The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Seaforth]

Am I the only one partly perplexed by the frequent references (sometimes by people from the defence/defence industry sector) about having one of the two QEs as a ''helicopter carrier/HMS Ocean replacement''.

Firstly, I don't see the need for a replacement for Ocean. She's still a young ship, of proven utility and relevance to the RN, and is perfectly appropriate for our overall amphib force.

As I understand it Ocean has been very well used (she's a very useful one-of-a-kind!), was built economically, and is therefore, fast on the way to being stuffed.

It may also be that off-the-record media briefings are preparing the way for Queen Elizabeth to actually be a helicopter carrier during her first commission - e.g. because no jets will be available.

It's the acquisition and operation of the fighter air group that adds a huge expense to the carriers.

The UK defence budget is being cut, so anything to delay the fighter air group might be seized upon gratefully... even though the fighter air group provides the raison d'etre for these ships. It seems the Royal Navy may have been too optimistic with these ships.

 

[StevoJH]

As I understand it Ocean has been very well used (she's a very useful one-of-a-kind!), was built economically, and is therefore, fast on the way to being stuffed.

It may also be that off-the-record media briefings are preparing the way for Queen Elizabeth to actually be a helicopter carrier during her first commission - e.g. because no jets will be available.

It's the acquisition and operation of the fighter air group that adds a huge expense to the carriers.

The UK defence budget is being cut, so anything to delay the fighter air group might be seized upon gratefully...

No, the plan is for three ships.

QE, PoW and a Third ship (initially Ocean).

Of the three ships one will be in refit, one will be in the carrier role and one will be in the LPH role. When ocean (or her replacement) is in refit, the currently non-strike rolled QE class (whichever one it is at the time) will be the active LPH.

Its the same way that the current system with the two active invincible class carriers operates.

 

[Seaforth]

Only one problem with that Hypothesis. Super Hornet at current prices is roughly the same cost as the current projected cost of F-35A, however i'm not 100% sure what the projected cost of F-35B is.

Rafale is currently something like double the cost of super hornet per aircraft.

Gripen is currently *not* a Naval aircraft.

See a problem here?

No problem.

F35C will, I am sure, be less expensive than F35B.

Introducing a delay in acquisition and switching to CATOBAR *may* create further options, which may or may not be less expensive than F35C. But at least the possibility is there.

CATOBAR would also assist with a new option for the AEW/ASAC platform.

I could easily argue a very convincing case to politicians for a delay and a switch to CATOBAR.

Let's face it, these carriers should have been CATOBAR from the beginning. There are more options and better interoperability with CATOBAR.

 

[Seaforth]

No, the plan is for three ships.

QE, PoW and a Third ship (initially Ocean).

Of the three ships one will be in refit, one will be in the carrier role and one will be in the LPH role. When ocean (or her replacement) is in refit, the currently non-strike rolled QE class (whichever one it is at the time) will be the active LPH.

Its the same way that the current system with the two active invincible class carriers operates.

Except the current system doesn't work that way in practice. Over the last few years the "current strike carrier" in the UK has seemed to spend most if its time with helicopters and no harriers... and when the harriers do embark they are almost as likely to be foreign operated as UK.

It's going to take a huge effort, over many years to get back to the level of operating a single large carrier at a time, let alone an additional LPH.

 

[Troothsayer]

Hasn't this article just picked up on various best and worst case scenarios worked out by the MoD? And of course the rags just pick up on the worst case.

The Sunday Express has learned that one option will be to delay the second ship by several years, putting thousands of jobs on hold.

And adding to the cost immediately, something Fox has said this government would not do.

“The plan would also be accompanied by slipping the second ship considerably to the right [delaying it] by a few years. You could also make the carrier a helicopter carrier replacing HMS Ocean.”

This would suggest that the 'senior' industry source is unaware that both CVF are to perform that role as a secondary capability anyway.

Would also ask the question what are the Rosyth workers going to be building in the interim?

At least it seems the press finally understand that HMS QE is being built and not scrapped.

Peter Felstead, editor of Jane’s Defence Weekly, said: “The option to have the second CVF as a helicopter platform does make more sense.

Strange quote from Janes, are they unaware of the secondary function of the CVF?

 

[StevoJH]

Except the current system doesn't work that way in practice. Over the last few years the "current strike carrier" in the UK has seemed to spend most if its time with helicopters and no harriers... and when the harriers do embark they are almost as likely to be foreign operated as UK.

It's going to take a huge effort, over many years to get back to the level of operating a single large carrier at a time, let alone an additional LPH.

Actually, since they pulled out of afghanistan, and since the GR.9/GR.9A upgrade has made more airframes available, they have deployed quite often on the active carrier.

Fairly sure two separate squadrons (NSW & one of the RAF units) have spent time on Ark Royal during excercises off the coast of the United States in the last two months or so.

Apparrently 12 pilots are being sent to the US for F-18E/F conversion training in the near future as well.

 

[Systems Adict]

Construction of HMS Prince of Wales to be put on hold ?

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: 20,000 jobs at risk from RAF base closure

'A £5billion project to build two new aircraft carriers in Fife and on the Clyde is also being targeted in the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) as ministers try to balance the books.

The Sunday Express has learned that one option will be to delay the second ship by several years, putting thousands of jobs on hold.'

Harumph !

How many times are people who copy, cut & paste the claptrap that is produced by the 'sensationalist' UK media, gonna actually listen to what has been said in this forum ?

The UK press has a habit of getting something that has been in the media over the last 6 months,' toping & tailing' it, while adding in about 2% of their own comment, to give it a particular spin.

Time & again over the last year, the Express or the Guardian have stated the same things again, & again, & again. The 2nd carrier is getting cancelled, the 2nd carrier is gonna be a helicopter carrier, the 2nd carrier is getting sold to India, Brazil, France, etc.

These stories are PURE SPECULATION, designed to get THEIR point across & SELL NERWSPAPERS !

So, can we get over this pyle of fettid, steaming horse manure ?

UNTIL the SDR takes place & the UK Govt decide to publicise what their actual intentions are, we should take nothing as read, but hope that as a country, our armed forces are able to do the job that's been assigned to them, with the equipment that we have / are going to get.

& as for the defence industry, If the SDR doesn't get the balance right, there WILL be 10's of 1,000's of people who will be jobless, THAT is a fact !

SA

 

[Moonstone]

Harumph !

How many times are people who copy, cut & paste the claptrap that is produced by the 'sensationalist' UK media, gonna actually listen to what has been said in this forum ?

The UK press has a habit of getting something that has been in the media over the last 6 months,' toping & tailing' it, while adding in about 2% of their own comment, to give it a particular spin.

Time & again over the last year, the Express or the Guardian have stated the same things again, & again, & again. The 2nd carrier is getting cancelled, the 2nd carrier is gonna be a helicopter carrier, the 2nd carrier is getting sold to India, Brazil, France, etc.

These stories are PURE SPECULATION, designed to get THEIR point across & SELL NERWSPAPERS !

So, can we get over this pyle of fettid, steaming horse manure ?

UNTIL the SDR takes place & the UK Govt decide to publicise what their actual intentions are, we should take nothing as read, but hope that as a country, our armed forces are able to do the job that's been assigned to them, with the equipment that we have / are going to get.

& as for the defence industry, If the SDR doesn't get the balance right, there WILL be 10's of 1,000's of people who will be jobless, THAT is a fact !

SA

Calm down and do try not to shoot the messenger old chap !

Newspapers have been known to print speculation for sure , but they very often actually do have inside information on what is going on in the corridors of power too - that is their business after all . For what it's worth I'd say this story has a ring of truth about it . Please try to remember the Sunday Express is just claiming that this option is under consideration at this time - not that it's a done deal .

I thought some on here might be interested in what is being reported in the national press , but if you don't like that sort of thing then try ignoring it in future rather than climbing all the way up to that very 'high horse' you keep .

 

[Grim901]

Calm down and do try not to shoot the messenger old chap !

Newspapers have been known to print speculation for sure , but they very often actually do have inside information on what is going on in the corridors of power too - that is their business after all . For what it's worth I'd say this story has a ring of truth about it . Please try to remember the Sunday Express is just claiming that this option is under consideration at this time - not that it's a done deal .

I thought some on here might be interested in what is being reported in the national press , but if you don't like that sort of thing then try ignoring it in future rather than climbing all the way up to that very 'high horse' you keep .

I doubt many here would be too bothered with what the Daily Express has to say, just for future reference. Most of the options that appear in the MSM will have been discussed here beforehand most likely anyway. As we saw with the "carrier to India" option, some are quite far fetched and not actually likely to happen, but they still have to produce the options.

 

[swerve]

On more than one occasion I believe you have claimed that the full load displacement of the T23 is '4900 tonnes' having gained this unlikely number from a MOD website . Before you repeat that again I'd advise you consult the definitive guild to modern warships & navy's - Janes Fighting Ships (any edition) or Norman Friedman's British Destroyers & Frigates and see what they have to say on the matter . I do hope that you will avoid claiming that information gleaned from the internet must be inherently more accurate than something written down in a mere book !.

Why do you call the numbers on the Royal Navy web page for Type 23 frigates 'unlikely'? Do you think that the authors of private, commercial, publications know the displacement of RN ships better than the RN does?

Your jibe about 'information gleaned from the internet' is ridiculous. The internet is no more, & no less, reliable than printed media. Both can be completely & utterly wrong. The trick is in filtering out the obvious dross, & then evaluating what is left.

I see that you are now claiming that the Sunday Express should be taken seriously - but you say that what the Royal Navy says on the internet about the displacement of its ships is 'unlikely'. nfloorl:

 

[StevoJH]

Just to Back up swerve on this one.

Type 23 Frigates : Surface Fleet : Operations and Support : Royal Navy

Type 23 Statistics Displacement: 4,900 tonnes
Length: 133m / 436ft
Beam: 16.1m / 52.9ft
Complement: 185
Armament: 2 x Quad Harpoon Missile launchers Vertical Launch Sea Wolf anti-missile system 4.5in (114mm) MK 8 gun 2 x 30mm Close range guns 2 x Magazine launched anti submarine torpedo tubes NATO Seagnat and DLF3 Decoy Launchers
Sensors: Type 1007 navigation radar Type 996 air/surface surveillance radar 2 x Type 911 Sea Wolf tracking radars UAT Electronic Surveillance System Type 2050 active sonar

Aircraft:
MK 8 Lynx helicopters:
Armament:
- Sea Skua anti-ship missiles
- Stingray anti-submarine torpedoes
- Mk 11 depth charges
- Machine guns

Propulsion:
Turbines:
CODLAG (Combined Diesel and Gas) - 2 x
- Rolls Royce Spey gas boost
Diesels:
- 4 x GEC-Alsthom Paxman Valenta
Electric:
- 2 x GEC motors

 

[Moonstone]

Why do you call the numbers on the Royal Navy web page for Type 23 frigates 'unlikely'? Do you think that the authors of private, commercial, publications know the displacement of RN ships better than the RN does?

Your jibe about 'information gleaned from the internet' is ridiculous. The internet is no more, & no less, reliable than printed media. Both can be completely & utterly wrong. The trick is in filtering out the obvious dross, & then evaluating what is left.

I see that you are now claiming that the Sunday Express should be taken seriously - but you say that what the Royal Navy says on the internet about the displacement of its ships is 'unlikely'. nfloorl:

I had hoped we had moved on from this tedious matter and I have been requested to leave the subject as (believe it or not) some people find this discussion boring / annoying , but as you seem to want to continue for some reason I'll have to exercise my right of reply .

The standard displacement of the T23 is universally acceptable as 3500 long tons (3556 tonnes) while all reputable published sources (Janes Fighting Ships , Combat Fleets of the World ...etc) quote their full load displacement as 4200 long tons (4267 tonnes) - so far so clear .

You for some reason have decided to ignore all that and claim that instead of the full load figure that the best reference sources in the industry agree upon , the T23 actually displaces not 4,267 tonnes but rather 4,900 tonnes (!) - a number obtained only from the internet I might add . Schoolboy mathematics shows that the T23 has according somehow gained a not inconsiderable 633 tonnes and that this means (see below) that the total fuel load is now reputedly 1,344 tonnes .

Before I continue let's examine the terminology in some detail , and as you champion the reliability of the internet I'll follow your example and employ it :

Standard Displacement :
The weight or displacement of "the ship complete, fully manned, engined, and equipped ready for sea, including all armament and ammunition, equipment, outfit, provisions and fresh water for crew, miscellaneous stores and implements of every description that are intended to be carried in war, but without fuel or reserve feed water on board." (Definition of "standard displacement" given in the Washington and London Naval Treaties)

Full load displacement :
The nominal weight/displacement of the fully loaded ship, including all stores, supplies, munitions, personnel, and (unlike standard tonnage) fuel and reserve feed water.

So you can see the main difference is a question of fuel load (I think we need no longer concern ourselves with the old Reserve Feed Water allowance ) so we have a discrepancy of some 1,344 tonnes to consider between your internet derived numbers and the established , reputable , reference sources .

Lets put this fuel load number into context shell we , 1,344 tonnes is rather more that the standard displacement of a complete 'V&W' class destroyer from 1918 , or put another way , an enormous pair of scales with just the maximum fuel load of a T23 at one end would need no less than 21 'Challenger II' main battle tanks on the other side just to make it balance . Doesn't sound very likely does it .

I believe the actual fuel load of the T23 is in the region of 700 tonnes or so , which in itself is quite an impressive figure for a frigate of this size .

If you and your little friends want to continue to argue that not only have Janes .... etc been significantly & consistently wrong for decades regarding the basic details of the RN's most important class of escort vessel then perhaps you better find some more convincing evidence to back your claims than some MOD web site & its (unnamed) author .With every serving officer in the RN having a copy of JFS (or easy access to a copy) why do you think none of them have ever raised the issue & had this 'error' corrected ?

I intend to continue my longstanding practice of trusting the word of acknowledged experts in the field over some dubious 'factoid' I might find on the net . You Sir may do as you please .

BTW - The simple act of posting a link from a national newspaper with the aim to perhaps stimulate a little discussion on a thread than had not seen a single post in 3 days is not generally regarded as valid grounds for criticism !

 

[StevoJH]

a number obtained only from the internet I might add .

A number taken straight from the Official website of the Royal Navy itself. Unless of course you are accusing the Royal Navy of lying on their website.

 

[Grim901]

I had hoped we had moved on from this tedious matter and I have been requested to leave the subject as (believe it or not) some people find this discussion boring / annoying , but as you seem to want to continue for some reason I'll have to exercise my right of reply .

The standard displacement of the T23 is universally acceptable as 3500 long tons (3556 tonnes) while all reputable published sources (Janes Fighting Ships , Combat Fleets of the World ...etc) quote their full load displacement as 4200 long tons (4267 tonnes) - so far so clear .

You for some reason have decided to ignore all that and claim that instead of the full load figure that the best reference sources in the industry agree upon , the T23 actually displaces not 4,267 tonnes but rather 4,900 tonnes (!) - a number obtained only from the internet I might add . Schoolboy mathematics shows that the T23 has according somehow gained a not inconsiderable 633 tonnes and that this means (see below) that the total fuel load is now reputedly 1,344 tonnes .

Before I continue let's examine the terminology in some detail , and as you champion the reliability of the internet I'll follow your example and employ it :

Standard Displacement :
The weight or displacement of "the ship complete, fully manned, engined, and equipped ready for sea, including all armament and ammunition, equipment, outfit, provisions and fresh water for crew, miscellaneous stores and implements of every description that are intended to be carried in war, but without fuel or reserve feed water on board." (Definition of "standard displacement" given in the Washington and London Naval Treaties)

Full load displacement :
The nominal weight/displacement of the fully loaded ship, including all stores, supplies, munitions, personnel, and (unlike standard tonnage) fuel and reserve feed water.

So you can see the main difference is a question of fuel load (I think we need no longer concern ourselves with the old Reserve Feed Water allowance ) so we have a discrepancy of some 1,344 tonnes to consider between your internet derived numbers and the established , reputable , reference sources .

Lets put this fuel load number into context shell we , 1,344 tonnes is rather more that the standard displacement of a complete 'V&W' class destroyer from 1918 , or put another way , an enormous pair of scales with just the maximum fuel load of a T23 at one end would need no less than 21 'Challenger II' main battle tanks on the other side just to make it balance . Doesn't sound very likely does it .

I believe the actual fuel load of the T23 is in the region of 700 tonnes or so , which in itself is quite an impressive figure for a frigate of this size .

If you and your little friends want to continue to argue that not only have Janes .... etc been significantly & consistently wrong for decades regarding the basic details of the RN's most important class of escort vessel then perhaps you better find some more convincing evidence to back your claims than some MOD web site & its (unnamed) author .With every serving officer in the RN having a copy of JFS (or easy access to a copy) why do you think none of them have ever raised the issue & had this 'error' corrected ?

I intend to continue my longstanding practice of trusting the word of acknowledged experts in the field over some dubious 'factoid' I might find on the net . You Sir may do as you please .

BTW - The simple act of posting a link from a national newspaper with the aim to perhaps stimulate a little discussion on a thread than had not seen a single post in 3 days is not generally regarded as valid grounds for criticism !

Here's a choice I make just about every day of the week: "Shall I read the Daily Express today, or do (insert whatever here, i'm on holiday so I lack much in the way of routine - gotta love university.)". Surprisingly the answer is almost always to do ANYTHING other than read the Daily Express, I don't need any more Diana updates thanks

Generally if I want to stimulate a thread and don't have much to work with i'll ask a question or start a discussion, for example based on peoples ideas or things they'd like to see happen etc.

Just a guess but you i'm going to assume your fairly old fashioned. The internet is not inherently wrong or a poor source in comparison to something printed on a page. Around 75% of my degree level research occurs on the internet now, does that mean that I, and my entire generation of students are producing inaccurate work? I pity this country in 20 years when we're running the show and we have to make ill informed choices on social care for elderly.

Back to the point - As far as sources for Royal Navy ship displacements, the RN website is likely to be the at the top of the list in terms of reliability. I know Janes is usually quite a reliable source (I can't check any recent editions for this particular subject, the University Library appeared to stop purchasing Janes Fighting ships around 1977), but I don't know exactly how Janes calculates its figures and how much access to primary data it has or how regularly it calculates its figures over the life of a ship, but if someone here could provide more information on things like that we may be able to point out where the discrepancy lies, rather than deciding that the Royal Navy either no longer knows about its own ships, or they hired a monkey to smash keys on the keyboard until a website appears.

Final point, you're right, you shouldn't have responded. I doubt many other people here have the time to read someone arguing over a fairly useless point for nearly a week.

 

[1805]

We don't want to lose sight of the debate: the premeiss that the RN continues to try to build a champagne capability on a beer budget and in repeatedly trying to do so it risks failing to meet its core responsibilities.

In fact I would argue further if the RN set more modest objectives, it would be possible to achieve far more than realistically it ever expected.

 

[StevoJH]

We don't want to lose sight of the debate: the premeiss that the RN continues to try to build a champagne capability on a beer budget and in repeatedly trying to do so it risks failing to meet its core responsibilities.

In fact I would argue further if the RN set more modest objectives, it would be possible to achieve far more than realistically it ever expected.

As long as the UK continues to have overseas territories, the RN will maintain the same requirements. What needs to happen is either.

a) Ditch the overseas territories, or
b) fund the forces properly.

 

[riksavage]

We don't want to lose sight of the debate: the premeiss that the RN continues to try to build a champagne capability on a beer budget and in repeatedly trying to do so it risks failing to meet its core responsibilities.

In fact I would argue further if the RN set more modest objectives, it would be possible to achieve far more than realistically it ever expected.

Broken records are at it again!

The RN's primary focus will remain that of sea-lane protection and strategic raiding through the maintenance of a credible ARG.

People have got to stop counting hulls and focus on bang-for-buck power projection capabilities. The unit costs of modern combatants are astronomical compared to previous generations, even after inflationary factors. Man-power costs represent one third of a militaries expenditure if made up of an all volunteer force. With modern technology improvements we should expect to see the number of hulls/crew shrink further, offset by substantial increases in ISTAR and strike capabilities contained onboard each respective vessel/submarine.

Whilst one must accept a sub/surface combatant can only be in one place at one time, the range and firepower of the those reduced assets stretches infinitely further than what was available previously. Just compare technical specifications of an Astute with a Batch 1 Trafalgar, or a QE with an Invincible, and not forgetting the processing and detection ability of a single T45 exceeds that of all the T42's put together. The F35B represents a step change in technology compared to the Harrier GR9. 3 Commando Brigade is far more potent today than it ever was - improved fire-power, armoured support and SF assets have not just increased in size, (SBS now a Commando sized asset, it was only a sqn in 82) but its ISTAR abilities have grown exponentially ( now a dedicated battalion sized unit), plus an army Commando have been added to the mix. We are talking about a divisional strength of combined assets on the RN's ORBAT - remind me again which other country in the west bar the US has such dedicated combined arms at its disposal capable and PRACTICED in operating anywhere on the planet (jungle, arctic, desert)? That tastes like Moet to me, not cheap larger!!!

I will be happy to see an active ARG plying the seas with 1 x QE, 1 x Astute,1 x Albion, 2 x Bays, 2 x T45, 2 x T23/26 supported by a myriad of RFA vessels. In peace time I will also be happy to sea only 12-18 RN/FAA F35B's in permanent residence on the active QE supplemented by the occasional draft of USMC, Spanish or Italian F35B's. This will still allow for additional T45 or T23/26's to fly the flag around the globe and keep the RAF happy with ground based F35B CAS.

Britain is a small island located in a part of the world surrounded by allies The nearest credible maritime combatant (Russia) is now a shadow of its former self with most of its fleet rusting in dock yards with a government forced to buy from the west to gain any sort of comparable capabilities outside that of nuclear strike. The clear and present danger remains one of failed states or state sponsored terrorism. The future RN will be in its best position to support overseas operations than at anytime since the Korean War.

 

[swerve]

I had hoped we had moved on from this tedious matter ...

The standard displacement of the T23 is universally acceptable as 3500 long tons (3556 tonnes) while all reputable published sources (Janes Fighting Ships , Combat Fleets of the World ...etc) quote their full load displacement as 4200 long tons (4267 tonnes) - so far so clear .

You for some reason have decided to ignore all that and claim that instead of the full load figure that the best reference sources in the industry agree upon , the T23 actually displaces not 4,267 tonnes but rather 4,900 tonnes (!) - a number obtained only from the internet I might add .

If you and your little friends want to continue to argue that not only have Janes .... etc been significantly & consistently wrong for decades regarding the basic details of the RN's most important class of escort vessel then perhaps you better find some more convincing evidence to back your claims than some MOD web site & its (unnamed) author .With every serving officer in the RN having a copy of JFS (or easy access to a copy) why do you think none of them have ever raised the issue & had this 'error' corrected ?

I intend to continue my longstanding practice of trusting the word of acknowledged experts in the field over some dubious 'factoid' I might find on the net . You Sir may do as you please .

BTW - The simple act of posting a link from a national newspaper with the aim to perhaps stimulate a little discussion on a thread than had not seen a single post in 3 days is not generally regarded as valid grounds for criticism !

There's a simple rule. If you stop arguing about something, other people stop arguing with you. To reply to the last response to your posts with 'I had hoped we had moved on from this tedious matter' is impolite, & hypocritical. You are simultaneously engaging, & disparaging others for engaging.

And then you come out with 'little friends'. Oh dear. You're not trying to make friends, are you? Nor are you trying to impress or influence anyone. Your style of debate is such that it is obvious you are arguing for the sake of your own ego, with no thought of persuading others. Sad, really.

Your constant disparagement of internet sources, regardless of what they are, your somewhat comical attempts to defend the indefensible (suddenly the Daily Express becomes 'a national newspaper'), & your style & tone, suggest someone whose mind is fixed in a previous era. It is a regrettable truth that many people cease to accept new ideas when they reach a certain age. Even great scientists can succumb to it, e.g. the dispute between Koch & von Pettenkofer over the cause of cholera, or the opponents to the theory of continental drift who died still denying the evidence.

Well, here is some news for you: the internet is full of perfectly good information. I have a hard drive stuffed full of peer-reviewed scholarly articles downloaded from it. To follow the debates on disputed matters in full, one must have internet access, as only summaries appear in print. Nowadays, official data tend to appear in full, & promptly, on the internet, & later, in abridged versions, in print. corrections are applied to the internet version, but not always to printed editions, & the latest internet version can therefore be the most reliable. Etc., etc. The internet is the only public source for some information.

No scientist, academic researcher, health professional (e.g. my partner, a speech therapist), engineer in current practice (my sister), teacher (something I'm qualified for, & have done), IT professional (my main career), etc. would dream of suggesting that the fact that information is derived from the internet makes it unreliable, any more than the fact that it has appeared in print makes it trustworthy. We all use it regularly for work, because what we need is there. Anyone can print any rubbish, almost as easily as posting rubbish on the internet. What distinguishes gold from dross is not the medium, but more subtle factors. For example, the Daily Express is a printed journal of notorious unreliability, particularly in areas about which its reporters have no expertise, such as defence. Specialist publications, e.g. Janes & Flight, are far more reliable. Note that both publish more on the internet than in print.

If you wish to dispute the RNs published full load displacement figure for Type 23, I suggest you take it up with them.

There is no reason to assume the difference between the figure given by Janes & Friedman, & that given by the RN, is all fuel.

Where do you think Janes & Friedman get their data?

Janes Fighting Ships 2008-9 states that Type 22 Batch 1 in Chilean service has a standard displacement of 3500 tons, & full load 4731. 2 metres shorter than T23, 1.3 metres narrower. What do you think of that?

I suspect that the RN doesn't see the difference between what it is willing to load a T23 up to & the figures in JFS to be important.

 

[StevoJH]

Well, here is some news for you: the internet is full of perfectly good information. I have a hard drive stuffed full of peer-reviewed scholarly articles downloaded from it. To follow the debates on disputed matters in full, one must have internet access, as only summaries appear in print.

Yes, pretty much all Scientific Journals are now available online through a number of Databases. Other then some general stuff that I get from text books, most of the information I use for Assignments comes from Journal Articles found on online databases.

Also, as much as some people deride it, Wikipedia makes a good starting point to get an idea of a topic before you go looking for further research. Especially now that a lot of their articles are now properly referenced.

For example. Some of the subjects i'm studying basically involve studying the legislation regarding the profession that i'm working towards joining, the Internet is perfect for that, as up to date legislation is available from government websites, this means you can go "Ctrl F" to find the relevent clauses. That *has* to be better then digging through a bunch of old books that could potentially be quite a few revisions out of date.

 

[deepsixteen]

We don't want to lose sight of the debate: the premeiss that the RN continues to try to build a champagne capability on a beer budget and in repeatedly trying to do so it risks failing to meet its core responsibilities.

In fact I would argue further if the RN set more modest objectives, it would be possible to achieve far more than realistically it ever expected.

Wouldn’t want to have to ride a cheap vessel into combat personally, and in this day and age thinking of the public reaction to snatch excreta would hope the politicians had learnt from these mistakes

http://www.defencemanagement.com/feature_story.asp?id=14485

Good post by Dickon M on another board, very interesting got me thinking about how the principles could be applied to warships, mainly; how could this system best be applied to a modern warship build and suggest the forthcoming Type 26 could be an ideal candidate.

Firstly I think that it would only be suitable for ships if we make sure that we build them with sufficient flexibility in the basic design to allow for systems to be swapped out cheaply and that the core capability of the vessel is high end and has the possibility of lasting the life time of the hull which I would expect to be around 30+ years. Core capability I guess is an argument in it’s self but as a starter for ten would think main radar, hull mounted sonar, VLS silo and propulsion would be core fits and hard to swap out unless we are talking about electric motors in which case generator sets could be easily swapped out.

Would this put us in a position that would allow for procurement of weapons EW and command systems following the UOR principles do the board members think that this would be a cost effective approach? I think that it may be a very good way of fitting out individual batches of the Type 26 and may be a cost effective approach to allow the production of ships to suit today’s needs with the flexibility for additional fits over the 30+ year lifespan of the ship