Recent posts by: Zen9

Showing Results 1 to 20 of 20 (0.081 secs)

Last Indexed: 25-Aug-2016 17:49:11
Last Post: 25-Aug-2016 17:45:55

Results

Topic Title Forum Author
Re: UK votes leave, defence ramifications... (reply)
It's going to be a mixed bag.Currently nothing has changed, and we haven't even triggered Article 50. Even when we do, we have two years before we're out....unless we want to get out earlier than that and there is a rational argument...
The Royal Navy

Zen9

24-Aug-2016 12:06:24
Re: Type 31 ? (reply)
Cammel Laird is interesting option....Currently involved in the Fort class refits/upgrades.
The Royal Navy

Zen9

22-Aug-2016 10:33:06
Re: Type 31 ? (reply)
johnc wrote:Babcock could offer to build the Type 31 at Rosyth to keep the Scots angle covered, also its a bigger facility....plus wasn't Edinburgh more loyal than Glasgow?No, just no. We cannot have all warship building held to ransom...
The Royal Navy

Zen9

21-Aug-2016 12:37:40
Re: The Gun thing, why 4.5? (reply)
johnc wrote:It does seem madness that the RN developed and fitted the 5.25" to the KGVs when they had already had a better solution in the 4.5" refits of capital ships. I like the 5.25" Dido's but the need for the AA capability would...
The Royal Navy

Zen9

20-Aug-2016 17:21:47
Re: Musings on Corvettes/Sloops (reply)
not quite sure what the logic of that layout is for or how good it it's supposed to be?????A single main hull of conventional form if narrow and a outrigger of small waterline submerged float type with a substantial conventional form...
Designing A Navy/Ship

Zen9

20-Aug-2016 14:43:34
Re: The Gun thing, why 4.5? (reply)
QF 4.7 inch Gun Mks I, II, III, and IV started out in the 1890's. Army also used a 4.7 L40 gun during WWI.
The Royal Navy

Zen9

19-Aug-2016 14:07:00
Re: Type 31 ? (reply)
My reading is that Babcock at this point in time have "appropriate domain experience" for a light frigate but not a big one.A good point I think.
The Royal Navy

Zen9

18-Aug-2016 23:00:25
Re: Type 31 ? (reply)
Salamander wrote:There is a fair bit of discussion earlier in this thread about how many consoles a ship's Ops Room needs, and how many crew that equates to. I just thought I'd provide some clarification of the RN system (at an...
The Royal Navy

Zen9

18-Aug-2016 22:59:18
Re: Type 31 ? (reply)
More speculation......5 consoles equates to 15-25 personnel and assuming that's a 50/50 split, then we'd be talking about a 50-60 crew in total...shades of LCS.5 by 60 equals just 300.However that really drives down costs, and provides...
The Royal Navy

Zen9

17-Aug-2016 23:32:07
Re: The Gun thing, why 4.5? (reply)
I will agree the RN should have just picked one and stuck with it. I might point out shell performance is not a matter of 4.5" good 4.7" bad (or poor) since one would have to look at shell length, shell shape, charge etc.....In this a...
The Royal Navy

Zen9

17-Aug-2016 23:25:04
Re: Type 31 ? (reply)
Hmmm.....90 is good for another reason, the compliment of a Type 23 is about 185, so cutting the crew requirement in half is certainly going to reduce costs and permit the limited pool of trained personnel...Type 23 force of 13 by 185 =...
The Royal Navy

Zen9

14-Aug-2016 23:05:49
Re: Type 31 ? (reply)
About 90 is a good figure. Means that concept of 10 consoles is quite plausible. Let's make that the full fat GP Frigate number. Habitation standards could well drive us to 5,000tons. But we use a lot of Type 23/26 kit,, which reduces...
The Royal Navy

Zen9

14-Aug-2016 00:36:53
Re: Type 31 ? (reply)
Good argue the case. Frankly we should examine the option of advanced ammunition and it's potential to give the 5" ASAP capabilities again. But also why bother with the missiles if the gun will do?
The Royal Navy

Zen9

14-Aug-2016 00:18:21
Re: The Gun thing, why 4.5? (reply)
In a rational world, we'd have stuck with the 4.7" L50 and likely improved the J-class mounting with full power electric motors. As was in fact done for the ships sold to Turkey.We could then have pipped the Swedes to a new faster water...
The Royal Navy

Zen9

13-Aug-2016 22:53:06
The Gun thing, why 4.5? (topic)
Really why 4.5" guns?After all pre-WWII the RN has a focus on the rational 4.7" guns, leading upto L50 type weapons. But sadly lacking good powered turrets and high angle guns.Such an issue that we see 4" for high angle, and no work on a...
The Royal Navy

Zen9

13-Aug-2016 15:09:59
Re: Type 31 ? (reply)
Back to plot.CMS-1 consoles, the beating heart of the warship. From these you perform the mission(s), whether that is looking for FACs, watching the air picture looking for friends foes and idiots (I mean civilians stupid enough to stray...
The Royal Navy

Zen9

13-Aug-2016 14:35:25
Re: Type 31 ? (reply)
So...Personally I'd focus on the 40mm CTAS, and apply it to everything I can, including replacing the 30mm guns on RN ships. Expand and diversify the product we've expensively invested in to make it as attractive to other customers as...
The Royal Navy

Zen9

13-Aug-2016 13:57:59
Re: Type 31 ? (reply)
So....Firstly I'm not arguing for a 76mm, 57mm, or considering it seems to have left service and we're not funding a navalised mount for the new CTAS am I arguing for the 40mm in any form. 30mm is what we got, 40mm CTAS is what we could...
The Royal Navy

Zen9

12-Aug-2016 11:46:06
Re: Type 31 ? (reply)
I think the option as it was expressed of a 5" gun on the Type 45 design, was more about the use/reuse of the design for other roles. Hence why it was part of some FSC concepts from the period. Ranging from cut down to stretched...
The Royal Navy

Zen9

11-Aug-2016 10:57:28
Re: Type 31 ? (reply)
SO.....IF....if we are trying to develop a 'frigate' design for potential exports, we are entering a crowded market and we have essentially two choices that seem the most likely paths towards success.1. we take other 'light frigate'...
The Royal Navy

Zen9

10-Aug-2016 21:49:44