Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

New CDS

Old 13th Oct 2021, 19:19
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 176
Originally Posted by langleybaston View Post
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.

Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2021, 19:44
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 1,971
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin View Post
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 ........???????????????
langleybaston is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2021, 20:19
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,665
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin View Post
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.
WE Branch Fanatic is online now  
Old 13th Oct 2021, 21:00
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 176
End of the rabbit hole hopefully. Good luck Admiral Sir Tony.
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2021, 12:35
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: LGW Overhead
Posts: 20
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin View Post
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).
Vortex Hoop is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2021, 12:59
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 176
Originally Posted by Vortex Hoop View Post
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 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.
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2021, 15:49
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,665
Originally Posted by Vortex Hoop View Post
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..

..

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?
WE Branch Fanatic is online now  
Old 14th Oct 2021, 18:34
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 1,971
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?

Last edited by langleybaston; 14th Oct 2021 at 18:37. Reason: addendum
langleybaston is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2021, 20:42
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,665
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.
WE Branch Fanatic is online now  
Old 15th Oct 2021, 07:31
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: LGW Overhead
Posts: 20
Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic View Post
[...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.

Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin View Post
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.
Vortex Hoop is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2021, 08:22
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 176
Originally Posted by Vortex Hoop View Post
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?
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2021, 09:27
  #52 (permalink)  
Suspicion breeds confidence
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Gibraltar
Posts: 2,351
Having someone from an aviation background as the new 1SL is a big step forward. All we need now is some more aircraft.
Navaleye is online now  
Old 15th Oct 2021, 10:51
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Somerset
Posts: 93
Originally Posted by Navaleye View Post
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
Bengo is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2021, 14:58
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 3,656
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
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2021, 15:32
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,665
Originally Posted by Navaleye View Post
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.

WE Branch Fanatic is online now  
Old 15th Oct 2021, 21:22
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Cambridge
Age: 54
Posts: 26
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!
Mr N Nimrod is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2021, 23:43
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: LGW Overhead
Posts: 20
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin View Post
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.
Vortex Hoop is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2021, 08:23
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 3,656
"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.
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2021, 13:54
  #59 (permalink)  
Suspicion breeds confidence
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Gibraltar
Posts: 2,351
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.
Navaleye is online now  
Old 17th Oct 2021, 15:44
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,665
Originally Posted by Navaleye View Post
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 is online now  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.