The Shrunken Royal Navy

[The Stationmaster]

A new thread to hopefully keep this subject alive now that the original has been killed off,.  This thread is about the Royal Navy (although others get an occasional look in) and its trials and tribulations, including equipment in the modern world.  This might at times inevitably get slightly political in relation to RN funding but that, please is about as 'political' as it should get - we don't want this thread killed off too please.

 

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/the-equipment/ships/aircraft-carrier/aircraft-carrier

[Ohmisterporter]

Well, it lasted two and a half years. Let us hope we can beat that score.

[Ohmisterporter]

The Norwegian frigate has been raised and refloated according to this article in Maritime Executive. I am a layman in nautical affairs but from what I can see the damage seems to be above the warterline; that being the case I am wondering how she came to take on so much water that it was decided to abandon her. Unless there is further damage below the camera view.

 

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/damaged-norwegian-frigate-patched-and-refloated

[micklner]

From the report

 

""This phase has focused on temporarily sealing the damage in the hull which is below the waterline by welding steel plates over the damaged areas"

[Ohmisterporter]

The underwater damage referred to could have been cause by the rocks that she was pushed onto. Photographs seem to show a long gash in the side of the hull above the waterline; I thought that was the damage cause by the anchor of the tanker.

[Ohmisterporter]

https://twitter.com/NavyLookout  has better pictures of the welded plates on the starboard side. Simply scroll past several interesting articles to the pictures dated April 15.

 

Edited April 19, 2019 by Ohmisterporter

[Ohmisterporter]

Among the range of operations conducted by the RN is the secretive deployment of special forces from submarines. Savetheroyalnavy.org has this article that brings the story up to date.  Hope you find this of interest.

 

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/in-focus-royal-navy-submarine-special-forces-delivery-systems/

[Kingzance]

On 23/04/2019 at 22:05, Ohmisterporter said:

Among the range of operations conducted by the RN is the secretive deployment of special forces from submarines. Savetheroyalnavy.org has this article that brings the story up to date.  Hope you find this of interest.

 

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/in-focus-royal-navy-submarine-special-forces-delivery-systems/

It does seem once more that the various arms of our defence forces still believe that they have a huge empire to defend yet insufficient resources to protect our shores and population. Although this article is highly impressive, isn’t it true that US Marine Corps outnumber the UK’s three services?

[burgundy]

4 hours ago, Kingzance said:

It does seem once more that the various arms of our defence forces still believe that they have a huge empire to defend yet insufficient resources to protect our shores and population. Although this article is highly impressive, isn’t it true that US Marine Corps outnumber the UK’s three services?

If we suffer from unrealistic military ambitions, my personal view is that much of this originates with politicians - often egged on by various news media. The important bit, of course, is whether we choose to fund those ambitions, at the expense of other important national priorities.

Members of the armed forces tend to have a pretty realistic appreciation of what can and cannot be achieved within  the available funding.

Best wishes 

Eric 

[alastairq]

Besides...the article was about actually making use of the expensive technology to provide a low cost{!} sneaky-beaky secret squirrely service...something we [UK] wouldn't want advertised as going on? Certainly not gunboat diplomacy!

[Kingzance]

3 hours ago, burgundy said:

If we suffer from unrealistic military ambitions, my personal view is that much of this originates with politicians - often egged on by various news media. The important bit, of course, is whether we choose to fund those ambitions, at the expense of other important national priorities.

Members of the armed forces tend to have a pretty realistic appreciation of what can and cannot be achieved within  the available funding.

Best wishes 

Eric 

Agreed Eric! Sadly and almost invariably, government contracts have a habit of going hugely over budget and failing to deliver against the original brief. I give you numerous centralised NHS computer systems, Cross-rail, the QE class carriers, various submarine classes, our attempts at airborne early warning systems, retina scanning at airports etc. In every case, the civil servants running these projects have no sense of cost as it is not their money they waste and they seem to be very well protected against any form of accountability by the politicians who initiate the orders usually to some knee-jerk reaction.

Those military personnel that I have come across - ranks up to Commander, Major and Squadron Leader - seem as exasperated as I do about such matters.

We're all doomed, doomed I say! Rant over.

[burgundy]

1 hour ago, Kingzance said:

In every case, the civil servants running these projects have no sense of cost as it is not their money they waste and they seem to be very well protected against any form of accountability by the politicians who initiate the orders usually to some knee-jerk reaction.

Those military personnel that I have come across - ranks up to Commander, Major and Squadron Leader - seem as exasperated as I do about such matters.

Having been one of those civil servants, I have a slightly different take on it.

I could go on at considerable length - but it is probably best not to do so here (especially as the thread has only just been resurrected after a previous melt down).  

Best wishes 

Eric 

[peanuts]

here something a littlebit nostalgic for you navel types https://d-dayrevisited.co.uk/projects/masb-27-restoration/?fbclid=IwAR2LZ_mI1uMobpsBQETL0o5w23wihL0AENOb1ILrFCSlFDQQa1qBVD3MWnA

[TheQ]

8 minutes ago, peanuts said:

here something a littlebit nostalgic for you navel types https://d-dayrevisited.co.uk/projects/masb-27-restoration/?fbclid=IwAR2LZ_mI1uMobpsBQETL0o5w23wihL0AENOb1ILrFCSlFDQQa1qBVD3MWnA

once I'd stopped looking at my stomach I did look at the site it was interesting..

Edited May 1, 2019 by TheQ

[pete_mcfarlane]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/defence-secretary-gavin-williamson-sacked/

 

Looks like the Defence Secretary has got the chop for being too sensible. 

 

Wonders if he'll do a Geoffrey Howe......

[Bon Accord]

3 hours ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/defence-secretary-gavin-williamson-sacked/

 

Looks like the Defence Secretary has got the chop for being too sensible. 

 

Wonders if he'll do a Geoffrey Howe......

 

Rumour control has it that the Huawei investigation uncovered other "problems" which led to him getting the push, these being in addition to the Huawei leak.

The fact that many in the RN referred to him as "Private Pike" perhaps demonstrates their level of appreciation of the man...

[burgundy]

14 hours ago, peanuts said:

here something a littlebit nostalgic for you navel types https://d-dayrevisited.co.uk/projects/masb-27-restoration/?fbclid=IwAR2LZ_mI1uMobpsBQETL0o5w23wihL0AENOb1ILrFCSlFDQQa1qBVD3MWnA

The article mentions that MASB 27 had a spell at Watchet. I wonder if that explains the boat on the right in the picture below - taken when we broke a journey on the WSR at Watchet in March 2014?

On the left is the former HMS Gay Archer, built in 1952, which seems to have had  a somewhat unfortunate career in the RN.

I had not been able to identify the boat on the right, which was clearly at an early stage of conservation/restoration. However, I wondered at the time if it was ex RN or RAF.

Best wishes

Eric  

[Ohmisterporter]

Hope you find this short history of the RN antarctic patrol ships of interest. From savetheroyalnavy.org

 

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/in-focus-hms-protector-the-royal-navys-antarctic-patrol-ship/

[rockershovel]

I see the “cheap frigates” referred to in the previous thread, are still attracting bad press and may well be dropped, redesigned or otherwise put on the back burner! 

[rockershovel]

23 hours ago, Ohmisterporter said:

Hope you find this short history of the RN antarctic patrol ships of interest. From savetheroyalnavy.org

 

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/in-focus-hms-protector-the-royal-navys-antarctic-patrol-ship/

 

From experience of Norwegian vessels, I can well believe that a posting there is much sought after! Scott’s various vessels were embarrassments of one sort or another, obsolescent, poorly built, uncomfortable and of questionable seaworthiness - whilst Gjoa and Fram had long and very successful careers and were well regarded by those who sailed in them. Some things don’t change. 

Edited May 8, 2019 by rockershovel

[The Stationmaster]

On 08/05/2019 at 21:03, rockershovel said:

I see the “cheap frigates” referred to in the previous thread, are still attracting bad press and may well be dropped, redesigned or otherwise put on the back burner! 

According to one report they're are going to be made 'cheap' (i.e within the originally stated cost) by omitting from the contract price the expensive bits  - such as weapons and sensors, these will be treated as 'add-ons'.  Onkly problem with that would seem to be that incorporating them in the construction of the vessel (surely the logical way to do the job?) will inevitably increase the cost of the ship if it is ordered as having any military capability.

Edited May 10, 2019 by The Stationmaster

[Barry O]

Been done before Mike. All military equipment has Free of Charge (FOC) items like radios included in the build standard. Fitting costs can be either in the construction cost or as part of a contract uplift. Major example was on Challenger Tanks. The Thermal sighting system, TOGS came FOC. A separate contract covered fitting it. No major impact on cost or delivery apart from MoD being unable to deliver kit quick enough.

Baz

[Legend]

11 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

According to one report they're are going to be made 'cheap' (i.e within the originally stated cost) by omitting from the contract price the expensive bits  - such as weapons and sensors, these will be treated as 'add-ons'.  Onkly problem with that would seem to be that incorporating them in the construction of the vessel (surely the logical way to do the job?) will inevitably increase the cost of the ship if it is ordered as having any military capability.

 

And of course with our lot of politicians the add ins will never arrive .  You could call them the ‘sitting duck ‘class

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Legend said:

 

And of course with our lot of politicians the add ins will never arrive .  You could call them the ‘sitting duck ‘class

That is certainly a concern I would have as I suspect any of the more traditional types of CIWS (i.e. small calibre guns) would no doubt be omitted as 'unnecessary expense'

[pete_mcfarlane]

6 hours ago, Barry O said:

Been done before Mike. All military equipment has Free of Charge (FOC) items like radios included in the build standard. Fitting costs can be either in the construction cost or as part of a contract uplift. Major example was on Challenger Tanks. The Thermal sighting system, TOGS came FOC. A separate contract covered fitting it. No major impact on cost or delivery apart from MoD being unable to deliver kit quick enough.

Baz

And I think the plan is to reuse equipment from the Type 23s (which are currently being extensively refitted with new radars, and Sea Ceptor missiles etc) in the Type 31s in exactly this way.