"What if the Russians...." Topic

Had sent TWO ships?

Russian vessel detected 30 miles away from Scotland last night
Only ship available to respond was on south coast of England
Tensions heightened when aerial photos showed ship full of missiles

Read more: link

Hmmmm, what was that I was reading awhile back about the RN being downsized? Clearly it is a good idea.

And what was that I was hearing about Scotland wanting to be free of the UK? Clearly ALSO a good idea.

One ship available to respond? Sir Francis Drake and Lord Nelson must be spinning in their graves.
Thirty miles is awfully close. Saw nothing in the US media about this.

No need to panic – all the recent ship, tank and aircraft reductions in capability have resulted in the UK having an all-time high number of well trained MOD Civil Servants ready and willing at a moment's notice to spin, gloss over and obfuscate any defeat or embarassement we might encounter…

Reductions in the numbers of ships result in a better use of resources enabling the Navy to provide a better and more efficient service.

I thought everyone knew that.

More Russian ships will be seen in the future with their plans to secure the artic oil. Personally I'd be more worried about the vessels that were below the surface.

Only one ship available to respond. Sounds like a plot from a Star Trek movie.

Reductions in the numbers of ships result in a better use of resources enabling the Navy to provide a better and more efficient service.

Yup. Just like at a busy restaurant, folks like to have only one person waiting on ten tables.

Good one Sparker

It gets better:

The Royal Navy has 15 times more commanding officers than active warships. Following crippling defence cuts, there are now 40 admirals and 260 captains but just 19 ships.

Read more: link

Maybe if these 300 officers drew rifles, at least they form a large boarding party…….

The Royal Navy has 19 warships?!

I agree with the downsizing. Much easier to keep 1 ship fueled and ready than 4 or 5.

It seems they do. Here is an interesting link:

link

Well, they would have sent the HMS Victory, but none of the Admirals and Captains could figure out how to start the engines….

I'm not holding my breath for the accuracy of that report.

Really? Thailand has double and North Korea has more than double the Naval forces/vessels that the US has? Who wrote this report, Kim Jon-un himself? Are they now including every canoe, longboat and fishing boat now as 'naval forces'?

David G.

The RN does actually have more than 19 ships – that's how many destroyers and frigates. 11 nuclear subs, 4 amphibious warfare ships (3 at sometime during 2014), minesweepers, survey vessels, patrol boats.

I'm a little surprised that the news article fails to mention the UK's lack of Maritime Patrol Aircraft, surely being able to get a MPA onto station would have removed some of the need to despatch a warship?

@dglennjr: Go to the link I provided above; England has 19 surface warships -- most of which are frigates.

More Russian ships will be seen in the future with their plans to secure the artic oil. Personally I'd be more worried about the vessels that were below the surface.

1) Britain is a long way from the Arctic.

2) Are you seriously suggesting that the Russians will attempt to secure oil in other countries' waters?

3) Submarines are pretty much useless for "gunboat diplomacy", the essence of which is visibility.

The submarines would be scarier if Russia was to go completely bonkers and declare war on Britain, but I think we can lie easy in our beds about that one.

Some of you Britons need to get a grip on your lack of Empire by the way. You don't need a huge navy any more. It's a monstrously expensive white elephant, justified by fading Imperial prestige.

Regardless of what we need, we haven't got a huge Navy any more.

All the best,

John.

Mark Plant

1: Scotland is fairly northern – meant that rather than it being in the artic

2: years ago Russia made claims to artic areas (and further south) that overlapped with other countries (Canada for one) and they seem to be actively patrolling where drilling is going on (ex: quick response to the Greenpeace ppl).

3: Russia has subs with high potentials of doing damage; but ppl seemed worried about a single boat with missiles; I'd personally be more concerned with what their subs could do and how to counter that.

Like you, I doubt Russia would declare war on Britain. Subs would be the "real" threat if there was one and that was the point I was trying to make.

I love this bit from the article:

‘Defender was fully equipped with Sea Viper surface-to-air missiles and guns capable of firing 40kg shells as far as 18 miles. Her captain and crew knew this was the real deal and were prepared to engage.'

So she was going to take on a Russian Cruiser with SAMs and a 4.5" gun?
And all of this came from a 'defence source'…such as the Mail's defence editor perhaps? This newspaper is a joke.

Why would you send a destroyer from one end of the country to the other when you can just buzz the cruiser with a couple of Tornadoes.

But the point about the RN being cut to the bone is sadly true.

79thPA nice link.
Canada hasn't got much of a Navy either.
12 Frigates
3 Destroyers
4 Subs
20 Coastal Craft
12 Mine

I can't remember the time when there was more than 2 subs in the water.
Many of the surface craft are tied up because of lack of personnel. Usually they run more in the summer with reservists.

Some of you Britons need to get a grip on your lack of Empire by the way. You don't need a huge navy any more. It's a monstrously expensive white elephant, justified by fading Imperial prestige.

I think the the requirement for a credible navy comes more from being an island nation where more than 2/3rds of our fuel and food needs come by sea, and where there is only 2 weeks worth of petrol in the system to keep the supermarkets ticking over…

As for the Empire, I think we are over it, as we have been force fed a diet of how evil it was since our first days at infant school…

Hence it comes as a bit of a shock to young British squaddies and matelows going ashore to restore peace and essential services in failed nations around the world to be forever implored by the common people to 'come back and make things run properly again'!

Why would you send a destroyer from one end of the country to the other when you can just buzz the cruiser with a couple of Tornadoes.

Because nothing says "that's far enough mate" better than a RN warship standing in your way.

I don't know if the problem is that the RN only has 19 major surface combatants or if it's a matter of their deployment. 6 destroyers and 13 frigates should make up 6 SAGs with three ships each. Why weren't any of them farther north and why weren't there any frigates tagging along.

Also, was the Defender armed with SSMs? That seems like a glaring omission!

I do worry about the Daily Mail readers basic understanding of military affairs. Mind you I worry about the Mails defence editors understanding even more. I have one simple question for him. Why wouldn't a Russian Cruiser have missiles on board? They are called warships because.. …. Well……. You see they are for waging war with. Guess what that needs in the modern age? Clue?……starts with M.