What's /k/'s opinions on the Royal Navy cutting the

File: cutlass.jpg (123KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1200x675px

>>32631755

Depends which design of the Type 31 they go for

BAE's Cutlass or BMT's Venator 110

File: QE_aircraft_carrier_8.jpg (1MB, 1592x1126px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1592x1126px

quality over quantity only works to a point
you can have 5 of the best ships in the world, but you won't be able to have as many multiple deployments as if you had 10 really good ships

also, if I was a country and put a load of money into two of the biggest warships ever constructed in Europe, I would really, really, REALLY want to protect my investment

>>32631755

The Royal Navy will be lucky if they can afford any ships post-Brexit.

File: khareef4.jpg (76KB, 700x440px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 700x440px

>>32631774

Agreed Its a fine balancing act, I would prefer a few more ships than just 6 destroyers and 13 Frigates,

So the Type-31 does seem like a good choice to increase overall numbers

BAE seemed to churn out Oman's Corvettes pretty quickly and the Cutlass design is not too dissimilar just 20m longer

File: Venator-110%20GPFF%20Laser%20DEW%20(c)%20BMT%20Defence%20Services%202016.jpg (536KB, 1920x923px) Image search: [Google]

536KB, 1920x923px

>>32631785

I'm pretty sure the funding has already been procured.

I'm a personal fan of the V-110

File: Untitled.jpg (255KB, 808x1126px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 808x1126px

>>32631790

That thing looks like it only has 16vls'

The Venator is far more formidable

>>32631755

Well, we're unsure what the Type 31 is going to be yet. So it literally could be a Type 26 with nothing but the basics inside, certainly unlikely though.

I'm hoping it will be the Venator 110 and not any of the shit that BAE is offering.

File: IMG_2579a.jpg (464KB, 3888x2592px) Image search: [Google]

464KB, 3888x2592px

>>32631818

the Khareef-class that the Cutlass Design will be based on is a pretty ship, but that's about it

the Venator will be far more formidable.

But I think BAE as a contract with the MOD that runs until 2024 about them being favourites to be given new projects

>>32631840

I think the contact is already met by the Type 26 work, but the Type 31 will be 'assembled' on the Clyde which does suggest that MoD/RN is seriously considering something that isn't BAE.

>>32631884
>contact
*contract

What's so good about the Venator 110?

>>32631942
cool name

>>32631984

I see.

>>32631942
It has a good combat record. Republic used it a great deal during the Clone Wars.

File: Venator-110%20GPFF%20SAAB%20Equipment%20(c)%20BMT%20Defence%20Services%202016.jpg (675KB, 1920x923px) Image search: [Google]

675KB, 1920x923px

was there a 3rd party supposedly coming up with a ship?

File: ships.png (157KB, 907x912px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 907x912px

At least the Royal Navy are still building ships

>Will the Type-31 be formidable enough?

Against Argentina? There are no other threats.

>>32632178
Even then, I wouldn't say Argentina would attack the Falklands again in a long time

The new president said something along the lines of "Let's agree to disagree. Let's also do more trade". He still sees the Falklands as a part of Argentina, but doesn't want the issue to affect a potential trade partner

File: Type-26-frigate-deliver-punch-commensurate-with-price-tag.jpg (128KB, 1298x623px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1298x623px

>>32632178

to ward off Russia

>tfw no HMS Brexit to shell German civilians

>>32632062

Heheh

>>32631755
Malaysian here

Gib ship plox

>>32632432

No bully, but they're a bit out of your price range.

>>32632195
From doing what?

>>32632203
FUND IT!

File: Venator-110 Frigate with Carrier and Oiler.png (1MB, 1183x668px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1183x668px

>>32631942

It's extremely modular and has the heaviest weapons fit of the available options. It's also not BAE, and helps break the monopoly, forcing a bit of actual competition for once.

They've pitched it with a 127mm Mk45 Mod4, 24x CAMM, 16x strike length Mk41 silos, 2x autocannons, possibly a CIWS, a sonar and good aviation facilities with a small mission bay too. Topped off with an AESA radar and enough power generation for future laser CIWS. All within 4,000 tonnes.

For a 4k "light frigate", thats a lot of dakka and a lot of modular space for aviation, unmanned systems and whatever you put in the mission bay.

It also looks god damn sexy with that low slung hull, even though it's not THAT much lower than others. Venator's quite "fat", which makes perspective on it look weird.

>>32632083

Babcock. No idea what their design is though.

File: 1449445718470.gif (962KB, 320x260px) Image search: [Google]

962KB, 320x260px

>>32632922
Sounds great, which is why it'll never happen

File: 22162458.jpg (74KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 960x640px

Whatever happened to exporting type 26s? There were a few nations interested in it and it could have lowered the price.

Also, don't get your hopes up for the venator, BAE will grow larger

>16x strike length Mk41 silos

I thought it was only 8x.

>>32633041

It's still being considered by Australia, not sure about the others.

File: Australia GCS.jpg (165KB, 630x420px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 630x420px

>>32633041
>Whatever happened to exporting type 26s? There were a few nations interested in it and it could have lowered the price.

Why are you talking in the past tense? Canada, Australia (pic related), India and Brazil, Germany and various other small nations are all still interested and in various stages of procurement.

Type 26 / GCS will almost certainly be the most exported warship of this half of the century.

>>32633137
For
>>32632922

>>32633138
I haven't heard any news about it for a long time and I thought the cutting the numbers may have scared some potential buyers off

>>32633041
Ayy papi.
Can confirm, my dad works for BAE

>>32633137

I may have misremembered. Looking at the pics above, yes it does look like 8.

File: cuirasse-formidable.jpg (179KB, 803x491px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 803x491px

>>32631755
(French accent on)
Someone called the Formidable?

>>32634147

Kinda appropriate given the new French FTI hull matches the bow design at least visually.

Interesting time for frigates returning to "normal" sizes.

File: FCS-5009-security-reutech-sea-rogue-front.jpg (4MB, 5616x3744px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5616x3744px

DAMEN > BAE

british ships well never EVER look pretty

File: Type-26-Type-23-Size-Comparison-1120x549.jpg (67KB, 1120x549px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1120x549px

The type 26 is quite a large ship, it was deffo a good idea to cut the numbers in favour of a more numerous fleet of Type 31's

>>32634147
I wish I could've lived in this time. Are there any pre-dreadnaughts even around anymore?

>>32633793
Procurement rumbles in the background for years with very few updates.

BAE/MoD is covering the development costs so a reduction in hull numbers would no effect the pricing for foreign buyers. Most ships would probably built under licence outside the UK (but probably in BAE yards), Only minor nations with no shipbuilding like Brazil would have their ships built in the UK.

>>32634611
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Mikasa

>>32634366
Nice speedboat. shame it's irrelevant.

File: SHIP_SSN_HMS_Astute_Marianne_Buchanan_lg.jpg (197KB, 1024x769px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1024x769px

>>32634366
Astutes are gorgeous

>>32634641
>shame it's irrelevant.
just like the royal navy

File: 1280px-Yokosuka-mikasa-08-2010.png (1MB, 1280x654px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x654px

>>32634611
The only one left is japanese

>>32634646
you

>>32631755
For the Brits right now it's a necessity.
They need the ability to form the picket line needed for both carriers. Without having the numbers of support ships needed it means that one of the ships will only be a dock dancer as opposed to an asset on the oceans.

>>32631785
Right, because building more ships is definitely not going to produce jobs, particularly for the Scots and Irish. nor will the experience bleed back into the comercial market for shipping, considering the likelyhood of "Hard Brexit" giving a nice cover for dropping the ball and chain of the common fisheries policy, and the extra fishing ships that will be needed following that.

>>32632178
>>32632195
The Argies just need 1 or 2 ships on the coast as a flag waver and potential fire support, the main cover is the Eurofighters in the Falklands.
As for Russia, What naval advances have they made? Before answering look at the Kuznetsov and the fact its fighters where flown to land bases in Syria.

>>32633041
There are buyers looking, why would the UK buy now as opposed to letting the production lines run for customers, UK orders to keep the lines open when they dry out.

The choices of numbers for the fleet are mainly about internal politics as opposed to mission capacity.
Building the Type 31 allows smaller initial outlays as more ships allow the cost to be spread.
If they find buyers for the Type 26 the production lines will be fed with foreign investment and a British order in a few years would be a backstop against laying of shipwrights

>>32631755
Could be worse desu. They could be making their own version of the LCS like Japan.

File: 1474982171728.png (191KB, 853x543px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 853x543px

>>32631755
WESTMINSTER REEEEE
WE NEED THOSE JOBS FUCKING LET US BUILD MORE BOATS ON THE CLYDE
from a military standpoint I don't think that we could have quality enough to justify the low numbers
we're poor as shit and military spending is a bad thing to talk about because even though everyone is convinced russia is going to invade us we should spend more on africa instead of security
I'd like more of the smaller ships that we're getting, but they'll do more than the big fucks
if we do go to war, it'll be in NATO, and hopefully we can just bolster the numbers instead of being the dominant navy in it
It's hard to say, but the RN just can't lead anymore, not with the funding it has

File: Post SDSR reactions.gif (1MB, 328x239px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 328x239px

Even if they build more ships, they wouldn't have the manpower to crew them. Retention rate is shot apparently, especially for engineering. RN literally just needs more funding especially after 2010. But a certain other branch gets most of the attention.

Watching naval news is depressing.

>>32636497

That's one of the key points about this class of ship, lean manning until a required warload.