The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[StobieWan]

Actually I find material from those sites to be somewhat biased and unreliable so really of no academic use or research reliability other than as pointers to sources of misinformation. Living in a country that went down the path of banning nuclear weapons etc., and having lived through the whole argument 30 years ago, I am well used to the arguments, good and bad, both for and against, so Jeneral I find you arguments somewhat uninformed and juvenile.

Same here - I lived through a time of tremendous uncertainty regarding security and the debate about nuclear weapons was at it's loudest when I was a youth. We had cruise missiles at Greenham Common and all sorts of ructions about the Trident program, plus Ray Gun Ronnie in the Whitehouse. I've read a number of anti nuclear books, at first innocent of their focus and basically had to teach myself some level of critical thinking in the process.

The anti-nuclear lobby demand certainty where none exists - if we used their tests for "safe" we'd never get out of bed (or go to bed as people do trip and fall on the stairs..)

I'd love to live in a world where nuclear weapons aren't present but if they were un-invented tomorrow and every test, every research article etc had never happened, we'd have a working nuclear weapon again inside five years.

I'm baffled as to why Jeneral keeps trotting down the UK line with this when I think it's increasingly apparent he's not a UK national - why not pester the Russians about nuclear deterrence? Their forces are far less well founded than ours in terms of modern aircraft, ships, time at sea etc so they would benefit far more from scrapping nuclear weapons than we might - why don't they see sense and disarm?

After all, who in the world would they be fighting a nuclear war with? See what I did there ?

 

[ngatimozart]

Same here - I lived through a time of tremendous uncertainty regarding security and the debate about nuclear weapons was at it's loudest when I was a youth. We had cruise missiles at Greenham Common and all sorts of ructions about the Trident program, plus Ray Gun Ronnie in the Whitehouse. I've read a number of anti nuclear books, at first innocent of their focus and basically had to teach myself some level of critical thinking in the process.

The anti-nuclear lobby demand certainty where none exists - if we used their tests for "safe" we'd never get out of bed (or go to bed as people do trip and fall on the stairs..)

I'd love to live in a world where nuclear weapons aren't present but if they were un-invented tomorrow and every test, every research article etc had never happened, we'd have a working nuclear weapon again inside five years.

I'm baffled as to why Jeneral keeps trotting down the UK line with this when I think it's increasingly apparent he's not a UK national - why not pester the Russians about nuclear deterrence? Their forces are far less well founded than ours in terms of modern aircraft, ships, time at sea etc so they would benefit far more from scrapping nuclear weapons than we might - why don't they see sense and disarm?

After all, who in the world would they be fighting a nuclear war with? See what I did there ?

Yep and agree wholeheartedly. I remember my nuclear, biological & chemical defence training well after 40 years. It wasn't the nukes that scared me but the biologics. With a nuke you just bend over and kiss your arse goodbye but the biologics they are very insidious and you don't know they are present until far to late. This is a very good movie and well worth watching but not during a meal. In fact I regard it as a much watch.
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUEINQCKLHc"]The Day After (1983) - Full, Original 1.75:1 Aspect Ratio - YouTube[/nomedia]

The Day After is a 1983 American television film that aired on November 20, 1983, on the ABC television network. It was seen by more than 100 million people during its initial broadcast. It is currently the highest-rated television film in history.

The film postulates a fictional war between NATO forces and the Warsaw Pact that rapidly escalates into a full-scale nuclear exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union. However, the action itself focuses on the residents of Lawrence, Kansas, and Kansas City, Missouri, as well as several family farms situated next to nuclear missile silos. Source: Wikipedia.

 

[StobieWan]

We had the UK alternative, Threads, which while lower budget, had that British cheer and warmth that just made you want to cut your own throat *before* the war started. It made the US version look upbeat I think.

Both are worth watching. Follow that up with some light fiction like Failsafe and you're set for the weekend.

Summary, nuclear war, bad, m'kay

I do chuckle when I get whippersnappers like Jeneral lecturing me about how I need to read a bit more on the subject - we were born in far more interesting times...

 

[John Fedup]

We had the UK alternative, Threads, which while lower budget, had that British cheer and warmth that just made you want to cut your own throat *before* the war started. It made the US version look upbeat I think.

Both are worth watching. Follow that up with some light fiction like Failsafe and you're set for the weekend.

Summary, nuclear war, bad, m'kay

I do chuckle when I get whippersnappers like Jeneral lecturing me about how I need to read a bit more on the subject - we were born in far more interesting times...

It was a long time ago but I definitely remember "Threads" and you are spot on...the US version was upbeat compared to it.

 

[AegisFC]

Yep and agree wholeheartedly. I remember my nuclear, biological & chemical defence training well after 40 years. It wasn't the nukes that scared me but the biologics. With a nuke you just bend over and kiss your arse goodbye but the biologics they are very insidious and you don't know they are present until far to late. This is a very good movie and well worth watching but not during a meal. In fact I regard it as a much watch.
The Day After (1983) - Full, Original 1.75:1 Aspect Ratio - YouTube

I remember watching "The Day After" in the late 90's in a high school history class. I've seen it since, it is indeed a must watch.

 

[Systems Adict]

We had the UK alternative, Threads, which while lower budget, had that British cheer and warmth that just made you want to cut your own throat *before* the war started. It made the US version look upbeat I think.

Both are worth watching. Follow that up with some light fiction like Failsafe and you're set for the weekend.

Being a bright eye'd, bushy tailed freshman in highschool, otherwise known as a 1st year in Secondary school (aged 11) back when both these programmes aired in the UK in the early 80's, I can 100% state that while 'The Day After' was depressing, 'Threads' took it to a new level of depresseded-ness & made it look like a Disney cartoon !

It took it beyond the event & moved thru life, taking it 25yrs into the future, portraying the 'survivors', as feral scum, with the intelligence level of a 7 yr old, complete loss of language & verbal skills as we know it, trying to survive as a nuclear winter sets in.

DEFINITELY not one to watch when you're feeling down, depressed, or suicidal...

 

[StobieWan]

Being a bright eye'd, bushy tailed freshman in highschool, otherwise known as a 1st year in Secondary school (aged 11) back when both these programmes aired in the UK in the early 80's, I can 100% state that while 'The Day After' was depressing, 'Threads' took it to a new level of depresseded-ness & made it look like a Disney cartoon !

It took it beyond the event & moved thru life, taking it 25yrs into the future, portraying the 'survivors', as feral scum, with the intelligence level of a 7 yr old, complete loss of language & verbal skills as we know it, trying to survive as a nuclear winter sets in.

DEFINITELY not one to watch when you're feeling down, depressed, or suicidal...

Unless you've consistently been frustrated by your inability to complete the act, in which case, this will get you over that hump...

I've seen Day After, and Threads. DA, very grim and depressing. Threads. Um..Yeah...That.

 

[AegisFC]

Unless you've consistently been frustrated by your inability to complete the act, in which case, this will get you over that hump...

I've seen Day After, and Threads. DA, very grim and depressing. Threads. Um..Yeah...That.

I just read a plot summary for "Threads"... Yikes.

 

[StobieWan]

I might be getting confused but I *think* there's a sequence in it in which a young mother, who we've followed throughout,finally gives birth in an outhouse under awful circumstances. She looks down at the baby which she's just given birth to then up at the roof, and just *screams* in despair.It's an awful half moan, half howl.

From that, it's possible to deduce that all that Strontium and Caesium that's been floating around might be having some effects that aren't telegenic.

It's an scene that's stuck with me for thirty years. I may be confabulating as I've not seen the film in that long so apologies if I'm talking out of my bottom.

Day After and Threads were both shown in the same time frame I think - it was at the height of the Cold War with Reagan on full song about the Empire of Evil and routine QRA intercepts of Soviet bombers almost daily. It felt real.


I didn't honestly think I'd see thirty without that unfolding in front of me at the time - so I'm glad everyone stayed off the triggers.

 

[Riga]

I might be getting confused but I *think* there's a sequence in it in which a young mother, who we've followed throughout,finally gives birth in an outhouse under awful circumstances. She looks down at the baby which she's just given birth to then up at the roof, and just *screams* in despair.It's an awful half moan, half howl.

From that, it's possible to deduce that all that Strontium and Caesium that's been floating around might be having some effects that aren't telegenic.

It's an scene that's stuck with me for thirty years. I may be confabulating as I've not seen the film in that long so apologies if I'm talking out of my bottom.

Day After and Threads were both shown in the same time frame I think - it was at the height of the Cold War with Reagan on full song about the Empire of Evil and routine QRA intercepts of Soviet bombers almost daily. It felt real.


I didn't honestly think I'd see thirty without that unfolding in front of me at the time - so I'm glad everyone stayed off the triggers.

I never took it seriously, I mean, they gave an SLR to a traffic warden... tsk.

Anyone heard anything on the grapevine about the T26? Will it come out in the Autumn Statement?

 

[swerve]

BAE announced the day after the referendum that it's going ahead with the 'frigate factory' on the Clyde, & has lodged planning applications. That suggests a high degree of confidence.

 

[StobieWan]

Yup - there's a TOBA in place to cover the work, they're in the equipment plan, planning permissions have been applied for to re-work the sites. It's looking pretty solid.

 

[RobWilliams]

Joint Warrior (2?) 2014 will start on October 7th.

UK-led Joint Warrior multinational exercise set to begin next week - Naval Technology

Hopefully there's a greater RN surface fleet presence than Cougar 14, ideally 736 NAS in their Hawks will show up, need to get those naval aviators back in the work of attacking surface ships.

There's an interesting piece on TD about that squadron, the CO of 736 NAS (aggressor squadron) was discussing the squadron and their aircraft and that turned to the Hawk T1 and it's replacement (OSD 2020).

F-16 Aggressors - Think Defence

Most likely is the T2, that's what they want to train F35 pilots for so that's a pretty solid indicator for its future viability, but the CO interestingly mentioned F-16s as there's going to be plenty flooding the market pretty soon.

Interesting, but not realistic.

New aircraft, different logistic streams etc, etc. But it seemed like an interesting proposal, a higher performance aircraft to make both aspects of ship attack scenarios more realistic.

 

[t68]

Joint Warrior (2?) 2014 will start on October 7th.

UK-led Joint Warrior multinational exercise set to begin next week - Naval Technology

Hopefully there's a greater RN surface fleet presence than Cougar 14, ideally 736 NAS in their Hawks will show up, need to get those naval aviators back in the work of attacking surface ships.

There's an interesting piece on TD about that squadron, the CO of 736 NAS (aggressor squadron) was discussing the squadron and their aircraft and that turned to the Hawk T1 and it's replacement (OSD 2020).

F-16 Aggressors - Think Defence

Most likely is the T2, that's what they want to train F35 pilots for so that's a pretty solid indicator for its future viability, but the CO interestingly mentioned F-16s as there's going to be plenty flooding the market pretty soon.

Interesting, but not realistic.

New aircraft, different logistic streams etc, etc. But it seemed like an interesting proposal, a higher performance aircraft to make both aspects of ship attack scenarios more realistic.

Hawk T2 seems the logical fit, but you could always re-role the tranche1 Typhoons as I read sometime ago that the wanted a maritime strike capabilty for the Typhoon, seems like a waste if it could be done cheap enough.

 

[RobWilliams]

I was thinking of that, it could make the 'joint' aspect go further if RN/RAF pilots formed an aggressor squadron on Typhoon, if the idea is to make RAF pilots a more integral part of CVF operations - which appears to be the aim - then rolling them into the maritime theatre in that way seems the best way to do it.

However, Hawk is being used - in conjunction with simulators - to train pilots for F35, Typhoon and Tornado, a question mark appears over how easily and how much it would cost for aggressor pilots to shift from Typhoon and F35.

That's the thing, T2 seems the most logical & cheapest route to go, as much as the thought of 'better' jets appeals. May as well make it standard for F35 squadrons to practice in that role in during Joint Warrior.

AFAIK most of the maritime strike mutterings came around from trying to sell Typhoon to a customer in SEA who I can't remember right now, a load of models showing Harpoon/Penguin fits came out if I remember rightly.

All gone quiet now though,

 

[the concerned]

By the time the hawks need replacing the Swedish airforce would be looking to ofload their gripens for new ones maybe they could be an option, especially as they are already outfitted to carry antiship missiles.

 

[Bonza]

I was thinking of that, it could make the 'joint' aspect go further if RN/RAF pilots formed an aggressor squadron on Typhoon, if the idea is to make RAF pilots a more integral part of CVF operations - which appears to be the aim - then rolling them into the maritime theatre in that way seems the best way to do it.

However, Hawk is being used - in conjunction with simulators - to train pilots for F35, Typhoon and Tornado, a question mark appears over how easily and how much it would cost for aggressor pilots to shift from Typhoon and F35.

That's the thing, T2 seems the most logical & cheapest route to go, as much as the thought of 'better' jets appeals. May as well make it standard for F35 squadrons to practice in that role in during Joint Warrior.

AFAIK most of the maritime strike mutterings came around from trying to sell Typhoon to a customer in SEA who I can't remember right now, a load of models showing Harpoon/Penguin fits came out if I remember rightly.

All gone quiet now though,

A supercruising Typhoon sure could loft a JSOW C-1 a long way (assuming the weapon is cleared for supersonic launch). It isn't a missile in terms of capability, but it's got a publicly stated range of something like 130kms for a high altitude release, a terminal IIR seeker and a large unitary warhead that would make a mess of most surface combatants. Although I suspect there are other, more straightforward solutions to an anti-ship capability for Typhoon, I'm intrigued to see how the JSOW C-1 variant performs in the anti-ship role as it becomes more prevalent in the USN. I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a Maverick replacement for naval use.

 

[Bonza]

By the time the hawks need replacing the Swedish airforce would be looking to ofload their gripens for new ones maybe they could be an option, especially as they are already outfitted to carry antiship missiles.

To me it seems highly doubtful that the British would procure an entirely new platform to engage in the anti-ship mission when procuring and integrating new munitions is so much cheaper. Also I don't see the sense in buying Gripens when one has access to the larger, more powerful Typhoon, which can carry a heavier payload and also has a longer range.

 

[StevoJH]

To me it seems highly doubtful that the British would procure an entirely new platform to engage in the anti-ship mission when procuring and integrating new munitions is so much cheaper. Also I don't see the sense in buying Gripens when one has access to the larger, more powerful Typhoon, which can carry a heavier payload and also has a longer range.

The Hawks aren't used for anti-shipping strikes.

They are used to simulate missiles and enemy aircraft during training exercises. And probably for pilot training.

 

[Bonza]

By the time the hawks need replacing the Swedish airforce would be looking to ofload their gripens for new ones maybe they could be an option, especially as they are already outfitted to carry antiship missiles.

The Hawks aren't used for anti-shipping strikes.

They are used to simulate missiles and enemy aircraft during training exercises. And probably for pilot training.

I was referring to the idea of buying Gripens, and the mention that they're already equipped to fire anti-ship missiles. Surely this isn't a reasonable purchase?

Understood re the role of the Hawks though.