france has refunded Russia over their Mistral class carriers
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist - my comment was based on the likely use of any RN vessel - the surface fleet spends almost all of its time on anti-piracy patrols, anti-drug patrols, humanitarian relief and small scale interventions
The QE & PoW will suck personnel and cash out of the rest of the fleet - and we'l lprobably only be able to have one active at any time
far better to have four Mistral's TBH
The QE & PoW will suck personnel and cash out of the rest of the fleet - and we'l lprobably only be able to have one active at any time
far better to have four Mistral's TBH
Utter cr@p.
Understandable that a passing civvy might think that, perhaps, because that's what the recruitment videos show, but actually the RN does other stuff most of the time.
Biggus
All too true.....
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps we could persuade Mr Cameron to part with some more of the £13n overseas aid budget and buy them. Flotel, international aid platform, refugee lifeboat - ideal.
And whilst I'm sure we will all bask in the glory of having 2 mahoosive aircraft carriers; they are overkill for our foreseeable level of use for them. The deck size and shape are designed for cat & trap ops - fill it with helicopters if you like but its one hell of a hi-value asset to go skulking around the littoral with. They will take some defending and we don't have that many assets to throw around.
And whilst I'm sure we will all bask in the glory of having 2 mahoosive aircraft carriers; they are overkill for our foreseeable level of use for them. The deck size and shape are designed for cat & trap ops - fill it with helicopters if you like but its one hell of a hi-value asset to go skulking around the littoral with. They will take some defending and we don't have that many assets to throw around.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of interest, did you foresee the Falklands War?
9/11?
Fall of the Berlin Wall?
Arab Spring?
No?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was totally unaware of the pivotal role that British Aircraft Carriers played in it.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Actually the RN does other stuff most of the time"
but then they never tell us about it??? Seriously?????
these days the meeja are filled with press promotion stuff from all the armed forces on just about everything
I'm sure the RN would put in anything worthwhile.............. if only to impress their Lords & Masters
but then they never tell us about it??? Seriously?????
these days the meeja are filled with press promotion stuff from all the armed forces on just about everything
I'm sure the RN would put in anything worthwhile.............. if only to impress their Lords & Masters
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That advert is very good, you know the one; born in... made in the royal navy...it does portray the challenges very well.
All the RAF does is show some diversity promo and speeded up video of tiffies....
All the RAF does is show some diversity promo and speeded up video of tiffies....
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Down West
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HH,
I would like to think that you are just having a “wind up” with your posts because they are; to put it mildly a bit childish if not meant in jest. If you were joking, then fair game you got me.
I was Navy for 33 years and although I have worked with the RAF and the Army I wouldn’t have a clue about their big picture tasking, deployments, drafts, jollies, etc, etc, etc. With this in mind I wouldn’t risk posting a statement (or statements) like those contained in your posts on this thread. (About them)
I certainly didn’t spend all my time off the coast of Somalia or the Falklands so I’m not sure what Navy you’re referring to, but I did do all of the above as you stated and much more.
Operating one carrier at a time may be the plan anyway, so rather than just being a result of having insufficient manpower and resources, having an immediate readiness vessel which is operated “turn and turn about” could actually be a damn good way of having a capability with the ability to expand in time of emergency. Don’t forget, we did just that with the three Invince class for years and with everyone lean manned too far it is actually another way of keeping the bean counters happy.
As for self-promotion, the Royal Navy is and always will be pathetic at telling people what they have done/are doing. We are good at moaning when we have lost another capability due to seeming inept top level leadership, but by then its usually too late. If the Admirals and Generals and Air Marshals sorted things out by measuring todgers, we might win once in a while.
Or maybe not Ha Ha.
Cheers now
I would like to think that you are just having a “wind up” with your posts because they are; to put it mildly a bit childish if not meant in jest. If you were joking, then fair game you got me.
I was Navy for 33 years and although I have worked with the RAF and the Army I wouldn’t have a clue about their big picture tasking, deployments, drafts, jollies, etc, etc, etc. With this in mind I wouldn’t risk posting a statement (or statements) like those contained in your posts on this thread. (About them)
I certainly didn’t spend all my time off the coast of Somalia or the Falklands so I’m not sure what Navy you’re referring to, but I did do all of the above as you stated and much more.
Operating one carrier at a time may be the plan anyway, so rather than just being a result of having insufficient manpower and resources, having an immediate readiness vessel which is operated “turn and turn about” could actually be a damn good way of having a capability with the ability to expand in time of emergency. Don’t forget, we did just that with the three Invince class for years and with everyone lean manned too far it is actually another way of keeping the bean counters happy.
As for self-promotion, the Royal Navy is and always will be pathetic at telling people what they have done/are doing. We are good at moaning when we have lost another capability due to seeming inept top level leadership, but by then its usually too late. If the Admirals and Generals and Air Marshals sorted things out by measuring todgers, we might win once in a while.
Or maybe not Ha Ha.
Cheers now
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not winding anyone up
You'll find similar arguments to mine - the QE's will stress manning, the surface navy's main tasks over last 30 years have been anti-piracy etc we' need more Mistral type vessels - echoed by such diverse people as Steve Bush of "Warship World", Conrad Waters and his contributors in "World Naval Review", Janes, Nick Childs "Britains Future navy" etc etc
I really believe that a single carrier isn't going to add much and may well affect the number of more useful, smaller surface vessels we'll be able to buy and operate
I know a lot of people on here would love to go back to a multi-carrier fleet but it ain't going to happen - the main reason we lose capabilities is not due to inept leadership but to escallating costs and the refusal of the electorate to pay taxes and spend on defence at the rates we did from 1939- 1978
The front line in the Navy are like the other forces - trying to stretch what they have to do everything they used to do - and they do an amazing job - but eventaully the cracks start to show.
It isn't fair on them and we're conning ourselves if we continue to believe we can do everything at current rates of expenditure
You'll find similar arguments to mine - the QE's will stress manning, the surface navy's main tasks over last 30 years have been anti-piracy etc we' need more Mistral type vessels - echoed by such diverse people as Steve Bush of "Warship World", Conrad Waters and his contributors in "World Naval Review", Janes, Nick Childs "Britains Future navy" etc etc
I really believe that a single carrier isn't going to add much and may well affect the number of more useful, smaller surface vessels we'll be able to buy and operate
I know a lot of people on here would love to go back to a multi-carrier fleet but it ain't going to happen - the main reason we lose capabilities is not due to inept leadership but to escallating costs and the refusal of the electorate to pay taxes and spend on defence at the rates we did from 1939- 1978
The front line in the Navy are like the other forces - trying to stretch what they have to do everything they used to do - and they do an amazing job - but eventaully the cracks start to show.
It isn't fair on them and we're conning ourselves if we continue to believe we can do everything at current rates of expenditure
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SW
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Single Carrier - No. Hence Continuous Carrier Capability.
http://c69011.r11.cf3.rackcdn.com/51...d5620f-0x0.pdf
Manning challenges - Yes.
The hidden crisis - Royal Navy manpower | Save the Royal Navy
The "born in X but made in the RN" ads. Not sure we really want to aim for people who "didn't like school" or "exam results weren't great" but apparently it's striking a chord with the yoof of today.
http://c69011.r11.cf3.rackcdn.com/51...d5620f-0x0.pdf
Manning challenges - Yes.
The hidden crisis - Royal Navy manpower | Save the Royal Navy
The "born in X but made in the RN" ads. Not sure we really want to aim for people who "didn't like school" or "exam results weren't great" but apparently it's striking a chord with the yoof of today.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm - not sure we'll be able to operate two - or even one and a half
as for "Not sure we really want to aim for people who "didn't like school" or "exam results weren't great" I totally agree but you can only select from the volunteers - and right now the Navy isn't exactly a career aspiration for many young people
in the past you could alwys flog the "see the world" story but these days they can go anywhere on their own bat
best to emphasise the technical training they get I think - the RN and the RAF have a real edge over the Army in that regard
as for "Not sure we really want to aim for people who "didn't like school" or "exam results weren't great" I totally agree but you can only select from the volunteers - and right now the Navy isn't exactly a career aspiration for many young people
in the past you could alwys flog the "see the world" story but these days they can go anywhere on their own bat
best to emphasise the technical training they get I think - the RN and the RAF have a real edge over the Army in that regard
Oh no we don't
HH, you give us all a laugh, keep it up mate.
The Mistral Class is very good at what it does – but there are a lot better ships out there for that role. The RN do NOT need them, we have Ocean, which is not brilliant but okay for now. We also have the two LPD’s, again not very good but okay for now.
What we will have is two large carriers for the next 40 to 50 years.
Now if you don’t know what the value of having a large carrier is then … I feel for you. You clearly have not been paying attention.
The navy will operate what it has and what it will have despite the difficulties they may face. That’s what the services do. The QE2 is an asset that has been designed to be adaptable to accommodate future aircraft types. No-one knows what challenges the ship(s) will face in the future, but having the ships operating and the crews trained in a multitude of tasks (which the whole world need not know about) makes us all safer.
Mistral … pah!
The Mistral Class is very good at what it does – but there are a lot better ships out there for that role. The RN do NOT need them, we have Ocean, which is not brilliant but okay for now. We also have the two LPD’s, again not very good but okay for now.
What we will have is two large carriers for the next 40 to 50 years.
Now if you don’t know what the value of having a large carrier is then … I feel for you. You clearly have not been paying attention.
The navy will operate what it has and what it will have despite the difficulties they may face. That’s what the services do. The QE2 is an asset that has been designed to be adaptable to accommodate future aircraft types. No-one knows what challenges the ship(s) will face in the future, but having the ships operating and the crews trained in a multitude of tasks (which the whole world need not know about) makes us all safer.
Mistral … pah!
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and small scale interventions
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HAS59 - I'm only repeating what a variety of people who are more expert than I are saying in print
see last years Save the Navy website
http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-...navy-manpower/
Around 31,00 RN personnel - and they were short
"This can be illustrated by figures for the escorts; the minimum trained crew requirement for the Type 23 Frigates is 2,060, with 180 vacant positions. The Type 45 destroyers require at least 1,010 but are 80 people short. On average these ships are putting to sea missing about 8% of their required crew, putting additional stress on their ships companies and undermining their resilience"
and you are going to have to find around 1500 extra crew for each carrier according to Jane's
Sure a carrier gives you additional capabilities - but if they are at the expense of current capabilities you are robbing Peter to pay Paul
see last years Save the Navy website
http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-...navy-manpower/
Around 31,00 RN personnel - and they were short
"This can be illustrated by figures for the escorts; the minimum trained crew requirement for the Type 23 Frigates is 2,060, with 180 vacant positions. The Type 45 destroyers require at least 1,010 but are 80 people short. On average these ships are putting to sea missing about 8% of their required crew, putting additional stress on their ships companies and undermining their resilience"
and you are going to have to find around 1500 extra crew for each carrier according to Jane's
Sure a carrier gives you additional capabilities - but if they are at the expense of current capabilities you are robbing Peter to pay Paul
Guest
Posts: n/a
Egypt's up for it..
Offloaded indeed...and what will Egypt do with them..?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34335224
President Francois Hollande and Egypt's President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi "agreed on the principle and the terms of the acquisition", a statement said.
France halted the planned sale to Russia in late 2014, following the conflict in eastern Ukraine.
It has not divulged how much Egypt will pay for the warships, but Paris insists it is not out of pocket.
Differences over the cost had been reported during the French-Egyptian negotiations.
Russia agreed to buy the two warships - which can each carry 16 helicopters, four landing craft and 13 tanks - in a 2011 deal worth €1.2bn (£843m; $1.3bn).
Russia had paid about €840m in advance before the deal was stopped as the Ukrainian conflict erupted with Russia's annexation of Crimea.
After intense negotiations, Paris finally agreed in August to fully reimburse Russia, as well as foot the bill for training sailors and building port infrastructure in Vladivostok.
Scepticism
Egypt is fighting a long-running insurgency in its northern Sinai region.
That conflict intensified after the military overthrew Islamist President Mohammed Morsi in 2013.
The government has also launched an extensive crackdown on Islamist groups, including mass death sentences for members of Mr Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood.
This is only Egypt's latest purchase of military hardware from France.
Earlier this year, Egypt also bought 24 advanced Rafale fighter jets from France - prompting complaints from human rights groups that there was mounting evidence that Egypt had committed war crimes when it bombed Libyan targets.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34335224
President Francois Hollande and Egypt's President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi "agreed on the principle and the terms of the acquisition", a statement said.
France halted the planned sale to Russia in late 2014, following the conflict in eastern Ukraine.
It has not divulged how much Egypt will pay for the warships, but Paris insists it is not out of pocket.
Differences over the cost had been reported during the French-Egyptian negotiations.
Russia agreed to buy the two warships - which can each carry 16 helicopters, four landing craft and 13 tanks - in a 2011 deal worth €1.2bn (£843m; $1.3bn).
Russia had paid about €840m in advance before the deal was stopped as the Ukrainian conflict erupted with Russia's annexation of Crimea.
After intense negotiations, Paris finally agreed in August to fully reimburse Russia, as well as foot the bill for training sailors and building port infrastructure in Vladivostok.
Scepticism
Egypt is fighting a long-running insurgency in its northern Sinai region.
That conflict intensified after the military overthrew Islamist President Mohammed Morsi in 2013.
The government has also launched an extensive crackdown on Islamist groups, including mass death sentences for members of Mr Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood.
This is only Egypt's latest purchase of military hardware from France.
Earlier this year, Egypt also bought 24 advanced Rafale fighter jets from France - prompting complaints from human rights groups that there was mounting evidence that Egypt had committed war crimes when it bombed Libyan targets.
Last edited by ImageGear; 23rd Sep 2015 at 15:23.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Down West
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HH,
Apologies for the "childish" remark before, it was a bit ...childish.
I aknowledge the fact that these people are published and apparently experts in there field but have they actually done it. Have they gone to war in a big grey canoe, or rendered aid, or launched an aircraft etc etc etc.
Once again you quote figures that imply a continuous operation of both carriers, when at the moment that is not the preferred option.
I can tell you that sending a ship to sea won't happen if key personnel are missing, the skipper will call opdef and someone will get a pier head jump to fill that billet.
Of course the Navy is undermanned, we all know that getting bumped from one sea draft to another is a sure fire way to encourage PVR, hence sign on bounties and easy access to mortgage advances of pay are used to entice and tie in personnel to longer periods of service. (not so easy to PVR when you have a mortgage to pay). The Navy are also notoriously bad at accrediting technical training to align with other forces and civvy institutes, just ask the lads and lasses who thought FAA Technician training would get them accredited properly. (not me I was too old)
The current capabilities are severely hamstrung by having no fast jet FAA, that is a fact (and I was a pinger/bagger not a zoomie, so that statement hurt). So an aircraft carrier IS essential to the Royal Navy, the RAF can't supply that capability everywhere, that is a fact; so Peter is just going to have to man up and pay up.
Cheers now
Apologies for the "childish" remark before, it was a bit ...childish.
I aknowledge the fact that these people are published and apparently experts in there field but have they actually done it. Have they gone to war in a big grey canoe, or rendered aid, or launched an aircraft etc etc etc.
Once again you quote figures that imply a continuous operation of both carriers, when at the moment that is not the preferred option.
I can tell you that sending a ship to sea won't happen if key personnel are missing, the skipper will call opdef and someone will get a pier head jump to fill that billet.
Of course the Navy is undermanned, we all know that getting bumped from one sea draft to another is a sure fire way to encourage PVR, hence sign on bounties and easy access to mortgage advances of pay are used to entice and tie in personnel to longer periods of service. (not so easy to PVR when you have a mortgage to pay). The Navy are also notoriously bad at accrediting technical training to align with other forces and civvy institutes, just ask the lads and lasses who thought FAA Technician training would get them accredited properly. (not me I was too old)
The current capabilities are severely hamstrung by having no fast jet FAA, that is a fact (and I was a pinger/bagger not a zoomie, so that statement hurt). So an aircraft carrier IS essential to the Royal Navy, the RAF can't supply that capability everywhere, that is a fact; so Peter is just going to have to man up and pay up.
Cheers now
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No problem
Can't speak for all the "authorities" quoted but I know Steve Bush of "warship World" served as an officer for quite a while in frigates and destroyers and was in the '91 Gulf War
Nick Childs is/has been Defence Correspondent for the Beeb World Service and worked for Janes Defence Weekly and has been to most conflicts since '82.
Conrad Waters uses a long list of ex-Navy (or rather ex-navies) writers and Janes is.... Janes.........
I wish you were right that the Govt would cough up some more cash for defence AND explain in straight terms that this is NECESSARY to the Great British Public - but they are scared of being flamed on Twitter etc - truly pathetic
PS God knows what the Egyptians are going to do with the Mistral's - power projection in N Africa and the Red Sea - but it looks an expensive way of doing it......................
Can't speak for all the "authorities" quoted but I know Steve Bush of "warship World" served as an officer for quite a while in frigates and destroyers and was in the '91 Gulf War
Nick Childs is/has been Defence Correspondent for the Beeb World Service and worked for Janes Defence Weekly and has been to most conflicts since '82.
Conrad Waters uses a long list of ex-Navy (or rather ex-navies) writers and Janes is.... Janes.........
I wish you were right that the Govt would cough up some more cash for defence AND explain in straight terms that this is NECESSARY to the Great British Public - but they are scared of being flamed on Twitter etc - truly pathetic
PS God knows what the Egyptians are going to do with the Mistral's - power projection in N Africa and the Red Sea - but it looks an expensive way of doing it......................
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
God knows what the Egyptians are going to do with the Mistral's - power projection in N Africa and the Red Sea - but it looks an expensive way of doing it......................
