World Naval Ships Forums  
VIEW ALL OF OUR CURRENT SPECIAL OFFERS HERE!

Go Back   World Naval Ships Forums > Naval History > Other Naval Topics
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Other Naval Topics Other general naval or navy-related topics.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #226  
Old 15-07-2015, 23:34
harry.gibbon's Avatar
harry.gibbon harry.gibbon is online now
Admiral
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Merseyside
Posts: 7,853
Default Re: Modern Navy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maryak View Post
Have you ever heard the expression:

Promoted beyond the level of their incompetence

Best Regards
Bob
Yes I have Bob; but to which post/subject does the above refer?

Little h
__________________

GFXU - HMS Falmouth in Falmouth Bay
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 16-07-2015, 08:50
ceylon220's Avatar
ceylon220 ceylon220 is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cumbria. (The place where they deposit their nuclear waste)
Posts: 1,306
Default Re: Modern Navy

In my day the recruiting office staff would persuade the candidate to join up in the branches that were short of men --for example a person fancying the stores branch was talked into the cooks and stewards branch or such as myself was talked out of aircraft maintenance in the FAA and put down as a Stoker( my recruiter was a RM sargeant) as there was a shortage of them at the time----maybe the recruiters are doing the same these days hence the shortage of engineers.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 16-07-2015, 12:33
johnny07 johnny07 is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: With wife Ann in Banchory, Aberdeenshire.
Posts: 3,714
Default Re: Modern Navy

In my case I ended up in the engine room. I wanted to be a chippy but I was a bit thick and way down in the exam results and all the clever lads got first choice of trades.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 16-07-2015, 16:25
Geoff H. Geoff H. is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Just moved to the middle of nowhere - somewhere east of the Cheviot Hills
Posts: 575
Default Re: Modern Navy

I wanted to be a bunting - the bridge, ops room and flagdeck seemed
far more interesting than the radio office.
Plus I though there was less chance of seasickness up in the fresh air
than down in the bowels of the ship. ( very quickly got rid of that problem)
Geoff
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 16-07-2015, 20:52
Pluto Pluto is offline
Sub-Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North Yorks.
Posts: 184
Default Re: Modern Navy

Me too but somehow failed on the eye test.
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 16-07-2015, 21:15
Maryak's Avatar
Maryak Maryak is offline
Sub-Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 109
Default Re: Modern Navy

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry.gibbon View Post
Yes I have Bob; but to which post/subject does the above refer?

Little h
#224 springs to mind or maybe he should be called Daneel

Regards
Bob
__________________
The Steel Cat Fighting 41
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 13-06-2016, 22:30
Pelican's Avatar
Pelican Pelican is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,834
Exclamation Re: Modern Navy

I.T.
Keeping a navy's data in shipshape condition.
Standardising IT systems across a chain of shops, bank group, or holiday company is one thing -- but doing the same for a whole navy is a different prospect. That's the task facing BAE Systems.
See: http://www.zdnet.com/article/keeping...ape-condition/
[Just as well we have a small fleet yet alone Navy. ]
__________________
H.M.S. PELICAN - GGCV - L86 U86 B294 & F 86 - WHAT I HAVE I HOLD - 1938~1958 - 'A wonderful bird is the Pelican. Its beak can hold more than its belly can.'
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 24-09-2016, 20:38
Pelican's Avatar
Pelican Pelican is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,834
Exclamation Re: Modern Navy

Researchers at European Geostrategy broke global powers down into four categories: Super Power, Global Power, Regional Power and Local Power.
This article was updated on the 9th August 2016.


The United States took the top slot as the world’s super power, while Britain took the only Global Power slot, bringing her in second behind America.


I recently posted this article on the QEC thread. It has been suggested that it deservers a wider audience for discussion? If necessary would our Moderator move it elsewhere please:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/stud...-in-the-world/
__________________
H.M.S. PELICAN - GGCV - L86 U86 B294 & F 86 - WHAT I HAVE I HOLD - 1938~1958 - 'A wonderful bird is the Pelican. Its beak can hold more than its belly can.'
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 24-09-2016, 21:04
Rupert Rupert is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,459
Default Re: Modern Navy

I was thinking about this article in the car today when I had Pink Floyd playing:

**** all that we've got to get on with these
got to compete with the wily japanese
no need to worry about the vietnamese
got to bring the russian bear to his knees
well, maybe not the russian bear
maybe the swedes
we showed argentina
now let's go and show these
make us feel tough
and won't maggie be pleased
nah nah nah nah nah nah!


Struck me that when that was written at the height of the cold war we would never have dreamed that the UK could never again rank second only to the US as a world power

It may be only that it is because Russian might has fallen faster than ours, but it still highlights how comprehensive our military force is. It is easy to criticise our much smaller navy, and we pick up on every deficiency, but it is still a blue water navy. We do have capability across the board. And it is easy to count the hulls of other navies, but takes more effort to look at true capability. i remember that a few years back the entire Argentinian submarine fleet had only spent 10 hours submerged over the course of a year.

It is easy to bemoan the many fewer hulls that we have now than we did in 1982. But each of those is far more capable. The capability of a T45 is light years ahead of a T42. The new carriers evidently so. Astute could literally run rings round a Swiftsure (without the latter hearing them).
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 25-09-2016, 08:24
Scurs's Avatar
Scurs Scurs is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,002
Default Re: Modern Navy

Rupert - trouble is, one ship can only be in one place at one time. Quality is fine, but if the enemy outnumbers you umpteen to one, quantity often wins the day.
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 25-09-2016, 08:32
gruntfuttock gruntfuttock is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: nottingham
Posts: 1,052
Default Re: Modern Navy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
I was thinking about this article in the car today when I had Pink Floyd playing:

**** all that we've got to get on with these
got to compete with the wily japanese
no need to worry about the vietnamese
got to bring the russian bear to his knees
well, maybe not the russian bear
maybe the swedes
we showed argentina
now let's go and show these
make us feel tough
and won't maggie be pleased
nah nah nah nah nah nah!


Struck me that when that was written at the height of the cold war we would never have dreamed that the UK could never again rank second only to the US as a world power

It may be only that it is because Russian might has fallen faster than ours, but it still highlights how comprehensive our military force is. It is easy to criticise our much smaller navy, and we pick up on every deficiency, but it is still a blue water navy. We do have capability across the board. And it is easy to count the hulls of other navies, but takes more effort to look at true capability. i remember that a few years back the entire Argentinian submarine fleet had only spent 10 hours submerged over the course of a year.

It is easy to bemoan the many fewer hulls that we have now than we did in 1982. But each of those is far more capable. The capability of a T45 is light years ahead of a T42. The new carriers evidently so. Astute could literally run rings round a Swiftsure (without the latter hearing them).
Methinks you were wearing your rose tinted glasses when you wrote this post. Take for instance your remark re the T45, of course it's more capable than a T42, so are the vessels being built by potential adversaries, so your comparison is meaningless. Also bear in mind we have a grand total of six T45's and of that possibly four will be available for immediate action. Now tell me how many places they can be in at a time.

These people don't seem to share your misplaced optimism.

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-state-of-the-rn/
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 25-09-2016, 09:21
Rupert Rupert is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,459
Default Re: Modern Navy

I would say that the increase in capability of the T45s has been greater than that of our potential adversaries - partly because of the hard won lessons from the Falklands. Who in our list of potential adversaries has anything close to the technology and capability?

Argentina? They have gone down not up
Russia? Ditto
North Korea? Hardly
Iran/Iraq- not really
Daesh? No real naval capability - though shore launched missiles are a concern

In short the only potential adversary I can think of who have significantly improved their naval technology/capability would be China. And they are not threatening UK interests- partly because as the report emphasises, they are not a blue water navy

Yes we cannot be in so many places, but we are not the empire of old, we don't need to be in so many places
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 25-09-2016, 11:51
johnny07 johnny07 is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: With wife Ann in Banchory, Aberdeenshire.
Posts: 3,714
Default Re: Modern Navy

In days gone by ships were pretty basic and if one was sunk there were plenty more to take it's place. These days we have these highly expensive highly technological ships which as has been said can only be in one place at a time and just one well placed missile could destroy. These two new carriers, if they ever go to sea, will make wonderful targets and I can't see them lasting very long. When I think of these carriers I think of the Yamoto.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 25-09-2016, 13:11
gruntfuttock gruntfuttock is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: nottingham
Posts: 1,052
Default Re: Modern Navy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
I would say that the increase in capability of the T45s has been greater than that of our potential adversaries - partly because of the hard won lessons from the Falklands. Who in our list of potential adversaries has anything close to the technology and capability?

Argentina? They have gone down not up
Russia? Ditto
North Korea? Hardly
Iran/Iraq- not really
Daesh? No real naval capability - though shore launched missiles are a concern

In short the only potential adversary I can think of who have significantly improved their naval technology/capability would be China. And they are not threatening UK interests- partly because as the report emphasises, they are not a blue water navy

Yes we cannot be in so many places, but we are not the empire of old, we don't need to be in so many places
Why on earth you mention the likes of Argentina and Daesh, one a Bankrupt state and the other a terrorist organisation with no capability of fighting a peer to peer war, is beyond me.

As far as Russia is concerned, perhaps you might like to look at their current building programme, but more to the point their future plans. As far as their technology is concerned, their submarines are some of the most advanced in the world. Their missile technology is second to none, and far outnumber anything we have or ever will have.

China is not at the moment a blue water navy, but they soon will be in every sense of the word. They are at the moment in the midst of a massive ship building programme, outstripping any other country. They are near to completion of their first indigenous aircraft carrier, and more are in the pipeline.

They are not threatening UK interests, at this moment in time. Don't be to sure about the future when they will become the next super power.

Just a little article on Russia, who you dismiss as an empty threat.

http://forces.tv/97544087
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 25-09-2016, 17:03
Rupert Rupert is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,459
Default Re: Modern Navy

I identified Argentina and Daesh because they are potential adversaries.

Russia has I am aware got an ambitious ship building plan. But it has had those before. I have no crystal ball so I was going on what is out there now.

They also ave a population more than twice ours, so one would expect them to have a bigger navy really. And to threaten our interests they must also threaten all of Europe
Reply With Quote
  #241  
Old 25-09-2016, 21:56
gruntfuttock gruntfuttock is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: nottingham
Posts: 1,052
Default Re: Modern Navy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
I identified Argentina and Daesh because they are potential adversaries.

Russia has I am aware got an ambitious ship building plan. But it has had those before. I have no crystal ball so I was going on what is out there now.

They also ave a population more than twice ours, so one would expect them to have a bigger navy really. And to threaten our interests they must also threaten all of Europe
Argentina is not a potential adversary, at least not in the foreseeable future. Daesh is in no way an adversary in the accepted terms of warfare. They have no Navy, or Air Force, their only weapon is terrorism. So we are very unlikely to fight them on the high sea's or in the air.

Russia has historically been a land power, not a seafaring power. As far as threatening all of Europe, why do you think most European nations are upping their defence budgets. The Eastern Europeans and the Baltic states in particular are extremely wary of what Russia may do next. At the moment Russia would cut through them like a knife through butter.

Last edited by gruntfuttock : 25-09-2016 at 22:18.
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 25-09-2016, 23:58
Shinysheff Shinysheff is offline
Vice Commodore
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 729
Default Re: Modern Navy

Not sure why you're having a go at Rupert. It should be our pathetic government that needs a piece of everyone's mind.
Rupert is correct in regards to Russian plans, they say every couple of years of huge investment and big ideas but very little actually happens.

Rich
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 26-09-2016, 06:33
Rupert Rupert is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,459
Default Re: Modern Navy

GF, I listed all those countries to try and provide a complete list.

As you say Russia is traditionally a land power. I note that with regard to Russian naval technology this article by Dr Dmitry Gorenberg from Harvard's Centre for Russian and Eurasian studies
Quote:
Russia’s current shipbuilding industry was primarily formed in the 1960-70s, and its ship design capabilities have changed little since the early 1980s. As a result, Russian naval research and development (R&D) has fallen several decades behind Western and Asian capabilities. Russian leaders recognized this problem in the late 2000s and sought to absorb Western knowledge through joint projects, such as the Russian version of the French Mistral amphibious assault ship. In addition, they organized joint projects with foreign designers such as Saipem, Wartsila, and STX in civilian shipbuilding. However, the freezing of military cooperation with NATO states in 2014 as a result of the Ukraine conflict has largely foreclosed the possibility of catching up by borrowing Western know-how. Russian naval R&D is therefore likely to remain significantly behind when compared to the Western state-of-the-art.
He also explains the glacial progress in shipbuilding.

I also note that Russia has only commissioned 3 ships of frigate size or bigger since the first T23 was commissioned.
Russian warship building

So if not Argentina, Daesh or Russia, who is the naval threat for whom we are unprepared?
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 26-09-2016, 07:58
gruntfuttock gruntfuttock is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: nottingham
Posts: 1,052
Default Re: Modern Navy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinysheff View Post
Not sure why you're having a go at Rupert. It should be our pathetic government that needs a piece of everyone's mind.
Rupert is correct in regards to Russian plans, they say every couple of years of huge investment and big ideas but very little actually happens.

Rich
I'm not sure why you think I am 'having a go' at Rupert or is 'lively discussion' not allowed. Rupert is more than capable of holding up his end of the discussion, or are we all supposed to hold the same opinions.

Perhaps you should also look at Russian current building projects. As far as our government is concerned, I would say they get plenty of flak on the majority of defence blogs.

Last edited by gruntfuttock : 26-09-2016 at 08:33.
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 26-09-2016, 08:19
gruntfuttock gruntfuttock is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: nottingham
Posts: 1,052
Default Re: Modern Navy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
GF, I listed all those countries to try and provide a complete list.

As you say Russia is traditionally a land power. I note that with regard to Russian naval technology this article by Dr Dmitry Gorenberg from Harvard's Centre for Russian and Eurasian studies

He also explains the glacial progress in shipbuilding.

I also note that Russia has only commissioned 3 ships of frigate size or bigger since the first T23 was commissioned.
Russian warship building

So if not Argentina, Daesh or Russia, who is the naval threat for whom we are unprepared?
I don't remember saying that Russia is not a threat. I most certainly think it is a growing threat. Well, taking into account that most countries in the Asia/Pacific region are trying desperately to build up their naval assets I would think the future threat is patently obvious.

In regards to the fact that Russia has only commissioned three major surface ships since the first T23 was commissioned, that is a complete red herring.

In 1989 the first T23 was commissioned in the UK. In 1990 the Soviet Union started to disintegrate, and all of it's armed forces fell into a state of disrepair. The Russian navy in particular, became a mere shadow of it's former self. We all remember photos of their ships and submarines rusting away alongside in ports.

No building was taking place, no funds were available for any new equipment, and this didn't start to alter until Putin came to power and he is now starting to build up the forces once again. So there is your explanation for a lack of building.
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 26-09-2016, 09:38
Rupert Rupert is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,459
Default Re: Modern Navy

Quote:
Originally Posted by gruntfuttock View Post
this didn't start to alter until Putin came to power and he is now starting to build up the forces once again.
I would say he is promising to build up the forces. He has been in effective power since 1999 when he was first elected prime minister.

So he has some way to go to catch up - especially given the technology issue I highlighted earlier. And there is a danger in us building too many ships. If we do then those ships are built at this generation of technology. For all the refits and refreshes, it is then harder to introduce new technology. Then too much of the budget will go on supporting ships that will become obsolete before Russia can build up a naval threat.
Whereas if we wait, then if the threat really starts to mature then we can build more of whatever generation of technology we have then.

There is a parallel in history when we built a large number of ships that were made obsolete when Dreadnoughts came along. But because we had those older ships are fleet in WWI included a lot of them, even though they were essentially useless
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 26-09-2016, 10:52
PhilipG PhilipG is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Arundel, Sussex
Posts: 294
Default Re: Modern Navy

In my view a Modern Navy needs a modern supply chain both on land and at sea.

The Soviet shipbuilding infrastructure was broken up at the end of the Soviet Union, remember that the Aircraft Carriers had been made in what is now Ukraine, so pieces of the jig saw are missing.

To efficiently produce ships of any type it helps to have a team that is used to doing so, look at the problems of restarting submarine construction at Barrow, after the end of the Vanguard construction project, 98/99. The Russians have basically got a 20 year skill gap, when not many people entered the industry and by all accounts practices were not modernised.

The deal with the French to purchase two Mistrals, yes with some work having been done in Russia, can be seen as an attempt to plug a gap in the fleet whilst at the same time benefitting from technology transfer from France of the design and some of the fabrication methods.

Funds can be given to a project, that does not necessarily mean that the project will deliver, for among other things some of the reasons outlined above.
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 26-09-2016, 13:18
gruntfuttock gruntfuttock is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: nottingham
Posts: 1,052
Default Re: Modern Navy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
I would say he is promising to build up the forces. He has been in effective power since 1999 when he was first elected prime minister.

So he has some way to go to catch up - especially given the technology issue I highlighted earlier. And there is a danger in us building too many ships. If we do then those ships are built at this generation of technology. For all the refits and refreshes, it is then harder to introduce new technology. Then too much of the budget will go on supporting ships that will become obsolete before Russia can build up a naval threat.
Whereas if we wait, then if the threat really starts to mature then we can build more of whatever generation of technology we have then.

There is a parallel in history when we built a large number of ships that were made obsolete when Dreadnoughts came along. But because we had those older ships are fleet in WWI included a lot of them, even though they were essentially useless

I would say that given the UK's recent history, there is absolutely no danger that we would ever build too many ships. One of the ideas of the large hull size (for a frigate) of the T26 is just so that new technology can be accommodated, as it is developed.
You just cannot wait until your enemy has built advanced tech ships, and then attempt to play catch up. Warships nowadays are built to last 30/40 yrs and given the time it takes to develop and build one, then I think your idea is a non starter.
Take for instance the new carriers, we are talking of a 50yr life span and within that time they can be expected to have more than a few major refits, and upgrades. That was all taken into account during their design.

Slightly OT take as an example the US Arleigh Burkes class of destroyers, they have been constantly upgraded throughout their life span,and now even more have been ordered.
The US is far quicker than the UK in designing and building ships, even so in 2014 they started on a design for the future combat ship, and even with their expertise it is still not expected to enter service until the 2030's.

With the glacial slowness of the UK's ship procurement, I think it is critical we must build more surface ships. Unfortunately I know as a pragmatist this is not going to happen
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 26-09-2016, 13:57
Rupert Rupert is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,459
Default Re: Modern Navy

The Arleigh Burke is a good example. They were good in the day, built in numbers, now the US cannot afford to replace them.
They may have been updated, but they are still archaic now
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old 26-09-2016, 14:21
Pelican's Avatar
Pelican Pelican is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,834
Exclamation Re: Modern Navy

FACTS (?) & FIGURES

Some interesting reading here even tho it is from the American point of view.
http://index.heritage.org/military/2016/
E.G. Threats: http://index.heritage.org/military/2...ments/threats/

See also: http://www.globalfirepower.com/
__________________
H.M.S. PELICAN - GGCV - L86 U86 B294 & F 86 - WHAT I HAVE I HOLD - 1938~1958 - 'A wonderful bird is the Pelican. Its beak can hold more than its belly can.'
Reply With Quote
Reply



Ship Search by Name : Advanced Search
Random Timeline Entry : 23rd January 1911 : HMS Bulwark : At Spithead for Fleet Review

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RN Submarines: Modern astraltrader Photo Galleries 82 27-11-2014 18:32
Modern US Destroyers CGRET Photo Galleries 26 27-10-2012 06:59
Modern Navy Models JacktheGunner Modelling Forum 9 29-10-2011 06:04
Life In The Modern Russian Navy r.morrison Russian Ships and Crews 19 20-05-2011 20:50
Modern day Royal Navy Frigates ceylon220 Other Naval Topics 8 06-10-2009 02:28


All times are GMT. The time now is 00:01.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.