Claims that RFA Tidespring is been put in permanent maintainence and will stripped for parts to keep 2 active ones going

Naval kamikaze drone MUSKIE M18 presented in the US. It has a range of 925km, payload capacity 450kg, length of 5,5m and speed 90km/h. An installed Starlink can also be seen on the drone.

In general, from its characteristics, purpose and appearance, it is clear that the drone was created under the impression of the Ukrainian MAGURA V5 naval kamikaze drone.

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news...-attack-drone/

Maritime Tactical Systems, Inc. (MARTAC), an innovator in Maritime Autonomous Surface Vessels (ASVs), is proud to unveil the latest product in our portfolio, the MUSKIE M18 (M18) ASV. The M18 is an 18 foot (5.5m) low-cost, attritable system for use on one-way missions. The M18 configuration is designed as a high-performance, monohull ASV capable of burst speeds of 50+ kts, open ocean cruising ranges up to 500 nautical miles, and a payload capacity up to 1000 pounds (450 kg).

Recently procured by the United States Department of Defense (DoD), the M18 was designed and developed from concept to empower operators to execute missions accommodating a variety of payloads, kinetics and kill systems in a low-cost platform that allows for broad acquisition and adoption of an asymmetric capability against conventional naval assets…..

Not sure about being modelled on the Magura 5, more resembles the Sea Baby. Much less stealthy and differently powered.

Things are desperate if we're doing that to a vessel that's less than 10 years old. :(

Its the second one Tiderace has been put into uncrewed reserve, Tidespring will be put into permanent maintainence to used as parts donors to the 2 remaining ones

That is not going to work. Stores always like to keep one on the shelf and that makes only one😊

Francis Tusa & Sir Humphrey…

presumably we'll be looking for allies for support as well as escort. :(

Another NATO carrier deployment with a multinational task group...

In first, France’s aircraft carrier to deploy under NATO command - Defense News

PARIS — France’s aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle and its strike group will deploy under NATO command for the first time, as the French Navy’s flagship resumes operations after interim maintenance that kept it out of action most of last year.

The Charles de Gaulle, with an escort including a French air-defense frigate, a multimission frigate and a nuclear attack submarine, will start a deployment in the Mediterranean on April 22, according to Rear Adm. Jacques Mallard, commander of the French carrier strike group. Vessels from the United States, Spain, Greece, Italy and Portugal will complete the escort.

While French aircraft and individual vessels have previously operated under NATO direction, the carrier strike group has until now remained under national command, according to Mallard.

Sailing under alliance command for part of the envisioned tour is meant to “show that we’re an ally who’s doing what everyone else is doing, but also to understand how the chain of command works,” Mallard said in a press briefing on April 11. “It’s a first, but it’s a logical continuation of what’s been going on until now.”

The goal is to “reinforce the defensive and deterrent posture of the alliance” as well as support operations that favor regional stability, with a focus on the central and eastern Mediterranean, according to a presentation by Mallard. The entire deployment might last around six weeks, according to the Armed Forces Ministry...

Within the NATO theatre, carrier groups are often multinational. Every one is different, for instance CdG does not have an ASW role in the same way as that ours do, so the other warships in the task group will supply the ASW helicopters as well as long range sonars.

Telegraph suggests that if Type 26 frigates to be built for 🇳🇴Norway by @BAES_Maritime on the Clyde, RN would have to divert ship 3 or 4 (HMS Belfast & Birmingham) to meet Norwegian schedule.

While potentially a huge export win and Norway having the best possible ASW kit is in UK strategic interest, RN desperately needs new frigates.

https://archive.ph/2024.04.15-070203...ritise-norway/

No, you were admonished for suggesting that the RN needed extra frigates instead of carriers. That is not the same as saying "the RN desperately needs new frigates". New frigates are needed because the T23 are unsurprisingly falling apart as they approach double their design life and costing far more than assumed to repair. The destroyers are actually in reasonable shape - bar the poor ILS contract which means spares are underprovided. This issue with the support ships is RFA pay and conditions and with the assault ships a doctrinal inconsistency (why assault ships if 3 Cdo Bde no longer exists as a real formation?).

You still can't explain what you think these extra frigates will do. Nor can you explain why "the carriers" seem to have caused all this.

When the carriers were first mooted there was a strong view expressed by some on here that this would divert funding and manpower away from what the navy was already doing.

This has come to pass.

We have two carriers but the tasks which were carried out by destroyers & frigates are now carried out by the likes of the "Argos" or a tanker - if they are carried out at all.

You cannot deny the Navy is being hollowed out - the fact that this co0incides withe need to keep the carriers (or at least one carrier) active is no coincidence.

The carriers were first mooted in 1996 - and those who were mooting on here were not around at the time. These tasks for frigates that you bang on about may not actually require a frigate, but that's largely because you don't understand what they're for.

The factors that are "hollowing out" the navy as you put it (RFA pay and conditions, failure to order and build T23 replacements and amphibious doctrine) really do not have anything to do with the carriers.

The impression that I get from various sources is that getting extra of anything runs into the problem of providing crew to actually use the extra resources be they frigates, destroyers or submarines.

That is certainly true of the RFA which is why they've just voted to go on strike. The RFA has a major retention issue, largely to do with erosion of T&Cs of employment, which is why they have major crew shortages and is why half the fleet is actually laid up.

But that's all down to "the carriers", obvs.

Not all - but they sure don't help........................

dont go looking at RAN, looks like the 2 underway replenishment tankers have been axed. Maybe we do what we did with larges bay and buy the 2 tides that sitting around doing nothing

The 1990s - a decade of post Cold War peace marred by armed conflict.

As I recall our existing carriers were frequently busy on operations in the Mediterranean, Adriatic, and Arabian Gulf, doing roles that can only be done by carriers. Those operations highlighted the value of carriers but also the limitations of small decks and hangars, so obviously larger ones were shown to be desirable. The aircraft that would succeed Sea Harrier/Harrier GR7/9 was also going to be physically larger requiring a larger ship. Prior to the 1990s, our carriers were busy usually on NATO tasking. The CVS/Sea King/Sea Harrier had an important part in deterring the Soviets, and in the NATO war plans.

Some people blame the carriers for everything from wet weather to wet farts - but where is the evidence?