leonBut compared to that guy standing there it doesn’t look so big after all.
Did you compare the size of the ship with the cranes next to it? Can you guess how far away this guy is standing?
The 51 m broad and 283,1 m long. The displacement will be around 45 000 t…
leonThe problem with the Russian design was not the fact per se that they tried doing two things on one hull rather the problem was that the V/STOL air complement assigned was so dreadfully useless.
The Kiev class – and also the Invincible class – was designed for hunting submarines. The aircraft should have been used only for defence.
The big carriers of the USN are designed as attack carriers and their aircraft are the primary offensive weapon – comparing apples and oranges.
The Russian and British ships were converted, because they were later used for different purposes than designed, because the main tasks of their navies switched from antisubmarine warfare to power projection – and therefore the aircraft were needed as offensive weapon system.
leonOdd, they all seem to be newer ships… leaving older baseline-2 ships CG 54-58 and some baseline-3 ships (cg 61-62) in service along with baseline 4 ships (cg-67, 70-73)
Perhaps the older ships were modernised and overhauled more recently?
The Spruance class ships were worn out at the end of their life time, probably the same is true for the Ticos?
leonThank you for the photos!
leonhttp://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Ships/Active/181-Rajput-Class.html
I get the impression these will no longer be used in destroyer role (AAW) but relegated to GP frigate roles (comparable weapons fit – if older main SAM – to Talwar class, esp when 2 of 4 AK230/630 are replaced by VL Barak for close-in protection as was done in some other ships of this class). At least 1 of this class had 2 Styx replaced by 2×2 Brahmos on inclined launcher.
Do you know any photo showing the Brahmos VLS on Ranvir?
leonShe launches the missile from the position of the former Volna SAM launcher.
Does she got a vertical launcher there?
leonThe name Gepard is written on the gangway – completely visible on the other photos in the mentioned magazine. On your photo only the last two letters are partially visible.
leonI guess that this is Gepard – judging from a similar photo in Marines & Forces Navales 133. She is a project 971M Akula III submarine.
leonGreat pics of Soobrazitelny @ Baltic Fleet.
Does the Baltic Fleet use different grays for their ships? The gray of the ships in the background appear to be darker compared to Soobrazitelny’s gray.
leonHow you define today the difference between a corvette, frigate, destroyer and cruiser? The are no obvious criteria. E.g. the French navy call all their surface fighting ships frigates (from the 2950 t Floréal class to the 6970 t Forbin), the Japanese navy call theirs destroyers (from 2550 t Abukama class to the 10000 t Atago class).
The frigates (earlier small and slow anti submarine and escort ships), destroyers (earlier ships designed to destroy torpedo boats, later ships designed to attack with torpedoes) and cruisers (earlier ships designed to be able to operate independently) are today merged. Perhaps it would be useful to call them all frigates – based on the way, this term was used in 18th and 19th century (fast multi role fighting ship, able to operate independently).
Based on armament and size there is today no logical criteria to distinguish frigates, destroyers and cruisers.
leonyou say that you recognise the threats that existed in the cold war but think that both sides committed too much resource?.
In Cold War the USA under Reagan tried ‘virtual attrition’ and its contributed to the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. BUT: also many western states suffered enormously from this strategy, e.g. the USA declined for a very wealthy and economically dominant country to highly indebted (and therefore dependent) economy, of which parts today resemble bombed out regions (e.g. the Rust Belt).
This strategy was not without alternatives. Actually after the decline of the US and British economies relative to Germany and Japan, which leaded to the collapse of the post-war monetary system in 1973, both states reduced defence spending – and at the same time reduced the danger of war with diplomatic means. Reagan reversed this strategy and with this strongly harmed its own country.
Even with zero threat to the home islands we still have no shortage of taskings fo the Royal Navy.
None of this tasks needs first class warships. First class warships are only needed to preserve the ability to develop and built them – for which a small number of ships would be sufficient. And for this also a alternative would exist: increases cooperation of allied navies (a strategy often used, but also often failed because of nationalist egoisms, see the failure of the NFR-90 and Horizon).
When shown that your claims of the UK not being able to afford the navy we have are plainly false you persist in this idiocy of comparing us to other European nations.
Britain does not exist on a different planet. Certainly some people think it is special, an Island Nation etc. But actually this is something long gone. Britain had lost its ability to afford a first class (in regards to quantity) navy soon after the Second World War. The Royal Navy struggled since then between its wish to sustain a big navy and the economic realities. Endless numbers of designs ended in the dustbins – e.g. Friedman’s British Cruiser book if full of them. Since the Second World War the size of the Royal Navy is declining – following declining economic strength.
There are two possibilities for the Royal Navy to adjust itself to the post Cold War realities: to reduce its number of tasks or reduce the quality (and therefore the price) of the majority its ships (few first class ships, many cheap ones). Worse is probably the compromise, because this led to designs as the Type 42 (and no first class AAW ship for decades)…
Interestingly the Royal Navy deployed its worst design of the last decades to Libya: HMS Liverpool. Another argument that currently no first class ships are needed.
leonWhat is your point there?. We were not well equipped to fight WW2
No state was well equipped to fight a world war – this is impossible. Especially in peace time, no state could afford such amount of defence spending. Even in wartime there are few states, which can afford this – as the ruined British economy after both World Wars clearly demonstrated.
OK you cite in #3 the fact that countries spent a lot to provide strong defences and in #4 appear to say that they weren’t going to be attacked. Not connecting the dots that the low threat of attack may be related to strength of the forces thanks to the spending you decry in #3?!.
This is no contradiction. The high spending of some states was related to the Cold War, in which both camps spend a lot – and actually both camps were economically ruined by this.
During the Cold War there was obviously an threat existing – in strong contrast to today!
Irrelevent.
No – if a state cannot afford a strong military, it is no strategy to use military means, because they will fail.
The concept you need to research is called ‘virtual attrition’. Vietnam, by acquiring more advanced weaponry, is raising the cost, to China, of keeping local tactical superiority.
It this case it will be Vietnam, which will be have the problem of real attrition because of its much weaker economy.
We were talking about maritime resources being a flashpoint for future conflict. You tried to deny they would be. I’m showing you how wrong you are. This was nothing to do with Britain.
I have written about threats to Britain – not about any possible future war. Therefore possible conflicts in which Britain will be not involved, are also no argument to increase spending in British defence!
It is when you consider its money that we have already in the budget. This is not an extra 16bn we have to find its money that we have afforded but not ‘spent’.
As I have written – there are much more debts than 16 bn and are lot of other problems, for much more money would be needed and which are currently urgent, e.g. modernisation of the energy and transport sector because of global warming and peak oil, generation of good jobs to reduce poverty etc.
Now you are acknowledging that not only can we afford what we have, but, we actually have the money for a considerable amount more!.
If you would have a completely different economic policy in Britain, which result in less debts, than you would have more money for the state – but again, there are lot of additional urgent problems and not only a Navy, which is compared to most Europeans navies and compared to the current political situation not small, but relatively big.
You were stating that first line escorts could be dispensed with to be replaced with cheaper units like Lafayette-style patrol frigates.
For most tasks Western navies had to perform today! Today there is no pressing need for first line escorts and there is a very high probability that there will be no need for them in the medium term – as there was no need for them in the last decades. Libya does not show that there is a need for first line escorts, but actually it demonstrates the exact opposite.
leon#1 True of WW I and WWII, presumably you are excluding The Spanish Civil War; Korean War; Falklands War; Yom Kippur war; Iran-Iraq war Gulf War 1 and many others
The Spanish Civil War is not fitting here, because it started by a military coup against the democratic government – in that case parts of the military were the biggest threat to the Spanish society. Obviously a even stronger military would have been a stronger threat – as it was in all those cases, where military coups threatened or overthrow democracy in the 20th century (this is a very long list).
The Korean War was no surprise, but actually expected – but MacArthur underrated the abilities of the North Korean troops (as he underrated later the abilities of the Chinese troops).
There were several warning by RN officers before the Argentinian attack and the military regime in Argentina before had clashed with Chile – therefore it could be at least expected that they will use military power (in contrast the current democratic Argentinian government).
Yom Kippur was a surprise attack, but the war was again not surprise – but both sides were already strongly armed because of former wars and had increased their arsenal since the 1967 war.
The Second Gulf War (1991, the First Gulf War is the Iran Iraq war) was no surprise – Hussein even asked the US ambassador, if he could invade Kuwait.
This leafs the First Gulf War (the Iran Iraq war) as surprise – but probably a more careful analysis would also exclude this war as a surprise.
Virtually all states have had strong economical problems, irrespective of whether they spend a lot on defence
Today this true, because the dominant economic politic has the aim to reduce state incomes automatically generating gigantic debts.
But historically that is not true. As I had already mentioned: in the decades after the Second World War, Germany and Japan overtook Britain and US economically, because they spent much less for defence. The states, which spends most for defence – USSR and US – both declined massively compared to Germany and Japan.
Planning for warfare is hypothesis.
Compare only the threats to Britain identified in this thread to the real ones in history and you will see that currently it is very unlikely that there will be any attack on Britain in the short and medium term. In contrast in 1914, 1939 and 1982 the perspective was completely different. Everyone expected a war in short term (even though in 1982 the most likely enemy was the USSR).
Point 2 is a real stretch – the UK was in no way equipped to fight WW2 by 1940 despite the years of forewarning given and a demo run in Spain.
Certainly UK could have been equipped better – but that was true for all states involved in the Second World War, also for the attacker Germany, which was even less equipped to fight in 1939. But it would have been in a even worse situation in 1941 or 1942…
Points 3 & 4 contradict each other
There is no contradiction. You should have at least explained why you think that there is a contradiction.
point 5 leads to the Vietnam example that you are trying so hard to wish away as it destroys your little theoretical model.
As I have written: Vietnam has no chance to built a military, which could deter or even defeat China. Its economy is too weak compared to China.
….because total war or total peace are the only states to consider here?. Just because China overmatches Vietnam in absolute state-state terms doesnt mean Vietnam cant get local superiority where it chooses for brief periods.
Actually China concentrates big (but certainly not it biggest!) parts of its much stronger military near Vietnam. It as built e.g. one of its biggest naval bases in these region. Vietnam has also no chance for a local superiority.
Anyway the simple fact that they ARE arming to reinforce their stated claims gives lie to your statement.
NO!
I have stated that there is not threat to Britain! The example of Vietnam is not example for a threat to Britain, but to Vietnam! As the arms race in South East Asia is no evidence to a threat to Britain, but an evidence for a threat to the states there!
There is £16bn actually allocated to a budget and accounted for that hasnt been spent.
£16bn compared to at least £940.1 debts – certainly not very impressive!
For sure there is money in Britain, which could be spent for a bigger fleet – but the state has gigantic debts and a lot of other sectors of the state are also underfunded including currently much more urgent and needed sectors than the Royal Navy.
The problem is that the place for them isnt in a carrier battlegroup where, because of the lack of fast fleet escorts, the Marine Nationale has been obliged to deploy them.
I you are still ignoring that this was not problematic at all, because they were used to attack Libya – which has not even a second class military! The La Fayette class was actually overequipped because they did not used most of their weapon systems.
@ swerve: you are right that to point to point to the breakup of the European colonial empires – but these colonial empires did not fit to a democratic society anyway and the colonies should have been released to independence much earlier. Certainly one of the reasons, why the NATO did not defend them.
leonThat is true, they were also cheaper, therefore affordable in numbers – in contrast to the weapons today, which are too expensive to produce them without need in big numbers.
But there is no other way: it is not possible to afford always a military in scale to be able to defeat any hypothetical attacker. For this you would also have to replace e.g. the ships every 15 years or so – because otherwise they will be outdated (which makes it even more expensive).
leon1.) In all major wars of the 20th century the majority of weapons were produced not 40 or 20 years in advance, but during the war itself or in the years immediately before it.
2.) No major war of the 20th century was a surprise, but in all cases the involved powers increased their armament in advance, because it was obvious that the war will start soon.
3.) All states, who spend a lot in defence, had or have strong economical problems (e.g. USA, Britain, USSR etc.).
4.) No NATO state was attacked in the last decades with military means (the only attack after the Second World War was in 1982 by the Argentinian military dictatorship, which exists no more). Most NATO states are surrounded by allies and there is no visible thread for them. There are no major opposing camps as they were e.g. before the First and Second World War and during the Cold War.
5.) It is necessary to consider the political circumstances – not completely hypothetical scenarios.
The alternative is that Vietnam de facto cede their claim on what they perceive as their part of the Spratleys. They dont seem to like that idea….hence the frigates. Perhaps you can tell them they are going the wrong way about this and they just need to resolve the issue politically.
Vietnam obviously has no chance to win a war against China – and it already lost several of its islands to Chinese invasions. The Vietnamese economy is to weak to able to finance a military on the level of China. It is also to weak to able to finance a military, which could deter China. Vietnam only chance are political solutions (but anyway I am not a fan of the Vietnamese or Chinese regime…).
The only known example of working deterrence is probably the Cold War – which anyway resulted in a big number of hot wars, therefore deterrence was not working perfectly even in the Cold War…
So, effectively, instead of increasing the power of the RN with all the associated benefits that come with that for our manufacturing base, for our ability to honour our commitments etc, etc we should actually reduce our foreign policy goals and commitments so we can shrink down our Navy???.
The UK public debt in July 2011 was £940.1 billion (61.4 per cent of GDP) – including all financial sector intervention it was £2266.3 billion (148.0 per cent of GDP). (reference). Britain is not in a economic state to afford a bigger navy…
Odd that isnt it?. More so for the fact that they have been running to ‘two-tier’ hi/lo escort mix you have been championing for years. Maybe its a very delicate balance to strike?.
No, it is not strange, because France has very similar economical problems, e.g. public debt, to low state income, to high defence spending in the decades before (especially during the Cold War) etc. It is clear that it has to reduce its fleet – and as Britain after the Cold War it also needed less ships.
Actually most NATO states have big economic problems, gigantic debts etc. – most made a very similar economic policy in the last decades, which is e.g. based on a reduced state income (taxes).
The Lafayette design is a 25knt patrol frigate. Its job is patrol not fleet duties.
All I had read about this design points to the fact that it was designed to be able to be part of the carrier groups… Charles de Gaulle has also only a maximum speed of 27 kn. But for sure you are right that it is predominantly designed to be a patrol frigate – for which they are mostly needed. I also have not read that they had problems in the war against Libya – they have used predominantly their 10 cm gun…
@ swerve: you include a lot of not first class ships (e.g. in case of France) and completely outdated warships (e.g. in case of China).
Sign In
