PhelganThanks for reposting that. Tis the first time that I’ve read it properly.
Lynx OR MCM OR Special Forces
I, in common with many of those posting designs here seemingly, have been assuming helo AND mission deck for MCM
Al
Well I read the article many moons ago and took that in, but didn’t like it. I would include the helo as part of the basic fit and include the modular work deck, but yes I don’t suppose it would fit in 2,000t.:(
Phelganif your only gonna comment on the names :rolleyes:
oh heres my patrol boat. This is something I wish the UK had, ever since has sailors giving themselves up to Iranians I wished we had some of these, I would base them around the world. I dont need comments saying this is stupid im submitting it to the fantasy world section. I guess it could be similar to a Coast Guard cutter.
Ths picture has a helicopter – it wouldnt have one permenantly on board this one is transfering crew.
The lack of the air cover was probably the biggest contributor to the farce in the first place. The Iranians waited (or at least saw the opportunity) when the Lynx was called back to base.
As probably suggested previously, for that sort of situation you need two (or more) helicopters. An OPV(super-H) anyone? Following from that thinking how many Lynx could be spotted (and hangered?) on a 2 or 3,000t hull? I’m sure in the depths of this or one of Sealords earlier threads, a floating helipcopter deck was essentially suggested as it gave the flexibility to chase, patrol at distant and take on varied combat tasks (troop transfer, evac, ASuW, ASW, anti-piracy).
I’m not disputing that a small vessel like your Type 6 wouldn’t be useful, but between a decently designed C3 and the River class, is it necessary?
PhelganAh well there you have the “Garden City” Class, whole different breed of ship, a slightly older and slightly less chavvy warship than your “New Town” Class, but only just. Letchworth would be the lead ship. (A town which was built without a single pub or bar by the way).
Letchworth – sum contribution to the world – the roundabout, and a load of snobbism about their neighbours.
Phil (ex-Stevenage with inferiority complex:o)
🙂
Phelganwhy is it that defence spending is not being further increased? the caribous need replacement, we need more than 5 KC-30A, more C-17s and 25 P-8s, another AWD and another 30 MRH-90s, and 8 more CH-47s. this in creased spending will create more jobs all round. staffing should be no problem in a recession and should produce the first steps to recovery.-If on unemployment for six months, looking at losing your house, doesn’t a paid job sound good?
And when the economy recovers, you are faced with the same problems again…..
PhelganMaybe you should ask the Customers of US Hardware before you make such claims…………Superior Quality and Capability at an exceptable Price.:cool:
I questioned reliability, not quality or capability. Does issuing a stop order to GE thus impacting the customers own timescales strike you as reliable? Never mind trying to wheedle out of deals on tech-sharing/software control on the F-35
PhelganBTW The US is hardly a unreliable Defense Partner. If, it was it wouldn’t be the worlds largest arms exporter! Further, such respectable countries like UK, France, Italy, Spain, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada, etc. etc. etc. Have been purchasing US Hardware for Decades…………..This talk of the US being a unreliable Defense Partner is not backed up by fact and is pure propaganda. PLAIN AND SIMPLE:eek:
Over here Tesco is the largest supermarket, does’nt make it the most popular or loved, nor the best for sales service!
Likewise the US being the largest arms exporter does not equate to bein a reliable partner.
The big difference between the US and the other countries you mention is that the US has been willing to support the R&D and maufacturing base in-country, that the others have not been able or willing to do.
There sales tactics are on a par with anyone else – daggle something shiny and see what bites, mention the snags much further down the line and hope they are too far hooked….
PhelganWhat are the odds……………..Regardless, boomers should be avoiding any underwater contact. Funny, that neither detected the other soon enough to avoid a collision????
Depends how you look at it. Very good noise suppression > nothing to tell the other they are there 🙂
OR
Lousy passive sonar > couldn’t hear a thing 😡
Be interesting to see which way the press spin it. Also wonder who will charge who for the damage…
PhelganWhen silence isn’t golden?
Think positive – it shows how effective the various sound suppression techniques are!
PhelganTo have a real antiship missile.
What is wrong with the existing missiles (Harpoon and Tac Tomahawk) in the current climate?
PhelganSaying “lets not go into discussion about how likely such scenario is” .. proves you know your entire argument is flawed. Had mod thought any such conflict is even a remote posibility they would not make such decision.
Fact is there will be NO falklands 2, due to political situation in Argentina AND abysmal state of Arg Military.. airforce in particular.
Fact other than falklands there is not a single location where i could imagine your scenario taking place.
So your whole argument is akin to saying.. lets imagine Klingons attack RN from the air…
Please, i cant say i think decision to scrap harriers is one i would do, but its not the pending doom that people here make it out to be.
Tell me you are a politician right?
Why is that people are always ready to jump in with “it will never happen”? How many thought the first Falklands War would ever happen? – not many
How many thought we’d be fighting Germany again 20 years after the first “round”? – not many. So you cannot imagine another location – okay, but you to could be wrong.
To take your Falklands scenario, yes it is a very remote possibility given the state of defences now cf 1981/2 and the converse state of Argentine offensive capability.
But procurement and doctrinal decisions made now reflect the state of the armed forces for the next 20-30 years, in which time Argentinia may have changed. [hell, to believe some forum members it will be an almost federalised continental superpower anyway].
And above all this is a DISCUSSION forum, so let us discuss.
And just because you cannot imagine any other situation, does
PhelganLook at the politics. The law says we must have an election by mid-2010. The economy is going down, & if we cancel it a lot of firms around the country – including some in constituencies Labour must, absolutely must, hold, will have to cut lots of jobs. Jobs will be lost in Gordon Browns constituency, John Huttons (the Minister of Defence) constituency, etc. Do you really think they’ll kill the carriers? Do turkeys vote for Christmas?
What worries me is that they are making it easier for the next Government (and if it is this lot again, my last faith in the voters will go in smoke) to cancel it. The opposition opposes various cuts, but will they reverse them? Not likely….
PhelganFrom the technological point of view I say we’re past the necessity to bunch up everything in one place. Distribution and duplication of all critical systems and components should be the way to go. Look at MEKO-D.
@ Wanhsan: Right. Doesn’t make it any better.
The San Antonios have two of these masts, which is to be preferred. Hope they also duplicated computing, energy, etc.
In a world of shrinking budgets and platforms? I think not….
PhelganThe UK won the Falklands, and by quite a margin, the fleet proposed prior to the Nott defense review was more than adequate of supporting that role.
Really, it highlighted numerous lacks – self defensive fits; lack of AEW; lack of sea-keeping – many of which would have been far more fatal in their intended war role. Yes Hermes and Invincible were adequate for the task (or more correctly SHar?), but I’d suggest not by such a great deal.
Sure two fleet carriers would have helped, so would have fifteen, the line has to be drawn somewhere.
3 CVA?
The crucial point in the anaylsis is not the Argetine thought process in the weeks immediately prior to the invasion but the decision taken in months and years before. Again, why would you have your entire planned fleet of frigates and destroyers equipped with British propulsion sets if you are planning on confiscating one of their posessions. The invasion of the Falklands was an act of desperation aimed at curtailling the home situation and was in no way based upon a rational thought process of military or even foreign policy concerns.
An act of desperation maybe, but not one that could be said to have been completely unsurprising. There were signs of build-up to similar activity in the late 70’s and Argentine Govts have never exactly backed away from the claim to the islands.
This was the irrational act of a desperate collapsing government, the idea that the UK would not fight was really just a notion to support a decision that had already been made (forced) by the domestic situation.
But a notion that has been put forward as the basis of why the RN was structured as it was in 1960’s, including the cancellation of CVA-01! That is, that the RN had a very limited role outside the NATO role. If
PhelganGreat discussion people!
What a joke.
Typical airhead gash. The Falklands was an aberration. Does this ring any bells Ken ‘the RAF will cover the fleet wherever it needs to’.
How about the SIOP tasked CVN’s?. After all the Cold War did call for a bit more than just sending the big old heavy bombers in to get shot down the same old way….were you not, in fact, the one castigating the Harrier and the very notion of STOVL because, and please correct me if I paraphrase you wrong, ‘no fixed base would survive to generate the second or third sortie’.
Well Ken if no fixed base would survive where is your local base-in?. Then we come to today bang up to date – they’ve put ex-RN Phalanx guns in to try and interdict the half-hearted flow of indirect munitions falling on Basra airport. How long would you keep your always available local base-in there if the locals got serious about having us leave?.
Lastly what is the value of more expeditionary capability in 2020 than now?. Little thing called the 98SDR….you would be advised to read it before making ludicrous assertions.
Yes it was an aberration, but assuming you are only going to have to face threats that are nicely telegraph by ideological differences is a bit narrow-minded and essentially that is what the cancelling of CVA-01/”East of Suez” role left us with. That is what the Falklands highlighted. Fine, if we are willing to accept that, but as it turned out, the Govt. at the time decided it was not acceptable, therefore the decision behind cancelling the CVA programme was effectively void.
Still struggling in Afghanistan and Iraq 5+ years could be considered an “aberration” – certainly to the planners, though many predicted problems before the invasions began. It happens, yet “we” never want to be ready for it.
Having said that, I’m with SLL in that it is difficult to see how we could have paid for the carriers. Not to say we couldn’t, but to what pain at home and impact on NATO? I think there are some parallels with today – new carriers, new (AAW) escorts, new subs, working up (or not as the case maybe :mad:) to new boomers and frigate replacements. Oh and there appears to be a recession coming chaps…..
Phelgani thought that vincy and lusty had their Phalanx’s removed and replace with 3 goalkeepers? and only ark royal retained the phalanx (for unknown reasons to me MOD has 15, 4 on the T22B3, 6 on 2 carriers 1 for training.. so there are the numbers however i digress)
As Invincible has been mothballed, have those Goalkeepers been removed and will they end up on Ark Royal? (assuming they are preferred to Phalanx)
Sign In
