Posts by EvilDrSmith

Britain goes shopping for a rapid-fire missile to help Ukraine hit back

Re: What's in it for us?

Ever since the 3-day SMO became the 3+ year SMO, you have been desperate to portray the war as one that was always intended to be a war of attrition, which is clearly complete poppycock.

As I have previously pointed out, if that was the case, the Russian Army would not have invaded along limited axes of advance, with inadequate flank protection, enabling their best trained and equipped units to be decimated by Ukrainian territorials equipped with NLAW, but would instead have started the invasion advancing on a broad front, to engage as much of the Ukrainian army as possible.

If the war had been intended to be attritional, the Russians would have called up reserves from the start, to maximise the amount of manpower they could deploy from day 1.

If the war was intended to be one of attrition, the Russians would have established adequate medic facilities for their huge numbers of casualties.

If the war was intended to be one of attrition, the Russians would have established a training capability that ensured that new recruits were properly trained before being sent to front line units, rather than one that sends Russian volunteers to the front with maybe two weeks training, and would not have needed to beg for tens of thousands of troops from North Korea or trick citizens from various African countries to travel to Russia before they are conscripted and used up as disposable infantry, or even (1 confirmed case) turned into involuntary suicide bombers (except that the guy was able to surrender instead).

If the war was intended to be one of attrition, the Russians would have increased armaments production before the war started, rather than after.

If the war was intended to be one of attrition, the Russians would have taken older vehicles from their stockpiles and started the refurbishment process before the war started, enabling the most technically capable systems to be restored first, rather than taking the easiest to restore first, after the war had started.

The Russians launched a 3 day SMO, that was designed to overcome all Ukrainian resistance in ideally 3 days, 10 days at the most. It was supposed to be a shock-and-awe campaign.

What is being attrited is Russia's oil industry, with regular and frequent strikes by the Ukrainians on oil refineries and other oil industry.

What is also being attrited is Russia's Shadow fleet of tankers, which the Ukrainians are steadily targeting - though scrupulously when the ships are empty, to minimise any risk of environmental damage. An activity which has, of course, been aided by a certain US president that shall not be named, who's targeting of Venezuelan tankers wasn't deterred even after one of them re-flagged as Russian.

As for the Russians trying to take Odessa - well, they were unable to do that in 2022, when they had the advantage of operationally surprise at the start of the war and where able to cross the river and taken Kherson, plus had an intact Black Sea Fleet including the guided missile cruiser Moskva and multiple specialist amphibious landing ships, and the Ukrainians had no significant coastal defence weapons systems apart from a few early production Neptune missiles.

Moskva is now an artificial reef, most of the amphib ships are burnt out wrecks, and the Black Sea Fleet has run away so far, it should probably be re-named the Caspian sea Flotilla.

The Russians were also forced to withdraw from Kherson and are now on the east side of the River Dnieper, and despite the perception that the old Soviet Red Army was good at river crossing operations, the current Russian army has shown itself to be anything but - and that was earlier in the war when the troops may have had more than 10 days training.

Re: V2 ?

Yes, but not quite.

The urban myth is that the fuel ran out, the engine stopped and the bomb then crashed.

Actually, at a set distance, the fuel supply was cut off and the elevators locked to put the bomb in the dive, at which point the engine stopped.

Understandably, observers on the ground had no way of telling which order things happened, and since they perceived that the engine stopped then the bomb dived (in part, likely because pretty quickly, everyone ignored the bomb you could hear, and only looked up when they heard the engine stop, at which point they saw that the bomb was now diving down), the myth took hold that they ran out of fuel then crashed.

Re: V2 ?

You're confusing your V2 ballistic missile with your V1 cruise missile.

And in fact, it was UK's Anti-Aircraft artillery that really ended the threat of the V1, after the gun line was moved to the coast* - 3.7inch AA using radar guidance and proximity fused ammunition.

Fun fact - some of the AAA batteries were manned by the Home guard and were credited with being every bit as effective as the mixed (male/female) and regular army batteries, so the next time someone slags off the Home Guard, you can point out that they actually engaged the enemy for real, repeatedly, and with success.

*an operation carried out over a single weekend, moving guns (+ ammo, +radar + search lights + communications + etc) that had been semi-permanently emplaced closer to London, with practically no organic transport available within the units involved, so involving trucks being brought to the south east from all over the country, driven by civilian drivers with no maps, no local knowledge, and where all the road signs had been taken down (Invasion counter measures). An amazing achievement of logistics that sadly very few people are aware of.

Re: V2 ?

While the principle of copying a proven historical design is reasonable enough, there would be better historical systems to copy than the V2 (aka A4).

The V2 tended to bury itself before the warhead had a chance to detonate, reducing it's effectiveness; I think roughly 50% of missiles launched actually failed (crashed shortly after launch or broke up in flight), and the fuel / fuelling system was not one that permitted missiles to be stored/transported in a fuelled state (at which point, I believe there is an obligatory requirement to mention "Ignition! An informal history of liquid rocket propellants" by John Clark, which is, indeed, a very good read).

ATACMS uses solid fuel, and i would expect that this new British system would do, too.

Re: Of course the real truth

Well, it's actually £3mil / missile (three companies each getting £9mil for 3 missiles), but that is the contract for development of the design, not the production cost of the missile, which one would normally expect to be somewhat cheaper if put into large scale production.

The internet seems to think that the current US ATACMS missile (fired by MLRS/HIMARS) costs 1 to 1.5 Mil US dollars per missile, so if this British missile does come in at £1mil/missile, that's about the cost that Ukraine / western aligned nations are currently paying for this sort of munition.

Re: V2 ?

'Blitz Street' on Channel 4 (narrated by Tony Robinson). They progressed up from a 50kg (I think) HE, small incendiaries, than I think a bigger beasty (1000kg?), then simulated V1 and V2, if I recall.

Re: The Cynic's View

Cynicism is good, but the examples to-date of UK assistance to Ukraine give cause for hope: the 'FrankenSAM' systems Raven and Gravehawk were both bodged up in the best British tradition, and (from all reports I have seemed) are proving to be very effective.

Finnish cops grill crew of ship suspected of undersea cable sabotage

Re: The Register is just another American propaganda tool

"unlike with the Venezuelan SMO, the objective didn't use Spetsnaz to kidnap Zelensky"

No, The Russians tried (repeatedly) to assassinated President Zelensky.

Fortunately, they failed (repeatedly).

North American air defense troops ready for 70th year of Santa tracking

NORAD need more computing power

It's taken me over an hour to get past a 'loading' page and actually see the real time tracker - currently over Alice Springs.

Anyway, 364 days of cynicism is enough - Happy Christmas.

US Navy scuttles Constellation frigate program for being too slow for tomorrow's threats

Re: This isn't to speed up delivery to the fleet

yes..well sort-of.

Firstly, the 'affordable' is a subjective term, and 'effective in intended roles' is a key point, since different navies have different priorities and require their warships to be able to do specific tasks which the navy next door doesn't need/want to do.

The UK has the Type 25 which seems to be at the top end of capability, and appears to have been designed to allow for some flexibility of equipment/weapon fit out, comes close to your requirement, meeting the needs of RN and Royal Norwegian Navy in original configuration, and seemingly easily modified to meet Australian and Canadian needs too. However. 'top end' means costly, so not affordable to all.

At lower capability, the UK has the Type 31 (Babcock's Arrowhead 140). These are being built to a budget - rarely a good thing, but this seems to be the exception, since that tight budget limit seems to have ensured the MoD can't continuously try to change the design, and make the ships late and expensive. These are obviously less capable than the type 25, but can do most everything that the RN (or any other Navy) needs a Frigate to do, day-in and day-out - noting that most navies are not actually fighting wars day-in and day-out. And they are a lot cheaper.

But there are a number of alternate 'lower end' frigate / corvette designs available that are equally as good, depending on what your navy's precise requirements are. FREMM is reckoned to be a fundamentally good design.

The French have a shiny-new design (FDI), which is one of four (?) contenders for the Swedish new frigate (along with the Type 31) - and I read somewhere that Denmark are also looking for a new frigate and may combine their requirements with the Swedes to provide for a common fleet.

There is at least one Spanish shipyard that produces a range of designs, who are also in the running for the Swedish order.

So, for most navies and most tasks, there are actually a fair number of perfectly viable candidates.

Part of the issue is individual fit out, making sure weapons, sensors and other systems are common across an individual navy's wider fleet.

A lot of the issue is politics. We want to do a deal with country X not Y, and we want to build the ships ourselves in our shipyards, and give orders to system suppliers in our own country, etc.

Destroyers for bases in reverse?

In 1940, the UK got 50 old USN destroyers in return for basing rights for the US in British-owned territory.

Maybe we could offer them our old Type 23's, as we replace them with the new Type 26's, in some similar sort of deal?

Though after today, I don't think we want bases, just hard cash...

DragonFire laser to be fitted to Royal Navy ships after acing drone-zapping trials

Supposedly lasers for dazzling enemy pilots were developed for/ deployed to the Falklands in 1982:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23518592

UK unveils roadmap for replacing animal testing

"Certainly cosmetic testing should be banned IMHO"

In the UK it is, and has been since 1998 (with a small 'blip' which is what generated a story on the BBC):

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65623580

UK's Ajax fighting vehicle arrives – years late and still sending crew to hospital

Re: Situational awareness

You posted that "some of those were donated to Ukraine and promptly eliminated by Lancets", not that some were supplied and some of those that were supplied were eliminated, so in this case, no, that's not the same 'some' as you originally used.

Delivery into the field in July 2022, after training was undertaken outside of Ukraine (because that's how it's been done) means that at least half of the supplied vehicles were operationally for well in excess of 300 days during the 3-day SMO.

But then, since we are now on day 1,356 of the 3 day SMO, taking more than a year to damage 3 out of 6 systems probably does seem 'prompt' to the Russians and their supporters.

Re: Situational awareness

"Some of those were donated to Ukraine and promptly eliminated by Lancets."

Nope. 6 reportedly donated, with the announcement in April 2022. Unlike some other allies, UK donations tend to be prompt after the delivery - the vehicles were reported in the field by July 2022.

Confirmed damage to three Stormer systems in March 23, May 23 and July 23, so half the systems were damaged or destroyed over a year after being supplied (with the confirmed strikes spread over a four month period), therefore not 'promptly eliminated'.

Also, I'm pretty sure I saw time stamped (and datable from weather and anti-drone measures) video of a Stormer still active with Ukraine this summer, suggesting at least one is still doing its job.

Also, DEW are most likely on the table - the US has field deployed trials versions of laser weapons for a few years (for example DE M-SHORAD). The US are using Stryker, so the first British vehicles to get something similar will likely be Boxer, but the technology is now viable, and if there is the demand to get it into the field, that will push it along the path of maturity, making smaller/lighter/cheaper.

Re: Typical MOD bid scenario

Upvoted, but actually, it was for a drink of hot water, with perhaps a spot of milk.

It was a certain small but indomitable Gaul, with a handful of leaves his Druid gave him before leaving for Britain, that made it a tea break.

Re: Situational awareness

In theory, yes.

But how many drones does it take to achieve this?

Images from Ukraine show that drone strikes can be very precise, but also show that a lot are not.

So you need to hit most or all of the sensors, possibly multiple times if replacement vision blocks, cameras or whatever are held on board.

And you need to do this in the face of whatever defence the vehicle has, both in its own right ('cope cages' have already been mentioned, on board jammers, smoke dischargers blinding the drone at the last minute so that it doesn't have the precision it needs) and from surrounding units: Infantry with combat shotguns, other jammers, potentially land-based DragonFire or similar direct energy weapons, anti-drone missiles and anti-drone drones, etc.

On top of that, you have to locate the vehicle in the first place - you might find and attack it with one drone, but by the time the follow up swarm arrives, the vehicle has moved and been camouflaged.

Plus, while their is currently no plan to purchase the air-burst ammo, that doesn't mean that it won't be procured. I suspect the decision on the types of ammo to be obtained was made years back, before the emergence of the drone threat. If the vehicle were to be deployed to a drone-infested battlefield, I would not be surprised if the air-burst ammo was obtained through an urgent operational requirement (which is the one bit of UK defence procurement that does seem to work effectively).

So yes, it could happen occasionally, but in practice, probably not an issue to worry excessively over..

You'll never guess what the most common passwords are. Oh, wait, yes you will

Re: Most Popular Password : 123456

I thought the correct 8 character password was:

SnowWhiteandthe7Dwarves

Ministry of Defence's F-35 blunder: £57B and counting

Re: Again why beancouters

Which is utter balderdash.

The Russian retreat from Kyiv was due to their military failure.

The attempt at peace talks early on failed because of Russia maintaining their maximalist war aims, and because, having been forced to retreat from Kyiv, the extensive Russian war crimes at Bucha et al came to light.

The actual historical record (including the testimony of the Ukrainians who were actually involved in the negotiations) prove that no foreign leader forced the Ukrainians to do anything.

It's also interesting to note how on this site (which is still more-or-less UK-centric in readership), the lie is always that it was Boris that intervened, while on a US-centric site I lurk on, it is an identical lie, except that it is all the fault of Joe Biden. It's unusually considerate of Russian propagandists to adjust the lie to suit the intended audience.

The one thing you said that is true, and which of course undermines your argument that it's all perfidious Albion's fault, is that "Russia wanted Ukraine to surrender unconditionally".

Russia wanted and continues to want Ukraine to surrender unconditionally. Russia offers no fair and just path to peace, and has not once entered into peace negotiations in good faith.

Re: Again why beancouters

"Thus far, the SMO has been about attrition, conserving Russian forces and minimising Ukrainian civilian casualties."

Impressive, three untrue statements in one sixteen word sentence.

The 3-day SMO (I know you don't like it when people call it that...ODHSNM) was supposed to see all significant Ukrainian resistance overcome in three days, with the plan allowing for it to take up to ten days. It was not about attrition, it was Putin and the Russian army trying to do Shock and Awe; trying to achieve a rapid victory that was done-and-dusted before anyone could effectively intervene.

That's why we saw the (supposed) best of the Russian army, with the latest, most modern equipment, charging down the roads towards Kyiv and Kharkov and Odessa with no proper flank protection, on the narrowest of fronts, and being decimated by Ukrainian territorials armed with NLAW as a result.

If the 3 day SMO had been about attrition, the Russian drive towards Kyiv would not have had to be abandoned after 4 or so weeks, when the army ran out of food and fuel and tires and etc, with the Russians gifting vast stocks of their latest military equipment to the opponent that they were supposed to be attriting (I'm sure that you remember the images of Ukrainian farm tractors hauling off T90's and SAM systems etc - the rest of us do).

While I suspect that you'll declare that the Russians have only suffered 3 casualties - one for each day of the SMO - looking at a range of sources and assessments, including some official Russian government data, it seems near enough certain that Russian casualties passed the 1 million mark this summer just gone. Not withstanding the comment from the person that isn't Spartacus, below, who has seen data suggesting that Russian casualty ratios are holding around the typical 20th Century mark of 1 dead per 3 wounded, there are other credible assessments that suggest that's the best case, and the worst case is closer to 2:3. Unlike the Ukrainians, who are clearly making significant efforts to recover and treat their wounded, Russian casualty evacuation and front line medical care is conspicuous by its absence. If what we have seen is the Russians conserving their manpower, I suspect the Ukrainians would look forward to the Russians become spendthrift with it.

As for you third assertion - well, while your first two comments make you look comic (don't worry, we are laughing at you, not with you), your third is just vile.

The Russians are engaged on systematic murder of Ukrainian civilians. Missile/drone strikes are targeting Ukrainian cities indiscriminately. The Russian practice of 'Drone Safaris' is well documented, whereby they are practicing drone attacks by targeting civilians going about their normal lives (and are proud that they are doing this, posting video on social media). And of course, post the forced retreat of the Russian army from Kyiv, we all saw the extensive war crimes committed by the Russian army at Bucha and elsewhere. The Russians are engaged in systematic war crimes and genocide. They are deliberately seeking to inflict civilian casualties.

Re: Again why beancouters

I suspect that the Ukrainians are looking for a 1917 style victory, assisted by a sustained attack on the Russian oil industry.

While everyone tends to get excited about the bangy-stuff-go-bang, the important stuff may be bean-counter stuff:

Significant year-on-year reductions in new vehicle (car/van/bus/HGV) sales reported by the Russian motor industry which coupled with the Russian army impressing civilian vehicles, indicates a smaller and aging (and logically, increasing expensive to run and unreliable) commercial transport fleet serving the civilian market.

Russian railways reporting severe staff shortages, having to allocate staff, locomotives and rolling stock to the army as priority over civilian use, and experiencing repeated failures due to a backlog of / lack of maintenance (assisted by the actions of the Russian 'resistance' movement) and with management now taking short cuts and blaming the workers when it goes wrong - a couple of weeks ago there was a fatal rail crash after the driver was ordered to exceed the line speed.

Petrol shortages leading to increasingly long queues and increasingly irate drivers.

Civilian roads degrading due to lack of maintenance to the point where even the big Russian trucks are sometimes struggling to navigate the road.

Add in general inflationary issues and shortages that come from wartime generally, and while the populations of Moscow and St Petersburg may be largely unaffected by the above, and still be happily spending like there is no tomorrow, the population of the vast mass of Russia East of the Urals may not be quite so happy.

At some point, the Russians out in the sticks may just have had enough, and decide they no longer want to send their young and not so young men to die for Czar Putin.

Re: Again why beancouters

Well, there is the Octopus drone; developed by the Ukrainians, and going into mass production in the UK, with production going both to Ukraine, and to NATO states:

https://www.forcesnews.com/ukraine/shooting-down-shaheds-uk-and-ukraine-produce-interceptor-drones

https://www.thedefensenews.com/news-details/Octopus-100-Interceptor-Drones-Enter-UK-Production-Under-Build-with-Ukraine/

Re: Again why beancouters

Regarding Flamingo, there was a certain amount of initial coverage, and then it's gone a bit quiet, so hard to reliable assess numbers and capability.

The reported first use on a target in Crimea was three missile fired, 1 failed to reach the target (cause unknown) one struck a building on the target site, destroying it, and one landed on the beach where target-patrol craft (including hovercraft) had been present on the pre-target imagery, so in fact, it appears two of the three reached the target and achieved some effect against the target, based on imagery made public.

On announcement, it was claimed 1 missile per day production, to increase to 200 per month by end of year. Whether that is being achieved is no more or less certain than the idea that the Russians are churning out Pantsir.

The missile is little more than a tin tube, readily made in any metal bashing facility.

The warhead is a FAB freefall bomb, of a type that is sitting unused and otherwise unusable in Ukrainian inventory.

The jet engine a proven and extensively made cheap and simple jet, which apparently has a reputation for a short service life (when used in training aircraft), so many have been replaced by longer-lasting western made versions, meaning that there are loads of the Ukrainian built version to be had globally.

Basically, this is a long range missile made from spare parts that the Ukrainians were not otherwise using.

Its big, it's moderately (not very) fast, it's not stealthy, and it flies low, but not very low (like Tomahawk does), so yes, it is relatively easy to shoot down, in theory.

It also has a 3000km range, which means that the area of Russia that the Russians now need to provide air defence to is huge.

Pantsir is good to engage to what? 20km maybe, if the terrain is suitable. Even if the Russians are churning out Pantsir, the best they can hope is to ring all their oil refineries, oil storage tanks, drone factories, etc, etc and try and defend any and every point target - and there are now huge numbers of point targets that now need to be defended.

Flamingo significantly complicates Russia's Air defence problem.

I suspect that the reason Ukraine want Tomahawk is because:

They are fighting off Russian Genocide, and want any and every viable weapon they can lay their hands on.

Tomahawk flies lower and is a more clever missile, and has a different warhead option, so it provides the Ukrainians with an improved ability to match weapon to target.

The different flight profile of Tomahawk further complicates Russian air defence.

Getting Tomahawk is also a political statement of support for Ukriane

Re: Again why beancouters

"At the time this was literally impossible!"

Well, ~ish.

There was no other VSTOL option apart from F35B, and given that the Royal Navy has by far more 'corporate knowledge' of maritime aviation than any other navy (the list of naval aviation firsts is nearly all the Royal Navy / Fleet Air Arm), when they said they wanted VSTOL, that is a solid basis for assuming that VSTOL was the right choice for the Royal Navy.

VSTOL meant F35B.

If they had gone for 'Cats-n-traps', there would have been three choices:

F35C - built that wasn't available at the time either.

F18 - Obsolescent, so not a sensible choice

Rafale.

So we could have ordered the carriers and the planes to fly off them, with confidence that the planes would be available on time, but only if we had adopted Rafale.

There are good reasons why we didn't do that, but strictly, it was a possible option.

Re: Again why beancouters

"We've also learned from Typhoon and not gone with Germany,"

That might be giving too much agency to the UK - my understanding was that the Germans choose to link up with the French on the Future Combat Air System (or SCAF, in French, but I can't remember the French spelling), and in doing so choose specifically not to be part of (at the time Anglo-Italian) Tempest.

Obviously, the usual siren voices then declared that the UK should adopt the 'European' option and give up Tempest, which being Anglo-Italian, was of course also a European option, but apparently not the right sort of European. The Anglo-Italian Tempest was to be the product of an existing partnership with a track record of Tornado and Typhoon, so an incredibly successful - technically and commercially - one; much more so than the last attempt at a collaboration involving France, who walked out of the Eurofighter / Typhoon programme and developed their own (really rather good, to be fair) Rafale.

I have always assumed that the German decision to link with France was a purely political one, made back when the NATO defence spending target of 2% was viewed with amusement by German politicians as something on par with scary monster stories to tell children.

Anyway, FCAS/SCAF seems to lurch from political/commercial disagreement to political/commercial disagreement, while still maybe being on schedule for a 2040's service entry data as planned, while Tempest seems to be making good steady (and dispute-free) progress for a service entry data of 2035, a date driven by the third partner nation - Japan, and with other nations expressing interest: Saudi appear to be seriously trying to get involved, and Sweden I believe walked away a few years ago, but on the ground of 'not at this time, but keep us informed' attitude.

Students using ChatGPT beware: Real learning takes legwork, study finds

Re: Not just AI

Google streetview is wonderful for this.

You do a virtual drive of your route a couple of times, and then when you do the real journey, you know to turn left after the big red office block, then right just after the church then left at the big pub, etc...

You can identify the navigation landmarks, rather than road numbers and 'travel for XX miles then turn left'.

BOFH: Saving the planet, one falsified metric at a time

Re: Which side of the pond are you?

There is a Thames River on the left side of the pond as well as the right, and (having read the comments below), there is a Thames in New Zealand, though that's a town (but I think the river that runs through it was also called the Thames for a while?)

Royal Navy sharpens claws on Wildcat choppers with anti-drone Martlet missiles

But you also need to consider the cost of not stopping the drone

"The Register's cursory research suggests the cost of each Martlet missile might be anywhere from £59k to £71k ($79k to $95k), notably more than the $20,000 to $50,000 for an Iranian Shahed drone they may target."

Comparing the cost of the defending munition against the cost of the attacking munition is routinely done, but it's important to remember that stopping the attack prevents death and destruction, and the value of what you save by stopping the attack is often greater than the cost of the defending munition.

It's not just the cost of the missile, but also the value of what is saved

"The Register's cursory research suggests the cost of each Martlet missile might be anywhere from £59k to £71k ($79k to $95k), notably more than the $20,000 to $50,000 for an Iranian Shahed drone they may target."

Comparing the cost of the defensive munition against the cost of the offensive munition is quite typically done, but a better comparison is perhaps the cost of the defensive munition against the value of the what is saved from destruction.

It's the value of what you save that is important.

"The Register's cursory research suggests the cost of each Martlet missile might be anywhere from £59k to £71k ($79k to $95k), notably more than the $20,000 to $50,000 for an Iranian Shahed drone they may target."

It seems quite typical for the cost of the defensive munition to be compared against the cost of the offensive munition. However, given that the offensive weapon is likely to cause death and destruction, perhaps a better metric is the cost of the defensive weapon compared to the value of what is saved by destroying the attacking system before it reaches its target?

(and hoping that this actually posts this time, there seemed to have been an issue with comments this morning)

Britain's AI gold rush hits a wall – not enough electricity

Re: The obvious solution?

The problem is more that the waves that can throw around ships also throw around your wave generators, which then become prone to failing. The sea is a hostile environment for man-made structures.

Tidal power is something we probably should be exploiting more, but with tidal lagoons rather than barrages - barrages tend to upset the environmentalists, since they can impact the entire intertidal estuary environment

UK to roll out mandatory digital ID for right to work by 2029

The TV serial '1990' staring Edward Woodward. (broadcast in 1977).

{Spoiler}

S1/E8, Non -citizen.

The state's revenge on the lead character for being troublesome is to strip him of ID, Union Card and de-bank him - can't work, can't access state services, can't access money - loses home, etc. How to kill someone without having to actual kill them.

And as noted, that was broadcast in the late 1970's.

Brit scientists over the Moon after growing tea in lunar soil

Re: Cutty Sark 2.0

Unless named by El Reg readers, in which case it will be the Cutting Snark...

BAE Systems surfaces autonomous submarine for military use

Re: In-flight refueling?

Well, actually, it's the US navy whose submarines have sails.

I think the term 'sail' is what they use (or at least used to use) for what most people refer to as the conning tower.

UK tech minister booted out in weekend cabinet reshuffle

Re: "join up public services"

Indeed - I suspect that after this November's budget, we'll all feel like we've been Humphrey'd

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?pglt=515&q=I%27ve+been+Humphreyed&cvid=b62d64a48ec44842b8869208bb58b6d2&gs_lcrp=EgRlZGdlKgYIABBFGDkyBggAEEUYOTIICAEQ6QcY_FXSAQg0ODU5ajBqMagCCLACAQ&PC=U531&ru=%2fsearch%3fpglt%3d515%26q%3dI%2527ve%2bbeen%2bHumphreyed%26cvid%3db62d64a48ec44842b8869208bb58b6d2%26gs_lcrp%3dEgRlZGdlKgYIABBFGDkyBggAEEUYOTIICAEQ6QcY_FXSAQg0ODU5ajBqMagCCLACAQ%26FORM%3dANNAB1%26PC%3dU531&mmscn=vwrc&mid=9574195F0A4F131098029574195F0A4F13109802&FORM=WRVORC

Norway's £10B UK frigate deal could delay Royal Navy ships

Re: No scheduling problem.

As I said, most warships spend little if any time at war.

The army have lots of vehicles painted green - some are tanks, a lot are trucks, which are entirely unarmed and unarmoured, but vital nevertheless.

The air force have all sorts of aircraft - some are combat aircraft, others are trainers and cargo carriers with no weapon systems fitted.

I fail to see why every ship the navy has should be expected to be a combat vessel designed to fight a full scale war against a peer-level opponent. Anti-piracy, anti-smuggling, routine survey and patrol are all tasks of a military force, and can be carried out by a 'lightly' armed vessel (* a 30mm cannon and a Wildcat helicopter armed with LMM is likely to be plenty heavy enough to deal with smugglers or pirates).

The Type 26's are for scaring potential adversaries, the OPVs are for doing the day-to-day routine stuff.

Re: No scheduling problem.

Again, I agree, but...

The Sa'ar are warships, they carry their crew plus weapons. As far as I am aware, they have no capability to carry supplies, troop, etc, other than jamming what ever will fit onto the open deck.

The River Class OPVs are, as you note, not really 'war' ships, but military ships, They have about 1/3 to 1/2 the crew of the Sa'ar, I think, plus have the ability to carry troops, civilian mission specialists, supplies, etc. OPV's should probably be viewed as militarised work boats.

So in a shooting war, yes, the Sa'ar is far superior, the OPVs are not remotely close in capability, but they weren't designed to be.

Re: No scheduling problem.

While not disputing your points generally, I will challenge the idea that the OPVs have no real military purpose.

Most warships do not, in fact, spend much if any time actually at war. There are plenty of real military tasks for which an OPV is perfectly fit for purpose. OPVs are cheaper to run and provide a route to first command for junior officers which are perhaps a bit more expendable if the officer screws up.

A smaller vessel like an OPV can often be quite diplomatic: it shows that the navy concerned is taking an interest, but in a way that is not threatening or escalatory. When Venezuela was making threats to annex a chunk of Guyana, the Royal Navy sent an OPV - that's less threatening that an aircraft carrier, but implicit was that the rest of the RN could follow up if necessary.

Delaying delivery of a vessel to the RN so that the Royal Norwegian Navy get a vessel earlier is not at all a problem.

Realistically, the Royal Navy has still to overcome it's manpower problems which seem to be more fundamental than the age of its ships (though the age of ships is an issue), so this gives them more time to sort out recruitment, while given how close UK and Norway tend to be on defence matters, each navy will tend to support the other anyway.

The deployment of the UK's two aircraft carriers routinely includes one or more vessels from the UK's alliance partners - the current PoW Carrier Strike Group includes a Royal Norwegian Navy vessel.

Instead of a fleet of 8 Type 26's crewed by Brits, there will now be a fleet of 13 Type 26's manned by Brits and Norwegians. That's good for both nations.

Datacenters face rising thirst as Europe dries up

Re: Sadly

Actually, it's a bit more than a few metres down - this is the Chalk aquifer, which has been rising since the 1960's, due to the decline of industry in the London area.

The Chalk is typically around the 30-80m below ground (varies quiet a lot, depending on where you are in the London Basin, and can be shallower) but that's still readily pumpable.

The Environment Agency have a Chalk Aquifer management strategy that is controlling the rise in the aquifer

(See here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/london-basin-chalk-aquifer-annual-status-report)

Also, it's not really 'dirty' - The Environment Agency tend to have a distinct sense of humour failure with people that pollute the Chalk aquifer. If you are only using the water for cooling, it shouldn't need treating. It's quite routine for Ground Source Heat Pump systems to use open-loop design (extract from the aquifer upstream and re-inject downstream) that operate in the Chalk aquifer.

"@El Reg, stick with one set of units: cubic metres, gallons and litres all in the same article is unnecessarily confusing. For water use the international standard would be cubic metres"

Indeed, but the El Reg standard for volume would be the grapefruit and the Olympic-sized swimming pool.

https://www.theregister.com/Design/page/reg-standards-converter.html

Who made the demo list for Trump's fast-track nuclear reactor scheme?

Re: Hmm

"Australia isnt on the list of pissed off, the US is in a joint program for helping Aus with nuclear subs."

This is true, but one of Trump's underlings has been questioning the value of the AUKUS deal on the grounds that the US cannot afford to let the Aussies have a nuclear sub, because the US need them all to face down China.

Given that a large point of the AUKUS deal is to ensure that Australia can provide a useful addition to the US Navy if it has to face down China, because it will have compatible nuclear powered attack submarines. the argument for the US pulling out of the AUKUS deal does seem rather poor.

However, experience shows that there is no limit to the level of stupidity that politicians (of any/every nation) cannot achieve (see for example Starmer giving British territory to Mauritius, probably in breach of international law with respect to the rights of colonised people (the Chagossians) to determine their own fate, then paying many billions of UK taxpayers' money to Mauritius to rent 1 island back..and them promising to tell Mauritius ahead of time if the US want to use it to launch a military attack from that island).

If the US do pull the plug on AUKUS (which I do not actually think they will do), I suspect that that would piss off Australia quite severely.

You've got drought: UK gov suggests you save water by deleting old emails

Re: water company failure

"stuck with crumbling infrastructure which is mostly unchanged from Victorian times"

Death of Queen Victoria (end of Victorian times): 1901

Water privatisation: 1989

Number of years that the state (municipal water companies, etc) had to repair the crumbling Victoria infrastructure and modernise the system, expand capacity to allow removal of Combined Sewer Outfalls etc, fix leaks etc; 88 years.

Number of years that the privatised water companies have had to do the same (and actually have done*, though not enough): 36 years

*we keep having this conversation.

Tideway / Thames super sewer (2000 to 2025).

Ending the dumping of raw sewage sludge at sea (Bovril Boats, when operating from the Thames, but they operated from various other cities): 1998 (having operated since 1887, so for 98 years under state control)

Replacing the short sea outfalls that municipal (state) water companies used to discharge raw sewage to sea (at distances above low water mark) throughout the period that those authorities were state controlled, with long sea outfalls that at least took it below low water (early 1990s)...

... Followed by constructing water treatment plants at the UKs coastal towns so untreated raw sewage was no longer discharged routinely to sea (throughout the 1990s).

That we recognisably had crumbling Victorian infrastructure at the time of provatisation is fairly definitive evidence of the extent to which the state under-funded water and wastewater provision in the UK. If they had not under-funded it, the infrastructure would have been neither Victorian nor crumbling.

Re: E-mails are not the problem.

"The problem is that the useless, greedy, corrupt fecking govt and the useless, greedy, corrupt fecking Water authorities, "

Not disagreeing with you description of government at all, and not disagreeing with your description of the water companies in general, but as regards not building reservoirs, this is most definitely not something to blame the water companies for. As I have previously noted, Thames Water having been trying to build Abingdon reservoir for about 20 years, and have been repeated blocked by OFWAT.

South West water has just (well, October 2024) confirmed plan to build Cheddar 2 reservoir - which they proposed in 2007, started survey work for in 2012, but then scrapped due to OFWAT in 2018.

The lack of reservoir building in the UK is directly due to the useless official regulator, OFWAT, that has actively blocked any new reservoir construction in the UK for a couple of decades.

The good news is that OFWAT is to be abolished. The bad news is that the useless, greedy, corrupt fecking govt is creating " a new, single, powerful regulator" that will likely be even more wasteful and incompetent.

Skyrora wins green light to lob rockets from Scotland

Re: sovereign launch capabilities

Well, I'm not really evil...in truth, not even slightly evil...but 'The-occasionally-slightly-naughtyDrSmith' didn't have quite the dramatic impact.

Black Arrow

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Arrow

(Yes, it's Wiki, but for something like this, it seemed a suitable and easy to access reference)

UN World Court declares countries must curb emissions or be held responsible

Re: Useless Non-entities

From your link:

"The Southern Water company, which supplies water to 2.6 million people, is allowed to release excess wastewater into the sea when the network is saturated such as during heavy rains."

So the release is authorised ("is allowed to release") by the regulator, i,e, the state. Do you imagine that the state would be harder on itself if it was the owner/operator of the sewerage system? Or do you think it would be more likely to regulate itself more laxly?

Also, note that that the private company is only allowed to discharge to sea under extreme conditions - prior to privatisation, the municipal water companies discharged waste to sea continually, as standard operational practice.

Re: Useless Non-entities

We've had this conversation before...

"But they also haven't built a single resevoir since they were privatised."

True, but not through want of trying - the water companies have tried to, and been blocked by the planning authorities (i.e. the state)

If I recall, the last reservoir to open in England was Carsington in 1991. Thames Water have been trying to build Abingdon reservoir for about 20 years.

"They were privatised on the promise of investment in aging pipework, they haven't invested in said pipework"

Following privatisation, there was an initial cut in water leakage (by about a third: claimed by the water companies and fact checked as true by the BBC) There appears to have been no great improvement since then, but they clearly did invest in pipework and cut leakage.

In London the sewer system was built to a design by Joseph Bazalgette. The system opened in 1865 (though if I recall the history, wasn't fully finished for another 10 years). It intercepted the sewerage that poured into the Thames as it passed through London, and transported it to the east...where it dumped it, untreated, into the Thames. The population of London at that time was <3 million

That was changed in 1878, after the Princess Alice disaster (don't read about that if you are about to eat), when they built primary treatment before dumping the waste at sea.

There were no significant improvements in sewer capacity thereafter, prior to privatisation. In 1990 (around privatisation), London's population was about 7.5 milllon.

Thames Tideway has changed that, adding the first significant increase in sewer capacity to London. Planning for the scheme started around about year 2000 (so just after they did the initial fixing of water pipes), and it opened earlier this year.

Under the 'state owned' water system, UK coastal towns dumped screened but unprocessed raw sewerage directly off the beaches through short-fall sea outlets. After privatisation (and because of a change in the law) the private water companies extended these to long outfalls (quick fix), then built treatment centres to enable dumping at sea to stop,

The 'state owned' water companies used to routinely dump sewage sludge at sea - that seems to have been brought to an end (internationally - it wasn't just the UK that did it) by the London Convention of 1972, with progressive phasing out, though in London, it continued until 1998, and it seems to have been done elsewhere in the UK; eg, Glasgow:

https://ss-shieldhall.co.uk/the-ship/history-of-the-glasgow-sludge-fleet/#:~:text=Dumping%20of%20Glasgow%E2%80%99s%20sludge%20at%20sea%20goes%20back,at%20Dalmarnock%20%281894%29%2C%20Dalmuir%20%281904%29%20and%20Shieldhall%20%281910%29.

"it's the lack of monitoring"

Which is back-to-front.

The privatised companies in England ARE monitored for sewage discharges into rivers - that's why we have stories reporting them.

From section 81 of part 5 of the Environment Act 2021:

141DBMonitoring quality of water potentially affected by discharges from storm overflows and sewage disposal works

(1)A sewerage undertaker whose area is wholly or mainly in England must continuously monitor the quality of water upstream and downstream of an asset within subsection (2) for the purpose of obtaining the information referred to in subsection (3).

(2)The assets referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a)a storm overflow of the sewerage undertaker, and

(b)sewage disposal works comprised in the sewerage system of the sewerage undertaker,

where the storm overflow or works discharge into a watercourse.

(3)The information referred to in subsection (1) is information as to the quality of the water by reference to—

(a)levels of dissolved oxygen,

(b)temperature and pH values,

(c)turbidity,

(d)levels of ammonia, and

(e)anything else specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

It appears to be the state owned water company in Scotland that isn't required to monitor and report it's activities, and which thus can discharge with impunity.

Ukrainian hackers claim to have destroyed major Russian drone maker's entire network

Re: 10TB of backup files

Did that guess include the Baltic? And Petropavlovsk?

What about Moldavia and Romania (Wallachia)?

The Crimean war was actually a war fought by Britain, France, Sardinia and Turkey (the Ottoman Empire) against Russia, triggered by Russia's military expansionism at the expense of Turkey, and was fought globally.

Britain's billion-pound F-35s not quite ready for, well, anything

Re: Maybe it's time we in Britain admit we're a bit crap at things nowadays

Vestas,

Thank you for that information - I have not previously seen reference to the unreliability of Sky Shadow to that extent.

On that basis, I feel I should withdraw my remark that "the Tornado was in no way obsolete in 1991", since it seems that the ECM fit may have been (or at least, obsolescent).

However, since the aircraft remained in RAF service for a further 28 years, is still flying with the Luftwaffe and is, I think, still in service with the Saudi air force, I think it is still fair to say that the Tornado generally was not obsolete in 1991.