Irish Military Online is in no way affiliated with the Irish Defence Forces. It is in no way sponsored or endorsed by the Irish Defence Forces or the Irish Government. Opinions expressed by the authors and contributors of this site are not necessarily those of the Defence Forces. If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I think it will be capable, but expensive. I am reasonably sure 5 GP T26s will end up cheaper.
Well again since we don't know what it will be doing I don't know how capable it will be, if it's meant to be "cheaper" than the 26, will they stick the 4.5" into her (even if she's designed for the 5" (think the 45's are like that) given the start up cost of the 5" for the 26. If it sticks with the 4.5" then there's no "smart shells" for it. Will the RN buy additional ASM systems for it? Guessing Merlin capable but Wildcat as standard, wonder if she will have some type of mission bay or will that be dropped.
But yes actually going through with the GP 26's would make much more sense to me, it's not like cutting the orders is going to make the 26 any cheaper.
The whole think stinks of pushing the replacement out further in the future. Reason would be again to reduce the numbers due to cost over runs. Afterall less ships means less running costs for the MoD to be for each year.
The 12 Type 42's were replaced by 6 Type 45's.
The 14 Type 22's were never replaced.
Already 3 of the Type 23's have been disposed off without replacement.
Thus the later the Type26/32's come the higher the chances their will be even fewer ships to replace.
And there really is no longer a need to reinvent the wheeled. There are plenty of suitable European designs available today. And ship building is for at least 30 years no longer a strategic asset for UK.plc
The fleet needs around 25-30 escorts to be able to do all the things those in Westminster would like to do. As ships have a 25-30 year life we should never have a production gap. There should be s new destroyer or frigate coming online every year. The MOD needs to stop wasting time and start getting some hulls in the water. If they don't then they should do the next logical step and take the new carries once completed straight to Turkey to be cut-up.
The whole think stinks of pushing the replacement out further in the future. Reason would be again to reduce the numbers due to cost over runs. Afterall less ships means less running costs for the MoD to be for each year.
The 12 Type 42's were replaced by 6 Type 45's.
The 14 Type 22's were never replaced.
Already 3 of the Type 23's have been disposed off without replacement.
Thus the later the Type26/32's come the higher the chances their will be even fewer ships to replace.
And there really is no longer a need to reinvent the wheeled. There are plenty of suitable European designs available today. And ship building is for at least 30 years no longer a strategic asset for UK.plc
The fleet needs around 25-30 escorts to be able to do all the things those in Westminster would like to do. As ships have a 25-30 year life we should never have a production gap. There should be s new destroyer or frigate coming online every year. The MOD needs to stop wasting time and start getting some hulls in the water. If they don't then they should do the next logical step and take the new carries once completed straight to Turkey to be cut-up.
You are close to the current truth. Always remembering the Carriers may have a life beyond 2060 and need to be part of a balanced fleet. The design and composition of such a fleet may span two generations of FF's and DD's. The way forward needs strong leadership especially from those free to comment but with service knowledge and experience of out of the Blue conflicts.
It seems to me that within the Naval fraternity there is skepticism at the ability of BAE to build an effective low cost frigate based on cut and paste stretched versions of other vessels. Some recommend building hulls in Korea, bring them home and then outfit in British/Scottish? yards. Many would prefer Venator 110 or Iver Huitfeldt frigates, three of the latter in service with the Danes at $325 million each-cheap!
The outfit of weapons is critical to use to include capability to launch a mix of Strike VL missiles and anti-air VL missiles together with 100mm gun and controlled 30mm mounts and elements of CIWS. Some see their packages as 10 ships AA. 10 ships ASW, and 10 ships GP plus the proposed 8 Globals.
It seems to me that within the Naval fraternity there is skepticism at the ability of BAE to build an effective low cost frigate based on cut and paste stretched versions of other vessels. Some recommend building hulls in Korea, bring them home and then outfit in British/Scottish? yards. Many would prefer Venator 110 or Iver Huitfeldt frigates, three of the latter in service with the Danes at $325 million each-cheap!
The outfit of weapons is critical to use to include capability to launch a mix of Strike VL missiles and anti-air VL missiles together with 100mm gun and controlled 30mm mounts and elements of CIWS. Some see their packages as 10 ships AA. 10 ships ASW, and 10 ships GP plus the proposed 8 Globals.
The idea of building in a cheap yard and doing the high end work in the domestic yard isn't new, the Dutch and Danes did it from memory. That said there's plenty of issues with either the Huitfeldt or Korean designs. The Danes and Dutch for example play "fund numbers" with their costs, the "$325 million" is a bare hull, with the combat systems priced in separately in the budget line so the true cost all up is higher as I understand it. As for the Korean design same reason why they won't go with something below the 4.5" I'd bet, the idea is to reduce costs, right now that's the only spec of the 31, introducing new supply chains/training systems outside of current RN lines isn't going to achieve that, instead only drive up their costs.
Where are you getting the numbers for hulls btw? Right now it's only 5 to replace the dropped GP 26's with the nebulous promise of "more frigates" later on (yeah right!).
It seems to me that within the Naval fraternity there is skepticism at the ability of BAE to build an effective low cost frigate based on cut and paste stretched versions of other vessels. Some recommend building hulls in Korea, bring them home and then outfit in British/Scottish? yards. Many would prefer Venator 110 or Iver Huitfeldt frigates, three of the latter in service with the Danes at $325 million each-cheap!
The outfit of weapons is critical to use to include capability to launch a mix of Strike VL missiles and anti-air VL missiles together with 100mm gun and controlled 30mm mounts and elements of CIWS. Some see their packages as 10 ships AA. 10 ships ASW, and 10 ships GP plus the proposed 8 Globals.
On a purely practical point, as a landlubber, would it be possible / practical to build a hull in Korea and get it all the way back to the British Isles? Genuine question.
'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
He died that's all. It was his unlucky night. http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html
On a purely practical point, as a landlubber, would it be possible / practical to build a hull in Korea and get it all the way back to the British Isles? Genuine question.
You could easily (but expensively) get one of those lifting ships to do it (for example the USS Cole), or you should be able to tow it, though I'd imagine the engines would be fitted already, think the Danes/Dutch only fitted the combat systems in domestic yards.
Absolutely. The Trinity house hulls were built in Poland and fitted out at Den Helder in Holland. Distance and method of transport are of course additional costs but might be balanced by savings. The pill to swallow is that some major heavy components would have to be installed in the away port such as main engines, shafts, generators to avoid too much cutting , burning, and consequential distortion at the later fit out and weapon fit.
Ok, so there would be a bit more to it than an empty shell being towed all the way! Thanks.
'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
He died that's all. It was his unlucky night. http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment