The Shrunken Royal Navy

[Deeps]

I once witnessed a collision between a Type 21 Frigate and a submarine in Devonport dockyard. It was during the 1980’s I think and when the frigate was due to leave a tug was standing by to assist but the CO, probably thinking he was too skilled for that, stated he didn’t need one. He left the wall rather rapidly and managed to nudge the aft hydroplanes of the submarine. I don’t think there was serious damage to either vessel but the frigate got as far as Plymouth Sound before a helicopter appeared to take him back to be interviewed by the Commodore.

[Bon Accord]

1 hour ago, alastairq said:

Re-the collision...I know little of modern ships' mechanical problems [having been a Navigation Cadet  all very much in the era of the sextant]...but I do wonder, watching the video, whether there had been an issue with the control of the engines...and in which direction they went?

 

Others who are professionally involved may know different, but I recall certain makes of ships main diesel engines actually having a trait of folk not being certain which way they'd turn [for sure?] when re-stating from 'engine stop?'

 

The name 'Doxford' somehow springs to mind?

 

My experience was solely with shtim and Burmeister & Wain...But I do recall having had the hammering home of '''when ringing down for full astern, confirm [make damned sure] the rev counter  started swinging  in the desired direction....''

 

Obviously those older folk on the bridge had suffered harrowing experiences in this direction?

 

As I remember the Hunt class are twin screw fixed pitch props running from medium speed diesels through a gearbox with ahead/astern clutches. The engines, gearboxes, control systems etc were all fitted new to Chiddingfold in 2012.

Therefore with an unresponsive control system, i.e. jammed one way, there should be three ways to save the day in order of increasing desperation:

 

1) Emergency (backup) controls either on the bridge, in the ECR or locally at the gearboxes.

2) Emergency declutch the shafts from the gearbox, this can usually be done both on the bridge and in the engine room.

3) Emergency stop of main engines, again both on the bridge and in the E/R.

 

Those ships are fitted with a bowthruster, so if options 2 or 3 are used and you lose the main engines you can still steer partially with the thruster when going astern. Plus there's always the anchor to put out.

 

It'll be interesting to hear just how this all happened as if it's pure mechanical failure of some description then options 1-3 should be the automatic fallback for those on the bridge and engine room.

[KeithMacdonald]

22 hours ago, Deeps said:

And, possibly, the end of at least one promising career.

 

And their no-claims bonus?

Their insurance claim incident report will make interesting reading.

"I was reversing into a parking space that wasn't there"

 

Quote

Please use this form to report incidents.  Incident reports will usually only be responded to during office hours from Monday to Friday. Over holiday periods the office period the office will not be fully manned and replies may take some time.

 

Especially these sections:

• Who & How Involved
• Why (initial investigation)

 

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/khm/portsmouth/safety-and-regulations/report-an-incident

[Ben B]

4 hours ago, johnofwessex said:

 

Now we are on to putting holes in our own ships............

 

Could be the perfect implementation of Western Capitalism with regards to our armed forces budgets.  Remember how in "Catch 22" Milo contracted with the Luftwaffe to bomb his own American airbase?  Maybe someone in the MoD contracted with the rebels, cut out the middle-man ;)

[alastairq]

The smaller ship jumped into the way...

[KeithMacdonald]

3 hours ago, Bon Accord said:

As I remember the Hunt class are twin screw fixed pitch props running from medium speed diesels through a gearbox with ahead/astern clutches.

 

That got me wondering if they are counter-rotating props. My personal naval history includes witnessing a junior seafarer struggling to learn the basics of going astern at low speed, when the dominant vector can be the effect of the prop kick. You'd definitely get that with a single-prop, but not with a twin-prop if the props rotate in opposite directions. That prop kick can "walk" the boat sideways, and rudder control is not as effective as one might wish or expect. Even more so if there is wind and tide pushing your boat somewhere you'd rather not be.  All of which is probably irrelevant in this case of "Troutbridge -v- Banged"?

 

[KeithMacdonald]

7 hours ago, johnofwessex said:

Now we are on to putting holes in our own ships............

 

Could it all be part of the same Cunning Plan to make sure we can't be directly involved?

 

Awfully sorry old chaps, we'd love to help you, but we just don't seem to have enough of the right equipment, and what we do have is mostly broken, obsolete or unusable.

[KeithMacdonald]

On 20/01/2024 at 17:43, Ben B said:

Sneaky behind-the-scenes filming of a reboot of The Navy Lark? ;)

 

On 20/01/2024 at 16:52, Hroth said:

I note that Bangor was due to be "decommissioned" next year. Perhaps that will be accellerated...

 

Chiddingfold renamed Troutbridge.

Bangor renamed Banged Up.

Nominations please for the "new crew".

Perhaps these?

Sub-Lieutenant Phillips to be played by David Mitchell or Jack Whitehall

CPO Pertwee by Rob Brydon or Gregor Fisher

"Fatso" Johnson by Lee Mack or John Sessions

Edited January 21 by KeithMacdonald
More crew members

[APOLLO]

 

Kleine Fahrt or Langs Fahrt Zuruck ?

 

Repair is on the way, has to call at Alaska Air first.

 

 

 

What a palava.

 

Brit15

 

[Kickstart]

That was quite some speed. If the other ship wasn't there it would have instead impacted the dock wall.

 

Also not sure if just me, but shortly before the impact it seems to change directly, more directly towards HMS Bangor. Almost like there was confusion in the direction to turn when moving astern

 

All the best

 

Katy

[rockershovel]

23 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

 

My fear is that the current lot in American and European capitals seem to have forgotten what diplomacy is and seem incapable of considering anything other than escalation. I can't help thinking we have crossed another Rubicon and will end up in another quagmire. The Saudi led coalition bombed Yemen intensively for years and ended up desperate to find a face saving way out.

The problem with fighting any sort of war in Yemen is that it is virtually impossible to end it. You become drawn into a continuous conflict with an enemy who are extremely difficult to locate and have no "war aims" as you understand them, no centralised leadership and fight for the sake of fighting. 

 

Look at Afghanistan. A region which is ungovernable for all practical purposes, wild and remote but with borders to all sorts of places; basically devoted to drug smuggling and pursual of blood feuds of various descriptions. I'm certain my great-grandfather (who served on the North West Frontier in the late 19th Century) would recognise it immediately.

 

What worries me is that the Americsns clearly want to fight the Iranians. I've been to Iran. It's large, rugged, stinking hot, full of oil, inaccessible and those boys will fight. Teheran alone has a population of 12 million. I really can't think of a more inadvisable venture. 

[jjb1970]

The Middle East is a ticking bomb ready to explode. Several Middle Eastern governments seem to be trying to placate their own people in public while telling Israel and the US they will not go beyond rhetoric intended for domestic consumption but the longer the crisis goes on the more pressure they will be under and at some point they will face a choice between coming off the fence or uprisings. Iraq wants the US and it's allies out of their country, many assume Erdogan's bluster in Turkiye is just that but he is also becoming a hostage to opinion in his country. And that's before thinking about Iran and Yemen.

 

The region is so complex. Our media and politicians are telling us Hamas and Hezbollah are bed buddies despite the fact they supported and aided opposite sides in the Syrian war. We're told they're Iranian puppets, but there's a fundamental difference between allying with Iran out of necessity (and in the case of Hezbollah, but not Hamas, religious and ideological affinity) and being a puppet. As an indication of how messed up it all is we ended up in the bonkers positioning of being expected to differentiate between 'bad Al Qaeda' who were behind 9/11 and 'good Al Qaeda' who were fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Ditto Ansar Allah, the history of Yemen is tortuous and Ansar Allah is neither a bunch of raggedy tribes people nor a mere Iranian puppet even if they are allies. Hamas is much closer to political movements in Egypt than to Iran. It's easy to criticise Yemen but a major reason it's so messed up is outside interference. We assisted the Saudi led coalition trying to bomb then to bits, as others have pointed out it was difficult to say bombing back to the stone age when the country was hardly developed before the bombing, the main outcome of which appears to have been a few hundred thousand dead, Ansar Allah still in control and the Saudi's desperate for an exit.

 

It's clear that some in the west do want to confront Iran, who quite aside from their own network of regional alliances and their own capabilities are agreeing an alliance with Russia. Rather than calming things the collective west is pouring petrol on the fire. I really worry, I think the world we live in is more dangerous than it has been at any other time in my life. We are now effectively in another war in Yemen, and I see no indication of a coherent strategy or even a realistic objective beyond a vain hope that if we dropped a few bombs everything would work out fine.

[APOLLO]

And, as in all wars, it's not the common folks to blame whatever their race or religion.

 

It is the leaders, politicians, and of course they follow one god - MONEY, the west included.

 

Brit15

[johnofwessex]

I remember talking to a Marine who served in Oman.

 

The Omani troops he led against the rebels would happily go on leave to fight for the other side and nobody thought this odd.

 

My father and two of my uncles served in the British Army & RAF in Europe during WW2, whatever else happened they fought an enemy that was part of the same culture.  By comparison another uncle who fought in Burma was dealing with an enemy that was hard to understand.

 

The upshot of this of course was that we somehow think that what happened at the end of WW2 when we got unconditional surrender from Germany & Japan who then went on to become good international citizens can be repeated but it cant , look at.......  Insert war of choice

[rockershovel]

1 hour ago, johnofwessex said:

I remember talking to a Marine who served in Oman.

 

The Omani troops he led against the rebels would happily go on leave to fight for the other side and nobody thought this odd.

 

My father and two of my uncles served in the British Army & RAF in Europe during WW2, whatever else happened they fought an enemy that was part of the same culture.  By comparison another uncle who fought in Burma was dealing with an enemy that was hard to understand.

 

The upshot of this of course was that we somehow think that what happened at the end of WW2 when we got unconditional surrender from Germany & Japan who then went on to become good international citizens can be repeated but it cant , look at.......  Insert war of choice

The fundamental problem is that outside Europe, the Reformation never happened. 

 

Henry Tudor must have been a terrifying figure to those around him, let alone his actual enemies, but he effectively suppressed the endemic civil war which had plague the country for centuries. He did this by imposing the transfer of loyalty from the extended family to the Nation State. 

 

The Ottoman Empire never went down this route. It rotted from the top down, its systems of governing a miscellaneous group of ethnicities largely replaced by the spread of Islam. 

 

 

[alastairq]

I guess there are still some proper ''sailors'' in the Navy?

[In my day the height of modern technology on the bridge [my usual workplace at sea]...was a Decca Navigator...which couldn't be relied upon entirely. LORAN wasn't available as the ships I sailed in were British ships, and we didn't entirely trust the yanks...}

 

Bridge control of the injins?????  A telegraph, a rev counter, and for emergencies, a telephone to 'down below'.....[Three rings of the telegraph meant ''effin' full astern!!'']   

 

Suez was shut the entire time I was ''at sea''.... A six month 'trip' meant three round trips, UK-Gulf.....Kharg Island at one end, Isle  o Grain at the other...24 hours alongside at both ends..great!!! [I think not]....Luckily for me I spent more time in the Med, than going round the Cape....Syria /Lebanon one end, a few days later, Italy!  A lot more than 24 hours in port as well....That's if a certain somebody didn't blow up one of the pipelines?  Which happened on more than one occasion, if my old journals are anything to go by?   

 

Anyway, I take it, if there was a ''proper'' sailor on that bridge, they were taken ''all aback?'' [Flat aback?]

[jjb1970]

16 hours ago, rockershovel said:

The fundamental problem is that outside Europe, the Reformation never happened. 

 

Henry Tudor must have been a terrifying figure to those around him, let alone his actual enemies, but he effectively suppressed the endemic civil war which had plague the country for centuries. He did this by imposing the transfer of loyalty from the extended family to the Nation State. 

 

The Ottoman Empire never went down this route. It rotted from the top down, its systems of governing a miscellaneous group of ethnicities largely replaced by the spread of Islam. 

 

 

 

We have to take a lot of the blame for the state of the Middle East. The country that people love to blame for everything wrong in the region is Iran (which is unfair, there's a lot they should be blamed for but there's plenty for of blame for everyone) but one of the principal reasons Iran ended up as it is today is the US/UK coup in 1953 which overthrew the Mossaddegh government (he committed the cardinal sin of wanting an audit of AIOC/BP to verify they were paying their dues) and put Iran on a path to the Islamic revolution. In the 50's and 60's the prevailing movement in much of the Arab world was a blend of nationalism and socialism (movements such as ba'ath in Syria and Iraq) as exemplified by Nasser, and we were very active in trying to put a stop to that as it was considered too red and independent. That was a key reason that radical Islam found space to thrive in much of the region. One of the most ridiculous excuses for the Iraq was was that Saddam Hussein was in bed with Al Qaeda, there were many reasons to hate Saddam and he was an evil old (insert expletive of choice) but the one thing he wasn't was a radical Islamist. Groups like AQ and what would become ISIS were ruthlessly suppressed by his regime, we were the ones who created the conditions for them to thrive in the country (as well as increasing Iranian influence in Iraq immeasurably).

 

I have seldom found Arab's or Iranians to be anything like the stereotypes. They're depicted as primitive ideologues in much of our media, living in the Middle Ages, yet they are not irrational people and although we might not like to admit it they have quite a lot of legitimate grievances against the western world.

[johnofwessex]

2 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

 

...................................

 

I have seldom found Arab's or Iranians to be anything like the stereotypes. They're depicted as primitive ideologues in much of our media, living in the Middle Ages, yet they are not irrational people and although we might not like to admit it they have quite a lot of legitimate grievances against the western world.

 

I remember an ex of mine who described herself as 'differently sane'

 

People from different cultures even nations in Europe look at the world in a very different way, as indeed we do to them.

 

So how they view the world starts off from e very different place to - say a White Englishman

[Deeps]

Just finished watching ‘Sink the Bismarck’ on Film 4 and I can’t help thinking that, today, we’ve somewhat lost the plot. To think that we were once capable of such heroic deeds but today we are hard pressed to rustle up a frigate for routine patrols almost reduces me to tears. God help us.

[billbedford]

It's a different world. Everyone knows where everyone else's ships are all the time and Bismarck-like objects can be taken out from a range of 2000km

[Deeps]

1 hour ago, billbedford said:

It's a different world. Everyone knows where everyone else's ships are all the time and Bismarck-like objects can be taken out from a range of 2000km

Do you think, perhaps, that is why we haven’t got one of our carriers in the Middle East?

[pete_mcfarlane]

On 22/01/2024 at 11:19, rockershovel said:

What worries me is that the Americsns clearly want to fight the Iranians. I've been to Iran. It's large, rugged, stinking hot, full of oil, inaccessible and those boys will fight. Teheran alone has a population of 12 million. I really can't think of a more inadvisable venture. 

It took 4 days to defeat them last time. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran

 

1 hour ago, Deeps said:

Do you think, perhaps, that is why we haven’t got one of our carriers in the Middle East?

My assumption is that the carriers aren't there because a) we can use aircraft from Cyprus if necessary, and b) lots of Johnny Foreigner types are suddenly kicking off (Hamas, Houthis) or potentially kicking off (Venezuela deciding to reignite their border dispute with Honduras, China making vague noises about invading Taiwan) in a way that's definitely definitely not a coordinated plan designed to spread Western military power thinly around the planet responding. So resources need to be carefully used. At least one of the carriers is earmarked for using the Russian navy for target practice and then seizing St Petersburg maintaining peace in the Baltic. 

[Legend]

On 21/01/2024 at 17:46, KeithMacdonald said:

 

 

Chiddingfold renamed Troutbridge.

Bangor renamed Banged Up.

Nominations please for the "new crew".

Perhaps these?

Sub-Lieutenant Phillips to be played by David Mitchell or Jack Whitehall

CPO Pertwee by Rob Brydon or Gregor Fisher

"Fatso" Johnson by Lee Mack or John Sessions

I used to like the bumbling old admiral who never knew why he was at a meeting ! 

[Legend]

2 hours ago, Deeps said:

Do you think, perhaps, that is why we haven’t got one of our carriers in the Middle East?

I think the reason is we are embarrassed that we don’t yet have enough F35s for one super carrier, let alone both . And it’s pretty poorly defended with only CIWS . Much better send Frigates and Destroyers that have sea viper . Of course we really need more destroyers that work 

[KeithMacdonald]

14 minutes ago, Legend said:

I used to like the bumbling old admiral who never knew why he was at a meeting ! 

 

Vice-Admiral "Burbly" Burwasher or Admiral Ffont-Bittocks?