Warship - An appropriate response

[Imagegear]

Having just watched "Warship" last night, and HMS Duncan pushing in towards Crimea, my first thoughts were that a "Raid" of this magnitude (17 Aircraft including flankers), is pushing the boundaries (30 miles?) ,of what is an appropriate response to a "Sail Past".

Does anyone else think that the RAF/RN should be considering a similar response next time one or two of the bear's "rust buckets" passes within 5 miles in transit through the English Channel?

Or is it that Duncan is so confident of her capability that to respond with anything but cautious disdain would give the dog and pony show more credence than it is worth. Equally does that strategy transfer to the English Channel?

IG

[Simplythebeast]

Having watched the programme it seemed to me that the whole scenario was exagerated to dramatise a TV programme and show just how wonderful and cool the Royal Navy are in facing such a ‘raid’. No doubt the ‘seventeen’ aircraft would be the total over several hours and not some ‘swarm’ as shown for effect.
I think it is fair to say if there was any real threat they wouldnt see so many aircraft as modern weapon delivery would probably be launched in a stand off fashion from over the horizon,
The scene showing the launch of the Wildcat to locate the russian surface vessel that had ‘gone missing’ was also rather odd.
It came just after the scene where the audience was told that Duncan had the best radar system in the world yet a ship that had been shadowing her had mysteriously disappeared over night? Also when the wildcat took off on its dangerous mission flown closer to russian territory than had been flown before......they took with them a television crew?
Good bit of drama for effect and good recruiting material for RN but how factual?

[Imagegear]

STB

I tend to agree, the "disappearing" trawler was odd, no coastal cover, no other bigger ships around, the returns on the scope seemed devoid of any significant clutter? perhaps it was a Vegan cloaking device of which Duncan had no answer. I did not see any attack profile to speak of, looked more like: "lets all go out for a butchers and put on a bit of a show" to cover what would seem like a jolly. Bear? did someone say Bear?.

In the last channel transit, did we launch a shed load of 'hoons? - nope - just one, maybe two.

IG

[newt]

I have to agree with Simplythebeast! I kept asking myself the same questions! How come they lost a ship with their very sophisticated kit? Why did they not go to full battle stations with the threat of so many aircraft inbound? Instead they stood around watching! I bet the Russians are watching the programme in wonder!

[Lordflasheart]

......
But did they detect any Kilos ?

...........

[A_Van]

Pass through many channels is regulated by international treaties. English Channel, Dannish Baltic entry straits, Bosporus, etc are included. Generally, military ships are allowed, but have to notify N days in advance (N = 3, 7 maybe more sometimes) and submit a plan and description.

Russian rust buckets seemed to not violate anything when passing English Channel, othersise they would have been blocked, stopped, etc.

In a similar way the Ukrainian ships should have notified Russia in advance. BTW, there is only a 24 hr notice applicable there. And they (Ukr. ships) did it before no problem. But this time they decided to "test" (or were advised to test by their supervisors). Test failed.

Imagine that a person who has an entry visa to UK tries to rush through a passport control without showing his/her docs. Just saying that he has a right but ignore (f...) the routine procedures. Also pointing a gun towards immigration and police officers. Would be surprised if he would not land behind the bars.

[MPN11]

Quite enjoyable, but I share the surprise up-thread that the AGI managed to deploy its Klingon cloaking device and drop off the radar. Likewise the aircraft picked up inbound at 10nm/500ft ... whaaaat? Suspect/hope that full capabilities were not being used/shown to us or the Russian monitors!

[Imagegear]

A_Van

So is Russia requiring notification of passage, by vessels which are 30 miles from the coast of Crimea, in the middle of the black sea? or else they will send out 17 aircraft to you on a probing/monitoring exercise?

Duncan was well outside the international limit unless said limit has been unilaterally extended. Perhaps it was the presence of the helicopter near to the "trawler" that raised hackles. (Just "spinning the narrative for you")

IG

[Pontius Navigator]

DipClear, or diplomatic clearance also applies to State aircraft. Some clearances are standing clearances for a specific type on a particular route and specified load. Others are for individual flights with request times from hours to 28 days.

A flight without clearance, or contravening its clearance, is at risk of interception etc.

Happened to us once over France.

[Simplythebeast]

Without carrier escorts Surface vessels would be at a Major disadvantage in the Black sea due to the proximity of multiple Russian air bases.
Under the Montreux Convention, Turkey controls the Bosporus Straits and the Dardanelles that give access to the Black Sea. Warships are only permitted to spend 21 days in the Black Sea and warships over 15,000 tons are not permitted at all, effectively excluding aircraft carriers.

[A_Van]

A_Van

So is Russia requiring notification of passage, by vessels which are 30 miles from the coast of Crimea, in the middle of the black sea? or else they will send out 17 aircraft to you on a probing/monitoring exercise?

Duncan was well outside the international limit unless said limit has been unilaterally extended. Perhaps it was the presence of the helicopter near to the "trawler" that raised hackles. (Just "spinning the narrative for you")

IG

Sorry, I misunderstood the point. Was erroneously thinking about passing the straits, my stupideness.
Sure, the territorials waters are 12 nautical miles only.

Probing/monitoring exercise is another point. NATO is doing similar things in Mediterranean for decades.

[Davef68]

STB

I did not see any attack profile to speak of, looked more like: "lets all go out for a butchers and put on a bit of a show" to cover what would seem like a jolly. Bear? did someone say Bear?.


And no doubt the ELINT gathering aircraft in the distance monitoring Duncan's response/frequencies

[dctyke]

A prog on HMS Artfull might prove more interesting.......

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6450853/Female-officer-British-nuclear-submarine-HMS-Artful-left-broken-jaw-fight.html

[SASless]

Both sides can practice their stock and trade....so why the concern about 17 aircraft showing up?

Anyone remotely familiar with Russian Naval Strategy and Tactics care to explain it to the not knowing?

[Wensleydale]

I tend to agree, the "disappearing" trawler was odd, no coastal cover, no other bigger ships around, the returns on the scope seemed devoid of any significant clutter?

"You canna change the laws of physics, Captain". Looking at the range of the Helicopter from the ship, the AGI would have been beyond the radar horizon of the Duncan and was either being tracked by an airborne platform that had gone off station, or the AGI had switched off its AIS transmitter (I assume that they will normally transmit unless operating covertly). At the end of the day, there was a NATO taskforce out there, and the AGI had slipped out of force coverage. No big deal and nothing unusual.

[langleybaston]

"You canna change the laws of physics, Captain". Looking at the range of the Helicopter from the ship, the AGI would have been beyond the radar horizon of the Duncan and was either being tracked by an airborne platform that had gone off station, or the AGI had switched off its AIS transmitter (I assume that they will normally transmit unless operating covertly). At the end of the day, there was a NATO taskforce out there, and the AGI had slipped out of force coverage. No big deal and nothing unusual.

Yes, I understand that, but I did not understand the failure in the program to ponder the alternative scenario, that disappearing contacts tend to be submersibles. Much more exciting too!

[Mil-26Man]

In a similar way the Ukrainian ships should have notified Russia in advance. BTW, there is only a 24 hr notice applicable there. And they (Ukr. ships) did it before no problem. But this time they decided to "test" (or were advised to test by their supervisors). Test failed.

Imagine that a person who has an entry visa to UK tries to rush through a passport control without showing his/her docs. Just saying that he has a right but ignore (f...) the routine procedures. Also pointing a gun towards immigration and police officers. Would be surprised if he would not land behind the bars.

All said without any sense of irony or self-awareness, seemingly.

[Timelord]

What I want to know is : Who is launching these Mach 3 cricket balls ( or was it tennis balls) they all keep going on about?

[Mogwi]

Didn't know Botham was in the Black Sea!

[safetypee]

I can just recall (as ‘real Lightning’ jp) a four-ship foray over the Russian fleet anchored off Papa Westray.
Without cause or consequential concern, a high level dive to drop a ‘boom’ was followed by an ‘adjacent’ low level flypast. Ahh, by-gone days.

[TEEEJ]

Quite enjoyable, but I share the surprise up-thread that the AGI managed to deploy its Klingon cloaking device and drop off the radar. Likewise the aircraft picked up inbound at 10nm/500ft ... whaaaat? Suspect/hope that full capabilities were not being used/shown to us or the Russian monitors!

I agree quite enjoyable but let down in my opinion by the Channel 5 production team using quite a lot of footage of Hawks T.1s (736 Naval Air Squadron) during the Russian aircraft segment. They must have used Hawk T.1 footage about 5 or 6 times during that segment mixed in with Flanker and Fencer footage.

Russian flyby portion from 19:37 at following link after the ads.

https://www.my5.tv/warship-life-at-sea/season-1/episode-2

Some of the Hawk T.1 footage.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/693x453/hawk_t1_one_76eed64a80824654dcdbbb18587ece02c93cf559.jpg


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/694x518/hawk1_160bfc8945719de500ee12f1c3d237badc1ad459.jpg

[FODPlod]

"You canna change the laws of physics, Captain". Looking at the range of the Helicopter from the ship, the AGI would have been beyond the radar horizon of the Duncan and was either being tracked by an airborne platform that had gone off station, or the AGI had switched off its AIS transmitter (I assume that they will normally transmit unless operating covertly). At the end of the day, there was a NATO taskforce out there, and the AGI had slipped out of force coverage. No big deal and nothing unusual.
Thank goodness for a sensible post at last. I was beginning to lose faith.

[orca]

I know it’s boring to say so - but I thought it was an interesting programme and showed HM Forces in a positive light.
I can understand the actual threat posed by an air package with a potent but latent capability out for a bit of posturing; from the look of the crews’ reaction - so could they. Good drills.
Given the photos and footage that get released when a QRA aircraft intercepts a single Bear or pair of Sukhois - I think the appearance en masse or sequentially of 15 plus fighters is indeed talking point.
Equally, sending helo to repair hole in surface picture is ‘what they do’.

[Darvan]

Interesting series. I see the AWO’s confidence has not changed much since the good old JMC days. “If it flys it dies” was always the usual reposte at a JMC debrief following a simulated ASMD attack by a Bucc six-ship. Nothing changes.

[Timelord]

Even when they didn’t lock you up until after you had passed!

[Torquelink]

If it was for real, how many targets could the ship engage (as opposed to track) simultaneously and how many rounds does she carry (if anyone's allowed to say . . )?

Torque

[Timelord]

If it was for real, how many targets could the ship engage (as opposed to track) simultaneously and how many rounds does she carry (if anyone's allowed to say . . )?

Torque
The AWO said 48 missiles.

[Imagegear]

I would guess that 48 is what's in the launchers, from magazine to launchers in probably seconds, who knows how many might be lurking below deck level. No time for RAS in this situation.

IG

[Timelord]

Can you reload vertical launch silos?

[Dominator2]

Another enjoyable programme to advertise the RN. Overall well put together, however, the Director was a little carried away with the air attack sequence. A shame to use repeated footage from a recent "Thursday War", if they still happen. I suppose the odd Hawk attack is all they may expect. Since the RN has few fixed wing ac and the RAF not many more the mass air attacks over an extended period are a thing of the past.

The crew seem to dislike the Russian aircraft getting so close, (about 1/2 a mile or 1000ft as far as I could see)!!! Recall the 70s,80s,90s at the Akrotiri Buoy. Any Soviet/Russian ship on the buoy could expect a "flyby" every 10 minutes almost throughout the day. Down the beam at 50 footish or over the top at 600+ kts were all in a days play. It was expected by Episkopi that we would "show a presence". Thank goodnees it was prior to cell phones the internet and YouTube!!

[ex_matelot]

Have not watched any of these yet. Anyone able to confirm whether it follows/ ticks the boxes for the usual tropes that RN 'fly on the wall' documentaries do:
Focuses on one or two individuals who see themselves as the "crazeee guys" onboard and who volunteered for it - normally a steward, Clubz will be involved at some point too.
Poignant clips of blokes phoning/writing/emailing their wife & kids
Wife taking kids to school and reflecting on what it's like 'with him being away
A wren who sees herself as a mother hen.
Call the hands being piped-and at least one "pipe the side" in the series.

[Union Jack]

Have not watched any of these yet. Anyone able to confirm whether it follows/ ticks the boxes for the usual tropes that RN 'fly on the wall' documentaries do:
Focuses on one or two individuals who see themselves as the "crazeee guys" onboard and who volunteered for it - normally a steward, Clubz will be involved at some point too.
Poignant clips of blokes phoning/writing/emailing their wife & kids
Wife taking kids to school and reflecting on what it's like 'with him being away
A wren who sees herself as a mother hen.
Call the hands being piped-and at least one "pipe the side" in the series.

Apart from the fact that she is a actually a Commander Royal Navy, the Captain will clearly fill the bill as far as you are concerned! You are also right about your last guess, albeit in a manner that you've probably never seen before.....

Jack

[PeterGee]

Interesting series. I see the AWO’s confidence has not changed much since the good old JMC days. “If it flys it dies” was always the usual reposte at a JMC debrief following a simulated ASMD attack by a Bucc six-ship. Nothing changes.
Pretty arrogant I agree, but I suspect their Sea Viper system does inspire much more confidence than anything you attacked in your Bucc.

[Imagegear]

Vertical Tube Launchers

Sylver Vertical Launching System

Nice piece of kit by all accounts but not automatically reloadable I guess.

IG

[Asturias56]

Can you reload vertical launch silos?

looks like the USN can't but I think I read some European ships can - but it's not easy.........

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a27205/navy-reload-missile-silos-at-sea/

According to The National Interest, the U.S. Navy seeks a way to reload its vertical launch system silos at sea. The silos, which house ballistic missile interceptors, cruise missiles, and more, must currently be reloaded at port. But given the way the geopolitical situation is going, the Navy is picturing a scenario in which cruisers and destroyers might fire their entire complement of missiles...and have no port left to rearm them.

For decades, the Navy has used so-called "arm" launchers to fire guided missiles. Fed from a magazine below deck, "single arm" (one missile) or "twin arm" (two missile) launchers could rapidly fill the skies with surface-to-air missiles, as well as Harpoon anti-ship missiles and ASROC anti-submarine rocket-assisted torpedoes. The downside: If the complex arm and magazine loading system broke down or suffered battle damage, the ship lost a lot of firepower. The introduction of the Mark 41 vertical launch system changed all of that. The Mark 41 traded arm launchers and magazines for a field of individual, single missile launchers contained in armored boxes that sat flush with the deck. With the Mark 41, a malfunction probably affected only a single missile. A Burke-class destroyer has as many as 96 Mark 41 silos.

One problem with Mark 41s is that they're not easy to reload at sea. As The National Interestexplains (http://nationalinterest.org/feature/exclusive-cno-announces-the-return-vertical-launch-system-21425?page=show), the Navy previously had the capability to load lighter missiles into the silos, but discarded it after the end of the Cold War. In the new, post-Cold War environment without a peer competitor naval power to challenge it, the Navy wasn't going to expend a large number of missiles in battle.

The rise of the China and Russia's newfound assertiveness have changed that. The Navy might someday be involved in major fleet actions in which large numbers of missiles are expended. Sending ships hundreds or even thousands of miles back to port just to rearm takes them out of action at a critical time. At the same time, bases where cruisers and destroyers typically go to rearm and refuel would become obvious targets in wartime and may be shut down by enemy action. There is no easy solution here. Missiles in pre-packed canisters are heavy and delicate, and the transfer would need to be done during while both ships are at sea, or ideally in a nearby protected harbor or atoll. As TNI notes, one possible solution may be to equip ammunition ships traveling with the fleet with robotic arms that can pluck a missile canister out of the ship's hold and gingerly slide it into a surface warship.

[Not_a_boffin]

What is unspoken in that report is that no launcher with any significant size of weapon is easily reloadable at sea. While the old T-family of missiles were nominally capable of being transferred across from a store ship via STREAM rig, it was rarely if ever done because the serial required aboard the receiving ship to strike them down via the launcher was excruciatingly long - and far from risk-free.

GWS30 - Sea Dart - was similarly replenishable at sea, but with similar restrictions. The US looked at a VLS reload system in the early noughties at Port Hueneme, which required a special to type transporter being transferred first to the receiving ship to capture and align the weapons prior to loading. Part of the difficulty is that the empty canisters also need to be removed first - and potentially stowed somewhere secure, prior to loading with a new canister.

Which may be one reason that DE is a hot topic again.....

[Asturias56]

I would imagine, going way back, that transferring 15" and 16" shells to a "Dreadnought" wasn't something you'd want to do outside harbour either........

[Darvan]

Pretty arrogant I agree, but I suspect their Sea Viper system does inspire much more confidence than anything you attacked in your Bucc.
Back in the 80s, a Bucc 6-ship would release a salvo of 24 Sea Eagle sea skimming missiles from 2 axes at a range of 60 nm. They would release the salvo from a height of 100 ft, well below the radar horizon at 60 nm. The Buccs would then continue to close on the fleet at 100 ft so as to provide invaluable anti-ship missile defence training for the AAW team. At every single JMC debrief I attended, the AWO would claim 6 kills on Buccaneers. It was never really comprehended that, in all probability, they had already been hit by up to 24 Sea Eagles and that the presence of Buccaneers in their sights was artificial and staged. Nevertheless, ‘If it flys it dies’ was always their motto. They were always supremely confident but I don’t think they ever quite ‘got it’.

[MPN11]

Nice perspective, Darvan.

[orca]

How were you getting SURPIC Darvan? How were the weapons cued and how did they ‘sort’ - or did the first picket get a 24 weapon stocking filler?

[Darvan]

It was often the nearest contact when you ‘popped up’ to take a look at around 75-80 nm if there was no MPA providing SURPIC (VASTAC was more appropriate for Martel attacks). If that was a picket ship then so be it. The preferred target was a capital ship or the oiler. However, it was a risky tactic to go for a contact in the centre of the SAG and risk a proportion of your missiles being engaged and taken out. 24 Sea Eagles into one ship would more than likely disable it. The next wave could then go for the next ‘nearest and dearest’ contact employing a ‘peel the onion’ tactic. This would then continue until missile stocks were depleted or until it was deemed safe enough to go in with PW IIs.

[Timelord]

SURPIC may or may not have been available from an MPA via HF. If not the lead Buccaneer had to put his radar on and declare a range and bearing to his selected target. Additionally the missiles could be programmed from the cockpit to attack the nearest / furthest/ leftmost/ rightmost/ largest radar contact within its search ambit.

if SURPIC or VASTAC was available the missiles could be launched without radar transmissions and the first warning for the ships would be when the missiles pulled up and put their own radars on.

[Bing]

It was never really comprehended that, in all probability, they had already been hit by up to 24 Sea Eagles and that the presence of Buccaneers in their sights was artificial and staged.

To be fair it's quite hard to defend against imaginary missiles.

[Armchair_Ace]

In a battle stations situation would they bother with a flight deck meeting (Captain included) & everyone filling in pages paperwork just to get the helicopter off the deck? Filling in risk assessments as the enemy nears?

[India Four Two]

I’ll look forward to seeing the series. Is it available online?

All this discussion of missile attacks reminds me of this wonderful Singapore Navy ad. Very funny and doubly so if you’ve spent any time in Singapore. A reminder - this is a recruiting ad, not a spoof!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jAqVTFd4cOo

[BEagle]

About 30 years ago, AOC Maritime woke up one fine September morning and decided that all this Glasnost and Perestroika business was all very well, but the Russkis needed a reminder that the UK was still very much in the anti-shipping business. There was, it seems, a Sverdlov somewhere a long way north, which he decided needing a seeing-to. Signals were fired off to Lossie and a 6-ship of Buccs was told to plan a good wazzing of said shipski…

We were tasked as the tanker support, but such was the secret squirrel nature of the boat people at Northwood that they wouldn't give us any details - until our boss said something along the lines of "You can forget your tanker unless you tell us where and when you want it!"

Reluctantly the details were forthcoming. My relatively new first tourist navigator was relieved by one of the most experienced navs we had, who set to with his calculations whilst I took down receiver details, the jet was filled to the brim and the co-pilot (RFK) and engineer went to get it ready. Then we joined them, cranked up and set off north. The Buccs launched as we flew over Lossie - or rather 4 did. One was U/S and another was delayed. So after the 4-ship joined, we flew a zig zag reduced MLA progression track until the 5th joined us. Clearing the UK ADR, we adjusted to a 'due regard' level, topped up the Buccs and held at a suitable point whilst they went off with their horns out to savage the Sverdlov.

A little later we heard them on the way back. I called 'Go ADF' and they soon found us. We heard later that the Russians had been caught with their pants down - no tracking or fire control radars of any sort until one brief lock as the Buccs departed!

After we refuelled them, they thundered off back to Lossie in high spirits. Meanwhile our aged navigator had been studying his calculations and reckoned that if we went up to FL410, we could probably get back to Brize on diversion mimima. So up we went, having called a somewhat surprised Bodo controller. Bless him, the navs sums were spot on and we managed 6:40 out of a VC10K2, including refuelling 5 Buccs twice, without needing to divert.

A nice letter from the Bucc leader (TLW) followed; their multi aircraft attack profile had worked exactly as advertised and the Sverdlov had been caught totally unawares. With TLW leading, I can imagine that the simulated attack would have been very impressive!

Happy Days!!

[Timelord]

Beagle,

Possibly not a Sverdlov 20 years ago. Kirov maybe?

TL

[BEagle]

My mistake - it was actually 30 years ago (1 Sep 1988) - post duly edited!

[Misformonkey]

I think question should be how does the RN train for this in the future as Thursday Wars don’t recreate the scale of that event.

[PeterGee]

Back in the 80s, a Bucc 6-ship would release a salvo of 24 Sea Eagle sea skimming missiles from 2 axes at a range of 60 nm. They would release the salvo from a height of 100 ft, well below the radar horizon at 60 nm. The Buccs would then continue to close on the fleet at 100 ft so as to provide invaluable anti-ship missile defence training for the AAW team. At every single JMC debrief I attended, the AWO would claim 6 kills on Buccaneers. It was never really comprehended that, in all probability, they had already been hit by up to 24 Sea Eagles and that the presence of Buccaneers in their sights was artificial and staged. Nevertheless, ‘If it flys it dies’ was always their motto. They were always supremely confident but I don’t think they ever quite ‘got it’.

As I say, I suspect they have a lot more reason to confident than the guys you were up against. Only in the 80s did naval radar / missile technology start to make progress, and since then it has advanced significantly . A sea slug . sea cat, 965, 993 set up woud be luckly to see one missile in time. However, sea wolf & sea dart started to improve things, but with limited ability against your 24 missiles. However, since then radar, automation and trackerless missiles, much better ECM changes things a lot. These ships are designed for a swarm attack. That said, there is only 48 shots (no reloads at sea) per ship, plus though soft klll and phalynx, (All publically available information)

[jindabyne]

Hawks at al aside. I watched the programmes with interest, and was delighted with the attitude of all the RN crew members.

Very akin to 12 Sqn activities in the 70's and 80's. Similar attitudes and events, on both sides.

[taxydual]

Why, oh why, did they issue beret's to lady Matelot's? (Apart from the comely Supply Officer). That aside, (my opinion) it's TV entertainment and quite well done.