Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length.

[Bowwave]

Colin this is not quite true. The RN does have a balance in fleet requirement only problem is it depleted overall, yet  RN Operational commitments and the type of commitment world wide are changing  and future requirements will have to  reflect this. But it's worth remembering that the navy we have was and is a legacy from the Cold War. This will change in time; it is almost a parallel of the situation that existed in the years following WW2.
Bowwave

[herrmill]

If  government/MOD  fails to deliver on the MARS{ Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability}  [ new RFA ships] project this is all the carriers will be fit for. 

Bowwave

Lets hope for all's sake that that your government doesn't attempt to take your new "merchants" through the Gulf of Aden without a few paramilitary temps aboard. 

[Colin Bishop]

Bowwave,

I didn't mean to imply that the RN doesn't want a balanced fleet but I know it isn't happy with the Government selling off Type 23s in the prime of their service life whilst retaining old Type 42s in quite poor condition. As for the Cold war, well I reckon we are heading for another one the way Russia is behaving. The international situation can change drastically within the lifetime of a typical fleet unit. Russia is upping its defence budget by 50% at the moment according to a report I read yesterday and I doubt if they will be building ships equipped for anti piracy operations only! There are plenty of potential flashpoints around the world which could set the major powers against each other and these can spark off with very little notice. The Falklands War came out of the blue and took everyone by surprise. So did Pearl Harbour!

Colin

[Bowwave]

Bowwave,

I didn't mean to imply that the RN doesn't want a balanced fleet but I know it isn't happy with the Government selling off Type 23s in the prime of their service life whilst retaining old Type 42s in quite poor condition. As for the Cold war, well I reckon we are heading for another one the way Russia is behaving. The international situation can change drastically within the lifetime of a typical fleet unit. Russia is upping its defence budget by 50% at the moment according to a report I read yesterday and I doubt if they will be building ships equipped for anti piracy operations only! There are plenty of potential flashpoints around the world which could set the major powers against each other and these can spark off with very little notice. The Falklands War came out of the blue and took everyone by surprise. So did Pearl Harbour!

Colin

Yes Russia is capable of building  larger warship  than has been built to date. but the sobering thought is  many of the front line units are old and  were designed  and  built in Soviet times. We may see a rise in construction but there is no real evidence  of this yet. The MOD navy  are presently reviewing the design for the replacements for the type 23s but is more of a multi role vessel  OCPV or Ocean Capable Patrol Vessels.
Bowwave

[Bryan Young]

Bryan, don't know if you noticed mate but we are taking about boats not trains
In fairness some good points raised by bryan but I was wondering
If the powers that be intend to have these vessels as stand alone units or
possibly only 1 escort unlike the US version of large battle groups?

You taking the mickey, or what? Every fighting service has what is loosely termed a "train"....goes back beyond Waterloo and and all that lot. Nowadays it is called the Logistical Train. As it is all supposed to be a joined up unit then I can only suppose that the word "train" actually comes from the military side of things and not from the stuff that runs on steel tracks. Cheers. BY.

[Bryan Young]

There are political undercurrents here.

I think the Navy's game was to give up everything else in order to get the carriers then they could turn around and say that it's essential that such large assets should be adequately protected so we must reinstare the Daring programme.

The Government on the other hand are playing a longer game and happy to see the major warships go which leaves the carriers exposed as white elephants which can be either cancelled or sold at knockdown prices which is what has happened with several of the Type 23 destroyers. In the short term jobs are safeguarded while they are being built as a "make work" programme. (less obvious than paying people to dig holes and then fill them in). remember the Tories where quite happy to flog one or two of the then brand new Invincible class to Australia in 1981. After the Falklands war they decided that maybe they should keep them after all.

As Bryan says, to be effective you need a balanced fleet of several types of warships and the RN no longer has this. At the recent South Korean Naval Review most guest countries sent major fleet units. We sent a survey ship! When I was at the Meet Your Navy event at Portsmouth in July I got talking to the chief Officer of the RFA Largs Bay, he made it very clear that this is not just a supply vessel but essentially a quasi warship for supporting amphibious operations. I have to say that she did seem to be a very capable vessel nonetheless.

Incidentally, the crew figures for the carriers are quoted as 600 sailors plus up to 900 when the air groups are embarked.

Colin

Colin, nice comments. We would appear to be on the same track here. (more "train" puns?), but I would beg to differ on the manning scale. The "Invincible" class of through deck cruisers (another political lie) were supposed to be manned by around 800 people. Perhaps less. But every time I was in company with them they were accommodating around the 1200 level. Commanders sleeping in generator spaces and all that. But although I may have been a bit optimistic, the point remains that the crews of these carriers will need relieving, go on leave, attend courses and be appointed to wherever the powers that be wish to send them. So one crew will never be enough. I still reckon a core man-power of 8000 well trained people will be needed. BY.

[Colin Bishop]

Bryan, yes, you are right that to keep the carriers in commission you would need a lot more than the nominal manning level although I expect one would always be refitting/in reserve at any given time. Quite honestly I think the whole naval situation at the moment is a complete cock up and likely to remain that way.

Colin

[Bowwave]

The present manning  estimates per ship  for the CVFs  are total ships company 600 plus 1400 command staff and airgroup .
Bowwave

[Bryan Young]

The present manning  estimates per ship  for the CVFs  are total ships company 600 plus 1400 command staff and airgroup .
Bowwave

What does that mean? Sounds like a bit of company-speak. 600 plus 1400=2000, add an air group of ,what..500? Please explain. BY.

[Colin H]

By you are quite right `the bagage train` goes back to when armies marched everywhere.

As to logistics when I left the army in 1981 it was estimated that for every frontline soldier there were seven support staff.

Without the Royal Logistics Corp the army just could not function.

Colin H.

[Bowwave]

The present manning  estimates per ship  for the CVFs  are total ships company 600 plus 1400 command staff and airgroup .
Bowwave

What does that mean? Sounds like a bit of company-speak. 600 plus 1400=2000, add an air group of ,what..500? Please explain. BY.

Bryan   It means what it says . 2000  total on board the vessel  combined to make it a fighting unit. These are not my figures .
Bowwave

[gingyer]

Bryan I was only joking with my coment about trains
I knew what it was you were refering to.

On the crew size of these ships bear in mind the air group
would be made up of both naval and RAF (possibly some Army Air Corps) teams due to the set up
of all the Joint commands for Helicopter's and Harrier's

[Bryan Young]

The present manning  estimates per ship  for the CVFs  are total ships company 600 plus 1400 command staff and airgroup .
Bowwave

What does that mean? Sounds like a bit of company-speak. 600 plus 1400=2000, add an air group of ,what..500? Please explain. BY.

Bryan   It means what it says . 2000  total on board the vessel  combined to make it a fighting unit. These are not my figures .
Bowwave

so,in fact, you are agreeing with me that 2 carriers with 2000crew each = 4000. New crews and back-up units to add up to 8000. Where did you get your figures from? If it was from a government spokesperson I woul hesitate to repeat it as gospel! I still await numbers (any will do!) regarding escorts. As we now have more Admirals than ships perhaps a few of them could be put back on a boat and see for themselves  what their shilly-shallying has done to the "fleet". I also feel just as strongly about the Army, but as I am in no way qualified to comment on their woes I shall leave that to others. As for the RAF...they will take care of themselves as they have always done. BY.

[Bowwave]

Bryan I don’t agree or disagree. 8000 the figure you quote may well be the very number that is required. All I quoted was the figures that are available from the MOD and  published in various periodicals. The RN is going through a challenging period and it may well turn out as Colin has stated that there is a return to some form of stand off with Russia, there is no clear indication that we are heading in that direction but events can change. I'm a strong believer in the RFA and with out the RFA the fleet would revert to a purely coastal defense force. The present fleet of RFA ships half of which are over 20 years old and even though many are undergoing major refits these older vessels will be coming to the end of their useful life by the time the carriers come into service.  There is little doubting  the facts on manning levels which are difficult. The current level of manning  { MOD information}  all branches including the RM and reserve  forces stands at approximately 40600  This information is a bit unclear as to whether this total include the 2300 civilians  serving with the RFA. By contrast the figures for the time of the Falklands war stood at 67500. Yet RM  force levels  has remained at about the same level at around 7500. The trend in warship design is certainly taking into account the reduced manning levels per ship but you can only go so far with that sort of saving. Then you are into all sorts of problems. I guess any Admiral will tell you that he needs more ships and people to support these ships. There is a view that   we could be heading towards some form of joint  European Naval  force  this may have a positive effect on the ships we would be required to build and deploy , but that’s for the politicians to haggle over. Given all the changes that have occurred since the end of the Cold War it is understandable that we and other navies are still trying to determine were the priorities lay. As I’ve mentioned many of the warships and boats we have in service were designed for a particular type of war fighting scenario and times have now changed so must the ships and the Navy .   
Bowwave

[Bryan Young]

OK. I will meet you half-way on that (excellent) reply. But I reckon that we will just have to wait and see without too much further speculation. Cheers. BY.

[Bartapuss]

If I remember rightly, back in the early 90's there was talk of a joint venture called the "Euro Frigate" (none of which would be built in this country, I might add) along the same lines as the euro fighter project. Look how much over budget  and how long that took to deliver LOL.

[gingyer]

If I remember rightly, back in the early 90's there was talk of a joint venture called the "Euro Frigate" (none of which would be built in this country, I might add) along the same lines as the euro fighter project. Look how much over budget  and how long that took to deliver LOL.

the euro frigate came to life as sorts if you look at the spannish F100
the norwegians, germans, spannish and dutch all came to the same type of boat
the differance betwen them is the weapons and sensor fit out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobart_class_destroyer
the bottom of this link has the boats that are all similar in design

[TCC]

Now bearing in mind the falklands conflict and the issues with the exocet would you trust the french with even the possability of these codes?

[/b]
I thought the French helped us during the Falklands by delaying sales of missiles and spares to the argies (or their agents)? And that in the murky world of international arms dealings, that they helped see that there were no loose exocets floating around?

Is that not so?

And you are right the Typhoon is a fall back

Surely it's a bargaining weapon? A threat? If you don't give us 'A'. we'll go with our own 'B' (which is probably only practical 'on paper')

[TCC stops talking about stuff he knows zero about]

[w3bby]

I thought the French helped us during the Falklands by delaying sales of missiles and spares to the argies (or their agents)? And that in the murky world of international arms dealings, that they helped see that there were no loose exocets floating around?

Is that not so?

Quite a while ago now but not as I remember it, yes they cut the supply, NATO and EU policy, but they had a technical team in place that continued to work  ( http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/fal02/corum.html scroll down) Only 5 missiles and 5 aircraft to launch them fortunately.

After all in the murky world of international arms trading "battle proven" systems sell better I would presume.

[gingyer]

Hi TCC no our neighbours increased production and sold them to "middlemen"
and our guys had to go and buy these from the "middlemen" before the argentinians

The Typhoon has been looked at and there is not too much to do to get a naval version
the Americans wouldn't care if we did or did not take the JSF so it's not much of a bargaining tool.
from a publicity point it would be good "that the country that designed and built the harrier is now
replacing them with the american JSF"

[TCC]

Hi TCC no our neighbours increased production and sold them to "middlemen"
and our guys had to go and buy these from the "middlemen" before the argentinians

The Typhoon has been looked at and there is not too much to do to get a naval version
the Americans wouldn't care if we did or did not take the JSF so it's not much of a bargaining tool.
from a publicity point it would be good "that the country that designed and built the harrier is now
replacing them with the american JSF"

Hi lads

Re: exocets in the market place. Surely the fact that the argies could only field 5 missiles is testimony to their not being saleable items out there?

.. or were our agents just higher bidders?

I HAVE seen this story on a TV documentary once... they had this british buyer (agent) who was the actual guy who did go round and buy them... or rather he spoilt deals, iirc. He'd  promise he'd buy them so the buyer would take them off the table and thus away from other punters (argies) and after the war reneged on the deals. It was something along those lines.

I recall another bit, he led the actual Argentine agents on a merry dance: he'd told them I have them/can get them and then he generally dragged things out for as long as possible and at the end there's no missiles and they're out of time with nothing to show for it.

So could it be the French have generally behaved to the letter of the law bu not the spirit, yes, they didn't sell any more but they also serviced what they had sold. By the way, I don't think our Govt. is any more honourable(trustworthy) than theirs and I'm sure the French have their sore spots.