Poiuytrewq wrote:Enough for a hostile force to turn around and head for home?
Too variable to say, to be honest.
Lord Jim wrote:NATO is not far form being broken and this adds further confusions to things. The military command structures have at nearly all level been made subservient to Politicians from the various member states greatly reducing the alliance's effectiveness. Decision at almost every level now require political approval from one committee or another. Like our Government many nations do not want to full accept how the world has actually regressed.
shark bait wrote:As much as we would like them to be, they are not a coastal navy any more. For the last decade they have been developing blue water skills, and since they're not breaking new ground they're learning very quickly.
We have yet to see a combat example of this, but we do have a botched evacuation in Libya followed by a more proficient evacuation from Yemen. They gained experience and moved on. I'm sure they have done the same in their war games in Russia and Iran, or on the tours of Africa.
Yes Russia failed, and their surface fleet is an embarrassment in decline. The Chinese have the opposite, and over the last decade the Chinese surface fleet has been more active then the Russians.
Its dangerous to underestimate the Chineese as a 'brown water' Navy.
Not quite, yet, I would sayshark bait wrote:China has the same ability to operate in the Indian ocean as we do.
A pier - like we have in Singapore (with lots of fuel!), or a dry dock, like what is being put in place in Duqm for anything up to the QEs?shark bait wrote:Djibouti
Well, with the base in the area now, the entertainment & relaxation ship (R&R in good old terms) can now be withdrawnRetroSicotte wrote:how well they can keep a cohesive force in unfamiliar waters.
This is the crux of the matter: PLAN is not going to sortie out to the Indian Ocean and attack anyoneLord Jim wrote: at the moment China is a very localised threat within an area they believe is historically theirs. They are being very methodical though and are expanding this sphere year on year.
~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote: the ongoing dependence on industrial espionage as a means to further their military industrial complex (combined with the apparent absence of almost any sort of real, domestic innovation capability)
dmereifield wrote:are they really in short supply for our allies in the far East?
Poiuytrewq wrote:History shows RN should never be underestimated even if heavily outnumbered.
shark bait wrote:Poiuytrewq wrote:History shows RN should never be underestimated even if heavily outnumbered.
This type of phrase pops up all the time, but does it actually mean anything in reality? I think it might be something us Brits say to comfort ourself, but it could be a dangerous attitude. History is good to have, but it does not define the present.
RetroSicotte wrote:experience relating to geographical logistics and capability
RetroSicotte wrote:about them escorts then?
abc123 wrote:Selling just 15 years old RFA Wave Ruler without replacement?
Pongoglo wrote:abc123 wrote:Selling just 15 years old RFA Wave Ruler without replacement?
What?? Is this news ?? You're source ?? Just done a search and there's nothing on the web , the MOD denied this in June last year
Well, they are going early enough, it is more likely that some would need to be extended, individually and with a "crash upgrade" to patch up numbers of their ASW brethren.Lord Jim wrote: would become more important if we let the GP T-23s go early
I don't think there is any "if" with that. Ideally the build of the Tides would have been dovetailed with the SSSs (i different countries!), the latest Fort upgrade cost could have been avoided - but I am sure the discount achieved by going for a 'batch build' was significant. The Koreans (and the Chinese) run a factory approach where the 'trades" go trough 3 or 4 of identical ships in waves and never sit idle - at least not while the batch is being run.Lord Jim wrote: if the "new Waves" come on stream
Poiuytrewq wrote:There is no rational justification due to the current lack of progress in the MH(P)C program
Poiuytrewq wrote:As far as Wave Ruler is concerned it would be another nonsensical loss in the same category as Largs Bay. Why would the UK sell this vessel?
Lord Jim wrote:With the Rivers, the B1s are what the RN needs for patrolling around the UK. The B2s are a quandary
Personally I think a Wave based in Singapore would be more valuable to our Allies in the region than a Leander style T31.shark bait wrote:I don't expect it would be worth it, especially if our Pacific deployments become more common place. Perhaps it would be valuable to forward base one of the Waves at our fuel depot in Singapore?
They are unbalancing the fleet and should be sold at the first opportunity.shark bait wrote: The B2 Rivers are a total shit show, but what's done is done, the cost is already sunk, how do the RN turn the mess around and deliver a valuable addition to the fleet?
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 17 guests