SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Skybird · 10-12-18, 04:40 PM

Kapitan,

over the past years it was to be read time and again how stressed the personell situation in thee british navy nowadays is. Not enough young men joining. Its the same like over here: or did you know that the Germans have 6 submarines, but only 4 crews?

the Germans could not send 5 boats even if they want. What this means if these crews suffer losses, can be eaisly imagined. There are no replacements currently. Just these four crews rotating in and out on the boats. There ar around just 100 German submarines over here!

Sweden is bringing back the draw. They cannot fill the gaps in their forces anymore.

As the article said, many of those platforms of the British navy that you claim to be still superior, have just empty spaces instead of the weapons that once were intended for them. Money, or better: the lack of money. Sensors and electronics may be of superior quality. They are also quite sensible to weather and saltwater and need many timeouts for maintenance. These ships are anything but untouchable. And with such low numbers of platforms in the fleet, every loss is even harder to be compensated for.

You said the British nation still has many international claims and obligations. But what worth is a navy of just 19 combat units? By the rule of three, 6 ships are undergoing repairs, 6 ships are preparing, and 6 ships are at sea. I wonder if there even are enough crews to have them all at sea? The article further says the carrier is planned to be escorted by 2 frigates, two destroyers and 2 subamrines. And there are TWO carriers. And then there are the tankers. Such a small fleet shall run all its many globla duties, and even protect those carriers and then four addiitonal tankers without which the carriers get stuck at sea?

A navy that cannot sustain its - low - numerical strength if meeting a determined foe in real war, is a peacetime flotilla only, or one that is meant to be used only against inferior enemies, preferrably without own aerial and naval means.

The whole carrier project is reality denial in my book. And it is even highly uncertain that these carriers will ever have as many planes aboard as they were designed for, the F-35 is no cheap plane.

And all this, without the amount of protection I would prefer to see when putting such stellar values at sea, should sail into harms way if a war brakes out that is more than just punishing some desert bandits in some godforsaken rathole of a country? Taking on China? Russia? Modern subamrines and air forces and drone weapons and cruise missiles waiting for big tasty targets like this?

These carriers are, as I said, two additional big tears wept for the loss of the past glory. It would have been better to spend the money for less global and more local defence matters. The times of Britannia ruling the waves are over. If Argentina would ever conquer the Falklands again, however unlikely that currently seems to be, Britain will lack the means to retake them like in 1982 - and 1982 already it was a close call. As the admiral back then meanwhile admitted, if any of the carriers back then would have been hit instead of for exampel the Sheffield, the operation would have been needed to be called off. It was close.

Its a bit like choosing a sword for a fight that is much too heavy and too long for your arms. If you lack the muscle strength, you may be better off with a smaller, lighter weapon that you find easier to swing and to block with. A good dagger. A machete. A gladius. But not that two-handed monster of a heavy broadsword that you have choosen but cannot even lift the tip of it off the ground.

Carriers imo are outgoing weapons anyway. For intel gathering, subs are better, and they are more likely to survive a hot war at sea - for now. It seems the Chinese work hard on making the ocean transparent and denying subs the option to hide in its depth.

Drones. Autonomous drones. Autonomous drone swarms. Autonomous drone swarms with swarm intelligence, but no sophisticated platform AI (might not be needed to get swarm intelligence, we see it at work in nature). That is what the future will bring. These carriers, carriers in general, are weapons to crack down on inferior enemies, and they are tools of political intimidation. But they are no weapons anymore to fight an equal enemy in battle - in that scenario they are just floating targets and not more. And with today's minimal ammunition ammounts on warships, defences can easily be flooded until they are all expended and faster so than they can be replenished at sea. War is about logistics, and money. And both seem to speak against these two monsterous British carriers.

Dreadnought and Battleships are no longer in service. For a reason. Carriers are the next type of ship to leave.

10-12-18, 04:40 PM	#6
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 40,737 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	Kapitan, over the past years it was to be read time and again how stressed the personell situation in thee british navy nowadays is. Not enough young men joining. Its the same like over here: or did you know that the Germans have 6 submarines, but only 4 crews? the Germans could not send 5 boats even if they want. What this means if these crews suffer losses, can be eaisly imagined. There are no replacements currently. Just these four crews rotating in and out on the boats. There ar around just 100 German submarines over here! Sweden is bringing back the draw. They cannot fill the gaps in their forces anymore. As the article said, many of those platforms of the British navy that you claim to be still superior, have just empty spaces instead of the weapons that once were intended for them. Money, or better: the lack of money. Sensors and electronics may be of superior quality. They are also quite sensible to weather and saltwater and need many timeouts for maintenance. These ships are anything but untouchable. And with such low numbers of platforms in the fleet, every loss is even harder to be compensated for. You said the British nation still has many international claims and obligations. But what worth is a navy of just 19 combat units? By the rule of three, 6 ships are undergoing repairs, 6 ships are preparing, and 6 ships are at sea. I wonder if there even are enough crews to have them all at sea? The article further says the carrier is planned to be escorted by 2 frigates, two destroyers and 2 subamrines. And there are TWO carriers. And then there are the tankers. Such a small fleet shall run all its many globla duties, and even protect those carriers and then four addiitonal tankers without which the carriers get stuck at sea? A navy that cannot sustain its - low - numerical strength if meeting a determined foe in real war, is a peacetime flotilla only, or one that is meant to be used only against inferior enemies, preferrably without own aerial and naval means. The whole carrier project is reality denial in my book. And it is even highly uncertain that these carriers will ever have as many planes aboard as they were designed for, the F-35 is no cheap plane. And all this, without the amount of protection I would prefer to see when putting such stellar values at sea, should sail into harms way if a war brakes out that is more than just punishing some desert bandits in some godforsaken rathole of a country? Taking on China? Russia? Modern subamrines and air forces and drone weapons and cruise missiles waiting for big tasty targets like this? These carriers are, as I said, two additional big tears wept for the loss of the past glory. *It would have been better to spend the money for less global and more local defence matters.* The times of Britannia ruling the waves are over. If Argentina would ever conquer the Falklands again, however unlikely that currently seems to be, Britain will lack the means to retake them like in 1982 - and 1982 already it was a close call. As the admiral back then meanwhile admitted, if any of the carriers back then would have been hit instead of for exampel the Sheffield, the operation would have been needed to be called off. It was close. Its a bit like choosing a sword for a fight that is much too heavy and too long for your arms. If you lack the muscle strength, you may be better off with a smaller, lighter weapon that you find easier to swing and to block with. A good dagger. A machete. A gladius. But not that two-handed monster of a heavy broadsword that you have choosen but cannot even lift the tip of it off the ground. Carriers imo are outgoing weapons anyway. For intel gathering, subs are better, and they are more likely to survive a hot war at sea - for now. It seems the Chinese work hard on making the ocean transparent and denying subs the option to hide in its depth. Drones. Autonomous drones. Autonomous drone swarms. Autonomous drone swarms with swarm intelligence, but no sophisticated platform AI (might not be needed to get swarm intelligence, we see it at work in nature). That is what the future will bring. These carriers, carriers in general, are weapons to crack down on inferior enemies, and they are tools of political intimidation. But they are no weapons anymore to fight an equal enemy in battle - in that scenario they are just floating targets and not more. And with today's minimal ammunition ammounts on warships, defences can easily be flooded until they are all expended and faster so than they can be replenished at sea. War is about logistics, and money. And both seem to speak against these two monsterous British carriers. Dreadnought and Battleships are no longer in service. For a reason. Carriers are the next type of ship to leave. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 10-12-18 at 04:55 PM.