dark light

Stan hyd

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 346 through 360 (of 563 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: UK Subs, Equipment 6 tubes to 5 tubes to 6 tubes again? #2012944
    Stan hyd
    Participant

    I would imagine that our subs tend to take very few with them to sea? Maybe 5 at a time or less.

    I would be really interested to know what a burke/tico go to sea with in terms of tomahawks

    in reply to: Royal Navy FSC #2013008
    Stan hyd
    Participant

    as with everything, just tooling around.

    in reply to: Royal Navy FSC #2013014
    Stan hyd
    Participant

    I would add some light machine guns to the design

    for you

    http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/7343/ac1a.png

    in reply to: Royal Navy FSC #2013018
    Stan hyd
    Participant

    Ok so it turns out we dont have oil in the kind of numbers we wished. The Navy has got its C1 and C2 but its lacking some land attack punch, one positive is that the Fleet has intigrated the Cooperative Engagement Capability. Basically a class of 4 this ship can be sent out to attach itself with a group that might need a land attack option.

    BAE announce a new class of ship. The Arsenal Corvette – basically a frigate sized hull with a 48 cell launcher (A-70) 4 cells quad packed with CAMM and 44 cells packed with Tomahawks.

    http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/6913/43200937.png

    in reply to: Royal Navy FSC #2013081
    Stan hyd
    Participant

    ok added another 48 cells. 96 cells isn’t too bad.

    http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/1213/battlecruiser3.png

    in reply to: Royal Navy FSC #2013179
    Stan hyd
    Participant

    48 cell A-70 being used. It would be interesting to know if the sampson could be updated to track ABM’s

    in reply to: Royal Navy FSC #2013186
    Stan hyd
    Participant

    IIts pretty much the same loadout as a type 45. I just think we needed something wiht a little more kick to it.

    We’ve got tomahawks in there and the two 155 mm Advanced Gun System and phalanx is added

    in reply to: Royal Navy FSC #2013196
    Stan hyd
    Participant

    another stab.

    http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/9959/battlecruiser2.png

    Displacement: 16,000 tons[2]
    Length: 656 ft (210 m)
    Beam: 75.4 ft (23 m)
    Draft: 27.6 ft (8.4 m)

    in reply to: Royal Navy FSC #2013236
    Stan hyd
    Participant

    the ags is only a varient of the 155mm. which is set to go on the new DDX – this is a 200 memter cruiser hull with a 18m beam. coming in around 11,500 tons

    look how forward the ags is on the pic here http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/Uss_Zumwalt.jpg

    in reply to: Royal Navy FSC #2013244
    Stan hyd
    Participant

    It’s happened.

    We’ve struck oil off the coast of The Isle of Wight more oil than Saudi Arabia.

    We’ve built 14 Type 45

    We have the C series off and running.

    Now comes to frosting

    I would like 4 of these please!

    http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/6518/battlecruiser.png

    in reply to: PLAN Carrier Updates. #2013409
    Stan hyd
    Participant

    ok this was a silly little drawing.

    I wondered based on what they cut away if they were simply going to install the systems of the DDG Type 956E, just slapping it on there to get her out as a training carrier.

    http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/8230/shilangclass.png

    Wasnt a million miles off with this. Cant wait to see the finnished article and the planes they plan to fly of the deck

    in reply to: Royal Navy FSC #2013511
    Stan hyd
    Participant

    I had a look at it looking at the scale of the mk8 on the front. its coming out at around 160-175 which is odd. Probably looking at type 45 size hull. But looking at the room it has at the front would indicate something rather large

    in reply to: PLAN Carrier Updates. #2013518
    Stan hyd
    Participant

    There really can be no debate now. This Carrier is going to sea. Late 2010 or early 2011 is my thought.

    in reply to: UK Defence Review Part I #2403410
    Stan hyd
    Participant

    They keep talking about the chinooks being for Afghanistan. They wont be there in time to see action. I am sure we will be out of there by 2015 by which time most of these wont be with us. Its rediculous stuff. We need them now, only way we get them now is by talking to those who operate them and trying to do something similar to the Danish EH101.

    The only thing we will learn from the defence review is that we will end up being with an Armed forces who can never conduct serious operations in more than 1 theatre (we already knew this) and that we have a Navy that but for the grace of god could be sunk by a torpedoe bomber of wwII vintage

    in reply to: UK Defence Review Part I #2405772
    Stan hyd
    Participant

    I want a full and independent review stacked with naval officers please.

Viewing 15 posts - 346 through 360 (of 563 total)