RFA personnel are a cheap form of nasalization which subsidies the Royal Navy in general with patrols of sensitive areas and of a political nature I.e. the Falklands Islands. They are classed as merchant ships have a IMO numbers and have a port registration on the stern. The Naval fleet has been cut so drastically it cannot cover the UK commitments world wide thus the RFA are used in certain areas to protect the UK interest and safe passage of her trade where commercial interest lie. The men and women are also able to belong to a union which helps with working conditions and pay as well as leave structures and legal issues that may arise to ones individual circumstance if an individual falls foul of any agreement of what is classed as a reasonable command. The ships are classed as Armed Merchantmen.

The men and women of the RFA are a unique in the way they perform both military and merchant tasks which they do professionally, with good intentions. They have to abide by the following regulations such as RFA Company Policy, MoD policy, National Maritime Board Agreements and most of all the Naval disciplinary code which is also a major factor for a civilian work force. A very complex working environment which incorporates many safety factors that Merchant ships have to comply with.

Over the years since the Falklands conflict and the two gulf war conflicts and the many of issues within the Baltic regions the political stance of the RFA has changed. I note one readers comments that they signed to a reservist contract voluntary, this is not so, many signed under duress due to the way recent policy and political issues raised within the RFA service. As you are a mutual paper I will not go into to much detail.
Just as what happened in the “Andrew” cut backs and moral has been deeply affected personnel of all ranks.
Many Ex RN personnel and other forces personnel have joined the RFA Service which RFA are will to take compared to the Merchant seafarer. I have seen the changes and spoken to many who have serviced in the armed forces and the RFA and not is all bright as it is lead to believe. The “Can do factor” and the” More for less” is the motto of indoctrination.

A chance to re-balance the economy as with Sheffield Forgemasters and nuclear, and then with large train contracts, have been lost temporarily, and so to here with shipbuilding. Just building warships is not healthy for our yards either, it never encourages innovative and effecient shipbuilding as much as commercial shipbuilding does. It’s strange that infrastructure projects are seen as good because it circulate money around the economy, and keep most of it in the UK. What’s the difference between that, and building these ships? This investment could of aided more effecient shipbuilding, and some exports. Merely dissmissing UK shipbuilding, and assuming it cannot compete, is very pre 2007 thinking. The fact that a good design (albeit funded by BMT) and what can be a good product, has not benefitted UK shipyards is very sad. To sell ships to home or export, you need a good design, good product etc, and yes good labour with good facilites. When you have UK design houses working against UK yards, you have problems. I see a future where South Korean designers could well design these ships. If people think they are cheaper, could they not be cheaper in design, as this can account for over 10% of the build. If South Koreans can do everything cheaper, why not the project management, why not the contracts in electronics that the UK companies have been given (not affected (in fact protected), by the eu regs, unlike shipbuilding).