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
Gray    RE:historical note   3/22/2004 11:18:23 AM
NB, in the '20s the RAF actually had a slightly better case based on the creation of a strategic bombing force that would be the cheapest deterrent against European aggression.
 
Quote    Reply

Rule Britannia    RE:optimism   3/22/2004 11:38:28 AM
-I was personally told of this fact by Adam Ingram, the Armed Forces Minister during a recent visit to Clydeside. This is an intention, not a confirmation and I would say that the reason it has not been filtered etc... would be for potential morale reasons as it is 15/20 years down the line and lets face it, anything can happen when looking at that timescale. "Oops, hope you haven't let the cat out of the bag, Rule" -?
 
Quote    Reply

DKay    RE:pilots-Gray   4/12/2004 1:01:46 PM
If the Royal Navy is so interested in and dedicated to total ownership and control of all those (RAF) air forces who give them dedicated and effective support, how is that the RN has so meekly and carelessly allowed Civil Servants, Ministers and the Treasury to disband the Sea Harrier force? That would be the fate of a lot more (former RAF) air assets and personnel if the RN (and Army) were ever trusted to get their hands on them. Any financial savings not grabbed by the Treasury would be poured into surface ships (or another ed-up submarine programme). In modern warfare, ships are sitting ducks to air power if they come within range of any land based air force worth its salt (forgotten the Falklands already?). And surely you don't imagine all the necessary RAF aircrews and other personnel would be willing to join the RN or Army, do you, when it's obvious that neither of the other Services could offer them a worthwhile professional career, nor would air operations and the effective application of air power be their main interest, focus and expertise? Success comes only from people.
 
Quote    Reply

DKay    RE:pilots-Gray   4/12/2004 1:01:48 PM
If the Royal Navy is so interested in and dedicated to total ownership and control of all those (RAF) air forces who give them dedicated and effective support, how is that the RN has so meekly and carelessly allowed Civil Servants, Ministers and the Treasury to disband the Sea Harrier force? That would be the fate of a lot more (former RAF) air assets and personnel if the RN (and Army) were ever trusted to get their hands on them. Any financial savings not grabbed by the Treasury would be poured into surface ships (or another ed-up submarine programme). In modern warfare, ships are sitting ducks to air power if they come within range of any land based air force worth its salt (forgotten the Falklands already?). And surely you don't imagine all the necessary RAF aircrews and other personnel would be willing to join the RN or Army, do you, when it's obvious that neither of the other Services could offer them a worthwhile professional career, nor would air operations and the effective application of air power be their main interest, focus and expertise? Success comes only from people.
 
Quote    Reply

Gray    RE:pilots-DKay   4/12/2004 1:38:59 PM
Quite honestly, DKay, I'm not quite sure where you're coming from, probably my fault, so I'll try and answer your questions as you posed them. "If the Royal Navy is so interested in and dedicated to total ownership and control of all those (RAF) air forces who give them dedicated and effective support, how is that the RN has so meekly and carelessly allowed Civil Servants, Ministers and the Treasury to disband the Sea Harrier force?" I don't believe it was ever stated that the RN is 'interested in and dedicated to total ownership and control of air assets' because no-one here speaks for the RN. Opinions have been voiced that RAF assets would be better used split (as appropriate) between the Fleet Air Arm and the Army Air Corps. All air assets, as you seem to imply, but again I could be misreading this, are not and never have been RAF. Originally there was the Royal Naval Air Service and the Royal Flying Corps (a part of the army). These merged into the independent RAF latter in the day, on April Fools Day 1918. Now, however the RN has it's own assets in the FAA as does the army, partly a result of the RAF's incompetent management and neglect of naval aviation in the period between the World Wars. Currently all three British armed forces are encouraged to share their assets as the situation requires. This joint capability has been manifested in Joint Force Harrier (both FAA and RAF harriers under one control) and the joint helicopter force (doing the same for helicopters across the services). You seem to be of the opinion that the RN wants to spend all of its money on destroyers and submarines and that the army wants to splash it all on tanks and mortars. This is not the case. Both the navy and the army recognise the value of air power, and would spend the appropriate amount of money on balanced naval / land forces incorporating air power. Your allegation that air assets would be lost through naval / army control doesn't stand up because they already have a lot of that control. Where assets are being lost, for instance, the FA2 Harrier air defence, it is through the RAF campaiging for the money to be spent on other assets, a selfish campaign as it ignored the needs of the RN. The RN was neither meek nor careless in 'allowing' the FA2s to be scrapped. It didn't want it to happen, but it was forced to be government, which is, after all, its master. The government decision was based on information provided by all services, the RAF just happened to get their way, here, largely through providing misleading information about the FA2 and their projected GR9. I am certain that, as you mention, the RAF does provide 'dedicated and effective support' for the RN in operational situations, however, it does not do so when it comes to fighting over where the MOD budget gets spent! Hm, sorry about the length of that rant!
 
Quote    Reply

rayott    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales   6/8/2004 5:28:56 AM
As this thread was started in regardes to the new joint UK/French carriers, I thought that I would copy this article, as it relates some new developments. My question in regarding to this article is, "I thought that they had already made the carriers big enough to handle traditional planes, plartly due to concerns over ther JSF, so shouldn't the current design be big enough that it doesn't matter if the JSF jump jet will work or not?" Source, London Telegraph online. "Britain's new US-built jets are 'too heavy to land safely'" By Sean Raymont, Defence Correspondent (Filed: 16/05/2004) A £5 billion defence project to supply Britain's armed forces with the world's most sophisticated fighter jet is facing severe problems because the aircraft is too heavy to be flown safely. The Ministry of Defence has agreed to buy 150 of the new Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, which cost £35 million each, to replace the Royal Navy's Harrier jump jets. A prototype version of the jet However, it has emerged that the warplane, which is being built by the US manufacturer Lockheed Martin, is 3,300lb overweight, making it difficult for a pilot to land the fighter without its wheels coming off. The aircraft is also understood to be too heavy to carry out vertical take-offs, and requires too long a runway to land easily on the two aircraft carriers which are being built for the Royal Navy. The Ministry of Defence admitted that it was "concerned" about the aircraft's weight and said that urgent attempts were being made to resolve the problem so that it could come into service as planned in 2012. An analysis by Lockheed Martin has disclosed that the jet can only land safely if it has used its full complement of bombs and missiles and if its fuel tanks are virtually empty. Otherwise the undercarriage is likely to collapse during landing. The weight problem has been caused by the aircraft's jump-jet engine. Although widely accepted as the most advanced of its kind, it is far heavier than the designers envisaged. If the weight problem cannot be solved and the jump-jet version has to be scrapped, the Royal Navy will be forced to buy an alternative version of the aircraft which takes off in the conventional manner. Such a decision would have a significant impact on the plans for two new 65,000-ton aircraft carriers, costing £2.5 billion, because their runways have been designed primarily for jump jets and are too short for standard combat jets. The carriers might, therefore, either have to be made longer or redesigned, adding significantly to the cost of construction. One civil servant told The Sunday Telegraph that the excessive weight of the Joint Strike Fighter could not be easily remedied. "Combat jets are like Formula One racing cars - every part has a vital function - you just can't get rid of it and still expect it work. I don't know how the weight is going to be reduced by 3,300lb," he said. "Until recently, the Americans were claiming it was only 1,000lb overweight, and they have spent a year and a half reducing that without success." Rob Hewson, the editor of Jane's Air Launched Weapons, said that the difficulties were devastating. "This is going to cost at least £60 million to correct - if it can be corrected," he said. Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer, says that the aircraft will be the most advanced multi-role fighter ever. The programme is the largest and most expensive military aircraft procurement project devised. About 3,000 planes costing a total of £250 billion are expected to be built during the next 30 years. Although officials from both the US Department of Defence and the Ministry of Defence believe that the weight problem will be solved, The Sunday Telegraph has learned that Lockheed Martin has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to reduce the weight of the aircraft without success. A spokesman for the MoD said: "The weight problem is a concern, but problems like this occur in the early stages of complex programmes. From our perspective, these problems do not undermine the programme or our choice of aircraft."
 
Quote    Reply

Ad    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales   6/15/2004 2:04:39 PM
Yes, the CVF?s will be weighing in at around 60,000 ton?s and are able (with-a short deck refit) to fly CTOL F-35?s. However, I think the Royal Navy wants STOVL capable F-35?s for several reasons. The first being that the sortie rate is higher than CTOL, so more F-35?s be they strike or interceptor can be in the air at any one time. Secondly (and I may be wrong in this) by having STOVL F-35?s it allows more of the aircraft and possible STVL V-22?s and various assortments of helicopter to be on the deck at anyone time, thus saving valuable storage space for spare parts, munitions and Royal Marines. Finally, as Britain has a 15% stake in the JSF project, I believe if the STOVL F-35?s weren?t introduced, then the British aircraft industry may take a hit, as Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing is British technology. It may be better to ask an expert though. Although I hope I?ve answered at least some of your queries.
 
Quote    Reply

dudley    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales   6/21/2004 9:08:28 PM
Ought to be named King Arthur and Queen Boutica.Inbred current royals are a disgrace to God and country.
 
Quote    Reply

HorribleSailor    RE:Royals   6/22/2004 1:27:43 PM
*sighs* King Arthur? A mythological character who may or may not have existed (but certainly wasn't much like the popular legends OR the new 'based on a true story' Hollywood version). Queen Boudicca? A tribal leader who fought a war against the Romans in England, burning London and then seeing her people massacred by a far superior army. Remind me why these would make better names, dudley? Oh, and would you like to detail how the current British royal family is inbred so as to disgrace God and the UK?
 
Quote    Reply

dudley    RE:Royals   6/22/2004 8:27:36 PM
Sailor i cant give you specifics but down through the centuries wasnt it a tradition of royalty marrying royalty?All the monarchs of euorope were intertwined cus of the belief if they wed their off spring it would bring peace or an ally to ones country.Just my opinion but charles aint nothing of a role model dear boy.Why would Britain want do disgrace a warship bearing his name?If the name is Elizabeth of old then fine but the current queen,no friggin way.Shes done nothing but embarrass the brits.Ole bytche.
 
Quote    Reply

dudley    RE:Royals   6/22/2004 8:34:35 PM
While were on the subject of the royals lets go.T hey are rich beyond belief mate,why should the treasury support them with millions of pounds to keep them in wealth when millions are needed for ships,hunger,roads etc.?Theyre an embarrassment to the people they serve.Yes SERVE.they act like we owe them something.Puck that!Im an american half english half french.
 
Quote    Reply

dudley    RE:Royals   6/22/2004 8:41:01 PM
Enough to make one to want to start taking the frech side,almost.lol
 
Quote    Reply

Exemplo Ducemus    RE:pilots-DKay   6/23/2004 1:31:38 AM
I read recently that the RAF have said that they will only operate the GR9 Harrier force from the Invincible Class when there is no air threat or where a coalition has air supremacy. Whatever happenned to air defence of the Fleet?
 
Quote    Reply

HorribleSailor    RE:Air Superiority - Exemplo   6/23/2004 3:04:07 PM
What the RAF said is very sensible - the GR9 is a ground attack aircraft and no-one in their right mind would fly them against opposing air superiority platforms. Royal Naval air superiority has been abandoned between 2006 and 2012 (the retirement of the FA2 Sea Harrier and the in service date of the F35 Joint Combat Aircraft) as a cost cutting measure. It's a gamble....
 
Quote    Reply

HorribleSailor    RE:Royals - dudley   6/23/2004 3:16:53 PM
dudley - you can't give me specifics... perhaps because your vitriolic rhetoric is just that? Erm, yes, history has seen rather a lot of intermarriage between the European royal families. At the time it made great sense, what better way to seal peace than to marry into the family? However, this doesn't mean that they are now all 'inbred'. Marrying into a family makes everyone in that family a distant relation, but who cares about marriage between distant cousins? Hell, even the Catholic Church permits marriage between 1st cousins, upon permission being requested, I believe, so what of marrying a 19th cousin 26 tims removed? Hell, if you go back far enough, I guess pretty much everyone is related anyway... Oh, why isn't Charles a role model? Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but yours does strike me as rather sensationalist without much foundation. Bloody hell, you even claim that the current Queen has done nothing but embarrass the British. Actually, it's quite the opposite, she is the public figure that consistently gets the highest approval rankings! I'm British and I certainly don't feel embarrassed by her. In fact, I think she's done a fine job. What makes you think that the Royals are rich beyond belief? I don't know what conception of wealth you possess, dudley, but I can believe of people being far richer. Many people in the UK are, in fact. The royal family actually run a net profit for the UK economy. They bring in much more cash, through existing as tourist attractions (putting aside their important constitutional role) than they cost, and sensationalism aside they actually live quite frugally now. In all my life I have never received the impression, from them, that I owe the royals anything. I would suggest that you aquire some more information, before throwing your insults around, 'dear boy.'.
 
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