Former British Member of Parliament Matthew Gordon-Banks recently tweeted about how “just one missile will take out” a British aircraft carrier.

Former British Member of Parliament Matthew Gordon-Banks describes himself as a “Think Tank Director & Senior Research Fellow, Ministry of Defence, Defence Academy UK” and lists in his biography that he “Promotes Russian dialogue”.

Gordon-Banks tweeted on the night of the 9th of January the following:

When I asked why he was tweeting Russian propaganda about expelling U.S. forces from overseas bases and boasting about sinking British aircraft carriers with Russian missiles, he said:

“It may be my timeline on a Sunday appeared that way to you. Sorry if it did. When you believe dialogue is essential even in thee most difficult times & I do not suggest this is the worst, to realise one missile ‘might’, just might, take out an aircraft carrier shows fragility. We have carrier capability as Gordon Brown wanted to give work to UK/Scottish yards. SkyNews was unbalanced today to the point of propaganda.

There is another side: ‘know your enemy’. Too many have vested interests in escalation. Meanwhile I remain solidly British. An aircraft carrier does what it does, but it is also a floating target. War is unpleasant. It is not unpatriotic to say these things. Too many times in my lifetime UK service personnel have been required to go into action in at best dubious circumstances.”

Before finally adding:

“I was quoting what someone said. I am no longer associated with with any Government institutions. I am retired, and still remain subject to the Official Secrets Act. I think I’ve said enough on the subject for today.”

Matthew Gordon Banks is a former Member of Parliament.

He often tweets about how impressive Russian vessels are and how much of a “target” British vessels are, make of that what you wish.

Gordon-Banks has also allegedly boasted about supposed Russian security connections and allegedly threatened to make a young male student “disappear”, you can read more about that by clicking here.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
201 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
MR J L NEVETT
MR J L NEVETT
9 days ago

Wonder how many Rubles it is to the £.

Roger Hill
Roger Hill
8 days ago
Reply to  MR J L NEVETT

About 98 roubles to the pound. And your point being?

MR J L NEVETT
MR J L NEVETT
8 days ago
Reply to  Roger Hill

Would of thought it was obvious, But he seems a bit a a Russian pain mouthpiece.

MR J L NEVETT
MR J L NEVETT
8 days ago
Reply to  MR J L NEVETT

paid not pain.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
9 days ago

A silly remark to make, but what concerned me more than the tweet was this.

 I am retired, and still remain subject to the Official Secrets Act. I think I’ve said enough on the subject for today.”

Is carrier strike sufficiently armed to deal with this threat and if not why?

Last edited 9 days ago by Nigel Collins
Max Jones
Max Jones
8 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Missile defence doesn’t really enter into it. Missiles aren’t made to destroy fleet carriers. They hit above the waterline so most won’t sink larger vessels anyway but ‘taking out’ a carrier like that is going to take more than one missile. It was just a snide comment about someone’s obvious distain for the carriers.

JohninMK
JohninMK
8 days ago
Reply to  Max Jones

He might have said what he said in a particulaly stupid way but he was making the point, as many before have done, that carriers are very vulnerable and ours, with their minimal AD, more than most. Given that any incoming missile is likely to have some kind of Russian heritage then they are the ones to defend against. They do have, as you say, a whole armoury of side attack missiles incidently capable of operating as packs, but they also have top attack missiles designed to descend at too high an angle such that AEGIS can’t track it, to… Read more »

dave12
dave12
8 days ago
Reply to  JohninMK

Our AD ? I think professional in the know on chat put it previously that Russian radar is not the best hence why Russia put as much weapon systems as it can on its ships Russian surface fleet is a paper tiger its subs are more of a threat dont believe your own hype buddy.

Roy
Roy
8 days ago
Reply to  dave12

Then I guess the defence budget can be cut again …

dave12
dave12
8 days ago
Reply to  Roy

Would not surprise anymore.

JohninMK
JohninMK
8 days ago
Reply to  dave12

I made no comment re Russian surface ships so not sure why you brought them up.

Netking
Netking
8 days ago
Reply to  JohninMK

Actually AEGIS has been shown to be able to track and engage the entire range of targets including cruise and ballistic missiles all the way up to ICBMs

JohninMK
JohninMK
8 days ago
Reply to  Netking

Pleased to hear it.

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
8 days ago
Reply to  Netking

SM-3 has a very patchy record shooting down ballistic missiles at high altitude. It only takes one missile to sink or mission-kill a ship.

Netking
Netking
7 days ago
Reply to  Humpty Dumpty

I think you are most likely confusing the test history of the GMD which is a much more complex system designed to intercept ICBMs with the test history of the SM-3. The SM-3 actually has an impressive testing record, so much so that they have continuously updated the missile and increased the target set for it. They have even successfully demonstrated it as an anti satellite weapon and in 2020 for the first time it intercepted a ICBM representative target in a test. The one draw back is the enormous cost but this missile has to be seen as a… Read more »

Last edited 7 days ago by Netking
Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
7 days ago
Reply to  Netking

“I think you are most likely confusing the test history of the GMD which is a much more complex system designed to intercept ICBMs with the test history of the SM-3.” I’m not doing any such thing. SM-3 has failed several times. Just Google “SM-3 test fail”. And as I said, it only takes one SM-3 miss for a ballistic anti-ship missile to hit a ship. It’s better to have SM-3 than not have it, but to expect it to hit every incoming missile is bonkers. No defensive missile is 100% effective 100% of the time and that’s why layers… Read more »

Netking
Netking
5 days ago
Reply to  Humpty Dumpty

“Why would you WANT a test to fail? That makes absolutely no sense at all.
If a test fails, then you analyse why and (try to) fix the problem, but designing missiles to deliberately fail is absolutely bonkers.
What would you learn from that? Nothing useful at all. Only that a missile designed to fail actually failed. How does that help you improve the missile?”

Honestly if you somehow can’t grasp the basic idea behind the concept of “Testing to Failure”, which by the way isn’t even remotely new an idea, then this whole discussion is pointless.

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
5 days ago
Reply to  Netking

“Honestly if you somehow can’t grasp the basic idea behind the concept of “Testing to Failure”, which by the way isn’t even remotely new an idea, then this whole discussion is pointless.”

Testing the limits of a missile is one thing. Trying to shoot down a ballistic missile with SM-3 and failing is something else entirely.

Plus you ignored ALL the other issues I raised. And I raised a LOT of issues.

Seems to me you have no counterarguments to the numerous points I raised and you’re trying to get out of the debate.

Netking
Netking
5 days ago
Reply to  Humpty Dumpty

It’s pointless because you don’t understand basic developmental concepts, you are unaware of well known concepts of operations when it comes to certain classes of weapons. Your points are filled with wild speculation about the performance of still unproven and even untested weapons in scenarios you imagined. It’s almost like you read the glossy brochure filled with the promises of some future product without asking yourself if what it promises is logical or defy the laws of physics. Pointless.

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
4 days ago
Reply to  Netking

Not pointless at all. You’re trying to make out that testing SM-3 G limits or max speed say is in any way relevant to testing its ability to shoot down ballistic missiles, which is utterly ludicrous. You’re trying to make out that SM-3 failures where the WHOLE point of the test was to shoot down a ballistic missile weren’t failures. You must work for Raytheon. And you deliberately ignored where I said that carriers are vulnerable to a wide variety of threats, not just DF missiles and Kinzhal. You also ignored where I said only one missile has to get… Read more »

Netking
Netking
4 days ago
Reply to  Humpty Dumpty

You’re trying to make out that testing SM-3 G limits or max speed say is in any way relevant to testing its ability to shoot down ballistic missiles, which is utterly ludicrous.” I rest my case!!!!!!

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
4 days ago
Reply to  Netking

And what case is that exactly? You didn’t say. SM-3 failures in tests where the objective was to shoot down a ballistic missile were due to MALFUNCTIONS, which the link I provided explains, nothing at all to do with deliberately testing them to destruction. You’re trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes. Like I said you must work for Raytheon. But it’s all moot anyway because the RN doesn’t even use SM-3. The vast majority of my suggested defensive upgrades could apply to ANY missile, not just DF missiles. But you chose to ignore everything I wrote because you… Read more »

Last edited 4 days ago by Humpty Dumpty
Supporitve Bloke
Supporitve Bloke
1 day ago
Reply to  Netking

Arguing with this guy is pointless.

To summarise and paraphrase you – you are saying that harder and harder scenarios are tested until failure is arrived at.

We both say that with weapons tests this is normal to determine the envelope.

However, Mr Dumpty thinks that all weapons tests needs to be a hit/kill to be a success/ of value.

Conclusion: Mr Dumpty has had zero experience of weapons and system testing IRL.

adrian
adrian
8 days ago
Reply to  Max Jones

My concern is that “taking out” a carrier in an operational sense – doesn’t have to mean sinking it. Without knowing much about the redundancy systems onboard – I suspect that a relatively small amount of damage in a few key areas would be more then sufficient to make the carrier inoperable for aircraft, crash it’s communications systems or otherwise remove it from the battlefield equation. I reckon sinking the vessel isn’t a concern, it’s just a matter of disabling it: For which I’m much concerned about the carriers defences.

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
8 days ago
Reply to  adrian

Exactly. Take out a carriers radars and it’s blind. Take out its bridge and that’s a mission kill. Put a hole in the flight deck and aircraft can’t take off.

Netking
Netking
6 days ago
Reply to  Humpty Dumpty

I can’t respond to your previous comment since it’s still pending approval so I’ll try to respond here. Lots to unpack and i’ll try to respond to your points as best as I can. “I’m not doing any such thing. SM-3 has failed several times. Just Google “SM-3 test fail” Of course you will find failures in testing and you need to be careful that you understand the details of some of the failures. One of the fundamental reasons that you test things is to get them to fail so you can understand what the weapon is capable of. Some… Read more »

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
5 days ago
Reply to  Netking

Me: I’m not doing any such thing. SM-3 has failed several times. Just Google “SM-3 test fail”. You: Of course you will find failures in testing and you need to be careful that you understand the details of some of the failures. One of the fundamental reasons that you test things is to get them to fail so you can understand what the weapon is capable of. Some test believe it or not are designed to fail… Not. You: … to better understand the breaking point and establish operating parameters. Source backing up this claim of yours? Why would you… Read more »

Last edited 5 days ago by Humpty Dumpty
JohninMK
JohninMK
8 days ago
Reply to  adrian

Not sinking it but rendering it inoperative (deck or lift damage for example) would be in many ways the best solution as the escort shisp would probably be tied up protecting it.

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
8 days ago
Reply to  Max Jones

Ballistic missiles aren’t sea-skimming missiles and don’t hit above the waterline, they attack from above at high speed. Is Aster 30 capable of taking out such missiles? It’s not designed to, that’s what Aster 30 Block 1NT and Aster 30 Block 2 BMD are for (although the latter project appears to have been shelved).

As for manoeuvrable hypersonic missiles I don’t think any navy currently has anything to take them out. EW may work. But then again it may not. It seems very high powered lasers are the only way to reliably take out such missiles.

Roger Hill
Roger Hill
8 days ago
Reply to  Max Jones

I think you may be a little behind on missile and warhead technology.

Colin R Brooks AKA Dung
Colin R Brooks AKA Dung
8 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Who this guy is and what his credentials are are not relevant to the truth of his comments. His comment is true and we all no that our carriers have virtually no ability to defend themselves. The MOD responds to comments like this by saying that our carriers will always be ec0rted by Type 45s or better. Are Type 45s unsinkable?

Colin R Brooks AKA Dung
Colin R Brooks AKA Dung
8 days ago

know

Ian
Ian
8 days ago

The PAAMS on the T45 is pretty highly regarded. Any system can be overwhelmed, but only if you put them in a place where the enemy has the assets available to do so.

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
7 days ago
Reply to  Ian

“The PAAMS on the T45 is pretty highly regarded.” Only by people who don’t understand the high-end risks in this day and age. AFAIK it’s only been tested against a sea-skimming Coyote missile, which is only capable of Mach 2.6 max, although what speed it was actually flying at in the test I have no idea. And I also don’t know how stringent (or not) the test was. That doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence. We sent woefully underarmed ships to the Falklands and we don’t appear to have learnt our lesson. Aster 30 would have been great in the… Read more »

Supporitve Bloke
Supporitve Bloke
1 day ago
Reply to  Ian

It is very, very highly regarded. It also goes a lot faster in some circumstances than some would suggest. Ceptor is also highly regarded. Might I also respectfully suggest that there might be a bit more to Ceptor in terms of last ditch ballistic missile protection? I appreciate that this will be greeted with howls of whatever by some. Ceptor can be used in much the same way as the programmable cannon shells can be. The warhead needs a tiny bit of modification to have say a specific type of tungsten cubes in it. It can then be timed to… Read more »

JohninMK
JohninMK
8 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

This might be overly cynical but no it isn’t, probably for one of two possible reasons. First, the MoD/RN decided to take the risk that during their operating life they would never face such a threat. Second, that were such a threat to arise then there was little in reality that they could do to stop it. Either way they saved millions in capital and running costs by just putting a token air defence onboard.

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
8 days ago
Reply to  JohninMK

Yep and until our ships get adequate defences to deal with any threat they may face they’re extremely vulnerable. Why build ships if you’re not going to properly defend them? We’d have been better off building subs and loads of them.

Last edited 8 days ago by Humpty Dumpty
Dragonwight
Dragonwight
8 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

That sounds like boasting by him. Anyone who has served is still subject to the official secrets act, including me. As for missiles taking out carriers, so what? Torpedos are just as effective and proven to work but we still build carriers because they provide a strategic ability. We simply defend them better.

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
8 days ago
Reply to  Dragonwight

All our ships should have anti-torpedo torpedoes. Russian ships have the Paket-E/NK system and Chinese ships have (or will be getting) Yu-9 torpedoes. We should be testing SSTD CAT, Sea Spider, MU-90 Hard Kill and Tork to see if they work as advertised. And Torbuster for subs.

JohninMK
JohninMK
8 days ago
Reply to  Dragonwight

Very valid points. Our carriers with are not really designed for a peer to peer war, their function seems to be power projection, or low kevel conflicts.

Rob N
Rob N
8 days ago
Reply to  JohninMK

I think you are missing the point of a carrier… it is not about the ship but the air wing it carries. The QE class are all about 5G power. Stealthy strike… the Russians have got nothing to compare currently. So when you say the QE is not built for the modern front line think again.

Think stealthy attack by advanced ASM, think stealthy fleet defence with Meteor equipped F35…

Do not think ship, think CSG…

JohninMK
JohninMK
7 days ago
Reply to  Rob N

Sadly, without the ship there is no CSG. Forgetting the other threats, the CSG can’t defend the carrier against hypersonic Kinzhals launched 1000+km out from a flight of say 12 Mig-31 doing Mach 2.4. I don’t think the F-35/Meteor has that range. The first regiment of this combination is already in service and the ‘new’ Kinzhal is an air launched Iskander BM, the one with the ‘jinking’ terminal phase.   Stealth doesn’t make aircraft invisible, just reduces their apparent size to X band radar, so they can still be coarsely tracked by OTH radar and shorter distance by L band… Read more »

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
7 days ago
Reply to  JohninMK

“the CSG can’t defend the carrier against hypersonic Kinzhals launched 1000+km out from a flight of say 12 Mig-31 doing Mach 2.4. I don’t think the F-35/Meteor has that range.”

It’s worse than that. Kinzhal fired by MiG-31s would have a range of over 2,000km. And if fired by Tu-22s, Kinzhal would have a range of about 3,000km.

The F-35s can do nothing about that.

We’ve built the pointless carriers just so we can brag about having carriers and didn’t think it through properly.

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
7 days ago
Reply to  Rob N

“The QE class are all about 5G power. Stealthy strike…” What? A QE carrier group will have to stay out of the range of DF-21, DF-26 and Kinzhal so our F-35Bs won’t even have the range to reach land. Do you realise how idiotic that is? It makes us look utterly incompetent. We’d have been far better off buying very long-range commercial aircraft, converting them into military aircraft and filling them with Tomahawk Block Va anti-ship missiles and JASSM-ER and JASSM-XR land attack missiles that could be fired from beyond the range of enemy defences. That way we’d actually have… Read more »

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
7 days ago
Reply to  JohninMK

“Our carriers […] are not really designed for a peer to peer war”

So why did we build them? They’re inadequate for a war with Russia or China and overkill for a low-level conflict. We could have built a couple of mini carriers far cheaper for low-level conflicts.

JohninMK
JohninMK
6 days ago
Reply to  Humpty Dumpty

Interesting question but we will never know the answer.

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
6 days ago
Reply to  JohninMK

Well it was a rhetorical question. Personally I think building such large carriers was idiotic. And if a carrier group is staying out of the range of DF-21, DF-26 or Kinzhal then the F-35Bs can’t reach land anyway, so the carrier group is completely impotent. We’d have been better off buying extremely long-range commercial aircraft, converting them into military aircraft and filling them with Tomahawk Block Va anti-ship missiles that could be fired from beyond the range of ships’ SAMs and carrier-based aircraft. Such an aircraft could also carry JASSM-ER and JASSM-XR to take out land targets from beyond the… Read more »

Last edited 6 days ago by Humpty Dumpty
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
9 days ago

Why is he visiting missile installations??! 😮 Are the Baltic Fleet / LMD giving him a tour???

Levi Goldsteinberg
Levi Goldsteinberg
9 days ago

His explanation isn’t completely stupid I don’t think

KPB
KPB
9 days ago

Perhaps the carrier needs more Goalkeeper-style CIWS protection, Mr Gordon-Banks?

Joking aside, well done on the UKDJ for calling him out on this.

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
8 days ago
Reply to  KPB

There are far better systems than Goalkeeper these days to take out missiles that are more effective, longer ranged or have greater magazine depth (or all three): – Oerlikon Millennium Gun firing AHEAD ammo – Thales RAPIDFire firing A3B ammo – OTO Melara 76mm firing DART and PFF ammo – BAE Mk110 57mm firing 3P and MAD-FIRES ammo – BAE 40mm firing 3P ammo The Type 45s could do with Aster 30 Block 1NT to take out ballistic missiles as well as SM-6. No Western navies currently have missiles capable of taking out manoeuvrable hypersonic missiles and therefore need high-power… Read more »

KPB
KPB
7 days ago
Reply to  Humpty Dumpty

Errr….I think maybe the goalkeeper comment went miles above your head?

All propaganda has an element of truth at its heart, but you have to look through that and make an informed decision as the underlying motives.

UKDJ called him out for having notable links with the Russian government and armed forces, whilst publishing comments denigrating the capacity of a strategic UK platform.

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
7 days ago
Reply to  KPB

I don’t care about his motives. I DO care that all RN ships are woefully underarmed. It’s idiotic to ignore that fact.

KPB
KPB
7 days ago
Reply to  Humpty Dumpty

I care that he may be under the influence of a foreign power with a vested interest in undermining our armed forces.

I’d like to see our navy better equipped (especially in anti-ship capability and overall number of escorts) but calling ‘all RN ships woefully underarmed’ is a bit of a stretch.

NGS, CIWS, anti-air, anti-sub etc on most of our platforms are more-than competitive.

That’s before we get on to what the CAGs and subs can deliver.

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
6 days ago
Reply to  KPB

“I care that he may be under the influence of a foreign power” Why? What difference does it make as far as how well (or not) our ships perform? “with a vested interest in undermining our armed forces” Let’s say that’s true, so what? And how is pointing out that our ships are underarmed (which they are) undermining our armed forces? Are they such snowflakes they can’t handle the truth? If that’s the case, maybe they should be working elsewhere where their delicate feelings won’t get hurt. “I’d like to see our navy better equipped (especially in anti-ship capability and… Read more »

Red Hanrahan
Red Hanrahan
9 days ago

You may not like him, but he has a point about the vulnerability of the new RN carriers. The lack of onboard defensive systems is a problem that even more reputable analysts have voiced concern about.

James
James
8 days ago
Reply to  Red Hanrahan

Thats why they have escorts to protect them is it not?

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
8 days ago
Reply to  James

That’s the theory but the Type 45s are woefully underarmed. None of our ships have anti-torpedo torpedoes and I seriously doubt the effectiveness of passive sonar against modern quiet subs. A while back a French and a UK SSBN collided. If even subs can’t detect each other what chance do Type 23s have of detecting subs?

Last edited 8 days ago by Humpty Dumpty
JohninMK
JohninMK
8 days ago
Reply to  James

In a full on peer to peer war the number of escorts we could muster would likely have little impact on co-ordinated incoming under sea and airborne saturation attacks. Besides, in such an event where would a T45 be best placed? Near a carrier or, in the absence of SAMs, off the Essex/Suffolk coast, protecting London and Lakenheath/Wattisham/Marham?

James
James
8 days ago
Reply to  JohninMK

In that scenario we may aswell not have the carriers and just park them up in port no?

Which peer to peer enemy are we discussing here? Also the way you describe the scenario the UK itself would be under full scale attack, what about a naval exchange in a large ocean?

JohninMK
JohninMK
7 days ago
Reply to  James

Correct, they are only of use projecting power or against inferior enemies not peers. There are only two potential peer to peer enemies I can see, China and Russia of which the latter has by far the most developed anti ship capability. I cannot see a conventional naval exchange in an ocean ending in a different result nor there not being a land or air element. I could see a nuke exchange at sea as part of a conventional war (out of public view).

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
7 days ago
Reply to  JohninMK

We (i.e. the UK) and the whole of Europe need a sophisticated IADS as good or better than S-400/S-500.

What’s the best Europe currently has? Sky Sabre and SAMP/T I’d say. The European TWISTER project looks promising as a ship-based and land-based air defence system, but that’s about a decade off.

JohninMK
JohninMK
6 days ago
Reply to  Humpty Dumpty

Its worse than that, the S-400 is just the long range element of the Russian IADS, below it are Tor, Buk etc, most with naval versions. The West, having spent the last 30 optimising military systems to fight sand terrorists, are now woefully prepared to fight an adversary that might fire back with something more lethal than an RPG or IED. Meanwhile Russia, very quietly, beavered away on defensive systems mainly and are now years ahead. Also and maybe as important, they are not laden down with debt.

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
6 days ago
Reply to  JohninMK

“Its worse than that, the S-400 is just the long range element of the Russian IADS, below it are Tor, Buk etc, most with naval versions.” True, but AIUI these systems are mainly to protect S-300/S-400/S-500 systems, although they do present a threat to helicopters and low-flying aircraft including low-flying drones. For Europe I’d propose something like: THAAD and/or SM-3 to deal with ballistic missiles SAMP/T ideally with Aster 30 Block 0 as well as Aster 30 Block 1NT missiles (not sure what happend to Aster 30 Block 2 BMD, the project appears to have been shelved): This is a… Read more »

Frank62
Frank62
7 days ago
Reply to  James

The USN has far better availability of escorts to each of their carriers, employ allied escorts too, but they still arm their carriers with 3 tier self-defence besides counter measures: ESSM SAMs, RAM point defence SAMs, & last-gasp Phalanx 20mm. We only have the latter & that is very close ranged. Given the size, capability & cost of our QEs we’re very cavalier with defending them.
Both China & Russia have been studying & developing missiles to take carriers out for decades.

Posse Comitatus
Posse Comitatus
9 days ago

He seems to be inordinately proud of the Russian Baltic fleet.

Steve
Steve
8 days ago

It’s hard to judge the Russian missile / radar capability, but if you assume they operate as sold then RN wouldn’t stand a chance against it, just the sheer number of missiles even the smaller crafts have is impressive. Saying that most seem to believe they need the number because they are insanely unreliable, but who knows.

I don’t have an issue with him being impressed with another miltiary, just could learn to use Twitter better and back up his statements with context.

Posse Comitatus
Posse Comitatus
8 days ago
Reply to  Steve

It’s true that providing the systems work, the Russian ASuW missile systems would do terrible damage any navy. Although fictional, albeit there are eerie parallels to the current situation in Ukraine, Tom Clancy’s novel ‘Red Storm Rising ‘ has an eye opening and object example of a well defended and escorted carrier battle group being overwhelmed and shredded by a saturation Russian ASHM attack – ‘The Dance of the Vampires ‘.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
8 days ago

One of the best chapters of that excellent novel.

JohninMK
JohninMK
8 days ago

After WW2 the Russians knew they had to neuter US carriers so spent a lot of time and money since then evolving weapons and tactics to do so. Clancy wrote Red Storm Rising 35 or so years ago and whilst defensive radars and missiles have improved so to have the offensive systems, especially their range allowing airborne launch beyond the reach of carrier air cover. What has not changed is the deadly and fatal effect he describes so well of saturation attack.

Posse Comitatus
Posse Comitatus
8 days ago
Reply to  JohninMK

It is sobering. Some years ago a RN warship (T45?) was buzzed by numerous Russian aircraft in the Black Sea. It achieved firing solutions on them all, but had each of those aircraft had 4 ASM fitted and in a war scenario they had been fired then the RN vessel would have been virtually all out of missile defence after the 1st salvo was fired and almost defenceless for the next wave. I don’t know if there is a solution to the problem of multiple saturation attacks by a powerful adversary. The 150 odd SAMs that were theoretically carried by… Read more »

Ryan Brewis
Ryan Brewis
7 days ago

Short of building our ships with like 120+ VLS loaded with SAM then air forces being able to attrit warships is inevitable.

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
7 days ago

“but had each of those aircraft had 4 ASM fitted and in a war scenario they had been fired then the RN vessel would have been virtually all out of missile defence after the 1st salvo was fired and almost defenceless for the next wave.” Exactly. That’s why we need to drastically uparm and updefend all our ships. I’d propose something like this: – Get rid of Phalanx, it’s absolute garbage, and from what I’ve read about it it seems more of a hindrance than a help, firing when it shouldn’t and not firing when it should. There are plenty… Read more »

JohninMK
JohninMK
8 days ago
Reply to  Steve

The only times recently that we can judge Russian missile reliability on were the times they used them in Syria, in particular Kalibers launched from missile boats in the Caspian. Although a limited number they worked. Maybe, now that Russia has put its Soviet past behind it, they are up to modern standards. There is no reason why they shouldn’t be, they now use much the same CNC machines and design software as we do. Also the RuAF work rate in Syria was pretty good when they needed it leading to the opinion that the aircraft were reliable.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
9 days ago

He’s was a Gordon Highlander in the 80s, in the mid 2000s was at Shrivenham.

Also has anti sematic previous and drink driving according to Wiki. Colourful character!

Coll
Coll
9 days ago

Wikipedia. lol

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
9 days ago
Reply to  Coll

Well yes, I had never heard of him so I started there.

Nick C
Nick C
9 days ago

If he was only commissioned in 1981, and left with a disability pension in 1983 I find it hard to believe that he actually served in the conflict. I would be very interested to know how much he is being paid for his “consultancy” role!

Nick C
Nick C
8 days ago

I have been having a ferret round and so far I have not found any record of him attending Sandhurst. It could well be that I am not looking in the right places but if anyone else can have a go we all might be somewhat wiser!
I can also recommend, as someone else has said, the Guido Fawkes website. Interesting background stuff.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
8 days ago
Reply to  Nick C

Certainly is!

Farouk
Farouk
8 days ago
Reply to  Nick C

Nick, I’m always intrigued by people who claim things that can’t be verified so a quick butchers on his name revealed this wiki discussion board regards his dubious  claims, most interesting as he claims that he took a reg commission in 1981, yet as somebody whose last posting was to RMAS (I was in officer recruiting ) I do know a little something regards commissioning and I am a little confused about how he claims to have completed a reg commissioning cse all in one year. The current syllabus is 44 weeks, that doesn’t include holidays and I have never… Read more »

Airborne
Airborne
8 days ago
Reply to  Farouk

Mate I was thinking along the same lines, his unit and his so called commission doesn’t add up. And leaving a year later, and yet every time he has been caught out being a dick he has claimed PTSD every time.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
7 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

Found an article saying he got the PTSD from a bomb blast in a hotel in Mumbai when he was there on MoD business. Apparently he escaped serious injury/ death when a phone call took him away from his room.

Nick C
Nick C
8 days ago
Reply to  Farouk

Farouk, good morning. I have had a look at the wiki discussion board, it’s so convoluted that it nearly put me off my cornflakes. The overall impression is that he is somewhat paranoid about his profile and very much wants to be believed. Going back to my original point, if he served for only two years in the army before his discharge he packed a lot into that time, including being shot at and blown up ( see the wiki discussion board ) If his Sandhurst training was one of those years he had a very adventurous 12 months. I… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
8 days ago
Reply to  Nick C

A Walt?

Nick C
Nick C
8 days ago

What is a Walt??
Ok got it!

Terence Patrick Hewett
Terence Patrick Hewett
8 days ago

Yes: Wiki is a good starting point in any research starting from point zero: any errors or opinions quickly become apparent on deeper research. Before the onset of the Internet, I used the Encyclopedia Britanica as a starting point: which always gave a good overview.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
8 days ago
Reply to  Coll

Well if you have evidence that particular information is in error I’m sure we would all love to hear it. Wiki is much derided but in truth it’s much more informative than existing channels prior to it. It’s generally a very good starting point and whenever I have spent ( as I do for my work) many hours sorting through a wide range of sites seeking information I rarely find it much, if at all in serious conflict with more ‘official’ sources which themselves will sometimes be arguable or simply lazy in their accuracy. It’s an easy target because of… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
8 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

seeking information I rarely find it much, if at all in serious conflict with more ‘official’ sources which themselves will sometimes be arguable or simply lazy in their accuracy. “

Yes, spot on. The official Army website is an example. Out of date, lacking in detail.

I find Wiki excellent myself when checking things alongside my other sources.

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
8 days ago

A while back I read on the Royal Navy website that it protects Britain’s interests at sea. I emailed them to tell them that it should say the UK’s interests since Britain doesn’t include Northern Ireland whereas the UK does. I was expecting to be ignored or get some kind of brush-off, but I was pleasantly surprised to get a reply saying they’d change the wording. And when I checked, they had. Other sites that lack detail in my experience are the BAE site and the MBDA site, at least when it comes to trying to find in-depth specs about… Read more »

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
6 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

“It may not be an exact source of certainty”

What is?! I regularly use Wikipedia and it’s often my starting point for further research.

https://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html

Chris
Chris
9 days ago

Anyone else notice that the header image on his twitter page is of the Kremlin?

Farouk
Farouk
9 days ago

The things wonks will do and say in which to get their hands on a Russian rusty sheriffs badge.

David Steeper
David Steeper
9 days ago

Everyone go on the guido fawkes site about this guy.

Matt
Matt
9 days ago

Certainly a gentleman of varied affiliations.

(Though we should recognise here that he served in he Falklands campaign.)

Tory MP 1992-1997 for Southport. Chair of UK-Venezuela group (pre-Chavez).
Independent Conservative 2000-2004.
Defected to LDs 2004.
Suspended from LibDems 2016 for antisemitic comments on social media.
Jailed for 2017 for drink driving. Also failing to stop, driving while banned and w/o insurance.

Colourful is one word 😮.

Airborne
Airborne
9 days ago
Reply to  Matt

Was he in the Gordon’s or the Scots Guards as the GH didn’t go to the Falklands with 5 Infantry Bde?

Nick C
Nick C
9 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

Where would one dig to find out if he did go down south? You are right that the GH didn’t sail, were they the next garrison troops sent down, if so it’s not the same as earning your campaign medal.

Matt
Matt
8 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

I was assuming from a report of a following visit down there.

Accept I may have overreached.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
8 days ago
Reply to  Matt

Aah so despite what he would like us to believe to earn his living a markedly less valid a source of accurate information than wiki.

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
8 days ago
Reply to  Matt

Defected? Odd choice of word.

As for making anti-semitic remarks, I’ve worked in several places where I’d hear racist comments day in, day out, multiple times a day. And I’ve known people who regularly drove drunk. This isn’t to justify any of this, but to say that how many people would come out smelling of roses if their every word and deed was recorded online?

I also find it very odd that some people are focusing on his misdeeds rather than on the fact that our navy is woefully underarmed. That’s what the article should have been about imo.

Ron Stateside
Ron Stateside
9 days ago

Western governments should make ethics required coursework for all disciplines including Information Technology. Not as a panacea but as a baseline action. Technology makes all sorts of things possible and if the people creating/controlling it have no guard rails watch out. Further, how all these Western officials get compromised (Pegasus spyware? Honey Traps?) I cannot say. What I can say for sure is that Russians target the unethical.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
8 days ago
Reply to  Ron Stateside

Britain is truly fu**ked then.😈

Ron Stateside
Ron Stateside
8 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Lol and here we look to English Common Law for guidance.

JohninMK
JohninMK
8 days ago
Reply to  Ron Stateside

I am sure that we are as capable as the Russians at compromising those we wish to but I’m not sure how you do that ethically.

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
8 days ago
Reply to  Ron Stateside

What and you don’t think MI6 and the CIA don’t do the same thing?

Challenger
Challenger
9 days ago

The factual ability of a single missile to sink any vessel afloat says nothing to the complexity and difficulty of this.

Finding a moving carrier in open ocean, penetrating the multiple layers of defence, hitting the vessel in a vulnerable spot and there then being a catastrophic failure of damage control would be an exceptional mix of skill and luck on the part of the aggressor!

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
9 days ago
Reply to  Challenger

Careful using common sense. It doesn’t sit well with many 😄

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
9 days ago
Reply to  Challenger

To say nothing of the massive compartmentation of a QEC.

Look at how hard it was in the various SINKEX to dispatch various vessels over the years.

You would have to be more than lucky for a single hit to disable a QEC never mind sink it.

Challenger
Challenger
8 days ago

Yeah! The only way I can think of creating catastrophic damage would be to detonate the magazine but would it even be possible for a single missile to do so given it’s in the depths of the ship and I believe has a degree of armour to protect it?

Can’t see a total loss from a single hit without leaving all of bulkhead doors open for hours and making no attempt at damage control.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
8 days ago
Reply to  Challenger

Reminds me of Jutland, hopefully learned from that.

JohninMK
JohninMK
8 days ago
Reply to  Challenger

No, the ‘sink a carrier’ plan is for the missile)s) to drop vertically, out of the radar shadow area above the ships, at a few thousand MPH, use inertia to punch through the ship, then break the ship’s back by using an explosion backed by water pressure. Four or eight at a time. This is a plan designed to sink a US carrier surrounded by AB AEGIS destroyers, ours would stand less chance.

Bob
Bob
7 days ago
Reply to  JohninMK

The T45 has no overhead radar shadow.

JohninMK
JohninMK
7 days ago
Reply to  Bob

Thank you.

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
6 days ago
Reply to  Bob

“The T45 has no overhead radar shadow.”

Doesn’t it? AFAIK the Type 45 doesn’t have upward-facing radar.

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
6 days ago

You don’t need to sink a carrier. Take out its radars, bridge or put hole in its deck and it’s been mission-killed.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
6 days ago
Reply to  Humpty Dumpty

F35B’s are not affected by a hole in the deck. They just need some deck and preferably a ski jump.

Carrier radar is not 100% needed if a nearby T45/26 can provide traffic control.

The bridge is replicated below decks, according to public domain information.

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
6 days ago

“F35B’s are not affected by a hole in the deck. They just need some deck” F-35Bs can only take off vertically with about half a tank of fuel and no ordnance. They’re STOVL aircraft, not VTOL aircraft. “and preferably a ski jump.” Not PREFERABLY, the ski jump is ESSENTIAL to enable an F-35B to take off with a meaningful amount of fuel and ordnance. “Carrier radar is not 100% needed if a nearby T45/26 can provide traffic control.” What? How would that work? “The bridge is replicated below decks, according to public domain information.” Source? And you’re brushing off a… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
5 days ago
Reply to  Humpty Dumpty

I’m not brushing it off.

QEC are massive ships abs the fire will be localised.

To your other points USMC jets take off without a ski jump.

Future drone AAR will only increase the flexibility and damage work arounds.

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
4 days ago

You’re absolutely deluded. A carrier with a great big hole in its deck has been mission-killed. It will have to return to base for extensive and time-consuming repairs.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
4 days ago
Reply to  Humpty Dumpty

You do realise that earlier generations of aircraft carriers had lifts in the run up?

You know like the Invincibles?

And you know there was a procedure to operate if the lift was stuck down – just like it was a hole really?

So no I’m not deluded or delusional.

Provided there is enough undamaged deck area the carrier can continue to operate.

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
4 days ago

If you think a carrier is still going to be operational after a DF-21, DF-26 or Kinzhal has slammed into the deck from high altitude at at least Mach 5 then yes you ARE delusional.

The hole will be massive even without a warhead because of kinetic energy alone, but the warhead will make things even worse. Plus shrapnel is almost certainly going to hit aircraft on the deck too, damaging or destroying them.

You clearly can’t be reasoned with.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
3 days ago
Reply to  Humpty Dumpty

My friends it is you who can’t be reasoned with.

You have made a statement and are merely abusive in your responses.

You haven’t explained how you are going to steer a hypersonic or guide it with any degree of pre ion at Mach 5.

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
3 days ago

Friend singular and I’m not your friend. I haven’t written anything abusive at all, what on earth are you talking about? And if you think a carrier will still be operational after a large missile hits it, you are utterly delusional. It’ll have to go back to port for extensive repairs. You had no issue before accepting that a missile could hit a carrier and your ludicrous counterargument was that the carrier would simply shrug it off and keep operating as if nothing had happened even with a hole in the deck, destroyed bridge and no radars. Now you’ve changed… Read more »

Supporitve Bloke
Supporitve Bloke
1 day ago
Reply to  Humpty Dumpty

“I haven’t written anything abusive at all, what on earth are you talking about?” Describing people a delusional is not friendly and more significantly is not a form of logical argument. “And if you think a carrier will still be operational after a large missile hits it, you are utterly delusional. It’ll have to go back to port for extensive repairs.” Do you think that RN and USN practice for this eventuality. Sorry I will email FOST and tell them they are wasting their time and that if any of our ships are hit with a .22 then they should… Read more »

JohninMK
JohninMK
8 days ago
Reply to  Challenger

I would suggest that, in this day and age of satellites, it is actually very difficult to hide in an ocean, especially if you are a prime target. We all know that an Astute was accompanying our carrier task force trip to the Pacific and back. I’d place good money on there being an Akula or similar tagging along too. As penetrating the defences, Harpoon type missiles are from the last war we fought, now there is a potential flight of 8 Mig-31K flying at Mach 2/45,000ft releasing a Kinzel (air launched 500kg warhead Iskander) 1000 miles out that will… Read more »

Airborne
Airborne
8 days ago
Reply to  JohninMK

Gunbuster gives an excellent account of how hard it still is tracking and targeting a moving warship in the middle of the ocean.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
8 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

Yes. I get the impression many seem to think our carrier/s would be off Murmansk in the shooting gallery. I’m more concerned by the SSN threat.

JohninMK
JohninMK
8 days ago

I’m not sure what the role of our carriers would be, anywhere within range of either the Mig-31K or Tu22M3M would be very risky. Re the SSN threat I agree, the Russians are building up their fleet of upgraded SSN, the Project 885M (Yasen-M) with the first serial-built sub, Novosibirsk, handed over to the RuN in December. These are likely to be the main delivery system for the Tsirkon hypersonic missiles.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
8 days ago
Reply to  JohninMK

You’re well informed on the other sides forces, John. ( And I’m not hinting by saying that that your a troll like some suggest, I don’t see any evidence for that nonsense )

I must study the OPFOR more, I only looked at the PVO from the Cold War.

JohninMK
JohninMK
8 days ago

Thanks, coming from an RAF family (Dad was fighter control, brother Movements) I’ve always had an interest in the military. The advent of retirement and booming internet sucked me in 🙂 I really got caught up in the other side in the 2014 coup in Kiev. Back then there was a brilliant US based site called MP.net (short for Military Photos) that really got stuck in. It then changed into TheMess (you can see the military link) before folding in 2016. Me and many others upped sticks to russiadefence to continue following that civil war. The main mod over there… Read more »

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
6 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

“Gunbuster gives an excellent account of how hard it still is tracking and targeting a moving warship in the middle of the ocean.”

What? A carrier group will be tracked from the moment it leaves port. Carrier groups can be tracked using multiple methods.

You think WE can target enemy ships, but THEY can’t target our ships? Come on, that’s not credible.

Airborne
Airborne
5 days ago
Reply to  Humpty Dumpty

Where did I say that we can target theirs but they can’t target ours? Sigh…..I stated GB says how hard it is to track a moving warship, which doesn’t want to be found in the open ocean. Please read and understand the statement prior to responding, thanks.

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
4 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

Why is it hard to track ships at sea? I expect they’re tracked from the moment they leave port.

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
6 days ago
Reply to  Challenger

“Finding a moving carrier in open ocean, penetrating the multiple layers of defence…” What MULTIPLE layers of defence does a QE-class carrier have? All it has is 3 Phalanx, which is pathetic. No EW suite, no decoys, no CAMMs, no laser weapons, no microwave weapons, no modern CIWS weapons. As for the Type 45s, which are supposed to be dedicated AAW vessels, they don’t even have dedicated anti-ballistic missiles. They just have Asters and again Phalanx, which is garbage. OK they’re going to get a few CAMMs, but they’d be useless against ballistic anti-ship missiles. And as for manoeuvrable hypersonic… Read more »

Challenger
Challenger
6 days ago
Reply to  Humpty Dumpty

A CAP of F35’s supported by AEW Merlins, T45’s with Sea Viper, T26 with Sea Ceptor and all with CIWS. I’d call that layers! Although I agree it would be better to fit QE & PoW with Sea Ceptor and maybe some 40mm guns.

JohninMK
JohninMK
6 days ago
Reply to  Challenger

What can those ‘layers’ do against ‘flocks’ of Kinzahl incoming at 60 degrees/Mach 7 on a jinking tragetory? but that is probably an unfair question as the weapon is only a year or so old. So, how about an incoming sub launched Kalibre ‘flock’ at low level in its terminal supersonic phase. Or even older, a ‘flock’ again of networked Oniks?

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
6 days ago
Reply to  Challenger

“A CAP of F35’s” We don’t have enough F-35s to provide 24/7 cover and in any case they don’t have enough range to shoot down aircraft carrying Kinzhals before they can get in range to fire. Plus if a carrier group is staying out of the range of DF-21, DF-26 or Kinzhal then the F-35s don’t have the range to reach land anyway, meaning a carrier group would be completely impotent. “supported by AEW Merlins” I seriously doubt the effectiveness of sonar against modern subs. A French and UK SSBN collided a while back. If they can’t detect each other,… Read more »

Last edited 6 days ago by Humpty Dumpty
Airborne
Airborne
9 days ago

Couple of years served or not he sounds like a bell-end, and every time he has got in trouble he claimed PTSD!

Coll
Coll
9 days ago

Is he passing judgement on the lack of onboard defence systems? Or hinting at something else? Am I a Russian spy if I find Russian ships impressive?

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
9 days ago
Reply to  Coll

They certainly look impressive.

Every bit of space topside has something bolted into it.

Wether, you believe there is enough topside weigh margin for everything to be fully functional is another question.

Wether you believe everything works as advertised is something else again.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
8 days ago
Reply to  Coll

That’s an old ship, much of the Russian navy indeed are old ships, personally I’m far more concerned about their new ones, which look much less obviously armed and far more ‘western’ in demeanour but are a damn sight more effective I suspect than those steampunk predecessors.

David Steeper
David Steeper
8 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Spot on.

JohninMK
JohninMK
8 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

There are a growing number as well. They are still concentrating on submarines, the Yasen being especially dangerous. Here is the list of ships that entered service in the Russian Navy during 2021 and projected for this year: Submarines – Knyaz Oleg (Borei Class) – Kazan (Yasen Class) – Novosibirsk (Yasen Class) – Magadan (Kilo Class) Surface ships (with displacment greater than 500T) – Grayvoron (Buyan-M Class) – Georgy Kurbatov (Alexandrit class minesweeper) Auxiliaries (with displacement greater than 500T) – Vsevolod Bobrov (pr. 12320 logistics ship) – Vice Admiral Paromov (pr. 03182 tanker) Poor year as far as surface warfare… Read more »

Steven Alfred Rake
Steven Alfred Rake
9 days ago

Serving or ex politicians should be held accountable for what they say in public and when seen to undermine UK establishments should be tried for treason. I just wonder what would happen to an ex admiral of General if they started slagging off the forces. If he and his likeminded brothers in arms are so fed up with this country then maybe the government should deport them to the Ukraine so they could help “advise” the current government on how to appease Mr Putin.

Rob
Rob
9 days ago

This guy is obviously a fool so should be ignored. Do you know why Russia developed and makes such a noise about hypersonic aircraft carrier killer missiles? Because they are very scared of NATO carrier battle groups locking up there navy in enclaves and restricting their boomers access to the deep ocean. Very often an adversary making such noises reveals weakness not strength.

Expat
Expat
8 days ago
Reply to  Rob

Agree China is promoting its carrier killer missiles but building its own carriers.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
4 days ago
Reply to  Expat

And finally some calls it out.

If carriers were that obsolete why would they bother.

Russia will call them obsolete because they cannot afford one. But would love a new one or two but have to make do with bathtub models.

China would love to have some with fully speced 5th Feb fighters but can’t get the thrust/weight margins to work on the old Russian carrier designs so has to go down the brute force CATOBAR options to get useful take off weights.

They are both jealous of RN for having two that work out-of-the-box.

JohninMK
JohninMK
8 days ago
Reply to  Rob

He may be a fool but you can’t ignore the implications of what he said, our carriers are vulnerable. Fortunately for World peace, Russian boomers do not have to go far off their Arctic or Pacific coasts to be in safe launching areas protected by long range and getting longer, land based missile batteries, land based aircraft, surface ships and subs. As to hypersonic missiles, they are tested (probably US monitored), claimed to be now in production and have the US very worried.

Peter Crisp
Peter Crisp
9 days ago

Surely the same could be said for any combat ship?
I’m pretty sure carriers are designed to be able to withstand punishment and not just sink the moment they get hit as that would be a pretty rubbish place to put hundreds of sailors.
The only way to make sure they don’t get hit is to keep them in port at all times which seems like rather a waste of time and money.

JohninMK
JohninMK
8 days ago
Reply to  Peter Crisp

But they are nowhere near as armour plate protected as battleships were and they still went down, some rather quickly.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
5 days ago
Reply to  JohninMK

Armour plating ships is a waste of time.

Compartmenting them and using stored fuel and water to dynamically dissipate shock is where is has been at for a long time.

Look at the various SINKEX videos online from US or UK and see how many hits it takes and how long it takes to sink a closed up ship.

Jon
Jon
9 days ago

I remember when Dominic Cummings blogged that a teenager with a smartphone-controlled Kalashnikov suicide drone could take out one of the carriers, and he worked for No 10 at the time (Cummings, not the teenager).

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
8 days ago
Reply to  Jon

Shame, the teenager looks like he could have been exceptionally more useful.

Sean
Sean
8 days ago

This story just gives this nobody publicity. He’s clearly on a long downward slide to obscurity and various other afflictions judging by his backstory.
I wonder how long before he’ll be sectioned.

Rob
Rob
8 days ago

That comes across as very present day “American” – hate your country of birth, want to be socialist or communist, don’t support maintaining a strong national defence, purge all traces of nationalism and pride in ones country. As patriotic Britons, we cannot follow the American’s into that self-loathing self-hating abyss.

David Steeper
David Steeper
8 days ago
Reply to  Rob

Read the Guardian sometime. We’re as bad.

rob
rob
8 days ago
Reply to  David Steeper

I tried, I just can’t read that nonsense.

David Steeper
David Steeper
8 days ago
Reply to  rob

Correct answer. If you ever find yourself agreeing with it on anything you know it’s time to seek help. I find once a month does the trick.

Last edited 8 days ago by David Steeper
Rob
Rob
8 days ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Completely agree. I love my country and already went to war when Maggie asked – to protect and support her. People who aren’t willing to support this country just need to move to another country.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
8 days ago
Reply to  Rob

Bravo.

David Steeper
David Steeper
8 days ago
Reply to  Rob

👍

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
6 days ago
Reply to  Rob

“People who aren’t willing to support this country just need to move to another country.”

And that’s how totalitarianism starts. Disagreeing with people is one thing, but when you don’t allow people to have opinions you disagree with then you’re on a slippery slope to a totalitarian society. The whole point of freedom of speech is that you allow people to have opinions you disagree with without demanding that they emigrate.

JohninMK
JohninMK
8 days ago
Reply to  Rob

Neither should we go forward ignoring the risks we face, especially when those risks are obvious to all with an interest.

DanielMorgan
DanielMorgan
8 days ago
Reply to  Rob

Looks like your view of Americans is obtained from the America hating BBC. That’s not the view of the vast majority of Americans. Even the Democrat controlled Congress and President just increased the Defense Budget by 5% to $770 billion. Americans sure don’t support a strong national defense, do they? Oh, try driving though the US sometime and match the number of US flags flying proudly from people’s homes with the homes in the UK. I await your response.

Rob
Rob
8 days ago
Reply to  DanielMorgan

I live in US and UK alternately throughout the year and travel extensively to blue and red states. I have a deep (deep) understanding of Americans and their politics and it’s only a handful of red states like Florida, Texas that are extolling the patriot virtues you mentioned with flags etc. You won’t see that very much in NY or CA or any of the north east states. I just watched a segment where liberal people were ripping down US flags off the front of houses in Baltimore Maryland. Google it. I don’t read BBC and have never trusted them… Read more »

Netking
Netking
8 days ago
Reply to  Rob

Such utter fascistic garbage. If someone does not march lockstep with your right wing point of view then they are unpatriotic and don’t love their country? By the way, the latest records of enlistment by state that I could find actually is California, Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and New York. CA and NY are clearly liberal with NC, GA and TX, yes TX trending liberal the past few election cycles. How is that for your “deep understanding of American and their politics? I suppose those liberals and progressives from NY, CA and the other left leaning areas who have… Read more »

Rob
Rob
8 days ago
Reply to  Netking

You’ve literally just described the left’s position on everything! Look, I have a right to my opinion – and you have a right to yours. But let me guess, you think that Biden is amazing and doesn’t have dementia, you think that the entire US Military should go through woke “bad white man training?” You believe that Biden can read anything without the need for a teleprompter, and that there are no Covid test shortages in the States due to Biden’s bad planning, and you don’t believe more people died of Covid under Biden than Trump? Do you agree that… Read more »

Last edited 8 days ago by Rob
Netking
Netking
7 days ago
Reply to  Rob

lol, I see you couldn’t dispute any of the facts I laid out for you but that instead went through the laundry list of right wing dark fantasy talking points. I think you might have missed the one about “war on the christmas” The only thing I could make out in that paragraph of gibberish was that we all have a right to our opinions which I completely agree with you on. We’re not entitled to our own facts however and you clearly have chosen to ignore reality and surrender to whatever confirms your bias about people who don’t agree… Read more »

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
6 days ago
Reply to  Rob

“Look, I have a right to my opinion – and you have a right to yours.”

But according to you “People who aren’t willing to support this country just need to move to another country.”

So you’ve just contradicted yourself.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
8 days ago

The soft kill parts of the carrier are meant to be good. Countermeasures, electronics etc. Missiles are taken out before the phalanx etc kicks in. How much truth there is in this I don’t know but for older missiles it may well be.

David Steeper
David Steeper
8 days ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Yeah. As well compartmentalisation is mostly public but armoured protection is rightly secret. I think the one thing we can say with confidence is that there’s no ship in the RN that would be harder to sink than the carriers.

Last edited 8 days ago by David Steeper
Quentin D63
Quentin D63
8 days ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Others may differ but I’d still like to see additional defensive armament on these carriers. If not CAMM, then some of the latest 40mm in the spots for the 30mm to complement the Phalanx and cover the 2-5km intercept range…just in case.

Tom Keane
Tom Keane
8 days ago

Whoever Banks is, was or may have been does not matter. The unfortunate reality is that he is not far wrong with his ‘comment’ or observation.

Without wishing to get political, this is typical ‘blue’ behaviour, allow a military asset to be made, whilst not providing a full set of teeth.

Peter tattersll
Peter tattersll
8 days ago

Finding the ship in open water beating all the air and sea defence with a clean strike not that easy . This bloke is always pushing Putin propaganda I think he might soon turn up on RT news

geoff
geoff
8 days ago

Gordon-Banks? The same one that kept goal for England in ’66?? I thought the name was familiar… Any large Naval ship is going to be vulnerable to missiles no matter how well defended, one of the reasons we no longer have battleships(although according to some newspapers our OPV’s in the Far East are ‘Battleships’). An aircraft carrier at the centre of a Task Force is as well protected as it gets although weapons of last resort are in short supply on the QE class. His claim that Gordon Brown authorised the final go ahead of the QE programme to curry… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
8 days ago
Reply to  geoff

Morning geoff.

A reasoned post, I agree. The QEC are the best defended airfields we possess.

RAF Stations are probably more vulnerable, which goes for the other sides fixed assets too.

JohninMK
JohninMK
8 days ago

Definitely more vulnerable, not only do they not move but they have no proper SAM defence. I’m not sure but I don’t think either Fairford or Lakenheath have Patriots. Now where are those old Bloodhound plans we could upgrade?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
8 days ago
Reply to  JohninMK

As far as I’m aware they don’t. Never seen any ground based USAF AD in the UK.

geoff
geoff
8 days ago

Morning Daniele! Thank you for your post my friend and also agree with your points. We live in unsettled times-lets hope 2022 see an easing of tensions. 30 degrees and humid here 😓

Roy
Roy
8 days ago

The carriers could be well defended IF every relevant UK asset could be deployed to protect them. The problem is, in a war with Russia, what would be available? Would the Type 45s be deployed to protect the carriers or would those that are available be tasked to reinforce the air defence of the air approaches to the UK itself (given rather weak SAM capability in the Army)? Where would the the 20 F-35s be deployed, on a single carrier or from ground airfields in defence of the UK and/or Norway/Denmark? Where would 8 ASW Type 23s be best deployed,… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
8 days ago
Reply to  Roy

Our Carriers could, with a couple of escorts integrate with the USN CBGs and other NATO escorts in the Atlantic for better protection. It is also the platform for Merlin and the ASW effort. It would not surprise me if our few T45 and F35 were dispersed. Same with ASW T23, some with the carriers others alone as GIUK pickets. I would risk the carriers at sea, as they are at greater risk sitting alongside in port! They are versatile power projection assets. That does not mean they will be attacking the Kola in any war with Russia. All our… Read more »

Roy
Roy
7 days ago

I think you are pointing to the central problems in war with a peer adversary. The West is just not adequately prepared because it has long beleived that such a war is impossible. When the 1998 defence review came out, the assumption was that two carriers would be complemented by 32 escorts (including 12 Type 45s). Those numbers were incrementally cut so the two carriers are now protected by only 18 (soon to be 17) escorts, and only 6 of them are Type 45s. The same phenomenon can be seen when it comes to nearly every other type of capability… Read more »

JohninMK
JohninMK
6 days ago
Reply to  Roy

Spot on. Our AF might be able to cash a cheque and a few postal orders now but for how long? The Russians are starting to view and act like NATO is a busted flush and you can’t blame them. How long would it have taken us to do what they just did in Kazakhstan? We are entering troubled times and we don’t have the leadership we need.

Knight7572
Knight7572
8 days ago

Yeah despite that really he is not wrong as 1 hit in the right place would mission kill the carrier

Armchair Admiral
Armchair Admiral
8 days ago
Reply to  Knight7572

Yes he is right. iN THEORY one missile might be enough, he is not wrong. It’s a bit of an obvious thing to say. You could say one bullet Might kill a person, if it hit the right spot. The phrase involving a Sherlock comes to mind.
The issue I have is that he saw fit to tweet about it…why?
AA. Mr angry.

Jon
Jon
8 days ago

No. He’s not right, not even in theory. He said one missile will take her out. Not could. He tweeted the certainly, not the possibility.

But I agree with you about the absurdity of commenting randomly in response to carrier news. Mr Gordon-Banks is vulnerable to a traffic accident; we all are. People still don’t tweet for no reason, “And just one number 68 bus could take him out”.

Jon
Jon
8 days ago
Reply to  Knight7572

QE class has a lot of redundancy. Unlike the Ford class, where I can think of several places that could easily stop it operating, stopping QE getting F-35s in the air would be a lot tougher.

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
8 days ago

Well whatever his motivations and alleged allegiances, he’s not wrong. A single missile COULD take out a carrier. Or a Type 23. Or a Type 45. Or a replenishment ship. Our defences are woefully bad and should be far better.

Ian
Ian
8 days ago

Back in the Cold War days it was widely accepted among planners that if it went ‘hot’ a lot of people and hardware (including US CBGs in old likelihood) would be lost in short order. That is not an argument against building the capabilities though. In the real world where we live no US carriers have ever been lost since WWII (not counting the one in a support role that was sunk in harbour in Vietnam).

Roger Hill
Roger Hill
8 days ago

I suppose treating the Russians as trading partners and not as enemies is out of the question.

Jon
Jon
8 days ago
Reply to  Roger Hill

It’s not how we treat them. It about how they treat us. The constant cyber attacks, the disinfomation trolling through social media, the destabilisation of European countries, the assassinations on foreign soil including poisoning the leader of Ukraine, the miltary take over of the Crimea, the cutting of Norwegian undersea cables, and the bald-faced cheek to shrug and pretend nothing happened. When British nationals are killed in England using nerve agent by Russian “tourists” (whose day jobs are as spies), no you can’t treat the Russians as simple trading partners, at least not until Putin has gone. Let’s hope the… Read more »

Rob N
Rob N
8 days ago

I think he is just Putin’s man… he thinks of carriers as targets only, forgetting their role is offence…

I hope the ruble is a string currency otherwise he will be under paud!

Johan
Johan
8 days ago

ONE like in one brain cell as a former MP he should just get his head down and shut up. really have to question how he got there in the 1st place and how Much he screwed from the taxpayer. for his GREAT WORK. makes you wonder how and why twats like this survive being out in public.

Johan
Johan
8 days ago

Loads of Twats On Twitter and he is a Prime Keyboard Warrior, guess his family stuck a silver spoon up where the Sun does shine and his nanny needed to remove it.

Tommo
Tommo
7 days ago

The Falkkands wasn’t “Dubious Circumstances” Mr Banks

Tommo
Tommo
7 days ago

Just Wiki”d Mr Banks Capital L for Loser ,that all I’m saying

SD67
SD67
7 days ago

A missile could in theory take out a carrier. It could also take out an airforce base – the difference is a carrier can move. Imagine a situation like, err, “now” where russia is massing troops along Ukraine’s border. HMS QE could just park itself 59 miles off the coast and deter. Without asking anyone’s permission and without the UK being accused of escalating the crisis or drawn into a conflict. Yes maybe the Russians could attack it – but it’s in international waters so that would be, you know “war”. And if it were there as lead of a… Read more »

Jon
Jon
6 days ago
Reply to  SD67

Turkey might not take too kindly to us violating the 85 year old Montreux Convention, sending our carrier through the middle of Instanbul “without asking
anyone’s permission”. Of course if we asked nicely they might let us cross-deck some F-35s on the Anadolu. It would be fun to watch the American reaction.

JohninMK
JohninMK
6 days ago
Reply to  SD67

I am sorry but the information on which you based your comment is out of date. Leaving aside getting the carrier into the Black Sea, once it is in it the best description of it is ‘sitting duck’ not ‘carrier’.   First there are around 4 active ‘black hole’ Kilo subs to avoid, second there are dozens of coastal batteries on Crimea and the Russian mainland armed with 350km range AshM, third there are surface ships with AShM Kalibres and finally Ru Naval Aviation and RuAF heavy fighters and bombers also armed with AShM. That’s just for the carrier.  … Read more »