More good graphic pictures here of the days events.
 

Royal Navy rescues migrants from Mediterranean death boats off the shore of Libya | Daily Mail Online


This was just one days worth of people. Amazing quantities of people are now stacked up in Libya and seem to be being fed onwards like a conveyor.


Royal Marines faces tell a story in themselves, its not as if its a glamorous task that anyone wants.
Only one of these ships now available, thanks to the defence cuts and budget squeezes, so this ships company have a long old summer ahead doing this, and they just know it.
One of the refugees looks like he has a dental brace on. Most are fairly young and looking to do this out of financial gain, I'm guessing that. Some have taken their wives along, and they look iller and more stressed.


The west has walked right into this one. The warlords of Libya consistently outmanoeuvre HMG.

The way it's going we might as well take out the middle man and pick them up straight off the beach! Tactics at the moment are hardly going to dissuade anyone from coming over, a way has to be found to return them to the African coastline.
I'm waiting to hear of the first inflatable to come over from France and beach at Clapton.......

Interesting. I'm fairly sure that I once read that the responsibility of a ship rescuing people from the sea extends as far as dropping them at the nearest suitable port. Patrol close enough to the countries the refugees come from and all HMS B needs to do is drop them back at home. When enough people pay $1000 dollars and then appear back on the dock looking jolly miffed, the rest will start to have second thoughts before buying their ticket.

CM:-
Then home for tea and medals? I'll leave it to others better qualified than I to tell us what would be needed before HM warships could enter Libyan territorial waters, let alone enter its ports and hand over its 'passengers'.. to who exactly?

The country is in chaos and we all know why. The solution to that chaos and similar chaos in much of the rest of the African continent is, I would suggest, rather beyond the capabilities of HMS B or indeed the UK. Isn't there an international organisation charged with bringing peace to such war ridden areas? United what? Oh, it isn't? Oh well.

Millions of dollars worth of petrochemical technology are currently all over Libya, being well guarded (for a fee) by the local warlords. Multinational Oil and Gas groups are using middle-men to contact these people to ensure their kit is looked after until a time mutually convenient to all to kick start production and extraction again. I heard this from a friend. However the Libyan state owned stuff was blown to atoms, so they could be waiting a while yet.


For the warlords the export of people is another very lucrative side-line, which they wont want closing down just yet.
The Royal Navy are now a very effective final delivery service of their plan as it were (bit like a British postman, simply sorts and post's the package through the door onto Europes mat, as it were-the money side of things (the cost of the stamp) being taken within the unseen houses of Libya. Its a nice little hustle at the moment with the emphasis firmly on the Europeans to sort out.


On Sky News last night the RN in a Merlin helicoptered one pregnant lady whose waters had broken to..Malta? The ship was last reported heading for Sicily with about 1500 refugees/travellers/fee payers onboard for process. They had undoubtedly saved their lives as the boat they were in could have capsized at any moment.
Sadly this event hasn't seemed to have been reflected in the radio news today, all about G7 and Europe.
The Bulwark had 1500 people and 12 chemical toilets for the lot, what's that about 125 per toilet. Real nasty sort of set up and a real risk of disease there in the Summer heat and dank air of that vessel.
Turnaround for the Bulwark could be what? 48 hours? Bet the lads are praying for an engine failure, or similar "accident" to prevent a return trip. Its all been done before.

you are indeed not a boffin!
 

well rounded comments with insight.

To whom. Sorry, that just grates.

A simple request to land people rescued at sea should suffice. Worth a try. If denied then the law would accept an alternative port. Of course, the ship doesn't operate in isolation; they do have comms all the way back to the UK who could (if the will exists) arrange passage. If they could arrange passage for me in a 'warplane' at very short notice, I'm sure this could be tried. As the survivors are nationals of the country to which they are being returned, they probably don't need to be handed over to anyone, just the taxi driver for the ride home. Simplistic? Yes. But the alternative is to keep on rescuing these (yes, very infortunate) people. Once Europe has absorbed the entire population of troubled Africa, we may wish we'd handled it differently.

Yep, International Rescue. :ok:

I'm not suggesting this is going to be easy, but someone will need to make a stand sometime soon.

I still worry about the lads morale and welfare.
 

I mean the Captain and his officers on TV look exactly the right stuff. You need people like them and they are the utter salt of the earth.
But I've been on these horrible open ended deployment things myself. It draws down on you in the end, always. I worry about the lads who get the dirty end of the jobs down at the bottom end of the rung. I hope someone reading this who has some sort of input, can arrange the following;
(a) Seriously consider going to rotate the ships company of Bulwark through a cycle. Is topmast still in force and going? I would put them on a maximum 42 day cycle each. The Navy and the RM's ASRM can handle that. I mean it. Get the lads in and out over the 42 days. We have a spare capacity of people and the capability in airhead and money.
Reason-health/safety/efficiency/morale. This will be a long, long term goer of an operation. It is unrealistic to keep the same tiny percentage of lads in the Navy at the **** end of a long stick for a very long time.
(b) Get the Albion manned and out again, and start up the planning now as a replacement for the Bulwark. (This gives people hope for eventual relief for a ship on deployment-very important to the mindset of a twenty year old kid..)
(c) Get a plan going, a realistic one, for Libya. Have the Oil and Gas Multinationals involved, get them all together on an island, in London wherever but get a deal quickly on and get the whole country moving again. Money talks louder than prayers to Arabs and Africans and they need to get it going.
Otherwise its heading for an even bigger disaster than it already is.

Short of a stabilisation action across the whole of Africa, it seems to me that the only options left are the unsustainable one of the EU taking on the perpetual influx of migrants or, in my mind the only real option, creating an Israel type settlement somewhere in the region.

Maybe NE Libya (2 borders facing water/ 1 facing egypt) would be a logical choice. I don't think I need to explain the obvious benefits of having a relatively trustworthy standing military force in Egypt in the picture to the people on this forum, on this particular topic.

Another interesting thought is the possibility of Greece taking centre stage on this. Though I'm not sure on the specifics of Greek islands, perhaps there is scope to develop these into a permanent home for these displaced families. Islands would be a dream to police compared to anywhere on the continent. Conceivably, these islands could be donated by the Greek government, who are already looking to sell them off, in return for concession on their debt. The islands are more than likely to be worth more than they are currently sold for.

The main priority and key to solving this crisis, I'm sure you'll agree, is to help the displaced to help themselves; 'Give a man a fish' and all that... Hopefully by giving them somewhere they can call their own we can stem the rush to the UK, and the EU in general. Maybe we can even cut the supply of fighters to the warring factions.

I think the real irony is that this type of rehoming would be much cheaper in the long run than anything we will actually try, and that it will be much easier than simply changing our benefit law to make our intake more sustainable in the long run.

Hangarshuffle, (post 48)

Are you suggesting the guys and gals on HMSB are not up to this, or up for this? This is the Navy. Long cruises are part of their lives, humanitarian assistance is their pride and joy, doing tough stuff is a part of their heritage.

Or are you now going to tell me that all that stuff wasn't true? I'd rather believe the mental model of the Navy that serving members have placed in my head over the decades.

I once wondered why Russia and China had not vetoed the US/NATO UN Security Council Resolutions for the Iraq and Libya interventions but it has become increasingly clear.

'They that sow the wind ....' and all that.

CM:-
The "survivors" have already been fleeced of everything that they possess by inhabitants of the country to which you propose they be returned. For most the only things that they have left are their very lives. If they cannot be realised in fiscal form in the form of ransom then those 'assets' may well be written down to zero in the perfunctory manner prevalent there.

No, they are by no means all Libyan nationals, as you well know. I find your facile contribution to this enormous challenge grating, but then of course grammatical comment trumps that in your book.

Courtney
 

I still think the lads are up to it, but I still think things would work a lot better for all if the Navy now adopted more intelligent use of its diminishing people.
In the offshore OG world as you know UK rules limit the amount of time you can spend on a rig (think its 3 weeks or 21 days in the UK shelf, STBC). Go further away and many or most multinationals put limits on, things like 60 or 90 days maximum deployed working hard on a 12 hour cycle.
Think the Navy should adopt this rule, especially here.
This looks a very hard slog for the ratings onboard. Its now approaching high Summer, we all know what that's like in the North Africa region. Risk of disease is very evident. I would wager emotional fatigue will be a factor.
What will really sap at people is the knowledge that they are a 1 trick pony. There is no relief ship for Bulwark, she is all the nation now has.


I listened at length to the lads who returned from HMS Ocean after the Libyan attacks. They were there offshore for months because they also had no replacement. They and the ship were in literal bits at the end of that particular long futile slog.


Its just no way to run things in the modern era. We have airheads, cheap rentable airliners and literally thousands of ratings onshore who could be trained and rotated through if required. (There is little else on operationally as important as this little hot coal at the moment).
Civilians do this within the Oil and Gas and it works a lot better, their retention of people is higher. Most importantly the RN's own peoples quality of life would be far better and that's what counts.

Max Hasty has been reading our posts.
 

'Reducing our Armed Forces to a ferry service for migrants is madness' | Daily Mail Online


Royal Navy catches suspected members of Libyan people smuggling ring | Daily Mail Online


Some more good pictures from the Daily Sail, offloading the pax, shifty looking coves lurking around. These people are going to cost us all a fortune (that's the immers, not the sailors!).
God Almighty am I glad I am no longer involved in all of this. I say a prayer every day I wake up I am no longer a member of the RN, and am now a free slave.

Hangarshuffle

It's difficult to know where to start.

Are you really ex RN?

Is there any part of trying to rotate a crew of a warship every 30/60/90 days that is not utterly moronic?

Do you really think that rescue ops in the med is a tricky/tiring evolution?

A warship is not a foxhole. The med is not Iraq or Afghanistan or the Falklands. I think the RM/RN will cope with the stress from under their duvets in their comfy bunks.:rolleyes:

Don't be so wet.

Chug,

I do get your humanitarian concerns, but do you really think that picking them up and taking them to Europe is the answer? The more that get through, the more will come. Month after month, year after year. Can/should Europe accommodate them all? How many would that eventually be? Millions, potentially.

Treating the symptoms won't cure the disease, as you have (in a different context) stated many times here. If the poor folks trying to escape to Europe started to see their friends returned to Africa instead of sending postcards from Europe saying, "Come on over, everything is great,". Maybe they might be discouraged and start to see the traffickers as the low-life scum they are.

Maybe you don't feel the numbers will soon become overwhelming. I suspect they shall.

CM:-
and I am unanimous in that!

Seriously, I agree wholeheartedly with your post, and to complete the quote above, you have to correct the cause. In this case, given the myriad regions from which these people originate, that should read causes.

Those who come from that worst of all scenarios, a civil war, should be granted safe haven in my view, both here and in Europe. That has always been UK practice and we should not change. Those who flee persecution by corrupt regimes (of which it seems there is no end) should also be given sanctuary. Those who are economic migrants should be put into refugee camps and offered early return to their own countries ASAP.

All easy to say and damned hard to carry out I admit, but the causes have then to be addressed. The United Nations has totally failed Africa, if not the World as a whole. Somehow it must be made to work, or scrapped entirely in favour of a successor, just as its predecessor was. It would then have to sort out international money laundering, which is the engine that makes large scale fiscal corruption possible. In that regard I suggest it re spots to Switzerland, to cut out the many transatlantic flights to there which would otherwise be required.

There, I've handed myself on a plate. Enjoy!

I don't think anyone could disagree with with your argument there, Chug. Africa is in crisis, some countries in particular. And those countries have millions of people that are in big trouble and that need help.

The point I've been making is slightly different in that helping thousands of people a week to get to Europe is not the answer. Why? Because more will follow, why wouldn't everyone there in distress want to follow? Certainly the ones arriving now will seek leave for their immediate families to come - so multiply the number arriving by whatever number is appropriate.

A substantial number seem to be saying that their desire is to go to the UK. And here's the rub. How many more millions can the UK support? It's simply not viable. There has to be a better and more permanent way of dealing with this and I can only see that the first steps have to be in Africa, hence my remarks about returning them there. Once there, as you rightly say, there will be a need for support. That will grow, but maybe not as quickly once this easy route into Europe is shut down.

It's not all about the UK. Sweden, Hungary and Austria appear to be popular destinations. Sweden currently has about 8 asylum applications per head of population at the moment. How long can that go on?

Countries of origin appear to be Nigeria, Somalia, Eritrea and Gambia. Not surprising, but there are millions more there to follow. And the rate of influx appears to be accelerating. If they haven't already, the numbers will quickly become unmanageable.

That's my point.

Simply return them all, unfortunately until you do that they will still keep on coming, but the trouble is if they destroy there docs you cannot... Plan B would be every country must have some territories that would count if you take them on, we could repopulate South Georgia :hmm:

CM:-
NL:-
Africa is not a State, nor is it even a "Union", which seemingly our continent purports to be. If these people embarked in Libya and are then intercepted at sea, how do you return them to a country that is in effect in a state of civil war? If you are saying that any state will do in Africa then "colonialist" and "fascist" will be the least of the diatribes leveled at us, not least by the government concerned, unless of course we buy them off in which case yet another galloper is added to the perpetual roundabout...

The immediate solution seems to me is for Libya to change from failed state to functional state(s), with administration(s) that are in actual control. Which brings us to the militant Islamists. They surely are the elephant in this room, and pose a real and present danger (not least in the effects presented by the OP) to us all. I have lambasted the UN with some justification, but I laud NATO which ensured the peace in Europe (and not "Europe" which presented itself the Nobel Peace Prize for that achievement. Laughable!). It is time once again to realise the threat at our door and for NATO to revitalise and reorganise itself to confront it. It could start by trying to cut off the money that funds them. Perhaps it too should move from Brussels to Geneva?

What I don't think we should do is shirk our common humanity and refuse any refuge to any of these people. The numbers per European state are containable at the moment, being small compared to the influx from Eastern Europe for example. I take your point that unchecked it will grow ever more. Hence the need to hold them in camps and allow freedom to work and to travel only to those who we feel are genuinely fleeing terror. Hopefully the word will get back from the others that you end up penniless and possession less, interned on one of jollygreengiant's Greek islands...

Tourist, I don't know where to start either. Bearing in mind that the whole international offshore oil and gas industry regularly rotates its entire workforce er, every few weeks...er yes. An FPSO, under long term refit but still operational, with a daily working crew of 600 souls will rotate through entirely over a 30 day period-fact. And that's from South Atlantic offshore Angola. It would relatively easy for the present RN set up on Bulwark to rotate the ships company on a 42 dayer (that's 6 full weeks). And the benefits..do I spell them out again? You will have twice the number of people who experience a live operation (for future ops purposes and training experience value). People are regularly rested and that reduces levels of stress/family breakdowns.. I could go on and on.
On this specific task, offshore Libya, it would be very easy to rotate, using Malta as an airhead. With a civvy charter plane once a week. Bulwark is pretty lean manned anyway and its got what..250 odd onboard. Piece of cake.


As for me, mate my record is second to none. I did numerous long, long deployments all over the world and on very varying tempos, platforms...and I've often thought back how much better they could have done it if they had used a little less....little less balls to be honest.!


Just because we grinned and bared it back then doesn't mean they have to do the same now.
Don't tell me though - you're dead old and dead manly and could do these trips in your sleep! (How many did you do btw)?


Our traditional methods of operating/fighting/working are now losing us wars. We radically need to rethink our ways =others are. The Libyan warlords are playing an absolute blinder against the British at the moment. Think about how we have helped them achieve what they now have and are getting.


p.s. the RN aircrew are being rotated through on Bulwark (please tell me they are), otherwise someone's missing a trick here!


p.p.s. as someone kindly pointed out, subs/bombers use this system in our Andrew and we think the USN.


And also finally...topmast! This was exactly the kind of thing it was for, its it still functioning>?

Tourist - I feel your pain. I didn't know the Royal Navy had ready-use tins of worked-up ship and system specific personnel in sufficient numbers with the necessary ranks, SQs (Specialist Qualifications), expertise and liability for sea service available to be swapped around and take over its largest vessels mid-operation either. Apart from the odd bod from the ERP (Emergency Relief Pool) à la Topmast, it couldn't even do this in my time and I know even more billets are gapped these days.

The pool of offshore workers available 'on tap' is relatively inexhaustible by comparison. Subject to contract, they are 'hired and fired' as required.

FOD

Glad it's not just me!

Hangar

Just to confirm. You are aware that the oil and gas industry are not a military force yes? In fact they have no points of overlap except for generally being surrounded by sea.

The Asda near my house has a shift system too. They are, however, frankly lacking in the ability to provide a range of Naval missions including but not limited to naval gunfire support or humanitarian missions.

ps. The bombers do not rotate crews through. They have two full crews. Both are fully worked up on the vessel. One is on board, one is not.

If you can find a fully worked up, type specific crew which has gone through all the FOST pre deployment training then awesome, but since that does not exist why not take a more mature view of things.

Your record, to judge from the intellectual level of your post, was not spent anywhere above the junior rates messdeck.

No mate I fully disagree, after time and observation working within the offshore industry. Our systems work pretty well brilliantly- I'm talking about some highly skilled and able people here, with a similar back to back oppo who are on options of 1 month, some foreign nationals are on 90 days, its pretty variable and it works really well for the lads at the sharp end...keeps their wives happy, kids happy.Looking at the Navy, it needs to modernise itself to get used in the future to full crew changerounds and similar set ups when its on these long never ending drudgery deploys.. Otherwise the exodus of its people will just continue and will degrade much further...people wont wear that kind of life anymore-its a smaller more linked in world-young people know this. We used to do what we did because the people in charge had never done any different, and also due to an insane sort of machismo, and also parsimony of money...trust me Bulwark and all the like will work better on a slow rolling turnaround.


Looking at these new pictures, looks like these African lads will be in Britain long before any of the ratings get home anyway. See linky. Straight out the camp (its not guarded-craftily the eyties know where these lads are really heading and its not a life eating pasta!, Taxi to Rome, pay more cash to a villain and onwards to Calais, then blighty via truck smuggling. New life washing cars and getting girls up the duff.


Mediterranean migrants saved by Royal Navy journey through Europe to Britain | Daily Mail Online
Decision time again then for the politicians, and our hundreds of Admirals. They can continue picking up people and saving them, ferrying them to Italy and thus adding to the migrant problem in Europe and here.
They can cancel the operation and return home.
If they could gather together a coalition of the willing, use other European Navies and Coastguards to actually guard the med and return immediately any Africans back to Africa...
They thus need a safe port/compund in Libya. They need the Libyan Warlords on side (some of them).
Could trigger more fighting in turf wars.
My guess-too politically hot all around so the pick and drop off in Italy will occur indefinitely until Italy says no its had enough..

Hangar

Your view is frankly infantile. To compare to offshore working shows a staggering lack of big picture awareness. I'm guessing I was right about the junior rates mess?

To operate effectively, a crew needs a workup. This would be impossible to achieve under your suggested system.

When a ship goes to FOST it improves until it is ready. It takes a lot of time and effort for the team to work together.

What do you think the point of all the enormously expensive JMC/Joint Warrior/Thursday war type exercises actually is!?!

As a complete aside, do you honestly think that this is a hard work deployment? You don't think they would prefer this to Joint Warrior or a South Atlantic deployment?

Considering that they are pulling ever increasing numbers of people out of unseaworthy boats, looking after their needs and transporting them to Sicily on a daily basis, and are doing this with no relief in sight, I would imagine they would happily do Joint Warrior or the South Atlantic as an alternative. At least there is an end date for those events, and it does actually involve doing the job for which they joined up for. Not sailing on the biggest lifeboat in the world. Perhaps we could paint Bulwark orange and blue the next time she stops off in Sicily to unload?

Martin,

I joined up to say "Left hand down a bit", visit exotic places and meet lots of pretty girls.

I ended up doing all of this but I also helped fend off aircraft and missiles, rendered safe bombs, mines and other ordnance, changed propellers and sonar domes underwater, boarded fishing vessels, manned a Green Goddess, operated ROVs, helped evacuate refugees, fished bodies out of the water, helped put down an insurrection, chased pirates and smugglers, fought fires and staunched floods at sea, salvaged sinking ships, helped rebuild and decorate schools and hospitals after hurricane and volcanic eruption, etc. and spent eight or nine months at a time in defence watches (six hours on/six hours off as well as my daywork) with only short breaks in the routine while often having my homecoming delayed for pressing operational reasons. Towards the end of my time, I found myself driving various desks until the wee hours many miles from home. I wasn't particularly exceptional among my peers in this and wouldn't have changed any of it for the world.

What did you join up for?

Anyone in any job, civilian or military, will know that little sentence on the contract of employment 'and other duties as required'. It does appear to affect military personnel more, for sure, but I still say that Bulwark's crew are doing an unpleasant task for day after day with no relief in sight, with the knowledge that what they are doing will have absolutely no effect on the causes, and will not stop it happening. If anything it will only encourage it to happen more and more. It is June and I expect they'll still be doing it in September while the politicians continue to shake their heads sadly and wring their hands while the traffickers get richer and richer.

If that's acceptable, please say so.

M&M:-
Well, this anyone didn't know that. YLSNED, as Danny would say. Things have obviously moved on since my day. Way back when there was no contract of employment at all in the military, merely an attestation where you promised inter alia to carry out the (legal!) orders of your superiors. If that is still the case onboard HMS Bulwark then it is up to those very same superiors to ensure the maintenance of good order and discipline. I see no reason why they should not. Do you? It used to be called leadership, don't know what it's called now though.

USN ballistic missile subs have two crews.

The USN's new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) will probably be manned on a 3-2-1 ratio. 3 crews, for 2 ships, with 1 ship deployed at sea.

Yes, it does rather, doesn't it? Have you read the bit about Offences against Military Law in the United Kingdom in Chapter 52 of the Armed Forces Act (2006)?

For example:

• Life imprisonment for mutiny (e.g. disobeying a lawful order), failing to suppress mutiny, misconduct on operations, obstructing operations, hazarding a ship, etc.
• Ten years imprisonment for misconduct (i.e. using violence against a superior officer or threatening behaviour or communication to a superior officer), disobeying lawful commands, etc.
• Two years imprisonment for misconduct (i.e. disrespectful behaviour or communication to a superior officer), absence without leave, contravening standing orders, failing to attend for, or perform, duty, malingering, etc.

Perhaps you might consider starting a trade union for military personnel to tie things in more with civilian life?

I was only jesting but having to do shi**y jobs or deploy for long periods without any certainty of a return date is known as 'Life in a Blue Suit' in the Royal Navy or, in more general parlance, taking the rough with the smooth. I didn't join up to march across Dartmoor or chip old paint off the foc'sle but I did it. By the same token, when I was told to fly ahead in the ship's helo on different occasions to plan visits to Guadeloupe and Curaçao in the West Indies because I spoke some schoolboy French, I did that too although, strictly speaking, it wasn't in my Terms & Conditions of Service. As it happened, the respective local consuls had organised the visits perfectly well on their own so I spent each of the preceding weeks in a Club Mediterranean.

RN SSBNs ('Boomers' in the USN, 'Bombers' in the RN) certainly have two crews but they are a very special case.

The US Navy has big bucks and is known for its manpower profligacy compared to the RN; just look at the respective complements of any similar vessels. Personnel constitute the greatest through-life cost of any ship and the RN would never countenance having three crews in order to maintain one at sea. With only 23,000 regulars and 250 full time reservists in the RN vice 326,000 regulars and 107,000 reserves in the USN, it is much too small for a start.

U"Back to back"? I'm intrigued.You're the one proposing such changes. I'm just curious how you would implement them without any damaging effect on operational capability or exorbitant extra cost.

Well all those points you mention actually seem to work outside the RN y'know? People seem happier outside working like that. If Bulwark operates as it does, what's wrong with the Albion's ghost crew coming into the mix? i.e. operate two crews on the one platform?
Then you get two crews gaining a wide range of experience>useful if Albion ever has to be activated?
Or is the RN so run down now (which we all know it is really), this could not even be managed?
Like I said< at the top, I worry for the lads welfare, morale, wellbeing-even now. This whole op will continue until the politicians grow tired of it. Bulwark will be stuck trailing around now until when exactly?
HMS Ocean was in a terrible state when it completed its tasking offshore Libya. People were reduced to sleeping on the flight deck, AC and machinery had broken down..pretty miserable towards the end apparently...the RN in the 21st century. Do the people who are doing the donkey work deserve such derision?
I never forget the people who prop the RN up. They deserve the breaks, sometimes.
Civvy street offshore oil and gas industry is tough at times, be in no doubt, but we are so better treat and managed and paid in these matters...perhaps time now for the RN to really have a look at this, not just people to deride the simple suggestion? HS.

Maintain two crews to keep one ship at sea, virtually doubling the payroll? Much too costly.

I imagine HMS Albion's "ghost crew" comprises a couple of dozen ship-keepers mostly unsuited for sea service or any other 'active duty'. Even fewer of them, if any, would fulfil the necessary criteria (rank, specialisation, currency, medical fitness, liability for sea service, etc.) required to occupy a complement billet in the seagoing Bulwark. Moreover, even if the additional manpower were available, receiving an entire ship's company on board a 'dead ship' in return, let alone trying to provide it with gainful employment, would likely prove embarrassing. Finally, who would look after Albion during the disruptive six-weekly handover periods you suggest implementing on board the operational ship?

If Albion replaces Bulwark as fleet flagship in 2017 as planned, her ship's company will be built up and trained over a lengthy period as qualified personnel become available from various sources including Bulwark. The manpower does not exist to sustain both ships at sea simultaneously as operational units.

What will it take to convince you that there is a vast and irreconcilable difference between a publicly funded military service like the 100% core workforce Royal Navy operating at or below its critical mass and the "hire 'em, fire 'em" offshore industry with a highly paid core workforce of less than 40% and a relatively inexhaustible pool of temporary manpower from which to draw?

The reason for the multiple crews for the LCSs is they are very lightly manned. When at sea there is so much work that the crew can't take the work load very long. So every two ships has three crews. The work load is high in port also, but in port the ship's crew is augmented by shore personnel, some USN, some civilian contractor. And the LCSs have the highest sea time to port time ratio of any USN vessel. They are at sea a LOT.

The missions coming to an end.
 

Seems inevitable. With hindsight Britain and its limited resource tried to do the right thing in rescuing the people, but simply became a conveyor.


http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...-Mediterranean

No link there, HS.

we seem to be confusing cost with efficiency

If double crewing means the asset can be on patrol nearly double the time it might actually be efficient as it replaces purchasing and maintain two of " insert craft / vessel / item of choice "

I guess thats the reason the boomers operate this way - if the vessel can be turned around faster than crew rest or morale can be turned around, it makes financial sense to do double up and get it back to sea.

I will not interject on the issue of north sea as I have no experience, but I will say I mentioned this to Mrs Dagenham about having two wives, a younger fitter one to be trained up for when the older one is tired and it didn't go down to well. Apparently, my rating for single wife duties is on suspension......:ugh:

From the reports in the press recently, it looks like the crew needs to spend more time maintaining their vessel and less time being worried about morale and being deployed, right, Hangarshuffle? I hope the guys from Babcock don't get too upset about having to go and sort out the RN's mess.

CM

I assume you're referring to this.

Migrant crisis: Navy rescue ship HMS Bulwark breaks down due to too many migrants | UK | News | Daily Express

Aside from the fact that "stuff" breaks down from time to time, it may just be that supporting hundreds/thousands of people who are basically being transported on the upper deck and hence likely to need more frequent supplies of drinking water has put the margin beyond what one would normally tolerate - particularly towards the end of a deployment.

Hardly the RNs "mess".