Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Royal Navy Type 31

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Don't underestimate the capacity of Russian military to deliver front edge action. In Syria they have launched more airstrikes in a single day than the combined western alliance have in one month. Their Black Sea corvette type ships have been adapted to deliver a cruise type missile to 900kms.
    Despite old technology US participants are happy to fly to ISS on Russian rockets. The West needs to counter and match the capability by maintaining current equipments and systems and not continually throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
    There is little doubt that the Russians can still deliver front end action. Their use of Kaliber cruise missiles in Syria was an eye opener, especially when one considers the small size of the vessels that served as launch platforms. But the fact is that all they did was replicate a capability that others have fielded since the late 70s and the failure rate appeared to be pretty high. Delivering front end action in a manner that makes the headlines is something that looks good but has questionable long-term effects. A couple of high profile successes with Exocet in the South Atlantic by the Argentines came to a screaming halt when they ran out of missiles and the French refused to deliver any more. True, the Brits were fortunate that none of their most high value units were hit but their luck would have run out eventually if the missiles had kept coming their way.

    Developing, producing, maintaining and making meaningful use of complex weapon systems remains the preserve of those nations who have continually invested time, money and people in such systems. New kids on the block can buy in but will rarely have a meaningful capability to sustain, upgrade and develop such systems without the support of those nations who originally developed them.

    Also worth noting that much of Russian space technology still owes much to the German scientists captured after WWII. You have to remember that the Soyuz launch vehicle is the contemporary of the Titan and Saturn rockets which also owed much to von Braun and co.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
      Don't underestimate the capacity of Russian military to deliver front edge action
      Actually, one of the interesting things to watch has been the RuAF has been unable to sustain its differing types in action over any great period - each type gets about 4 weeks or so in the sun and then appears to run out of spares, gets pulled off the line for 2 months and then goes back into action. This happen to the TU-160's, the SU-34's, the TU-22M's, and the various FLANKER types - none, it seems, of the Russian types can be sustained for long, all have a limited deployment lifetime.

      The strike rate thing - possibly connected to the above - is also interesting: for all the bangs and columns of smoke, the effectiveness is pretty crap because, guess what, the Russians have only a very limited number of PGM's, and their aircrafts targeting avionics are almost entirely lacking in GPS.

      Go on YouTube - look at the cockpit videos, almost all of them, including ones taken in the apparently fantastic SU-34 FULLBACK, feature a commercial GPS receiver sellotaped to the the cockpit framework to show the pilot what country he's flying over.

      The Russians are getting bombing accuracy last seen in the 1940's, and if the western forces were doing the kind of mission planning the Russians appear to be doing, I don't doubt they could get the kind of sortie rate the Russians claim to be achieving...

      Comment


      • You'd be amazed how much they still lean on HF morse code for their fleet communications.

        Comment


        • I'm nothing but a sailor and an observer of current affairs and 20th Century History. The world is now divided into two blocks capable of projecting power. One is of course the US who can do so at Global Level. The other is Russia which through a huge concentration of power within its own territory, and an annexing of it's Naval facilities once again in Crimea/Ukraine, and with 0.75% of population in uniform ( 1 million plus ). They can project power within Eurasia mostly unhindered with vast amounts of oil and gas at their disposal. The US is so stretched, with transitioning and contracting Allies ,unable to fill in the blanks that they are likely to lose influence, especially in Asia to emerging China.
          What you say about Russian Air units indicates a measure of will do, can do , but also demonstrates the availability of spare aircraft and crews. The real story is the speed at which the European powers took the peace dividend at the end of the " Cold War " especially Britian whose only deterrants sits in silos. The reasons given really come down to lack of resources at all levels which must mean each individual European country must meet it's own Defence obligations and not hope to stand under someone else's umbrella. Of all maritime countries in Europe we stand on the ground below the bottom rung.

          Comment


          • [QUOTE=ancientmariner;443998........ The reasons given really come down to lack of resources at all levels which must mean each individual European country must meet it's own Defence obligations and not hope to stand under someone else's umbrella. Of all maritime countries in Europe we stand on the ground below the bottom rung.[/QUOTE]

            Valid points but where might the funding for such measures come from here, should taxes be raised or cuts made to other departments budgets. Would the extra expenditure be proportionate to the tangible value realised from marine assets?

            Comment


            • Between 1985 and 1989, just before cuts in spending started the European NATO countries spent on average 3.1% on defence.
              Since the public services have not improved and in some cases gotten worse I would say the Peacekeeping Dividend has been wasted. So to answer the question No taxes do not need to rise. YES other departments will have to become more efficient.
              Defence spending is like car insurance, no one likes having to pay it, but you have too. This includes us also, a country that has been driving without insurance for as long as anyone can remember.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by danno View Post
                Valid points but where might the funding for such measures come from here, should taxes be raised or cuts made to other departments budgets. Would the extra expenditure be proportionate to the tangible value realised from marine assets?
                Our Parliamentarians/Government run an expensive top heavy system over gilding the costs of Governance. How money is found is their duty as is Defending the Nation. In reality we run the optics of Defence in an ever constricting infrastructure. In Naval terms, outside of Haulbowline, we have NO Naval berths, Naval Depots. Outside of Cork Harbour we have no available drydocks. Our ships seek facilities and take their turn with commercial traffic without priority.

                Comment


                • Basically one cruise missile would put us out of action.

                  Comment


                  • I'm not sure I'd get too hung-up on there only being one full naval dockyard - Ireland does only have 8/9 ships, and with the limited number of personnel, have two would produce massive inefficiencies and cut deep into the number of people available for 'at sea' duties.

                    That's not to say that having redundancy is a bad idea - something akin to the Z berth system in the UK, in which defence builds a number of emergency or contingency berths dotted about the place with rudimentary facilities for use in an emergency might be a good plan, and revenue can be gained from allowing them to be used by commercial operators on a normal times basis.

                    For me there are other deficiencies when are more important - the lack of control/awareness of what's in the EEZ and what's in the air in Irish sovereign and controlled airspace is the biggest, with an 80+% shortfall in the amount of APC's you need, less than half the tubed Artillery you need, and the catastrophic lack of medium lift helicopters following very closely behind...

                    Comment


                    • Interesting graphic from World Bank showing our defence spend Fron 1988 onwards.Click image for larger version

Name:	22-08-2016 19-08-38.png
Views:	2
Size:	46.1 KB
ID:	698099
                      Last edited by EUFighter; 22 August 2016, 22:45.

                      Comment


                      • In the same period the NS went from 5 to 8 operational hulls !

                        Comment


                        • But the army went from 3 Brigades down to 2 etc. What it shows is the absolute amount stayed constant while we became richer. Also it shows that Joe Public did accept a much higher expenditure rate when the external threats where lower than today. Back in 1988 there was still the massive NATO that even if we were not a part of, we were hiding behind.
                          And before anyone mentions the Good Friday agreement that came in 1998 long after the slide in expenditure had begun. And I do not believe that the Crystal Ball used by our leaders is that good.

                          Comment


                          • As for dry docks, there still is the Dublin drydock and at 200m by 24.5m it will take everything we have today and our wished for Damen Crossover and Endurance classes. Just got to make sure no-one fills it in!
                            Last edited by EUFighter; 23 August 2016, 06:51.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                              As for dry docks, there still is the Dublin drydock and at 200m by 24.5m it will take everything we have today and our wished for Damen Crossover and Endurance classes. Just got to make sure no-one fills it in!
                              The last ship to use the Dublin dry- dock was aptly an Irish-flagged Arklow Fame, that departed mid-week from the unique facility in the capital that officially closes today

                              Comment


                              • Ports and other national infrastructures.

                                Another example of a public critical facility being closed down by what is essentially a private organisation for their own future plans in Dublin Port. It essentially cuts Naval Service repair options by a high percentage. The Ministry for Marine is NOT looking at it's remit and duty strategically. Did anybody from a professional perspective Object to planning. The Port Company should be required to build a replacement Drydock on the East Coast to take any tonnage likely to enter Irish Waters.
                                The Cork Drydock is also owned by a small Irish company and is not guaranteed existence.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X