Royal Navy's newest ship formally named in Glasgow yard The Royal Navy’s newest warship, offshore patrol vessel HMS Forth, has been formally named in a ceremony held in Scotland. The 90-metre craft was christened by Rachel Johnstone-Burt, who broke the traditional bottle of alcohol across Forth's bows – in this case, a bottle of whisky to reflect the ship's Scotstoun, Glasgow …
Or perhaps some sort of PFI initiative where the RN will pay for offshore patrol missions as required. But the oligarch will own, manage and maintain the vessel and also provide training facilities and some personnel. They will also be able to earn extra revenue by using vessel for commercial operations when not required by the RN.
'Atlantic Patrol Task (North), which involves cruising round the Caribbean looking for drug smugglers and generally flying the flag in the Commonwealth states near that part of the world.'
And the non-Commonwealth states, to be honest pretty much anywhere that'll serve a decent rum. Honestly it's a hellish deployment, wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy...
And hopefully won't be in port being continuously repainted.
Wife's dad used to be in charge of the British Rail viaducts, bridges and station platforms for the south-west (he was a stonemason by trade originally). She remembers being taken through the tubes over the top of the Tamar rail bridge one Sunday.
That's another bridge that was (almost) permanently being painted. He used to get gyp from the workmen because he made them rub the rust back to metal rather than just painting over it - unsurprisingly the paintwork lasted a whole lot longer where that had been done.
Sadly, I never got to meet him since he died in 1977 - at which point I was 12..
"The 90-metre craft was christened by Rachel Johnstone-Burt, who broke the traditional bottle of alcohol across Forth's bows – in this case, a bottle of whisky to reflect the ship's Scotstoun, Glasgow origins.
"She is due to enter service with the RN in 2018, and will spend the time between now and then on final fit-out and sea trials."
Who's she? The boat or Rachel Johnston-Burt? Or both?
I suspect she's actually the daughter of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Johnstone-Burt
Who's a top bloke by all accounts although I have yet to meet him myself.
Edit, tell a lie, it sounds like she's his wife.
http://en.mercopress.com/2006/12/20/helicopter-veteran-of-the-falkland-s-war-becomes-scotland-s-new-admiral
I can't help thinking Miranda Hart would have been more appropriate had she been available. Her father had a distinguished career in the RN, and given the humorous possibility of carriers without aircraft and submarines that don't go to sea very much, she might have been a more realistic choice.
Miranda Hart would have been more appropriate had she been available. Her father had a distinguished career in the RN, and given the humorous possibility of carriers without aircraft and submarines that don't go to sea very much, she might have been a more realistic choice.
And could have livened up the ceremony with some suitably-timed pratfalls.
"Your taxes pay some soldiers to not carry rifles while conducting their duties."
Many moons ago, a mate who was in the RAF based at St Athan was involved in an excercise to "defend" the base against an attack. Unfortunately, they didn't have enough weapons to go around. Those without were told to just say "bang! bang! you're dead!" if they encountered an "attacker"...
Many moons ago I was a professional cloud sniper. We would quit happily spin up Bllndfire and shout 'that's a hit!' while our pristine unfired Rapier missiles sat on the rails never to be launched, until a few years later when they all got fired off in the South Atlantic .. well those that didn't get blown up with Atlantic Conveyor.
You mean BAe Systems has actually delivered a naval vessel on time?
Yes. But sadly all we've got is a piss pot gin palace with the same armament that Islamic State mount on a Toyota pickup truck, AND we've paid the same money for what other countries have paid for fully tooled up corvettes capable of deep water use against air, surface and submarine targets.
This wouldn't matter so much if we had a strong destroyer and frigate fleet, but we don't - they're short in numbers, and similarly spec'd by pacificists, although I suppose there's no point in having escort vessels for carriers without aircraft.
Oi! Twats of Whitehall! What's the point in having a navy if you only give it a few dinky, under-armed ships, and have huge gaps even in that limited capability?
True. Just imagine what the world would be like if Toyota made pickup sized power boats. :-(
But, but BAe build a boat on time..
I mean, what are the odds???
And post Brexit they can start to compete on the world stage, offering their (literally) killer warez.
You might find this piece food for thought.
http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/all/1/
I've often vaguely thought that carriers were a massive single point of failure. The entire Falklands campaign was one Exocet away from being an utter catastrophe with thousands dead. It was nice to find that people who actually know what they're talking about think the same thing.
'I've often vaguely thought that carriers were a massive single point of failure. The entire Falklands campaign was one Exocet away from being an utter catastrophe with thousands dead. It was nice to find that people who actually know what they're talking about think the same thing.'
Well not thousands, British carriers aren't that manpower intensive. We also had two in the Falklands Conflict so not a single point of failure. Of course the counter question is how would you propose to retake the Falklands without aircraft carriers?
Also worth bearing in mind there's always a high value or mission essential unit, be it the aircraft carrier, the LPD carrying the amphibious forces for the land campaign, etc. Ultimately nothing is invulnerable so in essence you're saying we shouldn't have military forces because the opposition might be able to destroy them.
Hmm. That's one school of thought, but there are rather a lot of opposing views, and their stance is that until the DF-21 is tested against an underway and evading target (and it never has been) any real threat it represents to the carrier groups is purest conjecture. If I were the Chinese, I'd be working on a very public demonstration of its effectiveness against a manoeuvring drone ship smaller than said carrier. That sends the kind of message and provides the kind of propaganda they desire.
Not entirely.
Unlike the Harpoon AFAIK the Exocet could not execute a ballistic attack and I think most ASM's move slowly enough to be hit by point defense guns. Although it would be an excellent application for the "metal storm" barrelless concept. AFAIK it's blowing out the whole keel (due to the massive KE) that would kill a carrier.
The DF21 does indeed sound threatening but we'll see if it delivers.
It comes down to this. It's been known since the 60's that runways for M2 jets (which everyone seems to have been obsessed with back them) made for large vulnerable targets and everyone had everybody else's map coordinates dialed into either their (nuclear) missiles or their aircraft cluster bomb dispenser.
Only the Harrier bucked this trend. A triumph of French conceptual design, US funding of the NATO R&D operation and Hawkers insistence it was a good idea. Yes the engine concept set limits on aircraft size and maintenance was a nightmare but it could have gone bigger and the latter could have been engineered out.
Everyone else said "No we'll just build a floating runway and then we can just buy land aircraft and have a few mods. Just a few % more expensive and we'll have so much more choice."
Only they aren't "just a few % more expensive" they are a lot more expensive. IIRC Naval JSF''s are 2x as expensive as their land based version (IIRC a GAO report says the 3 core versions are now about 25% the same. IOW they are basically 3 separate aircraft, with supply chains to match and dis-economies of scale).
But so far AFAIK all the carrier operators have been cruise missile operators and it seems no one wants to be the first to use the latter to demolish the advantages of having the former.
But what happens when you face a technological opponent who does not have carriers and won't "play the game" ? Who sees sinking you carrier as a complete win for them?
The Netherlands is an advanced country with a strong naval tradition and no aircraft carriers. From their PoV sending a multi $Bn investment to the bottom would not be a problem for them as they don't have any.
I suppose there's no point in having escort vessels for carriers without aircraft.
Well - considering that the anticipated lifespan of a carrier in a hot warzone is measured in minutes (carriers are the new Dreadnaughts - impressive to look at, hugely expensive to build but utterly useless for actual war situations) I suspect that, in the event of a war, these escort vessels would be all we had left.
Other than a few subs obviously.
Has anybody else noticed that these now boats increasingly resemble the front end of Greek triremes - which were used as early torpedoes, i.e. row like blazes and hit the enemy amidships with the pointy bit just below the surface, which was reinforced with bronze?
With armament that increasingly seems to resemble a few men with spears, perhaps all those classically educated people in Government are now trying to get the three-decker rowing boats they really want.
I understand it is the new Bofors 30mm 'White Flag' gun system.
When approached by the Iranian navy the cannon is swung upwards and a white flag deploys. An automated announcement then tells all hands to lay down any knives or guns and reminds them that loss of iPhones or iPods will be compensated for.
"Numpties. The bridges are named after the river that they cross - the river Forth."
Shirley the bridge crosses the Firth of Forth. The second ship will be named Moray, as in:
"If your Firth isn't Forth but one much further north, it's a Moray!"
What do you mean you've heard it...?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
