Thanks Thanks:  47
Likes Likes:  97
Dislikes Dislikes:  9
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 257
  1. #51
    Lt General Barry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Rancho Relaxo
    Posts
    4,701
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoker View Post
    If the RN modify one or both of the new carriers to CATOBAR ships at this stage the changes and expense would be massive, no matter how much provision they will claim to have made.
    The new carriers have been designed from the start to make it possible to install electromagnetic catapults if required. No need to worry about steam generation, all they'll need is electricity.

  2. #52
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,026
    Post Thanks / Like
    Watched this week on the BBC last night, Michael Portillo was on with Alistair Darling, Portillo raised the issue of the carriers, pointing out that they were in his words white elephants, that were of no real use in modern warfare.

    Portillo also made the point that they were built in Gordon Brown's home town employing Brown's voters, a point followed up by the times today

  3. #53
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,346
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hi Stoker,
    Fair point but if you already know the answer, why ask the question? The largest one I worked on was a Frame 5.The rest, including marine duty engines, were up to 15000 shp.
    regards
    GttC

  4. #54
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,026
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldie fish View Post
    Portillo is, unusually, talking out of his arse.

    The scots are only one of the shipbuilders building the carriers. Appledore are building modules for it, from start to finish, as are Cammel Laird, in Birkinhead. Modules are also being built in Portsmouth.

    If he thinks flat tops are of no use to modern warfare, why are China so keen to get one? Why are the US investing in more? Why is every major power doing its damndest to stay in or enter the carrier game?
    For China prestige, and the US are questioning as to whether they need so many of them . Portillo pointed out that they are vulnerable to missiles, and deploying one will need escorts, which have been gutted to build them

    As with all defence spending there is an element of parish pump politics, building carriers keeps lots of people employed including those in Gordon Brown's hometown, but i think portillo made the point that the money could have been better spent elsewhere.

  5. #55
    Retired sapper smegers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Limerick
    Posts
    352
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldie fish View Post
    why are China so keen to get one?
    China has one. Its the sister ship to the Admiral Kuznetsov, Varyag.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_...strategypage-7


    View Larger Map

  6. #56
    CQMS warthog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    199
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldie fish View Post
    Vince is heading for the breakers.
    A sad, disgraceful decision.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12848226



    shame the Fleet air Arm museum couldn't have been moved to it,like the intrepid
    http://www.intrepidmuseum.org/

    park it up alongside HMS Belfast in London!

  7. #57
    Commander in Chief RoyalGreenJacket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Home of the British Army
    Posts
    7,756
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldie fish View Post
    Vince is heading for the breakers.
    A sad, disgraceful decision.
    i agree Goldie - i'd rather see the back of tens of thousand civvies within the MoD so we could keep a carrier but it was not to be.
    RGJ

    ...Once a Rifleman - Always a Rifleman... Celer et Audax

    The Rifles

  8. #58
    Amadan Orion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Osborne's Very Very Broke Island
    Posts
    1,259
    Post Thanks / Like
    excellent videos watched them this morning.

  9. #59
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,346
    Post Thanks / Like
    You know, it makes you wonder how the American yards managed to build their Essex class carriers without the benefit of computers, in WW II?
    regards
    GttC

  10. #60
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,815
    Post Thanks / Like
    Didn't matter what size H&W's crane is: Belfast is not in Gordon Brown's constituency.

  11. #61
    Commander in Chief RoyalGreenJacket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Home of the British Army
    Posts
    7,756
    Post Thanks / Like
    what are the cranes for anyhow Goldie? the new Royal Navy carrier?

    speaking of which - i was in the Isle of Wight all weekend and the USS George Bush Snr is anchored in Portsmouth - a proper warship which looked almost alien with all it's aircraft on deck.
    RGJ

    ...Once a Rifleman - Always a Rifleman... Celer et Audax

    The Rifles

  12. #62
    Commander in Chief RoyalGreenJacket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Home of the British Army
    Posts
    7,756
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldie fish View Post
    It's one crane, a Goliath, was put up in Rosyth where all the carrier bits will be put together, in a specially expanded drydock.

    Even though the facilities already existed in H&W.
    oh right, maybe its to do with cost and security of the facility aswell as the thousands (many probably from England and Scotland) who would be working on her in Belfast?

    i have no idea, unless it is purely political.
    RGJ

    ...Once a Rifleman - Always a Rifleman... Celer et Audax

    The Rifles

  13. #63
    Commander in Chief RoyalGreenJacket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Home of the British Army
    Posts
    7,756
    Post Thanks / Like
    fair one.
    RGJ

    ...Once a Rifleman - Always a Rifleman... Celer et Audax

    The Rifles

  14. #64
    Major General
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Any hope/fear the money intended to be used for the mothball and unavoidably payable under the contract could be paid to the same yard to build T26s.

  15. #65
    Amadan Orion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Osborne's Very Very Broke Island
    Posts
    1,259
    Post Thanks / Like
    UK MOD is not happy - their response today ....

    NAO report into Carrier Strike costs
    Following the release of the National Audit Office (NAO) report into Carrier Strike, the media have suggested that the cost of building the two new aircraft carriers will reach £10bn. This is not true. The £10bn referred to in the report is the estimated costs for the Carrier Strike project as a whole, which includes the costs of acquiring the Carrier Variant of the fifth-generation Joint Strike Fighter, the costs of building the two Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers, and converting one to operate the new aircraft.
    In response to the National Audit Office's report into Carrier Strike, Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox said: "I am disappointed that the NAO were not able to produce an agreed report. We inherited a massive Defence deficit which included a carrier project that was already £1.6bn over budget. The Strategic Defence and Security Review put this programme back on track and delivered £3.4bn of overall savings to Carrier Strike. The NAO has noted that our decision to build the second new aircraft carrier makes financial sense, and supports UK industry and the significant cost and capability advantages of the aircraft we now plan to fly from it.
    "Converting one of the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers to operate the more capable and cost effective Carrier Variant of the Joint Strike Fighter fast jet will maximise our military capability and enhance interoperability with our allies. Operating the more cost effective Carrier Variant fast jet will also over the longer term offset the conversion costs. In the meantime we have rightly assessed that we can rely on our extensive basing and overflight rights as we are doing to great effect in Libya.
    "In addition to the new carrier capability operating the fifth-generation Joint Strike Fighter, our vision for Future Force 2020 includes a Royal Navy operating seven new Astute Class submarines, the new Type 26 Global Combat Ship and Type 45 destroyers."
    The Ministry of Defence's Permanent Secretary, Ursula Brennan, said: "I am concerned that the NAO have taken the unusual step of publishing this report without agreeing the final text with me, as Accounting Officer, as required by their own guidance."

    I thought I read somewhere that HMS Prince of Wales was to be re-designated Ark Royal

  16. #66
    CQMS spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Looks like the government may have to reverse its decision to go with cats and traps.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17233867
    'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

  17. #67
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    moving rapidly away.......
    Posts
    2,536
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by spider View Post
    Looks like the government may have to reverse its decision to go with cats and traps.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17233867

    I don't see that they have any choice, IMHO they will operate either F-18's or a navalised version of the Typhoon, the F35 looks like a seriously dead duck. Getting rid of the Harriers and the Invincible was very stupid..
    "We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey"
    Radio transmission, siege of Jadotville DR Congo. September 1961.
    Illegitimi non carborundum

  18. Likes RoyalGreenJacket liked this post
  19. #68
    CQMS spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    The whole thing has the potential to turn into an embarrassing debacle of Nimrod proportions...

    Ironic that the ships can be built, but the biggest problem is what will fly off them.

    You'd be tempted to think they would have thought about and made concrete decisions first!!!

    Naval Typhoon anyone?
    'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

  20. Likes RoyalGreenJacket liked this post
  21. #69
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    moving rapidly away.......
    Posts
    2,536
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by spider View Post
    The whole thing has the potential to turn into an embarrassing debacle of Nimrod proportions...

    Ironic that the ships can be built, but the biggest problem is what will fly off them.

    You'd be tempted to think they would have thought about and made concrete decisions first!!!

    Naval Typhoon anyone?
    Err: http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation...et_723470.html
    "We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey"
    Radio transmission, siege of Jadotville DR Congo. September 1961.
    Illegitimi non carborundum

  22. #70
    CQMS spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    This Wiki article is interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofig...ed_Eurofighter

    If I am reading that right they are talking about launching using a ski jump, then recovery by arrestor hook.

    Given the problems with the US programme, this might end up being an option which will be considered further.
    'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

  23. #71
    gunner at heart Archimedes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    449
    Post Thanks / Like
    If the Typhoon is to be navalised it doesn't look as if it will be done via an India deal
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-16809532
    Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

  24. #72
    CQMS spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Latest on the unfolding debacle

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17437272
    'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

  25. #73
    Major General
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Have they given up on calling the POW Ark Royal.

  26. #74
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,715
    Post Thanks / Like
    i'm afraid that this is going to make Nimrod MRA4, Nimrod AEW, Tornado ADV, L85, FRES, and Astute look like smart, on-time and on-budget procurement triumphs.

    lots of issues going around the moment - the cost of changing the carriers from STOVL to C&T, the likelyhood of F-35B actually surviving US defence budget cuts (its belived that Cameron got a Gypsies warning from Obama about that on his recent US trip), BAES throwing a wobbly because they get more out of the B than they do the A or C, and of course the crabs trying to persuading the PM that he should go for F-35B because a) it means they won't have to spend much time at sea, and b) it keeps fixed wing aviation in their hands - if we go for two carriers with F-35C/SuperHornet/Rafale then the FAA will be the big, hard boys of UK military fixed wing aviation, and the RAF will get QRA and airshows.

    i'm still offering £50 on the carriers being cancelled in the 2015 SDSR (and us getting about £10m in scrap value), with F-35 being kicked into the long grass and eventually cancelled in 2020...

  27. #75
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,715
    Post Thanks / Like
    announcement on JSF at 1115 Thurs 10th May. looks certain to be the 'B' with no firm commitment on two in-service carriers.

    i've still got £50 on eventual cancellation when the public cost of 'B' gets to $150m a shot.

    its a frightening, alarmingly bad decision - and directly in the face of US advice on the issue. brilliant...

  28. Likes RoyalGreenJacket liked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •