QE carrier radar detects tennis ball sized objects more than 25km away

I was aware that Mr Putin fancies himself as a bit of a ‘sport’ so this is presumably so that we can spot one of his ‘serves’. Is that an analogy or what!
Mike B

I think that it rather a good use of taxpayers money, and far better than the dreaded Cambridge busway. Aircraft carriers have always been big and inviting targets (quite a lot were sunk in WW2) but there is still no better way to put air power where it is needed. My only worry is that we are not spending more on defence across all three services.

Marcus Gibson……The article above is about a radar system that will increase the safety of those people, who at a moments notice, will lay their lives on the line to protect you. I do not think that is a waste of money.

I think that you may be being a bit premature Mike.
Drones are excellent for certain tasks as you point out, but not very good for others (air superiority being one of them).
One day we may well see drones that can fulfil all the requirements of a modern battle scenario, but that day hasn’t yet arrived.

Its perhaps symbolic (whatever that means!) that discussion as to the vulnerability of large pieces of floating metal is occuring at the same time as reports of the death (albeit he was 98!) of Dennis Healey. Contrary to the beliefs held by some, he was one Minister of Defence (and not a Tory one) really rated by the senior military. [A family member was a very senior RAF officer: and described Healey as perhaps the first to actually apply the scientific method and rational arguement (and in the 70s) (rather like McNamarra in the USA) to settle the Inter-service rivalries (then much more unpleasant than any applied to a potential enemy! He also and encouraged the ‘Services’ -interesting word to describe them- to actually work together creating the facilities and thinking for ‘joint operations’. But perhaps his most valuable contribution was to point out that had WWIII started there would not be a single Nato vessel afloat after the first 30 minutes or so: a claim never countered by anyone!

Mike B

“… But perhaps his most valuable contribution was to point out that had WWIII started there would not be a single Nato vessel afloat after the first 30 minutes or so: a claim never countered by anyone! …”

The awesome reality is that this comment is now probably even MORE true TODAY, than then!

Missile technology, metre-accurate targeting ability (Worldwide), and truly fearsome and awful weapons that can be brought down on widely dispersed targets from weapons platforms that are thousands of kilometres away portend a really horrific and game-changing outcome to any future battle between the current super-powers.

There are now sufficient missiles to confidently target every single UK warship, and every single UK naval base and airfield in a first-strike.

The UK is ignoring the defence of the ultimate carrier – the UK mainland. I agree that navy carriers need a defence system, but it is the mainland that needs equally good defence systems. And to be honest – there’s NOTHING there that inspires confidence.

Can “Carrier UK” defend herself against missiles launched from Iran? Or a nuclear sea-mine dropped into the English Channel from an anonymous cargo ship?? What civil-defence facilities are being put in place to mitigate the effects of these types of attacks and secure the protection of the general populace. There is no point in having an expensive defence force that can be easily by-passed and the general population directly destroyed in an Armageddon moment. Which is EXACTLY what modern terrorism movements are exploiting.

The self-defence of the UK (and Europe) needs a complete rethink. And pretty damn-fast too!

I’m really intrigued by your comment.

Do you really believe such a comment is merely “fatuous”, and is in fact, grossly inaccurate?

Because if you do, then you are living in a yester-year world of make-believe. The Americans have ably demonstrated how a modern blitkrieg is conducted. And their campaigns have been totally devastating in their opening phases. They have a bit of a problem sorting out the political aftermath afterwards, but that is a different debate.

Fortunately for themselves, the US (and their side-kicks the UK) have only ever picked fights against very third-world backward nations who were in no position to fight back on like-minded terms.

But that world-view is now changing. Russia is now itching for a scrap to re-establish its dominance. Iran is rapidly establishing a sophisticated ballistic missile capability that will be a direct threat to Europe. And in between all of this, modern terrorism is being increasingly enabled and magnified by access to weapons of mass terror. And all this is picking up a pace that we are consistently BEHIND on.

The response to these existential threats is … a mere discussion??

This is as satisfactory a situation as when Hitler was threatening to invade. “Six rounds for each anti-tank gun, and a cup o’ tea while we wait, guv. We’ll be OK.” Like hell. Last time the Yanks – not Churchill – saved our arse. This time we have to do it ourselves.

Any intelligent person has only to read the “thirty minutes or so ” part to know it is at best a point for discussion. That is if they’ve ever seen or had anything to do with modern weapons or paid attention to any of the modern conflicts. I don’t dispute the potential high attrition rate for ships, mostly the timescale. You mention US actions, and again I say read the “thirty minutes or so” time. The time is the nonsense part. And in all probability most ships will survive. It’s one of two things, either stupid, or a point to start an intelligent discussion. Healey, while a catastrophically incompetent minister, was highly intelligent and very smart at debate. I choose to read the statement as being one for discussion, because he was intelligent and highly argumentative.

(sigh) Engineers used to be intelligent, able to read whole sentences and able to make up their own minds, not blindly follow tabloid fodder. Shame, really.

I really do seem to have stirred up the ‘nest’ quite unintentionally. Quite a few valuable comments though: comments that I would certainly wish to explore: even, if they need it, ‘counter’ if possible. That might take a long time: but let me start with “Healey…catastrophically incompetent minister, highly intelligent and very smart at debate.”

So was Enoch Powell (a highly competent Health Minister), and look where it got him. The Right has never really been able to deal with intelligence, rational thought: nor science. It was my great good fortune as an undergraduate (I even belonged for two years to the St Andrews/Scottish Universities Tory club-we all make mistakes when we are young- until my Damascene moment) to sit at the same table as Powell at a gathering in Edinburgh one lunchtime in 1962. He was “thinking of the answer to the question you would ask, when you had assimilated the answer he was about to give you to your last one”: he was that far ahead of us.
I believe Powell, a mid-20s aged Professor of Greek at Sydney University in 1939 returned to the UK, volunteered for service in the Warwickshire Regiment and in less that two years was promoted from private to Brigadier. He was considered so valuable for his ability to plan and define scenarios that he was not permitted to be in action. He wrote (in early 1942, immediately after US entry) and sent to Mr Churchill a complete timescale/analysis of the passage of the war: and was correct almost to the month. The only thing he missed was the effect on Japan of the Atomic bomb: of which he (like Truman as vice-president of the US until he was catapulted, when FDR died into the top- ‘the buck stops here’- job) was unaware.

It is to be hoped that HMQ does actually wish those who occupy the summit of HMG to be highly intelligent: perhaps the assistance of senior permanent secretaries in various ministries helps too. Some knowledge of technology and strategic planning might help as well.

In the early 70s I attended a conference/seminar arranged by the Society of Long Range Planning. That was interesting- we were invited to position ourselves 50 years ahead and then look back so I am almost there! – but its location more so, as the conference was at Shrivenham, then the Royal Military College of Science.

As might be recalled by others who have attended that location, all courses messed together and as part of this, there was a formal dinner one evening. I recall a special ‘mention’ for some Italian military delegates (attending a ‘liaison with Government course’) and this at a time when Italy had the largest democratically elected Communist Party members in its Parliament outside the USSR. Amongst those also present were what was termed ‘the Readers Digest -Simple Science /taster in technology’ course for UK Brigadiers and above. I was able to speak to several. Wonderful men: most has seen active service either in WWII or one of the mini-wars later. Certainly brave and probably well able to ‘lead’ other men into action. Unfortunately (or fortunately) the need for such in an almost fully mechanised electronically defined war scenario was shringing by the year.

As several of the College teaching staff pointed out in conversation, “these men hardly know the simple mathematics or science of what goes on under the bonnet of their staff cars: let alone how the signals pass in and out of the radio: or to what trajectory an artillery shell is constrained as it travels through the air. Their knowledge of science and technology, if any, was from ‘O’ level at school. And those were too often schools that primarily taught them how to be gentlemen; by teaching them about Ovid, Horace and Socrates: or PPE and how to sit on a horses’ back properly!

“….not blindly follow tabloid fodder”
Just remind me: from which direction (left or right) is the ownership and majority of this fodder coming?

“….the usual nasty sarcasm of those who mock people prepared (by whom?) to lay down their lives for them. “ This is a hardy annual (monthly, weekly, daily? often repeated in the popular meja)
A lot to review here.
“Usual, nasty sarcasm of those…
“mock…
“people prepared to lay down their lives for them…
Let’s start with that.
Armed Services: made up now, I am pleased to say, entirely of those who voluntarily join such: seeking a particular career. I draw a clear and necessary destinction between those who hold commissions from HMQ and those who do not. ie ‘Able Bodied sailors, rank-and file soldiers and mechanics, fitters, air-electronics/flight preparation staff.
In the RAF, it is (almost always) only the officers who are in harm’s way. The ORs stay on the ground?
In the Navy, once on the ship, there is no way off: for those there simply to be told what to do.
The Army? -well it has never sought/encouraged intelligence at the point of kill: because experience has shown that such has to be removed for greatest effectiveness. Better it wasn’t really there from the start.

Usual nasty – “I may not care for what you say, sir: but I will defend to the last breath (see above) in my body your right to say it”.
Sarcasm; a simple search on the www gives a clear definition. At least as clear as anyone being sarcastic might offer.[Geddit?] And not quite what GOE, CME and others might accept.

Just for the record: I had the privilege of attending a very special boarding school. There were no fees payable by the surviving parent because there was a single entry requirement. That a boy’s father had been a freemason who was dead. That alone. As I was there from 1947-1959 it’s not necessary to point out the sad event which had assured my attendance and that of the majortity of my contemporaries. “lay down their lives?”

Fellow bloggers might enjoy a short section from a book describing aspects of this.

“The Latin motto of the School was Audi, Vide, Tace. The start is not a reference to the German car with the four rings trade mark but means Hear. The second word? Who remembers what Julius Caesar is supposed to have said to the Senate in Rome when he returned from the UK? I know it wasn’t called that then, but it was later. Veni, Vidi, Vici. “I came, I saw, I conquered.” So, the middle word is related to, and gives reference to See. The third? Tacitus, the silent one: hence taciturn, be silent. Here, See and be Silent. Was this telling me something about my future?

Schools, particularly boarding schools, of that era were mirrors of the post-war Establishment. The Royal Masonic School was no exception. Broken or cracked the mirrors may have been, like the then Establishment itself, “lost an Empire and not yet found a role.” Public Schools were like Gaul, again as described by Julius Caesar, in at least three parts. Religious, academic and military. Military? now there’s a contradiction, if you add the word intelligence. The military aspect to a public school, minor or otherwise, in the 50s was dominant. It certainly took precedence over the academic and the religious. Our entire school ‘paraded’ at least once, often twice every week in full uniforms, with rifles and all the paraphernalia of military matters.

The Cadet Corps of the Royal Masonic school was affiliated to The Rifle Brigade. That odd-ball part of the army, founded and first active during the Peninsular wars in Spain and Portugal fighting Napoleon Bonaparte. The Rifle Brigade. A group of specially selected soldiers, adept at living off the land and being the eyes and ears of the commanders, and excellent shots. The 95th of Foot. Watchers of Sean Bean as Sharpe look closely into your memories here to get the idea.
I had to participate in the Corps. I learnt the basics as a ‘squit’, a first year cadet, of the craft of rifleman. Each year as I progressed up the school I learned more. I was taught how to read an ordnance survey map, use a prismatic compass, camouflage my helmet and my position, load my rifle with blanks and shoot it and polish my ‘brasses’, the buckles on my belt and anklets.
I had to press my uniform, with the three creases, spaced at three, six and nine inches at the back, and have arrow sharp creases in the battle-dress trousers at the front: achieved by soap on the inside and a night being slept upon in bed under the mattress. I had to Blanco my belt and anklets, salute when and where necessary and march in step, and in time as part of our drill. I also had to know how to slow march. That particular stately movement that once mastered is never forgotten. And march in the quick time of the Rifle Brigade, one-hundred and eighty paces to the minute. Its soldiers and we cadets, looking as we raced around the parade ground nearly twice as fast as ‘ordinary’ soldiers, as if we had corks stuffed in a particular place. I was taught how to shoot on the ranges with live ammunition. Rifle, Bren, Sten, and to be part of the team to fire a mortar. I threw a grenade, once. Happily it was a dummy! When we went to camp and on exercises once a year I was one of the squad. Gradually as I grew older promoted from rifleman to corporal to sergeant. Led sometimes, merely managed and administered on others, even just told what to do by the worst of my seniors. But all was stored away. All was retained. All was part of creating my character.
I think? Someone once asked one of the Old Masters, “How long does it take to complete a painting?” “All my life.” was his answer. “my every brush stroke is guided by every piece of knowledge I have received up until that moment.” I do believe I know that scemario as well.

One of our fellow bloggers did suggest that I might usefully read Max Hastings’ material: primarily about conflict. I have done better: I have corresponded directly with him: and indeed attended his lecture and the subsequent dinner at the University of Dundee. Whilst my degree (Applied Science 1964) is from St Andrews, in fact the Engineering Faculty was located in Dundee: a city where I spent 4 wonderful and formative years.
My assertion, based upon a reading of history (accepted as not as thorough as that of someone trained in the Arts?) has always been that the ‘leadership’ of Europe did not try too hard (if at all) to stop WWI. Never mind the quasi-political reasons; such was primarily because they recognised that if they did not set their respective ‘lower-orders’ at each other’s throats in the millions they did, it was highly likely (following the many minor revolutions/insurrections in most separate countries and in the earliest years of the 20th century) they would jointly and severally come for and replace them.

I have heard all manner of arguement(s) about this (from MH and others) and still await the first convincing comments and evidence that I am wrong. Subsequent conflicts WWII were the inevitable result of the flawed Peace? Treaty! That ended WWI: I love one modern Russian proverb
“Better a lean peace than a fat victory”

We have a parallel now of course. The combatants are different (primarily the brains of those technically trained on all ‘sides’-set upon each other (and intellectually rather than physically) by the RIPs and their Praetorian guards. Faster missiles, more accurate hot-rock throwing, higher and faster platforms and surveillance, its all there…but the result is the same. That a frightening amount/percentage of the available entropy/enthalpy of each ‘sides’ technological base is being used to support conflict, not congression.

As I have opined many times: the solution is in our hands as technologists. We technologists who have the ability to manipulate Nature’s Laws to the value and benefit of all mankind, could stop this nonsense tomorrow.
RIP-rich, in-place, powerful
Best
mike B

They are only as vulnerable as anything else and only as vulnerable as we are prepared to let them be.

Actually, unless I am mistaken, and they are smaller than the wave forms around them (or beneath such), there is little a ship (of any size) can do now to avoid detection on the sea’s surface?
Vulnerable? I do recall reading somewhere that it cost the USAF $5,000 per ‘hole’ dug from the air in an enemy location, that the Japanese could fill in for 10c . Not really cost effective.
Though another source has assured me that a piece of aluminium kitchen foil (arranged in a cross shaped format and a couple of AA batteries suitably connected-cost $2.00) looks very much like a $10,000,000 aircraft from the vantage point of a satellite and can often and readily encourage a $100,000 missile to be wasted trying to destroy it!
Mike B

My newest policy is what I call ploughshares to swords!

Mike B; they’re still looking for a new Blackadder script. Send them your alternative (to) history; they might find it too far-fetched, but you never know.

Well MikeB you have certainly progressed from complaining that you are being described as a “Commie pinko” Your words not so far as I am aware mine or as I recall anyone else’s, and being MikeB, I guess you must be right. Again I note that you are as usual the man standing on the proverbial north pole and everyone else is a southern know nothing, you are of course intrinsically correct in a way that no one else can be, whilst at the same time bemoaning that no one else agrees with you. As you say everyone is out of step apart from our MikeB. I note your old school motto and I am glad to see that it does not appear to have made any great impact upon you personally despite your obvious affection for the place, My school didn’t have one, in fact mine didn’t have a lot of stuff like parental rights or fees of any sort or houses or in the first couple of years proper sports facilities either. Yes totally agree with you, the middle ranks of the Air Force and the quite senior ranks of the Navy are the most likely to put themselves in harms way, I note this article is about the equipment that covers these people whilst they do so.
You are of course, being MikeB, totally correct that we can now sit in Surrey and drop hellfire on Sindh. You will of course know how the drones get there? Do they fly across the vast expanses of ocean and desert or are they launched closer to the point of conflict? I know you believe those people launching those units are deserving of protection whilst they do so? I seem to remember that lots of tin foil. was expended by lots of aircraft since the advent of radar, and the role of deception in warfare is of course well known by yourself from the plaster cannons of Pope Innocent to the false armies of D Day and beyond. Of course the QE will not be fitted with electronic warfare and jamming equipment because in the last 70 years we have not learned anything about how to create or manipulate radio signals and the GCHQ and others aren’t in the process of receiving and filtering intelligence and disseminating disinformation because the senior military planners and public servants don’t do that now.
I am glad you have read Max Hastings and discussed with him (and others I am sure) his comments on the abilities of civilian armies, and their leaderships. Being MikeB I guess you also had the chance to discuss with WSC and DDE the abilities of democratic governments to move civilians to fight and continue to fight wars, and obviously at the same time discuss with JS and AS the ways in which undemocratic states can do the same. I will look forward to Max’s retractions in future editions of his books. I mean, in 1914 we had to do something with the 50,000 strong peacetime army, otherwise we would have been in the situation that in 1915 it would have been at the same personnel level, and we can’t have that, we have to create 4 years of war so that we can raise the numbers for the next 100 years so that we only hit that level again in 2012. I mean that is of course correct, and at the same time we can remove a few tens of millions of lower class people because they are becoming troublesome, Can’t be a conspiracy theory, it is espoused by MikeB. In the meantime after 20 or so years of peace we will get a right wing Prime Minster to wave a little bit of white paper so that it looks like we don’t want to go to war and expend the fortune and whatever goodwill or might we have spent 200 years amassing.
Mike, I don’t have any problem with your political views or your apparent passivism, Christ we should all have those. I don’t believe that many, if any do, have that problem with you. I think a lot of people have different views on how peace is achieved and maintained, in reality they are every bit as correct as you, or me, and that is “in parts”, it is just that it is hard to create a system where the correct parts are in place at all places at the same time. I do have a hard time with your view that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, and that you have a series of bugbears which are flat out predjudices. All bankers are evil, no, I promise you that my only dealings with bankers are the rather nice lady who sorted out my mortgage and the gentleman who returned my chequebook by post when I left it at a branch. Lawyers are Evil, No most of them are out to alleviate the issues we have with people and corporations , and governments, some are there to represent the people we have a problem with some are there to help us. The system should smooth out the grit, sometimes it doesn’t, well, you know we don’t all drive perfectly every day. Again I had a very nice solicitor that sorted out my house conveyancing, I didn’t notice any horns. Patents are pointless, Yes they, might be in many cases, in at least equal measure the thing under patent is just as useless, I am sorry If you have found things to be different. People who wear costumes, yeah I agree its silly, Also though, I am not sure I want to attend a court, as an accused, witness or juror where the judge is jeans and an Anarchy T shirt. Black Rod in his tights does add a certain Britishness to the opening of parliament. And If you are in the Church of England or Roman Catholic Club I suppose you have a right to demand that your priests wear a dress, is that any more nuts than the actual premise? It is useful for me to be able to spot a policeman from the crowd. Some people have stronger feelings than me on a lot of things. You are a Republican, great, personally I don’t see the point of ensconcing one of those malignant politicians you so despise in a position as the representative of the UK, One thing I am sure of it is very unlikely that the first president of the UK will be an engineer , doctor or scientist, he (and I am fairly safe there) will be a Lawyer or a Politician, or if we are really unlucky a Soldier.

After reading all comments, my only comment is well done to any engineer who as the intelligence to take the opportunity and build. No challenge of any real budget, an engineers dream.

White elephants come and go, the only winners are the engineers, thats all that matters to me.
All the other arguments attached for reasons for building are pale in comparison.

Leonardo da Vinci worked the fears and ambitions of the elite, this is no different. I just hope that these engineers are smart enough to evolve a conscious awareness.

“…..had the chance to discuss with WSC and DDE the abilities of democratic governments to move civilians to fight and continue to fight wars,…[DDE -Eisenhower?]

FTA perhaps unwittingly does I believe assist my thesis.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but ‘our’ effectiveness in WWII was not good at the start. It was only when the citizen turned military had been recruited (and notwithstanding FTA’s suggestion(s) of motivation, they -including my father, uncles, etc- were not really given a choice) and started to bring new ideas into the mix that ‘we’ started to get better. After 22,000,000 Soviet dead on the East (effort which eventually wore down/ removed the majority of those against whom we were directly opposed in Western Europe… we did succeed.

If I might suggest a re-reading of some of my previous posts, the location of the ‘pits’ may be more obvious.

Mike B

Of course, I never met US presidents of that former era: though I did have the privilege of being introduced to Reagan and Ford (next and last US President) on the same day. Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco. September 1980. I was as close as one can be to both, except for the guys with the large bulges under their arm-pits. More details if you wish.

Perhaps, on reflection, I was a little harsh on BAE here in my previous post. The performance of the radar may indeed be excellent, its likely just the case that modern stealth aircraft, anti-shippping weaponry and cruise missiles missiles are extremely capable and therefore extremely difficult to defend against reliably.

Jonoxx. But you seem to believe all the capabilities that our enemies posses will work as claimed!

I am so old that I can recall well a book and film called ‘Fail Safe’ –
It described a nightmare scenario (involving a Soviet leader with an uncanny resemblence to Bob Hoskins and “Enemy at the Gate -Stalingrad”: and a US one, rather like the man shot in Dallas) where eventually -to demonstrate equal loss and damage- one side drops ‘its’ bombs on itself!

There is the usual ‘intellectual- think-tank?’ discussion: part of which confirms that the few (lucky ones?) who survive any nuclear exchange will be deep coal and ore miners and young girls who work in the bowels of large office-blocks doing the filing of documents! [Both protected by their location from the initial blasts, etc.] This was pre-electronic data storage! Seems that this scenario could still be played out.

As many may know, in the early 70s the entire population of Switzerland were supposed to have access to a fully (three weeks?) stocked and defendable nuclear shelter under their domestic accommodation. Companies had separate arrangements. [They may still do.] I used to visit that country every month for textile machinery R&D effort: I recall discussions with my Swiss peers about ‘who’ would be asked/instructed/ordered/required to open their ‘door’ first, and how. And about what they might find.

Very well said, Mike!

I also think you are correct in surmising that the politicians will use the excuse (“… well that would frighten the public”).

But the alternative consequence from inaction is even worse – “we’ll KNOWINGLY risk killing the public in their millions when the spaghetti hits the fan”.

These options need to be pulled out of the bottom drawer, and forcefully debated BEFORE a crisis hits.

Sweden and Norway are also countries that are not afraid to confront painful dilemmas. They are also well-versed in excavating underground caverns for military use.

The UK cannot suddenly decide on the wisdom of tunnels for civil defence / military protection on the spur of the moment before a crisis. China (and probably N Korea and others, too) have been assiduously building their tunnel networks for several decades. It is not a 5-min quick-fix.

The country that probably most desperately needs to get a move-on in this regard is Israel. Their Hamas opponents have long ago incorporated tunnels into their strategy.

Israel largely downplayed the significance, and was confident they had a good handle on it anyway. Until Operation Cast Lead revealed the full significance of these tunnels. They were not merely “under the border fence” tunnels. These were merely the tip of the spear. The real significance lay in the labyrinth of tunnels that lay behind them in support, and the way they were being used to store weapons and troops, and be able to quickly move fighters from one area of Gaza to another with impunity from aerial bombardment and surveillance. That was the eye-opener to the Israelis.

Israel is obviously preparing a counter-attack strategy for the Hamas tunnels, but they also need protective tunnels for their own military assets (especially including airbases) ASAP.

I would not be surprised that the next ME war will be won by the side with the better defensive tunnels (and that is currently NOT Israel!).

My 2p.

(“… well that would frighten the public”). Wasn’t one of the reasons that the original ‘string-bag’ aircraft were despised by the military was because the noise they made “would frighten the horses?”