UK Defence Forum

@Donald What do you not understand about "offshore patrol vessel"? Stop trying to turn a River into a regular surface warship. It's a patrol boat! There is a P (patrol) on the side of their hulls, not a D (destroyer), or F (frigates, corvettes, sloops). Stop it. I do understand your point...

I am not perfectly sure. But, sudden reduction in sea going days at 2015 is surely NOT a technical issue. Engine trouble of T45 was there from the beginning, and it only gets better with time. Also, T23 is surely not getting old suddenly at 2015, but shall be more steadily. Don't get me wrong, I am ...

But you didn’t answer my question what happens when sh**t hits the fan if we’ve only got 14 surface combatants or if we lose one ? No difference to what it shall be in 2000. Again, no difference. [EDIT] I mean, if having 40% more hull than actually in use is the right thing to do, RN in 2000 must h...

My question to you is, if the RN cut themselves down to 14 escorts what happens if sh**t hits the fan or if a vessel is lost ? No difference to RN in 2000s. With 32 escorts (if my memory works), they said RN can lose nothing here. And yes, those days, RN's escorts were very busy doing there job, no...

As I proposed in the escort thread, I think RN shall better stop pretending "19 escort" saga even though the actual sea-going days shows virtually only 12 is active, and shall cancel 5 T31 to get 1 more T26 and up-arm T45 and other assets. Along this line, it will be River B2s to carry out...

IMO the RN have 2 paths to choose from cut numbers to match today’s manning levels this in turn will increase sea going days whiles also investing to get the most out of each vessel. Option 2 is to keep numbers with the hope and planing of upgrading them down the line to get kore out of them and tr...

I think the RN fear on that ( and rightly so ) is that if they let numbers slip now with the idea of expanding in the future they never get those numbers back, this has been shown over and over with the drop from 30 then 24 now 19 each time with the promise to get back and each time politicians set...

I think Mach 4 StarStreak is a good addition to Mach 1.5 LMM. Laser beam riding guidance works well only when the engaging time is shorter compared to target's maneuver. For slow (and cheap and thus small) drones, LMM with proxy fuse will be the best solution. But for high-speed (say, Mach 0.5-0.8) ...

Do we really need 5 T31? A smaller fleet would give less ship availability not the same. A flawed argument. We need 19 Escorts min. I think you (and many here) mis-understood my point. I think all RN escorts can be "at sea" 140-150 days per year technically on average, including all the r...

Digger22 wrote:A smaller fleet would give less ship availability not the same. A flawed argument. We need 19 Escorts min.

Thanks, will proceed in escort thread.

For those who may be concerned. LMM tested onboard HMS Sutherland.
http://ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=45&p=93389#p93389

http://ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=50&start=650

Looks like it is directly "re-using" the 5 missile Wildcat's launcher, and not newly designed 7 LMM launcher?

Good move. 5 and 7 has only a little difference. Zero vs 5 differs infinitely.

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2019/july/16/190716-navys-new-anti-ship-missile https://twitter.com/hthjones/status/1151107950951522310 Really great news. Thanks Richard IC san. (from Martlet/Lightweight multirole missile thread) https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/-/media/royal-...

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... ip-missile

Yeah, great!

Cross-post from T45 thread. So on average each T45 deployed 80 days/22% of year, a good, bad or very indifferent record for a fleet of six ships? Understand USN Burkes ~135 days whose ships date back to the 90's and with the new FFG(X) USN aiming to more than double that figure. No reason given why ...

So on average each T45 deployed 80 days/22% of year, a good, bad or very indifferent record for a fleet of six ships? Understand USN Burkes ~135 days whose ships date back to the 90's and with the new FFG(X) USN aiming to more than double that figure. No reason given why MoD did not report differen...

T31e program has seen all the three proposals submitted. We know, it is - a 5 ship program built in UK, planned to commission on 2023, 24, 25, 26, and 27, - with hulls as long as (or longer than) ~120 m with 5000+ nm range and good endurance - and armed as written on T31e RFI (we see no big update t...

There is no drone that can protect a moving carrier from missiles, and there is no drone that can protect a moving carrier from submarines. We have not lost the requirement for traditional escorts yet. As I understand, no one here is talking about completely replacing escorts with a ship with drone...

Drones do not turn a big patrol boat into a frigate replacement. No way can drones be used to offset such a massive capability climb down. Only partly can agree. Even though drones are not completely replacing escorts, what if drones are "partly covering" escorts' tasks? In late 1930s, ai...

Does your "B3 River (Avenger)" need high damage control or OPV standard is OK? ...My view is that it doesn’t need a “Frigate” level of damage control, it is not intended to purposely be put in harms way, so the principle is not to take damage and still be able to fight, its to take damage...

With apologies to Joans if N.Z decides to acquire the type 26 there would be at least two places where it is being built ,should it be added to these runs it may effect the delivery schedule to those respective navies The end of UK T26 build, around 2035-36 is a good coincidence with the need for R...

...I’d argue that a B2 River with some modest modifications could cover 2/3rds of the scenarios under (4) such as the Med, Horn of Africa or Mallaca Straights. The remaining 1/3rd would require something with a higher degree of self defence, but if it turns hot we are in scenario (5) or (6) anyway ...

It is clearly a massive mistake and hopefully sense prevails before they are built. Building Frigates without even a hull mounted sonar is clearly bonkers and Tresury induced cost cutting gone way too far. I am looking from a bit different point of view. T31e cost came out of T26's cost (actually, ...

-close-in defense specialist Leander-117 : 2x 57mm/2x 30mm+LMM/2x 20mm CIWS/SeaSentor torpedo defense/a Wildcat/4 boat bays/with frigate standard hull. Where do you see all that kit being fitted on a Leander . Thanks, I was imagining; - 1x 57mm at the bow, 1x 57mm "around" the hangar (vir...

Tempest414 wrote:

dmereifield wrote:Why does it look like they wont get Phalanx?

both A-140 and Leander last offering have been without Phalanx

A140 had two of them on top of the hangar. But, the persons did not mentioned anything about it, so may be not "important" for them.