@@randlerobbertson8792 very true thats why 99% of the work force voted no ..not just about an independence outcome .but because we take pride in building ships for the Royal Navy have done for decades
@@Craig-pw8ce And they are very fine ships indeed! god bless the well meaning Scots, an asset to enrich the United Kingdom . You would be so greatly missed its pretty unthinkable, and those who advocate it are viewed with derision and utter contempt south of the border.
@HMS King George V ty shipbuilding is probably the last manufacturing of national pride we have left in this beautiful island of ours .we are currently working on the type 26 frigate protecting our shores in the future and keeping our four nations unified 👍
Always like to see a video on warships that starts off showing off the gunnery. I could see the AB's mind thinking "this is the 30mm Oerlikon, it blows things apart". Fair play to him.
1. Though fishermen were promised licenses under the brexit deal, wig had the U.K. and Jersey failed to deliver on 2. That sounds like an act of war, and a good way to get involved in a war with the entirety of the EU, because guess what, there’s a mutual defense clause
@@bikes02 cutting off exports isn’t an act of war. Honestly it’s criminally negligent that jersey is dependent on another nation for electricity. As is Northern Ireland. If you want people to trade with you, don’t break the terms of trade deals
@@bikes02 actually I’m Irish. I think brexit is great, Dublin got the largest share of banks leaving the U.K.. we just want the U.K. to obey the treaties they sign. You see, that’s how treaties are supposed work.
I know this is a WAR ship, and that is not a good thing but this is the sort of thing that should have lots of publicity because it generates pride in Britain's achievements and that is what this country needs at this time.
I find it weird how they name shore stations with the same HMS prefix as is used for 'Her/His Majesty's Ship'. Would be be nice if for clarity they used something more like HMSS ('Her/His Majesty's Shore Station).
It has scope for future upgrade, the main gun will most likely be replaced with a 40mm or 57mm bofors and the 30mm will get moved to the side, with another added to the other side. It may also get Martlet missiles.
It's mostly for presence, it has the 30mm cannon should it need to deal with an attack from such threats as pirates in the littoral zone, as well as the close defence miniguns and GPMGs. Though it's able to call in support from air assets should it require anti ship missiles. It's also got some modularity for equipping a larger gun, like the 76 mm gun on the versions of this class that the Royal Thai Navy ordered and the Khareef-class Corvette that the Royal Navy of Oman ordered. Don't forget though that the 30mm cannon and the two miniguns is still an improvement over the batch one OPVs, which only had a 20mm cannon and the two GPMGs. And the amount of frigates the fleet has will increase if the Type 26. 31 and 32 numbers planned don't get reduced.
@@kimjonglongdong3158 exactly, being green also means efficiency, which means fuel saving, meaning less cost and tax dollars saved, longer range for more combat effectiveness, more energy security and less reliance on other states.
bit of a change from the tribal /Leander and class 22 stretched frigate how will it defend a river let alone the UK. how good it will be time will tell
Well its not meant for high end warfare (I believe it can be up-armed in needed), but its more meant for fisheries patrol, anti-piracy, general patrolling Etc. This thing won't be fighting Frigates, destroyers and submarines, it'll be fighting fishing boats and dinghies.
Very good first try, but how about stretching the hull and adding a hanger for a small helicopter and mounting a CWIS in the bow and Harpoon and Seasparrow missiles, two triple torpedo launchers as well. Give her some teeth.
Its not necessary as she is an Offshore patrol vessel designed to conduct "constabulary" operations against lightly armed vessels.... This class of ships will free up the type 45 destroyers & type 23 frigates(and later the type 26,31 & 32 frigates) to undertake the high end combat operations
@@olanrewajuihenacho178 Somali pirates wouldn't stand a chance against this ship(ak-47's vs a 30mm gun,12.7mm heavy machine guns and 7.62mm miniguns). Also even though the river class aren't deployed to the gulf they are capable of combating Iranian FAC which are for the most part armed with 14.5mm guns (although I agree they would be vulnerable to Iranian frigates and shore based missiles). Finally in regards to Argentina the river class Falklands guard ship is there to stop foreign vessels (usually Argentine or Chinese) entering UK waters to fish illegally not to combat the Argentine navy. Even if there was a confrontation of some kind the newest and most capable ship the Argentines have is the bouchard class OPV'S which are armed with a 30mm gun and two 12.7mm heavy machine guns which is the same as the river class
So basically they can’t defend themselves from aircraft, submarines or real surface warships? I guess the only vessel they can fight are French fishing boats? Am I missing something?
Yeah, you are missing everything! It's a patrol boat not a frigate! It is not intended to hunt submarines or take on a surface fleet. They are armed to tackle drug runners, terrorists etc. Its more of a policing of uk waters type role than a war fighting role.
That's like asking why the new Ajax Scout vehicles don't have the same gun as the Challenger. It's for patrol and fly the flag operations, if there's serious threat of anti-ship action then there's always the option of sending a frigate or an Astute sub instead. Not every ship has to be armed to the teeth at every moment, and these have the capability and space in the batch 2 design for fitting a larger naval gun to replace the 30mm cannon, or adding anti-ship missile capability. If you expect hostile aircraft you'd send a Type 45, if you expect hostile submarines you'd send a Type 23 or a Type 26 once they're commissioned, if you expect to just "be there" and at the worst fire some warning shots at some smugglers or pirates then this is sufficient and can always call for backup.
@lazyshit67 to be fair sailors don't require the latest kit (in that particular area of equipment I mean, fireproof clothing, firefighting equipment and shipboard systems absolutely they should get the best), since they're most of the time using an L85A2 and body armour to mount a watch while standing on deck, they don't have such a requirement for the latest advancements in lightweight gear. As long as it works older stuff is sufficient. The Marines on the other hand get some sweet new kit cause of their potential for being deployed deep into any environment, arctic, rainforest, desert, so lightweight equipment and rifles suitable for marching long distances make mode sense as a purchase. Would be great to see some of what the Marines are getting influence the wider equipment procurement for the MoD though.
what's the point of these boats with their only armament being a 20-30 mm gun? even torpedo boats who are 5-10 times smaller have anti air and anti ship missiles like the german Gepard class. not to mention that this boat is the size of a corvette with 2000 tonnes and corvettes are quite capable whereas this just isn't.
Great ship . massively under armed though ... needs the thales gun / missile mounting recently tested on / for type 23. badly . top of the list on the next refit.
I was beginning to wonder in what way was the ship in any way green, until we actually got to the end part. That is quite a significant reduction I’ve got to say for a naval vessel. Now just applied to the destroyers and aircraft carriers please. That’s not the only thing they should be doing though. Like every future vessel, they also have to consider how the actual ship is constructed.
@@EvidensInsania No, they shoudln't. We don't really have the budget to afford two nuclear carriers, and having just one, as France has shown, is a massive let down for a country's naval capability.
@@kimjonglongdong3158 If money is your primary concern then realise that while more expensive to build initially the long term costs of nuclear power are far less than conventional fuel because of the incredible energy density of uranium. This energy density allows nuclear carrier to operate for YEARS at a time without needing to refuel. Obviously this grants them far greater operational flexibility and readiness and eliminates the need for masses of support vessels to keep them fueled. Nuclear power also takes up much less physical space on the ship allowing it to carry more aircraft, aircraft fuel, ammunition, etc. The decision to go with conventional power was done by penny pinching bureaucrats who are only concerned with their quarterly spreadsheets. Same reason they decided to also cheap out and not have launch assists so only VTOL planes can operate off them. For an island nation like ours and one that should be a top tier military power it's a sorry state of affairs that we skimped so badly on our carrier fleet.
@@EvidensInsania actually your point about cost is mute. While the cost of a nuclear reactor and its fuel is < 50 years worth of fuel, that argument does not take into consideration the incredibly costly process of a midlife refueling, as most naval nuclear reactors need one after 25 years. This, in fact, puts the cost of nuclear propulsion higher than that of conventional fuel. The same can be said of your point of support vessels. Even if the carriers were nuclear, the 2 T45s, 2 T26/23s and the solid support ships still need fuel (and any foreign warships tagging along too). Not to mention a carrier is pointless if its airwing doesn't have fuel, which again is resuplied multiple times in a deployment from our tankers. These two points are of course without mentioning that we haven't disposed of a single nuclear submarine to date (iirc), and have no real plan for how to do so in future, along with a massive lack of nuclear technicians needed to install/maintain said systems, with the ones we do have currently being busy with maintaining the Trafalgar, Astute and Vanguard subs, along with building and designing the Last few Astutes and the new dreadnought class. Oh and being bared for many ports in the world for being nuclear powered would be a bad downside for the small benefits it would give. Edit: I will however agree on the part of CATOBAR vs STOVL systems, mostly. The only reason I don't entirely agree, is because the EMALS system is still (again iirc) having major issues, and I doubt the QE would have been ready as she was on schedule in 2018 if we had gone down that route.
@@kimjonglongdong3158 Obviously a carrier group would still need supply ships but a nuclear carrier makes those logistics easier by eliminating it's massive fuel requirements. And like I said, it can hold more supplies for it's aircraft giving it the potential to operate for longer if there is a break in the supply chain. But at the end of the day while we obviously won't have the biggest navy I still feel that what we do have should be really top class. If you think the Ford class is too much to aim for then fine, but even the old Nimitz class is superior to the Queen Elizabeth. The desire of politicians to cut costs has resulted in billions being wasted on a substandard flagships for our navy. I mean they don't even have catapults. Easy solution for the proper funding of our national defence would be simply cutting the foreign aid which costs us more each year than the entire QE carrier project cost in it's entirety. Maybe India will have to scale back it's space programme, such a shame.
Dilly’s great!!😀A pucka, top, latter-day killick wren/female rating/Jenny/whatever👍🏻⚓️And let’s be honest, who wouldn’t want some hands-on care from her?!! Sick Bay onboard was only for scabs & jabs in my day, a place to be avoided like the plague (pun intended!). But watching this vid, it looks more like a hotel these days....yet another positive change for today’s Royal Navy!👍🏻⚓️
Don't need them anymore. Missiles are a lot more effective and can be used from much further ranges. The only thing the RN really needs cannons for are smaller boats and piraye craft. Anything smaller isn't worth a missile, anything bigger the cannon is almost worthless.
what's the point of these boats with their only armament being a 20-30 mm gun? even torpedo boats who are 5-10 times smaller have anti air and anti ship missiles like the german Gepard class. not to mention that this boat is the size of a corvette with 2000 tonnes and corvettes are even more capable whereas this just isn't.
@@swunt10 The ship isn't intended to be used for anything other than patrol of UK waters, fishery protection and maybe anti-piracy. It doesn't need harpoon missiles and a CIWS to take on those types of threats.
@@jamiegray6931 then why not buy a smaller and cheaper boat? also why would the navy be used for fishery patrols? isn't that police, border guard, coast guard work?
This rating is a clown this vessel is 1st to protect and defend and if that does not work it is then to destroy and or kill the enemy, absolutely nothing to do with being green?
Like you could do a better job? You seem too dim to realise you can protect, defend, destroy and kill and still be less damaging to the environment. they are not mutually exclusive. However the environment will kill us if we don't change our ways.
@@demportboy1584 Why would we go wasting a perfectly good length of rope? They've got life jackets on trawlers, haven't they? Just point them in the direction of Calais and send them on their way.
@@JohnSmith-nm8jz Why pretend that we like the French when they hate us, after all we call it the "English Channel" when they leave out the "English" part of it, so this is why I would give them a wet shirt every time.
Well it couldn’t hurt you know. Because of natural attitudes among military people, a lot of naval and other war machines are some of the most polluting out there. So it can’t hurt to try and make them greener as well, and it’s always a good credential to have as well around the world. Although frankly I would’ve preferred the idea of a hybrid engine over simply reduced emissions.
@@austrolouis124 yeh NO not good they even though about upgrading it to the spec with the 57 bofors and 30/40mms on each side then 8 rack ship missles possibly having a vls just behing the 57 mm
'Green' does this mean if the sun isn't shining it stops working...that sort of 'green' how about a wind turbine for good measure, or lithium batteries. Still, at least they've all stopped singing.
@@nowtelsematters ...said the drama queen, you clearly don't understand IRONY...you know..the bit about a WARSHIP being environmentally 'friendly'......clearly a soyboy!
A rinky-dinky main gun to go pew pew. The word "PATHETIC" comes to mind. USCG, JCG, Russian Coast Guard, heck even both the Spanish and Italian OPV's vessels are vastly more capable than that floating piece of junk. But it's "green".
If you're seriously going to defend Britain, they're going to use this silly ship? This will pander to environmentalist wack job and perverted tattooed women.
