Argentina imposes shipping rules to the falklands.

Tefal said:
Or you could buy the plans from the Americans and build them here which is what the Norwegians and Koreans do iirc.

remember it's not just the cost to build the ship it's the R&D costs you have to include when you design your own.
Click to expand...
Or get plans drawn up here, with more UK jobs etc... Plus it stops making our competitor richer :D
 
platypus said:
So drilling to commence this morning, I wonder what the Argentinian response will be.
Click to expand...

whaaa.jpg
 
meghatronic said:
Or get plans drawn up here, with more UK jobs etc... Plus it stops making our competitor richer :D
Click to expand...

It isn't like we've done that of course, if we assume the American ships are a decent indicator then 3/4 of the cost is systems and weapons rather than heavy engineering - so we're just giving heaps of cash to the French and Italians instead...
 
Tefal said:
Or you could buy the plans from the Americans and build them here which is what the Norwegians and Koreans do iirc.

remember it's not just the cost to build the ship it's the R&D costs you have to include when you design your own.
Click to expand...

Surely as a nation we haven't lost the ability to design a decent warship, another cost kept in-house. It would be a shame if we had lost the inventive abilities that helped us tremendously through 2 world wars.
 
bigredshark said:
It isn't like we've done that of course, if we assume the American ships are a decent indicator then 3/4 of the cost is systems and weapons rather than heavy engineering - so we're just giving heaps of cash to the French and Italians instead...
Click to expand...
Quite. But I'm apposed to sharing military tech. Just doesn't make sense!
 
bigredshark said:
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.
Click to expand...

Air power is what matters most in naval warfare.

A 23 costs 1/5th as much.. - show me the evidence? Its more likely you're talking about the last 23 to be built as opposed to the 1st 45, look at the prices of materials now, I doubt its that cheap to build a 23 now.
Its a ship with old tech, poorer living conditions and what not.
The 45s have relatively low running cost due to the lower crewing requirement, and they could definately chase a pirate ship..

the 23s wouldnt 'attack' a submarine, they wouldnt even find a modern day one to be honest, the helicopters on the back of those ships are not just for show, they are for anti submarine/surface warfare, meaning they go and find submarines and drop depth charges, or they launch anti surface missiles at ships that are over the horizon.

45 is far from a single role.
 
peetee said:
Air power is what matters most in naval warfare.

A 23 costs 1/5th as much.. - show me the evidence? Its more likely you're talking about the last 23 to be built as opposed to the 1st 45, look at the prices of materials now, I doubt its that cheap to build a 23 now.
Its a ship with old tech, poorer living conditions and what not.
The 45s have relatively low running cost due to the lower crewing requirement, and they could definately chase a pirate ship..

the 23s wouldnt 'attack' a submarine, they wouldnt even find a modern day one to be honest, the helicopters on the back of those ships are not just for show, they are for anti submarine/surface warfare, meaning they go and find submarines and drop depth charges, or they launch anti surface missiles at ships that are over the horizon.

45 is far from a single role.
Click to expand...

Same place as the type 45 costs, public accounts, readily available...costs are for Portland - 2nd last of the class. And it includes the Merlin helicopters, which the type 45 prices I believe don't.

And they've been refitted with new sonar recently and are considered some of the most capable ASW ships in the world as a result.

Helicopters are all well and good but the only anti ship weapon they possess is the skua missile which is 30 years old and no threat to a vessel of any size (during the falklands, an 800ton (that's tiny) patrol boat was hit by three of them and made it back to port without much drama).

They also aren't in the air continuously so if you were, say, in the gulf on a type 45 and detected a fast attack boat approaching rapidly at night (it happened in the first gulf war) you'd have to scramble the helicopter and hope it destroyed the target before it launched an attack. On a type 23 in the same situation you could launch a harpoon from the ship, which is not only a more powerful weapon but is going to be much much faster than kicking the flight crew out of bed and getting the helicopter started.

Now a type 45 might be better equipped to deal with any missiles it did manage to fire but I can't help thinking sinking it before it launched any might be a better result.

Same goes for a submarine, if you're attacked unexpectedly then firing a torpedo at the attacking submarine instantly is a very valid tactic as it can't continue to guide it's own torpedo and evade at the same time. Not so easy if your helicopter is on deck and you don't have any torpedo tubes. (nor do we have the ability to use the arguably better ASROC or Ikara missile delivered torpedos as we didn't fit the VLS system...)
 
Gotta love the guys that think they know it all. Cheers for the laugh.
 
Last edited:
bigredshark said:
Same place as the type 45 costs, public accounts, readily available...costs are for Portland - 2nd last of the class. And it includes the Merlin helicopters, which the type 45 prices I believe don't.

And they've been refitted with new sonar recently and are considered some of the most capable ASW ships in the world as a result.

Helicopters are all well and good but the only anti ship weapon they possess is the skua missile which is 30 years old and no threat to a vessel of any size (during the falklands, an 800ton (that's tiny) patrol boat was hit by three of them and made it back to port without much drama).
Click to expand...
You're neglecting fleet tactics. In war time (or even peace time) ships rarely travel alone. The Future Surface Combatant study might fill the gap.

Also Type 45 is "fitted for but not with 8 ( 2 x 4 launchers) McDonnell Douglas Harpoon; active radar homing; up to 130 km (70 n miles)". Again, budget constraints I guess.

Zefan said:
Gotta love the guys that think they know it all. Cheers for the laugh
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with opinions and banter. Neither of which you have offered on topic.
EDIT - wasn't being bitchy.
 
Last edited:
meghatronic said:
Nothing wrong with opinions and banter. Neither of which you have offered on topic.
Click to expand...

I am aware of that. I considered giving my opinion but it's a bit pointless after 6 pages, where every side of every argument has been presented.

:Edit: I was specifically talking about the first page by the way, where a couple of people have utterly no idea what they're talking about :p
 
Last edited:
Zefan said:
I am aware of that. I considered giving my opinion but it's a bit pointless after 6 pages, where every side of every argument has been presented.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyones mentioned the "lizard people" will decide what happens. Or that Argentina would win. You could try those? :D
 
meghatronic said:
You're neglecting fleet tactics. In war time (or even peace time) ships rarely travel alone. The Future Surface Combatant study might fill the gap.

Also Type 45 is "fitted for but not with 8 ( 2 x 4 launchers) McDonnell Douglas Harpoon; active radar homing; up to 130 km (70 n miles)". Again, budget constraints I guess.
Click to expand...

I think it is and will be less common for large fleets to be assembled, given the lack of ships it's conceivable that a large vessel like a carrier or landing ship may only have a pair of escorts at best if detached from the main body of the fleet (that's not new at all of course). And a ship like the type 45 would look ideal for the radar picket role (or possibly a missile trap) if part of a larger task force which could potentially require it to defend itself independently.

Indeed it can take the harpoons, I just think it should have been fitted from day one and on a ship which already costs so much it seems a worry they don't have capability without yet more expenditure.
 
bigredshark said:
Indeed it can take the harpoons, I just think it should have been fitted from day one and on a ship which already costs so much it seems a worry they don't have capability without yet more expenditure.
Click to expand...
Indeed. But it's only money. And not a lot at that (relative to the UK budget, not Military budget)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom