The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 8, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Naval Air Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales
giblets    2/9/2004 5:06:30 AM
The two Uk aircraft carriers are alreay named, and that is about the only thing that is definite at the moment.
In terms of size, apparently the RN has decided that the ships are indeed going to be 280m, 65,000 toners, after previously looking at smaller 260m 55,000 toners. Apparently it was thought that to get a decent 55 tonne vessel, and keep the operational effectivness would require too much new technology and risk.
The new vessels are likely to cost £5billion for the pair, which, whilst far higher than the original MOD price of £3billion, is still FAR cheaper the the USN at £6.6billion for one carrier (CVN21).
It is still up in the air as to whether the French Navy will still seek to aquire a new ship based on the UK design, which could lower costs.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
Jack Tar    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales    2/13/2004 3:51:19 AM
Interesting question to raise Shawn. I believe the RN prefer to stow most of their aircraft in the hanger, where possible, and keeping only 'ready' aircraft on the flight deck. Whereas USN is happy to keep the majority of it's aircraft 'up top'. With this in mind, the CVF's would be able to carry a larger airgroup in times of emergency. Just my thoughts on the matter, nothing concrete. Maybe someone else has more specific info on this?(RB?)
 
Quote    Reply

Rule Britannia    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales    2/13/2004 6:12:54 AM
Well, the current complement of aircraft is hovering around 50 aircraft (VSTOL,AEW,HELICOPTERS) although as JT mentioned that the RN has an intention and practice of stowing all unoperational aircraft below deck for reasons of safety and efficiency. Room in the design has been made for up to 30 aircraft to be on deck at one time, this will give the CVF the capability to manage a larger airgroup if required.
 
Quote    Reply

giblets    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales    2/16/2004 4:48:33 AM
Well there, we have it, France has announced she is comminga board, reducing the price to the UK, from 5-£4billion, does this mean we will get pods and defence back on board?
 
Quote    Reply

Jack Tar    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales    2/16/2004 5:25:52 AM
If everything works out as we hope it does, then yes, this is great news for the UK Carrier project. In the meantime, I will reserve judgement on French involvement until I see the RN Carriers sailing up the Solent with a full airgroup lined up on deck).
 
Quote    Reply

Siddar    Are the French trying to do in the UK Carriers?    2/26/2004 8:33:48 AM
Seems that polictans maybe pushing for something the builders dont want. I worry for UK Carriers that French may force large cost overruns and lead to the project being canceled. That is bad for UK but in some ways benifits the French. BAE Navy project threatened Tom McGhie, Mail on Sunday 22 February 2004 AE Systems is threatening to ditch a £3bn project to build two aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy if Ministers force it into an unprofitable partnership to expand the contract and build a third carrier for the French. Today's City News ? House prices soar 3.1% in month ? Abbey in red after assets sell-off ? Market report: Thursday 15.00 ? Wall Street: Wednesday close ? CBI ups its forecasts for growth ? Ryanair axes Brussels route BAE has told the Ministry of Defence that bringing the French into the project could cause long delays and would upset America, which is providing much of the technology. The tough line from Britain's leading defence manufacturer could again put it in direct conflict with Downing Street. The Prime Minister is keen to promote a deal to build a third aircraft carrier for the French as a symbol of Britain's European defence commitment. But a BAE source insisted: 'The Government may be keen for political reasons to allow the French in on this deal, but the reality is that they (the French) will want a slice of the action. 'The project will become severely delayed and the Americans have told us they are not keen to share their technology with the French.' BAE's robust stance stems from the fact that top executives are angry at what they see as constant Government sniping over cost overruns on major defence procurement projects. The company also believes the Government is not doing enough to secure fair competition with its rivals. BAE was forced to share work on the carriers with the French group Thales. 'Every defence contract in this country is run on rigorous competitive lines. The French compete and often win major contracts,' said the source. 'We are not against that. But do you really think that Britain would win a major defence contract in France? Of course not. We are up against competition with countries that close their own markets when we want to compete. It is time for a level playing field. BAE will send a clear signal to the Government this week that the days of taking on large projects for the sake of prestige are over and that it will only agree to projects that make a profit. Chief executive Mike Turner will go on the offensive tomorrow when he goes before the Public Accounts Committee. He is to be questioned about alleged multi-billion cost overruns on the Astute nuclear submarine and the Nimrod reconnaissance aircraft. One reason for BAE's assertiveness is its success in building up American business. It employs 20,000 workers in the US and last year won more business from the Pentagon than any other foreign company, almost doubling its revenue from this source to £1.13bn. BAE will reveal its profits this week. They are expected to be about £710m, down from £796m in 2002. Let a friend read this article ©2004 Associated Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved. Terms of Use
 
Quote    Reply

Marcus    RE:Are the French trying to do in the UK Carriers?    2/28/2004 8:20:23 AM
<> it´s the other way, thales was forced to share work with Bae because the carriers are an thales design Marcus
 
Quote    Reply

Rule Britannia    RE:Are the French trying to do in the UK Carriers?    3/10/2004 11:44:58 AM
The French are simply using the Thales/BAE design for their own ends and the ship will be built in France, I had to show a number of DCN officials round the design centre at BAE Scotstoun last month and the appeared to be taking the Thales aspect of the design with more clout so it is simply a joint project in name, nothing more although the coalition will be funded now by both nations.
 
Quote    Reply

Exemplo Ducemus    RE:Are the French trying to do in the UK Carriers?    3/22/2004 3:21:20 AM
Questions for RB: I've read your postings on "The Royal Navy" thread that MODUK will order a third CVF. RN doctrine at present is for three platforms I know and I'm aware that you're a naval architect but isn't that just wishful thinking by those in the industry? There has been no media reports of a third British carrier and when the announcement was made a year or so ago much was made of the fact that two modern larger platforms would be sufficient to replace the three Invincible Class vessels. I don't see a political will with New Labour or the present Opposition who are talking of cuts to fund Health, Education and Transport. Regarding the JSF, who will be manning these aircraft given that traditionally air defence of the Fleet is a Naval responsibility. Will it be the Fleet Air Arm or the Light Blue? Has any decision been made yet? I have a nagging feeling that the Senior Service doesn't give two hoots about the colour of the uniform of those flying the aircraft as long as they get to drive the ships.
 
Quote    Reply

Rule Britannia    RE:Are the French trying to do in the UK Carriers?    3/22/2004 10:44:01 AM
-The Ministry of Defence Procurement have been making it quite clear to us that they intend to order a further CVF when the first two of the Class are in service. This will be some 15/20 years from now and that is probably why it has not been reported in the general media. Your guess as is good as mine on the JSF pilots but I would say that the current arrangement with the SHAR would be restored or whatever the future arrangement is with the GR.7/9A's would remain in place.
 
Quote    Reply

Rule Britannia    RE:Are the French trying to do in the UK Carriers?    3/22/2004 10:46:26 AM
-The past debacle with the CVA-01 and the "Through Deck Cruisers" of the Invincible class might tell you something of why they made it quite clear that they wanted two CVF's.
 
Quote    Reply

Gray    RE:optimism   3/22/2004 11:02:45 AM
In all the topics that Rule and myself have posted on he's believe me to be overly pessimistic whereas I think he is rather optimistic. Take away from that what you will. On the issue of a third CVF I'll have to bow to his superior knowledge, although I would say that the MOD is certainly keeping it VERY close to their chests for absolutely no knowledge of this to have filtered down to 'jack' in the navy. I don't exactly operate at an exalted level in the RN, but still... Oops, hope you haven't let the cat out of the bag, Rule!
 
Quote    Reply

Worcester    RE:Exemplo   3/22/2004 11:03:32 AM
Good question on air wings. From next month 800 NAS is disbanded. from June 2004 899 NAS (the HQ/trg sqn) will merge with the RAF HQ/trg sqn, while the sole remaining RN sqn 801 NAS will convert from SHAR2 to GR7/9(A) in by April 2005. From 2005 through 2012 the Joint Harrier Force will be four squadrons: RAF HQ/trg, plus 2 RAF front line and 1 RN front line (801). You will note JFH has been reallocated to 1 Group from 3 Group RAF and the RN Rear Admiral commanding 3 Group has been deleted, but a RN Captian retained on the ! Group staff. It has been suggested that 800 and 899 will reform in 2012 along with 801 for the F-35. I agree with your comment that the RN doesn't care who flies the planes since your politics are different. In the US, the law requires that carrier captains must be naval aviators which demands a pool of naval aviators to fill these senior positions. In the UK, all your carriers are captained by surface officers, except Ocean which has an ex-helo pilot; obviously, for budget reasons, your submariners also side with the surface officers and RAF. It's a real shame that the Fleet Air Arm remains the Cinderella as it has so often been; just pray you don't have to provide your own air cover! But take heart, because from 2012 the RAF will find few officers willing to engage in 6 month sea duty and the need for naval aviators will return. Meanwhile, 801 hold the flame for seven years in a Light Blue sea.
 
Quote    Reply

Gray    RE:pilots   3/22/2004 11:03:59 AM
Oh, and with the British armed forces concentrating so much on joint ops at the moment it would appear a huge retrograde step were the airgroups on the new carriers not to be flown by dark and light blue pilots, in whatever combination...
 
Quote    Reply

Worcester    RE:pilots-Gray   3/22/2004 11:13:35 AM
Just like in the 1920's. How much do you think it is the problem of actually finding a role for the RAF in joint ops? It seems as though each service defends its share of the budget and then shuffles the deck of assets to meet the requirements. If you put most of the Joint Helo Force into the army (who pay for it!) and the Commando Helo Force back into the Navy (who pay for it!) and the Joint Harrier Force into the Fleet Air Arm (where it all belongs), the RAF are left with 11 front line jet squadrons, 6 AWACS aircraft, 4 C-17 aircraft, 40+ C-130's (many manned by reservists) and a tanker fleet about to be privatized. They are still grossly overmanned - even on the current structure aircrew are only 2.6% of personnel. At what point, rationally, do you think people start to question the whole RAF purpose, structure and budget?
 
Quote    Reply

Gray    RE:pilots-Gray   3/22/2004 11:17:21 AM
Speaking as a sailor (and my brother is a soldier) - rational people have always questioned the existence of the RAF. I completely agree with you, the problem is convincing the government when RAF chiefs are so good at being convincing themselves!
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy