Reply With QuoteExcellent post thanks - that's lunchtime sorted!
Fantastic views - hope the crew have their thermals on :-)
B
Excellent post thanks - that's lunchtime sorted!
Fantastic views - hope the crew have their thermals on :-)
B
Last edited by Brian; 10th December 2018 at 14:10.
There'll be a few 3 legged matelot's ashore tonight lol.
Brian.
Just seen the ship head-on and its a ruddy ugly thing.
I bet the guys at the top of the ski ramp are freezing.
The shape of the vessel is a "... Submarine captain's dream come true!" according to a guy I know and who knows a thing or two about a commanding a submarine. I didn't have to ask why.
His favourite line: "There are only two types of ships: submarines and targets."
Menno
Well, a Submarine Captain would say that wouldn’t he!Originally Posted by thieuster
She, or her sister ship, will never go out in any threat situation alone or unprotected anyway. It’s not like the Royal Navy have never thought about the threat from Subs etc.
The Americans had the same idea...
In Dutch: https://marineschepen.nl/dossiers/Ho...en-bracht.html
In English: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNLMS_Walrus_(1985) Halfway on the page.
Well, let's just hope that the carrier battle group doesn't have to operate in warm waters............
Why’s that then ?
Last edited by -Ally-; 10th December 2018 at 21:05.
You’re right in principle- but the reality is that the huge costs of these ships and their aircraft means that the resources required to provide the protective force (I.e. Type 45 destroyers and Astute class submarines hasn’t been adequate to build sufficient numbers.
I was a submariner for 20 years and worked in the industry for all of my career - apart from a short secondment as Commissioning Director of the Queen Elizabeth Class carriers. But I still think of them as targets....
Incidentally my spell check wants to change ‘carriers’ to ‘Cartier’....something to do with the cost no doubt.
Well, all ships of the Royal Navy are potential targets!
I don’t think they’ll be going anywhere that dangerous, let’s be honest. Not unless the crap really hits the fan somewhere...
The point of a carrier is to take command of the airspace.
This implies first and foremost that the carrier is in or on the edge of a zone of conflict. The further away, the shorter the missions of the aircrafts.
So yes, a carrier in operation is in a danger zone. So unless she is protected by Nato warships, she is extraordinarily vulnerable. Which means, bluntly, that she won’t be used.
Hence my previous posts regarding the vulnerability of the Falklands after Brexit: now, being part of the EU, the Charles de Gaulle (the only non American nuclear aircraft carrier) is virtually guaranteed, just as Nato washing its hands of it, is.
After Brexit, the question doesn’t have an answer. My fairly uneducated guess is that France would probably stop any military contract with Argentina. I doubt it would go any further, under the best excuse of course, like ‘in maintenance’.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
For the Falklands to be vulnerable to Argentina, Argentina would need a credible threat and of course the political will.
I think a reasonable assessment is that currently they have neither.
Carriers are really used to project power nowadays, the threat of them being there is usually sufficient to ensure diplomacy wins the day.
But, it’s the G&D, so perhaps we’d better leave it there!
I thought you knew the answers to everything?
Go on then...
Potholes, foodbanks, abysmal public transport, crumbling health service, thousands sleeping rough on the streets including ex-service personnel and elderly dying in winter months from hypothermia because they cannot afford to pay gas bills, yet some clever spark decided that we need two air carriers - an offensive capability which is as useful as chocolate teapot against full spectrum high tech adversary and only good to bomb the s out of the natives who had a misfortune to be born in an oil rich s hole. Result.
Fas est ab hoste doceri
Awaits overblown red-top inspired horror stories about our Type 45s.
Last edited by -Ally-; 10th December 2018 at 22:34.
Don't know why but that surprised me, perhaps you're human after all.
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
Perhaps the intention is to anchor one of them permanently just off the coast of Gibraltar?
So clever my foot fell off.
submarines are boats, not ships.
mike
Indeed. They are normally full of seamen.
Fas est ab hoste doceri
I'm flattered! It looks as if you forgot /didn't recognise that English isn't my first language!
I simply translated his line in English and overlooked the detail 'ship <-> boat' In fact, we don't have that in Dutch. The fact that we don't quibble about that, is perhaps also the reason we won the Dutch-English Wars in the 17th Century and that we were able to sink a large part of the US Carrier Group.
Apart from that, I was informed that one of the Navy's latest additions (Tiderace) was built in... Korea by Daewoo. People in Plymouth who were on shore, were still outraged about that when HMS Tiderace came into port last summer. No way that the Dutch would have a Navy boat/ship built outside our country. (BTW The Korean language has also two words for boat and ship. I've asked a pupil in my class with a Korean background).
Menno
Your English is usually better than mine Menno.
mike
Oh, come on Sulk - Your post reeks of “I know something you don’t - but I’ll just give a snippet....”
Great!
Honestly, your ship/boat details made me wonder how we use it over here! In Dutch, 'boot' (=boat) is usually used for a vessel for recreational use and 'schip' (=ship) is used for all other kinds of vessels including... subs. But frankly, for us, Dutch, there's no solid difference between both words - or the use of both words.
Menno
The Type 45 suffer from propulsion issues in warmer climates.
The engines on HMS Diamond packed up when on its first cruse to the Caribbean
No, I know as much as any man who reads the newspapers does. The T45's have issues with their power systems, which in extreme cases cause them to shut down completely. A contract has just been awarded to refit the whole fleet with at a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds, Google Project Napier for more details, but here's a snippet from the UK Defence Journal:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/cost...-fix-revealed/
That article is quite old, and the contracts were only awarded earlier this year.
I honestly wasn't trying to be coy. I thought most people were aware of the problems, hence the cryptic post.
Its an odd peculiarity with regards subs, the USA , Germany, Italians and the U.K. (Probably more worldwide, just these in my experiences past) all refer the their submarines as "boats"
Learning new things here! I’ll ask around!
In French it is even more complicated as the French legislation defines a ship (navire) as being sea going, whereas boats go on rivers and lakes.
However in Belgian French (and it’s relevant as Brussels is where an international treaty was signed defining those words), a ‘navire’ also needs to gauge more than 500 register tons. There are also who claim a navire needs to earn its living (commercial) so gigantic private yachts would be boats.
In practice we use either one or the other, plus vaisseaux (usually large) and bâtiments (usually military).
Last edited by Saint-Just; 11th December 2018 at 17:12.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
It’s true that all RN submarines are known colloquially as ‘boats’ - however they are officially titled ships e.g. Her Majesty’s Ship Trafalgar - NOT Her Majesty’s Submarine......
Menno, Tiderace (the whole new tide class) are not RN ships and are not HMS - they are RFA - Royal Fleet Auxiliary, manned by merchant navy crews although owned by the MOD. PS they are pretty rubbish.
Yes, I believe it's a matter of context between colloquial and official use / context. To aid Menno in his research I offer links to:
- Zr. Ms. Bruinvis
Zr. Ms. Bruinvis is een van de onderzeeboten van de Walrusklasse. Deze boten vormen de onderwatereenheden van de marinevloot.- Zr. Ms. Vlaardingen
Zr. Ms. Vlaardingen is een van de mijnenjagers van de marine. Deze schepen maken deel uit van de Alkmaar-klasse.
Effective range of a torpedo is about 24 miles.
Effective range of an ASW helicopter is about 200 miles. Average range of a helicopter launch Anti Submarine Missile/Depth Charge depends on the warhead
Effective range of Sonar can be 1000's of miles.
As soon as a submarine fires either a torpedo or StS missile, then its pretty much game over for them. Location, location, location. But it's not necessarily so for the target (and his buddies) who has a range of counter measures to use.
Having spent time on a Submarine (Upholder) and a number of warships, I know which one I would prefer.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Posting Permissions
