rally?
I like it, Britain will never be as good as we expect it to be.
Keeps us moving forward rather than stagnating
Argentina imposes shipping rules to the falklands.
- Thread starter trent
- Start date
rally?
I like it, Britain will never be as good as we expect it to be.
Keeps us moving forward rather than stagnating
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 9,515
- Location
- London Town!
EDIT - Also, I missed this. The British ones are usually cheaper, and arguably better (not currently with Type 45 failure).
E.g.
Attacks subs: Astute vs. Virginia - £1bil vs £2bil
Carriers: QE vs Gerald R. Ford - £2bil vs £6bil
Destroyers: Type 45 vs Arleigh Burke - £1bil vs £1.3bil.
NB. The US prices (est. in £ at today's exchange rate) are not 'for sale rates', they're the internal US cost. All prices exclude R&D costs.
I'm going to have to question your facts there - cost of the first Arleigh Burke ship was $1.1Bn (of which three quarters went on weapons systems rather amazingly). Which is £700m at today's exchange rate (and less at the time it was built, and that's in keeping with the roughly £600k equivalent that the locally built korean ships apparently cost).
It's also, as I said, capable of attacking land and sea targets with cruise missiles (with tactical nuclear warheads if wanted). Ships with Harpoon missiles (except the flight 2A ships which weren't equipped). Submarines with deck launched torpedos and ballistic missiles on a very local basis with the uprated missiles. The type 45 can do precisely none of those things as currently equipped and will never be able to do some of them. Now it might be designed for a different role but given the Aegis system is likely as good or very close at the type 45's primary role it doesn't look good - not to mention, even if it isn't as good it can carry more than twice as many missiles ready to fire so that maybe makes up for the slightly lower shot to kill ratio of Aegis - if you believe that PAAMS will actually be any good when they make it work.
So my facts say definitely cheaper and probably better.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 4,184
- Location
- London
rally?
I like it, Britain will never be as good as we expect it to be.
Keeps us moving forward rather than stagnating
I actually agree witht he sentiment but i genuinely dont think it rings true.
looking at the evidence in this thread for example - We have a conflict that was won against significant odds 28 years ago and yet quite a few ill informed souls have implied that that this was essentially luck or because of US help or both when the evidence for these standpoints is hardly convincing.
and then theres the threads about the second world war...
I think if i was Falklands veteran I'd be more than a little irate lol
A shop first comissioned in 1991, yes we would be buying them after their mid life upgrade but the parallel would be buying a Y reg Ford Transit with a new engine and stereo... Same with the Nimitz class Air craft carrier, a design that is currrently over 40 years old, which is already being superceded by a new design...
We also have the major issues that aren't mentioned by you (and yes the ability to design and build our own military equipment is a very good skill to have) which is the issue of the Americans handing over tech to allow us to operate and service them independently.
You also have the issue of buying a design fit for someone elses Navy, you really think that the "issues" you highlighted weren't part of a naval plan (although some of them were down to original cost). The reason we do not have a more general ship is because it was decided we didn't need one. Our fleet have a variety of ships with a variety of specialities.
I suppose you are also one of those that think we should have bought out of date f16s instead of develop our own (far superior) eurofighter?
Actually, lets not design or build our own kit, why not just buy all american, maybe even give our military to them, aside from the fact a lot of their equipment isn't the best on the market...
A lot of the problems with recent procurement is down to two things, one, this rather annoying cost saving exercise of sharing the design, most widely shown by the eurofighter, a plane that took around 30 years to develop and build because each country wanted something different, a plane that if we had decided to go it alone would have most likely already been in service for 10 years and been far cheaper than we ended up paying.
The second, short sightedness. Unfortunately you get what you pay for, a navy is expensive and you have to pay for it however our government only ever seem to look at the "now" costs, not the future costs. They develop a ship that is only just capable of what we need now, with no real upgrade potential (thankfully they didn't go for the really cheap and shortsighted idea of buying old off the shelf kit), the US on the other hand are equiping their new aircraft carriers with nuclear generators (which are obsenely expensive to run, and why we haven't got them in our new ones) twice as powerful as they need so in 30-50 years time (they are expected to have a life span of 90+ years) when lasers/future tech is fitted they have enough power for it. The UK government in its wisdom decides to cut off a few percent of the costs by not fitting our ships with caterpaults, which are likely going to be needed in the future and cost an absolute fortune to fit (if we don't decide we need new carriers...).
IMO if we were to buy off the shelf from another country then I would probably choose a lot of European ships over any American one, why? Because they have a similar plan for their navies and ships that fit our needs better...
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,712
- Location
- Retired Don
British cruise ship tests Argentine blockade in Falklands
As the war of words between Argentina and Britain continues, it's business as usual for the cruise ships naviagating the South Atlantic waters.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ip-tests-Argentine-blockade-in-Falklands.html
As the war of words between Argentina and Britain continues, it's business as usual for the cruise ships naviagating the South Atlantic waters.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ip-tests-Argentine-blockade-in-Falklands.html
Although that is sailing from Buenos Aires so is already in argentine water, with no permit I realise, but i suspect they will pull this card out later.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 9,515
- Location
- London Town!
And the Arleigh Burke class is still being produced and there isn't anything obviously better out there. The simply fact is they can do more than a type 45 can and the things a type 45 can do they do almost as well. Given we don't have enough ships, having those we do have fitted out to perform as many roles as possible would seem logical - if a single ship is capable of both pursuing pirates off the horn of africa and providing fleet air defence that seems a logical thing, especially given they're still very good at each role and cost less. Not to mention having 15 ships of 1 class rather than 5 ships from each of 3 classes makes logistics and maintenance much easier.
And the Nimitz class are being replaced by ships using the same hull and layout with evolutionary upgrades (different reactor, more modern radar, more modern flight deck gear). Which suggests there's not much wrong but anyway...
You might buy european ships but aside from France (who's horizon class we would have had if we hadn't pulled out of the project so I guess that's out), who would you buy from? The Spanish F100 ships are Arleigh Burke clones (and the Norwegian's built variants of those) and the Germans use American missiles with their own radar. And they all have an anti ship missile capability of some kind and torpedo tubes, while many of them use the VLS system so can launch tomahawks (or the french ships are equipped to launch a home grown equivalent). So they're also a good demonstration of how inflexible the type 45s are despite apparently being closer to our requirements.
I'm not criticising the navy, I'm saying that we appear to be equipping them with ships less flexible and more expensive than virtually every other modern western navy. We and everybody else are reliant on somebody for the weapons systems so lets just buy the best we can and get value for money. What's wrong with that idea? No matter how much we pretend otherwise we're not a world power any more.
What will be the power plant for our aircraft carriers if not nuclear? And was it just a financial issue with us not wanting nuclear on our cariers, or a procurement/upkeep/not having the right equipment?
Seems really foolish as i would think nuclear carrier could be quite efficient
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 9,515
- Location
- London Town!
What will be the power plant for our aircraft carriers if not nuclear? And was it just a financial issue with us not wanting nuclear on our cariers, or a procurement/upkeep/not having the right equipment?
Seems really foolish as i would think nuclear carrier could be quite efficient
Gas turbines I'm guessing, nuclear is efficient (and won't need refuelling for probably 15 years or more) and has other advantages on a carrier (produces plenty steam for catapults - not that it's relevant for us...) BUT it is massively expensive in terms of construction costs and ongoing maintenance. It's a trade off between cost and endurance really...it's a no brainer for the Americans but less clear cut for us (that said, the French have nuclear powered carriers...)
What will be the power plant for our aircraft carriers if not nuclear? And was it just a financial issue with us not wanting nuclear on our cariers, or a procurement/upkeep/not having the right equipment?
Seems really foolish as i would think nuclear carrier could be quite efficient
were going green, we are decking it out with solar panels.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
Surely this is just BS now days as a couple of terrorists can catch any 'super-power' off guard? And other countries are catching up with the US in numerous ways.
Anyway, not that I disagree, but Leopoldo Galtieri said exactly the same thing......
--
The lack of nuclear power is an odd decision, especially as the decision to make all subs nuclear was taken years ago. So the training and infrastructure is already there. Our military really need more money.
Is that right? I thought it was $1.1bn as a shell - without the weapon systems.
Either way, Arleigh is old now and already being replaced by something that costs much more Zumwalt - $3-6 billion per unit.
Last edited:
In all likelyhood the type 45 will still be being produced in 20 years as well, maybe with a mid life upgrade to the latter one or two. Ships cost so much and take so long to design that we are talking 30-40 years between design start and final ship in service. You are still talking about a mid life ship however. Those Arleigh Burke class ships are most likely going to be decomissioned in around 20ish years, our type 45 will probably still be going for another 20 years after that (even if we did buy them at the same time).
Apparently our government think not, and lets be honest here, the type 45's are quite capable of pursuing a pirate ship. I disagree with your last comment however, the problem with having 15 ships of the same class instead of a variety of ships are many. Firstly if we went to war all our ships would have the same design flaws, which could easily be capitalised on by the enemy, secondly instead of spreading costs over many years you have a greater condensed cost, thirdly all the ships would be using the same tech, meaning they would essentially be becoming obselete in a similar time frame, seperate ships designed at seperate times for seperate roles also mean the ships would be staggered. I do however think the French way of designing their new destroyers is a good one, use the same hull but design three specific types. It saves costs and has the benefit of still having specific ships for specific roles.
Yes it uses essentially the same hull, however the hull is just that, the hull (or the bit that keeps the water out), inside it is a totally different beast, essentially a totally different ship, yes an evolution, but a massive evolution. Also you mentioned previously that 3/4 of the cost of building the new Arleigh Burke class was technology and equipment, a cost that would be similar for us, no matter whether we built our own or used the American base ship. We can't just stick a ship with a load of American tech into our navy, for starters because the Americans wouldn't allow us to use their best tech and secondly because it would cause a nightmare in training and cooperation between ships. A huge amount of the technology in the type 45 for example is stuff designed specifically for the Royal Navy, bespoke and not used by anyone else.
TBH I meant France. Their ships are usually pretty good and far more in keeping with the way our navy is run.
I disagree. The ships (as pointed out by you and others) are either going rate or cheaper than their equivilents and designed for our needs specifically, also quite possibly the best in the world for what they do. I also disagree with the latter sentences. Reliance on one power for our military needs is really not good, what happened for example if 30 years down the line (after we started buying all our equipment from them) America told us they weren't selling us anything more, we would be essentially giving our defence away to another nation. The Falklands comes in here nicely, America didn't want us to take them back last time but what if we bought all our equipment from them? They could just tell us if we took them back no supply...
The only weapon I begrudgingly think we should depend on the US for is our nuclear weapons (although I would like them completely under our command) because if we needed to use them buying more probably won't be on the cards...
As far as being a world power, well... We are still one of the most influential nations on the planet, one of the few with nuclear weapons, one of the largest navies (3rd or 4th) and one of the best and poweful armed forces (especially for projection). We may not be up there with the US but we are one of the few that can hold our own alongside them. Anyway, that's beside the point really as we still have interests to protect (especially if the Falklands has as much oil (and other natural resources, gold and diamonds for example)as predicted), we need the equipment to be able to defend them, while being independent from another nation that may not necessarily agree with what we do. We are in a totally different league to Spain, Norway and Greece tbh.
What will be the power plant for our aircraft carriers if not nuclear? And was it just a financial issue with us not wanting nuclear on our cariers, or a procurement/upkeep/not having the right equipment?
Seems really foolish as i would think nuclear carrier could be quite efficient
This essentially, they are stupendusley expensive to run, we have the expertise (nuclear reactors in our subs) however it is far cheaper and not a lot less problematic logistically (bearing in mind ACC's go round in carrier groups, therefore loads of conventionally engined ships needing fuel anyway). When you get REALLY big (like the Nimitz) then they may become more cost effective.
As for the French carrier, they only have one now, which AFAIK as been beset with problems, partly from the reactor.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 9,515
- Location
- London Town!
Multiple sources for it - wiki is backed up by congressional budget reports etc - so I think so. $321m for the hull made up to $1.1bn with weapons.
As far as I know they've actually restarted production and restricted the Zumwalt class to three ships - but they're science fiction stuff, designed to mount free electron lasers and railguns (not initially but the design allows for it) with a integrated electrical power system which can devide power between propulsion and weapons systems at will - they're also much much larger. Comes with a $3.3Bn price tag currently and it'll surely rise...
As I mentioned previously it was partly to do with cost, but also because it doesn't really make a difference. Carrier groups go round with a variety of ships, most conventionally powered, which means there will always need to be a tanker for the other ships, as well as for fuel, munitions and other expendables that a carrier and it's crew/aircraft need.
IMO not really worth the extra cost.
Submarines on the other hand gain a huge benefit from nuclear power. With no need for oxygen for the engine (and no noxious gases coming out of it) they can stay submurged and travel for months at a time, whereas conventionally powered subs have to surface (or stay just below with a snorkel) to power their batteries, thus removing a massive stealth advantage.
That's an interesting looking ship!
That's what I love about the American way of thinking with regards to futureproofing their vessels, they spend a little bit more and make them slightly more futureproof, so when tech changes, or their need changes they can change them reasonably cheaply. Our government on the other hand thinks about how much it would cost now and then say no...
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
Wiki says: "The total cost of the first ship was put at US$1.1 billion, the other US$778 million being for the ship's weapons systems". Confused. Either way, they're now old.
With an unlimited budget, I know what the RN would choose, though. That's what is upsetting.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 9,515
- Location
- London Town!
Well I'd argue you have to consider the flight 2A ships a different proposition to the original one commissioned in the early 90s and age aside they are still either as good or very near to the type 45 in capability and are backed by American R&D investment for future upgrades.
Apparently so but I can't understand the wisdom myself, in any environment where there's no air threat they are essentially useless or a very expensive helipad (a type 23 costs less than 1/5th as much and is as or more useful outside of the anti air role - it can attack ships and submarines for a start...). I'm not an expert but I just don't see the point myself - there's virtually no other class of ship been built in the last decade which is so single role.
They sold the very latest Aegis radar system to Spain, they sold us trident and the newest tactical tomahawk so I don't see why they wouldn't. The F35 IP row is a worry I concede though.
The ships are already equipped to operate effectively together, one of the upsides of NATO and the cold war. The british command and control systems are actually considered superior (or were at the time of the first gulf war anyway) but they do interoperate pretty well and fitting custom electronics is always going to be possible
TBH I meant France. Their ships are usually pretty good and far more in keeping with the way our navy is run.
Indeed they are and I think the navy would have been better off if we hadn't pulled out of the project which gave the french the Horizon class and gone and built the type 45 instead. The french have a ship with EXACTLY the same air warfare capability (same radar, same missiles) but it can actually do other things too.
Well they're maybe 40-50% more expensive than the Arleigh Burke which is very close in anti air capability (maybe it's technically slightly behind but it's got twice the missile capacity - swings and roundabouts) and exceeds it in others. We could argue this forever but I think that's too much for too little myself - with continuing development of Aegis I think they will be good for 30 years or so and they provide so much more (even if they didn't, I think the navy would rather 10 very good ships to 6 best in the world ones myself).
I think we're more like spain than you imagine, an old world power with a few remaining overseas territories... sure the nuclear weapons and security council seat change that somewhat but still, we're not totally dissimilar.
An interesting read ! LOL at some of the above comments.
It seems as the whole thread has shifted from The Argies "new" shipping rules, to the current state of the Senior service
Considering that the T45 has not yet been fully accepted into service yet, lots more trials to be completed (yes the first of class has already been commissioned, 23 Jul 09!). I think you will find that once the FULL trials have been completed (some time in the next 12 months perhaps) any teething problems with the new systems will be sorted, bearing in mind the UK is one of the worlds biggest developers in the defence industry (in decline over the last 6 or 7 years or so, but should start to pick up again). Yes we could have bought US AB ships (but we have always been sellers of old tech, not buyers). Also with each ship the majority of the money spent has gone back into UK coffers, (not US). Enough said.
For my 2 pence worth, I think this is all hot air and the Argies are merely jumping on their soapbox. Just look at how ridiculous their claimed areas are.
It might take 9-14 days to get a ship from home to the falklands, but you can bet there are other units a LOT closer. S and T boats (Possibly A by end of year) would take the waters. No question we would hold the air within a couple of weeks, and after that there is no way any Argies could hold the land (even if they managed to invade it in the first week to 10 days). AR. .-.
It seems as the whole thread has shifted from The Argies "new" shipping rules, to the current state of the Senior service
Considering that the T45 has not yet been fully accepted into service yet, lots more trials to be completed (yes the first of class has already been commissioned, 23 Jul 09!). I think you will find that once the FULL trials have been completed (some time in the next 12 months perhaps) any teething problems with the new systems will be sorted, bearing in mind the UK is one of the worlds biggest developers in the defence industry (in decline over the last 6 or 7 years or so, but should start to pick up again). Yes we could have bought US AB ships (but we have always been sellers of old tech, not buyers). Also with each ship the majority of the money spent has gone back into UK coffers, (not US). Enough said.
For my 2 pence worth, I think this is all hot air and the Argies are merely jumping on their soapbox. Just look at how ridiculous their claimed areas are.
It might take 9-14 days to get a ship from home to the falklands, but you can bet there are other units a LOT closer. S and T boats (Possibly A by end of year) would take the waters. No question we would hold the air within a couple of weeks, and after that there is no way any Argies could hold the land (even if they managed to invade it in the first week to 10 days). AR. .-.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
Well potatoes and a grenade aren't dissimilar....
What an odd comparison, and more anti-Anglo sentiments. We dwarf the Spanish economy and military.
FFS this is your country, have some pride.
Last edited: