HMS Cornwall's final homecoming

Discussion in 'Royal Navy' started by MoD_RSS, Apr 27, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1.  
  2. :( thats very depressing. RIP one of the last proper surface combatants
     
  3. I ask out of ignorance, but what makes a T22 more of a surface combatant than a T23?
     
  4. He's believed the T22 mafia's belief they are "Her Majesties Light Cruiser Squadron" ;) .

    The only thing going for the T22 was their Flag embarkation capability; and the fact the Wardroom had their own galley was a bit of a bonus as well. In every other respect the T22 is as poor as the T23 for Surface Warface (and indeed Anti-Air Warfare).
     
  5. Ahh, I can see there might be scope for a bit of banter on this thread!

    Ironic though, that both T22 and T23 have more anti-surface capability than T45, as-is!
     
  6. Well something has to be scrapped in order to donate the Harpoon launchers and CIWS to complete Type 45's armament......
     
  7. Is that true, or just a cynical observation?
     
  8. Ravers

    Ravers LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    I hear the lads on 22s also have a floor buffer for getting the flats really nice and shiny. No peeling skin from quickstrip burns and scrubbing out on their hands and knees for them.

    Proper luxury. Like being on a cruise ship they are. Safers.
     
  9. I just made it up.

    However T45 is fitted for but not with Harpoon, the same for Phalanx.
    The ships currently being decommisioned will conveniently have their harpoon launchers to donate. I think the Type 22's have Goalkeeper rather than Phalanx though? Conveniently the Type 42's are armed with Phalanx.

    Its not unreasonable to think that the Type 45's will be armed with 2nd hand weapons systems salvaged from ships scheduled to be decommisioned this spring.
     
  10. Nothing of the sort - T22's look steelier, therefore are steelier. It follows on from the aircraft 'looks right, flies right' thing. PLUS bigger complement IS better for DC/FF you must admit? In fact bigger overall is better for soaking damage, PLUS separating weapons systems does mean not everything gets knocked out with one hit for'ard of the bridge....

    see, I do have SOME reasons ;)


    PS. I was once told by a Merlin Obs that T22's had a limited armour belt? On a scale of 1-10 how much shit was he talking?
     
  11. Anti-ship missiles looking for a nice radar cross-section to lock onto would also agree that bigger is better! ;-)
     
  12. if 10 was talking out of his hoop, about 20? I mean, he was a Merlin Obs; they can't land on a T22, I doubt he would have spent any time on them (unless he did IST on one) and anyway, he was a WAFU, he probably got confused when having to talk about the Grey Funnel Line...

    Yes, your reasons do make sense, pity the kit was pretty arse, the extra manpower was required because the kit was arse (you should've seen the size of a steaming watch across all the Dept's, it was huge, let alone the bollocks outstations at Action), and I would contend that while a Batch 3 might have looked steely, the B1&2 looked appalling.

    Anyway, steeliness doesn't save lives, unlike allyness....
     
  13. good point well made
     
  14. Not so long ago the Telegraph was saying that Cornwall and Cumberland were being given a stay of execution because of Libya (mainly because of their C3 capabilitie). Bit of a pisser if you're coming back from deployment and Dangerous Dave decides that you will stay deployed indefinitely....