UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1809
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 01 Mar 2020, 22:31

Lord Jim wrote:the whole "East of Suez" aspiration needs to be seriously dialled back

I think the aspiration at the moment is quite low.
More like 1 or 2 x T23/T31, 2 x River B2, 1 x Bay and (for now) 4 x MCMV. Possibly backed by a couple of Wildcats.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12160
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 01 Mar 2020, 23:43

Caribbean wrote:2 x River B2
What is the purpose/ usefulness of these?

Having a flight of Wildcats shore based in Oman so that they can rotate through the ships in-situ (i.e. in or near Hormuz) could be useful... with the same bother, throw in the same number of Apaches ("training with Omani forces") as a backup.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1723
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 02 Mar 2020, 09:14

Lord Jim wrote:With current funding, the whole "East of Suez" aspiration needs to be seriously dialled back. We have other far greater priorities and commitments that need concentrating on. just covering NATO and the BOTs will take up the majority of our resources.



I would agree the idea of having a LPD based EoS is not going to happen anytime soon however the rest is doable in my opinion at this time the navy has

2 x escorts , 1 x Bay , 4 x MCM , and RFA Wave Knight has just arrived home from a long deployment EoS

We already know there is a move to forward deploy another escort EoS that would make it 3

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12160
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 02 Mar 2020, 09:30

Tempest414 wrote:2 x escorts , 1 x Bay , 4 x MCM , and RFA Wave Knight has just arrived home from a long deployment EoS

We already know there is a move to forward deploy another escort EoS that would make it 3


That would be about right, and being based out of Bahrain it would effectively be joining the bolded task force, leaving the other 3 units to "roam free" over an extended area, and with afloat replenishment in place the focal area could be quickly shifted.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4093
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 02 Mar 2020, 15:25

Some of the recent posts have, in my opinion, come close to trolling. Let me address a few of the issues in a series of comments:

"Gold plating" is a derogatory term which means to over deliver on a requirement incurring wasteful expense. So, for example, if you need to keep time, you could buy a $5 watch which would be perfectly adequate or spend $50 on a gold plated watch which doesn't meet the requirement of telling the time any better. $45 in this case would be wasted (due to the gold plating).

In type 31 terms, you could say specifying an ExLs cell system instead of a mushroom farm is gold plating because the more expensive ExLs doesn't perform the task of launching CAMM missiles any better. It would only lose the gold plating tag if an additional requirement was added to carry more missiles in the same space.

"Gold plating" does not and has never has, meant satisfying a ship requirement that the commentator doesn't personally agree with.

No Royal Navy warship for well over 100 years has been gold plated to any significant degree as any serving or retire veteran will testify. The usual practice is to barely meet any requirement or even under deliver to save money.

There are no examples of gold plating on the Type 26, 31 or 45s.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4141
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 02 Mar 2020, 15:38

I agree when I think about it. The T-26 is far from "Gold Plated, in fact in my opinion it is more "Lead Plated" as we are nit utilising the design to its full potential.

As for ExLS, installing more Sea Ceptor in the same space is definitely the case when it related to the T-26, moving these to the amidships position freeing up space in the bow section for more Mk41s in a similar arrangement to the Australian Hunter class with the five Batch two vessels. On the T-45 and Queen Elizabeths, it would be the most space friendly way to install Sea Ceptor on the ships, and Again on the T-31s having two or three Standalone ExLS in the position currently occupied by the twelve Mushrooms, whilst taking up slightly more space would allow the number carried to be increase form twelve to thirty six by simply loading more when the mission requires it. You could even stick a single "Standalone", on a B2 River if you really wanted in a ISO that also contained the Data link and control station(s). Such a system would also be of use on the RFAs is needed. If the RN adopted the system, then I am pretty sure Industry would find other things that could be installed in the launchers, adapting them to also use the cold launch system.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12160
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 02 Mar 2020, 17:10

Lord Jim wrote:I agree when I think about it. The T-26 is far from "Gold Plated, in fact in my opinion it is more "Lead Plated"

All I want... is a copper-bottomed guarantee of performance against likely foes
- warships serve for so long that they will all get substantial upgrades over their life

SD67
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SD67 » 02 Mar 2020, 17:39

Ron5 wrote:Some of the recent posts have, in my opinion, come close to trolling. Let me address a few of the issues in a series of comments:

"Gold plating" is a derogatory term which means to over deliver on a requirement incurring wasteful expense. So, for example, if you need to keep time, you could buy a $5 watch which would be perfectly adequate or spend $50 on a gold plated watch which doesn't meet the requirement of telling the time any better. $45 in this case would be wasted (due to the gold plating).

In type 31 terms, you could say specifying an ExLs cell system instead of a mushroom farm is gold plating because the more expensive ExLs doesn't perform the task of launching CAMM missiles any better. It would only lose the gold plating tag if an additional requirement was added to carry more missiles in the same space.

"Gold plating" does not and has never has, meant satisfying a ship requirement that the commentator doesn't personally agree with.

No Royal Navy warship for well over 100 years has been gold plated to any significant degree as any serving or retire veteran will testify. The usual practice is to barely meet any requirement or even under deliver to save money.

There are no examples of gold plating on the Type 26, 31 or 45s.


Well in my book the Chinook sized landing deck on T26 is gold plating as is the ability to launch RIBs from amidships as neither have anything to do with hunting submarines or protecting an aircraft carrier.

I’d also question why Successor needs to be 2000+ tonnes larger than Vanguard to deliver 4 fewer missile tubes.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12160
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 02 Mar 2020, 18:19

SD67 wrote:I’d also question why Successor needs to be 2000+ tonnes larger than Vanguard to deliver 4 fewer missile tubes


A good question. I don't think we will follow the Russian example, when they had a swimming pool on (err, inside) one of their boomers

serge750
Member
Posts: 501
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby serge750 » 02 Mar 2020, 18:40

Perhaps there will not be anymore "hot bunking" & the crew may get there own tiny bit of space for themselves...


Wasn't the T26 classed as a global combat ship with more missions than escorting carriers, in hindsight if the T26 was just going to be ASW carrier escort then they could of cut a lot of things inc the mk 41 launchers & just have CAMM + ssm cannisters & be a lot smaller, being a direct replacement for the T23, but that's hindsight, smaller carriers etc, more Cavour style but 50k tonnes, 24 F35 + helos, Hindsight is a bitch...

tomuk
Member
Posts: 73
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby tomuk » 02 Mar 2020, 19:49

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
SD67 wrote:I’d also question why Successor needs to be 2000+ tonnes larger than Vanguard to deliver 4 fewer missile tubes


A good question. I don't think we will follow the Russian example, when they had a swimming pool on (err, inside) one of their boomers


I believe it is bigger due to using the american Common Missile Compartment

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 475
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby whitelancer » 02 Mar 2020, 21:08

Concerning ExLs verses mushrooms, the question I would ask is why the mushrooms take up so much room, why can't they be more tightly packed? The only reasons I can come up with is either access is needed to each individual launch tube, perhaps to make some manual connections, or as a safety measure. Neither seem very convincing explanations to me.
Turning to T31, given its size their seems no excuse for them being able to carry just 12 Sea Ceptor. The cost of the mushrooms must be ridiculously low, their is nothing to them, (if they aren't the MOD should find out why). Why not fit 24, 36 or 48 mushrooms, after all they don't have to be full of missiles all the time, but they would be their ready and waiting when needed.

tomuk
Member
Posts: 73
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby tomuk » 02 Mar 2020, 23:06

whitelancer wrote:Concerning ExLs verses mushrooms, the question I would ask is why the mushrooms take up so much room, why can't they be more tightly packed? The only reasons I can come up with is either access is needed to each individual launch tube, perhaps to make some manual connections, or as a safety measure. Neither seem very convincing explanations to me.
Turning to T31, given its size their seems no excuse for them being able to carry just 12 Sea Ceptor. The cost of the mushrooms must be ridiculously low, their is nothing to them, (if they aren't the MOD should find out why). Why not fit 24, 36 or 48 mushrooms, after all they don't have to be full of missiles all the time, but they would be their ready and waiting when needed.


The mushrooms take up the room they do because they are modified Sea Wolf VLS. Each Camm/Sea Ceptor in its sealed cold launch canister fits in each existing Sea Wolf hot launch tube. All the required launch components are in the sealed Camm canister in theory (ignoring weather/environment) you could just strap the canisters to the side of the ship.

Image
Sea Wolf VLS



Image
Sea Ceptor (CAMM) VLS



https://youtu.be/y10AOupaYk4?t=8
Sea Ceptor (CAMM) VLS video

I assume the reason the mushrooms have gone forward onto the T26 and T31 is cost. By reusing the mushroom design there is no need for re-design or re-validation and the associated costs.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4093
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 03 Mar 2020, 14:59

Gritting my teeth and side stepping the interesting discussion on mushrooms, here's the second in my series on troll like behaviors.

Another hall mark of the troll is repeating a misleading piece of information ad nauseam well after it has been comprehensively proven to be bogus. Case in point is the 300 million cost of the Danish Iver Huitfelds which has been used repeatedly as a stick to beat the Royal Navy.

The low cost of those ships was because of a perfect storm of factors that couldn't be repeated anywhere else, not even in Denmark and is therefore less than useful in any discussion of ship costs.

They were that low because of 5 factors:

1. The hull blocks were built at 3rd world prices in Lithuania and Estonia
2. The blocks were completed by Odense Shipyard, a very experienced commercial builder that was going out of business that, as a last favor to the Danish government, did this work under cost before shutting its doors for the final time.
3. The ships used commercial standards and equipment to a far greater extent than would be acceptable to the RN or USN
4. The ships were fitted out at Danish navy facilities using Navy personnel i.e. not at regular commercial prices, using equipment recovered from decommissioned warships
5. The ships that were commissioned into the Danish Navy were not fully functional, in particular, the AAW systems were not working

NickC
Member
Posts: 639
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 03 Mar 2020, 16:58

Ron5 wrote:Gritting my teeth and side stepping the interesting discussion on mushrooms, here's the second in my series on troll like behaviors.

Another hall mark of the troll is repeating a misleading piece of information ad nauseam well after it has been comprehensively proven to be bogus. Case in point is the 300 million cost of the Danish Iver Huitfelds which has been used repeatedly as a stick to beat the Royal Navy.

The low cost of those ships was because of a perfect storm of factors that couldn't be repeated anywhere else, not even in Denmark and is therefore less than useful in any discussion of ship costs.

They were that low because of 5 factors:

1. The hull blocks were built at 3rd world prices in Lithuania and Estonia
2. The blocks were completed by Odense Shipyard, a very experienced commercial builder that was going out of business that, as a last favor to the Danish government, did this work under cost before shutting its doors for the final time.
3. The ships used commercial standards and equipment to a far greater extent than would be acceptable to the RN or USN
4. The ships were fitted out at Danish navy facilities using Navy personnel i.e. not at regular commercial prices, using equipment recovered from decommissioned warships
5. The ships that were commissioned into the Danish Navy were not fully functional, in particular, the AAW systems were not working


Gritting your teeth for two weeks must make your gums sore :(

You made similar claims re. IH on the T31 News thread, in response to my post on 17th Feb, some agreed with others disagreed and asked you to back up your claims, you never replied, so I'll repost it

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Postby NickC » 18 Feb 2020, 15:36

Ron5 wrote:Copying and pasting large sections of brochures is nice but not conclusive.


Would be most interested if you could give list and source of the brochures you are referring to?, my info taken from snippets on web

Ron5 wrote:The IH design was thrown out of both the Canadian & US frigate competitions for various reasons. It didn't last long in Australia either
.

Really interested if you can back up this statement.

The USN point blank has refused to disclose which contenders had not made the cut for the FFG(X) competition, the only one for certain I know of was the Atlas Elektronic/Blohm&Voss bid with the MEKO 200 as they announced their bid, the RDN certainly did take IH to US on sales mission, but as far as know Danes never came to any agreement with US shipyard to make bid for FFG(X) eligible, unless source of Ingalls bid for which they have never ever released any details, though think it unlikely. (It does not say much for the USN selection process that one of the bids they did accept was from Lockheed based on their LCS Freedom, it went from a 3,500t to 6,000t+ before Lockheed eventually pulled it as proved totally impracticable to meet the requirements with its semi-planning hull).

Re Canadian competition only know of the Alion-Damen De Zeven Provinciën; Italian FREMM; LMC-BAE Type 26; Navantia F100, have never seen any mention of Danish bid with IH, source?

Ron5 wrote:One comment for the US was that the ship would require so much redesign to meet US warship standards, it would amount to a new ship and would lose any advantage of being a pre-existing desig

Would agree, but then then to meet USN standards the Italian FREMM has been re-designed. Fincantieri added 300t of steel, increased displacement from 6,900t to 7,400t and length by 22 feet, new and more powerful DGs and electric motors etc

donald_of_tokyo wrote:One common factor was a feeling that the Danes had done themselves no favors by greatly overstating their costs savings which don't hold up to much examination.

No knowledge, again interested in source for this comment.

Ron5 wrote:So no, nobody is saying the IH's aren't "real" warships except you.

Bryan Clark Senior Fellow of the influential Washington CSBA think tank, former USN Captain and Special Assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations

Ron5 wrote:What many, professional and amateurs alike, are saying is that:
1. The IH costs quoted by the Danes are not repeatable and were for an incomplete warship


Agreed as said RDN had the technical nouse to install and integrate the systems to keep within their tight budget

Ron5 wrote:2. IH used commercial standards to an extent that's not acceptable to all navies


Would just quote Caribbean "Well - yes and no. The philosophy was to build those bits that needed it to naval standards and the rest to commercial standards. The end result was a design that survived standard shock testing (perhaps proving that they got the mix right?)"

Ron5 wrote:3. IH hasn't "proven" anything apart from its ability to float and to partake in NATO exercises

Well that's a much better record than the T45 which cost approx three times as much per ship, long history of breaking down and now having a very expensive and time consuming shipyard propulsion re-build.

Ron5 wrote:4. Despite aggressive decade long marketing, no one has bought IH, it has failed in every international competition


Again that applies to many navy ships, a prime example being the T45

Ron5 wrote:5. In the UK, the base IH design won in a two horse politically decided, race. Way too soon to say its a failure or a success but when it enters RN service it will be significantly different from the original IH's

Agree

Ron5 wrote:6. The Danish Navy is a very fine & professional lot


In spades

PS Not really a T31 news post

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12160
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 03 Mar 2020, 21:07

Ron5 wrote:were fitted out at Danish navy facilities using Navy personnel i.e. not at regular commercial prices, using equipment recovered from decommissioned warships


I wonder if we, together, could tease that one commentator on TD, who did not like my idea of a nationalised fitting-out yard AT ALL :lol: to come here, for further commentary?

Whatever the Danish frigates cost (one, only just nominated, US DefSec made his first trip abroad to see how the "trick" could be done) they have caused quite a - or more than one - stir:
""I do not think that the Danes fully understand the consequences of what happens if Denmark joins the US-led missile defence," Ambassador Mikhail Vanin wrote in the daily.

"If this happens Danish warships become targets for Russian nuclear missiles."

Russia has long opposed NATO's missile shield -- launched in 2010 and due to be fully operational by 2025 -- in which member countries contribute radar and weaponry to protect Europe against missile attacks.

Denmark has pledged to supply one or more frigates equipped with advanced radar to track incoming missiles.

The chairwoman of the Danish parliament's foreign affairs, Mette Gjerskov told AFP that the comments were "very threatening and not necessary" as the missile shield was simply an "intruder alarm" and no danger to Russia.

"This is a way of escalating the verbal tone between Russia and NATO," she said, adding that the comments were also aimed at Russian public opinion.

"But it doesn't change the fact that we're not afraid."["]
- from March 2015 , https://sg.news.yahoo.com/denmark-could ... 19067.html

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4141
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 04 Mar 2020, 08:48

I really think we have beaten the T-31 purchase to death over the past few months. The contract ahs been let and until we see what actually hits the water in SEVEN years time we are just going round and round in circles. What I find more important is the purchase of the remaining five T-26. Will we actually get five? Will they be the same configuration as the first three? When will they be ordered? Will be build programme for these five be at the same rate as the first three, speeded up or even slowed down further?

tomuk
Member
Posts: 73
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby tomuk » 04 Mar 2020, 10:56

Lord Jim wrote:I really think we have beaten the T-31 purchase to death over the past few months. The contract ahs been let and until we see what actually hits the water in SEVEN years time we are just going round and round in circles. What I find more important is the purchase of the remaining five T-26. Will we actually get five? Will they be the same configuration as the first three? When will they be ordered? Will be build programme for these five be at the same rate as the first three, speeded up or even slowed down further?


We only have to wait three years the first Type 31 will be in the water in 2023.

To speed up Type 26 apart from more money we desparately need the 'frigate factory' at Scostoun.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1723
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 04 Mar 2020, 11:14

tomuk wrote:To speed up Type 26 apart from more money we desparately need the 'frigate factory' at Scostoun.


I would say we need a Escort factory and it needs to be 200 X 80 meters to allow for future escorts to be built up to 180 x 22 meters side by side

NickC
Member
Posts: 639
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 04 Mar 2020, 12:53

Tempest414 wrote:
tomuk wrote:To speed up Type 26 apart from more money we desparately need the 'frigate factory' at Scostoun.


I would say we need a Escort factory and it needs to be 200 X 80 meters to allow for future escorts to be built up to 180 x 22 meters side by side


Thought should include a panel line system and syncrolift or similar, need someone with shipyard expertise.


Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4093
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 04 Mar 2020, 16:28

Third in my series of Troll spotting is on Top Trumps equivalency. The equivalency states that if two things are named the same then they are the same and have the same capabilities.

For example: Ford makes a vehicle with 5 seats, a trunk, 4 wheels and an enclosed body that will safely transport people and their luggage at freeway speeds. In the UK this is called a car. Mercedes also makes a 5 seat, 4 wheeled, trunked, enclosed vehicle which is also called a car.

They are both cars. Therefore they are both the same. Because the Mercedes is a lot more expensive than the Ford, and in Top Trumps, cheapness is a virtue, only a fool would buy the German product.

The way it works for escorts is that a trolling commentator writes" hey look, east Krazystan has just bought 5 frigates for 100 million each, they are about the same size and carry about the same weapon set as the Royal Navy's new frigates except the RN frigates cost 10 times as much. The RN are fools". Unwritten assertion being that both the Krazystan ship and the RN ship are equivalent because they are both called frigates.

It leads to such idiotic assertions as the Danish Iver Huitfelds being suitable replacements for the Type 45's. Because they are both called AA Destroyers i.e. based on Top Trumps name equivalence.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4141
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 05 Mar 2020, 11:15

tomuk wrote:We only have to wait three years the first Type 31 will be in the water in 2023.


I thought there had already been press releases that the first T-31 would not be ready for service until 2027 but on the plus side all five would have been built and should be in service only a few year later, possibly 2029.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12160
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 05 Mar 2020, 11:34

It has not been spelt out but to me would seem like production batching
- hulls and propulsion in 2-
- further (military) fitting out at an accelerated 2-3?

The same labour (lots of 'point' experts in there) doing the same job repeatedly, rather than the teams dispersing and then... at a drum beat 8-) ... being recalled. When in reality some of the folks may have moved on, promoted etc.

That's the ship building view; but the companies involved are multi-line businesses. Why on earth would you try to get into such a 'mode' ?

First: Create optimized schedules balancing production efficiency and delivery by maximising output on bottleneck resources
Second: Synchronize supply with demand to reduce inventories (only 5 ordered)
Third: Provide company-wide visibility to capacity (what else can the scarce resources, and other resources, do?)
And, finally: Enable scenario&data driven decision making (will there, or will there not be more than 5 of the class?)

NickC
Member
Posts: 639
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 05 Mar 2020, 13:20

Ron5 wrote:Third in my series of Troll spotting is on Top Trumps equivalency. The equivalency states that if two things are named the same then they are the same and have the same capabilities.

For example: Ford makes a vehicle with 5 seats, a trunk, 4 wheels and an enclosed body that will safely transport people and their luggage at freeway speeds. In the UK this is called a car. Mercedes also makes a 5 seat, 4 wheeled, trunked, enclosed vehicle which is also called a car.

They are both cars. Therefore they are both the same. Because the Mercedes is a lot more expensive than the Ford, and in Top Trumps, cheapness is a virtue, only a fool would buy the German product.

The way it works for escorts is that a trolling commentator writes" hey look, east Krazystan has just bought 5 frigates for 100 million each, they are about the same size and carry about the same weapon set as the Royal Navy's new frigates except the RN frigates cost 10 times as much. The RN are fools". Unwritten assertion being that both the Krazystan ship and the RN ship are equivalent because they are both called frigates.

It leads to such idiotic assertions as the Danish Iver Huitfelds being suitable replacements for the Type 45's. Because they are both called AA Destroyers i.e. based on Top Trumps name equivalence.


Do wonder whether worth my time to reply

You seem to have a fixation in belittling the Iver Huitfeldt class and as I disagree imply I'm a troll and calling me Nigel as I rebut your claims.

One of my definitions of a troll is someone making specific claims and when challenged twice to justify their claims fails to reply which was the case when you stated "The IH design was thrown out of both the Canadian & US frigate competitions for various reasons. It didn't last long in Australia either."

Now that could be true but you state it as a fact and not a guess on your part and as you have not been able to give any form of backup, to me it just comes across as your self justification for your campaign to denigrate the IH.

All for exchange of opinions and facts but no need call anyone holding opposite views a troll.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12160
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 05 Mar 2020, 13:46

Earlier on, on the same topic. I found the expression 'lego ships' much more endearing
... especially as that Legion did not vanish - but won in the competition!


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jensy, rightroyal and 22 guests