I want to borrow the catch line of the Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR) web site and make some “modest proposals” about maritime security operations, in the context of the SDSR and reducing budgets.
There are many suggestions in the comments placed on other articles on this site that run along the lines that UK (in the form of the Royal Navy) cannot afford “gold plated” warships, so it needs many, smaller cheaper vessels and that to remain relevant in the modern world, it needs to focus the use of these smaller vessels on missions such as “fighting piracy” – my pilot response to most of these suggestions in not printable!
Let me provide some background reading before going any further.
If you don’t know the Eagle Speak blog, its author, Eagle 1 (an ex-USNR Captain) does an excellent job of tracking piracy, and has been doing for a long time before Somalia become the media’s focus
Eagle 1 works with CDR Salamander (another active blogger) to produce the “Midrats” naval podcast over BlogTalk Radio; they recently interviewed Mr Stephen Carmel, a Senior Vice President with Maersk USA. It is an excellent interview even though it has an obvious US centric view of piracy, commerce and shipbuilding.
Mr Carmel also recently gave a speech at a USNI conference where he suggested that piracy is simply not that big an issue from the commercial viewpoint; you can read the transcript here
As Mr Carmel points out, Navies may have long histories in fighting piracy, and other crime upon the high seas, but the operative word here is history. Piracy is not a military threat, to the UK or any other nation for that matter. Piracy is a law and order issue; do we call in the local TA battalion to deal with armed robbers or potential armed siege situations? No of course not, we call on appropriately trained and armed police – a civilian agency.
So I would like to examine a few points, and make a few of those modest suggestions, but lets start with the contentious stuff:
- The role of the Royal Navy is war fighting, military operations, not global maritime policeman
- BUT having said that, people who constantly moan about using T45’s (for example) for anti-piracy or anti-drug ops are missing the point: if we have such assets why not use them ? Would you rather they just sit alongside doing nothing at all?
- Building on point 2 – warships can do maritime policing, but generally speaking maritime policemen (coastguard type OPV’s for example) are not much use in war fighting
- The SDSR is actually divesting of assets that are very useful in maritime security type operations – more on this below.
Lets work this backwards a bit first, to get the modest suggestion for the RN out of the way. If we do not accept that just letting commercial market forces (the maritime and insurance industries) deal with piracy is sufficient, and that for moral reasons we should intervene, then we should use the assets we already have to accomplish the mission.
So instead of mothballing one of the Albion class assault ships, we should make a modest investment in CB90 type vessels which can operate from the well deck on anti-piracy patrols. Now I accept the Albion Class are less than perfect, not having a hanger for their own helo, but perhaps we could attach a Bay Class style temporary shelter for a Lynx. However the main point is, a CB90 with its mix of range, endurance, speed and payload, its own radar, and even a cabin roof RWS with a 12.7mm MG is excellent small vessel for anti-piracy patrols closer into shore, with much cheaper operating costs than a Merlin HM1.
A previous TD article on the CB90 is here
Obviously the same combination would be quite good for anti-drug use in the Caribbean or anti-people smuggling in the Mediterranean. In the “West Indies Guards Ship” role, which has already been undertaken by the smaller Bay Class, the ability to carry large amounts of disaster relief supplies and equipment during hurricane season is an added boon!
Maritime Security Operations – Fleet versus Flotilla
OK, so now its time for that rather modest proposal I mentioned…………
If piracy, drug running and people smuggling are not a direct military threat to the UK, but a civilian ‘security’ issue, then perhaps we should leave it to the Coast Guard? No, seriously, stop laughing….!
I know the UK Maritime and Coast Guard Agency is not exactly built on the same model as the US Coast Guard for example, and is not setup for such missions, but we have a successful model, which can be adopted: the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.
While writing this article, I seem unable to get to the main RFA site, which might have something to do with the recent hack, so for those who don’t know a great deal about the RFA, check out the Wikipedia page
The RFA might be described as a “para-military” organization. They are the supporting element of the maritime armed forces, what in the days of sail used to be termed the Flottilla, as opposed to the Fleet(s) of combatant vessels. The RFA is manned by civilian merchant mariners and supply specialists. The RFA has for many years been a model other countries have envied, and personally I have spent 9 months working as part of the Naval Party onboard RFA Diligence and have a very high opinion of their professionalism, particularly the bridge ‘watch keeping’ officers I worked with.
So why not use the RFA model to undertake ‘coast guard type’ maritime security operations, both in UK waters, and further abroad?
Currently the RN operates 3 River Class patrol vessels, and there is a current opportunity to purchase 3 Port of Spain class vessels built for Trinidad and Tobago
FantasyFleets has made a similar suggestion
The difference is I am suggesting these vessels be sailed under the Blue Ensign as part of the RFA, either ‘straight up’ as part of the Flotilla, or on behalf of the Maritime and Coast Guard Agency – personally I don’t care if they are grey, white, blue or whether or not they have ‘go faster’ stripes.
The existing Rivers should be transferred to the RFA and manned and operated in the same way. In UK waters Fisheries officers could be carried, and Customers officers in the same way. In the Caribbean or off Somalia I would suggest the boarding parties should be made up of Royal Marines
Using the RFA to provide this capability is only part of the response to a dwindling MoD budget though. The other element would be to take the Italian approach to funding; these maritime security ops could be financed in part by MCGA, Revenue and Customs, DfID etc not just from the MoD budget. If we accept that this is not a ‘war fighting’ role, why should they be funded by the MoD at all ?
Bigger is better
However, why stop there ? As I have suggested, I am not a big fan of smaller less flexible vessels, so lets go to the other extreme and examine the use of really big RFA’s for these maritime security operations.
As the RN surface fleet has shrunk, RFA tankers and the auxiliary landing ships of the Bay Class have been used on the ‘Windies Guard Ship’ and other duties. While some have questioned the veracity of using a tanker to do anti-drug runner ops’ I say “so what?” – it’s a flexible asset, use it for whatever you can J
TD’s pre-SDSR article on ‘At Sea Replenishment’ mentions the Dutch Joint Support Ship design
In my complimentary article, I suggested we should join the JSS program and buy at least 4 of these large and flexible vessels to replace all 4 RFA Fort Class vessels
In fact in the comments (some where) I went further than this, based on TD’s relentless pursuit of educating us all to be experts in ISO Container based logistics, to suggest that perhaps another 2 could replace RFA Argus and RFA Diligence, and again following the Italian model, a 7th of class could be purchased purely for disaster response operations – paid for by DfID of course !
Now I realize these vessels are not that cheap (although relatively speaking they are certainly not that expensive either – c. 360 million Euro so 305 million GBP) but beating TD’s drum of standardization the benefits of having a large class of identical vessels (which would also reduce this unit price) would be great.
But what does all this have to do with anti-piracy or other maritime security operations?
Well many graphics of the JSS design show a LCVP type vessel on davits, port and starboard aft – if these were to be replaced by CB90’s we are back to my earliers suggestion of using Albion Class, we are talking about ‘mother ships’ – but in this case RFA vessels that have a big hanger to carry their own helicopters, two CB90’s on davits (plus RHIB’s of course) and even enough room on the cargo deck to build a containerized brig for your captured pirates.
So a single class of vessel which can act as tanker, dry stores support, helo training, support and transport, repair ship (remember the TD article about containerized workshops?) AND as a maritime security operations mother ship !
So whether you like big multi-role, or if your in the “lots of smaller hulls” school of thought, what do you think about giving this expanded role to the RFA ?
I’ve seen such overreactions to piracy as well, there are many such voices. It’s really ridiculous, as if logic was thrown overboard entirely.
The commercial shipping businesses are barely annoyed enough to invest in some civilian security personnel, but navies are supposed to rebuild themselves to counter “pirates”.
The operating cost argument against big ships is badly flawed, too. It considers sunk costs (the business as usual costs of the big ships), although these are by definition irrelevant for a decision.
Btw, one often-made mistake is assuming that small is beautiful against pirates; it isn’t. Helicopters have proved to be indispensable as quick reaction forces. They need not only a landing pad, but also a hangar. The very minimum against pirates is therefore a small frigate, approx. Leander size.
The naval approach is (obviously) a stupid approach, though. We should have gone to the roots; the well-known and few coastal towns from which the pirates originate.
It wouldn’t hurt to chase away illegal foreign fishermen who ruin the Somalian coastal fishing grounds, though.
article point 2, if you’ve got it use it.
Even if you have an f430, you might still use your diesel polo to get to work everyday.
Keeping a carrier group at 30 days to deploy should be a damned site cheaper than deploying it here there and everywhere.
If you deploy a t45 to somalia, you need to buy another to act as the ready fleet escort.
Re piracy.
Piracey was always dealt with by the armed forces when local police refused.
The barbary pirates were reigned in when a multi national task force fired 100,000 cannonballs at their port.
If you want to deal with pirates, reactivate an ohio and fire underway on all those nice new mansions.
Sven
the legal problems with arming shipboard staff are extreme.
US yachts can and do have mounts for .50 cals and staff kitted out in full body armour, try that off the french coast and they’ll probably sink you, sail up the thames and its jail time.
The security force on board most ships Im aware of is ex british para, they’d love to be armed, but laws intrude.
To paraphrase from Defence Management.com
Contracting for availability
“River class are leased to the Ministry of Defence for five years. supported and maintained through Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) – an innovative concept pioneered in the maritime environment by VT and the MOD.”
“Under the CLS agreement, the MOD pays a daily rate based on the achievement of the agreed level of availability. For the River Class OPVs, the company guarantees 960 days’ availability per annum across the fleet to the RN. In a very successful first full year of operation, the three River Class OPVs achieved 97.5% availability” The two Echo Class Survey Ships are also procured under a similar but longer 25 year CLS agreement. Perhaps applying this practise would enable further vessels such as the Port of Spain class to be utilized, after all BAE systems who took over VT the original owners of the River Class probably now own the Port of Spain class?
OK shirt sleaves rolled up, eyes down!
1 ‘The role of the RN is not global maritime policeman’.
It suppressed priracy in the 19th century,
It suppressed the slave trade.
History maybe, but a bold man to say ‘oh we won’t need to do that again’. When we obviously are doing it right now(and might I add using it to ‘big up the navy’ to the public and politicos.
Piracy may be a commercial problem, but that commercial problem costs the economy a fortune, it is in effect an illegal tax on goods sent by sea. Currently the pirates seem to be nice ‘cuddly’ types who aren’t that mutch into rape, murder torture etc. That has not always been the case. Also what happens when one of these idiots crashes a supertanker full of crude, or hazardous chemicals into a reef of the west coast of Africa?
Consider the links between organised crime smuggling people drugs and guns etc, and piracy and terrorism. Anti piracy is the same kind of opperation as anti terror. The one thing I aggree wtih the SDR about is the current primacy of the threat to this country from non state actors.
2. Running T45′s etc in that role is ridiculously expensive. it is like using a Typhon to chase toe rags in stolen Ford Orions up the A1. It increases their annual costs, wears them out, and puts a strain on the logistics, (Underway replenishment etc). You are forcing square peg into round hole.
3. The uselessnes of patrol ships in a shooting war.
Is this not shot down by your own conclusion about vessel types needed (with which I agree). The vessels proposed by me and others some Bay type derivative/ conversion, will have utillity to combat navy as Amphib support, Underway replenishment, the perfect base for special forces insertion, etc. They would also be the perfect ships to provide flank cover agains swarm attacks from minor state navies. Also should make good anti submarine carriers when required (back to earlier posts).
4. Getting rid of suitable vessels.
I agree but I think its getting rid of vessels that could be used for this job, but much better vessels could be designed/ relativly cheaply purchased.
Generaly your post is politacally naive.
The RN should be doing this job.
I confidently predict if they did not the RN would finding it’s funding and recruitement drying up within a decade.
1) Politicos will see this going on and say ‘oh look the RFA/coast guard is protection our country against current threats, it needs more funds so thats commining out of your budget for ASub warfare”.
2) Can you just see the recruiting posters
‘Join the RFA/coastguard and fight, terrorism, priracy, in the exotic 4 corners of the world, defend the motherland, bring disaster relief to striken tsunami / earthquake victims, get your picture taken with Kate Aidie’s sucessors on the BBC”
‘Join the navy and feeze your b*lls off in the north atlantic dropping practice torpedos, on non exitent submarines, sit in Portsmoth polishing your missiles’
I know which one I and my kids would want to join.
In Canada the navy is having a turf war with the coastguard for almost exactly these reasons, the cash there is, is going on protecting territorial integrity in the arctic, The navy is tryin to get its hands on the icebreakers and patrol ships proposed,(activities it positvly pooh pooh’ed in the 80′s). EXACTLY because it can see which way the wind is blowing.
I’ve supported and embraced the ISO-container case from the first day the Danes began to introduce STANFLEX.
But modularization reveals a major flaw in the big-is-better-case. If modularization is accomplished, it simply doesn’t matter, what type ship or which size of ship you are putting those modules on.
The Windies-guardship f.e. should be a small, 700ts-patrol boat or even an converted LCU (or better: both), based on the Caymans, manned by locals. The French are acting like this, apart from a prepositioned Floreal, they have those unshiny BATRALs.
Piracy in Somalia can only be solved by crushing the local militias. Maybe it’s time to diplomatically support Ethiopia?
Can I just add in UK waters this work could and should be done by the navy, likewise air see rescue. The coastguard should be taken over by the RN. the coast guard role will increase in importance over the next decade, it will suck funds form the RN if the RN let it.
This is high public profile stuff, and could be done by an RN auxill’y of territorial/reserve types.
The type of ships should be commercial rig supply vessels that should also do the mine warfare bit.
About legal problems: It was and most likely still is customary maritime law that civilian ships can be armed with 57mm cannons (at most).
To tell the legal professionals to be less stupid is a lot less troublesome and costly than to build several coast guard cutters.
Jed
Nice to see CASR are back on the intertubes, it was one of my favourite sites.
It is a bit of a dirty secret but the UK is doing rather nicely out of piracy thank you very much, maritime insurance is largely located in London so even a modest uplift in premiums comes back to us in cash terms.
As to the central part of the question, is piracy intediction (or drugs in the windies for that matter) a naval role?
I am torn on this one to be honest, it is clearly a ‘law’ rather than combat issue so coastguards, law enforcement and even overseas development should be taking the lead role but the counter argument is that in the absence of any other threat, why not?
I like your proposal, it makes a lot of sense. Parallel to this I have been working on a piece on the lack of innovation of late coming out of the RN and this exactly the kind of thing we should be doing,or at least experimenting with
excellent article Admin,
particularly the suggestion of having a flottila of River class derivatives within the RFA available for Coastguard/piracy ops and paid for via the relevant agency.
A maritime version of my peacekeeping paramilitary article perhaps:
http://jedibeeftrix.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/warfighting-and-peacekeeping-%E2%80%93-an-idea-for-hagues-joined-up-foreign-policy/
I also like the JSS idea, similar in concept to the “Son-of-Bay” littoral control ship proposed some years back at warship1.
As much as I like to bask in the glory of others, it was Jed’s content
brigs for captured prisoners, well it would have to comply with “hooman rights” therefore equipped with tv,playstation and coffee maker. Plus it would have to include a desk so they could write out their asylum applications, something they can do to the nation that captures them.
typhoons to chase joyriders? secretly i like that!!
paul g
Chasing toe raggs up A1 in a typhoon.
I like the idea too, but not exactly cost effective.
All in all I agree with Jed’s posts conclusion re shipping, but they should be under RN Duty
Anti-piracy, anti-drug, and blockades are on the job training. Better a first rate does this in a time of peace than OPV been used to fight a real war.
The limitation is the software not the hardware; that is to say the ROE are too pirate friendly.
Ah, cheers for the correction Admin, ought to pay more attention to the author.
Congrats Jed, good article.
Hello all
Due to the time difference I am only just getting my carcass out of bed on a sunday morning, so you have made a lot of comments to respond to. I can see my ideas are not universally supported – which is good, the whole point is to generate conversation
However as I do live in Canada, I have to respond to Ixion ref:
“in Canada the navy is having a turf war with the coastguard for almost exactly these reasons, the cash there is, is going on protecting territorial integrity in the arctic, The navy is tryin to get its hands on the icebreakers and patrol ships proposed,(activities it positvely pooh pooh’ed in the 80′s)”
There is no turf war, per se, in fact its a bit of the opposite, neither service is keen on taking on these ships. Its a political argument. The Canadian Coast Guard is not a para-military organization like the US Coast Guard and it really does not want to run armed ships, or take on the associated ‘security’ type roles. They are often decried on Canadian forums as a buoy servicing organisation who don’t really even want to do SAR ! The navy on the other hand is not keen on patrolling or protecting our longest coast line (the arctic) they are much happier in frigates and destroyers out the broad ranges of the Atlantic and Pacific.
Now because I live in the Canada with access to beautiful parks on my door step, the wife wants to get out and visit one of them, so more comments in response to your comments later…….
JED
I stand corrected re Canada, it was not how it was reported to me.
Sven
lets say we arm crews on ships, and lets say they gun down a pirate, and lets say that a german port.
Now lets say its off the somali coast?
See the problem?
When we say ‘arm guards’, we mean, ‘shoot darkies and no one will bat an eye lid’.
Theres no somali court to handle it, are german courts going to try a russian crew captain, for a crime in somali waters aboard an indian flagged vessel owned by an american corporation?
Im ok with turning a blind eye for convenience, is everyone else?
Ixion – no worries dude, did not mean to sound all high and mighty or anything, just that we get the full on TV news media coverage of this kind of thing – and by the way, our politicians sometimes make the UK’s look good !
Do you notice how I keep using “our” when I am not actually a Canadian citizen…….
JED
No worries!
If I’m going to pontificate is suppose I should double source. like a good journo.
I stand by my arguement though, that the cash (such as it is), will be more plentifully available for Anti terror/drugs smuggling/ piracy work, rather than Anti sub (for eg).
We see this in my areaof work, with Police Community Support officers, Plastic bobbies as they are known up north. They are actually requiring police officers to resign now, as PCSO’s are cheaper.
The RN would be really daft to avoid useful ‘peactime’ work of the kind, that looks good in the papers/ on telly (all politicos care about.
How about RN auxiller’y made up of retired RN Being paid civilian RFA rates;
flying ASR choppers,
running traffic control in channel,
running fishery protection patrols
Surveying
Mine warfare etc.
Anti polution
Border patrol
Customs etc
Coordinating civilian contractors in UK waters.
Doing all RFA jobs as well.
It might also be used as part of basic training of RN ratings with excess RN personnel being asssigned as well. (perhaps some of our many admirals)!
Ixion,
The Coastguard and the Navy should not be confused. The former is under the purview of the Home Office, the latter operates under the Foreign Office. The Navy is primarily an instrument of foreign policy not home policy and the two should not thus be confused. Same reason why sailors shouldn’t be firemen and the Army shouldn’t be patrolling the streets to beef up the police force. Using the military for Home Office tasking should be a matter of last resort.
All,
I agree there is a case for improving the secondary capabilities of our RFA’s, but I bring in the legal argument again. Whatever we decide to do to our naval auxiliaries, we must make sure we fully exploit the RFA’s unique legal position to maximise their effectiveness without compromising their status i.e. they are technically naval auxiliaries and can stand in for warships on occasion, but are civilian manned and thus will often be considered as less inflammatory than a warship might otherwise be.
Remember, the RN and RFA do not do counter drug operations in the Caribbean; instead they support US counter drug operations. No arrests are made by UK personnel; it’s all done by and at the bequest of the US Law Enforcement Detachment (LEDET) teams.
The Coastguard is a government agency under the Ministry of Transport and not a responsibility of the Home Office. The Royal Navy belongs to the Ministry of Defence.
The thought of the F&CO having control of an armed service is too frightening to contemplate.
SOMEWHAT REMOVED
The Navies job is to, do train and equip, to do, what it is told to do by the elected govt of UK. If govt decides that a chunk of the navy should do anti piracy etc then it does anti piracy. I repeat I have seen this sort of thing happen, the de-skilling of areas where auxilleries and 2nd rank types grow and grow. If it means some cash for RN,doing that role from other departments then great.
Try this for about 5 years time if the RFA coastguard force gets expanded.
‘We have a CBG we only need 4 type 45′s in commission we can mothball the other 2, We only need enough anti sub frigates to cover the north sea now we can mothball the rest, look at all the good work done by the RFA for our current security needs;- we can tranfer the saved funds (plus a small slice for the treasury’. Bet the mortgage money that’s what happens.
Look at what is happening to RAF.
I like the ships proposed etc but they should be RN. If you create a coast guard /RFA as a sepperate force, it will quickly suck the Navy dry of personel and rescources, because it will be seen as (and indeed may even be), more relevent to our current security needs.
I know I can’t convince the;-
‘RN should be survaying the broad blue oceans, looking for Her Majesty’s enemies, to come steaming over the horizon in proper warships. Not chasing oiks and psychos in speedboats. That’s a job for some sort of waterborn policeman’.
Types, so I will stop trying.
“The thought of the F&CO having control of an armed service is too frightening to contemplate.”
Well it already has control over the Secret Intelligence Service or as most people like to call it MI6.
Generally the FCO from what I know rather much takes the position that we should stay out of other countries internal and external affairs as it’s none of our business. They tend to get rather upset when the Muppets/politicians elsewhere go pissing in the pool undoing the careful work and plans of diplomats.
Anyhow nice post as always Jed:)
@ IXION
I would have a look at the Norwegian Coastguard which was set up as recently as 1977.
And you do know that the UK Border Agency operates the 4 former HMRC cutters?
Actually I think your idea has some merit.
How about operating the Nimrod and ASR fleet under some version of a CLS agreement, perhaps civilian-crewed with a reserve obligation in emergency?
Hey guys – thanks for all the comments, hope you all had a nice sunday, here are some responses:
@Dom 09.03 “Piracey was always dealt with by the armed forces when local police refused.” – yep, maybe, but we don’t need to be wed to history, and in the case of Somali for example, there is no local “police” to deal with to start with, but as others have noted, a political solution for Somalia as a “failed state” is what is actually required.
@Rodney 09.12 Yes, although I did not specifically mention it, one would hope that BVT would do a River style wet lease for the 3 Port of Spain class.
@Ixion 11.09 “Piracy may be a commercial problem, but that commercial problem costs the economy a fortune, it is in effect an illegal tax on goods sent by sea” – well apparently if you Google it, this does not appear to be true. See also the comments by the gentlemen from Maersk, piracy is not currently costing the economy a fortune at all. Also there is a no current link to Somali (or any other piracy) and non-state actor terror groups, so anti-piracy is certainly no synonymous with anti-terror ops. I am not saying it does not have the capacity to go there, but right now they are very different things.
Also ref the “uselessness of patrol ships in a shooting war” – you agree with me that Amphibs have secondary role in MSO ops, but these are not what I meant by patrol ships, I mean River / Port of Spain type OPV’s.
Yes running a T45 around the coast of Somalia is not a good use of that type of vessel, and it is not at all cost effective BUT you can use a major warships for MSO if you want / need to. It does not work the other way round.
Ixion @11.27 “Can I just add in UK waters this work could and should be done by the navy, likewise air see rescue.” Why ???
“ The coastguard should be taken over by the RN. the coast guard role will increase in importance over the next decade, it will suck funds form the RN if the RN let it.”
Well based on the incompetence of our duly elected officials there might be an ounce of truth in this, BUT the RN can’t let or not let funds go elsewhere, it has no choice in the matter, either the government funds it, or it doesn’t, the Admirals do not actually have a say in the matter, other than providing advice through the official channels to the NSC. So, I hear you, but I think this is an emotive argument.
@X 1.52 “Anti-piracy, anti-drug, and blockades are on the job training. Better a first rate does this in a time of peace than OPV been used to fight a real war”
Exactly ! Good point well made sir ……..
@ Ixion 6.13 “How about RN auxiller’y made up of retired RN Being paid civilian RFA rates;” – well I hear you ref PCSO’s (I have also worked in the UK criminal justice system) I don’t think this would work very well in practice.
@Somewhat Removed 8.26 “Remember, the RN and RFA do not do counter drug operations in the Caribbean; instead they support US counter drug operations. No arrests are made by UK personnel; it’s all done by and at the bequest of the US Law Enforcement Detachment (LEDET) teams.”
Not entirely sure this is accurate. Yes we normally carry LEDET teams, or police from other Caribbean nations, but I have been onboard a destroyer, taken off tasking and sent out to intercept arms runners (small arms for the IRA). I think there are still various clauses in UN conventions (“the law of the high seas” if you like) so that you can detain and hand over to civilian law enforcement later. This must be the kind of thing which allows us to machine gun and sink / blow up “pirates” boats – otherwise wouldn’t someone be arresting Jack for destruction of someone else’ property ?
Anyway, as I suggested, RFA manned “coast guard” vessels on MSO ops would carry the staff of the appropriate agency (for example the UK Border Agency X)
So to round up – I admit that Ixion’s level of paranoia about such a scheme actually harming RN funding is actually possible in the weird and screwed up world in which the UK resides, but then again, maybe it would not……… ☺
Cheers !
Bloody hell that is one tiny smiley needed to zoom in a bit from default to see it properly.
Jed,
Somewhat Removed post about our situation in the caribean is correct. LEDET teams do the boarding/arrests. Off the coast of Somalia warship teams do indeed do the boarding but arrested pirates are not dealt with by UK law. Wave Knight gave the pirates she captured to the Kenyans.
Your example is one of a direct threat to UK national security and where we will always act e.g. Sutherland and SBS takedown of the merchant ship in the English Channel 2001.
Jed said “a T45 around the coast of Somalia is not a good use of that type”
Um. But it is closer to the Gulf if the balloon goes up; better I think to fight into the Straights than fight out. Handy for a trip across to Malac if needed. I think what I am saying is that perhaps we need a first rater more there than we do chasing around the Caribbean. Or perhaps just as much. Really what we all saying in our own way is the navy is important because of it strategic reach and high endurance.
anon,
Correct – the Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not directly control the Armed Services, but perhaps I should be more specific in my comments. The Armed Services are an instrument of Britain’s foreign policy. Foreign policy is decided by the F&CO. Thus if the UK government decides to deploy military force to achieve it’s foreign policy, it is on the recommendation of the F&CO and under the agreement of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. You don’t think the MOD decides its own foreign policy, do you? That is a frightening thought…
Jed, my contribution, if I may?
When we refer to the RN or RFA taking over coastguard duties, which duties are we referring to? There are three distinct agencies operating in UK territorial waters, each distinct from the other and necessarily so.
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) is the agency responsible for implementing the Government’s maritime safety policy. That includes co-ordinating search and rescue at sea through Her Majesty’s Coastguard, checking that ships meet UK and international safety rules and preventing coastal pollution. They have the four Emergency Towing Vessels (the Anglians) but they were axed under the SDSR.
Counter terrorism, counter drugs and counter piracy in UK waters is undertaken by the Police and Security Services. They may have support from the 5 UK Border Agency cutters, or their own inshore patrol craft and heavy RHIBs, but they are hugely dependent upon intelligence for their operations and shore-based assets. And the UK Border Agency is responsible for all border controls, including customs and excise duties. Any long ranged surveillance for potential drug runners or immigrants MAY be conducted by the RN or RAF but at a significant cost to the agency requesting the tasking; the cost of a Nimrod running surveillance was well into the thousands of pounds per hour. This is also right – the military should not have a role in conducting Home Office business unless the homeland is threatened by foreign powers (note foreign powers and not terrorism. The distinction might be fine for some, but unless you can prove state sponsored terrorism it is a Police matter).
So if the RN or RFA take over any aspect of these three agencies then you are tying up expensive assets which should be operating abroad and not at home. Should all future warships be designed to conduct maritime pollution control duties? Should we relieve the UKBA and start checking passports on yachts sailing across the Channel? No – these are not military matters.
If anything, the Navy and its auxiliaries should stay well out of these matters and the support for the Home Office agencies should be increased, whilst simultaneously banging their heads together. I am personally aghast at the decision to axe the four Emergency Towing Vessels (and, off the topic, the review and likely cancellation of the Maritime Incident Response Group). The Coastguard now has only RHIB’s and helicopters to its name, so you have just 5 UKBA cutters conducting routine patrols for customs duties alone. There appears to be a lack of jointery among the Home Office agencies, so perhaps some efforts should be directed here to support this. The three Port of Spain class vessels might be useful replacements/supplements to the UKBA fleet; combined with a closer cooperation between the Police and the UKBA we could see a better organised and probably more effective maritime security presence in UK waters. BUT, no matter how close in appearance these might be to some aspects of the Royal Navy, they are not, and should not be, military.
So, IMHO the case emerges for a US-style Coast Guard proper. Admittedly they are formally a branch of the US Armed Services, but they conduct all the roles of the MCA, the Police and the UK Border Agency in one, plus DEFRA’s fishery protection duties. They do indeed have a unique legal status so perhaps we should look to ape this. Take the River class OPV’s, the UKBA cutters, all MCA and Police inshore and offshore maritime assets, maybe the Port of Spains, certainly retain the Anglians, and combine under the banner of Her Majesty’s Coastguard. Charge them with the maritime law enforcement mission, give them jurisdiction in territorial waters and the exclusive economic zone, and have them act as an independent agency but tasked by the Home Office for all matters of homeland security, economic security and marine safety. If necessary, look to force these agencies to work together – chances are we’d make a saving as well.
A stretch too far?
@ Somewhat Removed
I think you are playing with semantics because you didn’t check your facts.
SR
Whilst I agree with your proposals per se I must disagree with your stance on terrorism being a Police Matter. The police simply do not have the capability to deal with a 911 type scenario. A hijacked airliner being flown towards a major UK target would have to be dealt with by the RAF. Also a similar maritime threat e.g Sutherland 2000 is a crucial part of the FRE duties. An Iranian embassy type siege will have to be dealt with by SF as CO19 do not have the ability to do explosive entry. We do not have in the UK the clearly defined line which makes it “in theory” illegal for US forces to operate in a policing style role within their borders. Part of this is that we do not have the capabilities outside of the armed forces that the US have in their Coastguard, National Guard, Air National Guard and FBI HRT. Until we have those sorts of capabilities provided ouwith the armed forces they will continue to provide a vital counter terrorist(of any variety) capability.
Fair point APATS!
Somewhat Removed – I have no problem at all with forming a ‘proper’ para-military Coast Guard with an appropriate legal status, and as you suggest, in the end it might actually save some money through efficiency of operation.
However I guess my modest proposal of RFA manned Port of Spain class was more aimed at Somali piracy, if we accept that we have a moral obligation to act (see all the media coverage of the two recently released hostages) versus a lack of commercial / national security imperative to do anything; I was not really thinking about UK waters all that much.
SR: 14/11-8:26 + anon 14/11-9:22
Indeed SIS is part of the FCO, as the Security Service is part of the HO. But only since 1994 and 1989 respectively. Before that they were responsible only to the PM and operated under a series of Warrants that were granted “roughly” at the pleasure of the Monarch.
Anyway, to my main point. I like Jeds idea of dedicated assets for anti drug and piracy patrols, such units could raise the profile of the Navy in a way that answered criticisms raised in the TD “Why things don’t happen-RN underfunding” post. The problem is, who to control it.
The problem with creating a “maritime police force” either a Coast Guard or RFA, is that police forces need to rule of law to work under, and have clearly defined geographical juristiction. Outside of UK territorial waters there is precious liitle law, and any UK vessels will be way beyond their juristicion. Add to that, the syphoning of funds away from the RN proper, and it could be the start of a slippery slope.
The other end of the scale is to put such assets under the RN directly, possibly forming a distinct command within the existing force structure. This would have the benefits of allowing RNR/RNVR officers and “surplus” RN personel to crew the boats. But it would be more difficult to find cross-departmental funding (esp from DfID and FCO), as they would be essentially be propping up the MoD. Also, unless such funding is ring-fenced, what is to stop the MoD to use the funds for more “high-end” grey boats, after all they can act as OPV’s too.
Which brings us back to Jed’s original idea, putting these assets under the RFA. After all the RFA are controlled by the MoD, but the crews are a mixture of civillian (actually civil servants) and RN/RNR, such a plan could work, but needs to prove independence from the RN “proper” to stop mission creep stealing away all the RFA assets – after all the RFA only became an essential service during WWII, even though it was founded in 1905. The independance as a service arm, would help with gaining access to territorial waters in pursuit of the anti-piracy mission, and in gaining cross-departmental funding. But it’s a bit of a tightrope, and I’m not confident about the MoD’s sense of balance!
DD
I have always been a big fan of the US coast guard, and a single multi role organistation to do uk coastguarding would make much sense.
Likewise RFA doing the foreign bit in big multi function vessels(I dont think Jed is wrong about the mission definition or the best vessels for it). Maybe the coastguard could swallow the RFA and be a single organization
But I remain convinced it (or they) should be under thr RN control and jurisdiction.
And fly the red ensign.
@IXION-10:43
Looking at my post, I think it was a rambling kind of way of agreeing with Jed, just pointing out some of the “human error” pitfalls of such a project.
Coastguards tend to ber limited to territorial waters in their juristiction though, maybe calling it something else would have more political capital.
Just a thought; putting the force at the disposal of the UN (when it isn’t doing work for HMG), would be positive PR and gain more political capital in the process. It could even enhance our standing in the world, knowing that our “supra-national” maritime police force was working with arguably the only relevant legislature in the international domain.
TD
Basic question on this issue, when it comes to spec’ing a ship for the C3 role, even the possibility of a C4 role, what is the main driver:
Is it size or is it cost?
On the issue of the various needs for government departments for ships / boats / ferries would it not make sense for the RFA to spec and procure the ships and then rent them out to the relevant agencies?
Keep it simple, keep it consistent and keep the assets RN compatible if needed in the future, supporting the tail or emergency war-fighting?
The SEG Fishery vessels are my starting point.
@Dangerous Dave – ref: “Just a thought; putting the force at the disposal of the UN (when it isn’t doing work for HMG), would be positive PR and gain more political capital in the process. It could even enhance our standing in the world, knowing that our “supra-national” maritime police force was working with arguably the only relevant legislature in the international domain.” – yes all good stuff, using the cheaper RFA manned vessels for “soft power missions”, hence my preference for the “big ships” based on JSS type, you need 6 to replace current RFA, so you buy 7 or 8 so you always have one on standby for “International Rescue” type operations.
@FBOT – when it comes to spec’ing C3 I don’t see this as their role. River Class is fine for UK EEZ, but as I suggested for the broader ‘international’ MSO ops then use a big RFA. The C3 is for MCM, survey etc and can at a pinch be used for MSO ops, as can a T45 or a T26, with the caveat of course that C3 sized vessel would be cheaper (an maybe more cost effective).
There are a lot of workboats/supply boats being produced that would make good, cheap patrol vessels. A small turret mounting a 20mm in the front and a couple of .50 caliber Brownings pintle-mounted behind the wheelhouse and full aft would deter many a smuggler or pirate.
Dave said “crews are a mixture of civillian (actually civil servants) ”
It is surprising how many non-RFA, non-RN, bods there on board the larger RFAs…….
Jed
As noted earlier the RN has historically split into two different streams of endeavour, I see it as analogous with the situation in the police, the constabulary and the detective function.
We currently have an RN that is down to having a 1st XV of warfighters with an ever decreasing bench, detectives if you like and a make do and match fleet to do the naval equivalent of helping grannies across the road and patrolling the streets.
In today’s world the emphasis / workload is shifting from the detective function to the constabulary element and the RN must evolve and adapt to be relevant in this new global environment. Therefore I think we need more hulls in the water capable of oceanic deployments to keep the maritime peace rather than do no holds barred ASW in a WP – NA – Kitchen Sink engagement.
With this in mind I see the C3 role doing quite a lot in the future as the escort fleet reduces to 19 hulls.
My main question then stands is the C3 spec cost driven or size driven?
If size driven the question has to be why?
If cost driven then there is room for 6K tons of colonial sloop at 22knots, a £50mill price tag and a basic fit out.
The question of using large, flexible support vessels to carry out some of the constabulary tasks is a good one but it then becomes a case of whether or not these vessels are tasked primarily with these tasks or they are a secondary consideration? If they are secondary then it will be difficult to fund them in sufficent numbers to ensure they are always available.
Bay Class based – 15-20K tons @ 22knots = £100mill for the basic hull / systems.
Govan has the ship down to a fine art so a small batch should not have any problems.
You then could be looking at a figure in the region of £200mill for a vessel fully kitted out for a specific mission:
Replenishment / Aircraft support / Hospital Ship / Smallcraft support ship …
In this scenario the Colonial sloop then becomes a “force multiplier” doing the small jobs that the “Support Ship” is too big for or it acts as a consort to it, providing an escort in crowded litoral waters or an extra flightdeck so that the “Support Ship” / the UK’s aid effort can be in two places at once.
Next up would be a family of basic patrol vessels to be procured by the RFA and rented out to the vrious departments that need a presence at sea.
The SEG Fisheries protection squadron has a mix of large patrol vessels at 2K tons and inshore ones at 800 tons approx. Joined up government should mean that they are procured to a national template so that volume builds are achieved, consistent standards are delivered and unit costs are reduced.
Is this too utopian to hope for.
Whitehall never mind MOD in-fighting suggests that it is, but it surely is worth a go.
FBOT
What is the SEG fishery protection squadron? The never ending problem with military procurement is that we inevitably end up equipped to deal with yesterdays problems tomorrow. I agree on the inccreasing role of the C3 based on todays issues but if we swing too far in that direction we will be stuck ther in 2025 when they may not be the issues. The fact remains that a C! type vessel can do anti piracy and constabulary ops but a C3 vessel cannot do war fighting. There is a fine balance to be struck. Modularisation and extra space may well be a means of allowing a C3 type vessel to be upgraded should the requirement emerge.
All PATS
Scottish (Executive) Government – 2 large / 2 small patrol vessels, from memory.
There was a spat when it was revealed that the latest “small” vessel would struggle to catch modern trawlers.
She is said to be able to do 14knots.
However that may be down hill with a wind at her back.
The problem with a T45 / C1 vessel doing constabulary duties is that somewhere in Whitehall a Treasury bean counter licks his lips.
Also 6K tons of colonial sloop can be tarted up to do a limited war fighting role.
I put forward a £50mill price tag for the basic ship.
That would be £30mill for the bare hull, £5mill for extra power to get to 22knots and £10mill for the warship steelwork and £5mill for a rough fit out.
Second hand big gun up front and a couple of basic 30mm units elsewhere plus all the hand carried stuff that a RM section can carry – AAW out to 5-7km + A/T stuff as well.
Refurbished CIWS on loan?
The next step is to work out what can be provided for an extra £20, £30, £50mill and take forward the best value solution if that is whtat’s needed.
Main thing is that witha 19 vessel escort fleet the RN is going to be spread very thin.
With fisheries work it is a bit more subtle than “catching the offending trawler.” It takes a while for nets to be brought aboard. It is the nets you are racing as much as the hull. The RN trailed a hyrdofoil in the 80s that was spectacularly successful at catching naughty fisherman. But it is gas turbine plant cost a small fortune to run. (Though it would be interesting to compare endurance and running costs of HMS Speedy and those of Nimrod (and perhaps a biggish helicopter too.))
X
I think the issue was trying to catch said vessel after it had shut up shop and was heading home / international waters.
It was chatter in the local papers when it was first announced, I got interested as to why such a vessel would be put in the water with a speed slower than a Flower class corvette.
Thrifting gone mad / painting yourself into a corner / designed by a one club golfer? – You decide.
Another 1MW of installed power would have produced a much more capable vessel.
Any way just one of a number of state agencies that need a water based presence, if they are all doing their own little thing then it will be very wasteful.
FBOT, APATS, X
Thanks for the last bunch of comments. FBOT I understand where your going with this, but don’t agree and your police detective analogy is overly simplistic.
APATS – I am fine with a C3 that is either constrained to a war role of MCMV, or is fitted with a magazine for helicopter delivered weaponry. Search for the C3 articles on here to see more.
My main problem is with the “RN need to be doing anti-piracy to be relevant in the modern world” type argument, which IMHO is complete bollocks.
Navies are military organisations. Their primary activities are war fighting activities, be that sinking ships, sinking subs, shooting down planes, or firing missiles into the enemies territory. Sure MSO is a part of the peace time tasking, but it is not, should not and indeed cannot become a “primary” role – if it is then the Navy has become a Coast Guard.
The good thing of course is that a ‘war’ ship can do MSO, because it is a flexible asset. It can rescue people in distress, it can chase drug runners, mount surveillance for people smugglers (slavers?) etc should it be desirable for it to do so at any particular time. It will not be highly cost effective in such roles, but it can do them.
The fact that the RN will be reduced to 19 DDG / FFG is NOT an excuse to field a fleet of OPV’s !
As I have said in every comment thread, on every subject, if HM Govt. were to stop playing silly buggers, decide to quit UNSC and stop “playing” at “great power” then reducing the RN to 6 T45′s for future expansion to ballistic missile defence of the homeland, would be just fine. But they have to be open and honest about it. Not continue with the “punch above our weight, force for good” crap.
6000 tonne “Global Sloops” with a 4.5 and 2 x 30mm is just more “fudge” (to put it politely) – they are neither “nowt nor summat” as we say up North ! Being ex-RN I understand that “fitted for but not with” means “don’t expect it to appear in a real emergency” ! So having another 8, 12, 16 or however many 4K OPV’s or 6K Global Sloops is just a diversion, they can only do the jobs which IMHO could be done cheaper and better by RFA manned “mother ships” which might at least have a useful soft power (disaster support) and war time (amphib lift) role. The C3 / OPV / Sloop squadron would make fleet numbers look better and allow every one to breath a sigh of relief that we are back to having a bigger navy than the French or the Italians, but would bring absolutely nothing to the core roles of a navy.
JED
I find myself sort of agreeing with you!
But only sort of.
We are going to be reduced to 19 ships, 4 tasked to the Carrier battle group.
So that 15 left.
Immutable law that to have one on station means 3 ships.
So that’s 5 places in the world a any one time we can put t45 or t26. (less any playing chase Ivan in the north atlantic).
Any scramble would mean them having to concentrate from arround the globe to say Horn of Arica or eastern med.
Leaving nothing anywhere else.
You could buy an equip 3 JSS, or 15 c3 for the cost of a t45.
The c3 can do mine warfare, replacing MWV, the JSS can replace Bay and fort class, further reducing their relative cost.
I like the idea of a US coastguard type organisation, ans see no reason why just because its called a coast guard it can’t do rfa as well.
That is an awfull lot of soft power,national security for the price of two top flight T45 which can only ever be in 2 places at once.
BTW I did not mean to link Somali piracy to terror, but an awfull lot of european smuggling drugs and people, etc is linked.
Air Sea rescue remains top flight training tool, which is why it should be kept within paramillitary Coastguard /RN.
“would bring nothing to core roles of the navy” SO: -
Mine warfare.
Special forces insertion.
Blockade Work.
Intelligence gathering.
Possibly even coastal ASW.
From a C3 (or JSS type) would not be “Core” to the navy?
Your not one of those;
‘ When the Red banner fleet and Soviet northern aviation come steaming into the North atlantic I intend to be waiting there ready.’
Types are you?
I have a cat that spends all day watching the hedge, he does a brillent Job.
No ones stolen it yet! But when they try Tiddles will be waiting for them.
Interestingly part of the contract for the River Class OPV was that it had to be faster than 90% of the EU fishing fleet. Tyne and Severn good for 20.5 knots Mersey had a redesigned bow and could do 22, with a 40kt plus Pac 22 never had any probs catching Fvs.
Ixion – ROFL’d at that one, as one of my “souvenirs” from my time in the RN is a Red Banner Fleet Soviet Ensign – I supposed we carried them on RN ships in case we had to surrender……. but no, I was a cold war warrior who deployed to the gulf on 5 different ships in 10 years, never trolled around the NA on a TA tug
But in response to:
Mine warfare.
Special forces insertion.
Blockade Work.
Intelligence gathering.
Possibly even coastal ASW
I have not seen a suggested C3 design that could do any of these except MCMV plus patrol (so does that include blockade ?).
The other reason I am against multi-functional C3 being bought LCS style, is that if a C3 is on MSO patrol ops, then it is not an MCMV asset and the Muppets are not being trained to do MCM. If its a dedicated asset, of a common design, which can perhaps be re-roled as part of long term fleet maintenance then that is different.
Same thing for inshore ASW – take of the MCM ROV’s / USV’s and equip it with USV’s equipped with dipping sonar ? But what weapons, where do you attach some torpedo tubes or ASW rockets ??
I dont think we need a Coast Guard that includes the RFA, I think we need an RFA ‘Flotilla’ that can do peace time ‘coast guard’ type tasks, so 15 x C3 versus 3 x JSS, I will take the JSS please