Thanks Thanks:  90
Likes Likes:  225
Dislikes Dislikes:  2
Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 332
  1. #51
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,101
    Post Thanks / Like
    It has no serious missile capability compared to other destroyers and the propulsion issue is far from being rectified other than a complete plant refit. HMS Duncan is now reduced to being a harbour training vessel because of reliability and crewing issues with another Type 23 HMS being reduced to mothballs and stripped of stores for the remaining type 23s. The RN is in serious trouble given the problematic propulsion unit is that fitted to the carrier s.

    Maybe we could donate Aisling to dig them out
    Just visiting

  2. Likes danno liked this post
  3. #52
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,101
    Post Thanks / Like
    It is being suggest that the UK should be looking outside of the UK for its new builds. The fact no one has been buying new builds based on RN types seems to highlight issues.
    Just visiting

  4. Thanks na grohmití thanked for this post
    Likes danno liked this post
  5. #53
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    858
    Post Thanks / Like

    Rn ships

    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    It is being suggest that the UK should be looking outside of the UK for its new builds. The fact no one has been buying new builds based on RN types seems to highlight issues.
    In the 1950's, in the UK, there were literally scores of major ship building yards, many capable of building major warships such as carriers, battleships, troopers, all backed up by producers of steel, electronics, and weapon systems. Over the years all the backbone of industrial might and particularly shipbuilding has been emaciated followed by a total collapse and disappearance of the major shipping companies.
    The only productive yards are those building a few warships for the RN, unfortunately every warship built seems to be a prototype of a new class. This leads to a trial and error scenario which leads to a major failure if an "error" occurs. The most unwanted error is that of propulsion and power supply on board. There is a period of trying to fix and make do which of course means that your never "GOOD TO GO".
    It is possible to build at satellite yards using the modern MOTS(military off the shelf) and COTS (commercial off the shelf) principles. Then bring it all together at the assembly yard.
    Every ship built should have a minimum of a 35 year life. The RN have turned over Fleet elements in well less than 20 years which indicates finding out over time the ship is not fit for purpose. BEATTY famously said "there is something wrong with our bloody ships today" at the battle of Jutland.

  6. #54
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    But are the "productive yards" and the reduced life of vessels directly linked?

    Ie the only thing really keeping the yards open are RN orders

  7. #55
    CQMS spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,488
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    It has no serious missile capability compared to other destroyers and the propulsion issue is far from being rectified other than a complete plant refit. HMS Duncan is now reduced to being a harbour training vessel because of reliability and crewing issues with another Type 23 HMS being reduced to mothballs and stripped of stores for the remaining type 23s. The RN is in serious trouble given the problematic propulsion unit is that fitted to the carrier s.

    Maybe we could donate Aisling to dig them out
    T45 has sufficient missile capacity... the same missile capacity as HORIZON...and in PAAMS it can track 1000 targets at a range of 250 miles.

    Can AEGIS do that...I don't believe it can.

    Nothing I have read suggests that T45 requires a complete plant refit...they are having additional generator capacity fitted...the funds have been made available and this will be done as a rolling refit.

    You say the Royal Navy are in serious trouble...again I point you to the First Sea Lords speech made last week.

    He wouldn't agree with you Murph...and with respect his CV is a bit more impressive than that of anyone who posts on IMO.

    http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/~/media/...s%20philip.pdf

    You deride T31...yet no-one actually knows what it looks like.

    HMS QE2 and POW...written off even though they haven't even gone into acceptance trials.

    F35...no good apparently...if we're all spared for a few years we'll see if the 1SL is correct in his planning to have a RN CAG active by the early 2020's.

    I'm quite confident that they will.
    'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

  8. #56
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    858
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    But are the "productive yards" and the reduced life of vessels directly linked?

    Ie the only thing really keeping the yards open are RN orders
    You are near the truth in linking Yard viability with ship orders and repairs from both the RN and overseas clients. There is an element of fiscal adjustments which allows such Yards to be more competitive in pricing new builds.
    Whether they dispose of ships early to create new business for builders is not measurable as those deleted to a large extent were not combat efficient as was exposed during Falklands War.
    Our, now five ships, built by Babcocks, also need to have their combat efficiency evaluated and adjusted to a minimum provide by a SAAB type 9LV system, say to an 9LV Compact level to also deal with missile attack.

  9. Thanks The Usual Suspect thanked for this post
  10. #57
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by spider View Post
    T45 has sufficient missile capacity...
    48 missiles versus 68 to 122 on a Ticonderoga class

    If you have a Carrier and an amphibious group at sea that is 2 of the 5 taken up minimum (with no redundancy in those groups), you probably have 1 in refit/leave/etc. That leaves 1 if you wanted to defend say a surface attack group.

    The SAMs are vertical launch which cannot AFAIK be reload via a RAS. Therefore either group will have restricted anti-aircraft capability when the single Type 45 has to leave to reload at a friendly port.

    The most pressing problem is expensive delayed ships & reduced hull numbers.

    You deride T31...yet no-one actually knows what it looks like.
    Isn't that part of the point.... that means deliveries are probably at least 10 years off

    HMS QE2 and POW...written off even though they haven't even gone into acceptance trials.

    F35...no good apparently...if we're all spared for a few years we'll see if the 1SL is correct in his planning to have a RN CAG active by the early 2020's.
    The new carriers can carry 40 aircraft each. But the 2 will never be able to put to sea together because there aren't enough destroyers & frigates to defend them and not enough aircraft to fly off them.

    Of those 40 aircraft a number will have to be AEW helos, a couple of SAR helos, probably a ASW helos as well, so say max 30 X F35.

    The F35 will be a very capable (and high maintenance) aircraft. You'll probably need 10 for air defence (between a CAP, ready aircraft, maintenance etc). So we are down to 20 X F35 on board to project power. At a high sortie rate probably 5-10 of them in maintenance at any 1 time.

    But the 2015 SDSR said only 24 X F35 would be deployed to the 2 carriers

    Oh and the RN currently has skilled shortages.

  11. #58
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,101
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by spider View Post
    T45 has sufficient missile capacity... the same missile capacity as HORIZON...and in PAAMS it can track 1000 targets at a range of 250 miles.

    Can AEGIS do that...I don't believe it can.

    Nothing I have read suggests that T45 requires a complete plant refit...they are having additional generator capacity fitted...the funds have been made available and this will be done as a rolling refit.

    You say the Royal Navy are in serious trouble...again I point you to the First Sea Lords speech made last week.

    He wouldn't agree with you Murph...and with respect his CV is a bit more impressive than that of anyone who posts on IMO.

    http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/~/media/...s%20philip.pdf

    You deride T31...yet no-one actually knows what it looks like.

    HMS QE2 and POW...written off even though they haven't even gone into acceptance trials.

    F35...no good apparently...if we're all spared for a few years we'll see if the 1SL is correct in his planning to have a RN CAG active by the early 2020's.

    I'm quite confident that they will.
    The Former First sea lord stood in the House of Lords last month and highlighted the current issues. The thoughts on P31s are generally accepted in commentary circles and the Cuts word has been reintroduced to mean having to cut open the 45s to get the power plants our. The other worrying issue us that by 202o the RN is without aircover for night on ten years. Will the politicos seen this as airport is not actually required at all.
    We'll wait with baited breath
    Just visiting

  12. #59
    CQMS spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,488
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    48 missiles versus 68 to 122 on a Ticonderoga class

    If you have a Carrier and an amphibious group at sea that is 2 of the 5 taken up minimum (with no redundancy in those groups), you probably have 1 in refit/leave/etc. That leaves 1 if you wanted to defend say a surface attack group.

    The SAMs are vertical launch which cannot AFAIK be reload via a RAS. Therefore either group will have restricted anti-aircraft capability when the single Type 45 has to leave to reload at a friendly port.

    The most pressing problem is expensive delayed ships & reduced hull numbers.


    Isn't that part of the point.... that means deliveries are probably at least 10 years off



    The new carriers can carry 40 aircraft each. But the 2 will never be able to put to sea together because there aren't enough destroyers & frigates to defend them and not enough aircraft to fly off them.

    Of those 40 aircraft a number will have to be AEW helos, a couple of SAR helos, probably a ASW helos as well, so say max 30 X F35.

    The F35 will be a very capable (and high maintenance) aircraft. You'll probably need 10 for air defence (between a CAP, ready aircraft, maintenance etc). So we are down to 20 X F35 on board to project power. At a high sortie rate probably 5-10 of them in maintenance at any 1 time.

    But the 2015 SDSR said only 24 X F35 would be deployed to the 2 carriers

    Oh and the RN currently has skilled shortages.
    Dev have you not already raised the above points over on arrse?

    And had them dealt with by serving RN Officers?

    I don't think the UK MOD ever envisages a situation where they will have two carrier groups fully worked up and at sea with a full compliment of F35's embarked on each ship.

    If they ever do the likelihood is that that would be part of an international coalition.

    You are right that delays in the T26 programme are a problem...I agree totally...but instead of everyone obsessing with what may or may not happen lets wait and see what does happen. The 1SL's speech of last week indicates the direction in which the RN is going...and the challenges it faces. My understanding is that in the autumn we will have an idea of what T31 will look like...what it will be capable of...and the timelines for delivery of T31 & T26.

    The Royal Navy does indeed have a shortage of engineers at present...show me a Navy that doesn't.

    One of our local mechanics just joined...and got a handsome bonus for doing so as he had mechanical engineering qualifications.

    This would be a really good time to join the Royal Navy.

    I'm trying my best to persuade one of my little arachnoids to join the Navy in an engineering trade...but he's set on the Army Air Corps.

    Murph everyone and anyone on every discussion forum in the world can discuss and have views on T31...I just think its more sensible to wait and see what the thing actually looks like. You mentioned a few posts back that the RN had had its fingers burned with GP Frigates before...the current 1SL has served on T21's and is a Falklands War veteran. I can't think of anyone more qualified to ensure that past mistakes are not replicated in the design of T31.

    The T45 will indeed have their hulls cut open...to fit extra generator capacity...which should rectify the current problems...see here...

    http://www.parliament.uk/documents/c...troyers(1).pdf

    The Royal Navy accepted back in 2010 that it would take ten years to re-generate a fast jet carrier capability.

    That was a very painful time...for all three services...but we've turned the corner and are getting there not only with the carriers but also with other areas of defence which had to be gapped temporarily.
    'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

  13. #60
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by spider View Post
    Dev have you not already raised the above points over on arrse?

    And had them dealt with by serving RN Officers?
    Not on arrse but seen the posts.

    I don't think the UK MOD ever envisages a situation where they will have two carrier groups fully worked up and at sea with a full compliment of F35's embarked on each ship.

    If they ever do the likelihood is that that would be part of an international coalition.
    Quite possibly but then you quite possibly don't need 2 carriers but that's another argument.

    Either way it wouldn't be able to in any area with a significant threat


    You are right that delays in the T26 programme are a problem...I agree totally...but instead of everyone obsessing with what may or may not happen lets wait and see what does happen. The 1SL's speech of last week indicates the direction in which the RN is going...and the challenges it faces. My understanding is that in the autumn we will have an idea of what T31 will look like...what it will be capable of...and the timelines for delivery of T31 & T26.
    Until it runs over budget, there is a design issue, the design is changed, the capabilities are added to/removed, the budget is cut (as per most major MOD projects).

    Murph everyone and anyone on every discussion forum in the world can discuss and have views on T31...I just think its more sensible to wait and see what the thing actually looks like. You mentioned a few posts back that the RN had had its fingers burned with GP Frigates before...the current 1SL has served on T21's and is a Falklands War veteran. I can't think of anyone more qualified to ensure that past mistakes are not replicated in the design of T31.
    Where was he for the Type 45 and carriers?

    How many RN project staff will be working for BAe soon?

    The Royal Navy accepted back in 2010 that it would take ten years to re-generate a fast jet carrier capability.
    Remains to be seen if it will take longer (or be delivered quicker)

  14. #61
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,590
    Post Thanks / Like
    Last edited by sofa; 26th July 2016 at 17:34.

  15. Likes Tempest liked this post
  16. #62
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by sofa View Post
    Funny but true

  17. #63
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,101
    Post Thanks / Like
    Given there was supposed to be double the number of T45 really off to a bad start.

    It was suggested here that the Type 31 would be a GP vessel . 1SL himself will know what a problem GP frigates are having commanded a Type 21. These were a commercial build as the T31 maybe. The UK could buy half a dozen Arleigh Burke which is going to be one of the most successful types of all time and is hugely capable. Ticonderogas are cruisers not Destroyers. The Type 23s currently in service are very capable and the usual suspects will be queuing up on their disposal.
    By tying up a type 45 of which they have limited numbers the RN is effectively highlighting it can't cope .
    The crewing issues maybe an international issue but who else was actually making people redundant up to recently.

    My views are based on what I gather from the written media. I avoid arrse like the plague.


    Some of the commentators here have verifiable track records in relation to naval matters so I tend to avoid digital media as it tends to be full of self appointment experts.
    Just visiting

  18. #64
    CQMS spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,488
    Post Thanks / Like
    Dev my apologies...I could have sworn that you and Irl_Sgt of arrse were one and the same.

    He hovers around on arrse with an 'everything you Brits do is shite' attitude...and posts in the same style as you often do.

    Coincidently you even posted on here exactly the same points Irl_Sgt did on arrse... re a carrier group and amphibious assault group being simultaneously at sea...and there not being enough T45's to accompany them.

    Irl_Sgt was politely corrected by several serving Royal Navy Officers on arrse.

    I have no idea what point you are trying to make about one...or two carriers...and about a high threat area?

    I'm not in the Navy...but I'm guessing that the reason two carriers are being built is so that one is always available?

    Design problems...cost overruns...show me a major warship programme anywhere in the world that doesn't have issues like this.

    Where was the 1SL for T45 & QE Class...you'll have to expand your question please...I don't know what you mean.

    How many RN staff will be working for BAE...no idea. Do you?

    If you do can you tell me this weekends lottery numbers please?

    Now I've a question for you...why the obsession with the UK Armed Forces?

    Why the persistent drip drip of everything the Brits have / say / do is useless / wrong / stupid?
    'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

  19. Thanks na grohmití, pym thanked for this post
    Likes sofa liked this post
  20. #65
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,239
    Post Thanks / Like
    Comparing the T45 with the Ticonderoga is nonsense. You may as well be comparing a minesweeper with an aircraft carrier. They do not have the same naval role.
    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. Likes hptmurphy liked this post
  22. #66
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by spider View Post
    Dev my apologies...I could have sworn that you and Irl_Sgt of arrse were one and the same.

    He hovers around on arrse with an 'everything you Brits do is shite' attitude...and posts in the same style as you often do.

    Coincidently you even posted on here exactly the same points Irl_Sgt did on arrse... re a carrier group and amphibious assault group being simultaneously at sea...and there not being enough T45's to accompany them.

    Irl_Sgt was politely corrected by several serving Royal Navy Officers on arrse.
    Can't speak for Irl_sgt as I'm not him/her but I'm not anti-brit.

    I have no idea what point you are trying to make about one...or two carriers...and about a high threat area?

    I'm not in the Navy...but I'm guessing that the reason two carriers are being built is so that one is always available?
    High threat could be a reasonable well equipped enemy navy and/or Air Force.

    Afaik the UK signed a contract for 2 carriers, then discovered they couldn't afford it and then signed some kind of time share deal with the French (I may have got the order wrong).

    Design problems...cost overruns...show me a major warship programme anywhere in the world that doesn't have issues like this.
    true but the most effective programmes that have occurred in recent times have been UORs. Top class cutting edge equipment, not necessarily UK made. Why? COTS/MOTS

    Where was the 1SL for T45 & QE Class...you'll have to expand your question please...I don't know what you mean.
    well if he is going to ensure there is no issues with this project, why didn't his predecessor with the other projects?

    How many RN staff will be working for BAE...no idea. Do you?
    guaranteed job afterward any project

    If you do can you tell me this weekends lottery numbers please?
    check PMs

    Now I've a question for you...why the obsession with the UK Armed Forces?

    Why the persistent drip drip of everything the Brits have / say / do is useless / wrong / stupid?
    I'm not, I didn't start this thread!

    I disagree with a lot of policy, equipment, etc .... I also disagree with Irish policies etc

    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    Comparing the T45 with the Ticonderoga is nonsense. You may as well be comparing a minesweeper with an aircraft carrier. They do not have the same naval role.
    Correct and right. Error on my part. I should have said Arleigh Burke class destroyer as hptmurphy said.

    The Burkes still have double the SAM capacity of the T45.

  23. #67
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,101
    Post Thanks / Like
    The new build carriers in fairness can't be assessed until operational but the decision to shelve the air arm and reconstitute it 10 years later with what is still an advanced prototype is nothing short of folly. The stated intention is to have both operation simultaneously.

    Now one could be very sceptical and say that building the carriers was just a job creation exercise and the fact the earlier carriers and air arm were written off in a hurry left the new government no choice but to continue with the builds.

    Given 5he last if the last carriers is only going for sale now. .where was the point. The aircraft were operational and the ships were in good nick.

    A quick mention on MPAS. The RAF are going to buy the P8. An aircraft far less capable than the Nimrod MR 4. It has a third of the cruising time of the Nimrod so a higher operating cost.... subs... The RN have just discovered a reactor problem that can't be diagnosed without actual physical testing.m did I meths Rolls Royce were allowed to close the testing plant in favour of computer applications which can't simulate the failure in question.

    And the two RFAS one towed out of refit costing millions straight to the breakers with another soon to follow.

    Yup.. I'd be worried
    Just visiting

  24. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  25. #68
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,239
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post


    Correct and right. Error on my part. I should have said Arleigh Burke class destroyer as hptmurphy said.

    The Burkes still have double the SAM capacity of the T45.
    Not necessarily. The Burke VLS is configured for a range of missiles, and you are not going to be carrying one for every tube of each type.

    Burke (Flight II) has 96 VLS tubes for:
    Tomahawk SLCM
    RIM66 Standard SAM
    RIM161 Standard Ballistic Missile Defence
    RIM162ESSM (4 per cell)
    RUM139 ASROC
    RIM174 ERAM.

    However the T45 is different in that it's VLS holds either a mix in its 45 tubes of either Aster 15 or Aster 30 missiles, for SAM or SBM, all the time retaining its anti ship missiles in 2 quad Harpoon launchers, at the same time maintaining an Air arm with anti sub or anti ship missiles, while the MH60 of the Burkes only carry hellfire missiles, of limited use in the anti ship role.
    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?

  26. #69
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,101
    Post Thanks / Like
    Please accept my apologies for typos. I'm phone bound for the next ten days are so. But the temperature are high, the beer cheap and I get to watch aeroplanes including the Spanish airforce every day. I'm in Fuertaventura in the canaries for my sins.

    Tough ould station but some one has to do it
    Just visiting

  27. Likes ropebag, ias liked this post
  28. #70
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,239
    Post Thanks / Like
    We all hate you. #justsaying
    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?

  29. Likes DeV, ropebag, hptmurphy liked this post
  30. #71
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    Not necessarily. The Burke VLS is configured for a range of missiles, and you are not going to be carrying one for every tube of each type.

    Burke (Flight II) has 96 VLS tubes for:
    Tomahawk SLCM
    RIM66 Standard SAM
    RIM161 Standard Ballistic Missile Defence
    RIM162ESSM (4 per cell)
    RUM139 ASROC
    RIM174 ERAM.

    However the T45 is different in that it's VLS holds either a mix in its 45 tubes of either Aster 15 or Aster 30 missiles, for SAM or SBM, all the time retaining its anti ship missiles in 2 quad Harpoon launchers, at the same time maintaining an Air arm with anti sub or anti ship missiles, while the MH60 of the Burkes only carry hellfire missiles, of limited use in the anti ship role.
    True, I meant to say ... up to ...

  31. #72
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,702
    Post Thanks / Like
    i'm rather less concerned about the headline number of missiles in the T45 than i used to be - firstly because the number of missiles carried by the T45 isn't the sum total of modern SAM's carried by the close escort ships (30+ on a single T23, up to 48 on a T26...), secondly because the world has changed since Soviet Naval Aviation were threatening to roll down the G-I-UK Gap with 100 bombers and 200 missiles at a time: there are few countries which could put 100 Anti-Ship Missiles in the air, and if we're fighting those we're very unlikely to be fighting them alone.

    thirdly of course is the small matter of the capabilities of the carrier group itself - while an enemy is mashalling his air componant to maximum effort, what do people think the 30+ stealthy strike fighters and Tommahawk LAM's will be doing?

    would i be happier if T45 had the full 64 VLS? yes, because i'm not an idiot. do i think that having 48 instead of 64 - or 96 - is a crippling error that negates utterly the concept of the carrier capability? no, again, because i'm not an idiot...

  32. Likes The real Jack liked this post
  33. #73
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    i'm rather less concerned about the headline number of missiles in the T45 than i used to be - firstly because the number of missiles carried by the T45 isn't the sum total of modern SAM's carried by the close escort ships (30+ on a single T23, up to 48 on a T26...)
    true but remember they have to go to a friendly port to reload (due to the VLS). You said it yourself close in. Having said that it need could be offset by CIWS.

    secondly because the world has changed since Soviet Naval Aviation were threatening to roll down the G-I-UK Gap with 100 bombers and 200 missiles at a time: there are few countries which could put 100 Anti-Ship Missiles in the air, and if we're fighting those we're very unlikely to be fighting them alone.
    Very true but remember how long these vessels are going to in service for, how few hulls there are so if 2 go u/s....

    Terror groups even have access to ASMs.

    What threat could they be asked to face in 20 years time

    thirdly of course is the small matter of the capabilities of the carrier group itself - while an enemy is mashalling his air componant to maximum effort, what do people think the 30+ stealthy strike fighters and Tommahawk LAM's will be doing?
    very true and they should be very capable. But they still can't be undergoing maintenance, flying a CAP and conducting a strike mission at the same time. By CAP of course I mean being a dedicated AD asset as part of the layered defence of the carrier group. But it very much depends on the level of threat for enemy air assets to the carrier).

    The RN has also limited itself to TLAMs on subs AFAIK. And again only so many subs.


    would i be happier if T45 had the full 64 VLS? yes, because i'm not an idiot. do i think that having 48 instead of 64 - or 96 - is a crippling error that negates utterly the concept of the carrier capability? no, again, because i'm not an idiot...
    well then we are agreed!

    But they are things that the RN and politicians need to consider.

    This isn't Brit bashing it is me being worried that politicians will order the RN to do something that isn't within their capabilities.


    I'm not saying that the ships that are/will be there aren't/will be highly capable technological marvels. But there are still risks.
    Last edited by DeV; 27th July 2016 at 11:17.

  34. #74
    CQMS spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,488
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Can't speak for Irl_sgt as I'm not him/her but I'm not anti-brit.



    High threat could be a reasonable well equipped enemy navy and/or Air Force.

    Afaik the UK signed a contract for 2 carriers, then discovered they couldn't afford it and then signed some kind of time share deal with the French (I may have got the order wrong).

    true but the most effective programmes that have occurred in recent times have been UORs. Top class cutting edge equipment, not necessarily UK made. Why? COTS/MOTS

    well if he is going to ensure there is no issues with this project, why didn't his predecessor with the other projects?

    guaranteed job afterward any project

    check PMs



    I'm not, I didn't start this thread!

    I disagree with a lot of policy, equipment, etc .... I also disagree with Irish policies etc



    Correct and right. Error on my part. I should have said Arleigh Burke class destroyer as hptmurphy said.

    The Burkes still have double the SAM capacity of the T45.
    So you're not irlsgt Dev.

    Well you must have some sort of wierdo parallel though thing going on with that guy because he posts the same stuff you do on here.

    Anyway...there is no 'time share' with the French.

    The Royal Navy are building and commissioning two aircraft carriers one of which will be available for F35 operations at any given time.

    I've already done to death with you on other threads...several times...why the UK has a national shipbuilding policy.

    Yet you keep returning to the same points...again...and again...and again.

    If my efforts to explain things to you aren't to your satisfaction write to this bloke and ask him to explain his Departments policies;

    Rt Hon Michael Fallon MP, Whitehall, Westminster, London.

    Let us know how you get on.

    Again...the previous 1SL...Admiral Sir George Zambellas...not sure of his address but try Facebook.

    If hes on there you can ask him why it is you have to constantly fret about UK shipbuilding policies and T45 and QE class in particular.

    Let us know how you get on.

    BAE are guaranteeing jobs for anyone involved in any of their projects...wow...where did you get that from exactly?

    Maybe your energies would be better suited to challenging the policies of the Irish Government in relation to defence?

    After all you are an Irish tax payer...an Irish voter...an Irish Citizen.

    Murph...

    How many P31's were the Irish Navy meant to get?

    They ended up with one...did that make LE Eithne any less capable a platform?

    T23 was derided as a mickey mouse Frigate when they were being brought into service...they've now evolved into what they are.

    I'm quite confident that T45 will get there too.

    Re the Invincible Class carriers...they were 30+ year old ships...with constant gearbox problems...which were costing a fortune to crew and maintain in commission.

    A difficult decision was made...I personally believe the right one...and now within a few years the UKRN will have re-generated its CAG capability.

    Whilst I understand and realise and respect that a number of people on here have Naval credentials...yourself included...I have every confidence in the professional heads of the Royal Navy. They are clearly saying what direction the service is heading in...if you disagree fair enough...but at the end of the day you're not in the Royal Navy...or the UK Armed Forces...and you do as you say form your opinions from online media sources. I'm not being rude but I'm more inclined to listen to those who are actually really in the know.

    Re the P8...what were the other options out there for the RAF? Because Nimrod was a dead duck...great systems but the aircraft was never going to fly safely.

    I don't post on arrse either for reasons I won't go into...but amongst some of the crap that is on there you will find some very informed and knowledgeable posters. It can be quite educational. Enjoy you're hols...I'm only a little bit envious...
    'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

  35. Likes na grohmití liked this post
  36. #75
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    330
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by spider View Post
    Re the P8...what were the other options out there for the RAF? Because Nimrod was a dead duck...great systems but the aircraft was never going to fly safely.
    Kawasaki P1 - which can even fly low and hunt for subs there with MAD. Much better plane IMO.

  37. Thanks spider thanked for this post

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
  •