They can't handle anything that's more complicated than a sail.

UK military ships spend more time in port getting fixed than at sea.

The US Navy is not much better. They just have a bigger fleet.

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN10L18I/


Quote:

Commentary: What the U.S. should learn from Britain’s dying navy By David Axe August 11, 20164:45 PM GMT+7Updated 7 years ago Britain used to boast the most powerful navy in the world. No more. That’s a serious problem for allies like the United States. Traditionally, Britain’s Royal Navy has been the U.S. Navy's closest partner. The two have fought together against most every foe. So any weakening of the Royal Navy also erodes Washington's naval power. Today, however, the Royal Navy is a shadow of its former self. Government budgeteers have repeatedly, and excessively, cut the numbers of its ships, planes and manpower. It can barely patrol the United Kingdom’s own waters, much less project British influence abroad. Though London officials now vow to reverse the decline, it might be too late. With morale plummeting, and its few remaining ships frequently malfunctioning at sea, the Royal Navy’s suffering might be terminal. The timing couldn’t be worse. The West is mobilizing to defeat Islamic State, deter an increasingly aggressive Russia and manage China's meteoric rise as a world power. The British fleet's collapse is an object lesson for cash-strapped governments struggling to balance competing budgetary needs in a seemingly ever more volatile world. Yes, navies are expensive. They require long-term planning, work and funding. In peacetime, the fleet’s benefit is often invisible, marked by the absence of overt conflict. Yet navies remain crucial to national defense. Patrolling international waters with sophisticated sensors and powerful, long-range weaponry, they can respond more quickly to crises and bring more firepower to bear than can air forces (which require nearby runways) and armies (which move slowly). Navies that die from neglect leave a void that rogue states, terrorists and criminals can quickly fill. It takes navies to keep an eye on vast ocean regions. Remove what was once the world's leading fleet, and you create a virtual security vacuum. During World War Two, the British fleet was still dominant. On D-Day in 1944, it was able to send more than 900 British warships across the English Channel to escort the Allied troops who would liberate Europe from Nazi Germany. As recently as 1982, the Royal Navy could quickly muster no fewer than 115 ships —including two aircraft carriers carrying jet fighters, plus 23 destroyers and frigates — to retake the Falkland Islands from Argentina. Today, the British navy doesn’t even have jet fighters. It mothballed its last Harriers in 2010. It possesses just 89 ships. (By comparison, the U.S. Navy and Military Sealift Command, the Pentagon's fleet of support ships, have roughly 400.) Britain’s fleet has declined amid steady defense budget cuts, from 4.1 percent of gross domestic product in 1988 to 2.6 percent in 2010. Reductions in 2010 sliced another 8 percent in real terms. As part of a defense review in 2015, London vowed to stop cutbacks on the fleet. But the damage has been done. On paper, the Royal Navy's 89 ships include one helicopter carrier, six amphibious assault ships, six destroyers, 13 frigates, seven attack submarines and four ballistic-missile submarines. The rest are minesweepers, survey ships and other support vessels, many no larger than the U.S. Coast Guard's small patrol ships. Only the six destroyers, 13 frigates and seven attack submarines can be considered true frontline vessels, with adequate sensors, weapons and protection to fight and survive in a battle with a sophisticated foe. The other ships require escort through dangerous waters. Roughly half the ships are in routine maintenance or training at any given time. Several others are committed to small standing patrols, which leaves just a handful of vessels to respond to emergencies. But that's assuming there are enough sailors to operate the ships. The Royal Navy has shed people faster than ships. Britain had 39,000 sailors in 2000. It now has a little more than 29,000, at least 2,000 short of its authorized strength. Fleet planners tried to address the personnel shortage by sidelining two of its most powerful ships. This summer, for example, the Royal Navy placed the large Type 23 frigate HMS "Lancaster" in “extended readiness”: It was tied up pierside, its crew assigned to other vessels. Meanwhile, the new Type 45 destroyer HMS "Dauntless" suffered serious problems with generators and entered port for repairs that could last at least until 2019. As with "Lancaster," the fleet dispersed "Dauntless'" sailors to other vessels. With those vessels out of action, the Royal Navy's real strength dropped from 26 fighting ships to an unprecedented modern low of 24. Last month, the new attack submarine HMS "Ambush" collided with a merchant vessel off Gibraltar.  ...

Old article -

August 11, 2016     7:45 PM  GMT+10     Updated 7 years ago


forgiven
namasste

Bobby. wrote on Feb 5^th, 2024 at 9:35pm:

Old article - August 11, 2016     7:45 PM  GMT+10     Updated 7 years ago forgiven namasste

Another was in dry dock for 9 months.

https://www.forces.net/services/navy/hms-prince-wales-captain-says-us-deployment-shows-months-dry-dock-were-not-wasted

They can always use tug boats to tow the Carriers to battle sites as long as the ice cream machines are working.

Rule Brittania.

Still LTYC -

you have a point.

The ships are too complicated for their own good.
The equipment is not reliable and they take too long to repair.

You wonder how they would go in a real war?
Recently Russian ships were sunk by low cost drones.
Ships become juicy targets for the enemy with cheap technology.

A $100,000 drone can destroy a billion dollar ship.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 5^th, 2024 at 10:19pm:

Still LTYC - you have a point. The ships are too complicated for their own good. The equipment is not reliable and they take too long to repair. You wonder how they would go in a real war? Recently Russian ships were sunk by low cost drones. Ships become juicy targets for the enemy with cheap technology. A $100,000 drone can destroy a billion dollar ship.

Loose lips are a big danger.

'Based on the fact that an American 105mm shell cost $32, a WW2 bomb must have cost substantially less than $1 a pound. A shell needed precision machining, but a general purpose bomb was just a cast iron casing filled with explosive, the expensive filling making up less than half the weight'.  Japanese Mitsubishis armed with 250kg bombs attacked battleships HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse on 10 December 1941 and sank both. A bomb was about $500.

Don’t discount HMS “Victory “, admittedly she’s in dry dock, but fully fitted out except for ammunition, water and food and sundry small supplies. 
Could be replenished in a couple of days.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Feb 8^th, 2024 at 11:21am:

Don’t discount HMS “Victory “, admittedly she’s in dry dock, but fully fitted out except for ammunition, water and food and sundry small supplies.  Could be replenished in a couple of days.

Will the papier mache repairs to holes in its side withstand a strenuous voyage let alone a battle?

Is it possible to cut some holes in the sides for oars to be used?

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/08/13/article-2187303-14837131000005DC-445_1024x615_large.jpg

Observe the trash in the hole in the side of the warship. Does the UK fight wars by dumping trash in enemy waters?

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Feb 8^th, 2024 at 11:21am:

Don’t discount HMS “Victory “, admittedly she’s in dry dock, but fully fitted out except for ammunition, water and food and sundry small supplies.  Could be replenished in a couple of days.

The UK Navy could turn its drydocks into lucrative tourism sites.

Sailors could engage in theatrical stunts to delight the customers.

' ten are nuclear-powered submarines (four ballistic missile submarines and six fleet submarines). In addition the Navy possesses seven mine countermeasures vessels, twenty-six patrol vessels, two survey vessels, one icebreaker and one historic warship, Victory. The total displacement of the Royal Navy's commissioned ships is approximately 421,200 tonnes'.

HMS Victory is included with nuke subs. Its capability is a gun range of 300 metres which scares off the French and Houthis.

chimera wrote on Feb 8^th, 2024 at 1:02pm:

' ten are nuclear-powered submarines (four ballistic missile submarines and six fleet submarines). In addition the Navy possesses seven mine countermeasures vessels, twenty-six patrol vessels, two survey vessels, one icebreaker and one historic warship, Victory. The total displacement of the Royal Navy's commissioned ships is approximately 421,200 tonnes'. HMS Victory is included with nuke subs. Its capability is a gun range of 300 metres which scares off the French and Houthis.

Only a few thousand tons of these war machines is at sea at any time.

Drydock is their permanent location.

How much trash can these behemoths carry to dump into enemy waters?

Does each of them have a dedicated tugboat?

Pipe me aboard sailor.

The HMS Victory awaits destiny and a return to battle.  Philip II of Spain apparently swore, at the time of his marriage to Mary I of England in 1554, that he would resign the kingdom if Arthur should return to Camelot.  King Arthur and Victory will attain glory and fame.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 5^th, 2024 at 10:19pm:

Still LTYC - you have a point. The ships are too complicated for their own good. The equipment is not reliable and they take too long to repair. You wonder how they would go in a real war? Recently Russian ships were sunk by low cost drones. Ships become juicy targets for the enemy with cheap technology. A $100,000 drone can destroy a billion dollar ship.

You have a good point there Bobby.
War Ships are out-dated in a way.
Falklands War: Argie with a Stinger Missile sat on a hill and blew the HMS Sheffield to bit with just one hit.
Cheap Drones have just sunk a Russian War Ship - easy as.
War Ships are now 'Sitting Ducks'.

Just more expensive Machines being taken out of the game by far cheaper machines.

Australian Ships spend a lot of time at dock for maintenance as well.

A nice, trendy sub is just $46billion, well $49.5bill. or OK $51bill., max. Choice of sundeck, boom box and glitter paint. Fitted with genuine fencing-mesh to block 98.2% of all infectious drones.

Jasin wrote on Feb 8^th, 2024 at 3:02pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 5th, 2024 at 10:19pm: Still LTYC - you have a point. The ships are too complicated for their own good. The equipment is not reliable and they take too long to repair. You wonder how they would go in a real war? Recently Russian ships were sunk by low cost drones. Ships become juicy targets for the enemy with cheap technology. A $100,000 drone can destroy a billion dollar ship. You have a good point there Bobby. War Ships are out-dated in a way. Falklands War: Argie with a Stinger Missile sat on a hill and blew the HMS Sheffield to bit with just one hit. Cheap Drones have just sunk a Russian War Ship - easy as. War Ships are now 'Sitting Ducks'. Just more expensive Machines being taken out of the game by far cheaper machines. Australian Ships spend a lot of time at dock for maintenance as well.

Yes - also - WW2 was the end of battleships -
they were too easily sunk by aeroplanes from aircraft carriers dropping bombs on them.
Now we are seeing similar situations but with warships versus drones of all types via:
air, sea and underwater.

We also see the same with army tanks - they seem to be sitting ducks for Javelin missiles
that can hit them on the top.

I also wonder if aircraft carriers are now obsolete?
The Yanks have sometimes withdrawn carriers from the Persian Gulf
when tensions have got high with Iran.

Wooden ships with iron men are renewable, silent and stealthy to radar. They fed sailors on dog biscuits $6 kg. Discipline was swift and easy with bodies tipped overboard. Using timber reduces AGW.

chimera wrote on Feb 8^th, 2024 at 1:02pm:

' ten are nuclear-powered submarines (four ballistic missile submarines and six fleet submarines). In addition the Navy possesses seven mine countermeasures vessels, twenty-six patrol vessels, two survey vessels, one icebreaker and one historic warship, Victory. The total displacement of the Royal Navy's commissioned ships is approximately 421,200 tonnes'. HMS Victory is included with nuke subs. Its capability is a gun range of 300 metres which scares off the French and Houthis.

The range of its guns is considerably more than 300 metres, except for the wooden ones.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Feb 8^th, 2024 at 12:27pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Feb 8th, 2024 at 11:21am: Don’t discount HMS “Victory “, admittedly she’s in dry dock, but fully fitted out except for ammunition, water and food and sundry small supplies.  Could be replenished in a couple of days. Will the papier mache repairs to holes in its side withstand a strenuous voyage let alone a battle? Is it possible to cut some holes in the sides for oars to be used? https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/08/13/article-2187303-14837131000005DC-445_1024x615_large.jpg

That is not HMS “Victory”.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 8^th, 2024 at 4:45pm:

Jasin wrote on Feb 8th, 2024 at 3:02pm: Bobby. wrote on Feb 5th, 2024 at 10:19pm: Still LTYC - you have a point. The ships are too complicated for their own good. The equipment is not reliable and they take too long to repair. You wonder how they would go in a real war? Recently Russian ships were sunk by low cost drones. Ships become juicy targets for the enemy with cheap technology. A $100,000 drone can destroy a billion dollar ship. You have a good point there Bobby. War Ships are out-dated in a way. Falklands War: Argie with a Stinger Missile sat on a hill and blew the HMS Sheffield to bit with just one hit. Cheap Drones have just sunk a Russian War Ship - easy as. War Ships are now 'Sitting Ducks'. Just more expensive Machines being taken out of the game by far cheaper machines. Australian Ships spend a lot of time at dock for maintenance as well. Yes - also - WW2 was the end of battleships - they were too easily sunk by aeroplanes from aircraft carriers dropping bombs on them. Now we are seeing similar situations but with warships versus drones of all types via: air, sea and underwater. We also see the same with army tanks - they seem to be sitting ducks for Javelin missiles that can hit them on the top. I also wonder if aircraft carriers are now obsolete? The Yanks have sometimes withdrawn carriers from the Persian Gulf when tensions have got high with Iran.

The UK lost 6 ships during the Falklands war.

https://historylists.org/other/list-of-6-british-ships-sunk-during-the-falklands-war.html

Laugh till you cry wrote on Feb 8^th, 2024 at 8:08pm:

The UK lost 6 ships during the Falklands war. https://historylists.org/other/list-of-6-british-ships-sunk-during-the-falklands-war.html

Maggie never mentioned that at the time did she?

Australia should have got Nihon (Japan for the idiots) or Germany to make us an entire 'Fleet' of small Submarines (Sharks) that can be beyond the reach of Drones underwater 90% of the time.

Instead, we've wasted more money 'again' - as the USA will fold on its BIG SUBS and do to Australia what Australia did to the French contract.

Sure, Nihon and Germany were 'once' enemies in 'that' war.
But they had the better deals, better than France or the USA had for us.

All it takes is just one drone or missile to take out those BIG CLUNKERS.
x50 Shark mini-Subs would have a far better effect for Australia from all and any part of the coastline for defence for starters.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Feb 8^th, 2024 at 8:06pm:

The range of its guns is considerably more than 300 metres,

'It fired a 32 pound ball, usually propelled by an 11 pound  gunpowder charge giving a muzzle velocity of 1600 feet per second. Fired from the lower gun deck, with the muzzles some 2m above the waterline, this gave a point blank (fired flat) range of approximately 1000 feet.'  1200 inches. 300,000mm.
Eoin has 2 feet.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 8^th, 2024 at 8:18pm:

Maggie never mentioned that at the time did she?

Interesting reading. One ship had no guns or missiles. No ship could hit Exocet missiles.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2022/april/failure-falklands#:~:text=Two%20Royal%20Navy%20Type%2021,aircraft%20had%20been%20shot%20down
'Throughout the fleet, visually aimed, manually operated machine guns were lashed to ship railings as a last-ditch point-defense against the missile and aircraft threats'.