The Shrunken Royal Navy

[Ben B]

1 hour ago, Bon Accord said:

Only noticed today, but from pictures of POW's departure on exercise she does not have any Phalanx CIWS fitted.

Now 20 years ago the RN/RFA was 'robbing Peter to pay Paul' as there wasn't enough Phalanx to go around, especially after a load of were pinched, bolted down to a flatbed artic and used for base defence in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, all these years on and with a corresponding huge reduction in the fleet of operational vessels it's rather unforgivable and really quite embarrassing that one of our two most expensive and high profile naval assets is heading to sea with only small arms available for self defence.

 

I wonder what the plan is? Have the three non-rostered crew on deck trying to pot incoming ordnance with their rifles? Hit three inbound ballistic missiles in a row, win a goldfish or a giant teddybear?

[Kickstart]

6 hours ago, The Fatadder said:

I see there is talk in the press again (presumably around next gen destroyer) referring to reducing manning of future warships to as little as 50 men.

 

While I can see how you could get to this with the use of automation etc, I wonder if this starts to get to the point where damage control becomes very difficult.

 

Less crew needs  less space (stores, bunks, etc) so a smaller ship. Not sure with modern ships and modern weapons that damage control will be that powerful. If the weapon works the ship is probably lost, if it doesn't then most complex work by a couple of people to disarm it.

 

All the best

 

Katy

[Reorte]

15 minutes ago, Kickstart said:

 

Less crew needs  less space (stores, bunks, etc) so a smaller ship. Not sure with modern ships and modern weapons that damage control will be that powerful. If the weapon works the ship is probably lost, if it doesn't then most complex work by a couple of people to disarm it.

Weapons shrink when defences do - quite a few might be incapable of taking out an old heavily-armed battleship, but since no-one builds those any more there's no point in making a warhead that big, and they're not built like that now because making a sufficiently big warhead wouldn't be too much of a problem. So based on that I doubt the destructive power of the weapons will increase. The advances go on getting them to their target.

[Bon Accord]

22 minutes ago, Kickstart said:

 

Less crew needs  less space (stores, bunks, etc) so a smaller ship. Not sure with modern ships and modern weapons that damage control will be that powerful. If the weapon works the ship is probably lost, if it doesn't then most complex work by a couple of people to disarm it.

 

All the best

 

Katy

 

Good damage control and the manpower to implement it is still a requirement for when the RN manage to get themselves into deep trouble all on their own, e.g. Ambush, Endurance, Superb, Trafalgar, Nottingham, Campbeltown, Grafton, Southampton...

[Deeps]

8 hours ago, The Fatadder said:

While I can see how you could get to this with the use of automation etc, I wonder if this starts to get to the point where damage control becomes very difficult.

There needs to be redundancy built into the manning of a warship. Having been involved in three wars, and having seen the problems first hand when there are injuries amongst the crew, I can categorically state that when the proverbial hits the fan you need crew members that have been trained to immediately take on alternative duties. The apparent surplus crew members may seem an additional strain on the budget but it is essential, and not all damage sustained will be terminal. This is applicable during peacetime operations as well. My experiences were predominantly on submarines, where the crew are highly trained for just such eventualities.

[Bon Accord]

Who didn't see this coming...

 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/hms-queen-elizabeth-heading-to-scottland-for-repairs/

[KeithMacdonald]

Not sure if this article has been mentioned?

https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com/2023/11/too-few-people-for-too-many-ships.html

It's an analysis of how and why such a large percentage of applicants are screened-out and rejected as unsuitable.

 

 

[JeremyC]

On 13/02/2024 at 18:38, Deeps said:

There needs to be redundancy built into the manning of a warship. Having been involved in three wars, and having seen the problems first hand when there are injuries amongst the crew, I can categorically state that when the proverbial hits the fan you need crew members that have been trained to immediately take on alternative duties. The apparent surplus crew members may seem an additional strain on the budget but it is essential, and not all damage sustained will be terminal. This is applicable during peacetime operations as well. My experiences were predominantly on submarines, where the crew are highly trained for just such eventualities.

Thing is if some people are to be believed in a few years ship's will be remote controlled or autonomous so will not have a crew, so who is going to do the damage control then?

(Reminds me of an old third engineer I sailed with who said he'd believe in computer control when it could go out and repair the fault it had flagged up)

[KeithMacdonald]

On 13/02/2024 at 18:38, Deeps said:

There needs to be redundancy built into the manning of a warship.

 

@Deeps provides an excellent example of a general principal of good Systems Engineering. That is, designing-in multiple-paths, and removing single-points-of-failure, which means adding resiliance by deliberate redundancy.

 

Trouble is, this is Engineering, and an alien way of thinking to accountants and bureaucrats. Who's first line of attack is "How likely is that to happen?", followed by "How much extra will it cost for all these things that are unlikely to happen?".  With little or no regard for the logical fallacy. i.e. just because it doesn't often happen, that doesn't mean it never happens, or it will happen later rather than sooner.

 

By way of another example (closer to home), building houses on a flood plan. It matters not a lot to some councils eager to get planning fees and council tax, even when their own planning departments say there's a good historical reason it is a flood plain. It hasn't flooded lately has it? Until it does.

[Deeps]

10 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

Trouble is, this is Engineering, and an alien way of thinking to accountants and bureaucrats. Who's first line of attack is "How likely is that to happen?", followed by "How much extra will it cost for all these things that are unlikely to happen?".  With little or no regard for the logical fallacy. i.e. just because it doesn't often happen, that doesn't mean it never happens, or it will happen later rather than sooner.

Absolutely correct, but there is something else to consider when discussing reliability and manning numbers; that of available ships on station.

 

Britain traditionally had a large navy, provided at a cost we can no longer sustain, and was able to patrol the world’s oceans with squadrons of vessels for peacekeeping duties etc. Over the last few decades our fleet has shrunk to the point where instead of being able to send a modest fleet to patrol the Caribbean (for example) we can now only send one ship. This is generally termed a ‘Guardship’, policing the waters and providing disaster relief. If that ship develops a serious defect and has to call in to a port for repairs our presence has effectively ended.

 

Back in the day the remainder of the ‘squadron’ could maintain the duties until the broken vessel returned to the job in hand. We also had geographically convenient bases in Hong Kong, Singapore, Gibraltar, Malta, and other places, which would ensure adequate and rapid repairs. In addition we had highly trained technicians onboard (Artificers) who were capable of undertaking complex repairs at sea when the option of RxR with a spare wasn’t available. That skilled training was expensive to provide and, with no disrespect to the current manpower of the RN, was abandoned as the result of cutbacks.

 

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union the various cutbacks probably seemed logical but the world today is a very different place and, apart from the obvious threats from rogue nations, the biggest battle is educating these accountants and bureaucrats (and, by definition, the general public) of the need for increased defence spending.

[Reorte]

12 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

Trouble is, this is Engineering, and an alien way of thinking to accountants and bureaucrats. Who's first line of attack is "How likely is that to happen?", followed by "How much extra will it cost for all these things that are unlikely to happen?".  With little or no regard for the logical fallacy. i.e. just because it doesn't often happen, that doesn't mean it never happens, or it will happen later rather than sooner.

"How likely" is important for engineers. That's why we don't concern ourselves about earthquake survivability when designing buildings in the UK, but in some other parts of the world it's very much a  good idea to.

[alastairq]

Interesting viewpoints

 

 

[Legend]

Oh dear , I see the RN has just suffered another embarrassing misfire of a Trident missile .  Even worse Grant Schapps was aboard for it .  I know they are probably not related , with the problems over QEs propellers , but it does make you wonder about our state of preparedness . 

[Kickstart]

17 minutes ago, Legend said:

Oh dear , I see the RN has just suffered another embarrassing misfire of a Trident missile .  Even worse Grant Schapps was aboard for it .  I know they are probably not related , with the problems over QEs propellers , but it does make you wonder about our state of preparedness . 

 

"Who let the politician press a button?"

 

All the best

 

Katy

[Ben B]

4 minutes ago, Kickstart said:

 

"Who let the politician press a button?"

 

All the best

 

Katy

 

Or like in "Deep Trouble" where the innexperienced new Captain of the sub puts his coffee mug down on a console, and launches a torpedo :)

[TheQ]

Many years ago I was in the control room R12 building on an R.A.F. R.A.D.A.R. station, when the Junior Officer I/C the shift knocked his muggatea into the main control panel of the Type 85 radar. Not surprisingly it tripped out. Some rapid button pushing and it came back on again.. strangely it all seemed well.

 

Next evening was a full power run, all twelve transmitters running into the aerial, ( 60MW), then all the various combinations of which transmitter up which horn or pair of horns ( 16 to choose from) and various other functions..

This did not go well, many switches and relays had glued together due to the 4 sugars he had in his tea. The whole thing tripped out several times and took some time to get running again after the control panel was replaced.

[Erichill16]

1 hour ago, TheQ said:

Many years ago I was in the control room R12 building on an R.A.F. R.A.D.A.R. station, when the Junior Officer I/C the shift knocked his muggatea into the main control panel of the Type 85 radar. Not surprisingly it tripped out. Some rapid button pushing and it came back on again.. strangely it all seemed well.

 

Next evening was a full power run, all twelve transmitters running into the aerial, ( 60MW), then all the various combinations of which transmitter up which horn or pair of horns ( 16 to choose from) and various other functions..

This did not go well, many switches and relays had glued together due to the 4 sugars he had in his tea. The whole thing tripped out several times and took some time to get running again after the control panel was replaced.

Similar reason why tea cups arn’t  allowed near layouts at MRC.😆

[johnofwessex]

4 hours ago, TheQ said:

Many years ago I was in the control room R12 building on an R.A.F. R.A.D.A.R. station, when the Junior Officer I/C the shift knocked his muggatea into the main control panel of the Type 85 radar. Not surprisingly it tripped out. Some rapid button pushing and it came back on again.. strangely it all seemed well.

 

Next evening was a full power run, all twelve transmitters running into the aerial, ( 60MW), then all the various combinations of which transmitter up which horn or pair of horns ( 16 to choose from) and various other functions..

This did not go well, many switches and relays had glued together due to the 4 sugars he had in his tea. The whole thing tripped out several times and took some time to get running again after the control panel was replaced.

 

I am told reliably that the mate on the IOMSPC Freight Ferry Peveril spilt his coffee on thhe control panel as the ship approached the linkspan in Douglas and she rammed the linkspan as a result

[Ohmisterporter]

There is an article in Navy lookout about the life extension programme for HMS Victorious. I cannot help thinking that delaying refits and upgrades for short term political gains are throwing money away in the long run. Hope you find it of interest.

 

https://www.navylookout.com/extending-the-life-of-hms-victorious/

[KeithMacdonald]

On 21/02/2024 at 12:27, Legend said:

I see the RN has just suffered another embarrassing misfire of a Trident missile .  Even worse Grant Schapps was aboard for it

 

It's only just occured to me - that should (Shirley) have been known as Grant Schapp's erectile dysfunction?

[The White Rabbit]

3 minutes ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

It's only just occurred to me ...

 

Best not to be premature, heh?