Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
UK Navy made a big mistake moving from sail power (Read 523 times)
Laugh till you cry
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 16619
In your happy place
Gender: male
UK Navy made a big mistake moving from sail power
Feb 5th, 2024 at 9:03pm
 
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.  ...
Back to top
 

Please don't thank me. Effusive fawning and obeisance of disciples, mendicants, and foot-kissers embarrass me.
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 106527
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: UK Navy made a big mistake moving from sail power
Reply #1 - Feb 5th, 2024 at 9:35pm
 
Old article -

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


forgiven
namasste
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Laugh till you cry
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 16619
In your happy place
Gender: male
Re: UK Navy made a big mistake moving from sail power
Reply #2 - Feb 5th, 2024 at 10:05pm
 
Bobby. wrote on Feb 5th, 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...

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

Rule Brittania.
Back to top
 

Please don't thank me. Effusive fawning and obeisance of disciples, mendicants, and foot-kissers embarrass me.
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 106527
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: UK Navy made a big mistake moving from sail power
Reply #3 - 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.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Laugh till you cry
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 16619
In your happy place
Gender: male
Re: UK Navy made a big mistake moving from sail power
Reply #4 - Feb 5th, 2024 at 10:23pm
 
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.



Loose lips are a big danger.
Back to top
 

Please don't thank me. Effusive fawning and obeisance of disciples, mendicants, and foot-kissers embarrass me.
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11912
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: UK Navy made a big mistake moving from sail power
Reply #5 - Feb 8th, 2024 at 11:08am
 
'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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Sir Eoin O Fada
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2286
New England, NSW
Gender: male
Re: UK Navy made a big mistake moving from sail power
Reply #6 - 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.
Back to top
 

Self defence is a right.
 
IP Logged
 
Laugh till you cry
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 16619
In your happy place
Gender: male
Re: UK Navy made a big mistake moving from sail power
Reply #7 - Feb 8th, 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?

...
Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 8th, 2024 at 12:45pm by Laugh till you cry »  

Please don't thank me. Effusive fawning and obeisance of disciples, mendicants, and foot-kissers embarrass me.
 
IP Logged
 
Laugh till you cry
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 16619
In your happy place
Gender: male
Re: UK Navy made a big mistake moving from sail power
Reply #8 - Feb 8th, 2024 at 12:54pm
 
Observe the trash in the hole in the side of the warship. Does the UK fight wars by dumping trash in enemy waters?
Back to top
 

Please don't thank me. Effusive fawning and obeisance of disciples, mendicants, and foot-kissers embarrass me.
 
IP Logged
 
Laugh till you cry
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 16619
In your happy place
Gender: male
Re: UK Navy made a big mistake moving from sail power
Reply #9 - Feb 8th, 2024 at 12:57pm
 
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.


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

Sailors could engage in theatrical stunts to delight the customers.
Back to top
 

Please don't thank me. Effusive fawning and obeisance of disciples, mendicants, and foot-kissers embarrass me.
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11912
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: UK Navy made a big mistake moving from sail power
Reply #10 - Feb 8th, 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Laugh till you cry
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 16619
In your happy place
Gender: male
Re: UK Navy made a big mistake moving from sail power
Reply #11 - Feb 8th, 2024 at 1:06pm
 
chimera wrote on Feb 8th, 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.
Back to top
 

Please don't thank me. Effusive fawning and obeisance of disciples, mendicants, and foot-kissers embarrass me.
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11912
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: UK Navy made a big mistake moving from sail power
Reply #12 - Feb 8th, 2024 at 1:45pm
 
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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Jasin
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 49458
Gender: male
Re: UK Navy made a big mistake moving from sail power
Reply #13 - 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.

Back to top
 

AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY.
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11912
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: UK Navy made a big mistake moving from sail power
Reply #14 - Feb 8th, 2024 at 4:34pm
 
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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print