Matrix Games

quote:

ORIGINAL: SargeantTex

Has anyone seen these plans for the future cruisers and destroyers of the U.S. navy.
I have no Idea why they want these stealth ships who cares if enemy radar can pick them up
I say let them see us and know that a whole lot of hurt is coming their way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Agreed. It's shocking to see how much it has dwindled. We still have some of the most professional and best trained military force out there but in numbers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

It's not a matter of someone like me wanting to accept it. What choice do I have?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

It's certainly better than the sort of pig-headed arrogance that is on display in the first post of this thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

The age profile really worries me the state of the navy is not good the Govt needs to spend more on new kit and get it delivered on time

Aircraft Carriers Ship Name Launch Date Displacement (Tonnes) Total Crew
HMS Invincible 1977 22,000 1051
HMS Illustrious 1978 22,000 1051
HMS Ark Royal 1981 22,000 1051

Amphibious Assault Ships Ship Name Launch Date Displacement (Tonnes) Total Crew
HMS Ocean 1995 20,700 265
HMS Albion 2001 18,500 363
HMS Bulwark 2001 18,500 363

Type 42 Destroyers Batch 2 Ship Name Launch Date Displacement (Tonnes) Total Crew
HMS Exeter 1979 4,820 253
HMS Southampton 1980 4,820 253
HMS Nottingham 1980 4,820 253
HMS Liverpool 1980 4,820 253

Type 42 Destroyers Batch 3 Ship Name Launch Date Displacement (Tonnes) Total Crew
HMS Manchester 1980 5,200 301
HMS Gloucester 1982 5,200 301
HMS York 1982 5,200 301
HMS Edinburgh 1983 5,200 301

Type 23 Frigates Ship Name Launch Date Displacement (Tonnes) Total Crew
HMS Argyll 1989 4,900 181
HMS Lancaster 1990 4,900 181
HMS Iron Duke 1991 4,900 181
HMS Monmouth 1991 4,900 181
HMS Montrose 1992 4,900 181
HMS Westminster 1992 4,900 181
HMS Northumberland 1992 4,900 181
HMS Richmond 1993 4,900 181
HMS Somerset 1994 4,900 181
HMS Sutherland 1996 4,900 181
HMS Kent 1998 4,900 181
HMS Portland 1999 4,900 181
HMS St. Albans 2000 4,900 181

Type 22 Frigates Batch 3 Ship Name Launch Date Displacement (Tonnes) Total Crew
HMS Cornwall 1985 5,300 250
HMS Cumberland 1986 5,300 250
HMS Campbeltown 1987 5,300 250
HMS Chatham 1988 5,300 250

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron James

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

The age profile really worries me the state of the navy is not good the Govt needs to spend more on new kit and get it delivered on time

Aircraft Carriers Ship Name Launch Date Displacement (Tonnes) Total Crew
HMS Invincible 1977 22,000 1051
HMS Illustrious 1978 22,000 1051
HMS Ark Royal 1981 22,000 1051

Amphibious Assault Ships Ship Name Launch Date Displacement (Tonnes) Total Crew
HMS Ocean 1995 20,700 265
HMS Albion 2001 18,500 363
HMS Bulwark 2001 18,500 363

Type 42 Destroyers Batch 2 Ship Name Launch Date Displacement (Tonnes) Total Crew
HMS Exeter 1979 4,820 253
HMS Southampton 1980 4,820 253
HMS Nottingham 1980 4,820 253
HMS Liverpool 1980 4,820 253

Type 42 Destroyers Batch 3 Ship Name Launch Date Displacement (Tonnes) Total Crew
HMS Manchester 1980 5,200 301
HMS Gloucester 1982 5,200 301
HMS York 1982 5,200 301
HMS Edinburgh 1983 5,200 301

Type 23 Frigates Ship Name Launch Date Displacement (Tonnes) Total Crew
HMS Argyll 1989 4,900 181
HMS Lancaster 1990 4,900 181
HMS Iron Duke 1991 4,900 181
HMS Monmouth 1991 4,900 181
HMS Montrose 1992 4,900 181
HMS Westminster 1992 4,900 181
HMS Northumberland 1992 4,900 181
HMS Richmond 1993 4,900 181
HMS Somerset 1994 4,900 181
HMS Sutherland 1996 4,900 181
HMS Kent 1998 4,900 181
HMS Portland 1999 4,900 181
HMS St. Albans 2000 4,900 181

Type 22 Frigates Batch 3 Ship Name Launch Date Displacement (Tonnes) Total Crew
HMS Cornwall 1985 5,300 250
HMS Cumberland 1986 5,300 250
HMS Campbeltown 1987 5,300 250
HMS Chatham 1988 5,300 250

you did not include the submarines 4 SSBN is nothing to be sneezed at remember the missiles work
and what about the type 45's best frigates in the world next year anyways

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yakface

RN is due to contract the building of two new aircraft carriers (or are these the CVF's mentioned above?). Due in 2013, but warnings about delays have already been in the press.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6363385.stm

Spring chicken to ****ehawk in one easy lesson.

(in reply to Yakface)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I consider one of the two names planned for these carriers to be ill chosen. Queen Elizabeth is great. But Prince of Wales , a truley heroic ship , has a name that should be "retired". Like USS Arizona , USS Chesapeake and USS President , It was an unlucky name. Plus , by retiring it , you memorialize it for all time. When one speaks of the Prince of Wales , one should not have to check the hull number to determine which one we are talking about. IT's "THE Prince of Wales". Or "THE Hood". From the American side , we might consider retiring Maine and Houston. I suggest this , not to forget these ships , but to honor them and their crews who enshirned these names in their own blood. When you talk to sailors or name sake ships today , they forget their predesscessors...."oh , was there a Enterprise befor this one?

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

It's amazing to me that the British people would accept a RN that is smaller than France's navy.

quote:


The age profile really worries me the state of the navy is not good the Govt needs to spend more on new kit and get it delivered on time

Spring chicken to ****ehawk in one easy lesson.

(in reply to AW1Steve)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

It's amazing to me that the British people would accept a RN that is smaller than France's navy.

The problem is (or seems to be, correct me if I'm wrong) that generally people in the UK don't care about the military that much. Unless they need them to do someone else's job (firefighters) or evacuate them from an unstable region of the world where a conflict has kicked off when they are holidaying there....

quote:

ORIGINAL: jamesm

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I consider one of the two names planned for these carriers to be ill chosen. Queen Elizabeth is great. But Prince of Wales , a truley heroic ship , has a name that should be "retired". Like USS Arizona , USS Chesapeake and USS President , It was an unlucky name. Plus , by retiring it , you memorialize it for all time. When one speaks of the Prince of Wales , one should not have to check the hull number to determine which one we are talking about. IT's "THE Prince of Wales". Or "THE Hood". From the American side , we might consider retiring Maine and Houston. I suggest this , not to forget these ships , but to honor them and their crews who enshirned these names in their own blood. When you talk to sailors or name sake ships today , they forget their predesscessors...."oh , was there a Enterprise befor this one?

Steve,

I tend to feel that it honors the name by reusing the name of a ship had historical significance. A way of continuing the tradition of a fighting force.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

It's amazing to me that the British people would accept a RN that is smaller than France's navy.

The problem is (or seems to be, correct me if I'm wrong) that generally people in the UK don't care about the military that much. Unless they need them to do someone else's job (firefighters) or evacuate them from an unstable region of the world where a conflict has kicked off when they are holidaying there....

quote:


The age profile really worries me the state of the navy is not good the Govt needs to spend more on new kit and get it delivered on time

Almost everything in the UK armed forces is getting on in years, and with not much sign of replacements on the horizon either things are going to continue in this vein. It doesn't help that the three branches of the armed forces are all competing for funding from the same dwindling source even as the cost of obtaining and maintaining modern weapons rises every year. Added to that is the increased costs of maintaing equipment as it ages


Bring back the Cold War....

quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

From what I have heard from my friend who studies currently in London British people are fiercely independent they may be European but they are British first and foremost,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

From what I have heard from my friend who studies currently in London British people are fiercely independent they may be European but they are British first and foremost,

100% agree. I can't think of any people I know who consider themselves European before British (except the foreigners who reside here ). Without making this too political the majority of the people I know also want us to retain our own currency rather than adopting the Euro.

I for one am in this 'camp' who consider myself British and proud of it. As with any nation you have the extremes who denigrate your country (hooligans etc) but in general I am proud to be British.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

It's amazing to me that the British people would accept a RN that is smaller than France's navy.

The problem is (or seems to be, correct me if I'm wrong) that generally people in the UK don't care about the military that much. Unless they need them to do someone else's job (firefighters) or evacuate them from an unstable region of the world where a conflict has kicked off when they are holidaying there....

quote:


The age profile really worries me the state of the navy is not good the Govt needs to spend more on new kit and get it delivered on time

Almost everything in the UK armed forces is getting on in years, and with not much sign of replacements on the horizon either things are going to continue in this vein. It doesn't help that the three branches of the armed forces are all competing for funding from the same dwindling source even as the cost of obtaining and maintaining modern weapons rises every year. Added to that is the increased costs of maintaing equipment as it ages


Bring back the Cold War....

The Rose and Crown, a forum for British Gentlemen