British forces track Russian warships near UK

Well people did say the Nimrod MPA 4 was to Expensive , costs over runs etc nothing like Ajax 🙄

House of commons answer said something like £400-500 mill spent on cancelled Army armoured vehicle projects
Ajax is ongoing, but sunk costs are quite small in relation to the ‘system cost’ which is what you are thinking of
Remember always the system cost is often 3x the actual production cost

‘Has the ability’. So much so the RN have acquired NSM (and rightly so!). Portland won’t be given 32 to carry, and I’d be doubtful if the WSOs are cleared for surface engagements.

And neither would the Russians… And yes of course the RN is acquiring NSM. CAMM is a Surface to Air weapon with a secondary ground attack role and a range of about 20m, NSM is a dedicated surface attack missile with a range 10x that.

At the end of the day, in a tracking operation like this, getting within CAMM range is not a big deal.

Modern ships don’t have armour like the gun armed ships of old. A few volleys of 4.5″ will fuck most ships these days.

never get that close , thats why the 4.5 in is for shore bombardment duties or small speedboats with some AA fire capability , drones cruise missiles … do they have chaff rounds still ?

https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/590x/secondary/4623502.jpg
Well they demonstrably do get that close.

And use a 4.5 in ???.

This is just like a High Street parade all for show

Attacking a *freedom of navigation* naval vessel suits China, Russia, Iran 100% and just maybe maybe starts WW3

Do keep up with the hypothetical child. If you can’t follow the conversation don’t jump into the middle of it.

That is clearly not what Dern, myself, and others have been saying in this thread.

It is exactly that close proximity, which is common in these scenarios when the RN escort Russian units through the Channel, that makes me believe the ASM assets we DO have, even if they’re not NSM and big fat long ranged ASMs, will do damage.

And which then set off arguments on this thread as those on the receiving end of that suggestion did not like it.

So when theres a military parade say in a city centre that represents a scenario for real hostilities.
Russian warships transiting the Channel is exactly like that.

You arent going to be close enough to use the 4.5 in gun in a real hostilities situation is all I commented on.

Mate the thing I’ve learned with Ducker is he’s not interested in what’s actually being argued, instead he invents a fictional argument that nobody is having in his head and then tries to portray everyone as if they’re opposing the his stance, even if they’ve said nothing of the sort, or are still trying to work out what his exact position is.

I know, I’d moved on already!

Well said Sir!

USS Stark was disabled by Iraq, a DDG destroyer disabled by a launch.
Ukraine was given targeting coords by USN P-8 above the Romanian coastline
Remember HMS Glorious a carrier, sunk by a battleship. Often the real problem is wrong people in command rather than the vessel itself

This is the peer threat that invaded Ukraine and lost multiple ships to a nation without a navy.

So you arguing that even a non peer threat can make a big damage?

Obviously?
That’s why training and maintenance are important.

This is just Russian posturing and trying to remind everyone that it still has a navy, even if half of it is barely workable, it obsolete I’ll maintained and frankly useless. We don’t need to get our knickers in a twist over this kind of thing Russia has learned the hard way that state of the arts, western hardware is far too good for them

I agree, but it’s worth engaging with the hypothetical from time to time.

Hardly!

We Will probably never know what went wrong with moscva, as Russia are too busy pretending it wasn’t hit. Its equally likely it was hardware failure as human mistake.

Or design failure when being hit. So why not with these ships too, as posters are telling me the AS capabilities we have “would not scratch the paintwork”

Harpoon on this site has been slated for years and it blew Moscva sky high. I believe the UKR used their own version of it?
Bottom line, I don’t dismiss our capabilities so easily just because Russian warships sail past.

None of the UK ships or planes in the area had harpoon and the difference in explosives packed into harpoon vs the helicopter launched ones is huge. If they can be carefully targeted to hit a specific point of the ship then it could do significantly damage but that’s a big if and would also involve the ship not shooting down a very slow flying helicopter that would have to be well inside defensive missile range to fire as they are super short ranged.

This little flotilla is nothing. Strap a few harpoons to a river, and I’d back the river to cause carnage. This is posturing and should be viewed as such

Yes harpoon is same as Ukrainian Neptune anti ship missile that did the job on moskva

Thanks, I thought it was. So, if Harpoon can do that, why not a number of smaller missiles hitting with accuracy.

That’s before NSM arrives.

Moskva hit a fishermans lobster pot bout and just fell apart from the rust.

It was hit. By 2x Ukrainian Neptune anti ship missiles. Well documented.
The Moskva series cruisers have a serious Achilles heel or 3.
Their targeting radar is uni directional
Their CIWS are not independent but linked to central sensors in the combat centre
The ship was sat in amongst a busy shipping lane in amongst merchant vessels, obviously hoping to complicate targeting. It didn’t work and only contributed to a lot of background clutter that missed the incoming anti ship missiles closing from a direction their uni directional targeting sensors weren’t expecting. Eg not the threat axis expected.
All this was widely reported at the time.
Then once hit. Missile silos on deck blew up.
I’m concerned you are employing an old trick of rehashing past history to change the narrative and known facts.

It’s well documented that Ukraine said it was hit, there is no actual evidence of that, but yeah seems highly likely it was. But that wasn’t my point, my point was we don’t know why the missiles got through multiple layers of air defense systems that the ship had, and that part I doubt we will ever found out as Russia is not likely to be transparent about it, like happened with hms Coventry etc.

The missiles got through because all the Multiple Layers of systems/sensors are old 1970s junk that don’t work a lot of the time.
If u ever get a chance to see the inside of one of these cruisers or find a video of it have a good look at the kit they have, it’s remarkable it ever would work effectively even with constant training.

The ukrainian missiles are hardly cutting edge tech either. Hopefully one day there will be a public enquiry and we might find out the full story. It’s entirely possible it was just a pile of junk but that at this stage is just an assumption

It is irrelevant even if was a late WW2 anti ship missile the Russians would not have detected it probably. I think the main issue were the old Moskva search radars.

But it is also possible that the ship was not alert and the Russians did not expected that capability from Ukraine.
For example in Sheffield the CIC replacement went to bathroom or some place else, while the CIC boss was resting.

I never got how the RN didn’t think that risk through. It’s pretty common for a rotation with the boss being resting and it can’t be uncommon for the guy on station to need to pop to the toilet, at some point in their shift leaving a gap. With missile detection range being in the seconds out range, surely someone would have thought through the scenario during the years before, it was not like sea skimming missiles were cutting edge tech at the time they had been around for at least a decade.

Skipping off to finish the vodka bottle more like

Missiles got through on USS Stark too.
Its command failure on ship [see USN destroyer collisions], which is the same issue with Sheffield.

The crew was problem ‘bombed’out in vodka to operate any kind of layered defence

I seem to recall reading that the Ukrainians distracted the Moskva’s AD with two Byraktar drones then hit from the other side with the Neptunes. Mr Bell’s comment about the unidirectional radar fits in with that.

The Ukrainians did have the advantage that they built the Moskva and they likely have retired officers that served on the ship. So they would have been well aware of the ship’s limitations.

There’s no sign of the world usual accompanying tugs.

Haven’t they only been able to take out a couple landing crafts in dock other than the famous one. I don’t remember any other vessel being sunk that has defensive capabilities.

Clearly its not a realistic threat, as Russia would be absolutely insane to attack a nato country with a single ship, which couldn’t not hope to achieve much.

It does however demonstrate how badly defended the UK really is, should it ever need to defend itself and its water ways.

They have displayed how incompetent they are many times. No good having lots of weapons if none of them reliably work or are maintained.

Nope, Ukraine has taken out (either sunk or rendered unoperable):

• Saratov, a landing ship in harbour
• the Moskva
• Several landing and assault craft around Snake Island
• Veliky Ustyug, on or Russia’s modern Buyan class Corvettes that was damaged by the Ukranians and had to be towed away for repairs
• Vasily Bek, a tug (and therefore a high value asset for the Russian navy) that was being used as an amphibious asssault vessel, struck by harpoon missiles and sunk.
• Ivan Golubets, a minesweeper, despite having CIWS and 25mm guns was struck by Ukranian USV’s.
• Another landing ship that was put out of action by USV attack in harbour.

On top of that the Russian Frigate Admiral Makarov was knocked out by Ukranian USV attack but has been returned to active service a few days ago.

Safe to say that a number of those have defensive capabilities. Sorry, I mean “had” defensive capabilities.

It toom dozens of these hitting an Iraq patrol ship in the first war to sink it, they aren’t not designed to take on such a big ship.

I think they originally did, when they were first purchased along with 4 of the destroyers, but it now seems common for them not to be fitted. I read somewhere only 2 sets were currently being used, maybe the rest are being held back to extend their service life.

Even if a T23 has Harpoon, as GB has explained many times letting that go into one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world isn’t the best idea.

Well if we had cause to use it due to a Russian ship launching a missile strike, I don’t think they will care.

Hmmm, I think they would. NATO and the West go for precision not blow em sky high and damned the consequences.
Why would Russia launch a missile strike within NATO territory anyway, are they suicidal?
I assume these ships are being held at visual range, not ideal for Harpoon use I think.

I was replying to Steve in relation to type 23 armoury not the ins and outs of a possible retaliation by the Uk, and frankly nobody can second guess the mind of a madman.

Indeed. And I was questioning the use of Harpoon in this situation as we ourselves are not mad and that weapon has its advantages, and disadvantages, in thatit’s as likely to go after other merchantmen in the area as the intended target.

On Putin, we’ll have to differ. He’s not a madman to my mind. He is ruthless, calculating, and knows what he wants, which includes western division. So even the staunch Putin loyalists on those ships might not obey his instructions to kill themselves by firing on NATO within NATOs backyard.

Because, regardless of whether the RN has the capability to take them out, if we don’t, someone else in NATO will.

Then what?

Honestly in visual range the 4.5″, 30mm and Phalanx will make a mess of anything naval. And frankly, I wouldn’t fancy trying to launch any sort of ASuM with the kind of lead hitting my ship that a Type 23 can put into the air.

Side point, if a RN Type 23 chucked a few Stingrays within visual range of a Russian Warship would the accoustic homing work on it, or would it just dive deep looking for a submarine that isn’t there?

Yep, I’m sure they would mate. I suggested as such top of thread but I dont know what I’m on about apparently as they’d “not scratch the paintwork”

On Stingray, no idea on that one, one for Deep or GB maybe?

And why would that happen? it isn’t a movie. That 4.5 inch gun could mince a Russian warship. Sea Ceptor also has a secondary anti ship capability.

Bloody hell does nobody listen or read on here. I was not suggesting they use it only that they have Harpoon, too many people on here ready for an argument rather than a discussion, so you saying it isn’t a movie is really rather pathetic.

Hi Mick. No one was disagreeing that they don’t have it, you’re right to point it out.
I did not list it in my initial reply top of thread to rmj as I don’t think in this instance it would be a weapon of choice, and I mentioned why.

There is no arguing. Arguments happen if the poster who is challenged creates an arguement rather than considering other posters observations. As in my posts that I don’t think the missiles we have are as bad as people make out, and my comment re Harpoon.
People have different views and we debate them, as is the point of the comment section on this site. That’s all. 👍

As for movies, I suspect that Robert’s point is whenever this subject rears its head, Russian ships passing the UK and the RNs supposed lack of capability, the same old “we’re doomed and we’re crap” posts appear seemingly based not on any SME or knowledge, but on blow em all to hell my guns/missiles bigger than yours, typical of any movie.

Tactics, professionalism, procedures, real life, that this happens on countless occasions, and the fact these vessels are sailing past the UK, which they’re entitled to do, just as our T45 sailed past Crimea, is not a movie. It is a delicate situation that requires professionalism, and the posts are blow em up we need a bigger missile.

And some posters question that nonsense.

Hi Daniele – An absolute essential in warfare is to get the first blow in when the enemy least expects it. The element of surprise is a huge force multiplier. Look at Pearl Harbour. The Russians have done nothing except threaten us for months. I know you will disagree, but I recommend that we sink them, solves the transiting problem. They will give us a wide berth next time. Sort it out with NATO later.

Hi mate. You’re right. I do! Plays straight into Putin’s hands.

Besides, looking at the comments on this thread.
We’re crap. We’re useless. We have a popgun for weapons. The RN is clueless.

So no sinken em mate. 😉

Jesus christ, have you heard of MAD?
Do you really think opening fire on peacefully transiting ships of a NUCLEAR POWER, is a good idea!?

And yes, lets look at Pearl Harbour shall we? Here are the Battleships ships that where “sunk”

• USS Arizona: Entered service 1916 Total Loss
• USS Oklahoma: Entered service 1916; raised, sold for scrap, sank en route to scrapyard
• USS California: entered service 1921, returned to service July 44
• USS Nevada: Entered service 1916, returned to service October 42
• USS Pennsylvania: Entered service 1916, returned to service Jan 42
• USS West Virginia: Entered service 1920, returned to service Jul 44
• USS Tennessee: Entered service 1920, returned to service Feb 42
• USS Maryland: entered service 1921, returned to service Feb 42
• USS Utah entered service 1911, converted to target ship 1930, never recovered.

So that “amazing surprise” only actually put down 2, old, battleships. most of the rest where out of commission for as long, if not longer, for their modernizations than for their repairs.

Pearl Harbour was only the opening aria… followed with days by action against Hong Kong , US bases in Philippines destroyed, Malaya attacked and Prince of Wales/ Repulse sunk.
The Japanese had a coordinated attack plan across the pacific, and fate that had the carriers went in harbour didnt change a thing

And within 4 months the UK was back in the Indian Ocean hunting the Japanese with 5 Battleships and 3 Carriers, and came within a hairs breath of sinking the entire Kido Butai.
Within 7 months the Kido Butai was on the bottom of the Pacific outside Midway. Which kind of goes against the “carriers weren’t in harbour not changing a thing bit btw” (Although given how quickly some of the Battleships where back in service it’s possible the US would have had it’s carriers back by then).

All that amazing co-ordinated surprise got the Japanese about 3 months before they where on the strategic back foot. And arguably, had they declared war conventionally, they might have been able to sink the US battleship force in deep water, like Repulse and Prince of Wales, in which case they’d never have been recovered. Bit of an own goal that.

Back in the Indian Ocean ? Big deal, that was only a limited excursion by the Japanese and when did the RN get back to the Pacific – excluding the time the US was so short of carrier they borrowed Victorious.
Hairs breath goes both ways but Midway was game changer , best to see Coral Sea and Midway as a pair

Thanks for demonstrating you don’t know what you’re talking about, since as I mentioned, the entire Kido Butai was in the Indian Ocean at the time, and had Sommerville not changed course he’d have sunk the Japanese Carrier force long before the Americans ever got an eye in at Coral Sea (at which btw the Kido Butai wasn’t present so pretty interesting that you want do categorise the main Japanese Carrier force as “a limited excursion” but make Coral Sea, where there was a secondary fleet as really important) and Midway.

The RN didn’t get “back into the Pacific”, it didn’t have any capital ships in the Pacific pre war, but you answered your own question with HMS Victorious (Which being sent isn’t the “gotcha” you think it is, since it was sent in response to US Carriers being damaged at Santa Cruz, long after the surprise attack, going more way to confirm that the attack on Pearl Harbour wasn’t the “oh my god look how great a surprise attack is” that was being argued, or have you lost track of what this was about).

“Hairs breath goes both ways.” No it really doesn’t and again, goes to show that you’ve never looked at the Indian Ocean raid. Sommerville had the advantage in guns and armour, he had the advantage in night fighting, the Kido Butai wasn’t trained to fly at night, and the sun was setting. Had he not changed course he’d have had Warspite and 4 R class ships plus uncontested air cover on the Japanese.

Good on you for being the only one who sees it this way.
That 5 carriers, a light carrier and 4 battleships were going to be destroyed .
Sommerville didnt know it was that strong and fortunately didnt find out too late and only lost Hermes and 2 8in cruisers.
What ships did Somerville sink ?

Congratulations, you managed a wikipedia read. Slow clap.

Now come back when you actually understand the near miss I’m talking about.

Clearly HMS Sanctimonious survived the war – unscathed.
an Armchair Admiral like you with the what if plans at your fingertips is no contest
Read about some real courage and attacking spirit in asian waters rather than a whole RN fleet which achieved nothing.
Andaman Is and Singapore recovered after main Japanese surrender
Put that in your next book
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Li_Wo

Look whose talking. Did that chip on your shoulder come with Fish or do you have to pay extra for that. M
Maybe learn to follow a conversation and keep to the matter in hand and I’ll take you seriously.

Just to remind you this is a conversation about how the surprise at Pearl Harbour really achieved very little.
But hey, you’re just such an angry little child you feel the need to keep going into the reeds. Goodbye, come back when you calm down.

I’m not an expert on the Pacific War so I’ll take what you say as fact.

However, given what happened to the Nord Stream II gas pipelline at the start of the UkR war I think the Russians should be discouraged from sending a naval squadron about the N Sea checking on our energy assets. Its taking the piss

The Turkish airforce shot down a Russian jet a few years back. Putin’s response was zilch. Thats exactly what would happen if we sank their ships – nothing. Except the RN would gain experience of using what armament they have and we could later salvage the nuclear weapons that are doubtless on board that Russian cruiser. We could stage a provocation to make it look legit, NATO would back us. We should stand up to Russian bullying

It would also make sure that Sunak does not renege on the 2.5% of GDP increase in the defence budget.

I’m just going to point out that there is a difference between a potential IFF issue with an aircraft that may have been violating Turkish Airspace in a active warzone, which resulted in the death of 1 pilot, and opening fire on a fleet of warships with a combined crew of well over a thousand, that is conducting a peaceful transit in accordance with UNCLOS.

The fact that you want to risk a nuclear exchange is troubling, I suggest you take a long sit down and think about what that would entail while destroying our reputation on the international stage, for what?

Oh and btw you really think Russia destroyed Nord Stream? lol

Yes . Sholtz made a special trip to Washington to tell the US , the Ukrainians did it. Coincidentally immediately after the NY Times gave the similar US version but could only say ‘shadowy Ukrainian linked groups’, as to say more would reveal the depth of US intel on Ukraines leadership
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/us/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-sabotage-ukraine.html
They had known for some time but wasnt politic to reveal to obvious over who would benefit the most from ruptured pipe lines

Pretty much on form, Ducker ducks out of the main conversation and gishgallops on one point angrily. Shock.

And suggesting the Russians might a launch missile strike while transiting the English channel on a routine transit is also rather pathetic.

Oh look, Mick going around name calling more people who don’t agree with him…

Agree – they’re very sensitive to anything that challenges the notion that RN is deficient in it’s ability to deal with threats. Complacency is a threat to performance, as is group think. Sending T23s to escort a potentially hostile peer without ASuW capabilities is lazy and complacent. It doesn’t support training for all, nor help develop TTPs. The RAF QRA provides valuable training opportunities for all (armourers, J2) – yet no FGR4 leaves with just a Mauser. Too many on here fawn/ pander over the RN capabilities, which when it matters is what they’re sent into conflict with. People here are blinkered by group think and fail to see gaps in capabilities which could cost lives! Pre Falklands the same people would have been lauding T42/ T21s as highly capable ships. Thankfully the RN are getting their act into gear NSM, Sea Ceptor on T45s etc, however the time for Group Think has to be over, and critical thinking the way forward. Sorry but there are too many yes people on here.

Thanks a sensible post art last

I think if you read the vast majority of SMEs posts on here you will see the RN weaknesses raised, discussed and hopefully mitigated by other factors! Many posters are critical of the RNs capability gaps, lack of funding and possibly incorrect (on their opinion) priorities but they also correctly research, debate and understand the other factors which come into play, such as skill sets, training, technical etc etc! No one is blinkered and I don’t see much of any group think on here. But that’s your perception and opinion, I think it’s incorrect. Read posters historical posts and then make a judgement. Cheers.

It’s the standard sort of response on here from the armchair admirals who can’t see the obvious weaknesses in our defences.

I don’t care if no rational person would trigger a war with nato, we know pootin is not rational. It can’t be ruled out.

Nato support after the event is no use to the poor buggers on our under armed ships who are in the potential firing line.

Thank you

Bloody Hell is Mick even capable of engaging someone in a polite manner when they don’t have the same point of view as him?

Oh they would care, when 8 missiles launched take out 8 merchant ships instead of the target.

Some RN website pages don’t get updated for years.

Thanks had no idea that was the case

Shockingly Mick has no idea about something…

Yes. They no longer have the Dmitry Donskoy, decommissioning it earlier this year. Before that it was the world’s largest submarine. 48,000 tons submerged. That’s big.

Very possibly. It’s fun to play with some (easy ) numbers though. A PW launched at 10 miles and 600 mph would take 60 seconds during which a slowly cruising warship might only move its own length so even GPS might be effective. 10 miles is also within the horizon so laser illumination from a shadowing River OPV might be able to illuminate the target. If the attacking aircraft could remain undetected or unrecognized until it got within 10 miles the AA target’s defences would be tested?

A WS doing 12 kts (transit speed 10-15 kts) covers 400 yds in 1 minute, it might well miss the target!

Yes, indeed, as you say. Just playing with numbers….

Ah, yes. I’d forgotten about Brimstone.

I think Sea Eagles are way past sell by/use by date & have been disposed of years ago.

Oh look, an anti-UK post from an idiot with half a dozen posts on this website… what a shock.

Hi mate, all is good here, how’s you?

all good with me thx Airborne.

Pompous little person aren’t you, first you don’t read what someone has written, then you decide that you are the only person who could possibly be correct. Nobody minds an alternative viewpoint but most people can’t stand some Pratt bigging himself up.
If you had read my post I started by asking if T23 had Harpoon, ? It was a simple question, I did not suggest that as a Russian ship transited the channel we should blow it out the water or hit multiple cargo ships trying to hit it.
It was a question that was all. So expect responses of the nature you have received if you act in the way you have.

Mick
15 hours ago
Reply to Daniele Mandelli
Well if we had cause to use it due to a Russian ship launching a missile strike, I don’t think they will care.
Reply

To be fair Mick you did mention Russian ships launching a missile strike! Also, your terminology is a little grumpy, Daniele may actually be 6 foot 3, so not little, he may not be pompous just knowledgeable, and may consider passing on his considerable subject matter knowledge being helpful and certainly not being a “Pratt”!

Again I would recommend reading historical posts to get a flavour of how Daniele is one of the most level headed posters on here! Opinions are like arseholes mate, we all have one, but knowledge can be selective. Cheers.

I don’t presume to know much about naval warfare and frankly was just having a chat ref harpoons, 18 hrs ago Steve M messaged about that if anything was to happen what could we respond with. And I asked about harpoon,
I didn’t then need to be lectured by that pompous person and frankly I couldn’t give a toss if he was 6ft 3 he still is pompous and acts very much like a Pratt. I will back off as frankly he bores me and you have at least written a perfectly polite post which I respect.

And I wrote a perfectly polite post to you, way back in thread, which you ignored, didn’t you?

Here it is.

“Hi Mick. No one was disagreeing that they don’t have it, you’re right to point it out.
I did not list it in my initial reply top of thread to rmj as I don’t think in this instance it would be a weapon of choice, and I mentioned why.
There is no arguing. Arguments happen if the poster who is challenged creates an arguement rather than considering other posters observations. As in my posts that I don’t think the missiles we have are as bad as people make out, and my comment re Harpoon.
People have different views and we debate them, as is the point of the comment section on this site. That’s all. 👍
As for movies, I suspect that Robert’s point is whenever this subject rears its head, Russian ships passing the UK and the RNs supposed lack of capability, the same old “we’re doomed and we’re crap” posts appear seemingly based not on any SME or knowledge, but on blow em all to hell my guns/missiles bigger than yours, typical of any movie.
Tactics, professionalism, procedures, real life, that this happens on countless occasions, and the fact these vessels are sailing past the UK, which they’re entitled to do, just as our T45 sailed past Crimea, is not a movie. It is a delicate situation that requires professionalism, and the posts are blow em up we need a bigger missile.
And some posters question that nonsense.”

Where is the pompousness and being a pratt in that?

Know one said we’re doomed, however I do think the RN has a history of under arming it’s warships and being complacent. The Falklands is a casing point. The recent acquisition of NSM is a step in the right direction and a realisation that a 4.5″ and Sea Ceptor are not battle winning capabilities for surface engagements. Up till recently posters on this forum were regularly suggesting we didn’t need a heavyweight ASuW and thankfully the RN disagrees.
Maritime QRA is an ideal opportunity to test TTPs, and in my opinion it’s poor drills for a frigate to be sent to escort without it’s fit.
My view will undoubtedly differ and I welcome other opinions, and yes I do know what the other sides A/N/J2s look for and they should never be underestimated. As I say complacency and group think are dangerous.

‘no-one’

Hi rmj

“we didn’t need a heavyweight ASuW”

That Included me. And I did not say we did not need it, I said such systems should primarily be mounted on a fast jet, as fast jets have greater flexibility to attack OpFor vessels, not warships, and as I understand it ( I may be wrong ) the RN do not operate that way with regards to ASM on ships.

NSM is a bonus, and in my view more valuable IMO for its land attack capability, not anti ship.

The RN does not plan to sit in an ocean exchanging ASM with the Russian fleet, like some World War 1 Battleship exchange. To do so puts that RN escort in harms way to locate and come within range. Russia’s navy concentrates on a Bastion doctrine, that is north of the Kola in the Barents and Kara Seas, and our surface units will not be sailing up there, but protecting the GIUK, and NATO carrier forces for strikes into the Kola maybe as close as the Norwegian Sea. Their other fleets are as constrained as the Northern Fleet is by the GIUK. The Baltic is a dead end in war, as is the Black Sea. Their Pacific fleet not the RNs concern, and is equally constrained by Japan and Korea from its main base in Vladivostok. Petropavlovsk on Kamachatkha is not constrained, but primarily a submarine base.

Their threat is their submarines, cyber, and their long range missiles. Finding a ship on the wide ocean to target with a long range ASM is an issue in itself, and Russian surface assets will last 5 minutes the moment a major war kicks off if they’re anywhere near NATO waters.

That, is why I have often suggested an ASM on SHIPS is not vital. It is nice to have, if money not an issue. An ASM on fast Jets is, and THAT should be number 1 priority.

Why should a RN escort risk itself attacking Russian surface units when it is better to risk a fast jet and one pilot than a ship?

Even Gunbuster once tried to explain here once that the RN’s purchase of Exocet was primarily to target surfaced Russian subs. ( apologies if that is wrong he said that many years ago ) People scoffed at him for some reason, and he’s the SME no 1 bar none on here.

When ships are in close proximity like this with escort duties you have the shorter ranged missiles, which you said top of thread

“Common denominator on RN/ RAF assets – none of them carry any ASuW capability.”

When we actually do, even sub optimal ones like you say, in Martlet, the gun, Venom, when it arrives, and Ceptor.
Agree on the RAF assets though, beyond using Brimstone and Paveway, an air launched ASM is also needed for MPA.

That at least, is my take on it. But yes, we have a different opinion and that’s fine mate, all good here. 😃

Just to add, regards China that is another question entirely, but whether the RN would be toe to toe with them I doubt it.

Dude sit the fuck down and shut up with your 66 posts.

No, I can pretty much guarantee I would you little shit.

Daniele has 16k posts, and a proven track record of being an insightful, informed, and polite interlocutor, you’ve rocked up and withing fucking less than a hundred posts shown yourself to be nothing more than an angry little troll. Shut up, learn to post politely, or fuck off. Simple.

Anytime you creep, now fuck off and bore somebody else

Make me.

You have no idea how much pleasure that would give me creep. And how easy it would be. Now go away prick

Really? Come on. Show me if it’s that easy, or is idle threats on the internet all you can muster?

Mate. Thanks for this. I’m awake now, and have read and replied to this imbeciles posts myself.

Nope. That is in your mind as you have issues. I chipped in with a perfectly friendly response, seeming as Harpoon had now entered the conversation, that there are issues using it in congested sea lanes.

Quote –
“Doesn’t all type 23 frigates carry Harpoon?”

And my reply –

“Even if a T23 has Harpoon, as GB has explained many times letting that go into one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world isn’t the best idea.”

To which you could have said something like “Oh, why’s that then?” or words to that effect?

Instead, you stuck to your guns, with –

“Well if we had cause to use it due to a Russian ship launching a missile strike, I don’t think they will care.”

And then I tried to explain why, seeming as you’re clearly not interested.

“Hmmm, I think they would. NATO and the West go for precision not blow em sky high and damned the consequences.
Why would Russia launch a missile strike within NATO territory anyway, are they suicidal?
I assume these ships are being held at visual range, not ideal for Harpoon use I think.”

The BOLD bit I highlight as me mentioning that, even though YOU did not, as you say, is the whole point of this thread, seeming as rmj started it with the point we have no ASM, which I replied to him was not the case.

You ignored that reply from me, and got the huff with Robert instead
”
Bloody hell does nobody listen or read on here.”

To which I sent you a six paragraph explanation TRYING TO DIFFUSE and be friendly, pointing out a few viewpoints.

Again, no reply from you.

And now the name calling, as that chip on your shoulder grows, I’m a “pompous” little person.

And this gem ” then you decide that you are the only person who could possibly be correct”

Not decide. It is either a alternate view or a factual reply when a poster replying knows some fact so they indeed think they are correct. In my case, that is regards Harpoon, due to the info the real SME here, GB, has explained many, many times over the years.

But Mick with 69 posts would not have seen that.

Fine. Just a note, if you post, expect to be challenged on this site with either a different view or a factual response. You clearly have issues with that.

So as you’ve resorted to name calling, so be it.

**** off. Clear?

cheers my friend😉

Military Really ! You don’t know the half of it , with your stupid stories , watch what’s going to happen to the channel tunnel soon then write a story for your little friends mate !

Oh dear this Kremlin paid poster is angrier than many of his previous colleges.

A new but cheaper version of JohninMK and out disappeared after being gripped Frost002!

Tell you what I was polite, but as you’ve proven to be a child like nob jockey, it may be time to keep an eye on your tantrum level.

I’m stating a fact , no tantrum I’m just fed up of people who have never been in the forces talking garbage and what I said about the channel tunnel is true , within the next 3 months it will be gone, believe me , don’t believe me , that’s your choice my little friend

Wow I take it Co op we’re knocking out white lightening 2 for the price of 1! I love the ones who “state facts” which are not in fact, facts, but delusional versions of their own perceptions and agenda. But he ho, we will play your game! So my friend, what’s going to happen to the channel tunnel? Where’s it going, maternity leave?

Most people on here know what they’re talking about and many will have forces experience. Have some respect, it doesn’t cost anything.