Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Mikhail Liebenstein

Russian Flotilla

Recommended Posts

The presence of some of the Russian Fleet near UK Water seems to be causing jingoism in some of the papers.

Given that the Russians are clearly not planning to invade or attack the UK and are just on their way to Syria, wouldn't we have been better asking the Royal Navy to  extend diplomatic  relations to the Russian Flotilla rather than replaying some cold war drama.

I'm quite sure the average matelow would rather share some  rum/vodka than simulate a cold war game of cat and mouse.

I do get that the Russians have been naughty before sneaking into UK Waters, but was well announced in advance.

What do people think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the putrid BBC & Sky News are full of militaristic jingoistc flagwaving over the RN "Man Marking" (ha moronic low IQ football tie in there) the Russian Flotilla, you can see the headlines in the Sun & Star aimed at keeping football mad whitevanman feeling patriotic & paying taxes! lol

The Russian "flotilla" actually consists of a smoke belching ageing aircraft carrier with about 4 aircraft on deck! and a coupleof supply vessels it is hilarious but i suppose the RN has to justify it's existence, can't help but wonder where they are when the east coast of England sees daily landings of illegal migrants? IMO they are not securing the british coastline. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a hoot isn't it.

The Russian carrier needs a tug to accompany it everywhere - maybe the Type 45's could borrow it if needed - and the RN / NATO sends out warships which basically have no anti-ship capability. Well, they have ancient Harpoon missiles, due to be retired in about 12 months, which are so out of date that they will be lucky that they do not explode upon launch.

I had visions of both sides accidentally opening firing and sinking themselves rather than each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Inoperational Bumblebee said:

Totally agree ML. Ridiculous scaremongering for no apparent reason whatsoever. Ranted at the wife earlier about what a load of b0ll0cks it was. What are the MSM actually trying to achieve with this?

As i said above^ TPTB & MSM want to keep whitevanman feeling patriotic & paying taxes instead of thinking about Brexit.......notice all the EU parliment / theresa may guff today was all obout "increased russian aggression"? 

A trick as old as the hills, start a war or create a bogeyman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Inoperational Bumblebee said:

Totally agree ML. Ridiculous scaremongering for no apparent reason whatsoever. Ranted at the wife earlier about what a load of b0ll0cks it was. What are the MSM actually trying to achieve with this?

I don't know. The so-called "unbiased" BBC are the sphincter of the elites, but it just doesn't wash these days. They just make themselves look more ridiculous by the minute.

Do they honestly think that people in the UK would rather be burnt to a crisp in a thermonuclear explosion than have Isis removed from Syria?

F**kin 'ell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shocked as I was to learn the English Channel lay between where these Russian ships were and where they wanted to be, I must say my biggest surprise in this whole incident was learning how relatively unimpressive the Russian Navy seems to be.

I'm sure we've got some armchair militarists here who can shed some light on this... what's the story, are boats just not their thing or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, evictee said:

Shocked as I was to learn the English Channel lay between where these Russian ships were and where they wanted to be, I must say my biggest surprise in this whole incident was learning how relatively unimpressive the Russian Navy seems to be.

I'm sure we've got some armchair militarists here who can shed some light on this... what's the story, are boats just not their thing or what?

I have this theory..... You don't build 100's of what ever you can design today because after 2 years they will be totaly obsolete. So you only build 1 or 2 and try them out first. Take the best bits and make a couple of new ones. Etc, etc.

When you have a war then you build 1000's of them. Job done.

We have a crap army/navy because we aren't at war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, evictee said:

Shocked as I was to learn the English Channel lay between where these Russian ships were and where they wanted to be, I must say my biggest surprise in this whole incident was learning how relatively unimpressive the Russian Navy seems to be.

I'm sure we've got some armchair militarists here who can shed some light on this... what's the story, are boats just not their thing or what?

 

Actually, only last year the US Navy issued a report stating that the Russian Navy may soon have the capability to deny NATO access to the Black Sea and also to the Baltic - which would make defending a whole host of EU countries very difficult.

Russian subs are very capable - very silent and can go very deep. They also have superior torpedo technology to Western navies.

Russian surface vessels also carry long-range offensive anti-ship missiles which, believe it or not, Western Navies actually lack. Most of the missile systems on Western warships are there for defensive purposes - missiles to fire down missiles fired at them via enemy ships, subs or aircraft. These tend to be much shorter range than the Russian offensive missiles - and which the Chinese are now adopting.

Yes, Western navies have the aged anti-ship Harpoon - the RN has few of them and they are due to be retired in about a year - but they are considered to be ineffective. As a result, in recent months the US has gone into a bit of a panic thinking about how they can put anti-ship missiles aboard their surface combatants. They recently made a big thing of being able to hit a warship with one of their anti-missile SM-6 missiles - but the warhead on that missile is so small that it would most likely cause damage but not destroy an enemy vessel.

The Yanks are now looking at developing a version of the Tomahawk cruise missile as an anti-ship missile and are rushing through the AGM-158C LRASM (Long Range Anti-Ship Missile) which they hope to begin deploying in 2 or 3 years time. But the Royal Navy is in a bit of mess about this capability as we clearly lack it but no one seems to know what to do about or whether we can afford to do something about it. We are going to have to do something - here are the possibilities.

The Russians are also building a new carrier.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Masked Tulip said:

 

Actually, only last year the US Navy issued a report stating that the Russian Navy may soon have the capability to deny NATO access to the Black Sea and also to the Baltic - which would make defending a whole host of EU countries very difficult.

Russian subs are very capable - very silent and can go very deep. They also have superior torpedo technology to Western navies.

Russian surface vessels also carry long-range offensive anti-ship missiles which, believe it or not, Western Navies actually lack. Most of the missile systems on Western warships are there for defensive purposes - missiles to fire down missiles fired at them via enemy ships, subs or aircraft. These tend to be much shorter range than the Russian offensive missiles - and which the Chinese are now adopting.

Yes, Western navies have the aged anti-ship Harpoon - the RN has few of them and they are due to be retired in about a year - but they are considered to be ineffective. As a result, in recent months the US has gone into a bit of a panic thinking about how they can put anti-ship missiles aboard their surface combatants. They recently made a big thing of being able to hit a warship with one of their anti-missile SM-6 missiles - but the warhead on that missile is so small that it would most likely cause damage but not destroy an enemy vessel.

The Yanks are now looking at developing a version of the Tomahawk cruise missile as an anti-ship missile and are rushing through the AGM-158C LRASM (Long Range Anti-Ship Missile) which they hope to begin deploying in 2 or 3 years time. But the Royal Navy is in a bit of mess about this capability as we clearly lack it but no one seems to know what to do about or whether we can afford to do something about it. We are going to have to do something - here are the possibilities.

The Russians are also building a new carrier.

 

We're building TWO carriers.  So there!!:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bossybabe said:

We're building TWO carriers.  So there!!:rolleyes:

No we are payimg billions for a pontless Voreforme Beprown scheme ,for a couple of useless, unarmed sittng ducks.

That ruski cknvoy could be taken out with a few million of crusie missiles.

You could make a 1000 raspberry pi powered missiles with hiex and disable the lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, spyguy said:

No we are payimg billions for a pontless Voreforme Beprown scheme ,for a couple of useless, unarmed sittng ducks.

That ruski cknvoy could be taken out with a few million of crusie missiles.

You could make a 1000 raspberry pi powered missiles with hiex and disable the lot.

 

If we had bought some Russian S-300s/400s then we could have had the located in Birmingham city centre and the Russians would have avoided coming near. Doh!

Don't forget, the carrier broke down off Cork about 6 years back. Well, leaked a load of oil. We only knew the carrier was there - officially - when the coastguard spotted the oil. Hopefully, some NATO sub was shadowing.

The Yanks were planning to close their Tomahawk missile factory - they have a huge stockpile of them and we have enough for about an afternoon of firing. Because of the lack of anti-ship missile capability the Yanks are now thinking of keeping the factory opening and developing a ship launched anti-ship Tomahawk with a 1,000 mile range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big stuff might look good and keep Amirals employed and in gin parties but its just too easy to disable with a missile that does not drink gin, does not need a pension and does not need to be shipped back from a warzone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bossybabe said:

We're building TWO carriers.  So there!!:rolleyes:

Carriers won't be very effective (or indeed last very long) without an extensive battle group surrounding it.....

We have the Carriers but not much else.

This will sort of give you an idea of what is needed, notice the submarines out front..

Abraham-Lincoln-battlegroup.jpg

Is the Royal Navy event this large today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, geezer466 said:

Carriers won't be very effective (or indeed last very long) without an extensive battle group surrounding it.....

We have the Carriers but not much else.

This will sort of give you an idea of what is needed, notice the submarines out front..

Abraham-Lincoln-battlegroup.jpg

Is the Royal Navy event this large today?

Trident?  (Lights blue touch paper and retreats hastily). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Bossybabe said:

Trident?  (Lights blue touch paper and retreats hastily). 

No these will be hunter/killers. The Trident fleet operates independently of any other command.

 

Of the 4 boats, one is always at sea on patrol, one is in port preparing to go to sea (will depart before the other returns) and crew training for the next patrol, one is in refit and one is kept in reserve (that usually means cannibalised for the good of the rest of the fleet).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, The Masked Tulip said:

It is a hoot isn't it.

The Russian carrier needs a tug to accompany it everywhere - maybe the Type 45's could borrow it if needed - and the RN / NATO sends out warships which basically have no anti-ship capability. Well, they have ancient Harpoon missiles, due to be retired in about 12 months, which are so out of date that they will be lucky that they do not explode upon launch.

I had visions of both sides accidentally opening firing and sinking themselves rather than each other.

The tug issue is quite funny soon we can send our own aircraft carrier in hot pursuit with no aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just media talk, but I don't think we should antagonise Russia too much.

We used to do this stuff very well, but now it would be a huge mistake to fall out too much with a giant power like that.

We are insignificant. Our people can't do hardship never mind a war.

If you want to get jingoistic, let's just leave it at football hooligan level - we saw earlier in the summer who was the daddy there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, frankief said:

It's just media talk, but I don't think we should antagonise Russia too much.

We used to do this stuff very well, but now it would be a huge mistake to fall out too much with a giant power like that.

We are insignificant. Our people can't do hardship never mind a war.

If you want to get jingoistic, let's just leave it at football hooligan level - we saw earlier in the summer who was the daddy there!

You mean like Hillary's no fly zone which will almost certainly result in some willy waving and us or them shooting down each others warplanes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, geezer466 said:

Carriers won't be very effective (or indeed last very long) without an extensive battle group surrounding it.....

We have the Carriers but not much else.

This will sort of give you an idea of what is needed, notice the submarines out front..

Abraham-Lincoln-battlegroup.jpg

Is the Royal Navy event this large today?

 

I think the royal navy will field a pretty decent carrier battle group once the carriers are ready. The Type 45 destroyers and astute class subs are excellent compared with the rusting russian hardware on display. What it probably lacks is strength in depth, ie it will be able to field a decent carrier battle group and not much else.

For me the mistakes that have been made are firstly that the QE2 ships are too big. They should have gone for something smaller with fewer F35s. The increase in air capability that even one of these carriers represents over what we had before is huge. Two smaller ships with half the number of F35s would have been my selection.

I also think we need a cheaper less state of the art long range ship for doing policing duties. It doesn't make sense to have fully capable combat ships doing stuff like intercepting drugs runners or pirates. We'd be better off producing a ship specifically for that purpose at lower cost and keeping the guided missile boats for carrier protection duties.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, geezer466 said:

No these will be hunter/killers. The Trident fleet operates independently of any other command.

 

Of the 4 boats, one is always at sea on patrol, one is in port preparing to go to sea (will depart before the other returns) and crew training for the next patrol, one is in refit and one is kept in reserve (that usually means cannibalised for the good of the rest of the fleet).

Yes, thanks?  I know. I was in the navy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

 

I think the royal navy will field a pretty decent carrier battle group once the carriers are ready. The Type 45 destroyers and astute class subs are excellent compared with the rusting russian hardware on display. What it probably lacks is strength in depth, ie it will be able to field a decent carrier battle group and not much else.

For me the mistakes that have been made are firstly that the QE2 ships are too big. They should have gone for something smaller with fewer F35s. The increase in air capability that even one of these carriers represents over what we had before is huge. Two smaller ships with half the number of F35s would have been my selection.

I also think we need a cheaper less state of the art long range ship for doing policing duties. It doesn't make sense to have fully capable combat ships doing stuff like intercepting drugs runners or pirates. We'd be better off producing a ship specifically for that purpose at lower cost and keeping the guided missile boats for carrier protection duties.

 

 

 

There are calls in the US for even the US to now start building smaller QE2 size carriers - yes, they consider our new big ones to be small - so that they can have more, are cheaper to build and simply do not put all their eggs into one basket.

There are also some calling for the US Navy to start building diesel subs again - they have a bit of a snob thing about nuclear subs - so that they can task more expensive nuclear subs for roles that require them and cheaper diesels for roles where a nuke sub is not needed. It is the same argument as the supposedly chaper Littoral Combat Ship - but that has turned out to be a disaster.

We are supposed to be going down the LCS route with plans - supposedly going to be announced in the Autumn Statement - to build fewer Type 26 frigates. Instead of 13 Type 26 ships the plan apparently will be to build just 8 - yes, 8 - of them and then build 5 cheaper less armed ships - pencilled in as Type 31 - for the Policing roles you mention.

However, as the Yanks are now discovering with the LCS, what happens when you need a lot of firepower in a region where you only have a LCS and that LCS does not have the means to protect itself adequately due to not having strong enough offensive capability?

The Type 26's will be excellent anti-submarine warships - we do anti sub stuff very well - but we are seriously lacking in, as I posted above, any kind of anti surface ship capability. True for the whole of NATO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   59 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.