Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote:I don’t think the risk is with the RN at all.
The RN for once has covered themselves from expensive overruns - the point is that a large amount of what is in the brochure and what people are hoping for is FFBNW, and as such it will be paying for costly upgrades to get the ships into a position where most expect it to be.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote:If HMG wants an enhanced forward presence then more vessels need to be built and more helicopters need to be procured to operate from them. If that's unaffordable then so is the idea of enhanced forward presence. It couldn't be simpler. Building less and less capable vessels to stay within an inadequate budget is a race to the bottom, hopefully not literally.
Disagree, it depends what we want our forward presence to actually do. It is clear that any significant war fighting will be performed by the CSG/SSNs under CEPP. Forward presence is more about diplomacy/anti piracy and terrorism/training/escorting UK flagged ships and HADR - lower end ships for this is fine in my view.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Roders96
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

Repulse wrote:
SW1 wrote:I don’t think the risk is with the RN at all.
The RN for once has covered themselves from expensive overruns - the point is that a large amount of what is in the brochure and what people are hoping for is FFBNW, and as such it will be paying for costly upgrades to get the ships into a position where most expect it to be.
Important thing is the introduction of competition and the incentive for manufacturers to keep cost down. It is likely that a large proportion will be FFBNW but we do not know the final specification as yet, that is currently being decided - it's a stretch but we may be surprised.

The refit work doesn't suffer from the same political overhead as the construction work also, there's more yards capable of refitting and maintaining ships than building them in the UK. If that process goes ahead it's likely it could be done rather cost-effectively.

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

So we will get 8 x T26 + AAW replacements, 5 x T31 ( hopefully more better equipped second batch as well )

5 x River b2, so what is the likely hood of getting the river B1 replaced ? I can see RN getting a few minehunter type vessels that will do the OPV jobs aswell ?

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

serge750 wrote:5 x River b2, so what is the likely hood of getting the river B1 replaced ? I can see RN getting a few minehunter type vessels that will do the OPV jobs aswell ?
To me it makes more sense to start to build a multi mission sloop around the mid to late 20s, this could be based on the RB2 basic design to extend the family.

Say something like this based on the RB2
- Length 105m ( 15m extension on current design )
- Beam - 14m-15m ( 1.5m widening on current design )
- 3000-3500t
- Range 5000nm
- Speed 22knots
- Endurance 28 days
- Raise the rear by one deck
- wildcat hanger in current crane position that raps around the funnel make the boat bays covered
- wildcat flight deck
- 10-15m long full width open work deck at the rear with cranes and dividends to load and unload unmanned systems
- covered work deck under the flight deck leading out to the open work deck
- 57mm up front
- 2 x 30mm with LLM
- Phalanx mount

The above would become the C3 of the fleet 12 of these would in turn allow the RB2s to replace the RB1s. I believe these could be done for £150m a piece.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Aethulwulf wrote:https://www.janes.com/article/87175/ind ... cquisition

Of course what this means for Arrowhead 140 is not yet clear...
Quite - if the T31(e) was supposed to be, at least partially, about exports, going with the AH140 is surely a mistake. Why would potential customers go for the AH140 when OMT and the IH is also available?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

dmereifield wrote:when OMT and the IH is also available?
- OMT is a design bureau; who would build it (cue: someone in Surabaya)
- who would fit it (at least the first 1-2) out? IHs have been fitted out by the Danish Navy... sort of a "proprietary" yard
- who would maintain (the more complex aspects of) the class? Posted about Babcock's global strategy in the last week (but on which thread? ... there are so many here :) )
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

dmereifield wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:https://www.janes.com/article/87175/ind ... cquisition

Of course what this means for Arrowhead 140 is not yet clear...
Quite - if the T31(e) was supposed to be, at least partially, about exports, going with the AH140 is surely a mistake. Why would potential customers go for the AH140 when OMT and the IH is also available?
From what I’ve read, OMT, Babcock and Thales are the 3 risk sharing partners. There not competing against each other. UK content in exports would “leveraging the UK’s strong footprint in Naval Communications, EW, weapon systems and ASW sonar (for export variants)“

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

SW1 wrote:
dmereifield wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:https://www.janes.com/article/87175/ind ... cquisition

Of course what this means for Arrowhead 140 is not yet clear...
Quite - if the T31(e) was supposed to be, at least partially, about exports, going with the AH140 is surely a mistake. Why would potential customers go for the AH140 when OMT and the IH is also available?
From what I’ve read, OMT, Babcock and Thales are the 3 risk sharing partners. There not competing against each other. UK content in exports would “leveraging the UK’s strong footprint in Naval Communications, EW, weapon systems and ASW sonar (for export variants)“
Once the T31 contract is signed in the UK, I would not be surprised to see Indonesia sign a supply contract involving the Team 31 partners, not just OMT.

Roders96
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Even if the existing 32 Mk41 cells in the IH Stanflex design were quad-packed with CAMM that's 128 missiles. Surely more than enough.
Depends on the effectiveness of the missiles I guess. Also depends on the mission:

If the CBG is running sorties over somewhere like Afghanistan, with little direct threat from the enemy, it could be fine.

If the CBG was somewhere like the South China Sea, where Chinese or Russian cheap and expendable smart munitions equivalent to Spear Cap 3 / SDB II are numerous, a single squadron could empty the CAMM magazines:

An F35, a jet which has been criticised for not being able to carry much, can carry 8 Spear Cap 3 internally. 8 F35s could empty 128 CAMMs in 2 sorties. The Eurofighter can carry 12, that means a single squadron Eurofighters could do it in one attack.

A squadron of Chinese or Russian jets carrying externally would be a different situation. A bomber something else.

Ofcourse there'd be our own fighter's in the air, but the enemy could be counter attacking while they're refuelling and re-arming, who knows.

It would be much better if our escorts were FFBNW the missiles, as opposed to the missile launcher. Filling a silo takes a day, and it can be done anywhere, fitting one something else.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
SW1 wrote:I don’t think the risk is with the RN at all.
The risk is that RN won't actually end up with 8 Type 26's. Clearly the decision has been taken that due the political toxicity of curtailing the T26 build, on the balance of probability, the T26 programme will trundle along as planned.
SW1 wrote:I think they know full well what potential they have in the hull and it’s been selected because of that.
Agreed.
SW1 wrote:It the ultimate expression of frustration at the process that has resulted in type45, carriers, type 26 and opv contracts, they’ve seen others deliver quicker with more systems for less.
No wonder. It's only Canada that makes UK naval defence procurement look good. The rest of the world worked out how to do it better some time ago.
SW1 wrote:They have political cover in the fact they can claim budget is driving it.
How long will that cover last?
Tempest414 wrote:...a well developed design that BAE can still push.
It is a good design, in fact good enough to build, even for the UK regardless of A140 being chosen for the T31.
I’ve said before I see type 26 as the UK equivalent of the usn seawolf or zumwalt to what ended up as Virginia and more aleigh Burke. An opinion that counts for nothing or has no effect on things but an opinion none the less and most will disagree. So I don’t see the order numbers as a risk. I find it disappointing that the design couldn’t have cost stripped back by pairing back certain things much like the danish design to be competitive with this tender.

I think the political cover will last a long time mainly because naval procurement has been in something of a bygone age expecting everything to be design and manufactured in the UK. The other two domains have long abandoned this idea. In the end we’re dealing with multi national companies for the big projects. We have good equipment in some areas others are better in other areas and have more commercially applicable knowledge in areas that drive cost out. It’s right we leverage the best of all worlds and do the system integration in the UK. Tempest will follow a similar pattern.
It’s somewhat telling the first thing Australia and Canada did with type 26 was rip the combat management and radars out, they kept the sonars mind!

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

What is really hate about the T-26 is that of the three nations who are going to put it into service, it is the Royal Navy that will have the fewest and most likely least capable. This is made worse by the size of the budgets and economies that both Canada and Australia have compared to the UK, even taking into account the military capabilities we have to fund that they don't.

Roders96
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 26 Aug 2019, 14:41
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Roders96 »

Lord Jim wrote:What is really hate about the T-26 is that of the three nations who are going to put it into service, it is the Royal Navy that will have the fewest and most likely least capable. This is made worse by the size of the budgets and economies that both Canada and Australia have compared to the UK, even taking into account the military capabilities we have to fund that they don't.
The size and scope of T26 was inflated from the initial concept. Integrating the requirements and desirabilities of Can and Aus into T26 may have been the reason for this inflation.

It seems in order to win exports T26 turned into something that Aus and Can want, but we don't.

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

Lord Jim wrote:What is really hate about the T-26 is that of the three nations who are going to put it into service, it is the Royal Navy that will have the fewest and most likely least capable. This is made worse by the size of the budgets and economies that both Canada and Australia have compared to the UK, even taking into account the military capabilities we have to fund that they don't.
There is no logic to this thinking.

Each nation is buying to meet their own needs.

For the Canadians, the T26 will be pretty much their only Navy combat vessel. They have no aircraft carriers, no amphibious ships, no nuclear submarines. So of course they want their future frigate to be truly multi-role ASW, AAW & ASuW. Their geography is such that they need to operate in both the Atlantic and Pacific simultaneously, and ships can not quickly move between the two oceans. They need an Atlantic fleet and a Pacific fleet (and an Arctic fleet), So they need numbers.

For the Australians, the T26s will be working alongside just 3 Hobart AAW destroyers primarily to protect their amphibious group. With just 3 AAW destroyers and no aircraft carrier, of course they need their T26s to have excellent AAW capabilities as well as ASW. Assuming the normal rule of 3 readiness level, they will be trying to protect an amphibious group with 1 Hobart destroyer and 3 T26 frigates.

By all means argue that the UK needs more T26s, or they should be better equipped. But support your arguments on the basis of why the UK needs such capabilities and for what tasks.

To say that we need more T26 or more capable T26 just because we have to over-match two of our closest allies is nonsense. We will not be fighting Canada or Australia. The RN needs to spend its budget to meet its actual needs and not spend it so you can win a game of top trumps.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Roders96 wrote: 8 F35s could empty 128 CAMMs in 2 sorties. The Eurofighter can carry 12, that means a single squadron Eurofighters could do it in one attack.

A squadron of Chinese or Russian jets carrying externally would be a different situation. A bomber something else.
Excellent that someone can count! We last did this when the RN warship was harassed by Russian AF in the Black Sea... someone might still remember the number of a/c involved. That was to send the above msg :idea:
SW1 wrote:We have good equipment in some areas others are better in other areas and have more commercially applicable knowledge in areas that drive cost out. It’s right we leverage the best of all worlds and do the system integration in the UK. Tempest will follow a similar pattern.
A great summary.
Aethulwulf wrote:The RN needs to spend its budget to meet its actual needs and not spend it so you can win a game of top trumps.
... and a worthwhile thought.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

Repulse wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:It goes without saying that any new OPV's should have a hanger included from the start.
Given the decision on the T31, the limited number of helicopter assets and no sign of significant increase in funding, this is a nice-to-have. C3s/OPVs will operate primarily in range of land bases, and when they are not they could be paired with other assets like the RFA.
I don't know where to start....
  • The T31 decision has no effect on this; a T31 does not change how incredibly useful and organic helicopter is.
  • There are plenty of helicopters; the Navy has 28 wildcat at their disposal to spread between 17 active combatants.
  • The whole point of a Navy is they can operate without fixed infrastructure. Suggesting a navy should only operate where there are land bases is stupid.
  • If the patrol boat has to be paired with an auxiliary to be effective, just save all the money and leave the patrol boat at home
Without organic aviation the River Class will never be good for anything other than flag waving, or the most basic security operations. Without a helicopter the OPV's are just small slow ships with a tiny sphere of influence.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote:Without a helicopter the OPV's are just
luckily Save the Royal Navy has come up with a half-way house:
"A helicopter would also require an additional air compliment of around 12 crew to be accommodated, placing further demands on limited RN manpower and driving up OPV operating costs.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles could be integrated relatively easily, and deployment of Scan Eagle has already proven capable of significantly enhancing the operation of frigates and destroyers. UAV’s typically have lower capital costs, lower operating costs, lower manning and training demands, and offer levels of availability and mission duration many times that of a helicopter. Taking resources and finances into account, UAV’s probably the right choice for RN OPV’s. The step-change in OPV utility would be impressive. Assuming a 15km radar horizon, a batch 2 OPV has the capability to directly monitor around 700 km2 of ocean surface. In comparison;

Scan Eagle can operate at a range of up to 100km with mission durations of up to 20 hours. In November 2015 the Royal Australian Navy tested a Scan Eagle fitted with an advanced video reconnaissance system which enabled detailed video surveillance of an area of 45,000 km2 over a 12 hour period.
The Scheibel Camcopter 100 has an operating range of up to 180km from its control station and is capable of mission durations up to 6 hours. This could effectively extend an OPV’s ‘reach’ to an area in excess of 100,000 km2"

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/improv ... on-part-2/
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by shark bait »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Unmanned Aerial Vehicles could be integrated relatively easily,
This is why I used the them "organic aviation", it is totally worth exploring unmanned aircraft. However as it stands the Navy have a total of Zero UAV's.
Roders96 wrote:An interesting question would be how many Merlins does it take to deliver a roughlu equivalent capability to a T26 in the ASW escort role.
This is an odd question, one is not a substitute for the other. The Frigate + VDS exist to detect and investigate subs a very long range, and the T26 will use this information to direct a Merlin to localise the threat, then sink it if needed.
dmereifield wrote:Quite - if the T31(e) was supposed to be, at least partially, about exports, going with the AH140 is surely a mistake
You might notice the 'e' has now been dropped. Foreign hull, engines, CMS, gun and radar, theirs nothing to export!
Lord Jim wrote:What is really hate about the T-26 is that of the three nations who are going to put it into service, it is the Royal Navy that will have the fewest and most likely least capable.
Less capable? How?
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Aethulwulf wrote:To say that we need more T26 or more capable T26 just because we have to over-match two of our closest allies is nonsense. We will not be fighting Canada or Australia. The RN needs to spend its budget to meet its actual needs and not spend it so you can win a game of top trumps.
See and this is why I have said in the past that T-26 as we know it is the wrong ship for the RN what we needed was a Carrier group ASW/GP ship what we ended up with was a world class Global combat ship that is now over the top for what we need

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Tempest414 wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:To say that we need more T26 or more capable T26 just because we have to over-match two of our closest allies is nonsense. We will not be fighting Canada or Australia. The RN needs to spend its budget to meet its actual needs and not spend it so you can win a game of top trumps.
See and this is why I have said in the past that T-26 as we know it is the wrong ship for the RN what we needed was a Carrier group ASW/GP ship what we ended up with was a world class Global combat ship that is now over the top for what we need
The problem is that when we started all this there was to be 20 T26s split ASW and GP so the idea would of been that a good number operating independently. By the time numbers were cut so badly the program and design was so far along that it was too late to change.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

shark bait wrote:This is why I used the them "organic aviation", it is totally worth exploring unmanned aircraft. However as it stands the Navy have a total of Zero UAV's.
For me if we can get to a place where the RB2's have a better main gun something like a Mk-4 40mm that would offer better basic all round defence and a containered UAV system capable of carrying I master radar carrying and firing 2 LMM these ships will take a big step in capability. we could if we wanted get on with the UAV as soon as like by leasing a few Camcopter S-100 fit as above for HMS Medway when deploys on AP-N

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Jake1992 wrote:By the time numbers were cut so badly the program and design was so far along that it was too late to change.
Its not too late to solve a lot of the problems with the A140.

If the UPC for the T26 had of ended up in the £400m to £500m range, RN might have got the 18 hulls that are needed. All water under the bridge now.

If the A140 costs around £200m for the basic hull and propulsion, what could be added for another £200m to £300m?

The answer is... A LOT....but the result would likely be a cut to T26 numbers. Much better to keep the T31 around £375m, making it credible and affordable.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote:....it depends what we want our forward presence to actually do.
True, and what HMG will want the forward presence to achieve will change and evolve over time. It will also, to a large degree, be dictated by events.

In a nutshell the UK's forward presence needs to be designed and structured in an extremely flexible way to cope a myriad of eventualities.
It is clear that any significant war fighting will be performed by the CSG/SSNs under CEPP.
Absolutley but how the forward based assets fit into this is also important.
Forward presence is more about diplomacy/anti piracy and terrorism/training/escorting UK flagged ships and HADR - lower end ships for this is fine in my view.
A mix of Tier2 and Tier3 would be better, especially if they can complement each other.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:By the time numbers were cut so badly the program and design was so far along that it was too late to change.
Its not too late to solve a lot of the problems with the A140.

If the UPC for the T26 had of ended up in the £400m to £500m range, RN might have got the 18 hulls that are needed. All water under the bridge now.

If the A140 costs around £200m for the basic hull and propulsion, what could be added for another £200m to £300m?

The answer is... A LOT....but the result would likely be a cut to T26 numbers. Much better to keep the T31 around £375m, making it credible and affordable.
I don’t believe there was ever a chance of getting a world class ASW vessel with good NGFS and decent AAW built in the UK for £400m-£500m it just wasn’t going to happen.

2 of the big cost driver behind them costing £1bn a piece is the low order number and the artificial slow down of build. Most here agree that any further units would cost £700m-£750m each. A larger order would of got the economies of scale and do away with the artificial slow down.

I bet if 16 were ordered the price would of come in at £800m odd per vessel which for what it is and being built in the UK would be good.

Yes the A140 could become a very good tier 2 vessel and help fill out the fleet but it won’t be to the level of what was planned with the T26, and as you say it won’t be that until all T26s are ordered out of fear.

But to get back to my point that the reason we have a world class GCS is not become we went over the top with gold plating but that this vessel was design with larger numbers in mind, it was to be able to do both carrier and solo roles. It wasn’t until it was to late to change path that numbers got cut to the level of carrier only.
This is why we didn’t go with a dedicated carrier ASW escort.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

shark bait wrote:The T31 decision has no effect on this; a T31 does not change how incredibly useful and organic helicopter is.
There are plenty of helicopters; the Navy has 28 wildcat at their disposal to spread between 17 active combatants.
The T31 does impact the decision - including the T31s and the RFAs, there is now planned hangar capacity for close 50 helicopters, that is not including the CVFs and any future FLSS. Adding more hangar space in itself is not a reason when there is more than enough already.
shark bait wrote:The whole point of a Navy is they can operate without fixed infrastructure. Suggesting a navy should only operate where there are land bases is stupid.
I’m not suggesting a navy, as above with the carriers and future FLSS there is capacity for 170+ air assets. Think about these ships operating in U.K. waters, Falklands, the Med or the Gulf there are fully equipped air fields where air assets can Lilli pad or operate for short times of the existing flight deck.
shark bait wrote:If the patrol boat has to be paired with an auxiliary to be effective, just save all the money and leave the patrol boat at home
If the B2s become the new C3 then they will be more capable minor warships deploying first rate off board systems. I can think of occasions where a RFA Tanker could be escorted by a B2, or where a group of B2s with a RFA asset like Victoria could protect a convoy.
shark bait wrote:Without organic aviation the River Class will never be good for anything other than flag waving, or the most basic security operations. Without a helicopter the OPV's are just small slow ships with a tiny sphere of influence.
This is where the off board systems, including UAVs are the game changer.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Post Reply