sealordlawrenceBut again that doesn’t provide more Chinook airframes. In fact it takes airframes out of service whilst they are being modified to bring all of them up to a common standard.
Do you have a link for the extra Merlin order?
The Lynx re-engining will indeed improve the lift of the individual airframe but will not improve the overall airlift capability. Again the airlift capability will be reduced for a time whilst new engines are fitted.
The Chinook upgrade starts with the unused special forces airframes, these will then be rolled back into the fleet, thus not reducung the overall available airframe count.
The Lynx was borderline unusable in Afghanistan due to its lack of hot and high capability (reports that it could only fly between dusk and dawn) so not only will the upgrade increase life but effectively provide more uasable airframes.
The extra Merlins have been widely reported.
Furthermore of the helicopter fleet only a small proportioin of the helicopter fleet is deployed at any one time with types being rotated in and out of theatre thus further reducing the effects of taking airframes mout for reconditioning.
sealordlawrenceTotally agree commercial Diesels were the right choice and the chosen ones do get her from point A to B without too much fuss … just not very quickly.
Basically chosen for cost, HMS Ocean is the definition of a budget warship. Which really is not an issue as she gets done what is asked of her and is unlikely to be placed in a situation where she needs anything more.
sealordlawrenceErr.. no, it just get’s tedious arguing with a brick wall and I have a life to be getting on with.
Err.. yes, hence why you stopped.:D
sealordlawrenceI seriously can’t be bothered debating with someone so unwilling to see the facts, and who displays such a scant knowledge of naval tactics and indeed construction, never mind the pressing needs of the UK Armed Forces if they’re to continue conducting operations at the current tempo.
However it is refreshing to meet someone so divorced from the realilties of the modern world, sir I congratulate you.
In short you have nothing to contribute and you and your mis-informed argument have been thoroughly routed.
sealordlawrenceRight so since the 2006 report we’ve gained how many helicopters exactly? 6 Merlins from the Danish. And the Chinook are being bought to a common standard, doesn’t actually increase the amount of lift though does it? Meanwhile the replacement programme for the Puma and Sea King HC.4 has been pushed further right while the airframes suffer reduced availabilty due to their age. I’m not saying things aren’t beeing done to address the problem, but it’s not enough especially if you’re engaged in two land wars.
Except the UK is only involved in one, pull out from Iraq is immenent. And what part of availability confuses you? More inaccuracies from you.
Presumably the same people we’ve got the LPDs etc. to power project against. If you ask anyone in the RN if they have enough FF/DD for the current level of task the answer will be no.
You are very silly, intervention almost always occurs in failed states of the variety that do not have any air force capability or naval capability beyond small boats with RPG’s. Again who are you proposing the UK start a war with?
Would that be the fleet large parts of which are reaching their OSD without replacement and are therefore being flogged on for even longer? Or the substitution of an LPD for APT(N) and APT(S) the first of which it’s barely suitable for and the second of which it’s particularly unsuited for. Has the RN coped, yes, just, but the fleet isn’t being replaced at the rate needed to maintain the capability. I’ll reitierate the MARS pioint, the tankers which are required to sustain the power projection capability aren’t being replaced for at least 7 years, their planned OSD is this year and next. Consequently a number of vessels will soldier on well past their prime with a knock on effect on availability and power projection.
OSD’s are largely arbitary, a sshift in maintenance schedul and an extra refit can and will sustatin those vessels. Again more misunderstanding from you.
A fairly juvenile ad hominem attack, where’s your justification for that statement?
I’d wager I have a better idea than you, with your everything’s fine approach, and a more thorough knowledge of the day to day realities of the current ongoing programmes. And I’m not alone in my thinking as the recent report by the UKNDA, the Secretry of State for Defence and Chief of Defence Staff have all stated that the current Defence Budget is inadequate to meet present commitments and to provide for future contingencies. But then they’re probably confused as well. If you’re waiting to find out who the enemy is before arming to fight them then it’s probably too late.
It is quite clear that you have no idea, you have yet to justify your claims and have shown little knowledge of the subject area.
sealordlawrence[QUOTE=SkippyBing;1374435]
Well the Chinook programme apart from being an example of how not to buy a helicopter has taken ~£400M and 8 years to make 8 aircraft serviceable. The only additional Merlins I’m aware of are the six received from Denmark in ’07 and are already in service and the Lynx engine upgrade doesn’t increase the number of helicopters and hardly provides extra lift. The Defence Select Committee identified a 17% shortfall in helicopter lift in ’06 when we were doing less and so far only a piecemeal attempt at solving the problem has been made, while the F Lynx order was for less aircraft than the originally stated numbers, which were insufficient in the first place.
That is only a very small part of the Chinook programme, the entire fleet is now being recaptalised and brought to a common standard. The extra Merlins were ordered aster the 2006 report and the Lynx re-engining will dramatically increase lift by increasing type availability and increasing lift capacity in hot and high evrionments like Afghanistan. All three remedial actions having been announced AFTER the one report that you so cling to.
As for my obsession with numbers, if you’re claiming to be the second most powerful navy in the world it helps to have more than a handful of vessels, the ‘quantity has a quality of it’s own’ argument. Sure the PLAN may not have anything of the capability of the T45, but there’re only going to be six of those which rather limits their geographic coverage no matter how good they are. Your insistance that a large amphibious force constitute power projection is rather simplistic, on their own the UK’s force of LPD’s and LPH have very little in the way of self-protection. You can’t seriously argue a power projection capability if you can’t defend yourself, hence my concern over FF/DD numbers. Othere wise you could just as well use cruise liners and ferries for force projection.
Defend yourself against what? Who is the RN going to be engaging with who poses a serious threat? This is the question you keep refusing to answer!
And I wan’t confused, I was referring to the Sherman/Tiger exchange ratio in Normandy as was obvious in the context of the quote I used from you and the fact that neither type existed in 1940.
Actually you are very confused.
I’m well aware of the programmes currently being undertaken by MoD and the numerous problems therein, you apparant belief that they’re going to make up for the current and future shortfalls displays a naive willingness to believe MoD spokesmen. Meanwhile the MARS programme has been slipped right by around 7 years which on it’s own raises major questions over the ability of the RN to project power worldwide, a requirement of the SDR which is a cornerstone of the doctrine which according to you is driving MoD procurement.
Funny the RN has coped well enough with the existing fleet as it is, has it not?
The fact is that you have no idea what you are talking about, you dont know what programmes are ongoing, you keep trying to find mythical enemys (and failing) and seem confused by every subject you touch upon.
sealordlawrenceI read you just fine. You said: “That this is another Udaloy and that we rarely if ever see Sovremenny’s far from home suggests that the latter are not held in high esteem by the Russian navy. I would suggest that their steam propulsion plant is the primary reason and that it causes maintenance concerns.” Which is not: “their propulsion systems, combined with the long and continuing period of underfunding and poor personnel levels will be more unreliable than the gas turbine powered vessels”. And you’re trying to avoid answering my question.
AFAIK there is no difference in propulsion system between the russian and the chinese Sovs, except perhaps that 2 chinese ships are much newer. If they don’t have similar trouble, then the problem is not the steam propulsion system per se but rather the funding and maintenance and crew training.Different question: if you subject a Sovrmenny and a Udaloy to the same poorly trained personnel, lack of maintenance and low funding, will power plant performance /rliability deteriorate to the same extent? If not, which plant is more vulnerable?
I assume that the reason you are not reading what I type is that you are a Troll? Steam propulsion is inherently more unreliable and in a navy with a history of maintenance concerns that is a key factor. Interestingly the Chinese ships also rarely make it far from Chinese waters. With reduced maintenance funding and poor quality personnel the maintenance issues will only get worse.
sealordlawrenceLOLOL So you’d agree the T-72B would swamp and roll over the M1 Abrams like nothing eh? 😀
Ad that tells us how many Tigers were in France in 1940 does it?:rolleyes:
sealordlawrence[QUOTE=SkippyBing;1374306]
Oh that’s alright then, and something better wouldn’t have been useful in Iraq either. Strange how there’s still a massive deficit in helicopter lift, although I’m sure you’ll tell me that’s fine too.
Chinook recapitalisation programme underway and additional Mermins on order as well as aLunx re-engining project undwerway.
That’s not a capability that’s listing hulls. The CVS haven’t worked up properly with a UK fixed wing CAG in ages, the seven amphibs are all very good but have little in the way of self defence capability which if you’re going to project power would indicate some escorts might be in order. Tomahawk firing SSNs are great once the war has started but are self defeating if you’re working on gunship diplomacy. The escorts are the weak link, they’re overworked and there aren’t enough, hence my earlier statement that the RN isn’t a balanced fleet. The PLAN has more weapons carrying platforms which could make life very difficult if they didn’t want the RN to project power somewhere. You can’t power project with a fleet of amphibious ships alone.
Where do you think capability comes from?:rolleyes: Again with the strange hull numbers obsession, you clearly know very little about the PLAN. The only place the PLAN could realistically stop the RN going is China.
I was of course responding to your comment on operations in Normandy, as you could tell from the quote I used in my response which last time I checked was in ’44 not ’40. Now stop sounding like an MoD spokesman and tell me which other European nation is commited to operations on the scale we are that’s suffering the same funding shortfall.
No you were not, you are completely confused, you keep listing deficiencies as if the world is about to end without being aware of programmes to make up for them, have a weird obsession with China (despite knowing nothing about the PLAN) and no grasp of history.
sealordlawrence:(Oh good how long have we been there now? How many lives have been lost?:diablo:
In afghanistan actually very few until recently to IED’s, must casualties prior to that were from small arms fire. in the meantime many of the tracked vehicles have been very useful and talk to any British Army commander and he will tell you that the Snatch is still very useful in certain conditions (particularly urban and semi rural). Furthermore the vehicles have not even existed to be procured for very long.
:)I’d be interested in what exactly you think the power projection capabilites of the RN are?:eek:
You mean other than aircraft carriers, tomahawk firing SSN’s, and seven dedicated large amphibious ships backed up by 6 roll on roll off transport vessels? Care to name another force other than the USN that can match that?:rolleyes:
Not sure about the Soviets but I’d say planning on losing what was it three Sherman to one Tiger wasn’t a great tactical plan on the part of the allies. As for the operations imnpressive yes, but essentially relying on brute force to overcome the germans rather than tactical skill.:)
Go and read up on the development of armoured warfare doctrine. And find out how many Tigers were in France in 1940.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceThey’re spherical and men have them. There is a funding shortage for material required to fulfill the demands of the defence policy which is driven by the doctrine derived from the foreign policy. Or has the RN been putting ships through reduced upkeep because it’s more fun not knowing if it’s going to break down entering harbour? For what is being asked of them the UK armed forces are underfunded, or are you seriously saying Snatch Land Rovers are perfectly adequate for operations in Afghanistan and that having proper mine resistant vehicles is just the Army having un-fundable aspirations?
No other nation in Western Europe has such a gap between what it’s being asked to do and what it’s actually being funded to do, the UK armed forces have been exceeding the operational tempo planned for under the last SDR for something like the last four years, without a commensurate increase in funding. Major equipment programmes such as the A400, CVF, and FRES are being slipped right to fund day to day operations and leaving the replacements for the equipment being worn out now no more real than they were at the start of the decade when the programmes were initiated.I have a vague knowledge of the development in armoured warfare, and the numbers comment was a flippant remark to lead into my point that in large areas the rearmament commenced in ’35 was too little too late. Although worth bearing in mind the Allied tactics ultimately relied on numerical superiority to win, rather than any tactical superiority.
And you’ve still failed to answer why China doesn’t have the power projection capability of the UK nor if they develop the political will Japan. They have actual serviceable warships in numbers the RN can only dream of.
Ha ha ha, the UK is procuring hundreds of vehicles specifically for Afghanistan.:D Do you know what a Jackal is? a Warthog? a Mastiff? a Husky?:D
A basic knowledge of the PLAN would tell you they have no where near the power projection capability of the UK and their modern surface combatant numbers are not as impressive as you think they are.:D
I think you will find that they Soviet combined arms operations on the Eastern front from late 1943 onwards were a masterclass and the combined operations in Normandy were very impressive indeed.:D
You really do know very little about what you have chosen to talk!
sealordlawrenceThat’s a hell of an assertion.
The UK skimmer flotilla has the paper capability to do lots of things but there are not many spare hulls or rounds to fire from them.
The SSNs have some very impressive technical capabilities and the best crews in the world.
It is possible that the boomers are amongst the most effective*
The amphibious capabilities have received a boost just at the right to avoid losing ALL of the expertise of previous generations of combined ops.
But second most powerful in the world? I think that’s a stretch too far meself.
Al
* I suppose all boomer fleets have been effective in that we haven’t had WWIII yet
Its not a streatch at all, other than the US no other country in the world has the naval power projection capabilities that the RN posesses.
sealordlawrenceNo it doesn’t, no other armed force* is being required to conduct the level of operations the UK is, and on those grounds it is underfunded. If all we were doing was patrolling European waters then sure you could actually argue that they’re overfunded, but the level of commitments has led to a serious funding deficit that can only be overcome by a radical overhaul of the procurement system or increased funding. I favour the former, as for matching China’s defence spending, are you suggesting we reduce ours?:rolleyes:
Except there is only a serious funding deficit for material desired not material required and that is the point. The UK armed forces are no more or less underfunded than any other in western Europe.
Then maybe they hadn’t procured enough, and we certainly didn’t have enough aircraft or shipping. Or did we just get them from the US after the war had started because there was a balance of payments problem?
Again Doctrine: Do you know anything about the development of armoured warfare doctrine? I assume not, hence your strange obsession with numbers.
sealordlawrenceSeaLord, I think you don’t know how french think. US has it, so they MUST have it. It’s straight-forwardly simply.
And, let me say, this rivality is something good for France and for her role in the world.
You think do you?:eek:
sealordlawrence[QUOTE=SkippyBing;1374216]
Sorry of course, I can see where it mentions power projection in that sentance now, silly me.
At the current rate of progress we won’t have the world wide presence for much longer, there aren’t the number of new hulls coming to replace old ones that are needed. Irrespective of their ability you need a given number of hulls to actually have a presence and carry out the refit/workup cycle, we’re pretty much there now. In some people’s opinion we’re below that by sending RFA LPDs to do jobs traditionally done by FF/DDs e.g. APT(N) where the LPDs low top speed is a handicap.
Meanwhile the only thing stopping Japan carrying out power projection is it’s constitution and the fact their politicians listen to the polpulation. Meanwhile China is enaging in power projection off the coast of East Africa with more ships than the RN.
We are not funding the armed forces to the level needed to achieve what doctrine requires, as evidenced by the UKNDA pointing out that there’s a cumulative £15B shortfall in defence spending which combined with a refusal to cancel any of the planned programmes is leading to delayed and reduced equipment replacement. Your failure to see that paints you either as an MoD stooge or completly divorced from the realities of the current situation.
No your failure to realise that by comparison to all the other armed forces in the world the UK is actually doing very well paints you as seriously ill-informed.
Are you seriously suggesting that the UK match Chinese defence spending?:rolleyes:
Rearmament may well have begun in 1935, but it obviously hadn’t achieved the required aim or the superiority of Allied armour in 1940 wouldn’t have led to the British Expeditionary Force having to be evacuated at Dunkirk. As for the RAF being ‘perfectly adequate’ to defend the UK, I’m believe moderation in defence is imbecility.
Oh dear. All the tanks in the world would not have saved France in 1940, the failure was doctrinal and not procurement related. Fact, in terms of technology and numbers allied tanks in France matched or exceeded those in German service. Do you know who JFC Fuller was?
Sign In
