Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: VT, BAE to finalise JV after MoD gives go-ahead to Navy Carriers
DragonReborn    5/20/2008 2:45:52 PM
So the Carriers still looking pretty certain then? But will we have much to fly off them once their built?? h!!p://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/05/20/afx5029874.html ONDON (Thomson Financial) - VT Group Plc. and BAE Systems Plc. (other-otc: BAESF.PK - news - people ) will launch their long-awaited joint venture to combine their shipbuilding and naval support operations after the UK Ministry of Defence approved a project to build two aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy, the companies said Tuesday. The two groups said they would finalise arrangements for the venture, which has been on hold while they awaited the MoD's go-ahead for the carriers. There had been speculation that the 4 billion pound CVF carrier project, first announced last July, might fall victim to defence spending cuts. BAE and VT said they expect to sign the JV transaction documentation shortly. The agreement will then be subject to VT shareholder approval. BAE chief executive Mike Turner said: 'This is an important milestone in the development of the CVF programme and plays a major part in the long term sustainability of the UK naval sector and the transformation of our business. 'The programme will provide a strong order book and forward workload over the coming years and, most importantly will provide our armed forces with significantly enhanced capability.' In a separate statement, the MoD said it had completed all the necessary financial, commercial, and management arrangements for the project, adding that the super aircraft carriers will be the biggest and most powerful surface warships ever constructed in the United Kingdom. The new VT-BAE joint venture will be a key member of the Aircraft Carrier Alliance which will construct and assemble the new carriers at shipyards in Portsmouth, Barrow-in-Furness, Glasgow and Rosyth, said the MoD. Other members of the alliance include Bab International Group Plc. and Thales (other-otc: THLEF.PK - news - people ) UK. Bab said the contract will be worth some 600 million pounds to Bab through the duration of the programme to 2015. Thales said the contract will be worth well over 500 million euros to the group. 'We are delighted with the decision which has been taken today. We have been working on the programme since the very beginning and the design which has been processed so far is a Thales design,' said CEO Denis Ranque. VT is also awaiting a government decision on a 6 billion pound military flight training contract and last week said it and Lockheed Martin (nyse: LMT - news - people ) were expecting to reach a financial close on the project before the end of May.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25   NEXT
flamingknives       6/6/2008 2:51:08 PM
The QE Class? The contemporary ones or the new ones? ;)

Off hand there isn't really any direct link I can think of.
ISTR that the Ark Royal was lost in part to the torpedo taking out her engine room and hence power, so any effective damage control was impossible.
Other than that size of air wing and availability of effective fighters and strike aircraft showed up the carriers in theatre (Eagle, Illustrious and Ark Royal, for the most part, IIRC)
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       6/6/2008 11:01:59 PM

The QE Class? The contemporary ones or the new ones? ;)

The new ones of course. I can think of ONE Mediterraneans lesson  that applies to the new ships. Its the same one that you see in the Invincibles.

You mention that yourself.

http://www.warshipsifr.com/media/terrorism17Pic3.jpg">

You see the unit machinery in the design? You learned redundancy from the HMS Ark Royal. That is something learned from the Mediterranean even here at this late date.

Off hand there isn't really any direct link I can think of.
ISTR that the Ark Royal was lost in part to the torpedo taking out her engine room and hence power, so any effective damage control was impossible.

See?

Other than that size of air wing and availability of effective fighters and strike aircraft showed up the carriers in theatre (Eagle, Illustrious and Ark Royal, for the most part, IIRC)


Herald

 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       6/7/2008 4:33:50 AM
I can't for the life of me see how failure at the first attempt at Okinawa could have been described as 'desperate'.  A delay, even of many months, would have been inconvenient but not desparate by any stretch of sober imagination.  Its this sort of tosh that leads me to the view the opinions expressed are of very limited merit.
 
My view on Madagascar, as I previously said, is that its the closest in terms of scale to FI, but more generally FI was a unique situation.
 
I haven't even been convinced that FI has contributed anything to the design of CVF.  Not least because UK has conducted operations since then, albeit with very little air threat.  The current UK carriers were the result of RN clutching at straws.  They were refused a new fleet carrier in the 1960s, this was a correct decision although RN hated it. The reason it was correct is that such a ship was not justifiable in the context of UK's role in the East Atlantic, a lesson from WW2 - there wasn't a whole lot of work there for carriers apart from escorting convoys to Murmansk, hardly a requirement in the 1960s!  The ships they got, IIRC were primarily designed to support ASW helis with some fighters to deal with very small numbers off long range aircraft.  Not unsurprisingly they are probably sub-optimal for more general carrrier type tasks.
 
And I repeat, nit picking features of a complex system without understanding the logic behind the system level design totally lacks credibility.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       6/7/2008 7:44:09 AM

I can't for the life of me see how failure at the first attempt at Okinawa could have been described as 'desperate'.  A delay, even of many months, would have been inconvenient but not desperate by any stretch of sober imagination.  Its this sort of tosh that leads me to the view the opinions expressed are of very limited merit.

Look I know you don't the first thing about US logistics, Pacific weather, or just plain industrial production, but lets just take the issue of US manpower. The US had most of its trained combat infantry in Europe. Clear? That was about 54 or so division equivalents  worth about the time of Okinawa as the European war was still in full swing. Those troops were not available.

There were about 25 to 30 or so divisions worth of combat troops in the Pacific. Six  of those were Marine divisions. Three of those Marine division equivalents  were burned up in the fighting that was Iwo Jima. Three were still rebuilding from the Marianas fighting. TEN Army divisions were fighting [badly] in the Philippines, Two were gallivanting around in the New Guinea  That leaves Tenth Army.of about eight divisions in the Pacific with NO COMBAT RESERVE except for the training divisions in the US, and the troops MacArthur had in the Philippines and the US troops in China [yes there were US Army troops in China-about two divisions worth.] .

Those troopa would probably win in Okinawa as long as the individual replacement pool fed in troops to replace casualties. The problem is that if those divisions cannot get replacements or are wrecked in the fighting that ends in a forced evacuation those divisions won't be ready for round two. AND THOSE ARE THE ONLY DIVISIONS YOU HAVE FOR A YEAR. Do you understand this? It will take six months to get US divisions from Europe or to train the rest of the 1944 cohort.  The next crack at Okinawa has to replace the assault shipping lost and the fleet damaged in a putative Okinawa defeat.

By DESPERATE I mean this;
Source: Hyperwar

US                                                     Japan

Casualties and losses
12,513 dead or missing,
38,916 wounded,
33,096 non-combat losses,
79 ships sunk and scrapped,
763 aircraft destroyed
66,000 dead or missing,
17,000 wounded,
7,455 captured,
16 ships sunk and scrapped,
3,130 aircraft destroyed
75,000-140,000 civilians dead or missing
 
Out of 1300 ships committed of all types 360+ were successfully damaged enough to force withdrawal  in addition to the  79 that were wrecked beyond salvage. That is 1/3 of the fleet. Half of our starting naval air force was destroyed. One in ten Americans committed was killed or wounded, the Japoanese lost well nigh nine out of every eleven soldiers engaged. Both sides created the same nickname for the fighting  "rain of steel". On that very small island  more than 200,000 Human beings perished. The only fighting that was worse by thyat measure in the Pacific War was Luzon. Now how do YOU  define desperate?
 

My view on Madagascar, as I previously said, is that its the closest in terms of scale to FI, but more generally FI was a unique situation.

I have categorically demolished that nonsense. Do not bring it up again unless you have something concrete to present besides your ridiculous statement IU proved when you have done nothing of the kind.

The Falklands were/and are not unique.
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       6/7/2008 4:02:26 PM

I can't for the life of me see how failure at the first attempt at Okinawa could have been described as 'desperate'.  A delay, even of many months, would have been inconvenient but not desparate by any stretch of sober imagination.  Its this sort of tosh that leads me to the view the opinions expressed are of very limited merit.

 
When you don't know something, why not imagine that you might have something to learn, instead of assuming that anything you don't know is therefore and necessarily of no importance?  If you "can't see" then why don't you LOOK? 

I blanch at Herald's vituperativeness sometimes but frankly you merit it.  Where to start with you?  It seems you don't really know anything, and as for teaching you - Herald has more patience than I.  IMHO, when you try to wash an ass' head, you waste both your time and soap.
 
Quote    Reply

FJV    Don't know   6/7/2008 4:13:31 PM
What is going to be the rest of the fleet around the carrier?

Some redundancy may not be needed if there's adequate protection from other ships in the carrier force.



 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       6/7/2008 6:24:06 PM
Given the current state of the RNs escort fleet, the maximum amount of survivability and redundancy would seem sensible.

Six Type 45s and a shrinking number of Type 23s, backed up with fewer new SSNs than the class they will replace and no Type 23 replacement. It doesn't look good.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    What RN Escorts   6/8/2008 2:08:49 AM
In 1998 the RN had 35 escorts (destroyers and frigates) and the long range plan was for 32.  Today there are 24 and by 2018 there will be 19 (6 Type 45's and 13 Type 23's).  The RN used to operate it's surface ships all over the world doing various tasks and now all they can do is barely escort carrier and amphib groups.  A proud and historically marvelous service is but a shadow of it's former self.   Piracy is on the rise in many parts of the world and the RN has no ships to send to protect British merchants.  It's rather sad.

The carriers may be built.  As of today the earliest they might get an AEW replacement for the 26 year old Sea Kings is 2022 and when enough F-35's are available to make a dent in the empty space of that flight deck is anyone's guess.   Throw in the lack of escorts to protect against sub surface and aerial threats and one has to ask what the UK is thinking?

For all the talk here of the Falklands they were a near run thing- according to the naval commander Adm Sandy Woodward in his book.   A bit better leadership, kit, or luck would have seen the RN defeated.  According to Woodward if they had lost either carrier it was all over.  The RN lost a lot of escorts.  The operation could not be repeated today due to lack of ships and even worse lack of aircraft as there are no more Sea Harriers.   I'm an American and it makes me ill.  I mourn the loss of a once proud service.  It seems that Labor finally killed the RN.


 
Quote    Reply

FJV    Carrier escorts   6/8/2008 11:56:42 AM
I guess for the sub protection you might be able to use the Astute subs that are planned. Disadvantage is that this ties the subs to the carrier fleet.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Subs are not escorts   6/8/2008 8:47:26 PM
You can assign an SSN to a surface task force.  One might assume it operates far in front helping to clear the way.  You don't assign it to do asw anywhere near the task force for obvious reasons- any method that allows you to do so is still problematic.  If you are operating in a specific location (carrier ops, amphib landing, merchant escort, mine warfare, etc.) then an SSN can be used in the far outer zone along a given axis but it's no panacea and it only can cover so much area.

This leaves aside the fact that an SSN is an offensive system that would often be misused directly supporting a task force.  It further leaves aside that the RN is going down to 8 SSN's and no SS's and that only 4 Astute have been ordered and there are already rumors the RN might have get by with only 7 SSN's.  I believe only 4 have been ordered and only 1 has been launched.

Frankly a surface escort is cheaper and can do a lot more to support a task force beyond asw, such as anti aircraft, radar picket, and various electronic support functions.  When needed it can operate as a decoy.  Most importantly when doing asw it can rely on it's helo's to engage at a distance while an SSN in many cases will be at risk to the sub it's seeking to prevent closing on the task force.  Consider that it in many restricted bodies of water, such as the Persian Gulf, that the conventional sub has many advantages over the SSN and thus you might not wish to even operate there.

In any case the RN doesn't have enough surface escorts nor subs.  It has far fewer platforms than it needs to support it's assigned missions.  The result is that the RN can not do many basic things a few years ago it took for granted.  Consider the recent Rand report on piracy which I believe shows piracy up from 2000 to 2006 by 68% to 2,450 or so attempts and acts.



 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics