dark light

kev 99

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 886 through 900 (of 1,460 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • kev 99
    Participant

    Quite difficult for me because I don’t know how much stuff costs but I’ll have a go:

    1) Increase Nimrod MRA4 buy to 16 and reverse the recently announced delay to the in service date.
    2) Upgrade Nimrod R1s to MRA4 standard, reverse decision to retire 1 early.
    3) Increase Lynx Wildcat buy for the RN by 20
    4) Order 15 Merlins to pad out the HM3s being transferred to the RN from RAF once the recently ordered Chinooks start arriving.
    5) Order sufficient kit for the army so that everyone trains with what they will be using in theatre.
    6) Buy an 8th C17 for the RAF

    If I’ve got enough left I’d like to do the following:
    Buy FSTA PFI contract out so that they’re fully owned by the MOD.

    in reply to: Russian Navy News & Discussion, Part III #2012870
    kev 99
    Participant

    The 600 – 750Kg warhead of 650mm torpedoes makes them one-shot wonders for just about any ship. . . except a carrier.

    I wonder what a ~750Kg impact would do to an enormous structure like a carrier though. I doubt one hit would cause enough damage to sink it.

    There aren’t many warships that can stand up to any modern heavyweight torpedo. Given what a MK48 or Spearfish can do to an escort sized vessel a 650mm torpedo is massively overkill.

    in reply to: Russia to commission new stealth bomber #2428269
    kev 99
    Participant

    I thought everybody already knew about this:confused:

    in reply to: UK Subs, Equipment 6 tubes to 5 tubes to 6 tubes again? #2012947
    kev 99
    Participant

    Even then even in the Astute you are unlikely to have very many on board. Isn’t it 38 that they can carry of which a large proportion will be Torpedos.

    We haven’t really bought enough to have large numbers available to every SSN deploying, as far as I can tell it was 60 (block 3?) in 1998 and 64 block 4 in 2004, but they’ve been used against Kosovo, Iraq and Afganistan, so who knows how many we’ve got left?

    in reply to: UK Subs, Equipment 6 tubes to 5 tubes to 6 tubes again? #2012990
    kev 99
    Participant

    You can’t reload the VLS Cells. Astute has the same max weapons load as the Virginia, however unlike the Virginia her loadout is not limited by VLS cells that can only carry one particular type of weapon.

    True enough, but you can always launch Tomahawks from the tubes as well, its only really a problem if you’re only interested in carrying lots of torpedoes.

    Having VLS does mean you can launch a large salvo of Cruise missiles at once, an Astute can’t really do that without a reload.

    in reply to: UK Subs, Equipment 6 tubes to 5 tubes to 6 tubes again? #2013112
    kev 99
    Participant

    They really should have gone for VLS :(.

    If the classes before could fit 6, why wouldn’t Swiftsure and Traflagar, I thought our subs had been getting steadily bigger.

    Cheaper, vls would have meant a larger displacement.

    in reply to: UK Subs, Equipment 6 tubes to 5 tubes to 6 tubes again? #2013157
    kev 99
    Participant

    Maybe not enough space in the Swiftsure and Trafalgar classes?

    Astutes being designed with Tomahawks in mind mean that 6 tubes is definitely more desirable than 5.

    in reply to: Royal Navy FSC #2013159
    kev 99
    Participant

    I’d Certainly agree that for that type of ship a pair of 155mm mounts would be a better bet.

    in reply to: Royal Navy FSC #2013204
    kev 99
    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

    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

    Doesn’t look like there’s enough depth at the stern for the mount, also worth pointing out that the Zumwalt class has a beam of 24.6 metres.

    in reply to: Royal Navy FSC #2013241
    kev 99
    Participant

    I don’t think that hull is big enough to carry a pair of AGS mounts.

    in reply to: Royal Navy FSC #2013399
    kev 99
    Participant

    8.5-inch gun????

    If prodeeded with will the 155mm variant have any anti aircraft capacity remaining?

    Regards

    Yeah proof reading is obviously not a priority task with that particular publication.

    in reply to: Royal Navy FSC #2013402
    kev 99
    Participant

    CAMM should be going into the T23’s before they end their lives shouldn’t they? They’ll go across too.

    I wasn’t aware that the 4.5’s were going across, I thought they’d be wanting to get the 155’s in there. They should have finished development in time, trial firings were supposed to start this year.

    Out of interest where are the torpedo tubes on the T23’s? Someone mentioned they were oddly placed on the model of the C1 above.

    On the subject of the 155mm, they are using th e4.5 mounts, but funding appears to have been cut:

    BAE is warning the Ministry of Defence that it may lose jobs and skills if the next phase of the project is delayed for long.

    Two phases of the scheme to replace the Royal Navy’s 8.5-inch calibre guns on warships with a 6-inch calibre gun have successfully taken place and been funded by the MoD. But the MoD has so far stalled on the third phase, which includes trials on the ammunition handling systems.

    The gun would save the MoD cash by standardising ammunition for both army and navy guns. Currently naval guns use different-sized ammunition which has to be specially ordered.

    At the Furness Enterprise annual open meeting, one of the BAE Global Combat Systems managers in Barrow, Ralph Chetcuti, asked former Defence Secretary and Furness MP John Hutton if he could help the yard find out what has happened to the follow-on contract.

    “It has all gone quiet,” said Mr Chetcuti.

    “If we don’t get the contract, we are going to lose the design skills to produce very high performance artillery systems.”

    Mr Hutton said he would find out what had happened and report back to BAE Global Combat Systems.

    Mr Hutton said: “I will make it my job to find out (about the contract).

    “The navy needs that weapons technology.

    “We will need that investment in that gun.”

    Mr Chetcuti told the Mail: “We have built a production prototype and tested it at the firing range at Eskmeals. We have had some very successful trials.

    “There is some way to go but we have shown that it is a very low-risk development which is going to work.

    “We have proven the new technologies in the gun which could be used in land forces as well.”

    The new technologies include laser ignition of the shells. Mr Chetcuti said: “The MoD is involved in it. “They like it very much but the funding seems to have dried up.

    “We were hoping to get a follow-on contract straight away but it is not even on the horizon yet.”

    He said some of the Barrow armaments factory’s engineers who work on high performance artillery could be lost if they did not get the follow-on order. About 20 people at Barrow have been working on the new naval gun project which is based around the 6-inch calibre gun used by the army’s Barrow-built AS90 mobile howitzer.

    Local sub contractor firms in the town helped build the prototype gun.

    At the meeting at Abbey House in Barrow Mr Chetcuti said the 8.5-inch gun which is still being fitted to naval warships like the Type 45 was based on 1960s technology and, by the end of the new warships’ service in 30 years, the design would be approaching 100 years old.

    He said: “The new gun is a more effective weapon. It has more firepower and costs much less.”

    The Global Combat Systems armaments factory in Barrow employs more than 400 people, many of whom are working on the locally-designed, big-selling M777 howitzer.

    http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/mod_told_gun_delays_may_lead_to_loss_of_jobs_and_skills_in_town_1_650449?referrerPath=news/barrow

    Hopefully someone finds some loose change for this project.

    in reply to: Royal Navy FSC #2013491
    kev 99
    Participant

    Any idea about tonnage differences? I had heard a 2 to 3 thousand ton difference between T45 and C1.

    I think the figure last mentioned was around 6000 tonnes, but of course we don’t even know how close the MOD is to selecting a design yet so things could all change.

    in reply to: Royal Navy FSC #2013503
    kev 99
    Participant

    Hmmm odd indeed. I was expecting something smaller than T45 to be honest, but the pictures make it seem even larger, as you say, a lot of room at the front. Maybe the superstructure is very small in comparison to T45 which is throwing me off.

    It’s supposed to be a T45 hull, the superstructure is smaller than a T45, no need for the second radar mast after all.

    in reply to: UK Defence Review Part I #2403264
    kev 99
    Participant

    So if the MR2s go we’ll be an island nation without any Maritime Patrol Aircraft :confused:

Viewing 15 posts - 886 through 900 (of 1,460 total)