Posted on 05/31/2019 8:12:22 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Wow, the USA doesn’t design, engineer and build it’s own frigates and DD’s. We are in steep decline. Thanks Free Traitors™.
Wow globalists are now invading USN threads. Traitors everywhere.
That government attacked your government at the request of ... your government. As long as we remember that, then we see things as they are.
Anyway, yes, let's extradite Steele and others. They're going to point to Obama and Hillary anyway.
If soldiers can be jailed for following legitimate orders that later become politically inconvenient, then why not intelligence assets?
Keep building Arleigh Burke's then. They just work.
JMHo
To be fair, I think naval architecture and CAD and simulation has come along a lot since the Type 45 was designed in the 1990s. The QEC class carriers thus far haven’t had any major problems because the simulations used during the design process have been able to identify design flaws before they are actually built. The Type 26 is a cutting edge design and the others are older designs and most of them are more generalised than Anti submarine. If the US Navy wants to remain on the cutting edge of anti submarine warfare, it will need the Type 26. None of the others are as advanced.
“If soldiers can be jailed for following legitimate orders that later become politically inconvenient, then why not intelligence assets?” Because intelligents assets know stuff that senior politicians don’t want other people to know about.
A Burke-class destroyer is a bit over $1.8 billion.
Yes, the globalists (the name we use internally for the arms vendor unit is Merchants of Death) want to follow up on prior successes selling the US Bofors cannons, Chobham armor, Merlin engines, Uzi machine guns, and Harrier fighter jets, and in supplying thinly rehabilitated Nazi rocket scientists to put Americans on the Moon. And the builder of the Type 26 frigate has a US subsidiary, BAE Systems, which already has over 30,000 employees in the US and billions in annual revenue from the Pentagon. The Bradley IFV is even a BAE Systems product these days.
Yes, the globalists (the name we use internally for the arms vendor unit is Merchants of Death) want to follow up on prior successes selling the US Bofors cannons, Chobham armor, Merlin engines, Uzi machine guns, and Harrier fighter jets, and in supplying thinly rehabilitated Nazi rocket scientists to put Americans on the Moon. And the builder of the Type 26 frigate has a US subsidiary, BAE Systems, which already has over 30,000 employees in the US and billions in annual revenue from the Pentagon. The Bradley IFV is even a BAE Systems product these days.
I’m sorry but the QEC class runs on WINDOWS XP. How is this not a major problem?????
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/news/a27108/hms-queen-elizabeth-windows-xp/
And after the SA80/L85 debacles, what idiot would believe MoD’s claims otherwise?
Remember when the British claimed the SA80 would be the cutting edge of infantry warfare and that no other rifle would be as advanced? How did that work out?
We never stopped ordering Burkes, but the Burke is an aged design that was not the best to begin with and now has almost no room left over for upgrades. Basically, even a brand new one is the design equivalent of a 1984 Ford Taurus with tons of electronics upgrades that have been duct taped to the interior and exterior. Sure, it’s a brand new 1984 Taurus - but it’s still a 35 year old design.
In recent exercises against the British Type 45 destroyer (when the Type 45 powerplants were working), the Type 45 thoroughly trounced it. In fact, the Type 45s were ordered to deliberately degrade their sensor abilities by half to make it “fair” for the US forces. The Type 45’s construction also means that a shipkiller has a harder time seeing it in the first place, something the Burkes can’t do anything about short of slapping RAM coatings and exhaust diffusers on as not-terribly-effective bandaids.
Sure, we can make more naval 1984 Tauruses for now, but we really need to get something better in the pipeline.
See post 52, please.
There are a lot of articles out there about why LCS doesn’t work. The LCS was originally intended to be a shallow sea combatant, kind of like a bigger version of the Vietnam river patrol boats. The Navy decided to make it a multirole vessel that could take on different roles by loading in different mission modules. (Shades of TFX which was supposed to be the do-everything airplane and became the F-111.) It didn’t work out at all, so the Navy’s idea of using flotillas of LCSs to replace frigates and destroyers didn’t work out either. The LCS has turned out to be fragile, underarmed, not actually very adaptable and with very poor seakeeping. All the modifications to it made it a poor choice to do its original mission too. LCS don’t even have organic CIWS on board so they can get swarmed easily by missile boats.
These FFG(X) are actually supposed to be fitted with a version of Aegis - basically Aegis Light, to be delivered by Lockheed Martin, so yes, they will be fighting datalinked with Aegis.
Read the thread. These ships will be built in the US, but it was the US Navy’s insistence on LCS that killed US frigate development and the DD(X)/DD-1000 project that stifled US destroyer design. This is all on the Navy, not globalists or “FreeTraitors.”
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-aircraft-carriers-dont-run-windows-xp/ that is a popular myth. As for the SA80 the problems with the A1 were sorted out with the A2, they are currently being upgraded to the A3 standard. It is by all accounts, an excellent servic3 rifle in its updated incarnation.
I am referring to the lies, lies, lies and more lies the MOD spouted after the SA80/L85 problems were exposed in Desert Storm. After that long, drawn out years long farrago, I am disinclined to believe ANYTHING the MOD releases - including the claims of the Type 26’s (potential but unproven) supremacy.
Also, note that you yourself admit that they had to try multiple times to get the rifle to be acceptable - the US does not *have* the time to wait to get the bugs out if the Type 26 ends up being the New SA80/L85. If it ever proves out in British service, we can talk about it then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDCRop6CRwY
As for Windows XP - see above, the MOD is claiming it doesn’t, there’s clear photographic evidence that there are computers on board that do run XP, I have severe problems with MOD’s assertions. XP should not be anywhere near a brand new military vessel at this point, even for development purposes. As someone who works IT for a living, the fact that even ‘standalone’ XP machines are on that carrier tells me that there’s something horribly, horribly wrong with that ship’s IT.
It says pretty plainly that it will not be using XP for the operational systems, what can I say?
By the time the US rolls the first Type 26 off the production line, the type 26 will already be in operational service will have ironed out the bugs and can apply any lessons learned to the US ships. Much of the equipment used on the Type 26 is already in operational service elsewhere anyway, including generators produced by General Electric that are also in service with the US Navy in the Zumwalt class and the MT30 gas turbine already in service with the Zumwalt class, Freedom Class and the QE class.
Some of the tech will be new and untested of course, but unless you want your ships to be obsolte before they’re even completed, you have to push the envelope and try untested tech that will need to be debugged during operational service, which the Royal Navy will be doing anyway before the first US frigate hits the water. There is however, nothing to match the hull design which will be the most accoustically quiet in the world and optimised for anti-sub warfare, which is perhaps the most dangerous threat to the USN because they can actually get close enough to pose a threat, unlike enemy surface combatants. Other designs are more general purpose frigates that are not optimised to anywhere the same extent for ASW as the Type 26.
As you’ve already said, the Type 45 destroyer is already vastly superior in its specialist role than the Burke class, the only major issue is the engine, which is currently being rectified as the ships come into port for maintainance.
It should be remembered that at the time these ships were designed, it was expected they would normally be operated in the colder waters of the Northe Atlantic/South Atlantic, and the problem stems from the fact that the design that was geared towards toning down the thermal signature also causes overheating, which isn’t so much of an issue in the cooler waters it was assumed it would be operating in. Now that naval architects know better about how geopolitics has developed in recent years and that the Type 26 will be operating in warmer equatorial climates, this will be accounted for before the ships are sent for testing. The QEC hasn’t reported any problems when being tested in carribean waters during recent trials, so it isn’t likely to be a problem with the MT30 that will be powering both ships.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.