Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Royal Navy Type 31

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

  • #61
    On a lighter note

    Last edited by sofa; 26 July 2016, 18:34.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by sofa View Post
      Funny but true

      Comment


      • #63
        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.
        Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

        Comment


        • #64
          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

          Comment


          • #65
            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.
            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

            Comment


            • #66
              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

              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.

              Comment


              • #67
                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
                Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                Comment


                • #68
                  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.
                  For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    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
                    Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      We all hate you. #justsaying
                      For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        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 ...

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          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...

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            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; 27 July 2016, 12:17.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              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

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X