ashore is complex.

Anyway - let me expand on my comments about the two Gentlemen I referred to....

Lt Cdr A was a normal Warfare Officer. After initial roles including Officer Of the Watch, and some interesting shore jobs such as in Bosnia, he qualified as a PWO(A). Unusually he became HOD aboard one of the LPDs - which put him at a disadvantage compared to this serving as PWO in frigates/destroyers/carriers(?) He was also a PWO(C) - which suited the LPD. However, as his ship handling was a bit weak compared with his peers, and he was unable to get a command or promoted to Cdr - even though he was exceptionally well qualified in the PWO(C) role and also had enough amphibious expertise to go on exchange in an amphibious job in another NATO nation.

Major B RM was an Officer who came into the Royal Marines by a non standard route - this later contributed to his later problems. He was a member of the Landing Craft specialisation which was not the flavour of the month during the long years of the commitment to Afghanistan - although he deployed there at least twice, both as a member of an RM unit as an advisor to the Afghan National Army., but his LC background did not help his promotion prospects during the Herrick years.

WE Branch Fanatic

29th Oct 2021, 16:14

As for the Future Commando Force and the Littoral Response Groups, I think that they were discussed at the recent Pacific Future Forum, and the idea is one of having rapid response forces that can they been reinforced, such as deploying the rest of 40 or 45 Cdo, combining both LRGs, sending a carrier group, and so on.

https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1451106010551160832

The discussion might on YouTube or similar.

Please can we have no more conspiracy theories about amphibious capabilities being cuts, or the Royal Marines being sidelined.

Melchett01

29th Oct 2021, 18:25

And now a Booty to be CJO - Gen Charlie Stickland. Lovely chap, will press the HQ hard though.

The B Word

29th Oct 2021, 18:53

Has Charlie been announced? I couldn’t find that on the internet.

Melchett01

29th Oct 2021, 22:49

Has Charlie been announced? I couldn’t find that on the internet.
All very hush hush - and the worst kept secret ever. Happened today, probably hit the presses in coming days.

Vortex Hoop

31st Oct 2021, 21:24

The discussion might on YouTube or similar.

Please can we have no more conspiracy theories about amphibious capabilities being cuts, or the Royal Marines being sidelined.

This is a rumour forum, please don't dictate to others how to use it. Some of us here have quite a lot of real-world experience (outside of Janes and Yootoob) in staff and joint roles and have witnessed the machinations of the dark blue machine. 1SL et al have proved to be very good at saying the right words and appearing to give with one hand while delivering a coup de grace to the back with the other.

WE Branch Fanatic

31st Oct 2021, 23:11

This is a rumour forum, please don't dictate to others how to use it. Some of us here have quite a lot of real-world experience (outside of Janes and Yootoob) in staff and joint roles and have witnessed the machinations of the dark blue machine. 1SL et al have proved to be very good at saying the right words and appearing to give with one hand while delivering a coup de grace to the back with the other.

You have still not explained exactly how amphibious capabilities are being cut.

Vortex Hoop

1st Nov 2021, 10:05

You have still not explained exactly how amphibious capabilities are being cut.
Cutting 400 from the strength, closing Stonehouse and hijacking the bilateral relationship with USMC would be a start.

All the window dressing around FCF is to disguise these cuts. Those of us who remember Front Line First recognise 'restructuring' for what it is. At least we have carriers and lots of Dave though...

WE Branch Fanatic

1st Nov 2021, 17:55

The last 'Future Navy' briefing I had was in September 2019, followed a few weeks later by one concentrating on manpower issues. You might have more up to date information than me.

Manpower cut - not great but how have RM numbers varied over the years? I seem to recall that they were increased during the years of Afghan operations, even though the wider RN had personnel numbers cut by five thousand in 2010, without any great thought to the future. Robbing Peter to pay Pail is not the best strategy, but the leadership has to work with what it has. You will note that other personnel measures includes cutting senior manpower to free up funds for junior personnel, and moving people from shore jobs to front line roles. I assume that this includes RM units as well as HM Ships and FAA squadrons.

Stonehouse - sorry to see it go, but other places like Chivenor got saved in the end, and masses of defence sites were cut at the same time. The last I was there it did look like it needed some work. Mind you - everywhere does!

Bilateral relationship with the USMC - worrying if it is true, but the entire RN has close relations with the US Navy and USMC. British and American amphibious units frequently exercise and work together. The USMC are also going through changes, getting rid of tanks and moving to a maritime future, and preparing for a renewed era of great power competition, and both maritime and air environments being contested. I have just come across this on LinkedIn - no idea how recent it is.

ROYAL MARINES IN THE US (https://mca-marines.org/wp-content/uploads/Royal-Marines.pdf)

Back in 2017 some in defence were trying to get rid of amphibious capabilities altogether, with the media types like Mark Urban claiming that they had not been used since 2003. I am not sure that the Royal Marines and wider amphibious capabilities could have survived in their existing form without FCF - which is closely tied with the renewed commitment to the North Atlantic, Carrier Strike, and Forward Basing. As for the carriers, I imagine that protecting amphibious forces was part of the original requirement, and is definitely a carrier role. An LPD or similar is a high value unit, particularly with a full load of troops, and something that needs protection from enemy aircraft, particularly missile armed ones, and submarines.

The RN has been committed to Continuous At Sea Deterrence, (continuous) Carrier 'Strike', and continuous Amphibious capability for as long as I can remember. All the current First Sea Lord has done is to respond to geopolitical changes by adding a renewed commitment to NATO (which includes amphibious forces) and forward basing (which also includes amphibious forces).

MPN11

3rd Nov 2021, 18:02

https://news.yahoo.com/uk-royal-marines-dominated-us-121424223.html

US Marines recently took on Britain's Royal Marines in a battle simulation in the Mojave Desert.

British commandos forced their US counterparts to surrender before half time, The Telegraph said (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/02/royal-marines-force-us-troops-surrender-just-hours-training/).

The Royal Marines went from controlling 20% of the battle area to more than 65%, the newspaper said.

US Marines were driven into submission by their British counterparts during a training exercise held deep in the California desert last week, according to a report in Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/02/royal-marines-force-us-troops-surrender-just-hours-training/).

Widger

4th Nov 2021, 13:59

Cutting 400 from the strength, closing Stonehouse and hijacking the bilateral relationship with USMC would be a start.

All the window dressing around FCF is to disguise these cuts. Those of us who remember Front Line First recognise 'restructuring' for what it is. At least we have carriers and lots of Dave though..

Vortex, cuts can feel very personal but the fact of the matter is the the MOD is broke and has been for decades. It cannot afford current operations let alone keep un-necessary bases open. Stonehouse was slated for closure in the early noughties, well before the current CDS was on scene and my latest intel is that the closure has been shelved. The defence estate at Plymouth needed and still needs rationalisation. There are acres of wharfs and building unused and the decision was taken to rationalise the estate at Weston Mill and save the running costs of not just Stonehouse but other bases as well. Better to spend the money on deployable assets than empty barracks and offices.

During my time I saw the closure of:
HMS Mercury near Petersfield
HMS Caledonia in Scotland
HMS Daedalus in Lee on Solent
HMS Cambridge Gunnery facility
Sale of Rosyth dockyard (HMS Cochrane) to Babcocks
HMS Dryad that is now full of crabs and pongos
HMS Osprey at Portland
HMS Royal Arthur
HMS Vernon - now Gunwharf Quays
RM Barrack Deal
Closure of RAF Chivenor now full of RM
Closure of RM Deal
RNH Haslar
Closure of RAFs Leuchars, Wittering, Kinloss, Brawdy, Neatishead, Bebecula, Bentwaters,Brampton, Coltishall, Cottesmore, and many many others

In comparison the RM have not been doing too badly:
HMS Heron 3 BAS
RM Norton Manor Camp
CTC Lympstone
RM Poole
RM Condor, Arbroath
RM Tamar in the dockyard at PLymouth
Bickleigh Barracks
Chivenor as mentioned above
RM Instow
2 Queen Elizabeth Class with RM capabilities built in
HMS Albion and Bulwark purpose built for amphibious capability
25 Merlin Mk4 helicopters to support the Commando Force
A squadron of Wildcats and a host of LCU, LCVP, and other raiding craft