Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Royal Navy Type 31

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I still think the smaller hull is a fallacy - for some reason the MoD seems to think that smaller = cheaper. Not allowing for development cost and the fact that the main cost factors are the systems. Air is cheap and steel is free.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
      Air is cheap and steel is free.
      Umm...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by pym View Post
        Umm...
        Intentional

        Comment


        • Light frigates

          Originally posted by Graylion View Post
          I still think the smaller hull is a fallacy - for some reason the MoD seems to think that smaller = cheaper. Not allowing for development cost and the fact that the main cost factors are the systems. Air is cheap and steel is free.
          We won't go into steel is free. This is a shipyard design team with a prototype ship that might please the bean counters, and placate the end users, by offering an all sorts fit choice. It is unfortunate that they use a sci-fy name for the vessel type. Any such choice must accommodate standard weapon systems such as Phalanx at 5000/6000kgs. If sited optimally, it should cope, as P61 had more than 32,000kg of deck passengers quite recently.
          The proven truth is that not all new ship types meet required standards unless you build an existing hull with proven Power and distribution, then add in your own Defence packages.

          Comment


          • Fleet teeth extracted

            Originally posted by Graylion View Post
            I still think the smaller hull is a fallacy - for some reason the MoD seems to think that smaller = cheaper. Not allowing for development cost and the fact that the main cost factors are the systems. Air is cheap and steel is free.
            Dealing with the present breed of civilian overseers, both elected and Whitehall, a naval capability can disappear overnight. The latest proposal emanating from the mandarins, is to strike down all Harpoon systems, leaving ships so fitted, with bullets and shells as only armament.
            Naval management should keep all systems fitted working until a newer agreed system is ready to replace it. There is choice problems, with potential for extended delays, leaving all ships at an OPV armament level.
            Someone must have foolishly said the Harpoon is out-of-date and needs replacement. The result being, no more spares, no more replacement missiles etc.
            Every harpoon launcher should be replaced with a Kronsberg NSM while they make up their minds.
            Last edited by ancientmariner; 18 November 2016, 15:04.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
              Dealing with the present breed of civilian overseers, both elected and Whitehall, a naval capability can disappear overnight. The latest proposal emanating from the mandarins, is to strike down all Harpoon systems, leaving ships so fitted, with bullets and shells as only armament.
              Naval management should keep all systems fitted working until a newer agreed system is ready to replace it. There is choice problems, with potential for extended delays, leaving all ships at an OPV armament level.
              Someone must have foolishly said the Harpoon is out-of-date and needs replacement. The result being, no more spares, no more replacement missiles etc.
              Every harpoon launcher should be replaced with a Kronsberg NSM while they make up their minds.
              This isn't something "new" it's been flagged for several years at least (I'm sure I read about it back when the 22's mounts were being suggested to move to some of the 45's). Given the state of the RN's budget issues and the still up in the air spec of the 26 I actually think it's perhaps the least worse option for them. If they spend the money to reset the current harpoons to extend their end of life then the face either paying twice (once for the reset, then for a replacement) and risk the MOD forcing a new missile further back, or risk getting stuck with a UK only system with all the costs that brings, or weight for a new system when the 26's are fixed.

              And it's not like this is new for the RN, the 42's ended their surface as nothing more than a gun and a helicopter platform due to the Sea Dart's end of life, or the OHP's of the USN ending their service with no SAM's either.

              Comment


              • I have a feeling that the "Type 31" will be essentially a stretched "River" in the end. With the Batch 1 Rivers being sold off. (A P40 did some exercises with a River1 recently off the south coast I think.)

                BAE Systems has revealed two potential designs for the UK's General Purpose Frigate programme, known as the Type 31.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Galloglass View Post
                  I have a feeling that the "Type 31" will be essentially a stretched "River" in the end. With the Batch 1 Rivers being sold off. (A P40 did some exercises with a River1 recently off the south coast I think.)

                  https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/bae-...pe-31-frigate/
                  Yeah there's some photo's of them on the Navy's Facebook page.

                  Comment


                  • Missile systems

                    Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                    This isn't something "new" it's been flagged for several years at least (I'm sure I read about it back when the 22's mounts were being suggested to move to some of the 45's). Given the state of the RN's budget issues and the still up in the air spec of the 26 I actually think it's perhaps the least worse option for them. If they spend the money to reset the current harpoons to extend their end of life then the face either paying twice (once for the reset, then for a replacement) and risk the MOD forcing a new missile further back, or risk getting stuck with a UK only system with all the costs that brings, or weight for a new system when the 26's are fixed.

                    And it's not like this is new for the RN, the 42's ended their surface as nothing more than a gun and a helicopter platform due to the Sea Dart's end of life, or the OHP's of the USN ending their service with no SAM's either.
                    .

                    The Indians might not think that Harpoon systems both Surface and Sub-Surface launched are out of Date. They are getting 22 systems via Boeing, for their submarines at 81m USD. I think that laterally British MOD are only thinking in terms of £SD and packaging and repackaging troops into "cost effective" parcels, generally sacrificing mobility, cohesion, and Command structures. I hope the Generals can maintain all elements of their Air Assault Brigade in a "good to go" condition. It is difficult to overcome in peacetime? that the next rank to CGS is a civil service Clerical Officer.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                      Every harpoon launcher should be replaced with a Kronsberg NSM while they make up their minds.
                      That is a nice quick and permanent fix - NSM is the only sensible choice IMO.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                        .
                        The Indians might not think that Harpoon systems both Surface and Sub-Surface launched are out of Date. They are getting 22 systems via Boeing, for their submarines at 81m USD. I think that laterally British MOD are only thinking in terms of £SD and packaging and repackaging troops into "cost effective" parcels, generally sacrificing mobility, cohesion, and Command structures. I hope the Generals can maintain all elements of their Air Assault Brigade in a "good to go" condition. It is difficult to overcome in peacetime? that the next rank to CGS is a civil service Clerical Officer.
                        I suppose it depends, I mean with their procurement process it could be another decade before it gets into service, they also have much heavier ASM's as well. For the RN, with their budgets as is which makes more sense spend the money to reset the Harpoon's and then face the "complaints" if they then wanted to replace it with a newer/better system (or face having to use it for an extended period), or risk going with a development that ends up with the UK alone? In reality until/unless the UK decides what if any ASM the 35 is going to field then it should hold off on buying ASM and focus on fixing the 45's and getting the 26's into production.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                          I suppose it depends, I mean with their procurement process it could be another decade before it gets into service, they also have much heavier ASM's as well. For the RN, with their budgets as is which makes more sense spend the money to reset the Harpoon's and then face the "complaints" if they then wanted to replace it with a newer/better system (or face having to use it for an extended period), or risk going with a development that ends up with the UK alone? In reality until/unless the UK decides what if any ASM the 35 is going to field then it should hold off on buying ASM and focus on fixing the 45's and getting the 26's into production.
                          On the basis of "JAM TODAY" ships should be armed to meet the threat posed by numbers of vessels with Land/Sea Strike missiles that are operational out there. Ten years is a generation in most technical/electronic systems when replacements would be at least planned for immediate implementation. Upsetting MOD in an uncompromising environment should not be a Naval problem.
                          The only ASM's I'm aware of are Harpoon and the air launched Sea Skua. Land Strike is huge using Tomahawk and Trident (N). Modern NSM range are available covering both ship and land targets within 100nm.
                          At least 75% of existing ships should be fully operational Harpoon wise while the remainder are being refitted with an off the shelf system, then continue the refit for the remainder in tranches of 25 %.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                            On the basis of "JAM TODAY" ships should be armed to meet the threat posed by numbers of vessels with Land/Sea Strike missiles that are operational out there. Ten years is a generation in most technical/electronic systems when replacements would be at least planned for immediate implementation. Upsetting MOD in an uncompromising environment should not be a Naval problem.
                            The only ASM's I'm aware of are Harpoon and the air launched Sea Skua. Land Strike is huge using Tomahawk and Trident (N). Modern NSM range are available covering both ship and land targets within 100nm.
                            At least 75% of existing ships should be fully operational Harpoon wise while the remainder are being refitted with an off the shelf system, then continue the refit for the remainder in tranches of 25 %.
                            Again though the RN isn't alone in "gapping" procurement to move to something new, the USN has stopped buying Tomahawks to invest in the next gen replacement relying on their stocks to carry them through with till then. Or how many of the European navies bring new hulls into service with phased operational capabilities. Think they have also done the same with Harpoons to move to the LRASM, which is what the UK might be looking forward to buying (since the 26 may carry the mk41 it wouldn't be an issue, and the 35 is meant to carry that as well (so the RN could field it on both the 26, perhaps the SSN's and the 35's). And again the RN has history of making calls about such readiness levels (for example during Libya operations the 23's carried less than half a dozen Sea Wolf's on board which reduced wear on the missiles.

                            Comment


                            • Can't Harpoons also be used for land attack?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                                Can't Harpoons also be used for land attack?
                                Think that depends on which version of the system you have doesn't it?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X