Thanks Thanks:  80
Likes Likes:  175
Dislikes Dislikes:  1
Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 176 to 200 of 266

Thread: Naval weaponry

  1. #176
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,505
    Post Thanks / Like
    Has not ARGYLL sea trialed the Sea-Ceptor. 18 years is too short a life for a high-end warship. Ask the US Navy about retaining capacity. The RN has ground through at least 9 classes of frigates since WW11 giving an average life of less then 10 years. All too experimental and pandering to industry.
    Last edited by ancientmariner; 3rd May 2017 at 13:16.

  2. #177
    Captain
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,543
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Has not ARGYLL sea trialed the Sea-Ceptor. !8 years is too short a life for a high-end warship. Ask the US Navy about retaining capacity. The RN has ground through at least 9 classes of frigates since WW11 giving an average life of less then 10 years. All too experimental and pandering to industry.
    I was pointing out that the proposal for fitting them to the Batch 2 River's is still that, and proposal, suggesting that it means the RN is upgunning the OPV's doesn't hold up then. The last thing the RN admirals want is to allow the idea that the OPV's can operate in high threat environments (as then you get the usual issue of "it's grey and has a gun, so it's Frigate" from the public and the politicians.

    As to the operational lifespan, first I'd leave the USN out of it, a) because of the price tag day 1 of their hulls, b) the sheer size of their budgets. As I've pointed out the RN had a very good reason for what they planned. You call it "pandering to industry" and when the RN gets OPV it REALLY doesn't want instead of Frigates that it really does that is pandering (and some of their Frigates were either designed for other waters (Tribals) or built "cheap" (21 and Blackwood class). However the need to maintain a sustainable build rate is also a valid concern (just look at the fallout of cancelling the "W" class post Cold War, the Astute build has been over budget/delayed and needed US support due to skill loss), the 26's have under various guises been in development now for the better part of 25 years now. The planned "low cost frigate" is now going to be as high as the 45's and the intention for international sales are all but gone.

    The 23's will serve on, however when they are retired they will most likely be scrapped rather than sold (as they'll have no radar, no SAM's, a dead main gun at that stage), so instead of the plan that would have helped both the budgets and industry of the UK while increasing the chances of follow on replacement orders had the original plan been carried out, instead the RN Frigate size will fall to 8 + 5 "second rates" and 6 Destroyers...

  3. Likes DeV liked this post
  4. #178
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,714
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think the issue is trying to align vessels with traditional concepts rather than future proofing them by making them more multi role.

    The Americans seen to be heading this way , the retirement of the Hazard Perry Class of frigates is getting closer without real replacement in the same quantity on the table and the Arleigh Burkes get more multirole every day.

    So do the RN have to come to a reasonable number where they can remove frigates and increase type 45s , is there a trade off to be had.

    If OPVs can be packaged as emergency frigates, why build frigates at all if you have enough destroyers?

    Many nations are now looking closer at multi role corvettes to replace specialist vessels such as missile boats and FPBs while shovelling on extras to make them mini frigates.

    The optimal ship seems to have an anti ship missile fit, an anti aircraft suite, a main gun, secondary guns and a CIWS anti missile system throw in a helicopter and a reasonable sonar fit and you have an anti submarine capability. Now decide on the optimal platform, aim off for OPV seakeeping and dash speed of about 35kts... whatever plethora of power plants.. hey presto a pan class warship
    Last edited by hptmurphy; 3rd May 2017 at 11:55.
    Time for another break I think......

  5. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, restless liked this post
  6. #179
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,505
    Post Thanks / Like
    I agree with some of your concerns. At least one contributor to Think Defence has Rivers being adapted, with Kevlar around the magazine compartment, to the point they can take moderate action damage. The whole RN building program has been dogged by trimmed designs , deferred fits , fragmented roles , and serial Batching. Most of the problem caused by shrinking current budgets with promises of more later, which in turn often leads to a totally different operational capability requiring further adaption to achieve a role slot in the Order of Battle. However , even allowing for that , in an OPV only Navy like ours , we must give our ships a fighting chance by giving our ships more teeth in all round Defence.

  7. Likes restless liked this post
  8. #180
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    22,106
    Post Thanks / Like
    The problem isn't so much shrinking budgets!

    It is:
    - increasing development time (increasing costs)
    - design changes (increasing costs)
    - poor project management (increasing costs)
    - building delaying due to above (increasing costs)
    - exclusively building RN warships in the UK (increasing costs)

  9. #181
    Captain
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,543
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    I think the issue is trying to align vessels with traditional concepts rather than future proofing them by making them more multi role.

    The Americans seen to be heading this way , the retirement of the Hazard Perry Class of frigates is getting closer without real replacement in the same quantity on the table and the Arleigh Burkes get more multirole every day.

    So do the RN have to come to a reasonable number where they can remove frigates and increase type 45s , is there a trade off to be had.

    If OPVs can be packaged as emergency frigates, why build frigates at all if you have enough destroyers?

    Many nations are now looking closer at multi role corvettes to replace specialist vessels such as missile boats and FPBs while shovelling on extras to make them mini frigates.

    The optimal ship seems to have an anti ship missile fit, an anti aircraft suite, a main gun, secondary guns and a CIWS anti missile system throw in a helicopter and a reasonable sonar fit and you have an anti submarine capability. Now decide on the optimal platform, aim off for OPV seakeeping and dash speed of about 35kts... whatever plethora of power plants.. hey presto a pan class warship
    In terms of the US it's more complicated than that, the Perry's were retired (for good reason given the lack of missiles for them turning them into glorified OPV's), with the intention of the LCS class/es somehow filling that void. However with the debacle of that the USN are now moving towards "Frigate LCS" or perhaps even a new design entirely to fill that void (that is still "something" below the Burke class).

    For most other navies they are moving towards "multirole Frigates" with the idea of a "mission bay" becoming much more common. As to the RN they aren't building anymore 45's, the ones they have are enough trouble and besides the Radar's are built anymore, the 26's while as large as them potentially won't be dedicated AA ships like them.

    Do any of the European Frigates have a "Dash speed of 35 knots" today?

  10. Thanks hptmurphy thanked for this post
  11. #182
    Captain
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,543
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    The problem isn't so much shrinking budgets!

    It is:
    - increasing development time (increasing costs)
    - design changes (increasing costs)
    - poor project management (increasing costs)
    - building delaying due to above (increasing costs)
    - exclusively building RN warships in the UK (increasing costs)
    You forgot to include pissing matches with multinational partners when there are some (increasing costs) and political interference for budget reasons (increasing costs).

  12. Likes DeV liked this post
  13. #183
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,714
    Post Thanks / Like
    At least one contributor to Think Defence has Rivers being adapted, with Kevlar around the magazine compartment, to the point they can take moderate action damage.
    The type 22 s were built around their weapon fits with out dated technology before they even became operational, the seawolf magazine running two thirds of the ships length, so if ships are to out live their weapons systems they need to be modular, if the magazine of the Rivers can accommodate another weapons system in 15 years time, then its cost effective.

    n terms of the US it's more complicated than that, the Perry's were retired (for good reason given the lack of missiles for them turning them into glorified OPV's)

    The Perrys were perfect for what they were designed as when the concept of operation was for cheap escort vessels for convoys, we'll probably never know war at that level again but thats exactly what they were, too slow to be carrier escorts, single screw made them limited in shore and no missile fit made them easy prey, but they were cheap and almost disposable which made them ideal for the concept.

    All the other US frigates before them were rubbish, Knox class etc.

    So who is getting it right.. Enter the Spanish

    http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/f100/

    Its well beyond our reach, but its AEGIS equipped, it packs a punch, could be as effective as a destroyer, and its getting exports. The UK and USN might look at something like this as a very capable vessel cheaper and more effective than anything they have in that class in future planning.

    Back to OPVs. Hull size restricts what can be carried so you can't really move into multi purpose, take a look at the above can carry so when adapting OPVs are you falling back to single role vessels and is it false economics?

    And then back to the Irish question, what exactly are you trying to achieve by rearming a P60 class vessel?

    Realistically a missile defence system is all that is potentially needed as they are never going to be offence vessels. so a basic sensor package coupled with a single point CIWS x 2 demountable would probably be the best option.

    As for the RN and future frigates, until the carriers become operational, if the aircraft work and if the destroyers can work with the carriers only then will they actually know what frigates have to be able to do, so it would seem that any cheap gap filler would be viable in the meantime.

    However when the carriers and the air wing fail as they inevitably will and the destroyers start to reach mid life and huge refits there won't be the money to build proper frigates......

    I think the day has come where they need to learn to shop overseas.
    Time for another break I think......

  14. Thanks danno, Herald thanked for this post
    Likes sofa, Galloglass liked this post
  15. #184
    Major General
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    M, keep the visits up!

  16. Likes Herald liked this post
  17. #185
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,505
    Post Thanks / Like

    Naval weaponary

    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    The type 22 s were built around their weapon fits with out dated technology before they even became operational, the seawolf magazine running two thirds of the ships length, so if ships are to out live their weapons systems they need to be modular, if the magazine of the Rivers can accommodate another weapons system in 15 years time, then its cost effective.

    n terms of the US it's more complicated than that, the Perry's were retired (for good reason given the lack of missiles for them turning them into glorified OPV's)

    The Perrys were perfect for what they were designed as when the concept of operation was for cheap escort vessels for convoys, we'll probably never know war at that level again but thats exactly what they were, too slow to be carrier escorts, single screw made them limited in shore and no missile fit made them easy prey, but they were cheap and almost disposable which made them ideal for the concept.

    All the other US frigates before them were rubbish, Knox class etc.

    So who is getting it right.. Enter the Spanish

    http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/f100/

    Its well beyond our reach, but its AEGIS equipped, it packs a punch, could be as effective as a destroyer, and its getting exports. The UK and USN might look at something like this as a very capable vessel cheaper and more effective than anything they have in that class in future planning.

    Back to OPVs. Hull size restricts what can be carried so you can't really move into multi purpose, take a look at the above can carry so when adapting OPVs are you falling back to single role vessels and is it false economics?

    And then back to the Irish question, what exactly are you trying to achieve by rearming a P60 class vessel?

    Realistically a missile defence system is all that is potentially needed as they are never going to be offence vessels. so a basic sensor package coupled with a single point CIWS x 2 demountable would probably be the best option.

    As for the RN and future frigates, until the carriers become operational, if the aircraft work and if the destroyers can work with the carriers only then will they actually know what frigates have to be able to do, so it would seem that any cheap gap filler would be viable in the meantime.

    However when the carriers and the air wing fail as they inevitably will and the destroyers start to reach mid life and huge refits there won't be the money to build proper frigates......

    I think the day has come where they need to learn to shop overseas.
    The US Navy has a Superpowers necessity to always have the right ships for all the major fleet tasks. They hold their ships longer than most and put them through Extended Life Programs as necessary. The Perry frigates had problems not least being a packaged buy, but also a few fire problems after action damage. They rectified where they could and sold off, or leased others, to friendly countries- Australia, Egypt etc. Then they build more bigger , better, and faster with 17 foot twin screws, as in the 60 odd DD's Arleigh Burkes.
    As for us I go with your Defence scheme for our OPV's to make them at least suitable for Op Atalanta type tasks accompanied by a New yet to be built MRV.

  18. Thanks hptmurphy thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  19. #186
    Major General
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    New batch of missiles ordered for the BA-RN;

    https://militarynews.co.uk/2017/05/0...-british-army/

  20. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  21. #187
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,505
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by danno View Post
    New batch of missiles ordered for the BA-RN;

    https://militarynews.co.uk/2017/05/0...-british-army/
    A common system with a common launcher or an adaptable launcher is ideal for all of our Defence Forces. Most countries are including Coast Defence in such systems. We dismantled our CDA without any thought of future consequences or needs. We need them on ships and also mobile area Defence units for the Army including airfields.

  22. #188
    Major General
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    In fairness the CDA was obsolete as it was and as a concept has fallen away. Airspace defence has overtaken same.

  23. #189
    Space Lord of Terra morpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Metropolis
    Posts
    3,146
    Post Thanks / Like
    CDA ?
    "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
    "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

  24. #190
    Sergeant Major B Inman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    875
    Post Thanks / Like
    Coastal Defence Artillery

  25. Thanks Graylion thanked for this post
  26. #191
    Space Lord of Terra morpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Metropolis
    Posts
    3,146
    Post Thanks / Like
    Ah right... yes we never replaced it and retired the forts etc to annonymity and the occasional FIBUA ex. and now theyre (thankfully at least) becoming museums to a bewildered public with no understanding for our military. if FM104 was anything to go by last night ... :(
    "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
    "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

  27. #192
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,991
    Post Thanks / Like
    You should be ashamed of yourself for listening to FM104.
    The CDA were obsolete soon after the invention of the aircraft. That's why the UK were happy to leave us have them, in spite of an approaching war. They were designed around a 19th century threat. The Irish Army of the 1930s invested much time and people in operating and maintaining the forts before realising the same during the Emergency. They were better than nothing, but the guns were woefully inaccurate, a fact which became part of local folklore. One wonders if the departing British forces rendered them thus should an attempt be required to retake the forts later on?
    I believe some CDA remains in scandanavian ports, but this is only because the terrain prevents most attack from the Air.
    Visit the Historic forts if you get the chance. Apart from Fort Davis, the rest are becoming fine final resting places for recently retired Defence forces equipment. The Gun Park in Spike Island Fort Mitchell is quite impressive. Its current operators have brought the location up to a standard far higher than when it was last used as a Military post.
    But back to the topic, Fixed defensive artillery, be it gun or missile is little more than the first target in the event of any hostilities, and will be rendered useless after the first shots are fired. The Maginot line and the fall of Singapore gave us that lesson.
    The Key to all artillery is mobility. Fire your shots, and get out before the counter barrage arrives. The Same is true for Naval Artillery. But the point made is that having a single missile type available for use on land and at sea is a good one. The CAMM is still just at the end of a drawn out design and evaluation process, but looks set to replace both the Rapier and Sea wolf missile on the surface and the ASRAAM in the air. The Key to its usefulness is having an effective Airborne Early warning system, which we do not have. Even point defence radars in use today (Giraffe, Flycatcher)are pretty basic and short ranged.
    It is an area of capability that needs to be adressed, if only just to protect our skies during visits of foreign leaders from potential suicide attacks. Unfortunately though while our defence policy is based on the theory that everyone likes us, and the gardai can sort out all the troublemakers before they get out of hand, I do not see this happening any time soon.
    It will unfortunately take a major loss of life before the government will wake up to this. At which point they will convene a special committee where they will bring in the DF and AGS leaders and ask them why weren't they prepared for such a thing, compile a report blaming everyone but themselves, pat themselves on the back and forget about it until the next time it happens.
    The DF today (Permanent and reserve) is At about 13000 all arms. This is half what it was 10 years ago. There was that many in the PDF when I joined the FCA in 1988. The Reserve had up to 20000 on its books at that stage and if required, could mobilise about 75% of them for annual training.
    However it is being let run down.
    The Air Corps has half the aircraft it had 20 years ago, with no plans for expansion. The Naval service has succeeded in a 1 for 1 replacement of the 8 ship fleet, A figure it has maintained throughout the financial Crash, albeit with no visible increase in capability. One wonders what will happen if there is no longer a Naval uniform on the General staff. Air Defence Artillery has become an also-ran in the Artillery Regiments, as the guns once used by reserve units are passed to PDF units with no experience of artillery, let alone AAA. The Cavalry has no Big guns. The last of the vehicles that resembled tanks were retired earlier this year with no replacement planned. The Infantry has less Batallions. Wages are cut to an extent that people can no longer afford to remain in the defence forces.
    The future is not bright by any means. The Naval service is equipped as a well armed Coast Guard force, with no intention to expand to its actual role as an arm of the Defence Force. Even the use of shoulder launched defensive missiles aboard ship has never been considered, even though manpads have provided a useful suppliment in many recent conflicts until something better became available.


    In summary.. I just don't know. It will take the loss of a ship to well known threats before we wake up. By then is it too late?
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  28. Thanks Jetjock, ropebag, hptmurphy thanked for this post
    Likes Jetjock, ropebag, Tempest, sofa, EUFighter liked this post
  29. #193
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    22,106
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    Even point defence radars in use today (Giraffe, Flycatcher)are pretty basic and short ranged.
    Flycatcher (and EL70s) are gone

    Unfortunately though while our defence policy is based on the theory that everyone likes us, and the gardai can sort out all the troublemakers before they get out of hand, I do not see this happening any time soon.
    It will unfortunately take a major loss of life before the government will wake up to this. At which point they will convene a special committee where they will bring in the DF and AGS leaders and ask them why weren't they prepared for such a thing, compile a report blaming everyone but themselves, pat themselves on the back and forget about it until the next time it happens.
    In fairness the Government are starting to realise the threat (as can be seen from the WP and National Threat Assessments) but constantly talk it down.
    The DF today (Permanent and reserve) is At about 13000 all arms. This is half what it was 10 years ago. There was that many in the PDF when I joined the FCA in 1988. The Reserve had up to 20000 on its books at that stage and if required, could mobilise about 75% of them for annual training.
    However it is being let run down.
    in fairness the equipment available now cannot compare to that of 1988.
    the age profile, fitness and training of the DF between 1988 and 2000 improved 10 fold at least.

    The RDF numbers from around 2000 on where purely down to at best maladministration, members existed only on paper.

    The Air Corps has half the aircraft it had 20 years ago, with no plans for expansion. The Naval service has succeeded in a 1 for 1 replacement of the 8 ship fleet, A figure it has maintained throughout the financial Crash, albeit with no visible increase in capability. One wonders what will happen if there is no longer a Naval uniform on the General staff. Air Defence Artillery has become an also-ran in the Artillery Regiments, as the guns once used by reserve units are passed to PDF units with no experience of artillery, let alone AAA. The Cavalry has no Big guns. The last of the vehicles that resembled tanks were retired earlier this year with no replacement planned.
    Much more capable aircraft
    I remember when the size of the NS fleet was expanded to 8 (14% increase). And the WP says a bigger fleet is required.
    The AD Btys are now exclusively armed with missiles (guns are gone). They have also funnily enough put a lot of resources into training on them. You forget that there was a PDF AD Bty and is an Arty Sch who conducted said training.

    I agree with some of what you've said however.

  30. Thanks na grohmiti thanked for this post
  31. #194
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,991
    Post Thanks / Like
    You have 8 aircraft. You reduce it to 4. No matter how more capable the 4 new aircraft are, they still cannot be in 8 places at once.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  32. Thanks hptmurphy thanked for this post
    Likes EUFighter liked this post
  33. #195
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,973
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    You have 8 aircraft. You reduce it to 4. No matter how more capable the 4 new aircraft are, they still cannot be in 8 places at once.
    While this is true, aircraft, or anything else, that can't do the job regardless of how many there are of them, are only a creative way of burning money and resources that could be better used elsewhere.

    The guns and their radars were of no more use in an AD role than waving an AK in the air while wearing a blindfold. Every bloke working on them or supporting them, and every penny spent on them after the early 1990's was pissed away as surely as if it had been thrown on a fire.

    The world moved on, and guns went from being 'value' to being 'cheap rubber dog shit' not far off overnight. Laser guided bombs and ECM put paid to them as surely as firearms put paid to the longbow.

  34. #196
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,505
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    While this is true, aircraft, or anything else, that can't do the job regardless of how many there are of them, are only a creative way of burning money and resources that could be better used elsewhere.

    The guns and their radars were of no more use in an AD role than waving an AK in the air while wearing a blindfold. Every bloke working on them or supporting them, and every penny spent on them after the early 1990's was pissed away as surely as if it had been thrown on a fire.

    The world moved on, and guns went from being 'value' to being 'cheap rubber dog shit' not far off overnight. Laser guided bombs and ECM put paid to them as surely as firearms put paid to the longbow.
    It is all very simple, if you follow today's conflicts , to identify all round Defensive measures needed to give your side a half chance . The CDA scenario was relevant to most countries up to the advent of stand off weapons and extended range delivery systems. After that time speed of target acquisition and ability to deliver a long range response became the norm. There was still an ongoing space for mobile twin and multibarrel high rate of fire AA systems but they needed much better lock on and tracking systems which in turn became the progenitor of the integrated CIWS system. Multipurpose missile systems now give the possibility to deal with AA, at better ranges, and also anti-ship, and striking land targets within 70km range. The Polish Government are buying NSM for CDA purposes and now as pointed out there is the advent of a CAMM development.
    There is a need to keep all systems mobile, as is endemic with Navies, so our land based systems must be vehicle compatible to ensure availability when and where required with it's tracking system.
    Last edited by ancientmariner; 12th May 2017 at 14:24.

  35. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, EUFighter liked this post
  36. #197
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    22,106
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    You have 8 aircraft. You reduce it to 4. No matter how more capable the 4 new aircraft are, they still cannot be in 8 places at once.
    The 8 Alouettes could carry think it was max 5 troops were limited at night and weather. The 6 AW139s are night capable, much less weather restricted and can carry 8 troops.

    Yes there was 5 Dauphins capable of carry 8-10 troops as well. But the serviceability issues were well documented.

    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    The guns and their radars were of no more use in an AD role than waving an AK in the air while wearing a blindfold. Every bloke working on them or supporting them, and every penny spent on them after the early 1990's was pissed away as surely as if it had been thrown on a fire.

    The world moved on, and guns went from being 'value' to being 'cheap rubber dog shit' not far off overnight. Laser guided bombs and ECM put paid to them as surely as firearms put paid to the longbow.
    The EL70s and Flycatchers were OK for what they were purchased for, to replace the manually layed L70 (it brought DF AAA from the 1930s into probably the 1960s (was it world class far from it but still a huge jump). What was their role? Well the were purchased as a direct result of 9/11 so there were never intented by the DF to stop the Blackjacks or B2s of the world.

  37. #198
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    433
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by danno View Post
    New batch of missiles ordered for the BA-RN;

    https://militarynews.co.uk/2017/05/0...-british-army/
    CAMM is something we should take a look at.

  38. Likes na grohmiti liked this post
  39. #199
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    22,106
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    CAMM is something we should take a look at.
    Maybe after it is actually operational anywhere

  40. #200
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    433
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Maybe after it is actually operational anywhere
    Ordered by UK, NZ and Brazil. Should not be that long.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Naval air ops no more?
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 305
    Last Post: 1st May 2019, 22:01
  2. Naval Wishlist(realistic)
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 10th April 2007, 22:54
  3. Naval team blows up World War Two mine
    By andy in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10th March 2005, 11:15

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •