Thanks Thanks:  33
Likes Likes:  53
Dislikes Dislikes:  2
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 101 to 115 of 115
  1. #101
    C/S
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    423
    Post Thanks / Like
    Surely a pure weapons problem platform is just a tasty high-value target?

  2. #102
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    785
    Post Thanks / Like

    F26 Build

    Quote Originally Posted by Medsailor View Post
    The concept is unstable. If you build a ship designed as a weapons platform only, then you have to accept that it is somewhat disposable. If you can't live with that, then you start up-arming it for self-defence with adequate sensors and effectors. At that stage you've built a full-blown frigate with associated costs. Look at what happened with the LCS.
    According to BMOD printed rumours (Defence News) Letters have been issued to Senior officers appointed to oversee building of F 26 tonnages ( 3 ? ) to commence April 2017. The overall concept is 8 ships with 5 lesser ships making up a 13 ship fleet , maybe at least of equal speed for combined tasks.

  3. #103
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    717
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    According to BMOD printed rumours (Defence News) Letters have been issued to Senior officers appointed to oversee building of F 26 tonnages ( 3 ? ) to commence April 2017. The overall concept is 8 ships with 5 lesser ships making up a 13 ship fleet , maybe at least of equal speed for combined tasks.
    Well they've already ordered the first set of 5" guns for them so it's likely within the next year, however I'd say they will be VERY lucky to get the first into service before the 23's start End of Lifing. As for what the spec of the 31's will be, right now it's far to early to guess what it might be as even the RN doesn't know what it wants, other than "Cheaper". The 31 is IMO a stupid decision that is another penny wise, pound foolish choice that the UK has become fond of doing.

  4. Likes Medsailor liked this post
  5. #104
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    785
    Post Thanks / Like

    Royal Naval Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Well they've already ordered the first set of 5" guns for them so it's likely within the next year, however I'd say they will be VERY lucky to get the first into service before the 23's start End of Lifing. As for what the spec of the 31's will be, right now it's far to early to guess what it might be as even the RN doesn't know what it wants, other than "Cheaper". The 31 is IMO a stupid decision that is another penny wise, pound foolish choice that the UK has become fond of doing.
    .

    Between Strategic Reviews and it's real purpose of placating Budgeting theorists, they have arrived at the point of NO Fleet Air Arm combat aircraft or a dependable surface combat fleet. The peace time ability to police all oceans is questionable. Authorised strengths of Forces are not being met by many thousands. Cobbling together plans for future units has led to production failing to meet reliable standards and an ongoing dilution of capability and outfits, producing ships with little future or regard by those tasked to operate them.
    Last edited by ancientmariner; 29th August 2016 at 08:28.

  6. #105
    CQMS Tempest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    227
    Post Thanks / Like
    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...d=168937285403

    Navy News Facebook post of launch of new River Class
    Last edited by Tempest; 31st August 2016 at 22:38.

  7. Thanks na grohmití thanked for this post
  8. #106
    Major General
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,016
    Post Thanks / Like
    The new hull construction continues;

    https://www.navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/16125

  9. Thanks Galloglass thanked for this post
  10. #107
    C/S Galloglass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    387
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Batch 1 Rivers are to be sold over the next few years. At least 20 years service left in them and probably very reasonably priced. They would make good replacements for the P40s.

  11. #108
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    717
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Galloglass View Post
    The Batch 1 Rivers are to be sold over the next few years. At least 20 years service left in them and probably very reasonably priced. They would make good replacements for the P40s.
    How? I mean they are slower, nearly 2.5 times the tonnage, a metre deeper, a new logistic's chain for their weapon system... For a CPV replacement they seem ill fitting, there's also the question of just what their material state is, again the RN has a history of selling off lemons.

  12. Likes DeV, na grohmití liked this post
  13. #109
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,008
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    again the RN has a history of selling off lemons.

    And we have a history of buying them....
    Just visiting

  14. Likes Sparky42 liked this post
  15. #110
    Major General
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,016
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    How? I mean they are slower, nearly 2.5 times the tonnage, a metre deeper, a new logistic's chain for their weapon system... For a CPV replacement they seem ill fitting, there's also the question of just what their material state is, again the RN has a history of selling off lemons.
    the NS ended up with the P40s by chance and not as if the NS needed (or now need) CPV's.

  16. #111
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    717
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by danno View Post
    the NS ended up with the P40s by chance and not as if the NS needed (or now need) CPV's.
    Sure but the WP clearly stated they would be replaced by something of similar characteristics (whether they should be is another question). If we are going to drop the CPV specs, why buy in the Rivers just because the RN is flogging them off, why not just add more P60's? I mean sure a higher upfront cost, but a common fleet, reduced logistics/training reducing lifetime costs and a longer lifespan on the ships in the first place.

  17. Thanks danno thanked for this post
    Likes The real Jack liked this post
  18. #112
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,069
    Post Thanks / Like
    Why were the Peacocks sold so quickly after entering RN service?

    It funny how BAe are very quick at building vessels the RN doesn't want but very slow at building ones they do

  19. Thanks danno thanked for this post
  20. #113
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,990
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Why were the Peacocks sold so quickly after entering RN service?

    It funny how BAe are very quick at building vessels the RN doesn't want but very slow at building ones they do
    They were built to replace Ton Class minesweepers that made up the Hong Kong squadron. In 1984 the UK and China decreed that Hong Kong would return to China. Immediate disposal of the Naval assets based there was seen as a sign of good faith by the UK to China. 5 was considered excessive in the circumstances. Three was plenty. The three we didn't get went to the Phillipines in 1997. The RN would have liked to use them at home but never got the chance. Charlie got there first. I wait for the release of government papers that may reveal the secret behind the deal.
    Well, there's good news and bad news. The bad news is that Neil will be taking over both branches, and some of you will lose your jobs. Those of you who are kept on will have to relocate to Swindon, if you wanna stay. I know, gutting. On a more positive note, the good news is, I've been promoted, so... every cloud. You're still thinking about the bad news aren't you?

  21. Thanks DeV, pym, Sarsfield, Graylion thanked for this post
  22. #114
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,008
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    They were built to replace Ton Class minesweepers that made up the Hong Kong squadron. In 1984 the UK and China decreed that Hong Kong would return to China. Immediate disposal of the Naval assets based there was seen as a sign of good faith by the UK to China. 5 was considered excessive in the circumstances. Three was plenty. The three we didn't get went to the Phillipines in 1997. The RN would have liked to use them at home but never got the chance. Charlie got there first. I wait for the release of government papers that may reveal the secret behind the deal.
    And Hong Kong paid for them making it far less painful to dispose of them rather than hand them over to the Chinese
    Just visiting

  23. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  24. #115
    Major General
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,016
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    They were built to replace Ton Class minesweepers that made up the Hong Kong squadron. In 1984 the UK and China decreed that Hong Kong would return to China. Immediate disposal of the Naval assets based there was seen as a sign of good faith by the UK to China. 5 was considered excessive in the circumstances. Three was plenty. The three we didn't get went to the Phillipines in 1997. The RN would have liked to use them at home but never got the chance. Charlie got there first. I wait for the release of government papers that may reveal the secret behind the deal.
    Some harmless footage of the 'Tons on the Hong Kong station;

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM3sgtHHnS

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •