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
  • Liger30
    Armed Forces supporter
    • Jul 2010
    • 901

    Unfortunately, there's not much to say/show for the moment. There's not even certainty to get the damn ships yet, even now that the first is being built.

    Think i wouldn't like to have lots of images of QE coming together? Unfortunately, political babbling is what we get for now instead.
    "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

    • Grey Area
      Punter
      • Apr 2004
      • 12157

      Moderator Message

      No more off-topic postings, please.

      If you really must talk politics, use the General Discussion forum.

      Thanks

      GA
      You can't fool owls.

      Comment

      • MisterQ
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Jan 2008
        • 475

        Originally posted by RacingMonk View Post
        Seriously, are there any moderators on this forum? I've been scanning this thread for any info on the construction of the new carriers and all I get is garbage about South American navies, Pakistan, fleet replenishment......

        The original post stated "Several people said "lets start a thread on the construcion of CVF" but they haven't so here we go folks! I would like to know all the latest info or more excitingly pictures of the consruction of Queen and Prince"

        The second post said "Great idea, and lets just keep it to the actual construction itself rather than the long tortuous political road to its construction."

        KEEP ON TOPIC!


        What do you want exactly? it's not as if their is a blog stating "finished welding bulkhead 332 today, another small milestone"

        Comment

        • 90inFIRST
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Oct 2008
          • 240

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6JBF...layer_embedded

          Comment

          • Liger30
            Armed Forces supporter
            • Jul 2010
            • 901

            Wasn't it here already?
            I remember seeing this video before. However, thank you. Better than any gloomy cut proposal over RN ships.
            I'm sick of cuts.
            "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

            • RacingMonk
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Jul 2009
              • 63

              Originally posted by MisterQ View Post
              What do you want exactly? it's not as if their is a blog stating "finished welding bulkhead 332 today, another small milestone"
              Are they up to 332 already?

              Comment

              • WP840
                Whisky Papa
                • Feb 2006
                • 1964

                http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...t-carrier.html
                If you're not living on the edge then you're taking up too much space!

                Comment

                • verbatim
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Aug 2010
                  • 261

                  That newspaper seems to me to be popular because of its devotion to keep masses more aware of problems related to mammary hypertrophy than to political issues ones...

                  I will wait a little longer before starting to bang the head against a concrete wall.

                  Comment

                  • swerve
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Jun 2005
                    • 13612

                    Ah, I see you have correctly identified the marketing strategy of The Scum.
                    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                    Justinian

                    Comment

                    • Witcha
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Jun 2010
                      • 1241

                      http://www.hmforces.co.uk/news/artic...-jets-are-axed

                      ONE of the two new aircraft carriers demanded by the Navy will be built but the RAF will lose 100 jets after David Cameron intervened in a row over defence cuts.

                      The Prime Minister sided with Defence Secretary Liam Fox yesterday, making clear that at least one aircraft carrier will get the go-ahead.
                      Seems like it's on the chopping block.

                      Comment

                      • Jonesy
                        Neo-conversative
                        • Jan 2000
                        • 5097

                        Originally posted by Witcha View Post
                        http://www.hmforces.co.uk/news/artic...-jets-are-axed



                        Seems like it's on the chopping block.
                        If one's built the other will be built. The contract with BAE was expressly and clearly written for both ships to prevent exactly this scenario. Cancelling PoW doesnt save any money.

                        Comment

                        • nocutstoRAF
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • May 2010
                          • 954

                          What about if they are simply varying the existing contract so that for an agreed price (which could not be less than the two carriers) they build QE and something/s else this would look like cancelling PoW to the press, but it would not be cancelling the contract!
                          If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

                          Comment

                          • Jonesy
                            Neo-conversative
                            • Jan 2000
                            • 5097

                            Originally posted by nocutstoRAF View Post
                            What about if they are simply varying the existing contract so that for an agreed price (which could not be less than the two carriers) they build QE and something/s else this would look like cancelling PoW to the press, but it would not be cancelling the contract!
                            1, The point of cancelling the carrier is to save money. You dont save anything if you reapply the money saved on one project to a different one.

                            2, There is nothing else ready to build. T26 has just been awarded to BAE at development stage. MoD are paying a mere 127mn for a multiyear programme leading to build.

                            Comment

                            • MisterQ
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Jan 2008
                              • 475

                              If that happens I'm rallying for a coup! We've all seen the state the french have left themselves in by only having one carrier, to do the same would be retarded. And what about all the money already spent ordering the long lead items for PoW?

                              I swear to christ it's like the people trying to make these cuts have left their brains in in a glass by the bed.

                              Comment

                              • Liger30
                                Armed Forces supporter
                                • Jul 2010
                                • 901

                                Yeah, it's what i'm shouting by months getting "Drama!" comebacks all the time myself.

                                But you know, i'm resigning myself. If the F35B bought are only 40, there won't be more than 12 of them operative, so even QE alone would be deprimently empty and incapable to be filled up even with a surge in case of war.
                                If an agreement can be found that saves QE and allows enough saving (even just long-term ones) that the NSC is moved to pity and avoids the absurd and foolish move of scrapping the Amphibs, i guess there's all but to be "happy" with how things are going...

                                Meanwhile, latest news have hinted that Devonport is probably safe as a base. I always thought that the political cost of shutting the base was simply unaffordable, regardless of any other consideration.
                                Hope it means the amphibs are safe as well!
                                To brag about "retaining power projection" and losing the amphibs was ridiculous.

                                I will still come to Rosyth to shout aloud "Rule, Britannia, Britannia rules the waves!" when the QE will hit the water... But i'll have to make an effort and forget that there won't be planes for her to be really happy at least for that day...
                                70 F35 is the bare minimum to make sense. 40 is ridiculous.
                                Last edited by Liger30; 5th October 2010, 14:55.
                                "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

                                  Originally posted by Jonesy View Post
                                  1, The point of cancelling the carrier is to save money. You dont save anything if you reapply the money saved on one project to a different one.

                                  2, There is nothing else ready to build. T26 has just been awarded to BAE at development stage. MoD are paying a mere 127mn for a multiyear programme leading to build.
                                  If you get a different part of the work programme you were going to have to fund is now covered by changing the contract then it is a saving in the long run.

                                  FT is suggesting BAE has been asked to advise on how feasible it is to bring construction of the T26 forward and there has been lots of vague and therefore likely misconstrued hints in the rest of the press on building light frigates which I assume is based on them (the journo's) googling recent BAE ship building contracts and looking at what they actually built and deciding that is what David Cameron actually meant.
                                  Last edited by nocutstoRAF; 5th October 2010, 17:24.
                                  If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

                                  Comment

                                  • Stryker73
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Jun 2010
                                    • 274

                                    The HM Forces site is written by contributors and this one has clearly seen the interview given by the Prime Minister to Andrew Marr on Sunday and written it up as fact.

                                    Why don't you hear it from the Defence Secretarys own mouth last night when asked about his interpretation of whats happening with the 2nd carrier

                                    http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Bus...01010115751805

                                    Comment

                                    • Jonesy
                                      Neo-conversative
                                      • Jan 2000
                                      • 5097

                                      Originally posted by nocutstoRAF View Post
                                      If you get a different part of the work programme you were going to have to fund is now covered by changing the contract then it is a saving in the long run.

                                      FT is suggesting BAE has been asked to advise on how feasible it is to bring construction of the T26 forward and there has been lots of vague and therefore likely misconstrued hints in the rest of the press on building light frigates which I assume is based on them (the journo's) googling recent BAE ship building contracts and looking at what they actually built and deciding that is what David Cameron actually meant.
                                      It makes no difference what the FT says the simple fact is that T26 is, right now, a 127mn development program that may be employing up to 300 people in Filton at its highpoint in a year or so. It is not going to be ready to build by 2013 when the Rosyth management say that they'll start laying people off as the single-CVF work dries up. There is NO other design currently ready to build in the timeframe necessary to offset the loss of CVF-02. It really is that simple.

                                      Comment

                                      • nocutstoRAF
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • May 2010
                                        • 954

                                        I blame the CEO of BAE he should have never told the Defence Select Committee - he was asked to look at the options for two, one or no carriers but with something else being built - it caused all sorts of issues, especially no-one will say if PoW will go ahead or not - it allows all sort of rumours, and if you are like me you try to understand what truth if any there are in the rumours.
                                        If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

                                        Comment

                                        • MisterQ
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Jan 2008
                                          • 475

                                          http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oc...rcraft-carrier

                                          Shows hw much that guardian knows, 69 aircraft per ship was it?

                                          So the idea is to build a "budget" carrier,which is exactly the same as the QE, and just cut the airgroup,which isn't actually attached to the ship anyway.

                                          What utter nonsense.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X