Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[donald_of_tokyo]

Anyhow, the Bae Corvette will certainly not sink in Norway or any other cold place due to ice. I have no idea why you think that. The standard offering is not ice capable meaning the hull hasn't been strengthened to resist pack ice. That does not mean it will capsize.

Stability issue is rumor, I though I've heard it in ThinkDefence comment, but a 10min search cannot find it, sorry. Anyway, it is rumor, as I stated "may". Short range/endurance is well known fact.

Secondly, the Leander mission bay does not introduce openings in the hull. The hull, as you may know, provides the ship's strength on which a superstructure is added. The mission bay is pure superstructure like the hangar. Take a look at a Type 23 which doesn't have a continuous superstructure which was the fashion last century, not just in the RN. You could add a continuous superstructure to a Type 23 and it's hull strength would be unaltered.

No. Let me try to explain. (For mathematical detail, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler–Ber ... eam_theory)

In separated super-structure cases (T23 has 3 separate, La Layette is actually 2 separate although looks like one), the main rigidity comes from the hull, specifically, the bottom keel, side-hull and main-deck. On the other hand, continuous super-structure becomes the main body of the rigidity = replaces the main deck (like French FREMM). Thus, the "roof" of the structure is actually a "main-deck" = it must be rigid. It differs a lot.

But, anyway, it is technical detail.

I do know the Omanis are very happy with their purchases and they get a lot of use. Very reliable with low running costs.

Is this true? Then, it is good news.

For example, it is clear that Lekiu-class light-frigate are "useful" for Malaysian navy. We can see many photo of them, actively used.

I saw a photo a Khareef class escorting RFA Cardigan Bay last year, so we know Al Khareef class is "active", but could not find more other photos. Like to see it. Khareef class's photo is limited on the net.

[donald_of_tokyo]

SW1-san, Caribbean-san, Repulse-san, and others.

I do think Leander has its own tasks in RN.

My understanding of T31e
UK is preparing the cost for "a typical heavy-corvette", never a light frigate. UK try to get a corvette-level armament ship, with enlarge hull for stable helo handling, larger endurance, and spaces for 2 more RHIB and 2 ISO containers.


Tasks for T31e
We all know many of the T23s tasks for these decades can be perfectly covered by Leander, but not with River B2. At least, (5 hulls) / (13 hulls) = 38% of the tasks are.
- Indian ocean (helo, data link, endurance), Persian Gulf (patrol, with self-defense of various level), Med (helo, data link, sometimes Syria, Lebanon coverage), APT-S in late 2000s when Argentina military was still "alive" (a T21 equivalent is perfect).
- Even many of the NATO-fleet tasks are OK, looking at the fact NATO navies are sending MEKO200, and M-class (before LFAS addition) frigates.


My view on tasks
I think it is just a matter of "where to put the LINE, in between spectrum of tasks, from high-end warfare to EEZ patrol".

I think using French navy as a bench mark is easy to understand. They have,
- Horizon/Kasaard AAW,
- FREMM/G-Leygues ASW,
- La Layette "colonial high-end",
- Floreal "colonial low-end",
- supported by Aviso and other ships for EEZ patrol.
I think their fleet is logical, and both La Layette and Floreal are successful design, performing very well. Also, La Layette is exactly T31e, for me.

- I prefer "1 more T26 and 3-4 Floreal-like ship" (*1) . Here, I put the "LINE" in between La-Fayette and Floreal;
-- do all the jobs "Horizon/Kasaard, FREMM/G-Leygues, and La Layette" are doing, with T45 and T23/26.
-- and get a "British-Floreal". (River OPV are comparable to Aviso)

- Idea of T31 comes from, putting the "LINE" in between FREMM/G-Leygues and La-Fayette;
-- do all the jobs "Horizon/Kasaard, and FREMM/G-Leygues" are doing, with T45 and T23/26.
-- and cover "La Layette and Floreal" with T31e.

Now the issue is a little complicated that French is going to FTI = more higher-end La Fayette. But, this is coupled with cutting FREMM. So, FTI is a mixture of G-Leygues and La Fayette replacements. But, this does NOT mean T31e is useless.


Export
I do not think T31e is bad there. Heavy corvette/light frigate is a good export market. AND, UK has a good "soft power". So, UK shall prepare "something normal" for export customer. It is better to beat the rivals, but if comparable, it is enough. If you have nothing to sell in this league, it is bad. Just be a good rival for Damen-10514 and Gowind-2000.

If T31 program had more money and preparing Venator 110, it would have been easier? No, there is a good rival, FTI and maybe the new Dutch-Belguim FF.
No difference

*1 : (For me, Floreal-like ship is a ~3000t vessel with helo, long range, CMS with ESM/decoy, and a CIWS or/and gun)

[seaspear]

This may come under a different thread but should the R.N have an anti satellite missile capability

[NickC]

The Diplomat has an article on the Chinese Navy meteoric growth in their ASW capabilities with “two-tailed”ships.

Till the early 2010s they had minimal ASW assets, but in subsequent years have seen the large scale deployment of VDS as well TASS on the Type 056A(+) corvette 1,500 ton-89 m with its elevated helipad, 40 in service, 20 with the VDS, another 20 expected by 2020; Type 054A(+) frigate 4,270 ton-137 m with VDS from ship #17, 30 ship class, follow on will be the 054B; Type 052D destroyer 7,500 ton-157m 8-10 in service, 14 launched to date and still in production at two shipyards, latest includes lengthened flight deck for larger Z-20 helicopter; new Type 055 cruiser ~13,000 ton-180 m cruiser, 4 launched - 12 planned ?

Questioned if the Type 056A+ corvette fit the full fat VDS, though from photos looks the same.

Equipped with ASW rocket to launch from Type 054 frigate VLS cells, Yu-8, a newer and longer range version ASROC, said to have a range of 50 km (ASROC ~18/19 km) carrying either a Yu-7 or Yu-11 LWT. There is currently no evidence that Yu-8 has been integrated into the universal VLS that equips the Type 052D destroyer and 055 cruiser, however, it is likely only a matter of time until Yu-8 or a similar weapon is paired with the universal VLS.

"A second, more mysterious weapon is a larger cruise missile-like weapon that has been test fired from the ST-16M slant launcher. The launcher typically carries YJ-83 family anti ship missiles and is widely fielded aboard PLAN warships, including all 054As, 056/As, and older DDGs and FFGs. This mysterious weapon is equipped with fold out wings, a ventral air intake, and thought to carry a lightweight torpedo; however, the overall size and configuration of this weapon’s platform suggests a much greater range than the Yu-8. It is not known if this system is currently in service, though its development implies the PLAN is looking to greatly expand the ASW engagement envelope that some warships can enjoy, at the expense of giving up a YJ-83 missile one-for-one. If a vertically launched variant of this weapon is developed, it will likely be too large for the 054A’s VLS but the more voluminous universal VLS aboard the 052D and 055 may be able to accommodate it."

<https://thediplomat.com/2018/09/the-chi ... abilities/>

[shark bait]

And here's me thinking the majority of the Chinese combatant boom is building gun boats, but it sounds like they are much better equipped.

The author points out 'two tail' many times, presumably because the Americans do not have 'two tail' combatants, and they are in short supply across the Euro-Frigates. Meanwhile the RN forges ahead with the T31, seemingly ignorant to the underwater threat.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Yu-8, a newer and longer range version ASROC, said to have a range of 50 km (ASROC ~18/19 km) carrying either a Yu-7 or Yu-11 LWT. There is currently no evidence that Yu-8 has been integrated into the universal VLS that equips the Type 052D destroyer and 055 cruiser, however, it is likely only a matter of time until Yu-8 or a similar weapon is paired with the universal VLS.

Makes all the difference in the world between an "ASW screen" - whatever form the 'pingers' at the outer edge take - and the talk that we find here about ASROC-type weapons (as last-minute, panic-stations, defend-yr-own-vessel-only).

[Tempest414]

As we seem to be going down the road of a C1 , C2 , C3 fleet maybe we need to set some base lines like

C1 = Type 45 & Type 26 which should be cutting edge ships and at this time has a program costs = 900 million to 1 billion per ship

C2 = A new class of frigate with a program cost half that of the C1 ships = 450 to 500 million per ship using proven work out of the box tec to keep costs in budget and this ship should be pushed for Export

C3 = MHCP with a budget of 150 per ship and a separate off board systems budget the ship design should be able to be built in 80 to 100 meter long ships to allow them to be exported as EEZ to patrol sloop configured ships

The Uk fleet should be made up of

C1 = 14 to 15 ships and should enter the fleet at 1 every 2 years
C2 = 6 to 8 ships and should enter the fleet on contract as needed at 1 a year
C3 = 12 to 16 ships and should enter the feet on contract as needed at 1 a year

this would work out at a peak budget per year if all three categories of ship were being built of 1.15 billion. Also this yearly budget could support replacement of the RFA fleet when C2 & 3 ship are not being built. And for me it can be done for no extra money i.e within the 20 billion every 10 years for Navy ships

[NickC]

NickC wrote:
The USN had no option but to restart Burke build after the disaster with the Zumwalt with its stability problems due to its tumblehome hull proved too expensive and was cancelled.

Have you got any links regarding the news of stability problems with the Zumwalt class? I know there was a lot of internet conjecture about the supposed inherent instability of the hull form, but I wasn’t aware that problems had actually been encountered on sea trials and I’d be curious to find out more.

The ludicrous unit cost of the Zumwalts is hardly surprising though considering it was an extremely ‘adventurous’ programme and the entire cost ended up being shouldered by only three vessels rather than spread across 32 hulls as originally planned. It’s a bit like the Type 26 in that respect...

Zumwalt stability problems and cost.

It was July 2008 that USN first indicated they wanted to terminate build of the Zumwalt programme, started January 1998, at 2 ships and re-start of Arleigh Burke build, Congress overruled USN and third ship was procured, Zumwalt began fabrication later February 2009. USN tried again in August 2015 to cancel the 3rd ship when ~40% complete.

Zumwalt in the name of stealth used a tumblehome hull, but it comes at a high cost. With a normal ship with a outward flared hull as it rolls, the immersed volume increases, so the buoyancy pushing it back to an upright position increases, the ship gains stability as it rolls, its the opposite with a tumblehome hull and it looses, rather than gains, stability as it lists, as it pitches and heaves and with the waves coming at you from behind the tumblehome designed hull ship looses transverse stability as the stern comes out of the water and basically roll over as you have no righting energy/buoyancy to make the ship come back up.

To offset the above it is the necessary to build in at unknown cost big ballast tanks for counter flooding to stop broaching in following sea or after battle damage leading to flooding by torpedo or mine, reflected in the displacement of 16,000 tons, and just one of the reasons why such a costly ship to build at $4.2B each and with R&D bill of $11.1B. GA drawings of the Zumwalt hull never released to my knowledge so unknown how many thousands tons required for the ballast tanks.

To aid stability (and stealth) built with a lightweight and expensive carbon fiber, balsa wood cores and internal steel support structure deckhouse 1,000 tons, 155 feet long and 60 feet high, housing the ship's bridge, radars, antennas and intake and exhaust systems, claimed to reduce maintenance cost over the life span of the ship due to its corrosion resistance in the marine environment, no mention made of survivability to battle damage compared to steel. Later, USN NAVSEA official “The composite design was initially required to meet weight requirements. Subsequent to the award of DDG-1000 and 1001 superstructures, sufficient weight removal allowed for the opportunity to provide a steel superstructure, which is a less costly alternative.” "sufficient weight removal" was the code for the cancellation of the S-band SPY-4 volume search radar with its three large antennas of its new generation top heavy T/R Modules built into antennas, leaving Zumwalt with the small X-band SPY-3 radar.

I'm relatively sure the design as built will be stable, but as said comes at huge cost and USN had no expectation that it would see major savings for a longer production run and so has ruled out of consideration of the basis of their future large surface combatant.


You can see the relative size of X-band Spy-3 and S-band SPY-4 installed on Ford pic.

[Lord Jim]

One of the biggest problems the USN has got with the Zumwalts is that they currently have no ammunition available for the main guns after they cancelled the various programmes to provide such a round. Sort of sums up the mess the whole programme finds itself in.

[Ron5]

For all those blathering about Al Khareef issues with stability etc., How about a reference or two that supports your assertions.

I've never seen anything about stability for the Khareef. There was something about habitability for the Bung Tomo Class (originally for Brunei). Internally they were a little cramped apparently for people of 'western' stature. Looking back I wish we'd bought them for the 1/5th of the cost that they went to Indonesia for...they would have made excellent ships for the Gulf, Op Atalanta, West Indies or Falklands patrol. There did seem to be a spate of nations ordering too much ship for them to handle as the 2 Rivers for Trinidad and Tobago were sold in a similar vein to Brazil (another missed opportunity).

Yes I remember that, in particular they were designed for shorter sailors. The folks from Brunei (Bruneians?), are somewhat vertically challenged.

I also remember reading that the Type 21 accommodation was very popular... with officers. Because their cabins and ward room were generous. Not so much the crews. All because of the intended Middle East accommodation standards. Lords and serfs, so to speak.

[Ron5]

Yes I have seen above the only selling point is it’s being used by the RN it’s no more flexible than any other design all are claiming that and it’s not cheaper than alternatives.

Not at 250m for a frigate there isn't.

As for uav system yeah exactly the point we’re still trailing other have been doing for years now, we’re way behind already.

Bollox. The RN is well up to date with unmanned technologies. Try reading about unmanned warrior.

As a general point, you keep repeating very obvious, incorrect nonsense with absolute authority. You really need to back up your dubious claims with references. If you can.

[SW1]

Yes I have seen above the only selling point is it’s being used by the RN it’s no more flexible than any other design all are claiming that and it’s not cheaper than alternatives.

Not at 250m for a frigate there isn't.

As for uav system yeah exactly the point we’re still trailing other have been doing for years now, we’re way behind already.

Bollox. The RN is well up to date with unmanned technologies. Try reading about unmanned warrior.

As a general point, you keep repeating very obvious, incorrect nonsense with absolute authority. You really need to back up your dubious claims with references. If you can.

We’ll see won’t we.

Know all about unmanned warrior. However others are deploying them on operations learning operational lessons integrating them into there forces. We aren’t.

Much like yourself Ron

[Ron5]

Stability issue is rumor, I though I've heard it in ThinkDefence comment, but a 10min search cannot find it, sorry. Anyway, it is rumor, as I stated "may". Short range/endurance is well known fact.

Name the last Royal Navy ship that capsized due to ice. Or indeed any weather related cause.

In separated super-structure cases (T23 has 3 separate, La Layette is actually 2 separate although looks like one), the main rigidity comes from the hull, specifically, the bottom keel, side-hull and main-deck. On the other hand, continuous super-structure becomes the main body of the rigidity = replaces the main deck (like French FREMM). Thus, the "roof" of the structure is actually a "main-deck" = it must be rigid. It differs a lot.

Just not true. The hangar top is not a strength deck in any warship that I can think of. Strength decks are 1 or 2 not 01 or 02.

I saw a photo a Khareef class escorting RFA Cardigan Bay last year, so we know Al Khareef class is "active", but could not find more other photos. Like to see it. Khareef class's photo is limited on the net.

The Omanis services are kinda shy. Difficult to find any photos of any of them.

[Ron5]

NickC wrote:
The USN had no option but to restart Burke build after the disaster with the Zumwalt with its stability problems due to its tumblehome hull proved too expensive and was cancelled.

Have you got any links regarding the news of stability problems with the Zumwalt class? I know there was a lot of internet conjecture about the supposed inherent instability of the hull form, but I wasn’t aware that problems had actually been encountered on sea trials and I’d be curious to find out more.

The ludicrous unit cost of the Zumwalts is hardly surprising though considering it was an extremely ‘adventurous’ programme and the entire cost ended up being shouldered by only three vessels rather than spread across 32 hulls as originally planned. It’s a bit like the Type 26 in that respect...

Zumwalt stability problems and cost.

It was July 2008 that USN first indicated they wanted to terminate build of the Zumwalt programme, started January 1998, at 2 ships and re-start of Arleigh Burke build, Congress overruled USN and third ship was procured, Zumwalt began fabrication later February 2009. USN tried again in August 2015 to cancel the 3rd ship when ~40% complete.

Zumwalt in the name of stealth used a tumblehome hull, but it comes at a high cost. With a normal ship with a outward flared hull as it rolls, the immersed volume increases, so the buoyancy pushing it back to an upright position increases, the ship gains stability as it rolls, its the opposite with a tumblehome hull and it looses, rather than gains, stability as it lists, as it pitches and heaves and with the waves coming at you from behind the tumblehome designed hull ship looses transverse stability as the stern comes out of the water and basically roll over as you have no righting energy/buoyancy to make the ship come back up.

To offset the above it is the necessary to build in at unknown cost big ballast tanks for counter flooding to stop broaching in following sea or after battle damage leading to flooding by torpedo or mine, reflected in the displacement of 16,000 tons, and just one of the reasons why such a costly ship to build at $4.2B each and with R&D bill of $11.1B. GA drawings of the Zumwalt hull never released to my knowledge so unknown how many thousands tons required for the ballast tanks.

To aid stability (and stealth) built with a lightweight and expensive carbon fiber, balsa wood cores and internal steel support structure deckhouse 1,000 tons, 155 feet long and 60 feet high, housing the ship's bridge, radars, antennas and intake and exhaust systems, claimed to reduce maintenance cost over the life span of the ship due to its corrosion resistance in the marine environment, no mention made of survivability to battle damage compared to steel. Later, USN NAVSEA official “The composite design was initially required to meet weight requirements. Subsequent to the award of DDG-1000 and 1001 superstructures, sufficient weight removal allowed for the opportunity to provide a steel superstructure, which is a less costly alternative.” "sufficient weight removal" was the code for the cancellation of the S-band SPY-4 volume search radar with its three large antennas of its new generation top heavy T/R Modules built into antennas, leaving Zumwalt with the small X-band SPY-3 radar.

I'm relatively sure the design as built will be stable, but as said comes at huge cost and USN had no expectation that it would see major savings for a longer production run and so has ruled out of consideration of the basis of their future large surface combatant.


You can see the relative size of X-band Spy-3 and S-band SPY-4 installed on Ford pic.

Your lengthy quote in no way supports the idiot claim that the Zumwalts were cancelled because of stability problems.

[Ron5]

Yes I have seen above the only selling point is it’s being used by the RN it’s no more flexible than any other design all are claiming that and it’s not cheaper than alternatives.

Not at 250m for a frigate there isn't.

As for uav system yeah exactly the point we’re still trailing other have been doing for years now, we’re way behind already.

Bollox. The RN is well up to date with unmanned technologies. Try reading about unmanned warrior.

As a general point, you keep repeating very obvious, incorrect nonsense with absolute authority. You really need to back up your dubious claims with references. If you can.

We’ll see won’t we.

Know all about unmanned warrior. However others are deploying them on operations learning operational lessons integrating them into there forces. We aren’t.

Much like yourself Ron

Once again, claims with zero substantiation. Grow up.

[Caribbean]

As for uav system yeah exactly the point we’re still trailing other have been doing for years now, we’re way behind already

I think we're doing OK for now. The RN is more interested in autonomous minesweeping (which, in conjunction with the French, it is a world-leader at, for now) and rotary UAV's. We are also developing the HAPS system (again, world leader). The US is working on ASW stuff and VTOL drones (still a few years off, I would think), and a number of countries are producing unmanned surface craft (though I see little use for them outside of coastal patrol and harbour defence/ force protection). And pretty much everybody has a few fixed-wing drone systems available. We tried Scaneagle and decided it not to keep it on - much wailing and lamenting in the blogosphere, but I would guess that it was found wanting in some way (limited payload and sensors high on the list, most likely) - however it will have informed future decision-making (or maybe just deferred until new lightweight sensors are developed, such as the 900g SAR that I wrote about a week or so ago). The emphasis seems to have switched to rotary UAV development.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/roya ... ing-system
http://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/unm ... helicopter

As for the oft-repeatedly view that the T31 is a "warmed-over OPV", why would we want to spend £250m on something that we could get for £100m, which, based on the costs of LE Samuel Beckett class, is what it would cost to build a 3500t OPV. An additional £150m, in the right hands, can buy you a significant amount in the way of redundancy, quietening, shock hardening, damage control infrastructure and structural improvements.

[shark bait]

The RN is doing ok, not excellent with unmanned technologies, just ok.

The latest minesweeper is a nice tool, its essentially a more operationally developed version of what they rushed into service in Iraq in 2003. It's nice, but it doesn't look like 15 years of cutting edge development. I expect the RN didn't accelerate its development because of lack of funds.

The RN trialed Scan Eagle and didn't like it, to paraphrase it was like 'looking at the ocean through a straw'. Scan Eagle is just too small to carry a useful payload. Similar experiments elsewhere have lead to the Blackjack (Scan Eagles big brother), which is big enough to carry useful payloads including satellite comms and the SAR mentioned by @Caribbean. I expect the RN didn't continue its experiment to Blackjack because of lack of funds.

The RN developed an autonomous helicopter, but it never made it to sea, presumably because of lack of funds, and has since turned into vaporwave due to lack of funds.

Similar story at unmanned warrior, they had done some great work developing an open operating platform that ties in a bunch of distributed assets from different vendors, but there is little push to develop an operational platform on this.

The RN appear willing and able to be at the forefront on the unmanned generation, but every opportunity appears to be stunted by lack of resources and/or a lack of focus.

[ArmChairCivvy]

doesn't look like 15 years of cutting edge development. I expect the RN didn't accelerate its development because of lack of funds.

The joint prgrm with the French is, as far as I know, still running. The difference in that they have already sketched out (in the Military Law) what they will order and have in water by 2025.

[Poiuytrewq]

As we seem to be going down the road of a C1 , C2 , C3 fleet......

The C1,C2,C3 strategy seems like a throughly sensible and cost effective way forward. Is current planning heading in this direction?

I think we are currently on course for a C1,C3 setup as corvettes, long range or otherwise are not really C2 combatants. I just don't see Leander as C2 material, Arrowhead 140 would have been more suitable for a C2 designation.

C1 = Type 45 & Type 26 which should be cutting edge ships and at this time has a program costs = 900 million to 1 billion per ship

C2 = A new class of frigate with a program cost half that of the C1 ships = 450 to 500 million per ship using proven work out of the box tec to keep costs in budget and this ship should be pushed for Export

C3 = MHCP with a budget of 150 per ship and a separate off board systems budget the ship design should be able to be built in 80 to 100 meter long ships to allow them to be exported as EEZ to patrol sloop configured ships

I would like to see the MDP start moving towards this format.

The escort crisis can be solved very swiftly at this point by turbo charging the T31 programme. For example, if 6x T31's end up being built over 10 years, that would cost £2.7bn @£450m per hull. That's an increase in the T31 programme of £145m each year for the 10 year programme.

Considering the size of the overall Defence budget it would be money well spent in my opinion and crucially the crew allocations for 6x T45's, 8x T26's and 6x T31's would be less than 12x T23's and 5x T45's.

RN's escort fleet would return to the premier league.

The Uk fleet should be made up of

C1 = 14 to 15 ships and should enter the fleet at 1 every 2 years
C2 = 6 to 8 ships and should enter the fleet on contract as needed at 1 a year
C3 = 12 to 16 ships and should enter the feet on contract as needed at 1 a year

Looks good to me

this would work out at a peak budget per year if all three categories of ship were being built of 1.15 billion. Also this yearly budget could support replacement of the RFA fleet when C2 & 3 ship are not being built. And for me it can be done for no extra money i.e within the 20 billion every 10 years for Navy ships

Genuine question, if it's that simple why is it not happening?

As for the oft-repeatedly view that the T31 is a "warmed-over OPV", why would we want to spend £250m on something that we could get for £100m, which, based on the costs of LE Samuel Beckett class, is what it would cost to build a 3500t OPV. An additional £150m, in the right hands, can buy you a significant amount in the way of redundancy, quietening, shock hardening, damage control infrastructure and structural improvements.

Don't disagree but are we putting the money into the right design?

Surely we must be more ambitious than a last generation design like Leander.

This MOD statement that is frequently mentioned, the "first batch" of five T31 Frigates.

How many are they intending to build? How many does RN really need?

The joint prgrm with the French is, as far as I know, still running. The difference in that they have already sketched out (in the Military Law) what they will order and have in water by 2025.

Are the French now leading the way?

[NickC]

NickC wrote:


//Zumwalt stability problems and cost.//

.

Your lengthy quote in no way supports the idiot claim that the Zumwalts were cancelled because of stability problems.

 
Admin,
 
Ron5 name calling again, now I'm an 'IDIOT'. Its very, very regrettable but Ron5 has a history, so requesting either appropriate sanction taken under site rules or I'm allowed to reply in same vein to express view on his intelligence, not high and can think of a few choice adjectives  , though understand not good for site.

[Tempest414]

NickC wrote:


//Zumwalt stability problems and cost.//

.

Your lengthy quote in no way supports the idiot claim that the Zumwalts were cancelled because of stability problems.

Admin,

Ron5 name calling again, now I'm an 'IDIOT'. Its very, very regrettable but Ron5 has a history, so requesting either appropriate sanction taken under site rules or I'm allowed to reply in same vein to express view on his intelligence, not high and can think of a few choice adjectives , though understand not good for site.

NickC when you become a senior member you to can do as you like as seen in the type 26 NEW ONLY thread where a number of senior members and admin are holding a general discussion about weapons fit

[Tempest414]

Tempest414 wrote:
this would work out at a peak budget per year if all three categories of ship were being built of 1.15 billion. Also this yearly budget could support replacement of the RFA fleet when C2 & 3 ship are not being built. And for me it can be done for no extra money i.e within the 20 billion every 10 years for Navy ships

Poluytrewq
Genuine question, if it's that simple why is it not happening?

Two thing really first sometimes the most simple way seems too simple and second as said before for this plan to work it would need a cross party agreement to fund it for 30 years. So in real terms all the parties would have to agree to funded the surface fleet at 60 billion over the next 30 years with 30 billion for new ships this could brake down like so

14 billion for 14 tier 1 escorts
3 billion for 6 tier 2 escorts
2.1 billion for 14 tier 3 MHPC
1.2 billion for 3 new SSS
1 billion for 4 new Bay class
700 million for a new LPH/LHD
200 million for a new Ice patrol ship
200 million for a HMS Scott replacement
300 million for a RFA hospital ship
750 million for 5 Point class replacements

this shopping list would come in at 24 billion leaving 6 billion for inflation cost over runs and design of the new tier 1 Destroyers

[Zero Gravitas]

NickC wrote:


//Zumwalt stability problems and cost.//

.

Your lengthy quote in no way supports the idiot claim that the Zumwalts were cancelled because of stability problems.

 
Admin,
 
Ron5 name calling again, now I'm an 'IDIOT'. Its very, very regrettable but Ron5 has a history, so requesting either appropriate sanction taken under site rules or I'm allowed to reply in same vein to express view on his intelligence, not high and can think of a few choice adjectives  , though understand not good for site.

Ron5 has a history of being better informed than most (not all) on here which is the only thing that should matter.

Complaining about being called an idiot on a website dedicated to systems designed to kill lots and lots of people seems eccentric.

If someone calls you naughty names on the internet then either engage and show why they are wrong, ignore them, or admit that they were right and you were not.

Hope this helps.

[Ron5]

The RN developed an autonomous helicopter, but it never made it to sea, presumably because of lack of funds, and has since turned into vaporwave due to lack of funds.

I was under the impression that the program was still running with Leonardo/Westland testing the helo.

[Ron5]

NickC wrote:


//Zumwalt stability problems and cost.//

.

Your lengthy quote in no way supports the idiot claim that the Zumwalts were cancelled because of stability problems.

Admin,

Ron5 name calling again, now I'm an 'IDIOT'. Its very, very regrettable but Ron5 has a history, so requesting either appropriate sanction taken under site rules or I'm allowed to reply in same vein to express view on his intelligence, not high and can think of a few choice adjectives , though understand not good for site.

Sorry for not being clear. Where I live an "idiot claim" is used instead of the proper English "idiotic claim". It wasn't you that made it anyway.