Thanks Thanks:  9
Likes Likes:  43
Dislikes Dislikes:  1
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 53

Thread: Slow News Day?

  1. #26
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    941
    Post Thanks / Like
    Is it just me or is the quote function acting up?

    In terms of laying up the ships, you assume that enough of the public would care? I mean there was no massive public outrage when the RFA hull contract went to South Korea instead of UK yards. Nor when the Batch 2 Rivers were bought just to justify the money given to BAE, nor the fact that the 26's are a joke of project management.

    The Rot of the RN started long before the Carriers (which were always most likely to be STOL hulls, the chances of the CATOBAR were slim all the time), but again it was masked and ignored by the politicians and public.
    As for the choices since, you're ignoring certain facts, Largs Bay was flogged off because of it's material condition, the RN new her faults and the cost for fixing her, so flogged her off to the RAN who didn't check the conditions (like the Upholder's to Canada).
    Where the RN is, is a result of 2-3 decades of stupidity, shortsightedness and political ignorance, none of the choices left to the admirals will change that, even if they had flogged off POW like suggested in 2010 they'd still be in this state imo.

  2. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  3. #27
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,334
    Post Thanks / Like
    If there were numerous grey rusting hulls taking up space at the anchorages in Devonport and Portsmouth, middle England wouldn't be long kicking up a fuss. Ships should be at sea, not laid up.
    And definitely not laid up in prime yachting territory.
    Well, there's good news and bad news. The bad news is that Neil will be taking over both branches, and some of you will lose your jobs. Those of you who are kept on will have to relocate to Swindon, if you wanna stay. I know, gutting. On a more positive note, the good news is, I've been promoted, so... every cloud. You're still thinking about the bad news aren't you?

  4. #28
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    941
    Post Thanks / Like
    How much of a fuss was made when the RN did so before? Didn't save the Battleships that hung around in reserve, or the Carriers, Cruisers, Destroyers...
    What I'm a bit surprised at is that the RN seems to hit repeated cycles of manpower issues along with their capital expenditure issues.

  5. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  6. #29
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    921
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmit� View Post
    If there were numerous grey rusting hulls taking up space at the anchorages in Devonport and Portsmouth, middle England wouldn't be long kicking up a fuss. Ships should be at sea, not laid up.
    And definitely not laid up in prime yachting territory.
    If you are going to dispose of ships built in 1995 ( Eithne built in 1984 ) and one of them is your Flag/Command ship, then it would be prudent to follow the US example and retain HMS Ocean at short notice of about three months. Having a Reserve in Military/Naval terms must surely mean being able to call on extra tonnage to do a Falklands or something similar. Decks are critical for moving assets when required. Closing major dockyard facilities is also another limiting factor to keeping ships operational

  7. #30
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,606
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Is it just me or is the quote function acting up?

    In terms of laying up the ships, you assume that enough of the public would care? I mean there was no massive public outrage when the RFA hull contract went to South Korea instead of UK yards. Nor when the Batch 2 Rivers were bought just to justify the money given to BAE, nor the fact that the 26's are a joke of project management.

    The Rot of the RN started long before the Carriers (which were always most likely to be STOL hulls, the chances of the CATOBAR were slim all the time), but again it was masked and ignored by the politicians and public.
    As for the choices since, you're ignoring certain facts, Largs Bay was flogged off because of it's material condition, the RN new her faults and the cost for fixing her, so flogged her off to the RAN who didn't check the conditions (like the Upholder's to Canada).
    Where the RN is, is a result of 2-3 decades of stupidity, shortsightedness and political ignorance, none of the choices left to the admirals will change that, even if they had flogged off POW like suggested in 2010 they'd still be in this state imo.
    Not the first time the RAN have being suckered by a second hand ship salesman.

  8. #31
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,334
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by sofa View Post
    Not the first time the RAN have being suckered by a second hand ship salesman.
    Indeed. HMAS Manoora and Kanimbla were costly duds. No sooner than they were converted to make them suitable for purpose, they were found to be rustbuckets only fit for the breaker. The sting in the tail being that because of where they came from, only the US could scrap them.
    Well, there's good news and bad news. The bad news is that Neil will be taking over both branches, and some of you will lose your jobs. Those of you who are kept on will have to relocate to Swindon, if you wanna stay. I know, gutting. On a more positive note, the good news is, I've been promoted, so... every cloud. You're still thinking about the bad news aren't you?

  9. Thanks sofa thanked for this post
    Likes EUFighter liked this post
  10. #32
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    941
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    If you are going to dispose of ships built in 1995 ( Eithne built in 1984 ) and one of them is your Flag/Command ship, then it would be prudent to follow the US example and retain HMS Ocean at short notice of about three months. Having a Reserve in Military/Naval terms must surely mean being able to call on extra tonnage to do a Falklands or something similar. Decks are critical for moving assets when required. Closing major dockyard facilities is also another limiting factor to keeping ships operational
    In terms of Ocean, from what I understand she's built to Commercial Standards and has been used and abused to the point that the cost of sustaining her is now getting to the point of beyond value (and was always designed as such), keeping her at 3 month readiness needs a budget that simply isn't there for the RN. I mean another option on the table right now is all the brand new Lynx Wildcats, which would also take the only helicopter mounted Anti-Ship missile out of commission as well I think, so as I said this idea of rebuilding a reserve force, when in fact you are talking about hacking off sections of the core fleet due to budgets is fantasy. The RN can't keep it's current roster of units operational and crewed, having some in reserve with all the supports/protections needed isn't a runner.

  11. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  12. #33
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,732
    Post Thanks / Like
    Ocean had an out of service date of 2018 from long before the moment she first went down the slipway - and she has been worked far harder than was ever expected of her, and she's now pretty shagged out.

    she was built as a cheap and cheerful deck, her build/fit cost was less than £250m for a 20,000 ton airfield-cum-floating dock.

    just let that sink in, particularly in light of the €70m the NS pays for a 2,500 ton OPV...

    Ocean has provided astonishing value for money, but one of the reasons she cost £250m rather than £750m was that she was only going to last 20 years rather than 30. she's not quite at the same state as HMS Intrepid reached in the 1980's, but that state is not far off should she continue in RN service. it is, very sadly for those of us who've worked from her, time to let her go. i'd prefer it if she had been replaced, but it is time to let her go.

  13. Likes Sparky42 liked this post
  14. #34
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,334
    Post Thanks / Like
    She did appear rather suddenly on the Horizon, with very little fuss.
    Well, there's good news and bad news. The bad news is that Neil will be taking over both branches, and some of you will lose your jobs. Those of you who are kept on will have to relocate to Swindon, if you wanna stay. I know, gutting. On a more positive note, the good news is, I've been promoted, so... every cloud. You're still thinking about the bad news aren't you?

  15. #35
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    81
    Post Thanks / Like
    There were 3 assessments done on the HMAS Choules ex Larg Bay plus the RAN and the Defence Material Organisation and then peer reviewed. The Choules was only bought as an interim until the two LHD's came online (an envisaged 4-5 year period) and then to pass a requirements gateway review in 2016. There was conjecture over one engineering report that created question marks that came to light over the June 2012 Transmission failure - but the RAN and DMO realised that the vessel was going to require modifications alongside for RAN service anyway and at the el-cheapo price of GBP65m it made sense and still makes. It is likely to be in service into the late 2020's. It is a tad unfair to extrapolate the circumstances of the RAN's prior purchases of the ancient HMAS Manoora and Kanimbla in the mid 1990s with that of the fairly new Choules. They were old Vietnam era Newports bought for $20m each. One of the ideas behind buying them was the usual political local 'make work' schemes to keep the regional dockyards busy ahead of the 1996 elections. Sometimes the biggest enemies of navies are politicians and domestic ship building industries.

  16. Thanks sofa thanked for this post
    Likes na grohmití, Dogwatch liked this post
  17. #36
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    921
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    Ocean had an out of service date of 2018 from long before the moment she first went down the slipway - and she has been worked far harder than was ever expected of her, and she's now pretty shagged out.

    she was built as a cheap and cheerful deck, her build/fit cost was less than £250m for a 20,000 ton airfield-cum-floating dock.

    just let that sink in, particularly in light of the €70m the NS pays for a 2,500 ton OPV...

    Ocean has provided astonishing value for money, but one of the reasons she cost £250m rather than £750m was that she was only going to last 20 years rather than 30. she's not quite at the same state as HMS Intrepid reached in the 1980's, but that state is not far off should she continue in RN service. it is, very sadly for those of us who've worked from her, time to let her go. i'd prefer it if she had been replaced, but it is time to let her go.
    You may be right in part but the Strategic Defence review of 2015 also decided to terminate Ocean in 2018 without replacement. This has the attritional effect of reducing air assault platform, plus reducing response to next years disaster events in overseas territories. Building to commercial ( Llyods Standards ) often means the hull is stronger with thicker steel plating. Half life refit at 15 years would have extended the hull to at least 2025 or beyond. The rest is just replacing bum machinery and tech. items. The problem is the politicians have loss sight of Britian's traditional duties at Sea and are weighed down by rash zenophobic decisions and the fake news surrounding them.

  18. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  19. #37
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,750
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    You may be right in part but the Strategic Defence review of 2015 also decided to terminate Ocean in 2018 without replacement. This has the attritional effect of reducing air assault platform, plus reducing response to next years disaster events in overseas territories. Building to commercial ( Llyods Standards ) often means the hull is stronger with thicker steel plating. Half life refit at 15 years would have extended the hull to at least 2025 or beyond. The rest is just replacing bum machinery and tech. items. The problem is the politicians have loss sight of Britian's traditional duties at Sea and are weighed down by rash zenophobic decisions and the fake news surrounding them.
    3 Cdo Bde received an army infantry battalion a few years ago, since gone. Now there is talk of them losing a Commando (ie a battalion) to reduce them to 2 Commandos (battalions).

    Well there be troops to conduct the amphibious actions these vessels are intended for?

  20. #38
    Private 3*
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    36
    Post Thanks / Like
    It's going to be a weird day when Italy has more Amphibious capability then the Brits..

  21. Likes na grohmití, EUFighter liked this post
  22. #39
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    941
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocinante View Post
    It's going to be a weird day when Italy has more Amphibious capability then the Brits..
    Oh I'm sure we'll have which Minster explain why the RN platforms that they have are so much better that they don't need anything anymore than what they have.

  23. Likes Rocinante liked this post
  24. #40
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,138
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmit� View Post
    Yes there is. Abandon brexit, and hope Sterling recovers so the UK can again fund its day to day expenses.
    Reading about the nice new carriers in Warship FLIR and the arguement seems to be that the carriers haven't been scrapped up to this point as they symbolize the UKs 'go ahead alone policy' without the EU.

    ie The UK believes with its new carriers it will once again be a force to be reckoned with with these new ships showing the way for a new UK.

    Which is all well and good but if the support structure is not in place will the whole thing come tumbling down.

    Oh I'm sure we'll have which Minster explain why the RN platforms that they have are so much better that they don't need anything anymore than what they have.
    And then the minister goes and resigns

    Lets face it , had we the internet back in 1980/81/82 we'd have been having the same discussion and yet the RN still survives to this day!

    I don't think the real situation will come to light until both new carriers are in service.
    Just visiting

  25. Likes ias liked this post
  26. #41
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    921
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Reading about the nice new carriers in Warship FLIR and the arguement seems to be that the carriers haven't been scrapped up to this point as they symbolize the UKs 'go ahead alone policy' without the EU.



    I don't think the real situation will come to light until both new carriers are in service.
    The Defence Review, which has been ongoing, during the naissance of the Carriers, not alone included deletion of frontline capability but also closure of key infrastructure such as 91 shore based facilities including the Marine Engineering School at HMS Sultan at Gosport. That training function is to be shifted to HMS Collingwood . Looking at our Engineroom training at NMCI , it would be an expensive undertaking to replicate running enginerooms to a new location and not have the hiatus of no training enginerooms or workshops at either location for some time. It seems somebody has done the course on how to "Kill a Navy".

  27. Likes na grohmití liked this post
  28. #42
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    941
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    It seems somebody has done the course on how to "Kill a Navy".
    The RAF?

  29. #43
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,732
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    The RAF?
    Not really - in truth they have come together under the word 'maritime', they may squabble, but they have jointly decided to become two sides of the same coin.

    The problem is the political weakness in either refusing to fund that which they have bought or required, or to stand up to the old Tory media and allocate defence resources to the RAF and RN and away from the Army.

    Bizarrely the Army has grasped it, but the old warhorses haven't and Cameron and May have run away from the confrontation.

  30. #44
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    921
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    The RAF?
    I suspect that the closures of Training and stores units are leading to the use of live ships for engineering training and is also leading to cannibalisation of off duty ships to meet operational deployments. It is a bad idea and leads eventually to both patients dying due to unforeseen circumstances. Naval Command must confront the Goose that laid this wooden egg!!

  31. #45
    C/S EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    352
    Post Thanks / Like
    If we look at the RN, then the rot really set-in during the 1960's, a decade that destroyed so much capability both in the RN and the RAF. In 1960, the RN had nearly 160 destroyers and frigates, today they have 1/10th of that. Key to the decline was the decision not to replace the CV carriers, later they did get 3 "through-deck cruisers" equipped with Harriers.
    True if they worked the 6 Type 45 destroyers would be a leap over the 13 (+2 sunk) Type 42's but with only 6 it is hard to see how they could meet all the demands placed upon them. Sad as it is there needs to be a better matching of the demands against the available resources. Does the UK need an independent nuclear force? This is a major draw on monetary and human resources, if so then it needs to see what role it can play with the remainder of the resources available. Two carrier battle groups, an amphibious assault group and the associated logistics are just not in what they want to spend.

    The UK is always held up as one of the NATO countries that meets the 2% budget target, but what is forgotten is that within that 2% are all the costs associated with the on-going combat operations even if there has been a draw down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Strip out war spending and we would see that the UK has for more than a decade not meet the 2%. Once you see this then it is easy to understand why RN and RAF have not been able to keep the capabilities they had just a few years ago.

  32. Likes morpheus, na grohmití liked this post
  33. #46
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    921
    Post Thanks / Like
    You are in the right ball park.It is clear that the UK should NOT be a sole deterrent actor and any Budgets associated with that must have an Alliance sharing of Costs. Perhaps the UK should drop into the top strata of Conventional Forces keeping in mind Commonwealth and Overseas Territories obligations and the need for tonnage to meet exigencies weather related or otherwise. An Atlantic Island country without MPA's was a shocker.

  34. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  35. #47
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    941
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    You are in the right ball park.It is clear that the UK should NOT be a sole deterrent actor and any Budgets associated with that must have an Alliance sharing of Costs. Perhaps the UK should drop into the top strata of Conventional Forces keeping in mind Commonwealth and Overseas Territories obligations and the need for tonnage to meet exigencies weather related or otherwise. An Atlantic Island country without MPA's was a shocker.
    Meh the MPA issue is simply due to an epic failure of common sense within the MOD and BAE, if they'd just gone in with the P8 from the start, or the proposed Airbus option they could have avoided the entire debacle and still come out ahead on money. A lot of the issues the UK has imo is either backing bespoke UK designs and incurring unique costs (for example the "Britishised" the Apache's so much that they couldn't leverage off the US upgrade path), or political choices that make no sense, (for example the shortening of the Type 45 production, which didn't really save them much due to the sunken costs of development). It's hard to point to exactly when the "Rot" set in, I mean even since WW2 the RN has been playing games and making Penny Wise Pound foolish choices that always in hindsight make you wonder.

    In terms of the nuclear question, honestly I don't see that being the sole cost issue even with the burden it's going to place on the budget next decade, the issue is that the UK is playing games with the budgets both with the War funding, and Pension funding in with the 2%. What we are seeing is the Post Cold War choices/funding/expectations coming together.

  36. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
    Dislikes smegers disliked this post
  37. #48
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    921
    Post Thanks / Like

    Naval Work for All

    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    You are in the right ball park.It is clear that the UK should NOT be a sole deterrent actor and any Budgets associated with that must have an Alliance sharing of Costs. Perhaps the UK should drop into the top strata of Conventional Forces keeping in mind Commonwealth and Overseas Territories obligations and the need for tonnage to meet exigencies weather related or otherwise. An Atlantic Island country without MPA's was a shocker.
    A Special corridor is being established to beat recent Pirate attacks in the Gulf of Aden Area. After recent activity by pirates in the Gulf of Aden and Bab Al Mandeb, choke point off Djibouti, the Naval Authorities have decided to establish a Maritime Security Transit Corridor ( MSTC ). The MSTC will consist of the Internationally Recommended Transit Corridor ( IRTC ), the BAM Traffic Separation Scheme ( TSS ) and the TSS west of the Hanish Islands , and a two way route connecting the IRTC and the BAM TSS. The Combined Maritime Naval Forces said the corridor will provide a route around which naval forces can focus their efforts. Note a TSS is like a tunnel with traffic routed in a one way scheme, the exception allows traffic to cross or join at near 90 degree angles to get in or out of your lane as quickly as possible.

  38. #49
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    921
    Post Thanks / Like

    Amphibious Forces

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Oh I'm sure we'll have which Minster explain why the RN platforms that they have are so much better that they don't need anything anymore than what they have.
    .

    Despite a cohort emptying the barrel of capability, The British Amphibious Forces and all their current Kit is outlined in some detail on an illustrated document available online at ThinkDefence.co.uk. They include HMS Albion, HMS Ocean, and 4 Bay Class Auxillaries ( one sold to Australia). It's a good article. In another new area of endeavour, driven by NATO, the British Forces are running a major course on dealing with Defensive and Offensive action in Cyberspace " IT Defensive and Offensive Procedures". Particularily important to those at sea as we are plugged in to Cyberspace for everything.

  39. Thanks Turkey, TangoSierra thanked for this post
  40. #50
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    921
    Post Thanks / Like

    Eu defence

    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    You are in the right ball park.It is clear that the UK should NOT be a sole deterrent actor and any Budgets associated with that must have an Alliance sharing of Costs. Perhaps the UK should drop into the top strata of Conventional Forces keeping in mind Commonwealth and Overseas Territories obligations and the need for tonnage to meet exigencies weather related or otherwise. An Atlantic Island country without MPA's was a shocker.
    In today's Irish Examiner; European Union countries (minus GB and Denmark) have signed up to a programme of Joint Military Defence to address security challenges. A total of 23 countries are signatories out of 28 members currently. The agreement PESCO ( Permanent Structured Co-operation ) is backed by the EU Defence Fund and has identified 50 joint projects in Defence capabilities and military operations. The German statements are quite Gung-Ho and
    the EU Foreign Policy Chief talks about countries that do not live up to commitments could be kicked out of the Group. The Group can use their combined financial spending to purchase military capability.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •