"The Royal Navy’s Most Powerful Warships Have Spent Most Of" Topic

…Their Time In Port Due To Serious Maintenance Issues

"TWO of the Royal Navy's most powerful warships have spent the past year stuck in port with maintenance problems, defence chiefs have admitted.

The £1.00 GBPbillion Type 45 destroyers have been docked in Portsmouth while Russia steps up its hostile presence around British waters.

HMS Daring has not spent a single day at sea since 2017, when it sailed for a total of just 85 days…"

link

Main page
link

Armand

Link IS from 'The Sun', lol.
Not surprised, though.Still, better to be u/s in port than needing a tug!
But, that's a LOT of painting done! Strange to think that some could have 'joined the Navy to see the World'… and spent their service life in Portsmouth. lol.

Russian 'hostile presence'… well, yeah, but not like we would DO anything about it. Probably 'could' have…if needed… but needing a tow could have been a little embarrassing…so best not.

Glup!.

Armand

The RN has had issues with both crewing ships and keeping them maintained. The Type 45s especially have a number of major design flaws relating to their engines- they literally overheat and "trip" leaving ship without power. The engines struggled in warm climates too – eg Persian Gulf or Mediterranean.

I am not sure if this was rectified since I last read about it a couple of years ago

I thought their carriers were supposed to be "their most powerful warships".

Perhaps someone has some inside intel.

Article was The Sun…'Gotcha!'… so 'pinch of salt' on your chips, (if you wanted them wrapped up in it!
Carriers 'would' be, if F35 DOES actually work. Still being worked up with US help! At least they got rid of the catapults! F35 'MAY' not be quite as bad as some have made it out to be? But, We HAD working Harrier Carriers!
Subs really pretty good… so long as they don't run into a rock!
(Just HOW do you do that in probably the best charted Home Waters anywhere?)
Not sure which 'state of the Art' ships… maybe Type45s? But radars enclosed for 'stealth' (lol, how does THAT work?) needed seawater coolant. Warm seawater, no coolant. Switched Off!
We've still got HMS Belfast… wonder if it could work?
I am not 'Forces', but pretty sure that many in design/procurement just see "Ooh! That's new… let's go for that!", when 'old' kit, refurbed, could still do the job and maybe better.
Servicemen, please excuse my ignorance.

In my civvie ex workplace, someone had the bright idea to buy in a fleet of small delivery car/vans. Expensively modified, but would be more efficient to run and make great savings on crew costs, etc. (SOUNDS FAMILIAR?).
TOO SMALL for the job, SO sold off or used for 'runarounds'!
Ageing fleet of larger vans, so THEY bought into 'HIGH TECH' new vehicles. AGAIN, crew cost savings!
Design flaws, (Doors fell off!) and High Tech continually made U/S. By now, worn out OLD kit 'run to Death', so crews sitting, waiting for something to return from workshop… and either 'failing deliveries'or 'completing on overtime'.
'Faults WERE rectified' but 'Market' NOW uneconomic… so goodbye Staff. (Troops/Sailors?).
FAMILIAR? lol!

[quot]We've still got HMS Belfast

One thing I don't get is that even large ships only carry 8* anti shipping missiles and no reloads (even older ships carried up to 16 or 24 inclusive of reloads).

Indeed an 8,000+ ton Type 45 or Arleigh Burke Flight I carries 8 anti shipping missiles which is the same as a 1,500 ton Gepard or only double that of a FAC/light corvette such as Tarantul or La Combatante which pack 4 such weapons.

Modern VLS don't fit Harpoons.

Anti ship warfare is based on firing whole salvos of missiles so as to overwhelm enemy defences. In the Cold War days the number of missiles expected to be launched in a volley was dozens!

So your great big 8,000 – 10,000 ton cruiser/destroyers fires a salvo of 8 missiles at an enemy ship and then what? Engage with a lone 127mm gun or even worse 76mm or even 57mm gun?!? Try to outrun the enemy (works for a fighter jet or fast attack craft but not a big whopping destroyer).

*Arleigh Burke flight IIA through to III have no dedicated anti shipping missiles currently. There are plans to obtain weapons as well as jury rig surface to air missiles to provide rudimentary anti ship capability?

Much respect to Modern Crews, but I would NOT like!
I can only see it as 'Fast Draw'…WITH the reply 'incoming' before Your shot strikes!
Re Falklands: 'Modern? ' ships CANNOT take hits!

Now, some ships'might'survive' a 'strike'' but I just cannot see a 'reply' as possible, 'systems too shaken up'…never mind 'effective!
Always the 'try', though!

WW2 ships Could take hard hits …11" shells, bombs, even torps and function…to an extent! What has gone wrong?

So, more like floating batteries then.

"One thing I don't get is that even large ships only carry 8* anti shipping missiles and no reloads (even older ships carried up to 16 or 24 inclusive of reloads)".

Reminds me of a lot of the Cold War Soviet vessels.

Presumably there was little to no confidence the vessel(s) would survive to reload, if things went hot, so why bother adding reloads for the vessels(?).

Even is a missile hit doesn't result in a kill, or sinking, frequently the shock damage and any burning, surplus fuel will knock out many, or most systems, crippling the vessel, and keeping it from being opeational.

Threads on the modern RN on here seem to attract more than their fair share of ill informed negative comments.

Presumably there was little to no confidence the vessel(s) would survive to reload, if things went hot, so why bother adding reloads for the vessels(?).

Even is a missile hit doesn't result in a kill, or sinking, frequently the shock damage and any burning, surplus fuel will knock out many, or most systems, crippling the vessel, and keeping it from being operational.

That assumption is fine if you build a large fleet of cheap missile launching ships like the Chinese or Russians do.

But most modern NATO navies have gutted fleet numbers down to negligible – eg the RN only has 19 escorts (and that will go down to 14 actual warfighting ships in the future).

Losing even a couple would have a massive impact on combat capability.

I have a great deal of faith in the RN and it's confirmed ability to work round and cope with 'situations'.
Re Falklands!!! And more recent.
Doesn't mean someone doesn't F Up! S**t Happens.

Much less faith in MOD procurement and 'Modern' Warships in general. And Government policy!

Our (British) Armed Forces NEED serious 'Beefing Up', not downsizing. When you look at the 'capability' of UK Forces… 70s, 80s and even 90s… and NOW!

I DO NOT WANT High Speed Trains, Superfast Broadband, More Airport runways, Grants for Home Insulation…
I would LIKE UK Industries to be given contracts for Ships, AFVs, Aircraft,,, or at least 'bits of', Munitions, etc. AND the production of materials needed for such…
WITHOUT 'interference' from 'Foreign' Bodies.
A bit Sad, really.

And, SO MUCH still usable 'kit' has been sold off or scrapped. OF COURSE, 'Mothballing' COSTS! But, given the time required to produce NEW builds… which might not work, anyway!

"Mutter, Grumble!"

Falklands

The RN (and to some degree RAF) were in a lot better position in 1982 than they are now.

The RN could survive the loss of 4 surface combatants and another 2 badly damaged and still come out undiminished. Today that would cripple the navy completely as it would constitute a 33% loss rate! by 2035 that's a near 50% loss rate.

Indeed the RN deployed 23 frigate/destroyers to the Falklands against a third rate power whose entire stock of anti shipping missiles was 5 Exocets!

Today the fleet is 19 frigate/destroyers. By 2035 there's only 13 "first line" frigate/destroyers – Type 31s don't count as they are OPVs with no warfighting capability. Type 32s will be some sort of special operations support vessel.

Britain is no longer capable of acting independently. Even the deployment of the new aircraft carrier required extensive bolstering by NATO allies including most of the F-35s carried aboard her and two of the escorts.

arealdeadzone.
Sorry, but just don't believe 'stock' of 5 exocets.
Does that not mean 'Launches'?
Argentines had Naval Air Etendards. Ship based AND land launchers!
Two ships ' sunk' by Exocets and another severely damaged… plus another 'near miss'.
Think another land launcher may have been captured…
VERY LUCKY, considering…

NOW? RN will always do what it can but just ain't a joke about rowboats anymore! NEEDS mORE!

Mght be wrong?

Heedless Horsemen, only 5 Exocets delivered before French embarged them. All were expended during the war. Though vast majority of RN ships were sunk by dumb bombs dropped by A-4s.

No Argie ships carried Exocets at the time (and save Belgrano none were deployed including the Argies own Type 42s)
No land batteries either.

Of Argies 9nvadrd in 1983 they probably would have won- lots more Exocets plus British carrier fleet mainly gone.

I thought that a Land deployed Exocet Hit the Glamorgan.
link
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet
Things may be 'murky'… 'arms trade'!

By my count:
1 Hit Shefield. Possibly another 1 'miss'.
1 Did for Conveyor… but possibly 2 ? ''Article' says 2.
1 'miss'. Disputed Avenger/Invincible attack.
2 launches at Glamorgan ??
So Definite 5, but 'could' have been 6/7 or more?

The 1982 equivalent of 'Tiger' tanks in WW2?

Thought that some Argentine Corvettes had… or were 'fitted' for at time. Certainly had them a year later.
link

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet

Does not add up to 5 'if' 'misses/possibles' are included! lol
1 plus 'possible 1 'miss' on Sheffield'
1 but possible 2 Hit Atlantiv Conveyor1
1 missed Avenger/ Invincible.
2 launches at Glamorgan?

'Articles', 'Accounts' and 'History'???

Article says that 'Land Launched' were removed from 'old' Ex US Destroyer. Think that Argentina had 3 such? Not sure about armament, though.

'Possible' that Glamorgan hit was from AA missile rather than an Exocet? No idea. Accounts say Exocet.

'Rivet Counting' but with 'consequences'.
RIP to all down there.

Didn't know about the land based one. Thanks for info. The 5 I refered to were the airlaunched ones.

Argie surface fleet played no real role in the war as far as I am aware.

Pretty good Falklands Naval vid:
YouTube link

The Argentine Navy WERE ready to 'have a go'. 'Luckily' didn't happen. Sad though the 'Belgrano' sinking was, 'deterrence' may have saved many lives in it's sacrifice.
Even at the time, I HATED that 'Gotcha' headline in The Sun rag.

Thereafter, Ordered to stay out. Argy Air Force and Naval Air…'Bl***y Heroic', and that is said with consideration for Brit losses. :( Land troops didn't do 'all that' badly, considering that they were up against 'The Elite'… and NO-ONE really wanted to be there, anyway.

All in all, a Sad event, but, from Brit view TOTALLY necessary. You Just Don't let someone invade 'YOUR' soggy, wet, windy… and from 'Some' recollections, maybe unappreciative , (in some instances!)… turf.

A REALLY good read, (If you can find a copy which does not 'disintegrate' after nearly 40 years!), is 'Don't Cry For Me, Sergeant Major'. Mainly Land actions, from embedded UK press/troops view! Often Bl***y Funny!

link

LOL!!! is THIS IMAGINATION compilation? Nice footage, Though!
YouTube link

Wiskey Tango Foxtrot!!! LOL!!!

A Closer Look At The Royal Navy's Dreadnought Class Submarine Being Built By BAE

YouTube link

link

Armand