Warship - An appropriate response
 

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

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

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

...........

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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

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?

"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!

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

Didn't know Botham was in the Black Sea!

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-s...on-1/episode-2

Some of the Hawk T.1 footage.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....02c93cf559.jpg


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....badc1ad459.jpg

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.

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

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!!

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

Pretty arrogant I agree, but I suspect their Sea Viper system does inspire much more confidence than anything you attacked in your Bucc.

Vertical Tube Launchers


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

IG

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

https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...-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, 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.

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.....

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........

Nice perspective, Darvan.