Search found 6427 matches
- 09 Jan 2024, 10:48
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6182
- Views: 1879005
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Sure! and I need a private jet so I can go surfing in California at the weekends. But much like the Navy needing a third carrier, the fundamentals are so broke there is no reasonable path to achieving this. For example, despite spending over 2 decades consuming itself to build carrier groups, the Na...
- 09 Jan 2024, 10:32
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6182
- Views: 1879005
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
While I agree in principal with the logic above, the rest of the Navy is so broken it feels ridiculous to even consider expansion like this. First the Marines need to decide to be a airborne force, with only limited ability to bring heavy equipotent ashore. The next decade would be spent operating f...
- 09 Jan 2024, 09:41
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6182
- Views: 1879005
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
So if RN ultimately decided to procure one Canberra sized LHD for £1bn (to replace the LPDs) plus 4x 14428 Enforcers for £350m unit (to replace the 3x Bays and Argus) what is the difference? I hate to sound mean, but this is just flat out fantasy rambling now. The Spanish built Canberra costs £1.3 ...
- 08 Jan 2024, 21:35
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6182
- Views: 1879005
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Bold choice of words in a world with not a single navy operating MALE STOL drones at sea.Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑08 Jan 2024, 19:16 Helicopter carriers without MALE STOL drones are old news now.
For todays Navy another carrier is an unhelpful distraction that does nothing to fix the state of the Fleet or Marines.
- 08 Jan 2024, 14:48
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6182
- Views: 1879005
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
It’s obscene for an island nation that spends £50bn per annum on defense to have a single LHD? It's a bit more complex than 'money in > equipment out'. The British have got a totally dysfunctional MOD to get through first. A helicopter platform would be good for the Royal Navy, but there is so much...
- 08 Jan 2024, 12:48
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6182
- Views: 1879005
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Sure, maybe in a sunny future that makes good sense. Today the UK has a navy that can't handle two carriers, so suggesting a third is frankly obscene.
- 08 Jan 2024, 10:29
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6182
- Views: 1879005
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I have said before that an "F35 capable LHD" is not realistic IMO Not in the slightest. It is totally unreasonable to analyse the abysmal state of the Royal Navy and conclude another carrier is the way to fix it. On the equipotent side the RN needs nothing extra. The surface fleet needs s...
- 05 Jan 2024, 22:24
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
- Replies: 324
- Views: 177677
- 05 Jan 2024, 22:22
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6182
- Views: 1879005
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Time to sell them and move on?
The LPDs have been untenable ever since the carriers hit the water, is the MOD going to continue to pretend otherwise?
The LPDs have been untenable ever since the carriers hit the water, is the MOD going to continue to pretend otherwise?
- 04 Jan 2024, 22:14
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
- Replies: 19404
- Views: 9760548
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Let's not pretend the RN has a list of requirements and then builds a fleet to deliver. It the other way round, the requirements are derived by what's available.
- 04 Jan 2024, 21:15
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Future ASW
- Replies: 561
- Views: 184359
Re: Future ASW
Deployment is location crucial places via frigate, e.g TAPS, GIUK, or situations where the frigate manages multiple XLUUV to increase the efficacy of a patrol. That is one of the main points of Unmanned systems; A greater presence, spread and efficacy, e.g in MCM. Totally agree drone subs should ex...
- 04 Jan 2024, 10:34
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Future ASW
- Replies: 561
- Views: 184359
Re: Future ASW
I struggle to see how a Frigate and XLUUV would make an effective pairing. With drone subs expected to be very slow (<5kts), they'll never be able to keep pace with a Frigate or Carrier Group.
- 23 Dec 2023, 10:26
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
- Replies: 19404
- Views: 9760548
- 22 Dec 2023, 13:25
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
- Replies: 19404
- Views: 9760548
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
The whole FADS nonsense with low\no crew magazine or radar ships is just T23 sonar Tugs all over again. It's not. The old T23 frigate conops was for a squadron of simple independent ships out in the Atlantic optimised for sub hunting. After The Royal Navy took lots of missiles hits in the Falklands...
- 21 Dec 2023, 16:50
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
- Replies: 19404
- Views: 9760548
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Then loose that engine room, and switchover to the standby engine room. Redundancy is how to make it work.
- 21 Dec 2023, 11:06
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
- Replies: 19404
- Views: 9760548
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Not difficult, seal off the compartment and loose it, then pump everything like crazy.
The automation is noting challenging. More challenging is making everything redundant to mitigate failures, and even more challenging is the cultural changes needed to make it happen.
The automation is noting challenging. More challenging is making everything redundant to mitigate failures, and even more challenging is the cultural changes needed to make it happen.
- 13 Dec 2023, 07:52
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
- Replies: 19404
- Views: 9760548
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
So basically the Royal Navy need to "French-it-up" a bit?
- 13 Dec 2023, 07:46
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]
- Replies: 8509
- Views: 2207564
Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]
The Proliferation of guided weapons makes it far too risky to put such a valuable asset within visual range of a hostile coast. This leaves an extremely narrow window of opportunity to use naval artillery, so it's effectively dead. Fire support from the sea is still valuable, it just needs to be lon...
- 12 Dec 2023, 10:11
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]
- Replies: 8509
- Views: 2207564
Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]
The T31 gunnery felt at bit underwhelming when first announced, however the T31 now seems to have the most useable arrangement of guns in the Royal Navy.
Not sure it's worth spending the money on the T23's, but the T45's deserve modern guns.
Not sure it's worth spending the money on the T23's, but the T45's deserve modern guns.
- 08 Dec 2023, 20:37
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
- Replies: 19404
- Views: 9760548
- 08 Dec 2023, 09:54
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
- Replies: 19404
- Views: 9760548
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
The low packing density is because they've opted for a frangible cover vs a mechanical flap. That decision is good because simple is usually best. However it does mean each canister needs a lot of space around it, because squares and circles don't pack neatly together. My suggestion is to place 4 ca...
- 07 Dec 2023, 09:58
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
- Replies: 19404
- Views: 9760548
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
The Royal Navy is going to be a Navy with 2 fleets, the 'carrier group' fleet, and the 'everything else' fleet. The T31 fills out the 'everything else' fleet, and more importantly it's cheap, making it the only realistic option for an extra batch.
- 07 Dec 2023, 08:38
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
- Replies: 19404
- Views: 9760548
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
I would like to see SDSR 2025 decide on a future fleet of 31 12 X T26 9 X T83 10 X T31 batch 1 & 2 SSN X 12 Increasing SSN numbers is going to be a monumental challenge, and will consume a mountain of cash. Political support is high, so it's feasible, and will see funds from Navy command redire...
- 06 Dec 2023, 17:28
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
- Replies: 19404
- Views: 9760548
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Word on the street is the FADS team is studying a 5,000 tonne ship that is for air defence and cruise missiles only.mrclark303 wrote: ↑05 Dec 2023, 19:14 We all know the Admiralty will push for a 10,000 ton Cruiser sized bespoke platform otherwise, that will rapidly become unaffordable.
- 06 Dec 2023, 10:17
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
- Replies: 19404
- Views: 9760548
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
BAE are already doing this for the Australians.