9 Month deployments and other stuff

#1
Looks like 9 month deployments will be standard.
Maintenance periods will be extended to stop the Ships Coy doing it for babcock etc
2 weeks leave prior to deployment
guaranteed leave after deployment
a long OSP/SMP mid deployment (3 weeks or something)
longer stints alongside base port


is all going to happen

yeah, right
 
Last edited:
#2
Looks like 9 month deployments will be standard.
Maintenance periods will be extended to stop the Ships Coy doing it for babcock etc
2 weeks leave prior to deployment
guaranteed leave after deployment
a long OSP/SMP mid deployment (3 weeks or something)
longer stints alongside base port


is all going to happen

yeah, right
we had the same brief this morning from the CO, 2 weeks leave allowed during 4 week FTSP during deployment, can fly home on pussers expense (crab air) 1 of those weeks is bukshee, wonder how many people will be banging there notice in.
 
#3
we had the same brief this morning from the CO, 2 weeks leave allowed during 4 week FTSP during deployment, can fly home on pussers expense (crab air) 1 of those weeks is bukshee, wonder how many people will be banging there notice in.
I wonder how much will actually happen

submarines have been doing this for years. yet they have massive manning issues
 
#5
MLP - if, as it was briefed this morning, it remains in stone, then I suspect some people will grin and bear it. The problem is, life in the RN has quite simply become contractual - and people don't like what's being presented to them. I have no faith that the "package" that just been offered will remain in place: the leave will be shaved off, the deployment intervals will reduce, and tempo will remain in place. Add into place a pay & pension system that is being reduced in attractiveness, the NEM that has been poorly briefed (and thus creating even more uncertainty), a "Them" (led by a WO1) who is telling us that it is poor leadership at sea that is leading to people being threaders, and to be frank, people are fed up.

I am genuinely committed to the RN, but to quote 2SL, if I have to chose between the RN and my Family, it's my family every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
 
G

guestm

Guest
#6
MLP - if, as it was briefed this morning, it remains in stone, then I suspect some people will grin and bear it. The problem is, life in the RN has quite simply become contractual - and people don't like what's being presented to them. I have no faith that the "package" that just been offered will remain in place: the leave will be shaved off, the deployment intervals will reduce, and tempo will remain in place. Add into place a pay & pension system that is being reduced in attractiveness, the NEM that has been poorly briefed (and thus creating even more uncertainty), a "Them" (led by a WO1) who is telling us that it is poor leadership at sea that is leading to people being threaders, and to be frank, people are fed up.

I am genuinely committed to the RN, but to quote 2SL, if I have to chose between the RN and my Family, it's my family every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
It's all very well dismissing it out of hand, but at least there are attempts to address concerns and remedy the shortcomings. Drip if nothing is done, drip if something is done. Same old people offering up drips but no solutions. Wah wah wah.
 
#7
It's all very well dismissing it out of hand, but at least there are attempts to address concerns and remedy the shortcomings. Drip if nothing is done, drip if something is done. Same old people offering up drips but no solutions. Wah wah wah.
It's not a case of people dripping for the sake of dripping. I've sat in many a meeting with PORFLOT EWO's, Lt Cdr's and Cdr's and have seen plenty of comstructive advice given to them as to how they could potentially improve retention and morale amongst the front line units. All of which is normally dismissed out of hand as unachievable, not possible or has been tried and didn't work. If all else failed we'd always get the oft quoted line that "we don't know what we're talking about". The manpower crisis in the navy has been looming for years, everybody could see it yet nobody has had the balls to do anything about it. I'd be interested to know if anybody has been held accountable for the absolute pot mess that we're in at the moment? Whilst on paper this new 9 month deployment plan looks like a cracking idea I'd be very surprised if it actually achieves what it set out to do but by the time it's realised that it hasn't the Admiral/Commodore/4 ringer who signed it off will no doubt have moved on to another shore draft or gone outside with a nice pension.
 
G

guestm

Guest
#10
There is a simple solution. We stop doing stuff. We have 19 ships doing the tasking of 32.
And ten years ago we had 32 doing the jobs of 60 and we were still deploying without a full complement and knackered ships.

The point remains that change is afoot, whether it will make a spec of difference remains to be seen but flaccid wailing won't make a difference.
 
#11
Unfortunately, the "flaccid wailing" is this time being matched by people walking. Whilst the multi-year offer of at least 16 months non-deployment after a deployment of 9 months sounds attractive on paper, it comes with the bloody big hump of 9 months deployment to get through, plus the work-up and associated knob and george, which is in effect another 3 months away from home. For those who are returning to sea again and again - the Junior Warfare Officers and our JRs (especially Warfare Branch and the Engineers) - those are huge barriers to retention.

I would be genuinely interested if the formally, and properly, polled those 2 groups as to what they think about the changes.....
 
#12
9 month deployments with guaranteed leave slapped in?

What's not to like?

In my day (can't ****ing believe I just typed that) it wasn't uncommon to smash in 9/10 monthers, negative leave. Usual routine was a deployment every 2/3 years.

In 2004 I did an 8 week BOST, followed by 2 weeks leave, followed by a 9 month deployment, followed by 2 more weeks leave, followed by Christmas duties.

This new deal seems like lads actually get some guaranteed time at home. Flying home halfway through our 9 month deployment for a quick break would've been mega.
 
G

guestm

Guest
#13
Unfortunately, the "flaccid wailing" is this time being matched by people walking. Whilst the multi-year offer of at least 16 months non-deployment after a deployment of 9 months sounds attractive on paper, it comes with the bloody big hump of 9 months deployment to get through, plus the work-up and associated knob and george, which is in effect another 3 months away from home. For those who are returning to sea again and again - the Junior Warfare Officers and our JRs (especially Warfare Branch and the Engineers) - those are huge barriers to retention.

I would be genuinely interested if the formally, and properly, polled those 2 groups as to what they think about the changes.....
I'd rather do nine months with free leave in the middle than seven and a half without. As 2DD says 9 monthers aren't new. It's positive steps in my eyes.
 
G

guestm

Guest
#15
It's especially good news for down south. Now you get paid to go home on leave rather than dividing your time between Stanley and MPA during the maintenance package getting hooped through sheer boredom.
 
#16
I'd rather do nine months with free leave in the middle than seven and a half without. As 2DD says 9 monthers aren't new. It's positive steps in my eyes.
Right until the point that leave is lost for "operational reasons" and 9 months turns into 10 1/2 as your relief unit is broken.... On the basis that both of those things have happened for current deployments there is understandable cynicism about the new set of promises.
 
#17
Right until the point that leave is lost for "operational reasons" and 9 months turns into 10 1/2 as your relief unit is broken.... On the basis that both of those things have happened for current deployments there is understandable cynicism about the new set of promises.
That sounds like the Navy I served in!!!!

A one year draft turned into 36 month draft and when queried - extended to 40 months! With some long deployments in there too!

Sounds like things are getting very akin to the quote from Master and Commander. "Subject to the requirements of the service".
 
G

guestm

Guest
#18
The nine months is only for Kipion and APTS anyway. One of the points of it extending is to try to ensure the relief isn't delayed through more time to prepare.

Let's mank before the ink's dry though
 

tiddlyoggy

War Hero
Book Reviewer
#19
It may be easy for you to support this Monty, but what is your sea:shore ratio? For branches that are spending more time at sea than shore this is not great.
2DD 9 month deployments not uncommon? That's odd because I'm sure that your brief period of service was concurrent with mine, and 9 monthers were unusual. I know a few happened, I recall Cornwall and Monmouth (I think) but most were 6-7 months, 7 months being my longest. Which is unusual through 28 years if 9 monthers were not uncommon?
 
#20
The nine months is only for Kipion and APTS anyway. One of the points of it extending is to try to ensure the relief isn't delayed through more time to prepare.

Let's mank before the ink's dry though
A nice idea but let's face it they will get more time to prepare once or twice and then someone will see a unit that's not busy and needs of the service will have it tasked away and you are back to square one.
Pits ok to say don't drip but let's face it that will happen.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
sukitansee Blue Jokes 0
ProudNavyWife(tooBe) Current Affairs 30
U The Fleet 5

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top