project reality header
Go Back   Project Reality Forums > Off-Topic Forums > Off-Topic Discussion > Military Technology
16 Nov 2019, 00:00:00 (PRT)
Register Developer Blogs Project Reality Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Military Technology Discussion on military hardware.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 2012-09-07, 18:19   #21
CommunistComma
Banned
Default Re: Type 26 'Global Combat Ship' [Royal Navy frigate]

Rhino's teaching me about stuff. Isn't that cool.

But I still maintain that you only need an aircraft carrier to bomb out some place that's far away. Generally speaking far away places aren't where you live. For a war in Asia or Europe (that continent you live on,) or a war between Europe and Asia for example, an aircraft carrier would be irrelevant.
I was under the impression the best counter to a submarine would be a submarine, I guess I was wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyKid1996 View Post
Funny thing is, I was talking about something like this to my friend during our US history class today... lol.
When I was in high school there was a US history course. So dumb.
CommunistComma is offline
Last edited by CommunistComma; 2012-09-07 at 18:34..
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-09-07, 21:10   #22
Bob_Marley
Retired PR Developer

Bob_Marley's Avatar
Default Re: Type 26 'Global Combat Ship' [Royal Navy frigate]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CommunistComma View Post
But I still maintain that you only need an aircraft carrier to bomb out some place that's far away. Generally speaking far away places aren't where you live. For a war in Asia or Europe (that continent you live on,) or a war between Europe and Asia for example, an aircraft carrier would be irrelevant.
Now thats just not true! The Indian Navy used it's aircraft carrier to bomb out the country next door 1971!





Also, only one submerged submarine has ever been sunk by another submerged submarine, ever - the U-864. While many navies have developed so-called hunter-killer submarines the concept has never really been proven in combat.

Also folks, if you're going to argue with this chap seriously do remember that communists tend regard aircraft carriers as "instruments of capitalist imperial aggression". Which is why the Soviet Union never built any. Especially not the Admiral Kuznetsov, which is, of course, a heavy aircraft carrying missile cruiser not an aircraft carrier. Honest.

Anyway, we're way off topic here, lets get back to the Type 26. The role of aircraft carriers can have its own thread if it wants to be discussed.

The key to modernising any weapon is covering them in glue and tossing them in a barrel of M1913 rails until they look "Modern" enough.

Many thanks to [R-DEV]Adriaan for the sig!
Bob_Marley is offline
Last edited by Bob_Marley; 2012-09-07 at 23:28..
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-09-08, 00:36   #23
mangeface
Supporting Member

mangeface's Avatar
Default Re: Type 26 'Global Combat Ship' [Royal Navy frigate]

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by CommunistComma View Post
An aircraft carrier's only purpose is to establish air dominance over a country you already severely outmatch, especially when friendly airfields are unavailable. IE going after Libya, Kosovo or Iran (again). Only countries that have a tendancy to bomb out other places on a regular basis have any significant fleet of them, while countries that have their fleet for defence possess submarines, attack and sometimes ballistic.

Correct me if I'm wrong, this is just where logic leads me.
Aircraft Carriers are extremely flexible platforms which can be used for far more than just gaining air superiority over a foreign country. Without an aircraft carrier in many cases, no surface ships or even ground forces could risk being deployed. Not to mention they can be deployed anywhere around the world at a moments notice compared to the logistical nightmare of trying to ship an entire airbase, being aircraft, spare parts, weapons, fuel etc all to a foreign country (which also costs a damn fortune to do at short notice), which you will spend ages dibble dabbling to even get that permission and by the time you may get it, your carrier will most likely be on the coast of the country and probably been there for a few days, complete with all the spare parts, weapons, aircraft and crew all on-board.

Now that's just one basic example based on quite a few recent use-age of aircraft carriers, but by no means not limited to.

Aircraft even with to days AA weapons are still the biggest threat to both surface ships and submarines, not to mention ground forces, and the best way to counter aircraft is with aircraft quite simply and the only way you can effectively do that in most cases, is with an aircraft carrier.

At the end of the day, Aircraft carriers are as flexible as the aircraft they carry, and if the aircraft can be used in that scenario, so can the carrier, unless its in the middle of a landmass out of range from the nearest coast line, but seeing as over 70% of the earth's surface is water, and the only places aircraft can operate in most of that area is from a carrier.
When the US first went to Afghanistan, the USS Kitty Hawk and 2 LHDs served as one of the 2 primary means of getting troops into the country. The first conventional troops, US Marines, were ferried into the country from the amphibs by CH-53Es.
mangeface is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2012-09-08, 00:53   #24
JimmyKid1996

JimmyKid1996's Avatar
Default Re: Type 26 'Global Combat Ship' [Royal Navy frigate]

Really, without air support nowadays, navies would be defunct.


JimmyKid1996 is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2012-09-08, 07:56   #25
CommunistComma
Banned
Default Re: Type 26 'Global Combat Ship' [Royal Navy frigate]

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Bob_Marley View Post
Anyway, we're way off topic here, lets get back to the Type 26. The role of aircraft carriers can have its own thread if it wants to be discussed.
This is more a discussion of the obsolescence of naval war machines.
Actually that makes sense. That's why an aircraft carrier is so important. An aircraft carrier isn't a naval war machine, it's a facilitator for aerial combat in a naval theatre.
No longer he who rules the waves rules the world, but he who rules the air. The Israelis rule the air, they rule the region. The Americans rule the air, they rule the world.
War may be fought with toys, but they're won by soldiers. The only thing that will never become obsolete is the infantryman (They may come in with androids or some shit, but that would still be infantry.) The purpose of all these machines is to support ground combat, and they come and go. The battleship is already long obsolete, as are various other ships I would know about if I was informed, the tank is obsolete or soon to be (By tank I mean a tracked behemoth with a howitzer, there are other armoured vehicles that aren't obsolete.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mangeface View Post
When the US first went to Afghanistan, the USS Kitty Hawk and 2 LHDs served as one of the 2 primary means of getting troops into the country. The first conventional troops, US Marines, were ferried into the country from the amphibs by CH-53Es.
Your point is irrelevant because we're not discussing carrying troops, but naval combat. The kitty hawk was just used for convience and the LHDs aren't really aircraft carriers.

So the aircraft carrier is a vital tool, until aircraft inevitably get the range to engage in war without them.
The submarines are an issue because they're the primary carriers of ballistic missiles, which completely redefine the terms of war. As nuclear platforms they're undeniably far more effective than anything else.
However we're not going to go into nuclear war because that'd be even more conjecture, mostly political instead of military.

On the subject of protecting naval trade, one of the primary purposes of these frigates, and a legitimate issue;
it really doesn't take much to stop pirates, they're not exactly organized. Taking out a bunch of 16 year old Somalis on a 30 year old boat with AKs twice that old isnt exactly a feat. Albeit, It does take skilled operators to get everybody out safely, but they're probably not going to get sunk. Unless by terrorists, which happens, but it's not exactly naval combat.
CommunistComma is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2012-09-08, 11:49   #26
[R-DEV]​Rhino
PR:BF2 Developer
Supporting Member

Rhino's Avatar
Default Re: Type 26 'Global Combat Ship' [Royal Navy frigate]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CommunistComma View Post
So the aircraft carrier is a vital tool, until aircraft inevitably get the range to engage in war without them.
Yes you really want to be sending your aircraft 1/2 way around the world, which takes for f*cking ever, burning up loads and loads of expensive fuel, to drop one payload which by the time they get there, could have easily been moved.....

This was recently proved how bad this concept was during Libya recently, when Tornado GR4s where flying from bases in the UK, to Libya being around a 3000 mile trip, and most of the time by the time they had got there, there targets where not longer available for target so they had to turn back with there payloads still on board...


It is vital to have aircraft as close to the action as you can safely get them in order to have fast response times and high sortie rates, otherwise you need to spend thousands more $$$ on extra aircraft, in order to keep aircraft overhead constantly, so if they are needed, the guys on the ground directing the bombs (which there always where, yes even if no main forces, SF troops will be on the ground, like they where in Libya directing the bombings...).

It is far cheaper when also effectiveness is taken into account, to station a carrier off the coast than to fly planes from your main land even a not massively long distance, hence why even the French stationed their carrier off the coast of Libya, when there shorten bases where hardly any distance away, due to the response times and sortie rates they got from it.
If you recall in the end the UK gave up on flying from the UK, moved a load of planes to Italy and HMS Ocean was loaded up with Apaches (which before had never been used in this way, since we would normally have Harriers for this job but they had been scrapped just before this...) to try and improve the response times of our aircraft...



At the end of the day, we still stationed a helicopter carrier / assault ship off the coast of Libya, in order to make up for the lack of carrier borne jets...

Quote:
Originally Posted by CommunistComma View Post
On the subject of protecting naval trade, one of the primary purposes of these frigates, and a legitimate issue;
it really doesn't take much to stop pirates, they're not exactly organized. Taking out a bunch of 16 year old Somalis on a 30 year old boat with AKs twice that old isnt exactly a feat. Albeit, It does take skilled operators to get everybody out safely, but they're probably not going to get sunk. Unless by terrorists, which happens, but it's not exactly naval combat.
While yes, you don't technically need something like a Frigate or Destroyer for this job, or to stop smuggling etc.

But the two most effective weapons in tackling these threats is 1, advanced long range radar and 2, a helicopter. For a ship to hold both of these elements, you need something roughly the size of a Frigate to do so. You could go a bit smaller (and cheaper) yes. But if your buying a ship with advanced radar, and a helicopter, as well as long range, high endurance etc, you might as well make it into a multi-purpose ship that can be used in all threats, so if a conventional war dose come where Naval forces are unexpectedly needed (Falklands war just as one example), then you have what you need ready and waiting for that job.

Rhino is online now
Last edited by [R-DEV]Rhino; 2012-09-08 at 11:55..
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-09-08, 14:01   #27
CommunistComma
Banned
Default Re: Type 26 'Global Combat Ship' [Royal Navy frigate]

That's awesome. Especially about the bombing runs from the UK. What an interesting post.
8 hours in a plane, brings to mind "Chafing my ass"

I still maintain that the world is becoming a smaller and smaller place, where aircraft are getting faster and longer range. How long will it be until aircraft can hop into the stratosphere, hit mac 20, and come down on a target on the other side of the world?

Also the Royal Navy sucks at naming stuff. It's like they pulled relevant nouns out of a hat.
CommunistComma is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2012-09-08, 14:52   #28
Doc.Pock

Doc.Pock's Avatar
Default Re: Type 26 'Global Combat Ship' [Royal Navy frigate]

HMS Decoy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


poor guys were just decoys haha
Doc.Pock is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2012-09-08, 19:26   #29
[R-DEV]​Rhino
PR:BF2 Developer
Supporting Member

Rhino's Avatar
Default Re: Type 26 'Global Combat Ship' [Royal Navy frigate]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CommunistComma View Post
Also the Royal Navy sucks at naming stuff. It's like they pulled relevant nouns out of a hat.
Well at some points in history, the RN was massive, with god knows how many ships at its peak and they did have to kinda think hard for new names

Now we try and use names from all the old ships, but trying to avoid using old class names like "Dreadnought"
List of ship names of the Royal Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now they have so many old names to use they are trying to name all the new destroyers starting with "D", ie, HMS Daring, Dauntless, Diamond, Dragon (my fav since it has a cool ass welsh dragon painted on its bow), Defender and Duncan

Rhino is online now Reply With Quote
Old 2012-09-08, 23:21   #30
Dunehunter
Forum Moderator
Supporting Member

Dunehunter's Avatar
Send a message via MSN to Dunehunter
Default Re: Type 26 'Global Combat Ship' [Royal Navy frigate]

Why would you want to avoid the name Dreadnought? Just call them all Dreadnought. Dreadnought 1 through 300, or something.


[R-MOD]Jigsaw] I am drunk. I decided to come home early because I can''t realy seea nyithng. I hthknk i madea bad choicce.
Dunehunter is offline Reply With Quote
Reply


Tags
combat, frigate, global, navy, royal, ship, type
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 20:57.