With all the talk of multinational strike groups, I have to ask:

>>34795940

Bump for interest. I'd assume they're pretty good at integration considering they don't join exercises all the damn time. For example Japan is a huge part of America's ASW force in the Pacific.

>>34795940
What the devil is a Reuben James?

>>34795960
Learn some history faggot.

>>34795951
>>34795940
>CEC

CEC is an American program (for now).

That said, all nations with aegis can integrate with ageis systems.

The type 45, for example, would just be given an area of responsibility and told to defend that.

>>34795973
Sure is summer in here

File: QE GW.jpg (131KB, 1021x580px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1021x580px

>>34795980
>>34795940
>>34795951
RN ships cannot link with USN ships through networking.

RN ships can however link with french and Italian ships. Possibly dutch and Norwegian ships too, but not under a full data share.

Its usually Light or UHF communications otherwise to verbally communicate.

The royal navy is currently messing around with light sensors and lasers to transmit text to text rather than light text to morse to text, point to point without others being aware of communications.

>>34796063
Addendum.

Links can only happen between T45s and horizon class.

T45s can communicate with the whole fleet, but i'm not sure about italian and french capability to share data,

>>34796063
Seems pretty silly for NATO to not have some kind of universal comms and data link for naval assets like they do air and ground forces.

>>34796063
>RN ships cannot link with USN ships through networking.

I'm stupid, so explain to me why Link 11 and Link 16, Link 22 does not this?

>>34795940

VERY important read if you want to learn about this.

https://www.free-ebooks.net/ebook/You-Cannot-Surge-Trust-Combined-Naval-Operations-of-the-Royal-Australian-Navy-Canadian-Navy-Royal-Navy-and-United-States-Navy-1991-2003/pdf?dl&preview

>Combined Naval Operations of the Royal Australian Navy, Canadian Navy, Royal Navy, and United States Navy, 1991–2003

>>34796334
Are they the american version of Lima frequencies?
Only Lima 4 + 6 Are data links but are mixed use and "may be used for data"

There's also Hotels, 2, 6 + 7 are dedicated Data links.

>>34796427

All three are data links.

>>34796436
What frequencies do they operate on? Are they UHF/VHF/HF? What power do they require?

>>34796436
>>34796452

NVM found the specs
only one of the UK channels matches Link frequencies and its an Army channel.

Only link 16 seems to have enough bandwidth to transmit any real data

>>34795940
NATO-systems in general are very interoperable.

>>34796452
Link 11, 16 and 22 are various different data link systems used by NATO countries.

And yes, using primarily 16 and 22, RN ships can communicate seamlessly with US ships.

>>34796562
What sort of data can they send?

Bandwidth doesn't look overly useful

>>34795940
Depends on how often/how closely the two groups work together. RN/USN would be effective enough (shared language helps) and I think the French and the UK have worked together effectively in the past.

>>34796608
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_16

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_22

I usually dont do that, but the wikipedia articles are actually alright and the subject has too many crossroads for me to accurately explain it.

Here's a decent TL;DR http://www.idlsoc.com/Documents/Symposiums/IDLS2009/Training/D3_TRAINING_Link%2022_Brief_and_Demo_%28NILE_IPO%29.pdf

>>34796063

>That photo

Fuck.

Yes.

Even slipped a De Zeven in there too. NATO stronk.

File: Admiral K with exterior engine compartment.jpg (79KB, 640x546px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 640x546px

>>34797020
T-Th-The Russian N-n-navy is S-s-strong T-t-too
> Barely manages to put 5 ships to sea

>>34797139
>filename

jej

>>34796354
Neat