Mystery of Missile Test Failure Solved for New Destroyers

Discussion in 'The Fleet' started by TattooDog, Apr 2, 2010.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. From the Portsmouth Evening News.


    News Link

    Im puzzled why the News always asks Mike Hancock's views on things like this, as he always gives the same answer.
     
  2. Re: Mystery of Missile Test Failure Solved for New Destroyer

    At least they are testing these properly unlike the frace that was the Sea Dart test programme.
     
  3. Well its definitely a positive step, I always thought it was odd that the only proven part of the system ie the PAAMS, was the bit that let the T45 down. Fingers crossed now that it works
     
  4. Re: Mystery of Missile Test Failure Solved for New Destroyer

    Hancock = Cock
     
  5. Re: Mystery of Missile Test Failure Solved for New Destroyer

    Problem is/was, we are expecting far more of the missiles and system than the Phrogs/Italians KUR's. They seem content if they press the tit and a missile gets out of the cell, we, not unreasonably, expect them to behave in a somewhat more impressive and warry manner.
     
  6. Re: Mystery of Missile Test Failure Solved for New Destroyer

    HTV had a science fiction kids TV series in the 1970s called The Doombolt Chase. We were chatting about it in the office yesterday because of minor connotations with the T45s....

    "The Doombolt system turns out to be a top secret advanced missile guidance system the Royal Navy has been working on. It consists of a concentrated radio beam which is meant to guide a missile unerringly to its target; by use of a special, inconspicuous sonar emission vessel, defense missiles buried in the sea bed around the British main isle are fired into the air, where the Doombolt beam takes over. However, the Navy’s design was faulty, resulting in the destruction of the transmission beacons and the subsequent self-destruction of the missiles."

    Oh how we laughed!
     
  7. in the current fleet size argument, could we dry dock bristol? rebuild her from the inside out to a type 45 spec?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. Levers_Aligned

    Levers_Aligned War Hero Moderator

    Yeah. Why not?

    Got any plans to gut a forty year old relic and 'rebuild from the inside out' with HV and combat systems?

    You're not quite on the same page as everyone else here, are you?

    Levers
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Funny Funny x 2
  9. Purple_twiglet

    Purple_twiglet War Hero Moderator

    No, no we could not.

    Next question.
     
  10. Same page more Like not on the same planet?
    All the old threads, is this the memory of a sock puppet?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Oh come on Levers, it would be just like that documentary where Casey ryback saved us all by using the battleships guns and some bird with big knockers jumped out of a cake. Big bristols is back, and this time derpa derpa derp......
     
    • Like Like x 1

  12. Is it just a silent Han :)
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. Only if I could have my old bunk!

    And if they put 965 and 992 back on.
     
  14. A much better, greener solution would be to use a sustainable GRP rainforest to provide the basic material to build a class of multi-deck wind-powered line of battle vessels.

    Suitable plans already exist - for example, at the National Maritime Museum - and these vessels could be armed with proven anti-ship weaponry which is simply unjammable by electronic wizardry.

    Again, plans already exist for such weapons and in any case we already have plenty of them at various nautical locations. They could be standardised into, say, 12 pounder, 24 pounder and 32 pounder variants.

    Short-term manpower issues could be overcome by either implementing a compulsory naval service commitment for all would-be immigrants, complemented by a radical system of recruiting - let's call it, for the sake of convenience, the Press Gang.
     
  15. You are on to something here, have you costed this cunning plan
     
  16. Wood is most probably more expensive than Chinese steel :)
     
  17. Aha! That's why I propose a sustainable GRP rainforest.....:)
     
  18. Pah - Pif Paf.

    If this was Faceache I'd now say 'Like if you understand this!'
     

Share This Page