Misfire as new navy ships lack missiles

>>33136068

Does it even matter? We all know it will just be used for basic patrol duties. As long as the gun works it will be fine.

>>33136076

Whilst tasty bait, what gives you that idea?

>>33136080

I'm not the same poster, but by my understanding, while it is supposed to be multi-mission vessel, the Type-26's most important job will be ASW. It will be equipped with an advanced towed sonar array and capable of operating two ASW helicopters. So long as that is the case, it will be fit for purpose.

Major surface opponents are more likely to be deterred by the RN's SSN's and soon the F-35B's on the QE carrier. Smaller vessels can be dealt with by the upcoming helicopter borne Sea Venom missile. the fact the Type-26 won't go straight into service with a heavy AShMs isn't really a big deal.

>>33136068
>containing “fresh air” instead of weapons.
This kills the chinaman

I am old enough to remember when the Telegraph had probably the best defence correspondents in the world. Over the past 20 years or so it seems to have replaced those with graduate students, women and part timers. They're welcome to stay behind their pay wall and they haven't received any money from me for decades.

It's moronic, amateurish stuff. The Sunday Sport has better writers.

>>33136068

Fuck why are Bongs so incompetent of building things?

>>33136200

Won't assume your nationality, but the 'problem' has already been addressed in the very same post.

>>33136200
The ship hasn't even been built yet and the missiles the Telegraph is speculating about aren't in service either.

The Telegraph used to write seriously long and in depth, MA level at the very least, pieces on defence and procurement. Their correspondents were regarded as being the best and most wrote for the likes of Janes, too.

It's now in the business of clickbait.

>>33136068

The British should just let the US handle their shipbuilding.

>>33136198
>>33136222

Agreed, defence journalism has taken dive in the UK. I wish the MoD and armed forces ran access classes for defence journalism, would certainly help with the cretinous material that gets pumped out.

>>33136241

Wasn't UK the country where some big paper ran a story about a 5-inch gun in such a way that the reader was asked to believe that the gun itself was just 5-inches in length?

>>33136222
:( thats really unfortunate

>>33136266

Yes. Despite the headline image showed the main gun covering a good portion of the bow.

>>33136266

Modern journalism is modern journalism.

It's why papers are a dying media form in the UK and the only ones that sell amazingly well are tabloid papers that have 'PRINCESS DIANA LEFT HER VIBRATOR ON FOR 10 YEARS AND IT'S STILL IN HER COFFIN. HERE IS OUR OPINION' and the Sports pages on the back.

It's why the BBC is laughed at now. Journalism in the UK used to be about being as professional as possible. Now it's about being sensationalists like the US so it's full of idiots.

Go figure.

>>33136266
That was the Mirror, yes.

>>33136234
US shipbuilding is terrible, really. Across all sectors. There are huge quality control issues with most USN ships, which hopefully will be rectified under Trump. Unfortunately, shipbuilding is a lot longer game than eight years.

The American domestic industry is kept alive by fanciful government contracts, with the finished product being way off the mark. Same as the UK, except the quality is poorer. I've seen panel gaps eight inches wide on state of the art craft.

If we cared about quality, value and meeting requirements we'd all go South Korean.

>>33136302
>South Korean

Chink detected

>>33136302
>If we cared about quality, value and meeting requirements we'd all go South Korean.
Ehhh, see you say that but the MoD went to Daewoo to build the Tide-class fleet tankers and there was a massive shitshow with fraud in addition to Daewoo installing crappy wiring.

>>33136326

He's correct though. US and UK ship building has been a terribly inefficient idea for years. BAE has total control over UK ports and their only reasonable ship sales this side of the 70s have been to Oman with the Khareefs. Their monopoly is fucking disgusting because they get to name their prices.

Britain needs to open their options for shit to cause BAE to stop playing cunts and force an even playing field. Even if it means buying Italian guns and such.

>>33136302
>>33136340

>Samefagging this hard

File: no.jpg (194KB, 1821x708px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1821x708px

>>33136348

>>33136340

BAE isn't entirely to blame, the RN and MoD have all been accountable for several of the fuck ups.

But regardless, the word is that the RN design HQ wants to give BAE a good kicking. So we'll just have to wait and see what is going to happen with the National Shipbuilding Strategy - speaking on which:

https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/defence-committee/news-parliament-2015/national-shipbuilding-ev-16-17/

Tune in tommorow if you're interested, we might see something worthwhile said.

>>33136284
>>33136294
>>33136302

So what do you guys consider as "good" sources for defense news? I'm a big fan of Breaking Defense.

http://breakingdefense.com/

The articles are fairly short, but well-researched and the authors will often mock F-35 critics in the comment section.

>>33136392
I subscribe to a few. I have a free and full Jane's membership, which I always enjoy reading.

"International Security" is a fine journal. It's not going to give you breaking news but the analysis is top notch.

>>33136392

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/purple-reading-list/online-materials/

Good list of sources and blogs, excluding Foxtrot Alpha, but that's because TD doesn't know the F-35 internet blogmeta sphere like we do.

>>33136266
no one can be this stupid, right? surely it was some kind of april fool's joke or something? at least tell me that there was some kind of redactment?

>>33136568

https://sofrep.com/60334/british-press-freak-inept-reporter-believes-naval-5-inch-guns-literally-5-inch-guns/

File: tmp_6837-2Q30cT61503038586.jpg (95KB, 644x845px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 644x845px

>>33136568

>>33136068
>has been branded a “dog’s breakfast”
Nice language, Pakistan.

GET A GRIP

BIN THAT SHIP

>>33136068
>implying that UK won't ever operate shipborne -anti air/ship missile

File: lol.jpg (59KB, 980x490px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 980x490px

>>33136234
no

File: b23[1].png (473KB, 600x706px) Image search: [Google]

473KB, 600x706px

>>33136636
>still more functional than the zero-innovation Type 0045 Anti-Air cruisers

>>33136649

You give yourself away Ziu.

>>33136198
Just like Jane's.

Paperback Jane's was one of the best. Online website Jane's houses some of the worst 'journalists' that knowingly browses websites like militaryphotosdotcom or militaryrussiadotru.

>>33136917

Jane's is propaganda.

>>33136222
How long ago was this?

>>33136198
Thats liberals for ya
All the competent people have been replaced by fellow travellers

But the long term agenda is destroying western civilization so competence is irrelevant compared to looting money out of institutions/businesses.

>>33136184
Vastly underrated post.

>>33136198
>Telegraph

>>33136222
>The Telegraph used to write seriously long and in depth,

But OP's URL says The Times

>>33136302
>That was the Mirror, yes.
No, it was The Daily Star

>>33136963
>Thats liberals for ya
Toryagraph
Liberals
Pick one.

>>33138111
Are you implying Tories aren't just leftists with a remnant of Victorian flavour?

Semi related, how close is the mod to picking what ship will be built as the type 31 (i think it's that anyway)?

>>33138732
If you're from /pol/ then yes, I guess they are.

>>33138931
I'm certainly not, neither am I an authoritarian socialist like what the Conservative part is made up of.

>>33138931
They campaign on replacing Brits with non-europeans
Thats a pretty left wing value nowadays

>>33136241
>Agreed, journalism has taken dive.

ftfy

>>33136917
I remember playing Jane's ww2 fighters like a decade ago when I was a kid

Stop posting about this u vatnik shill

Keep the focus on russian failure where it fucking belongs

>>33140104

bait

BRING BACK BLUEWATER SMALL ATTACK CRAFT

MODERNIZED PT BOATS

MODERNIZED PEGASUS CLASS

MIDGET SUBS

>>33140572

Doesn't work unless you're planning to keep them all within your EEZ.

>>33140257
Not an argument, vatnik

File: image.jpg (79KB, 322x519px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 322x519px

>>33136184
Funny cunt

"WHY DOESN'T A SHIP THAT HASN'T BEEN BUILT YET GOT MISSILES READY TO FIRE?!"

The absolute state of tabloids, ladies and gentlemen.

As a note, just like everyone with a brain said about the "No Harpoonz!!?!" stories, the RN indeed announced the Future Offensive Surface Weapon program and the Next Generation Land Attack Weapon within the current budget out till 2020. This being separate from the Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon program set for 2032.

Likely candidates for the FOSW are LRASM or NSM given they're the only two vertical launch capable ones.

The only real candidate the the NGLAW is the upgraded Tomahawk, so thats basically a dead certain.

It's almost like tabloids spew a load of bullshit or something.

>>33136184
xaxa

>>33141434

Isn't Brimstone possible for VLS if you shuve a booster on it?

>>33136068
>landing strip one cuck tries to defend his cucked nation

Not shocked

>>33136068
>http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/misfire-as-new-navy-ships-lack-missiles-jmp25bnkn
cant be fucked registering to read the article, but I think the article writer has forgotten that tomahawk is still a thing.

if no new antiship missile is available then the cells will likely be filled with tomahawks hwever by the time the decision on what to fill the cells with is made https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C_LRASM should be available.

When will they develop REUSABLE boosters for these missiles ?
Booster gets the missile up to mach 3 or whatever, stages, then the booster flies back to the ship & lands

Would save millions of dollars

>>33141810
that sounds incredibly expensive....