back to article Newest Royal Navy warship weighs as much as 120 London buses

The Royal Navy's newest offshore patrol vessel, HMS Forth, is now fitting out in Glasgow – and we're told she weighs as much as 120 London buses. Forth, the first of the RN's Batch 2 River-class patrol ships, was launched in mid-August after being loaded onto a 160-wheel remote control trolley. She was then driven at a …

  1. Jan 0

    "River"-Class?

    If it pops its prow into the sea, how well will this perform against a man, in an inflatable boat, with a shoulder mount anti-ship missile or an Iranian style air swarm? Come in Lewis, over...

    1. Nick Ryan Silver badge

      Re: "River"-Class?

      My guess is badly. Given minaturisation, of both control systems and explosives, a relatively close launch of something distinctly unpleasant would be rather bad. On the other hand, the structure of these ships should be rather better designed to contain the damage - I doubt if they are built to deflect it in the manner of land based tanks.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "River"-Class?

      It's an offshore patrol vessel, likely to be coming up against well armed spanish trawlers.More gun boat than warship. River class = named after rivers.

      1. Antron Argaiv Silver badge

        Re: "River"-Class?

        It looks..."excited"

        1. Nolveys Silver badge

          Re: "River"-Class?

          It looks..."excited"

          It just woke up.

        2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
          Paris Hilton

          Re: "River"-Class?

          "It looks..."excited"

          Yes, I know it's a hydrodynamic thing and has very good reason for being there, but it's just sooooo dick shaped. And red. Most unfortunate. I wonder if our Olympictm swimmers could learn something from that?

    3. LeeE Silver badge

      Re: "River"-Class?

      "shoulder mount anti-ship missile"

      Interesting idea; the smallest anti-ship missile that I could find any details about is the Nord Aviation/Aérospatiale SS.12, which masses 76 kg = 167 lb, so just about shoulder-able. Trouble is, it has 650 mm span cruciform wings half-way down the body, just about where you'd need to balance it on your shoulder. Next 'lightest' AS missile appears to be the Sea Skua at 145 kg. You really wouldn't want to be behind either of these when fired as both use a pretty hefty initial boost motor at launch. The SS.12 is wire-guided but the Sea Skua needs a targeting radar.

      1. iainr

        Re: "River"-Class?

        Whilst not designed for anti-shipping the good old Carl Gustaf 84mm recoilless rifle is certainly shoulder launched and has had some success in the anti-shipping role against small warships.

      2. Bumpy Cat

        Re: "River"-Class?

        Any missile that is shoulder-launched can do no more than cosmetic damage to a ship. To properly damage a ship requires a warhead weighing tens of kilogrammes at least, and that's excluding the weight of the rest of the missile.

        To deliver that warhead you need a large missile, or a torpedo, or a small boat with a bomb (an IED torpedo - see USS Cole in Yemen). As soon as you start using such weapons you're getting way past the capabilities of insurgents. Even Iran's swarm tactics requires lots of money, equipment and trained people.

  2. ColonelClaw

    "The 1,600-tonne warship is now having her complex combat systems installed, ready for her handover to the fleet in mid-2017"

    Right then, with BAE Systems 'on board', she should be good to go around 2030. In Safe Mode. With an hourly reboot.

    1. Ledswinger Silver badge
      Flame

      she should be good to go around 2030.

      Don't worry. That bit about installing complex systems is just journalistic licence. Despite the opportunity to make this a seriously armed small warship, the MoD have worked relentlessly to ensure that in common with most other RN ships of recent years, it will be pathetically under-armed. So, no missiles, no decent guns, no AD radar, no sonar, no depth charges. Whilst it can land a helicopter, there's no hanger and not much prospect of regular chopper operation. Total armament is a couple of machine guns and a single 30mm pop gun. And the range is OK, but speed is PATHETIC. Compare capabilities to an Israeli Sa'ar 5 and weep at the ineptitude of the MoD.

      Some will say "it's only an inshore patrol boat". And they'd be right - at the moment, in peace time. But given the tiny number of serviceable big ships the navy have, and the fact that if there's a real war you need all the weapons you can get, it's yet another missed opportunity, and so slow and under-armed that there's no export potential.

      My guess is that the "complex combat systems" are two dry wipe boards showing how many rounds the machine guns have left.

      1. Korev Silver badge

        Wikipedia suggests that the River class was sold to both Thailand and Brazil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River-class_patrol_vessel

        1. Ledswinger Silver badge

          the River class was sold to both Thailand and Brazil

          The Thai orders weren't for British built vessels, just a licence on the design. The Brazilian sales were a fire sale of a cancelled order by Trinidad. All in all it isn't exactly a glowing commendation of the thing is it? And those were the earlier, cheaper design (circa £150-180m). The batch 2 vessels are reportedly £350m, and for a few pennies more you could have a Blohm + Voss K130. Which has more guns, additionally has torpedoes, anti ship and anti aircraft missiles, mines, and has its own ship-borne drone.

          F*** knows what goes through the minds of MoD ship planners, but the pea-brained retards have long forgotten that warships need weapons. Was the same story with every other class of warship the poor beggars of the Royal Navy have had for decades.

          1. Mark 85 Silver badge

            F*** knows what goes through the minds of MoD ship planners, but the pea-brained retards have long forgotten that warships need weapons. Was the same story with every other class of warship the poor beggars of the Royal Navy have had for decades

            Decades? Think again. Go back to about 1776 and look at what the Navy had and what was proposed. They eventually got what was really needed. Then look again around 1812... I could go on but it gets redundant. Probably because they like to think they're still fighting the last war when the new one breaks out.

            And so it goes....

          2. phuzz Silver badge

            "F*** knows what goes through the minds of MoD ship planners"

            That would be "keep jobs in the UK by any means necessary", which I guess comes down to if you think unemployed shipbuilders are more or less important than warships.

      2. Rich 11 Silver badge

        Fast build?

        Iain Stevenson, MD of BAE Systems Naval Ships, said: "For Forth to enter the water less than two years after construction started is hugely significant and sets the tone for the future of modern warship building.

        Less than two years for something weighing only 120 doubledeckers? It's all relative.

        1. Walter Bishop Silver badge
          Joke

          Re: Fast build?

          "Less than two years for something weighing only 120 doubledeckers?" or 198,414,000 freshmint toothbrushes.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        But good enough if all you're up against is illegal immigrants!

  3. Nick Ryan Silver badge

    120 London buses

    Kudos for applying the correct measurement scales... however is El Reg missing suitable displacement measures? Should we allow El Reg to hijack another measurement for this undeniably important unit of measurement? :)

    24 knots (arg, what non-El Reg unit is this?) compared to 20 knots... that's a fair gain but being the techo-geeks we are haunting El Reg, what gave it this improvement in speed?

    Also, that's one big bastard "hangar" (I don't know what it's meant to be called) where the pic is showing the ship coming out from, how does that compare to the airship hangars, particularly compared to the recent Airlander.

    Damn, I'm feeling curious today!

    1. CanadianMacFan

      Re: 120 London buses

      But is that the old London buses or the new ones? What's the difference between the two?

      1. Alister Silver badge

        Re: 120 London buses

        But is that the old London buses or the new ones? What's the difference between the two?

        About 6 foot 10 inches, or 14.8571 linguine

      2. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken Silver badge

        Re: 120 London buses

        Are the buses laden or unladen, and are they travelling in Europe or Africa?

        1. Alister Silver badge

          Re: 120 London buses

          Are the buses laden or unladen, and are they travelling in Europe or Africa?

          That's a bit hard to swallow...

          1. David 132 Silver badge
            Coat

            Re: 120 London buses

            That's a bit hard to swallow...

            A commendably swift response, but I fear you have tern'ed us off-topic, which is nothing to crow about.

            1. Ole Juul Silver badge

              Re: 120 London buses

              I didn't realise London buses were that heavy. They're hollow aren't they?

            2. Mooseman Bronze badge

              Re: 120 London buses

              An eagle-eyed response

    2. SkippyBing Silver badge

      Re: 120 London buses

      '24 knots (arg, what non-El Reg unit is this?) compared to 20 knots... that's a fair gain but being the techo-geeks we are haunting El Reg, what gave it this improvement in speed?'

      I suspect it's mostly because it's about 11m longer. Everything else being equal a longer hull is faster, hence a Batch 3 Type 42 could easily outrun an earlier Batch 1 or 2 due to the extra length (14m), the engines were exactly the same.

      Something to do with the wave-making resistance if I remember my degree correctly. Basically the ship's motion forms waves, the faster it goes the longer they get, at the point where a half wave length is the same as the ship's length the power required to go faster increases significantly.

      Disclaimer, it's been a few years that explanation may be over-simplified.

      1. seven of five

        Re: 120 London buses

        essentially correct (for displacement hulls).

        1. SkippyBing Silver badge

          Re: 120 London buses

          'essentially correct (for displacement hulls).'

          I was sure I'd put that proviso in there somewhere but obviously not!

    3. AS1

      Re: 120 London buses

      Might I suggest converting knots into an easily understandable unit, "the top speed is nearly seven Thorpes."

      The maths:

      Ian Thorpe swims 400 m in around 3 minutes 40 seconds (220 s), equivalent to 1.82 m/s or 3.54 knots.

      So a Thorpe is 3.54 knots, making 24 knots equivalent to 6.8 Thorpes.

    4. chivo243 Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: 120 London buses

      @Nick Ryan

      How many Bulgarian airbags is that? I seem to remember that being an El Reg unit of measure:-}

    5. Slabfondler
      Go

      Re: 120 London buses

      The new ship max speed is 0.0004 % of the maximum velocity of a sheep in a vacuum, the older ships at only 0.0003. What's that in Ssx?

  4. CanadianMacFan

    2 Years is Impressive

    Considering that in Canada it's been years that we've ordered ships and they haven't even started cutting the steel yet.

    1. lglethal Silver badge
      Go

      Re: 2 Years is Impressive

      When the design is already done and only needs a few mods, you can start building pretty quickly. When you design from scratch, it takes time...

      Just saying...

      1. Spudley

        Re: 2 Years is Impressive

        > When the design is already done and only needs a few mods, you can start

        > building pretty quickly. When you design from scratch, it takes time...

        >

        > Just saying...

        So buy a design from someone. The one from this article should do just fine.

    2. Darryl

      Re: 2 Years is Impressive

      We Canadians could buy up some of those old River class that the RN will be selling. I mean, it worked out so well with those submarines, didn't it?

      Didn't it?

      1. iainr

        Re: 2 Years is Impressive

        we'd want more than £1 this time round.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: 2 Years is Impressive

          Don't get ahead of yourselves; we can't even get ferries right here in Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Ferry_Scandal

    3. Lars Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: 2 Years is Impressive

      Two years is only impressive if you compare it to more than two years. Those damned words of comparison. So what are those two years compared to and why. Was the speed of construction important. My first reaction was that two years is a lot for a ship that size.

      I had to compare that with one of the worlds biggest cruisers, MS Oasis of the Seas.

      Length: 362 m

      Construction started: November 12, 2007

      Launched: November 21, 2008

      Weight: 100,000 tons

      Draft: 9.3 m

      Beam: 65 m

      Place built: Turku, Finland

      That is one year for 62 times more London buses.

      Completing her toke one more year.

      "MS Oasis of the Seas is an Oasis-class cruise ship owned by Royal Caribbean International. Her hull was laid down in November 2007 and she was completed and delivered to Royal Caribbean in October 2009.".

      Could it be that when a shipping company order a ship they want it ASAP and turn to yards able to deliver. Ships like that cost +1b$.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Oasis_of_the_Seas

    4. David 132 Silver badge

      Re: 2 Years is Impressive

      Considering that in Canada it's been years that we've ordered ships and they haven't even started cutting the steel yet.

      You've got at least one, apparently :)

      http://www.satirewire.com/news/feb02/warship.shtml

  5. lightman
    Boffin

    120 London buses

    How many cats would that be ?

    1. wolfetone Silver badge
      Headmaster

      Re: 120 London buses

      No more than 266,666.6666666667 cats, assuming 1,600 tons is metric and that a cat weighs the top end of 6kg.

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: 120 London buses

      "How many cats would that be ?"

      Inappropriate measure for ships. Ships don't have any feet to land on and it's not a good idea to drop them.

  6. CustardGannet

    "a number of modifications to bring them up to British standards"

    Pot Noodle dispenser ? Check...

    Marmite fountain ? Check...

    1. Inventor of the Marmite Laser Silver badge

      Re: "a number of modifications to bring them up to British standards"

      Dear Sir

      Thank you for the Marmite mention.

      Yours

      TI ot ML

      Armed with the destructive power of a brown squirt

  7. wolfetone Silver badge

    I bet it floats better than 120 London Buses though.

    1. M7S

      Re: I bet it floats better than 120 London buses....

      This is being built by BAe, given the difficulties encountered with the F-35 (and presumably from the Ae bit in their name, things that fly should sort of be their forte) if I were assigned to this I'd want to pack my water-wings the first few times at sea.

      1. Credas Silver badge

        Re: I bet it floats better than 120 London buses....

        The shipbuilding parts were actually inherited from GEC when it "merged" with BAe to form BAE Systems. They were originally Yarrow Shipbuilders, Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering, and Kværner Govan - nothing to do with the aircraft parts that came from BAe.

      2. Uncle Slacky Silver badge

        Re: I bet it floats better than 120 London buses....

        Officially the "BAE" (note all caps) part of the company name doesn't stand for anything - a bit like how "BG" doesn't mean "British Gas" and "BT" doesn't mean "British Telecom" any more. I suppose it makes sense seeing as how most of its business (and employees) are no longer British, and because it has interests in things other than aerospace these days.

  8. SkippyBing Silver badge

    Complex Warship?

    If BAE think an OPV is a complex warship that does explain why they've had such problems putting together the Type 45s, or designing the Type 25s, or walking and chewing gum at the same time...

    1. SkippyBing Silver badge

      Re: Complex Warship?

      That should be Type 26s not Type 25s... Although as a design study the Type 25 has so far got as close to being a real thing as the Type 26.

  9. rjmx
    Pirate

    HMS Forth??

    What happened to the first three?

    1. seven of five

      Re: HMS Forth??

      > What happened to the first three?

      BAE

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: HMS Forth??

      They where sailed backwards to Poland

    3. NotBob
      Trollface

      Re: HMS Forth??

      Maybe they coded in forth.

      IIRC, you can assign 4 to equal 1 in that language, so it works on multiple levels...

      1. channel extended

        Re: HMS Forth??

        Charles Moore must have taken the first three, and built this one.

      2. Vic

        Re: HMS Forth??

        IIRC, you can assign 4 to equal 1 in that language

        So you can...

        : 4 1 ; ok

        4 . 1 ok

        4 3 + . 4 ok

        Rather pointless, though :-)

        Vic.

    4. gaz 7

      Re: HMS Forth??

      Presumably a similar fate to the first four Babylon stations

      1. David Webb

        Re: HMS Forth??

        From memory, Babylon 4 went back in time taking the human commander who turned into a menbari to fight the war, thereby putting his DNA into menbari which when he was captured later on during the (other) war, led the menbari to surrender because menbari don't kill menbari... in other words, a time paradox where effect comes before cause.

        1. TheProf

          Re: HMS Forth??

          Do you have any information of HMS Terok Nor?

  10. Will 28

    So, what's it for?

    Genuinely curious about this. Why did we build this massive ship (contract stuff aside)? Somebody said it was patrolling safe seas, in which case, what's the need for it to be so big? Is it to enable longer journeys? So that it can perform better in choppy waters?

    Could somebody break it down into dummy speak for me please? About the level of a simple strategic computer game like "Aircraft carriers to launch fighters but weaker in direct combat, Destroyer class ships to engage in naval combat with big guns, Corvettes speedy but weaker, this 1600 ton warship for...".

    1. SkippyBing Silver badge

      Re: So, what's it for?

      Firstly it's not a massive ship, it's really quite small, less than half the displacement of a frigate.

      It's essentially for patrolling territorial waters (out to 200NM from the coast for the Exclusive Economic Zone, 12NM for more Sovereign stuff) so monitoring fishing activity, protecting offshore installations - oil and gas etc. stopping smugglers, that sort of thing. When they say patrolling safe sea areas, it's to make them safe, not because they are safe.

    2. Anonymous Blowhard

      Re: So, what's it for?

      I think "safe seas" means that no-one is shooting at you; 1600 tons in the North Sea will feel like a rowing boat...

    3. rh587

      Re: So, what's it for?

      Although it says "offshore", it's basically a coastal patrol vessel (for patrolling our territorial waters).

      They'll spend a lot of time hosting on-board guests from Customs and DEFRA, assisting them in Customs/anti-smuggling operations and fisheries protection.

      Additionally, having a few smaller vessels knocking around is good for training.

      After the last time they grounded a frigate it was suggested that there was a bit of a training gap - once upon a time we had lots of small coastal vessels, and young officers would get the opportunity to cut their teeth commanding a small vessel, before moving up to this sort of offshore vessel before they got a sniff at getting on the bridge of a larger frigate, destroyer or carrier.

      More recently we've moved to having fewer coastal vessels, whose operations are directed by aircraft and satellite intelligence, which operationally is all around more efficient - an aircraft can cover a much larger area than a ship and since most of it is empty, you're better off doing aerial surveillance and just having one ship which is sent where it needs to be (instead of lots of ships covering the area).

      The downside is fewer small ships gives you fewer places to post up-and-coming young officers for their first experience of command.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: So, what's it for?

        "After the last time they grounded a frigate it was suggested that there was a bit of a training gap - once upon a time we had lots of small coastal vessels"

        Wouldn't someone trained on coastal vessels be more likely to ground it when driving something bigger?

        1. SkippyBing Silver badge

          Re: So, what's it for?

          'Wouldn't someone trained on coastal vessels be more likely to ground it when driving something bigger?'

          That's like saying you should learn to drive in an articulated lorry because otherwise you'd be likely to crash if you drove anything bigger than a Micra.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So, what's it for?

      When Brexit is done and dusted, it'll be needed for the new Cod wars.

  11. earl grey Silver badge
    Trollface

    200NM

    200 nautical manatees?

    1. Uncle Slacky Silver badge

      Re: 200NM

      Oh, the huge manatees!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 200NM

      "200 nautical manatees?" No, numpty marineers.

  12. JaitcH
    WTF?

    Speaking of Meaningless Comparison Measures ...

    If these boats weigh as much as 120 London buses, how many OLYMPIC SIZE POOLS of water will it take to float them clear of the dock floor?

    1. Jan 0

      Re: Speaking of Meaningless Comparison Measures ...

      If you shape the pool carefully enough, a thimbleful of water would be sufficient to float it in*. I guess that a thimble is about 0.0043 Bulgarian Airbags or approximately 0.000000001 Olympic-sized swimming pools.

      If you really wanted to push the boat out, you could easily manage to float it in the volume of a British Standard Egg Cup (a defunct official British measure that predated elReg standards by a few decades).

      *I assumed that I could use a massive, but precise, 3D printer to create a boat shaped pool around it.

  13. Elmer Phud Silver badge

    Warship?

    There are football club owners who would regard something that size as a day-boat.

  14. GrumpenKraut Silver badge
    Angel

    119 London buses...

    ...plus one for phallic shits and giggles.

  15. Noth

    Could we please avoid measurements from the Sun / Daily Mail school of journalism catering to retarted? Olympic swimming pools and London buses... You can do much better than this, you know your readership.

    1. Solmyr ibn Wali Barad

      Heresy!

      Seriously - one of the most satisfying ways to cope with retarded units is to use them, invent even more, and crank it up to absurd levels.

      Even if those Sun/DM/BBC/etc hacks won't pay attention, it's still a good deal of fun.

    2. Nick Ryan Silver badge
      Boffin

      Pah! The daily fail and sun are pretty new and modern really, I wouldn't say that El Reg started it but El Reg has gone a long way to defining the standards:

      So, what's the velocity of a sheep in a vacuum? (2007)

      El Reg official units of measurement: Linguine, Jubs, Hiltons and all (2012)

      ...and no unit of measures would be complete without an online standards converter: The Reg online standards converter

      Now go wash your mouth our young man and come back when you've studied the correct units of measure.

  16. CommanderGalaxian
    FAIL

    Beware BritNat Yoons.

    Nice to see some BritNat misprepresent things with a classic bit of Yoon propaganda.

    The problem in the UK is that there are currently too many MOD yards and too few orders. So the money paid to BAE keeps English and Northern Irish Yards going just as much as Scottish yards. Still, why let facts get in the way of some bit of Little Englander bigotry.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So it's like the Irish Samuel Beckett class (OPV90)

    Except with a smaller gun and costing twice as much?

    1. foo_bar_baz
      Angel

      Re: So it's like the Irish Samuel Beckett class (OPV90)

      These patrol boats may be "warships" but don't seem to be equipped for war at all. A brace of automatic cannons and/or machine guns and that's it. Where are the depth charges? Anti-aircraft missiles? Torpedoes? Surface to surface missiles?

      1. Windrose

        Re: So it's like the Irish Samuel Beckett class (OPV90)

        Missiles? *I* want to know where the radar-controlled 18" guns are. Anything less than a full four-tower brace of those is a waste of time ....

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: So it's like the Irish Samuel Beckett class (OPV90)

        No, they aren't warships - the Irish naval service doesn't have any warships, just large grey boats with guns, apparently warships are harder to sink.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Shouldn't it be named Chinny McChinface ? Or would people think it's a Chinese vessel?

  19. Marketing Hack Silver badge
    Devil

    So no "Patrolly Mcpatrolface"?

    Or it could be renamed the "RN Nigel Farage" and sent to the Mediterranean to catch migrants trying to sneak over from Libya. Or heck, if you're going to name it that, give it a 120 MM gun and let it shell that migrant camp in Calais.

    1. Ledswinger Silver badge

      Re: So no "Patrolly Mcpatrolface"?

      Or it could be renamed the "RN Nigel Farage" ...

      FFS, man, get a grip! It would be HMS nor "RN", and by the conventions of the Royal Navy it would be called Farage. It's only you bloody Yanks that do that whole name-and-middle-initial shit, as in the USS Elmer D Phud (to be the fourth of the Gerald R Ford class carriers, I hear).

      Having said that, we should indeed have an HMS Farage. Launched by Sir Nigel Farage.

      1. gerdesj Silver badge

        Re: So no "Patrolly Mcpatrolface"?

        Mate, feel free to sputter ... but. You missed a wilful use of MM instead of mm. You slipped left and turned t to r (not -> nor.) You also seem to have misspelled "farrago" - multiple occurrences.

      2. GrumpyKiwi Silver badge

        Re: So no "Patrolly Mcpatrolface"?

        Winston Churchill in his role as Sea Lord wanted to name one of his Majesty's dreadnoughts HMS Oliver Cromwell to honour Cromwell as the great general he was. His Majesty was less keen on honouring someone who chopped off the head of Kings and turned it down, not just once but twice (just to make sure that Winston got the message).

        So the possibility of full names is certainly there. No doubt if I had a hunt through my RN history books I could find some other examples.

      3. Mooseman Bronze badge

        Re: So no "Patrolly Mcpatrolface"?

        by all means....if by "launched" you mean replacing the traditional bottle of champers with Nigel's smug twatface

  20. bep

    If your firth isn't Forth but one much further north...

    that's a Moray!

    Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week. Try the cod, delicious!

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    El Reg Units

    You need to have a strong word with whoever put out the press release and explain that the double decker bus is a unit of length, not of weight.

    1. hplasm Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: El Reg Units

      The double decker bus is a unit of Wait, usually.

      Then three turn up at once, like quarks. Strange, that.

  22. Archtech Silver badge

    How sad

    When I were a lad, the RN's biggest warship displaced (not "weighed") as much as about 2,500 London buses. Moreover, they had powerful weapons and were armoured more heavily than a London bus - which I suspect this isn't. When I first saw the photograph, my first reaction was, "It's an MTB!" Bit it isn't - it hasn't got torpedoes.

    1. Jan 0
      Mushroom

      Re: How sad

      > it hasn't got torpedoes.

      Not torpedos, but I presume that the helicopter might carry an atomic depth charge (assuming we only lost one in the Falklands)

  23. Milton Silver badge

    What's the OS?

    The most worrying thing will be if it runs on Windows for Warships. You really don't want the BSOD to pop up just as you're managing the "Fire Chaff" menu ....

    1. Mooseman Bronze badge

      Re: What's the OS?

      You appear to be launching a missile - would you like some help with that?

  24. Dave 15 Silver badge

    2 years?

    What were they doing for the 18 months after they had welded the metal together?

    Really, thats hardly impressive is it?

  25. Pedigree-Pete Bronze badge
    Pint

    HMS Forth being built in Govan.

    I would have expected Rosyth if it weren't full of HMS PoW. PP

    Icon: Friday!

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why compare with Weight with ...

    ... London buses? Aren't they mainly fresh air? Obviously not at the diesel emitting end

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019