Search found 1701 matches
- 27 May 2022, 23:41
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
- Replies: 15445
- Views: 4410475
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Are you by any chance a mind reader? That was exactly what I thought on first seeing the “both” post.
- 26 May 2022, 19:46
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
- Replies: 15445
- Views: 4410475
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
PhillyJ Wrote:-
Five (Four Seagoing) “Captains”. One less than HMS QE! Sorry for delay in replying.Another new Capt for my nipper, trying to figure out how many he has served under since he joined the ship in Rosyth!
- 26 May 2022, 09:20
- Forum: Defence Elsewhere
- Topic: Argentina
- Replies: 254
- Views: 15811
Re: Argentina
Repulse Wrote:-
My personal view is that the RN needs to build and deploy a vessel with a double hangar (like HMS Endurance did) capable of deploying two Wildcats - the more the mobile the better.
Sounds like a job for a T22 Frigate !
My personal view is that the RN needs to build and deploy a vessel with a double hangar (like HMS Endurance did) capable of deploying two Wildcats - the more the mobile the better.
Sounds like a job for a T22 Frigate !
- 25 May 2022, 23:19
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
- Replies: 1995
- Views: 555289
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
There is only going to be ONE of those 200m River Batch 5 OPVs (The National Flagship) !
- 25 May 2022, 23:13
- Forum: Defence Elsewhere
- Topic: Argentina
- Replies: 254
- Views: 15811
Re: Argentina
Not one or the other, but BOTH, as it was and still should be, representing the absolute minimum.
- 25 May 2022, 12:25
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]
- Replies: 8470
- Views: 2143241
Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]
I am not advocating it, just trying to give the likely “rationale” being used by the bean counters.
Quite wrong of course ! Would anyone sane person seriously procure 6 x Anchors/Chains for 5 x ships, because only 3 would be at sea at any one time ?
Quite wrong of course ! Would anyone sane person seriously procure 6 x Anchors/Chains for 5 x ships, because only 3 would be at sea at any one time ?
- 25 May 2022, 12:16
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5985
- Views: 1500915
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
One could almost describe these as the “2022” Design Light Fleet Carriers! My earlier comment re: the MRSS possibly being “the Amphibious equivalent of the Through Deck Cruiser” would seem to apply here as well.
- 25 May 2022, 11:47
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]
- Replies: 8470
- Views: 2143241
Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]
Maybe a 60% availability rate ? With Modules being installed on the “Available Vessels”.
- 24 May 2022, 21:56
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
- Replies: 5461
- Views: 1465260
Re: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
I note that this would (in theory at least) allow T83 to be built in the existing “Shed” and then on the Slipway at the same time as T26 are built in the new “Factory”.
- 24 May 2022, 17:48
- Forum: Defence Elsewhere
- Topic: Argentina
- Replies: 254
- Views: 15811
Re: Argentina
I have seen, for some time a need to establish a deterrent presence in the South Atlantic (Not to deter Argentina) but rather to dissuade the PRC from spreading it”s tentacles around “Good Hope” and “Horn” and into the Atlantic. Do those with blinkers still think that we do not need a much larger RN...
- 24 May 2022, 01:22
- Forum: Defence Elsewhere
- Topic: Argentina
- Replies: 254
- Views: 15811
Re: Argentina
Another Nine required then!
- 24 May 2022, 01:17
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5985
- Views: 1500915
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Balance is required and you have it about right. Adequate size is also vital. A 50% increase in numbers (apart from the OPVs) should just about achieve it.
- 23 May 2022, 02:36
- Forum: Defence Elsewhere
- Topic: Argentina
- Replies: 254
- Views: 15811
Re: Argentina
Fishing and Mineral Rights around The “Malvinas” perhaps ? I think that would be another justification for “a larger RN” (and possibly a larger RAF presence at Mount Pleasant as well).
- 20 May 2022, 23:00
- Forum: Royal Air Force
- Topic: Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)
- Replies: 595
- Views: 182231
Re: Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)
LJ. Alas, you did not read my post properly, “Transfer of Crewing” (and Headcount) …. Not just the responsibility to provide it. FAA Pilots & Maintainers provide extra value in terms of availability for deployment, so not all of the current F”3”5 personnel would need to transfer, or as an altern...
- 19 May 2022, 02:39
- Forum: Royal Air Force
- Topic: Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)
- Replies: 595
- Views: 182231
Re: Boeing E-7 Wedgetail (RAF)
Or handover F35B and P8 crewing to the RN (Along with the Aircraft naturally). With headcount transfers, the RAF should still gain some spare resource as the RN works its assets to a greater degree.
- 12 May 2022, 19:53
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
- Replies: 15445
- Views: 4410475
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I half saw that one coming, meanwhile the Junior service are still only playing Leapfrog!
- 11 May 2022, 20:07
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: General UK Defence Discussion
- Replies: 1842
- Views: 184113
Re: General UK Defence Discussion
HMGs response ……… even less Challenger 3’s. I hope that this mistake (for one) is addressed as a result of Russian aggression.
- 11 May 2022, 20:04
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5985
- Views: 1500915
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Probably too small, but 3 plus 3 would be better.
- 11 May 2022, 20:00
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
- Replies: 15445
- Views: 4410475
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Well, IT HAS been six months now, Perhaps they will venture out to join in the “Fleet Operational Sun Tanning” exercises ?
- 11 May 2022, 13:39
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
- Replies: 15445
- Views: 4410475
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
No, but it might be stickers saying “Do not expose to Salt or Water” that some wizard type from the Junior Service thought would be a way of retaining more control of OUR F35bs.
- 11 May 2022, 12:09
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: The future form of the Army
- Replies: 644
- Views: 115285
Re: The future form of the Army
Quite so!
- 11 May 2022, 11:25
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
- Replies: 15445
- Views: 4410475
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Fleet Operational Sun Tanning ?
- 11 May 2022, 11:23
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: The future form of the Army
- Replies: 644
- Views: 115285
Re: The future form of the Army
Tempest414 Wrote:- How do you think the army moves its kit if not in a Point class but to be clear when I talk about moving a whole BBG in one Point class this would be in peace time or pre deploying in time of tension. It should not even be considered in time of tension either, as it would make an ...
- 11 May 2022, 02:56
- Forum: Conflicts
- Topic: The war in Ukraine
- Replies: 1163
- Views: 85676
Re: The war in Ukraine
Somehow, I just knew that it had to be an Indes*it !
- 11 May 2022, 02:50
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: The future form of the Army
- Replies: 644
- Views: 115285
Re: The future form of the Army
Tempest414 Wrote: Maybe maybe not it is just ideas however I do think we really need to push on and get the 1st division into 6 if not 8 Battalion battle groups and if possible they should have no more than 220 vehicles this would have to cover the Cavalry , Infantry , Artillery and Logistics this s...