RN Mothership or HMS UGLY?

Discussion in 'The Fleet' started by stumpy, Sep 14, 2007.

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. Cheeky bastards.

    Not content with fleecing the UK for an underarmed monster like Type 45, they now put forward a design that the crabs will say can do the same job as the carrier.

    I think we should start a movement to get them to remove the British from BAe.
     
  2. So the fleets down to 2 CVF 6 45`s 9 SSN`s 4 SSBN`s and this thing GOD HELP US cos no other f"£$%^ will :threaten:
     
  3. Another dream----


    It would never be built --- apart from the haggling on prices the time it takes BAE and its subsiduaries to make things and get them to sea the world requirement would have out dated it .


    :nemo: :nemo:
     
  4. Well, it will make some fat cats in their boardroom very wealthy if it ever it's built. Whether or not it's any use..............Hmmmm
     
  5. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    The capability gap that appeals to those who like shiny new technologically advanced things that cost lots cash which doesn't exist but could end up in the coffers of a PLC.
     
  6. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    :laughing6:
    Or so new it arrives 30 years after the event.
     
  7. Pointless Drivel deleted by T_M.
     
  8. I think BAe have missed a point. Yes, UAV's will be usefull, but:

    They are about the same size as an aircraft.
    They will also use fuel.
    They will, hopefully, carry weapons.
    They will need repairing.
    You will need lots of them.

    Therefore, surely you will need to carry them on an aircraft carrier, not something based on a Type 45's hull...
     
  9. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    The UK's UAV's are useful: http://www.thalesonline.com/Press-R...es+“stunning+performance+for+UK+troops”&dis=1

    They most definitely will carry weapons....... soon, and everything else you said is obviously right. At the moment our UAV's are operated by the Army (with some crab involvement, even the odd matelot) from near to the frontline. I think BAE are trying to sell the idea that in the future our UAV's will have the capability of operating from great distances. All you need to do is buy them, oh and a nice shiney new ship to operate from. It's interesting that they chose to wait until after Thales' first real press release with regards to the success of the watchkeeper program.
     
  10. I loved this bit

    Until someone shoves a fish up her arse that is.
     
  11. That abomination is simply a twenty-year revisit of the old Skyhook ship ideas of the early 80s.

    http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=1304.msg%msg_id%

    Didn't work then, won't work now and appears to have been thrown together to give BAES something"new" to display at DSEi. UXVs are all the rage in the DECs at the minute and FSC is being touted as being covered in them.

    I use the word "thrown" deliberately, as there can't be any proper design work behind that - it's a bit of Photoshop trickery. Even Project Brian (if you don't know, you don't want to) at least made some attempt at calculation, even if it was with a crayon and an abacus......
     
  12. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    1. UAVs are HERE. Range, payload, data handling etc will all improve dramatically in the next few years.

    2. Sea power is about NOT being dependent on land bases and the friendly nature of the surrounding population.

    3. BAE are RIGHT to be stirring the pot now even if the eventual ship is very much different. MoD's job (never done well - look at Nimrod AEW) to MANAGE the situation so that it doesn't degenerate into a gravy boat and to ensure timely delivery.

    4. Need silent propulsion technology & survivability. In a previous post I mentioned how the Light Fleets used a belt of compartments filled with sealed, empty oil drums. Cheaper than armour. Suit nice, big, stable ship.

    5. Why two decks? Surely one deck & offset island have been proven long since. This V - shaped deck would be a bugger to berth.

    6. Bags of duplicated, triplicated automation.

    7.In the future the data handling will be safe ashore inside a mountain somewhere.

    8. NB actual number of people needed merely to steer and steam a ship is 13. All the rest are for the weapons systems and C3 (does the PWO actually have to be afloat?) standfast a % uplift of cooks etc.

    VMT Stumpy for bringing this to notice. All hands now start thinking OUTSIDE THE BOX.
     
  13. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    It's quite topical for me, this subject. I was at a brief by a very senior crabfat recently, lots of interesting stuff said and some not so interesting. One thing he said though when asked about procurement projects "We need to stop looking at industries shiney new toys, we all love technology because of the kind of people we are, but we need to encourage industry to create systems which match our capability requirements not match our capability to our toys" (he was not just referring to the RAF) I'm paraphrasing obviously but this is the jist of what he said, I thought that quite telling. He even mentioned how much better the yanks are at this than us.
     
  14. Seaweed

    1. UAVs are indeed here, but of the current crop only one (Firescout) has any chance of working on a small vessel. The rest are also Civgas powered which causes one or two problems. I suspect the point you may be missing is that penny-packet groups of aircraft have never worked and never will for the very reasons outlined above by stumpy.

    2. Well done.

    3. Have you followed the FSC programme? Thinking out the box and managing the programme are absolutely the least of it's worries. Why people are being scathing about the BAES artists impression is that it's crap - not innovative, there is a difference - and they could and should have done much better with the resources at their disposal. Look at VTs recent efforts if you want quality and they're half the size of BAES (even if they are all getting fitted for BAE badges!).

    4. Why? And good luck with finding an affordable one. As for the oil drums in wing tanks, they wouldn't do anything against a non-contact undex.

    5. Concur. It would be a bugger, but they probably didn't explain that to the 6th form student they got in to do it. Not in his Patrick Robinson books either........

    6. Most things that can sensibly be automated while retaining the capability to do non-warfighting tasks, have been.

    7. No - it won't. Bandwidth has economics all its own. More to the point, are you going to trust the guy 5000 miles from the theatre to check whats over YOUR immediate horizon.

    8. If you're doing proper warfighting, yes. If you're doing the non-warfighting roles (MIOPs, presence, Distex etc) then bodies are essential.

    Thinking outside the box is all well and good, particularly if you're a highly-paid consultant. The problem is that it has to be credible to get funding. Look at DD(X) or DD21 or DDG1000 or whatever it's called this week - 14000 tonnes for a destroyer and over $3bn a copy and rising. Even LCS which you must agree is fairly unconventional (and hooching with UXV to boot) is struggling.

    The last thing FSC needs now is some half-baked Photoshop concept. Start thinking about how old the T23s are now and how old they can credibly get. Then start thinking about when they need replacing. Then be afraid, be very very afraid.........
     
  15. Not a boffin,

    Good post, but one point, if DDX costs $3billion, that is about £1.5 billion. About £500 million more than a Daring, but probably a lot more ship (I don't know much about DDX).

    I believe that UAV's are the future, but for the next few decades at least working alongside normal aircraft. Even if UAV's take over the role of the CVF's are safe. Just remember that the Lightening was meant to be the last manned British fighter because of a new fangled device called missiles..

    Oh yes, Seaweed, I do want the PWO afloat, so that he has as much to loose as everyone else!! Also, how often have we known comms to go down... that would not be fun as the latest Russian sold missile is coming onboard...
     
  16. Seaweed, I'm not sure your para 8 allows for feeding the ship's company nor attending to its material needs. I also believe that the larger the ship, the larger the damage control party needed.

    I must get round to selling my BAES shares.
     
  17. I had heard that apparently BAE were designing concepts at least, of Frigates, and Ships of this type all based around the Type 45 design, the main aim being to increase commonality across the fleet, and aim to have more common parts.

    I say heard, in that it was from a YO, and I say aim because I doubt any of those aims will be seen in the finished project!
     

Share This Page