Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed  
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 10781 times:

Brief fair use excerpt from the BBC:

Quote:
Orders for two new Royal Navy aircraft carriers have been confirmed by Defence Secretary Des Browne.
He said the £3.8bn contract would lead to the construction of the largest vessels ever sailed by the Royal Navy.

The new 65,000-tonne carriers - HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales - will enter service in 2014 and 2016.

[...]

Original article: MoD confirms £3.8bn carrier order



EDIT: Altered topic text as "launched" has a different meaning in a nautical sense.

[Edited 2007-07-25 18:54:30]


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
107 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12179 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 10771 times:

This is great news for the RN.

User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 10763 times:

Indeed. I don't believe the third unit (for the French) has been authorized yet, has it? Though presumably this would make it far more likely.


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineHanginOut From Austria, joined May 2005, 550 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 10730 times:

You should check out the neat little computer generated video that they have for the carriers on the BBC (top right corner on the site - I've added the link below).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/new...16253.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&asb=1&news=1



Dreaming of the day I can work for an airline
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 10731 times:

The F-35B's seabourne roost is now more or less "assured". A goodly part of the JSF investment would have been wasted if the CVF didn't push through.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tristan van der Vlugt


Not the F-35B, of course.  Wink



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13252 posts, RR: 77
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 10703 times:

It's taken a long time, but very detailed design had to be done, and the stumbling block of recent times, getting the consolidation of those to build it.
But the 1960's CVA project was, even without the economic and defence policy changes, doomed by being a lemon, an attempt to design too much into a too small displacement.
Unlike the 1960's, there is much more across the board inter-service support for this carrier.

Now, we are into long lead items ordering, final detailed design work.
It's going ahead.

Information released so far, indicates all of the superblocks of each CVF, will be spread around UK yards, there have been some reports that France would build all 3 bow sections, since after the bow block, the UK and mooted French designs differ, but this so far, not appears to be the case.

Animations show CVF mounting a large 'Sampson' radar, as used on the Type-45's that will escort her (the first, HMS Daring, is now on sea trials), also potentially, like Charles DeGaulle, VLS Aster-15's could be mounted, in addition to Phanlax and/or RAM CIWS.
On the other hand, if costs escalate too much, Sampson/Aster-15 could be dropped without affecting being an aircraft carrier.

CVF will mean a smaller RN, but one where it can mount fully independent, first day of the war, air-power, within or wthout coalitions.
Much of the surface fleet, will be to escort these and the Amphibious Ready Group (where the RN has grown in recent times)-which CVF will make more credible too.

So maybe wise to invest in some relatively cheap ocean going Corvette type vessels, a 76mm, some 30mm guns, provision for RAM, an embarked Future Lynx helicopter and space for decent numbers of Royal Marines, you won't need a Type 45 for the West Indies Guard ship (a lot of anti drug ops), or deterring pirates in the Southern Hemisphere as examples.

From the MoD, check out the related links for more details and an animation of CVF;
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/De...nfirmedInDefenceBudgetIncrease.htm

[Edited 2007-07-25 21:08:29]

User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 10693 times:

This is a banner day for the RN, but I hope this doesn't mean that the RN will be unable to provide escorts for the carrier capable of defending the fleet.

I agree that less expensive ships could provide some of the littoral and policing vessels needed for jobs that today are being carried out by ships that could be used elsewhere. Perhaps a coast guard type patrol vessel with helo capability as described in the previous post will allow sufficient numbers of Type 45s to be equipped with the ADA systems needed.

I really hope this doesn't come at the cost of the submarine fleet. It's bare bones as it is, and this is the real power projection capability of a modern navy. The ability to interdict trade routes at will, and sink enemy surface vessels with the original stealth vessel.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7810 posts, RR: 16
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 10676 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
So maybe wise to invest in some relatively cheap ocean going Corvette type vessels, a 76mm, some 30mm guns, provision for RAM, an embarked Future Lynx helicopter and space for decent numbers of Royal Marines, you won't need a Type 45 for the West Indies Guard ship (a lot of anti drug ops), or deterring pirates in the Southern Hemisphere as examples.

Why not build more Type 23s. It seems like a decent smaller sized multi-purpose vessel that can operate independently or with the fleet. This would keep the Type 45s tasked with the CBGs and ABGs, like they were designed to be.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 6):
I really hope this doesn't come at the cost of the submarine fleet. It's bare bones as it is, and this is the real power projection capability of a modern navy.

The number of subs and blue water ships in the Royal Navy is getting rather small. Granted w/ only 2 carriers, and a handful of amphib assault ships you don't need too many ships to escort. But at the end of the day your capabilities might be constrained. The SSNs proved themselves to be extremely valuable in the Falklands. They provide a lot of capability, both in support of the fleet, special ops, and out by themselves. Certainly not something that the RN would want to lose.



Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13252 posts, RR: 77
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 10679 times:

Well, the first Astute class sub is in the water, 5 are now on order, 3 more are mooted in the longer term, meaning eventually an 8 ship SSN fleet, plus the 4 SSBN's.
But they potentially will not require reactor refuelling over their lives.
However, Astute promises to be a hugely capable sub, carrying 38 Tomahawks as well as torpedo's, a real step change in capability in sensors and generally.

Without the Soviet threat, a smaller SSN fleet is OK, since their job will also be in support of out of area ops, as well as screening the SSBN's ingress and egress into port, if the need arose. (The latter was the whole reason France originally built their later and smaller SSN's).

Each CVF will be screened for AD by two T-45's, plus two more for the Amphibious Group, it does seem, as things stand now, only 6 T-45's, but it's hard to ever see three entirely separate CVF and ARG groups, I agree that two more T-45's would be desirable.

DesertJets, the last T-23, was completed over 5 years ago, a good ASW and general purpose ship, but now not a new design.
So I'd also use already proposed T-45 versions for replacing Frigates, a Frigate sized T-45 version for ASW/general escort, plus a T-45 without Sampson and Aster 30, but with more Aster-15's and the VL launched version of the Storm Shadow cruise missile in RAF service, being developed for the French Navy, more space for embarked Marines and small UAV's like Firescout to supplement the Merlin.

CVF and the new warships generally, will enable the RN to much better perform the roles they are now certain to have, rather than the improvised, smaller version of the Cold War navy, which the Invincibles were designed for.
Since 1985, RAF Mount Pleasant airfield alone has provided protection for the Falklands, with the ability, much practised, to very rapidly re-inforce the locally based air and ground assets, though still a RN Frigate/Destroyer guard-ship, as well as an ocean going patrol craft (which the brand new HMS Clyde will modernise).

I don't see any change there, (that deployment is valuable for training, all that empty airspace for one).
So the situation there is completely transformed from April 1982, with it's virtually unarmed HMS Endurance, 69 lightly armed Royal Marines, and no way of quickly re-inforcing the Islands.

[Edited 2007-07-25 21:49:19]

[Edited 2007-07-25 21:50:12]

User currently offlineFlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 10650 times:

Agreed that the RN is getting some new heavy-duty firepower on water. Don't agree with the ships' names tho. Something better could & can be thought of.
Regards.



"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 10642 times:

Quoting FlagshipAZ (Reply 9):
Agreed that the RN is getting some new heavy-duty firepower on water. Don't agree with the ships' names tho. Something better could & can be thought of.

What's wrong with Prince of Wales, other than the name being rather infamous?



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 10628 times:

Both of those vessels are to be given honorable and well respected names. Prince of Wales has been the name of several ships in RN history, and the Queen Elizabeth will (since it doesn't say QEII) named after the queen that launched Drake against the Spanish Armada and sank the supposed greatest naval fleet the world had yet seen. Not bad for heritage there.


Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks ago) and read 10591 times:

I think the RN is making a big mistake not having the ships be capable of operating what looks to be a far more capable F-35C rather than the F-35B. Frankly for the sake of the RN I hope the ditch the silly ski ramp and add catapults to the thing.

User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks ago) and read 10587 times:

I don't see the advantage of operating STOVL F-35B's off a carrier otherwise fully capable of using F-35C's? The F-35B's will suffer enormous penalites in payload, range, loiter time, bringback weight, and overall maintenance costs compared to the F-35C so what the hey, eh? Just like the USMC, they need to buy less F-35B's and more F-35C's.

User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 months 4 weeks ago) and read 10578 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 13):
Just like the USMC, they need to buy less F-35B's and more F-35C's.

Agreed, opting for VSTOL and not having the cats will limit your options when it comes to a AWACS platform and puts a limit on future growth.

Otherwise the ships look great. Just ditch the ski jump.


User currently offlineFlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 10557 times:

I prefer HMS United Kingdom and HMS Great Britain. The Prince of Wales is a good proud name, but when coupled with Queen Elizabeth...one will know the ships are named after a "mum & her boy". At least that was my first thought when I read the ships' names. Just my opinion.
Regards.



"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
User currently offlineHanginOut From Austria, joined May 2005, 550 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 10543 times:

Another reason the RN is acquiring F-35Bs is for commonality with the RAF. While I agree that they would be better off buying the F-35C and putting catapults on their carriers, its not the worst decision in the world. They will have a lot of versatility on where they want this thing to land and take off of from. I personally think it is a great idea to have a fighter aircraft in the inventory that doesn't have to rely on airfields.

Moreover, I can see them equipping the carriers with catapults when they go in for their first refit. They should have put them in from the start, even if they are buying the F-35B, that way they could have operated E2-Cs and this would also have allowed them to operate aircraft from the USN and the French Navy (increasing interoperability amongst the NATO allies).

As for the debate on the names of the carriers, both have a long and storied history with the RN and there is nothing unusual with the RN using them. If anything the argument could be made that it is strange that the USN names its carriers after politicians (what next, is the USN going to start naming ships after lawyers and other bottom feeders).  Wink



Dreaming of the day I can work for an airline
User currently offlineBritJap From Japan, joined Aug 2006, 280 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 10537 times:

This is absolutely brilliant news!!! Thanks for posting!!

I am not a navy guy so I cant offer any constructive posts but I very pleased with the decision to go ahead.
I already e-mailed a 'navy nut' friend of mine with whom I have often discussed these projects. I am sure he will be very pleased too.

Indeed a great day for the RN it would seem.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 12):
I think the RN is making a big mistake not having the ships be capable of operating what looks to be a far more capable F-35C rather than the F-35B.

Cant help but agree with this though.


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 10520 times:

Quoting HanginOut (Reply 16):
Another reason the RN is acquiring F-35Bs is for commonality with the RAF. While I agree that they would be better off buying the F-35C and putting catapults on their carriers, its not the worst decision in the world. They will have a lot of versatility on where they want this thing to land and take off of from. I personally think it is a great idea to have a fighter aircraft in the inventory that doesn't have to rely on airfields.

Well, I sort of agree but really if all your airfields are gone what good are a few VSTOL fighters going to do? I would buy the F-35C for the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy. It should be the most capable variant.


User currently offlineRwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2411 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 10501 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

What's the motivation for the split island? It seems like it would just make turbulence worse and waste deck space. Surely it wouldn't be that hard to put both functions in a single island, even if you had to make it two decks.

And only two elevators on the same side 30m apart? Kinda risky - one missile hit anywhere near the starboard beam will have a good chance at taking out both.

But still, it's darn good to see the Brits getting a real carrier again, even if they are sticking to STOVL for the first 20 years...


User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7810 posts, RR: 16
Reply 20, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 10498 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 8):
DesertJets, the last T-23, was completed over 5 years ago, a good ASW and general purpose ship, but now not a new design.
So I'd also use already proposed T-45 versions for replacing Frigates, a Frigate sized T-45 version for ASW/general escort, plus a T-45 without Sampson and Aster 30, but with more Aster-15's and the VL launched version of the Storm Shadow cruise missile in RAF service, being developed for the French Navy, more space for embarked Marines and small UAV's like Firescout to supplement the Merlin.

GDB, as usual your knowledge and perspective is greatly appreciated. I guess on 2nd thought it does make sense that add'l T-23s are not a solution, as the oldest in the fleet will be 25 years old once the QE enters service. This potential Type 25 (my designation) sounds like a decent idea. Though with all the new technology steathly frigates being developed by the various navies of the world, you would think that there could be more collaboration between nations on the design. The ships could still be built locally, but as it stands a lot of the basic systems on an FFG seem to be pretty common across the major western navies.

Quoting FlagshipAZ (Reply 15):
I prefer HMS United Kingdom and HMS Great Britain. The Prince of Wales is a good proud name, but when coupled with Queen Elizabeth

I don't have a problem with either name... both names have history in the RN and they don't strike me as names chosen by the navy to curry favor with politicians (re: most of the Nimitz class CVNs). Though there are some other more notable names that would be suitable to the flagship of the Royal Navy that I would have preferred. Or they could have stuck w/ the traditional carrier names.



Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 10490 times:

Quoting Rwessel (Reply 19):
What's the motivation for the split island? It seems like it would just make turbulence worse and waste deck space. Surely it wouldn't be that hard to put both functions in a single island, even if you had to make it two decks.

It manages the gas turbine exhaust most efficiently. Otherwise the bridge would be the whole length from the front of the first too the back of the second with lots of wasted space in the middle.


User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3681 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 10383 times:

I will admit to knowing little (or nothing) about naval aviation; but as with many who have already posted; tend to think that
these ships are not the best design in the world. The ski jump results in having to use helicopter AEW instead of Hawkeyes; not having catapults or arrester wires means that crossdecking with US or French ships isn't possible either. The twin islands not only take up more space than a single one, but are set back from the deck edge resulting in more wasted space. And having only two lifts (both on the same side) makes hanger manouvering more difficult.

We are the nation that invented most of the features of a convential carrier (angled deck, steam catapult etc) why do we feel the need to go against these well proven systems ?


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 10333 times:

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 22):
We are the nation that invented most of the features of a convential carrier (angled deck, steam catapult etc) why do we feel the need to go against these well proven systems ?

It does have an angled deck. Many of the other features you mentioned can be retrofitted, and space is provided for such things. And IMHO there is some merit to waiting until EMALS is easier to fit into the deck rather than doing a steam system.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3681 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 10305 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 23):
Many of the other features you mentioned can be retrofitted, and space is provided for such things. And IMHO there is some merit to waiting until EMALS is easier to fit into the deck rather than doing a steam system.

Surely its better to build the right ship to start with, than finding out in 5 years time that an expensive refit is required


25 GDB : You have to remember that the last RN conventional carrier retired in 1978, but the RN has massive experience in STOVL ops, the first in very heavy co
26 Post contains images Banco : Am I alone in rather liking that name? So with this news, the question is also going to turn to what happens when the Invincibles are pensioned off.
27 Venus6971 : Glad to see the RN is going to stay a Blue water navy, instead of a coastal frigate force.
28 Banco : > I don't know about "stay" a blue water navy; if anything this is a return to a blue water navy, given the somewhat limited capabilities of the Invi
29 DL021 : Amen.... how I wish we'd escape the political one-upsmanship over here that accompanies ship naming. We need to name our next class of carriers after
30 Banco : OK, it's a touch off-topic, but related nevertheless: I've always thought it a bit of a target if you call a ship "America" - imagine if it got sunk?
31 Post contains images Revelation : Wow - it's going to have sails?
32 Corsair1107 : Wow, those concepts look sharp. I can't help but notice that the overhead graphic shows an angled flight deck and the 3d rendering shows a straight de
33 Post contains images DL021 : That's because of the similar names such as Theodore or Franklin, and the style of things...in the UK it was more acceptable to refer to someone famo
34 EBJ1248650 : There was a post some time ago that commented about the Royal Navy getting Rafale Ms. Is it possible the new carriers have been designed with those ai
35 GDB : No, it's F-35B or bust. Had the UK not been happy with local support, ability to upgrade in house, then F-35, of any version, would be out. But then,
36 Post contains images Banco : Cart before the horse, there, GDB. Empire was on the back of a blue-water RN, because it was founded on a desire for trade, not territory. We forget
37 GDB : Yes, HMS Churchill, a first generation nuclear sub, was probably named as a result of the then recent death of Winnie. He got a full state funeral, vi
38 Banco : Hmmm, well, not entirely. Victorious and Vengeance were both carriers in recent memory, and thus can be more or less classed as capital ships, even i
39 GDB : Vigilant in fact, was originally to be Venerable , perhaps after for whatever reason it was dropped, they were somewhat casting around for another 'V'
40 Banco : Trouble was, they'd already used Valiant a generation earlier, when that name had a really strong heritage as a capital ship name, as one of the Quee
41 GDB : Yes, and while by then Valiant was de-comissioned, it was not scrapped, the old nukes will have to wait a long time for that to happen. Whereas once t
42 Banco : Is that a realistic option? Or a navy pipedream? Ocean's a lot younger than the Ark, and a slightly different design - albeit to all intents and purp
43 Post contains links and images BritJap : I thought I would let you know. I think Jwenting also wanted to contribute to this discussion but somehow he has made his post in a totally different
44 Halls120 : I admire the Royal Navy for many reasons, and how they name their ships is on that long list.
45 Post contains links Ant72LBA : I'm a little disappointed the names of the ships; seems a bit churlish but the RN does have a fantastic stock of names. Think I'd have preferred Royal
46 Post contains links DEVILFISH : Which duplicates another ongoing thread in CivAv..... Boeing Flies Blended Wing Body Research Aircraft (by Bbobbo Jul 26 2007 in Civil Aviation)
47 GDB : Well Banco, Ark Royal has been more extensively refitted than the others, it spent the late 1990's to 2001 being upgraded, (one of the last public eve
48 DL021 : It's still one of the most professional and capable naval forces in the world...possibly second only to the USN in total capacity. Certainly superior
49 Post contains links GDB : A Mr Richard Beedall, has an unofficial, but truly greatly detailed, well sourced site on the RN for some years, he's covered the trials and tribulati
50 AirRyan : I agree, get rid of this monarchy chirade - name the ships for the taxpayers by calling it something to do with either a proud point in English histo
51 LMP737 : Any word on what sort of self defensive weaponry like Goalkeeper, Phalanx, RAM or Sea Wolf will be fitted?
52 GDB : Air Ryan, Argentina was no 3rd world power, it had a fairly modern, large in local terms AF, with professional crews. Not a major power, but no 3rd wo
53 DL021 : I understand what you guys are saying, but I think that you misunderstand the naming process. They aren't naming the vessel after the current Queen a
54 LMP737 : Thanks for the info GDB. Noticed that the Type 45 will have Phalanx fitted instead of Goalkeeper. Anyway seems that it would not be a bad idea to fit
55 Post contains links F27Friendship : It was also my first thought, after conseiving the size of these carriers, that the F-35C would be a very good option. If understood correctly, 3 car
56 Post contains images Banco : You really should make sure you know what you are talking about before you comment on such things. Even a swift Google would have told you about the
57 GDB : F-27, thanks for the link of the V-22 on HMS Illustrious, (not that she could really operate them!). A pointer to a future V-22 AEW? Maybe, however in
58 Post contains links DEVILFISH : Yes. This Flightglobal report sort of emphasises the symbiotic relationship between the CVF and JSF..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ion-c
59 Post contains links DEVILFISH : In connection with the above post, Flightglobal reports that the Advanced Hawkeye has made its first flight..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles.
60 AirRyan : History it may be, but you can take your Royal monarchy and get them all a job for all I think of them, what a waste of taxpayers monies to prop thes
61 F27Friendship : you are entitled to your opinion, but why is this relevant for this topic?!
62 AirRyan : Okay, a 2nd World Power - still the same thing - an inferior adversary with an inferior military budget. And by inferior, I am referring to inferior
63 TexL1649 : The Brit's have been fielding excellent fighting ships since before I began gestating, so I'll just defer to their decision to split to two control to
64 BigJKU : To be fair and honest about it the UK built some real dogs for carriers for the most part. UK naval construction on the whole took a turn for the wor
65 F27Friendship : I'm no real expert on the subject, but as far as I recall the operations were very far away from home about 8000 nm , without any friendly bases real
66 GDB : Well Air Ryan, I note you did not allude to the fact that 1800 UK citizens, were against their will, suddenly in the dubious 'care' of a regime that h
67 LMP737 : Guess I'm a bit old fashioned when I say it's always a good idea to have a combination of the two. The latest version of the Phalanx has a video came
68 LMP737 : It's always a bad idea to either underestimate a potential foe or equate any military not part of the first world club to be inferior. The Argentine
69 Banco : Indeed. The skill and bravery of the Argentine pilots earnt respect around the world. The British air defence was heavily outnumbered and fighting fr
70 N328KF : To be fair, even the Soviets would have had trouble. No friendly airbases or support network in the area, and more importantly, no Admiral Kuznetsov,
71 Post contains images Banco : Ah, well here we start getting into GDB type territory concerning military hardware (my interest is naval history, not the latest toys in a particula
72 GDB : Indeed the Argentine pilots were very brave, pretty skilled too. But, their superiors let them down with very poor briefing, they should have told the
73 Post contains links and images HeliflyerPDC : " target=_blank>http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/new...ews=1 nice to see there 'll still be a seaking in their service. Not that thats likely to happe
74 GDB : Maybe, the Sea King's, though older ex ASW choppers, still will be, in their AEW role. The airframe might be old, but the Cerebus system is much more
75 Post contains links Keesje : What would happen if India wants to order 5-6? I think the RN use the bigger Goalkeeper, it always had a manual camera option.. http://www.youtube.com
76 GDB : I agree that Goalkeeper is a great system, but it needs at least deck spaces below too. I say 2 x 21 cell RAM launchers, 2 x of the latest Phalanx, 4
77 Post contains links AirRyan : Regardless as to the Falklands I still believe it is a mistake for the RN to build an all new F-35B/STOVL-ONLY carrier when the French will simultaeno
78 GDB : Air Ryan, the RN are getting what they say they need, within the confines of budgets and aligning the aircraft to what the RAF require too. Frankly, t
79 Post contains images AirRyan : It's awful unwise to make an entire new aircraft carrier at the expense that it is and have to rely upon ONE aircraft type for your entire air wing.
80 F27Friendship : I don't think the F-35 unit cost will be much higher than M$50,- . There will be at least 3000 airframes to share most parts with.
81 GDB : Well we coped well enough with one aircraft type before, in the Harrier. Do not underestimate the Cerebus system retro-fitted to the Sea King AEW forc
82 Post contains images Astuteman : Not to mention, on the back of the Astute and Nimrod fiascos, learning how to set the Contract Specification up PROPERLY in this new "smart" world of
83 Post contains links GDB : Here are some pics of the Defence Export exhibition in London's Docklands, the top left CVF is the French PA2 version, check the Rafales and E-2C on d
84 Post contains images Astuteman : Thanks GDB The photos reminded me of another benefit of the split superstructure. One of the biggest "size" debates of all over CVF hinged around the
85 GDB : Yes, interesting that CVF has avoided the trap many UK carriers had with the lift location. Though the Invincibles were designed for helicopters only
86 Astuteman : Unlike another posters assertion earlier, I believe it to be one of the best though out surface warship designs for the RN since WW2. It's very innov
87 GDB : Given the small planned crew complement, for a large carrier (including the airgroup), mooted for CVF, clearly a lot of effort has gone into automatio
88 JGPH1A : There is (one might cynically say) at least the faint chance that her Dear Old Maj might pop her refined Lobbs clogs by 2014, in which case HMS Queen
89 GDB : You assume that CVF01 will be named after the current Monarch. The previous QE, was a first world war vintage Battleship, so predating the birth of th
90 AirRyan : Yeah yeah, it's not exactly taught in the schools over here and I don't remember hearing much about it when happened but I was only six years old at
91 Moo : American military help was offered and rejected. We did take logistics support though.
92 GDB : Who said anything about US carriers, requested (which they were of course not), or offered Air Ryan? That's from your head, not anyone else's. Who bit
93 AirRyan : I can see furthering this conversation is not worth my time. And your Harriers are still nothing more than overly expensive, maintenance intensive, f
94 JGPH1A : No it isn't, it's named after the previous bunch of ships that were called Queen Elizabeth, after QE1. But still, it would be nice for it to refer in
95 GDB : No, Air Ryan, the old Harrier was limited, but not compared to say, the Rockwell XFV-12, that was so limited it could not even get off the ground! Say
96 GBOAE : Considering that the original sea harriers were outnumber around 5 to 1 by argentine jets and yet the sea harriers suffered no air combat loses in th
97 Post contains images Banco : I hardly think HMS Flabster is an appropriate name for a carrier. If you're going to insist on asserting things that have been roundly shown to be wr
98 GDB : Where I do agree with Air Ryan, is that the F-35B is a far better solution, 40 years on it should be though! However, Sea Harrier was not seen as a re
99 JGPH1A : I fail to comprehend you, serf or menial. HMS ? "HSBS (His Supreme Benevolence's Ship) Mighty And Awesome Vengeance Upon The Unworthy" has a fine nau
100 Banco : HMS Invincibles were never cruisers through the long history of the name. At worst, they were 2nd or 3rd rate line-of-battle-ships, and then battlesh
101 GDB : I defer to your greater historical knowledge Banco, however given that HMS Illustrious as a WW2 carrier, was a well known combat veteran, the naming o
102 Banco : Perhaps. If I remember rightly, Ark Royal was to be Indomitable before being re-named, so perhaps that original name too was a glance back to the Ill
103 Banco : Incidentally, the Duke of York name fits in well with naval history, given that the then-future James II, unceremoniously kicked off his throne, was a
104 F27Friendship : Weren't you in the marines?! how can you not know about the Falklands then?!?!
105 GDB : Thanks what I understood about CVA naming Banco, of course, the whole project was axed just before the first was ordered. The RN, in 1964, might have
106 MD11Engineer : Just for info: At the beginning of WW2 Hitler ordered the pocket battleship Deutschland to be renamed to Luetzow because Hitler feared a propaganda b
107 BilgeRat : About a year ago I was at HMS Collingwood and I was talking to a Lieutenant Commander who works for the organisation that looks after quality control
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic BBC: CVF Officially Confirmed
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Sub Launched Ucav Video posted Sat Nov 25 2006 13:59:35 by Lumberton
Slightly OT: New Class 45 Destroyer Launched posted Wed Feb 1 2006 19:50:38 by WhiteHatter
Mars Recon Orbiter Launched posted Fri Aug 12 2005 20:24:27 by DfwRevolution
777LRF Launched - Opens Door For KC-777? posted Wed Nov 17 2004 14:32:04 by Boeing nut
UFO's Could Be U.S. "Aurora" Aircraft -- BBC posted Wed Jun 21 2006 02:20:18 by AerospaceFan
E-10A (MC2A) Launched posted Thu May 15 2003 05:14:39 by Hamlet69
Italy Officially Out Of The A400M Programme posted Thu Dec 20 2001 10:44:24 by Steman

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format