Fitting For But Not With

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Post Reply
james k
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 16:51
United Kingdom

Fitting For But Not With

Post by james k »

In the RN is this simply a statement to pacify the public, parliament and the service, but with no intent to do anything at all. If a vessel is fitted for but not with, then it won't get an upgrade unless there is an emergency by which time it's too late to source the equipment, fit it, test it and train the crew on it. Or am I being cynical?

Are there any examples of British (or other nations warships) being upgraded having previously been fitted for but not with weapons or other equipment?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7306
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Fitting For But Not With

Post by Ron5 »

Queen Elizabeth was built fitted for jets but not with. Some folks think they will be added in a few years time.

james k
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 16:51
United Kingdom

Re: Fitting For But Not With

Post by james k »

:lol: I must admit I'm cynical myself. Two organisations can, might and have a history of screwing things up - one is the Treasury and the other isn't the Royal Navy or Army.

S M H
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
United Kingdom

Re: Fitting For But Not With

Post by S M H »

james k wrote: ,I must admit I'm cynical myself. Two organisations can, might and have a history of screwing things up - one is the Treasury and the other isn't the Royal Navy or Army.
I thought you might have half the answer but the other is our politicians who love to divide and rule, And have screwed most things up. Unfortunately you have not noticed that the modern forces have moved on from the Mountbatten- R.A.F cuts war !

S M H
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
United Kingdom

Re: Fitting For But Not With

Post by S M H »

Back on subject If we use fitted for but not with sensibly. Eg fitting ships with the silos or placements and wiring infrastructure equipment it should allow hull numbers to be within budget With progressive armament purchases. In a urgent operational requirement emergency purchase. Not repeating the large gym on the type 45s.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5570
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Fitting For But Not With

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Partly. You need, associated control electronics wired, associated software installed to the CMS, and what is more expensive, integrated within the CMS software system. This will cost a lot. If the integration is yet to be done (say, CMS-1 can handle TLAM?), it also takes time. Of course, if we are starting from mounting a VLS on a gym, this cost and time is added upon, as you stated.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Fitting For But Not With

Post by seaspear »

Growth should be included in design to accommodate new technology so that future developments can be included , there is not room for the Daring class to have a towed array sonar for example , there is believed a lack of growth in the Fremm for further updates , if in several years time a navy wished to to deploy laser type weapons it might find its fairly new ships have not be built to have the extra power generated for them

Post Reply