Thanks Thanks:  90
Likes Likes:  225
Dislikes Dislikes:  2
Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213
Results 301 to 323 of 323
  1. #301
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    168
    Post Thanks / Like
    https://youtu.be/C0zB7Ux2CgI
    this may be of interest

  2. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes Anzac liked this post
  3. #302
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    168
    Post Thanks / Like

  4. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes Anzac liked this post
  5. #303
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    856
    Post Thanks / Like
    This is the very reason we must be task and operations focused so that our ships and establishments meet all of our current missions with heavier humanitarian capabilities included.

  6. #304
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,101
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'll just add that my analysis is based on a recent speech by Lord West, Sea Lord who is also frustrated at the fact that subsequent governments have promised replacements but as of yet have laid out a time table for same.

    Thanks for the acknowledgement
    Last edited by hptmurphy; 15th September 2017 at 10:10.
    Just visiting

  7. #305
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,101
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    I don't think you'll find anyone who wouldn't prefer 8 T45's and the 13 T26 - and who decries the political interference that made them all so late.

    But.

    But.

    The talk of past hull numbers should be warning - let's recall that of the 30+ RN escorts that went to the Falklands in 1982, only half a dozen of them were really able to defend themselves against a threat that was based almost entirely on technology that was 20+ years old, and possibly 10 years out of date...

    Many of those escorts contributed only one thing - the ability to burn well. Numbers of hills mean less than what's in those hulls...
    If you have lower numbers of hulls, the enemy only have to get lucky once and you lose a ship. Or in the case of the USN, you only need to make the same mistake twice to be down to Carriers.

    In reference to the USN, the Obama administration had actually signed of on a 375 hull navy before leaving power and the options to make up the short fall included re activation, or increased refit schedules for the Burke Class to extend their lives by ten years. Spruances had been considered for re activation but given they have been cannabalized and outdated going back to 2000, its a non runner.
    Just visiting

  8. #306
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    885
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    If you have lower numbers of hulls, the enemy only have to get lucky once and you lose a ship. Or in the case of the USN, you only need to make the same mistake twice to be down to Carriers.

    In reference to the USN, the Obama administration had actually signed of on a 375 hull navy before leaving power and the options to make up the short fall included re activation, or increased refit schedules for the Burke Class to extend their lives by ten years. Spruances had been considered for re activation but given they have been cannabalized and outdated going back to 2000, its a non runner.
    Might be hard to reactivate the Spruances given that the vast majority of the class have been used in Sinkex's and the rest either dismantled or in the process of being dismantled (if you were a cynic it might have been ordered by Rumsfield so they couldn't be reactivated). The Burke life extension was well flagged as going to happen ever since the DDG(X) fell apart and the CG(X) never happened. Moreover in terms of reactivation (say of the Perry's or Kitty Hawk for example) you then get into the material states they are in. I visited JFK before she was decommissioned in Boston back in 05 ish and by then she had only 1 working Cat and her internal spaces showed their age (no idea what else didn't work), I've seen comments from some who have worked on Kitty Hawk and it's a joke to suggest she could be brought back as anything of value (hell the USN doesn't even have engineers certified in her boilers anymore). The USN has history of running their hulls hard and using them up, one of their Amphibs came back from a long deployment with the 7th out of Japan and needed 2 million man hours of work to be returned to service (4 times what the USN had budgeted before she went in)

    In reality the US shipyards can't meet a 375 target without blowing the USN budget beyond anything it will be funded to.

  9. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  10. #307
    Corporal
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    58
    Post Thanks / Like
    Actually it was a just a policy goal by Ray Mabus of 308 ships and yet there was a $17B budget cut over 5 years attempted on the Navy from FY18.

    http://www.navytimes.com/news/your-n...-navy-said-no/

  11. #308
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,702
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    I'll just add that my analysis is based on a recent speech by Lord West, Sea Lord who is also frustrated at the fact that subsequent governments have promised replacements but as of yet have laid out a time table for same.
    West is correct - as are you - that the replacement cycle has slipped massively. no one denies that, or thinks its a good thing, or would deny that stringing the replacement cycle out has had a very negative effect on the ability of shipbuilders to design and build ships - simply because anyone who was involved with the design/build of the last one has long since retired. this, of course, provokes a time/cost spiral that kicks ordering the next type even further down the road.

    but.

    the military effect of this is mitigated by two things: firstly that its something that is effecting all the other potential adversaries and so doesn't really effect the RN's ability to fight a peer or near-peer enemy, and secondly that it is the systems on the ship, rather than the steel of the hull, that determine the ships fighting capability - and those systems get updated much more regularly than the ships themselves get replaced. the T23's for example get a new radar, new missiles, new secondary armament, new sonar, fiddles with the propulsion system, a new main armament loading system, and an upgrade to the C3 system - in military effect, thats a new ship.

    the other issue is hysteria. West, and others - Woodward for example - write letters to the Torygraph with apocalyptic warnings of impending military disaster. when they do so they are often - usually highly selective and indeed misleading in their grasp of facts. the most obvious are their constant 'warnings' over the Falklands and how the RN couldn't do another Falklands op in its 1982 guise - while drawing a veil over the fact that the FI now has a massive airbase, a resident (and easily and massively reinforcable) garrison, a significant signals intelligence and radar capability and an inplace fighter force. they also consistantly and deliberately fail to mention that Argentina has got out of the fast jet business - the Argentine Air Force crapped all its Mirages and grounded all of its Skyhawks more that two years ago and hasn't flown one since, while the once feared Super Etendards of the Argentine Navy are down to 5 airworthy airframes. with not one in-date missile or PGM of any kind in service...

    the RN couldn't do D-Day again, but under what possible circumstances would it need to?

  12. Likes Sparky42, Tempest, The real Jack liked this post
  13. #309
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    885
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    West is correct - as are you - that the replacement cycle has slipped massively. no one denies that, or thinks its a good thing, or would deny that stringing the replacement cycle out has had a very negative effect on the ability of shipbuilders to design and build ships - simply because anyone who was involved with the design/build of the last one has long since retired. this, of course, provokes a time/cost spiral that kicks ordering the next type even further down the road.

    but.

    the military effect of this is mitigated by two things: firstly that its something that is effecting all the other potential adversaries and so doesn't really effect the RN's ability to fight a peer or near-peer enemy, and secondly that it is the systems on the ship, rather than the steel of the hull, that determine the ships fighting capability - and those systems get updated much more regularly than the ships themselves get replaced. the T23's for example get a new radar, new missiles, new secondary armament, new sonar, fiddles with the propulsion system, a new main armament loading system, and an upgrade to the C3 system - in military effect, thats a new ship.

    the other issue is hysteria. West, and others - Woodward for example - write letters to the Torygraph with apocalyptic warnings of impending military disaster. when they do so they are often - usually highly selective and indeed misleading in their grasp of facts. the most obvious are their constant 'warnings' over the Falklands and how the RN couldn't do another Falklands op in its 1982 guise - while drawing a veil over the fact that the FI now has a massive airbase, a resident (and easily and massively reinforcable) garrison, a significant signals intelligence and radar capability and an inplace fighter force. they also consistantly and deliberately fail to mention that Argentina has got out of the fast jet business - the Argentine Air Force crapped all its Mirages and grounded all of its Skyhawks more that two years ago and hasn't flown one since, while the once feared Super Etendards of the Argentine Navy are down to 5 airworthy airframes. with not one in-date missile or PGM of any kind in service...

    the RN couldn't do D-Day again, but under what possible circumstances would it need to?
    Agree with you Ropebag, but you missed out the state of the Argentine Navy, who don't have funds to even do basic sea training or buy munitions for their ships (and had one of the 42's sink in harbour). Argentine is further away from being able to do a Falklands 2 that the UK is from being able to stop it by a margin that's virtually impossible to close short of massive rearmament that the whole world would see (and the UK could respond to).

  14. Likes ropebag, Turkey liked this post
  15. #310
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,546
    Post Thanks / Like
    The point that isn't made by Woodward etc is that it doesn't necessarily have to be in the Falklands it could be anywhere where UK interests are threatened.

  16. Likes hptmurphy liked this post
  17. #311
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,702
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    The point that isn't made by Woodward etc is that it doesn't necessarily have to be in the Falklands it could be anywhere where UK interests are threatened.
    no, its not - the FI specicially is what they bang on about.

    they simply can't adjust to the fact that the world has finally caught up with the old saying - peddled by them in former years - that quality is better than quantity, but that it comes at the price of numbers.

    they are unable to accept that, regretfully, when the RN was cruising the waves with 40+ escorts, many of them had barely more combat utility than an OPV of the time. they then compound this by failing (refusing) to grasp that - for example - regardless of the impressiveness of protecting a carrier with 15 escorts in 1982, the truth is that that carrier would have been better protected with 2 T45's and 2 T23's than by 15 ships with barely working systems, many of which were so crap that it was difficult to tell whether they were working or not.

    if you're asking me whether i'd like 24 T26 in service, and another 8 T45 block 2's on the slipways of Govan i'd say yes, but the overiding combat lesson of every engagement fought by anyone anywhere is that a smaller number of higher quality will beat a larger number of lower quality every single time.

  18. Likes Sparky42, Turkey liked this post
  19. #312
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,546
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    no, its not - the FI specicially is what they bang on about.

    they simply can't adjust to the fact that the world has finally caught up with the old saying - peddled by them in former years - that quality is better than quantity, but that it comes at the price of numbers.

    they are unable to accept that, regretfully, when the RN was cruising the waves with 40+ escorts, many of them had barely more combat utility than an OPV of the time. they then compound this by failing (refusing) to grasp that - for example - regardless of the impressiveness of protecting a carrier with 15 escorts in 1982, the truth is that that carrier would have been better protected with 2 T45's and 2 T23's than by 15 ships with barely working systems, many of which were so crap that it was difficult to tell whether they were working or not.

    if you're asking me whether i'd like 24 T26 in service, and another 8 T45 block 2's on the slipways of Govan i'd say yes, but the overiding combat lesson of every engagement fought by anyone anywhere is that a smaller number of higher quality will beat a larger number of lower quality every single time.
    I said the point they aren't making

  20. #313
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    856
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    I said the point they aren't making
    Quality versus quantity leads to reduction in flying the flag capability. There is a continuous hiatus between new Fleet replacements and paying off older vessels. The RN currently have 31 front line ships of which a 1/3 are submarines. That leaves them with 19 deployable ships on paper but a proportion of those are tied up and two are Aircraft Carriers going nowhere at present. The hole in operational requirements can be filled by enhanced OPV's with adequate weapon systems. Most OPV's can be fitted with a range of AS,AA, and ASW weapons . They could also carry MANPAD units whose presence is noted in the Joint Russo/Belarus exercises. The RN are currently holding their own in Officer numbers but are down in NCO's and ratings which indicates an ongoing training requirement in all warfare departments. Quality can only win if it is in the right place when needed. Quantity is needed for patrol and appropriate action

  21. Likes hptmurphy liked this post
  22. #314
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,238
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    no, its not - the FI specicially is what they bang on about.

    they simply can't adjust to the fact that the world has finally caught up with the old saying - peddled by them in former years - that quality is better than quantity, but that it comes at the price of numbers.

    they are unable to accept that, regretfully, when the RN was cruising the waves with 40+ escorts, many of them had barely more combat utility than an OPV of the time. they then compound this by failing (refusing) to grasp that - for example - regardless of the impressiveness of protecting a carrier with 15 escorts in 1982, the truth is that that carrier would have been better protected with 2 T45's and 2 T23's than by 15 ships with barely working systems, many of which were so crap that it was difficult to tell whether they were working or not.

    if you're asking me whether i'd like 24 T26 in service, and another 8 T45 block 2's on the slipways of Govan i'd say yes, but the overiding combat lesson of every engagement fought by anyone anywhere is that a smaller number of higher quality will beat a larger number of lower quality every single time.
    It is fair to say that many of the escorts in 1982 were very poorly armed and served only as missile decoys. A job some did very well. The Amazons in particular, which were completely unsuitable in their anti-submarine role. The idea of a close-in weapon system was something the RN only thought of as being important after 1982.
    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?

  23. Thanks hptmurphy thanked for this post
  24. #315
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,702
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Quality versus quantity leads to reduction in flying the flag capability...
    flags that burn and sink convince no one - a bitter lesson we have learned, and at grevious cost.

  25. #316
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    856
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    flags that burn and sink convince no one - a bitter lesson we have learned, and at grevious cost.
    Ships deprived of their designed assets such as speed , maneuver, clear lines of sight ,clear arcs of fire, and unobstructed Radar detection are always prone to being repeatedly hit.

  26. #317
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,702
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Ships deprived of their designed assets such as speed , maneuver, clear lines of sight ,clear arcs of fire, and unobstructed Radar detection are always prone to being repeatedly hit.
    ships that don't have things, or have cheap things instead of expensive things, because someone prefers 6 sparsely equipped hulls to 4 well equipped ones, burn and sink.

  27. Thanks The real Jack thanked for this post
    Likes na grohmití liked this post
  28. #318
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    885
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    flags that burn and sink convince no one - a bitter lesson we have learned, and at grevious cost.
    And flags that can just fly means less hulls that can do everything else. I mean which would have been better, the Type 26 not turning into a budget monster and getting a 1 for 1 replacement of the 23's, or what we have with the reduced order and the 31's whose value, capabilities etc are going to be less? One of the reasons why the RN resisted the "Black Swan" idea or the OPV+ was the fear of the politicians pointing to them as "full warships" rather than the limited hulls they would be.

  29. #319
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,702
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    And flags that can just fly means less hulls that can do everything else. I mean which would have been better, the Type 26 not turning into a budget monster and getting a 1 for 1 replacement of the 23's, or what we have with the reduced order and the 31's whose value, capabilities etc are going to be less? One of the reasons why the RN resisted the "Black Swan" idea or the OPV+ was the fear of the politicians pointing to them as "full warships" rather than the limited hulls they would be.
    i rather fear that in the end, the current T26/T31 mix is going to cost as much as the original T26 buy but with less capability.

    i'm less concerned about T31 per se, its not T26 but we don't have to go far back to see the UK govt taking RN advice about the survivability/warfighting cabability of a projected class of ship and sending it back to the drawing board. i'd put some money on the T31's that go down the slipway being rather less austere than is projected - not a T26, but not an OPV either.

    one thing that needs to be understood with the T26 budget-monster thing, as with the Carriers, and the T45's is that the reason they became budget monsters is that CS put so much effort into trying to reduce the cost. T45 didn't cost £1 billion a piece because of whats in them, they cost £1bn each because once the design was finalised, politicians and CS spent years and endless millions doing studies on whether you could shave this or that £m off the cost. had they been built at the agreed drumbeat and when the design was finished, we'd have got 10 for the price we eventually paid for 6. same story with the carriers - kicked the can down the road for so long that the price of two eventually topped the price we'd have paid for 3 had we just built the bloody things when the yard was ready.

    T31 is going the same way - so many redesigns and requirement work that sooner or later the price of 8 T26 and 5/6 T31 will get to the price of 13 T26...

  30. Likes X-RayOne, hptmurphy, Anzac liked this post
  31. #320
    Corporal
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    58
    Post Thanks / Like
    The RFI for the Type 31e Light Frigate is now released.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...9/T31e_RFI.pdf

    Appendix F has the meat and potato's ..... not that it is really all that appetising.

    This is just a big Corvette to be honest.
    Last edited by Anzac; 18th September 2017 at 14:52.

  32. Thanks morpheus, na grohmití, hptmurphy, Turkey thanked for this post
  33. #321
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    85
    Post Thanks / Like
    The contenders in detail.. at the DSEI fair... and note the US LCS125 in the last segment as a comparison etc.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_IW7TkptJQ

  34. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes spider, Tempest liked this post
  35. #322
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    856
    Post Thanks / Like
    The continued decline in British Maritime output, at all levels, both Manpower and ship types, started with closures of the iconic British (and one Irish Shipping) Companies in the 1980's, followed by the closures of great yards that built both the Merchant Fleet and the Royal Navy. Building anything became more difficult and prolonged as both Civil Service and Politicians set about reducing Defence Budgets trying to do more with less. Tri-Service sharing concepts, one stop shops, shared Command structures led to pressures within Services to get a share of shrinking Budgets. The current shrinkage is critical for the RN given the unit costs of ship types. There is a question as to whether British Yards and Defence Industries can meet the requirement to build a functioning warship given the low throughput of ships. We will see more ships with handover problems as skills deteriorate and those in dockyard training diminish.

  36. #323
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,546
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    The continued decline in British Maritime output, at all levels, both Manpower and ship types, started with closures of the iconic British (and one Irish Shipping) Companies in the 1980's, followed by the closures of great yards that built both the Merchant Fleet and the Royal Navy. Building anything became more difficult and prolonged as both Civil Service and Politicians set about reducing Defence Budgets trying to do more with less. Tri-Service sharing concepts, one stop shops, shared Command structures led to pressures within Services to get a share of shrinking Budgets. The current shrinkage is critical for the RN given the unit costs of ship types. There is a question as to whether British Yards and Defence Industries can meet the requirement to build a functioning warship given the low throughput of ships. We will see more ships with handover problems as skills deteriorate and those in dockyard training diminish.
    The only reason why British yards are getting major orders from the RN is to keep them open and keep jobs.

    Every reason given (maintaining a strategic shipbuilding capability, retaining skills base etc) are excuses

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 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
  •