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
  • Fedaykin
    Fueled by Tea
    • Dec 2005
    • 5295

    Cammell Laird back doing what should always of been!

    http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/...2534-26930251/

    I must admit its impressive what has happened with them.
    Last edited by Fedaykin; 26th July 2010, 18:48.
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

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

    Comment

    • Liger30
      Armed Forces supporter
      • Jul 2010
      • 901

      Originally posted by pjhydro View Post
      Well without wanting to sound like i'm compensating...it ain't that small, you would need more than an army of 100,00 to protect the UK, but I am assuming that the UK is still interested in defending its wider interests.... would be selfish of us to keep such a good army to ourselves now wouldn't it?
      It would be selfish indeed! Why not to spend it all on aid or on welfare?

      Bitter irony aside, i wanted to point out another fact that people cheerfully forget everytime:
      "future anphibious operations (but also sea, land, air ops too) are all going to be fought as part of a coalition or with the US leading".
      Fine. Let's even accept it as true. (doubt it highly, but let's believe it)

      "HMS Ocean would be little important..." there are the US ships.
      "We don't need tanks, there are american ones!"
      "We don't need planes, there's america!"
      But, damnit, no one can see that practically we are reaching the point where people says we need nothing at all because there's america...? Act as part of a coalition means being HELPED, not SUBSTITUTED IN EVERY ASPECT.

      America is not going to fight for us or anyone else. It would fight WITH us. But do the dirty job for someone else...? You truly must think americans are stupid. Everyone in NATO is using the same excuse to cut this and that. "There's america!"

      What if america gets angry and says "do it yourself!"

      Would you always take the place of your friend in a brawl and get beaten up for him as he stays back and watches? No, you would not do that.
      And no one would.
      "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

      • swerve
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Jun 2005
        • 13610

        Originally posted by Fedaykin View Post
        Cammell Laird back doing what should always of been!

        http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/...2534-26930251/
        Hooray!
        Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
        Justinian

        Comment

        • harryRIEDL
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Jan 2006
          • 375

          curious post relating to QE's, according to Janes Coverteam are making a full sized EMCAT for the QE's
          http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jn...0726_1_n.shtml
          Converteam develops catapult launch system for UK carriers


          By Tim Fish

          26 July 2010

          Article Tools

          Full Article for Subscribers

          Product Homepage

          Contact Our Sales Team

          Print This Page

          Subscribe Now

          The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) is investing in the development of an electromagnetic catapult system for the Royal Navy's Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers in case procurement of the F-35B short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) version of the Joint Strike Fighter is abandoned.

          Power conversion specialist Converteam UK announced on 20 July that in 2009 it was awarded a GBP650,000 (USD1 million) follow-on contract to continue the design, development and demonstration of high-power electrical systems for its EMCAT (electro-magnetic catapult) system and that work on the contract was nearing completion.

          The naval director at Converteam UK, Mark Dannatt, told Jane's on 22 July that a small-scale EMCAT system had been completed in 2007 to prove the operation of modern linear motor, energy stores and control systems. Since then, extensive testing of the system has been successfully undertaken, as well as further work at the request of the MoD to enable Converteam UK to scale the system up to a full-size catapult suitable for the RN's new aircraft carriers.

          "The EMCAT is designed to fit in the space envelope that has been allowed within the aircraft carrier for a catapult. The intention of building and designing a small electromagnetic catapult and then developing the technology so that it could be scaled up was always a de-risking exercise in case the MoD did not choose the STOVL aircraft or it was considered necessary to launch other types of aircraft from these ships. The option would then exist to fit a catapult and operate conventional carrier-borne aircraft," Dannatt said.

          Could go CTOL in future
          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

          • nocutstoRAF
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • May 2010
            • 954

            I posted a link to this story a few posts back good to see someone else found it as well - I think it is interesting that a year ago the MoD was planning a contingency if the F-35B was not brought or if they wanted to operate both CTOL and STOL aircraft from QE. Strange that in all the rumour stories in the newspapers someone has not mentioned abandoning the F-35 all together for something cheaper, makes you wonder if the people briefing the newspapers actually know anything at all.
            If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

            Comment

            • Liger30
              Armed Forces supporter
              • Jul 2010
              • 901

              Originally posted by nocutstoRAF View Post
              I posted a link to this story a few posts back good to see someone else found it as well - I think it is interesting that a year ago the MoD was planning a contingency if the F-35B was not brought or if they wanted to operate both CTOL and STOL aircraft from QE. Strange that in all the rumour stories in the newspapers someone has not mentioned abandoning the F-35 all together for something cheaper, makes you wonder if the people briefing the newspapers actually know anything at all.
              I ignored that work made by the ConvertTeam, admittedly, but it was known already that there were the so-called "Plan B" for the carriers, which was consistently pointed at in the worst moments of the F35B program, when the plane seemed hopeless because of overweight problems or when the software code was denied by the americans.

              The options considered still open still reported even the possibility to "navalize" Typhoon fighters, coherently with a 1999 BAe study that judged feasible the use of Typhoons on the CVF in the same fashion of Su33 on Admiral Kuztnesov: conventional take off (with a low-angle sky jump) and arrested recovery.

              Other option was the F35C with catapults, and there were even rumors/suggestions about Rafale or even F18, actually.
              The option of flying both cat-planes and VTOL planes was considered as well, and it was envisioned, between the other cases, in order to fly Hawkeyes from the CVF alongside F35Bs.

              Now it apparently is out of fashion on the Press to suggest Rafale/F18 as lower-cost alternative to F35, but i remember it was done more than once in the past 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

              • nocutstoRAF
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • May 2010
                • 954

                (Shrugs) - if the stories are true that the RAF has both given up getting F-35's and agreed to cut it total fast jet numbers (which makes the Tornado's the most realistic target) then you would assume that the pressure would be on the RN and the FAA to drop the F-35 as well and buy a cheaper alternative otherwise it does not makes sense - as the main benefit of the F-35B is it's ability to be jointly operated with the RAF and move seamlessly from sea to land and back again, which is perfect in a future when resources are constrained and you can only afford a limited number of squadrons. In fact the F-35B meets Liam Fox's requirement of only buying multi-role equipment and moving away from specialist single purpose equipment.

                Edit (I forgot to mention I thought intresting the story is being made public now and Jane's inferred that the information that the contract had been placed had been kept secret up to now - suggesting that something new is going to be announced)

                PS I know you are down on Liam Fox as you think he is bashing the Type 45 but I think he is hinting that they will need to use the Type 45 more flexibly and fit it with the things that it was designed to operate but is not got.
                Last edited by nocutstoRAF; 27th July 2010, 08:40. Reason: Improving layout
                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 nocutstoRAF View Post
                  (Shrugs) - if the stories are true that the RAF has both given up getting F-35's and agreed to cut it total fast jet numbers (which makes the Tornado's the most realistic target) then you would assume that the pressure would be on the RN and the FAA to drop the F-35 as well and buy a cheaper alternative otherwise it does not makes sense - as the main benefit of the F-35B is it's ability to be jointly operated with the RAF and move seamlessly from sea to land and back again, which is perfect in a future when resources are constrained and you can only afford a limited number of squadrons. In fact the F-35B meets Liam Fox's requirement of only buying multi-role equipment and moving away from specialist single purpose equipment.

                  Edit (I forgot to mention I thought intresting the story is being made public now and Jane's inferred that the information that the contract had been placed had been kept secret up to now - suggesting that something new is going to be announced)

                  PS I know you are down on Liam Fox as you think he is bashing the Type 45 but I think he is hinting that they will need to use the Type 45 more flexibly and fit it with the things that it was designed to operate but is not got.
                  What cheaper alternative? If you take operational and training costs into account, F-35B is probably the cheapest option.
                  Can't wait to join the 'real' world. Hopefully only one week to go....

                  Comment

                  • Liger30
                    Armed Forces supporter
                    • Jul 2010
                    • 901

                    Originally posted by nocutstoRAF View Post
                    (Shrugs) - if the stories are true that the RAF has both given up getting F-35's and agreed to cut it total fast jet numbers (which makes the Tornado's the most realistic target) then you would assume that the pressure would be on the RN and the FAA to drop the F-35 as well and buy a cheaper alternative otherwise it does not makes sense - as the main benefit of the F-35B is it's ability to be jointly operated with the RAF and move seamlessly from sea to land and back again, which is perfect in a future when resources are constrained and you can only afford a limited number of squadrons. In fact the F-35B meets Liam Fox's requirement of only buying multi-role equipment and moving away from specialist single purpose equipment.

                    Edit (I forgot to mention I thought intresting the story is being made public now and Jane's inferred that the information that the contract had been placed had been kept secret up to now - suggesting that something new is going to be announced)

                    PS I know you are down on Liam Fox as you think he is bashing the Type 45 but I think he is hinting that they will need to use the Type 45 more flexibly and fit it with the things that it was designed to operate but is not got.
                    The stories lately talk of a disaster i can't even start to grasp, if they are anywhere near true. I read indeed that the F35 for the press is not going to be bought. Which would mean stopping work on the CVFs altogheter as well. What the hell do you fly off them? Only helicopters...? Demented.
                    Otherwise, if it is not F35, then it must be either F18 or Rafale, and both mean going for catapults. And i don't know this could happen. The RAF would oppose it to the very end, it would never accept the navy to have its own embarked force of fixed wing planes. And the RN has no money.

                    And then talks of dropping amphibious ships and Marines.
                    Madness. Complete, total madness that is "strategic" like suicide. I always knew the SDR was a budget-cutting exercise, but so foolish and brutal...? This is going to be immensely worse than even 10 shameful years of labour have been for the armed forces.
                    If such talks are real, the armed forces will awaken in October beaten up like they had just fought (and lost) the third world war.

                    As to the Type 45 being fitted with the adequate kit, i certainly hope so.
                    But where would the money for that come out of...?

                    This SDR is absurd, so far, like nothing else before, if we have to believe to the press.
                    And if the carriers/amphibious force are cancelled, the need for Type 45 vanishes as well.
                    And the army can be downsized all the way down to an internal security force at that point, because seriously. It would be unable to go anywhere anyway, unless it was called in. Because how could it reach a trouble-spot...? By air. Ridiculous. It would take a year to move a brigade in the area, and 3 years to move an armored brigade, assuming that there is a friendly base around where to go.
                    If there isn't... well. War lost. There's not even way to get in there, let's not even fantasize about setting a foot in if there's opposition.
                    Last edited by Liger30; 27th July 2010, 08:53.
                    "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

                    • nocutstoRAF
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • May 2010
                      • 954

                      Lets think radically and optimistically (the latter is really hard for me) - lets assume that the RN agrees to give up it fast jet's to RAF, the marines to the Army (but retain amphibious assault), the RAF and RN give up transport helicopters to the Army, the Army sacrifices heavy armour and artillery, but get FRES which is uses as a "light tank" for urban combat, the Army also agrees to cut Super Puma early, and Sea Kings, the RAF to forego F-35B, cut Tornado's early, cut one type of transport plane as soon as A400M comes on line (to reduce logistics trail) and Harrier as soon as QE launches – all which are based on the various rumours I have read recently.

                      The question becomes would these savings be enough, along with base closures, to allow the MoD to make purchase of new fleet of Merlin’s in the medium lift role plus the Chinnock’s it is already committed to, to purchase a cheaper catapult launched strike fighter to operate off the carriers and from RAF bases, to purchase FRES that the Army wants and still make a 10% saving?
                      If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

                      Comment

                      • Cuito
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Aug 2003
                        • 230

                        Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                        You don't get that the military is not there just to keep "the evil enemy away" but also to protect the interests of the nation abroad? In the globalized world, protectionof citizens and interests abroad has become a vital mission. Let's please grow up from the "invasion" thing and accept the implications of a globalized world where the UK has interests everywhere and is engaged in all sorts of situations.

                        Besides, the more your armed forces are prepared and strong, the less people will want to mess with you. It's deterrence, which works, in its way, better than even Trident.
                        It is also work for hundred thousands of serving men, for a whole branch of industry, and generates a massive amount of richness for the nation itself.
                        If one really wants to "grow up" one may need to realize that the wannabe superpower dream of global power projection is not realistic. You speak of protecting UK citizens in the globalized world. Tell me, if UK citizens in Chengdu, for example, are being endangered/harmed in some way, what can the UK do militarily about it?

                        Nothing.

                        That is the reality one needs to address.

                        In these difficult financial times the military needs to focus on its core missions, such as defense of the homeland, not fighting (almost completely unnecessary) conflicts in far flung regions.

                        This is not to completely reject the idea of power projection ("Forward from the sea!"), but to stress the importance of proper priorities.

                        Comment

                        • Liger30
                          Armed Forces supporter
                          • Jul 2010
                          • 901

                          Originally posted by nocutstoRAF View Post
                          Lets think radically and optimistically (the latter is really hard for me) - lets assume that the RN agrees to give up it fast jet's to RAF, the marines to the Army (but retain amphibious assault), the RAF and RN give up transport helicopters to the Army, the Army sacrifices heavy armour and artillery, but get FRES which is uses as a "light tank" for urban combat, the Army also agrees to cut Super Puma early, and Sea Kings, the RAF to forego F-35B, cut Tornado's early, cut one type of transport plane as soon as A400M comes on line (to reduce logistics trail) and Harrier as soon as QE launches – all which are based on the various rumours I have read recently.

                          The question becomes would these savings be enough, along with base closures, to allow the MoD to make purchase of new fleet of Merlin’s in the medium lift role plus the Chinnock’s it is already committed to, to purchase a cheaper catapult launched strike fighter to operate off the carriers and from RAF bases, to purchase FRES that the Army wants and still make a 10% saving?
                          The RN sadly had to pretty much give its fast jets to the RAF years ago already. For what i understand, besides, the current Harrier Force counts a mere 36 planes: the RN squadron left is not equipped with planes at all, but supplies just crews. The planes are all in RAF's greedy hands.

                          Giving the Marines to the army generates any saving only if the amphibious ships are sacrificed and the Marines used as light infantry, which is an aberation, but is the proposal rumored of.

                          Putting off service the Tornado within five years is a 3 billions (at the very least, i expect it would save more) saving.

                          Mothballing tanks and heavy artillery for a total of a Brigade (leaving only ONE armored brigade active, and i don't think going any lower can be accepted) would generate some substantial saving, but i dunno how much.

                          Scrapping Rapier early would cause no realistic harm to the armed forces and would save a certain amount of money. (my proposal, and i can't understand why no one puts it forwards: Rapier is the less used capability of all, and it is a rather slouch defence anyway)

                          L118 artillery regiments and the GMLRS regiments should be spared the axe because they are the most heavily used/useful/deployable. (again, my evaluation)

                          Fitting catapults to carriers would cost perhaps 500 millions. Savings are still possible acquiring cat-launched planes in place of the F35B to cope with that added cost as well? Perhaps, but it may be wiser to stick to the F35B at this point. Reduce the buy to 70/80, base them at Lossiemouth but ENSURE THAT THE NAVY, AND NOT THE RAF, HAVE THE WORD IN BASING THEM ON THE CARRIERS WHENEVER IT IS TIME FOR IT.

                          The 7th Astute submarine is gone. Perhaps 1 billion saved, probably less because the cost of the others will rise while realistically the 7th and last would have cost less.

                          New Trident submarines will be 3, no more than 3. The missile launcher compartment is being designed jointly with the US, so it will most likely be made up by 12 launcher tubes. Not everyone could be filled on UK variants. Not with Trident, at least, in the best option 7 Tomahawks could be fitted in each tube like in the SSGN Ohio. Reduced number of warheads is also more than likely. Savings? Substantial, perhaps, but hard for me to make an estimate.

                          Early retirement for Type 42 may be an option, even if the Type 45s are not ready.
                          The Type 22 may be retired earlier as well. The RN does not want this, and perhaps not even Fox... But between keeping the amphibious core capability and 4 old frigates, i sacrifice the frigates. Their Harpoons and Stingray can move to the Type 45 vessels at least, as the Phalanx from the Type 42.

                          MARS: it cannot be delayed forever, especially in the part relative to single-hulled tankers, which are effectively outlawed internationally. From 2015 onwards, it will be an international crime to have single hulled tankers.
                          The Fort class replacement, Argus, Diligence and such will have to live long, because nothing will move about that for many years.

                          HMS Endurance will not survive the SDR, i'm betting. Savings? A few millions.

                          Type 26 frigate: please survive! But is not a certainty.

                          Infantry: some will have to go, ultimately. UK already has to few soldiers, but this will not spare infantry from the cuts.

                          Choppers: Chinook are safe, too political bickering was made over them, no one will dare touching them.
                          My suggestions: get rid of Puma and Gazelle as soon as possible.
                          All Chinooks to RAF, all in RAF Odiham, all Merlins to Navy, HC3 Navalized, all based in Culdrose. RAF Benson to close. Future Lynx to go on, and Lynx MK9A to stay in service. Older Lynx scrapped as the new ones come.

                          Nimrods based in Kinloss. Lossiemouth frozen until F35B come. Leuchars to survive with Typhoons.

                          C130J to go out early as the A400M come into service in their place. Exit the program, lose jobs and pay fines to retain old and already stressed and less capable airframes makes no sense at all.

                          Air Tankers: 8 in service, the other 6 shared with the french. They will pay for the hours of usage. They seem to want to do it, and anyway the FDI contract already stated that 6 of the 14 planes would have been used by RAF only in case of need, and leased out to other contractors in the meanwhile.

                          Rivet Joint purchase and Scavenger project for drones both safe.

                          FRES SV to continue, Warrior upgrade delayed but to continue. Challenger re-gunning scrapped.


                          This is indicative of my thinking. I think that there's more than 7 billions worth of savings in this plan, but obviously they are savings spread on several years, and not immediate.
                          On the other hand, save 7 billions today would mean close down the whole army, because there's no other way to save such amounts.
                          "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

                          • Stryker73
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Jun 2010
                            • 274

                            Originally posted by Cuito View Post
                            If one really wants to "grow up" one may need to realize that the wannabe superpower dream of global power projection is not realistic. You speak of protecting UK citizens in the globalized world. Tell me, if UK citizens in Chengdu, for example, are being endangered/harmed in some way, what can the UK do militarily about it?

                            Nothing.

                            That is the reality one needs to address.
                            Nothing, there's not much any country can do militarily if its citizens are getting harrased by China.

                            The geopolitical reality is that the UK has interests globally, including British territory spread out accross the world. Britain needs to be able to project force as far as the South Atlantic for example. Not for some 'wannabe superpower' status but to protect its own interests.

                            As an aside, there is an interesting letter in the FT. Apparently the press reported on Liam Fox's speech to industry about cutting costs to protect projects but declined to report what he also said afterwards.

                            That would mean, when the national interest demands, maritime-enabled power projection, the capacity to control air-space to guarantee freedom of manoeuvre and the ability to deploy land power with the logistical strength to sustain it.

                            Comment

                            • Liger30
                              Armed Forces supporter
                              • Jul 2010
                              • 901

                              Originally posted by Stryker73 View Post
                              Nothing, there's not much any country can do militarily if its citizens are getting harrased by China.

                              The geopolitical reality is that the UK has interests globally, including British territory spread out accross the world. Britain needs to be able to project force as far as the South Atlantic for example. Not for some 'wannabe superpower' status but to protect its own interests.

                              As an aside, there is an interesting letter in the FT. Apparently the press reported on Liam Fox's speech to industry about cutting costs to protect projects but declined to report what he also said afterwards.
                              Fancy phrase. And very smart.
                              But if Fox says smart things then allows the Marines or the Carriers to go, he'd better just shut up.
                              We'll have the chance to value how much was smart talking and how much was kidding us all when the cuts are announced.

                              As to people so willing to give up power projection because "there's no war with China" i'd like to ask why even Italy has substantial amphibious capability, why France ordered a Third Mistral, why Spain tried to gain capability with the Juan Carlos, why Netherlands need landing ships, and if you'd really like a UK powerless and irrilevant to pay for more welfare or more aid, to allow it to grow double-digit every year.

                              It is not an ever shrinking defence budget that's inaffordable, it is an ever growing welfare, education, NHS bill.





                              If we really want to keep kidding ourselves, let's do it. But it is not wise. We've almost reached the point when the armed forces are cut altogether because they are "unaffordable".
                              Surprise: the situation does not improve. It gets worse, actually.

                              Bye bye british defence industry! By bye tax revenues and defence exports! Bye Bye security and influence of the nation! Welcome thousands of unemployed ex-soldiers, ex-sailors, ex-airmen, ex-civil servants and ex-workers of shipyards, of Bae and of all the rest!

                              Oh. Bad stuff.
                              "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

                              • swerve
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Jun 2005
                                • 13610

                                Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                                ...
                                MARS: it cannot be delayed forever, especially in the part relative to single-hulled tankers, which are effectively outlawed internationally. From 2015 onwards, it will be an international crime to have single hulled tankers. ...
                                Only for civilian operators, IIRC. Navies are exempt, if they choose to be. The last government decided that it would voluntarily comply with the regulations, but the current government can choose to delay compliance, if it wishes.
                                Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                                Justinian

                                Comment

                                • nocutstoRAF
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • May 2010
                                  • 954

                                  Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                                  (I have cut lots of your well thought out comment - sorry!) This is indicative of my thinking. I think that there's more than 7 billions worth of savings in this plan, but obviously they are savings spread on several years, and not immediate.
                                  On the other hand, save 7 billions today would mean close down the whole army, because there's no other way to save such amounts.
                                  Thanks for the detailed reply - the point I failed to make was if they scarifice some things now can they get enough money to buy new equipement where the SDSR deems they need it - its the difference between salami slicing or re-configuring the forces. For example if letting RAF have all the fast jets means they do not battle with RN over the carriers then it is a win, if cutting the tornado's early means that they buy a 150 F-35C in the latter half of the decade rather than 50 F-35B's then that is a win, hell it is still likely a win if the cut the tornado's early and buy 150 of the upgraded F/A-18 E/F talked about recently. Another example is if by paying off minesweepers now ensures that there is a 1:1 replacement of the frigates then it is almost a win. Likewise if getting the Army to pay for the marines in some sort of expeditionary force combined with the Para's means that the Navy keeps their amphibious assault capabilities then it is also a win.

                                  The way I see it is that Liam Fox is either going to unveil a deliverable plan which will be surprisingly well thought out or he is going to chop the armed forces in a piecemeal manner - as he is a politician I tend to suspect the latter, but I hope for the former.

                                  On a completely unrelated to the rest of my post - I noticed one of the rumours over the weekend was that Army were pushing for more UAV's and for Super Tucano's in the COIN role, if this happens could they deploy the Super Tucano's off the carriers or would it be better to say ask Boeing to resurrect the Skyraider (or the Skyshark) and use them for COIN. My thinking is that if you could deploy them off the carriers then you could get them in-country right from the beginning, and they would be great to provide close cover and persistent ISAR to special forces or for limited landing operations.
                                  Last edited by nocutstoRAF; 27th July 2010, 14:01. Reason: The 1st paragraph did not make much sense on re-reading
                                  If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

                                  Comment

                                  • nocutstoRAF
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • May 2010
                                    • 954

                                    Had a crazy SDSR cost saving idea for the carrier’s and no amount of internet searching could get me a straight answer – does anyone know if they could take some of the Tornado’s with a reasonably number of hours left on their airframes and convert them to operate of the carrier’s (i.e. strengthen their undercarriage and make any other changes needed) then the could operate the carrier version of the Tornado along side current Tornado’s until thir projected OSD in 2024 there by avoiding having to buy F-35’s until the early 2020's rather in the 2016 - 18 time-frame. Would it work and would it be cheap enough to be worth doing?
                                    If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

                                    Comment

                                    • Liger30
                                      Armed Forces supporter
                                      • Jul 2010
                                      • 901

                                      Originally posted by swerve View Post
                                      Only for civilian operators, IIRC. Navies are exempt, if they choose to be. The last government decided that it would voluntarily comply with the regulations, but the current government can choose to delay compliance, if it wishes.
                                      Yeah, but it can DELAY, not decide to ignore international law forever. It will certainly delay, but within a few years there will be a decision anyway. Also because the tankers are falling apart because of age and usage, and they are being paid off quite rapidly.
                                      Add to this that from 2015 onwards you may retain your tankers, but you could have ports not allowing you in for the risks posed by the single hull, and you see that new tankers can't be delayed forever.

                                      Thanks for the detailed reply - the point I failed to make was if they scarifice some things now can they get enough money to buy new equipement where the SDSR deems they need it
                                      (sorry for cutting the rest of your comment)
                                      As to this point, it seems that the government accepted the advice of the Navy that frigates and destroyers can't be any fewer than so, and this seemes promising to maintain at least 23 escorts (13 Type 23, 4 Type 22, 6 Type 45). The future surface combatant program aimed at 10 C1 (10 Type 26 now), 8 C2 and 8 C3, C3 being targeted to replace minesweepers, River OPVs and ocean-survey ships. 8 C3 was said to be baseline requirement, possibly to grow in number (hopefully! 8 ships to replace 16 (or 8 anyway) minesweepers, 3 survey, the Endurance and all the River OPVs included Clyde are FAAAAR too few, obviously.
                                      If the Future Surface Combatant will survive the times and its own ambitions, it would bring the Escorts to 24. But, unless a little more C3s are built, there would still be a massive fall in hulls and capabilities: 4 OPVs, HMS Endurance, 16 (8) minesweepers and 4 surveys replaced by 8 ships alone?
                                      Lately the C3 requirement became "indipendent" from C1/C2, so now it lost that little foggy shape it had and there's no indications of numbers, capabilities and such.
                                      But unless if 4 OPVs must remain, Ocean Survey capability would be totally lost, and most of the minesweeping would go AWOL as well.
                                      Even if remote drones for anti-mine purposes are indicated as part of the possible mission fit for the aft bay expected on the Type 26, to try and balance the loss in strenght.

                                      As to the F35 buy, no. Tornado going off early is a cut for cutting. The F35B order will survive in exchange, but most surely not in the 138 (not 150 anymore, already) form that it officially still has.
                                      80 F35B would still be something to feast for, actually, in the current climate.

                                      As to the offered closure of Leuchars... Leuchars has had LOTS to do lately with the renewed flights of russian bombers up to Scotland. It never had so many scrambles from when the Cold War finished. It looks like the worst moment ever to close it.
                                      Where would the Typhoons for the security of the Northern Area be based? I'm hoping they aren't planning to have them scrambling from Conigsby all the way up to the Shetlands, because they would arrive on the area when the Tu160 is already on route back home, and that would be embarassing like hell. Can you see the titles of the journals? "Russian bombers unharmed in Uk's sky".

                                      Now, that would destroy any bit left of credibility for the SDR, wouldn't it...?
                                      Choose between Leuchars and Lossiemouth, eventually have Typhoons and F35B based on the same airport, but one base has to stay.
                                      Also because Scotland MPs look ready to start a political war more than embarassing about base closures up north.
                                      "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 nocutstoRAF View Post
                                        Had a crazy SDSR cost saving idea for the carrier’s and no amount of internet searching could get me a straight answer – does anyone know if they could take some of the Tornado’s with a reasonably number of hours left on their airframes and convert them to operate of the carrier’s (i.e. strengthen their undercarriage and make any other changes needed) then the could operate the carrier version of the Tornado along side current Tornado’s until thir projected OSD in 2024 there by avoiding having to buy F-35’s until the early 2020's rather in the 2016 - 18 time-frame. Would it work and would it be cheap enough to be worth doing?
                                        Huh, no. Sorry, it wouldn't work.

                                        With Typhoons it would be possible. They apparently would need only arrestor wires, and no catapults. But modifications to the fuselage and undercarriage (not to talk about the software) are far less simple than one can think, and would be lenghty and very expensive, so more than unlikely at this point.
                                        Shame that the "Sea Typhoon" wasn't pursued from the very start on a "Rafale-like" race for a single-airframe combat fleet.

                                        Unfortunately, the days of easily modifying Spitfires to create Seafires is mostly gone. Only the russians, and only during Cold War, developed a carrier-borne version of a land-based fighter, the Su33 derived from the Su27 Flanker.
                                        "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

                                        • nocutstoRAF
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • May 2010
                                          • 954

                                          - I think C3 might be one of those areas where what they planned to do and what they do now is very different. I would not be surprised if in the future the number of frigates drop a little but the number of C3 platforms goes up dramatically as Liam Fox has made the point that Navy needs more smaller platforms to carry out its missions, and some of the larger proposed C3 designs are quite capable.

                                          - I also think that the F-35 is a moving target, while I can see all the logical reasons why the F-35 should stay due to its flexibility and fifth generation capabilities and worry about the story of the RAF giving up F-35:

                                          If I was in charge of the RAF and was told that if I keep Tornado until 2024 then there’s no F-35's for you (just 65 F-35’s for the RN) but that if I take the Tornado's out of service by 2015 I can then also have 65 F-35's I would sacrifice the Tornado. On the other hand if I decided to keeps the Tornado until 2024, having given up any requirement for the F-35B, and the RN was pushing for F-35B's at say $130 million a pop then I (being in charge of the RAF) could rightly point out that if the RAF can make do with its current aircraft then the RN can make do with cheaper 4th Gen aircraft like the Rafale-M or Super Hornet.

                                          In fact given all the news stories floating around now if I was Boeing or Dassault I would be contacting the MoD about now with an unsolicited offer and make sure the costs where leaked to the press along with a comparison to the recent Canadian F-35 purchase :diablo:

                                          RE: Tornado conversion - I thought the Typhoon was difficult to convert due to the placement of the intakes (underneath the fuselage) but imagined Tornado with the side intakes, and the swing wing for good low speed stability that it simply would be a matter of stripping back the fuselage, adding strengthened undercarriage and tail, maybe changing the air intakes to a corrosion resistant material, and then running the planes through several years worth of testing.
                                          Last edited by nocutstoRAF; 27th July 2010, 15:35. Reason: To answer the second post from Liger30
                                          If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X