Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
HowitzerBlitzer

British Aircraft Carrier lines

34 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
1,944 posts
2,492 battles

Is it just me, or does their new carrier have some pretty nice lines?

 42A3C2BF00000578-0-image-a-22_1501189923

Sure it looks like a rather large floating barge on top of a cargo ship, but they painted speed stripes on it! The shape of the bridge reminds me of an old mace, quite the British throwback, and no wire coat hanger radar 'dish' on top!

Even comes with a sick jump up front!

 

What's not to like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,631
[GWG]
[GWG]
Members
6,318 posts

I like the lines on the new JSDF Izumo and Hyuga Class Destroyers.

They say they can carry a helicopter or two...  

But they are NOT aircraft carriers.. 

They are just more ships with funny dotted lines painted on the decks.

So what does the line mean?  Fold here?  (or Fooled here)

Hyuga.jpg

Ijumo.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,944 posts
2,492 battles
3 minutes ago, AVR_Project said:

I like the lines on the new JSDF Izumo and Hyuga Class Destroyers.

They say they can carry a helicopter or two...  

But they are NOT aircraft carriers.. 

They are just more ships with funny dotted lines painted on the decks.

So what does the line mean?  Fold here?  (or Fooled here)

Spoiler

 

Hyuga.jpg

Ijumo.jpg

 

 

 

I feel as if those ships could eventually be modified to launch planes if they ever need to do it. Seems a bit large for just helicopters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
865 posts
8,518 battles
11 minutes ago, HowitzerBlitzer said:

 

I feel as if those ships could eventually be modified to launch planes if they ever need to do it. Seems a bit large for just helicopters.

I think the vtol F35 is designed to use some of them but not all will have decks that can withstand those temperatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,944 posts
2,492 battles
1 minute ago, LordBenjamin said:

I think the vtol F35 is designed to use some of them but not all will have decks that can withstand those temperatures.

Which is why I said they "could eventually be modified to launch planes" like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,631
[GWG]
[GWG]
Members
6,318 posts
10 minutes ago, HowitzerBlitzer said:

 

I feel as if those ships could eventually be modified to launch planes if they ever need to do it. Seems a bit large for just helicopters.

Seeing how they are 50' shorter and 6' wider than the Shinano.......    just saying.

They are also 50' longer than Essex class carriers...  Same length as the Tiaho..  but much wider.

So you'd figure they could launch propeller driven craft - as is.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
404
[MIA-P]
Members
686 posts
6,881 battles
10 minutes ago, HowitzerBlitzer said:

 

I feel as if those ships could eventually be modified to launch planes if they ever need to do it. Seems a bit large for just helicopters.

Man, are you REALLY SURE about that? 'Cus the Japanese SUPER DUPER PINKY PROMISED that they wouldn't have ANY aircraft carriers! And while I do agree that it has a bit of a funny shape, The wikipedia page definitely calls these things "destroyers", so I'm pretty sure their role is going to be contesting cap circles and harassing enemy BBs. Just imagine if a Benson, instead of pushing the caps, laying smoke and firing torps, just up and launched planes and began ducking it out with the enemy CV- I mean his team would be super pissed because now the cruisers have to try and cap, and they'd get spotted and citadeled by BBs and it'd just be a mess!

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
995 posts
1,871 battles
1 hour ago, senseNOTmade said:

Man, are you REALLY SURE about that? 'Cus the Japanese SUPER DUPER PINKY PROMISED that they wouldn't have ANY aircraft carriers! And while I do agree that it has a bit of a funny shape, The wikipedia page definitely calls these things "destroyers", so I'm pretty sure their role is going to be contesting cap circles and harassing enemy BBs. Just imagine if a Benson, instead of pushing the caps, laying smoke and firing torps, just up and launched planes and began ducking it out with the enemy CV- I mean his team would be super pissed because now the cruisers have to try and cap, and they'd get spotted and citadeled by BBs and it'd just be a mess!

I can't quite tell if you are joking or not but either way it's funny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
197
[LOS]
Members
673 posts
10,357 battles

Not long enough for steam catapult launched aircraft, but as mentioned previously, an F 35 or some VTOL type manned aircraft or smaller drone would work just fine.  Hmmm... a couple dozen small 'destroyers with a few batteries of latest cruise anti- shipping missiles and some drones with multiple payload loadouts....that'd give the Chinese a good reason to pause.

As it is the Hyuga class is called a Helicopter Destroyer as it currently exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
10,101 posts
5 hours ago, HowitzerBlitzer said:

Is it just me, or does their new carrier have some pretty nice lines?

 42A3C2BF00000578-0-image-a-22_1501189923

Sure it looks like a rather large floating barge on top of a cargo ship, but they painted speed stripes on it! The shape of the bridge reminds me of an old mace, quite the British throwback, and no wire coat hanger radar 'dish' on top!

Even comes with a sick jump up front!

 

What's not to like?

 

Being a STOBAR.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[-VT-]
[-VT-]
Members
340 posts
5,240 battles
15 hours ago, Eisennagel said:

 

Being a STOBAR.  

 

 

 

It's not a STOBAR carrier, it's a short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) ship with the ability to do Shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) which allows aircraft to land back on the ship with heavier payloads and has less overall wear and tear on the airframe, It is more than sufficient for the RN's needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
84
[BOOTY]
Beta Testers
378 posts
7,151 battles
12 minutes ago, Monty9185 said:

 

It's not a STOBAR carrier, it's a short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) ship with the ability to do Shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) which allows aircraft to land back on the ship with heavier payloads and has less overall wear and tear on the airframe, It is more than sufficient for the RN's needs.

They are saying the fact its not a STOBAR is something not to like about it. Which is true considering being a STOVL limits the kind of planes it can use. Then you have the fact that what planes it can deploy have a limited amount of weight they can takeoff with. Which means a pretty significant reduction in fuel and ammo for your airwings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,630
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
8,193 posts
9,171 battles
42 minutes ago, Monty9185 said:

 

It's not a STOBAR carrier, it's a short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) ship with the ability to do Shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) which allows aircraft to land back on the ship with heavier payloads and has less overall wear and tear on the airframe, It is more than sufficient for the RN's needs.

Quite, more than sufficient, so much more than they truly need could probably have saved some money and resources..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
10,101 posts
2 hours ago, Monty9185 said:

 

It's not a STOBAR carrier, it's a short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) ship with the ability to do Shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) which allows aircraft to land back on the ship with heavier payloads and has less overall wear and tear on the airframe, It is more than sufficient for the RN's needs.

 

What the RN truly needs is a lot more of the smaller ships, and keeping its amphibs and the Royal Marines, which are being sacrificed just to fund the carriers and fill them with F-35s.   Even now the QE has leaks, the entire Type 45 destroyer fleet isn't working, the entire Type 22 frigate fleet are getting too old while trying to chase modern Russian frigates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[-VT-]
[-VT-]
Members
340 posts
5,240 battles
30 minutes ago, Eisennagel said:

 

What the RN truly needs is a lot more of the smaller ships, and keeping its amphibs and the Royal Marines, which are being sacrificed just to fund the carriers and fill them with F-35s.   Even now the QE has leaks, the entire Type 45 destroyer fleet isn't working, the entire Type 22 frigate fleet are getting too old while trying to chase modern Russian frigates.

You do understand things such as 'leaks' are relatively common and are to be expected on brand new vessels during sea trials? If you look into the matter it's a minor teething issue that has been so overblown in the press (who in the UK are completely clueless in defence matters) for the sake of a story to sell papers. Yup, the Type 45 reliability hasn't been great but work is going to be carried out on them which will rectify the problem with it's intercoolers. As for Type 22s, we haven't used them since the last 4 were axed after the 2010 defence review but if you mean the Type 23s, yes they are no longer on the cutting edge of technology (though a number have had new radar and missile systems fitted) they are a useful GP surface escort and to say they are 'too old' is not correct at all. No real decision has been made on the marines and Albion/Bulwark, rumour is that the new defence secretary is dead set against further cuts to the navy and has instructed the MoD to find savings elsewhere *cough* airforce *cough*. I agree the RN needs more escort vessel, but that isn't the core problem. No what's affecting the Royal Navy is the same thing that's hit the USN in recent times and that is the shortage of manpower.

Yup the RN has had a tough time, but the carriers are needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[-VT-]
[-VT-]
Members
340 posts
5,240 battles

 

2 hours ago, nuttybiscuit said:

Quite, more than sufficient, so much more than they truly need could probably have saved some money and resources..

A lot of people probably think they are too large, but it does future proof them. My only real gripe is they didn't install an angled flight deck, it'll will need to be done eventually as will the fitting of at least one catapult. The ship is bound to operate some type of UCAV in it's service life and it would make much more sense to use ones built for the USN rather than going down the expensive route of developing a domestic STOVL UCAV.

Edited by Monty9185
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
10,101 posts
39 minutes ago, Monty9185 said:

You do understand things such as 'leaks' are relatively common and are to be expected on brand new vessels during sea trials? If you look into the matter it's a minor teething issue that has been so overblown in the press (who in the UK are completely clueless in defence matters) for the sake of a story to sell papers. Yup, the Type 45 reliability hasn't been great but work is going to be carried out on them which will rectify the problem with it's intercoolers. As for Type 22s, we haven't used them since the last 4 were axed after the 2010 defence review but if you mean the Type 23s, yes they are no longer on the cutting edge of technology (though a number have had new radar and missile systems fitted) they are a useful GP surface escort and to say they are 'too old' is not correct at all. No real decision has been made on the marines and Albion/Bulwark, rumour is that the new defence secretary is dead set against further cuts to the navy and has instructed the MoD to find savings elsewhere *cough* airforce *cough*. I agree the RN needs more escort vessel, but that isn't the core problem. No what's affecting the Royal Navy is the same thing that's hit the USN in recent times and that is the shortage of manpower.

Yup the RN has had a tough time, but the carriers are needed.

 

What hit the USN in recent times is the loss and shortage of ships, starting in particular, when they retired all the Perry class.  Now they are trying to build as many small ships as they can. 

 

Type 23s, almost all of them, are upgraded with a respectable good new radar, but missile upgrades have only begun from 2016.  But even with the upgrades, the CAMMs only reach up to 25km and lack any surface mode, which was deleted for budgetary reasons.  If you are to delete what is now a common feature with many naval SAMs, and which isn't costly to have since its mostly a software thing,  then that is saying one big thing about your budgetary issues.  The RN almost retired Harpoons without any replacement, I say almost since this action is now deferred, but these Harpoons are now really old and there has not been talk of replacing them.   That sounds like truly severe penny pinching.  

 

The carriers each cost over 3.1 billion pounds, each F-35 will be at least 110 million or more.  Then you have the cost of buying the ordinance, yeah, like antiship missiles, and the problem of manpower, which as you said, the RN is certainly short of.  The manpower that goes here is going to be the manpower that's not on other ships.  To accommodate all these costs, the cuts that are going to be imposed on other services are would not be in any means insignificant, and cutting it from the RAF is even worst.

Edited by Eisennagel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,630
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
8,193 posts
9,171 battles
28 minutes ago, Monty9185 said:

 

A lot of people probably think they are too large, but it does future proof them. My only real gripe is they didn't install an angled flight deck, it'll will need to be done eventually as will the fitting of at least one catapult. The ship is bound to operate some type of UCAV in it's service life and it would make much more sense to use ones built for the USN rather than going down the expensive route of developing a domestic STOVL UCAV.

future proof? something to mull over, to quote that Ballantyne bloke, they should have built a suitably sized drydock that doesn't rely on twice yearly low tides to access under the Forth bridge, before commissioning! 

as for their sheer size, it will shorten their careers, rather than lengthen them, simply because of the upkeep and drain on resources their displacement means. you know what B.O.A.T stands for? Break Out Another Thousand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[-VT-]
[-VT-]
Members
340 posts
5,240 battles
8 hours ago, nuttybiscuit said:

future proof? something to mull over, to quote that Ballantyne bloke, they should have built a suitably sized drydock that doesn't rely on twice yearly low tides to access under the Forth bridge, before commissioning! 

as for their sheer size, it will shorten their careers, rather than lengthen them, simply because of the upkeep and drain on resources their displacement means. you know what B.O.A.T stands for? Break Out Another Thousand.

Dry docking the ship isn't that much of an issue, there are least 5 other dry docks in the UK that are large enough to accommodate the ship if Rosyth was not an option. There is even a mothballed one in Southampton which could be brought back into use if the need was great enough. It remains to be seen what the overall operating costs will be, i'm not convinced it be prohibitively so.

8 hours ago, Eisennagel said:

 

 Type 23s, almost all of them, are upgraded with a respectable good new radar, but missile upgrades have only begun from 2016.  But even with the upgrades, the CAMMs only reach up to 25km and lack any surface mode, which was deleted for budgetary reasons.  If you are to delete what is now a common feature with many naval SAMs, and which isn't costly to have since its mostly a software thing,  then that is saying one big thing about your budgetary issues.  The RN almost retired Harpoons without any replacement, I say almost since this action is now deferred, but these Harpoons are now really old and there has not been talk of replacing them.   That sounds like truly severe penny pinching.  

 

The carriers each cost over 3.1 billion pounds, each F-35 will be at least 110 million or more.  Then you have the cost of buying the ordinance, yeah, like antiship missiles, and the problem of manpower, which as you said, the RN is certainly short of.  The manpower that goes here is going to be the manpower that's not on other ships.  To accommodate all these costs, the cuts that are going to be imposed on other services are would not be in any means insignificant, and cutting it from the RAF is even worst.

I don't hold much stock in SAM systems with a surface mode, the missiles are normally too small to much use against larger surface ships or hardened targets. In the end it's just an expensive way of blowing a missile on a small patrol boat, there is Sea Spear (a navalised version of the brimestone) which was developed for that very purpose but it remains to be seen if it's adopted. The Type 23 is primarily a ASW escort, and despite their age it's something they are still very good at, personally I'm not keen on the Type 31 concept i'd rather build the 8 Type 26s and then keep the youngest Type 23s refitted as a GP surfact escort.

The Harpoon debacle is more about political spin and mind games rather than budgetary issue, the story was 'conveniently' leaked to the press by someone in the navy. Personally I saw it as a ploy to get the MoD to cough up more money and be more proactive in searching for a replacement. Strangely enough, shortly after the story breaking the money had been 'found' to retain the missile system and the civil service have been far more open about finding a replacement ASM. That said the Type 26s will have a Mk41 VLS and the Type 45s have space for additional cells too so Lockheed Martin's LRASM is almost a certainty.

Harpoon missile replacement considered

Harpoon gains reprieve

Personally I'm not opposed to diverting funds away from the RAF, they have had the lions share of the defence budget for many years now. While the army and navy have had to make massive cuts in their numbers the air force has got away virtually scott free and are in the process of standing up 2 additional Typhoon squadrons, they have a virtual monopoly of both helicopter and fixed wing aviation and have always kicked up a stink every time the army or navy have tried to get an similar capability.

Edited by Monty9185

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
10,101 posts
3 hours ago, Monty9185 said:

Dry docking the ship isn't that much of an issue, there are least 5 other dry docks in the UK that are large enough to accommodate the ship if Rosyth was not an option. There is even a mothballed one in Southampton which could be brought back into use if the need was great enough. It remains to be seen what the overall operating costs will be, i'm not convinced it be prohibitively so.

I don't hold much stock in SAM systems with a surface mode, the missiles are normally too small to much use against larger surface ships or hardened targets. In the end it's just an expensive way of blowing a missile on a small patrol boat, there is Sea Spear (a navalised version of the brimestone) which was developed for that very purpose but it remains to be seen if it's adopted. The Type 23 is primarily a ASW escort, and despite their age it's something they are still very good at, personally I'm not keen on the Type 31 concept i'd rather build the 8 Type 26s and then keep the youngest Type 23s refitted as a GP surfact escort.

The Harpoon debacle is more about political spin and mind games rather than budgetary issue, the story was 'conveniently' leaked to the press by someone in the navy. Personally I saw it as a ploy to get the MoD to cough up more money and be more proactive in searching for a replacement. Strangely enough, shortly after the story breaking the money had been 'found' to retain the missile system and the civil service have been far more open about finding a replacement ASM. That said the Type 26s will have a Mk41 VLS and the Type 45s have space for additional cells too so Lockheed Martin's LRASM is almost a certainty.

Harpoon missile replacement considered

Harpoon gains reprieve

Personally I'm not opposed to diverting funds away from the RAF, they have had the lions share of the defence budget for many years now. While the army and navy have had to make massive cuts in their numbers the air force has got away virtually scott free and are in the process of standing up 2 additional Typhoon squadrons, they have a virtual monopoly of both helicopter and fixed wing aviation and have always kicked up a stink every time the army or navy have tried to get an similar capability.

 

Just because a ship has Mk 41 cels does not mean it will automatically have those missiles.  You still have to buy them in the first place.  If you are already penny pinching from buying Harpoons, what makes you think they will buy LRASMs which may potentially be even more expensive?   Should note that Harpoons don't launch from Mk. 41s.  Type 45's VLS, which are only up to 5 meters in length, isn't going to fit ASMs and certainly not LRASMs.  

 

Using a SAM as a surface missile is an option that is better than nothing.  It doesn't require any hardware changes or additions.  That's basically something that is reprogrammed into the guidance system, once it can resolve through the surface scatter.  

 

Type 23's are just getting old.  It will cost more to maintain them in the long run.  Navies that keep upgrading and maintaining old ships tend not to have enough money to buy new ones, creating a vicious cycle.   Type 23s don't have low radar observable measures which can hinder their survivability, since they will have a greater signature of detection.  A Type 31 will have better survivability due to its greater stealth, which also makes its signature easier to mask with countermeasures.  Of course, the issue is that the Type 31 requirements are not set in stone yet, and already some are predicting LCS levels of cost, though I would expect 400 million pounds are approximately the cost of a modern 4000 to 4500 ton warship nowadays especially if you are going to juice it up with AESA.    Of course, it would be more ideal to have 12 or more Type 26s --- frigates are the naval workhorses of this century --- but you are getting only a portion of that, mixed with Type 31s, because your budget is being spent on another thing, which only creates more duties for the escorts that you are cutting back on.  

 

The Royal Air Force is still the first line of defense.  You will still get more bang out of every billion pounds you spend on defense.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[-VT-]
[-VT-]
Members
340 posts
5,240 battles
4 hours ago, Eisennagel said:

 

Just because a ship has Mk 41 cels does not mean it will automatically have those missiles.  You still have to buy them in the first place.  If you are already penny pinching from buying Harpoons, what makes you think they will buy LRASMs which may potentially be even more expensive?   Should note that Harpoons don't launch from Mk. 41s.  Type 45's VLS, which are only up to 5 meters in length, isn't going to fit ASMs and certainly not LRASMs.  

I think we are getting our wires crossed here, at no point did I say that Harpoons were launched from Mk.41s, what I did say was that the Type 26s will have Mk.41 VLS cells and the Type 45 does have the capability to have a number of Mk.41 cells to be installed between the superstructure and the existing Aster cells. The point i was making is that in the near future when the Type 23s are gone the vast majority of the RN escort fleet will either have or have the provision for the Mk.41 VLS system which makes the LRASM one of the strongest candidates for the Harpoon's eventual replacement, which only makes sense when the infrastructure is already in place.

4 hours ago, Eisennagel said:

Using a SAM as a surface missile is an option that is better than nothing.  It doesn't require any hardware changes or additions.  That's basically something that is reprogrammed into the guidance system, once it can resolve through the surface scatter.  

You're still using a weapon that is basically a guided shotgun shell designed to destroy aircraft to hit far larger and potentially armoured targets, it's a marketing gimmick to fool people into think they are buying dual role system when in reality it isn't.

4 hours ago, Eisennagel said:

Type 23's are just getting old.  It will cost more to maintain them in the long run. Navies that keep upgrading and maintaining old ships tend not to have enough money to buy new ones, creating a vicious cycle.   Type 23s don't have low radar observable measures which can hinder their survivability, since they will have a greater signature of detection.  A Type 31 will have better survivability due to its greater stealth, which also makes its signature easier to mask with countermeasures.  Of course, the issue is that the Type 31 requirements are not set in stone yet, and already some are predicting LCS levels of cost, though I would expect 400 million pounds are approximately the cost of a modern 4000 to 4500 ton warship nowadays especially if you are going to juice it up with AESA.    Of course, it would be more ideal to have 12 or more Type 26s --- frigates are the naval workhorses of this century --- but you are getting only a portion of that, mixed with Type 31s, because your budget is being spent on another thing, which only creates more duties for the escorts that you are cutting back on.  

Subjective, they are getting older but they are still a potent ship for the role they were designed which is ASW, Yeah they don't have 'stealth' features' seen on brand new modern ships but there are lots of countries who continue to choose to refit and extend the lives of older warships rather than outright replacement including the PLAN and Russian navies. Type 31 has potential if it's done properly, but if it ends up being a 4000t warship with nothing more than a 76mm gun and a CIWS we are better off sticking with the newest of the Type 23s for use a general purpose vessel until the government gets serious about investment. The Type 26s are far far far too big, at 7000+ tons and only a few meters shorter than the Darings they shouldn't really be called frigates at all, the reduced order is more about the ship becoming overweight and overly complex (ie expensive) rather than the money being spent elsewhere. All because the MOD insists the ship be this 'all singing all dancing wonder frigate' instead of saying what we need is a fleet  of 'good' ships that can do a bit everything. In the end what we'll end up with is 8 very expensive and advanced large frigates and 5 smaller under armed ones.

Edited by Monty9185

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,063
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,984 posts
12,400 battles

The Type 23's can't be kept around much longer than they're already being. The last one's scheduled to go in 2035 at which point she'll be 34 years in service. The first one to go will be Argyll when she's 33 or so. 30+ years for a Frigate hull is about all you can do, refit costs just go up and up.

Using Sea Ceptor as an ASuW weapon seems very last resort to me. At the point you're chucking small missiles at targets only 25km away the gig is probably up, you're not losing out on much. Losing the old and borderline obsolescent Harpoon doesn't seem like a great loss in actual capability. An ASuW role for these Frigates should be very much secondary or tertiary, the only likely use of an ASuW missile would be in a major conflict with a near-peer adversary and that seems unlikely (and unlikely that 8 old Harpoons would make any difference even so). The RN hasn't launched an ASuW missile war shot from a surface ship ever unless I'm wide of the mark.

9 hours ago, Monty9185 said:

While the army and navy have had to make massive cuts in their numbers the air force has got away virtually scott free and are in the process of standing up 2 additional Typhoon squadrons, they have a virtual monopoly of both helicopter and fixed wing aviation and have always kicked up a stink every time the army or navy have tried to get an similar capability.

I'm pretty sure those 'new' squadrons are just a reshuffle of paperwork, turning four 12-plane squadrons into six 8-plane squadrons is no real increase in capability.

 

The RN does have a big manpower issue, that's why one of the T-45's and one of the T-23's are lain up without crews in Portsmouth. That's a big chunk of the fleet. The RN isn't at it's allocated manpower allowance, which is too small anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[-VT-]
[-VT-]
Members
340 posts
5,240 battles
52 minutes ago, mofton said:

I'm pretty sure those 'new' squadrons are just a reshuffle of paperwork, turning four 12-plane squadrons into six 8-plane squadrons is no real increase in capability.

While there is some fudging of the numbers, the main reason these squadrons can be formed is because the RAF are now retaining the Tranche 1 Typhoons when the original plan was to bin them and stick with the Tranche 2 & 3 aircraft. I fully understand that the Type 23s need replacing in the next decade, just afraid of what the Type 31 might evolve into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,630
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
8,193 posts
9,171 battles
3 minutes ago, Monty9185 said:

While there is some fudging of the numbers, the main reason these squadrons can be formed is because the RAF are now retaining the Tranche 1 Typhoons when the original plan was to bin them and stick with the Tranche 2 & 3 aircraft. I fully understand that the Type 23s need replacing in the next decade, just afraid of what the Type 31 might evolve into.

There is already a movement claiming (again) that surface ships are now obselete, with the dawn of hypersonic missiles. While this may be an exaggeration, the days of bigger = better may be over, the corvette/light frigate approach which ensures sustainability (you afford to run it) may not be so bad. Just look at the money sinks and dead ends of floating bloatware that have have hamstrung navies on both sides of the Atlantic this last decade...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×