Discussion in 'The Fleet' started by soleil, Sep 5, 2011.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Designing the Type 26 frigate | In-depth | The Engineer
At no point does it say that they want to make it for less than a taxi drive to the ship a. If BAE are doing it it'll be built to European standards and not NATO standard so they'll have no capability!
Is this written for twelve-year-olds? The writer's style would certainly suggest this is the case.
Stuart Nathan is the Features Editor of The Engineer. He does not appear to have any journalistic track record. Amusingly, he tweets @Stu N and he does indeed appear to be a stun (@^7.
Ah i see, thats a pretty good article. Do you know of any recent T42 sales? Or are they all just going to be gutted + scrapped? Would be good to get a bit of cash for them at least.
Type 26 Design October 2014
1) Mk41 VLS Strike Cells. 24 of them not 16.
2) No certain ASuW missile. Tomahawk and ASROC suggested.
3) Lynx Wildcat to carry Sea Venom and Martlet missiles, better known as FASGW(H) and (L).
Another surface unit without TLAM capability.
Why do you need TLAM on a Surface Ship?
To attack land targets with a missile I should imagine...
We can do that already; why waste money and space putting it into a Surface Ship?
We can, but with a limited number of SSNs. Why not fit it to the T26? It's an excellent weapon that is just as effective when fired from a surface unit, as the yanks have proved on numerous occasions.
Because, in short, adding TLAM to a Unit stops it doing many, many other things (or the TLAM just becomes an expensive thing to count during OOD rounds).
I'm pretty sure you'd know if one had 'gorn orf'......
I don't ever hear of the US Navy making the argument that their ships weren't able to do anything else because of their TLAM capability.
What does adding TLAM stop a ship from doing exactly
Lots and lots. If you don't know/can't work it out, I'm not going to go into the details. It's a bit like BMD - sounds cool, but turns your ship into a single trick pony.
"they’ve spent most of their lives in the Caribbean and the Middle East, in seas where the stresses on the hulls are much less than in the Atlantic."
Trying to keep DG's and gazzy lub oil cool when the cooling water around you is near enough forty degrees isn't classed as "stress" then? It was ******* stressful when I was last down there!.
...Let's hope they don't make them HV
You've got me there ATG, I can't think of one thing that having TLAM fitted would stop a ship from doing?
For an operational issue, it seriously limits where you can be stationed, if you're the duty FFG(TLAM) - and there won't be more than one, or at most two, 26s cutting about with useful numbers of Tomahawk embarked, we just don't have that many rounds and buying more takes us out of the "cheap, low impact" space.
There are technical and other factors as well which I know a little about (not the whole story, enough to be dangerous), but I'm not in a position to check they're OK for discussion - which is also a handy excuse to avoid exposing the limits of my knowledge.
I'm not a great fan of 'argument from authority' but ATG does know what he's speaking of here (I'll keep the '...this time, at least' sotto voce)
That's the thing I'm wondering about. You don't need to carry TLAM, just have the capability. Every boat that's fired TLAM in anger wasn't in position already, it was sent specifically for the mission.
Having been there and done that, we re-loaded in DG, the S boat on the Balkans mission re-loaded in Italy. Why can't it be fitted for but not with?
Or maybe it will be, but that's not a subject for discussion on an open forum so perhaps I'm best off just pondering!
Don't suppose I'll ever know the answer though
Separate names with a comma.