[Closed] Bloody great Russian Carrier in the Channel

Its got nothing to do with people being in 'Lifetime jobs' more the ineptitude and short-termism of those at the top that they answer to, politicians

SRSLY?

[img] [/img]

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.

I presume this assumes the fleet doesn't fight back? Or is there really such a big weapons gap that two Western ships can beat a Russian Fleet and all it's aircraft with impunity? Serious question.

I assume there are UK and Russian Subs in the area. Same question re them. Is ASW so ineffective that Subs can currently blow up a load of ships in one fleet before they're blown up? Serious question.

And you can bet there is a Navy sub loitering somewhere nearby.

At least two SSNs will have been shadowing the fleet since they set off and will follow to the Med and back.

I presume this assumes the fleet doesn't fight back? Or is there really such a big weapons gap that two Western ships can beat a Russian Fleet and all it's aircraft with impunity? Serious question.

All ships are vulnerable to torpedos, one SSN can sink an entire fleet. Hence the Russian fleet will have it's own SSN escort to try and sink the attacking SSN.....

Brilliant book on the subject is https://www.amazon.co.uk/Silent-Deep-Royal-Submarine-Service/dp/1846145805

Pretty much who can target and press the button fastest.
The type 45 system is mutli-target sequential threat assessive, etc.
It'll already have worked out the best round to fire and where to aim it before you've thought about it.

At least two SSNs will have been shadowing the fleet since they set off and will follow to the Med and back.

Are these the ones that can't quite go as fast as they're supposed to? I hope their charts have got the sandbanks on them.

They can't outrun Russian SSNs, but they can outrun most surface ships.

And yes, they are the ones which have occasionally grounded...

Peter Hennessy's book goes into great detail on all the collisions (with sand banks, trawlers, Russian subs and all the problems they've had with them). Still amazing pieces of technology.

Common knowledge amongst anyone working in the dockyard down here for years.
The amount of manpower put to screwing over the MoD

Having worked in the Shipyards in which both these companies work, I can assure you that more money is lost to "communication difficulties" between the MOD and the Navy than to any perceived screwing from BAE.

Think about it, when requirements for a new contract are raised, BAE will usually offer two alternatives, a high priced, highly capable one which is basically the Navy's wish list and a more conservative one which meets the MOD's interpreted requirements of what it believes the Navy needs....which do you think gets accepted?

Now, assuming its the latter (which it almost always is) contracts are drawn up and signed between the MOD/HMG and BAE. Now, how much time and effort do you think the Navy then places into getting as many of their rejected wish list into the requirements only model? If you guessed "A LOT" give yourself a pat on the bike, that's right. And so, BAE are, through iterative contract changes, updates and delays, required to alter/adapt/butcher their conservative design into some kind of bastardised version of the pair...

All this time, the MOD with their "job for life" sit there, raking in the £££ not caring how long it takes, whilst BAE, losing money with each delay, change and adaptation, scramble to make any and every cost saving possible so they don't lose on the contract due to factors outside of their control.

You'd be AMAZED how little money BAE make on a £1Bn contract. Having been there and seen (both in the contract re-negotiation and on the dock floor) most of this first hand...most of the blame cannot be laid at BAE's feet.

Loving Clodhopper's comments - you love it you wannabe Kim Philby.

Best thing about scenario is comedy comment from MOD spokesman: something like 'it's all pretty normal and expected. We'll send a destroyer'.

"Why would we want to "do anything about it" ?"

Well, if we can ignore the military hardware fanbois having a circel jerk over things for a moment; it's not about [i]wanting[/i] to do anything about it, it's that the UK [i]can't[/i]. Forget the 'it's a knackered piece of junk' nonsense; the Russians have more than adequate military hardware for their needs, despite what Western propaganda may say. The UK wouldn't dare to engage with Russia in any conflict, because it would be absolute insanity. Forget NATO being of any use; no other nation other than the USA would be daft or belligerent enough to want to instigate WW3.

As this thread demonstrates, the UK still thinks it's one of the big dogs, but in reality, it's just a yappy little toy poodle. I imagine many in Russia are laughing their socks off at the Royal Navy sending out a couple of boats to 'monitor' the Kuzetsov, and I'm sure Putin finds it amusing. This was a symbolic act by Russia, and the UK fall for it. Embarrassing.

I imagine the Chinese are quietly chuckling to themselves, over this latest bit of nonsense...

I imagine many in Russia are laughing their socks off at the Royal Navy sending out a couple of boats to 'monitor' the Kuzetsov, and I'm sure Putin finds it amusing. This was a symbolic act by Russia, and the UK fall for it. Embarrassing.

Hardly, it's standard practice for navel ships in your territorial waters to be 'escorted'. Happens all the time all over the world. It's just not a big deal.

" It's just not a big deal."

So why's it all over the news, then? 😕

You'd be AMAZED how little money BAE make on a £1Bn contract.

I seem to remember a senior BAE manager telling me a couple of years ago they'd made so much money on the T45 build they were in danger of having to give some of it back.

They do come unstuck occasionally though - [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khareef-class_corvette ]Khareef[/url]

I presume this assumes the fleet doesn't fight back? Or is there really such a big weapons gap that two Western ships can beat a Russian Fleet and all it's aircraft with impunity? Serious question.

Just think how many UK and allied NATO aircraft are within easy scrmabling distance of that ship as it essentially tours Europe. They can't really do anything can they? And even if they did that would basically start WWIII which would not be a terribly good idea.

the Russians have more than adequate military hardware for their needs,

Hardly, it's standard practice for navel ships in your territorial waters to be 'escorted'. Happens all the time all over the world. It's just not a big deal.

Yup - Norwegians sent a frigate, I expect the Spanish to do the same. France might roll out the welcome wagon.

So why's it all over the news, then?

Because selling papers/clicks is more important than the truth.

Barrel bombing civilians?

Carpet bombing them and attacking with drones has worked well for the West...

So where are the ships now? Do they show up on marine traffic shipping websites?

So why's it all over the news, then?

A bit of distraction news is always good, especially if it's all "Britain is great, Britain rules the waves". Half of what's left of the NHS has probably been sold off on the quiet while this is generating some pathetic flag-waving.

/cynical mode

As pointed out several times, none of this is remotely newsworthy other than it's the only chance most people will get to see an actual Russian aircraft carrier; it's entirely standard practice to escort foreign forces through territorial water / airspace.

"Just think how many UK and allied NATO aircraft are within easy scrmabling distance of that ship"

I thought the comment was aimed purely at the two UK ships, which surprised me. I'm less surprised that every submarine, missile and aircraft in range could destroy them all.

Not that it matters since a few peasants with improvised weaponry have beaten us at will in any away match you care to name.

"it's entirely standard practice to escort foreign forces through territorial water / airspace."

Perhaps not to describe it as man marking though. Mind you was that from named source, if not I'd be tempted to ignore it.

RT's take on it all...

https://www.rt.com/news/363403-russia-air-carrier-europe-reaction/

This is STW and none of you have questioned whether that ships wood burner is DEFRA exempt. Shame on you all.

When I opened this thread the picture of the Russian ship came up and then just to the right the advert for World of Warships started - it looked like the Russian ship steamed across the page was targetted by torpedoes and then was sunk. Felt a bit weird

Worked in the defence sector for 20 years and the vast majority of "being screwed" is down to the ineptitude of MOD, continually changing its mind, delaying to 'save money' when it doesn't, failing to even keep its kit operational and pi$$ing-off it's good people that they leave. Political meddling in procurement decisions which add time and cost, running competitions when there's only one UK company capable of doing it, foisting requirements on contractors to make stuff that doesn't work, despite being told not too, Making redundant a significant amount of its technical people such that its no longer capable of even managing upkeep of its own ships such that they keep breaking down. Often they don't even know how bad they are - they put ships into a dockyard for upkeep and the list of repairs takes twice as long and twice as much to repair and then whinge that they're being "screwed". BTW we do still have one carrier, Lusty, it's parked in Portsmouth and about to be towed to Turkey for scrap.

It's armed with Chestnuts I see. I had a bunch of those fall on my head last year, it bloomin stung. Though those were american chestnuts.

It's more in the news because it is delivering weapons and more support to Assad, to carry out his flattening of Aleppo. Coupled with the fact you don't see a Russian aircraft carrier passing by the UK very often.

or a catapult launched nasalised version of the Typhoon.

Maybe it was a cunning plan of distraction to allow the Norwegians to park up in Scotland:

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-37727025 ]BBC News Norwegian Navy in Scotland[/url]

The Russian Destroyers are well tooled up, but much of the technology is old, obsolete and poorly maintained.

How on earth do people know this unless they work for the russian navy?

or a catapult launched nasalised version of the Typhoon.

Or maybe a harrier jump jet, which we had.

I seem to remember a senior BAE manager telling me a couple of years ago they'd made so much money on the T45 build they were in danger of having to give some of it back.

You seem to forget in his imaginary world he has some kind of clue because he worked there, lots of people have sub contracted to BAE on Type 45, Challenger ,Eurofighter ,Fres, lots of people know how much money goes where, theres a reason they call it Big And Expensive.

Well, at least this lot haven't sunk any British fishing boats on the way through.

[quote=philxx1975 ]
Or maybe a harrier jump jet, which we had.

Which we sold for £100m to the Americans less than 10 years after paying £600m to refit them. 👿

strategy, in case no one's pointed this out (this site's moving slowly on my work computer so hard to check):

Putin wants a weak and divided Europe.

Conflict in Syria - which might have ended had Russia not propped up Assad - has flooded Europe with refugees. This has put governments under pressure to close borders and increased the popularity of right wing populist parties. Without stories about refugees, Brexit (which certainly is weakening Europe as well as the UK) might not have happened.

Now I'm not in the Putin=strategic genius camp. but it does seem to be panning out pretty much as he'd want.

philxx1975 - Member

You seem to forget in his imaginary world he has some kind of clue because he worked there, lots of people have sub contracted to BAE on Type 45, Challenger ,Eurofighter ,Fres, lots of people know how much money goes where, theres a reason they call it Big And Expensive.

You seem to constantly presume that [b]you[/b] know more about things that happened in [b]my[/b] life.

Anyway, I'll bite. Having been part of the contract negotiation teams for both boats 4-7, and part of the Engineering change team charge with looking at the required costs to adapt the design HMS QE to both a nuclear propulsion system and a STOBAR/CATOBAR type launch system, I'd like to think I have some knowledge.

You seem to constantly presume that you know more about things that happened in my life.

Anyway, I'll bite. Having been part of the contract negotiation teams for both boats 4-7, and part of the Engineering change team charge with looking at the required costs to adapt the design HMS QE to both a nuclear propulsion system and a STOBAR/CATOBAR type launch system, I'd like to think I have some knowledge.

So what?

Fight, fight. Fight

Did it, like, make it out of Pas de Calais ?

Just looking at the clip on the news, is that thing coal fired??

My BIL is on ship shadowing them, not sure if he's on his T45, but if it breaks down again, be very embarrassing asking the Russians for a tow

Now I'm not in the Putin=strategic genius camp. but it does seem to be panning out pretty much as he'd want.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11666944/Ukip-under-fire-after-blocking-scrutiny-of-party-donations.html

Indeed with his support of Trump, was looking to pull off a similar trick to Brexit in the US

That torygraph link won't open for me:.. Any alternative sources???

Re Illustrious - even if she had remained in commission, she's almost 10 years older than Kuznetsov

Matthew Holehouse By Matthew Holehouse, in Brussels9:14AM BST 11 Jun 2015
The UK Independence Party faces criticism after attempting to block scrutiny of party donations, as part of a drive to halt Russian influence in Europe.
Nigel Farage and his MEPs voted today against measures calling for greater transparency of donations from outside the EU to political parties.
It came in a series of anti-Putin proposals proposed in Strasbourg including measures to counter Russian propaganda and stripping the country of its "strategic partner" status.
Ukip were joined by the European radical right in opposing the measures, including the Front National, which has received funding from Russia.
Ukip insisted that they opposed the measures because they think questions of party donations and foreign policy should be set by Britain, not the European Commission.

farige has had to deny allegations from the American government that he had been financed by Putin/russia sources as well

So is boris a russian stooge too?

You can see why this has happened. In the space of 40 years you have gone from a load of countries sitting on the eastern side of the iron curtain to those same countries now belonging to the undemocratic United States of Europe. No fan of Putin, but you can see why he is flexing his muscles.

jam bo - Member
So is boris a russian stooge too?

nah hes one of these brexiteer stooges

[img] [/img]

No fan of Putin, but you can see why he is flexing his muscles.

really, why?

up until he invaded Ukraine the EU,Germany in particular had very close trade relationshhips, Britain has been the most vocal EU member pushing for sanctions against the EU, its one of the reasons Putin is so happy with brexit

[img] [/img]

So what?

You implied I had no clue because I simply "worked there" and that my observations of BAE and its business were imagined.

You are, as always, flat wrong. That's what.

really, why?

They're in International Waters

Errm, no.... UK and French Territorial waters meet in the middle of the English channel. However, anyone can sail through them under the right of navigation, United Nations Convention On the Law of The Sea.

Almost all maritime straits operate like this, some countries made up of lots of islands, eg Indonesia insist that transiting ships do so along pre-described Arcipelagic Sea-lanes.

Just to get all technical like.

I thought that would be obvious. Countries which were once communist and sitting on your side of the fence are now swallowed up by a western 'democracy' and that said democracy is right on your doorstep as a collective group of nations who will eventually become more integrated

well why dont they join?

well why dont they join?

Russia, they shouldve signed up to join the EU

of course the Mail would have a shitfit over russian plumbers coming here stealing our jobs etc etc

Russia, they shouldve signed up to join the EU

You implied I had no clue because I simply "worked there" and that my observations of BAE and its business were imagined.

You are, as always, flat wrong. That's what.

Ha you think your the only person to ever work at BAE, I bet you witnessed the moon landings too in fact no according to how great you are you will have orchestrated them, there was no implication, re clueless you proved that in your previous regards managment then admit how much money you guys manage to lose 🙄

Someone sits in meetings at BAE then goes home after work to brag about it.

I've nothing to say other than it reminded me of this from my yoof

as you were

Perhaps Russia is just sailing their shittest boat through our waters to make us think they are a bit antiquated?

Russia's army could walk through Europe, apparently they have far more Nukes than Trumpton and China will side with them in a shitstorm - basically we are ****ed if they want us to be.

Oh and for those moaning that Dave has disarmed us to the point of being a sitting duck - don't most of you want that ****wit Corbyn in charge to get rid of the rest of our defences?

How on earth do people know this unless they work for the Russian navy?

because I spent the morning on one they'd just built for the Indian Navy about a year ago.
It was very old fashioned and antiquated compared to many other Navy ships I've been on (inc spending the last 10 years working with the T45s)

Russia's army could walk through Europe, apparently they have far more Nukes than Trumpton and China will side with them in a shitstorm - basically we are **** if they want us to be.

I'm not sure you understand the concept of "deterrent" or "mutually assured destruction".

I fully understand it - it doesn't matter how many nukes either side has, it's all over if a tenth of them go off. My point was, that Russia aren't some outdated superpower.

I'm not sure you understand the concept of "deterrent" or "mutually assured destruction".

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.

I wouldn't bet on it, if it's half as bad as described then I wouldn't discount anything, especially considering the state of some of the stuff we've sent to sea (before the Navy got it's budget completely trashed).

I don't see the issue.

Why is the media stoking paranoia with 'cold war'?

Brexit init.

making Britain great again.

We're gonna get the empire back....

We're gonna get the empire back....

Empire strikes back, good movie

hora - Member
I don't see the issue.
Why is the media stoking paranoia with 'cold war'?

@hora the war is more hot than cold - annexed Crimea, control half of Eastern Ukrain, shot down Malaysian Airliner

Russia clearly not a fan of the EU as ex Soviet Nations join and get large grants making thrm far wealthier than Russia amd thus destabilising the "morher land"

The more I see footage of that creaky smoking old tub the more I think it's a PR disaster, hardly projecting power is it ?

Its all about the gas pipelines innit...

http://www.anonews.co/ww3-syria/

war fantasists are gonna be disappointed I 'spect..

the soviets went - can we pop down through there?
we went - yeah mate, it'll look pretty cool and we might get a few extra trident votes

All your overactive imaginings from reading too much Commando and having homoerotic soldier fantasies is laughable

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?

All happened while NatWest attempted to shut down Russia Today. UK Gov denies they were involved of course. Coincidence the Russian fleet passed through right now? Perhaps as supposedly they'd planned heading to Syria before the NatWest thing. Then again, would they have taken the route through the English Channel before RT was threatened with closure?

[quote=TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsSTR ]Russia's army could walk through Europe

Well they'd have to - I don't suppose they have enough transport which works

I really don't know what the big deal is to see Russian fleet, I mean it is not as if they are hostile towards UK or any of the EU nation.

They are just passing through and I would welcome them for some fish and chips.

I mean are you lot really feel threaten by that old aircraft carrier? Their fleet is so old I bet they need to make their own parts while sailing to their destination.

The size of the Russian aircraft carrier is not even close by comparison to the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier.

Guess who has the most aircraft carriers in the world. Yes, the so called "world police".

At the moment the enemy is definitely Not Russia or Bashar al-Assad.

At the moment the enemy is definitely Not Russia or Bashar al-Assad.

Not sure the folks of Aleppo share your sentiments..

We have less than half the population and 1.5x the GDP of Russia, if we wanted to outgun them we could. We're just not governed by a mobster with a small penis.

considering the size of the two Sukhoi parked on the deck

Have you actually seen those things up close? At Culdrose back in the day one burped an engine and the whole place freaked the frock out, wasn't allowed to fly. Bloody huge.

Russia's army could walk through Europe

Why haven't they yet? oh, that's right, because its bollox.

As for the carrier, who honestly in the west gets intimidated by that? The only nation in the World that puts a tug to sea with its carrier in case it breaks down.

Russia's Submarine fleet however, is another proposition.

Russia's army could walk through Europe

They need to update their impressive military mapping

https://www.sovietmaps.com

We have less than half the population and 1.5x the GDP of Russia, if we wanted to outgun them we could.

This guy disagrees

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/17/uks-withered-armed-forces-could-not-withstand-russia-attack-reti/

I do wish people would read the posts theyre going to disagree with.

Naah, takes the fun out of it 😉

Has it gone yet? Can I come from under the table?

Have you actually seen those things up close? At Culdrose back in the day one burped an engine and the whole place freaked the frock out, wasn't allowed to fly. Bloody huge.

Aircraft carried:
Approx. 41 aircraft[4]
Fixed Wing;
12 × Su-33 fighters (current)
20 × MiG-29K/KUB fighters (future)[5]
4 × Sukhoi Su-25UTG/UBP trainers
Rotary Wing;
4 × Kamov Ka-27LD32 helicopters
18 × Kamov Ka-27PL helicopters
2 × Kamov Ka-27PS helicopters

 

big_n_daft - Member
This guy disagrees

I agree with him.

I want to see the expensive F-35B Lightning II that UK is buying in action.

According to the designer of F-16 all simulations involving F-35 ended with F-35 as sitting ducks for Sukhoi. Apparently, the contract for the US govt to buy/build F-35 was partly due favouring one company over the other.