tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post6283573861501732663..comments2024-03-20T12:03:26.126+00:00Comments on Thin Pinstriped Line: The dangers of asking for an upgrade...Sir Humphreyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08704774192275240783noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-51060695878528953822017-09-21T01:27:40.749+01:002017-09-21T01:27:40.749+01:00Dear Sir H
I love really your blog, and I respect...Dear Sir H<br /><br />I love really your blog, and I respect your general analytical framework, but I think in this particular circumstance the arguments are a bit weak.<br /><br />The constabulary mission and the ability to self defend are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The floreal class for example carries a 100mm gun and a pair of exocets. Presumably the French did their homework. Big splashes carry a deterrent power, and getting hold of stray ASM or even ATGM is probably not outside the ability of rebel groups and non state actors. Why would they attack the ship? To cause trouble, escalate the situation and attract attention.<br /><br />In terms of the cost changing the design - HMTS Krabi ships an Oto Melara 76mm and a pair of 30mm, her sister ship will reportedly carry Harpoon, at a cost significantly less than River B2 (I understand it's a make work project).<br /><br />BAE talks about the plug and play nature of their combat system :<br />BAE describes Shared Infrastructure as "a state-of-the-art system that will revolutionise the way ships operate by using virtual technologies to host and integrate the sensors, weapons and management systems that complex warships require. "<br /><br />In terms of new supply chains, it would be ironic if the RN ended up buying the Italian weapon for T31. And the INS is right next door, surely some shared support could be worked out.<br /><br />I don't understand what the crane is for, and surely an extendable hanger must save manpower by making it easier to support whatever aviation is to be carried. The ability to use these ships as a test bed for deploying UAVs and adding to the overall information picture must surely be worth an investment in a glorified tent . Surely the ability to properly deploy 'copter or at least a UAV must be critical for constabulary work / disaster relief. A Hangar has already been added to the Bays.<br /><br />It is hard to escape the feeling that the Navy never asked for these ships and is desperate for them not to look like frigates - which they aren't of course, but in the process the baby has gone out with the bathwaterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-22327169428532247782017-09-16T02:27:40.311+01:002017-09-16T02:27:40.311+01:00Or indeed an empty space for some VLS on the Type ...Or indeed an empty space for some VLS on the Type 31e.RoboJ1Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15915337461488853660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-36328191009516374762017-09-16T02:21:05.809+01:002017-09-16T02:21:05.809+01:00Everything in this article makes perfect sense.
Bu...Everything in this article makes perfect sense.<br />But do we design our shops so that they can be upgraded in the future?<br />If it's really expensive and time consuming to add SeaCeptor to Type 23s, are we adding "blank slots" to the designs of the Type 26 and Type 32es?<br />Surely that's a lesson we would learn from and plan for?<br />You could even do it with the OPVs. Just a bit of deck space and nearby cabling for a Phalanx, just in case the future gets a bit hotter and more dangerous.RoboJ1Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15915337461488853660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-91616511278894146102017-09-09T21:40:38.514+01:002017-09-09T21:40:38.514+01:00Hi Ex Student, I like it when folks say what they ...Hi Ex Student, I like it when folks say what they want to say. Its important to hear, learn and understand other folks perspective. I like the articles being written by Sir Humphrey as well.Keith Swarenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-20027193447853525522017-09-09T21:32:07.847+01:002017-09-09T21:32:07.847+01:00Thanks Dan and Anonymous! OK, I'm not going to...Thanks Dan and Anonymous! OK, I'm not going to be characterised as someone from the type writer generation. I agree with your points albeit they are missing a few sales with many countries, but hey, we don’t want a big list of past sales. We are future looking, because the Russians are building 1 ship a year in a way that is cost effective, because the sandwich islands are being colonised in a way that is going to deny shipping routes to UK registered traffic, because we want to preserve the oil off the coast of the Falklands for our own use, because we owe a debt of responsibility to Anzac countries and several others commonwealth countries around the world.<br /> <br />http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13193552.How_the_Hunt_for_the_Red_December_in_Scottish_waters_exposes_the_gaping_hole_in_Britain_s_defences/<br /><br />A satellite takes 10 years to design and get into orbit, similarly, a warship or submarine takes 10ish years to design and put into sea trials. Military design and development is relentless. If you don’t fund R & D, then prospective enemies discover that it is commercially lucrative to-take-what-you-can’t-defend, for example Somali Pirates / Ukrainian Crimea / Cyprus / Falkland’s / …<br />History is a tool to be used to combat future mistakes being made by newbies who have not yet learnt some lessons concerning how nasty or devious or greedy or power hungry the human race is. I don’t believe in utopian ideas because other countries don’t practice following any kind of morality. The human race practices slavery, butchery, theft, … and defends itself with propaganda and turning the other cheek when it’s inconvenient or embarrassing.<br />All of this unpredictability is why the Navy needs more ships that are capable of surviving in contested land sea and air space; but, we are cash strapped. This country is in debt and is spending more than 1Bn per week in debt interest payments, thus, we are obliged to sell kit to foreign countries to make up the short fall, so that the navy can get what it needs (30+ warships is far less than what we had in the Falklands war). Fantasy MISSIONS by politicians cannot be achieved using long boats and rowing boats although the Dutch did pretty well with single cannon gun boats at keeping the royal navy out of their harbours long long time ago. Technology moves on, Zircon missiles have made British capital ships a bit of a giggle amongst the Russians. When HMS Sheffield got hit by a Argentinian French Exocet, the military world moved on. The defenceless / empty British carriers are embarrassing, so are the OPVs, they are not credible in today’s world. British governments come and go, but the civil service stays forever; British MPs like to believe that they are in control, that’s a very utopian perspective. The civil service are the ones who advise the MPs what is viable in financial terms; this is how the UK seems to muddle through, from one disaster to the next. <br /><br />Warships are a long term R & D investment in security and prosperity for an island nation. The media and British politicians have demonstrated that they are incapable of understanding the relevance of the three services. It’s down to engineers and historians to keep them on a straight and narrow path that insures the UK economy is committed against unpredictable despots like Assad who like to drop barrel bombs onto the heads of his own citizens. Let’s not determine the military funding according to the polls and political capital earned. Let’s fund the military machine according to the risks of Zircon missiles, the needs of foreign navies like Singapore, Brazil, …, the needs of shipping in areas such as Somalia, the needs of commonwealth and Anzac countries, credible, viable, sustainable and an let’s put an end to utopian hope and glory nonsense that originates from poorly educated people who are frightened of change or looking at the lessons of history.<br /><br />The royal navy appears to be doing a Stirling job in the Caribbean… so far, will the British press print that story, or will it, attack their endeavours?<br />Keith Swarenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-74010127908861203982017-09-09T19:52:13.598+01:002017-09-09T19:52:13.598+01:00@ Keith Sware
That was extremely arrogant of me. ...@ Keith Sware<br /><br />That was extremely arrogant of me. I let my anger at my ignorance get to me and I took it out on you. I apologise for my behaviour. ex studentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-6711909912106966942017-09-09T12:17:52.999+01:002017-09-09T12:17:52.999+01:00Keith I'm sorry but as well as fantasy fleet f...Keith I'm sorry but as well as fantasy fleet for U.K. you have fantasy fleet ambitions for shipbuilding, "we used to supply the ships for Australia, Canada, and India" well yes we did but we also had an Empire on which the sun never set and a fleet bigger than at least the next 2 biggest fleets on the planet. Sorry but that is ancient history, The Canadian fleet is Canadian buit, the ships recently decommissioned were as well and the generation before that, as well. If you go back 3 generations they probably shared more equipment with the RN than the USN but you are back in the 1950's it is a similar story for Australia and India. We have occasionally disposed of second hand equipment withdrawn from service with RN I.e. Conventional subs to Canada in the 90's or HMS Hermes to India in the 80's but actual competitive sale of warships I'm sorry you are back in the 1940's and that is ancient history in today's world. <br /><br />We did sell 2 Type 42 to the Argentine facist junta and that worked out really well, and we sold a couple of purpose designed ships to the Shah before the Iranian revolution, but post WW2 we disposed of lots of surplus equipment we didn't win orders. <br /><br />The RN wanted high end specialist ships that can operate in the Artic and the Gulf or fight in a mid Atlantic Storm or in shallow waters off Africa or Malaysia, no one else that can afoard such high end equipment is going to buy from a foreign power, and if you want a more niche capability we don't make it.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05270416768188186705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-10839945706861143342017-09-09T10:26:36.315+01:002017-09-09T10:26:36.315+01:00Sack em! Great stuff and shows a limited knowledge...Sack em! Great stuff and shows a limited knowledge of what it takes to bring any ship into service and keep it there.<br /><br />Civil Servants don't set the budgets.....<br /><br />You need to research the subject more before typing!<br /><br />Sir H's article is about people discussing a complicated subject with little or no actual knowledge.....you've just reinforced that position!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-82010197486687581652017-09-08T23:51:06.537+01:002017-09-08T23:51:06.537+01:00Thanks for making me laugh, this army of civil ser...Thanks for making me laugh, this army of civil servants that you are talking about, sack em, this would release funds to build the type 46 warships. Seriously though, war is more expensive than peace time defence budgets, the Falklands demonstrated that cutting 6 warships from the John Notts defence budget ended up costing more in destroyed warships (plus Atlantic conveyer and etc), loss of life and arguably destroyed the Argentinian economy for the last 20+ years. Building warships in peace time serves the economy and paradoxically creates tax revenue from extra ship building / sailors jobs. There was a time when the UK supplied ships to India / Australia / Argentina / Canada and several other countries. Spending money, paradoxically makes money. When the civil service educate MPs to cut defence budgets, we lose things like Nimrod or harrier development, and then we end up spending more money in the long run on things like Lockheed martins P-8 and F35s. So when you export defence jobs to foreign countries, you not only loose the tax earning revenue from loss of foreign sales, but you also loose engineering skills. The people that you no longer employ to make local equipment who used to also pay tax are now unemployed or end up leaving the country to use their talents in foreign companies. The short term gain of not spending money on Nimrod and harrier development has cost us much more in what we are now spending to P-8 and F35 procurement. So now the british tax payer is propping up foreign engineers (research and development) and foreign companies whose foreign employees who pay tax to foreign governments; thus the long term cost outweighs the short term political / financial gain to purchase equipment from overseas government.<br />https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/dec/30/thatcher-warned-defence-cuts-falklands <br />It’s cheaper to make things yourself, so building extra warships would mean that we could also sell extra warships, this which is what we used to do before the civil service had the bright idea of reducing defence budgets. So now we make almost nothing and our Belfast and Portsmouth and other ship yards are no more.<br />Keith Swarenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-66982214519281710072017-09-08T05:42:43.787+01:002017-09-08T05:42:43.787+01:00Might as well never upgrade thenMight as well never upgrade thenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-76731235649450426032017-09-07T18:15:40.921+01:002017-09-07T18:15:40.921+01:00"I would much rather see a few type 46 destro..."I would much rather see a few type 46 destroyers with LAWS and Mk41 launch tubes..."<br /><br />Fantasy Fleet alert! <br /><br />Seriously, please read the article again. We DON'T have the money to build more Type 45s. That means replacing the supply train, training more sailors....<br /><br /><br />Oh, heck, why am I bothering to explain this? You should know all these problems, otherwise you wouldn't have posted here. The problem with what you've written is that you've spoken out against one fantasy, but replaced it with another. <br /><br /><br />That misleads people, please don't so it. The fleet doesn't need more ships. We have extraordinarily capable civil servants, and the fleet is the size it is FOR A REASON!ex studentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-62015146957292426132017-09-06T20:18:58.432+01:002017-09-06T20:18:58.432+01:00OPVs speck-ed out by SDR accountants for fantasy m...OPVs speck-ed out by SDR accountants for fantasy missions in the Gulf and Caribbean; without sufficient speed to catch a drug smugglers high speed boat in the Caribbean, and without credible force to defend against sailors getting captured by Iranians in the Gulf. OPVs are only credible for fishery protection, and reducing the UKs embarrassment when Spanish warships sail into Gibraltar waters. Upgrading OPVs are wasteful of hard cash which is needed to keep HMS Ocean from becoming lost before she has become obsolete. One good thing about having a few OPVs is that they provide a training path for sailors who in time will serve on frigates. OPVs need a hanger to host and maintain UAVs with night vision capability. UAVs would increase the radar horizon of these little OPV boats and better detect Spanish trawlers. I would much rather see a few type 46 destroyers with LAWS and Mk41 launch tubes, than a fleet of many accountant friendly OPVs that are not credible for anything other than chasing slow Spanish trawlers.Keith Swarenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-73242952730764466412017-09-05T23:06:58.201+01:002017-09-05T23:06:58.201+01:00Completely agree on the general issues with this f...Completely agree on the general issues with this fantasy fleet talk....from the idiocy of thinking something like Sea Ceptor can just be bolted onto a ship that hasn't been designed for it without thought to the complexity, cost, additional sensors/manpower etc, to the illogical fixation with buying whole new systems like 76mm guns for no obvious or convincing operational use or requirement.<br /><br />However whilst accepting the River's limitations as cheap constabulary vessels and the very tight manpower situation i don't think we should be throwing the baby out with the bath water.<br /><br />Even just keeping HMS Clyde alongside the other 5 as per the SDSR and retaining/expanding the Scan Eagle fleet to provide containerized air surveillance in lieu of a hangar would let vessels deploy to the West Indies and Mediterranean for flying the flag, anti narcotics and migrant patrols etc. <br /><br />Ok they aren't the ideal solution to these standing commitments, but if they take some of the pressure and free up expensive escorts needed for the carrier-group then they will surely suffice and the Royal Navy needs to get creative and more flexible now more than ever.<br /><br />The 3 other batch 1 River's should be transferred to the boarder force (or whatever it's called now) as they could well be needed post Brexit and either scrapping or flogging them cheap would be a terrible waste. Challengernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-40514530972693666542017-09-05T21:22:55.366+01:002017-09-05T21:22:55.366+01:00Good analysis. I have never been able to see the p...Good analysis. I have never been able to see the point of all-singing, all-dancing OPVs when they are really only suitable for constabulary duties, though some seem to be obsessed with them. As has been said before, you either need a ship that can fight or you don't and the former should be left to the destroyers and frigates. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-64283727072680267232017-09-05T15:21:07.296+01:002017-09-05T15:21:07.296+01:00Excellent piece (as usual). I find it odd that the...Excellent piece (as usual). I find it odd that the critics fail to grasp that the Batch 2 Rivers are already a substantial "upgrade" over the Batch 1s, being much more capable (and survivable) in every way. And they are also much more heavily armed than the Batch 1s. For their duties, the Batch 2s do not need a calibre heavier than 30 mm. The other recurring criticism is the Batch 2s lack of a helicopter hangar, as if the RN did not have decades of experience in operating ships with flight decks but no hangars, and so is very familiar with the pros and cons of such arrangements. The lack of hangar allows space for containers or pallets to be embarked. So, while flexibility along one "geometrical axis" is lost, greater flexibility is achieved along another axis. The Batch 2s are, of course, improved versions of a design that has already been exported to two countries (Brazil and Thailand). My suspicion is that, in due course, we will see the Batch 2s embark and train with containerised/palletised mine countermeasures systems (although they would not permanently carry them). Keith Campbell Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-51850453159173752892017-09-05T08:25:10.936+01:002017-09-05T08:25:10.936+01:00Interesting viewpoint. Two comments, one, why a 30...Interesting viewpoint. Two comments, one, why a 30mm cannon and not a larger caliber? Two, we need export orders and this design is considered not good enough for foreign navies. T. B. D'Agostinohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09280531084025156352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-4304619354328617202017-09-05T06:27:19.769+01:002017-09-05T06:27:19.769+01:00FF articles are written because no-hopers with no ...FF articles are written because no-hopers with no chance of ever achieving anything in life convince themselves that they know something about the navy and that they can contribute. Consequently, they look at the state of the navy, panic, and try and 'do something' by arguing for more numbers, without realising that there is nothing to be done, cuts are endless and we will never be able to defend ourselves without the U.S Navy nannying us. The carrier groups will needs Arleigh Burkes to bolster capability, and they'd better get use to it. <br /><br />Such people live tiny lives, obsess with being useful, and work in office jobs that really don't matter. Any hope of being useful could be taken apart in under a minute by an expert. What experience they have is utterly worthless. <br /><br />I should know about such idiots, I'm one of them. ex studentnoreply@blogger.com