UK Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

[Jura The idiot]

The way I see the UK situation is not the lack of options in filling the Mk41 but rather funding given the ongoing trend towards national defence. I think if they are eventually able to procure 13 Type 26 it will be in itself a significant achievement. The next number failing that will be 8.

I think it would be better if the RN obtained smaller number BUT properly armed Type 26 Frigates (ASROC, torpedo tubes, AShM right from the start -- they should protect the carriers, right?)

 

[FORBIN]

I am quite sure and all reports i have read confirm 13 is the number necessary for get a reasonnable number of MSC operationnals.

currently the assumption is that the 13 vessels will be ordered in three batches of 3, 5 and 5.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Jeff Head]

I am quite sure and all reports i have read confirm 13 is the number necessary for get a reasonnable number of MSC operationnals.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I believe they will order and build 13 ships.

I believe the vessels will ultimately be well equipped and armed.

It would ne nice if they came off the ways that way. but they do not...they are outfitted.

It would be nice if at commissioning they were completely armed...but oft times they are not. Finiancial budgteting sometimes gets in the way.

But I have no doubts that they ultimately will be fully and capably armed.

if there were a crises, similar to what the UK experienced in the Falklands, we would see whatever number of them necessary getting armed much quicker in order to respond.

 

[Jura The idiot]

I am quite sure and all reports i have read confirm 13 is the number necessary for get a reasonnable number of MSC operationnals.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I think the official now still is:

The current planning assumption is for the 13 Type 26 Ships ...

(I did the underlining) in

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If you know about something official (not blog-info) and not as vague as "planning assumption", be sure to tell me.
(of course I've heard about twelve billions pounds for the program, but I sure don't "calculate" the number of ships this way, I mean they didn't even cut the steel yet, and many things can happen later ... remember Type 45?

... the envisioned class of 12 vessels was reduced down to 8 due to rising costs. In 2008, the then Labour government announced that this would be further reduced down to a fleet of only 6 vessels. The Type 45 procurement project has been criticised for rising costs and lower vessel numbers. While originally envisioned as a class of 12 vessels costing £5 billion, the Type 45 class ended up consisting of only 6 vessels at a cost of £6.5 billion.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[FORBIN]

Really my Friend your the King for the quotes a great investigator

 

[Jura The idiot]

I believe they will order and build 13 ships.

I believe the vessels will ultimately be well equipped and armed.

It would ne nice if they came off the ways that way. but they do not...they are outfitted.

It would be nice if at commissioning they were completely armed...but oft times they are not. Finiancial budgteting sometimes gets in the way.

But I have no doubts that they ultimately will be fully and capably armed.

if there were a crises, similar to what the UK experienced in the Falklands, we would see whatever number of them necessary getting armed much quicker in order to respond.

I'll criticize once more what I've heard so far about Type 26 Project, and leave it right after:

I think the procurement of not fully armed ships, but built at a cost of one plus billion pounds

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/uk-military-news-reports-data-etc.t2437/page-164#post-371924

is dangerous in the present situation as it signals "peace time way of operating the Royal Navy in the future": more concerned with the support of local shipbuilders, than with being capable of for example:

• immediate reaction to an underwater contact (and I don't mean sending a helo!)
• immediate reaction to an over the horizon surface threat (and I don't mean sending a helo!)
• hitting targets deep within enemy territory

Yes, I'm talking war-fighting capabilities available now.

 

[Jeff Head]

I think the procurement of not fully armed ships, but built at a cost of one plus billion pounds

is dangerous in the present situation as it signals "peace time way of operating the Royal Navy in the future": more concerned with the support of local shipbuilders, than with being capable of for example:

• immediate reaction to an underwater contact (and I don't mean sending a helo!)
• immediate reaction to an over the horizon surface threat (and I don't mean sending a helo!)
• hitting targets deep within enemy territory

Yes, I'm talking war-fighting capabilities available now.

They will have war fighting capabilities when they are commissioned. You can be sure of that.

They may not have all of them. We will just have to wait and see.

It's a long time between now and then...and time will tell.

 

[Jeff Head]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

​

Royal Navy’s HMS Monmouth returned to operational service after refits and upgrades on October 29.

The upgrade in Plymouth, performed by Babcock Marine, has included 17 tonnes of steel covering 220 square metres of steel and over 1km of welding.

Also, 29 different equipment updates were conducted including the new 3-D air surveillance radar, the Sea Wolf defence missile system and a new command and control combat system (the brains of the ship).

The ship is now fit to take on what ever operational tasking is required in any part of the world, whether war-fighting or humanitarian – potentially for 20 more years.

A rededication service was held at HM Naval Base, Devonport, with a Royal Marines Band, VIPs from the ship’s affiliate area of Monmouth in South Wales and a formal parade.

The ship is now ready to operate in UK and European waters under the full command of the Fleet Commander, conducting maritime security operations as well as continuing to train collectively ahead of a future overseas deployment.

HMS Monmouth served for seven months in the Gulf deterring piracy and other illegal activities at sea before her refit ended this summer and has been intensively training at sea ever since.

 

[Jura The idiot]

I wonder if it's true
MoD sinks £2bn sub-hunter jet deal

THE Ministry of Defence is understood to have dropped a £2bn plan to buy a fleet of US-made submarine-hunting jets for the RAF.

The proposed purchase of up to nine P-8 Poseidon aircraft was expected to be the centrepiece of the government’s forthcoming defence review, but sources say the project has been shelved after ministers decided the aircraft were “fiendishly expensive”.

The move has raised fears that Britain’s four Vanguard nuclear deterrent submarines and the navy’s new £6bn aircraft carriers could be inadequately protected.

Senior retired RAF officers argued earlier this year that Britain’s nuclear deterrent has been left vulnerable after plans to update a fleet of Nimrod submarine-hunting aircraft were axed in 2010.

The defence review, due to be published later this month, was widely expected to announce a replacement for the Nimrod, with Boeing’s P-8, which carries torpedoes, ...

... don't have access to the rest; source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[asif iqbal]

The Nimrod should never have been retired it was a great aircraft and provided UK with a great naval aircraft

Instead we could have used that £2 billion to build another 1-2 x Type 45 DDG

Or better still used that £2 billion to keep the Prince of Wales for CATOBAR not STOBAR

First we throw money away then we say we are short on cash, I can't think of a another country which does it so well as UK