[Closed] Bloody great Russian Carrier in the Channel

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.

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.

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 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..

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!

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...