Talk:Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Uniform and Insignia

RFA personnel wear uniforms generally identical to those of the RN, issued or bought from RN stocks, but with RFA insignia. RFA uniform regulations are based closely on BR81. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anixtu (talk • contribs) 22:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Do RFA officers hold the queens commision? (They do not - although some have signed up for the RNR(Royal Naval Reserve) no RFA officer holds a queens commision) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.1.156 (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Manning of Weapons on RFAs

I removed the mention of "Royal Navy personnel... operating weapon systems (many RFA ships are armed with defensive weapons)" as with a few exceptions the weapons on RFAs are manned by RFA personnel and thus the text was misleading, implying that all weapons were manned by RN. The principal exceptions are Vulcan Phalanx on Fort Victoria (removed) and Fort George which are operated and maintained by RN personnel. Otherwise, almost all GPMGs, 20mm and 30mm guns on RFAs are manned by RFA civilian personnel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anixtu (talk • contribs) 22:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

True, the guns are normally manned by the stewards (Or Deck Department) (if the ship is in danger) (Or if required by passage... Straits of Hormuz or Gib transit, Entering or leaving ports in the Gulf)

As of mid 2015 manning of weapons is now almost exclusively carried out by the desk dept - including LH(D) acting as Local Gun Director(LGD). Also can someone add a mention of the Mk44 since it's not mentioned in the main text. ASCG on the Wave Knight is probably already covered by the 30mm section but might be worth mentioning as an upgrade(?) to visually aimed weapons, Also the upcoming Tide boats are due to be fitted with ASCG on arrival in UK from build(TBC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.52.140 (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

New Rumours within the fleet are that stewards will be put back on weapons , will update page once have Confirmation from HQ.SuperNexus (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Coal replaces sail... 1905?

"...in 1905 to provide coaling ships for the Navy in an era when the change from sail to coal-fired steam engines..." Surely steam powered warships had been in use for 50 years by then? Alansplodge (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Point Class Strategic ROROs

I have not removed these entirely from the page because they are relevant to UK naval shipping, but they are in no way part of the RFA. They are not managed by the RFA but by a private contractor. They are not manned by the RFA but by employees of the contractor. They are not directed operationally by the RFA. There is no connection between these and the RFA other than that they carry out a role formerly partially assigned to the RFA. Anixtu (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I acknowledge your valid comments and have made the appropriate changes to the lead sentence before the list. However, according to the Royal Navy citation and the 1998 SDR we can include among RFA ships.Talk^Woe90i 12:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes they are hard to put into a category, kind of an auxiliary RFA. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There were several reasons besides Strat ROROs that I changed the wording of that sentence. RFAs are not "commissioned" in the warship sense. They could be described as "in service" instead. There are not 13 active RFAs until Fort Austin completes regeneration from her period in mothballs.

You are still effectively including Strat ROROs as RFAs when they should not be. I've just checked the '98 SDR and it doesn't say that they are RFAs, and even if it did it was written four years before they entered service. I don't have a copy of the 2003 Royal Navy Handbook to check exactly what that says. I'm sure you can appreciate that it is difficult for me to prove a negative so perhaps you can find some respectable current/recent sources that include Strat ROROs as part of the RFA? The Royal Navy website for example does not mention them with respect to the RFA. Their status is essentially that of Merchant Fleet Auxiliary. Short history lesson (going from memory, details may be a little sketchy): the term 'Royal Fleet Auxiliary' came into use in 1905 when an Order In Council was published differentiating between naval auxiliaries operated by the Crown (Royal Fleet Auxiliaries) and those operated by private contractors (Merchant Fleet Auxiliaries). Hence MFAs were clearly defined as separate from the RFA. The book "Royal Fleet Auxiliary In Focus" has more details but I don't have access to a copy right now. Anixtu (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Reposted from Woe90i's talk page at his request:

From your latest edit it is apparent that you still aren't getting it. I will try to explain further. If the Royal Navy Handbook (2003) says that the Points are part of the RFA it is mistaken. You are already aware that the Points are not owned by the MoD or UK government, nor are they manned by RFA seafarers. Furthermore they are not tasked by the RFA or by CINCFLEET within the RN command structure and therefore cannot be "available to the RFA" or "called upon at short notice for use by the RFA". They are tasked by some element of the MoD logistics system (I'm very familiar with how RFAs are tasked, not so much the ROROs), possibly through a normal charterer relationship with their owner/operator Foreland Shipping http://www.foreland-shipping.co.uk/ . RFAs are a FLEET asset when active and fall within the Royal Navy command and control structure. The RFA as an organisation exists to supply FLEET with these assets, to be used at FLEET direction. Entirely different to the way in which the Points are managed.

Semi-separately you should distinguish which displacement is referred to, as the article wikilinked makes clear, "full load displacement" is very different to "light displacement" or "standard displacement". I'm not sure why you are so keen to include a fleet displacement in the article, but I don't object to it per se (though obviously I don't agree that Foreland Shipping's fleet should be included).

Having had a quick look at Foreland's website they give a rather different deadweight and the 23,000 figure appears to refer to GRT rather than full load displacement as the source used in the article seems to have assumed. It does not provide a full load displacement, but I shall see if I can find one in another reliable source. Anixtu (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I do get what your saying, no need to clarify further. However as I take note and respect your reasoning, it isn't really up to us to decide whether or not to include them in the list. The Royal Navy handbook citation is a WP:RS, we cannot cherry pick bits a pieces. Furthermore the vessels are a direct result of the 1998 SDR (such as noted in the article). Also, according to the MoDs Defence Analytical Services Advice website the 6 point class sealift ships are "Commercially owned vessels that are leased to the Ministry of Defence for training and operations as required". It is also interesting that they are listed among the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Unless you find a more authoritative source that states otherwise I or another editor would find it very difficult to make your proposed changes as it would equate to original research.

Can I please make it very obvious that I am not trying to question your personal experience or knowledge on the subject, and that although it may not seam like it, I do value your contributions. my actions are merely trying to maintain the articles information that is supported by reliable sources and stick to Wikipedias policies guidelines.Talk^Woe90i 19:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, we are making progress.

This is not a matter of original research, you are using a single source to include the Points in the RFA. As I've already said it's difficult to prove a negative, but look at the other sources that do not include them in the RFA: the RN website, the Foreland Shipping website, Navy Matters, all much more recent or current sources than the single one mentioned that does include them. Note that the DASA website footnotes their status and does not include them under "Operational" or "Undergoing refit" categories and states that they "are leased to the Ministry of Defence" but not to the RFA. Can you place here the actual quote from the RN Handbook 2003 with respect to the Points being part of the RFA? The SDR does not refer to them being RFAs so I don't see why it's a relevant source on the subject.

I've checked a couple of other sources on the Points displacement/GRT and the result is inconclusive. It may be that full load displacement and GRT are about the same for these vessels. The only genuinely conclusive source would be the ships own certificates and documentation so I'm happy to let the 23,000 stand.

As I've said, I am prepared to compromise and leave some reference to the Point class in the article but it should be rewritten to be entirely clear that they are not a part of the RFA. On reflection I really think they should be reduced to the 'See also' section but they have been included in the article for a long time and until the recent edits it was fairly clear that they were not a part of the RFA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anixtu (talk • contribs) 20:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It is still clear to the reader that the Point-class are not owned by the RFA or the MoD, but instead that they are available to the MoD under a long term PFI. I no-longer have my hard-copy of "The Royal Navy Handboook - The definitive MoD Guide 2003" I sold it (and others) over eBay. To be honest, nowadays I would only have a vague idea what it mentioned in relation to the Point class, only that the Point-class were indeed very relevant to the capabilities and force structure of Royal Navy and RFA. I do however have "The Military Balance 2010" published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. It lists the Point-class, including them under the RFA. That's now three authoritative sources (RN Handbook, DASA and IISS Military Balance 2010) that list the Point-class as relevant, especially in relation to the RFA.

How did you get the impression that the DASA merely footnoted the Point-class? They were clearly listed with equal importance. Not being included under "Operational" or "Undergoing refit" only bears reference to the fact the job of maintaining the ships at an operational condition is the job of the PFI, not the MoD.

Also, why do you keep removing the Point-class in respects to the total displacement available to the RFA? Since when are the Point-class no longer available to the MoD or RFA? Talk^Woe90i 22:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ownership is not the key point, operation of (including manning) and operational control are. Many RFAs in the past were bareboat chartered - the RFA operated Strategic ROROs RFA Sea Crusader and RFA Sea Centurion being good examples. Privately owned but RFA operated and therefore RFAs. If they were still in service they would be valid to include in the list of current RFAs.

DASA evidently suffer from the same issue that this article does with regard to how to classify the Points, shuffling them under the RFA heading but footnoting that they are not actually RFAs. I'd like you to quote one official and authoritative source that unequivocally states that the Points are part of the RFA or "available to the RFA". Lists that include them loosely with the RFA like DASA or IISS won't cut it if official MOD publications do not concur. They are, for example, not listed on the Fleet Bridge Card (can't post a link, RN website is offline at present).

This article is about the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, not about shipping available to the MoD. The Points and Foreland Shipping have their own articles. I am not saying that the Points are not relevant to MoD shipping, they quite obviously are, but they are not in any way Royal Fleet Auxiliaries by any recognised definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anixtu (talk • contribs) 00:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Page 9 of the DTMA Annual Report & Accounts 2006/2007 http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc0607/hc07/0749/0749.pdf gives more information on the way in which the Strategic ROROs are managed. Other DTMA annual reports give similar information. The money quote "DTMA continues to be the tasking authority for the four RoRos vessels which provide the UK strategic sealift capability." Not tasked by FLEET or RFA. Not part of FLEET or RFA. Available to MOD through DTMA. Anixtu (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Wave class replaced by MARS??

The wave class are virtually brand new for ships, they are not being replaced so soon it is the Orangeleaf and Rover class vessels that fall into this category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.105.245 (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The MARS tankers - ordered 2012 from DSME, South Korea were named by press release dated 14 November 2012 as TIDESPRING, TIDERACE, TIDESURGE (all will be the 2nd RFAs to carry the names) and a new fleet name TIDEFORCE. Designed to comply with international maritime legislation they will be double hulled vessels replacing the single hull oilers currently in service, eg, the Rover and Leaf boats. The young Wave class are double hulled vessels already complying with MARPOL regulations for fuel carrying ships. (AuxiliaryTAA) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.45.15 (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Commissioned Status

With regard to warships and auxiliaries, the term "commissioned" has specific meaning. The following article is with regard to the USN, but the principle holds for the Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary: http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq63-1.htm In the analogous RN/RFA context, RN warships are commissioned, RFAs are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anixtu (talk • contribs) 19:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

RFA Diligence

Isn't it too early to remove her? Sale hasn't exactly happened yet.Cantab1985 (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I guess no reply?Cantab1985 (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I removed her as she is no longer a part of the RFA fleet. SuperNexus (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)