@thethreelions3, The USA is a superpower, the UK is not, thats the difference, for example, the US spends $600 billion + a year on defense, the UK meanwhile spends roughly $50 billion.
@TheCharlie359 "The USA is a superpower, the UK is not"
Hmm, not sure i see it quite that way
(after all we lead the world Militarily for 140 years [1805 - 1945] the US as compared is like a Impetuous child whom's found his dad's gun & is waving it around like Dick Turpin ;)
From my perspective: we may no longer be the Dominant Global Power these days, but we still sit comfortably within the Top VI Geopolitical club (just as it was before we eclipsed the Spanish, and out-competed the French).
@MrXray2011, No argument that the UK is still a major player and the RN is still (debatably) the 2nd or 3rd most capable navy, the figures you've given though are wrong, the UK currently spends around $50 billion on defense behind the USA with $600 billions +, China around $150 billion (exact figures ?) and France with around $57 billions, still a vast budget and a navy second to none in terms of quality.
@TheCharlie359 The UK's budget is currently £70 Billion- although they're making cuts so that number will drop, for now. But it is not £50 Billion. Oh and the Tories have put £180 Billion away for the military for new ships/ jets etc.
@MrXray2011, Where are you getting your figures from? Check the official MOD website, the UK will spend £34.3 billion on defense for 2012-13 (2.3% of GDP), which equates to roughly $50 billion, your in dream world if you believe we spend £70 billion!
@thethreelions3 I know- it's just wishful thinking. Although I can see the RN getting bigger in the future- after the UK's GDP starts picking up again which should happen soon as the UK is building a manufacturing base again, plus we are the worlds biggest banking nation. We just need the Eurozone to sort themselves out.
@MrXray2011 I wish this could happen as well, would be brilliant. Hopefully it will grow to a size near this, and we can use our navy as a force projection as we have done throughout history.
@MrXray2011 Its definatly the most advanced with astute (best sub), T45 (best destroyer) and the T26 and QE on the way. Its still a formidable force, but it doesnt pack the same punch that it has done in our past, during our empire, WW1, WW2 etc when britania ruled the waves. can i ask if u know, will there still be a T26 and a T27? and what are their differences?
@thethreelions3 It packs a bigger punch but can be in fewer places at the same time. There never was a Type 27- some people tried to argue with me that there was such thing. I just told them to look on the Royal Navy website. There was speculation that a Type 26 would be the replacement for the Type 23 (which it really is) and then a new class would replace the mine warfare ships and other smaller ships but it would have had a main gun and missiles too- this was deemed pointless
@MrXray2011 ...and so it was scrapped before it even got to be drawn. If you really want to look further into the RN go on Navy Matters or the Royal Navy website.
The RN has everything official- QE Class and Type 26.
The Navy Matters site- Plans, possible ships such as a Type 45 like ship but the size, weight and firepower of a cruiser. New LHD's etc...
Combined they allow you to predict what the RN will look like in the future. It looks good but Labour may ruin it.
@MrXray2011 thanks for the info, so there will be a C1,C2 and C3 model? and if so the 13 which will be created will be the ASW varient or a mixture? Ive checked out the website you sugested, alot is just speculation, i dont think many of these ships will be created tbh although has some good info.
@TyphoonDelta1 perhaps in hindsight there is now a tree tie between france and england to use each others aircraft carriers so it might be so far wrong if you know what i mean
@ROOSTER1067 Jokes on the French really. Just after signing that we decommissioned HMS Ark Royal- we can use theirs but when they come to use ours they'll find her in lots of peices in Turkey. In all seriousness, it is very sad.
@SuperAncientmariner your mum and if you are smart youl join the army or marines i am now going for marines and before you say anything i class marines as a separate branch from navy
@lostlaces Booties are very proud and happy to be part of RN. Now you may be good enough to get into basic, in which case you will come to know the pleasures of Lympstone and the moors. You may even get your beret and globe. But you will change you're outlook. Are you sure you wouldn't be better being a pongo. It's the softer option.
@lostlaces Didn't you know that that is where Marines come from, sailors shagging army types. Still , you'll find out at Lympstone. If, repeat if, you get through it you will be worshipping the White ensign.
why not spend the money on education and feeding the poor people. So that the poor people dont get angry and try to kill you. just a thought. its lot easier to clean vommit than a dead man blown to small bits...
@funnyvoice007 billions upon billions of dollars have been given to Africa over the past 20 years what has it accomplished. all it did is make many African nations dependent on the aid. so now they need billions more..... Afghanistan for example is not a war about food or education. The Taliban don't want education they have peppered them schools with rpgs and bullets. It's easier to control a illiterate population, their is a fine line between social funding and military action.
T26 will probably build in batches of 4 with a total of between 12 to 16 ships, 12 is the minimum number possible because the RN is commited to at least 6 standing tasks, 9 would be in commision and 3 in various stages of refit and training so the RN would be left with only 3 frigates for purely national duties, i doubt we will ever see 16 even when the economic recovery happens but if Russia continues its rearming programmes this may change.
@ROOSTER1067, Agreed, however the RN seems to be in terminal decline as British goverments since 1945 are blind to the lessons of history, to rule the waves is to rule the world as the USN clearly demonstrates but NO,10 seems to think it knows better, shame.
@TheCharlie359 "1922" was when our Royal Navy began to decline.
The "Washington parity Treaty" of that same year scuppered all plans to modernise the fleet, made it so any chance of preserving "Dreadnought" was gone, & surrendered our unrivalled dominance of the Seas to the Yank's, & was the beginning of the end for the British Shipbuilding Industry (which until that point was building 80% of the worlds ships!).
The Lib-dems have been in the minority ever since they signed that rag of paper.
@TSR1989FF, The RN didnt really begin to decline in terms of size or importance until after WW2, "Washington Treaty" gave the US parity in capital ships alone, other fleet units such as cruisers and destroyers were far more numerous in the RN than the USN until around 1943. After WW1 the US began a huge naval construction programme aimed at making her fleet number 1, what the treaty did was stop an arms race with the UK that we would probably have lost due to US economic might.
@TSR1989FF Actually, that treaty probably saved the RN of that era. After WW1, the US and Japan principally started huge naval expansion programmes; out of desparation to remain a premier fleet the UK started developing the G3s and N3s but the WW1-shattered economy could never hope to maintain her current fleet, nevermind keep up in a naval arms race. That treaty allowed the RN to scrap its unaffordable surplus tonnage and remain a world leading fleet, equal to the USN, while doing so! Perfect!
@TSR1989FF A little thing called "Nazi Aggression" kind of made our Navy big again. Although in the Inter-War period it was still bigger than the next two navies combined (France and America)
@MrXray2011, In the interwar period the RN was not as large as the next two navies combined at all. Great Britain surrendered her two power standard at Washington in 1922, from then on although GB still overall ruled the waves, in numbers of capital ships and carriers we were equal to the Americans. Japan not France had the worlds third largest navy, it was known as th 5,5,3,1.75 agreement. Only in cruisers did GB still dominate, we demanded greater numbers to protect our empires trade.
@MrXray2011 The next two Navies in the 1930's after the Royal Navy were actually the US Navy & Imperial Japanese Navy.
While we still outnumbered our Rivals Individually, Punitive 1920's Disarmament Treaties & the 1929- Recession had left the RN, Army & RAF under-strengthed, & operating Warships/ Tanks & Aircraft which were mostly either outdated, or not available in adequate numbers.
Just one example of this is that we had to source the KGV Class Battleships Armor Plating from Czechoslovakia...
@TheCharlie359 My thanks for the compliment, much appreciated.
I concur with most of your Standpoints, as although we still commanded a reasonable force ratio superiority to our rivals in the 1930's, we had allowed ourselves to become complacent, if not co-currently rather pacifistic
(as we failed to act until it was too late to avoid a Long & Bankrupting war, one which we won, but lost the aftermath thereof).
Still, could have been worse (we could have lost the war as well).
@MrXray2011 .. because the 1929 Crash had progressively Bankrupted almost all of our own Armor Plate Manufacturers, just like it had also seriously wrecked the Shipbuilding Industry
@TSR1989FF Clearly it did recover as by 1940 our fleet was more technologically advanced than the German Navy. The Royal Navy was also still the biggest and so technically it was still the most powerful. The fact is the German Navy failed to sink the RN (I know it sank individual ships but I mean as a whole) ! British technology was further ahead than US and Imperial Japans tech. We designed the jet engine and had the second fighter jet in the world (the Gloster).
@MrXray2011, By 1940 all but 2 of the RN's capital ships were over 20 years old and in areas such as the fleets air arm and our carriers, we had been severly outclassed by the Americans and Japanese, this would change however because of the huge rearmament programmes initiated in the late 1930's but to claim we had any advantage other than the overall size of the RN by 1940 is wrong, technology no matter how good it is is useless unless you have in in suffient quantity and in action when needed.
@TheCharlie359 Russia is doing just that, of their four Kirov Class Battlecruisers they only have one in service at present, but they are in the eary stages of recommissioning two of the others, & with no modern equivilent of "HMS Bristol" on the cards this time we are disadvantaged, as we have non carrier capital ships of our own.
We need Destroyers & Cruisers, & with the new QE class in development we need them soon, after all carriers are only effective with suitable warships escorting them
@TSR1989FF hms bristol was a large ship but not much more capable then a then a type 42 in terms of armament but i know what you mean .a carrier without escort ships is a sitting duck ,i totaly agree with you.
@ROOSTER1067, The Bristol was extremely manpower intensive hence the reason the RN was forced to reduce the size of her then future warships and their complements, the result, the T42 which the navy has never been satisfied with.
@TSR1989FF, I have to say i dont agree, the days of the large surface combatant are over, carriers are the modern day capital ships and as long as they have escorts that are highly capable wether they be cruisers, destroyers or frigates they are totally effective, HMS - Bristols modern equivilant is HMS - Daring a completly capable warship, i agree we need more T45's and to speed up the T26 programme but thats it, anything else would be a waste of cash better spent elsewhere.
@TheCharlie359 On that note, I would base the Type 26 on the hull of the Type 45. It would make life easier for BAE to merely modify the Type 45 design and therefore save money in design and procurement but would also save the navy a lot in operating and maintenance costs.
No real point in building more Type 45s, too many escorts and not enough that needs escorting, but basing the Type 26 on the Type 45 hull would nicely eat into and extend the savings made over the build of the six Type 45s.
@rvfharrier, I do and dont agree, i believe that at least 3 more T45's are needed, to maintain some kind of balance for a future fleet which most probably consist of 2 CV's not the currently planned 1. Regards the T26, designs at BAE are based around the T45 hull and machinery and it will most certainly be BAE that gets the project.
@TheCharlie359 More Type 45s would be nice for rotational purposes, yes, but with the limited budget the RN has it would make more sense to put that extra money into other areas.
Indeed, and it's excellent news too. For too long the UK has been developing too highly refined, expensive, gold plated military products that have zero export potential. The Type 26 and C2 (T27?) are the best chances the UK has had in decades to get huge export orders in and the shipbuilders and MoD have to take it!
@rvfharrier, I would like those 3 extra ships but we both no realistically its never going to happen, and i agree, im particulary pleased at the news.
Regards the RAF's new tankers, are they owned by the RAF and maintained by "airtanker" or does the MOD lease or charter the planes?
@TheCharlie359 AirTanker own and maintain the aircraft, the RAF effectively pays for them by the hour. However, as part of the deal the RAF receives priority in terms of requests for the fourteen aircraft, when not being used by the RAF the aircraft may be being used by the French Air Force among others. On top of that, the Airbus A400M (which will be fully owned and maintained by the RAF) also doubles up as an MRTT, so a nicely capable A400M/A330 tanker fleet is likely. Doesn't look too shabby.
@TheCharlie359 Because they're primarily RAF aircraft, the RAF will dictate the aircraft usage and effectively has the rights to them even if the cheap MoD didn't go all the way with buying the aircraft themselves.
Ah, interesting. A career in BAE has crossed my mind, though a life on the seas themselves is very tempting! Hey, since you're an insider (lol), do you know anything of the MARS programme? I know BAE is bidding for contracts within MARS, but the programme seems indefinitely delayed?
@rvfharrier, Thanks for the info, when it comes to MARS your geuss is as good as mine, at the moment i believe the goverment has postponed the programme, while BAE was involved in feilding possible designs in collaboration with BMT as far as im aware we were never actually bidding for the construction programme rather we were to take the lead as the primary contracter and outsource the building programme, heard Daewoo were the preferred partner.
@TheCharlie359 Shame, MARS is an absolutely crucial programme. All of our tankers bar the two Waves are single hulled and therefore outlawed by new MARPOL regulations, navies can exempt themselves if they chose but the political ramifications won't take long to show if the UK were to do so.
As for the builders, I'd heard that for the six fleet tankers but AFAIK the three JSBL ships and the fleet solid support ships were likely to be built in the UK. Heh, if you hear anything let me know! :)
@rvfharrier, Also the most recent news in the office and i confimed it on Janes defense is that the UK and Canada are in highly advanced talks about making the T26 a joint project and according to Janes which is probably as you know the most respected defense news agency, Australia, New Zeland, Malaysia and Turkey are also very intrested in the project, if BAE gets the job its highly likely the first 4 will pursue T26 as BAE has large divisions in North America and Australia.
@rvfharrier The Type 45 hull is "very loud" (according to relative who served aboard one), and has some fairly dense design flaws; such as not being able to see when a RHIB hits the water.
Also to add: C2 is dead. With MARS, Successor, Astute, CVF, and Type 26 to bring into service over the next decade there isn't time or funding.
Regarding Type 45 numbers- the UK is looking at deploying one carrier. It will only require 2 T45s, and with 6 that's easily achievable. Amphibs as well? No problem.
@ROOSTER1067 Rigid Hulled Inflatable Boat. The speed boats thrown out of the side of the thing. If you look at where the doors are on the T45, the kink outwards (stealth and all that) is just below it. So one, apparently, can't see when the boat when it hits the water. Not Ideal by any stretch of the imagination.
@BertrumPantyshield I'm not, of course, advocating simply crossing out 45 and replacing it with 26 on the hull; but why attempt to reinvent the wheel on the issue when we have a hull already designed, already exceeding performance requirements and that would bring cost benefits to the fleet via a shared logistics train? Taking the basic hull, fixing a few faults and optimising it for ASW, and a bit of land attack wouldn't go amiss (though let's not get ahead of ourselves!), does make good sense.
@BertrumPantyshield As for C2, I do share your fears; though I also hope common sense will prevail and the requirement will be pushed forward at some stage. It's quite rich to cut C2 citing a lack of funding and then also keep our shiny new destroyers and frigates in port while our patrol slots go empty because we can't afford to use high-end warships to fill them!
On the Type 45 numbers, I'm aware of that. I wasn't talking from a simultaneously deployed standpoint, but for rotational purposes.
@rvfharrier Perhaps if C2 is binned, C3 (with ANZAC interest) can be proliferated in large numbers. 18 or so "global corvettes" could do the banal stuff and allow the escort fleet to focus on the strategic raiding doctrine.
I'd rather have 2 QEs, 6 T45s, and 12 T26s than 1 QE, 6 T45s, 8 T26s, and 6 C2s. We're not always going to be patrolling, and the idea of under-arming ships (essentially what C2 was/is) to save money is madness.
@BertrumPantyshield Well, I'd be hoping for eighteen C3s even without C2 being binned. 2 x CVF, 6 x T45, 8/10 x T26, 10/12 x C2 and 18 x C3 plus the amphibs would make me a very happy man. With that surface fleet mix we have enough economical platforms to keep our patrol and forward presence taskings stationed while retaining the ability to deploy a task force surpassed in capability only by the USN. Those high-end warships also get worked much less hard and so have higher mission availability.
@rvfharrier That'd be ideal, but past and present experience make that ideal unlikely. If C2 was equipped as you stated, and in the number you stated, then absolutely go for it. It just seems likely that there won't be enough money. The admirals want willy-waving ships; not a sensible fleet. So any C2 money will likely go towards an extra few Type 26s.
Of course, there's all the other problems the RN faces...
@BertrumPantyshield It's not a case of under-arming C2, it's a case of making it economical and not over-arming it with gold plating.
A 120m, 3500 tonne C2 capable of 25 knots equipped with Artisan 3D, 24 x CAMM (32 if it can be quad-packed into 8 x SYLVER A43 cells), 1 x Phalanx, 8 x Harpoon and a recycled 114mm Mk 8 would be perfect. Nothing too expensive in that fit-out, all sharing commonality with many other vessels in the fleet and very capable of surviving in a medium-threat environment.
@BertrumPantyshield That C2 gives us the option of sending something other than a Type 26 or a Type 45 to a situation that may not absolutely warrant one, but for which the threat environment is too high for a C3; able to complete a stabilisation/MIOPS task economically while still having the wherewithal to survive in the face of any likely escalation in force and allowing that Type 26/45 to hold back and react to a more serious situation that may develop elsewhere. That's strategic flexibility.
@rvfharrier, I'd say that the RN is going to be equipped with 6 T45's and 16 T26's built in 4 batches of 4 with one batch (probably the final ship of each batch) built without most major weapon systems, perhaps just the maingun and CIWS or 2 30mm cannons but of course capable of being brought upto full spec in an emergency, i doubt a seperate C2 design is really on the cards and think only 12 C3's are realisticly planned for in the current economic and political climate, your thoughts?
@ROOSTER1067, Me to, i just cant see the RN being able to justify the building of a seperate class of ship (C2) to patrol in low threat theatres, we already have the River class for that reason, i think its more likely the RN will insist on a higher number of T26's and simply build some of them "for but not with", this saves the costs of developing a seperate class, puts more hulls in the water and allows for the them to be upgraded when needed or when finances allow, as has been done with T45.
@TheCharlie359 GOOD IDEA but the t45 was to expensive in the first place and not much ability for land attack and there is better equipped ships for sub hunting but these ships could be adapted to the task
@ROOSTER1067, True T45 is very expensive but its also a very capable and sophisticated warship and would have been even more so had she been fitted with TLAM's, SSM's and RAM as the RN would have ideally liked, but for now they are dedicated AAW ships, better to buy the hulls and upgrade as and when you can than spend a fortune on very small numbers, T23 is a very capable sub hunter, one of the best in the world in fact and im sure the RN intends its replacements to be even better.
@TheCharlie359 We're getting about 13 Type 26's coming into service from about 2020. There's a possibility of getting two more Type 45's but I doubt that very much.
@ROOSTER1067 Well our economys doing alright its the Euro and Doller thats dragging us down but I doubt we'll get more because we've lost our balls as a country, unfortunatly; look as recent events, Kenyans sueing us becuase something that may or may not have happened 60 years ago- I bet we give them millions!!! We should get many more Frigates, Destroyers, Aircraft Carriers and Submarines but unfortunatly we've got nothing to protect.
@MrXray2011 yes were getting 13 at around 6.500 tonnes and 7 at around 3000 tonnes but were also onabout getting UXV combatant which will carry are new stealth UCAV called BAE taranis
but were not getting anymore t45 were only gettin 6
@wiganerrmc We're getting 13 in total- to replace the current Type 23s on a 1:1 basis. Although 20 would be good, we should definatly get more than 6 Type 45's though 12-15 should do. How many UXV combatant's are we getting then and how many BAE taranis's will they be able to carry?
@MrXray2011 ye well i was told were getting 13 larger type 26 to replace are 13 type 23 and we are also getting a smaller one like a corvette size warship
and i dont no properly yet how many UXV combatant were getting because the plans have not been aproved but it will be around 6-10 and it will carry around 12 BAE taranis at max but around 6 in peace time but it will have loads of armament aswell like tommahawks and so on
@MrXray2011, Guys we aren't getting any UXV's, its nothing more than a design concept to show how versatile the T45 platform can be, naval planning for the year 2030 envigages a fleet of 2 QE class carriers, 2 LPD's, 6 T45, 12 T23/6 and 4 Global corvettes (a less capable T26) depending on budget avaliability, to these will be added 12 C3's that are intended to replace all mine warfare and hydrographic research hulls. The submarine fleet will be 7 Astutes and 4 Vanguard/ future SSBN's.
@TheCharlie359 There is a possibility... why do you think that the number of Type 45's halved, apart from the global economic climate. The Navy know that we need a certain amount of ships and 19 is not enough (Frigates and Destroyers) The last two Type 45's (ships 7 and 8) were cancelled to bring the Type 26 porject forward. And yes I know that it is a concept but they are designed to work with Taranis and so there is a possibility of getting some, not definate but not definatly not!!!
@MrXray2011, I can appreciate your optimism but its simply never gonna happen, the UK has neither the funds or the need for such ships (UXV). I agree totally that 19 escorts is not enough but even if all current planning options are taken up this would still only give the RN a fleet of 22 escorts anyway. Its simple, neither is the cash avalible or the political will in place, British goverments remain blind with regards to seapower. T45's 7+8 were cancelled to balance budgets and begin T26 CONT-
@MrXray2011, CONT- project and no doubt to secure the future for the carriers. Taranis as far as im aware was also a concept which will not be pursued as of the SDSR due to the new Anglo/French defense treaty which states both countries will co-produce new and advanced designs for UAV's.
@wiganerrmc, Not true im afraid, the SDSR states only that the RN requires a fleet of 19 escorts, hence with 6 T45's one would expect 13 T26's however NO firm commitment has been made with regards numbers and only vauge reference to them entering service at somepoint in the early 2020's when the carriers are complete.
@TheCharlie359 Actually the SDSR say that we need 30+ escorts to carry out operations properly. Back in 2003 we pretty much had that number. And we are getting 13x Type 26's- they're replacing the Type 23's one for one after 2020, thats why the number of Type 45's was reduced (again) from 8 to 6.
@MrXray2011, I'm afraid your mistaken, you can read the SDSR at the offical MOD site, it clearly states the number 19 for the number of escorts in the fleet. You maybe confusing documents however, back in 1998 the then Labour goverment conducted an SDR which gave escort numbers at 32 but that was 14 years ago and times have changed dramatically in the ensueing years. It also says the T26 will enter service in the early 2020's to replace remaining T23's but gives NO firm numbers for replacements.
@TheCharlie359 I don't need to. I know that we need 32, not 19!!! 19 is not enough for a Navy that needs to protect the UK, the Commonwealth, her allies and her Soverign Territories around the planet. We will get, at least 13- that's why we cut the number of Type 45's from 8 to 6, from an original number of 12!! We decommissioned 6 frigates in the past 10 years and have cut the number of destroyers (less Type 45's than we had Type 42's.)
@MrXray2011, I completely agree with you that 19 escorts is far to little for all the RN's current commitments and any future emergency but that is the number the goverment has settled on as of 2011. The 7/8th T45's were cancelled to bring forward the T26 programme yes and to cement the carrier decision, however the number of 12 hulls was given when the cold war was still being waged and a reduction was inevitable. I know too well that the British goverment lacks an understanding of seapower.
@MrXray2011, Also my point remains, you and i may believe greater numbers of ships are needed in the RN but that changes nothing, NO firm number for T26's has yet been stated and to say that the goverment of the day will replace them on a one for one basis is speculation at best and nothing more. You made the point yourself, the T45's were cut by half and frigate numbers since 1990 have declined by over 2/3rds, i hope 13 or maybe more are built but we shall see, GB is nolonger a superpower.
@wiganerrmc They're not being built yet but lets hope that by the time they are the Tories are in charge alone so we can sort the economy out and make even more.
@MrXray2011 lets hope so,but i think they are a must anyhow ,the type 23 will be so old by the time these ships come in to service they could not go on much longer and the navy cant shrink much smaller or we might as well not have one
@stalkingalizee You are right it will come into servise in 2021.It is currently being designed by BAE systems.
Regarding FREMM the main reason not tobuy it is because it means thousands of jobs will go overseas in the production of the new ships.Also it may not turn out to be that more expensive.The government has ordered BAE to keep costs down so 'more ships can be ordered'.......also there is a possibility of exporting up to 6 to Brazil.
@james8765100 yes keep the price down and we can have more of them then half a dozen like the type 45,s .but not so cheap it end up like rubbish like the type 42,s and 21 frigate
@ROOSTER1067 I agree we need more air defence destroyers.You would think that 1Billion pounds for a ship is too expensive,saying that they are the best most advanced warships around.As you say the type 42 destroyers where not very good and the RN knows this through experiance.We are preety mutch the only nation to have engaged in modern naval warfare(Falklands war),and one of the things we learned was the importance of an outstanding air defence destroyer something we now have with the type 45
@james8765100 It seems like the RN has decided to splash the cash for six air defence destroyers,and persue a cheaper option for our frigates.
Something i agree with because the type 45 is tasked with protecting other ships not just herself where as the job of the type 26 is to go off and hunt other ships and subs in numbers.
Sure it would be nice for both classes to be the best money can buy,but theese days realistically nobody can affoard that not even the U.S navy.
@james8765100 i totaly agree on the money front at least we can have them in some big numbers,shame we cant have a few more type 45,s all that money to devolop the class and only build six seems a waste
@ROOSTER1067 What is your opinion on the Queen Elizabeth class carriers.Do you think they will both eventually come into comission?...keep in mind that the 2010 SDSR only outlines spending and plans from 2010-2015.The decision on how many F-35s to order should be made in the 2015 SDSR.
@james8765100 i do belive they will both be built , i would not be suprised if one gets sold .i belive the second one will have catapults for non vstol planes ,but what happens to the first one with no catapults and the cheaper f35c (non vertical take off) and no harriers,would you spend that much on a ship and no planes only helicopter????????????????????
@ROOSTER1067, QE class carriers, Queen Elizebeth to enter service in 2016 as a helicopter only platform, F35B STOVL jumpjet has been abandoned by the UK armed forces in favour of F35C carrier variant which is strenghthed for ocean operations, purchase numbers will reduce from 150 aircraft to 108, deliverys slated to begin around 2018, 2nd carrier PoW will enter service in 2020 (at which point QE will enter reserve) and will be fully operational with F35C BY 2024, QE to be refitted around 2030.
@ROOSTER1067 No I would not spend that much,and that is the reason i think they will both become fully oporational.
We are going to get both of the ships anyway,and the desision on how many F-35s to order will come in the 2015 SDSR,by then the economy will be doing well again and these deep cuts the government is enforcing will be over,and more money will be available.
The navy will not rest until it gets the extra planes,so them both becoming fully oporational is the only logical outcome.
@james8765100 i hope so ,but the only reason we are building two carriers is B A has put clauses in to the contracts so they cant get out of it .they must have a vision some thing like this would happen.and they will be paid even more now because the design is altering while the ships are under construction they aint going to do it for a favour.
@james8765100,Its planned to reduce numbers of F35 because F35-C is a more capable jet so purchase numbers reduced from 150 to 108, shared between the RAF and RN, the money saved has been diverted to allow the QE class carriers to be fitted with EM catapults and arrestor gear for conventional operations and interoperability with our US and French allies, both carriers will remain in the RN though we will eventually lose both HMS-ILLUSTRIOUS for QE and HMS-OCEAN for PoW, QE will refit in 2030 ish
@james8765100 That is bunk. BAE will build the ship just like DCN builds it in France and Fincantieri in Italy. You are just buying a license and integrate similar weapons as the rest of Europe. You think Brasil will buy your ships when they won't even let your warships port?
@stalkingalizee the problem with partnering the french and itilians is they have a habit of demanding certain things in the design and certain equipment from from threre national manufactures and then pulling out of the prodject and every one else is left with something they dont entirley want
@ROOSTER1067 France and Italy have already built some, France is on the fourth one, the design is already set for us. You can adapt it to your needs. There is no pulling out of the project now.
@stalkingalizee, The RN demands larger more capable frigates historically than its EU counterparts, besides its based on the T45 hull and machinery so money savings are aready being made.
@TheCharlie359 At 6kt, FREMM is a destroyer. France calls everything fregates. It is a scaled Horizon. T26 hasn't even finished its requirements phase so it is too early to say what it will be. FREMM is already built and carries all the firepower and sensors RN will need for the next 40 years. With the annual £1.6 billion shortfall that has to be cut out of MoD's budget, the real question is can RN afford line ships like T26/FREMM or if they will have to go for patrol frigates instead.
@stalkingalizee, FREMM is a viable solution i agree, however the T26 will ineveitably be based on the T45 platform as it would be political suicide for a UK goverment to buy French ships, the RN despite the recent savage cuts has a global mission unlike its French/ Italian contempories who operate mainly in the Atlantic/ Med and therefore despite pressures these top spec ships will be built.
@TheCharlie359 MN is more global than RN. CdG battlegroup was in IOR bombing ragheads last month, exercising with India now going to fight pirates. Operations span from Caribbean, West Africa, Somalia, PG, Afghanistan to the Pacific. RN stops at the Gulf. UK doesn't have the financial luxury of worrying about industrial policy if they want to keep a capable/affordable RN. Time to get over BS and join the EU cooperative. That is what the treaty is promoting.
@ROOSTER1067 It isn't even joint development at this stage. FREMM would be an off-the-shelf design purchase and tailored to RN needs. If RN needs export control, that can be had. It is done all the time. BAE will build it, Thales UK will fit it, and MBDA will arm it.
@stalkingalizee, BS? To say the MN is more active than the RN is folly! the UK has a permenant presence in the Atlantic, both north and south, the Med, the PG, Indian Ocean and regulary operates in the Pacific and Carribean, the French fleet rarely goes to sea in numbers and as for the CDG its hardly ever out of the yard its that defective, the UK also HAS it SDP in place to allow for the maintinace of adequate capability here in Britian, cooperation is important but so is national capability.
@TheCharlie359 the fact that there navy operate different to ours there ship design also varies and joint ventures are not the greatest idea. we all end up with a ship thats not exactly what your looking for,and the french have a habit off pulling out part way through development
@ROOSTER1067, To true which is why personally id prefer we here in the UK went our own way with the T26, FREMM is capable but politically not viable, with ship building here at home cut back to the bare minimum already its vital National projects are pursued for the maintinace of a highly trained skill base and labor pool, we already cooperate with the French and Italians in many feilds and will do so in the future but cooperation should not = codependence.
@TheCharlie359 CdG has logged 16 times around the globe and 25,000+ cat and traps in 10 years. Hardly defective...
UK canceled the Caribbean patrol and has nothing in the Pacific. Looking at the RN deployment map, they only have ships around the Arabian peninsula, one off Somalia, Med and Falklands. MN has ships in the Crib, N and S Atlantic, Med, West Africa, Somalia, Reunion, Myotte, UAE, Djibouti, New Caledonia and Tahiti. Not to mention the CdG battlegroup cruising in the IOR.
@stalkingalizee, Compared to the deployment rates of RN and USN carriers it is not a successful platform, its effective when it deploys but your missing the point, before the current deployment when did she last put to sea as a fully operational unit, it was years ago! and if you read what i wrote you will note that i said "regulary operates in the carribean and pacific" France does not operate globally in the same way the UK does, it maintains patrol "fregates" in these regions only!
@TheCharlie359 CdG has only been down 1 year longer than planned, it has more cats and miles than any RN carrier did in 10 years.
Sorry you don't think 2nd rates with helos count as naval presence, but they do. There is a 1st rate and Foudre in the Crib, a Mistral and another 1st rate off Senegal. 2 1st rates, an SSN, a command ship and a CVN in Aden, another 1st rate off Somalia, Cassard is off Malta. MN has six and RN has 5 deployed, not to mention our CVN, SSN, and 2 LPH.
@stalkingalizee You are putting words in my mouth! i never said that the deployment of "patrol fregates" is not a naval presence of value, i merely stated that the RN unlike the MN regulary deploys major units while the MN deploys differently, i will say it again though, even French naval brass have acknowledged that the CDG is not as successful as had been hoped for.
@TheCharlie359 You seem to think so saying RN is more active when RN doesn't even have patrol frigates. France has one more 1st rate frigate at sea this very moment than the RN, not to mention a carrier, 2 LPH and an extra SSN. Add all our patrol frigates, maritime recon and the activity of the RN isn't even the same level. French admirals admit CdG has been down a year longer than planned, obviously they wanted that year back. As a CVN, it still logs more miles than any conventional carrier.
@stalkingalizee, A CVN is bound to log more miles, thats a given, the carrier deployment can be seen as a step in the right direction but its been a rare sight at sea for a while, we do have something similar to French patrol frigates, there the River class OPV's used around the Falklands, just not as many. Whats this maritime recon your on about and exactly how do you know how many SSN's either the MN or RN has at sea?
@TheCharlie359 Every ship has to go through refit, a CVN needing refueling takes longer. Add vibration problems and you get a long period of time. If you want to bitch about quality of ships, look at anything coming out of Ingalls. Those ships fall apart out of dock.
RN doesn't own the River OPVs. They are chartered from Vosper.
I am talking about Maritime Patrol Aircraft. MN has 38 Atlantique, Falcons and E2-C while RN only has 11 Sea Kings on their way out.
@stalkingalizee, I stand corrected, all Nimrods have been withdrawn from active service. The E2-C is an AEW system and for the fleet and not a dedicated MPA also im not particulary bothered what Northrop Grumman builds as im a Brit not an American but if that comment is to suggest France is more capable at building CVN's than the US im laughing.
@stalkingalizee, Im aware their leased but they will most probably be aquired in the coming years and your MPA numbers are off, the Brits still have for the moment Nimrod MRA2 and are in the process of aquiring refurbished American aircraft to plug the capability gap left by the scrapping of MRA4's and im certain Merlin has an MPA capability. Im not "bitching" simply stating what most Frenchmen dont want to hear, it seems yourself included that GDG is not as successful as what had been hoped.
@TheCharlie359 Also, MR2 was withdrawn from service last year; it was due to be replaced by the, now cancelled, MRA4. The refurbished Rivet Joints are SIGINT aircraft replacing the Nimrod R1s, they aren't Maritime Patrol Aircraft.
Ideally, I'd like to see us collaborate with the French and, with them, get the Airbus A319 MPA concept going. When funds finally allow, we'll eventually need to resume MPA capability and at around the same time France may be looking to replace their Atlantiques.
@rvfharrier, Your right, im knowledgeable about naval matters but am less informed about our aircraft. RJ seems practical for the moment, id prefer to see the UK aquire the Boeing Posideon, its there already.
@TheCharlie359 Whichever MPA we, hopefully... eventually, get it won't be for quite a few years yet; most likely the back end of the decade or even pushed into the 2020s, but I'd prefer to see the Airbus A319 MPA myself. It gives the possibility of commonality with France, who seems set to be our closest ally in the coming years, and also workshare to the UK in building and maintaining them. Mind you, I'd just be happy to see us have any MPA. South Africa are getting rid of their C-47s soon LOL!
@rvfharrier Agreed, the UK MUST have a powerful MPA capability, i suppose that the Airbus would be of benefit to the UK's industry it just seems further afeild in terms of aquisition, the US would probably be willing to allow the RN/RAF to purchase some of its aircraft in order to aquire them sooner, France is a important ally and im glad cooperation is set to increase but the USA remains our pricipal alliance partner and therefore interoperability with her would seem to be more desirable.
@TheCharlie359 In all honesty we won't be acquiring an MPA anytime soon anyway, the government won't be seen dead having the nerve to buy a new MPA so soon after wasting £4 billion cancelling the last one that was around 90% finished anyway, so timescale isn't going to factor in hugely when it comes to aircraft choice. Far more important will be benefit to UK industry; commonality with our close, politically and geographically, allies and cost. The A319 would seem to have all three ticked.
@rvfharrier, Its my understanding though that the A319 is a proposed platform and isnt under construction or even set to begin construction for any nation as of yet, the P-8 Posideion is a go, being under construction for the US and i believe Australia and India have also placed orders though i cant be sure, it seems to me that precisly because of that huge waste of cash for Nimrod that a cheap of the shelf, proven and in production platform would be politically less damaging and less costly.
@TheCharlie359 It is still a concept, yes. That's why I brought up the idea of collaborating with France to share the development costs between us, since we may both be looking for an MPA around the same time, sometime early next decade, and this aircraft seems perfectly suited for both.
The P-8 isn't really that cheap, and when you factor in that the A319/A320 is a very commonly used civil airliner; support infrastructure and spares can be found pretty much everywhere! It seems a winner to me.
hahaha the music
TheTwollocks 2 weeks ago
@TheTwollocks captain pugwash
ROOSTER1067 1 week ago
The royal navy is to small in my opinion, wer making maybe 8 destroyers when america has like 10 aircraft carriers.
thethreelions3 1 month ago
@thethreelions3, The USA is a superpower, the UK is not, thats the difference, for example, the US spends $600 billion + a year on defense, the UK meanwhile spends roughly $50 billion.
TheCharlie359 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheCharlie359 "The USA is a superpower, the UK is not"
Hmm, not sure i see it quite that way
(after all we lead the world Militarily for 140 years [1805 - 1945] the US as compared is like a Impetuous child whom's found his dad's gun & is waving it around like Dick Turpin ;)
From my perspective: we may no longer be the Dominant Global Power these days, but we still sit comfortably within the Top VI Geopolitical club (just as it was before we eclipsed the Spanish, and out-competed the French).
TSR1989FF 1 month ago
@TheCharlie359 The USA is the worlds only current Superpower but the UK is still a Major World Power.
USA= £700 Billion
UK= £70 Billion
MrXray2011 1 week ago
@MrXray2011, No argument that the UK is still a major player and the RN is still (debatably) the 2nd or 3rd most capable navy, the figures you've given though are wrong, the UK currently spends around $50 billion on defense behind the USA with $600 billions +, China around $150 billion (exact figures ?) and France with around $57 billions, still a vast budget and a navy second to none in terms of quality.
TheCharlie359 1 week ago
@TheCharlie359 The UK's budget is currently £70 Billion- although they're making cuts so that number will drop, for now. But it is not £50 Billion. Oh and the Tories have put £180 Billion away for the military for new ships/ jets etc.
MrXray2011 1 week ago
@MrXray2011, Where are you getting your figures from? Check the official MOD website, the UK will spend £34.3 billion on defense for 2012-13 (2.3% of GDP), which equates to roughly $50 billion, your in dream world if you believe we spend £70 billion!
TheCharlie359 1 week ago
@thethreelions3 Quality over Quantity.
valltcon 3 weeks ago
@valltcon i think it will end up the reverse watered down and under armed .as usual to a get the quantity we require
ROOSTER1067 3 weeks ago
@valltcon I'd rather have both, maybe 25 of them would be good enough- that and 12+ Destroyers. 15x SSN's and 5x SSBN's
MrXray2011 1 week ago
@thethreelions3 We should have 12+ Destroyers, 25+ Frigates, 12+ SSN's and 5x SSNB's and 4 Aircraft Carriers.
MrXray2011 1 week ago
@MrXray2011 That is pretty much doubling the size of the navy and when the country is in debt and all services facing cutbacks its highly unlikely.
thethreelions3 1 week ago
@thethreelions3 I know- it's just wishful thinking. Although I can see the RN getting bigger in the future- after the UK's GDP starts picking up again which should happen soon as the UK is building a manufacturing base again, plus we are the worlds biggest banking nation. We just need the Eurozone to sort themselves out.
MrXray2011 1 week ago
@MrXray2011 I wish this could happen as well, would be brilliant. Hopefully it will grow to a size near this, and we can use our navy as a force projection as we have done throughout history.
thethreelions3 1 week ago
@thethreelions3 The RN is still the best Navy in the world, it's not the biggest but it is the most advanced!!
MrXray2011 1 week ago
@MrXray2011 Its definatly the most advanced with astute (best sub), T45 (best destroyer) and the T26 and QE on the way. Its still a formidable force, but it doesnt pack the same punch that it has done in our past, during our empire, WW1, WW2 etc when britania ruled the waves. can i ask if u know, will there still be a T26 and a T27? and what are their differences?
thethreelions3 1 week ago
@thethreelions3 It packs a bigger punch but can be in fewer places at the same time. There never was a Type 27- some people tried to argue with me that there was such thing. I just told them to look on the Royal Navy website. There was speculation that a Type 26 would be the replacement for the Type 23 (which it really is) and then a new class would replace the mine warfare ships and other smaller ships but it would have had a main gun and missiles too- this was deemed pointless
MrXray2011 1 week ago
@MrXray2011 ...and so it was scrapped before it even got to be drawn. If you really want to look further into the RN go on Navy Matters or the Royal Navy website.
The RN has everything official- QE Class and Type 26.
The Navy Matters site- Plans, possible ships such as a Type 45 like ship but the size, weight and firepower of a cruiser. New LHD's etc...
Combined they allow you to predict what the RN will look like in the future. It looks good but Labour may ruin it.
MrXray2011 1 week ago
@MrXray2011 thanks for the info, so there will be a C1,C2 and C3 model? and if so the 13 which will be created will be the ASW varient or a mixture? Ive checked out the website you sugested, alot is just speculation, i dont think many of these ships will be created tbh although has some good info.
thethreelions3 1 week ago
Nice basketball court in the back ;)
JLXZ83 2 months ago
@JLXZ83 i know that is a large flight deck and will be a joy for the helicopter pilots to fly from
ROOSTER1067 2 months ago
How could you put a French sounding piece of music on a vid of a future British warship?? Im so offended..haha made me laugh though :)
TyphoonDelta1 2 months ago
@TyphoonDelta1 perhaps in hindsight there is now a tree tie between france and england to use each others aircraft carriers so it might be so far wrong if you know what i mean
ROOSTER1067 2 months ago
@ROOSTER1067 Jokes on the French really. Just after signing that we decommissioned HMS Ark Royal- we can use theirs but when they come to use ours they'll find her in lots of peices in Turkey. In all seriousness, it is very sad.
MrXray2011 1 month ago
@Rooster1067...yes me harty ! it was the music that did it... I remember it all too well....even though I am only 21 of course :-)
119supersniper 2 months ago
@119supersniper i remember it first hand i am 44 years old ,i was brought up on crap like that
ROOSTER1067 2 months ago
I name this ship....The Black Pig !!
119supersniper 2 months ago
@119supersniper like from pug wash cartoon ,what a good memory you have ,its all such a long time ago now.
ROOSTER1067 2 months ago
I name this ship HMS Bloody Marvellous...H/T Monty Python
tallfish3 3 months ago 2
@tallfish3 it will be blood marvellous if they get built on time and budget
ROOSTER1067 3 months ago
bloody bum boys navy is such a waste join the army
lostlaces 3 months ago
@lostlaces Why is a brown job floating about on a naval page. Must be some sort of attraction! What regiment do you have allegience to?
SuperAncientmariner 3 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner your mum and if you are smart youl join the army or marines i am now going for marines and before you say anything i class marines as a separate branch from navy
lostlaces 2 months ago
@lostlaces Booties are very proud and happy to be part of RN. Now you may be good enough to get into basic, in which case you will come to know the pleasures of Lympstone and the moors. You may even get your beret and globe. But you will change you're outlook. Are you sure you wouldn't be better being a pongo. It's the softer option.
BTW I was 28 years RN and 10 years MOD(N)
SuperAncientmariner 2 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner so you have been bumbed for 28yrs in a ship and 10 in a careers office lol ok
lostlaces 2 months ago
@lostlaces Didn't you know that that is where Marines come from, sailors shagging army types. Still , you'll find out at Lympstone. If, repeat if, you get through it you will be worshipping the White ensign.
Careers office? Wrong dept, try again.
SuperAncientmariner 2 months ago
@malonyheadcracker i just had a limited choice of music and certain track are blocked youtube ,but i know what you mean
ROOSTER1067 5 months ago
why not spend the money on education and feeding the poor people. So that the poor people dont get angry and try to kill you. just a thought. its lot easier to clean vommit than a dead man blown to small bits...
funnyvoice007 9 months ago
@funnyvoice007 nice sentiments but life not like that in the real word ,its all about the big stick
ROOSTER1067 9 months ago
@funnyvoice007 billions upon billions of dollars have been given to Africa over the past 20 years what has it accomplished. all it did is make many African nations dependent on the aid. so now they need billions more..... Afghanistan for example is not a war about food or education. The Taliban don't want education they have peppered them schools with rpgs and bullets. It's easier to control a illiterate population, their is a fine line between social funding and military action.
Baseshocks 9 months ago
love the music
ecamp22 10 months ago
@queenshussars well with this goverment spending cuts pug wash might be best we could hope for
ROOSTER1067 10 months ago
T26 will probably build in batches of 4 with a total of between 12 to 16 ships, 12 is the minimum number possible because the RN is commited to at least 6 standing tasks, 9 would be in commision and 3 in various stages of refit and training so the RN would be left with only 3 frigates for purely national duties, i doubt we will ever see 16 even when the economic recovery happens but if Russia continues its rearming programmes this may change.
TheCharlie359 1 year ago
@TheCharlie359 the more the better you never know when you might need a few more
ROOSTER1067 1 year ago
@ROOSTER1067, Agreed, however the RN seems to be in terminal decline as British goverments since 1945 are blind to the lessons of history, to rule the waves is to rule the world as the USN clearly demonstrates but NO,10 seems to think it knows better, shame.
TheCharlie359 1 year ago
@TheCharlie359 "1922" was when our Royal Navy began to decline.
The "Washington parity Treaty" of that same year scuppered all plans to modernise the fleet, made it so any chance of preserving "Dreadnought" was gone, & surrendered our unrivalled dominance of the Seas to the Yank's, & was the beginning of the end for the British Shipbuilding Industry (which until that point was building 80% of the worlds ships!).
The Lib-dems have been in the minority ever since they signed that rag of paper.
TSR1989FF 1 year ago
@TSR1989FF, The RN didnt really begin to decline in terms of size or importance until after WW2, "Washington Treaty" gave the US parity in capital ships alone, other fleet units such as cruisers and destroyers were far more numerous in the RN than the USN until around 1943. After WW1 the US began a huge naval construction programme aimed at making her fleet number 1, what the treaty did was stop an arms race with the UK that we would probably have lost due to US economic might.
TheCharlie359 1 year ago
@TSR1989FF Actually, that treaty probably saved the RN of that era. After WW1, the US and Japan principally started huge naval expansion programmes; out of desparation to remain a premier fleet the UK started developing the G3s and N3s but the WW1-shattered economy could never hope to maintain her current fleet, nevermind keep up in a naval arms race. That treaty allowed the RN to scrap its unaffordable surplus tonnage and remain a world leading fleet, equal to the USN, while doing so! Perfect!
rvfharrier 1 year ago
@TSR1989FF A little thing called "Nazi Aggression" kind of made our Navy big again. Although in the Inter-War period it was still bigger than the next two navies combined (France and America)
MrXray2011 1 month ago
@MrXray2011, In the interwar period the RN was not as large as the next two navies combined at all. Great Britain surrendered her two power standard at Washington in 1922, from then on although GB still overall ruled the waves, in numbers of capital ships and carriers we were equal to the Americans. Japan not France had the worlds third largest navy, it was known as th 5,5,3,1.75 agreement. Only in cruisers did GB still dominate, we demanded greater numbers to protect our empires trade.
TheCharlie359 1 month ago
@MrXray2011 The next two Navies in the 1930's after the Royal Navy were actually the US Navy & Imperial Japanese Navy.
While we still outnumbered our Rivals Individually, Punitive 1920's Disarmament Treaties & the 1929- Recession had left the RN, Army & RAF under-strengthed, & operating Warships/ Tanks & Aircraft which were mostly either outdated, or not available in adequate numbers.
Just one example of this is that we had to source the KGV Class Battleships Armor Plating from Czechoslovakia...
TSR1989FF 1 month ago
@TSR1989FF, Once again you speak sense and fact sir, i salute you!!
TheCharlie359 1 month ago
@TheCharlie359 My thanks for the compliment, much appreciated.
I concur with most of your Standpoints, as although we still commanded a reasonable force ratio superiority to our rivals in the 1930's, we had allowed ourselves to become complacent, if not co-currently rather pacifistic
(as we failed to act until it was too late to avoid a Long & Bankrupting war, one which we won, but lost the aftermath thereof).
Still, could have been worse (we could have lost the war as well).
TSR1989FF 1 month ago
@MrXray2011 .. because the 1929 Crash had progressively Bankrupted almost all of our own Armor Plate Manufacturers, just like it had also seriously wrecked the Shipbuilding Industry
(to such an extent it would never recover).
TSR1989FF 1 month ago
@TSR1989FF Clearly it did recover as by 1940 our fleet was more technologically advanced than the German Navy. The Royal Navy was also still the biggest and so technically it was still the most powerful. The fact is the German Navy failed to sink the RN (I know it sank individual ships but I mean as a whole) ! British technology was further ahead than US and Imperial Japans tech. We designed the jet engine and had the second fighter jet in the world (the Gloster).
MrXray2011 1 month ago
@MrXray2011, By 1940 all but 2 of the RN's capital ships were over 20 years old and in areas such as the fleets air arm and our carriers, we had been severly outclassed by the Americans and Japanese, this would change however because of the huge rearmament programmes initiated in the late 1930's but to claim we had any advantage other than the overall size of the RN by 1940 is wrong, technology no matter how good it is is useless unless you have in in suffient quantity and in action when needed.
TheCharlie359 1 month ago
@TheCharlie359 Russia is doing just that, of their four Kirov Class Battlecruisers they only have one in service at present, but they are in the eary stages of recommissioning two of the others, & with no modern equivilent of "HMS Bristol" on the cards this time we are disadvantaged, as we have non carrier capital ships of our own.
We need Destroyers & Cruisers, & with the new QE class in development we need them soon, after all carriers are only effective with suitable warships escorting them
TSR1989FF 1 year ago
@TSR1989FF hms bristol was a large ship but not much more capable then a then a type 42 in terms of armament but i know what you mean .a carrier without escort ships is a sitting duck ,i totaly agree with you.
ROOSTER1067 1 year ago
@ROOSTER1067, The Bristol was extremely manpower intensive hence the reason the RN was forced to reduce the size of her then future warships and their complements, the result, the T42 which the navy has never been satisfied with.
TheCharlie359 1 year ago
@TSR1989FF, I have to say i dont agree, the days of the large surface combatant are over, carriers are the modern day capital ships and as long as they have escorts that are highly capable wether they be cruisers, destroyers or frigates they are totally effective, HMS - Bristols modern equivilant is HMS - Daring a completly capable warship, i agree we need more T45's and to speed up the T26 programme but thats it, anything else would be a waste of cash better spent elsewhere.
TheCharlie359 1 year ago
@TheCharlie359 On that note, I would base the Type 26 on the hull of the Type 45. It would make life easier for BAE to merely modify the Type 45 design and therefore save money in design and procurement but would also save the navy a lot in operating and maintenance costs.
No real point in building more Type 45s, too many escorts and not enough that needs escorting, but basing the Type 26 on the Type 45 hull would nicely eat into and extend the savings made over the build of the six Type 45s.
rvfharrier 1 year ago
@rvfharrier, I do and dont agree, i believe that at least 3 more T45's are needed, to maintain some kind of balance for a future fleet which most probably consist of 2 CV's not the currently planned 1. Regards the T26, designs at BAE are based around the T45 hull and machinery and it will most certainly be BAE that gets the project.
TheCharlie359 1 year ago
@TheCharlie359 More Type 45s would be nice for rotational purposes, yes, but with the limited budget the RN has it would make more sense to put that extra money into other areas.
Indeed, and it's excellent news too. For too long the UK has been developing too highly refined, expensive, gold plated military products that have zero export potential. The Type 26 and C2 (T27?) are the best chances the UK has had in decades to get huge export orders in and the shipbuilders and MoD have to take it!
rvfharrier 1 year ago
@rvfharrier, I would like those 3 extra ships but we both no realistically its never going to happen, and i agree, im particulary pleased at the news.
Regards the RAF's new tankers, are they owned by the RAF and maintained by "airtanker" or does the MOD lease or charter the planes?
TheCharlie359 1 year ago
@TheCharlie359 AirTanker own and maintain the aircraft, the RAF effectively pays for them by the hour. However, as part of the deal the RAF receives priority in terms of requests for the fourteen aircraft, when not being used by the RAF the aircraft may be being used by the French Air Force among others. On top of that, the Airbus A400M (which will be fully owned and maintained by the RAF) also doubles up as an MRTT, so a nicely capable A400M/A330 tanker fleet is likely. Doesn't look too shabby.
rvfharrier 1 year ago
@TheCharlie359 Also, the way you say 'in the office'; do you work at the MoD or something?
rvfharrier 1 year ago
@rvfharrier, How come they wear the RAF livery and paint schemes then if we dont actually own them, and no, i work for BAE.
TheCharlie359 1 year ago
@TheCharlie359 Because they're primarily RAF aircraft, the RAF will dictate the aircraft usage and effectively has the rights to them even if the cheap MoD didn't go all the way with buying the aircraft themselves.
Ah, interesting. A career in BAE has crossed my mind, though a life on the seas themselves is very tempting! Hey, since you're an insider (lol), do you know anything of the MARS programme? I know BAE is bidding for contracts within MARS, but the programme seems indefinitely delayed?
rvfharrier 1 year ago
@rvfharrier, Thanks for the info, when it comes to MARS your geuss is as good as mine, at the moment i believe the goverment has postponed the programme, while BAE was involved in feilding possible designs in collaboration with BMT as far as im aware we were never actually bidding for the construction programme rather we were to take the lead as the primary contracter and outsource the building programme, heard Daewoo were the preferred partner.
TheCharlie359 1 year ago
@TheCharlie359 Shame, MARS is an absolutely crucial programme. All of our tankers bar the two Waves are single hulled and therefore outlawed by new MARPOL regulations, navies can exempt themselves if they chose but the political ramifications won't take long to show if the UK were to do so.
As for the builders, I'd heard that for the six fleet tankers but AFAIK the three JSBL ships and the fleet solid support ships were likely to be built in the UK. Heh, if you hear anything let me know! :)
rvfharrier 1 year ago
@rvfharrier i will have to google it later
ROOSTER1067 1 year ago
@rvfharrier, Also the most recent news in the office and i confimed it on Janes defense is that the UK and Canada are in highly advanced talks about making the T26 a joint project and according to Janes which is probably as you know the most respected defense news agency, Australia, New Zeland, Malaysia and Turkey are also very intrested in the project, if BAE gets the job its highly likely the first 4 will pursue T26 as BAE has large divisions in North America and Australia.
TheCharlie359 1 year ago
@rvfharrier The Type 45 hull is "very loud" (according to relative who served aboard one), and has some fairly dense design flaws; such as not being able to see when a RHIB hits the water.
Also to add: C2 is dead. With MARS, Successor, Astute, CVF, and Type 26 to bring into service over the next decade there isn't time or funding.
Regarding Type 45 numbers- the UK is looking at deploying one carrier. It will only require 2 T45s, and with 6 that's easily achievable. Amphibs as well? No problem.
BertrumPantyshield 10 months ago
@BertrumPantyshield whats RHIB ????????????
ROOSTER1067 10 months ago
@ROOSTER1067 Rigid Hulled Inflatable Boat. The speed boats thrown out of the side of the thing. If you look at where the doors are on the T45, the kink outwards (stealth and all that) is just below it. So one, apparently, can't see when the boat when it hits the water. Not Ideal by any stretch of the imagination.
BertrumPantyshield 10 months ago
@BertrumPantyshield I'm not, of course, advocating simply crossing out 45 and replacing it with 26 on the hull; but why attempt to reinvent the wheel on the issue when we have a hull already designed, already exceeding performance requirements and that would bring cost benefits to the fleet via a shared logistics train? Taking the basic hull, fixing a few faults and optimising it for ASW, and a bit of land attack wouldn't go amiss (though let's not get ahead of ourselves!), does make good sense.
rvfharrier 10 months ago
@BertrumPantyshield As for C2, I do share your fears; though I also hope common sense will prevail and the requirement will be pushed forward at some stage. It's quite rich to cut C2 citing a lack of funding and then also keep our shiny new destroyers and frigates in port while our patrol slots go empty because we can't afford to use high-end warships to fill them!
On the Type 45 numbers, I'm aware of that. I wasn't talking from a simultaneously deployed standpoint, but for rotational purposes.
rvfharrier 10 months ago
@rvfharrier Perhaps if C2 is binned, C3 (with ANZAC interest) can be proliferated in large numbers. 18 or so "global corvettes" could do the banal stuff and allow the escort fleet to focus on the strategic raiding doctrine.
I'd rather have 2 QEs, 6 T45s, and 12 T26s than 1 QE, 6 T45s, 8 T26s, and 6 C2s. We're not always going to be patrolling, and the idea of under-arming ships (essentially what C2 was/is) to save money is madness.
BertrumPantyshield 10 months ago
@BertrumPantyshield Well, I'd be hoping for eighteen C3s even without C2 being binned. 2 x CVF, 6 x T45, 8/10 x T26, 10/12 x C2 and 18 x C3 plus the amphibs would make me a very happy man. With that surface fleet mix we have enough economical platforms to keep our patrol and forward presence taskings stationed while retaining the ability to deploy a task force surpassed in capability only by the USN. Those high-end warships also get worked much less hard and so have higher mission availability.
rvfharrier 10 months ago
@rvfharrier That'd be ideal, but past and present experience make that ideal unlikely. If C2 was equipped as you stated, and in the number you stated, then absolutely go for it. It just seems likely that there won't be enough money. The admirals want willy-waving ships; not a sensible fleet. So any C2 money will likely go towards an extra few Type 26s.
Of course, there's all the other problems the RN faces...
BertrumPantyshield 10 months ago
@BertrumPantyshield It's not a case of under-arming C2, it's a case of making it economical and not over-arming it with gold plating.
A 120m, 3500 tonne C2 capable of 25 knots equipped with Artisan 3D, 24 x CAMM (32 if it can be quad-packed into 8 x SYLVER A43 cells), 1 x Phalanx, 8 x Harpoon and a recycled 114mm Mk 8 would be perfect. Nothing too expensive in that fit-out, all sharing commonality with many other vessels in the fleet and very capable of surviving in a medium-threat environment.
rvfharrier 10 months ago
@BertrumPantyshield That C2 gives us the option of sending something other than a Type 26 or a Type 45 to a situation that may not absolutely warrant one, but for which the threat environment is too high for a C3; able to complete a stabilisation/MIOPS task economically while still having the wherewithal to survive in the face of any likely escalation in force and allowing that Type 26/45 to hold back and react to a more serious situation that may develop elsewhere. That's strategic flexibility.
rvfharrier 10 months ago
@rvfharrier, I'd say that the RN is going to be equipped with 6 T45's and 16 T26's built in 4 batches of 4 with one batch (probably the final ship of each batch) built without most major weapon systems, perhaps just the maingun and CIWS or 2 30mm cannons but of course capable of being brought upto full spec in an emergency, i doubt a seperate C2 design is really on the cards and think only 12 C3's are realisticly planned for in the current economic and political climate, your thoughts?
TheCharlie359 8 months ago
@TheCharlie359 i dont think the c2 variant will happen under current spending plans,lets just hope the design dont go over budget or design problems
ROOSTER1067 8 months ago
@ROOSTER1067, Me to, i just cant see the RN being able to justify the building of a seperate class of ship (C2) to patrol in low threat theatres, we already have the River class for that reason, i think its more likely the RN will insist on a higher number of T26's and simply build some of them "for but not with", this saves the costs of developing a seperate class, puts more hulls in the water and allows for the them to be upgraded when needed or when finances allow, as has been done with T45.
TheCharlie359 8 months ago
@TheCharlie359 GOOD IDEA but the t45 was to expensive in the first place and not much ability for land attack and there is better equipped ships for sub hunting but these ships could be adapted to the task
ROOSTER1067 8 months ago
@ROOSTER1067, True T45 is very expensive but its also a very capable and sophisticated warship and would have been even more so had she been fitted with TLAM's, SSM's and RAM as the RN would have ideally liked, but for now they are dedicated AAW ships, better to buy the hulls and upgrade as and when you can than spend a fortune on very small numbers, T23 is a very capable sub hunter, one of the best in the world in fact and im sure the RN intends its replacements to be even better.
TheCharlie359 8 months ago
@TheCharlie359 it sounds a good idea to me if it can be afforded,the navy seems to suffer cuts more then the other forces at the moment
ROOSTER1067 8 months ago
@TheCharlie359 We're getting about 13 Type 26's coming into service from about 2020. There's a possibility of getting two more Type 45's but I doubt that very much.
MrXray2011 5 months ago
@MrXray2011 all bepends how the economy goes
ROOSTER1067 5 months ago
@ROOSTER1067 Well our economys doing alright its the Euro and Doller thats dragging us down but I doubt we'll get more because we've lost our balls as a country, unfortunatly; look as recent events, Kenyans sueing us becuase something that may or may not have happened 60 years ago- I bet we give them millions!!! We should get many more Frigates, Destroyers, Aircraft Carriers and Submarines but unfortunatly we've got nothing to protect.
MrXray2011 5 months ago
@MrXray2011 yes were getting 13 at around 6.500 tonnes and 7 at around 3000 tonnes but were also onabout getting UXV combatant which will carry are new stealth UCAV called BAE taranis
but were not getting anymore t45 were only gettin 6
wiganerrmc 5 months ago
@wiganerrmc i cant find anything on the net about getting any more t45 s so i just take it six is all we are going to see
ROOSTER1067 5 months ago
@ROOSTER1067 ye 6 is all we are getting we was getting 12 but then it went to 8 but then 6 because we are now getting more type 26 frigates
wiganerrmc 5 months ago
@wiganerrmc not all bad then
ROOSTER1067 5 months ago
@wiganerrmc We're getting 13 in total- to replace the current Type 23s on a 1:1 basis. Although 20 would be good, we should definatly get more than 6 Type 45's though 12-15 should do. How many UXV combatant's are we getting then and how many BAE taranis's will they be able to carry?
MrXray2011 5 months ago
@MrXray2011 ye well i was told were getting 13 larger type 26 to replace are 13 type 23 and we are also getting a smaller one like a corvette size warship
and i dont no properly yet how many UXV combatant were getting because the plans have not been aproved but it will be around 6-10 and it will carry around 12 BAE taranis at max but around 6 in peace time but it will have loads of armament aswell like tommahawks and so on
wiganerrmc 5 months ago
@wiganerrmc 6- 10 and yet we're only getting 2 aircraft carriers!! It looks good though, I hope we get them as well as more frigates and destroyers.
MrXray2011 4 months ago
@MrXray2011, Guys we aren't getting any UXV's, its nothing more than a design concept to show how versatile the T45 platform can be, naval planning for the year 2030 envigages a fleet of 2 QE class carriers, 2 LPD's, 6 T45, 12 T23/6 and 4 Global corvettes (a less capable T26) depending on budget avaliability, to these will be added 12 C3's that are intended to replace all mine warfare and hydrographic research hulls. The submarine fleet will be 7 Astutes and 4 Vanguard/ future SSBN's.
TheCharlie359 3 months ago
@TheCharlie359 There is a possibility... why do you think that the number of Type 45's halved, apart from the global economic climate. The Navy know that we need a certain amount of ships and 19 is not enough (Frigates and Destroyers) The last two Type 45's (ships 7 and 8) were cancelled to bring the Type 26 porject forward. And yes I know that it is a concept but they are designed to work with Taranis and so there is a possibility of getting some, not definate but not definatly not!!!
MrXray2011 3 months ago
@MrXray2011, I can appreciate your optimism but its simply never gonna happen, the UK has neither the funds or the need for such ships (UXV). I agree totally that 19 escorts is not enough but even if all current planning options are taken up this would still only give the RN a fleet of 22 escorts anyway. Its simple, neither is the cash avalible or the political will in place, British goverments remain blind with regards to seapower. T45's 7+8 were cancelled to balance budgets and begin T26 CONT-
TheCharlie359 3 months ago
@MrXray2011, CONT- project and no doubt to secure the future for the carriers. Taranis as far as im aware was also a concept which will not be pursued as of the SDSR due to the new Anglo/French defense treaty which states both countries will co-produce new and advanced designs for UAV's.
TheCharlie359 3 months ago
@TheCharlie359 Taranis will fly for the first time in Australia later this year!!!
MrXray2011 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheCharlie359 Taranis will fly for the first time in Australia later this year!!!
MrXray2011 1 month ago
@TheCharlie359 13 type 26 have been acepted there getting built
wiganerrmc 1 month ago
@wiganerrmc lets hope they dont over run on budget and delivered on time not years later
ROOSTER1067 1 month ago
@wiganerrmc, Not true im afraid, the SDSR states only that the RN requires a fleet of 19 escorts, hence with 6 T45's one would expect 13 T26's however NO firm commitment has been made with regards numbers and only vauge reference to them entering service at somepoint in the early 2020's when the carriers are complete.
TheCharlie359 1 month ago
@TheCharlie359 Actually the SDSR say that we need 30+ escorts to carry out operations properly. Back in 2003 we pretty much had that number. And we are getting 13x Type 26's- they're replacing the Type 23's one for one after 2020, thats why the number of Type 45's was reduced (again) from 8 to 6.
MrXray2011 1 month ago
@MrXray2011, I'm afraid your mistaken, you can read the SDSR at the offical MOD site, it clearly states the number 19 for the number of escorts in the fleet. You maybe confusing documents however, back in 1998 the then Labour goverment conducted an SDR which gave escort numbers at 32 but that was 14 years ago and times have changed dramatically in the ensueing years. It also says the T26 will enter service in the early 2020's to replace remaining T23's but gives NO firm numbers for replacements.
TheCharlie359 1 month ago
@TheCharlie359 I don't need to. I know that we need 32, not 19!!! 19 is not enough for a Navy that needs to protect the UK, the Commonwealth, her allies and her Soverign Territories around the planet. We will get, at least 13- that's why we cut the number of Type 45's from 8 to 6, from an original number of 12!! We decommissioned 6 frigates in the past 10 years and have cut the number of destroyers (less Type 45's than we had Type 42's.)
MrXray2011 1 month ago
@MrXray2011, I completely agree with you that 19 escorts is far to little for all the RN's current commitments and any future emergency but that is the number the goverment has settled on as of 2011. The 7/8th T45's were cancelled to bring forward the T26 programme yes and to cement the carrier decision, however the number of 12 hulls was given when the cold war was still being waged and a reduction was inevitable. I know too well that the British goverment lacks an understanding of seapower.
TheCharlie359 1 month ago
@MrXray2011, Also my point remains, you and i may believe greater numbers of ships are needed in the RN but that changes nothing, NO firm number for T26's has yet been stated and to say that the goverment of the day will replace them on a one for one basis is speculation at best and nothing more. You made the point yourself, the T45's were cut by half and frigate numbers since 1990 have declined by over 2/3rds, i hope 13 or maybe more are built but we shall see, GB is nolonger a superpower.
TheCharlie359 1 month ago
@wiganerrmc They're not being built yet but lets hope that by the time they are the Tories are in charge alone so we can sort the economy out and make even more.
MrXray2011 1 month ago
@MrXray2011 lets hope so,but i think they are a must anyhow ,the type 23 will be so old by the time these ships come in to service they could not go on much longer and the navy cant shrink much smaller or we might as well not have one
ROOSTER1067 1 month ago
@MrXray2011 i dont think the torises would build more even if we did have a strong econermy
wiganerrmc 1 month ago
It is going to be later than 2020, the thing isn't even designed yet. Don't know why you don't just save money and buy FREMM.
stalkingalizee 1 year ago
@stalkingalizee You are right it will come into servise in 2021.It is currently being designed by BAE systems.
Regarding FREMM the main reason not tobuy it is because it means thousands of jobs will go overseas in the production of the new ships.Also it may not turn out to be that more expensive.The government has ordered BAE to keep costs down so 'more ships can be ordered'.......also there is a possibility of exporting up to 6 to Brazil.
james8765100 1 year ago
@james8765100 yes keep the price down and we can have more of them then half a dozen like the type 45,s .but not so cheap it end up like rubbish like the type 42,s and 21 frigate
ROOSTER1067 1 year ago
@ROOSTER1067 I agree we need more air defence destroyers.You would think that 1Billion pounds for a ship is too expensive,saying that they are the best most advanced warships around.As you say the type 42 destroyers where not very good and the RN knows this through experiance.We are preety mutch the only nation to have engaged in modern naval warfare(Falklands war),and one of the things we learned was the importance of an outstanding air defence destroyer something we now have with the type 45
james8765100 1 year ago
@james8765100 It seems like the RN has decided to splash the cash for six air defence destroyers,and persue a cheaper option for our frigates.
Something i agree with because the type 45 is tasked with protecting other ships not just herself where as the job of the type 26 is to go off and hunt other ships and subs in numbers.
Sure it would be nice for both classes to be the best money can buy,but theese days realistically nobody can affoard that not even the U.S navy.
james8765100 1 year ago
@james8765100 i totaly agree on the money front at least we can have them in some big numbers,shame we cant have a few more type 45,s all that money to devolop the class and only build six seems a waste
ROOSTER1067 1 year ago
@ROOSTER1067 What is your opinion on the Queen Elizabeth class carriers.Do you think they will both eventually come into comission?...keep in mind that the 2010 SDSR only outlines spending and plans from 2010-2015.The decision on how many F-35s to order should be made in the 2015 SDSR.
james8765100 1 year ago
@james8765100 i do belive they will both be built , i would not be suprised if one gets sold .i belive the second one will have catapults for non vstol planes ,but what happens to the first one with no catapults and the cheaper f35c (non vertical take off) and no harriers,would you spend that much on a ship and no planes only helicopter????????????????????
ROOSTER1067 1 year ago
@ROOSTER1067, QE class carriers, Queen Elizebeth to enter service in 2016 as a helicopter only platform, F35B STOVL jumpjet has been abandoned by the UK armed forces in favour of F35C carrier variant which is strenghthed for ocean operations, purchase numbers will reduce from 150 aircraft to 108, deliverys slated to begin around 2018, 2nd carrier PoW will enter service in 2020 (at which point QE will enter reserve) and will be fully operational with F35C BY 2024, QE to be refitted around 2030.
TheCharlie359 1 year ago
@ROOSTER1067 No I would not spend that much,and that is the reason i think they will both become fully oporational.
We are going to get both of the ships anyway,and the desision on how many F-35s to order will come in the 2015 SDSR,by then the economy will be doing well again and these deep cuts the government is enforcing will be over,and more money will be available.
The navy will not rest until it gets the extra planes,so them both becoming fully oporational is the only logical outcome.
james8765100 1 year ago
@james8765100 i hope so ,but the only reason we are building two carriers is B A has put clauses in to the contracts so they cant get out of it .they must have a vision some thing like this would happen.and they will be paid even more now because the design is altering while the ships are under construction they aint going to do it for a favour.
ROOSTER1067 1 year ago
@james8765100,Its planned to reduce numbers of F35 because F35-C is a more capable jet so purchase numbers reduced from 150 to 108, shared between the RAF and RN, the money saved has been diverted to allow the QE class carriers to be fitted with EM catapults and arrestor gear for conventional operations and interoperability with our US and French allies, both carriers will remain in the RN though we will eventually lose both HMS-ILLUSTRIOUS for QE and HMS-OCEAN for PoW, QE will refit in 2030 ish
TheCharlie359 1 year ago
@james8765100 That is bunk. BAE will build the ship just like DCN builds it in France and Fincantieri in Italy. You are just buying a license and integrate similar weapons as the rest of Europe. You think Brasil will buy your ships when they won't even let your warships port?
stalkingalizee 1 year ago
@stalkingalizee the problem with partnering the french and itilians is they have a habit of demanding certain things in the design and certain equipment from from threre national manufactures and then pulling out of the prodject and every one else is left with something they dont entirley want
ROOSTER1067 1 year ago
@ROOSTER1067 France and Italy have already built some, France is on the fourth one, the design is already set for us. You can adapt it to your needs. There is no pulling out of the project now.
stalkingalizee 1 year ago
@ROOSTER1067 as with the horizon class witch led to the UK leaving to build its own type 45's
james8765100 1 year ago
@stalkingalizee, The RN demands larger more capable frigates historically than its EU counterparts, besides its based on the T45 hull and machinery so money savings are aready being made.
TheCharlie359 1 year ago
@TheCharlie359 At 6kt, FREMM is a destroyer. France calls everything fregates. It is a scaled Horizon. T26 hasn't even finished its requirements phase so it is too early to say what it will be. FREMM is already built and carries all the firepower and sensors RN will need for the next 40 years. With the annual £1.6 billion shortfall that has to be cut out of MoD's budget, the real question is can RN afford line ships like T26/FREMM or if they will have to go for patrol frigates instead.
stalkingalizee 1 year ago
@stalkingalizee, FREMM is a viable solution i agree, however the T26 will ineveitably be based on the T45 platform as it would be political suicide for a UK goverment to buy French ships, the RN despite the recent savage cuts has a global mission unlike its French/ Italian contempories who operate mainly in the Atlantic/ Med and therefore despite pressures these top spec ships will be built.
TheCharlie359 1 year ago
@TheCharlie359 MN is more global than RN. CdG battlegroup was in IOR bombing ragheads last month, exercising with India now going to fight pirates. Operations span from Caribbean, West Africa, Somalia, PG, Afghanistan to the Pacific. RN stops at the Gulf. UK doesn't have the financial luxury of worrying about industrial policy if they want to keep a capable/affordable RN. Time to get over BS and join the EU cooperative. That is what the treaty is promoting.
stalkingalizee 1 year ago
@stalkingalizee joint devolopment is better value for money if you get what you want
ROOSTER1067 1 year ago
@ROOSTER1067 It isn't even joint development at this stage. FREMM would be an off-the-shelf design purchase and tailored to RN needs. If RN needs export control, that can be had. It is done all the time. BAE will build it, Thales UK will fit it, and MBDA will arm it.
stalkingalizee 1 year ago
@stalkingalizee i think its a good idea just the royal navy dont seem to intrested
ROOSTER1067 1 year ago
@stalkingalizee, BS? To say the MN is more active than the RN is folly! the UK has a permenant presence in the Atlantic, both north and south, the Med, the PG, Indian Ocean and regulary operates in the Pacific and Carribean, the French fleet rarely goes to sea in numbers and as for the CDG its hardly ever out of the yard its that defective, the UK also HAS it SDP in place to allow for the maintinace of adequate capability here in Britian, cooperation is important but so is national capability.
TheCharlie359 1 year ago
@TheCharlie359 the fact that there navy operate different to ours there ship design also varies and joint ventures are not the greatest idea. we all end up with a ship thats not exactly what your looking for,and the french have a habit off pulling out part way through development
ROOSTER1067 1 year ago
@ROOSTER1067, To true which is why personally id prefer we here in the UK went our own way with the T26, FREMM is capable but politically not viable, with ship building here at home cut back to the bare minimum already its vital National projects are pursued for the maintinace of a highly trained skill base and labor pool, we already cooperate with the French and Italians in many feilds and will do so in the future but cooperation should not = codependence.
TheCharlie359 1 year ago
@TheCharlie359 CdG has logged 16 times around the globe and 25,000+ cat and traps in 10 years. Hardly defective...
UK canceled the Caribbean patrol and has nothing in the Pacific. Looking at the RN deployment map, they only have ships around the Arabian peninsula, one off Somalia, Med and Falklands. MN has ships in the Crib, N and S Atlantic, Med, West Africa, Somalia, Reunion, Myotte, UAE, Djibouti, New Caledonia and Tahiti. Not to mention the CdG battlegroup cruising in the IOR.
stalkingalizee 1 year ago
@stalkingalizee, Compared to the deployment rates of RN and USN carriers it is not a successful platform, its effective when it deploys but your missing the point, before the current deployment when did she last put to sea as a fully operational unit, it was years ago! and if you read what i wrote you will note that i said "regulary operates in the carribean and pacific" France does not operate globally in the same way the UK does, it maintains patrol "fregates" in these regions only!
TheCharlie359 1 year ago
@TheCharlie359 CdG has only been down 1 year longer than planned, it has more cats and miles than any RN carrier did in 10 years.
Sorry you don't think 2nd rates with helos count as naval presence, but they do. There is a 1st rate and Foudre in the Crib, a Mistral and another 1st rate off Senegal. 2 1st rates, an SSN, a command ship and a CVN in Aden, another 1st rate off Somalia, Cassard is off Malta. MN has six and RN has 5 deployed, not to mention our CVN, SSN, and 2 LPH.
stalkingalizee 1 year ago
@stalkingalizee You are putting words in my mouth! i never said that the deployment of "patrol fregates" is not a naval presence of value, i merely stated that the RN unlike the MN regulary deploys major units while the MN deploys differently, i will say it again though, even French naval brass have acknowledged that the CDG is not as successful as had been hoped for.
TheCharlie359 1 year ago
@TheCharlie359 You seem to think so saying RN is more active when RN doesn't even have patrol frigates. France has one more 1st rate frigate at sea this very moment than the RN, not to mention a carrier, 2 LPH and an extra SSN. Add all our patrol frigates, maritime recon and the activity of the RN isn't even the same level. French admirals admit CdG has been down a year longer than planned, obviously they wanted that year back. As a CVN, it still logs more miles than any conventional carrier.
stalkingalizee 1 year ago
@stalkingalizee, A CVN is bound to log more miles, thats a given, the carrier deployment can be seen as a step in the right direction but its been a rare sight at sea for a while, we do have something similar to French patrol frigates, there the River class OPV's used around the Falklands, just not as many. Whats this maritime recon your on about and exactly how do you know how many SSN's either the MN or RN has at sea?
TheCharlie359 1 year ago
@TheCharlie359 Every ship has to go through refit, a CVN needing refueling takes longer. Add vibration problems and you get a long period of time. If you want to bitch about quality of ships, look at anything coming out of Ingalls. Those ships fall apart out of dock.
RN doesn't own the River OPVs. They are chartered from Vosper.
I am talking about Maritime Patrol Aircraft. MN has 38 Atlantique, Falcons and E2-C while RN only has 11 Sea Kings on their way out.
stalkingalizee 1 year ago
The standard rotation for both RN and MN is one SSBN and two SSNs with every deterrent patrol. France has an extra SSN out with CdG.
stalkingalizee 1 year ago
@stalkingalizee, Plausable but hardly conclusive FACT that the RN has less SSN's at sea.
TheCharlie359 1 year ago
@stalkingalizee, I stand corrected, all Nimrods have been withdrawn from active service. The E2-C is an AEW system and for the fleet and not a dedicated MPA also im not particulary bothered what Northrop Grumman builds as im a Brit not an American but if that comment is to suggest France is more capable at building CVN's than the US im laughing.
TheCharlie359 1 year ago
@stalkingalizee, Im aware their leased but they will most probably be aquired in the coming years and your MPA numbers are off, the Brits still have for the moment Nimrod MRA2 and are in the process of aquiring refurbished American aircraft to plug the capability gap left by the scrapping of MRA4's and im certain Merlin has an MPA capability. Im not "bitching" simply stating what most Frenchmen dont want to hear, it seems yourself included that GDG is not as successful as what had been hoped.
TheCharlie359 1 year ago
@TheCharlie359 Also, MR2 was withdrawn from service last year; it was due to be replaced by the, now cancelled, MRA4. The refurbished Rivet Joints are SIGINT aircraft replacing the Nimrod R1s, they aren't Maritime Patrol Aircraft.
Ideally, I'd like to see us collaborate with the French and, with them, get the Airbus A319 MPA concept going. When funds finally allow, we'll eventually need to resume MPA capability and at around the same time France may be looking to replace their Atlantiques.
rvfharrier 1 year ago
@rvfharrier, Your right, im knowledgeable about naval matters but am less informed about our aircraft. RJ seems practical for the moment, id prefer to see the UK aquire the Boeing Posideon, its there already.
TheCharlie359 1 year ago
@TheCharlie359 Whichever MPA we, hopefully... eventually, get it won't be for quite a few years yet; most likely the back end of the decade or even pushed into the 2020s, but I'd prefer to see the Airbus A319 MPA myself. It gives the possibility of commonality with France, who seems set to be our closest ally in the coming years, and also workshare to the UK in building and maintaining them. Mind you, I'd just be happy to see us have any MPA. South Africa are getting rid of their C-47s soon LOL!
rvfharrier 1 year ago
@rvfharrier Agreed, the UK MUST have a powerful MPA capability, i suppose that the Airbus would be of benefit to the UK's industry it just seems further afeild in terms of aquisition, the US would probably be willing to allow the RN/RAF to purchase some of its aircraft in order to aquire them sooner, France is a important ally and im glad cooperation is set to increase but the USA remains our pricipal alliance partner and therefore interoperability with her would seem to be more desirable.
TheCharlie359 1 year ago
@TheCharlie359 In all honesty we won't be acquiring an MPA anytime soon anyway, the government won't be seen dead having the nerve to buy a new MPA so soon after wasting £4 billion cancelling the last one that was around 90% finished anyway, so timescale isn't going to factor in hugely when it comes to aircraft choice. Far more important will be benefit to UK industry; commonality with our close, politically and geographically, allies and cost. The A319 would seem to have all three ticked.
rvfharrier 1 year ago
@rvfharrier, Its my understanding though that the A319 is a proposed platform and isnt under construction or even set to begin construction for any nation as of yet, the P-8 Posideion is a go, being under construction for the US and i believe Australia and India have also placed orders though i cant be sure, it seems to me that precisly because of that huge waste of cash for Nimrod that a cheap of the shelf, proven and in production platform would be politically less damaging and less costly.
TheCharlie359 1 year ago
@TheCharlie359 It is still a concept, yes. That's why I brought up the idea of collaborating with France to share the development costs between us, since we may both be looking for an MPA around the same time, sometime early next decade, and this aircraft seems perfectly suited for both.
The P-8 isn't really that cheap, and when you factor in that the A319/A320 is a very commonly used civil airliner; support infrastructure and spares can be found pretty much everywhere! It seems a winner to me.
rvfharrier 1 year ago