billbedford Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 2 hours ago, pete_mcfarlane said: So resources need to be carefully used. At least one of the carriers is earmarked for maintaining peace in the Baltic. Has somebody been reading Jackie Fisher's old notes? 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted January 24 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 24 4 hours ago, Deeps said: Do you think, perhaps, that is why we haven’t got one of our carriers in the Middle East? There's been a debate in the USN for quite a while about the utility of carriers against a peer adversary. They're very useful in expeditionary type warfare against enemies with limited air and sea power capabilities but less so against an enemy with submarines and airborne aniti-shipping capabilities. The PRC has spent decades developing carrier killer weapons and tactics and it's now pretty much agreed putting surface ships anywhere near China would be unwise if things ever went hot. The Russians have similar sea denial capabilities, the former Soviet navy invested a lot of effort in anti-ship weapons and Russia continued to work on such weapons, such as the joint Russian-Indian Brahmos missile. That's a big part of why the US is investing so much in bases and airfields in the Indo-Pacific. You only need to sink a carrier once, runways can be repaired pretty quickly (short of a nuclear strike) and need to be hit repeatedly. However, carriers remain a great status symbol and useful for expeditionary type war where they can be operated in reasonable safety. 1 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WessexEclectic Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 (edited) 8 minutes ago, jjb1970 said: That's a big part of why the US is investing so much in bases and airfields in the Indo-Pacific. "Bring me the runway of Diego Garcia".... Edited January 24 by WessexEclectic 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted January 24 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 24 (edited) Something to keep in mind is that the Yemeni objective isn't to sink US or allied warships nor even to sink merchant ships, it's to choke off the Suez route to Israel (and Eilat) and for ships linked to countries like the US and UK. They learned a lesson in their war with the Saudi led coalition that the way to squeeze a rich, developed enemy is to hit them in the wallet. The Arab countries started to get serious about wanting a face saving way out of the Yemen war when their oil and gas sectors were targeted. Ansar Allah may be making the mistake of so many in thinking that what worked in the last war will work in the next war (hello Maginot line, Blitzkrieg) but so far they're achieving their objective. Edited January 24 by jjb1970 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeithMacdonald Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 Meanwhile, back to HMS Troutbridge... Telegraph Quote Navy warship ‘was rewired to go backwards instead of forwards’ – but it’s not incompetence, insists Shapps Guardian Quote The minehunter HMS Chiddingfold went backwards into HMS Bangor, which was lying at port, ripping a hole in a cabin above the waterline, in an embarrassing blunder that the defence secretary, Grant Shapps, insisted did not reflect incompetence. “HMS Chiddingfold’s motor was wired incorrectly and full ahead gave full astern,” a navy insider said. The vessel had been recently inspected by officers at the maritime capability, trials and assessment team, they added. Forces Net Quote Crash involving two Royal Navy warships in Bahrain caused estimated £25m of damage ... This is not the first incident involving HMS Chiddingfold, as in April 2021 she struck HMS Penzance when attempting to berth at the UK's naval base in Bahrain. The collision in the Gulf led to approximately £100,000 worth of damage. https://www.forces.net/services/navy/dodgy-wiring-reportedly-caused-ps25m-royal-navy-warship-crash-bahrain I didn't realise Chiddingfold was a serial offender. 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted January 24 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 24 Oops. That is embarrassing. The mistake with the wiring is understandable, that's why it's normal to test systems after maintenance. Somebody has dropped a monumental klanger in waiting until manoeuvring to see if it was right. 2 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeithMacdonald Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 7th April 2021 Quote Two Royal Navy ships have been involved in a collision in the Gulf, leading to approximately £100,000 of damage. HMS Chiddingfold hit HMS Penzance when attempting to berth at the UK naval base in Bahrain. A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said the "incident is under investigation". "Early indications are that a combination of wind, tide and equipment failure frustrated attempts for HMS Chiddingfold to remain clear of another minehunter," the spokesperson said. https://www.forces.net/news/navy-ships-collision-gulf-causes-ps100000-damage 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinRS Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 10 minutes ago, KeithMacdonald said: Navy warship ‘was rewired to go backwards instead of forwards’ – but it’s not incompetence, insists Shapps I feel so reassured now our Defence Secretary has made that statement. 7 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted January 24 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 24 If the story is accurate then all it does is move the blunder from the wheelhouse to whoever was responsible for post maintenance return to service. Even then I would hesitate to throw the word 'incompetent' around without more info. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted January 24 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 24 9 hours ago, johnofwessex said: 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 Absolutely, a truth many either ignore or don't get. People can view the same events from different perspectives and arrive at very different conclusions, and for those individuals their conclusions are perfectly reasonable. The historian AJP Taylor made the point that people allow for a generosity of interpretation to the actions of their own countries which is seldom extended to others, and he was right. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted January 24 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 24 1 hour ago, billbedford said: Has somebody been reading Jackie Fisher's old notes? Putting a huge floating target within easy range of anti-shipping weapons in relatively confined waters (the Baltic isn't a big sea, especially the Eastern bit near Russia) doesn't seem wise. Especially when NATO must have hundreds of land based runways to operate from against Russia and a far bigger fleet of land based aircraft. 2 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozexpatriate Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 On 22/01/2024 at 03:19, rockershovel said: What worries me is that the Americsns clearly want to fight the Iranians. Nonsense. Certainly there are some. They are not "in charge". This sort of blanket generality is just wrong*. * Factually inaccurate and other meanings. 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozexpatriate Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 (edited) 2 hours ago, jjb1970 said: If the story is accurate It's pretty inconceivable that it is strictly accurate - it is perhaps a "layman's explanation" of what might have happened. A flipped bit in some control software? That I could imagine. Quote “HMS Chiddingfold’s motor was wired incorrectly and full ahead gave full astern,” A comment like that makes me wonder how the ship got to Bahrain in the first place if such an explanation was accurate. Edited January 24 by Ozexpatriate 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted January 24 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 24 32 minutes ago, Ozexpatriate said: Nonsense. Certainly there are some. They are not "in charge". This sort of blanket generality is just wrong*. * Factually inaccurate and other meanings. I see much more debate in both political and media circles in the US than in the UK. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Legend Posted January 24 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 24 6 hours ago, Ozexpatriate said: A comment like that makes me wonder how the ship got to Bahrain in the first place if such an explanation was accurate. they thought it was strange they had to use reverse the whole way 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_mcfarlane Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 I'm wondering what they mean by 'motor', given that these ships have diesel engines and a gearbox driving propellers? It's probably a lot more complex than somebody wiring up an electric motor the wrong way round by mistake. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted January 24 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 24 It could be anything really, crossed wires on a CPP control unit would be the obvious one on a mech drive. Either way, if true (a big if of course) it does beg questions about operational and maintenance procedures. On direct drive engines a normal part of pre-departure checks was to kick ahead and astern on air, or if it was a CPP to cycle the pitch to check it was responding normally. If it was a crossed wire reversing direction I'd expect it to be identified doing a return to service check after maintenance. 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2750Papyrus Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 4 hours ago, Legend said: they thought it was strange they had to use reverse the whole way Don't propellers go the other way south of the equator? 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohmisterporter Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 (edited) Isn't it noticeable that the newspapers that are always demanding more tax cuts are the same ones that are equally demanding our navy, army, air force be sent to some god forsaken place to put the locals in their place? Missing the point that the locals are already in their place, and it was those tax cuts that reduced our forces to the weak state they are in at the moment. Edited January 24 by Ohmisterporter 10 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted January 24 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 24 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Ohmisterporter said: Isn't it noticeable that the newspapers that are always demanding more tax cuts are the same ones that are equally demanding our navy, army, air force be sent to some god forsaken place to put the locals in their place? Missing the point that the locals are already in their place, and it was those tax cuts that reduced our forces to the weak state they are in at the moment. At the risk of mentioning politics it sometimes feels that all you need to do to win an election is to promise massive public spending and massive tax cuts at the same time. Actually I don't think enough people are daft enough to fall for that, although plenty will go a bit in that direction (they usually prefer "tax the hell out of everyone else and everything I don't use"). Edited January 24 by Reorte 3 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyC Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 (edited) 9 hours ago, pete_mcfarlane said: I'm wondering what they mean by 'motor', given that these ships have diesel engines and a gearbox driving propellers? It's probably a lot more complex than somebody wiring up an electric motor the wrong way round by mistake. A motor ship is a ship driven by an internal combustion engine (usually a diesel). Whether the original reporter understood the definition or just used the term is another question. Edited January 24 by JeremyC 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbedford Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 17 hours ago, Ozexpatriate said: A comment like that makes me wonder how the ship got to Bahrain in the first place if such an explanation was accurate. More to the point, how the ship got as far out from the Quay without someone realising something was wrong. I suppose it could have been towed, but even so, the bridge seems they reacted quite slowly. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeithMacdonald Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 On 22/01/2024 at 13:49, jjb1970 said: The region is so complex. ... As an indication of how messed up ... Look (for example) at who is insuring the Russian oil tankers. Quote Despite the EU/G7 countries’ sanctions on Russian oil, a majority of vessels carrying Russian oil and oil products are owned and/or insured in the EU and G7 countries. Before the war, Putin was incredibly reliant on Western owned or insured tankers to transport Russian oil globally. Despite the strong set of tools to cut revenues for the Kremlin’s war chest, EU/G7 countries have allowed the proliferation of the Russian oil trade by insuring tankers transporting Russian oil. CREA analysis has found that the UK — the largest insurer of seaborne Russian oil globally — insured ships that transported Russian oil worth EUR 120.6 bn from March 2022, just after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine1, until the end of November 2023. https://energyandcleanair.org/insuring-an-invasion-uk-insures-eur-46-4-bn-russian-oil-since-sanctions/#:~:text=CREA analysis has found that,the end of November 2023. Not much mentioned in the MSM, maybe because it confuses the "sanctions are working" meme? Quote In the 12 months since the oil price cap was introduced in December 2022, €46.4bn of Russian oil has been transported on tankers using UK protection and indemnity (P&I) insurance. The West of England P&I Club covered the highest value of Russian oil products at €20.1bn, followed by NorthStandard at €17bn. North and Standard insurance merged to become NorthStandard in February 2023. https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/enabling-putler-uk-firms-have-insured-over-eu120-billion-russian-oil 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted January 25 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 25 News of the Red Sea: https://maritime-executive.com/article/maersk-reports-attack-near-two-u-s-flag-ships-off-yemen 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grovenor Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 So all our attacks on the Houthi have achieved so far is an increase in the list of ships that are at risk of attack. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now