Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
Opinion3
Member
Posts: 352
Joined: 06 May 2015, 23:01

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Opinion3 »

Lord Jim wrote:Lets just continue ot discuss the T-31 and possible platforms in the Fantasy thread as we have done. Only the name has changed and if something more substantive appears then it can be cross reference with the T-31 thread.
From my perspective this thread is in the wrong place, and unlike some of you I don't hop from Navy to General to Off Topic etc.

Clearly talking about Naval assets is Naval, and where this concept "past, present or actual future" came from is bizarre. Sorry to disagree but moving this is eccentric. Right weird. :crazy:

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

I agree. But the thread title shall simply “fantasy fleet”. Now with T31 taking shape, with fixed cost, the next fantasies are SSS, LPDR, MHP and T45 replacements.

As for T31, it looks like will go as it is, or simply cancelled by MDP. If replaced by something else, I think it may not be called T31.

Anyway, if located here, this thread will silently die out.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:the next fantasies are SSS, LPDR, MHP and T45 replacements.
I would gently disagree with this part. The programmes you mention are the future not fantasy. They deserve to be discussed like any other topic.

I don't have an issue with realigning the threads so the parameters of the debate are clear but to remove the discussion on the Royal Navy's future procurement direction seems bizarre.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:the next fantasies are SSS, LPDR, MHP and T45 replacements.
I would gently disagree with this part. The programmes you mention are the future not fantasy. They deserve to be discussed like any other topic.

I don't have an issue with realigning the threads so the parameters of the debate are clear but to remove the discussion on the Royal Navy's future procurement direction seems bizarre.
Thanks. My only point is, remove "fantasy T31" from the title.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Poiuytrewq wrote: The programmes you mention are the future not fantasy. They deserve to be discussed
It would, indeed, be quite rude to say that all the people mentioned here http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPape ... rategy.pdf on p.16 are merely fantasising (with high salaries :) )
and even though p.22 does not depict an exact plan (or forecast) it is meant as a framework and food for thought for all those who have to weigh the priorities, allocate budgets (within defence as well as within suppliers) and, at the more detailed level, assess alternative designs.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Even for us... to anchor our fantasies and alternative universes, to keep the discussions relevant
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote:Build a your best fantasy fleet within the budget and then copy and paste the result here.

http://landshark.esy.es/Navy/index.html
@SB, if the results are still saved in the system/ game, would be quite interesting to see (under some other heading than T31) the averaged distribution of budgets... did we average out as the NSS (that p.22 referred to) or quite something else?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by shark bait »

It never saved the results unfortunately. Been meaning to set up a new host for it but never got around to it, building a house instead!
@LandSharkUK

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by SW1 »

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/uv-o ... or-er-uas/

The list unmanned systems we should be looking to integrate onboard our future vessels grows ever longer

Opinion3
Member
Posts: 352
Joined: 06 May 2015, 23:01

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Opinion3 »

There was nothing wrong with the location and indeed principle of the thread and the title was dead clear. I too think this thread will die out.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by SKB »

SKB wrote:Maybe i'll stick a drawing into the fantasy thread later... ;)
Introducing the newly lengthened 380 metre (1,246 feet!) long HMS Queen Elizabeth, and new world record holder for largest ever warship!

Already done a 300 metre long version in the QE Thread, so here's another, this time I added a new 100 metre long superblock between LB03 and LB04!

My imaginary QE is now 38 metres longer than the 342 metre long USS Enterprise CVN-65, the former world record holder!

QE now has a third aircraft lift in the new block! And there's probably enough room for a small nuclear reactor! :mrgreen:
QE380m.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by R686 »

SKB wrote:
SKB wrote:Maybe i'll stick a drawing into the fantasy thread later... ;)
Introducing the newly lengthened 380 metre (1,246 feet!) long HMS Queen Elizabeth, and new world record holder for largest ever warship!

Already done a 300 metre long version in the QE Thread, so here's another, this time I added a new 100 metre long superblock between LB03 and LB04!

My imaginary QE is now 38 metres longer than the 342 metre long USS Enterprise CVN-65, the former world record holder!

QE now has a third aircraft lift in the new block! And there's probably enough room for a small nuclear reactor! :mrgreen:
QE380m.png
Bit over the top and looks ridiculous but least it’s not a twitter post

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote:It never saved the results unfortunately. Been meaning to set up a new host for it but never got around to it, building a house instead!
We know quite a bit more about the costs and specs by now... and with the next SDSR knocking on the door, might be worthwhile to renew this effort - if the house has received a roof so that snow will not get in :thumbup:

On the "news only" thread there was the mention that we will, for now, be only getting 25% of the combined T26 fleet
- with the USN 2nd Fleet up and running again and with Canada's formidable [future] contribution, yes, we should chip in as well
- but elsewhere? Will the SDSR say that about along the longitude 72.422859 our vessels should be saluting RAN T-26s (and other navies' ships) and turn around, to maintain some concentration of force... or will Global Britain mean a pepper-gun approach, with a token presence "everywhere"?

Implications for the force mix (generally) and navy build prgrm, specifically?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Lord Jim »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:or will Global Britain mean a pepper-gun approach, with a token presence "everywhere"?
Well that is probably what the Politicians would like and would raise the MoD's profile, but the Defence Chiefs will want our forces to retain a certain mass in a given region, especially the traditional NATO area of operations.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Repulse »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:will Global Britain mean a pepper-gun approach, with a token presence "everywhere"?
Good question, and one with ever more importance now that there is close to zero chance to an increase in defence funding.

I do not see HMG going way from the idea of Global Britain, but it would require even more of it to be Global Presence, than global Power. This coupled with the ability to project power globally, but from the UK.

The key strands I think are:
- A capable but limited version of CEPP. This would require the CVFs, T45s, 6 T26s, 3-4 SSNs, Tides and two FFSs.
- A roaming fleet of SSNs* and UUVs; ideally 7 of the former to allow one always to be EoS and another in the Atlantic/Mediterranean.
- Forward presence ships, split into three parts:
> A fleet of Patrol, MCM and Survey ships, aimed towards ensuring freedom of flow of trade and diplomacy. Should ideally have ability for self defence (in areas such as the Gulf) and a common Platform like the older MHPC concept. If the T31 is this then fine, but I think it still needs some work, and 10+ hulls.
> RFA HADR capability
> A forward based RM strike vessels, capable of SF operations or scaling to once in a generation ARG level Brigade ops. This for me means 2 LPDs, 1-2 Aviation Support Ship(s) (like Argus), 2 Bays and 1-2 Multirole support ships (like RFA Victoria).

* To pay for this, CASD would go and some of the money spent on 3-4 more SSNs and a tactical nuclear weapon capability.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: the Politicians would like and would raise the MoD's profile, but the Defence Chiefs will want our forces to retain a certain mass in a given region, especially the traditional NATO area of operations.
Already liked this a while back, put this really is what gave birth to the T31 concept. Does the former in the short run, and can be converted to support the latter in a much lesser time than what a new-build prgrm, for the same number, would take.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by serge750 »

I honestly don't think they will stop the new SSBN replacement program as it's such a "independent" statement, and we are to far down the road, ( but then look at nimrod !! ) it would save the conventional forces from yet more cutbacks though !

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

serge750 wrote:then look at nimrod !!
Which one, AEW or ASW... no matter, we bought substitutes for both... can't do that for the SSBNs (nor the warheads that go into the missiles)

I think that this kind of discussion we are headed towards was pre-empted by the £10 bn contingency for (and only for) the prgrm.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by SW1 »

I think people what taken the political slogan global Britain and attached to there favourite answer which has been looking for a question. There is many to whom the answer is more Navy regardless of what the question is this phrase suited that agenda.

I would ask what is even meant by global Britain and what relevance does it have to defence? In the first instance I think it was a simple politic message that simply meant were not engaging with the world thru the EU but by ourselves. Did it have relevant to defence maybe but then the UK has been and is deployed or have garrisons in the Far East, Middle East, Africa, South America, North America and Europe so perhaps it’s just a signal of no change.

If this current crisis tells us anything it is that the uk is by its nature a global country perhaps to global in some areas.

We’re does this leave UK defence were it’s started a concentration of its most important conventional and strategic weapons at confronting Russia and ensuring Nato integrity while engaging and contributing to allies and interests elsewhere thru the three most frequently requested capabilities logistics, ISR and special forces.

In this regard I think in naval terms we are seeing a return of the depot ships. Only this time it will support for small craft and predominantly unmanned systems

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote:In this regard I think in naval terms we are seeing a return of the depot ships. Only this time it will support for small craft and predominantly unmanned systems
Perhaps, yesterday’s LPD is tomorrow’s Depot Ship ;)
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote:
SW1 wrote:In this regard I think in naval terms we are seeing a return of the depot ships. Only this time it will support for small craft and predominantly unmanned systems
Perhaps, yesterday’s LPD is tomorrow’s Depot Ship ;)
http://www.combinedfleet.com/HyugaM_t.htm

A passing resemblance to a recent design

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

A snippet in that link that doesn't belong to any thread, but still interesting: one and a qrtr mln tons of shipping sunk, for the loss of 15 bombers
"to mine Japan’s home waters. The USAAF used 80 to 100 B-29 “Super Fortress” heavy bombers of the 21st Bomber Command based at Tinian, Marianas.

The B-29s could carry seven 2,000 lb. or twelve 1,000 lb. mines. From 27 Mar - 5 Aug ‘45, B-29s flew 1,529 nighttime radar sorties and laid 4,900 magnetic, 3,500 acoustic, 2,900 pressure and 700 low-frequency mines for a total of more than 12,000 mines laid in Japanese waters. These mines sank 294 ships, damaged 137 beyond repair and damaged another 239 that could be repaired. The total was 1, 250,000 tons sunk or damaged or about 75 percent of Japanese shipping available in March 1945. Only 15 B-29s were lost during the mining campaign."
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by SW1 »

With US looking at small medium and large unmanned platforms going forward was wondering if the UK followed down a similar path if a river patrol vessel could be a possible candidate platform for such a trail.

J. Tattersall

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by J. Tattersall »

So where do the phasers go the PM talked about ?
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... ember-2020
Our warships and combat vehicles will carry “directed energy weapons”, destroying targets with inexhaustible lasers

and for them the phrase “out of ammunition” will become redundant.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

This is good, as there is some traceability (and how the commentators shrunk that to 7 bn has not been explained at all) of what is being planned as opposed to 'Business as Usual'
"increasing defence spending by £24.1 billion over the next four years,

That’s £16.5 billion more than our manifesto commitment"

but simply totalling a department's budget over four years
"investing £190 billion over the next four years"
hardly is the same thing as 'investment'

The PM did quite a good job by shying away from 'transform' which word is used only once. As we have learned over the last quarter century, the need to 'regenerate' somehow goes away when one fully commits to a 'transformation'. Revolution and modernisation also carry connotations linked to past attempts and thereby the connotation is not 100% positive.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Post Reply