The Chandlers piracy debacle

[Robin]

Personally I also dislike the sniping at the Navy over this. The fact is the Chandlers SURVIVED and are back here, so arguably the right result achieved rather than having a Rambo show to prove how mighty we are, but sorry they both died. Other countries tried the Rambo approach and not always with success.

I also did not like what I heard or the tone of it from the Chandlers at the enquiry recently about both the Foreign Office and the Navy.

The Chandlers took a gamble and lost it, but in the end they got home alive for which we are all thankful and so should they be. I have no idea what went on behind the scenes at the Foreign Office, nor I suspect do most people including the Chandlers, but I do think it was probably a whole lot more than seemed to be the case in public.

As for for 'brave service personnel being blind and deaf to orders in the good old days' in such situations, how would that go down had they done so here, gambled and the Chandlers died. Folk would really have something to criticise our service people for.

 

[Grumpybear]

The good old days

In the good old days, local service commanders could use their discretion only because it took weeks or months for orders to reach them from London. As soon as the telegraph, and later wireless, were invented, politicians started to interfere. one of the worst offenders was Churchill when First Lord in both World Wars. it could be argued that some of the worst debacles of 1914 (the defeat off Coronel, the escape of the German ships Goeben and Breslau which brought Turkey into the war on the wrong side) stemmed from local commanders being paralysed by awaiting and then trying to obey seriously inappropriate orders from London.

Even in 1982 the Falklands Task Force commander was ashore at Northwood. his subordinate on the spot couldn't use his assets without permission (and the submarines he needed to block the Argentine navy were directly controlled from Northwood).

on a related topic, it is also well worth reading Admiral Woodward's memoir of the Falklands on the subject of the deluge of useless signal traffic he had to weed out before he could work out what to do.

 

[jonjo]

Nothing like a bit of judging the issue without knowing the facts.

I was the first person on this forum to surmise correctly that the RFA did in fact have a squad of soldiers on board.

As I have pointed out before, the decision NOT to act was NOT taken by local commanders.

I am not interested in finger pointing among the top brass. My position is what exactly does the UK get from its £20 billion RN annual budget? In the past 5 years the RN has done nothing but heap shame on this country and demonstrate lack or warrior spirit.

The justification was that they had not received the particular 'intervention specific training' deemed appropriate.

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of military matters knows that soldiers rarely go into action feeling properly prepared, equipped and supported for the task at hand.

and its bit rich to make such emotive complaints on a public forum.

Why? Who else holds the military to account? One House of Commons select committee and a handful of exasperated ex. officers who publish critical accounts.

I cannot think of a better place to debate the failure of the Royal Navy.

 

[john_morris_uk]

What a sad and perhaps bigoted person you are regarding the RN

I was the first person on this forum to surmise correctly that the RFA did in fact have a squad of soldiers (they were Royal Marines actually) on board. So what? - they only do what the politicians tell them to do which you seem to have ignored in your 'arguments'


I am not interested in finger pointing among the top brass. My position is what exactly does the UK get from its £20 billion RN annual budget? In the past 5 years the RN has done nothing but heap shame on this country and demonstrate lack or warrior spirit. Have you any idea what you are talking about? Apart from the debacle of the HMS CORNWALL fiasco (which has subsequently altered a whole aspect and approach to some parts of sailors training...) the RN has continued to give exemplary and dedicated service to country over the last few years. You might not realise it but a significantly large proportion of service personnel in Afghanistan are Royal Marines and Royal Navy. I also assume that you are ignoring the Nuclear deterrent, the anti-drugs patrols and seizures, the front line work in most continents, the Hydrographic work in support of our submarines etc etc But of course the entire Admiralty and Fleet don't know what they are doing...

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of military matters knows that soldiers rarely go into action feeling properly prepared, equipped and supported for the task at hand.

What tosh. One of the basic principles of command is to instill absolute confidence in your subordinates in the kit you have and the training they have received. Since when did a commander at any level say to his people, "Your kit is rubbish, but we will have to muddle along somehow." You always try and instill confidence that what you have is more than adequate for the job you have been given to do. In fact the kit we have is some of the best we have ever had.

Regarding the training for task, I am only quoting the reason why the senior politicians refused to allow those on the RFA to act. Make your own judgements, but if you think that disobeying orders is the way ahead it just shows how ignorant you are of military service. As I have already mentioned, those on the scene wanted to act, but they were ordered not to.


Why? Who else holds the military to account? One House of Commons select committee and a handful of exasperated ex. officers who publish critical accounts.

I cannot think of a better place to debate the failure or (I assume you meant to type 'of'?) the Royal Navy.

Tell me in simple terms how the Navy has failed and we can debate it. Easy to criticise when you don't know the facts... None so blind as those who won't see and those what have already made up their minds.

I am not blind to the systems faults - there are always things you can do better, but the RN is still regarded as a benchmark for professional skills and service throughout the world. But I would say that wouldn't I...

 

[Reverend Ludd]

on a related topic, it is also well worth reading Admiral Woodward's memoir of the Falklands on the subject of the deluge of useless signal traffic he had to weed out before he could work out what to do.

Great read.
After reading it you realise what a shambles it all was.
It all started to go wrong for me when he revealed he spent the first hour or so having set sail, discussing with Prince Andrew his accommodation "requirements". As I remember he gave up his.
Funny the press all toed the party line that randy andy was just one of the lads.

 

[Robin]

Great read.
After reading it you realise what a shambles it all was.
It all started to go wrong for me when he revealed he spent the first hour or so having set sail, discussing with Prince Andrew his accommodation "requirements". As I remember he gave up his.
Funny the press all toed the party line that randy andy was just one of the lads.

Well he was much more one of the lads than most people then wasn't he. He was THERE, when most, including me were not and some are still around on here sniping. IMO we should be proud of them all from top to very bottom.

 

[Reverend Ludd]

Well he was much more one of the lads than most people then wasn't he. He was THERE, when most, including me were not and some are still around on here sniping. IMO we should be proud of them all from top to very bottom.

I am very proud of all those who went there on an equal footing. Just not really proud of of Andrew imho when these people go swanning round a war zone with their "special protection" and privilege, they put others at risk.

 

[jonjo]

but the RN is still regarded as a benchmark for professional skills and service throughout the world.

This is the stuff of Pathe newsreels, 1950's school boys might have believed in this prose but it sounds hollow in the 21st century.

Tell me in simple terms how the Navy has failed and we can debate it.

Appalling financial performance is the main criticism. By measure of cumulative annual budget over the past 10 years the RN should be the 2nd or 3rd largest in the world. But where are we today?

The workhorse surface fleet down to 20 ships, which is 1/3 the size of its already 1980 defense cuts ravaged Falklands War size.

Most of that fleet looks like stuff designed in the 1960's and is 25 years old. Even on a high profile engagement like Somali anti piracy the Canadians, Danes and Norwegians can deploy impressive looking modern ships alongside our Austin Allegro type single contribution.

Where are we with the Type 45's, how many years since the first commissioning and have they got the all the principal weapon systems battle ready yet??

Now let's consider the Astute class subs. A billion £ commissioning disaster, then we had the accidental beaching and following that the crazy rating loosing off rounds from his SLR in the control room or our premier nuclear hunter killer sub. And who wrestling him to the deck, two portly middle aged local civilian government officials.

Today we cannot deploy fixed wing aircraft at sea.

These are not the vital statistics of what should be the second or third most potent maritime combat force in the world.

You seem to take pride in bunch of routine RN activities but we have no means of assessing whether the Navy excels at these. However I do know the the true test of an organization is how it copes with the unexpected, this is particularly true of military institution. By this measure all the recent evidence is that the RN is an utter failure.

The RN even fails when responding to failure. The solution to the RFA/Chandler debacle is to privatize the RFA fleet to make completely sure it has no military potency in the future. With today's diminished surface Fleet the RFA's could constitute an extra 50% increase of grey hulls capable of mounting a few machine guns or missiles for low grade nautical tasks.

I sailed close past an Indian Navy FA when a visiting flotilla was in Portsmouth about 3 years ago. Now there was a navy ship with attitude, the crew on desk were busy and smart, the officers strutted around with confidence and purpose, and the ship was festooned with machine gun mounts.

Why is the 21st Century Royal Navy even outgunned by India in the fleet auxiliary department? Military potency... no we don't want any of that in the Royal Navy do we, just think there will be 10 new Rear Admiral posts that need to be created to manage the commercial relationship of a newly contracted out RFA fleet.

I can go on and on...

In Gibraltar the RN cannot control criminal drug runners.

A dozen AK47 touting irregulars disabled British sea power east of Aden when they nicked your rubber dinghy.

Oh yes the marines. An impressive infantry unit that occasionally deploys by ship. I say transfer them to some expanded Army division with littoral capability where they belong.

In summary there is simply nothing remaining in the RN to feel positive about, then when I consider the £20 billion and all those admirals I get angry.

 

[john_morris_uk]

This is the stuff of Pathe newsreels, 1950's school boys might have believed in this prose but it sounds hollow in the 21st century.

Appalling financial performance is the main criticism. By measure of cumulative annual budget over the past 10 years the RN should be the 2nd or 3rd largest in the world. But where are we today?

The workhorse surface fleet down to 20 ships, which is 1/3 the size of its already 1980 defense cuts ravaged Falklands War size.

Most of that fleet looks like stuff designed in the 1960's and is 25 years old. Even on a high profile engagement like Somali anti piracy the Canadians, Danes and Norwegians can deploy impressive looking modern ships alongside our Austin Allegro type single contribution.

Where are we with the Type 45's, how many years since the first commissioning and have they got the all the principal weapon systems battle ready yet??

Now let's consider the Astute class subs. A billion £ commissioning disaster, then we had the accidental beaching and following that the crazy rating loosing off rounds from his SLR in the control room or our premier nuclear hunter killer sub. And who wrestling him to the deck, two portly middle aged local civilian government officials.

Today we cannot deploy fixed wing aircraft at sea.

These are not the vital statistics of what should be the second or third most potent maritime combat force in the world.

You seem to take pride in bunch of routine RN activities but we have no means of assessing whether the Navy excels at these. However I do know the the true test of an organization is how it copes with the unexpected, this is particularly true of military institution. By this measure all the recent evidence is that the RN is an utter failure.

The RN even fails when responding to failure. The solution to the RFA/Chandler debacle is to privatize the RFA fleet to make completely sure it has no military potency in the future. With today's diminished surface the RFA's could constitute an extra 50% increase of grey hulls capable of mounting a few machine guns or missiles for low grade nautical tasks.

I sailed close past an Indian Navy FA when a visiting flotilla was in Portsmouth about 3 years ago. Now there was a navy ship with attitude, the crew on desk were busy and smart, the officers strutted around with confidence and purpose, and the ship was festooned with machine gun mounts.

Why is the 21st Century Royal Navy even outgunned by India in the fleet auxiliary department? Military potency... no we don't want any of that in the Royal Navy do we, just think there will be 10 new Rear Admiral posts that need to be created to manage the commercial relationship of a newly contracted out RFA fleet.

I can go on and on...

In Gibraltar the RN cannot control criminal drug runners.

A dozen AK47 touting irregulars disabled British sea power east of Aden when they nicked your rubber dinghy.

Oh yes the marines. An impressive infantry unit that occasionally deploys by ship. I say transfer them to some expanded Army division with littoral capability where they belong.

In summary there is simply nothing remaining in the RN to feel positive about, then when I consider the £20 billion and all those admirals I get angry.

Hmm - from your use of language I think you have a vested interest here. For example, the general public don't use the word 'littoral' as a matter of course.

Fascinated though I might be by your agenda, and in the finest tradition of some elements of the press, some of what you say has just enough truth in it to sound plausible. Yet anyone who knows how these things work, knows that what you are saying is also mostly bunkum.

A large part of the RN budget goes on the nuclear deterrent. Compare like with like when you look at other nations Naval budgets.

No one is going to take any comparisons of the number of machine gun mounts on the upper deck as a measure of the effectiveness of a warship seriously.

Stop citing the Chandler/RFA as a debacle of the RN. Everyone except you understands that the government minister wasn't happy and wouldn't sanction the proposed operation, yet you continue to try and smear the RN over the issue. There are lots of times when I see other units (as in RAF and Army) hamstrung by our political masters, but I don't make cheap shots. (and I value my pension...) Your comment about the future of the RFA's is irrelevant. That sort of decision is not made by the RN but it is a political one but by the sound of it you ought to know that already.

Regarding standards: If the RN is so poor why is it that Germany, Holland, Belgium, Greece, Turkey, Spain, Sweden, etc etc (and occasionally USA) send their warships to be trained by us? I used to work for Flag Officer Sea Training, (who sets the standards for the RN and others), and all those countries and others PAY for the RN to train their warships to the standards we set.

If you want to know why we (temporarily) can't employ fixed wing at sea, ask the government. They make those decisions. Why have we got hundreds of battle tanks when most analysts don't believe that we will have and armoured battle in the foreseeable future. Asymmetric warfare seems to be where the world is heading, but I am not suggesting we don't need armour...

If you want to compare costs, try comparing the cost of running a Fleet Air Arm helicopter with an RAF helicopter....

Since when was Astute designated a fiasco? Its one of the finest submarines in the world. They don't come cheap, but what in that class does?

You seem to have some knowledge of these things, but please don't be so cheaply selective in your arguments. In the same vein it has been suggested by many that there is nothing the RAF does that couldn't be done cheaper and better by an enhanced Army Air Corps and Fleet Air Arm. Politically that is unacceptable but like some many options one might choose for the Army and the RN we have to play the cards that we have.

 

[Mariner69]

+1

 

[ripvan1]

good points being made all around, i don't have the knowledge or eloquence to add to the debate, what i can say is that neither of the posters disagreeing above do their viewpoints any favours with personal attacks - or by critising for pressing a wrong key

 

[Reverend Ludd]

Regarding standards: If the RN is so poor why is it that Germany, Holland, Belgium, Greece, Turkey, Spain, Sweden, etc etc (and occasionally USA) send their warships to be trained by us? I used to work for Flag Officer Sea Training, (who sets the standards for the RN and others), and all those countries and others PAY for the RN to train their warships to the standards we set.

I think is safe to say that the Armed forces have always been hampered by Government even Admiral Lord Nelson was protesting. That said if the demands of Government are too much then someone in authority needs to say NO, of course the Knighthood etc will then be on the line.

I'd be interested in more detail about the training particularly as the US makes no mention of it that I have ever heard. I'm very surprised that they would allow it.

 

[john_morris_uk]

I think is safe to say that the Armed forces have always been hampered by Government even Admiral Lord Nelson was protesting. That said if the demands of Government are too much then someone in authority needs to say NO, of course the Knighthood etc will then be on the line.

I'd be interested in more detail about the training particularly as the US makes no mention of it that I have ever heard. I'm very surprised that they would allow it.

Google Flag Officer Sea Training.

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F1316923-78C0-45C4-819B-512919DA153B/0/flagofficerseatraining.pdf

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12213285/The-Flag-Officer-Sea-Training

US very occasionally send ships to join in. The main customers are European with Germany and Holland, Italy, Spain, etc being frequent participants. Some of the foreign Navies get 'credits' for sending their submarines to play enemy. Most pay for the 'privilege'. You get a package of training with a mock war several times a week. Nowadays, the last period of training is continuous to try and simulate the reality of conflict and battle conditions. For a British ship, the underwater, surface and air battle must all be fought at the same time while the ship undertakes simulated battle damage and casualties and fires and flooding are dealt with. At the same time, the command team might be controlling the whole battle group and trying to protect some 'high value' asset. The whole experience is extremely demanding, intense and bloody. Careers are enhanced or broken. Submarines go through a similar period of training.

 

[KenMcCulloch]

I think is safe to say that the Armed forces have always been hampered by Government even Admiral Lord Nelson was protesting........

Forgive me as someone outside the circle of service personnel but haven't you misunderstood the nature of the relationship between the state and its various arms, armed or civil?

 

[Reverend Ludd]

Forgive me as someone outside the circle of service personnel but haven't you misunderstood the nature of the relationship between the state and its various arms, armed or civil?

I don't think so, please enlighten me.

 

[KenMcCulloch]

Well when you say 'armed services hampered by government' it seems to me to suggest that these armed services have an existence and purpose outside of and separate from the purposes of the state as expressed at any particular time by a particular government. Did you mean something else?

 

[Reverend Ludd]

Google Flag Officer Sea Training.

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F1316923-78C0-45C4-819B-512919DA153B/0/flagofficerseatraining.pdf

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12213285/The-Flag-Officer-Sea-Training

US very occasionally send ships to join in. The main customers are European with Germany and Holland, Italy, Spain, etc being frequent participants. Some of the foreign Navies get 'credits' for sending their submarines to play enemy. Most pay for the 'privilege'. You get a package of training with a mock war several times a week. Nowadays, the last period of training is continuous to try and simulate the reality of conflict and battle conditions. For a British ship, the underwater, surface and air battle must all be fought at the same time while the ship undertakes simulated battle damage and casualties and fires and flooding are dealt with. At the same time, the command team might be controlling the whole battle group and trying to protect some 'high value' asset. The whole experience is extremely demanding, intense and bloody. Careers are enhanced or broken. Submarines go through a similar period of training.

Ok John fair enough.
What I couldn't see was a list of grateful clients though, mind you that's to be expected I guess.

 

[Reverend Ludd]

Well when you say 'armed services hampered by government' it seems to me to suggest that these armed services have an existence and purpose outside of and separate from the purposes of the state as expressed at any particular time by a particular government. Did you mean something else?

Ok I see what you are saying however.
When you see the blurb at the recruiting office it says all the best kit, most professional etc etc. So you sign up in the belief it's true.
When you are at the top of the tree such as a General or Admiral you owe a duty to the blokes who are putting their lives at your disposal.
Therefore you should be at liberty to complain to your employer if you feel they are hampering you from attending to your orders.
So yes I would again say, hampered by Gov who perhaps meddle more than they aught.

How about some nice clear orders, go to x place and secure it (or whatever) without the addendum, make sure you check with us before shooting at anyone.

 

[john_morris_uk]

Ok John fair enough.
What I couldn't see was a list of grateful clients though, mind you that's to be expected I guess.

I have just realised that when I said 'Submarines go through a similar period of training, the 'air' side is slightly different and some people might wonder if I had lost a cog... 'Air warfare' sort of does exist for submarines - but its more a matter of not getting found by helicopters or surveillance aircraft with whatever gizzits they have to look for you with.

 

[john_morris_uk]

How about some nice clear orders, go to x place and secure it (or whatever) without the addendum, make sure you check with us before shooting at anyone.

If only - but the military never exists in such a vacuum. Military power is always in the context of the political, and that means politicians always want to have their say. And when you think about it quite right too. They usually get briefed appropriately on what can and cannot be realistically achieved with the assets available. However I value my pension too much to ever suggest that the politicians might not always listen properly or try and interfere beyond their experience.

Actually, there will always be a tension, but there are two truths in all of this. First of all, the military are at the whim of the politician. The tail doesn't wag the dog. If they are the elected representatives of the people then the military always do what they are told to do. Secondly, there will always be a bit of tension between what the politicians want the military to achieve and what actually happens on the ground. You can either call that the law of unintended consequences or a note that one of the first casualties of warfare is the plan.