Thread replies: 20
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4
File: Britishponycorps.png (396KB, 1273x900px) Image search:
[Google]
396KB, 1273x900px
With the current trend of the British navy to buy hyper over priced and under performing vessels.....
Would it be better if we just bought a shitton of Independence class LCS and just used them instead of designing the new frigates that will fit inbetween the Type-45s and Type-26s?
They are already functional and it's not like equipment differences between the US and Britain are a real obstacle when we openly trade technology.
I think buying a mess load of LCS for $350 million a shot and using them instead of our 'new' Type-31s when the design is finalised would result in a better bang for our buck.
Or just buy Khareef-class vessels and get 3x as many as we'd get for the LCS.
Britain doesn't need to be at the cutting edge of naval force. We just need a functional and effective navy for anti-piracy and policing our naval interests.
Falling for the carrier meme and buying hyper modern designs that fall flat and under perform and/or cost 3x as much as projected initially has been a major fucking problem for British procurement for the last 30 years.
We don't need to have all the shit we keep buying to keep our shit safe. There's no foreseeable opponent anymore. USSR is gone. China is the other side of the world. Germany will fold under her own Turkish tumours and the US isn't worth competing with.
I think having a bunch of rapid response frigate level ships with mission modularity and then a dedicated role for a handful of other ships is a better buy than what we will probably get from our current desires.
>>
>>32042108
How about they unfuck themselves and try to resemble the mighty nation they once were.
>>
>>32042134
And how would they do that?
>>
>>32042148
He won't have an answer. He's some daft American who thinks there's a good reason to have carriers to protect your own nation from your surrounding allies.
>>32042134
Because there's no reason to 'resemble' a mighty nation. We are 60 million people that are batting at the economic clout of country's with 20x our population through trade.
We don't need to be floating £10 billion tax sinks to keep our interests in order. Wasting money on inefficient shit like the US is pointless. Having a fleet of LCS style vessels or even those ultra tiny Norwegian corvettes with the 76mms would be INFINITELY more effective for the British Navy instead of trying fulfill some bogus military agreement that was meant to stave off a super power instead of bombing brown people that probably didn't even know what a jet was before it came and blew up their camel farm.
Britain shouldn't be about force projection into potential enemy territory anymore. It should be about keeping our interests protected and having enough of a navy that the French and Spanish don't consider taking back their old claims.
The only reasonable opponent we could use our carriers for is Argentina and our air base on the Falklands is better equipped than their entire air force. Not to mention we have Type-45 and an Astute perpetually stationed in the area and both of those could wipe out their entire military before it got within response range.
>>
Personally, my favoured option for the Type-31 requirement is the Venator-110 light frigate.
The LCS speed requirements are beyond what Britain needs for their light frigate.
>>
>>32042518
Link for technical brief
http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/6098065/VENATOR-110%20Technical%20Brief.pdf
>>
File: IMG_2469.png (404KB, 1280x720px) Image search:
[Google]
404KB, 1280x720px
>>32042134
Dude you mad as fuck
School yourself
>>
>>32042538
>mad
What?
>school yourself
What?
Take the KFC out of your mouth next time you try to speak Jamal.
>>
>>32042202
Agreed. Argentina can't do shit. The only reason for carriers is to be a subsidiary arm of America whenever they go on an overseas adventure. Which is nice and all, but it doesn't actually come with benefits.
>>
>>32042557
Nigga you're an idiot, please if you will, enlighten the actual people who matter how to do as you suggest? If not shut up and let the people carry on
>>
>>32042591
I'm sorry, I'm a bit hard of hearing, that didn't sound like "yessa massa" would you like to try again?
>>
File: 13775951_1057544844333283_572317638437816164_n.png (635KB, 500x619px) Image search:
[Google]
635KB, 500x619px
>>32042134
I doubt we're going to enslave a quarter of the planetary landmass again. Every bugger can shoot back now, kinda takes the fun out of it. Shit we learned that in 1857 with the sepoys (before we murdered the fuck out of them and everyone in their vicinity).
The UK itself is heading to break-up, the divisions are too deep to go back and as a Scot all I can say on that is 'Alba Dùisg'.
pic unrelated but I hope you like it.
>>
Fuck sake, 1 merifat troll post and I fell for it..
Well back to topic, I don't really understand why the update is needed, our fleet is pretty complimentary of its allies
>inb4 muh Britannia rules the waves
As long as we can analogue or better the tech of hostile nations
Do we raise a risk? We can innovate once we get our hands on the tech
>>
>>32042108
So your idea to stop buying over-riced and under performing vessels is to buy a bunch of over-priced, under-performing ships?
You idiot
>>
>>32042929
No. My idea is that if we are going to buy a overly riced and under-performing vessel then we should at least try and buy an off the shelf product instead of contracting out BAE to make another fuck up and waste a bunch of cash.
The only reason I'd contract out BAE is if they promised to build us a bunch of better armed Khareefs with smaller crew requirements for a similar price to what Oman paid. That's all the type 31s need to be. The intention of the Type 31 is for a lower cost multi-mission frigate that can do all the shit that the type-23s did so we don't have to commit a Type-26 or 45 to distribute aid or chase Somalian pirates.
Giving BAE another naval contract after the past 2 fucked up and overshot their budget/under performed/blatantly screwed up is idiocy.
It's why we should instead give another contracter a chance and get them to break the stranglehold BAE has over the british military market.
>>
So, what you're saying is, close down the assembly yards in Clydeside, and Barrow-on-furness, Rosyth, etc, and put about 50-100,000 people out of work?
Yeah. that's going to go down REALLY well with the electorate. And with this current government's hellbent determination to sail us off the cliff edge into the void, that takes some doing.
>>
>>32043070
A big ship can do a little and a lot
A small ship can do only a little.
This cheap-and-cheerful meme is a false economy, because once it's called on to do more than uneventful peacetime patrols it may as well not be there in the first place.
>>
>>32042202
Once the QE and the PoW are operational the Royal Navy will be the only navy in NATO that can fully replace a U.S. battlegroup with like-for-like capability. That contributes to our diplomatic interests much more.
>>
>>32042148
Retake the colonies!
>>
>>32042108
>We don't need to have all the shit we keep buying to keep our shit safe. There's no foreseeable opponent anymore.
Yes, and the BEF will be home in time for Christmas.
Thread posts: 20
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4