Russian fleet sailing in to the North sea
North Sea location of Tug Nikolay Chiker from AIS, 19th October, 2310 UTC
55 49 24N 3 38 28E
Map link
https://goo.gl/maps/eQExBxMNXRR2
From
https://www.vesselfinder.com/?imo=8613334
55 49 24N 3 38 28E
Map link
https://goo.gl/maps/eQExBxMNXRR2
From
https://www.vesselfinder.com/?imo=8613334
The days of hunting the Bismarck are over - especially without maritime patrol aircraft
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,905
Received 2,834 Likes
on
1,210 Posts
"as far as I'm aware there is now only one (part-time) sea going post for an officer of 1* or above"
Are you referring to the new CO of HMS Queen Elizabeth (former Ark Royal and Illustrious skipper and BRNC commandant, who is now a Commodore in real life but wearing a Captain's stripes for reasons of tradition)?
Are you referring to the new CO of HMS Queen Elizabeth (former Ark Royal and Illustrious skipper and BRNC commandant, who is now a Commodore in real life but wearing a Captain's stripes for reasons of tradition)?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Two British warships are shadowing an aircraft carrier and other Russian naval ships as they pass the UK on their way to Syria. The carrier Admiral Kuznetsov and its task force are on a course to sail through the North Sea and English Channel.A Ministry of Defence spokesman said the ships would be "man-marked every step of the way" while near UK waters"
Going to be difficult to "man-mark" 8 Russian ships with two of ours tho'..............
Going to be difficult to "man-mark" 8 Russian ships with two of ours tho'..............
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,809
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Our MPA will keep them cov..... oh.
Tug Nikolay Chiker Oct 20, 2016 19:40 UTC
52.73717N 2.63163E
https://goo.gl/maps/XZa8YWPBvjT2
https://www.vesselfinder.com/vessels...MMSI-273531629
52.73717N 2.63163E
https://goo.gl/maps/XZa8YWPBvjT2
https://www.vesselfinder.com/vessels...MMSI-273531629
BBC and Sky News in the UK are currently running helo footage of the Kuznetsov in the approaches to the English Channel.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37725327
Kuznetsov Task Force now visible from Dover. Live on BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37725327
Kuznetsov Task Force now visible from Dover. Live on BBC.
Last edited by TEEEJ; 21st Oct 2016 at 10:13. Reason: additional info added
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bury St. Edmunds
Age: 64
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Kuznetsov seems to me to making rather a lot of smoke. Particularly as it seems to be going rather slowly. Estimate <20 knots.....
Is this crappy fuel, normal ops or a sign of the mechanical state of the engines?
MB
Is this crappy fuel, normal ops or a sign of the mechanical state of the engines?
MB
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smoke will have nothing to do with the "engines" (sic) as she is steam powered. Boilers make the smoke in a steamship but combustion air will be automatically controlled on such a comparatively modern vessel so Chiefy being asleep at the sprayers is hardly a likely cause.
Filthy, cheap, sulphur laden fuel will be the answer and no boiler can deal with that and not make copious smoke.
She's most unlikely to be using the gas turbines at that speed - and if she were we'd not see their plume as it would be smothered by all that filth from the heavy fuel oil.
Not exactly stealth, is it?
Filthy, cheap, sulphur laden fuel will be the answer and no boiler can deal with that and not make copious smoke.
She's most unlikely to be using the gas turbines at that speed - and if she were we'd not see their plume as it would be smothered by all that filth from the heavy fuel oil.
Not exactly stealth, is it?
Smoke will have nothing to do with the "engines" (sic) as she is steam powered. Boilers make the smoke in a steamship but combustion air will be automatically controlled on such a comparatively modern vessel so Chiefy being asleep at the sprayers is hardly a likely cause.
Filthy, cheap, sulphur laden fuel will be the answer and no boiler can deal with that and not make copious smoke.
She's most unlikely to be using the gas turbines at that speed - and if she were we'd not see their plume as it would be smothered by all that filth from the heavy fuel oil.
Not exactly stealth, is it?
Filthy, cheap, sulphur laden fuel will be the answer and no boiler can deal with that and not make copious smoke.
She's most unlikely to be using the gas turbines at that speed - and if she were we'd not see their plume as it would be smothered by all that filth from the heavy fuel oil.
Not exactly stealth, is it?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just wondering why:
1. The Russians only have 1 carrier
2. They have never really gone for the carrier as a means of power projection - even at the height of the cold war they were not using them
3. Why the Russian Navy (generally not just carriers) are not really seen around the world - unlike their US counterparts.................
Thoughts anyone ??
Arc
1. The Russians only have 1 carrier
2. They have never really gone for the carrier as a means of power projection - even at the height of the cold war they were not using them
3. Why the Russian Navy (generally not just carriers) are not really seen around the world - unlike their US counterparts.................
Thoughts anyone ??
Arc
Do they know today is a sacred day in British naval history?
The Immortal memory.
The Immortal memory.
Just wondering why:
1. The Russians only have 1 carrier
2. They have never really gone for the carrier as a means of power projection - even at the height of the cold war they were not using them
3. Why the Russian Navy (generally not just carriers) are not really seen around the world - unlike their US counterparts.................
Thoughts anyone ??
Arc
1. The Russians only have 1 carrier
2. They have never really gone for the carrier as a means of power projection - even at the height of the cold war they were not using them
3. Why the Russian Navy (generally not just carriers) are not really seen around the world - unlike their US counterparts.................
Thoughts anyone ??
Arc
1. Because that's the only one that had been completed when the USSR/CIS imploded 20-odd years ago. They hung on to it primarily for prestige and because, being non-nuclear, it was cheaper to keep "alive" than their submarines and large missile cruisers.
2. Primarily because when your land mass spans a good proportion of the globes circumference, most of the power projection you want to do can be achieved via land. A secondary reason was always that all they had to do was deny the free use of the sea to the US/NATO, much of which could be achieved by submarines (or threat thereof)
3. Because until relatively recently, they had no money to maintain ships, pay sailors, buy fuel. At all.
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 21st Oct 2016 at 15:46.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arclite01,
The answer is very simple. Air carriers are the means of an aggressor (or, more mild, of an offensive side) generally speaking. I.e., you move the air force closer to the theater, which is relatively far from your borders.
USSR doctrine was always based on the defence concept (believe it or not, it's up to you). Especially overseas operations were never planned. Only in the late years of the USSR some old but still hot (or semi-mad) heads in the lead of the communist party had gone crazy on the idea of copying everything that the US had. In space, a vivid example was Buran (similar to Space Shuttle). Billions were invested, only one (though a very successfull) flight performed, and then - "dismissed".
Also, right words were said about prestige, etc. In reality, only subs really matter for Russia and they are in a good shape.
The answer is very simple. Air carriers are the means of an aggressor (or, more mild, of an offensive side) generally speaking. I.e., you move the air force closer to the theater, which is relatively far from your borders.
USSR doctrine was always based on the defence concept (believe it or not, it's up to you). Especially overseas operations were never planned. Only in the late years of the USSR some old but still hot (or semi-mad) heads in the lead of the communist party had gone crazy on the idea of copying everything that the US had. In space, a vivid example was Buran (similar to Space Shuttle). Billions were invested, only one (though a very successfull) flight performed, and then - "dismissed".
Also, right words were said about prestige, etc. In reality, only subs really matter for Russia and they are in a good shape.