The Shrunken Royal Navy

[polybear]

6 hours ago, Legend said:

Interesting use of drones too if they were used to confuse defences . I think there’s a lot to learn from this one .

 

 

I should think the tacticians etc. in the West are watching all this with great interest - the amount of info on Russian capabilities  sorry, incapabilities must be like gold dust to them.

 

5 hours ago, Metr0Land said:

One report I saw said the Moskva's radar only had 180 degree coverage.  Can this be true?  

 

Quite possibly; it's also possible that the Radar system may not be fully serviceable - especially if it's a few years old.

[Hroth]

2 hours ago, polybear said:

 

I should think the tacticians etc. in the West are watching all this with great interest - the amount of info on Russian capabilities  sorry, incapabilities must be like gold dust to them.

 

 

It's probably also giving them food for thought for their own defensive strategies. However, it also sheds a worrying light on Putins bellicose remarks concerning nukes at the beginning of thr Ukranian War.

 

[pete_mcfarlane]

4 hours ago, rocor said:

In a little over a months time, the Russian navy will be able to celebrate their victory 117 years ago at the Battle of Tsushima. Or then again, maybe not.

They Russian Navy really needs to stick to fighting battles against enemies the can beat. Such as unarmed fishing trawlers. 

[Ozexpatriate]

5 hours ago, polybear said:

I should think the tacticians etc. in the West are watching all this with great interest

2 hours ago, Hroth said:

It's probably also giving them food for thought for their own defensive strategies. 

Any nation with substantial and expensive capital ships, in particular aircraft carriers, (including the RN and USN) will be very interested in what precisely happened to the Moskva, particularly as it pertains to any potential threat that might hypothetically be posed by PRC PLAN ship-killing missiles. An understanding of whether and why the CIWS on the Moskva was ineffective will command their attention.

 

People may be pleased at the Ukrainian resistance and retribution for the Zmiinyi aka Snake/Serpent Island incident, but this cannot have been fun for the sailors aboard (an unspecified number of whom are reported by TASS as being delivered to Sevastopol). 

 

One presumes the Moskva has launched at least some of the cruise missiles that have attacked land targets in Ukraine (like fuel storage in Lviv and S-300 missiles* and a BUK anti-aircraft missile system* near Kyiv).

 

* Reuters reported these attacks as "sea-based". 

 

Other online sources indicate the Kinzhal (Dagger) hypersonic missiles were fired from airspace over Russian-controlled Crimea and the Kalibr cruise missiles were launched from the Caspian Sea at a fuel depot in southern Ukraine.

 

Edited April 15, 2022 by Ozexpatriate

[johnofwessex]

https://www.turbulenttimes.co.uk/news/front-page/ukraine-a-multitude-of-ironies/

 

An interesting read

[The Fatadder]

I do wonder if this will see a change to the close air defence strategy for the RN carriers.  

[Legend]

35 minutes ago, The Fatadder said:

I do wonder if this will see a change to the close air defence strategy for the RN carriers.  

i thought our strategy was to build the minimum number of ships to pretend we are still a world power . These ships are under armed  eg Aircraft Carriers without aircraft or missile defences (other than CIWS) , Type 45 destroyers with very little offensive fire power and I believe Super - cheap Type 31 Frigates that have the capability to have type41 vertical launch systems  so they could launch tomahawk) but not actually installed , so pretty much armed with a pop gun . 
 

Defence on the cheap and actually putting our sailors at risk . They deserve better . Hopefully Putin will be a wake-up call , but I’m not holding my breath . 

Edited April 15, 2022 by Legend

[Mark Saunders]

7 minutes ago, Legend said:

i thought our strategy was to build the minimum number of ships to pretend we are still a world power . These ships are under armed  eg Aircraft Carriers without aircraft or missile defences (other than CIWS) , Type 45 destroyers with very little offensive fire power and I believe Super - cheap Type 31 Frigates that have the capability to have type41 vertical launch systems  so they could launch tomahawk) but not actually installed , so pretty much armed with a pop gun . 
 

Defence on the cheap and actually putting our sailors at risk . They deserve better . Hopefully Putin will be a wake-up call , but I’m not holding my breath . 

The Falklands were the same and didn’t Lord Carrington resign in a fit of embarrassment when it was remembered they were a British Dependancy!

[The Fatadder]

The installed for not with is a pretty sensible decision in my book, given at a push (and with a blank cheque) in a time of crisis it’s amazing how quickly you can get the hardware purchased and installed) 

 

The big problem is when that applies to the whole fleet…

 

 

[Legend]

11 hours ago, Mark Saunders said:

The Falklands were the same and didn’t Lord Carrington resign in a fit of embarrassment when it was remembered they were a British Dependancy!

Yep, Carrington tendered his resignation over the failure of the Foreign Office to predict the Galtieri regimes actions . He was a decent honourable man . The person that should have gone was John Knott who was presiding over the budget cuts to the RN .the proposed removal of Endurance , the Antarctic patrol ship was a direct message to Galtieri we weren’t interested in the Falklands any more . He was reducing frigate and destroyer numbers and was going to sell Invincinble to the Australians . All these signals were picked up .  Ironically if the Argentinians had waited a year or two we probably wouldn’t have had the capacity to mount the same operation to take the Islands back . 
 

You would have thought we would have learned from that , especially the need to have well armed warships that can be deployed quickly ……..but no . I think there are only 2 type 45s capable of steaming at the moment , not that they are much use against a Russian destroyer , frigate or even corvette . While they might be able to defend against incoming missiles they certainly can’t remove the threat as they have no teeth apart from 5 inch gun .

Edited April 16, 2022 by Legend

[brian777999]

Should a country such as Australia even have a navy ? What we have is so small as to be almost useless. I would think the money would be better spent on an extensive mobile surface-to-surface missile system....thousands of them.  Any thoughts on this ?

Edited April 19, 2022 by brian777999

[spikey]

On 16/04/2022 at 09:46, Legend said:

... You would have thought we would have learned from that ...

No.  You wouldn't.  We never learn the real lessons from the past

[polybear]

1 hour ago, brian777999 said:

Should a country such as Australia even have a navy ? What we have is so small as to be almost useless. I would think the money would be better spent on an extensive mobile surface-to-surface missile system....thousands of them.  Any thoughts on this ?

 

Then what would the Admirals have to play with?  You're right though, it's a pretty expensive sailing club.

Me?  I'd spend the money on subs, jets  and long range surface to air missiles.  The big, big problem is that Oz has such a large coastline and territory to defend that the costs would spiral into oblivion.

[Mike Storey]

11 hours ago, brian777999 said:

Should a country such as Australia even have a navy ? What we have is so small as to be almost useless. I would think the money would be better spent on an extensive mobile surface-to-surface missile system....thousands of them.  Any thoughts on this ?

 

I believe that the UK has supplied, amongst other things, a collection of anti-ship missiles and delivery systems, ahead of whatever the US is supplying, and alongside the Ukranian's own version. That suggests we have them, can supply them, and could enable our own fleet. The question is, have we?

 

[Ozexpatriate]

14 hours ago, brian777999 said:

Should a country such as Australia even have a navy ? What we have is so small as to be almost useless. I would think the money would be better spent on an extensive mobile surface-to-surface missile system....thousands of them.  Any thoughts on this ?

Australia has about 1:15 the GDP of the US, and about 1:13 the population of the US.

 

The US has 11 aircraft carriers, about 480 surface vessels and 70 submarines. Australia has around 50 commissioned vessels, including 6 submarines - which is arguably consistent, numerically speaking, with the US. Australia is entirely surrounded by water. Some sort of maritime capacity is absolutely essential.

 

The question is, given Australia's resources (GDP, population, etc) and the potential regional threats, what (beyond aligning with allies, like the US) can Australia do from a continental maritime defensive posture and what type of vessels are suitable for the most likely mission profiles - which is what leads to vessels like the Canberra class and investment in future attack submarines (which directly addressing your question can be mobile, surface-to-surface cruise missile capable). I think the planned submarine investments (given the likeliest threat profiles) is sound planning.

 

The other possible dimension is in autonomous platforms - aerial, surface and submersible.

 

Edited April 19, 2022 by Ozexpatriate

[brian777999]

The problem with the 'planned submarines' is that there will be nothing to show for at least 20 years......and that will blow out to 30 years if we try to build them here in Australia (decision pending). Meanwhile, cancelling the French contract for submarines is going to cost us about 5.5 BILLION DOLLARS. We could have bought a lot of missiles for that !

[Hroth]

13 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

I believe that the UK has supplied, amongst other things, a collection of anti-ship missiles and delivery systems, ahead of whatever the US is supplying, and alongside the Ukranian's own version. That suggests we have them, can supply them, and could enable our own fleet. The question is, have we?

 

 

Perhaps not, we've supplied ours to the Ukrainians.  Unless we're making more because the ones sent to Ukraine were approaching their use-by date...

 

[brian777999]

Missiles have a use-by date ? How can you tell if they have ''gone off'' ? 😉

[Tankerman]

1 hour ago, brian777999 said:

Missiles have a use-by date ? How can you tell if they have ''gone off'' ? 😉

 

There is normally a loud noise and a burst of flame. 🤣

[Mike Storey]

9 hours ago, Hroth said:

 

Perhaps not, we've supplied ours to the Ukrainians.  Unless we're making more because the ones sent to Ukraine were approaching their use-by date...

 

 

Interesting thought, because the UK, the US and others, quote a value for the armaments being sent. But almost all those armaments and ammunition seem to be available immediately. So the "value" is either the write-down cost, or the cost of replacing them. I cannot find the answer anywhere, and I have looked quite a bit.

 

[Hroth]

3 hours ago, brian777999 said:

Missiles have a use-by date ? How can you tell if they have ''gone off'' ? 😉

According to what the Russians are telling their own people, when the boat sinks.

Edited April 20, 2022 by Hroth

[Fat Controller]

4 hours ago, Tankerman said:

 

There is normally a loud noise and a burst of flame. 🤣

Or they sit there, hissing, until someone goes down and pokes them with a stick. 'Out of date' explosives in the UK are disposed of, by controlled explosion,at the Proof and Experimental Establishment at Foulness. The detonations can be heard in Kent.

[Mike Storey]

20 minutes ago, Fat Controller said:

Or they sit there, hissing, until someone goes down and pokes them with a stick. 'Out of date' explosives in the UK are disposed of, by controlled explosion,at the Proof and Experimental Establishment at Foulness. The detonations can be heard in Kent.

 

That makes sense. But in the 1980's, when I was responsible for "sealing" spent or out of date ammunition trains from Ridham Dock (Isle of Sheppey, Kent), where much of the detritus from the Falklands War arrived by ship, the trains were despatched largely to Scotland, Leuchars and Rosyth IIRC.

 

 

[billbedford]

15 hours ago, Hroth said:

 

Perhaps not, we've supplied ours to the Ukrainians.  Unless we're making more because the ones sent to Ukraine were approaching their use-by date...

 

 

Maybe the MOD has calculated it would be cheeper to let the Russians destroy them than the usual contractors. 

[Barry O]

23 hours ago, brian777999 said:

Missiles have a use-by date ? How can you tell if they have ''gone off'' ? 😉

You press the launch button and..... not  a lot happens...

 

Check the best before date stencilled on the missile before use....

 

Baz