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
  • John K
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jul 2010
    • 311

    We haven't had an empire for quite some time, I wonder why it is our responsibility to educate the children of Africa?

    Comment

    • Liger30
      Armed Forces supporter
      • Jul 2010
      • 901

      Originally posted by John K View Post
      We haven't had an empire for quite some time, I wonder why it is our responsibility to educate the children of Africa?
      It is not our responsibility.

      Normally, it is the Guardian who would suggest such demented ideas, like a recent article that horrified me, that suggested that cutting the Armed Forces altogether would end the economic crisis and do only good and make the Uk a sort of fairy laidy that the whole world would admire.
      Epic bull****.

      Not to point out that such a proposal would change 300.000 servicemen in unemployed, welfare-backed people (too easy to forget that soldiers ARE WORKERS), add to that all the civil servants and stuff, other 300.000 job losses in the industry, and the death of the last productive branch of british industry left, the Defence sector, which moves as much as 35 billions every year.

      I wonder what kind of economy system the Guardian dreams for the Uk... Save for Rolls Royce, what globally-relevant industry is left in the country if we exclude defence?
      Shipbuilding. Nope. South Korea's domain.
      Cars? Let's not joke. Aston Martin is awesome, but it is not the few hundred supercars which move an industry.
      Computers...? Not really.

      What scares me is that there's people WRITING, READING AND BELIEVING such idiocies.
      "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

      Comment

      • Liger30
        Armed Forces supporter
        • Jul 2010
        • 901

        Originally posted by Stan hyd View Post
        It comes down to parking spots.

        The British CVF's are never going to have to worry about this we never load out a carrier the way it should be. Still want it to have emals and have the following on board at all times (government directive if needed) 33 F-35C 3 Hawkeye and 4 Merlins. Gimmie that and you would have one happy camper. Sod strike carrier I want fleet carrier with the ability to cross deck with US and French Carriers.
        I don't think it is even really about parking spots... A single island would be larger than any of the two, so the difference wouldn't be that serious.
        As amazing as it may seem, the double-island concept is a novelty that had never before come out.

        But you know, there's even been someone who proposed building the island in the MIDDLE of the flight deck, and have two runways on the sides of it, converging in a single sky jump. Unbelievable, yet it happened...

        As to the rest, i'd be glad to have a CVF at sea all the time, full loaded with its own airwing. But the UK is not going to have such luxury... and what matters is to be able to do it when needed. We'll have to be happy with that.
        "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

        Comment

        • Jonesy
          Neo-conversative
          • Jan 2000
          • 5097

          Originally posted by Stan hyd View Post
          Sod strike carrier I want fleet carrier with the ability to cross deck with US and French Carriers.
          Why?. There isn't a credible blue water threat out there and none visible on the horizon for a more than a decade beyond the ships in service date?!. The decision to have the ships flexible and able to be updated with EMALS and a CATOBAR airgroup is inherently wise, but, really is all thats needed.

          Lets let the Yanks get a few years of operational experience with EMCAT technology before we go for a solution, and an airgroup, that we have no credible need for!.

          If the Chinese decide that mere economic hegemony is boring them and start shipbuilding for conquest we would have plenty of time to refit the carriers with the proven (by then) EM technology, pass the jumpjets to the light blue, get the stovies going through the USN deck quals course and get back into blue water sea control with appropriate air groups.

          If the global threat scenario is that serious it's even possible that the mandarins would have funded such activities!. Right now its money that can be put to better use!.

          Comment

          • Liger30
            Armed Forces supporter
            • Jul 2010
            • 901

            Originally posted by swerve View Post
            1. I've not been optimistic 'at all costs'. I've merely pointed out facts.
            2. Exactly. It's fiction, for the sake of emotional effect. It has no relevance to any comparison of capabilities or analysis of likely outcomes.
            3. Yes, but that was in completely different circumstances: total war, where national survival was at stake. The circumstances of the ceasefire & handover of the fleet was also completely different. German armies did not surrender. The fleet was handed over as a guarantee of compliance, & an inducement to stop the Allies advancing. This is a different scenario, where there is no possibility of Argentinean forces continuing to advance. Again, it is not relevant.
            4. No such assumption has been made. What has been assumed (& perfectly reasonably) is that Argentinean air attacks would be far less effective than in 1982, & there are good reasons for that:
            - Argentina has fewer combat aircraft than in 1982
            - those aircraft are only slightly better than in 1982
            - their weapons are barely better than in 1982 - in most cases no better.
            - the RN has far better SAMs (including greatly improved & mature Seawolf, vs brand new & still not fully debugged Seawolf & Seacat in 1982) & radars now
            - the RN has far better defences against anti-ship missiles than in 1982, both soft-kill & CIWS
            - the RN has some completely new abilities, e.g. shipborne AEW
            - almost all the RNs ships have been designed since 1982, taking into account the lessons of that war

            Oh yes, & there's a fully manned military air base on the Falklands, with Typhoons & hardened shelters, which the RAF can fly straight into from Ascension.

            Setting bomb fuses correctly won't be enough to make up for that. The balance has shifted against Argentina.
            Look, i totally agree with you and your facts, you know. For one, i'm very fond of the capabilities of the RN ships, and know these as well as you can know them without being in service on the ships.

            But, there are problems too. The fleet would be far more sure with Sea Harriers with AMRAAMs still covering it from above.
            The numbers of available ships has drastically gone down, and the SSN force is going to get awfully small.

            And at the moment, the fleet is in an historical low about readiness for a "true" war: Daring is still in trial and pretty much unarmed.
            Just 5 old Type 42 are left in line, and as many as 3 have had their Sea Dart system removed as cost saving measure.
            Invincible goes out definitively this year... (hopefully not scrapped but changed in a museum, it would be a crime dismantling Her)
            This leaves the fleet actually vulnerable at the trial of truth: there's not much available for proper air defence right now.
            The Type 22 may be retired earlier than planned to save money, and we'll know this from the SDR. Seriously, it would be the easier cut to save some from the navy's budget, and they may be tempted to go this way.
            Phalanx is definitely NOT on every ship... not even on Daring, yet.

            Numbers aren't all, but they matter.
            How many Type 42 would be able to sail south for a crisis now...? 2, perhaps 3 at the most.
            They could give good cover, but JUST in a certain area.

            Problems do exist. But i'm sorry if i got the wrong concept out, i know the navy has far better kit than it had back then. And i'm the happier about it. Pretty much every service does... But numbers are a major issue.
            Argies have less planes, but the RN has less ships too. That is a worry.
            "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

            Comment

            • PMN1
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Aug 2006
              • 339

              Originally posted by Grim901 View Post
              I've always liked the design too. I wonder if there are any downsides to it though. The French and Americans seem to choose between either better flight control or better ship control with their island placements, so it makes me wonder why they've never tried the 2 island design. Is it due to downsides or have they just decided against it/not bothered?
              The USN did with its 1945 Fleet Carrier design.



              The abandoned islands altogether then came back to a single island.

              Comment

              • harryRIEDL
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Jan 2006
                • 375

                Originally posted by PMN1 View Post
                The USN did with its 1945 Fleet Carrier design.



                The abandoned islands altogether then came back to a single island.
                as did the 1952 carrier, and early drafts of CVA-01 before they were merged. I don't know about the Malta drafts. I think the main drawback of twin islands was that the Steam Turbine trunking meant that though the islands were smaller they had a lot less space than a bigger island with space for the trunking, and C&C required bigger islands.

                Also although it was widely reported ive seen precious little evidence of 3 T-42 lacking active sea dart systems of the 5 remaining vessels. Temporarily inactive if their going hunting for drug runners is understandable but with the possibility of making the system active if needs be is another matter.
                Last edited by harryRIEDL; 12th July 2010, 19:52.
                To Be or not TO be That is The Question you all should know the writer of that quote

                always look on the bright side of life monty python

                Comment

                • pjhydro
                  Rank 4 Registered User
                  • Apr 2009
                  • 886

                  Originally posted by John K View Post
                  We haven't had an empire for quite some time, I wonder why it is our responsibility to educate the children of Africa?
                  Because we spent the best part of four centries asset stripping the continent for our own benefit? because the long term wealth of the UK (and much of Europe and the USA) is built on the foundation of Trans-atlantic slavery? Because we are decent human beings who realise that the state of Africa is a stain on the world especially given that its the closest continent to Western Europe? Because helping the poorest nations to educate is the best way of lifting them out of poverty and that is also one of the best ways of keeping the peace....having spent some of my career trying to educate African children I can assure you its a very worth while and much needed enterprise....BUT we digress, back the QEs....

                  Comment

                  • pjhydro
                    Rank 4 Registered User
                    • Apr 2009
                    • 886

                    Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                    Look, i totally agree with you and your facts, you know. For one, i'm very fond of the capabilities of the RN ships, and know these as well as you can know them without being in service on the ships.

                    But, there are problems too. The fleet would be far more sure with Sea Harriers with AMRAAMs still covering it from above.
                    The numbers of available ships has drastically gone down, and the SSN force is going to get awfully small.

                    And at the moment, the fleet is in an historical low about readiness for a "true" war: Daring is still in trial and pretty much unarmed.
                    Just 5 old Type 42 are left in line, and as many as 3 have had their Sea Dart system removed as cost saving measure.
                    Invincible goes out definitively this year... (hopefully not scrapped but changed in a museum, it would be a crime dismantling Her)
                    This leaves the fleet actually vulnerable at the trial of truth: there's not much available for proper air defence right now.
                    The Type 22 may be retired earlier than planned to save money, and we'll know this from the SDR. Seriously, it would be the easier cut to save some from the navy's budget, and they may be tempted to go this way.
                    Phalanx is definitely NOT on every ship... not even on Daring, yet.

                    Numbers aren't all, but they matter.
                    How many Type 42 would be able to sail south for a crisis now...? 2, perhaps 3 at the most.
                    They could give good cover, but JUST in a certain area.

                    Problems do exist. But i'm sorry if i got the wrong concept out, i know the navy has far better kit than it had back then. And i'm the happier about it. Pretty much every service does... But numbers are a major issue.
                    Argies have less planes, but the RN has less ships too. That is a worry.
                    There isn't going to be a second Falklands war. We are not about to fight Iran (the Israelis, Saudis and the US will beat us to that one), we are certainly not going to fight the Chinese or the Soviets, sorry Russians, anytime this side of hell freezing over so I would suggest we don't have to sweat, "there will be no war tomorrow" to paraphrase...

                    Comment

                    • Grim901
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • May 2009
                      • 1143

                      And just to put one final nail in the coffin of Liger's worries for the fleet, with the recent successful firings of Sea Viper the first 2 T45's could go from unarmed to world class air defence asset in however long would be needed to prepare a taskforce.

                      In a Falklands situation I wouldn't be too worried about SSN numbers either, 1 was enough to put an entire nations fleet into port last time, so 1-2 with the fleet this time and one demonstation that they're there would do the trick again probably. Although generally i'd definitely feel better if they had 8-10 SSNs. The last SDR set a floor around there didn't it?

                      Comment

                      • MisterQ
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Jan 2008
                        • 475

                        The floor was set at 10, but then the entire 1997 SDR was ignored, I'm hoping to get astute 8, anything beyond that is a pipedream right now.

                        Comment

                        • Portagee
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Nov 2007
                          • 598

                          Originally posted by haerdalis View Post
                          Ok the dual island design on the CVF looks to be an inspired design.

                          Quote from source below:

                          Instead of a traditional single island, a current ship design has two smaller islands. The forward island is for ship control functions and the aft (FLYCO) island is for flying control.

                          Advantages of the two island configuration are increased flight deck area, reduced air turbulence over the flight deck and increased flexibility of space allocation in the lower decks. The flight control centre in the aft island is in the optimum position for control of the critical aircraft approach and deck landings.


                          Source
                          Originally posted by Grim901 View Post
                          I've always liked the design too. I wonder if there are any downsides to it though. The French and Americans seem to choose between either better flight control or better ship control with their island placements, so it makes me wonder why they've never tried the 2 island design. Is it due to downsides or have they just decided against it/not bothered?
                          Originally posted by Stan hyd View Post
                          It comes down to parking spots.

                          The British CVF's are never going to have to worry about this we never load out a carrier the way it should be. Still want it to have emals and have the following on board at all times (government directive if needed) 33 F-35C 3 Hawkeye and 4 Merlins. Gimmie that and you would have one happy camper. Sod strike carrier I want fleet carrier with the ability to cross deck with US and French Carriers.
                          The most important reason anecdotally is that a single taller "standard" carrier Island wouldn't fit under the Forth road and rail bridges. Thus preventing Rosyth's involvement in both building or any future maintenance/refit work.

                          Comment

                          • haerdalis
                            Rank 1 Registered User
                            • Jul 2010
                            • 183

                            Does CVF have a "cooled" deck to compensate for F35B ops? Any links?

                            Comment

                            • Jonesy
                              Neo-conversative
                              • Jan 2000
                              • 5097

                              There isn't going to be a second Falklands war. We are not about to fight Iran (the Israelis, Saudis and the US will beat us to that one), we are certainly not going to fight the Chinese or the Soviets, sorry Russians, anytime this side of hell freezing over so I would suggest we don't have to sweat, "there will be no war tomorrow" to paraphrase...
                              Well, we are actually fighting a war presently. Not one that needs a Fleet Carrier at the moment but, it should be remembered, very definitely needed strike carriers, at least, to start with. While we have no real need to undertake blue water sea control at present, or in the medium term for that matter, the ability to project force in support of our foreign policy and international commitments is very definitely warranted.

                              Hence, currently, the UK MoD requirement for Carrier Strike capability. Tailored, efficient, solution for immediate requirements coupled to all the future-proofing and adaptability thats prudent to service national interests in a future that see's maritime resources as increasingly significant. Sincerely, for the first time in a while, I think that the MoD have got the balance of requirement vs resources just about spot on.

                              Comment

                              • swerve
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Jun 2005
                                • 13610

                                Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                                ...Save for Rolls Royce, what globally-relevant industry is left in the country if we exclude defence?
                                ...
                                Cars? Let's not joke. Aston Martin is awesome, but it is not the few hundred supercars which move an industry.
                                ...
                                Nissan, Honda, BMW, General Motors, Ford, Tata, Toyota . . . . their HQs are in other countries, but there are factories, design offices, etc. here, & also many component suppliers.

                                It's much the same with civil aviation, & some other industries. Lots of production, lots of employment, but many HQs are abroad.

                                And there are, of course, a lot of firms that don't grab headlines, but are world-class in their niches, e.g. some of the CVF suppliers.
                                Last edited by swerve; 13th July 2010, 09:17.
                                Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                                Justinian

                                Comment

                                • Liger30
                                  Armed Forces supporter
                                  • Jul 2010
                                  • 901

                                  Originally posted by pjhydro View Post
                                  There isn't going to be a second Falklands war. We are not about to fight Iran (the Israelis, Saudis and the US will beat us to that one), we are certainly not going to fight the Chinese or the Soviets, sorry Russians, anytime this side of hell freezing over so I would suggest we don't have to sweat, "there will be no war tomorrow" to paraphrase...
                                  I'd like to know what all this certainty is generated from. Are you really so sure? Why?
                                  In 1981, NO ONE would imagine a war with Argentina.
                                  In 1990, NO ONE saw the Balkans crisis coming.
                                  In 1935, even, just a few saw the IIWW coming. The others were "sure it would not happen".

                                  I agree that it is unlikely, but saying it is not going to happen goes too far. A lot of wars were "not going to happen" and yet happened. And we can't assume that men did improve that much in the years.
                                  "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                                  Comment

                                  • Liger30
                                    Armed Forces supporter
                                    • Jul 2010
                                    • 901

                                    Originally posted by swerve View Post
                                    Nissan, Honda, BMW, General Motors, Ford, Tata, Toyota . . . . their HQs are in other countries, but there are factories, design offices, etc. here, & also many component suppliers.

                                    It's much the same with civil aviation, & some other industries. Lots of production, lots of employment, but many HQs are abroad.

                                    And there are, of course, a lot of firms that don't grab headlines, but are world-class in their niches, e.g. some of the CVF suppliers.
                                    Oh, come on! You are a damn optimistic person. The true british car industry died long ago, and we all know it. Of course there's still some production in the Uk, otherwise everyone will be on the streets... But how much of what is daily used comes from abroad? How much heavy industry was lost in Europe in the last years in favor of Asia?
                                    Shipbuilding in the UK is almost completely dead, and up to 1966 the merchant fleet of the Uk was the biggest in the world. In the early 1900 EVERYONE all the way up to Japan would come to the UK to have its ships built up. And now there's little more of a shadow left of that industrial triumph.
                                    How much the UK did lose in terms of industry, seriously...?
                                    Even Westland is a shadow of its recent past size... and italian owned.

                                    What's left in most cases is crumbles of a recent past. The industrial policy of the UK (even in the policy generally horrible of the entire Europe) has been disasterous. And the latest economic crisis, i think, showed that financial services do not make up an economy as stable as one based on manufacture.
                                    "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                                    Comment

                                    • John K
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Jul 2010
                                      • 311

                                      Originally posted by pjhydro View Post
                                      Because we spent the best part of four centries asset stripping the continent for our own benefit? because the long term wealth of the UK (and much of Europe and the USA) is built on the foundation of Trans-atlantic slavery? Because we are decent human beings who realise that the state of Africa is a stain on the world especially given that its the closest continent to Western Europe? Because helping the poorest nations to educate is the best way of lifting them out of poverty and that is also one of the best ways of keeping the peace....having spent some of my career trying to educate African children I can assure you its a very worth while and much needed enterprise....BUT we digress, back the QEs....
                                      I'm afraid I can't agree with this bleeding heart stuff. The Royal Navy actually ended the slave trade two hundred years ago, and these states have been independent for fifty years. They are not the responsibility of the British state and the British taxpayer. If any private citizens wish to make charitable donations to African education then good for them, it's their decision how to use their own money.

                                      Comment

                                      • Liger30
                                        Armed Forces supporter
                                        • Jul 2010
                                        • 901

                                        Originally posted by Grim901 View Post
                                        And just to put one final nail in the coffin of Liger's worries for the fleet, with the recent successful firings of Sea Viper the first 2 T45's could go from unarmed to world class air defence asset in however long would be needed to prepare a taskforce.

                                        In a Falklands situation I wouldn't be too worried about SSN numbers either, 1 was enough to put an entire nations fleet into port last time, so 1-2 with the fleet this time and one demonstation that they're there would do the trick again probably. Although generally i'd definitely feel better if they had 8-10 SSNs. The last SDR set a floor around there didn't it?
                                        I know perfectly well of the latest firings of the PAAMS system. But i'll feel better when the Daring itself fires its first Sea Viper and validates the concepts into practice.

                                        And you are wrong. HMS Conqueror WAS NOT the only SSN down around the Falklands. Even a few of the last diesel-electric subs were deployed south back then, and until the General Belgrano was sunk, the Argies hadn't exactly been waiting in their ports. An ari attack from their carrier, the Venticinquo de Mayo, was erased merely because of adverse weather.
                                        After HMS Conqueror's victory, the carrier was called back altogether, but that was an (arguable) choice of the Argies.

                                        If the First Sea Lord almost cried to get at least 8 Astutes, he evidently sees a need for them. Shame that, at the most, 7 will come in line. At the worst, 6.
                                        And to have 1-2 subs to deploy to a crisis zone swiftly, you need to have a minimum fleet: with the SSNs being in months long cruises, you may have several of them very far away, and others unavailable for refit or other reasons.

                                        Just as 2 aircraft carriers are the least number required to have one always available (the combined availability of the two CVFs was stated in 550-some days a year, i think), the rest of the fleet has its needs.

                                        In ten years of labour, over 60 ships left the RN. Only 15 were ordered in the same time. But i see that no one is worried about the shrinking of the fleet.
                                        I don't like it, personally. Some shrinking was evidently due... but so much...? In ten years the RN grew far smaller. Next thing we see is the replacement of Type 23 and 22 and of the minesweepers. How much smaller will it get...?
                                        "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                                        Comment

                                        • Liger30
                                          Armed Forces supporter
                                          • Jul 2010
                                          • 901

                                          Originally posted by John K View Post
                                          I'm afraid I can't agree with this bleeding heart stuff. The Royal Navy actually ended the slave trade two hundred years ago, and these states have been independent for fifty years. They are not the responsibility of the British state and the British taxpayer. If any private citizens wish to make charitable donations to African education then good for them, it's their decision how to use their own money.
                                          I agree totally.
                                          Besides, colonialism began in 1700 and was possible only because Africa was divided, weak and technologically lacking.
                                          Colonialism may have damaged them (not so sure about it, all things considered, because Europe left them a lot of things they hadn't, from buildings to roads to trains), but to start with, the entire continent was behind Europe of well over a century in terms of development already.

                                          If Africa had been not on par, but even just ALMOST on par, there would have been no way to colonize it.
                                          The bleeding heart syndrome is a tad excessive, and exaggerated.
                                          "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X