alpine_saint Posted 26 July, 2013 Share Posted 26 July, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-23452223 Nelson must be spinning in his grave. What a sad state the Navy is in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 26 July, 2013 Share Posted 26 July, 2013 not really the best ever, though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 26 July, 2013 Share Posted 26 July, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-23452223 Nelson must be spinning in his grave. What a sad state the Navy is in... a real frigate.. had a personalised tour of her the other day, incredibly complex. Operated by a really reduced crew of about 90, mind you half of them are PhDs and MScs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 26 July, 2013 Share Posted 26 July, 2013 im curious to know what qualifies them as the 'best ever'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 26 July, 2013 Share Posted 26 July, 2013 What do you know about this kind of thing Brett? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 26 July, 2013 Share Posted 26 July, 2013 Hopefully free transfers for some of our sailors.. with the frigate sales.. Their behaviour in parts of Plymouth and Portsmouth has been totally unacceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 26 July, 2013 Author Share Posted 26 July, 2013 a real frigate.. had a personalised tour of her the other day, incredibly complex. Operated by a really reduced crew of about 90, mind you half of them are PhDs and MScs. Not RN though, is it ? Come on then Jamie, which class of RN frigate was more capable ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 26 July, 2013 Share Posted 26 July, 2013 Not RN though, is it ? Come on then Jamie, which class of RN frigate was more capable ? what do you mean? anti submarine, command platform, air ops? what do you mean. T23s are far more versatile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 26 July, 2013 Share Posted 26 July, 2013 Not RN though, is it ? Marine Nationale, are the navy building anything modern just now though ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 26 July, 2013 Author Share Posted 26 July, 2013 T23s are far more versatile What do you mean ? The Type 22 Batch 3 were the most heavily armed frigate the RN ever had. And couldnt they carry 2 Lynx comapred to the T23 single ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 26 July, 2013 Share Posted 26 July, 2013 Marine Nationale, are the navy building anything modern just now though ? T45 QE class carriers Astute class SM Tide class RFA soon to be T26 frigates despite the play in the press, work is due to start on Successor (vanguard replacement) trouble is, the MoD is army centric and the navy get hammered in defence cuts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 26 July, 2013 Author Share Posted 26 July, 2013 Marine Nationale, are the navy building anything modern just now though ? We will get 2 T26 frigates in 50 years time to replace the 13 remaining T23s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 26 July, 2013 Author Share Posted 26 July, 2013 T45 QE class carriers Astute class SM Tide class RFA soon to be T26 frigates despite the play in the press, work is due to start on Successor (vanguard replacement) trouble is, the MoD is army centric and the navy get hammered in defence cuts Have any Astutes entered full service yet ? Or are they still "practising" ? and when will the T45s be fully armed ? And if either of those QE carriers ever enters service with aircraft, I will run onto the pitch at SMS starkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 26 July, 2013 Share Posted 26 July, 2013 What do you mean ? The Type 22 Batch 3 were the most heavily armed frigate the RN ever had. And couldnt they carry 2 Lynx comapred to the T23 single ? heavily armoured frigate. so, not much cop in anti SM warfare then? not much cop with a towed-arry VERY dated fit required large ships company to operate it the fact they got binned is a separate issue. but you point about the 'best ever' is....ummm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 26 July, 2013 Share Posted 26 July, 2013 Have any Astutes entered full service yet ? Or are they still "practising" ? and when will the T45s be fully armed ? And if either of those QE carriers ever enters service with aircraft, I will run onto the pitch at SMS starkers. yes yes and we will find out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 26 July, 2013 Share Posted 26 July, 2013 We will get 2 T26 frigates in 50 years time to replace the 13 remaining T23s. is there not a GCS project which resemble strangely the Franco-Italian FREMMs (of which the Aquitaine is the first) ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 26 July, 2013 Author Share Posted 26 July, 2013 yes yes and we will find out So the T45s have got their Harpoons, have they ? And did they manage to scrape enough Vulcan Phalanx systems together by ripping them off the carriers eventually ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 26 July, 2013 Author Share Posted 26 July, 2013 (edited) is there not a GCS project which resemble strangely the Franco-Italian FREMMs (of which the Aquitaine is the first) ? Yes. First steel to be cut in 2015 (yeah, right...) first in service 2021, 13 units planned ( ) The French/Italian ones are already putting to sea... Oh, and they are going to rip out the sonars of the T23s and re-use them Edited 26 July, 2013 by alpine_saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 26 July, 2013 Share Posted 26 July, 2013 Yes. First steel to be cut in 2015 (yeah, right...) first in service 2021, 13 units planned ( ) Oh, and they are going to rip the sonars of the T23s and re-use them why is that funny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 26 July, 2013 Author Share Posted 26 July, 2013 (edited) why is that funny? Because its on the cheap. I refuse to believe its not possible to improve the 2087 already in serivce. And it almost certainly means a capability gap in the T23s in their last years of service. Like the T42s having no SeaDart system for the last 2 or 3 years of service. Its also going to be the middle of the century before we think of a T27, so the T26s will be obsolete. Edited 26 July, 2013 by alpine_saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 26 July, 2013 Share Posted 26 July, 2013 Because its on the cheap. I refuse to believe its not possible to improve the 2087 already in serivce. And it almost certainly means a capability gap in the T23s in their last years of service. Like the T42s having no SeaDart system for the last 2 or 3 years of service. Its also going to be the middle of the century before we think of a T27, so the T26s will be obsolete. ok. thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 26 July, 2013 Share Posted 26 July, 2013 Yes. First steel to be cut in 2015 (yeah, right...) first in service 2021, 13 units planned ( ) The French/Italian ones are already putting to sea... Oh, and they are going to rip out the sonars of the T23s and re-use them do you actually write for Janes Alps ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 26 July, 2013 Author Share Posted 26 July, 2013 do you actually write for Janes Alps ? No, just a bit of a geek for such things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 26 July, 2013 Share Posted 26 July, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-23452223 Nelson must be spinning in his grave. What a sad state the Navy is in... Yes, but to Nelson, these were frigates : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 26 July, 2013 Share Posted 26 July, 2013 trouble is, the MoD is army centric and the navy get hammered in defence cuts to a degree that we might have problems going forward? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 26 July, 2013 Share Posted 26 July, 2013 to a degree that we might have problems going forward? Depends what the armed forces are asked to do in the future. Seems to me the army is favoured because of political requirements to operate in Afghanistan, Iraq etc. Defence of the UK would be down more to the Air force and Navy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 26 July, 2013 Share Posted 26 July, 2013 Although admittedly the Black Swan's were originally classified as 'Sloops' and only became 'Frigates' post war, I still consider them to be quite the best class of trade protection/escort ship ever to serve the RN. The outstanding service record of this type is testament to their effectiveness, their only major drawback being the expense and complexity of this design made them less suitable for wartime mass production. No match for a Black Swan in terms of surface armament (or looks for that matter), but perfectly adapted for mass production and equipped with truly 'state of the art' ASW sensors and weapons, the rather utilitarian Lock class were probably one of the efficient sub killers ever made. As for the best looking Frigate type, well surely few warship designs were ever quite so pleasing to the eye as the majestic Type 12 Leander Class - before their mid-life refits messed up their appearance that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 27 July, 2013 Share Posted 27 July, 2013 Depends what the armed forces are asked to do in the future. Seems to me the army is favoured because of political requirements to operate in Afghanistan, Iraq etc. Defence of the UK would be down more to the Air force and Navy. and that, is what the government (of any colour) seriously need to start to look at. the numbers of personnel and units really do not match up to the requirements any more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 30 July, 2013 Share Posted 30 July, 2013 http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/royal-navy-pulls-out-of-nato-commitments-1-3020604 Thought you might find this an interesting read. As for frigates, Leanders were simply wonderful ships and certainly the best ships companies I've ever sailed with were found on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 30 July, 2013 Share Posted 30 July, 2013 (edited) http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/royal-navy-pulls-out-of-nato-commitments-1-3020604 Thought you might find this an interesting read. As for frigates, Leanders were simply wonderful ships and certainly the best ships companies I've ever sailed with were found on them. the navy is no longer even a shadow of its former self. been decimated due to defence cuts and believe it or not (you probably would). it was CUT during the blair/brown years its all about the army in the MoD I have been in 14 years, even then it has shrunk quite a bit. 12 T45 7 T22 3 T23 2 Carriers 5 S-class Subs 2 T-Class subs 2 commando assault ships as well as various 'small ships' all gone replaced with 3 assault ships 6 T45 destroyers so far 3 astutes class sm (7 in total ordered) 2 carriers in build and even less 'small ships' that is it, quite a cut in numbers in major hulls. MOST done in the blair/brown years here is what the navy was in 1954. 5 Battleships 11 Fleet Carriers 5 Light Fleet Carriers 4 Ferry Carriers 24 Cruisers 3 Fast Minelayers 2 Monitors 98 Destroyers 180 Frigates 70 Large Minesweepers 55 Submarines 75 Fast Patrol Boats 72 Motor Minesweepers 54 Inshore Minesweepers 60 Coastal Minesweepers Several Dozen Miscellaneous Vessels. Edited 30 July, 2013 by Batman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonraker Posted 30 July, 2013 Share Posted 30 July, 2013 Yet again a debate on Naval matters in this case pertaining to design and capability of various vessels. The comments demonstrate only an amateur understanding of Naval Ship design (not operation). Warships and in particular frigates and destroyers are by their nature essentially single capability platforms, AW, UWW etc. the size of frigates and destroyers means that multiple capabilities are incompatible. Whilst they will have elements of other capabilities e.g. CIWS these and generally provided for self-defence. One of the reasons that destroyers and frigates and have grown to such a size is the attempt to multi role them to compensate for the reduction in hull numbers. Suggested reading to understand how the RN has ended up with ships and designs it currently has and those operated since WWII are “Rebuilding the Royal Navy – Warship design Since 1945” by D K Brown and George Moore and “British destroyers and Frigates – The Second World war and after” by Norman Freidman. By most measures the best UK frigate design since WWII is the Leander, the Indians are still using the hull as the basis for new designs. Judging a ship by the number of weapons systems is a very crude and misguided approach. When the UK Italy and France tried to design a ship together they failed because as a very old and bold RN ex operator in the design said “The French wanted a comfortable ship, the Italians wanted a pretty ship and the Brits wanted a ship that could fight” so we ended up with a 2 ship solution the Type 45 and FREMM, I know which I would go to war in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonraker Posted 30 July, 2013 Share Posted 30 July, 2013 the navy is no longer even a shadow of its former self. been decimated due to defence cuts and believe it or not (you probably would). it was CUT during the blair/brown years its all about the army in the MoD I have been in 14 years, even then it has shrunk quite a bit. 12 T45 7 T22 3 T23 2 Carriers 5 S-class Subs 2 T-Class subs 2 commando assault ships as well as various 'small ships' all gone replaced with 3 assault ships 6 T45 destroyers so far 3 astutes class sm (7 in total ordered) 2 carriers in build and even less 'small ships' that is it, quite a cut in numbers in major hulls. MOST done in the blair/brown years here is what the navy was in 1954. 5 Battleships 11 Fleet Carriers 5 Light Fleet Carriers 4 Ferry Carriers 24 Cruisers 3 Fast Minelayers 2 Monitors 98 Destroyers 180 Frigates 70 Large Minesweepers 55 Submarines 75 Fast Patrol Boats 72 Motor Minesweepers 54 Inshore Minesweepers 60 Coastal Minesweepers Several Dozen Miscellaneous Vessels. About 25 -30% of the vessel listed in 1954 were reserve fleet with no chance of being re-commissioned, only one of the battleships was operational. In addition most of the ships were worn out poorly modified WWII vessels. However I do agree with th genearl theme in this thread that the RN today is to small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 30 July, 2013 Share Posted 30 July, 2013 bit like today, with certain ships listed as operational. I can tell for a fact that my pet dog is more operational than they are they call it, 'extended readiness" these days. With the size of the RN as it is. incredible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 30 July, 2013 Share Posted 30 July, 2013 However I do agree with the genearl theme in this thread that the RN today is to small. Way to small. Whitehall has spent 20+ years fawning over the Army whilst politicians have stuck their oar in overseas whilst forgetting we are an island nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecuk268 Posted 30 July, 2013 Share Posted 30 July, 2013 the navy is no longer even a shadow of its former self. been decimated due to defence cuts and believe it or not (you probably would). it was CUT during the blair/brown years its all about the army in the MoD I have been in 14 years, even then it has shrunk quite a bit. 12 T45 7 T22 3 T23 2 Carriers 5 S-class Subs 2 T-Class subs 2 commando assault ships as well as various 'small ships' all gone replaced with 3 assault ships 6 T45 destroyers so far 3 astutes class sm (7 in total ordered) 2 carriers in build and even less 'small ships' that is it, quite a cut in numbers in major hulls. MOST done in the blair/brown years here is what the navy was in 1954. 5 Battleships 11 Fleet Carriers 5 Light Fleet Carriers 4 Ferry Carriers 24 Cruisers 3 Fast Minelayers 2 Monitors 98 Destroyers 180 Frigates 70 Large Minesweepers 55 Submarines 75 Fast Patrol Boats 72 Motor Minesweepers 54 Inshore Minesweepers 60 Coastal Minesweepers Several Dozen Miscellaneous Vessels. You’re too young to remember the early 80’s and the drastic cuts about to be implemented by Margaret Thatcher and her Defence Minister John Nott. Under pressure from Thatcher’s desire to slash spending, Nott had implemented a Defence Review and his solution was to concentrate almost solely on Britain’s role in NATO. The purchase of Trident was confirmed. The British Army of the Rhine was to be limited to 55,000 men. The Royal Navy was to lose one fifth of its 60 Destroyers and Frigates. Aircraft Carriers were to be phased out, with the sale of HMS Hermes and the newly-built HMS Invincible. Amphibious ships were to be scrapped too, meaning the end of HMS Intrepid and HMS Fearless. Essentially, the Navy was to become an anti-submarine force to operate in the North Sea, North Atlantic and the Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap. The ability to act independently out of the NATO area was effectively being given up. Amongst other things, the Royal Navy Dockyards were to be drastically wound down and privatised, meaning thousands of redundancies. One of the lesser-known items in the review was the withdrawal of the Antarctic patrol ship, HMS Endurance. I was working for a company that did R&D work for the MoD and we had a visit from Keith Speed, the Navy minister. He totally opposed the cuts and was later ordered to resign by Thatcher. He refused and was sacked. He gave us a passionate speech about why the cuts were wrong, which I thought at the time was a brave thing for a serving Minister to do, expressing views directly opposing his superior and the Prime Minister. Then the Falklands came along. Nott’s career was finished and Keith Speed was vindicated. So, if it hadn’t been for the Falklands, the Navy would probably be even smaller than it is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 30 July, 2013 Share Posted 30 July, 2013 (edited) I believe the previous labour Govt did even more damage than those you mention,as the cut as proposals to become an 'anti submarine' force were set about in the mid 70s either way. no way could we send amything down to the falklands again. which was a benchmark on capabilities. the only real thing we have in our favour are the cruise missiles. Edited 30 July, 2013 by Batman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 30 July, 2013 Share Posted 30 July, 2013 the navy is no longer even a shadow of its former self. been decimated due to defence cuts and believe it or not (you probably would). it was CUT during the blair/brown years its all about the army in the MoD I have been in 14 years, even then it has shrunk quite a bit. 12 T45 7 T22 3 T23 2 Carriers 5 S-class Subs 2 T-Class subs 2 commando assault ships as well as various 'small ships' all gone replaced with 3 assault ships 6 T45 destroyers so far 3 astutes class sm (7 in total ordered) 2 carriers in build and even less 'small ships' that is it, quite a cut in numbers in major hulls. MOST done in the blair/brown years here is what the navy was in 1954. 5 Battleships 11 Fleet Carriers 5 Light Fleet Carriers 4 Ferry Carriers 24 Cruisers 3 Fast Minelayers 2 Monitors 98 Destroyers 180 Frigates 70 Large Minesweepers 55 Submarines 75 Fast Patrol Boats 72 Motor Minesweepers 54 Inshore Minesweepers 60 Coastal Minesweepers Several Dozen Miscellaneous Vessels. Not disagreeing with the general theme but basing your analysis on numbers is a bit misleading. The two new carriers, for example, are a massive step up from what we've had previously. How much actual service we get from then of course is a different matter entirely and may prove your point even more strongly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 30 July, 2013 Author Share Posted 30 July, 2013 The two new carriers, for example, are a massive step up from what we've had previously. The only role they will have is dredging the bed of Southsea harbour - the arent likely to ever get sight of an aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 30 July, 2013 Author Share Posted 30 July, 2013 bit like today, with certain ships listed as operational. I can tell for a fact that my pet dog is more operational than they are they call it, 'extended readiness" these days. With the size of the RN as it is. incredible Like the fact only one of Bulwark and Albion is in service at any time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonraker Posted 30 July, 2013 Share Posted 30 July, 2013 I believe the previous labour Govt did even more damage than those you mention,as the cut as proposals to become an 'anti submarine' force were set about in the mid 70s either way. no way could we send amything down to the falklands again. which was a benchmark on capabilities. the only real thing we have in our favour are the cruise missiles. The perception that Labour Govt's do more damage to the Armed Forces than Tory ones never ceases to amaze me. Thatcher would have made the biggest ever cuts to the RN in history if wasn’t for Gen Galtreira. John Major the first PM in history to make servicemen redundant something that pretty boy David is copying with glee. Doesn’t suit the right wing view but it is a simple truth that since WWII ship design and building has always been better under a Labour Govt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 30 July, 2013 Share Posted 30 July, 2013 Not disagreeing with the general theme but basing your analysis on numbers is a bit misleading. The two new carriers, for example, are a massive step up from what we've had previously. How much actual service we get from then of course is a different matter entirely and may prove your point even more strongly. only so many units can be in any one place at a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 30 July, 2013 Share Posted 30 July, 2013 The problem imo is the change in shape of armed forces. Not only have they reduced in size but it is now more about projection of force overseas (aircraft carriers, assault ships, rapid deployment etc) than defence of the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Secret Site Agent Posted 30 July, 2013 Share Posted 30 July, 2013 Depends what the armed forces are asked to do in the future. Seems to me the army is favoured because of political requirements to operate in Afghanistan, Iraq etc. Defence of the UK would be down more to the Air force and Navy. Was part, a few years ago, of the great rush for the RAF to prove their value going into 21st century where we were due to price up and advance runway works at various overseas airstrips for the rapid turnaround of the new Typhoon jets, (or the Eurofighter/F22 as it was mooted at the time) with in-air refuelling and large lift capability so that they could provide rapid response over the middle east, Balkans and Far East of fighter air cover and troop transport. We/they failed to convince the MOD who went with the QE2 carrier ideas. Part of the Last Governments defence review also includes the AIR/LAND/SEA combined services idea of saving money by having RAF, (instead of Fleet Air Arm) pilots launching off of Royal Naval carriers, with the Army providing airfield and naval security, removing the need for the Royal Marines and the RAF regiment, PLUS, utilising the reserve forces to provide 1/3 of personel in all 3 arms, rather than EXPANDING the existing arms by a third. It was just after the second gulf war. I remember the Old Colonel who we were liasing with telling a Wing commander at a function in Cyprus that, 'The old saying that Old Soldiers never die, young one do isn't good enough for the Government, they want civilians in DPM (camoflage uniforms to the uninitiated) and two weeks training waving bread knifes on broom sticks to do the dying now.' And as for the sharing of carriers with the French? Bloddy hell the nerve. (the truth of the matter being a simple study on the feasiblity of flying RN aircraft off of French carrier Charles de Gaulle, i think, for operations as part of the Task Force 150 and then as part of the EU task force against the Somali pirates). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonraker Posted 30 July, 2013 Share Posted 30 July, 2013 The three armed services do themselves no favours when it comes to lobbying politicians. The default is to fight for their own arm at the expense of the other 2 and sadly the overall military capability. The RAF (civvies in uniform) are the masters at this, the ill-fated CVA-01 of the 1960’s partially failed due to RAF lobbying and claims that they could provide air support anywhere in the world! One story has it that they moved Australia by 500 miles in its documents to support the air force's preferred strategy of land-based aircraft. That is until the next wave of defence cuts shut all of their bases east of Suez, and they failed to win support for TSR 2 or its alternative F111. The Falklands and Sierra Leon demonstrated the irrelevance of the RAF in expeditionary sea based warfare. The much feted but useless and costly Vulcan raid on Port Stanley airfield was the RAF’s effort to justify itself. It was lobbying from the RAF that led to the loss of our Harrier force and our maritime patrol capability in order that they could retain the next to useless Tornado. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 30 July, 2013 Share Posted 30 July, 2013 (edited) Yet again a debate on Naval matters in this case pertaining to design and capability of various vessels. The comments demonstrate only an amateur understanding of Naval Ship design (not operation). Warships and in particular frigates and destroyers are by their nature essentially single capability platforms, AW, UWW etc. the size of frigates and destroyers means that multiple capabilities are incompatible. Whilst they will have elements of other capabilities e.g. CIWS these and generally provided for self-defence. One of the reasons that destroyers and frigates and have grown to such a size is the attempt to multi role them to compensate for the reduction in hull numbers. Suggested reading to understand how the RN has ended up with ships and designs it currently has and those operated since WWII are “Rebuilding the Royal Navy – Warship design Since 1945” by D K Brown and George Moore and “British destroyers and Frigates – The Second World war and after” by Norman Freidman. By most measures the best UK frigate design since WWII is the Leander, the Indians are still using the hull as the basis for new designs. Judging a ship by the number of weapons systems is a very crude and misguided approach. When the UK Italy and France tried to design a ship together they failed because as a very old and bold RN ex operator in the design said “The French wanted a comfortable ship, the Italians wanted a pretty ship and the Brits wanted a ship that could fight” so we ended up with a 2 ship solution the Type 45 and FREMM, I know which I would go to war in! I wouldn't say that a FREMM is a particularly comfortable ship, the great advantage is the reduced crew number. Apparently the sonars are pretty noisy and the vibrations are pretty heavy when they're on full turbine power. On electric drive they're pretty silent though which fits in with the "furtive" status. Edited 30 July, 2013 by Window Cleaner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonraker Posted 30 July, 2013 Share Posted 30 July, 2013 I wouldn't say that a FREMM is a particularly comfortable ship, the great advantage is the reduced crew number. Apparently the sonars are pretty noisy and the vibrations are pretty heavy when they're on full turbine power. On electric drive they're pretty silent though which fits in with the "furtive" status. Partly that was my point the 3 way, UK, French Italian compromise was never going to work, and the 2 way French / Italian is not easy, if she isn’t comfortable she must be pretty! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 30 July, 2013 Share Posted 30 July, 2013 Partly that was my point the 3 way, UK, French Italian compromise was never going to work, and the 2 way French / Italian is not easy, if she isn’t comfortable she must be pretty! Reasonably aesthetic I suppose but very functional except that most of the crew are particularly highly qualified. Whether that's an operational need or just because it's the first off the line I couldn't say. The Aquitaine has what's a virtually hand picked crew for the time being at least.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsdinho Posted 30 July, 2013 Share Posted 30 July, 2013 Who are we at war with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonraker Posted 30 July, 2013 Share Posted 30 July, 2013 Who are we at war with? The Enemy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 30 July, 2013 Share Posted 30 July, 2013 The Enemy! mostly Somalian pirates for the want of better just now then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now