Prince Charles may rule in two years: Journalist


Blackleaf
+1
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by Danbones View Post

Too bad about all the decrepit old wartubs they sank.
List of 6 British Ships Sunk During the Falklands War
https://historylists.org/other/list-...lands-war.html
I didn't realize the Brits lost ahole fleet in that skirmish.


Breaking News: Warships got sunk in a war.
 
Walter
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

When you fail miserably, start resorting to the putdowns.

It’s Mr. C’s m-o.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
-1
#33
Breaking news. The Royal Navy just sent a similarly under-armed Type 23 Frigate to the Persian theatre.

Warships gonna sink unless US fighter aircraft on Diego Garcia protect her.

Those things should sail in piars/threes for mutual protection.
 
Blackleaf
+1
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Breaking news. The Royal Navy just sent a similarly under-armed Type 23 Frigate to the Persian theatre.
Warships gonna sink unless US fighter aircraft on Diego Garcia protect her.
Those things should sail in piars/threes for mutual protection.

Usual guff.

The Iranian Navy is no match for the Royal Navy.

In a war between the Royal Navy and the Iranian Navy, there's only going to be one winner - the Royal Navy.

The Iranian Navy, as far as I'm aware, doesn't have any destroyers, whereas the Royal Navy has destroyers that are almost indestructible. They can shoot down objects heading for them that are the size of golf balls travelling faster than sound.

Most of the rest of Iran's ships date from the 1970s, many of which are British-made. The Royal Navy, though, is 21 Century hi-tech and powerful.

Iran should fear Britain sending HMS Montrose.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
-1
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Usual guff.
The Iranian Navy is no match for the Royal Navy.
In a war between the Royal Navy and the Iranian Navy, there's only going to be one winner - the Royal Navy.
The Iranian Navy, as far as I'm aware, doesn't have any destroyers, whereas the Royal Navy has destroyers that are almost indestructible. Most of the rest of Iran's ships date from the 1970s, many of which were British-made.
Iran should fear Britain sending HMS Montrose.

The Argentian naval aviators were no match for the Total Navy either, until ships started to sink. Then the British stated to remember "Ahhh, yes! Argentina produces more Formula One drivers than we do!"

Beware of assumptions. Beware of Hubris.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ob...s-1818181.html
 
Blackleaf
+1
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

The Argentian naval aviators were no match for the Total Navy either, until ships started to sink. Then the British stated to remember "Ahhh, yes! Argentina produces more Formula One drivers than we do!"
Beware of assumptions. Beware of Hubris.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ob...s-1818181.html

Britain has produced 173 F1 drivers.

Argentina has produced 25.

F1 is a sport created - like most others - by those clever British and is largely dominated by them.

I do have to remind you again that the greatest nation in history is Great Britain.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
-1
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Britain has produced 173 F1 drivers.
Argentina has produced 25.
F1 is a sport created - like most others - by those clever British and is largely dominated by them.
I do have to remind you again that the greatest nation in history is Great Britain.

Those Argentinian F1 drivers sank a lot of more of your ships than yours did of their's.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Usual guff.
The Iranian Navy is no match for the Royal Navy.
In a war between the Royal Navy and the Iranian Navy, there's only going to be one winner - the Royal Navy.
The Iranian Navy, as far as I'm aware, doesn't have any destroyers, whereas the Royal Navy has destroyers that are almost indestructible. They can shoot down objects heading for them that are the size of golf balls travelling faster than sound.
Most of the rest of Iran's ships date from the 1970s, many of which are British-made. The Royal Navy, though, is 21 Century hi-tech and powerful.
Iran should fear Britain sending HMS Montrose.

Make haste, Duncan and don't spare the hamsters! Get thee to the Gulf before Montrose ends up at the bottom, like an aquarium decoration.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48958359

Clearly, the RN is worried about Montrose' safety and rightly so.
She's somewhere between a patrol boat and a Frigate.
 
Blackleaf
+1
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Those Argentinian F1 drivers sank a lot of more of your ships than yours did of their's.

The British lost seven ships during the Falklands War, including an LCU craft. The Argies lost nine ships.



Type 23 Frigates are essential all-rounders, fast, adaptable and ready to take on tasks from antipiracy patrols to providing humanitarian aid.

HMS Montrose – the 5th of the frigate fleet – has a highly sensitive suite of radars which allows the ship to track aircraft and missiles up to 120 miles, and a missile system with a 20+ mile range.

She is equipped with sonar to detect submarines and a helicopter armed with torpedoes and depth charges, which means – if we have to – she can take the fight to submarines many miles away from the ship.

The ship’s motto is “Mare ditat rosa decorat”: the sea enriched but the rose adorns.

In 2012 the ship acted as the escort vessel for Queen Elizabeth II during her Diamond Jubilee visit to Cowes, Isle of Wight.

Before entering her most recent refit, HMS Montrose was awarded the Fleet Effectiveness Trophy for best frigate in the Royal Navy in 2014.


https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-org...3/hms-montrose
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

The British lost seven ships during the Falklands War, including an LCU craft. The Argies lost nine ships.

Type 23 Frigates are essential all-rounders, fast, adaptable and ready to take on tasks from antipiracy patrols to providing humanitarian aid.
HMS Montrose – the 5th of the frigate fleet – has a highly sensitive suite of radars which allows the ship to track aircraft and missiles up to 120 miles, and a missile system with a 20+ mile range.
She is equipped with sonar to detect submarines and a helicopter armed with torpedoes and depth charges, which means – if we have to – she can take the fight to submarines many miles away from the ship.
The ship’s motto is “Mare ditat rosa decorat”: the sea enriched but the rose adorns.
In 2012 the ship acted as the escort vessel for Queen Elizabeth II during her Diamond Jubilee visit to Cowes, Isle of Wight.
Before entering her most recent refit, HMS Montrose was awarded the Fleet Effectiveness Trophy for best frigate in the Royal Navy in 2014.

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-org...3/hms-montrose

They are undergunned, obsolete and out-classed by every other frigate on the planet (including ours) but other than that, they're nice little ships.
 
Blackleaf
+1
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

They are undergunned, obsolete and out-classed by every other frigate on the planet (including ours) but other than that, they're nice little ships.

The Royal Navy, along with only the French Navy, is a Rank 2 Blue Water Navy with power projection capabilities. However, the RN will maintain its position as Rank 2 in the coming decades whereas the French Navy is likely to lose that position.

The Royal Canadian Navy is a Rank 5 Non-Blue Water Navy, along with Saudi Arabia, Norway and Israel, limited only to coastal defence within and slightly beyond the EEZ.

Let's also compare the Royal Navy's Duke-class frigates to the Royal Canadian Navy's Halifax-class frigates:

Duke-class

Anti-air missiles:

1 × 32-cell Sea Wolf GWS.26 VLS canisters for 32:
Sea Wolf (range 1–10 km) or Sea Ceptor missiles (1-25+ km)

Anti-ship missiles:

2 × quad Harpoon launchers

Anti-submarine torpedoes:

2 × twin 12.75 in (324 mm) Sting Ray torpedo tubes

Guns:

1 × BAE 4.5 inch Mk 8 naval gun
2 × 30 mm DS30M Mk2 guns, or, 2 × 30 mm DS30B guns
2 × Miniguns
4 × General-purpose machine guns

Aircraft carried:

1 × AgustaWestland Merlin HM.2, multi role helicopter, of 829 Naval Air Squadron, RNAS Culdrose, armed with;

4 × Sting Ray torpedo
4 × Depth Charges
2 × General-purpose machine gun
1 × M3M machine gun

or

1 × Lynx HMA8, armed with;

4 × Sea Skua anti-ship missiles, or
2 × anti-submarine torpedoes


Halifax-class

24 × Honeywell Mk 46 torpedoes
16 × Evolved Sea-Sparrow SAM
8 × RGM-84 Harpoon SSM
1 × 57 mm Bofors Mk2 gun
1 × 20 mm Vulcan Phalanx CIWS
6 × .50 caliber machine guns

Aircraft carried:

1 × CH-124 Sea King
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

The Royal Navy, along with only the French Navy, is a Rank 2 Blue Water Navy with power projection capabilities. However, the RN will maintain its position as Rank 2 in the coming decades whereas the French Navy is likely to lose that position.
The Royal Canadian Navy is a Rank 5 Non-Blue Water Navy, along with Saudi Arabia, Norway and Israel, limited only to coastal defence within and slightly beyond the EEZ.
Let's also compare the Royal Navy's Duke-class frigates to the Royal Canadian Navy's Halifax-class frigates:
Duke-class
Anti-air missiles:
1 × 32-cell Sea Wolf GWS.26 VLS canisters for 32:
Sea Wolf (range 1–10 km) or Sea Ceptor missiles (1-25+ km)
Anti-ship missiles:
2 × quad Harpoon launchers
Anti-submarine torpedoes:
2 × twin 12.75 in (324 mm) Sting Ray torpedo tubes
Guns:
1 × BAE 4.5 inch Mk 8 naval gun
2 × 30 mm DS30M Mk2 guns, or, 2 × 30 mm DS30B guns
2 × Miniguns
4 × General-purpose machine guns
Aircraft carried:
1 × AgustaWestland Merlin HM.2, multi role helicopter, of 829 Naval Air Squadron, RNAS Culdrose, armed with;
4 × Sting Ray torpedo
4 × Depth Charges
2 × General-purpose machine gun
1 × M3M machine gun
or
1 × Lynx HMA8, armed with;
4 × Sea Skua anti-ship missiles, or
2 × anti-submarine torpedoes
Halifax-class
24 × Honeywell Mk 46 torpedoes
16 × Evolved Sea-Sparrow SAM
8 × RGM-84 Harpoon SSM
1 × 57 mm Bofors Mk2 gun
1 × 20 mm Vulcan Phalanx CIWS
6 × .50 caliber machine guns
Aircraft carried:
1 × CH-124 Sea King

Let's see how. Sea Wolf. Your ships carried those in the Falklands. Shows how old the system is. Fat lot of good they did, too.

The big missing piece of ordinance for the Type 23 is the Vulcan Phalanx or equivalent (like "Goalkeeper"). For the life of me, I can't understand why your Frigates don't have close in defences, especially after your experience in the Falklands. It would have saved every single ship that was sunk, yet it was left out of the design. Your Type 45s and carriers are both well equipped with them. Do is efery other major warship in the world. It doesn't matter much, anymore as the obsolete Type 23s are on their way to the Breakers anyway but it is kind boggling that the Royal Navy let them range the world without the most fundamental of modern defensive system installed on them. Why? Money?

BTW, the Sea kings are gone and replaced by what is currently (the crown won't last long) the most advanced shipborne helicopter in the world ... CH-148 Cyclone ... which is a brand new, state-of-the-art aircraft, as opposed to the now 30+ year old EH-101s.

http://youtu.be/TS8pSF-9zOw
 
Blackleaf
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Let's see how. Sea Wolf. Your ships carried those in the Falklands. Shows how old the system is. Fat lot of good they did, too.


BTW, the Sea kings are gone and replaced by what is currently (the crown won't last long) the most advanced shipborne helicopter in the world ... CH-148 Cyclone ... which is a brand new, state-of-the-art aircraft, as opposed to the now 30+ year old EH-101s.
http://youtu.be/TS8pSF-9zOw

Sea Wolf shot down five planes during the Falklands War. And I like how you ignored the fact British-made Sea Wolf is being replaced by the British-made Sea Ceptor.

The Halifax-class ships are armed with American-made torpedoes dating from 1963.

Quote:

The big missing piece of ordinance for the Type 23 is the Vulcan Phalanx or equivalent (like "Goalkeeper"). For the life of me, I can't understand why your Frigates don't have close in defences, especially after your experience in the Falklands. It would have saved every single ship that was sunk, yet it was left out of the design. Your Type 45s and carriers are both well equipped with them. Do is efery other major warship in the world. It doesn't matter much, anymore as the obsolete Type 23s are on their way to the Breakers anyway but it is kind boggling that the Royal Navy let them range the world without the most fundamental of modern defensive system installed on them. Why? Money?

Maybe it's cos we're all thick and we don't know what we're doing.

My reckoning is that the Type 23s don't need Phalanx because they have Sea Wolf and Sea Ceptor.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Sea Wolf shot down five planes during the Falklands War. And I like how you ignored the fact British-made Sea Wolf is being replaced by the British-made Sea Ceptor.
The Halifax-class ships are armed with American-made torpedoes dating from 1963.
Maybe it's cos we're all thick and we don't know what we're doing.
My reckoning is that the Type 23s don't need Phalanx because they have Sea Wolf and Sea Ceptor.

No, you're thick and cheap.
Sea Ceptor and Sea Wolf are no substitute for CIWS. They're perfect for shooting down helicopters. BTW, the Type 45 that just sailed yesterday to protect Montrose is equipped with two of them, as well as the more modern VLS Viper SAMs. Those old rockets on the Type 23s retire with the class ... museum pieces ...

The Mod 5 Mark 46 Homing Torpedos on our ships original design dates from 1979, not 1963. The Royal Navy also uses them as well as 44 other countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_46_torpedo
Last edited by Curious Cdn; 1 week ago at 09:53 AM..
 
Blackleaf
+1
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

No, you're thick and cheap.
Sea Ceptor and Sea World are no substitute for CIWS. They're perfect for shooting down helicopters.

Sea Wolf is point-defence weapon system designed as a final line of defence against both sea-skimming and high angle anti-ship missiles and aircraft.

The Phalanx CIWS (pronounced "sea-wiz") is a close-in weapon system designed as a final line of defence against airborne threats such as anti-ship missiles and helicopters.

In other words, Sea Wolf and Sea Ceptor perform virtually the same task as Phalanx.

Four of each of the new Sea Ceptors can fit into a Sea Wolf tube, giving the Type 23 excellent self-defence capabilities.

The Type 23s also have the greatest anti-submarine capabilities of any frigates.

Quote:

BTW, the Type 45 that just sailed yesterday to protect Montrose is equipped with two of them, as well as the more modern VLS Viper SAMs. Those old rockets on the Type 23s retire with the class ... museum pieces ...

HMS Duncan is a destroyer and a bigger ship.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Sea Wolf is point-defence weapon system designed as a final line of defence against both sea-skimming and high angle anti-ship missiles and aircraft.
The Phalanx CIWS (pronounced "sea-wiz") is a close-in weapon system designed as a final line of defence against airborne threats such as anti-ship missiles and helicopters.
In other words, Sea Wolf and Sea Ceptor perform virtually the same task as Phalanx.
Four of each of the new Sea Ceptors can fit into a Sea Wolf tube, giving the Type 23 excellent self-defence capabilities.
The Type 23s also have the greatest anti-submarine capabilities of any frigates.
HMS Duncan is a destroyer and a bigger ship.

The replacement for the Type 23 is the Type 26 and they are equipped with two Phalanx CIWs, as well.

The Type 23 is so obsolete, it's design seems to predate the system and for whatever reason ... cost ... engineering, the Royal Navy was unable to retrofit them. I'm sure that they would have if they could have. It is patently irresponsible, though, to send such an undergunned vessel into a war zone without some sort of escort (which the RN just sent).

Phalanx - 4,500 rounds per minute, aim is constantly adjusted by Doppler radar.

Sea Wolf, Ceptor -1 or 2 rounds a minute, suseptable to jamming and electronic countermeasures.

They do totally different things and recent RN vessels are bristling with Phalax guns.

BTW.,give it up. You're in way over your head.


p.s.

The Type 23s also have the greatest anti-submarine capabilities of any frigates.


Your sales brochure is a good thirty years out of date.
Last edited by Curious Cdn; 1 week ago at 10:07 AM..
 
Hoid
#47
This like the polish talking about which swords to give their horse cavalry in 1939.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
-1
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

This like the polish talking about which swords to give their horse cavalry in 1939.

This is a far more dangerous game than most realize. The Iranians are not stupid and the British are prone to hubris (and not for the first time in history) and this is a possible disaster in the making.
 
Blackleaf
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

The replacement for the Type 23 is the Type 26 and they are equipped with two Phalanx CIWs, as well.

So what?
Quote:

The Type 23 is so obsolete,

No, it isn't. It's no more obsolete than the Halifax-class - unless having a Phalanx fitted to each ship somehow makes them less obsolete than the Type 23s


Quote:

unable to retrofit them.

They were retrofitted with Sea Wolf, after they were originally built only for anti-submarine warfare.

Quote:

It is patently irresponsible, though, to send such an undergunned vessel into a war zone without some sort of escort (which the RN just sent).

Escort vessels like Type 23s don't need escorts, dumbbell.
 
Blackleaf
+1
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

This is a far more dangerous game than most realize. The Iranians are not stupid and the British are prone to hubris (and not for the first time in history) and this is a possible disaster in the making.

Yeah. The Royal Navy will be no match for the mighty Iranian Navy.

By the way, is the mighty Canadian Navy anywhere in the vicinity or is it still struggling to leave the Canadian continental shelf?
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#51
Halifax class was a geration newer than the Type 23 when launched and their weapons, computers and sensors have been modernized at a cost of billions. The Royal Navy had to divert the funds necessary for such upgrades into their carriers and submarines at a time of severe budget cuts and the old Frigates died on the vine ...old, obsolete, forgotten rust buckets.

The first replacement for them is about to launch. You will have fewer ships in the end.
 
Blackleaf
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Halifax class was a geration newer than the Type 23 when launched and their weapons, computers and sensors have been modernized at a cost of billions. The Royal Navy had to divert the funds necessary for such upgrades into their carriers and submarines at a time of severe budget cuts and the old Frigates died on the vine ...old, obsolete, forgotten rust buckets.

Oh, yeah, definitely.

Quote:

The first replacement for them is about to launch. You will have fewer ships in the end.

Well the 13 Type 23s are to be replaced by eight Type 26s and five Type 31s - 8+5=13.
 
Hoid
#53


USS Stark lost 37 men

Was equipped with BPDS

You cannot have that system turned on all the time. IN order to work it has to be turned on.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post


USS Stark lost 37 men
Was equipped with BPDS
You cannot have that system turned on all the time. IN order to work it has to be turned on.

They were complacent and not ready for the threat that faced them.

I think that it's a serious miscalculation to underestimate Iran.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#55
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Oh, yeah, definitely.
Well the 13 Type 23s are to be replaced by eight Type 26s and five Type 31s - 8+5=13.

The Type 31s may not get built. Their fate is up in the air. They're also pretty small and will not upgrade, very well which is the problem that the relatively small Type 23s have. The Type 26s are great but you can't afford to build many of them.
 
Hoid
#56
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

They were complacent and not ready for the threat that faced them.

I think that it's a serious miscalculation to underestimate Iran.

That pretty hilarious since there are many times and places places that a ship cannot have the bpds active but more so because Reagan decided to blame the attack on Iran instead of Iraq who actually did it - for political purposes.
 
Hoid
#57
USS Cole equipped with state of the art bpd was damaged by a small civilian craft because there are many times and places you can't have that system active

 
coldstream
#58
My guess is Charles will never become King. He'll abdicate prior to being crowned in favour of William to prevent the divorce, still an issue in the 21st Cent. as it was for Henry VIII and Edward VIII, from compromising his role as Defender of the Faith (going back to the original topic).

I think ElizabethR might be persuaded to hand on the Crown at 95, but likely not Charles, who she views as a clutz and a wierdo.
Last edited by coldstream; 1 week ago at 12:49 PM..
 
Blackleaf
+1
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

My guess is Charles will never become King. He'll abdicate prior to being crowned in favour of William to prevent the divorce, still an issue in the 21st Cent. as it was for Henry VIII and Edward VIII, from compromising his role as Defender of the Faith (going back to the original topic).

I think ElizabethR might be persuaded to hand on the Crown at 95, but likely not Charles, who she views as a clutz and a wierdo.

Why would Charles need to divorce to become King?
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
-1
#60
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Why would Charles need to divorce to become King?

You're supposed to have a human consort.

Horses won't do.