Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Belesarius

General Naval Warfare News/Technology thread.

Recommended Posts

 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/steel-cut-first-type-26-frigate-vessel-named-hms-glasgow/

 

The UK has started cutting bits out for the type 26 frigate

 

 

 

20 hours ago, LostCosmonaut said:

 

The future looks pretty good compared to their 'ideal' setup from the 80's. With the range of block 3 hornets only the F-14 and A-7's can match or exceed them, so that complement of 90 aircraft suddenly drops to just 3 squadrons of attack A/C (and only one of them are strike A/C)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Xlucine said:

 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/steel-cut-first-type-26-frigate-vessel-named-hms-glasgow/

 

The UK has started cutting bits out for the type 26 frigate

 

 

 

 

The future looks pretty good compared to their 'ideal' setup from the 80's. With the range of block 3 hornets only the F-14 and A-7's can match or exceed them, so that complement of 90 aircraft suddenly drops to just 3 squadrons of attack A/C (and only one of them are strike A/C)

 

 

"7000-8000t"

 

"Frigate"

 

confused-face-300x197.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2017 at 5:37 PM, LostCosmonaut said:

 

 

Killing the F-14 program to further the F-18 program was the mistake, and Dick Cheney made that call because the Hornet was cheaper. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2017 at 5:37 PM, LostCosmonaut said:

 

Reactivating Viking's is the only halfway sensible thing I have seen from 'range and raw airframe numbers' advocates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2017 at 7:48 PM, Ramlaen said:

 

Reactivating Viking's is the only halfway sensible thing I have seen from 'range and raw airframe numbers' advocates.

 

On 7/19/2017 at 6:37 PM, LostCosmonaut said:

 

 

My understanding is that early projections found that the F/A-18 required so much less maintenance than the F-14 (which was hideously complex) and A-6 (which wasn't complex, but was quite old and creaky by that time) that the number of sorties that could be flown would drastically outweigh the entire combat air wing being made up of jack-of-all-trades types.  I'm not sure on how well this worked out in practice, but it's an issue that the FA article doesn't even address.  The author just acts like all the admirals came down with a case of the stupids when there is a well-documented, and at least theoretically sound rationale behind the decision.

 

The failure to replace the various cargo, AEW, and ASW aircraft is more concerning.  Back in the day, Northrop was working on this snazzy-looking C-2/E-2 replacement:

 

qUIyPXs.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2750460.html

Quote

   On July 25, 2017, the French ECA Group announced in its press release that it supplied the Russian JSC "Sredne-Nevsky Shipyard" (SNSS, St. Petersburg, part of the United Shipbuilding Corporation)  the second set of mine clearing system, including Inspector Mk 2 unmanned boat, equipped with a towed GAC of the side view of the TOWCA and the bowed down GAS ISSS. The carrier vehicle and the Inspector Mk 2 boat are also equipped with Seascan's remote-controlled underwater search engines.

 

4491573_original.jpg

   The second and the third unmanned Boat Inspector Mk 2 manufactured for Russia, built by the French ECA Group (c) ECA Group

 

inspector_usv_with_seascan_rov_on_board.jpg

 

usv_with_seascan_on_board_web_0.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×