Future Force Structure
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arcanum,
The secret is in the way the USN operate. They complete a full combat work up at Fallon as an air group and then deploy to sea for 6-12 months. Once carrier qualified all flying is conducted "from the sea" so they maintain day and night currency. That is combat continuation training is conducted from the sea not a shore base. They will deploy ashore to a fixed airfield for short periods but the bias is totally towards sea operations rather than vice versa - this is the way the RN FAA operated until the RAF took control of the operational cycle where their ethos was (understandably) to operate from a fixed land base. This will have to change in the future.
The secret is in the way the USN operate. They complete a full combat work up at Fallon as an air group and then deploy to sea for 6-12 months. Once carrier qualified all flying is conducted "from the sea" so they maintain day and night currency. That is combat continuation training is conducted from the sea not a shore base. They will deploy ashore to a fixed airfield for short periods but the bias is totally towards sea operations rather than vice versa - this is the way the RN FAA operated until the RAF took control of the operational cycle where their ethos was (understandably) to operate from a fixed land base. This will have to change in the future.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure how a thread on (flawed in my opinion as it looks remarkably like we have just up-ranked our Station Commanders) RAF C2 arrangements became a discussion on comparisons on RN vs RAF force structures – but, in for a penny….
The big difference between the 2 services is that most RAF deployed units are away from their day job and routine training. The RN are able to do them mostly in the same time and space when afloat. If we are doing fair comparisons you would have to look at all tasks/commitments, not just those outside the UK.
The real question might be how many RN personnel are deployed today away from their role or training reqt, compared to RAF?
If we are going to use USN comparisons, let’s see some numbers on Carrier Air Groups/Wings vs numbers of Carriers and let’s see some figures on deployed time away vs US based trg.
Arcanum raises a good point (and one that is acknowledged by the USN), a CAW will lose many skills over time on deployment (apart from the ability to land on a heaving deck for which they get very good at) – they get away with it by having another CAW ready to take their place – we will not have that luxury. We will need a different model, because we can’t afford the USN one. That could mean more simulation (including deck landings) and regular UK-based ship-borne training opportunity just off UK shores - it is how we did it with Ark and JFH with bi-annual short deployments for wider collective training and engagment. This will avoid the huge costs of maintaining a semi-permanently deployed asset which will slowly erode tactical skill sets, harmony and resource. Better to keep it on a close tether, accept a slightly longer deployment time, train near home, save money and preserve capacity for when you need it.
I have nothing but respect for the hard working RN sailors – but I can’t help wondering that they are paying the price for an RN hierarchy that is trying to create the illusion (and pressure) for an East of Suez, world-wide Navy, when they have the funding for one that needs to limit its ambition. Truth is, if we declared the real cost of the RN that the Naval Board would like, the conclusion in the next SDSR may very well be to reduce it further and limit its role….Sailors are working harder because they are pawns in a game of brinkmanship on resource and task. I accept that the other 2 services are no different but, as has proved the case in the Army they may have slack to give - the RN can't raise the true cost of personnel and running costs because it would bite in to ship numbers - Catch 22! Hence the need to seek savings from others and their constant carping from their retired grandees (and friendly posters).
The big difference between the 2 services is that most RAF deployed units are away from their day job and routine training. The RN are able to do them mostly in the same time and space when afloat. If we are doing fair comparisons you would have to look at all tasks/commitments, not just those outside the UK.
The real question might be how many RN personnel are deployed today away from their role or training reqt, compared to RAF?
If we are going to use USN comparisons, let’s see some numbers on Carrier Air Groups/Wings vs numbers of Carriers and let’s see some figures on deployed time away vs US based trg.
Arcanum raises a good point (and one that is acknowledged by the USN), a CAW will lose many skills over time on deployment (apart from the ability to land on a heaving deck for which they get very good at) – they get away with it by having another CAW ready to take their place – we will not have that luxury. We will need a different model, because we can’t afford the USN one. That could mean more simulation (including deck landings) and regular UK-based ship-borne training opportunity just off UK shores - it is how we did it with Ark and JFH with bi-annual short deployments for wider collective training and engagment. This will avoid the huge costs of maintaining a semi-permanently deployed asset which will slowly erode tactical skill sets, harmony and resource. Better to keep it on a close tether, accept a slightly longer deployment time, train near home, save money and preserve capacity for when you need it.
I have nothing but respect for the hard working RN sailors – but I can’t help wondering that they are paying the price for an RN hierarchy that is trying to create the illusion (and pressure) for an East of Suez, world-wide Navy, when they have the funding for one that needs to limit its ambition. Truth is, if we declared the real cost of the RN that the Naval Board would like, the conclusion in the next SDSR may very well be to reduce it further and limit its role….Sailors are working harder because they are pawns in a game of brinkmanship on resource and task. I accept that the other 2 services are no different but, as has proved the case in the Army they may have slack to give - the RN can't raise the true cost of personnel and running costs because it would bite in to ship numbers - Catch 22! Hence the need to seek savings from others and their constant carping from their retired grandees (and friendly posters).
Last edited by Capt P U G Wash; 12th Nov 2011 at 13:29.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pug,
Now you've started it!
How many aircrew in JFH were ever fully night deck qualified.....almost none. How many RAF SOs thought they could fly to a deck with no practice and got it wrong?
As far as I am aware there are roughly the same number of CAWs as there are CVNs. The JFK CAW sails with the ship and returns with it, no swapping. The USN look in disbelief at the "hop on, hop off" RAF philosophy. All aircrew lose some currency when deployed away, including the RN rotary chaps. But that is why training opportunities with allies are programmed, flights disembark abroad for GFP etc and they have a swept up deployable training team. The QEC will have at least one F35 sim built into the ship.
The RN E of Suez activity is a result of Govt policy not because they ((the RN) want it. SDSR is a Govt document signed off by the NSC not a military one. It says be expeditionary - no brainer that the RN argues for world-wide deployability. In addition it is much better to train in the region where you may be reqd to fight so you know the people and conditions. No point in practicing ASW in the N Atlantic if the threat is in the Indian Ocean, Gulf and further East. Don't forget the greatest threat is to our sea lines of communication from whence 95% of our oil and goods arrive.
Presumably the 1* Gp system is rusticating to make way for the MoD staffs under CAS to rusticate to HW next year.
Way off thread but now off my chest!
Now you've started it!
How many aircrew in JFH were ever fully night deck qualified.....almost none. How many RAF SOs thought they could fly to a deck with no practice and got it wrong?
As far as I am aware there are roughly the same number of CAWs as there are CVNs. The JFK CAW sails with the ship and returns with it, no swapping. The USN look in disbelief at the "hop on, hop off" RAF philosophy. All aircrew lose some currency when deployed away, including the RN rotary chaps. But that is why training opportunities with allies are programmed, flights disembark abroad for GFP etc and they have a swept up deployable training team. The QEC will have at least one F35 sim built into the ship.
The RN E of Suez activity is a result of Govt policy not because they ((the RN) want it. SDSR is a Govt document signed off by the NSC not a military one. It says be expeditionary - no brainer that the RN argues for world-wide deployability. In addition it is much better to train in the region where you may be reqd to fight so you know the people and conditions. No point in practicing ASW in the N Atlantic if the threat is in the Indian Ocean, Gulf and further East. Don't forget the greatest threat is to our sea lines of communication from whence 95% of our oil and goods arrive.
Presumably the 1* Gp system is rusticating to make way for the MoD staffs under CAS to rusticate to HW next year.
Way off thread but now off my chest!
Originally Posted by Captain P U G Wash
...most RAF deployed units are away from their day job and routine training...
...The real question might be how many RN personnel are deployed today away from their role or training reqt, compared to RAF?...
Originally Posted by Service Personnel & Veterans Agency
Operation VERITAS/HERRICK OSMs (Operational Service Medals) and/or clasps have been issued to 16,714 Naval Service personnel (8,591 Royal Navy and 8,123 Royal Marines) for service in Afghanistan since 11 Sep 2001.
Mind you, this is before the forthcoming reduction of 5,000 Naval Service personnel which constitutes a significantly higher proportion than the 5,000 redundancies for the RAF or 7,000 redundancies for the Army.
Last edited by FODPlod; 12th Nov 2011 at 14:21.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bismark
In the Norwegian Campaign of 1940 the Gladiators of 263 Sqn and the Hurricanes of 46 Sqn landed successfully on HMS Glorious (despite never having done a Deck Landing before) and despite a day of almost continuous combat. The Carrier Captain elected to proceed with a fast (no flying) passage to the UK as a result of which no warning was received of the Proximity of the German Battlecruiser "Scharnhorst" which proceeded to bombard and sink HMS Glorious. Only 2 Pilots from 46 Sqn survived the sinking - none were saved from 263 Sqn.
In the Norwegian Campaign of 1940 the Gladiators of 263 Sqn and the Hurricanes of 46 Sqn landed successfully on HMS Glorious (despite never having done a Deck Landing before) and despite a day of almost continuous combat. The Carrier Captain elected to proceed with a fast (no flying) passage to the UK as a result of which no warning was received of the Proximity of the German Battlecruiser "Scharnhorst" which proceeded to bombard and sink HMS Glorious. Only 2 Pilots from 46 Sqn survived the sinking - none were saved from 263 Sqn.
Gentleman Aviator
Bismark
...and .. er .... Bismark
... so why bring them up in the first place?
Do I hear backpedalling???
It is interesting that RN PVR rates were always amongst the lowest in the 3 Services
They are all pretty low rates.
Do I hear backpedalling???
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to Thread?
Bismark, I think you’ll find you started it in Post #12…
I disagree with all your rebuttals, but let’s leave it at that and return to the thread….
Presumably the 1* Gp system is rusticating to make way for the MoD staffs under CAS to rusticate to HW next year.
The RAF Group system is a mirror to the RN and Army 2* Command structure and provides the 2* Operational Duty Holders under Haddon-Cave principles. I understand that they will not relocate or disband as a result of this move; I think CAS will fit quite easily into the CINC’s office without anyone else needing to move. The move of Group’s 1*s and support staff will cause some difficulties I suggest.
The RAF Group system is already farily lean, because it double hats Duty Holder responsibility with deployable Command (The RN require 2 with a seperate 2* COS Aviation and 2* COMUKMARFOR)
Questions for the RAF changes:
How much will this cost to create new office space on already full stations.
How will they work with the resident Gp Capt Station Commanders.
Where are all these 1*s coming from?
How does this sit with the principle of centralised control, decentralised execution and empowerment to the lowest levels?
How will AOCs function with less staff? They were already the minor element of Air Command with a relatively small staff (less than 15% of Air Command staff costs I think).
Answers on a postcard?
I disagree with all your rebuttals, but let’s leave it at that and return to the thread….
Presumably the 1* Gp system is rusticating to make way for the MoD staffs under CAS to rusticate to HW next year.
The RAF Group system is a mirror to the RN and Army 2* Command structure and provides the 2* Operational Duty Holders under Haddon-Cave principles. I understand that they will not relocate or disband as a result of this move; I think CAS will fit quite easily into the CINC’s office without anyone else needing to move. The move of Group’s 1*s and support staff will cause some difficulties I suggest.
The RAF Group system is already farily lean, because it double hats Duty Holder responsibility with deployable Command (The RN require 2 with a seperate 2* COS Aviation and 2* COMUKMARFOR)
Questions for the RAF changes:
How much will this cost to create new office space on already full stations.
How will they work with the resident Gp Capt Station Commanders.
Where are all these 1*s coming from?
How does this sit with the principle of centralised control, decentralised execution and empowerment to the lowest levels?
How will AOCs function with less staff? They were already the minor element of Air Command with a relatively small staff (less than 15% of Air Command staff costs I think).
Answers on a postcard?
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Damn Lies and Statistics
FodPlod (or should I say Navel_Gazer?), it’s a bit lazy to post data copied from Rum Ration, but using your quoted figures:
Excluding the RMs who take their turn magnificently in the HERRICK arms plot, that means an average of 859 RN personnel have been deployed on HERRICK each year, or, assuming they are on 6 month tours, about 430 at any one time. From a regular RN (minus the ~7,500 RMs) that equals less than 1.5% deployed. Doesn’t sound so good now does it?
Excluding the RMs who take their turn magnificently in the HERRICK arms plot, that means an average of 859 RN personnel have been deployed on HERRICK each year, or, assuming they are on 6 month tours, about 430 at any one time. From a regular RN (minus the ~7,500 RMs) that equals less than 1.5% deployed. Doesn’t sound so good now does it?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cazatou,
A some what disingenuous statement re 236 and 43 Sqns. The Gladiators were flown onboard by the FAA and then flew off on arrival in Norwegian waters to operate from ashore. The Hurricanes landed on in flat calm conditions with Glorious operating at max chat (30+kts) as the Hurricanes had no tail hook. They too just transited prior to disembarking to Bardufoss.
PUG,
What has COMUKMARFOR got to do with aviation apart from tasking embarked ships flights? COS AV is there purely because there needs to be an aviation 2* (as the "competent" duty holder in the command chain). One could argue that when Adm Zambellas takes office in Jan he could be the "competent" duty holder.
Re working with Gp capt station Cdrs....why can't the 1* be the station cdr like Yeovilton. Presumably the 1*s are coming out of the HQ?
A some what disingenuous statement re 236 and 43 Sqns. The Gladiators were flown onboard by the FAA and then flew off on arrival in Norwegian waters to operate from ashore. The Hurricanes landed on in flat calm conditions with Glorious operating at max chat (30+kts) as the Hurricanes had no tail hook. They too just transited prior to disembarking to Bardufoss.
PUG,
What has COMUKMARFOR got to do with aviation apart from tasking embarked ships flights? COS AV is there purely because there needs to be an aviation 2* (as the "competent" duty holder in the command chain). One could argue that when Adm Zambellas takes office in Jan he could be the "competent" duty holder.
Re working with Gp capt station Cdrs....why can't the 1* be the station cdr like Yeovilton. Presumably the 1*s are coming out of the HQ?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bismark
I was referring to the Evacuation from Norway not the arrival prior to the assault on Narvik. 46 and 263 Squadrons operated in support of the attempt to capture Narvik. Both Squadrons operated for 12 days and claimed a total of 37 German Aircraft.
PS King Olaf of Norway was sufficiently impressed to present 46 Squadron with its Standard in 1969.
I was referring to the Evacuation from Norway not the arrival prior to the assault on Narvik. 46 and 263 Squadrons operated in support of the attempt to capture Narvik. Both Squadrons operated for 12 days and claimed a total of 37 German Aircraft.
PS King Olaf of Norway was sufficiently impressed to present 46 Squadron with its Standard in 1969.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Desert mainly, occasionally arctic and rarely jungle
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bissy,
I can absolutely confirm that the Army does 1 in 5 the same as the RAF (as indeed does 3 CDO Bde), the so called rule 5. I suspect you may be confusing it with a ratio of 1 to 4 which is the same as 1 in 5. Feel free to look at the latest Land Cts plot or indeed any Land Cts plot from the last umpteen years if you don't believe me. The RN do indeed have a quicker rotation in their Harmony rules although I was under the impression it was 1 to 3 (1 in 4) rather than 1 in 3.
I can absolutely confirm that the Army does 1 in 5 the same as the RAF (as indeed does 3 CDO Bde), the so called rule 5. I suspect you may be confusing it with a ratio of 1 to 4 which is the same as 1 in 5. Feel free to look at the latest Land Cts plot or indeed any Land Cts plot from the last umpteen years if you don't believe me. The RN do indeed have a quicker rotation in their Harmony rules although I was under the impression it was 1 to 3 (1 in 4) rather than 1 in 3.
'Statistics' or absolute numbers? Your choice.
Originally Posted by Capt P U G Wash
FodPlod (or should I say Navel_Gazer?), it’s a bit lazy to post data copied from Rum Ration, but using your quoted figures...
...Excluding the RMs who take their turn magnificently in the HERRICK arms plot, that means an average of 859 RN personnel have been deployed on HERRICK each year, or, assuming they are on 6 month tours, about 430 at any one time. From a regular RN (minus the ~7,500 RMs) that equals less than 1.5% deployed. Doesn’t sound so good now does it?
Incidentally, why are you so eager to divorce the RMs from the Naval Service when they are a proud part of it? I also note that your own interpretation does not take into account the many personnel who have deployed more than once (three or four times in many cases, esp Medics, FAA and RMs). Your own 'percentage' statistic is therefore risible whereas my numbers are absolute, i.e. number of medals/clasps issued.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Welcome to WEBF
WEBF,
no I do not, but nor should someone criticise a 6 week SAR Det down south as if it was the only thing they did. My point about HERRICK ratios was to dismiss it as a valid argument about deployed ratios.
How many sailors are at sea at any one time anyway. By Bismark's reckoning it must be somewhere near 6,550 to support his 1 in 4 rule. So what is the figure?
no I do not, but nor should someone criticise a 6 week SAR Det down south as if it was the only thing they did. My point about HERRICK ratios was to dismiss it as a valid argument about deployed ratios.
How many sailors are at sea at any one time anyway. By Bismark's reckoning it must be somewhere near 6,550 to support his 1 in 4 rule. So what is the figure?
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fod Plod,
I was cutting you some slack on numbers, if you count repeaters than the ratio is even less than 1.5%. As for discounting the RM that was because they conform to the Army plot of 1 in 5.
My point about your cut and paste was why not leave it there on an RN rumour site. Your admittance to resorting to FOI requests somewhat compromises you as a nuisance maker (or journo), unless you only use such requests to add to rumour sites.
I was cutting you some slack on numbers, if you count repeaters than the ratio is even less than 1.5%. As for discounting the RM that was because they conform to the Army plot of 1 in 5.
My point about your cut and paste was why not leave it there on an RN rumour site. Your admittance to resorting to FOI requests somewhat compromises you as a nuisance maker (or journo), unless you only use such requests to add to rumour sites.
Afghan medals seems a strange metric. It's 10 years since I qualified for mine and I've no idea how many times I have been back since so I don't think the figures mean very much.
The scars on my liver are a reasonable metric for the FI though.
The scars on my liver are a reasonable metric for the FI though.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PUG,
Its 1 in 3 not 1 in 4. Including RMs it is not too difficult to see about 6000 RN deployed at any one time.
Re your SARF, where else do they deploy apart from the FIs for 6 weeks??? I don't wish to decry the amazing flying they do but when the first PFI study was done about 7 yrs ago there was no operational justification for retention of the SARF. There was then a lot of work done to "operationalise" it by talking about combat SAR and getting SH crews to cycle through the SARF on the basis of taking SAR skills into the front line. The RN case was totally different as all RN SAR crews are drawn from the operational front line where SAR skills are part of the sea-going role.
Way off thread but this is possibly because really no-one gives a T*** about the future structure.
Its 1 in 3 not 1 in 4. Including RMs it is not too difficult to see about 6000 RN deployed at any one time.
Re your SARF, where else do they deploy apart from the FIs for 6 weeks??? I don't wish to decry the amazing flying they do but when the first PFI study was done about 7 yrs ago there was no operational justification for retention of the SARF. There was then a lot of work done to "operationalise" it by talking about combat SAR and getting SH crews to cycle through the SARF on the basis of taking SAR skills into the front line. The RN case was totally different as all RN SAR crews are drawn from the operational front line where SAR skills are part of the sea-going role.
Way off thread but this is possibly because really no-one gives a T*** about the future structure.
As the "Force" decreases in size and numbers...should not the "structure" flatten as well? In time Wings shall actually be Flights or am I missing something?