There were so many good names they could have used for the D class, they must have been saving them for numbers 7-12. Usually the RN is actually quite good on the naming front, the Vanguard’s and Trafalgar’s are the well named.

We need names for the C1 and C2’s now. And have all the Astute class been named yet?

I think Distain and Defiance would have been a good names.

There’s a handful of good E names that could be put to use: Emerald, Eleckta, Excaliber, Excellent. Can’t think of too much in the way of Fs though; only Furious and Formidable.

There’s lots of good names beginning with left for Astutes 5+, I wouldn’t be surprised to see an Ajax or Achilles in there.

I take it for a given that upcoming RN Carrier will embark UAV’s, any info what it will be ?

At some stage throughout their life it is virtually inevitable, but nobody really knows for sure what they will be at this stage.

1. Agreed
2. Agreed (although I wish that I was wrong)
3. That’s a mean thing to say but agreed

The regional deterrence ship (Corvette to light Frigate by my reckoning) study does point to a significantly cheaper ship than recent USN procuremenrs

Al

There are plenty of UK procurement **** ups too you know:o

Not a big issue considering they’re intended for the Army not the Navy, but since the AW149 hasn’t actually been built yet, it is something that could still be incorporated, especially if the UK asked for it to be in there.

Surely you mean for the RAF as Puma replacements?

RN Seakings will need to be replaced at some time as well.

Could be interesting, why not make one. Just try to keep it away from a “vs” thread.

Best of luck with that.

I think that you are correct in that this is what it ends up with. For me, as I understand the concept, the inclusion of a MCG on an OPV is not for self-defence. A traditional OPV should never be in the position that it must rely on its MCG for that defence.

The main gun is a mission tool used to facilitate the OPV’s main taskings – that of patrol and constabulary duties.

The C3 differs from the traditional OPV in that it is intended for forward deployment and not, exclusively, patrol of its own littoral/EEZ. It could therefore find itself in the position, alone – until principle fleet units arrive in theatre, of having to enter sub-combat situations where coercive force is necessary.

It also does have a principle combat tasking in the MCMW capability so, without being a warfighter, the vessel could find itself, under close escort, in a danger zone. If, at little expense, it can take a supporting role in that combat zone, whilst undertaking its primary function, I see that as no bad thing.

Fair enough.

From my own perspective I’d like the C3 on its own in your sub combat situation to be able to look after itself for a while should things turn nasty.

Obviously we’re looking at this from opposite ends, and reaching opposite conclusions we should probably agree to disagree.

Enjoyed the debate though:)

This has already been posted in the Typhoon thread.

Yawn!!!

Yet another salvo in the ever increasingly childish battle between the three main service chiefs! Wasn’t the head of the army at it last week…

I’m sick of it! They should be told to get on and stop attacking each others main equipment programs or face the sack!

Haven’t they learnt that since the 2nd World war that when a rival service equipment program gets cancelled that by in large the treasury keeps the money rather then use it on another services equipment program. In effect they all loose out through salami slicing of capability!

They should grow up and stand together rather then continue with this petty battle!

It seems that they’re not familiar with the method of governance known as ‘Divide or Conquer’ or maybe they are to close to see the puppeteer’s strings?