UK replacing aging frigates with underperforming corvettes

It's for the best, really. You can't really trust African nations with world class military hardware.

>>35024828
You are from Thailand, what so you have?

>>35024828
Why don't the Brits make a machine that can affect the tides of the ocean?

That way they really would rule the waves.

>>35024828
>stretched corvette
>looks nothing like the chevys we have now

hmm, doubt they're gonna do a redesign so soon

File: 1304101002511.png (179KB, 408x375px)

179KB, 408x375px

>>35025085

File: pepese.png (12KB, 420x420px)

12KB, 420x420px

>>35024828
A FUCKING RAMP screw their naval budget?

>>35024828
How the fuck is the Royal Navy gonna drive a sports car on the water for military purposes?

>>35024828
>less combat-capable ship than the Type 23
So? Russia is dead and China is far away. What for do you need too many surface combattants? Modern day frigates are approaching destroyer size so you might as well end up with two classes: small cheap corvettes and big powerful destroyers.

>>35024828
The War is Boring article you got that from isn't so hot. A lot of speculation, and it bitches that it may not have torpedo tubes and will need to rely on a helicopter to deploy torpedos. Ship-launched torpedos (except for ASROCs) are heavily outraged by modern sub torpedos however and are practically useless.

>>35025783
>War is Boring
Ah, I see the problem now

>>35025783

Indeed, the article has this single point it tries to ram home without any proper context. It links in the USNs LCS, but fails to talk about the directly related French high-low frigate mix they have had for a while (and taking about export potential), then discussing the cautionary tale of the Type-21 which were built for this reason, but then were woefully inadequate for anything but shore bombardment in the Falklands War. It's just a bunch of poorly researched guff. Personally, I hope they go with the Senator 110 with proper fitted for not with planning, and buy eight of them.

>>35024828
..But we're also getting the Type 26.

We're not swapping out 23s for just 31s

>>35024828
First off
>War is Boring

You know, it's more than likely that most of the garbage clickbait that's posted on /k/ comes from this Thailand poster.

On the article itself, the design has not even been selected. So I don't understand how the author has come to this conclusion, but like I said >War is Boring.

>>35024828

I'm sorry, but criticising a warship for not having (non ASROC) torpedo launchers today is like criticising a fighter without a gun. You're too late, mate.

File: RMN 15to5 graphic.jpg (107KB, 798x960px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 798x960px

>>35024828
Soon, the Royal Malaysian Navy will be more powerful than the Britroach and Convict fleets put together

>>35028232

That navy is more brown-water than the Indian's.

>>35024828
You haven't actually posted the article, OP.
Is that because, perhaps, it's from a certain warisboring.com? And that you know this publication holds absolutely no weight here whatsoever?

shit thread desu

File: malay.jpg (216KB, 500x371px)

216KB, 500x371px

>>35024828
Type 31 is to be used for short range missions where type 26s (which are the main replacement for type 23s) can be freed up for long range patrols.

They still haven't agreed on a spec for type 31 so i don't see why people are complaining.

>>35025085
You mean like Severn Barrage?

>>35028232
>Malaysian
Just remember you're still our bitch.

Besides your Littorals aren't even comparable to even the Type 31

Its tonnage that matters.

Why bother with real frigates? All the bongistanis need are 'vettes because anything they would need actual ships for they will already be hiding behind American ships anyway.

File: Ships 1.png (226KB, 920x856px)

226KB, 920x856px

>>35024828

The Royal navy plan to have 8 New type 26 Frigates and 6 type 31 Frigates.

That's one more frigate than we have now

File: BOAT.png (476KB, 1920x960px)

476KB, 1920x960px

>>35028506
> Hiding behind american ships
> I have never heard of the Falklands war.
> I am unaware of far flung british outposts in the overseas territories
> Has no idea as to who conducted amphibious landings in the wars in iraq.

>program officials

>>35028543
>needing frigates to handle argy monkeys

File: british navy circa 2030.jpg (188KB, 706x706px)

188KB, 706x706px

From a world super power ruling the seas, into a navy that even disneyland can defeat.

LMAO

File: Argentina_Ship_Dure_t670.jpg (67KB, 670x440px)

67KB, 670x440px

>>35028565
>needing frigates to handle argy monkeys

well, they are perfectly capable of sinking on their own, but a small contingent of boats helps accelerate the process.

>>35028216
Torpedo tubes are new black with active torpedo intercept today.

>>35028480
>you mean like a severn barrage?
I think the word you were looking for is dam.

File: victorious.jpg (47KB, 564x431px)

47KB, 564x431px

>>35028535
And if a type 31 was as capable as the type 23 that would actually mean something

File: fppybvI.jpg (3MB, 2400x1639px)

3MB, 2400x1639px

I think China should lease some Type 54s to the RN in exchange for them staying the fuck out of the South China Sea and stop their opium exports to Hong Kong (AKA. political inteference in a place that isnt theirs anymore)

Y'all make it sound like a frigate's role in a modern order of battle is putting holes in other boats. It's not.

>>35030079

Kindly link to your source on the as of yet unannounced capability of the ship then.

>>35025335

Hydroplaning, bro. Gotta go fast.

>>35030118
I think you're an idiot

>>35030543
How does it feel to be a little britcuck that cant even stand against the South Sea Fleet's 9th Destroyer flotilla alone to intervene in Hong Kong?

R-Rule the Waves!

>>35030554

China is using Brit sub designs from the 70's... and the south sea 'fleet', well I'd ask the Astute.

Yes Terry, china strong! :)

>China getting ahead of it's self again

>>35028506
If it wasn't for HMS Gloucester USS Missouri would have been sunk or badly damaged by an HY-2 missile in 1991.

>>35030554
How does it feel knowing that in 2020 we're sailing our own CBG through the SCS and you won't do shit?

A war with China would be hilarious, their naval doctrine and ability to fight a naval war is nonexistant.

>>35028570
But this thread is about the Royal navy, not the USN.

The RN hasn't lost two modern day, top of the class destroyers to
F U C K I N G
C I V I L I A N
S H I P P I N G
V E S S E L S

>>35030576
> Branda newa propulsiona systema froma hinghua concerna
> Isa topa secreta and best technology in tha worlda
> Chinesa subas tha besta subas in the worlda
> In use on HMS swiftsure in the 1970s

>>35030576
>says the Somali

Dont forget to pack up Halal food.

>>35030893
Somalis in the UK: 114,000
Somalis in the USA:129,000

>>35028543
>needing frigates for long range patrols and fisheries policing

Anon, if there's a global war, all those islands of little strategic value will be abandonned pretty quickly. And if one of those overseas territories are attacked, that's what the Type 26 are for.

>>35027678
>French high-low frigate mix they have had for a while
It doesn't work.
The navy is the first branch of the french armed forces to be hit by budget cuts, so it usually goes like that:
>We'll need at least 20 first rank frigates and as many second rank frigates to accomplish our missions
1 year later
>Huh, wait, I think we won't have money for more than ten of those
2 years later
>Finally, we'll just use the two we've already built, give them inferior gear compared to what was initially planned, and call everything a first rank frigate
>This way, we have 22 frontline ships instead of just 20.
>Perfect

Biggest EEZ and they can't manage to get a decent tonnage.
Plus they got it hard by the end of conscription.

I think the royal navy is retarded, they blew all their money on aircraft carriers without planes instead of more working surface ships

>>35030981
>I think the royal navy is retarded, they blew all their money on aircraft carriers without planes instead of more working surface ships

We have planes for them.

Or do you expect a carrier that's on sea trials and not yet handed over to the RN to be flying aircraft before it's completed propulsion and systems trials?

Have they actually made a choice on the design?The venator looked pretty cool

>>35030958
>little strategic value
> Diego Garcia
literally everything
> Gibraltar
One of the largest naval bases in the mediterrainian
> Cyprus base territories
Home to U2s and Mediterranean QRF
> ascension
Largest mid Atlantic airbase

Type 31s will be doing short range work in the gulf and Mediterranean.

OPVs will be conducting fisheries protection and policing out of the UK and Falklands.

>>35030989
i've heard that it will be US navy planes on them, because you sold all your harriers and that the F-35 is too expensive to accquire

>>35030981
>new QE's
>upgrades to Daring-Classes
>new SSBN class
>two new classes of frigates
>getting 100 F-35C's
hmmm

>>35031045
>i've heard that it will be US navy planes on them, because you sold all your harriers and that the F-35 is too expensive to accquire
Wrong.

USMC are getting the F35 in significant numbers before the RAF/RN so are going on board QE to train up the flight deck staff and give the USMC experience in ramps.

File: 12315649845.png (516KB, 849x350px)

516KB, 849x350px

>>35031048
>Government willingly spending money on defence

>>35031048
its 100 over a "period of time'
i remember /k/ have a big laugh over it, need to dig up those links

>>35031092
The only piece of equipment i have that was stayed the same since it was issued to me when i started is the bayonet.

Literally everything has been replaces, in some cases as many as 5 times.

>>35031094
You realise you pay a premium to get a limited production item first?

>>35031122
that does'nt specify how many of that item first

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier

wiki page has it my god:
"On 23 November 2015, the government published its 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review which confirmed its plans to bring into service both Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, with one to be available at all times.[44] The review also confirmed that one of the carriers would have enhanced amphibious capabilities. The government also reaffirmed its commitment to ordering 138 F-35 Lightning IIs, although the specific variant(s) was not mentioned. The review stated that 24 of these aircraft would be available to the aircraft carriers by 2023."

>24 F-35s for two carriers

AHAHAHAHHAA

>>35031148
Thats because QE is more likely to be used as a QRF ship equipped with helis to aid in disaster relief or evacuation than it is going toe to toe with the russians.

If you actually read the SDSR it states that its highly likely that one will always be in dock for maintenance, upgrade or ect. a full war load will probably consist of one carrier carrying a full load of 80+ F35 while the other carrier is loaded with the rest and helicopters to support amphibious operations.

it gets even better:

"With the retirement of the Harrier GR7/9 in 2010, there remained no carrier-capable fixed-wing aircraft available to the Royal Navy or Royal Air Force.[66] Their expected replacement is the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.[67]

As originally intended, the ships will carry the STOVL version, the F-35B. The aircraft will be flown by pilots from the Fleet Air Arm and the Royal Air Force.[68] The aircraft are expected to begin trials flying from Queen Elizabeth in 2018 with a carrier air wing fully operational by 2020.[41]"

>they will only get working aircraft by 2020

>>35031192
maybe by 2030, if you read 138 F35s is all of them, including ground based aircraft, your carriers are only getting 24 max by 2023

>>35031194
>they will only get working aircraft by 2020
> Helicopters aren't aircraft.

>>35031226
>brits paid 3 billion pounds for a helicopter-first aircraft carrier

>>35031226

>Your mom's cunt isn't an aircraft but everyone fucks it anyway

>>35031259
> still cheaper than american human carriers.

>>35031271
>brits admit to being an american vassal
just become the 51st state already

>>35031271
>just become the 51st state already
I'd be ok with this so long as we can keep the queen.

>>35031315

Sure, but her chucklefuck son has to abdicate for one of the badasses.

And we get Canada and Australia too.

>>35031332
the royal family seems like its on its last legs desu

I think the USMC has more Bs than it can actually use right now, since most of the Wasps aren't fitted to carry them yet. So deploying them on the QE isn't an issue.

>>35031352
it isn't, but it's a hilarious situation

>>35031332
I'd be Ok with this too. Kate and will 4 Eva.

Not so sure about canada and Australia though some of those people like the queen more than me. And i Have a kate and will commemorative plate and went to the palace twice.

File: Supertanker_AbQaiq.jpg (79KB, 1200x436px)

79KB, 1200x436px

>>35028570
*blocks ur path*
heh... time for u to taste cold singaporean steel... nothin personnel... hail to the king, kid

File: 1380259988424.jpg (39KB, 960x540px)

39KB, 960x540px

>>35031148
>>35031194
>>35031212

Do you not understand how this works? This applies to every military force. You don't get all your aircraft in a single lot because of the simple fact of logistics.

I mean, you've got to be chronically retarded to blame a entirely different program (the carriers) on the F-35 having a delayed/slower delivery rate.

>>35031402
>i-its because of legitmate reasons we might have 12 F-35s on our 70 000 tonne carrier by maybe 2020

>>35031415

Because it is?

There's only a certain number of people you can put through a pilot school numbnut or get them carrier qualed, same goes for the maintainers etc.

>>35031440
that makes it so overhyped, why not just get one good CATOBAR carrier

>>35031484
Because it'd turn out into what the CDG is. A mess of constant maintenance and dockyard sitter. Not only that, but it lacks the force projection of two carriers.

Idk why I have to explain this to someone on /k/ I'm assuming you're a fucking ledditer and\or newfag cuckold.

>>35031484
What do you do when the carrier need repairs and maintenance? Those things take months
>CV Charles de Drydock

>>35031332
Don't forget New Zealand and Ireland

>>35031509
Having a look on wiki she spent a third of her life in drydock.
Fuck knows how long she spend in wet dock.

>>35031484

Because why have one good CATOBAR, when you can have two good STOVL ones?

Besides, decontextualizing this to STOVL vs CATOBAR is silly.

File: FRS1.Eisenhower.jpg (1MB, 3070x2000px)

1MB, 3070x2000px

>>35031077

Nope.UK F35's will be the first to operate from QE class and will constitute the main airwing. There is space to have a squadron of USMC F35's tag alloong if they want. The USN/USMC and RN/FAA have been cross decking for decades. It's not new or is it controversial;, it's just what allies do.

>>35031148
POW will not be reaching IOC until 2024 so the 24 aircraft by 2023 is intended for QE. There have been no changes to acquire 138 F35B, there is no financial sense in buying all the aircraft at once when you have to put pilots through conversion.

Looks like you made a fool of yourself.

>>35031516
New zealand becomes part of australia.
Ireland Joins state 51.

>>35031529
Actually, I thought there were rumblings to switch out some of the B orders for As.

>>35031520
I googled it before I made the post
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/24/pictures-day-24-february-2017/technician-works-french-nuclear-aircraft-carrier-charles-de/
>18
>Months

File: HMS RAF Akrotiri.jpg (458KB, 1501x970px)

458KB, 1501x970px

>>35031194

Remind me when we needed carrier aircraft in the last decade.

Pic related.

>>35031537
Only rumblings, Any A's bought will be in addition to the 138 B's and will be bought after the 138 are delivered.

>>35031542
>East of Suez when

>>35031553
Like Afghanistan, where we had runways to operate from?

Nope still can't think oif a time when we were without fixed wing naval aviation but were without them.

The gamble worked, we balanced the books and didn't miss a thing.

>>35031553
RAF Akrotiri is east of Suez... so are all those countries.

10/10 geography.

Or did you mean south?

This is what they fought WW2 for after all
To be a declining backwards socialist hellhole, where foreigners riot in the streets, where theri children are raped, where their tax money goes to hundreds of billions of dollars of gibs......

This is what people wanted, a dismantling of white civilization. For what reason should the UK have a military when 600k+ foreigners arrive every year?

>>35028565
Can't expect them to bring all of their ships in range of man portable, unguided, anti-tank weapons for the Royal Marines to shoot at...

>>35030913
Sadly it's rising. Some moved to my city and my god they just turn in niggers. Like monkey see monkey do

>>35030746
can't lose ships if you don't have them

>>35030913
per capita my man and we see who comes out on top.

>>35032499
Reminder that there are few countries left where the citizens are more than tax cogs for the (((government))) machine
Seems like the commonwealth as a whole left that category, west europe as well.

>>35032499
IMAGINE being this obsessed with a small island off the coast of europe.

File: 819px-USS_Abraham_Lincoln_(CVN-72)_dry_dock_1990.jpg (288KB, 819x1024px)

288KB, 819x1024px

>>35031484
>that makes it so overhyped, why not just get one good CATOBAR carrier

EMALS is expensive and was in doesn't work state when they had to make the call. Also there was risk of F-35B getting cancelled without British orders. That lift fan is huge part of British contribution to F-35 production, it getting axed would have meant far less F-35 money spent on their island.

>>35031540

US Navy carriers are so much quicker to overhaul...

>Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) is a process for refueling and upgrading nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in the US Navy.
>Given the size of an aircraft carrier and the number of systems and subsystems it has, an RCOH is extremely complex, costly (several billion dollars), and time-consuming. Each RCOH is planned to take 46 months.

>>35034091
It's not about the time, it's that France doesn't have a carrier at all right now

File: SHIP_CV_PA2_Concept_2006-06_Top_lg.jpg (189KB, 1000x500px)

189KB, 1000x500px

>>35034129
>It's not about the time, it's that France doesn't have a carrier at all right now

The fact that French don't have carrier every once in a while has been known from the day they cancelled second CdG-class carrier and more lately from the day PA2 was axed.

>>35031531
Do we really need more antigun blue states, though? It would be better to annex each country as multiple states. That way we don't end up with more Californias.

>>35028232

They actually fell for the LCS meme