The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Sea Toby]

In the news today, the Govt is now going to use 13,500 military personnel for that waste of time, Olympics 2012. As well as specialist bomb disposal and search, 7000 at peak times will be used for cordon security.

Another kick for our hard pressed forces with leave cancelled over the summer. You wouldn't be happy getting back home after months abroad only to be told to stand on point duty for the bloody Olympics, and it will be even more annoying if resources are withdrawn from the frontline to Police it.

Give us a break. You know as well as I do the military operates in threes, a third at full readiness and usually deployed, a third training up to full readiness with a possible deployment ahead, and a third who are working down from full readiness after a deployment with leave, etc. Those who have just come back from a deployment won't be called to do Olympic security.

There won't be any resources withdrawn from the frontline, as two thirds aren't at the front line. So your quip is a bit out of line. As I said before, if they don't wish to follow orders, they should be fired. They will be AWOL.

 

[Repulse]

Type 26 will do local AAW with CAMM, the design phase is supposedly going to include options for customers so room for varying sized VLS and sensor fit depending on needs, so a customer might request a more AAW orientated design if required, the basic hull seems big enough.

Repulse, don't be offended if I'm wrong, but are you 1805? because pretty much all of these ideas are the same as posted over and over by him?

No, and no offence taken

I'm a naval enthusiast (no service nor industry expertise except a masters in Aeronautical Engineering), but I'm fairly well read and feel that the RN (and the UK) is a the tipping point where it will become irrelevant if it doesn't change.

The world in my view is closer now to how it was pre WW1 (minus the British Empire of course), where to succeed we have to engage with all countries not just Europe. The navy needs to reflect this and our budgetary restrictions, you can either concentrate on a marginally larger number of high end ships sailing around the Atlantic, or have more overall and be global.

 

[StobieWan]

fftopic

Guys, Olympic security arrangements can go into another thread completely,

Ian

Give us a break. You know as well as I do the military operates in threes, a third at full readiness and usually deployed, a third training up to full readiness with a possible deployment ahead, and a third who are working down from full readiness after a deployment with leave, etc. Those who have just come back from a deployment won't be called to do Olympic security.

There won't be any resources withdrawn from the frontline, as two thirds aren't at the front line. So your quip is a bit out of line. As I said before, if they don't wish to follow orders, they should be fired. They will be AWOL.

 

[Hambo]

Give us a break. You know as well as I do the military operates in threes, a third at full readiness and usually deployed, a third training up to full readiness with a possible deployment ahead, and a third who are working down from full readiness after a deployment with leave, etc. Those who have just come back from a deployment won't be called to do Olympic security.

There won't be any resources withdrawn from the frontline, as two thirds aren't at the front line. So your quip is a bit out of line. As I said before, if they don't wish to follow orders, they should be fired. They will be AWOL.

I think you have more faith in our Politicians than I have. When it comes to scrimping and cutting corners their negligence knows no bounds. The BBC reports a measly £36m left in the £9.3billion budget, the security bill rocketed and I would suggest very few UK Taxpayers expect it to come in on budget, made even worse at the time of rapid cuts elsewhere.

We are told that EOD teams are already hard pressed in Afghanistan, obvious really, but as far as I am aware from available info, there has not been any additional funds set aside for this task, or any increase in resources. Until a question is asked in the Commons we won't know exactly how this may impact on operations, the MOD announcing it won't doesn't really cut it in my mind, call me a cynic.

If the troops are fully armed, guarding the perimeter, then it could be argued that the threat level is such that the military is needed, but if they are unarmed, then sorry in my mind that is security on the cheap, with several thousand more being drafted in late to save an embarrassing cost over-run and thats not a respectful way to use our service personnel. Apart from a few occasions at UK airports, we rarely see armed up troops fully visible on the streets of mainland UK, I personally don't think a sporting event is a reason to start, but thats just my opinion.

The real test will be post games, when they make some of those involved redundant, kept on for a folly then cast aside, think it wont happen?


...and sorry for going off topic

 

[Sea Toby]

I think you have more faith in our Politicians than I have. When it comes to scrimping and cutting corners their negligence knows no bounds. The BBC reports a measly £36m left in the £9.3billion budget, the security bill rocketed and I would suggest very few UK Taxpayers expect it to come in on budget, made even worse at the time of rapid cuts elsewhere.

We are told that EOD teams are already hard pressed in Afghanistan, obvious really, but as far as I am aware from available info, there has not been any additional funds set aside for this task, or any increase in resources. Until a question is asked in the Commons we won't know exactly how this may impact on operations, the MOD announcing it won't doesn't really cut it in my mind, call me a cynic.

If the troops are fully armed, guarding the perimeter, then it could be argued that the threat level is such that the military is needed, but if they are unarmed, then sorry in my mind that is security on the cheap, with several thousand more being drafted in late to save an embarrassing cost over-run and thats not a respectful way to use our service personnel. Apart from a few occasions at UK airports, we rarely see armed up troops fully visible on the streets of mainland UK, I personally don't think a sporting event is a reason to start, but thats just my opinion.

The real test will be post games, when they make some of those involved redundant, kept on for a folly then cast aside, think it wont happen?


...and sorry for going off topic

Sorry, the military's role is to protect and serve the people. The military don't get to pick their roles, the government of the people and for the people get to pick their role. Nations and the people worldwide use the military for a large number of roles beyond defense. The military worldwide is called to bag sandbags versus floods, provide food and water after natural disasters, flood, and drought, etc., etc.

On one hand you expect the Olympics to be profitable, but on the other hand you expect the organizers of the Olympics, the UK government, to pay more for public security hiring more security guards when it is not necessary. We the people our their employers, and they do the jobs as we wish...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Admin. I'd suggest that discussions re the politics of using the military for paramilitary roles such as event security be discussed elsewhere.

I can see this thread rapidly going off course if it isn't. To paraphrase my mum, "It's all fun and games until someone gets hurt"

 

[StobieWan]

Can't remember is this has been posted previously but this vid from MBDA covers CAMM launch from a BMT Venator (which looks like a good contender for the HMPC ship, although we'd not want CAMM on that) More interestingly, the latter half covers the silo refit sequence for the Type 23, which I found fairly illuminating.

Worth a look if you're curious as to how the Type 23's will be updated,

MBDA - e-catalogue

 

[kev 99]

Can't remember is this has been posted previously but this vid from MBDA covers CAMM launch from a BMT Venator (which looks like a good contender for the HMPC ship, although we'd not want CAMM on that) More interestingly, the latter half covers the silo refit sequence for the Type 23, which I found fairly illuminating.

Worth a look if you're curious as to how the Type 23's will be updated,

MBDA - e-catalogue

The first part was featured on the BMT website but the second half with the T23 retrofit is new to me, interestingly it suggests that T23 will get 6 quad pack launchers for 24 missiles.

 

[StobieWan]

The first part was featured on the BMT website but the second half with the T23 retrofit is new to me, interestingly it suggests that T23 will get 6 quad pack launchers for 24 missiles.

Yeah - I was sort of waving my hand in an irritated fashion at the first half as I'd seen it before and a Venator with CAMM doesn't fit the RN buy at all, but the T23 stuff was really interesting. Have another count, you'll notice it's two rows of quad launchers, for 48 missiles,

Ian

 

[kev 99]

Yeah - I was sort of waving my hand in an irritated fashion at the first half as I'd seen it before and a Venator with CAMM doesn't fit the RN buy at all, but the T23 stuff was really interesting. Have another count, you'll notice it's two rows of quad launchers, for 48 missiles,

Ian

Yeah I had noticed the 2 rows, but short on sleep right now.

:dance2:tomato

 

[Wall83]

Russian carriergroup sets anker outside Scotland.
British destroyer HMS York was the closest ship 1000 miles away in Portsmouth.

HMS York scrambled to Scotland in Russian fleet security scare | Mail Online

 

[swerve]

48, with room for 96. Three times as many missiles in the same space. But as well as cost, I presume nobody expects there to be any need to carry that many.

 

[StobieWan]

48, with room for 96. Three times as many missiles in the same space. But as well as cost, I presume nobody expects there to be any need to carry that many.

And with this installation, at least it doesn't look like you can read how many are loaded at a glance, unlike Seawolf..

48 will be more than enough, that'd be more missiles than fired by every ship on the FI task force I think?

 

[kev 99]

48, with room for 96. Three times as many missiles in the same space. But as well as cost, I presume nobody expects there to be any need to carry that many.

To be honest my first thought on 48 was that it's a little overkill.

 

[StobieWan]

To be honest my first thought on 48 was that it's a little overkill.

Given recent events, I'm assuming a loadout for anything short of world war III would be one four pack Can't believe Westminster went all the way to Libya with four bloody seawolf...


Ian

 

[kev 99]

Given recent events, I'm assuming a loadout for anything short of world war III would be one four pack Can't believe Westminster went all the way to Libya with four bloody seawolf...


Ian

Well I've seen it suggested that Westminster had no chance of being subject to fire with the mission it was sent there to do, I'm not sure how much I believe that personally but I will say that I feel the media circus that followed was probably a little overblown.

 

[rip]

To be honest my first thought on 48 was that it's a little overkill.

I have no comment about the various types of UK Ships but I do have something to say about the necessary missile load out. To say you only need a few rounds is just crazy. First, in most medium to short range engagements, it is best to fires two missiles per target, one right after another. If the target uses countermeasure like flares or shaft bursts along with a well time evasive maneuver, the first missile is likely to miss. But before the target can execute a second high speed maneuver or deploy more countermeasures the second missile hits. In the case of an ante-ship-missile fired at you, even one that does not have terminal evasive maneuvering capacity, you would still want to fire two missiles because just one hit can knock your ship out of action, even if it does not sink you.

I know that we have not seen this for a while but that does not mean that it wouldn’t happen, a determined enemy attacks, a modern missile ship, with a four plane flight attack group. Using a radial attack plan (coming in from four slightly different directions) keeping low below the radar horizon to a distance of say twenty miles, executes a pop up maneuver , then each simultaneously fires two medium range ante-ship-missiles and then follows them in with guns and bombs. Just for the first part of the engagement you have used 24 missiles assuming that you even have the time to fire them all before they get within minimum range. I know that this is a simple scenario but a very real one for a ship doing radar picket duty, not too far from a possibly hostile coast, especially true if the first shot is theirs to make. Generally in a peer to peer all out engagement it is not safe to assume you have enough cells or rounds to fill them.

 

[swerve]

If they're only on slightly different directions, then they're not really attacking on a radial flight plan. For the ship, they'd be pretty much in the same direction.

A ship is not only defended against anti-ship missiles (not ante - "ante" means "before") by its SAMs. It may also have a CIWS, & will certainly have soft kill defences.

If the aircraft really are arriving from significantly different directions, then they'd be vulnerable to detection from other ships in the fleet, & it would greatly complicate their simultaneous arrival.

Against a peer adversary, I don't see anyone putting a radar picket close to a hostile shore on its own. If they have AEW, they'll use that.

 

[StobieWan]

I have no comment about the various types of UK Ships but I do have something to say about the necessary missile load out. To say you only need a few rounds is just crazy. First, in most medium to short range engagements, it is best to fires two missiles per target, one right after another. If the target uses countermeasure like flares or shaft bursts along with a well time evasive maneuver, the first missile is likely to miss. But before the target can execute a second high speed maneuver or deploy more countermeasures the second missile hits. In the case of an ante-ship-missile fired at you, even one that does not have terminal evasive maneuvering capacity, you would still want to fire two missiles because just one hit can knock your ship out of action, even if it does not sink you.

I know that we have not seen this for a while but that does not mean that it wouldn’t happen, a determined enemy attacks, a modern missile ship, with a four plane flight attack group. Using a radial attack plan (coming in from four slightly different directions) keeping low below the radar horizon to a distance of say twenty miles, executes a pop up maneuver , then each simultaneously fires two medium range ante-ship-missiles and then follows them in with guns and bombs. Just for the first part of the engagement you have used 24 missiles assuming that you even have the time to fire them all before they get within minimum range. I know that this is a simple scenario but a very real one for a ship doing radar picket duty, not too far from a possibly hostile coast, especially true if the first shot is theirs to make. Generally in a peer to peer all out engagement it is not safe to assume you have enough cells or rounds to fill them.

Where do the four attacking aircraft get their target data from? I mean, they're all at low level, are blind to anything further than 20 or so nm away - where did they come across the idea there's a ship out there to attack?

Presumably the ship and the aircraft have equivalent opportunities to glimpse one another unless you have some off board cueing - given that, my money is on the platform with the bigger radar with more power.

Unless your aircraft get a timely set of co-ordinates from some other source, they'll be juggling counter measures and evasive moves as they happen upon their target by accident.

That's an expensive way to wage war...

Ian

 

[kev 99]

I have no comment about the various types of UK Ships but I do have something to say about the necessary missile load out. To say you only need a few rounds is just crazy. First, in most medium to short range engagements, it is best to fires two missiles per target, one right after another. If the target uses countermeasure like flares or shaft bursts along with a well time evasive maneuver, the first missile is likely to miss. But before the target can execute a second high speed maneuver or deploy more countermeasures the second missile hits. In the case of an ante-ship-missile fired at you, even one that does not have terminal evasive maneuvering capacity, you would still want to fire two missiles because just one hit can knock your ship out of action, even if it does not sink you.

I know that we have not seen this for a while but that does not mean that it wouldn’t happen, a determined enemy attacks, a modern missile ship, with a four plane flight attack group. Using a radial attack plan (coming in from four slightly different directions) keeping low below the radar horizon to a distance of say twenty miles, executes a pop up maneuver , then each simultaneously fires two medium range ante-ship-missiles and then follows them in with guns and bombs. Just for the first part of the engagement you have used 24 missiles assuming that you even have the time to fire them all before they get within minimum range. I know that this is a simple scenario but a very real one for a ship doing radar picket duty, not too far from a possibly hostile coast, especially true if the first shot is theirs to make. Generally in a peer to peer all out engagement it is not safe to assume you have enough cells or rounds to fill them.

I never said you "you only need a few rounds".