reading somewhere (on these boards I might add !) that modern deployment ratios are 1:2.5, i.e. 25 hulls gives you 10 available for deployment.
plus despite all the "around 50/40" numbers of the 80s, many of those were steam powered with more routine refits and time alongside (certainly reading Brown its obvious that modern GT powered warships are available more of the time), so was the "deployable fleet" actually hugely different ?, looking back (trident to vanguard descriptions of ops in 60s/70s/80s) we've only ever had a few hulls east of suez and in the s.atlantic/w.indies since empire days, so what actually is the difference ?
no doubt there has been a reduction, but perhaps its not as enormous as the 50% drop in hulls ?, I'm just trying to get a sense of perspective. and after all, stuff should be increasingly reliable as technology progresses (I see us as ever maturing the basic WW2 inspired technologies, rather than creating new ones) and repair by replacement although not cheaper and quicker overall (for a given part), should (with enough spares in the system) mean your frontline system is up more of the time.
Similarly if most of the T23s were non-combat deployable in the 90s due to the command system, then the 35 figure post Front Line First is rather illusory since only the 12 T42 and ~10 T22 were actually useful. Yes the T23s could patrol but my point is that you've got hulls in the fleet that arent 100% contributing to the fleets capability, and that you've got additional hulls (through retaining T42/22s) to cover them (not 1:1 but on some kind of ratio), so when all the T23s were fully upgraded, arguably those T42/22 hulls were redundant hence the RN accepting the 32/31/25 cuts ?
Likewise, as T45 enters service, its not fully operational so in theory should have a T42/22/23 to cover until it is, although covering for non fully usable hulls is expensive, not least in manpower.
All in all, allowing for more availability from modern ships (T23/T45) than their predecessors (steam, T42/21), the fact that some types/hulls are not always fully effective, then is the drop in numbers as bad as is sometimes made out ?
I'll get my coat.
plus despite all the "around 50/40" numbers of the 80s, many of those were steam powered with more routine refits and time alongside (certainly reading Brown its obvious that modern GT powered warships are available more of the time), so was the "deployable fleet" actually hugely different ?, looking back (trident to vanguard descriptions of ops in 60s/70s/80s) we've only ever had a few hulls east of suez and in the s.atlantic/w.indies since empire days, so what actually is the difference ?
no doubt there has been a reduction, but perhaps its not as enormous as the 50% drop in hulls ?, I'm just trying to get a sense of perspective. and after all, stuff should be increasingly reliable as technology progresses (I see us as ever maturing the basic WW2 inspired technologies, rather than creating new ones) and repair by replacement although not cheaper and quicker overall (for a given part), should (with enough spares in the system) mean your frontline system is up more of the time.
Similarly if most of the T23s were non-combat deployable in the 90s due to the command system, then the 35 figure post Front Line First is rather illusory since only the 12 T42 and ~10 T22 were actually useful. Yes the T23s could patrol but my point is that you've got hulls in the fleet that arent 100% contributing to the fleets capability, and that you've got additional hulls (through retaining T42/22s) to cover them (not 1:1 but on some kind of ratio), so when all the T23s were fully upgraded, arguably those T42/22 hulls were redundant hence the RN accepting the 32/31/25 cuts ?
Likewise, as T45 enters service, its not fully operational so in theory should have a T42/22/23 to cover until it is, although covering for non fully usable hulls is expensive, not least in manpower.
All in all, allowing for more availability from modern ships (T23/T45) than their predecessors (steam, T42/21), the fact that some types/hulls are not always fully effective, then is the drop in numbers as bad as is sometimes made out ?
I'll get my coat.
we're still here and not speaking spanish, french, german or russian and I doubt we'll end up speaking arabic or pashtu either !
