Repulse wrote:there’s no data on the CMC but as the missiles are the same (size)
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Repulse wrote:there’s no data on the CMC but as the missiles are the same (size)
There is data (the tubes are bigger, and we have hundreds of posts here about "quadpacking" other stuff... into other tubes).
- however, there is no data (open source) on the next missile, and in UK defence budgets any such - if we go for it - figure in the years from 2040
- then again, how long to to the OSD of the Dreadnoughts?
Repulse wrote:I’ve said before, but I think the new Dreadnoughts should be built in larger numbers as hybrid SSBNs and SSGNs, though only in one role at any time (3 SSBNs and 3 SSGNs). It sounds fantasy but a fully loaded sub with Cruise Missiles is a Big Stick that would compliment perfectly or act independently from the CSG.
shark bait wrote:However if their is a sub-class that could provide that redundancy, is it then acceptable to drop down to thee boats?
jimthelad wrote:but if you really want to reach out and touch the deep strike targets that means your sub has to be in shallower inshore waters (ie at the continental shelf) rather than lurking as a lack hole in the abyss.
jimthelad wrote:It opens your CASD up to easy tracking and prosecution.
Timmymagic wrote:Good news on the Vanguard (and Astute) reactor cores. Looks like Vanguards was replaced unnecessarily in the end, but good news for the rest..
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/a-reli ... efuelling/
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests