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 »

BJ cares about votes
”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

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

RetroSicotte wrote:BJ doesn't give a damn about the forces.
I think the only hope is if he's lazy and lets the other Ministers get on with it, like Mordaunt, with a bit of flexibility from the Treasury.
Repulse wrote:BJ cares about votes
Are there still votes in defence? I know people still care, but do they actually vote on that basis. The Conservatives have never been good on defence, despite what everyone seems to think...all smoke and mirrors. The 5 most damaging defence reviews of the post war period have all happened on during a conservative government (1957 Defence White Paper, 1981 Nott Review, 1992 Options for Change, 2010 SDSR and 2015 SDSR).

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by inch »

Yes Torries are the enemies of defence believe it or not they just like to spin it there not .lobour under hard left wouldn't be better , could even be worse but don't kid you're selfs Torries are dismal

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

#Moved from T31e thread
Ron5 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:(With A&P at risk now), both Arrowhead and MEKO are in risk of resigning from the bid? Anyway, it looks very difficult to bid with fixed price, both HW and AP, they need to add up the survival cost until the actual build starts.

...

By the way, only 130 labors there? Appledore had 190 when abandoned by Babcock. (while 140 of them were already relocated to Devonport, and only ~40 was remaining there).
If the competition were to be decided purely on industrial grounds, Bae/CL would romp away with the prize.

But this is the UK, so it will be decided by a combination of politics, old boy networks, and industrial & military ignorant politician/civil servants.
At the same time, Clyde is going on with 3000 workers building/designing T26. It spends 3.7B GBP within ~10 years.

Roughly speaking, if T31 is to spend 1.25B GBP within ~8 years, they need 1200-1300 workers. Among them, only 130 (from H&W) and ~200 (from Babcock) and ~100 (not sure) from A&P, are of British. Remaining ~800 comes from where? (From East Europe or other countries?). And after the program ends, the ~800 will be fired, while the remaining 400-500 struggle to look for next ship to build?

#Actually, this argument is not much different for Cammell Laired.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

so maybe some forward planning is call for and maybe who ever gets the Type 31 contract should also get the MHPC contract there by giving the yard 20 or so years of work

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

It is a shame that the MOD did not use the delay in the placing of the T26 batch 1 order, to build something that the RN really needed, rather than the B2 Rivers, namely ships 7 & 8 of the T45 Daring class. Oh but then then HMG would have had to admit that they had made cuts in error in SDSR 2010! They did but would never admit it! :mrgreen:

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Tempest414 wrote:so maybe some forward planning is call for and maybe who ever gets the Type 31 contract should also get the MHPC contract there by giving the yard 20 or so years of work
Not sure. The ~8 years for T31e is "end-to-end" time, and it is actually "5 ships with 1 year drumbeat using 1.25B GBP" program (+3 year to build). "Hull" part of MHC amount to only 1B GBP or so. If they need to survive for another 15 years, it will be very small amount, actually if my scaling works, it is 300-400 workers. Most of the "~800 more" as I guess will anyway not be needed.

For me, re-locating the 1.5B GBP of T31 program to
- ~750M GBP for 1 more T26
- ~450M GBP for some 3 large OPVs to be built within 8 years
(and ~300M GBP for equipments for T26/45)
will make a good balance, if later combined with 1B GBP/15 years for the hull part of MHC. As I'm saying from the beginning, "2nd escort ship builder" is a fantasy which cannot be supported for long. I think everyone is aware of it, already, but not facing it.

For example, if the 3 shipyards make big investments to cover T31e build program, they will be forced to abandon them after T31e program ends to shrink to sustainable size. Maintenance cost is NOT free, and a shipyard optimized for 1000 workers shall have different arrangement to those optimized for 200 workers.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Not a great start another good defence sec gone

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

As far as manning is concerned a good start would be a commitment to undo the reductions form the 2010 SDSR.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by serge750 »

Scimitar54 wrote:It is a shame that the MOD did not use the delay in the placing of the T26 batch 1 order, to build something that the RN really needed, rather than the B2 Rivers, namely ships 7 & 8 of the T45 Daring class. Oh but then then HMG would have had to admit that they had made cuts in error in SDSR 2010! They did but would never admit it! :mrgreen:
Would of been good,

Even 2-3 batch 2 river extended with a hanger ( batch 3 avenger class? ) would of been good for the RN as they could of been upgraded for the bum basic T31 requirement ?

All this not knowing ( not investing ) about Brexit/Scottish referendum/global economic crises etc has again mucked up a lot of things imho :x

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Jake1992 wrote:If budget increase is coming couldn’t the T26 build rate be increased with first speeding up the build time line and then adding extra before dropping in to the T45 replacement ?
Absolutely but each extra T26 would probably cost in the region of £750m minimum. I haven't seen or heard anyone either in or connected too this Government making noises about increasing the T26 numbers. We would all like to see 13 or more T26's but it highly unlikely to happen. The political will simply isn't there.

Much more likely is an increase to the T31 order and/or additional OPV's. Personally I think the best we can realistically hope for is an increase to the T31 numbers via a second batch together with a higher unit price of each T31 to make them credible frigates. We may also get a few extra OPV's.
Jake1992 wrote:What do you think £312m would get you in terms of a GP frigate ?
Difficult question as I don't believe Babcock can build the A140 with 24 CAMM in the UK for £250m each but Leander built at Cammell Laird might be a bit more realistic. So what would the 4 Leander's look like if hull 5 was dropped and an extra £62m of equipment was fitted to each Leander?

If we take the baseline as,

Leander Frigate, 117m
Mk8
24 CAMM
2x 30mm's
Artisan

It's a vessel that relies almost entirely on its Wildcat for any OTH offensive punch and has no idea what is going on below the surface. Basically for a GP Frigate it doesn't cut the mustard but an extra £62m would make it much better.

- The Mk8 could be replaced with a Mk45 linked to the CMS to facilitate guided rounds and provide a very useful NGFS capability within the fleet. Would the auto loading mag fit in the narrow Leader hull? Not sure.

- Leander benefits from Hybrid propulsion but little sound reduction as far as we know. This could be improved and a hull mounted sonar fitted along with a tail, something like Captas4 compact. It's impossible to know how effective such a Leander would be compared to a T23 but I'm sure RN would find a use for such a vessel. If it was good enough to perform TAPS it would effectively add two T26's to the escort fleet. Big plus but the lack of a Merlin capability might rule this out.

- An Arrowhead A140 at £312m is a very tempting option but I think it will cost nearly that to build it with the baseline Leander frigate spec outlined above. Adding 2150 and 8x Harpoon along with a Phalanx FFBNW is probably the best we could hope for.

So what's the best option? I will let you decide but personally I wouldn't choose any of the above options.

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:If budget increase is coming couldn’t the T26 build rate be increased with first speeding up the build time line and then adding extra before dropping in to the T45 replacement ?
Absolutely but each extra T26 would probably cost in the region of £750m minimum. I haven't seen or heard anyone either in or connected too this Government making noises about increasing the T26 numbers. We would all like to see 13 or more T26's but it highly unlikely to happen. The political will simply isn't there.

Much more likely is an increase to the T31 order and/or additional OPV's. Personally I think the best we can realistically hope for is an increase to the T31 numbers via a second batch together with a higher unit price of each T31 to make them credible frigates. We may also get a few extra OPV's.
Jake1992 wrote:What do you think £312m would get you in terms of a GP frigate ?
Difficult question as I don't believe Babcock can build the A140 with 24 CAMM in the UK for £250m each but Leander built at Cammell Laird might be a bit more realistic. So what would the 4 Leander's look like if hull 5 was dropped and an extra £62m of equipment was fitted to each Leander?

If we take the baseline as,

Leander Frigate, 117m
Mk8
24 CAMM
2x 30mm's
Artisan

It's a vessel that relies almost entirely on its Wildcat for any OTH offensive punch and has no idea what is going on below the surface. Basically for a GP Frigate it doesn't cut the mustard but an extra £62m would make it much better.

- The Mk8 could be replaced with a Mk45 linked to the CMS to facilitate guided rounds and provide a very useful NGFS capability within the fleet. Would the auto loading mag fit in the narrow Leader hull? Not sure.

- Leander benefits from Hybrid propulsion but little sound reduction as far as we know. This could be improved and a hull mounted sonar fitted along with a tail, something like Captas4 compact. It's impossible to know how effective such a Leander would be compared to a T23 but I'm sure RN would find a use for such a vessel. If it was good enough to perform TAPS it would effectively add two T26's to the escort fleet. Big plus but the lack of a Merlin capability might rule this out.

- An Arrowhead A140 at £312m is a very tempting option but I think it will cost nearly that to build it with the baseline Leander frigate spec outlined above. Adding 2150 and 8x Harpoon along with a Phalanx FFBNW is probably the best we could hope for.

So what's the best option? I will let you decide but personally I wouldn't choose any of the above options.
Your right no politician in the now previous HMG made any noises about increasing T26 numbers but surely if an increase in the defence budget is forth coming with the exception of stating which branch they’d like to priorities any smart politician would give the branch’s the extra money and let them decide which way is best to spend it.

So we’d be looking at a choice between a better armed vessel today but with very limited future growth verses a basic vessel today with loads of growth margins to be able to be brought up to equal a lot of nations tier one vessels.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

So the new Defence Sec is ex army Captain Ben Wallace, do we think he’ll be good for the role or should we be worried that inter service rivalry will see the navy face cuts to help grown the army in numbers and equipment ?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Jake1992 wrote:....but surely if an increase in the defence budget is forth coming....
Boris Johnson has not made any clear commitments about increasing defence spending. It simply does not appear to be a priority for him as he has promised massive spending increases in other areas but not a peep about defence. Expect any increase to be very modest.
Jake1992 wrote:So we’d be looking at a choice between a better armed vessel today but with very limited future growth verses a basic vessel today with loads of growth margins to be able to be brought up to equal a lot of nations tier one vessels.
That's about the height of it but it's worth remembering that all of the options are worse than the T23's in service today. Clearly it's a cut in overall capability so if current planning carries on unchanged the decade of cuts just keeps on rolling. HMG can try and justify it as much as they like but neither Leander or Arrowhead 140 is on par with the T23's they are replacing. Best to just get on and build four or five basic 105m Leanders immediately to bridge the gap and then press the reset button on the T31 programme in SDSR 2020 with a view to introduce a new UK design and built Tier2 Frigate programme around 2022.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

IF the Navy wants to make a point, in the 2020 SDSR they should put forward the idea that they T-31e should be cancelled and the funds used to proceed with other programmes as well as purchasing a ninth T-26 down the road. They could justify it by saying publicly that all the option for the T-31e fail to give the Navy a truly viable warship with the funding limit that currently exists, there is a shortage of crews and those that would be embarked in the T-31e could be used more effectively elsewhere on proper warships, and that the Royal Navy will have to try to carry on with only fifteen Escorts, reducing its commitments accordingly.

With the recent failures in the gulf hopefully behind us but still in the memory of the public and media, it might embarrass the Government to either extend the T-26 programme back to at least fourteen vessels and an increase in manning levels to allow them to be manned, or a revised Tier 2 programme that produced five or more more balance an capable vessels again with the crews to man them effectively.

But regardless of the above in the 2020 SDSR the MoD needs to make a strong case to reverse the reduction in personnel a decade ago and bring manning level across the three services to pre 2010 levels.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Another reason we should look at the BAe 57mm for a number of our existing and future vessels.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

Lord Jim wrote:IF the Navy wants to make a point, in the 2020 SDSR they should put forward the idea that they T-31e should be cancelled and the funds used to proceed with other programmes as well as purchasing a ninth T-26 down the road. They could justify it by saying publicly that all the option for the T-31e fail to give the Navy a truly viable warship with the funding limit that currently exists, there is a shortage of crews and those that would be embarked in the T-31e could be used more effectively elsewhere on proper warships, and that the Royal Navy will have to try to carry on with only fifteen Escorts, reducing its commitments accordingly.

With the recent failures in the gulf hopefully behind us but still in the memory of the public and media, it might embarrass the Government to either extend the T-26 programme back to at least fourteen vessels and an increase in manning levels to allow them to be manned, or a revised Tier 2 programme that produced five or more more balance an capable vessels again with the crews to man them effectively.
But that's another cut in disguise.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Poiuytrewq wrote:An Arrowhead A140 at £312m is a very tempting option but I think it will cost nearly that to build it
So Babcock's don't know how to price or build a ship, but us interweb experts do? A 6000 tonne civilian hull costs around £15m. How much more expensive is the same hull built to military standards? Four times as much? The strength of the A140 is that your integration costs are vastly reduced as you no longer have to keep "rearranging the furniture" to shoehorn everything - there's plenty of room.
Lord Jim wrote:They could justify it by saying publicly that all the option for the T-31e fail to give the Navy a truly viable warship with the funding limit that currently exists
So the answer is simply to increase the funding, rather than waste the money already spent on the existing designs. That is the real and constant problem with UK military procurement, chopping and changing the design, yet here we are seriously suggesting it as a viable solution to the current debate. It's like FRES and the T26 saga never existed
Lord Jim wrote:With the recent failures in the gulf hopefully behind us but still in the memory of the public and media,
By 2020, not a chance the public will remember - ITV is going to two seasons of Love Island a year - there will be no spare mental capacity
Lord Jim wrote:either extend the T-26 programme back to at least fourteen vessels
Not a chance
abc123 wrote:But that's another cut in disguise
Exactly!
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote:Another reason we should look at the BAe 57mm for a number of our existing and future vessels.
So given that the A-140 has been shown in the walkthrough video with 57mm and two 40mm and we know that the IH class carry 2 x 76mm maybe we could have a A140 with 3 x 57mm

I think we need to step back a bit when talking about type 23 GP and type 31 and look at what we have

Type 23 GP

very good asw hull with HMS , speed 30 knots , Merlin capable , good 3D radar , good soft kill system , 1 x 114mm , 2 x 30mm , 32 CAMM , 8 x harpoon

A-140 Type 31 possible fit

IH class hull with HMS , speed 30 knots , Merlin capable , good 3D radar , good soft kill system , 3 x 57mm , 24 CAMM , FFBNW Harpoon 11+

Given all the rounds being developed for the 57mm mount A140 with the fit above could be a very capable GP frigate and CIW ship for the carrier group

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

abc123 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:IF the Navy wants to make a point, in the 2020 SDSR they should put forward the idea that they T-31e should be cancelled and the funds used to proceed with other programmes as well as purchasing a ninth T-26 down the road. They could justify it by saying publicly that all the option for the T-31e fail to give the Navy a truly viable warship with the funding limit that currently exists, there is a shortage of crews and those that would be embarked in the T-31e could be used more effectively elsewhere on proper warships, and that the Royal Navy will have to try to carry on with only fifteen Escorts, reducing its commitments accordingly.

...
But that's another cut in disguise.
Where do the cut exist?

Active high-end escort hull number will increase (T31e is not high end hull and all 9 T26 can be active, not in extended readiness because of manpower shortage),
capability will increase,
only cut is on paper hull number ( :D )
and also it is just relocation of funds = not cut, I guess?

Actually there is no reduction in commitments either. Now RN is operating only 12 hull equivalent escorts. 6 T45 and 9 T26 is 15, just increase.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Caribbean wrote:So Babcock's don't know how to price or build a ship, but us interweb experts do? A 6000 tonne civilian hull costs around £15m. How much more expensive is the same hull built to military standards? Four times as much? The strength of the A140 is that your integration costs are vastly reduced as you no longer have to keep "rearranging the furniture" to shoehorn everything - there's plenty of room.
If Babcock/OMT and Team31 can build five Arrowhead 140's with 24 CAMM in the UK for £1.25bn then I will be very happy to admit that I was wrong but currently I don't belive it to be possible. I am expecting the final cost of any of the T31 designs to be £300m plus when they are ordered and construction starts.

Don't get me wrong the Iver Huitfeldt based A140 is a great design and would be a massively useful platform for RN but it's let down in its T31 guise by the CODAD propulsion and the omission of a hull mounted sonar. Easily solved if the money can be found. The big advantage of the A140 apart from it's wide beam and ample space is giving RN the ability to order a number of full throttle Iver Huitfeldt's to stand in for hulls 7 and 8 of the T45 programme that were cancelled. RN optimised Absalons would also be a very attractive option down the line.

An order of five A140's with the CODAD propulsion replaced with a Hybrid setup and 2150 fitted would be an excellent result regardless of what they end up costing and a mixed follow-on order of five RN optimised IH's and Absalons would be the icing on the cake. Hitting the 24 escort target.

Hopefully with a change of Government sense will prevail and RN will be given what is really needed to meet the challenges going forward. We just have to hope that Mr Javid is a bit more generous than Mr Hammond. Time will tell.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

A completely new class with new kit such as the CMS, will be nothing but a waste of money that will just keep on taking (through higher support and training costs) IMO.

If I’m the short term significantly more money isn’t coming the RN’s way, which seems likely given the loss of Penny Mordaunt and Jeremy Hunt late yesterday, then the answer remains either extend on the River Class, buy some simplified T26s or more full-fat T26s, or a combination thereof.

I like the idea of putting the pressure on the SDSR 2020, as whilst it’s a high risk strategy, it gives time to put together a real sustainable 10 year plan that gives stability and should maximises the value obtained from the spend.

However doing nothing isn’t an option. Taking onboard @Donald-san’s manning number comments above, then in the short term (next 5yrs) with the £1.25bn I’d:
- Purchase and keep HMS Clyde as FIGS
- Reduce the number of MCMs to 10 (6 Hunt and 4 Sandowns)
- Get BAE & CL to build 4 (MHPC) B3 Rivers (103m + T26 style mission bay + hangar + same B2 sensors & 3 x 30mm/LMM mounts) @£500mn (outside of TOBA)
- Move the 3 B1 Rivers to a revamped RNR
- Invest an additional £750mn in the T26, introducing modularisation, increasing build efficiency and accelerate the build speed; aim to squeeze out one more hull and even more depending on the outcome of the SDSR 2020
”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

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote:A completely new class with new kit such as the CMS,
The RN have just gone with a new CMS on the MCM fleet which is a form of TACTICOS

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote:
Repulse wrote:A completely new class with new kit such as the CMS,
The RN have just gone with a new CMS on the MCM fleet which is a form of TACTICOS
M-CUBE is a specialist MCM CMS as far as I understand. There is no case to have multiple CMSs for warships.
”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

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
abc123 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:IF the Navy wants to make a point, in the 2020 SDSR they should put forward the idea that they T-31e should be cancelled and the funds used to proceed with other programmes as well as purchasing a ninth T-26 down the road. They could justify it by saying publicly that all the option for the T-31e fail to give the Navy a truly viable warship with the funding limit that currently exists, there is a shortage of crews and those that would be embarked in the T-31e could be used more effectively elsewhere on proper warships, and that the Royal Navy will have to try to carry on with only fifteen Escorts, reducing its commitments accordingly.

...
But that's another cut in disguise.
Where do the cut exist?

Active high-end escort hull number will increase (T31e is not high end hull and all 9 T26 can be active, not in extended readiness because of manpower shortage),
capability will increase,
only cut is on paper hull number ( :D )
and also it is just relocation of funds = not cut, I guess?

Actually there is no reduction in commitments either. Now RN is operating only 12 hull equivalent escorts. 6 T45 and 9 T26 is 15, just increase.
Because 1,25 bln. will be spent on 5 T31 during next few years, while the same money will be spent on T26 No9 15 years from now, if ever.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Post Reply