The Shrunken Royal Navy

[slow8dirty]

3 hours ago, Barry O said:

A submarine is not A

SHIP in the submarine service.. its a BOAT..

 

Baz

Don't shout. It's a submarine not a tambourine!

I think that slight bit of grammatical inconsistency may be tolerated as ultimately you're having a dig at "skimmers"

[Barry O]

24 minutes ago, slow8dirty said:

Don't shout. It's a submarine not a tambourine!

I think that slight bit of grammatical inconsistency may be tolerated as ultimately you're having a dig at "skimmers"

You obviously have never met the submarine builders of Barrow.. they get quite loud if someone says something they disagree with... generally in the words "PICK YER WINDA!"

 

Baz

[billbedford]

2 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

In the maritime segment at the moment there's a lot of scratched heads at scare stories about the submarine threat to offshore windfarms and such like in the North Sea. The head scratching is because a lot of said windfarms are in water depths whereby the top of a submarine hull (never mind the sail) would be sticking out of the water if it tried to go there.

 

I'm sure Russian submarine carry cruise missiles that would allow them to fire from deeper waters. On the other hand, individual windmills seem to me to be low value targets. Much better to go for the substations that join whole wind farms to the grid. Though if the Russians decided to be particularly miscevious they could take out the UK's remaining coal-fired stations and wait for a cold windless night to collapse the whole grid.

[jjb1970]

6 minutes ago, billbedford said:

 

I'm sure Russian submarine carry cruise missiles that would allow them to fire from deeper waters. On the other hand, individual windmills seem to me to be low value targets. Much better to go for the substations that join whole wind farms to the grid. Though if the Russians decided to be particularly miscevious they could take out the UK's remaining coal-fired stations and wait for a cold windless night to collapse the whole grid.

 

If things ever went hot the Russian armed forces have a formidable long range strike capability, they wouldn't be messing about with windfarms. Depending on what you want to do (knock the lights off for a few hours/days or do permanent damage) distribution systems are almost certainly a more efficient target to knock out than generation. There are points on the transmission and distribution systems that would cause mayhem if knocked out.

[2750Papyrus]

5 hours ago, Barry O said:

You obviously have never met the submarine builders of Barrow.. they get quite loud if someone says something they disagree with... generally in the words "PICK YER WINDA!"

 

Baz

If it came to fisticuffs, would they floor-plate you?

[alastairq]

On the sub-topic of electricity generation systems [and the taking-out thereof]...most of Ukraine's power generation is using old soviet era equipment. Massive, on a massive scale, as much Soviet era engineering can be.

 

It is known that, due to Ukraine's incredibly effective air defence, most Russian missiles and drones do not get through to their targets.

It is also known that Russia is running out of various missile stocks....so coal fired UK power stations are pretty safe i that respect for the foreseeable future.

 

What does get through, and actually hits the intended target, does a lot of damage, yet Ukraine's engineers work marvels in returning power to the grid in a reasonable time [ Northern Powergen, take note?]

The upside is, Ukraine will be able to replace the old existing [and damaged]  soviet-era power generation with modern, more efficient, up-to-date systems.

 

Russia seems to have a real problem with the concept of 'repair'..[example, the Kirch bridge?] . A pity, then that Ukraine apparently lacks the means to strike as far as Moscow, in return.  The disruption such a strike [or six?] could achieve would be far away and beyond that in Ukraine....

That the russian hierarchy is worried about that idea can be witnessed by their recent installation, in the middle of Moscow, of one of their air defence systems.

They lost one of their arctic-suitable systems the other day, to a Ukraine artillery strike [possibly using new guided munitions, although there is currently silence on that possibility.]

 

 

[KeithMacdonald]

Good news chaps!

The Royal Navy is expanding.
 

Quote

 

The Royal Navy’s drone squadron has taken its expertise in uncrewed systems one step further by building its own quadcopter.

Personnel from 700X Naval Air Squadron have built their first remotely-piloted air system in what was said to be a 'milestone moment' for the Culdrose-based team.

 

https://www.falmouthpacket.co.uk/news/23219660.rnas-culdrose-squadron-design-build-first-drone/

 

Quote

Royal Navy Banshee drones to be based in Cornwall at RNAS Culdrose

Drones capable of flying up to 400mph are to be based out of Helston as the Royal Navy moves into a new phase of military technology.

The Navy has now taken delivery of new jet-powered Banshee drones, as the navy forges ahead with the use of remotely-piloted air systems (RPAS).

https://www.falmouthpacket.co.uk/news/23389704.royal-navy-banshee-drones-based-cornwall-rnas-culdrose/

[Legend]

17 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

Good news chaps!

The Royal Navy is expanding.
 

https://www.falmouthpacket.co.uk/news/23219660.rnas-culdrose-squadron-design-build-first-drone/

 

https://www.falmouthpacket.co.uk/news/23389704.royal-navy-banshee-drones-based-cornwall-rnas-culdrose/

 

Don't they use Banshees as targets?  Just saying might not be the most effective offensive weapon 

 

Good that decommissioning HMS Montrose means that the RN is expanding . Great spin doctoring that one 

[KeithMacdonald]

Oh, back on topic....

 

Quote

Why has the Royal Navy decommissioned 6 ships in a year? The six vessels that have left the fleet are RFA Wave Knight (laid up March 2022), HMS Echo (formally decommissioned June 2022), HMS Shoreham and HMS Grimsby (Oct 2022), HMS Enterprise and HMS Montrose (March 2023). These withdraws are essentially being made to release resources for new technologies elsewhere. This is what the MoD calls retiring “sunset platforms” in favour of introducing “sunrise capabilities”. An RN spokesperson said “it should be noted in many areas there won’t be like-for-like replacement as the next generation of capability won’t necessarily look like the kit that is being retired, particularly in the Mine Countermeasures (MCM) and Military Data Gathering (MDG) world”.

 

Looks like there's going to be another "resources gap"?

 

Quote

The retirement of HMS Monmouth (inactive since 2019) and HMS Montrose reduces the frigate fleet to 11 and it cannot return to 13 until sometime after 2028 when the first Type 26 and Type 31s become operational. As we have noted before, the premature decommissioning of these two tired ships saved the cost of expensive life extension refits. This is a sensible, if counter-intuitive, solution as the cash saved was redirected to refitting other ships and will actually provide greater overall frigate availability for the same cost.

 

Looks like a lot of hopes are being pinned on autonomous / drone craft?

 

Quote

The mid-2020s will be a period when the RN must endure an unavoidable low point in strength before it recovers in the early 2030s. There are three main factors that drive this, two of them rather beyond the RN’s immediate control. Firstly the backbone of the surface fleet, the Type 23s, are getting older and fewer in number. Secondly, the carrier strike project is some way from reaching its full potential mainly due to the slow delivery of F-35s, a constrained pilot training pipeline and obstacles to the integration of key air weapons. Finally, ship numbers are declining while the RN transitions to autonomous systems that are not yet fully mature or proven on operations.

 

https://www.navylookout.com/why-has-the-royal-navy-decommissioned-6-ships-in-a-year/

Edited April 1, 2023 by KeithMacdonald

[peanuts]

quality April fools  

 

[jjb1970]

For as long as I can remember (certainly back to the 80's when I left school) the RN has always been told cuts today in order to get jam tomorrow. Unfortunately the jam never really seems to arrive in anything like the necessary numbers. Astute is a superb submarine but hull numbers are grossly inadequate for the sort of tasking the government dreams off. The carriers were well designed and very capable ships (shafting notwithstanding....) but we'll struggle to put together a real air group for one, never mind two. The Type 45 is a superb air warfare destroyer when the engines work but it went from 12 hulls to 8 to 6. The Type 31 is a large ship which in the future could be pretty capable but as delivered they'd getting a ship with capabilities matched and exceeded by much smaller corvettes. And all the time the government continues to cling to a delusion that we're a great naval power. The counter argument is that we will always act as part of a NATO force, assuming our interests will always align and there will be multilateral forces, that didn't exactly work out in 1982. 

[jjb1970]

On Type 31, the Republic of Singapore Navy also selected the Danish Iver Huitfeldt class frigate as the basis of their new Multi-Role Combat Vessel. The Singaporean ships are expected to be bigger (circa.10,000T), will almost certainly be equipped to a much more capable level and maybe most tellingly they're replacing the six Victory class corvettes (missile attack boats) on a 1:1 basis. That's quite a leap, from a 600T missile boat to a 10,000T frigate.

[Ohmisterporter]

On 02/04/2023 at 03:08, jjb1970 said:

 (shafting notwithstanding....)  

 

Referring to the governments attitude towards our defence forces in general I take it.

[OnTheBranchline]

On 01/04/2023 at 13:50, peanuts said:

quality April fools  

 

Great movie - nothing beats Sean Connery as a Russian with a Scottish accent.

[KeithMacdonald]

Some folks might be aware of the historian Mark Felton and his videos.

Any surprises in this one?

 

 

[2750Papyrus]

No surprises but he didn't comment on the low levels of  stores and ammunition provisioning even in 80's/90s. 

[jjb1970]

To me the problem isn't really the state of the armed forces, it is the imbalance between the ambitions of the government and their dreams of being a major military power and the state of the armed forces. If we were to accept that we're a small-ish country surrounded by benign neighbours (with multiple levels between ourselves and any realistic threats) then we could exist perfectly happily with a small self defence force. I know it upsets a lot of Australians but New Zealand does quite well by relying on the next door neighbours to keep their region reasonably safe from external threats.

[Legend]

Yeah not really a surprise , we all knew it , but stark when you see it laid out . I'm actually surprised the Army is still as big as it is at 86000 , I thought it was much smaller . There was a story somewhere that we were actually struggling to find servicable tanks to send to Ukraine . I think we are sending around 25. 

 

On the Navy , absolutely no surprises . Its actually worse than he states of the 10 subs , presumably 4 are the Vanguard SSBNs leaving only 6 Hunter Killers , a huge reduction.  And we know in offensive capability the Destroyers and Frigates have little by way of teeth .

 

105 front line fighters . Shocking .  The few have become the miniscule!

 

Still I bet we have just as many admirals , air marschalls , brigadiers etc as the 1990s  all hanging in there for their lovely tax payer funded pensions 

 

I've been saying for sometime now  this country is just playing at defence . It needs to take it much more seriously or we might as well not bother and save £35bn a year . We are actually puting lives of our forces at stake by not properly supporting or funding them .

 

 

 

Edited April 12, 2023 by Legend

[alastairq]

We have one great military selling point....training!

We seem to be very good at selling our 'training' methods to all & sundry...and long may it continue.

 

Seeing as 'training' is by far the most important aspect of the military industry.

 

As for 'numbers', well, when I had owt to do with military, there was always a disconnect between number of personnel quoted, and numbers of personnel actually in post, so to speak.

 

We used to have our own manning subject to the SOTR....

But the numbers stated in the SOTR were always far away and ahead of the actual numbers.

We had the issue a few years ago, where the Army [as I recall] was to shed X thousand personnel...but in fact, the Army had been unable to recruit the new number to which it had to reduce to, before the reduction, so to speak.

I think there is a disconnect between the numbers of posts, and the numbers of actal boddz to fill them.

Much like every other much vaunted public service within the UK?

[Ozexpatriate]

11 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

I know it upsets a lot of Australians but New Zealand does quite well by relying on the next door neighbours to keep their region reasonably safe from external threats.

Australia's primary defensive strategy is to be nice to the US, and join the US in all their global adventuring, with the hope that should the need arise, they will answer the call - like they did in 1942 when the British Empire essentially fell*.

 

* Or at least ceased to be militarily effective and/or useful in the antipodes.

 

People don't talk much about ANZUS - like they do NATO but in the southwest Pacific, the ANZUS concept remains very important to Australia - if less so New Zealand.

 

The French brouhaha over the AUKUS submarine deal is illustrative of Australian priorities.

[jjb1970]

It reminds me of the late P.J.O'Rourke's classic line that when the **** hits the fan you don't call Sweden for help.

 

If a military alliance is considered necessary for security then the US is the only western aligned country (for want of a better term) that really matters and has a genuine global force projection capability.

 

Arguably, not just western aligned but full stop as despite it's immense modernization over the last 30 years and emergence as a properly formidable force the Chinese military is still configured to defend China and fight localized conflicts in Eurosia, East Asia and the South China Sea. 

[Ozexpatriate]

9 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

... the Chinese military is still configured to defend China and fight localized conflicts in Eurosia, East Asia and the South China Sea

That is precisely the concern of many planners - one strait in particular.

[peanuts]

For those of you who have a liking for RN History this podcast is reading selected excerpts of   diarys from may 1943 forward including the personal diary of the captain of Hms Warspite first two have been very interesting 

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/between-the-lines-ep2/id1457552694?i=1000608699296

[2750Papyrus]

I see a type 45 is moored at Greenwich as guardship for the Coronation. 

 

I wonder if we will see a similar deployment to Liverpool for the song contest?

[pete_mcfarlane]

3 minutes ago, 2750Papyrus said:

I see a type 45 is moored at Greenwich as guardship for the Coronation. 

 

I wonder if we will see a similar deployment to Liverpool for the song contest?

I hope so. It could shell the hall where the contest is being held.....