Why would an f-35b require arresting gear go watch a few landings on the carriers by these aircraft ,the conventional f-35c has such arrangement , the main reasons against conversion to cats and flaps and removal of ramp are costs and years of downtime for the ship involved perhaps in twenty years'...

I suppose one of the wider issues / questions I had was whether, if the issues of SRVL could not be overcome, might there be the ability to fit arrestor gear to the carrier and the F35B?

Open question for anyone who knows: what would be the difficulties (aside from the obvious major construction) of adding an angled deck for STOBAR operations on the QEC? (Ie not adding cats).

And what opportunities would it present for additional aircraft?

Some further (semi-speculative) comment on the T83.

We have seen how the Italian navy are proposing a 12-13k destroyer/cruiser. The German navy are now proposing (I believe the F127 concept but happy to stand corrected) a similar sized AAW “frigate” (they want 6 of them).

Speculation seems to be that the SSN (or SSGN) for Australia will be a U.K. boat with (at least some) US systems. How this relates to SSN(R) will be intriguing and may offer a template for how to grow the U.K. SSN force back to and above 10 boats, and a perhaps to make the Type 83 economical to incr...

Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑22 Feb 2023, 19:23

Are two 220m destroyers really better than 3 or 4 150m-160m destroyers if the VLS numbers are equal?

For what it’s worth the Italian Navy now appears to be aiming for four of these ships - this may be for budgetary positioning reasons but all of this is OT.

I’ve mentioned this on another thread (apologies if this is OT) but I could see the requirement and the timeline for the T83 lining up with an Australian requirement for an advanced AAW destroyer/cruiser.

I think they will want at least 8 and need a minimum of 6. The strategy has to be to get these numbers but with the requisite capability.

With a consequently SLOW build rate ! :thumbdown: That slow build rate is a given as we will only build 6 or so over 12 years anyway you can build blocks and leave them out side the build rate wont be as quick as building 2 ships side by side but could still be say only 25% slower It wouldn’t surpr...

SD67 wrote: ↑18 Feb 2023, 18:14 The new hall is170 metres long so 4 metres longer than a KDX 3 destroyer - still tight but likely doable

Good to hear - are the KDX3 destroyers not c.10,000 tonnes? I’d be surprised if T83 was longer but I don’t know and it seems as though no margin has been builr in - at least not overtly.

I’d be surprised if we don’t see greater numbers of F35B - enough for at least a complete full load on one QEC and two “regular” loads on each. Key issues remain above numbers that require positive resolutions. The AEW and AAR issues still seems very open, the ability to perform the rolling landing ...

Will that displacement correction continue with the T83?

If you extrapolate the growth from T42 to T45 it is likely to be in the region of 15,000 tonnes (I am assuming something more like 13,000 tonnes).

I do wonder if the new assembly hall on the Clyde has considered how it might assemble T83…

It makes practical sense in that the delivery of 24 boats across a 25-30 year cycle (4 SSBN and 12 SSGN for the RN and 8 SSN/SSGN for the RAN) represents a fairly efficient cycle for Barrow, does not cut across the capacity constraints at US yards, does not require the construction from scratch of ...

It makes practical sense in that the delivery of 24 boats across a 25-30 year cycle (4 SSBN and 12 SSGN for the RN and 8 SSN/SSGN for the RAN) represents a fairly efficient cycle for Barrow, does not cut across the capacity constraints at US yards, does not require the construction from scratch of f...

There is a suggestion that the Australians may proceed with the U.K. SSN design.


https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-bal ... r-reaction

Key for me is the industrial synergy with the US and Australia. Leaving national interest aside, one of the easiest ways of increasing SSN / SSBN production and productivity would be to increase the numbers built at Barrow over a 25-35 year cycle. I’m other words, building 7x Astute and 4x Vanguard ...

I don’t think that works from the nuclear diplomatic standpoint. That is because it relies on there being certainty and repetition (without compromising, in the UK’s case the effectiveness of CASD) in order to Telegraph your posture, and to be able to assess and determine the posture of the oppositi...

A future upgraded T31 carrying 32x strike length MK41 launchers (together with the unparalleled ISR support you get from the U.K. and it’s allies) would be a fairly potent platform, whether in the Pacific, Indian or Atlantic Oceans or the gulf, South China Sea or the Med. Its a pragmatic solution to...

I’d say the T83 absolutely needs to be at the cutting edge of AAW and ABM defence - as well as anti-hypersonic - that is not really something that can be compromised as it’s primary role. It should also be able to shoot FCASW at other ships or land targets - provided the silos and weapons are compat...

As a matter of policy I’d have thought we would want all escorts of frigate size and upwards to carry at least 8 of the RNs standard VLS (ie wherever you see a T45/83, T26 or T31/32 you know they could launch a missile with a 1500+ km range). Together with the ISR support that seems to me to be a fa...

My expectation is that FCASW is unlikely to be fitted to T45 (I suspect it would require MK41 being fitted). I would be surprised if it wasn’t a major part of T83 and any other vessel that has MK41 fitted - such as T31 in time - but NSM provides a likely cheaper and easier to fit alternative to what...

Question - is there or might there be space for the NSM to be fitted amidships?

I think it is basically confirmed that FCASW will end up on T26 (presumably with other things) but if that is an expensive missile there might be scope to fit NSM when the T45 is retired?

There’s a lot of water to flow under the bridge and as things stand buying from the US is relatively expensive. I hope the rise isn’t taken up by inflation / currency fluctuation and is used to develop a genuinely globally competitive arms industry. The social benefit here (eg via projects like temp...

I think time and time and time again the folly of delay causing increased costs plays out in government contracts.

Astute is an obvious example (list skills being a major driver) HS2 is another (inflation) and now T26.

The lesson is always - get on and deliver.

Some comments from the RUSI paper on what might be deliverable with a 3% of GDP defence budget. Irrespective of whether you think 3% is right or deliverable it provides interesting benchmarking. https://static.rusi.org/354-OP-from-famine-to-feast-web-final1_0.pdf Comments on SSN(R) “Accelerate next...