Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CVF Construction

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Lindermyer
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Dec 2009
    • 408

    [QUOTE=19kilo10;1778491]. Two sticking points I would foresee with a Brit purchase: 1) The Brits love to mess up a good A/C purchase by throwing requirements in that are just out of left field, like different engines.


    Whilst I agree that MOD procurement is something of a farce generally.

    I feel i must make the point I assume above you are refering to phantom and Apache

    Phantom had to have Speys in RN service (Note RN) as they couldnt get off the Ark with the existing engines (Baby Carrier Syndrome). Hopes of increased performance at alitiude were dashed by the increase in area (Que the old jokes re Speying) - Not a random Left fielder that but bloody essential.

    apache - I wont even pretend to know why that was re-engined, perhaps as you suggest commonality, however the UK Apaches are Marinised and can operate with longbow attached in certain mountainous countries - other operators cant. Now whether that was a brilliant bit of forward thinking or sheer bloody coincidence is anyones guess.

    Note Chinnok uses the same engines as everyone else.

    So yes sometimes the UK does have odd requirements, but sometimes they are that, Requirements.

    If F35 goes To the wall - I suspect Hornets would be the first choice, i also imagine they will leave the engines alone - 2 types is ok.

    1) We allready have a European aircraft better to hedge the bets and have a US type

    2) Costs and servicing much bigger pool of aircraft for the Hornet so these should be lower.

    3) Buying Rafale will not help Typhoon sales - You just know it would be punced upon
    "typhoon is a 2d rate performer,Even the Countries that make Typhoon want rafale, etc) lost in all the bull would be the fact it was bought for 1 reason only Carrier Capability).

    That said i would rather rafale than any money thrown at Naval Tiffy
    DACT Proves nothing.

    Comment

    • imperialman
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Jul 2011
      • 20

      Originally posted by 19kilo10 View Post
      I dont know what YOU were reading. But US Navy CVs were first brought up by CVF fanboys such as yourself. I used the emotacon to make a little fun of a fine model. And I did have a feeling that the merest HINT of criticism against the sacred CVF would bring the bloodhounds running!:diablo: Feel foolish yet? And yes, the USN uses "real carriers". They are not frigates, are they?

      I never brought up US navy CVs at all. Again I think you have misunderstood. I am not claiming the US navy do not operate "real carriers" or that the QE class are superior, simply that the QE class are also "real carriers" despite your implication otherwise. Also, I'm a fanboy because I questioned your assertion that the QE class will not be real carriers?

      What was I reading? "Wow!!!! Add three cats, lose that front island and it would be a real carrier!" That sentence implies that due to their current lay out, you do not consider them "real carriers".

      "the USN uses "real carriers". They are not frigates, are they?". Stop being awkward, it was not claimed in any way shape or form that the US navy don't operate real carriers. The issue is not with the word "carriers", it was with the use of the word "real" with regards to the QE class.

      "Feel foolish yet?" Certainly not, no. Why would I?

      So to sum up:

      1. I had issue with your implication that the QE class won't be "real carriers".
      2. I never claimed the US navy do not operate "real carriers.
      3. To feel foolish I would had to have said a foolish thing, I have not done that.
      Last edited by imperialman; 24th July 2011, 07:17. Reason: typo

      Comment

      • kev 99
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Aug 2008
        • 1535

        Originally posted by 19kilo10 View Post
        I dont know what YOU were reading. But US Navy CVs were first brought up by CVF fanboys such as yourself. I used the emotacon to make a little fun of a fine model. And I did have a feeling that the merest HINT of criticism against the sacred CVF would bring the bloodhounds running!:diablo: Feel foolish yet? And yes, the USN uses "real carriers". They are not frigates, are they?
        Stop backtracking, you said something deliberately inflammatory, borderline trolling in fact and you're comments have been shown up as such.

        Comment

        • 19kilo10
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Sep 2010
          • 770

          Originally posted by kev 99 View Post
          Stop backtracking, you said something deliberately inflammatory, borderline trolling in fact and you're comments have been shown up as such.
          Says the rabid fanboy! LIGHTEN UP!!!!!!!

          Comment

          • kev 99
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Aug 2008
            • 1535

            Originally posted by 19kilo10 View Post
            Says the rabid fanboy! LIGHTEN UP!!!!!!!
            You're very funny, and rather silly.

            Comment

            • Pongoglo
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Oct 2009
              • 38

              Britain offers to swap US F-35 fighter

              Originally posted by redreidy View Post
              it may well be a blessing in disguise, forcing the gov to buy SH for the navy and a number of F35A for the RAF (i believe they want the first day ability it offers)
              Actually the RAF always wanted the C. Weve got a perfectly good fighter in the shape of Typhoon, which is actually proving itself pretty good as a mud mover as well. RAF interest as regards F35 has always been as a direct replacement for the Tornado as in deep penetration long range strike.

              Even when the RN/RAF were due to get the B for carrier ops, there was always talk in RAF circles of additional C's to fulfill this role, but the A was always considered too short on legs. Even in US circles the F35A is considered a direct replacement for the F16, with the added advantage of 'Stealth'.

              Anyhow it looks like we are still very serious about getting the C, with no real fear of cancellation on the part of MOD. This from today:

              'In a letter to the US Congress, the UK proposed that Washington give it one of its carrier variants (F-35C) of the F-35 in exchange for a short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) version, called the F-35B, according to the Defence News.

              The Pentagon described the trade as "mutually beneficial" and "cost neutral", but it requires a legislative amendment to the 2012 defence authorization bill.

              It requested the amendment in a June 14 letter from Elizabeth King, assistant secretary of defence for legislative affairs, to Vice President Joe Biden, in his role as president of the US Senate, the Defence News reported.'

              full story here:

              http://www.presstv.com/detail/190522.html
              Attached Files

              Comment

              • ppp
                ppp
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Jul 2008
                • 1331

                Originally posted by Al. View Post
                I have reservations about JCA myself but I think that you are being a little trite (funny but trite) with that one.

                The last WAR we were in was WWII. We have certainly attacked targets overseas (and often with strong justification) but not when said targets have threatened the British Isles militarily. That distinction is not just a matter of semantics; any foe which could strike the British Isles is going to be a genuine peer opponent and one aganst whom VLO might actually be vital.
                Such an expensive warplane is not really ideal for attrition warfare

                Originally posted by redreidy View Post
                did i say that we didnt have a first day strike capability? ermm no i think i did. if you read what i wrote i stated that i think the RAF want the first strike ability it offers. ie improvements over what current systems offer stealth and top notch EW suites ect.. so you can roll your eyes in another direction please.
                So you admit it doesn't provide any difference in the capability to strike on the first day then. Just to make sure we are all agreed on that, since I wouldn't want there to be any misunderstandings . As for my eyes, they roll where they wish, we like in a supposedly free society, and my eyes are entitled to their three degrees of freedom

                Comment

                • 19kilo10
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Sep 2010
                  • 770

                  Originally posted by kev 99 View Post
                  You're very funny, and rather silly.
                  I try....I DO try!

                  Comment

                  • redreidy
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Apr 2009
                    • 241

                    Originally posted by ppp View Post


                    So you admit it doesn't provide any difference in the capability to strike on the first day then. Just to make sure we are all agreed on that, since I wouldn't want there to be any misunderstandings . As for my eyes, they roll where they wish, we like in a supposedly free society, and my eyes are entitled to their three degrees of freedom


                    no we dont agree at all. we currently dont have a stealth aircraft with a EW suite as advanced as the one that will be fitted on the F-35. which will certainly enhance our first day strike capability. you may dissagree, thats your choice.

                    Comment

                    • flanker30
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Sep 2009
                      • 517

                      'First day of war manned air strike capability' is frankly a load of nonsense, and if that's the F-35's unique selling point then Britain has been sold a pup.

                      In the event that F-35s are used to strike another country, the path for manned aircraft will be cleared by missiles and UCAVs, or alternatively the target will be a third world player that does not have significant air defences.

                      The F-35 concept is already out-of-date. Britain - both RN and RAF - needs a mix of UCAVs and cheap workhorse fighters, such as the F/A-18 or Gripen.

                      Comment

                      • swerve
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Jun 2005
                        • 13612

                        We don't have deep strike stealth UCAVs, & won't have any until some time after the F-35 comes into service. If we ever have to fight a near peer, we can't rely on our modest stocks of cruise missiles being able to clear a path. They can only strike fixed targets with known locations, one per missile, & we don't have many missiles. Given our number of SSNs, & the other tasks they have, we wouldn't be able to increase the number of missiles usable for demolishing air defences very much, unless we accepted that it would be done piecemeal. That may be impractical against a near peer adversary.

                        Storm Shadow is good, & can be enhanced to give it more flexible targeting (that's being worked on, IIRC), but needs to be launched no more than a few hundred km from the target, which means putting launch aircraft potentially within range of enemy fighters & very long range SAMs.

                        The argument that we won't be fighting alone, & can always rely on the USA & its stocks of cruise missiles & many launch platforms, is an argument for abandoning our own armed forces & paying tribute to the USA in exchange for protection.
                        Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                        Justinian

                        Comment

                        • Geoff_B
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jul 2010
                          • 507

                          Originally posted by swerve View Post
                          The argument that we won't be fighting alone, & can always rely on the USA & its stocks of cruise missiles & many launch platforms, is an argument for abandoning our own armed forces & paying tribute to the USA in exchange for protection.
                          Plus its not guaranteed to get USA support and so the ability to act independently is still required even if its unlikley to be called upon.

                          Comment

                          • serge
                            Rank 3 Registered User
                            • Mar 2011
                            • 75

                            yes,where where all our allies during the falklands? i know its an obvious argument,suez crises uk & france? im sure more imformed people than i could give more examples,F35C,is it not always better to have something & not need it rather than need something you dont have? also I believe that the closer you get to a target without being seen is better than them knowing your comeing fom a distance,

                            Comment

                            • redreidy
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Apr 2009
                              • 241

                              Originally posted by serge View Post
                              yes,where where all our allies during the falklands? i know its an obvious argument,suez crises uk & france? im sure more imformed people than i could give more examples,F35C,is it not always better to have something & not need it rather than need something you dont have? also I believe that the closer you get to a target without being seen is better than them knowing your comeing fom a distance,
                              condoms, guns and F-35Cs

                              Comment

                              • Lindermyer
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Dec 2009
                                • 408

                                The Falklands was nothing to do with our allies, it was very much a national issue.

                                But to be fair our allies gave a fair bit of background support in 82, )although the mythical 9 lima advantage is just that - nobody was trained on the 9L and i believe all kills were within the launch parameters of the earlier model Winders)
                                DACT Proves nothing.

                                Comment

                                • Fedaykin
                                  Fueled by Tea
                                  • Dec 2005
                                  • 5295

                                  Actually we would have had a hard time without the discrete help made by are allies during the Falklands conflict.

                                  Whilst everybody goes on about Sidewinders and Satellite images the real big help the Americans gave us was not causing any issues over using Ascension Island for operations and re-tasking several naval refueling tankers to transfer fuel to the task force.

                                  Chile gave intelligence and radar support.

                                  The French helped block Exocet sales to Argentina and allowed dissimilar combat training with French types operated by Argentina.
                                  Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

                                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

                                  Comment

                                  • Lindermyer
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Dec 2009
                                    • 408

                                    My point exactly, I have allways wondered though had spain (who to be honest had more sympathy with argentina) been unable to intercept the attempt to bomb ships in gibralter, where would this have led.

                                    An attack on Gib would Technically fall under the remit of article 6.

                                    (Edit) Article 6 also being the reason the falklands had ****** all to do with our allies.
                                    DACT Proves nothing.

                                    Comment

                                    • Dave168
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Oct 2008
                                      • 57

                                      Fedaykin, i think you are giving to much credit to the Americans. Also as to satallite images, most of them came via Oslo.

                                      And as
                                      to the Americans gave us was not causing any issues over using Ascension Island
                                      They did cause trouble at frist.

                                      Dave

                                      Comment

                                      • imperialman
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Jul 2011
                                        • 20

                                        Originally posted by Fedaykin View Post
                                        the real big help the Americans gave us was not causing any issues over using Ascension Island for operations
                                        I'm not very clued up about the organisation or set up on Ascension Island but isn't Wideawake Airfield a British facility, RAF Ascension Island? I thought the base came under the jurisdiction of the UK? On what grounds could the US object to the use of the island?

                                        I could be wrong, as I said I'm not clued up. Thanks for any info.

                                        Comment

                                        • Stryker73
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Jun 2010
                                          • 274

                                          Just a heads up regarding construction - apparently the 8000 tonne midsection is going to be moved from Govan to Rosyth on a massive barge this Friday.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X