After the MoD and associated politicians destroyed the British small arms industry, we had to turn to the Germans to get the job done without having to resort to rebuilding the industry in the UK. (at the associate costs). It's not something to be proud about, but it doesn't mean that British engineers are idiots.

I would be interested to understand how the Comet was a mistake on the management front. AIUI, it was a cracking aircraft that suffered by being the first to find out about metal fatigue, which wasn't well understood at the time. Still flying, in modified form, as it happens.

Otherwise, I have to totally agree on having strong leadership on any engineering project team. And ensuring that accountants never have design authority.

SA80 was badly built more than any design failure. The prototypes, AIUI, performed very well.

"b. passenger capacity.was not cost per mile calculated to yield good efficiencies in the Comet. It couldn't compete on ticket price when a passenger jet that carried more passengers per flight-hour and kilo-liter of jet fuel used came into service. "

Herald, the components of the A1 rifles are not of sub-standard quality.  The reliability issues arose through the components being sub-contractred to various different contracters - and hence not resulting in being fully compatible.

There were quite a few fairly successful airliners with engines built into the fuselage, although not buried to the same extent as the Comet.

Norway? what fantasy trip on the wacky baccy is this?  Never having used wacky baccy nor had my brain adled by baseball, whatever that is, my memory is still serviceable and functioning well.  It was the Japanese that sold high grade machine tools that enabled the USSR to silence their subs, and it was the USSR who had superior mathamaticiens that enabled them to avoid the need for high power computers (for the time) but that US 'intelligence' wasn't smart enough to realise it and too fast to jump to wrong conclusions (now that's a novelty).

 

As I said, the problem with SA80 was a flawed acquisition plan (it did not use productionised weapons in the troop trials).  However, they are now excellant and in well under 20 years, which is a lot less that it took the US to sort out M16 (and clearly they haven't in some aspects because otherwise MoD would not be saying SA80 is unrivalled, and its obviously out of a wish to avoid embarrassing allies that they've never released the results of their comparitive reliability trials).  No use trying to blame the Canucks for Bowman's problems, their stuff seems pretty good, the dogs are the radios, courtesy of ITT and Harris.  I reckon there were some serious pork pies sold to MoD, no doubt the septic lawyers have got these coys' arses well covered.  That said the political pressure to deliver Bowman meant tthat MOD accepted things that they should not have, even if it did mean lawyers at 10 paces.

 

Returning to CVF, MoD is not trying to build the 'best' carrier in the world that can be used for all purposes.  They want a carrier that provided the capabilities that flow from national defence policy, BDD, FMOC, etc (these are in the public domain).  Opinions on the merits of what is being planned are worthless unless they are based thorough knowledge of the carrier capabilities RN is actually authorised to have.  I  for one am confident that RN will get this capability, that it will be delivered on time and probably close to budget.  I don't think the cost risks are challenging (ignoring F35) because there's no expensive new weapons systems required, and I don't think the technical risks are particularly testing all of which means risk management should be fairly (a relative term) straightforward.  That said the SRO will undoubtedly have to knock a few heads together down the track.

 

 

 

 

What the ? ALL purposes? Aircraft Carriers = Strike and Fleet Defence.......possibly some intel gathering and maybe ASW thrown in for good measure. Blind Freddy knows that an AEW&C solution is required and ought not to be a slapped together Seaking like solution. The E2 is it. E2s require CATOBAR.....so EVEN IF the RNFAA want STOVL fighters, whats wrong with operating BOTH types.

Quite clearing all proper analysis would indicate that Herald is right about deck layout and Island management. If you get hit in the Island you are at the very least mission killed - no matter how you try to separate functions for survivability reasons. Even with two Islands you are screwed if one gets hit. Surely one Island would not be much more expensive and the added bonus of extra parking space has got to be a major selling point.

 

Brett.

What the ? ALL purposes? Aircraft Carriers = Strike and Fleet Defence.......possibly some intel gathering and maybe ASW thrown in for good measure. Blind Freddy knows that an AEW&C solution is required and ought not to be a slapped together Seaking like solution. The E2 is it. E2s require CATOBAR.....so EVEN IF the RNFAA want STOVL fighters, whats wrong with operating BOTH types.

Quite clearing all proper analysis would indicate that Herald is right about deck layout and Island management. If you get hit in the Island you are at the very least mission killed - no matter how you try to separate functions for survivability reasons. Even with two Islands you are screwed if one gets hit. Surely one Island would not be much more expensive and the added bonus of extra parking space has got to be a major selling point.

 

Brett.

Exactly Enterpriser.  A carrier, is a carrier, is a carrier.  Its purpose is to launch/recover aircraft.  Thats it.  Sure, it has various missions but all the ship does is launch and recover aircraft.  Any hindrance to said purpose is just stupid.  Two islands just seems absolutely ludicrous.  If you are so concerned about getting hit that you want two islands for redundancy you should strengthen your point defenses or work on your other fleet air defense, not slap a second island on there.  In my view its like slapping BB armor on a carrier: just foolish.  Concentrate on avoiding getting hit, not shrugging one off because modern ASM's cannot be shrugged off as the required armor isnt worth the cost and as has been said before losing one island will mission kill you anyway so whats the point?

 

Herald has you on this one.  Its stone cold logic.