RichardIC , “Superficial “ - “appearing to be true or real only until examined more closely.”? I’ll ignore your childish insults and assume you are having a bad day. I am the biggest advocate for increasing the T26 order, which yes will be built in Scotland. Yes I would like the T26 modularised so ...

This is the kind of Little Englander bollocks that helps fuel Scottish nationalism. There should be zero tolerance of it from anyone who cares about the United Kingdom.... and this is the ukdefenceforum. You will not be surprised that I take exception to this bollocks - Scottish independence is a r...

Perhaps due to my differing views on what an additional (to the T45/T26 and Rivers) warship Class should give, I really do not understand the excitement over the Arrowhead 140. Any T31 should be IMO a Multirole Presence Warship, by this I mean a ship that can fulfil the standard constabulary roles, ...

Aethulwulf, I’m sure they can build blocks, the point is the capability to assemble and launch ships would also be focused in Scotland. With the political version of Jimmy Krankie increasingly stirring up trouble, this has to be a strong factor in our decision making IMO.

MikeKiloPapa wrote:Arrowhead will be built in England just the same way that Leander will.

You’ve missed the point I think, Leander will be built by a Cammell Laird in England. Arrowhead construction would be NI and Scotland. Given the independence noise, for me this is a massive plus in Leander’s favour.

BAE / CMS 1 x 57mm with 3P ammo ( capable of engaging air and surface targets at 8km 2 x 40mm with 3P ammo ( capable of engaging air and surface targets at 7km Stated (BAE catalogue) ranges are 17km for the 57mm vs 12.5km for the 40mm - not sure if you are stating the 3P ranges? Given that in the n...

Isn’t this image from the Arrowhead 140 derivative? There is no 40mm on the T31 plans (however could be fitted later).

I would agree mostly and this why I think we should dump 114 mm and 30 mm in favour of 76 mm and 40 mm this could allow Type 45 = 1 x 76 mm , 2 x 40 mm , 2 x Phalanx , 48 Aster , 48 to 60 CAMM + small arms Type 26 = 1 x 5", 2 x 40 mm , 2 x Phalanx , 48 CAMM Type 31 = 1 76 mm , 2 x 40 mm , 24 C...

SKB , In it’s current form no, and not at the expense of a couple more T26s. However, linking to the ASW thread, of it had a (T26 style) mission bay amidships operating UUVs and USuVs, combined with 12-24 CAMM, Wildcat hangar and medium guns (57mm plus 2 x 30mms), I could see it being part of futur...

The existing RM ORC is just over 9m and can carry 12 RMs.

The FREMM can operate a 7m plus a 11m Rhib, plus another 11m on the Italian GP version. With the T26 capable of carrying 4 x 11m Rhibs out of a mission bay capable of maintenance then I’d say the T26 wins hands down.

Must admit, often wondered why the BAE Leander design never had a T26 Bay slotted amidships - could have been modularised reducing unit costs all round.

Interesting that there is a magazine below the 30mm, has thought there were just ammo cupboards - perhaps space for a deck penetrating gun in the future?

SKB, Is it normal for ships to commission at Chatham (referring to HMS Medway)?

donald_of_tokyo , my personal view is that an up gunned B2 will never be (and should never be) a Corvette, the T31e will be a Corvette in all but name. The question is what balance and value should we associate with permanent (or standing commitment) forward presence versus globally deployable CBGs...

We are way off the a (News Only) topic, but agree with a lot of what is stated above - we should be maximising our investment in the T26, by buying a couple more. I’d also argue that by using another English yard to help build modules the build speed could be increased and start to address the Scott...

SW1 wrote:On point a, that it not necessarily true, you can be invited to exercise with allies, it’s generally when you stay past your welcome the problems arise.

Or you are not welcome in the first place - great place the high seas, no permission required, and no one penalised for giving you permission.

Purely in defence terms each area of the world we operate in, is tri service. True, and forward Army bases and joint exercises are part of the strategy - the reason why I believe the RN has and should have a special focus is that a) presence of a ship has a lower footprint/less antagonistic than bo...

If you accept that the B2s (with small modifications) can deliver the low level RN global presence role (with the exception of the Gulf) and the global “bite” will be via the CBGs (+ARG) then it looks to me for the want of a couple more T26s we are wasting money on an inferior mix which includes the...

Providing a number of Escorts to NATO standing groups How many do we provide today? My count is of the two standing Frigate/Destroyer groups we currently provide one Frigate to SNMG1 (HMS Westminster). To maintain this level, plus TAPS plus FRE we are probably talking about a force of 4 T23s/T26s. ...

Don’t disagree in terms of NATO being a priority, but it’s at what level. The UK has no CBGs currently and a limited ARG, and contribute a few Escorts and MCMs to standing groups. Russia has lost its only Carrier and whilst it is vocal it’s power is local (like the Black Sea and Eastern Mediterranea...

It’s more than enough to cope. If it weren’t we wouldn’t be galavanting around the other side of the world. It is pointless adding more tails if you don’t have the specialists to operate and interpret that data and the budget to support it. But the UK wants (and IMO has a responsibility) to be a gl...

Surely the easiest and best way to achieve this is simply to prioritise your type 23 frigates with tails to operations in the North Atlantic. Those 8 vessels have 2 missions to prepare for operations in the North Atlantic and support to the carrier group. True, but what is the effort to add another...

SW1 wrote:I wouldn’t be doing half measures I’d be binning type 31 and spending whatever’s left of the budget on such craft an air systems.

Not an outlandish proposal, but I would go for another T26, keep the 4 B1/B1.5 Rivers, and some modest upgrades to the B2 Rivers in addition to freeing up some cash.

Linking to my comment on the RM post, are we potentially getting to the stage that getting the 2nd LPD back into active service, which is capable of operating these off board systems (and smaller RM craft) in higher threat environments, more important than the two new FLSSs and even worth sacrificin...