Subscribe
Notify of
guest
167 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
dick van dyke

Wow, waited all week for something really interesting and here it is. Half the RN is over seas, China Tensions are rising, USN Sub hits underwater object…….. and we get Shipping Containers !!!!

Tim Hirst

Not sexy, just very practical for some uses and potentially at see in less than 5 years at a price that fits the budget. What’s not to like.

dick van dyke

Yup, I get that mate but I visit many Defence Sites to soak up all the happenings and events around the World……… and this site gives us Shipping Containers !!!! It ain’t actually Saving the Royal Navy, which ever Outlook you have.

Cam

What’s a good website mate?

dick van dyke

I’m a big fan of the RAF Luton site, Mate !

Cam

RAF Luton 😆

Deep32

I assume that you find it a tad underwhelming then!! 🤣🤣

dick van dyke

Mate….. Where you been ? I can’t “Contain” Myself, truth be known !

Adrian

Yes, and on the day an Admiral was named Chief of the Defence Staff, for the first time in 20 years. Nothing to see here!

Duker

Why should NL just re-publish whats in the news elsewhere. Anybody can do that …and they do.
Giving a different angle or additional information is harder

dick van dyke

The Twitter part of NL does just that and much more besides, as does UKDJ. All great for the latest news.

Cam

UKDJ are a joke! Getting banned for talking about how india sucks due to them spending billions on pountless aircraft carriers when there’s literally Tens of MILLIONS of starving, homeless,uneducated, parentless children on the streets of every single town and city.l! That’s not racist or ban-able to point out!!.. IS IT.??

Last edited 5 days ago by Cam
dick van dyke

I think it’s lost the plot…. way too much comment deletion and banning and It makes the bold Statement that it’s Impartial.

Edward

If you think you can do better produce your own website. And by the way he is not your mate!

Last edited 13 days ago by Edward
dick van dyke

It was Humour, Get over yourself “Mate”. ( It’s what I call everyone BTW, Navy term )

Edward

You are very humorous and knowledgeable!

dick van dyke

You are new here ? but thanks mate, You are replacing such legends as Ron5 and Mellion X in your grasp of humour and knowledge so stick around mate, they are strangely quiet lately, old man !

Edward

I could well be one of them! However, it is a privilege and an honour to call you my mate.

dick van dyke

I’m glad I can add to your otherwise empty list….

Edward

I have to apologise, it’s just that when I see a slow moving target I can’t help taking pot shots! A huge thank you for being my mate and providing some weekend entertainment😉 I do promise to behave now and stop teasing you.

dick van dyke

I’m glad to have been able to provide some weekend entertainment in what must be a very dull life…. mate.:)

Edward

Mate you are a star and a good mate. Thanks 🙏 mate!

Speedbird

I have been following this website for many years and occasionally contribute. Your exchanges with Dick have been some of the funniest that I have seen on here, you certainly well and truly stitched him up! Probably now is the right time to stop, the one thing I have learnt on here is that ‘armchair admirals’ take themselves very seriously don’t really get sarcasm. I am sure that you have already picked that up. Just reading their comments alone provides fantastic entertainment and Dick is definitely one of the best! Although, I can’t thinking that with the endless use of ‘mate’ he has is a case of OCD.

dick van dyke

Thanks Ron… ermmm, Merrion…. Edward… whatever it is at the moment……

Edward

Mate, I just want to let you know that I am not happy that you have are annoyed again. As always you are spot on, he his definitely not one of the big boys like you and me. If any of these people that you mentioned write anymore nasty comments, you can be assured that I will always back you up because that’s what mates do for each other. Mate, you are a star and don’t let anyone tell you that you are anything less.

Meirion x

Hi Dick, I am honestly not Edward! If that’s ok with you? Sorry for being a spoil sport Edward, for giving the guessing game away, do you agree, we are not the same person?
Yes I noticed a lot of new faces on here lately!

Last edited 7 days ago by Meirion x
dick van dyke

Oh deary me…….

dick van dyke

Hey Speedbird,(Edward, Mellons, Ron5 and all the other names you try to be clever under,) just to confirm I’ve only been here a couple of months and Edward only a day or so ( Funnily enough just before you turned up) , I really think you need to try harder before playing with grown ups mate ! especially those of us who have brains…… must try harder dude !

Speedbird

I am sorry, I am just trying to smooth things out and I was a bit concerned that you were obviously getting a little upset! I have been here many years so please don’t let this little incident put you off posting, I have to say that your posts are some of the best on here and I am now one of legions of fans who eagerly await your pearls of wisdom with baited breath.

dick van dyke

Oh Bless …..thank you mate….. your words mean so much especially after choosing this moment to post here after all those years …. can you hand the phone back to Edward now please !

Speedbird

If you look back you will find them but I can honestly say nothing that I ever written has depth of knowledge or wisdom that you display. I have followed you for a while now and I you always give a good laugh. I am bit worried I won’t be able to play with the big boys now!

dick van dyke

Oh bless you again mate…… I enjoy being Followed just as much as being Trolled ….. It’s comforting to know i’m helping you adjust to the world of knowledge and humour……… good luck with your trying to fit in with the Grown ups after all those years just looking in and not feeling able to comment. Have you managed to see any of X’s stuff ? He’s really good ….. It’s a shame he gets trolled by those with similar traits to yours but he sure does know how to make them all look stupid….. Hope you stick around mate.

Ron5

Thanks for mentioning me. Well said mate, you certainly put him in place and his definitely not a grownup like us!

dick van dyke

Oh Deary me…. again !

Edward

I come back from work to all this! I know that you were trying to help but you seem to have upset him even more! I did try apologise to Dick as I realised that he doesn’t totally appreciate my sense of humour and I was just happy to be his mate. I bet that has lots of exciting and humorous stories about his time with his mates in the navy and I for one want to hear them! Can we please just be mates again?

dick van dyke

drivel as usual…….

Jonathan

Can you just try to contain yourself please. Personally I think this article contains interchangeable elements that fit together like peas in a POD.

dick van dyke

Lol…… my kind of Guy

Squidworth

A ridiculous notion whose only benefit is to win at buzzword bingo. Why does the Pod need to fly or come by boat? It will necessarily impact on all platforms fitted in order to provide the not inconsiderable infrastructure to make it work. The capabilities will be lightweight, half-capability by design. If you want an ASW capability you need an ASW platform – a bolt on array will not cut it. MEKO and Stanflex are designed into those platforms from build – maybe T31 will be the only ship capable of implementing this idea. Basically this is a sticking plaster covering up for the distinct lack of platforms with dedicated capability.

DRS

Well if you have say 3-4 slots where you could add in containers say mid ships then you could use this for all manner of things to add, and if you standardise power and networking set up then can allow you to add all sorts at short notice and also similarly on RFA ship or just to quickly set up onshore bases.

Mike O

Really like the idea. We might have to wait for type 32 to really see if the concept takes off. As mentioned containers are already in use for many applications. On the bangy side of things SeaCeptor, NSM, Exactor and many others I am sure can already be fired from trucks so it seems feasible to mount in a ISO container. Blackswan come to life maybe.

stephen ball

MMCM success sea trials – Thales – YouTube 0.39 iso container.

Can see Type 31 trial with C&C container, 1 spare’s, 1 main UUV.

donald_of_tokyo

Guess not. T31 cannot accomodate 12m-class USV, as I understand.

By the way, good movie… Thanks.

Nigel Collins
Supportive Bloke

ISO container with Ceptor could go on Bays, Albions or RFA’s in a higher threat theatre?

The key thing is not to mistake defendable ships for fightable warships.

I’m not sure why you would use up your ISO spots when deck mounted canisters would do for LAM / AShM? I’m not seeing a lot of difference in ease of deployability between deck mount and ISO.

Mike O

My take away from this is that in future the mounting positions on the vessel would be common whether it is a flat rack with canisters or a fully enclosed container. With the added benefit of common handling equipment. I agree with your point about fightable/defendable. As I read it this concept is a way of making relatively cheap utility vessels effective across as broad a spectrum as possible. Hopefully also allowing high end vessels to rapidly update/change certain systems. Mostly unmanned systems I guess and whatever specialist support, workshops or handling equipment that those systems need.

Jack65

Bangs bangs are a no go with this. A weapon needs an allocated mounting, guidance and associated systems. Can’t just fire an NSM through the roof of a container conveniently slotted in to place within the vessels superstructure lol

Mike O

I think it depends on the weapon. CIWS are already moved around the fleet. Hopefully this concept will make things like that easier. I don’t see the issue with something like containerised Exactor being used to support the RM. It is already used on the back of a 4×4. I am sure it is a challenge but any system fired from a truck can be fired from a container. Whether that is the most effective way is another issue.

Supportive Bloke

Firing missiles from a naval platform under radar guidance is totally different to firing from a static truck.

A ship moves, pitch, yaw and heave. So the guidance system needs to correct it’s ‘view’.

This is why, for a while, TLAM etc was all GPS: as the GPS coordinates were a ‘known’.

Now with better computational correction it is a non issue. But whatever is fired from a ship needs to have a guidance from a navalised system.

It always makes me grin when anyone says navalised as the conversation seems to be mostly about salt water protection. The other aspects of a blue water environment seem to be left to the side.

Mike O

Inertial measurement units to correct for roll, pitch , yaw and heave are an old technology. I don’t know for sure but I imagine every RN vessel has at least one. The problems that I am seeing people state against armed PODS are all problems that have solutions based on common pre existing technology. I am sure there are many valid criticisms of the concept but technological viability is not one.

dick van dyke

They aren’t really moved around the fleet though…. they are swapped out for maintenance and refurbishment work which is entirely different to being packed in containers and being delivered to ships in the way this article suggests.

Mike O

Some of the visuals in the video are a pure fantasy but the concept it represents seems perfectly possible. The ability to rapidly swap out systems for maintenance or even add new/upgraded systems seems like a useful capability.

These comments are getting a lot of reaction. Are people really saying that they think this is impossible?

If not then what is it people don’t like about this concept?

dick van dyke

Well, where do I start ? …. Your average Container is at least a few tons, so strapping 4 tiny lift fans and their batteries on them will not work at all…. add a few heavy Missiles and It only gets harder……. The Scissor lift Raft is also a total joke…… how much do you want me to carry on ?

Mike O

I’m asking about the concept not the video (which is a little silly). So where do you start? Well start by answering the question if you like.

dick van dyke

I Did.

Mike O

Well that is the thing, you didn’t. The question was “…what is it people don’t like about this concept?” The concept of containerised capabilities.

You stated your problem with a fraction of a video. A fraction of a video I feel was pretty clearly representative of thinking outside of the box. Not representative of an actual capability.

dick van dyke

And it matters to who exactly ?

Mike O

Don’t worry about it mate. Enjoy the rest of my weekend. 👍

dick van dyke

You must be really important to own a Weekend.

Mike O

🙂 good old typos. Or maybe a Freudian slip!

Jon

Really look up club k missile system(Russian)

Peter

How many missiles could fit into a pod? Would be a quick way of boosting the weapons available on some of the RN’s lightly-armed ships.

Vessels could embark different pods with different weapons, depending on their intended mission.

Gets around the ‘for but not with’ philosophy without having to equip every ship

Armchair Admiral

It is a great idea. A vessel originally fitted with absolutely minimal armament can become a Dreadnought in the blink of an eye. Thats not a micky take, I do think its a good idea to enhance ships for a particular mission. But would it come at the price of not fitting stuff in the first place?
However, the cynic in me wants to ask how many of these pods will be loafing around waiting to be fitted to t3x`s or whatever. One uAV pod, one a/s pod, one minesweeping pod? 4 of each….5? In the numbers you would want it is a lot of hardware waiting at the dock.

Jon

If you look at the back of the Sky Sabre, at the palletised Land Ceptor, you’ll see a module that’s a bit shorter than an ISO container, weighing under 15 tons. I think that weight includes the radar and control equipment, which would not be needed for Sea Ceptor in a POD, but I’m not sure.

If I’m right it would mean you could reasonably quickly get at least 8 CAMM or even CAMM-ER in a POD. The technical challenges of integrating it into the ship’s data/control backbone would not be huge. The challenge of getting the Treasury to pay for it, I imagine would be far larger.

comment image

Finnish Land Ceptor (Picture by Finnish blogger corporal Frisk)

Last edited 13 days ago by Jon
Geoffrey Hicking

The only authority that matters on this is N-A-B. Let’s see what he thinks first.

Rodney

Why re-invent the wheel ……………
https://shdefence.com/the-cube

Jon

I can think of reasons. Cost. Any data/control interface needs to suit the RN, working with both Tacticos and CMS, and to link with the NSN initiative. Cube seems to be only port installable, whereas some PODS can be delivered by drone. I think it’s possible that some PODS will be stand alone, able to be used off the ship with marines/commandos in theatre.

The DSEI video showcased some very lightweight options, which didn’t fit well with the warship enhancement idea, so it’s clear there are other use cases being served.

Last edited 13 days ago by Jon
ANDREW JOHN WILDE

This article merely points out the difference between a country that takes its Navy seriously and has a Plan, ie China, and a maritime country, the United Kingdom, who haven’t the vaguest idea what to build and when a decision is made the over-riding priorities are the number of jobs it will create, and not wanting to upset Nationalist feelings comes a close second. What is intended now is to take the latest under-armed Type 45 destroyers, fitted for but not with, and the even later under-armed and almost obsolete[by the time they are completed] Type 26 frigates and give them a couple of containers to lug around that in no way enhances the ships offensive capabilities and probably takes up half a dozen sleeping spaces.
The proper Navy meanwhile has avoided degrading its superbly armed warships, has purpose built ships for any occasion, and of course has containers with missiles inside floating around the Seven Seas on a variety of merchant ships.

Duker

Do you work part time for Global Times ?

X

Exactky, Modularity is a very mis-understood concept. The Danes made it work, but not in the way many think it worked. There weren’t warehouses full of systems which were fitted before the ship left the wall for its next mission. Where it does help is servicing of equipment and changing roles between commissions and refits. Ship X spends so many years doing one role, refits, and then switches to another role for a few years. Not only is training an issue, too many seem to gloss over that the navy has different branches for a reason, but the cost of kit means most nations can’t afford to have multiple sets of kit sitting idle ashore in costly warehouses. And lastly hull form, as you say allude to there are reasons why ships doing different roles look differently; the hull is probably the most important part of the system, but also compared to systems the cheapest part.

To be honest I am never sure what modules buried deep in a hull are supposed to do. I system needs a sensor, so needs to be outside and it needs a weapon, which also needs to be outside. What magical gizmo can be slotted into the middle of T26 and do something of use beyond simple tasks I am not sure. Yes that space is good for boats etc. or more rotary craft (the ultimate module) or extra stores or extra accommodation but weapons? No. Perhaps ops rooms can (and perhaps have been) built ashore and slotted into place like cruise ship cabins?

When we have the ability to move a container with rotors at each corner like the one in the graphic we probably won’t want ships as we know them. The picture of the green container on the scissor lift made me larf……

Jon

Buried? Heat dissipation would limit it and it could benefit from extra plumbed in ventilation.

As well as the ones you mentioned, extra battery comes to mind, medical bay, the factory module with the 3D printer, a small kevlar protected ammo store (or small part of a larger one), the lower parts of a stackable POD with the top being on the surface (which could be weapons), sonar processing/listening room (towed array being in an external-facing POD), private area for the USMC who’ll be paying for all the other modules….

X

Ships use water as a coolant. It can be a driver off hull size.

Medical bay? The reason why this volume is available is that there is that much spare volume they don’t know what to do with it. One suggests that just building a sick bay into the ship might be a better solution.

You can’t just place a magazine somewhere just because you have spare space.

3D printing? Well ships do have small machine shops. And I suppose a small printer might be useful. But why would you want one as a big as a container? 3D printers aren’t replicators from Star Treck. They have uses, but they are limited.

As for a ‘sonar’ I covered that in my comment.

DaveyB

As far as 3D printers go, the resin printers are useful, but the real gain will be from printing metals. However, these are big. Whichever way you look at them, the current metal printers are huge by resin standards. I would say the one shown below would take up half of a 20ft ISO.
comment image

I know of a certain NAS at Portsmouth, who have been working with developing techniques of using 3D printed parts in aircraft. I am positive that 3D printing will be norm in the near future and as part of the ship’s workshop.

Last edited 11 days ago by DaveyB
dick van dyke

Metal Printers are the future, of that there can be no doubt….. and when it happens, it will be a real Game Changer. You can’t print plastic Missiles.

Supportive Bloke

A whole new meaning to a printed circuit board!

X

Yes. But as I said no different from a lathe or a milling machine.

X

Buried…………
comment image

Trevor G

It was the airborne one made me laugh. A loaded 20ft container would potentially weigh as much as a F35 at ~MTOW, so if you can do VTOL with 4 small rotors and a few batteries, what do you need with 2 jet engines, one of which is massive?

Cam

A little bit of Ellon Musks bullcrap rubbing off. What musk does in graphics is light years away from what actually gets built or happens..,

X

🙂

Cam

Imagine! Flying containers with cruise missiles…

X

I can! I can!

dick van dyke

Lol…….

GUSTAVO ADOLFO

es un sistema utilizado en las MEKO 360 Y MEKO 140DE MI PAIS ARGENTINA..PERO COMO SIEMPRE PROBLEMAS PRESUPUESTARIOS IMPIDEN EL CONCEPTO Para lo cual fueron fabricadas, es decir a largo plazo poder reemplazar el container von nuevos sistemas de armas y sensores..sistemas de combate…lo veo como opcion pero claro UK tiene presupuesto para paliar a futuro toda mejora o reforma y sustitucion del container.

S&T Deliverer

Thanks for writing an excellent article. As someone who is involved in this concept we are showing the art of the possible (NATO REPMUS and AMAPS are good examples) to industry who are now primed to know where current ’thinking’ is. To sit back in ones arm chairs and reflect on unaffordable solutions doesn’t help our brilliant sailors. Onwards and Upwards.

Jon

Could you enlarge on the PODS role in REPMUS and AMAPS please? Also EVE, which was mentioned in the video.

KeithD

When the RN wants to add capability in a low cost ad-hoc way, by craning a container onto a bit of deck space, the approach is already live and has its uses, and looking at smarter ways to do that is a great idea.

But if the idea is modular cassettes slotted into warships to change roles, for example to turn a GP frigate into an ASW specialist, then all it will achieve is driving up cost of handling systems and warship design and manufacture. The RN has been on the right track over the past few years and imo that would be a costly evolutionary dead.

Last edited 13 days ago by KeithD
Cam

I love the cruise missiles in a container.. Imagine containers with cruise, anti ship, and sea ceptor..
Anyways Surely our opvs forward based would be suited for a couple containers to give them more capability and usefulness. No I’m not saying put the cruise missile ones on OPVs either. But drones ect

dick van dyke

” Imagine containers with cruise, anti ship, and sea ceptor..” lol…. Did we not used to call them Frigates ????? 🙂

Armchair Admiral

Exactly. 20 empty ships all equipped with single 30mm gun BUT with room for one of the only 10 pods the MOD has bought will be 20 fully equipped ships (to a politician).

dick van dyke

Would be nice to have those 20 empty ships….. truth be known. !

Cam

17 escorts now! And the RN will only have 60 odd ships total soon. And why’s The two Shimitar ships being sold! We could use them in lots of places, the channel for one, maybe one in cyprus or Caribbean , maybe even smaller patrol boat for the Falklands. Hell even the Gulf to help take over the patrol duties the mcmvs also do.

dick van dyke

“A growing Navy” 17 escorts, with half of those in dock in various states of repair.

Cam

Yep, this FFBNW is making the Royal Navy look bad! These container ideas should be for drones mine hunting ect not anti air missiles or cruise missiles, the ships should have them anyways!

Steve

The article missed the clear aim of this type of setup, which is cost saving. I can imagine the news of the RN buying unspecified number of anti air/sub warfare whatever for fitting on their new fully containerised ships. Meaning we could have a large number of ships with no base capability and be unclear how many containers of a specific type there are around. Meaning ships could fly the flag globally, carrying empty containers and no one would know until we hit a war and the house of cards would collapse like it always seems to do when it comes to supplies of gear.

X

Yes. There is a reason why the RN did away with specialist ‘escort’ ships.

Cam

A deterant for sure. I would love to know how full RN ships are when they leave port, I’ve seen frigates go out with only half mushrooms filled.I wonder what the 45s missile counts are n csg21

AlexS

It is a bit strange this idea since neither the T45, T26 and T31 have open places for containers except denying the helipad.

Armchair Admiral

Perhaps this is a nod for the T32?

X

The containers go inside…………

X

……in T26.

Supportive Bloke

I’m sort of surprised that nobody else has picked up on the graphic being of the T45?

Does the T45 have space for containers?

Didn’t think so?

Lucis1019

If compared with other AAW destroyer with similar size, I’d say Type-45 still have plenty of rooms fitted for but not with weaponries. Other AAW destroyer of a full displacement of 9K tones will have at least 96 VLS plus a 5’ main cannon and a pair of light torpedo launchers, some kind of heavier CIWS, and latest ships in East Asian Navy will also employ at least 8 supersonic ASMs, and likely 16, some even have Hypersonic ASMs. But no one has a CH-47 capable flight deck and double Strike Length gyms.

dick van dyke

But….. The T45’s can deliver 40 thousand Sausages, 15 thousand tins of Beans, a billion Fried Eggs and still whack a Cricket ball out of the 5 Football Pitch Deck Area at 6 times the speed of sound.

X

Awesome!

Lucis1019

Funny, just have a look at the new Meko A-300, 5500-6000 tons ship with 32 strike length VLS, 36 VLS for MRAD missiles, double RAM 21 CIWS, One 127 Volcano Main Gun, double 35-40 medium caliber guns, 2 triple light torpedo launchers, 3 DEW to deal with swarm drones, and even 4X4 anti-ship/land attack missiles. Not to mention a 4 fixed AESA radar and complete suite of sensors with redundancy. Type 31 with current FFBNW is merely a joke, only ships can match this fire power is either a much bigger CSC Canada T-26 or Russian 22350, or Saar 6.

Lucis1019

This is a real warship.

3E3CFF72-0A4B-4395-97BB-0B3F4ABA06A3.png
Lucis1019

This design make full use of the space below the flight deck for mission bays without wasting valuable space amid ship deck (which is a perfect space for weaponries) like most RN ships.

X

But again, a system needs a sensor and a weapon. And both need to be outside. What exactly are these extra modules for?

Sebastian

In TKMSs concept the modules are for UUV- or USV-controll. Also the towed array sonar is modulised. I’m not sure that the last make sense, because because of necessary training. Maybe for a bigger fleet with some ships always in refit. But with only 3…

X

So more vaporware then? And if these are seen as key systems space would be found in the gloom room. Not that they that gloomy these days. Actually positively bright. 🙂

Sebastian

No no no, better let the UUV-nerds deep in the cellar. 😀

X

🙂

I am hoping one day soon UUV nerds will be replaced by something unmanned.

dick van dyke

Real ? Looks like a drawing to me !

X

I speculated that T32 will be a ship FFBNW anything. Are you saying it could be even a stage beyond that? No ship at all and FFBNW anything? Gosh. That’s too much for even me.

dick van dyke

Lol….. Mate… oh matey…. I’m waiting for Airfix to confirm actual Specs before committing to saying exactly what T32 will be…..( secretly though, I’m hoping for a Medium length EMALS, 96 VLS, 5inch Guns aft and forward, Chinook and Osprey capable landing and hanger area, Solid Brass Battering Ram, 24 inch Chobham armoured belt and a Galley capable of out producing the PLAN’s entire yearly supply of Chicken Chow Mein and Egg Fried Rice with a side of Sweet and Sours Pork Balls in sauce……. I know it’s a big ask……

X

That’s beautiful. But you won’t have many fans here though because you haven’t included vast squadrons of drones that are uber intelligent, take no maintenance, need next to no fuel, are really, really, really tiny, and yet only cost £1.50 each if you collect enough tokens off your cornflakes. Um. A ‘module’ with a robot to make box meals too; I don’t think the latter are mentioned in any conventions on biological warfare though they should be. These could be delivered by stealth drone too or integrated into our F35b fleet. Black maskers and string should do the trick.

Last edited 9 days ago by X
dick van dyke

” That’s Awesome but you won’t have many Fans here ” Exsqueeze me but I’ll have you know I’ve attracted two more fans in only a couple of days ….. Edward and Speedfix….. Both are new here, Virgins and both have turned up just to comment on my Humour ! Bless ! but on a positive note, you haven’t had any flack from your usual Troll Mellons Sex………… lol….

X

He has been told not to respond to my comments. I am sure IRL he is a nice chap.

dick van dyke

Reckon we’d all be Mates TBK………

X

I do too. 🙂

Cam

❤️😆👍

Supportive Bloke

Critical metrics missing

– London busses
– Nelson’s column
– Big Ben
– Olympic swimming pools

With out those parameters it is difficult to take what you are saying seriously 😳

dick van dyke

In all seriousness, Taking anything serious here is a wast of Seriousness….. mate ! ( sorry, it’s my OCD )

X

It has a CH47 capable flight deck because it is a big ship. I remember when I walked across Daring’s flighdeck for the first time. In the middle you can’t see the edges and there is a little hut with a chap who gives you directions if you are lost……..Honest…..

It gets pushed as a super duper feature because those push it don’t really engage brains.

comment image

X

Castle class overall length 75m
Daring class overall length 152m

Lucis1019

The question is how many times you need a CH47 land on a T45? And if T45 is a specialist only for AAW, why waste money on such meaningless functions? TBH, even adding Brimestone missiles is way better.

X

The point was T45 has a big flight deck because it is a big ship. Note the picture of Leeds Castle and I gave the overall lengths too. There was no money spent on it. But it is often listed as a planned feature more than an accident of scale of the platform. How often will it be used? Who knows? The UK is after the US Army one of the world’s major user of the type. If the UK is in theatre there is a chance that this capability will be used.

Lucis1019

Agreed with you, it is definitely a design without engaging brains. Such a waste of valuable space on a warship.

dick van dyke

Hi Lucis mate….. “engaging brains2 reminds me of some of the multi Member accounts on here….. if you get what I’m saying like… init.

X

🙂

X

What more could we do with additional volume? I would say that as these ships are going to always be at the centre of a group (and the lack of full ASW fit our) that T45 doesn’t need a hangar. And that ‘volume’ could have been used for an additional VLS and say more guns. In a way repeating the mistake the USN made with Flight 1 Arleigh Burkes, but this time it not being a mistake per se.

Supportive Bloke

48 Astor + 8 AShM + 32 Ceptor is not a bad load out.

And there is space for more.

I agree the 4.5” is now very dated and a dead end but at T45 entry to service this was the only main gun RN used. It is more or less bound to be updated as it will be orphaned by OOS.

lucis1019

Dude, T45 won’t have 32 ceptors, it will have only 24 ceptors + 48 asters. That’s all. don’t forget it literally has no ASW capability. Considering the date it entered into RN, I agree with you such a comparison is unfair. But A-300 is merely a frigate with full load of 6000 tons. It will doubtlessly outgunned a 9000 tons T45 and as well as 8000 tons T26.

lucis1019

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/10/tkms-powerful-meko-a300-frigate/
Details can be found here. However, the missile number is not correct, according to the design, it will be 32 LRAD + 36 MRAD + 2*16 VSRAD +16 ASM/LAM, also don’t forget the torpedos. And no compromise on RN high-lighted mission bays.

dick van dyke

Dude…. You Copy and Paste just like RON 5 used to…. when he was on here….. before he was humiliated time and time again…… just sayin.!

Lucis1019

Most of warships have a MLU (Mid-Life-Ungrade), but where is the MLU for T45? The time when it launched, they promised CIC, strike length VLS slots, everything decent for a destroyer to be added later, but where are these upgrades? Only FFBNW. In the same way, I could build a fantasy fleet FFBNW too. This is my point. The container idea itself is FFBNW.

X

And as we tumble towards war there seems to be little effort on part of HMG to do anything to plug any gaps.

dick van dyke

A hit from a 4.5″ still has the same effect though ?

X

Yes. But the effect isn’t much. Guns don’t sink ships. It makes me laugh when many here wet their pants over Martlet which doesn’t have the punch of 4.5 in shell. Consider that is the same as Sea Skua and then consider in the Falklands how much Argentine shipping hit with Skua lived to float another day.

The difference is with smart guided rounds. A 4.5 inch shell taking out a whaler is one thing. A 76mm shell guiding itself to fly down an uptake take an engine room, or at least disable it, is another thing altogether.

T45 would have been so much better if it had inherited the Horizon’s (especially the Italian) 76mm mounts.

Cam

Shame we will have to wait utill the 45s are half way through their life before getting Sea ceptor and decent ASM…

Cam

But they can track cricket balls going 5x the speed of sound

dick van dyke

A Daily Mirror report I read on the Latest UK defence site, stated 5 times the speed of light. The Difference is staggering !

X

It don’t. They picked a graphic. These are peeps who think four fans can lift a container. Or a barge with a scissor lift would work.

dick van dyke

That’s mostly why I took the P….. initially !

Cam

Yeah the 45s have room, on the flight deck.

PeterS

The USN LCS were planned to have swappable mission modules. Hasn’t this been abandoned in favour of a dedicated role for each vessel , because of the problems encountered?

4thwatch

The Russians have been putting anti- ship missiles in containers for a decade at least, and boast about it for installation in merchant ships.

DaSaint

The USN flirted with this too…LCS, and how did that turn out. That said, it could work, if you have enough modules, pre-outfitted, shoreside, for enough ships. The challenge isn’t getting a module to work on a ship. The challenge is to build enough modules to be ready for where and when you need them.

Joe16

A couple of others on here have noted the failed USN experiment with containerised systems on the LCS, and it’s something that immediately sprang to my mind too.
However, from reading US defence stuff, the issue seems to have been more in the application: The USN plan was to be able to add in a very specialist capability (ASW being one of the main ones) to a base ship via the mission modules, and then be able to switch it for a surface warfare mission within days- or vice versa. The issue with that being that -especially for ASW- the entire crew needs to have experience in the peculiarities of running a ship that’s hunting subs. You can’t keep up the specialist skills required across multiple GP crews, as well as the other specialisations that may get swapped in or out at short notice. Their solution seems to be to permanently fit the mission modules to the ship- so that a base ship permanently becomes a sub hunter via the mission module. There is some loss of the theoretical original flexibility, but you do end up with viable capabilities.
In my opinion, to avoid the same issue, we would have to be careful not to make any of the PODs too “specialist” where the success of the mission relies on specialist/specific training of the wider crew. Or, we use the POD system as a method of being able to plug and play capabilities that can be more readily and cheaply upgraded and maintained than having to potentially tear up an entire vessel every time. 

PeterS

I am sure you’re right about the the manning challenges. But I think that the modules themselves also proved problematic. The ASW module was reported as adding little real capability. The modules weren’t cheap either – over $7b spent on their development.
I presume that to some extent, we are already committed to this approach with the move to remote minehunting. And I imagine a module to control UAVs will be needed.

Joe16

You could well be right there- they’ve taken far longer than expected to actually get the modules delivered too haven’t they? I guess that’s one advantage of using standard ISO sizing and suchlike, rather than larger fancy custom modules liek the LCS ones?
Everything that I’ve read about ASW suggests that the platform is really important- it’s not just about having the fancy gear. Having a module with a very expensive towed array on the back doesn’t make a very large jet boat into a sub hunter like a T23 or T26. Unless we’re talking about operating and controlling offboard distributed systems like UUVs, UAVs, deployed sonobuoys etc. from the ASW suite in the module. That would expand capability without requiring a specialist hull, but I think we’re some ways away from that yet.
We’re more at the stage of the mine hunting stuff that you mention- good for non-intelligent, stationary threats!

Ian

Can some explain to a non military person where the containers full of goodies are stored
If you have a Type31in need of some box mounted land attack missiles at sea but a 1000 miles from the box how do the 2 meet.
We only ever have to few ships, and going on past form, to few boxes
Many thanks in advance
Ian

X

They don’t. The idea as sold is that a government buys bare hulls sans systems. And then fits systems as they are needed. Need a ASW ship? Fit a sonar. Need a AAW destroyer? Take off the sonar fit a module with long range missiles. All rubbish. Utter, utter, rubbish. You need a trained crew. As you say the ship may not have the right system at the time you need it. Countries struggle to afford systems never mind mind having spare systems sitting ashore. The hull is 40% cost of a ship. But it has to be tailored to the role. There is a reason why a frigate looks like a frigate and a MCM vessel looks like a MCM vessel. Having systems in modules helps at refit because those systems can be unplugged and whisked away to be worked upon. But the idea that a warship is like Thunderbird 2 is utter bunkum. The modern frigate is already pretty modular. A VLS can take all manner of weapons. The main prime movers in a properly designed ship can be exchanged via the uptake. They carry the ultimate module, the helicopter. T26 would have been a lot better if it were designed with two hangar doors and space to carry 4 Merlin sized airframes. It is quicker to build helicopters than ships. Lastly consider weapons and sensors need to be on the outside of a ship and can’t just be placed anywhere. All sorts of things need to be considered from magazines to arcs to impacts of EM and so on. Some modules will be on the exterior. But the idea that burying ISO containers inside a ship for some mysterious extra capability is silly.

Meirion x

It is certainly a mystery to me as well! I would have thought the missiles would have already been loaded at port base, in expectation of trouble ahead. A box of land attack missiles would still need exhaust vents plumbed in like proper hot launch silos. The appropriate crew would also need to be aboard the ship. It would also look like a partial rebuild of a ship in just a few hours, Not possible!

Last edited 4 days ago by Meirion x
Cam

On a different note what does everyone think about HMS Scott being up for sale along with RFA Argus and the two Schimitar boats, Royal Marines hovercraft and rigid raiding craft , all the newish Husky vehicles, all 800+ Mastiffs, ridgeback and wolfhound MRAPS, the MAN 6ton support trucks, the Yamaha Grizzly quads, all Briten Norman defender aircraft, thousands of land Rovers all kinds, pacific mk2 boats, this is just what Incan think of but there’s more, we have the puma and C130j aircraft and Sentry aircraft all up for sale too along with all our Gazseles,we even have the type 23 up for sale.

Shouldn’t we make a reserve force, we might need it one day given the size of our army now, the 800+ MRAPS could make a good reserve unit, why are we selling so much? And the not upgraded warrior would do for reserves too couldnt they along with 150 challenger 2s we have lying about and aren’t being upgaded. Why don’t we have any that type of reserves?

X

Considering what they aim to do with the Royal Marines (which is utter rhubarb) I am surprised about the hovercraft and rigid raiders.

We need Scott. We need surface ships to support our submarines. It is stupid to get rid of them. But the government doesn’t do logic. We needed to replace Scott and Diligence; if anything we needed two/three of the latter. Can’t be a global navy if we can’t support hulls at a distance.

There is all likelihood that due to kit shortages the Army won’t be able to meet its NATO commitments.

The AR is just not up to fielding complete combat units. It struggled to look after combat vehicles in the Cold War. The AR is a fine idea on paper, but the reality is somewhat different.

Last edited 6 days ago by X
Deep32

The AR also costs the MOD some £350 mill per year to run!!! Not entirely sure where all that goes either!
I get the idea of a reserve force, but, they haven’t really deployed in support of regular troops in any of the last few decades in any meaningful numbers-begs the question what’s the point.
It’s not te fault of all those who volunteer, but the way the army utilize them, or not……

Cam

Isn’t the army integrating reserves into the army better now, into regular units and deploying them more and equipping and training them to a far higher standard than before.
It would be interesting to know how many of the current 11,000 military personnel deployed globally are reservists. And reservists covering non combat rolls to free up more regular army makes sense. And
We should have a national guard of say 100,000 to help in a crisis or large war. We would be total screwed with the numbers we have today… it’s embarrassingly small the Army.

Last edited 5 days ago by Cam
Deep32

On paper they are all attached or paired with front line regular units, but not sure how much time/training they get on integrating with the regulars?
If we can’t equip the regular army with decent/new kit, not sure how we are going to equip the reserves. Why not give all those MRAPS to the reserve units if the regular Infantry don’t need them? At least use them until any new equipment gets purchased.

Cam

Exactly we have thousands of land rovers, 8 ton trucks, MRAPS, Husky’s, we are currently selling…

X

The AR is fine when used for defence. But it shouldn’t be used to plug gaps in regular manning for ‘elective wars’ like Afghanistan or Iraq.

A better question should be, what is the Army for?

Would some other form of ‘reverse’ be of more use like say the Danish Home Guard units?

X

Reserve………silly me…….. 😉

Deep32

This is part of why the army has got itself into such a state, lots of units both regular and reserve on paper, but vastly under resourced with no clear and defined role?
If the aR are only to be used for ‘homeland defence’, do we need 30k, and to spend £350 mill pa on the set up? Currently on paper these AR units are slotted into regular formations to make up numbers, although at Battalion level it’s not happened in any recent conflicts! So, why have all those numbers and expense. I imagine this will be a part of the wider discussion of the make up of the army post IR.
Should the army become even smaller. Concentrating on capabilities such as SF. RM, Paras etc, but increasing their numbers and equipping them properly? With the Warrior/Ajax/Boxer debacle we are effectively out of the heavy armour game, 145ish updated Challenger 2 tanks isn’t going to add much to NATO forces, but more highly skilled and equipped light specialist units might! Another good debate I’m sure.

Cam

Let’s hope Scott is replaced and Argus. Argus is a unique ship and a great asset, it can hold 7 choppers and has a large hospital so very handy. I’m wondering if the ships we were told are getting built are HMS Scott replacements, I can’t remembered what they called them again! Not the FSS or Litoral but the other ones, that will help protect under sea cables Boris said I think, and it was it three he said?!.

But with Scott going next year and Argus in 3 years we will no doubt be left with another capability Gap as per usual!…but we have over 10 large ships needing built in the next few years God knows how we will do that with all the frigates being built at the best yards, hopefully Camel Laird get the FSS build to get them back on track and help them build the yard back up and help with future orders, maybe even Appledore for Scott Replacements considering Scott was built there in the first place it should have the room, but just nit the men unfortunately.

And We really need two RN ice Breakers if we are serious when we say we will be in the Arctic more, two minimum is vital so we always have one free, even a cheap of the shelf Scandinavian ice rated ferry that we can convert would do and wouldn’t break the bank.

Last edited 5 days ago by Cam
X

Argus doesn’t have a large hospital. It has medical facilities. And a field hospital could be set up on what I will term on the hangar deck . Don’t think for a moment it is a floating hospital with wards and so on. It does have a rather fun spiral ramp from the flight deck down to the hospital area…..

If we want to operate SSN’s deep then we need to the oceans’ topography. And that means we need something like Scott.

As for ice breakers well we do need proper ice patrol ships. We need something designed from the get go to operate naval helicopters. Something like,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_DeWolf-class_offshore_patrol_vessel

As Russia continues to rise we could do with one for ‘oop north’ too. (Especially if it could be keyed into submarine support.)

comment image

Cam

Yeah 100 bed medical facility, I know it has little in common with hospital ships but she’s the closest we have.