|
New CDS
Welcome Admiral Radakin. Top work at the RN over the last couple of years, lets hope it rubs off
|
Originally Posted by Navaleye
(Post 11122599)
Welcome Admiral Radakin. Top work at the RN over the last couple of years, lets hope it rubs off
|
Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic
(Post 11122628)
He prioritised capabilities and getting ships to sea over scared cows and senior officers, so he might just be in time.
https://twitter.com/FTusa284/status/1445018268583010316 Jack |
In The Times this afternoon.
Royal Navy Admiral Sir Tony Radakin named as next head of the armed forces 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, 55, will take over from General Sir Nick Carter, 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, 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. 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, 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.” |
I wish him well. I wouldn't want the job of herding Military cats around Whitehall.
|
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: |
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. |
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. |
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.
|
Originally Posted by Lima Juliet
(Post 11122832)
Some interesting 4-star, 3-star and 2-star moves have been awaiting this decision.
|
Boris Johnson allegedly overruled military on new Armed Forces Head | Daily Mail Online
And the recriminations begin here.:bored: FB |
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. |
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 |
Originally Posted by Vortex Hoop
(Post 11123241)
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 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. |
Originally Posted by Vortex Hoop
(Post 11123241)
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 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 |
Originally Posted by Vortex Hoop
(Post 11123241)
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://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Warrender https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John..._Navy_officer) |
Originally Posted by MPN11
(Post 11122731)
I wish him well. I wouldn't want the job of herding Military cats around Whitehall.
|
Originally Posted by ShyTorque
(Post 11123319)
Or scared cows.
CG |
Originally Posted by charliegolf
(Post 11123365)
Knowing you, that isn't a typo!:ok:
CG Jack |
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. |
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 |
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 11124230)
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 |
Originally Posted by Chugalug2
(Post 11124317)
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?
Jack |
Originally Posted by Union Jack
(Post 11124366)
It would be good to know more specifically at whom you are pointing the finger, if only by Service.
Jack 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 :- |
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 |
Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic
(Post 11123254)
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?.
Originally Posted by Bengo
(Post 11123264)
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
Originally Posted by alfred_the_great
(Post 11123282)
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:
|
Originally Posted by Vortex Hoop
(Post 11124606)
This round of cuts still doesn't excuse the appalling approach by Radakin to try and take over the RM-USMC relationship. 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… |
Originally Posted by Vortex Hoop
(Post 11124606)
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.
Originally Posted by Vortex Hoop
(Post 11124606)
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.
Originally Posted by Vortex Hoop
(Post 11124606)
This round of cuts still doesn't excuse the appalling approach by Radakin to try and take over the RM-USMC relationship.
|
As far as the RM is concerned its always a case of "The Navy giveth and the Navy taketh away."
|
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 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] |
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? |
Originally Posted by Vortex Hoop
(Post 11124606)
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. Royal Marine Officers to adopt Royal Navy rank structure....... maybe 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) |
Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic
(Post 11125259)
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 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) |
Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic
(Post 11125259)
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)
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin
(Post 11124655)
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. .
Originally Posted by Widger
(Post 11124769)
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, |
Originally Posted by Vortex Hoop
(Post 11125788)
How dare you. RAF and Joint roles through and through! Pray tell me how much UK CAS came from a carrier...?
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.
Originally Posted by Vortex Hoop
(Post 11125788)
Who's talking BS now?! My Cottesmore and KAF based Harrier sqn didn't operate from a carrier IIRC...!
|
Who's talking BS now?! My Cottesmore and KAF based Harrier sqn didn't operate from a carrier IIRC...! |
I’m confused.
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 |
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! |
Originally Posted by Bob Viking
(Post 11125850)
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 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. |
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin
(Post 11125882)
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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 15:32. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.
