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
  • Obi Wan Russell
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Oct 2006
    • 522

    Some of the numbers are a little off, and should read:

    HMS Ark Royal:
    1962-1963: 16 Scimitar F1 (2x8 aircraft sqns); 12 Sea Vixen FAW1; 4 Gannet AEW3; 8 Wessex HAS1; 1 Whirlwind HAR5
    This is still mainly a "Strike" air wing, as the Wessex doesn't have the range or "on-station" endurance of the Gannet.

    1970-1973: 14 Buccaneer S2 (10xS2D 'Strikers', 2xS2C 'recce birds' and 2xS2C 'buddy tankers' (coded 020-036 with gaps to make the sqn look bigger!); 12 Phantom FG1 (coded 001-014 again with the odd gap); 4 Gannet AEW3 (coded 041-044), 1 Gannet COD4 (coded 040); 6 Sea King HAS1 (coded 050-055); 2 Wessex HAS1 (SAR, coded 046-047)

    After 1973 the COD4 was replaced by a single extra Sea King HAS1 (also coded 040).
    There were two Wessex SAR helos embarked, nicknamed 'Make' and 'Mend'

    HMS Hermes
    1981: 5 Sea Harrier FRS1; 9 Sea King HAS1, The same air group as intended for the Invincible class (for which she was a 'place holder'), though this was far below her capacity and she could have simltaneously embarked a sqn of 'Junglies' and a Cmdo force. Indeed this was done in excercises in 1983. In april 82 she sailed for the South Atlantic with her SHAR sqn reinforced to it's 'Wartime strength' of 12 aircraft (proving the RN never seriously contemplated going to war with just 5 SHARS).


    In British military context, Strike means Nuclear capable, hence the Bucc's 'S' designation, and the Sea Harrier's 'FRS' (Fighter/Recconaisance/Strike). The Phantom was also Nuclear capable, but recieved the FG (Fighter/Ground Attack) designation to conceal this (not very well though!).
    Last edited by Obi Wan Russell; 30th July 2010, 16:44.
    "Without Organic Air Power at Sea, you don't have a Navy, you have a Coast Guard."

    Comment

    • MisterQ
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Jan 2008
      • 475

      http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...ence-budget.do

      Yet another dozy article claiming the carriers are going on sale.

      Comment

      • Fedaykin
        Fueled by Tea
        • Dec 2005
        • 5295

        Its hogwash!

        A mixture of rumours from the last few years, for example India has never expressed an interest in CVF.
        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 Fedaykin View Post
          Its hogwash!

          A mixture of rumours from the last few years, for example India has never expressed an interest in CVF.
          I believe and definitely hope so...
          Mostly because they may well sell Prince of Wales if there really was an offer, and that must not happen.
          "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

          • Fedaykin
            Fueled by Tea
            • Dec 2005
            • 5295

            The problem with selling PoW is it would be at a loss probably a quite significant one. In effect UK tax payer ends up paying another countries navy to take her on. The only saving from selling is the through life costs, so the massive savings that people seem to think will happen if we get rid of a carrier (or both) won't be apparent for many years.
            Last edited by Fedaykin; 30th July 2010, 17:47.
            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 Fedaykin View Post
              The problem with selling PoW is it would be at a loss probably a quite significant one. In effect UK tax payer ends up paying another countries navy to take her on. The only saving from selling is the through life costs, so the massive savings that people seem to think will happen if we get rid of a carrier (or both) won't be apparent for many years.
              Of course.
              But... you think that fact would stop government from savaging the Navy?
              The sales of the 3 Type 23 in the Labour years should have (unfortunately) showed us all that good sense is in short supply.
              Sound reasoning is not fashion, evidently.

              After all, the budget for politicians, parliaments and such is unaffordable, but there's no savage cuts coming on that. What a surprise, huh...? No need for savings on their pay, no no.
              "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

                Please forgive my ignorance but what is the difference between a Fleet Carrier and a Strike Carrier?
                Simple answer is that one is optimised for Fleet Operations and one for Strike Operations. Thats not intended to be quite as facile and flippant as it, at first, sounds!.

                A Fleet Carrier is possessed of the performance to undertake Fleet duties. It has the unsupported range and, most importantly, speed for the fleet commander to undertake the rapid strategic and tactical manoevering essential in bluewater fleet-on-fleet scenarios.

                A Strike Carrier is optimised for the deployment of, sustained, high-intensity air operations against targets ashore. It doesnt need to possess the performance or range of capabilities of the Fleet Carrier in order to accomplish its primary function.

                In many ways its similar to the specialisation needed to define the Russian Admiral Kuznetsov. A large aircraft carrier that in many ways has the attributes of a Fleet Carrier, but, without the ability to sustain high sortie rates of attack aircraft and without the ability to undertake blue water sea control....instead offering the capabilty for limited bluewater sea denial!.

                The Strike Carrier, like the Air Defence Ship concept, share attributes with Fleet Carriers but should never be confused with them.
                Last edited by Jonesy; 30th July 2010, 21:20.

                Comment

                • F/A-18RN
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • May 2005
                  • 256

                  Thanks for answering my question Jonesy. However just to clarify, what were the 4 RN carriers of the 1960s/70s and what would CVA01 (and, if any, its sisters) have been, strike or fleet?

                  Comment

                  • Jonesy
                    Neo-conversative
                    • Jan 2000
                    • 5097

                    Originally posted by F/A-18RN View Post
                    Thanks for answering my question Jonesy. However just to clarify, what were the 4 RN carriers of the 1960s/70s and what would CVA01 (and, if any, its sisters) have been, strike or fleet?
                    Seeings as the term Strike Carrier, as applied to the CVF, is a very recent, post-Cold War, one its not really applicable to the ships you list. CVF isnt a Fleet Carrier....even if it were completed with catapults and E-2's in the airgroup...its listed performance will only narrowly be sufficient for Fleet ops.

                    Back in the day the distinction was relatively simple, in the RN, in that you had Fleet or Light Fleet carriers (where your 4 vessels live) that were intended, as described, for Fleet operations. You then had ASW or Commando carriers that, despite being the same hulls, were mission-specialised.

                    Below that, going farther back, you had the slower Escort Carriers who were unable to keep pace with Fleet operations but were a cheap means to an end.

                    Comment

                    • Samudragupta
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Aug 2004
                      • 84

                      Jonesy,

                      How do you see the role of the Indian IAC carriers?

                      As I see it, they appear to be some flavor of strike carrier and will probably rely on screens of P-17 and P-15A/B ships for AAW. Still, lacking dedicated IFR assets they seem like they might have a harder time assembling biggish strike packages in the air if too far away from the enemy coast. Also, lacking Hawkeye like AEW would have a harder time providing fleet defence if brought too close to the enemy coast, not to mention the issues that this will pose to the screens.

                      Being a n00b, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it. I'm clearly missing the big picture on Indian carrier doctrine and strategy. (Or is it as simple as relying on buddy refueling the MiG-29K and NLCAs?)

                      Comment

                      • Jonesy
                        Neo-conversative
                        • Jan 2000
                        • 5097

                        Originally posted by Samudragupta View Post
                        Jonesy,

                        How do you see the role of the Indian IAC carriers?

                        As I see it, they appear to be some flavor of strike carrier and will probably rely on screens of P-17 and P-15A/B ships for AAW. Still, lacking dedicated IFR assets they seem like they might have a harder time assembling biggish strike packages in the air if too far away from the enemy coast. Also, lacking Hawkeye like AEW would have a harder time providing fleet defence if brought too close to the enemy coast, not to mention the issues that this will pose to the screens.

                        Being a n00b, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it. I'm clearly missing the big picture on Indian carrier doctrine and strategy. (Or is it as simple as relying on buddy refueling the MiG-29K and NLCAs?)
                        Its a fairly good appraisal to be honest. The IAC-1 design is a highly compromised one and I think this stems from the original ADS concept that its evolved from.

                        I could be well off beam here but I am assuming that Indian carrier doctrine has evolved under a strong Russian influence. The ADS concept seemed analagous to Gorshkovs doctrine of forward support for a submarine force that represents the primary striking arm for combined air/surface/subsurface forward sea denial. The carrier would operate with a battlegroup emitting on powerful search sensors daring any opponent to attempt to penetrate their surveilled battlespace. Anything that does breach the 'bubble' gets pounced on by MiGs or SSN/SSGNs.

                        The IAC has, seemingly, evolved into a platform capable of steaming long distances maintaining a CAP slot or two for extended periods and low sortie rate airstrikes. The carrier therefore seems to support more of a patrol/coercion doctrine than a full strategic power projection one. Given India's threat environment and the fact that its not really progressing an expeditionary warfare capability yet its probably a good fit. Especially if the IN, as reported, is working up to 65k ton EMALS-fitted Fleet Carriers for IAC-2, 3 and 4.

                        Comment

                        • F/A-18RN
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • May 2005
                          • 256

                          I haven't picked it up myself, but in the latest edition of Warships International Fleet Review, Nigel 'Sharkey' Ward has written a two-page CVF article intitled 'Tailhook vs V/STOL'. I believe it deals with those two different options for Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales.

                          Comment

                          • Guest's Avatar
                            Guest

                            Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                            Of course.
                            But... you think that fact would stop government from savaging the Navy?
                            The Navy is an easy target because only a minority of people know what it does and of all the services it's the hardest to explain why we need it. Soldiers = boots on the ground. Planes = airpower. Navy = a much more complicated explanation.

                            After all, the budget for politicians, parliaments and such is unaffordable, but there's no savage cuts coming on that. What a surprise, huh...? No need for savings on their pay, no no.
                            It's fun to always complain about politicians, but as professionals their pay pales in comparison to others who are lawyers, doctors, bankers, etc. Many MPs take pay cuts to do their job.

                            And even if we abolished all pay and benefits for being an MP, it would save (compared to the deficit) sweet fa money.

                            Originally posted by Fedaykin View Post
                            Its hogwash!

                            A mixture of rumours from the last few years, for example India has never expressed an interest in CVF.
                            Why would a country having a carrier refit and more built want to buy an expensive European carrier? It wouldn't. As you say it's all rubbish.

                            Comment

                            • Trident
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • May 2004
                              • 3970

                              Originally posted by Jonesy View Post
                              1, We do not have the same REQUIREMENT for carriers as the French or Americans. Their carriers were designed relative to the Cold War. We are in a post-Cold War world where we do not need to do blue water sea control which is the only mission that the Fleet Carrier performs better than a Strike Carrier.

                              Read the MoD REQUIREMENT for the Carrier Strike capability. It is not a Fleet Carrier by any stretch of the imagination. CVF offers the capability to be re-roled to Fleet Carrier operation, albeit on the low-performance side, but until the threat board reflects the need for a Fleet Carrier why spend the money on capability we dont need?. Just for the 'we can do it too' factor with the Yanks and the French?. Poor reasoning at best.

                              2, The Argentinians did the damage because we had ASW and Commando carriers. A Strike Carrier like CVF in a Fleet that was optimised for expeditionary warfare and not bluewater ASW would have made the difference as much as anything else.

                              I am sorry if you feel victimised, but, too many people are fundamentally misunderstanding what CVF and the MoD Carrier Strike requirement are actually about.......just because CVF 'looks like' it should be a fleet carrier. That, to me, is simple ignorance and should be challenged.
                              Does the strike optimisation not entail the risk of being caught out by unforeseen circumstances though, much in the same way as happened in 1982 with ASW optimised ships? A Fleet carrier of the same size as CVF might not be quite as efficient at strike operations but offers more flexibility to respond to a changing operational environment. I believe the intended operational life for these ships is 50 years and that is a long period of time over which to accurately predict the nature of potential military conflicts.

                              Furthermore, how big will the penalty in the strike role really be by going from STOVL to CATOBAR? You say: reduced sortie rates, requirement for a carrier qualified pilot pool, higher operational cost and reduced airframe life. Of these, most affect the cost but not the capability of the ship, except sortie rates. How significant a difference will there be on a fairly substantial 65000 ton ship though? I can see how deck space and a single catapult will drastically hold back a 20k or 30k flat top compared to a STOVL carrier but providing a decent sortie rate should be feasible on something as big as CVF. Similarly, I doubt the difference in terms of airframe life between the F-35B and C would be that extreme.

                              Keep in mind also that CATOBAR improves strike performance in a number of important ways - higher take-off and landing weights can be used to provide more payload, better range or longer endurance, as required. Although not directly strike related, the ability to operate off-the-shelf Hawkeyes for AEW should not be underestimated IMHO. As for operational cost, were you referring to the ship or the aircraft? If it is the former, EMALS should bring about a reduction compared to using conventional steam catapults. If it is the latter, I'm not sure why the considerable added mechanical complexity of the F-35B over the F-35C would result in lower maintenance requirements?

                              I can't rid myself of the impression that the Strike Carrier concept was at least partially born out of financial realities rather than actual operational requirements.
                              sigpic

                              Comment

                              • Fedaykin
                                Fueled by Tea
                                • Dec 2005
                                • 5295

                                Originally posted by Musashi View Post

                                Why would a country having a carrier refit and more built want to buy an expensive European carrier? It wouldn't. As you say it's all rubbish.
                                Indeed utter rubbish, doing a bit of research the rumour first appeared Autumn last year in the Guardian. It was stomped down at the time by India when it was pointed out that they already have INS Vikramaditya in final fit out, the new IAS-1/INS Vikrant starting build at Cochin and a fifty to sixty thousand ton CTOL carrier IAC-2 planned. To sell PoW to India would require us undercutting Cochin which means selling at a massive loss and I doubt India would bite as it would be detrimental to their own shipbuilding industry.

                                As for other countries that operate carriers or would like to:

                                Brazil already has Sao Paulo that can soldier on for another fifteen years, PoW even reduced would be outside their potential budget to buy and operate. Finally I think they want something new, smaller (forty thousand tons I recon) and benefits local industry.

                                China: Locally building new carriers and politically unacceptable.

                                Argentina: no chance.

                                Italy: built their own in the form of Cavour, will probably build more of the same

                                Spain: Building their own for F35 in the form of Juan Carlos class.

                                Thailand: can't afford to operate what they have.

                                America: what would be the point?!

                                South Korea: Might want external help designing but local production.

                                Japan: Could afford it with their gold plated millitary budget but its far too big and aggressive for their liking. Also like South Korea would prefer local production.

                                Australia: The Juan Carlos class they are buying with Ski Jumps would allow them to operate F35 if they want.

                                As for other countries I haven't seen any major desire to join the carrier club.
                                Last edited by Fedaykin; 31st July 2010, 19:33.
                                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 Fedaykin View Post
                                  Indeed utter rubbish, doing a bit of research the rumour first appeared Autumn last year in the Guardian. It was stomped down at the time by India when it was pointed out that they already have INS Vikramaditya in final fit out, the new IAS-1/INS Vikrant starting build at Cochin and a fifty to sixty thousand ton CTOL carrier IAC-2 planned. To sell PoW to India would require us undercutting Cochin which means selling at a massive loss and I doubt India would bite as it would be detrimental to their own shipbuilding industry.

                                  As for other countries that operate carriers or would like to:

                                  Brazil already has Sao Paulo that can soldier on for another fifteen years, PoW even reduced would be outside their potential budget to buy and operate. Finally I think they want something new, smaller (forty thousand tons I recon) and benefits local industry.

                                  China: Locally building new carriers and politically unacceptable.

                                  Argentina: no chance.

                                  Italy: built their own in the form of Cavour, will probably build more of the same

                                  Spain: Building their own for F35 in the form of Juan Carlos class.

                                  Thailand: can't afford to operate what they have.

                                  America: what would be the point?!

                                  South Korea: Might want external help designing but local production.

                                  Japan: Could afford it with their gold plated millitary budget but its far too big and aggressive for their liking. Also like South Korea would prefer local production.

                                  Australia: The Juan Carlos class they are buying with Ski Jumps would allow them to operate F35 if they want.

                                  As for other countries I haven't seen any major desire to join the carrier club.
                                  Overall correct, but i can grant you ITaly is not going to build more Cavours. Indeed, it is going to try and find countries interested in 4 of its 10 planned FREEM frigates because the budget is going to be cut. It was announced together with renouncing to buy Typhoon TRanche 3B.

                                  And Italy never had money nor experience for a behemoth like CVF anyway. (sadly)
                                  "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

                                  • Fedaykin
                                    Fueled by Tea
                                    • Dec 2005
                                    • 5295

                                    Fair point, does this read better:

                                    Italy: built their own in the form of Cavour, would probably build more of the same if they had the money...
                                    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

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

                                    Comment

                                    • Jonesy
                                      Neo-conversative
                                      • Jan 2000
                                      • 5097

                                      Originally posted by Trident View Post
                                      Does the strike optimisation not entail the risk of being caught out by unforeseen circumstances though, A Fleet carrier of the same size as CVF might not be quite as efficient at strike operations but offers more flexibility to respond to a changing operational environment.
                                      Without flippancy the only thing CVF wont do is bluewater sea control. Who is there who will contest bluewater with us who we could even potentially be going to attack on our own between now and, say, 2025?.

                                      Russia has a handful of competent SSNs but most are ageing....we are cracking along quite nicely with the Astute class boats. Those Russian SSNs are about the only meaningful bluewater threat out there. The Chinese can build ships as fast as they like, but, are 50 years back in operational experience. They aren't going to build a fleet and get it up to speed in two decades....even if they try it the signals will be very clear of their intent and we can alter our stance as necessary. Regardless of this I cannot conceive of a situation where we would engage them in bluewater anyway...its not like we could achieve anything putting 3Cdo Brigade ashore in either country!.

                                      I can see how deck space and a single catapult will drastically hold back a 20k or 30k flat top compared to a STOVL carrier but providing a decent sortie rate should be feasible on something as big as CVF. Similarly, I doubt the difference in terms of airframe life between the F-35B and C would be that extreme.
                                      Sortie rate over time between PA2 and CVF is, I believe, comparable. Max rate sortie generation over a short period is better for the STOVL design, but, over time the French ship catches up IIRC. That may have something to do with the admirable low-maintenance qualities of Rafale though. The odds are pretty much even between the two designs in operational terms and the Frenchie is very definitely intended to be a Fleet Carrier.

                                      Airframe life is a different matter though. There are stacks of ex-USN aircraft sitting in AMARC that have useable airframe hours, but, have exhausted their cat/trap cycle lives and cant operate from a ship ever again. EMALS is intended to be easier on airframes than steam cats and hydraulic arresting gear....but the loading of being accelerated to flying speed over a shortish catapult stroke is always going to hurt. Normal procedure is to cycle airframes to spread the operational loadings across the inventory, but, if we can't afford all that many airframes in the first place airframe life will be a significant factor.....moreso when you consider the extra flying needed for continuation deck quals.

                                      Keep in mind also that CATOBAR improves strike performance in a number of important ways - higher take-off and landing weights can be used to provide more payload, better range or longer endurance, as required.
                                      The differences are operationally marginal. We arent the USN and manned deep strike is something that demands excellent ISTAR and prestrike prep. We arent going to have the assets to do that like the USN can. If we are shooting at fixed targets we have TLAM and CASOM on F-35B to deploy. An extra 150 miles on the strike radius in favour of the C model over the B is neither here nor there.

                                      Although not directly strike related, the ability to operate off-the-shelf Hawkeyes for AEW should not be underestimated IMHO.
                                      Hawkeye is critical for sea control missions, but, overkill for hunting down a couple of Toyota pickups with AK47 toting bearded chappies. Especially when there are only three embarked and perhaps as few as two more back at home!. The French have had E-2's in their fleet for more than a decade...any critical missions they have undertaken yet?.

                                      I can't rid myself of the impression that the Strike Carrier concept was at least partially born out of financial realities rather than actual operational requirements.
                                      It is but not how you think. The ship follows the requirement.....not the other way around. There really is NO need for a Fleet Carrier right now so there is no requirement to go to the expense of building one. If a STOVL strikefighter, with LO qualities, achieves operational status, as we have seen, there are considerable advantages to deploying them at sea. Provided the vessel itself is built with enough adaptability to be re-roled if, after a decade or so from build, the global threat picture changes why spend the extra money up front needlessly?. Especially at a time when we have real pressing operational needs in combat zones.
                                      Last edited by Jonesy; 31st July 2010, 23:26.

                                      Comment

                                      • Trident
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • May 2004
                                        • 3970

                                        Originally posted by Jonesy View Post
                                        Without flippancy the only thing CVF wont do is bluewater sea control. Who is there who will contest bluewater with us who we could even potentially be going to attack on our own between now and, say, 2025?.
                                        I have nothing to add to your assessment regarding the world as it currently looks. Yet again, a lot can change in 50 years.

                                        Originally posted by Jonesy View Post
                                        Sortie rate over time between PA2 and CVF is, I believe, comparable. Max rate sortie generation over a short period is better for the STOVL design, but, over time the French ship catches up IIRC. That may have something to do with the admirable low-maintenance qualities of Rafale though. The odds are pretty much even between the two designs in operational terms and the Frenchie is very definitely intended to be a Fleet Carrier.
                                        Thanks for the clarification! So the advantage in sortie rates is basically limited to a surge capability.

                                        Originally posted by Jonesy View Post
                                        Airframe life is a different matter though. There are stacks of ex-USN aircraft sitting in AMARC that have useable airframe hours, but, have exhausted their cat/trap cycle lives and cant operate from a ship ever again. EMALS is intended to be easier on airframes than steam cats and hydraulic arresting gear....but the loading of being accelerated to flying speed over a shortish catapult stroke is always going to hurt. Normal procedure is to cycle airframes to spread the operational loadings across the inventory, but, if we can't afford all that many airframes in the first place airframe life will be a significant factor.....moreso when you consider the extra flying needed for continuation deck quals.
                                        Point taken. This could easily eat up any savings from purchasing CATOBAR F-35s over the STOVL variant, I imagine. So possibly a cost disadvantage of undetermined magnitude for a CATOBAR CVF.

                                        Originally posted by Jonesy View Post
                                        The differences are operationally marginal. We arent the USN and manned deep strike is something that demands excellent ISTAR and prestrike prep. We arent going to have the assets to do that like the USN can. If we are shooting at fixed targets we have TLAM and CASOM on F-35B to deploy. An extra 150 miles on the strike radius in favour of the C model over the B is neither here nor there.
                                        Range is but one benefit of launching at higher weights and more bring back capability - let's not fixate on it exclusively. What about payload and time on station advantages?

                                        Originally posted by Jonesy View Post
                                        Hawkeye is critical for sea control missions, but, overkill for hunting down a couple of Toyota pickups with AK47 toting bearded chappies. Especially when there are only three embarked and perhaps as few as two more back at home!. The French have had E-2's in their fleet for more than a decade...any critical missions they have undertaken yet?.
                                        Perversely, I was not thinking of the E-2 due to capability but price. Any long-term AEW solution for the STOVL CVF will involve some degree of development and testing work, even a comparatively low-risk option like the proposed Merlin ASAC. With such a small production run, cost may become an issue, even compared to the expensive and gold-plated but off-the-shelf Hawkeye. BTW, if Toyota pickups are the intended target set an expensive stealth fighter is surely overkill as well - a new-built Harrier GR.9 will handle that just fine.

                                        Originally posted by Jonesy View Post
                                        It is but not how you think. The ship follows the requirement.....not the other way around.
                                        I understand that perfectly well, I just get the feeling that the budget drove the requirement that in turn drove the ship. That's normal too, one does have to bring one's commitments in line with what is affordable, but it seems to have brought about a strange compromise in this instance. Somehow it seems a Fleet Carrier would not have been (significantly) more expensive by necessity.
                                        sigpic

                                        Comment

                                        • F/A-18RN
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • May 2005
                                          • 256

                                          Do you think that this thread and this one: http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/sho...d.php?t=102272 should be merged?

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X