IFTTT
Watch: The Download – the day’s top stories 5th December 2023 at 2:00pm
British and German pilots have trained to refuel whilst in the air, and HMS Albion has braved the blizzards of the Arctic – all this and more on The Download.
from Blogger https://ift.tt/oWaG5TQ
via IFTTT
First Royal Navy squadron to operate advanced F-35 jets to be stood up on Friday –
One of the most advanced fighter planes ever constructed is set to be operated by a Royal Navy formation for the first time.
Originally formed in 1941, 809 Naval Air Squadron has been resurrected to fly the new F-35B Lightning.
The F-35B squadron will be stood up on Friday.
‘A phoenix is rising from the flames’
Dating back to the Second World War, 809 Naval Air Squadron was selected by the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir George Zambellas, because of its illustrious history as a strike and attack squadron.
In a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, the Royal Navy said: “Lightning is forecast this Friday… A phoenix is rising from the flames… Are you ready for the Immortals? Friday, December 8, 2023, RAF Marham.”
The F-35 is a fifth-generation stealth jet that is capable of ground attack, air superiority and air-to-air combat – all of which will be carried out by the pilots of 809 Naval Air Squadron.
The squadron first saw action in 1941 in the Arctic, operating the Fairey Fulmar, going on to serve in Malta, North Africa, Salerno, the south of France, the Aegean, Burma, Suez and the Falklands.
It was decommissioned in December 1982, with its eight Sea Harriers having served in the Falklands conflict – with none being lost.

The UK’s current fleet of F-35Bs is operated by 617 Squadron, which draws its personnel from both the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force.
The fleet of F-35s is being maintained and supported by Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems thanks to a £161m contract.
The deal looks to support the F-35 fleet until 2027, allowing the UK more freedom to operate the aircraft, increase the number of flying hours and deliver mission planning, training and maintenance.
from Blogger https://ift.tt/s3fHPZ7
via IFTTT
The Roman Amphibious Invasion of Britain When the legions of Emperor Claudius stormed the British coast in 43 AD, it heralded centuries of Roman rule at the farthest fringes of the Empire—courtesy of an epic logistical operation of staggering proportions. By Steven Iacono December 2023 Naval History Magazine
When most people think about ancient Rome, it is likely they are picturing huge stone amphitheaters, gladiators, and roving armies. However, it is the massive and almost immeasurable unseen logistical efforts of the Empire that demonstrate the true genius of Rome. Much has been written about Rome’s legions and the wars they fought across a territory that covered more than 1.5 million square miles—from modern-day Britain in the west to Iraq in the east. Yet these military operations would not have been possible without naval logistics on a grand scale, since the movement of men and matériel by sea was often swifter and more efficient as compared to land routes.
In the year 43 AD, Rome invaded Britain, a feat that required a staggering movement of troops, horses, grain, and equipment. The difficulties and complexities associated with amphibious warfare are immense. Today it would require extensive use of computers, electronic communications, tide charts, weather predictions, and thousands of other variables, but the Romans had no such capacity. What they did have was an exceptional level of organization—which made for a relentless method of warfare.
Historians note various reasons for the Roman invasion of Britain, including Emperor Claudius’s need for prestige, new avenues for taxation, access to natural resources, and regional politics. But the baseline is that the early Roman Empire was focused on expansionism. Assimilating peoples and nations brought resources, slaves, land, and taxes into the coffers. With these attainments in mind, four Roman legions totaling approximately 20,000 troops were dispatched to Britain’s shores in nearly 1,000 ships.
Many sources put the entire force—including servants, slaves and auxiliary combat detachments—at between 35,000 and 40,000. Before the invasion these troops were moved up from Central and Southern Europe, a sizable task. Researchers estimate that the average Roman soldier had 54 to 100 pounds of equipment, which would have created a significant baggage train of wagons and mules—all needing transport by ship.
In addition, the army, and the individual soldiers, routinely had slaves and servants who traveled with them during combat operations. Estimates range between 400 and 1,400 per legion, thus four legions would have brought along 1,600 to 5,600 additional persons needing to be transported.
The movement of troops and personnel was enormous, but the amount of shipping needed was even greater, as a large number of horses, mules, and other animals would have accompanied them to carry equipment and serve the cavalry. It is estimated that the average legion required 1,400 mules, which would mean at least 5,600 needed for the invasion. Some researchers put that number at upwards of 10,000. Since the Romans made use of heavy siege tools and battlefield artillery (carroballistae, onagers/catapults, towers, and rams), this number is not outside the realm of possibility. Artillery likely comprised a large portion of a typical military baggage train. There are historical references indicating a Roman legion might have 60 to 65 pieces of artillery. Each legion thus would require 70 wagons and 160 animals for these weapons and their ammunition, equating to 280 wagons and 640 animals. A mule weighs between 800 and 1,000 pounds, thus adding a substantial increase in the aggregate need for shipping.
In addition, each legion usually had a detachment of approximately 150 to 400 cavalry (equites legionis) who were often used for reconnaissance and screening. It would seem that initially 600 to 1,600 horses would be needed, but spares also would have been required because of attrition stemming from accidents, combat, and disease. Adding to this, senior officers likely had more than one horse.
The transport of horses by ship is a delicate process that requires special attention to loading and unloading, especially for an amphibious landing. Ancient sources observed the negative impact of moving animals by sea. There is also the possibility that elephants were part of the invasion force. A substantial amount of food/fodder for animals would have been shipped, because the Romans would not have known what kind of reception they would receive upon landing on the shores of Britain; free-grazing might not be possible. When Julius Caesar had made a brief invasion of the island nearly a century before, his forces met with immediate armed resistance on the beach, and they soon returned to the continent. It was one of the first recorded mentions in history of ship-to-shore fire.
All armies march on their stomachs, and Rome’s was no exception. In a time when the average citizen had a rather limited diet, soldiers are known to have had quite a bit of variety. Their ration consisted mainly of grain (the frumentum) for bread and other foodstuffs (the cibaria). Research has shown that cattle, pigs, cheese, beans, oil, and wine, along with numerous fruits and vegetables, were frequently consumed in garrisons.
It cannot be presumed that troops on the move in combat would eat like those stationed in garrisons, but also it is unlikely that grain/bread could sustain tens of thousands of men burning through large sums of daily calories for long periods of time. Herds of animals likely were brought along to provide meat, again increasing the need for transport. It has been calculated that a six-month supply of grain for 40,000 personnel would have weighed 6,967 tons (nearly 14 million pounds). A few decades prior to the invasion of Britain, when the Roman Army was fighting in Germany, the soldiers likely were consuming 25 tons of wheat and 7.5 tons of other foods, as well as nearly 25 tons of barley for their animals—each day. The cross-sea provision of food for the soldiers in Britain must have been a monumental naval task in and of itself.
It is not known exactly when in 43 AD the invasion took place, but sources point to late spring or early summer. The southeastern coast of Britain is not known for its fine weather and hospitable currents even during the warmer months. Caesar’s earlier invasion was greatly delayed due to gales. Sea temperatures in May are in the low 50s. Air temperatures are in the upper 50s to low 60s, with nights in the mid- to upper 40s, which is important to note, since Caesar’s brief prior invasion force likely had arrived at night. This allowed for a full day’s worth of daylight for the landing and disembarkation. However, this also meant that the soldiers and animals were in open-air ships for several hours during the crossing and prior to landing. It is likely that the arrival of the invasion force in 43 AD also occurred at night. This would have required an enormous amount of planning, coordination, and signaling of various forms to keep the fleet operating in unison.
Sources note that the invasion likely required 724 to 1,041 ships. Even if it took multiple trips (and thus fewer vessels) to get all of the troops and equipment across, it was still a sizable fleet. Estimates are that a single ship could hold 80 to 120 personnel or 30 horses. The number of trees needing to be felled, and the lead time to build these vessels, is staggering. Reconstruction archaeology of a small Roman riverine patrol boat, which would have held 20 to 22 people and weighed six tons, required 18 trees. The average weight of a Roman cargo vessel was between 33 and 44 tons. Thus, building nearly 1,000 would have consumed tens of thousands of trees. Needless to say, the creation of such a fleet was an industrial undertaking with regard to felling, prepping, and moving of timber.
It is known that the Romans would transport timber across great distances when necessary, and the legions may well have participated in this process. That makes sense, since it literally would require a well-organized army to accomplish such an enormous task. There are many historical references to the use of the army for building bridges, aqueducts, fortifications, and roads. For example, the 72-mile-long fortification line known as Hadrian’s Wall was built in Britain by the legions in the early part of the 2nd century.
Greco-Roman shipbuilders were keenly aware of the specific properties and hardiness of different types of wood. Analysis of three Roman cargo vessels found in the harbor of Naples, Italy, noted that many different types of trees were used in each one depending on their various properties of sturdiness, straightness, and resistance to decay in water.
As for other needs, several years before invading Britain the previous emperor, Gaius (known as Caligula), had contemplated the endeavor and ordered the initial preparations for the attack, including the building of ships. He also built portions of the naval port at Gesoriacum (modern day Bolougne) and its lighthouse—all of which likely played a role in 43 AD.
The Roman invasion of Britain required a massive logistical effort that must have taken years to prepare. Each individual supply requirement (food, ships, lumber, horses, etc.) was an astronomical task in and of itself. Roman naval forces were able not only to provide for a successful amphibious assault, but also to sustain it for months and years to come. Over time, this would become the nucleus for the Classis Britannica, one of the few Roman fleets outside of the Mediterranean. For the next three and a half centuries, Britain would be colonized and ruled by Rome as a vassal nation.
Sources:
E. Allevato, E. Russo Ermolli, G. Boetto, and G. Di Pasquale, “Pollen-wood Analysis at the Neapolis Harbour Site (1st–3rd Century AD, Southern Italy) and Its Archaeobotanical Implications,” Journal of Archaeological Science 37, no. 9 (September 2010): 2365–2375.
R. W. Davies, “The Supply of Animals to the Roman Army and the Remount System,” Latomus 28, no. 2 (April-June 1969): 429–59.
Cassius Dio, Historia Romana, book 60, penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/60*.html.
Adrian Goldsworthy, The Complete Roman Army (London: Thames & Hudson, 2003).
Adrian Goldsworthy, The Roman Army at War, 100 BC–AD 200 (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1996).
Gerald Grainge, The Roman Channel Crossing of AD 43: The Constraints on Claudius’s Naval Strategy (Oxford, UK: Archaeopress, 2002).
Peter Kehne, “War and Peacetime Logistics: Supplying Imperial Armies in East and West,” in Paul Erdkamp, ed., A Companion to the Roman Army (London: Blackwell-Wiley, 2007).
David Mason, Roman Britain and the Roman Navy (Gloucestershire, UK: History Press, 2009).
Russell Meiggs, “Sea-borne Timber Supplies to Rome” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 36 (1980): 185–96.
Russell Meiggs, Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. 1982).
“Logbook of Shipbuilding: Reconstruction of a Late Roman Danube Ship,” interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/living-danube-limes/section/logbook-of-shipbuilding.
Michael Pavkovic, “The Legionary Horsemen: An Essay on the Equites Legionis and Equites Promoti,” doctoral thesis, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1991, scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/items/e186ff6a-c917-482b-87f1-db69beb5a744.
Jonathan Roth, The Logistics of the Roman Army at War, 264 BC–AD 235 (Leiden, NL: Brill Publishing, 1999).
Jonathan Roth, “The Size and Organization of the Roman Imperial Legion,” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 43, no. 3 (Fall 1994): 346–62.
Rose Mary Sheldon, “Caesar, Intelligence, and Ancient Britain, International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 15, no. 1 (2002): 77–100.
Richard Thomas and Sue Stallibrass, eds., Feeding the Roman Army: The Archaeology of Production and Supply in NW Europe (Oxford, UK: Oxbow Books, 2008).
Jorit Wintjes, “Technology with an Impact: Field Artillery in the Ancient World, Vulcan 3, no. 1 (May 2015): 19–41.
from Blogger https://ift.tt/WPqTyDS
via IFTTT
Royal New Zealand Navy To Trial Ocius Bluebottle
Royal New Zealand Navy To Trial Ocius Bluebottle
The Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN) will soon take delivery of a 6.8-metre renewable-powered Uncrewed Surface Vessel (USV) to trial on a short-term lease.
NZDF Press Release
USVs offer potential to undertake a wide variety of roles for the New Zealand Government. These could include fishery protection, border protection or providing meteorological data.
HMNZS Aotearoa is transporting the vessel from Sydney to Auckland and once operational it will be able to undertake maritime tasks at sea without fuel or personnel on a trial basis.
The Bluebottle is designed and manufactured by Sydney-based Ocius Technology, which has already sold a number of USVs to the Australian Defence Force (ADF) and worked with Australian Border Force (ABF) and other energy and scientific agencies.
The solar-, wind- or wave- powered vessel uses a retractable rigid sail to provide wind propulsion. Photo-electric cells on the sail can drive its motor. In the absence of sunlight and wind, the Bluebottle has a unique flipper and rudder device to steer and propel itself. It has a top speed of five knots and the ability to operate at sea indefinitely in sea states up to 7 (wave heights of six to nine metres).
Sensors allow both safe and effective control of the system and identification of other vessels. Sensors include radar, and electro-optic and infra-red cameras.The USV will be constantly monitored and operated from a control room at Devonport Naval Base. Communication with the control room is through mobile phone signal while close to shore or via high- and low- bandwidth satellite when further offshore.
The sheer size of New Zealand’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is one of the reasons the RNZN’s Maritime Component Commander, Commodore Garin Golding, is excited about the potential capability of the USV.
“Our EEZ is the fifth largest in the world at more than four million square kilometres. Coupled with the 30 million square kilometre search and rescue area that New Zealand has responsibility for, that is a lot of ocean to cover,” Commodore Golding said. “The evidence we’ve seen from our partner militaries overseas is that uncrewed drone aircraft and vessels can provide real value in fulfilling some of these search and surveillance tasks.”
The RNZN’s Autonomous Systems Staff Officer, Commander Andy Bryant, is also looking forward to the USV demonstrating its potential.
The USV can be transported by trailer to almost anywhere in New Zealand where it can be launched and recovered from a boat ramp. It can also craned on and off a Navy ship to launch on operations while deployed overseas.
from Blogger https://ift.tt/U0QDpIh
via IFTTT
Indian warship visits MSDF’s Yokosuka base
The Indian Navy’s Kadmatt antisubmarine ship has arrived at the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force’s Yokosuka base in Kanagawa Prefecture.
The defense of the waters linking India and Japan is very important, Indian Ambassador to Japan Sibi George said at a news conference at the base on Sunday, showing his country’s readiness to deepen defense cooperation with Japan.
The two countries are working to strengthen their relations through “the Quad” framework, which also includes the United States and Australia. The Quad framework is partly aimed at keeping a check on China.
The Indo-Pacific region is now one of the most important regions geopolitically, George said, adding that India and Japan will work together as democratic countries for the peace and stability of the region.
The Kadmatt and the MSDF’s Towada replenishment vessel conducted a joint exercise in waters around Okinawa last Tuesday based on the Japan-India acquisition and cross-servicing agreement.
The Indian warship arrived at the Yokosuka base on Saturday for replenishment.
from Blogger https://ift.tt/QyLk7U2
via IFTTT
USS Eagle 2 (PE-2) built on a production line by Henry Ford. The Eagle-class patrol craft were anti-submarine vessels of the United States Navy that were built during World War I using mass production techniques.
This is the USS Eagle 2 (PE-2) on builder’s trials in 1918. An identical sister ship, USS Eagle 56 (PE-56), was lost due to a mysterious explosion April 23, 1945. Although Eagle 56 survivors stated they had spotted a submarine during the sinking, the official Navy Investigation declared it lost due to a boiler explosion. Through the work of a dedicated researcher and the Naval Historical Center’s senior archivist the Navy changed this to a combat loss in 2002. Both ships were members of 60 Eagle Boats built by automaker Henry Ford for World War I. None of them were completed in time to see service in that war due to the Armistice, November 11, 1918. They were not very popular due to poor sea-keeping characteristics. The Navy discarded all but eight, before World War II. The term Eagle Boat came from a 1917 editorial in the Washington Post that called for an eagle to scour the seas and pounce upon and destroy every German submarine. U.S. Navy photo. (RELEASED) 030415-N-0000X-001 Naval Historical Center, Washington, DC (Apr. 15, 2003)
They were steel-hulled ships smaller than contemporary destroyers but having a greater operational radius than the wooden-hulled, 110-foot (34 m) submarine chasers developed in 1917. The submarine chasers’ range of about 900 miles (1,400 km) at a cruising speed of 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph) restricted their operations to off-shore anti-submarine work and denied them an open-ocean escort capability; their high consumption of gasoline and limited fuel storage were handicaps the Eagle class sought to remedy.
They were originally commissioned USS Eagle Boat No.1 (or 2,3..etc.) but this was changed to PE-1 (or 2,4.. etc.) in 1920. They never officially saw combat in World War I, but some were used during the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War.[1] PE-19, 27, 32, 38, 48 and 55–57 survived to be used in World War II.[2]
Attention turned to building steel patrol vessels. In their construction, it was necessary to eliminate the established shipbuilding facilities as possible sources of construction as they were totally engaged in the building of destroyers, larger warships, and merchant shipping. Accordingly, a design was developed by the Bureau of Construction and Repair which was sufficiently simplified to permit speedy construction by less experienced shipyards
https://www.navsource.org/archives/12/0402.htm
The Eagle-class patrol craft were anti-submarine vessels of the United States Navy that were built during World War I using mass production techniques. They were steel-hulled ships smaller than contemporary destroyers but having a greater operational radius than the wooden-hulled, 110-foot (34 m) submarine chasers developed in 1917. The submarine chasers’ range of about 900 miles (1,400 km) at a cruising speed of 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph) restricted their operations to off-shore anti-submarine work and denied them an open-ocean escort capability; their high consumption of gasoline and limited fuel storage were handicaps the Eagle class sought to remedy.
They were originally commissioned USS Eagle Boat No.1 (or 2,3..etc.) but this was changed to PE-1 (or 2,4.. etc.) in 1920. They never officially saw combat in World War I, but some were used during the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War.[1] PE-19, 27, 32, 38, 48 and 55–57 survived to be used in World War II.[2]
Attention turned to building steel patrol vessels. In their construction, it was necessary to eliminate the established shipbuilding facilities as possible sources of construction as they were totally engaged in the building of destroyers, larger warships, and merchant shipping. Accordingly, a design was developed by the Bureau of Construction and Repair which was sufficiently simplified to permit speedy construction by less experienced shipyards
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle-class_patrol_craft
from Blogger https://ift.tt/f79FIpb
via IFTTT
USS Gettysburg (CG-64) is a Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser in the United States Navy. She is named for the Battle of Gettysburg during the American Civil War.
Construction
The third Gettysburg (CG-64) was laid down on 17 August 1988, at Bath, Maine, by Bath Iron Works; launched on 22 July 1989; sponsored by Julie Nixon Eisenhower, wife of Dwight D. Eisenhower II, grandson of former President Dwight D. Eisenhower and son-in-law of former President Richard M. Nixon; and commissioned on 22 June 1991, Captain John M. Langknecht in command.
https://ift.tt/SKAZXjy
from Blogger https://ift.tt/DsaAuT4
via IFTTT