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.
SW1
Member
Posts: 718
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby SW1 » 29 Mar 2019, 17:09

One of the complex weapons families scores another success perhaps other areas of defence procurement could learn from this successful area of uk defence procurement.

Which countries are we aiming the e part of type 31 at?

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 827
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Aethulwulf » 29 Mar 2019, 18:47

Repulse wrote:Does this also mean Brazil will be taking the BAE CMS-1?
No

Atech, a company of the Embraer Group, will be the supplier of the CMS (Combat Management System) and the Integrated Platform Management System (IPMS) of Corvetas Classe Tamandaré and receiver of technology transfer (ToT) in cooperation with ATLAS ELEKTRONIK, a subsidiary of thyssenkrupp Marine Systems, and L3 MAPPS. Located in Rio de Janeiro (RJ) and São Paulo (SP), Atech has 500 engineers specializing in software and hardware development for defense applications and has unique expertise in systems engineering and situational awareness technologies of decision-making.

Embraer Defense & Security will integrate sensors and armaments into the combat system, bringing to the program its 50-year experience in in-service support solutions.

NickC
Member
Posts: 493
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 30 Mar 2019, 11:31

Repulse wrote:Does this also mean Brazil will be taking the BAE CMS-1?


The CMS built by the Brazilian systems house Atech, a subsidiary of Embraer, in conjunction with Atlas Elektronic Bremen, a subsidiary of Thyssenkrupp, who build CMS for German ships and subs.

Brazilian plan local content of ships ~40% between shipbuilding and the systems.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3492
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 31 Mar 2019, 00:33

shark bait wrote:The "HVU goal keeper" really doesn't seem worth the effort. If the objective is to place a capable air defence system next to a carrier/amphib whats is simpler;
  • Building and operating a brand new class of surface combatant?
  • Adding a couple of silos and an extra console to the HVU?
The latter sounds way simpler and many times cheaper.


Brilliant idea, let's sail aircraft carriers with no escorts.

I wonder if you can remember that last couple of times the RN did that?

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3492
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 31 Mar 2019, 00:51

Poiuytrewq wrote:ThyssenKrupp has done something very clever here, something I believe BAE should have done with Leander. They have not only stretched the length of the hull by 9m but also widened the beam by 2m. Why did BAE not do this?


Srlsy?

You really don't know??

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1466
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 31 Mar 2019, 03:26

Ron5 wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:ThyssenKrupp has done something very clever here, something I believe BAE should have done with Leander. They have not only stretched the length of the hull by 9m but also widened the beam by 2m. Why did BAE not do this?


Srlsy?

You really don't know??
Yes, I'm completely serious.

The redevelopment costs may have blown the wafer thin profit margin but do you really believe that the A140 and Meko A200 can be built in UK for £250m? Many are highly sceptical, including myself. If none of the 3 bidders could have made the £250m target then the budget would have had to be raised or five hulls reduced to four. Reducing the first batch to four might still be a desirable outcome for the T31 programme as four A140's at £315m each could produce vessels in the credible frigate category. It's also worth remembering that no company knows how much it costs to build a Frigate in the UK better than BAE.

If it is possible to build an A140 or an A-200 for £250m in the UK then BAE should have been a bit more ambitious with the redesign of the Khareef and took it up to the next level in an attempt to tie up all of the Tier1 and Tier2 escort designs in the UK. Keeping Babcock out of the U.K. Escort market would have made it worth the effort.

I'm pretty comfortable with the first batch of T31's being built to the £250m target price as I don't really see them as Frigates due to the lack of offensive armament fitted and because of this any of the three shortlisted designs would do the job asked to an acceptable standard. Conversely any second batch of T31's need to be much more capable and the budget will need to be much more generous. A wide beamed Leander, stretched a bit further and configured as an escort frigate but with 2150 and 2087 may be just what RN needs to cost effectively increase numbers, especially if the propulsion system and noise reduction measures were upgraded up to level capable of performing TAPS and therefore able to relieve the T26's.

As I see it, IF the A140 really can be built in the UK for £250m, and that's a big IF, Leander will only win in HMG wants the T31's built in an English yard. That might happen if Rosyth get the FSS contract but more likely Babcock will get the T31 contract, Cammell Laird will get the FLSS conversions and the FSS contract will go abroad.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 31 Mar 2019, 04:14

Comparison.

Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate: (http://nozebra.ipapercms.dk/valcon/OMT1 ... kBroker/#/)
Length 138.7 m ; Beam 19.8 m; Draft 5.8/6.45 m (design/max);
Displacement 6,649 t (max);
4 x MTU 8000 20V M70 diesel engines, 8.2 MW each (4x 8.2MW = 32.8MW total); --;
cruise 18 knots , top speed 29.3 knots; 9300nm@18knots, 28 days (Logimatic_Engineering_case_IVER_HUITFELDT_IPMS.pdf)
Class DNV-GLX1A1 ICE-C Naval (dnk) HELDK E0 NBC-2 NV;

Leander frigate: (http://51.38.82.119/Cammell-Laird-DLSize-Leander.pdf)
Length 117.0 m ; Beam 14.6 m; Draft 4.5/-- m (design/max);
Displacement 3677 t (--);
2 x MTU 8000 20V M91 diesel engines, 9.1 MW each (2x 9.1MW = 18.2MW total) + 2x 700 kW; --;
cruise 16 knots (12kt electric), top speed 25 knot; 7600nm @16kts, 35 days,
Class Lloyds Naval Ship Rules ✠100A1, NS2 Frigate, SA1, AIR, ESA, RSA, LA, LAP, TA2, LMC, PSMRL, CCS, RAS(ABV)(NT), ELS, FIRE**, ESC**, LSAE**, CEPAC2, MD, SH, POL(I, IV, V, VI, AFS), ENV(A, BWT, OW, IHM, NOx-3, SOx, RS);

Brazilian Tamandare MEKO-A100 mod class corvette: (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... ettes.html)
Length 107.2 m; Beam 15.95; Draft 5.95 m;
Displacement 3,455t (--);
4 x 6MW MAN 12V 28/33 DSTC (4x 6MW = 24MW total); 4x Caterpillar C32 Gensets;
cruise 14 knots, top speed 25 knots required;
Class --;

MEKO A200 for T31e: (wiki)
unknown. Ref. of Valour class: (wiki & https://www.defenceweb.co.za/resources/ ... Itemid=159)
Length 121 m (waterline 107.3 m); Beam 16.34 m; Draft 5.95m (navigation), 4.4m (design).;
Displacement 3590t (full load), 3500t (design). (+200 t growth potential)
2 x 6MW MTU 16V 1163 TB93 + 1x 20MW LM2500 (32MW total); 4x MTU 12-valve 183 TE52 (in two separate compartments) ;
cruise 20+ knots, top speed 28 knots; 7500 at 16kts,. 28 days;
Class --;

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speculation, below

We can clearly spot big similarity with MEKO A200 Valour-class and (said) MAKO-A100 Tamandare-class. It could be chance, or just mistaken numbers, but, I'm guessing Tamandare-class is more a A200 hull than a A100 hull. If so, Tamandare-class can be a good candidate to understand Atlas UK T31e proposal.

Main armaments (76mm, 12 CAMM, hull-sonar FTR, helo) are compatible with T31e RFI. Just add 7-10 m hull section in the middle to increase RHIB carriage (and maybe a funnel?), it is already a good T31e candidate?

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1466
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 31 Mar 2019, 10:45

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Tamandare-class can be a good candidate to understand Atlas UK T31e proposal.
I have been suggesting for a while, do we even know enough about the Atlas Elektronik UK bid to be comparing the Valour class to the A140 and Leander? The Valour with CODAG WARP looks too expensive to me. Not enough information to be sure as of yet.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Just add 7-10 m hull section in the middle to increase RHIB carriage (and maybe a funnel?), it is already a good T31e candidate?
Agreed, this modified A-100 design looks very much like how I expected the T31 to end up. Ideally I would like to see it stretched a bit more, in the region of 125m+.

image.jpeg
As you say this addional amidships block would allow for Space to be allocated for 4 RHIB's and also help increase range and endurance but does this modified A-100 already have a sizeable mission area under the flight deck. The graphic below depicts a capacity of 6 ISO's or 4 ISO's plus two RHIB's. When combined with extra amidships mission areas if stretched this vessel could be much better balanced than either the A140 or Leander.
image.png
This A-100 MCM variant shows the amount of space that could be available, together with a stern mounted crane. A truly multipurpose vessel.
image.jpeg
https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... esign.html

A few queries,

Is the hanger Merlin capable? It doesn't look it.
Is it a standard CODAD setup? It's also listed as CODAG with a top speed of 28knts. https://www.thyssenkrupp-marinesystems. ... ility.html
Is it realistic to think Harland and Wolff could build these in Belfast?

All in all an interesting option but it would be nice to see the variant that is being considered for the T31 programme.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 31 Mar 2019, 10:48

Poiuytrewq wrote:The redevelopment costs may have blown the wafer thin profit margin but do you really believe that the A140 and Meko A200 can be built in UK for £250m? Many are highly sceptical, including myself. If none of the 3 bidders could have made the £250m target then the budget would have had to be raised or five hulls reduced to four. Reducing the first batch to four might still be a desirable outcome for the T31 programme as four A140's at £315m each could produce vessels in the credible frigate category. It's also worth remembering that no company knows how much it costs to build a Frigate in the UK better than BAE.
Then, Leander's clear "win strategy" will be NOT to make the hull wider.

I understand you are hoping for the "T31e 2nd-batch coming with good money", and I agree your argument is well-aligned to it. But, as I see no big hope there, I am still happy with 14.6m-wide default Leander design. Even for "more T31e", it is better I think, because it will provide the highest armament level (because of the cheapest hull).

Merit of 14.6m wide default hull is as follows (Wide-hull merit is already presented by Poiuytrewq-san) :
1: internal design can be "copy-and-pasted" from Al Khareef, in most of the places (less costy, less risks).
2: thus, it is the design in which the largest ratio of "1.25B GBP" can be used for armament. Even so, still I think even Leander frigate will not be "full" = will still have many growth margins.
3: can form a common hull family with 100m corvette. The 100m version will be "more attractive" for many countries who are NOT interested in mission bay.
4: the only option to use English-ship builder,
5: majority of build work is in a single yard (not sparse), which is potentially the most efficient.

Note that, with 14.6m wide and 117m long hull, it is exactly the same size as MEKO 200, ANZAC class (light) frigates.

As T31e, I guess the best hope with Leander is
[as built]
- a simple 76 mm gun
- 12 CAMM muchroom tubes with Artisan 3D
- 2x 30mm guns, ESM/Chaff/Flare launcher,
- a Wildcat
[fit-to-receive (FTR)] (with wiring/prep.)
- a CIWS, Sea Sentor torpedo-defense decoy system, 8 SSM (which will come as independent budget), and a hull-sonar (Ultra MFS7000 class)
[fitted-for-but-not-with (FFBNW)] (just space/weight)
- guided ammo for the gun
- CAPTAS-2 class LF active passive sonar,
- 12 CAMM mushroom, amidship (or 8-cell Mk41 VLS)
- 2x MTLS torpedo tubes

I think, the "as built" T31 Leander will be, just a long range Corvette, with armaments similar to Al Khareef, packed in a NATO frigate standard hull, with long-enough range/endurance.

The "up-armed Leander", executing all the FTR and FFBNW using the money which could be available in future, is so-so nicely armed. Is this a credible full-fat escort? Not as much as T45 nor T26. But, yes it is a good "light frigate", which can fight at most of the theater. Will be a good CVTF escort.

And, even here, I think the hull is not full yet.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2094
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby abc123 » 31 Mar 2019, 11:34

donald_of_tokyo wrote:As T31e, I guess the best hope with Leander is
[as built]
- a simple 76 mm gun
- 12 CAMM muchroom tubes with Artisan 3D
- 2x 30mm guns,
ESM/Chaff/Flare launcher,
- a Wildcat
[fit-to-receive (FTR)] (with wiring/prep.)
- a CIWS, Sea Sentor torpedo-defense decoy system, 8 SSM (which will come as independent budget), and a hull-sonar (Ultra MFS7000 class)
[fitted-for-but-not-with (FFBNW)] (just space/weight)
- guided ammo for the gun
- CAPTAS-2 class LF active passive sonar,
- 12 CAMM mushroom, amidship (or 8-cell Mk41 VLS)
- 2x MTLS torpedo tubes



So, if we take that weapons is about 1/3 of the cost of the ship, that would be something like:

10 mil. USD for 76 mm gun
say 50 mil. USD for 12 CAMM missiles ( I don't know the cost per missile/launcher, but I doubt it's more than 4 mil. USD per piece )
5-10 mil. for 2 x 30 mm guns

That's about 70 mil. USD.
And if the 250 mil. pounds is say 320 mil. USD per ship, you still have say 30-sh millions free money. OK, that will probably go for fitting-for-but-not-with, but maybe say 4 ASMs could be funded ( say 3-4 mil. USD per missile, something relativly cheap, like NSMs ).

And if space for later adding more later ( say another 12 CAMMs and CAPTAS in behind ) is there- I wouldn't be too displeased.
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…

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1202
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 31 Mar 2019, 12:29

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Note that, with 14.6m wide and 117m long hull, it is exactly the same size as MEKO 200, ANZAC class (light) frigates.

As T31e, I guess the best hope with Leander is
[as built]
- a simple 76 mm gun
- 12 CAMM muchroom tubes with Artisan 3D
- 2x 30mm guns, ESM/Chaff/Flare launcher,
- a Wildcat
[fit-to-receive (FTR)] (with wiring/prep.)
- a CIWS, Sea Sentor torpedo-defense decoy system, 8 SSM (which will come as independent budget), and a hull-sonar (Ultra MFS7000 class)
[fitted-for-but-not-with (FFBNW)] (just space/weight)
- guided ammo for the gun
- CAPTAS-2 class LF active passive sonar,
- 12 CAMM mushroom, amidship (or 8-cell Mk41 VLS)
- 2x MTLS torpedo tubes


If we were to take Leander to the next level with out to much effort we could swap out the two CAMM tubs with 2 three cell EXLS plus fit 3 three cell EXLS where the Mk-41 is set to be giving the ship a 60 missile CAMM load out. This could lead to a Lender with

57mm/ Mk-8 main gun
2 x 30mm
1 x Phalanx
60 x CAMM
8 x Harpoon
2 x MTLS torpedo tubes

Of course there is no money for this but it can be done within the space / wight already there

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3492
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 31 Mar 2019, 17:30

Be nice if the T31 had CAMM-ER. I would guess the ship cost to be identical with just the missiles themselves being a tad more expensive.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 31 Mar 2019, 19:05

Ron5 wrote:would guess the ship cost to be identical

Will the deeper silos make a (cost) difference?

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3492
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 31 Mar 2019, 20:00

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote:would guess the ship cost to be identical

Will the deeper silos make a (cost) difference?


I doubt it very much. A meters worth of sheet metal structure.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 31 Mar 2019, 20:59

I guess with CAMM that's true as they are so self-contained
... we do have a Mk41 cult following here; any objections?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3066
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 31 Mar 2019, 23:35

I still prefer the ExLS that can be bolted on to the deck with little or no penetration as the primary launcher for Sea Ceptor on vessels not equipped with Mk41. Far more compact than the "Mushrooms" and requiring the same or less maintenance as the three cell stand alone units a sealed ready to go. All they need is a plug socket, and a couple of data cables. You can even bolt them onto the side of the ship if needed. The "Mushrooms" should have been a dead end, only used on the T-23 because they wanted to re-use the existing Sea Wolf silos.

NickC
Member
Posts: 493
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 04 Apr 2019, 11:01

Naval News reporting that German Government would authorize the necessary export guarantee worth euro 2.3B to Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) to cover six ships for Egyptian navy including three MEKO A-200s. In January a ~euro 500M /~£425M deal with Egypt for the export of a single MEKO 200 frigate, not clear if the euro euro 2.3B deal is linked or if it comes in addition to it.

Since 1982, eighty two MEKO class corvettes and frigates have been delivered to 14 navies, 37 were built outside Germany. Five generations of MEKO's following updated/upgraded design iterations with a life cycle of more than 40 years.

From <https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2019/04/germany-approves-export-of-six-vessels-to-egypt-in-2-3-billion-e-deal/>

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 07 Apr 2019, 07:24

Five generations of MEKO's following updated/upgraded design iterations with a life cycle of more than 40 years.


I will put this one here as I have not seen any specific news about it: the A-200 design, to be truly globally deployable, would need to trade speed for endurance. The size of the hull is not a problem (the smaller Leander fits "that bill") and would expect something about the propulsion (change) to appear "in due course".

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3492
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 07 Apr 2019, 21:58

NickC wrote:Naval News reporting that German Government would authorize the necessary export guarantee worth euro 2.3B to Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) to cover six ships for Egyptian navy including three MEKO A-200s. In January a ~euro 500M /~£425M deal with Egypt for the export of a single MEKO 200 frigate, not clear if the euro euro 2.3B deal is linked or if it comes in addition to it.

Since 1982, eighty two MEKO class corvettes and frigates have been delivered to 14 navies, 37 were built outside Germany. Five generations of MEKO's following updated/upgraded design iterations with a life cycle of more than 40 years.

From <https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2019/04/germany-approves-export-of-six-vessels-to-egypt-in-2-3-billion-e-deal/>


Don't assume export guarantees equal the cost of the ships. They don't.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1466
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 08 Apr 2019, 08:37

This might actually happen....if we ever manage to get Brexit sorted :D

http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201904050052.html

NickC
Member
Posts: 493
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 08 Apr 2019, 10:36

SEA part of Cohort plc, have signed a MoU with Brazilian company SIATT for their lightweight torpedo launcher, crew training solutions and thin-line sonar arrays / KRAIT Defence System, an anti-submarine warfare solution for smaller vessels. SIATT will be their local partner in bidding for contracts with Brazilian Navy, presumably the new Brazilian Tamandare MEKO A-100s corvettes.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1466
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 09 Apr 2019, 15:29


donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 13 Apr 2019, 16:37

HMS Duncan at Cyprus, with Danish Frigate Daniel Juel.
Looks like a T45 and a T31e Arrowhead 140? :D
2019-04-14 0.07.13.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 13 Apr 2019, 16:47

https://www.janes.com/article/86239/hel ... eagull-usv
"Elbit Systems has successfully integrated an L3 Technologies Helicopter Long-Range Active Sonar (HELRAS) active low frequency dipping sonar into its Seagull multimission unmanned surface vehicle (USV)."

No just a "capable option", but actual integration has been tested. Shall RN buy some kits (say, 4 of them) to start operational tests? I think it will take 2-3 years at least, to understand what is the "good" usage of such assets. Of course, priority is on shallow water, but sustained low-frequency dipping sonar in some choke-points 24hr/7day could be very useful. (of course, not good for cruising task force).

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1466
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 13 Apr 2019, 17:04

donald_of_tokyo wrote:HMS Duncan at Cyprus, with Danish Frigate Daniel Juel.
Looks like a T45 and a T31e Arrowhead 140? :D
2019-04-14 0.07.13.jpg
That was my first impression also :D remove the Smart-l, add Artisan, Phalanx, bridge wings, an extra boat house and re-profile the funnels and it's an Arrowhead 140. (It's Niels Juel by the way.)

The visual comparison is useful, the Iver Huitfeldt class is clearly a much more modest vessel than a T45. I didn't expect it to look that small in comparison, Leander would look minute.

Is it me or have we seen an unusually high level of cooperation with the Danish Navy recently? The Danes appear to be taking every available opportunity to showcase their Iver Huitfeldt's to RN. I don't blame them either, winning the T31 competition would be a massive boost for OMT.

Also interesting that Niels Juel reportedly sailed with a complement of 160. That's 60 more than Babcocks core 100 figure for Arrowhead 140.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: albedo, Poiuytrewq and 19 guests