British military command announces "unconventional" fleet modernization

The larger the ship, the easier it is to target. Launching a thousand-ton cruisers, like many other generally accepted concepts of building flotillas, is the destiny of the past. Britain must regain its status as a great maritime power in another way. It will be necessary to introduce new technologies and systems that will affect the usual ideas about the tactics and strategy of naval battles. This is the reasoning in the British military command.

The idea of ​​the need to change traditional patterns was voiced on September 14 at the University of London during the exhibition and forum on defense and security issues "DSEI-2021". The keynote speaker was Rear Admiral James Parkin, Director of Development for the Royal Navy. The military leader complained that the race to improve traditional weapons for the British Navy has no real prospect: the Royal Navy needs deep and radical modernization, but London does not have the necessary funds for this. At the same time, Russia and China continue to build up their military-technological superiority at sea in different ways.

According to the rear admiral, Britain must create a "fleet of the future" that can carry out missions using a conceptually different system of coordination and use of resources. What is needed, as noted, is an "unconventional" modernization of the military fleet.

For example, introduce the principle of a disaggregated network of combat units that do not depend on the types of weapons installed on board. Simply put - to turn ships into a kind of unified platform, delivering the necessary weapon in accordance with the specifics of the goal. A progressive system of continuous operational deployment (PODS) can become a tool for the implementation of this concept.

The essence of the system is in a set of interchangeable modules that are installed on board. These may be structures about the size of a current sea shipping container. Unmanned sea and air vehicles are supposed to be used as delivery vehicles. dronesintegrated into a single complex of control and management. Such a configuration, in theory, will allow optimizing forces and means without being tied to port calls.

By the way, in the United States, elements of a similar system are known as "Project Overmatch". The Americans are also working to create a computerized digital ecosystem that can manage assembled "disaggregated" ships - with reliable communication between decision-making centers and weapons of war.

Does London itself have confidence that the changes desired for the Royal Navy will begin to materialize at least gradually in the foreseeable future? At the same time, the level of applied technologies should be as advanced as possible. Otherwise, the concept of "Global Britain" may be in jeopardy.

Comments

[Sands Careers General]

British military command announces "unconventional" fleet modernization

Unconventional sexuality?)))

[hrych]

Quote: General of the Sand Quarries

Unconventional

RWD ships Actually, we looked at our long-handed RTOs, looking at our shock anti-ship missiles, and even guidance systems. We also remembered Calibers in sea containers. Learn the Lady of the Seas ... the former.

[Sands Careers General]

Yes sir))
How many suffer with their aircraft carrier, which breaks down more often than goes on the seas-oceans.
Sorry sight.

[Nikolay Ivanov_5]

In the West, philia is poking at everything unconventional, and even the modernization of this fate has not been spared.

[venik]

Quote: Nikolai Ivanov_5

In the West, philia is poking at everything unconventional, and even the modernization of this fate has not been spared.

========
But what a stream of beautiful and abstruse words: here you have both "... a disaggregated network of combat units ...." and "... a progressive system of constant operational deployment ..." and "... digital ecosystems ..." and flowing and flowing ... And everything in order to camouflage dubious ideas with pseudoscientific rhetoric .....

[Shurik70]

Old idea "Let's stuff more weapons here, but they are all different.".
And they tried to make such ships, and planes, and tanks.
The universal weapon never came out.
Let them try. It will turn out - a reason to take the concept to us. It will not work - a reason to laugh at fools who have not learned to take the experience of generations

[voyaka uh]

"It will work out - a reason to take the concept to us.
It will not work - a reason to laugh at fools, ... "///
----
Remarkable position The main thing is a win-win.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: General of the Sand Quarries

How many suffer with their aircraft carrier, which breaks down more often than goes on the seas-oceans.

All this is money, and a lot. The more "stars" the more money.

[spech]

The more "stars" the more money.

Following your logic, the land captain will raise the most of the dough?

[militarist63]

Yeah, modernization in changing the orientation of personnel ...

[tralflot1832]

It seems that the modular concept is failing everywhere. We got by with one corvette. So the Great Britan is in good luck, the rake is set.

[Cat]

It seems that the modular concept is failing everywhere.

So yes, and on land too. Once upon a time, the Americans developed the Army-2000 concept, according to which battalions became the main building blocks of the army structure. And already from them, as from Lego cubes, it was planned to make up brigades and other compounds, depending on the tasks. And everything would be fine, but they ran up against the problem of putting together subunits and control - the staff operators, who were well-controlled, for example, with armored subdivisions, had absolutely no idea what to do with the airborne battalion. In the end, everything was lost ...

[timokhin-aa]

Not one corvette, but a series of empty boxes 22160 in 6 units at 6 + billion apiece, one 20386 in 40, which interrupted the construction of corvettes for six years.
So it’s not so simple.

[Adler77]

Modular design ... in my opinion this is bullshit and utopia.
It is not enough to change the set of weapons, you also need to change the guidance and control systems ... and also the team that knows how to control this.

[den3080]

Quote: Adler77

Modular design ... in my opinion this is bullshit and utopia.
It is not enough to change the set of weapons, you also need to change the guidance and control systems ... and also the team that knows how to control this.

If it will be "drones", then maybe it will work.
In other words: do not change, but remove the gasket between the steering wheel and the seat.

[smart ass]

Searching for submarines and providing air defense connections are not the same thing)

[Cat]

Such a configuration, in theory, will optimize the forces and means

God on the side large battalions, not optimized.
Britain once furnished the whole world with the construction of the HMS Dreadnought, which at the same time made all other warships (including British ones) obsolete galoshes. True, then she was richer and larger. And now everyone, dry the oars, sir ... There is always enough money for optimization, but no more for superiority over any two fleets, as in the old days.

[voyaka uh]

"God is on the side of the big battalions, not the optimized ones" ///
----
Large - in our time means firepower, not the number of people
or the amount of equipment.
If a unit of XNUMX has the firepower of a division,
then it is a big battalion.
Could this be? - Of course.
A missile unit with Smerch-type missiles equipped with a seeker with a KVO 1 m,
and by means of searching for targets and guidance - drones - this
modern "big battalion".

[Cat]

Well, three people with one red button will be more abruptly than whole armies. The question is different: will Britain be able to overcome at least the same China at sea? And this is already now, and in the future the gap will only widen - and not in favor of limes.

[voyaka uh]

"Will Britain be able to overcome at least the same China at sea?" ///
----
Of course not.
Soon, no country in the world will be able to quantify China by sea.
The Chinese launch several ships of the 1st class a year.

That is why Britain and thought about changing the structure of the fleet and
changes in the types of ships.

[Sanichsan]

Quote: voyaka uh

That is why Britain and thought about changing the structure of the fleet and
changes in the types of ships.

sorry but this is just a scam for money which is typical of their taxpayers
if the country's economy does not pull quantitative competition, it will not pull qualitative competition either. yes, maybe they can make a ship that will be better than the Chinese one, but it will definitely be worse than 3-5 Chinese ships.
remember how the Japanese built Yamato? the most powerful battleship of the second world war! and what is the result?
if the economy does not pull, the world is so arranged that there are very few superpowers, it makes sense to keep an army sufficient to defend against neighbors of a comparable level and resolve internal issues, and count on an alliance with any superpower.
PS
by the way, the fact that modularity is a dead-end bullshit has already been proven in practice by everyone who has tried

[voyaka uh]

"if the country's economy does not pull quantitative competition, it will not pull qualitative competition either" ///
---
This is completely wrong. Countries with small populations will never compare in production with large countries, but in terms of product quality and competitiveness, economies can overtake the giants many times over.

If we go back to England, then their BAE systems will carry out development and manufacture weapons for the Pentagon, buying up factories in Europe.
The economy of England is going through hard times, but it retains its military potential.
As well as the Russian economy: it is in a deep technological crisis, but part of the military products continues to produce very high quality.

[Sanichsan]

Quote: voyaka uh

This is completely wrong. Countries with small populations will never compare in production with large countries, but in terms of product quality and competitiveness, economies can overtake the giants many times over.

I probably didn't put it quite right ... the transition from quantity to quality does not solve the problem. if you cannot produce the same number of ships as China, then your economy can try to produce better quality ships, but there will be even fewer of them than if they were like China's, and in the confrontation with China you will lose even faster. the higher the quality, the lower the quantity. much, high quality and cheap

[voyaka uh]

Nevertheless, this is the only chance for a small country to confront a large one.
To produce (or purchase and master well) equipment of higher quality,
than the enemy. Well, and train personnel, tactics, etc.
Without this, as they say in chess, "a disaster in the opening" is guaranteed.
A spectacular go-ahead at the start of a war can dampen a giant's appetites.

Alternative? Buy a million machines, distribute to the population and say:
"we are expecting a heroic guerrilla war from you."
Works poorly in practice.

[Sanichsan]

Quote: voyaka uh

Alternative? Buy a million machines, distribute to the population and say:
"we are expecting a heroic guerrilla war from you."
Works poorly in practice.

How to say. this is exactly what works. let's turn to the facts. Vietnam, Yemen and Afghanistan have clearly shown that this works great, of course, provided that the population wants to fight for the sovereignty of their country against the invaders. Do you have at least one example of how high-tech weapons were able to stop the superior forces of the enemy?
won Georgia armed itself according to NATO standards and how long did it hold out against 1 military district?
all these expensive and high-tech toys for 1 week of battles, maximum a month. than recover losses? nothing? what remains? to distribute vending machines? so can not spend large resources on expensive and irreplaceable weapons and invest what is available in acceptable quantities?

[voyaka uh]

"Won Georgia armed itself according to NATO standards and how long did it hold out against 1 military district?" ///
---
Georgia was not defeated.
The Russian army did not move on Tbilisi, capturing only one Georgian border town - Gori.
Why? - there was a "go-ahead".

Georgia, according to NATO standards, received only the simplest small arms. At the level of machine guns. Only two battalions were trained in tactics. One of them participated in the battles. And he managed, attacking at night, using night vision devices for each soldier, to cause the retreat of Russian motorized riflemen from two villages.
Only by massive mortar fire on the villages, the Russians forced the Georgian battalion to retreat into the forests with heavy losses.

And the Georgians received modern guidance systems for the gunners.
Georgia managed to inflict losses on the advancing Russian troops: in aviation, in technology.
Just an example of a successful "go-ahead" with the help of modern weapons.

[Sanichsan]

Quote: voyaka uh

Georgia was not defeated.
The Russian army did not move on Tbilisi, capturing only one Georgian border town - Gori.
Why? - there was a "go-ahead".

Georgia was precisely defeated. the army fled. the fleet is destroyed. aviation is negligible. The air defense was suppressed by the 9th and 9th in the sky of Georgia, no one except the aviation of the Russian Federation already flew. Aviation losses are 1 missile carrier sent on stupidity for reconnaissance before the suppression of air defense and attack aircraft that came into direct contact with the enemy. some attack aircraft from friendly fire, some from MANPADS. and these losses are far from critical ...
the troops did not go to Tbilisi, not because of some mythical "signal", but because of the fact that a completely different task was initially set, namely, the enforcement of peace, which was done. by the way, the forward units reached Tbilisi, leaving eloquent inscriptions on the walls of the destroyed Georgian military bases
if it is not "defeated" then Israel has never been able to defeat anyone even the Palestinians

Quote: voyaka uh

Only by massive mortar fire on the villages, the Russians forced the Georgian battalion to retreat into the forests with heavy losses.

that is, cheap mortars inflicted heavy losses on a unit in expensive equipment with high-tech night vision devices? Well? and what are the conclusions?

Quote: voyaka uh

And the Georgians received modern guidance systems for the gunners.
Georgia managed to inflict losses on the advancing Russian troops: in aviation, in technology.
Just an example of a successful "go-ahead" with the help of modern weapons.

sorry what? and in the six-day war, Israel stopped because there was a "go-ahead" from the Arabs, so it turns out? managed to inflict losses in aviation and equipment these "modern gunners' guidance systems" figured in history when Georgians fired on a sleeping city, killing tons of civilians. they did not inflict any significant losses on the troops of the Russian Federation. and in the end an example of what is this? it looks like this is just an argument in favor of my opinion

But in Vietnam, well-structured propaganda and guerrilla warfare made it possible to kick out the Americans who were technically superior to the Viet Cong! and numerically. let's not forget about the allies of the United States and the army of South Vietnam.

[voyaka uh]

"that is, cheap mortars inflicted heavy losses on a unit in expensive equipment with high-tech night vision devices? Well? and what are the conclusions? wink" ///
---
The conclusion is that cheap mortars could be destroyed in advance using high-tech technology. Which Georgia did not have. Didn't have time to get it.

Technology always wins.
The war in Karabakh demonstrated this remarkably clearly.
But they forgot quickly ...
Air defense, missile technology, armored vehicles and infantry were easily destroyed by modern technologies, like in a child's game.

[Sanichsan]

Quote: voyaka uh

Air defense, missile technology, armored vehicles and infantry were easily destroyed by modern technologies, like in a child's game.

dooo and several thousand losses of Azerbaijanis are all from joy. you understand, rejoiced at their successes, they fired into the air, and the bullets fell and killed several Azerbaijanis ... well, about 2,5 ... but then all the drones won and the point is not at all that Azerbaijan was crushing a small enclave of separatists with all the forces of its army not only technical but also numerical superiority ... and not only their army ...
you know, given that you always drown on the side of the opponents of Russia, I see no reason to argue with you few expensive and complex weapons are what the enemies of Russia need it will be easier for us ...

[voyaka uh]

"considering that you always drown on the side of Russia's opponents" ///
---
The opponents of Russia are jingoists, most of whom are
on the forum.
I am one of those who warn in advance about the dangers.

[smart ass]

The problem is that Fischer is gone.

[Cat]

The problem is that Fischer is gone.

The problem is deeper I think. No empire, no phishers. Accordingly, it is a little tight with dreadnoughts.

[Vladimir Vladimirovich Vorontsov]

***
Seven pounds (£) under the keel ...
***

[Nafanya from the sofa]

UK announces "unconventional" fleet modernization

Sarah West, 42, commanded the frigate Portland for two years. Her appointment as commander became a sensation in Great Britain, since women had never previously led warships, they were even forbidden to enter the deck of English ships. She was kicked out of the ship after claims that she was intimate with the officer, who was also married at that time.
In the course of the investigation, it was revealed that she had previously also entered into an intimate relationship with servicemen, in connection with which she was sent on "personal leave", and later transferred to work in an office.

[hrych]

Pretty one!

[tralflot1832]

Two liters of whiskey, okay !!! Only after her 18 years.

[hrych]

Fantozza's daughter played ... uncle

[tralflot1832]

This is the daughter of Fantozza himself, then I won't drink so much, but I think that that face is familiar.

[smart ass]

Two liters of whiskey and 10 years at sea

[Cat]

Two liters of whiskey and 10 years at sea

It will not be enough. Two liters for a whole 10 years

[Nafanya from the sofa]

This is not an Englishwoman, but an Italian! Mariangela Fantozzi.

[tralflot1832]

For an intimate relationship with her, the Admiralty must be awarded a medal, although it may be that she, as a woman, under certain circumstances, may be cooler than Queen Lizaveta herself. It will go with whiskey.

[Evil troll]

And what, have moved away from sodomy or what? Mess!

[Cat Alexandrovich]

Those. normal woman? Not lesbian, not ..... etc. Yes, and medals do not fit on the chest - they climbed up the sleeve! Really, Britain, the seas!

[Peter is not the first]

Those. normal woman? Not lesbian, not ..... etc.

So for this and was removed from office. If she had declared that she was "a person of unconventional orientation," then she would not have been touched, but, on the contrary, would have become an admiral.

[Rurikovich]

During the investigation, it was discovered that she had previously also entered into an intimate relationship with military personnel,

And what? At 42, a woman fire! She also wants affection And then the generals of their secretaries are allowed to chuckle (a man like) and the women do not have their subordinates ... Discrimination, is it a panimash ...
It's another matter that with a married ... I myself despise this

[Silver bullet]

Sorry for the English sailors, you can immediately see the woman-commander! Imagine how she commanded them in bed ?! - "John !!! Come out and come in properly! Will, what a ballet ?! !!! Play it hard!"

[Palestinian]

you 100 pluses. showed my friend the comment laughed to the position of the riz)))))

[smart ass]

Go back to dress up in pirate costumes !!!!!

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Nafanya from the couch

Sarah West, 42, commanded the frigate Portland for two years.

As a sailor, I had barmaids, waitresses, laundresses, cleaners, but what would I be subordinate to them ???? (God will tell himself).

[Petrik66]

I imagine a call to the captain for debriefing. Nakosyachil, you are called and ....... I'm afraid to imagine how the combat readiness has increased. The ship's officers probably threw lots, whose CU would screw up the most today, so that the cap would punish them.

[rocket757]

Otherwise, the concept of "Global Britain" may be in jeopardy.

They were specific, phantom pains do not let go ... The question is, in vain they wrote off / pushed the mayors into the far corner? They will crawl out from there and then they will show everyone about it, Shabtai chatting and all the royal army !!!

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

The military leader complained that the race to improve traditional weapons for the British Navy has no real prospect: the Royal Navy needs deep and radical modernization, but London does not have the necessary funds for this.

As the saying goes: "Everything you need to know about the Royal Navy" :)))
There are ambitions, no money, let's come up with a palliative. Alas, the fantasy was only enough for modularity ...
Although...
It is quite possible - this is misinformation. "Look, we are going into modularity - a panacea for the poor. Take an example from us!" That this is not a panacea, and not for the poor, it will become clear to someone later ... but it will be too late.
Or maybe just lobbying someone's industrial interests

[OgnennyiKotik]

Their fashion now is not drones / unmanned vehicles. They can accommodate radars, sonars, RTR, electronic warfare, decoys, communication systems, etc., etc. Weapons including. Something like this:

This is one of the parts of the plans.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

they are not in fashion now drones / unmanned pilots. They can accommodate radars, sonars, RTR, electronic warfare, decoys

And it is very expensive

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

And it is very expensive

The navy is an expensive proposition. But for the Zamwolts, it will be quite budgetary. Make multiple platforms light, medium, heavy. Standard enclosures, communications, sensors and control systems. Depending on the tasks, install the appropriate weapons.

The Turks, for example, took the cheapest route. We made ULAQ unmanned boats, they seem to be planning to buy 100-150 units. A more advanced project was announced, there are also submarines. Optimal for their theater of operations. And moving from simple to complex is more comfortable.

[Undecim]

Although...

Quite possible

Or maybe just

This is really misinformation. Only from the author of the news. Do you still not understand that such information on the site is constantly misinterpreted, either deliberately or out of ignorance.
Persistent Operational Deployment Systems (PODS) has nothing to do with modular ships, and the doctrine proposed by James Parkin is quite sound. You just need to look at the primary source.

[hrych]

Quote: Undecim

Although...

Quite possible

Or maybe just

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

I see :)))) But I don't have time to check every news, unfortunately

[DenVB]

Quote: Undecim

Proposed by Persistent Operational Deployment Systems (PODS), has nothing to do with modular ships

PODS are interchangeable modules that can be fitted to the surface fleet. Similar in design to a shipping container, the PODS create the idea of ​​a 'plug and play' warship and will enable Royal Navy ships of all sizes to be more adaptable and versatile when deployed.

From: Ministry of Defense

[Undecim]

You have the case when you look in a book, you see a fig. Improve your educational level. Such questions are not for you yet.

[DenVB]

Quote: Undecim

Improve your educational level.

Well, the same to you.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

modularity ... It is quite possible - this is misinformation.

Andrew,
Modularity is good where dimensions do not affect the performance characteristics of the weapon. If the "MBR" is only 1,5 m in length, then there is no need to talk about the range of this wunderwafe ... But the container GAK with GPBA may well be effective. What the Yankees have proved on their ships DGAO.

Take an example from us!

And on this feint we were repeatedly led. An example of this is TAKR. And with them our Yak-38 ... as an attempt to catch up with the Harriers. One thing is good that in the submarine all the chelas served with their heads and did not give in to adventures, but went their own way. Maybe that's why the fastest, deepest and most "loaf" machines were made here. But the noise was not particularly coped with due to the general backwardness of the technological base of our industry. But we have been tightening this up recently ...
But where we were traditionally strong (PKR and KRBD), we tried not to look to the west. Therefore, our anti-ship missiles have already reached the borderline.
So, hope for your uncle, but don't make a mistake yourself!
AHA.

[Momotomba]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

An example of this is TAKR. And with them our Yak-38 ... as an attempt to catch up with the Harriers. One thing is good that in the submarine all the chelas served with their heads and did not succumb to adventures, but went their own way. Maybe that's why the fastest, deepest and most "loaf" machines were made here. But they didn't really cope with the noise.

Or maybe it was necessary to make it quieter, smaller, and not the most "loaf", but just quiet?
And the TAKRs with the Yak-38 are the first attempt to create something in iron that could walk in the seas and fly in these seas? I agree that it is not the most successful, but still ...

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Momotomba

And TAKRs with the Yak-38 are the first attempt to create something in the hardware

The sailors wanted a classic aircraft carrier. But thanks to Ustinov, who believed that VTOL aircraft were our everything and they would soon catch up with planes with a normal takeoff in terms of performance characteristics (well ... they would come close) they were not allowed to build the classics.
And so yes, the ships still became milestone

[Momotomba]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

But thanks to Ustinov

Was the industry ready to create an aircraft for aircraft carriers at the time? Yes, and a classic aircraft carrier, I'm afraid, would not have pulled ... With such questions there were more than answers. At least the absence of mooring walls ... The most incomprehensible were, most likely, Moscow and Leningrad.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Momotomba

Was the industry ready to create an aircraft for aircraft carriers at the time?

Конечно.

Quote: Momotomba

Yes, and a classic aircraft carrier, I'm afraid, would not have pulled ...

You shouldn't be afraid. It just seems to you that an aircraft carrier is something incredibly complex and expensive. In fact, inconceivably complex and expensive - this is a nuclear submarine, here it is, in terms of technology, as it were, no more complicated than a spacecraft ...

[Momotomba]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

It just seems to you that an aircraft carrier is something incredibly complex and expensive.

As a child, he walked around Novorossiysk. And it seemed to me not that it was inconceivably difficult, but generally incomprehensible and VERY huge I didn't think about money then
And to make the aircraft carrier even easier and cheaper) and it is easier to pass by the Turks on the aircraft carrier))

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Momotomba

As a child, he walked around Novorossiysk. And it seemed to me not that it was inconceivably difficult, but generally incomprehensible and VERY huge

Of course! As a child, I saw either "Moscow" or "Kiev" in the Crimea - from the coast. And then I was stunned by the size, and when my father said that helicopters could also land on them, he left like a carnation - up to his hat.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

But a container GAC with GPBA may well be effective. What the Yankees have proved on their ships DGAO.

This is different :)))) Here we are talking about standardization rather than model. Modularity is when we would make separate containers with SACs, missiles, artillery mounts, anti-ship missiles, with an electronic warfare system, and would try to push this into the ship depending on the combat mission.

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

And on this feint we were repeatedly led. An example of this is TAKR.

Alas, textbook

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

One thing is good that in the submarine all the chelas served with their heads and did not succumb to adventures, but went their own way.

It's hard to say ... If our submariners followed the American path to the "hunter-killer submarines" it is possible that today it would be easier for us. And so - well, yes, 949A, but in order to apply it, so many stars must converge in the sky ... And it costs (there were such estimates) half of "Kuznetsov"

[timokhin-aa]

This is disinformation in its purest form

[grassyknollgunner]

You just need to hack the servers of the British Ministry of Defense, and then you will find out the misinformation or not ...

[Bad Pig (Ham)]

keywords:

but London does not have the necessary funds for this.

In short, the "mistress of the seas" has no money for the navy, the current Britain cannot afford it ... the newest wunderwhale "Queen Elizabeth" absorbs such astronomical sums that the lords are a little stupid ...
on this, the project began;)
but not the fact that the "high-tech, modular fleet" will be cheaper ...

[Dart2027]

Modularity is good in the sense that the ship is assembled in such a way that, to replace individual parts, you can dismantle the module and install a new one without a global alteration of the hull. That is, as a tool to simplify repair and modernization. Otherwise, no.

[Momento]

modularity is an attempt to save money. but the miser pays twice.

[Dart2027]

In the sense that they are trying to implement it, yes.

[bk0010]

The larger the ship, the easier it is to target.

Does it make sense to build ocean-going ships with a displacement of less than 6000 tons? IMHO, no. And in 6000 tons, you can now stick everything you need (well, except for an aircraft carrier or UDC).

[Yuri V.A]

It is impossible to fit everything necessary into 6 tons, so even specialized air defense or anti-aircraft defense frigates are already under 000 kilotons, and if you also add a sufficient number of strike missiles, which are not even included in the Mk8, not to mention lasers - one Peresvet the size of an armored train, it turns out a boat of eleven thousand tons.

[Max PV]

Such concepts in themselves carry contradictions:
1) The ship must be unmanned, which means extremely simple and cheap, since there is no possibility of fighting for survivability, and even light damage or a small fire can lead to its loss, at the same time, it must use various modular weapons, which means it must be stable and are insensitive to rolling, which requires a large size and the use of rolling dampers, which means an increase in price.
2) The ship must use a variety of weapons, which means either carry all the necessary detection, control and guidance systems for each weapon system, or place the necessary ones also modularly, which in the first case gives an increase in cost, and in the second excludes the rapid rearmament of the ship for a specific task and leads to the fact that expensive complex modules with equipment will be uselessly stored ashore.
3) Since an unmanned ship is very vulnerable, it should be stealthy, but unmannedness, especially when multitasking, implies constant transmission of data over radio channels, which makes the ship easily detectable.
4) Ships have to solve various tasks at a great distance from the base, but if the task changes? Then either ask the enemy to wait until the ship goes to base, change modules, or send different ships with different modules, for all possible tasks, which can be more expensive than sending a much smaller number of ships with balanced weapons and equipment.
And so on ...

[PPD]

turn ships into a kind of unified platform, delivering the necessary weapons in accordance with the specifics of the target. Tool

And how is it in practice?
An English corvette meets, let's say, a group of ships, oh, and the missile defense system is not enough.
So, villains who do not understand the correct values ​​of democracy, are we waiting for a drone to deliver the container I need from London?
Connectors - they will connect themselves and the systems will be tested.
If they don't rust, of course.
Well, accordingly, we need anti-aircraft missiles. No, well, why won't the enemy wait?
Here helicopters do not always hit the ground the first time, but it is proposed to carry the container with a drone without a port directly into the sea.
This is how many containers you need to rivet, somewhere to store, the name of the drone you need, to service all this ...
Money, say no?
Large ships will come out cheaper than this nonsense, but ...
Okay, gay people is that, there is a prospect of the emergence of a gay fleet

[75 Sergey]

Understandable why unconventional - because through the ass

[Evgeny Seleznev]

Everything is fine, the modular principle, in theory, gives great opportunities. But in practice, so far a complete failure. The Americans and our Mars floaters understood this, we hope. Best the enemy of the good.

[Sergey Averchenkov]

Provocative headline, but I don't mind. :)

[75 Sergey]

Normal, because what they offer is called through the ass, but that's their business.

[akendrama]

I also have know-how, unification, modularity, they all try to do it, but somehow they can't make an aircraft carrier out of a boat

[Prisoner]

What they just don't think of to make some easy money to cut down.

[Borisych]

The Britons need to make an aircraft carrier out of containers. An airplane in each container. Our utilities can help for a small fee. Garbage containers are not in short supply right now. British aircraft carriers need passion. They will not be able to rule the seas, because LGBT people do not rule anything, they only direct. But on the aircraft carrier you can tease the Russians.

[75 Sergey]

Each ship is equipped with a bunch of replaceable modules that will be stored in a specific place.

[zwlad]

Small-haired people are haunted by the glory of their ancestors. Only they forget that all empires once cease to exist. So the time of Great Britain is long gone.

[BABAY22]

To become the "Mistress of the Seas" again, the Brits will have to eliminate competitors.
America will go to war like 400 years ago?

[aszzz888]

The Royal Navy is in need of deep and radical modernization, but London does not have the necessary funds for this.

The former shark of the seas has no gold reserves! For greater importance, the small-shavens decided to look out of the heap!

[DenVB]

Here some people argue that news authors misinterpret the original sources. I looked at the original release of the UK Department of Defense, in general, shiza blooms and smells there.

Stemming from the design challenge, the future vision envisages drones based in the stratosphere to be launched at a moment's notice; uncrewed fast attack crafts housing smaller autonomous boats; aircraft carriers propelled by both sea-based biofuels and renewable power; and an underwater flagship at the center of the fleet.

Aircraft carriers powered by "marine biofuels" (really plankton?) Are more powerful than huge combat humanoid robots.

[alch3mist]

That's where the tsimes is:

and an underwater flagship at the center of the fleet.

The underwater flagship in the middle! Classic "... but you hold on there!"

[SVD68]

Have you really lived to see the "young school" in the British navy?

[Freedim]

Not a new idea .. We have long proposed the concept of "each container with
"Caliber" ".. during the journey to the place of shooting, you can catch a fish

[Metallurg_2]

And I thought they would just start to staff the fleet exclusively with representatives of sexual minorities.