Have a read of Chuck Hills US Coast Guard Blog, it is obviously focussed outside the UK but an interesting read anyway.
Click the image to vist
Think DefenceUK Defence Issues and the odd container or two
Have a read of Chuck Hills US Coast Guard Blog, it is obviously focussed outside the UK but an interesting read anyway.
Click the image to vist
Thanks for the plug.
One that you naval oriented readers might find interesting is here:
http://chuckhillscgblog.net/2011/03/14/what-does-it-take-to-sink-a-ship/
Another addresses how Coast Guard vessels might be used in war time, but it has applications for most types of OPVs:
http://chuckhillscgblog.net/2012/02/10/what-might-coast-guard-cutters-do-in-wartime-part-2-coast-guard-roles/
I forgot you had a blog Chuck, must be getting old
The door is open if you fancy a guest slot on TD by the way
Running out of free time…
TD, thanks, I had to move from where I used to post at CGBlog.org when the publisher decided to close it down, but he did move all my old posts to the new site.
Interesting that Chuck’s post on the 1st August about the US 4th Fleet which covers the Caribbean etc. mirrors the discussions about OPVs v Frigates. Having a T45/T26/T23 doing anti-drug patrols in the West Indies would make no sense to the US Navy.
Waddi, The USN do not do anti drug patrols because they have a proper CG! What it actually shows is that as their hull numbers fall off the uSN are prioritising the location of their DD/CC assets including an extra 4 DD to 6th Fleet at Rota.
Isn’t that the fundamental point behind all of this Frigate v OPV debate? Windies or even Falklands tasks should be by patrol vessel thus freeing up the “proper” fighting ships for tasks elsewhere.
Waddi, The USN are not creating extra hulls or cancelling DD orders, they are reorganising what they have. Our argument would see a decrease in available escort hulls. A navy the size of the USN will have inherently more flex to reorganise and prioritise the location of assets than we do.
If we had 3 PC to send to the Windies to free up the RFA or Ff then maybe we should, maybe we should not? That is one argument and remember that the US has the extensive base and facilities of Roosevelt Roads to base smaller units in. Our ATP(N) hull is a deployed unit.
Our argument is whether or not to get rid of FF hulls to create PC that may or may not be more useful in certain theatres.
That is a fundamentally different question.
I have no idea of the “correct” number of escorts. To my simple brain the actions of the USN is saying that certain tasks are more appropriate for certain types of vessel. Having a £1bn AAW destroyer with no anti ship or anti submarine capability in the Falklands when there are Typhoons, Rapiers etc. on land doing the same task is perhaps not appropriate? If the most appropriate asset is an OPV/Corvette for these tasks then surely that is what we should have. If that means that we end up with too many Frigates then that is a fundamentally different question? Having Ferraris doing Mondeo tasks in order to justify having a Ferrari makes no sense and will come back to bite you in the long term
Waddi, The whole Ferrari Mondeo thing is flawed if you have an ultimate responsibility that would require all your Ferraris, e.g a war!
Did you even read my point ref the USN reorganisation of existing assets versus us having to change our building policy?
I did and it all come down to the same thing not enough money to do the desired tasks, and the solution is the same, downgrade the assets or reduce/remove the tasks that is what the USN is doing and that is what we should be doing as well. The fact that the US has more than enough assets as the moment is irrelevant. Our building policy is also irrelevant you should build to the tasks and what is appropriate for those tasks. If we need 13 Frigates fine but if we decide that 6 Corvettes and 7 Frigates is the most appropriate also fine. The point here to me is very clear Frigates and Destroyers tasksd to the Falklands and Windies is not appropriate and the USN agrees. If that means less/the same/more Frigates then so be it. The two are mutually exclusive.
Waddi
“The point here to me is very clear Frigates and Destroyers tasksd to the Falklands and Windies is not appropriate and the USN agrees. If that means less/the same/more Frigates then so be it. The two are mutually exclusive.”
No there not, that’s the problem. It does not matter what the USN thinks, they have a para-military coast guard behind them, the RN does not.
Warships can do non-war fighting tasking, patrol boats cannot fight. Frigates and Destroyers are “flexible” assets, it is complete bollocks to say that using them for anti-drug tasking is “wrong” for some fiscal reason – such tasking actually provides training opportunities for the crew, it also provides a “break” in the monotony of “Portsmouth – Gulf – Portsmouth – Gulf – Portsmouth – Gulf…..” and thus is in fact an aid to retention is some respects.
If we are so skint, why do we waste anything on the “war on drugs” ? Why not legalize and tax it ? If you don’t want to go down that route, then prioritize – what is more of an issue for the national security of the United Kingdom an its dependent territories – Jamaican drug runners, Pakistani Taliban, a nuclear armed Iran, etc ???
Waddi, You have to be able to conduct all possible tasks. At the moment we can with your proposals we cannot. The RN do not set the tasks that we have to achieve HMG do that. At the moment we have a certain number of standing tasks and also we have to retain the capability to generate a force capable of backing up HMG policy in a war time situation. This may be by deployment of an ARG or in the future strike Ops from a CBG.
This capability has to be capable of deploying whilst supporting itself and protecting itself in all 3 threat environments. This requires a certain number and type of assets.
We have to do this within certain budgetary constraints. So we look at the manner in which we can achieve HMG directed tasking and also be able to provide the required force levels if the balloon goes up and plan accordingly.
this may mean that in your opinion certain ship types are used inappropriately, well it is either that or we tell HMG that we can no longer provide a suitable force to back up her policy in a war time situation
What the USN are doing is looking at a changing Geo Political situation at a time where they are also seeing their OHPs going out of service and a drop off in availability of CVN assets.
To this end they can no longer guarantee a CVN for Ops with 6th Fleet in the Med so they are sending an extra 4 DDGs as a back up to European forces. Other assets are being transferred to the pacific theatre.
@ Jed so lets spend £1bn on an AAW Destroyer designed to knock missiles out of the sky and send it on jollies around the world to keep the crew happy and stop them getting bored…that’s bollocks.
@ APATS
I agree with you because that’s exactly what I am trying to say.
@ APATS
“this may mean that in your opinion certain ship types are used inappropriately, well it is either that or we tell HMG that we can no longer provide a suitable force to back up her policy in a war time situation”
This is exactly what I was trying to say.
Waddi I can imagine the conversation now.
1Sl to DEF SEC Have decided that actually the RN force mix is wrong old boy.
D to 1 What do you mean?
1 to D Well using Air defence destroyers in the South Atlantic or Frigates off Somalia is inappropriate. So we are going to get rid of 6 escorts and build 8 corvettes for these tasks. much more appropriate for the job.
D to 1 What about escorting an ARG group?
1 to D Well we cannot guarantee doing that anymore but it is better than this continued inappropriate use of resources!
D to 1 Did you think this up all on your own?
1 to d Well I spoke to this guy Waddi.
D to 1 You are fired!
Waddi, No let’s send it to Africa and the South Atlantic where it has done incredible defence diplomacy work. Exercised with the SA navy and shown presence in the vicinity of the FI. Let’s send another on to the Gulf to help provide AAW and force marshalling in support of US assets and also send a message to the Iranians.
APATS
A. We should have enough Frigates and Destroyers to do war fighting and that is what they should do and be trained to do.
B. We should have enough Patrol Vessels/Corvettes to “Police” the Falklands/Windies etc.
If we have too many of A then that is wrong. If we don’t have enough of A then that is also wrong. However, it is also wrong to justify building new A to do B tasks.
As I say I have no idea whether 6 + 13 is the right number may even be too little I don’t know. But what I am saying is to justify having excess A to do B is also wrong.
Waddi, We only have enough of A to just about do war fighting if required. Therefore we cannot have any B and are forced to use A to do B tasks occasionally as B can never do an A task in war.
We are not building more A, we are replacing what we have now.
We now have 46% less A types than we had in 1998! Yes we have lost almost half our escort fleet since the 1998 Defence Review!
APATS
British taxpayer to 1st sea lord
:- What you got
1sl to Bt:- We got a handfull of hardest ships in the world, can herd elephants anywhere west of Suez that isn’t too hard.
BT to 1sl:- Fine can we keep one in the Falkland to keep the Argies in their box?
1sl to BT :- no can’t spare on from the training rosta, the seas a bit rough down there, it n=might damage it.
BT to 1sl: – Can we send one to the coast of Sryia to pick up British citizens?
1sl to BT :- No can’t spare one from the training Rosta, and its very risky the Syrians have lots of nasty weapons.
Bt to 1sl :- Piracy is becoming an issue of west Africa can we send one?
1sl to BT :- Well you could send one but can’t spare one from the training Rosta
BT to 1sl :- can we send one to the Windies to help keep the flow of drugs in the US and Uk to below farcical level.
1sl to BT :- No can’t spare one from the training Rosta
BT (through gritted teeth) to 1sl :- So its realy good at protecting the Elephants, and top notch at anti sub work?
1sl to BT :- Yea it’s totaly brilliant its got type xxxx sonar and type zzzzz radar, gas turbines etc etc and the spams think we’re terrif, and when the next big war kicks off we have the kit- of course we will need huge supplies pf missiles which we will have to magicaly find when it happens, as many of the ships don’t carry a full weapons/sensor load, but it’s still brillient an it fast an pointy and realy cool …….
BT to 1sl yes but can I use it to actually help right now sort out some of the problems we have and are facing… After all they are all very expensive…
1sl: well if you must is suppose you could have one. after all they can carry some useful kit and some marines.
BT:- oh good at least we can use them sometimes
1sl:- Oh alright but we must not stop the anti sub armaghedon training.
BT:- You are taking the piss mate…..
Ixion, considering that we have kept a T23 and a 45 E of Suez for the last 9 months. We have an FF/DD presence in the South Atlantic and we utilise either an FF or an RFA in the west Indies I am not certain what you are trying to get at.
Every single task you illustrate is covered by the current force. As for picking up civilians we did not exactly shy away in either Beirut or Libya.
The fact is that we manage to cover our required peace time tasking with FF.DD and RFA hulls whilst retaining a war fighting capability!
Here’s a question then, could the RN (and the RAF for that matter) have a tiered readiness model like Army 2020 and Whole Fleet Management of the equipment.
Remember, planning assumptions are pretty explicit about scale and timescales
@TD
If I understand it mean the same in the army as it does for the RAF then yes ‘Whole Fleet Management of the equipment’ happens now. Aircraft are put where they needs to be by fleet planners, for example there are no Marham/Lossie a/c or spares just equipment to be sent to where it is needed. Pretty much the same for all bits of equipment now. As to the tiered readiness model I’ll have to do a bit of reading I don’t know much about it.
The Army has been working bloody hard in the last 20 years but by 2020 they will have “hopefully” reached a deployment pattern that allows this readiness model. They will have approximately 30 Infantry battalions by then.
The RN will have 19 escorts. These will be supported by 1LPD/3 Bays/2 forts/4 MARS (hopefully) and we may have the first CVF.
Out of this eclectic mix we would like to.
1. Have a unit on call in the UK as FRE.
2. Have a seperate asset ready as duty TAPS.
3. Have an FF/DD 365/24/7 as ATP(S)
4. Have a suitable hull deployed 365/24/7 as ATP(N)
5. Keep 2 FF/DD assets 365/24/7 E of Suez.
6. Support PWO/Navigation and Aviation training in UK waters as required.
7. Maintain the assets required for the RFTG.
8. Contribute to NATO standing task groups.
9. Participate in UK and Multi national exercises.
Underlining all this are the Ships maintenance and training cycles. Time required to reach station and return.
We also need to be roll all this up into a proper TG in a multi threat environment if required.
Going into the nuts and bolts, innovative manning solutions, forward basing, 2 crew manning etc would be an entire post on its own. I think however I have illustrated that in order to achieve as much of our peace time loading as we can whilst retaining the readiness for Ops requires us to run a lot of the Fleet a lot of the time
.