Corvette's
- Thread starter Lumberjack
- Start date
- Tags fleet
Are you thinking of the the T26 frigates?
http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/the...new-frigates/story-30418989-detail/story.html
http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/the...new-frigates/story-30418989-detail/story.html
Don' t worry, just taking the piss 
The type numbers question has been asked before but i can't remember the definitive answer.
I think it's something to do with designs appearing on the drawing board but never reaching the building stage, rather like the leap from the 4.5" Mk6 to the 4.5" Mk8 without a Mk7 in between.
It gets even more confusing with destroyer type numbers - 82, 42, 45
Having said all that, I'm happy to be corrected if anyone knows the proper answer.
The type numbers question has been asked before but i can't remember the definitive answer.
I think it's something to do with designs appearing on the drawing board but never reaching the building stage, rather like the leap from the 4.5" Mk6 to the 4.5" Mk8 without a Mk7 in between.
It gets even more confusing with destroyer type numbers - 82, 42, 45
Having said all that, I'm happy to be corrected if anyone knows the proper answer.
Missile boats to do what and where? Fine for the Baltic and Gulf States as they largely have doctrine that supports their use - I don't see how they'd fit into how the RN operates and suspect they'd be utterly pump for the secondary duties/tasking that befalls our platforms i.e. fish or MarSec.
Corvettes (careful using that word) or General Purpose Frigates - yes, much more employable and that's why the T31 and in part the new OPVs (they're so much more than an OPV) have been developed.
As for naming, I always thought that the class name/number was part of the project so if a project fails or isn't taken forward the next takes another number in sequence (hence not being associated with a failure)?
Corvettes (careful using that word) or General Purpose Frigates - yes, much more employable and that's why the T31 and in part the new OPVs (they're so much more than an OPV) have been developed.
As for naming, I always thought that the class name/number was part of the project so if a project fails or isn't taken forward the next takes another number in sequence (hence not being associated with a failure)?
Just found this.
Yeah, I know it's Wiki but it gives a bit of an insight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_system_of_the_Royal_Navy
Yeah, I know it's Wiki but it gives a bit of an insight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_system_of_the_Royal_Navy
I figured missile boats offer a good protection for the new aircraft carriers with out losing other capabilities that would be removed if the t26 had to go on patrols rather than protect the aircraft carries. But I agree t31 is better than any corvette or missile boat but we need more for them to operate a substantial fleet
Nearest to a number Spearfish got, was that it met Naval Staff Target 7525.
Like Sting Ray developed previously by some of the same suspects, it never had a mark number attached to it: which may have simply been because the GEC site involved was stamping a "before" and "after" on projects they took over (such as going for "Tigerfish" to distinguish post-Consolidation weapons from the dismal previous history of Mk 24)
Like Sting Ray developed previously by some of the same suspects, it never had a mark number attached to it: which may have simply been because the GEC site involved was stamping a "before" and "after" on projects they took over (such as going for "Tigerfish" to distinguish post-Consolidation weapons from the dismal previous history of Mk 24)
Latest Threads
-
-
Royal Marine officer specialisations
- Started by jt122333444455555
- Replies: 7
-
-
-
