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

    Originally posted by pjhydro View Post
    I thought we had moved on? Are we still at this? You are entitled to disagree, we have laboured the point between us and I think we are boring people. Nobody's view is gospel, you can disagree with academics, you can diasagree with whomever you like, you are right wing, I am left wing, I care about Africa, you don't, I think the Industrial revolution was paid for with capital accumialated under slavery, you think it just gave us sugar. One of us is right, or maybe we are both wrong.

    we both want the CVF to be built, lets move on.
    You are not entitled to say I don't care about Africa. I take the view that the foreign aid programmes of the west simply do not work to alleviate poverty. I think about a trillion dollars has been sent from the west to Africa since the end of empire, and most of it has been wasted. At independence, Ghana was richer than South Korea. What happened? Yet, despite our economic problems, with huge defence cuts looming, the aid budget is sacrosanct, and a government minister is actually comparing the cost of a CVF to the budget for educating Africans. We might both want the CVF programme to proceed, but how can it if our finite resources are spent in this way?

    Comment

    • Witcha
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Jun 2010
      • 1241

      Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
      You did not get a single concept of my reasoning, man about Pakistan and India's matter. You are making your own conclusions bending at your will what i said. In this way, you could pretty much make me say anything.
      Your 'reasoning' was pretty transparent, and here you're merely continuing your 'attack the arguer' idealogy. The PAF thread should be updated with the new F-16s in a few days time. Don't miss it, after all you couldn't bear to see a single plane axed instead of Indian economic aid.

      Comment

      • Liger30
        Armed Forces supporter
        • Jul 2010
        • 901

        Originally posted by Witcha View Post
        Your 'reasoning' was pretty transparent, and here you're merely continuing your 'attack the arguer' idealogy. The PAF thread should be updated with the new F-16s in a few days time. Don't miss it, after all you couldn't bear to see a single plane axed instead of Indian economic aid.
        Are you still going on? Gods, you are annoying for real.
        Luckily, there's already been someone in the conservative government calling for a reduction of aid given to India, which means that they saw the absurd of giving money to a superpower with a space program without getting any advantage in exchange.

        For the people like you who did not get it yet, the Afghanistan operation we are all tangled in, will be ultimately won or lost in the South-Afghanistan/North-Pakistan region, teh sanctuary of talibans and the red-alert area, since it reaches all the way close to Pakistani nuclear facilities.
        Aid to Pakistan is strategically relevant because of this simple fact. If you have evidence of the money of the aid being used for other military programs unrelated to the struggle in northern-pakistan, i could even believe it, pretty easily in fact. But it does not change the fact that we need Pakistan to work in the fight against talibans, and we unfortunately have to pay in some way for it.

        As to budget aid, what has no strategic relevance for me should be immediately cut, in this times of crisis. When you have problems at home, you have to fix them before you can play nurse with the world.

        If you still don't get it, cut it short anyway. Because you have grown annoying for real. And you keep forcing people to go out of topic. End it once and for all.
        "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

          Sorry to interrupt you guys here....but just to point out the glaringly obvious for you:

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6599693.stm
          http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/b...ow/6165350.cms
          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/g...oric-rise.html

          "Bilateral trade between the UK and India was worth 12bn in 2008 and this is likely to increase to almost 30bn by 2015. Meanwhile, the value of Indian investment in the UK is estimated to be 9bn"

          Can we move on from the absurd question of the value of generating good will with a major trading partner?.

          Comment

          • Fedaykin
            Fueled by Tea
            • Dec 2005
            • 5295

            Totally agree Jonesy!

            This has got silly for a thread about CVF construction.

            If people want to talk about the UK aid budget why not do it in the general forum.
            Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

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

            Comment

            • Witcha
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Jun 2010
              • 1241

              Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
              Are you still going on? Gods, you are annoying for real.
              Luckily, there's already been someone in the conservative government calling for a reduction of aid given to India, which means that they saw the absurd of giving money to a superpower with a space program without getting any advantage in exchange.

              For the people like you who did not get it yet, the Afghanistan operation we are all tangled in, will be ultimately won or lost in the South-Afghanistan/North-Pakistan region, teh sanctuary of talibans and the red-alert area, since it reaches all the way close to Pakistani nuclear facilities.
              Aid to Pakistan is strategically relevant because of this simple fact. If you have evidence of the money of the aid being used for other military programs unrelated to the struggle in northern-pakistan, i could even believe it, pretty easily in fact. But it does not change the fact that we need Pakistan to work in the fight against talibans, and we unfortunately have to pay in some way for it.

              As to budget aid, what has no strategic relevance for me should be immediately cut, in this times of crisis. When you have problems at home, you have to fix them before you can play nurse with the world.

              If you still don't get it, cut it short anyway. Because you have grown annoying for real. And you keep forcing people to go out of topic. End it once and for all.
              You keep rambling and rambling without getting the message that was clear several posts ago; or more likely you realised how fundamentally flawed your main argument is and are ignoring it out of pride. Either way I'm done with you. I'll just give you this one line to think about:

              If you cut 4 F-16s out of Pakistan's military aid package they'd still be happy, there would be no difference whatsoever to the Taliban cooperation(since F-16s aren't going to be deployed there anyway), and you would free up that 250 million you're so desperate for, without any harm done to needy people in any country.

              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


              Returning to the thread, are there any plans to include armor plating on the CVF or do they remain dropped due to cost? At that size it'd be a shame if they didn't use some of the space to ensure it didn't sink with one AshM.
              Last edited by Witcha; 17th July 2010, 14:32.

              Comment

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

                Originally posted by Witcha View Post
                Returning to the thread, are there any plans to include armor plating on the CVF or do they remain dropped due to cost? At that size it'd be a shame if they didn't use some of the space to ensure it didn't sink with one AshM.
                You can't sink a warship that size with one AshM unless it's got a nuclear warhead or it's exceptionally badly designed.

                Comment

                • harryRIEDL
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Jan 2006
                  • 375

                  Originally posted by kev 99 View Post
                  You can't sink a warship that size with one AshM unless it's got a nuclear warhead or it's exceptionally badly designed.
                  if I can quote from another forum their is going to be some armor the Warship1 board has a link from a company testing the armor system
                  http://www.qinetiq.com/home/defence/...ase_study.html

                  'we helped optimize the armor level' seem pretty clear to me
                  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

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

                    Originally posted by harryRIEDL View Post
                    if I can quote from another forum their is going to be some armor the Warship1 board has a link from a company testing the armor system
                    http://www.qinetiq.com/home/defence/...ase_study.html

                    'we helped optimize the armor level' seem pretty clear to me
                    Quite, apparently details are classified though, there doesn't seem to be any information in the public domain.

                    Comment

                    • Liger30
                      Armed Forces supporter
                      • Jul 2010
                      • 901

                      Originally posted by Witcha View Post
                      You keep rambling and rambling without getting the message that was clear several posts ago; or more likely you realised how fundamentally flawed your main argument is and are ignoring it out of pride. Either way I'm done with you. I'll just give you this one line to think about:

                      If you cut 4 F-16s out of Pakistan's military aid package they'd still be happy, there would be no difference whatsoever to the Taliban cooperation(since F-16s aren't going to be deployed there anyway), and you would free up that 250 million you're so desperate for, without any harm done to needy people in any country.

                      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


                      Returning to the thread, are there any plans to include armor plating on the CVF or do they remain dropped due to cost? At that size it'd be a shame if they didn't use some of the space to ensure it didn't sink with one AshM.
                      The F16 you ramble about aren't Uk related to start with. It is a contract in place between Pakistan and USA that dates back to 2006 and builds on even older "Peace Gate III" and IV agreements in the late 80' and in the 90' that saw Pakistan ordering F16 fighter planes but never got them because US embargoed the country because of its nuclear program.

                      Even assuming they pay the F16 now with the same money the US give them in military aid (and it is higly unlikely that the US are SO stupid to seek no evidence of the use that Pakistan makes of its aid), the UK has nothing to say about it. The UK is not giving them Typhoons.
                      If you are trying to say that UK paid those F16, you are most likely wrong. If the government is stupid enough to hand them money without checking how it is indeed used, it is its own stupidity it must tackle.

                      And ultimately, Pakistan fights the talibans in the border region. It does what we need it to do, and this justifies the aid.
                      India could very well CUT A FEW OF ITS OWN PLANES and sustain its own people, instead of requiring the UK to cut its own investments to help indian villagers.

                      End.
                      Last edited by Liger30; 17th July 2010, 19:09.
                      "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

                      • Grim901
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • May 2009
                        • 1143

                        Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                        The F16 you ramble about aren't Uk related to start with. It is a contract in place between Pakistan and USA that dates back to 2006 and builds on even older "Peace Gate III" and IV agreements in the late 80' and in the 90' that saw Pakistan ordering F16 fighter planes but never got them because US embargoed the country because of its nuclear program.

                        Even assuming they pay the F16 now with the same money the US give them in military aid (and it is higly unlikely that the US are SO stupid to seek no evidence of the use that Pakistan makes of its aid), the UK has nothing to say about it. The UK is not giving them Typhoons.
                        If you are trying to say that UK paid those F16, you are most likely wrong. If the government is stupid enough to hand them money without checking how it is indeed used, it is its own stupidity it must tackle.

                        And ultimately, Pakistan fights the talibans in the border region. It does what we need it to do, and this justifies the aid.
                        India could very well CUT A FEW OF ITS OWN PLANES and sustain its own people, instead of requiring the UK to cut its own investments to help indian villagers.

                        End.
                        Right, just shut up now. Others in the thread had finally managed to move on. I'm sick of having to sift through this argument to find posts on topic. If you want to carry on take it to PMs or another forum.

                        Jesus this board needs more moderators.


                        Back to topic: Interesting on the armour front. Are all our front line warships armoured to some degree still?

                        Comment

                        • Liger30
                          Armed Forces supporter
                          • Jul 2010
                          • 901

                          Originally posted by Grim901 View Post
                          Right, just shut up now. Others in the thread had finally managed to move on. I'm sick of having to sift through this argument to find posts on topic. If you want to carry on take it to PMs or another forum.

                          Jesus this board needs more moderators.


                          Back to topic: Interesting on the armour front. Are all our front line warships armoured to some degree still?
                          Sorry, wasn't my intention to see it drag this long. But i couldn't just let go.

                          Anyway, modern warships are normally not armored. I doubt Type 23 have "armor", in fact, and even Type 45 does not have armor in the literal sense of the word. There are compartments and other passive-protection features. The SURVIVE software mainly determines how to place instrumentations, locals and machinery to create the safest and most resistant structure possible.

                          Anyway, from that article the CVFs seem to have some degree of armor, probably protecting the vulnerable fuel and weapon storage locals, and probably designed more to protect against slivers and blasts than from hits.
                          However, Navy Matters had a page about survivability and protection of the ships, where it was stated that most, if not all, the active protection (kevlar armor plates and such) had been dropped as a cost saving measure, and the safety of the ships based mostly on passive-protection and survivability measures.
                          With details being classified (wisely) it is hard to tell where armor may be, and what effective consistence it could have.
                          "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

                          • pjhydro
                            Rank 4 Registered User
                            • Apr 2009
                            • 886

                            Originally posted by Grim901 View Post
                            Right, just shut up now. Others in the thread had finally managed to move on. I'm sick of having to sift through this argument to find posts on topic. If you want to carry on take it to PMs or another forum.

                            Jesus this board needs more moderators.


                            Back to topic: Interesting on the armour front. Are all our front line warships armoured to some degree still?
                            As it happens I think that only HMS SAbre and Scimitar are armoured.

                            Comment

                            • Fedaykin
                              Fueled by Tea
                              • Dec 2005
                              • 5295

                              A rather unexciting article but it does have a newer picture of the Superblock in construction at Govan:

                              http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...uncovered.html
                              Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

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

                              Comment

                              • Grim901
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • May 2009
                                • 1143

                                Originally posted by Fedaykin View Post
                                A rather unexciting article but it does have a newer picture of the Superblock in construction at Govan:

                                http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...uncovered.html
                                I laughed at the comments. Idiots comparing it to cruise ships and saying that because it takes longer to build and is smaller that is therefore only a medium sized ship and must be procurement **** up.

                                Comment

                                • LordJim
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Jul 2005
                                  • 343

                                  I think it it starting to look like the two carriers will never be at sea at the same time. This would allow the number of aircraft purchased for them to be reduced significantly with only one full strength air wing available plus training units, so around 40-50 airframes for the RN, with a smaller number 20-30possibly for the RAF to suppliment the air wing in an emergency. Both serviced would use the same training/evaluation units.

                                  Comment

                                  • nocutstoRAF
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • May 2010
                                    • 954

                                    Assuming the price per plane would be about the same as the price Canada just agreed to pay for 65 F-35 for delivery 2016, LordJim's upper range suggestion of around 80 F-35B would see a cost of ~$11.077 billion or 7.24 billion based on today’s exchange rate (based on 65 F-35's costing $9 billion for the planes and ignoring the $7 billion support and maintenance contract as reported in the "Military Aviation News from around the world - V" thread) - does anyone else know is this the sort of money the UK has budgeted for or if the budget for the F-35B is likely to be lower (or higher)?

                                    I swear I have read that the UK anticipated spending 6 billion on its intial purchase of the F-35 but I cannot find the story again - which if it is true would mean the UK would be looking at an initial purchase of around 65 as well.
                                    If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

                                    Comment

                                    • StevoJH
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Jun 2008
                                      • 1024

                                      Originally posted by LordJim View Post
                                      I think it it starting to look like the two carriers will never be at sea at the same time. This would allow the number of aircraft purchased for them to be reduced significantly with only one full strength air wing available plus training units, so around 40-50 airframes for the RN, with a smaller number 20-30possibly for the RAF to suppliment the air wing in an emergency. Both serviced would use the same training/evaluation units.
                                      So you want to have a single airgroup deployed 100% of the time? The airframes will not last long at all, and you wont be able to get volunteers to fill out the units, because as soon as they get families, they will resign or transfer to another part of the Navy/RAF.
                                      Can't wait to join the 'real' world. Hopefully only one week to go....

                                      Comment

                                      • Stryker73
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Jun 2010
                                        • 274

                                        Originally posted by LordJim View Post
                                        I think it it starting to look like the two carriers will never be at sea at the same time. This would allow the number of aircraft purchased for them to be reduced significantly with only one full strength air wing available plus training units, so around 40-50 airframes for the RN, with a smaller number 20-30possibly for the RAF to suppliment the air wing in an emergency. Both serviced would use the same training/evaluation units.
                                        I think the RN would bite your hand off for that scenario right now though I was of the understanding that it was always going to be one at sea at any given time unless at war.

                                        Originally posted by StevoJH
                                        So you want to have a single airgroup deployed 100% of the time? The airframes will not last long at all, and you wont be able to get volunteers to fill out the units
                                        Highly doubtful either carrier will carry an airwing of 36, more likely rotating 36 aircraft for a wing of no more than a dozen. Which still gives the RN a bigger punch than they currently have and keeps naval air power alive in these times of austerity.

                                        Comment

                                        • Fedaykin
                                          Fueled by Tea
                                          • Dec 2005
                                          • 5295

                                          In peace time CVF will probably deploy with no more then 12 F35 which is similar to the Invincible class. Enough to wave the flag, maintain currency and participate in exercises.

                                          The RAF will provide the surge airframes and crew in the event of something going up. With modern flight simulators and the F35b's automated benign landing characteristics should be fairly easy for the light blues to jump onto ship if required.

                                          Lets face it the GR3 crews who operated off Hermes during the Falklands had barely any chance to work up for the task and nothing like the modern training aids.
                                          Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

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

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X