Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
RichardIC wrote:The problem is the opposite initially Donald. There just isn't enough capacity anywhere for the long list. H&W (any site) hasn't built a ship in years and the workforce is, Cammell Laird has built one in a decade and it nearly sent them to the wall. It's just been making redundancies.
Not sure what you mean. If those ships were ordered a few years ago, CL will be already happily building them, with well-trained work force thanks to RSS SD Attenborough. It may even invest on new building, or even improving their dry-docks.

And, apparent lack of capacity (in short term) comes from the simple fact that, such a "rush" in shipbuild cannot be sustained. No one would have been invested a lot in an industry, no good worker will join an industry, which would bankrupt 10 years later. This is why now there seems to be apparent lack of capacity.

Without sustained orders, good enough to keep 6 shipyards, there is no hope in future. For me, the long-term order list is not even enough to sustain 4 yards: Clyde, Rosyth, Barrow and (I prefer) Cammell Laird. Making it smaller will just make them less efficient, less investment, less power to develop something new, and less change to survive in long term.

PS For Financial sector, building-up a new industry, sell it, and then let it bankrupt is the easiest way to earn short term money. In all of these issue, financial sector gets payed. But, for Industry sector, long term investments, especially on its man-power, technology and infrastructure is the key.
My feelings exactly. Thanks Donald-san.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:After the initial T31 surge a T32 followed by a T33 every 18 months would keep the drumbeat ticking over nicely. To avoid a bump initially the T31's would need to be sold annually after around 12 years service. This would be a big change for HMT to agree to but I suspect a thorough cost benefit analysis would validate it.
I guarantee you that it will not. Keeping older ships going is hugely cheaper than building new ones.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Take the Danish/ Dutch model: build the hulls/ sections anywhere, but do 100% of military fitting out in a navy controlled yard... upgrades and passing "modules" around, between ships would get turbocharged and in themselves bring over-the -life efficiencies
The Danish yard went bankrupt after following this process for the IH's. They cannot repeat it.

The Dutch don't follow this process at all.
RichardIC wrote:And I want to be 6' 3".
Strangely specific. Is your spouse 6' 2" ??
RichardIC wrote:Y'know, lets see what the refreshed National Shipbuilding Strategy looks like. But if it's anything like the Integrated Review and the Defence Command Paper it will be hugely disappointing.
I guarantee you it will be.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

RichardIC wrote:From a commercial standpoint turning Cammell Laird into a UK mega yard doesn't make commercial sense currently for one very simple reason. Cammell Laird is a commercial entity. And it doesn't have the capital for the required investment. They nearly went out of business over losses on Sir David Attenborough and they're making redundancies.
Infrastrada also does NOT have money.

But, with sustainable future order list, they can easily get that money invested. In that sense, Infrastrada Belfast, who never build a ship for two decades, compared to Cammell Laird who have just build one ship RSS SD Attenborough, both needing investment to face the future, which is in better position?

For sure, Cammell Laird is. This is my point. Problem is, as Infrastrada does NOT know how to build a ship, they can "happily" submit cheap bid, and win, and then fail, exactly as Cammell Laird did with RSS SDA. (When it is a powerpoint, it always looks easy. Anyone who do not know to do anything in reality, ALWAYS underestimate the amount of work. Common sense).

Anyway, if Belfast was selected as FSS builder, CL will stop being a "ship builder" anymore, and focus on "ship repair" business. There is no incentive to keep such workforce. Then all the lessons learned by RSS SDA will be lost (And the same failure will take place in Belfast).

PS When Rosyth is considered to be under political risk of independence, how about Belfast? Another hidden reason I opt for CL.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

The UK problem is that there isn't sufficient work to keep competition between UK yards. Same for all the other western counties with established shipyards. Every other country has solved this problem by their MoD's partnering with their maritime industry. Some of those partnerships include partial or complete public ownership which I do not like.

But the UK with its government/shipyard relationships based on hostility, seems to be constitutionally incapable of doing that. SJP's shipbuilding strategy was an absurd attempt to maintain the competition using non-maritime industries. History will judge that to be akin to Canute and the tide. UK only competition cannot be maintained long term.

The same was true for army equipment, utter hostility toward the only major UK supplier Bae, and the result has been a complete disaster. The only successes appear to be buying foreign made equipment off the shelf. I cannot think of any counter examples. Maybe the Supercat vehicles.

Yet, hey ho, over here in the light blue corner, the RAF seem to have a genuine and productive partnership with Bae for 3 generations of aircraft Typhoon, F-35 and Tempest. Even with the MR4 debacle to overcome.

I hate to give the RAF credit for anything but hat's off on this

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote:1. Double the size of the escort fleet
OR
2. Sell the GP escorts at the 15 year point.

Its unrealistic to think that the T26's and T45/T83's would be sold in such a time frame but perfectly reasonable to suggest that the T31's and T32's could be sold at the 15 year point.

After the initial T31 surge a T32 followed by a T33 every 18 months would keep the drumbeat ticking over nicely. To avoid a bump initially the T31's would need to be sold annually after around 12 years service. This would be a big change for HMT to agree to but I suspect a thorough cost benefit analysis would validate it.

...The FSS are complex vessels and should be retained for 20+ years but the Oilers are low tech and could be moved on within the T31/T32 time frame of around 15 years.
Exactly from these points, I am deeply depressed, because I have no hope in this to happen. The same to Ron5-san. ZERO possibility.

So, I'm suggesting, industry side must NOT rely on such a fantasy (or fantastic) future plan, but with more robust vision.
From a commercial standpoint turning CL into a UK mega-yard making all non escort naval vessels makes complete sense. H&W Belfast and Appledore could be closed and all Escorts could be built on the Clyde in a state of the art Frigate factory. Rosyth could become a super efficient refit facility for everything up to and including QE and PWlS. Great...Job Done.

But how long before HMG slows build rates to keep the two mega yards on tickover? Where is the incentive for these yards to keep costs under control? RN will lose.
How long before HMG says we will just buy 4 or 5 border force cutters from Damen because the yards are too busy and we need them in a hurry?
Much less probability than HMG selling T31 only 12 years after their build. :D
How long before one or two of the MRSS have to be built by Navantia because of industrial action at Cammell Laird due the Unions thinking they have the government over a barrel as there is no other UK competition?
Even if we have 6 yards, this will not change. Any Union will go into strike ONLY AFTER the company got the contract. Without, it will just bankrupt and anyway payments will never be made. So this risk is unrelated to our discussion.
Basing all of the escort manufacturing on the Clyde hasn't provided value for money for the taxpayer or given RN what is required. Prices have escalated substantially and efficiency has not dramatically improved. I think it is entirely possible that a mega-yard based around CL would end up in the same place given time.
I'm not sure here. French FDI program is £3.3B for 5 ~5000t frigates. T26 is £3.5-4B for 3 high-end ASW frigates. Direct comparison of such money is not easy. Also, how to rate 5 FDI against 3 T26 is not easy.

But, overall, I do not think T26 is prohibitably too high cost. Yes, it may be 10-20% expensive than it must have been. But, it is partly because of intentional slow-down of build, we know.

Are you sure, "basing all of the escort manufacturing on the Clyde hasn't provided value for money for the taxpayer"?
I'm not.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: Problem is, as Infrastrada does NOT know how to build a ship, they can "happily" submit cheap bid, and win, and then fail, exactly as Cammell Laird did with RSS SDA. (When it is a powerpoint, it always looks easy. Anyone who do not know to do anything in reality, ALWAYS underestimate the amount of work. Common sense).
Look no further than General Dynamics and Lockheed winning the contracts to develop and build Ajax and WSCP.

If you haven't done it before, your first attempt will be shit. Maybe your 2nd & 3rd too.

Now, how's that Type 31 project going?

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Ron5 wrote:Now, how's that Type 31 project going?
Yeh, big risk. Note, its hull building is based on OMT's "training" Babcock. Its CMS and weapon/sensor integration is actually lead by Thales, not Babcock. Good thing is Babcock also knows something about systems integration through T23 LIFEX program.

So, yes there is a risk, and there is a hope. I really hope, Babcock really try learning hard from OMT, and OMT also knows how to handle difference in environment from Estonia to Rosyth. Also, I really hope Babcock let most of the systems integration work to Thales-Netherland, who know much much better than Babcock how to do the job.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:...ZERO possibility....

Much less probability than HMG selling T31 only 12 years after their build.
How can you be so sure?

What about the T23's that went Chile within 15 years?

What about the T22's that went to Brazil within 15 years?

What about Largs Bay that went to Australia within 6 years?

What about Clyde that went to Bahrain after 12 years?

The FACT is that RN, RFA and HMG have a long history of disposing of vessels early and cheap. If they are now proposing to do it as part of a plan why give it a ZERO chance of probability?

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote:The FACT is that RN, RFA and HMG have a long history of disposing of vessels early and cheap. If they are now proposing to do it as part of a plan why give it a ZERO chance of probability?
Because all your examples took place ONLY when RN confronts big cut, while you are proposing RN big rise.

Selling ship early when in Navy-expanding phase, I do not know any example.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: Good thing is Babcock also knows something about systems integration through T23 LIFEX program.
Interesting you mention that because Babcock released a CGI of the T31 build showing the ship being towed out of the 'shed' at Rosyth, fitting the mast, load out onto a submersible barge.

Now where it got interesting was the CGI didn't show the barge submerging and launching the T31 into the basin at Rosyth but in a different location. Now it wasn't identified and the CGI wasn't great but I wonder if the fitout/commissioning will be done at Devonport?

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: you are proposing RN big rise.
Im not proposing any higher vessel numbers than the widely reported 24 escort target and like for like Amphib and Auxiliary replacements when the time comes.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Selling ship early when in Navy-expanding phase, I do not know any example.
The T31's along with HMS Clyde and the Bays, Tides and Waves are not complex vessels. Most of their cost is derived from the metal bashing and fabrication not highly sophisticated weapons systems. I agree that disposing of a T45 or T26 after 15 years would be madness but it makes much less sense to retain non complex vessels such as those outlined above and spend large sums on refits with increasing regularity as the vessel edges towards decommissioning.

CUTS come from disorganization and someone getting their numbers wrong. If vessel disposals take place within the same time frame due to a well costed and properly implemented plan to keep RN/RFA vessels fresh and current then why the pessimism?

Look at the cost of T23's refits in recent years, they have been eye-wateringly expensive.

Look at the comparison between the reasonably new Tides compared to keeping the Forts soldiering on and on.

Consider the Amphib fleet built for an entirely different era and now scrambling around looking for a different way to operate because doctrines have changed.

Non complex vessels being renewed every 15 years or so would solve many of these problems whilst also helping to retaining a vibrant and highly skilled shipbuilding workforce and industrial base in the UK.

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

Poiuytrewq wrote:What about the T23's that went Chile within 15 years?
That wasn't a strategic choice it was a firesale
Poiuytrewq wrote:What about the T22's that went to Brazil within 15 years?
Ditto
Poiuytrewq wrote:What about Largs Bay that went to Australia within 6 years?
Ditto
Poiuytrewq wrote:What about Clyde that went to Bahrain after 12 years?
That wasn't a strategic choice, it was caused by a glut of unwanted OPVs that had been ordered for political/economic rather than operational reasons. Made easier by the fact it was a leased vessel.

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

Ron5 wrote:History will judge that to be akin to Canute and the tide.
Cnut
https://www.bl.uk/people/cnut

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

RichardIC wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:From a commercial standpoint turning CL into a UK mega-yard making all non escort naval vessels makes complete sense. H&W Belfast and Appledore could be closed and all Escorts could be built on the Clyde in a state of the art Frigate factory. Rosyth could become a super efficient refit facility for everything up to and including QE and PWlS. Great...Job Done.

But how long before HMG slows build rates to keep the two mega yards on tickover? Where is the incentive for these yards to keep costs under control? RN will lose.
You've gone from playing fantasy fleets to fantasy shipyards. This may work and may work nicely if you nationalised shipbuilding again. That is what you actually want.

From a commercial standpoint turning Cammell Laird into a UK mega yard doesn't make commercial sense currently for one very simple reason. Cammell Laird is a commercial entity. And it doesn't have the capital for the required investment. They nearly went out of business over losses on Sir David Attenborough and they're making redundancies.

And turning the Clyde into a state of the art frigate factory doesn't work because BAE are constrained by the hopelessly inefficient two site system and the Scottish Government wants both sites to stay open, and they don't want a super efficient frigate factory, they want to carry on the grievance mongering about how Scottish shipbuilding is being undermined by the UK government. Sorry to let reality get in the way again but they've just won another election, even though without an overall majority.

What you want is an "ideal world" nationalisation, and not having to worry about local/regional/national politics and the fact that the people who run shipyards (BAE/Babcock/CL) are answerable primarily to their shareholders and not HMG nor loftier ideals of national security and pan-UK industrial harmony.
I agree. I think the optimal solution is to make Rosyth the UK mega Frigate factory. Keeps the Jocks onside. Substantially the same workforce. Can bid for future north sea related work. And someone gets to redevelop Govan and make a fortune. CL can build FSS in cooperation with H&W.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

tomuk wrote:
SD67 wrote:
Nonsense. Peel Ports are a predominantly logistics company that operate ports long term. Shipbuilding fits logically within their portfolio.
It involves ports and logistics. They're not a property developer. The idea that swanky waterside apartments are going to go up in Birkenhead or Falmouth is ludicrous.
Peel Ports are one part of Peel Group. Peel are a property development company and have been for years. They built the Trafford Centre and MediaCity at Salford on land which was part of the Manchester Ship Canal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Peel_Group
In March 2016 Peel Land and Property, which lies at the heart of the Peel Group, announced plans to deliver over 30,000 residential units across its Strategic Waters sites which could bring a total investment value of £4.5 billion over the next 30 years.

It is Peel's vision to regenerate and transform former industrial sites on dockland, canal and river banks into attractive and sustainable waterfront living locations that will bring new infrastructure, public realm and environmental improvements. The mixed use schemes will also feature commercial, retail, educational and leisure opportunities:

Liverpool Waters: 10,000 new homes
Wirral Waters: 13,500 new homes
Glasgow Harbour: 1,400 new homes
Trafford Waters: 3,000
Chatham Waters: 1,000
MediaCityUK: 2,000
Manchester Waters: 2,000
By your logic BAE Systems is a property development company, they developed the hell out of Cowley. And Triumph Motorcycles are a property development company, they've been propped up by Bloor Homes for years. A&P and Cammels between them are 200 million GBP annual turnover. That's enough to be significant.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Maybe we should look at having a major Royal Naval Dockyard, partnered with industry that can do final assembly and fitting out. Civilian yards would tender for ship blocks but each order would on average be for five or six units to allow better and easier planning by said contractors and simpler programme schedules. Such a yard would need at least three Dry Dock with one being large enough of the Carriers, Amphibs and RFAs whist the other two would need to be able to handle large escorts in both beam and length up to around 10,000t. One of the latter Dry Dock would also have an access way linked to a covered construction shed where blocks would be joined up.

This would allow a companies such as Babcock and BAe to be partners in the Royal Naval Yard as well as having their own sites where bocks and smaller vessels could be constructed. With a steady drum beat of orders for both new construction and refit and overhaul, could such a plan work. Yes it would require Governmental support especially up front, but surely it would give industry a more assured future and ensure skills were retained etc. Just an idea.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote:The Danish yard went bankrupt after following this process for the IH's. They cannot repeat it.

The Dutch don't follow this process at all.
I was talking about the fitting out yard operated by the Danish navy... last time I checked , it hadn't gone belly up.
So, the Dutch helping to ramp up the Indonesian frigate building in Surabaya and floating the more complex sections half way around the world, fully fitted with integrated mast and all does not count as separating military fitting out from metal bashing
... check again ;)
Ron5 wrote:Some of those partnerships include partial or complete public ownership
Indeed
Poiuytrewq wrote:Look at the cost of T23's refits in recent years, they have been eye-wateringly expensive.
Bad planning comes back to bite your bum; and even worse, then you will have spent a good part of your new construction money already... and have to go begging for a top up
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

SD67 wrote: By your logic BAE Systems is a property development company, they developed the hell out of Cowley. And Triumph Motorcycles are a property development company, they've been propped up by Bloor Homes for years. A&P and Cammels between them are 200 million GBP annual turnover. That's enough to be significant.
What nonsense Peel Group are worth billions not millions. They sold the Trafford Centre for £1.6 billion alone back in 2011. Peel are a property development company who have a sizeable side-line in running ports and a very small side-line in shipbuilding/repair.

BAE bought Arlington Securities (the property development company) to diversify as after buying Rover they had lots of ex British Leyland and ex British Aerospace redundant land.

In the case of Triumph, Bloor Housing is twice the size of the motorbike business and if it wasn't for the money John Bloor has made out of property there would be no Triumph.

Wirral Waters
Image
Liverpool Waters
Image

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »


Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

RichardIC wrote:
Ron5 wrote:History will judge that to be akin to Canute and the tide.
Cnut
https://www.bl.uk/people/cnut
I sooooo want to be called Swein Forkbeard.

PS I thought Piers Morgan was the most famous cnut.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

RichardIC wrote:Cnut
Is that the Danish version of FCUK?
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: Ron5 wrote:
The Danish yard went bankrupt after following this process for the IH's. They cannot repeat it.

The Dutch don't follow this process at all.


I was talking about the fitting out yard operated by the Danish navy... last time I checked , it hadn't gone belly up.
So, the Dutch helping to ramp up the Indonesian frigate building in Surabaya and floating the more complex sections half way around the world, fully fitted with integrated mast and all does not count as separating military fitting out from metal bashing
... check again
We were discussing the process of building an escort, not just a part of the process. The Danish navy yard wouldn't have had a ship to fit out if they hadn't had a Danish shipyard to build the ship to that point. That yard went bankrupt immediately after the IH contract which had been done at below cost.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote:We were discussing
A royal we... or?

You are totally deflecting the argument in the UK context. WHICH is what 'we' are actually discussing
- try to steer back on track ;)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

JSP
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Joined: 17 Apr 2019, 14:15
Denmark

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by JSP »

Ron5 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote: Ron5 wrote:
The Danish yard went bankrupt after following this process for the IH's. They cannot repeat it.

The Dutch don't follow this process at all.


I was talking about the fitting out yard operated by the Danish navy... last time I checked , it hadn't gone belly up.
So, the Dutch helping to ramp up the Indonesian frigate building in Surabaya and floating the more complex sections half way around the world, fully fitted with integrated mast and all does not count as separating military fitting out from metal bashing
... check again
We were discussing the process of building an escort, not just a part of the process. The Danish navy yard wouldn't have had a ship to fit out if they hadn't had a Danish shipyard to build the ship to that point. That yard went bankrupt immediately after the IH contract which had been done at below cost.
The yard (Odense Steel Shipyard) was closed by it’s owner (Maersk) because it was cheaper to buy ships in Korea etc. Nothing to do with the Absalon and Iver - class contracts. If anything, they postponed the decision.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Reported the French Horizon type destroyer Forbin during the current exercise Formidable Shield 2021 has shot down a target drone at 3,000+ km/h with its Aster 30 missiles, a very high probability/certainty it was a USN Mach 2.5 GQM-163A Coyote sea skimming target drone, there is a new limited AML 43K Coyote launcher installed at the Hebrides range this year, was previously mentioned that it would be used in the exercise, as far as know have never seen mention that Coyote used in RN ship trials.

Exercise would not be a totally realistic as previously pointed out as the Coyote would not have been aimed directly at ship due to safety reasons, therefore the RCS signature would far larger than head on shot, though still impressive, as far as know no T45 has ever been tested against a supersonic sea skimming target drone?, HMS Dragon is participating in the exercise. This was not the first time French destroyers have successfully targeted a Coyote supersonic drone, understand the French Navy have to pay for the Coyote's, MoD/RN should find the funding to carry out the necessary trials.

Post Reply