 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
A bit far off for the iphone camera, but it's just passing Dover.
It's ok Brexiters, 2/3rds of the UKs navy are shadowing it.
They are doing it especially for the Daily Mail
Notice that a tug went through first? There's a reason for that.....
Like that they parked 2 jets up front though, just in their normal storage postion and not showing off at all 😉
Admiral Kuznetsov?
Is it being towed by a tug?
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37725327 ]BBC News[/url]
They're in International Waters, but it's another bit of Sabre Rattling by Putin.
Can anyone remember why we've got 'beef' with the Russians? It pre-dates Syria doesn't it, but post Iron Curtain? They've been flying bombers near our borders for years.
aP - Member
Is it being towed by a tug?
It seems more smokey than it was yesterday..... so I assume it will be shortly
I don't see the problem. We're doing as much sabre rattling as they are by making an issue of it. We could have welcomed them and made a virtue of the inevitable. Trying to look hard with two tiny ships just makes us look like ****s.
It's not [i]that[/i] great, though, is it?
Under Pres. Vladimir Putin’s regime, the Kremlin has laid plans to rebuild the fleet. But that’s easier said than done when the vessels most badly in need of replacement are also the most difficult to build—heavy cruisers, powerful destroyers and Admiral Kuznetsov, Russia’s sole aircraft carrier, which is barely seaworthy after nearly three decades in service.
From [url= https://warisboring.com/the-russian-navy-is-on-the-verge-of-collapse-b0ce344ebf96#.j5j0teqh4 ]here[/url].
They're in International Waters, but it's another bit of Sabre Rattling by Putin.
Absolutely - it's easier to take a carrier group round the other way then thread it through the channel. It's not that much farther either.
Could go a bit pear shaped if somebody accidentally paints them with a targeting radar, but that won't happen.
Trying to look hard with two tiny ships just makes us look like ****.
They might be smaller than an aircraft carrier, but they are more than a match.
I agree with outofbreath. The UK is like a silly little yappy dog against a Pitbull. It can yap all it wants, but the Pitbull can snap it's neck in an instant.
Empire is over. Britain no longer rules the waves. Bulldog spirit? It's nothing more than a posturing poodle now.
I say "Sabre Rattling" a quick glimpse of a map and it's seems it's just 'the way'.
[img] 
[/img]
what sailing a warship to where they are "at war"but it's another bit of Sabre Rattling by Putin
Its just sensible
Proud empire used to own half the world - ok Europe- reduced to bit part player as we encroach [ NATO/EU] to its bordersCan anyone remember why we've got 'beef' with the Russians?
It wants to be something it no longer is,just like us, a superpower
You missed out the part about having a configuration that means the jets must be extremely light to get airborne, meaning they can hardly carry anything and the durations are measured in minutes rather than hours
a quick glimpse of a map and it's seems it's just 'the way'.
..or if they wanted to get some nicer holiday snaps they should have gone around the West Coast of Scotland as would be normal.
They might be smaller than an aircraft carrier, but they are more than a match.
If two ships can beat a Aircraft Carrier & escorting fleet, why have fleets with Aircraft Carriers?
20 years ago, the Russians would have avoided using the north Sea/channel, and gone round the top of Scotland. Just to avoid diplomatic awkwardness. Now, Putin is deliberately sending that ship down the Channel as a way of telling the UK he can do what he wants. And the UK is more or less powerless to stop him. 20 years ago, the USA would have sent some ships to block the Channel. Shows how much less power they've got now, and for all the support the UK has given the US military, just how much they wouldn't piss on us if we were on fire.
Russia’s sole aircraft carrier, which is barely seaworthy after nearly three decades in service
We should do them a favour and pop a torpedo through the side of it. I'm sure they'd thank us for it.
Makes you pine for the good old days when we used to send out a cobbled together and badly maintained taskforce for a show of strength in some far-flung shithole.
Perhaps we should send out one of our aircraft carriers for a bit of sabre rattling? Oh wait....
P-Jay well invading Crimea, Eastern Ukraine and then shooting down a passanger plane would do it (what did Russia do ?)
It's not really "the way" the western route isn't that much longer and would normally be used as military don't want to be "observed" up close
🙂 at tug towing that ancient aircraft carrier - it does seem likely it's there in case the carrier breaks down !
smokey ol' ****er ain't it!
[url= http://mashable.com/2016/10/19/vladimir-putin-calendar/#_eNYvyGJ5aqp ]Are they giving out any free calendars?[/url]
@clod of course we are powerless to stop a ship sailing in International Waters in peacetime
Russia's economy has shrunk to the size of Australia's. The sanctions and oil price are hurting them badly.
smokey ol' **** ain't it!
Blimey yes ! Powered by a VW diesel ?
clodhopper - Member
I agree with outofbreath. The UK is like a silly little yappy dog against a Pitbull. It can yap all it wants, but the Pitbull can snap it's neck in an instant.Empire is over. Britain no longer rules the waves. Bulldog spirit? It's nothing more than a posturing poodle now.
Throughout history our military have fared well against stronger opponents. But this isn't just posturing, it's necessary. Imaging how we'd all be moaning if a Russian attack happened on the UK from those boats and we'd sent absolutely nothing.
One, it's a useful training exercise for our Navy. Two, it's helpful to get a intel on Russian Vessels, we'll have plenty of eyes on their fleet as they pass by. Three, it's one of the world's busiest shipping lanes and vitally important to our Isles, we need to protect and keep open. Why on earth would we let that go un-monitored?
If two ships can beat a Aircraft Carrier & escorting fleet, why have fleets with Aircraft Carriers?
The Admiral Kuznetsov isn't really an aircraft carrier, its a "heavy aircraft-carrying missile cruiser".
If two ships can beat a Aircraft Carrier & escorting fleet, why have fleets with Aircraft Carriers?
Normally, you put your aircraft carriers out of range of any other ships - not really possible in the channel.
And the UK is more or less powerless to stop him.
... And the UK is more than happy to get a good look at an aircraft carrier that would normally be kept well out of reach.
There's so much smoke it looks like it's on fire already.
And the UK is more or less powerless to stop him. 20 years ago, the USA would have sent some ships to block the Channel.
They are powerless. The Russians are entitled free and peaceful passage, as are the millions of other Foreign vessels who go that way every year.
Besides there will be 2 or 3 NATO subs sniffing around, my money would be on the subs in the completely unlikely event of anything actually happening.
🙂 at tug towing that ancient aircraft carrier
At least it has aircraft, unlike the RN [s]white elephants [/s]carriers.
🙂
So, basically, if you sink the tug, the whole battle group is screwed?
... And the UK is more than happy to get a good look at an aircraft carrier that would normally be kept well out of reach.
They can really get more by peering at it through binoculars than by doing a [url= https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Admiral+Kuznetsov&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi5uZPH2-vPAhWIIMAKHd71ByUQ_AUICCgB&biw=1395&bih=919 ]Google image search[/url]?
@gobuchal agreed our navy and armed forces aren't properly funded. Spending should be increased significantly
As recently as 1982 the United Kingdom could quickly muster no fewer than 115 ships?—?including two aircraft carriers carrying jet fighters plus 23 destroyers and frigates?—?to retake the Falkland Islands from Argentina while also undertaking other missions.
Today the Royal Navy doesn’t even have jet fighters or carriers capable of supporting them, having mothballed the last Harriers in 2010 and the final flattop in 2014. On a good day, the Royal Navy can call on just 17 destroyers and frigates for all of its operations everywhere.
[url= https://warisboring.com/what-sank-the-royal-navy-f5b0aedc0914#.4sbemp7r6 ][/url]
ALthough having steamed past Hull, Lowestoft, Dover and Southampton the russian sialors will go back with terrifying tales of the UK as a land inhabited by septuagenarian mutant zombies chasing eastern europeans into the sea on mobility scooters. So a propaganda win for us I think.
I did shake a stick at it. 😉
@matt thanks for that link interesting. Russia's largest ship ! I remember going out to see that huge US carrier off Portsmouth after the Gulf War. This Russian ship is a joke in comparison
As has already been pointed out, the [I]Kuznetsov[/I] isn't in the very best of mechanical health and is very expensive to maintain. Sections of the ship are missing heating, hence the Russian Navy's deployments to warmer climes.
The aircraft themselves are adapted from land based designs, with no catapult to hurl them off the deck, they're reliant upon engine thrust and a 'ski-jump' to get them airborne, which hurts range and weapon load.
However, the Russians have exactly one more aircraft carriers than we do (unless we include our Naval alliance with France whereby we share access to the [I]Charles De Gaulle[/i]). Clever Dave scrapped the [i]Ark Royal[/i] in 2010, the [i]Kuznetsov[/i]-sized [i]Queen Elizabeth[/i] and [i]Prince of Wales[/i] are at least four and eight years away from their in service dates and have exactly zero planes to fly from their decks. Our new carriers will also have no catapults and rely on 'ski-jump' ramps to get their hideously expensive and controversial jets airborne.
Probably best to just let the Russian Navy show off for a while and before waving them farewell once they clear the Channel.
If we're playing warship top trumps then it is fair to say that the T45 ships are a quantum leap forward from anything the Russians are currently running.
Yes, the T45s are plagued with propulsion issues but when it is all working, they are probably the most capable AAW Destroyers anywhere in the world.
They have provided support to several US Naval battle groups in the middle east, as the Sampson + S1850M Radar suite is the most advanced ever fitted to a surface combat vessel.
The Russian Destroyers are well tooled up, but much of the technology is old, obsolete and poorly maintained.
I visited one last year, which had been built in Kaliningrad for the Indian Navy (INS Trikand) it was surprisingly old school considering it was only a couple of years old.
All this is just posturing from Putin, nothing will come of it other than news headlines.
"Throughout history our military have fared well against stronger opponents. But this isn't just posturing, it's necessary."
Mostly myths. British military strength was mainly dependent on having numerous colonies from which to draw resources, and subjugated populations from which to press-gang cannon fodder.
Russia can now sail a knackered old barge right off our coast, just to show that they can, and there's absolutely **** all our military can do about it.
So in terms of aircraft carrier top trumps, they still beat thailand because they have some planes, and they definitely beat us. But it seems like a low overall score.
OTOH we win destroyer top trumps as long as it's our turn and we can choose "expense". But if it's the other player's turn and they choose "reliability", "value for money" "saleability" or "Actually having enough of the things that you can keep at least one at sea all the time", we lose the card.
On a good day, the Royal Navy can call on just 17 destroyers and frigates for all of its operations everywhere.
But, eh but, but what will the Brexiteers do to patrol that river between us and that there Urup?
Quick, someone tell the Daily Brexit #10thcenturyintellect
jambalaya - Member
@matt thanks for that link interesting. Russia's largest ship ! I remember going out to see that huge US carrier off Portsmouth after the Gulf War. This Russian ship is a joke in comparison
i remember that well, i come from Portsmouth originally and had a summer job working in a sports shop, all the yank sailors would come in asking for XXXXXL vests as the fashion was to wear them down to their knees.
They said that the captain pretty much had to be escorted by security round his own ship, it was that big that they had ghettos on board, areas where certain people would't go.
Also remember prostitutes coming down on the train from London (part of the service industry i guess) and getting of at the Hard train station.
Empire is over. Britain no longer rules the waves. Bulldog spirit? It's nothing more than a posturing poodle now.
You do realise that in our brave new world talk like that will get you clapped in the tower for treason?
*adds name to the list*
Brexit folk think the lyrics of Rule Britannia are an accurate reflection of modern geopolitics.
Russia can now sail a knackered old barge right off our coast, just to show that they can, and there's absolutely **** all our military can do about it.
because under UN conventions, there is right of peaceful passage. doing 'something about it' would be an act of war.
Are the french up in arms about it?
clodhopper - Member
"Throughout history our military have fared well against stronger opponents. But this isn't just posturing, it's necessary."
Mostly myths. British military strength was mainly dependent on having numerous colonies from which to draw resources, and subjugated populations from which to press-gang cannon fodder.Russia can now sail a knackered old barge right off our coast, just to show that they can, and there's absolutely **** all our military can do about it.
True but we are part of an organisation that currently has troops massing along it's borders in strengths last seen prior to a little operation called Babarossa.
Like your thinking Jambo, sink it and blame the French. Masterstroke.
[quote=thestabiliser ]Like your thinking Jambo, sink it and blame the French. Masterstroke.
I was thinking they've probably surrendered just in case.... 😉
Impressive amount of pollution from that relic, or maybe it's the latest Russian stealth technology 'making smoke'
Still his state controlled media will love using it to cover up the dreadful state or their country.
Russia can now sail a knackered old barge right off our coast, just to show that they can, and there's absolutely **** all our military can do about it.
Why would we want to "do anything about it" ?
A few ships using international waters to get somewhere else? Let's ****ing sink them!
Historically Russian ships do not tend to travel well - the Japanese crushed two fleets at the start of the 20th century. Only useful against opposition with no naval or aerial power of any significance. I feel most sorry for the poor , defenseless folk who will be on the end of whatever demonstration of power projection Putin has planned.
Hopefully this piece of crap will founder in a Biscay gale.
Hopefully this piece of crap will founder in a Biscay gale.
Stay classy mate.
Ever seen a Biscay Gale?
I assumed that the two RN ships were there (along with the RNLI on alert) so that if the old crate breaks down again, we could come to the rescue - also a fair assumption that they have come this way because of the worry that if a storm hit the atlantic, the thing would sink.
Plus it gives hysterical media lots of opportunity to ramp up paranoia rather than actually asking why our politicians weren't trying to smooth relations and invite the fleet to stop off for a diplomatic visit (that would really baffle Putin)
There's always the option of flying torpedo and depth-charge carrying maritime patrol craft overhead to show that we still maintain an airborne anti-ship deterrent, something like our Nimr...oh. Clever Dave scrapped those in 2010 too, didn't he?
That aside, the Channel is an international shipping lane and the Russian Navy have as much legitimate right to sail through it as anyone else. It's a bit of a non-story, but in these paranoid times the increasingly xenophobic British press are keen to drum up a bit of hysteria.
Can anyone remember why we've got 'beef' with the Russians? It pre-dates Syria doesn't it, but post Iron Curtain? They've been flying bombers near our borders for years.
It's not post iron curtain, it's post WWII. Relationships have been generally grim from then except for a brief improvement for a few years when Gorbachev and Yeltsin were around (Glasnost, collapse of USSR, etc.) but have taken a turn for the worse now the KGB have seized back control.
Could Guy Martin not pedal his air ship over it, dropping a few small charges while shouting 'Allez' and 'Vous sentez comme le boeuf et le fromage' to help blame the Frenchies?
I assumed that the two RN ships were there (along with the RNLI on alert) so that if the old crate breaks down again, we could come to the rescue
So a 40 ft lifeboat and a couple of destroyers would be able to rescue a broken down aircraft carrier? How exactly?
because of the worry that if a storm hit the atlantic, the thing would sink.
You do understand the condition and quality of a significant percentage of the ships that pass through Atlantic storms regularly? This thing will be way better maintained and put together.
There's always the option of flying torpedo and depth-charge carrying maritime patrol craft overhead to show that we still maintain an airborne anti-ship deterrent, something like our Nimr...oh. Clever Dave scrapped those in 2010 too, didn't he?
I'm sure we have a Fairey Swordfish or two knocking about...
I love it how the ministry of defence say that they are going to "man-marked every step of the way". What do they think the Russians are going start doing, dropping bombs on London? Its just an excuse for our military to sabre rattle as well. Boys with their toys.
As others have said, what is our and the Americans beef with Russia. Its all before Syria and why can't we just get on. Its not like we want to invade each other. I don't really understand why the Russians hate the west and vice versa. Maybe we just need to send BoJo off to Russia for a drinking session with Putin in Siberia to see if they can chill things out and agree to be friends.
It predates WW2, to at least the Bolshevik Revolution. However before that there were significant rivalries between the European powers.
Russia can now sail a knackered old barge right off our coast, just to show that they can, and there's absolutely **** all our military can do about it.
That would be because they're in international waters and have every right to peaceful passage.
It's very common for navies / air forces around the world to escort foreign navies / air forces through their territory or in areas close to their territory. Part of it is a show of force, a message saying "we're here and can respond".
Part of it is simple help - we're here to assist you if you get into any trouble or if you need help navigating the busiest shipping lane in the world.
And there's always a part of it where it's useful to get an idea of another forces capabilites or to engage in some international diplomacy.
One ex-RAF guy tells in his book stories of escorting Russian jets into Farnborough and Fairford for the international airshows and how interesting it was to see the aircraft up close, to talk to the pilots and how it was a perfectly normal deployment not the "fully armed jets scrambled!" story that the Daily Wail would portray.
Nice to see some RN presence in the channel for a change, hopefully they will sink a few immigrant smuggling boats whilst there.
Have we a suitable welcome committee on the cliffs at dover?
[url= 
](Click, but NSFW)[/url]
I'm slightly surprised that the Brexiteers didn't organise a couple of hundred supporters to line the coastline near Dover and as the carrier sailed past give it a slow handclap..
Dovers in Kent innit, Shirley UKIP homegrown rednecks are sniffing glue in doorways there..
Ur aircraft carrier iz saracin.
[quote=PJM1974 ]Our new carriers will also have no catapults and rely on 'ski-jump' ramps to get their hideously expensive and controversial jets airborne.
Though we are at least getting the F35B, which is designed to operate that way (a similar concept to the Harrier) unlike the Russian jets which as you note aren't. Do you not need a bigger ship to operate the C variant with catapults, so that decision is effectively a cost limiting one?
Reading about it on Wiki, the sister ship the Indians bought is just as bad...
Do you not need a bigger ship to operate the C variant with catapults, so that decision is effectively a cost limiting one?
You don't need a bigger ship, just a differently equipped one.
The government screwed up the BAE contract - it was supposed to be easy to retrofit a catapult to the design if they changed their minds mid way through.
When they decided they might want to change their minds, the cost was overblown.
It seems there have been quite a few political machinations over it all...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/17/f35_carriers_plot_by_bae_and_raf?page=1
You don't need a bigger ship, just a differently equipped one.
Differently equipped in that the deck, and spaces below it, would need to be very different and also much stronger to withstand the controlled crash that is arrested landings
Reading about it on Wiki, the sister ship the Indians bought is just as bad...
Yep, we've had first hand experience of that one at work - guy who sits opposite me has spent weeks on it - absolute pile of crap.
However, the Russians have exactly one more aircraft carriers than we do
Hardly relevant when we can fly out of the UK when it is in the channel, and monitor it through the Med from Cyprus and that's ignoring any submarine movements.
bikebouy - Member
I'm slightly surprised that the Brexiteers didn't organise a couple of hundred supporters to line the coastline near Dover and as the carrier sailed past give it a slow handclap..Dovers in Kent innit, Shirley UKIP homegrown rednecks are sniffing glue in doorways there..
Not a lot of room in Doorways for UKIP rednecks, they are full of Kosovans,Somalians,Romanians,Afghans etc no room for anyone remotely indigenous.
We should have just ignored the silly buggers.
Common knowledge amongst anyone working in the dockyard down here for years.
The amount of manpower put to screwing over the MoD outstrips the manpower used to build anything.
Its pretty much company policy to write contracts that allow them to basically re-write the end price anytime they want and even if the client chooses to not uptake on any extensions the clauses mean the client is paying for them anyway in penalties.
Utter scum are BAE
Utter scum are BAE
Whilst I agree with you, the ineptitude of those within MOD (and DES) who are negotiating multi-billion pound contracts with BAE is staggering.
Sounds like any private contractor dealings with Govt. Same in IT. Government are viewed as a cash cow.
Guess it's down to the difference between civil servants being paid and in a basically secure "lifetime job" and BAE's who are paying them considerably more to be the most ruthless, corrupt and devious b*stards going.
Who's going to work hardest at their job?
I've dealt with the MOD before and they are commercially inept and couldn't spot a good deal if it slapped them in the face. It's not their fault - it's what you should expect for people that have done nothing in their careers but work for the MOD. It isn't exactly a huge surprise that a government department is incapable of getting good deal - and the same goes for any arm of the government and public sector.
Basically by 'escorting' this thing with only 2 navy ships we are effectively ignoring this ridiculous facade by the desperate Russians. Any military vessel from any nation so close to UK shores would be escorted anyway, it's standard procedure and the fact we've only done it with minimal presence just shows that we're not excited. Though the ordinance on board those two 'small' ships will be enough to sink the aircraft career, the entire battle group and any aircraft they get airborne many times over. And you can bet there is a Navy sub loitering somewhere nearby.
Though we did buy the wrong aircraft for the aircraft carriers or offensive operational flexibility and capability however it clearly was a purchase of a defensive should have been the B variant or a catapult launched nasalised version of the Typhoon. - and future air combat wars are going to be fought by stand-off beyond visual range missiles anyway, with missiles launched from an aircraft that are targeted by a ground or airborne radar thousands of miles away. There is no need for aircraft to be able to fight their way into the combat zone, fight in the combat zone and fight their way out. However the decision was made 100% to support British industry and technical capability as the lift system in the C variants is 100% British designed and manufactured by UK companies. And also the Harrier is one of the only aircraft flying if not the only aircraft flying that has a 100% record in air to air combat, so the VSTOL concept is certainly not a dud concept.
So god speed Russian battle group on your way to carpet bomb and barrel bomb civilians in Syriah! Putin - you're the maaaan!