Let’s see the MoD spend their existing budget efficiently and effectively and then see where we are. And we aren’t responsible for defending the world, if we pull our weight in NATO (and we still spend more than a lot of other NATO members and unlike many NATO members are doing our bit in Afghanistan, so actually it’d be more accurate to desire most of the rest of NATO matching our own stance), the Commonwealth isn’t a military alliance and the Falklands is best defended by an effective garrison than spending billions on a blue water expeditionary navy for a couple of thousand people 8000 miles away. Personally i do want to see the continuation of an effective RN, but we have to make a real choice, either pay the money, or withdraw from pretending to be some sort of world power.

Oh, and of course Russia didn’t use technology transfers from Western Europe and America in the 19th. and early 20th. century:rolleyes: A good job Russia invented the railway, steam engine, electrical distribution system etc. Basically you’re refusing to accept that what Asia has done in recent decades is exactly the same as what Russia did a hundred years ago. And if you really think Asia has done nothing by itself you have no idea, I mean what would Japan know about semi-conductors and high end electronics:rolleyes:

Science knows no borders. There is hardly anything that could be called purely American, purely Russian or purely Chinese invention.

I’m not the one denying that, tell it to our Russian friend Star49 who has the big problem accepting that Asian’s are actually intelligent people capable of good science and engineering.

I know you are right but have you thought for a second about the fact that this simple sentence of yours could shatter the guy’s value system down to its very roots? Come on, don’t be so harsh.. 😉

Hey, I’m not the one with a racist refusal to admit that countries like China, India and South Korea are capable of good science and engineering.

That is indeed the worry. At the moment the RN idea of an OPV is not even a truly military vessel really, our OPV’s would be considered Police or Coastguard vessels in most other countries and they just carry a nominal armament which is quite adequate for their tasking. With C3 the intention does seem to be that their tasking will be more military, and whilst they will never be first or even second line warships they will need at least some sort of self defence capability, OK they’re never going to be expected to take on enemy fleets or defend areas from air attack but they may well have to defend themselves from light units, low intensity air activity etc. for which some sort of light point defence missile system and anti-shipping missiles would be useful, especially if they could engineer some sort of modular “drop in” units. Even for anti-piracy patrols in piracy hot spots (for which the world is crying out for on station vessels like this type of large OPV) something like a 57mm or 76mm gun is now essential IMO.

VT Shipbuilding, part of VT Group, has launched a new range of designs tailored to the Royal Navy’s Future Surface Combatant (FSC) requirement for flexible ships.

The FSC programme will ultimately comprise a series of variants to replace the RN’s Type 22 and Type 23 frigates as well as the existing MCM vessels and survey ships.

The first of these variants, a 100m vessel, is seen as an ideal solution to the C3 element of the FSC programme that identifies the need for an eight-ship class of general purpose vessels for worldwide deployment to fulfil tasks including minehunting, survey work and patrol duties

VT has utilised the hull of the Ocean Patrol Vessel (OPV) it is building for the Royal Navy of Oman to develop the FSC solution, although the ship has a larger equipment fit that increases displacement to just over 3,000 tonnes.

However, one of the most innovative features of the offering is that VT is using the unique financing and support model successfully employed for the RN’s River Class Offshore Patrol Vessels. VT would own the FSC vessels and charter them to the Ministry of Defence.

VT Export Sales Director Sym Taylor explained: “In this case, it makes more economic sense for the customer to contract for the lease of these ships over ten years, as opposed to five years for the Rivers. However, the principle would remain the same with the customer saving capital expenditure by paying for use on the basis of VT guaranteeing and delivering the required capability.

“The River Class programme has broken down the barrier surrounding ship PFIs and the MoD realises that this concept works. We believe that it is now the way ahead in times of constraints on budgets and could even be applied to ships close to front-line operations.”

VT is unveiling its new C3 design at the DSEi exhibition and is proposing to introduce the first of the new Class into service as early as 2012.

Further savings would be made by using existing equipment technology and introducing commonality across the whole of the FSC class in elements such as engines, other key machinery and command systems. This would also enable maximum efficiencies to be derived from training and maintenance.

Further developments in equipment technology would be incorporated as subsequent batches of FSC ships are built.

VT’s C3 design would have speeds in the region of 25 knots and would be diesel-powered, while there would be accommodation for up to 76. The ships would be built in steel but with provision for FRP composite in areas such as the masts.

The ships would essentially be compartmentalised by having the assets of a patrol vessel forward, while aft the ship would be equipped for its MCM and/or survey role. In its patrol role, armament would include guns of 76mm or 30mm calibre and provision for surface-to-air missiles if required.

MCM resources would provide a task force with front-line minehunting capability rather than having to wait for slower dedicated minehunting assets to arrive as present.

The FSC design would include the option for a flight deck to accommodate a helicopter up to Merlin size and a weather protected working deck which would accommodate four 11 metre rigid inflatables or unmanned surface vessels. These could be deployed either by ship’s crane or via a stern ramp that would include an integral launch and recovery system. Space is also available for two 20 ft ISO containers to carry additional MCM or survey assets. Additional assets may be transported on the flight deck and deployed by the ship’s crane at the expense of the capacity to simultaneously carry out helicopter operations.

“The key to this design is flexibility and affordability, while ensuring that the ship has sufficient capability to carry out the wide range of tasks required,” added Sym Taylor.

Russian hasnt been building Western car for past 4 decades.
They have just started it. Infact it is unprofitable for them to enter into this low margin industry. there strength is more in Aerospace/nano/nuclear/Space/missile industry. People buy SK cars because they cant afford other makers. and most of technology transfer happend from Japanese to them. they havent invented anything. just refining what they get from elsewhere. After how many years of Car building SK designed its first Car engine by its own?(I am not going into science behind it) Compare that to Tank engine or Kamaz Truck engines under communist times in Soviet Russia. I can say under same system like Soviet Union China/Korea are only capable of making bicycles.

I can only assume this is either a joke statement or some sort of xenophobic refusal to accept the accomplishments of China and South Korea. The fact you obviously know nothing about cars tends me to think the latter. China are using foreign technology transfers because they’re a developing nation and it is accelerating their development, the same as the USSR plundering East/Central Europe for Germany technology in the aftermath of WW2, buying RR jet engines at the same time and reverse engineering B29’s. Or does that not count?:rolleyes: