The Type 26 frigate shouldn't be to shabby either.
Armada of British naval power massing in the Gulf as Israel prepares an Iran strike
- Thread starter LateX'Dog
- Start date
The Type 26 frigate shouldn't be to shabby either.
The type45 if im not mistaken replaces 11 type 42s (its predecessor) So one might not seem a lot but... in reality its capabilitys are outstanding. Cant wait to see our carriers. You can see one being built from the 4th road bridge over the firth of fourth. Not sure if its where they assemble the full thing, or if its just a section that will be shipped elsewhere for assembly, but its colossal, and will almost be a rival of the massive Nimitz class carriers the US use.
Not read much on the type 26s. Will research now. Its all about sensor capability and missiles now. Not numbers and gun size.
Not read much on the type 26s. Will research now. Its all about sensor capability and missiles now. Not numbers and gun size.
Lol British naval power, without carriers you can't gain air superiority then that nice shiny destroyer is pretty much a sitting duck.
Oh and I know someone on HMS Daring the navy's new toy, most of it doesn't work properly and crew are having a nightmare with it. He said if it was in a war they'd be dead
Oh and I know someone on HMS Daring the navy's new toy, most of it doesn't work properly and crew are having a nightmare with it. He said if it was in a war they'd be dead
Whats that one?
The first ship in class is always going to have issues, prop shaft couplings have been problematic if memory serves and the aster missile had a faulty batch which was replaced early this year. Daring has been wet for 6 and half years and the last in class has just been sent out so I expect most of the issues would be pretty much solved by now. Relative was on the early 23's (Lancaster and another I cant remember) he said it took 10 years to get the ship for problematic to awesome.
edit- found reference to a possibly fried motor back in 07 but no solid source, plenty of those motors are now in use so doesn't seem to be a common problem.
The catapult and trap variant as opposed to the B which is the VSTOL, although its worth adding the C is the most problematic at the moment and is expected to be the last one to enter service due to minor issues like the hook not working and requiring a two year redesign and the frame not being strong enough to support the massive weight slamming into the deck. The B is actually working quite nicely and could be in service up to 4 years before the C.
Last edited:
Except the destroyers main, almost only job is anti-air. It is carrying the ONLY missile based AA system proven to be able to shoot down enemy missiles, it did this by taking out a missile heading for a US ship that couldn't hit it.
And don't bring "know someone" to it. I know someone on the Daring that the dome is actually a Tesla inspired death ray.
The B may be working nicely, but ultimately it is a far less capable aircraft and offers less integration with allies, denying any other fixed wing aircraft but the F35B and Harrier the ability to take off from our carriers.
My main gripe with the B variant though, is how terrible it's range is compared to the C...
My main gripe with the B variant though, is how terrible it's range is compared to the C...
I think that was actually the Sea Dart missile from a Type 42 Destroyer Woden
If I'm not mistaken...
Yep worlds first real combat missile to missile intercept by The Fighting G.
The Americans moan the intercept was too late but the easy counter is that their solution CIWS didn't bother targeting the enemy missile at all and instead peppered the side of the Missouri with 20mm rounds.
I think that was actually the Sea Dart missile from a Type 42 Destroyer Woden
If I'm not mistaken...
Actually your right, but don't tell MrMoonX!
My point still stands, it is the best AA vessel in the world right now. Even the Americans admit that.
Its far better than the range of the C variant right now. At the moment the C's range is longer, but only once before repairs
In theory the C has a impressive 1400 range compared to the B's 900. but several factors to take into account.
-The B's development is still continuing and importantly those figures are for the US config which doesn't take into account the possible increases the ski-jump could add, the final 12.5 deg ramp on the late invincibles added about 2000lbs extra fuel weight to the RN harriers over the USMC variants which had to take off from a flat top*.
-The B is losing weight, rumour mill is that the C is facing a weight gain in required extra strengthening for the harsh deck landings and a larger hook system a few extra kg's here and there will eat into the max range while the B has already lost 150kg this year, weight which can be added into topping up the fuel tanks.
-In typical use a carrier plane comes back into land with 20/25% fuel in the tank due to the longer time in holding and to compensate for missing the wire and having to go back round again, if the B acts like a harrier it will land with closer to 5% fuel remaining as landing is guaranteed, with far less time in holding, those numbers aren't taken into account on the theoretical max ranges.
So the C's real world range comes down from 1400 to 1100 and the B (without any extra from weight saving and ramp usage) comes down from 900 to 855, 1050 to a possible 855 a far smaller gap then the 500 miles the figures would first suggest. Loadings and eventual extra fuel tanks will play a massive role as well but for most real world scenario with a carrier with a ski jump the effective difference in range of the craft is not massive.
SRVL should also make operating the B much cheaper and easier with a higher bring back weight and far less loading on the deck and undercarriage. The smaller internal weapons bays would be my main concern with picking the B as it heavily cuts down on weapon choices.
*http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y47/Godalmighty83/skijg.gif
Apparently, America was willing to pay for us to sling/cata rig our carriers to allow them the ability to land on our boats? But we turned them down.
Also I believe the US are having issues with the B melting deck plates.
AND iv read that in Air to Air capabilitys, the 35s are a little "Meh" for the money. Still, its an upgrade on the harrier.
Also I believe the US are having issues with the B melting deck plates.
AND iv read that in Air to Air capabilitys, the 35s are a little "Meh" for the money. Still, its an upgrade on the harrier.
You make good points. To be honest I had no idea the ski-jump actually made that much of a difference.
I assume the extra 2000lb's gained in the Harrier was stored in external fuel tanks?
The problem is that for the RN to benefit from the ski-jump, it would require quite a big re-design of the jet would it not? In the Harriers case there was little to lose simply adding more fuel or munitions externally, but with the F-35B we can only really consider what it can carry internally due to stealth restrictions.
Have you heard anything of the fears that the F-35's airframe may not last as long as is required? Possibly due to some of the weight loss... 'thinned airframe members' etc.
All considered... if the decision was yours to make, would you opt for the B or C variant?
I assume the extra 2000lb's gained in the Harrier was stored in external fuel tanks?
The problem is that for the RN to benefit from the ski-jump, it would require quite a big re-design of the jet would it not? In the Harriers case there was little to lose simply adding more fuel or munitions externally, but with the F-35B we can only really consider what it can carry internally due to stealth restrictions.
Have you heard anything of the fears that the F-35's airframe may not last as long as is required? Possibly due to some of the weight loss... 'thinned airframe members' etc.
All considered... if the decision was yours to make, would you opt for the B or C variant?
Last edited:
THe US offered to fit emals cat and trap for a fixed cost but we would still have to pay that and for the parts which are new and pretty expensive. Cheaper then BAE said it would be but still a heavy price tag not too mention there were considerable questions makrs over who had maintenance rights etc.
The B has done quite a bit of testing on the USS wasp a 80's assault ship rather then full carrier-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki86x1WKPmE
Did quite a bit of work there with mixed reports as to deck damage from non at all to some scorching but 1, that's a older ship not designed for a plane the size of the B, we can only presume that the CVF's we be built to withstand that load with ease and 2, that was a standard VL, the UK will be using SRVL which is far nicer to the deck as it spreads that downward heat across a couple of hundred feet rather then focusing on one spot.
And for air to air combat, its probably fair to say you would get mixed results with the 35 as its a all round multi purpose aircraft rather then dedicated air superiority, much like the harrier which was relied upon to be a jack of all trades, still the awesome harriers are old birds now and its sad to see them go.
No external tanks yet exist for the 35 but are under development from drop tanks that would simply be dumped before entering a combat area to conformable which can be engineered to minimise the stealth damage they would inflict but it is always a trade off, I understand Israel are currently testing a conformable tank design but it could be a decade before we see that. The only airframe concerns I have heard about are from the C, when it does catch the wire its a heavy bird and lands with a hell of a lot of load and has apparently suffered some frame cracking this shouldnt effect the B as a non cat launch is far softer and a SRVL landing is relatively the softest of the types so I have no concerns there.
Personally I would still have the C variant even with its problems it gives you the most future proof options especially in terms of AEW/AWACS that doesn't rely on a helicopter trying to lifter a radar high enough to be of any use.
The B has done quite a bit of testing on the USS wasp a 80's assault ship rather then full carrier-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki86x1WKPmE
Did quite a bit of work there with mixed reports as to deck damage from non at all to some scorching but 1, that's a older ship not designed for a plane the size of the B, we can only presume that the CVF's we be built to withstand that load with ease and 2, that was a standard VL, the UK will be using SRVL which is far nicer to the deck as it spreads that downward heat across a couple of hundred feet rather then focusing on one spot.
And for air to air combat, its probably fair to say you would get mixed results with the 35 as its a all round multi purpose aircraft rather then dedicated air superiority, much like the harrier which was relied upon to be a jack of all trades, still the awesome harriers are old birds now and its sad to see them go.
No external tanks yet exist for the 35 but are under development from drop tanks that would simply be dumped before entering a combat area to conformable which can be engineered to minimise the stealth damage they would inflict but it is always a trade off, I understand Israel are currently testing a conformable tank design but it could be a decade before we see that. The only airframe concerns I have heard about are from the C, when it does catch the wire its a heavy bird and lands with a hell of a lot of load and has apparently suffered some frame cracking this shouldnt effect the B as a non cat launch is far softer and a SRVL landing is relatively the softest of the types so I have no concerns there.
Personally I would still have the C variant even with its problems it gives you the most future proof options especially in terms of AEW/AWACS that doesn't rely on a helicopter trying to lifter a radar high enough to be of any use.
Last edited: