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
Nichevo       6/13/2008 12:56:47 PM
 you have to admire Uncle Joe
No, YOU have to admire the arch-butcher, the thick-fingered safecracker, the pockmarked parricide Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili.  (That's Joseph Stalin for those who haven't caught up.  Uncle Joe my eye!)  Good heavens, where do they grow you types?

It was quite clear already that you're the Sovietophile equivalent of one of Nan's or GF's panda lickers, but thanks for coming out with it so explicitly.  I was getting tired giving you the benefit of the doubt. 


 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       6/13/2008 7:24:30 PM

 Well it is true that the USSR was a tad cavalier by western standards when it came to casualties. However, they suffered remarkably few casualties when they defeated the main body of the Japanese forces (which no western nation caan claim, you have to admire Uncle Joe, he was a man of his word in this case). By any standards the speed and dimensions of this campaign were awesome. They also occupied Japanese islands in the Kuriles however unpalatable that may be. Perhaps the USN should have followed the Aleuts instead of the sunshine route. 

Source Hyperwar.
Russians                                     Japanese.

Casualties and losses
(Soviet estimate)
8,219 KIA,
22,264 WIA;
(Japanese estimate)
20,000+ KIA
50,000+ WIA
(Soviet estimate)
83,737 KIA
640,276 POWs;
(Japanese estimate)
21,000 KIA

DISCREDITED.

Returning to the non-importance of Okinawa, its useful to remember that despite what some US admirals might have thought the allied Grand Strategy was ?Germany First?. This means that until Germany was defeated the Pacific was a secondary theatre. Therefore a defeat at Okinawa before German surrender would have been no more than local in strategic terms. As I keep saying comparing FI to operations in the Pacific is irrelevant.

a. Irrelevant. The decision as to who to murder FIRST does not affect how you murder them in the selected battle-space when you finally kill them.

b Duplicitous. Trying to connect how you murder the selected enemy in a specific case in one battle-space to how you muerdered another set of enemy only becomes relevant when the two models match point for point in congruity. The Battle of the Ruhr pocket which you brought up was an extraneous and totally inapplicable model to the discussion set of how you take an island nation by starvation and blockade. It also had nothing to do with the discussion set involving a land based air force opposing a fleet invasion of an island. 

c. Incompewtent. The attempt to conjoin disconnec ted facts to build a false picture more or less reveals  ignorance as to how to structure  a reasonable argument.

d. Egotistical. The attempt here is an appeal to emotional equivalence between disparate sets of FACTS. Plus the attempt to make assertion substitute for fact is on the face of it an act of EGO. 

"I'm not wrong, so there! [stick tongue out]" 

"As I keep saying comparing FI to operations in the Pacific is orrelevant."[stick tongue out]

Factually meaningless, and structurally  equivalent  as an ASSERTION.

QED

I?m not sure what the lecture about metallurgy is trying to ?prove?, other than another diversion to cover flaky arguments. However, it may be useful to remember that a number of UK Apaches are marinised to permit shipborne operations. This means the Apache handling experience is directly relevant, never mind the lesson of using external expertise that is a bit left field.

Quote    Reply

neutralizer       6/14/2008 2:59:02 AM
You can take a view on Stalin as a strategic commander, but once he got over the shock/'betrayal' of being attacked by Hitler he was an outstandingly effective supreme leader even if  it was in the Russian (ie non-western, non-democratic, rather nasty) tradition.  One of the great 'whatifs' of history is whether the USSR would have survived without him. 
 
Proportional to the forces committed, and in an attack against an enemy that had a reputation for being tenacious, then Soviet casualties were comparitively light - 12,031 'irrecoverable casualties' out of 1,669,500 committed, given that the main campaign lasted 10 days then 1200/day for this sort of op, which included a breakin battle, is an immense achievement and a real credit to the Red Army and its generals.  The Mongolians (horsed as part of the Mongolian/USSR KMG) lost 72 from 16,000.  The Japanese and their allies (often forgotten) totalled about 1.2 M so the Soviet numerical superiority was not that great although of course they had the initiative and it seems operational surprise, but hardly strategic surprise since the USSR had declined to renew the non-aggression pact in April 45 IIRC.
 
Returning to the subject, my view on CVF is logical, reflects modern practice and has not been refuted.  Bluster and waffle don't count.
 
The comparison between FI and the Pacific campaign is nonsense as I keep saying, scale and strategic and any other circumstance apart from a lot of water, were wildly different - starting with the Grand Strategic position.
 
I'd also need some convincing that FI lessons have contributed anything to CVF (apart from the fact that carriers are important).
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       6/14/2008 3:56:24 AM

You can take a view on Stalin as a strategic commander, but once he got over the shock/'betrayal' of being attacked by Hitler he was an outstandingly effective supreme leader even if  it was in the Russian (ie non-western, non-democratic, rather nasty) tradition.  One of the great 'whatifs' of history is whether the USSR would have survived without him. 

What a buffoon. Where did Stalin direct the Russian war with any professionalism? Rostov?,  Kiev?, Leningrad? Minsk? MOSCOW? Where, Chuckles, WHERE did Stalin formulate policy or make a stand that was HIS? Stavka, CRFETIN, it was ALL Zhukov and the Stavka.

Stalin as Military Commander 

The judgment of the Russians themselves was that it was a miracle that they survived WITH him in charge, and that if somebody had put a bullet in him they would have done much better.

Proportional to the forces committed, and in an attack against an enemy that had a reputation for being tenacious, then Soviet casualties were comparitively light - 12,031 'irrecoverable casualties' out of 1,669,500 committed, given that the main campaign lasted 10 days then 1200/day for this sort of op, which included a breakin battle, is an immense achievement and a real credit to the Red Army and its generals.  The Mongolians (horsed as part of the Mongolian/USSR KMG) lost 72 from 16,000.  The Japanese and their allies (often forgotten) totalled about 1.2 M so the Soviet numerical superiority was not that great although of course they had the initiative and it seems operational surprise, but hardly strategic surprise since the USSR had declined to renew the non-aggression pact in April 45 IIRC.

Odds of 8 to 1 combat effectiveness? The remarkable thing is that so MANY of the Russians died so ineptly, you boob.
 
The Japanese had supposedly 700,000 or so combat troops. The rest of those were border guards and POLICE of which not more were 600,000 were available at the time of August Storm. Why did you just LIE?  Been hitting that Wiki again?

Because that garbage you quoted is straight from that reference.

USAWC is the real deal.

Returning to the subject, my view on CVF is logical, reflects modern practice and has not been refuted.  Bluster and waffle don't count.

Meaningless assertive noise and a scurrilous and disreputable ad hominem as well. Not one fact in evidence do I see. Pathetic..  

The comparison between FI and the Pacific campaign is nonsense as I keep saying, scale and strategic and any other circumstance apart from a lot of water, were wildly different - starting with the Grand Strategic position.

 Again meaningless noise. Not one fact in negation.

I'd also need some convincing that FI lessons have contributed anything to CVF (apart from the fact that carriers are important).

 Too stupid to learn, I see.  Reread the lessons egotist. I don't havfe to convince you which is no longer my aim. I just have to lety the argumen ts speak for themselves as to who is the expert here. Hint. It isn't you. I don't think I have to repeat myself again that the ability to operate offensive strike aircraft in addition to or in place of heloing a Royal Marine Commando from the same base ship in the same operation does not constitute Falkland lessons learned.

DISCREDITED you, and this time thoroughly.  

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       6/15/2008 2:20:42 AM
Herald, why are you still talking to this animal?  I guess I haven't the heart to call for a ban by SYSOP, but just look at him.  Do you think he CARES or WANTS to learn?  He's got a job to do, he is doing it, and you are letting him.  The only way of learning anything useful from him would be to dissect him.

I think I asked the only remaining relevant question:  Where did he come from, who made him like this?



BTW - What is the Latin for:  All f***ing commies must hang? 

 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       6/15/2008 3:05:17 AM
I realise that to some 'Uncle Joe' is the devil incarnate, but as I said you don't have to like his methods to respect his leadership, and his politico-military strategic nous wasn't too bad either.  Of course the extent to which any leader originates or 'merely' adopts ideas presented to him is always a fruitful area for debate, but that's how governments work.  I'm a believer in giving credit where its due and agree that the Sovs also produced some very able generals at the operational level.  But then I'm a mature adult.
 
So far all I've seen in reponse to reasoned arguments is abuse, bluster and distortion. 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       6/15/2008 4:32:00 AM

I realise that to some 'Uncle Joe' is the devil incarnate, but as I said you don't have to like his methods to respect his leadership, and his politico-military strategic nous wasn't too bad either.  Of course the extent to which any leader originates or 'merely' adopts ideas presented to him is always a fruitful area for debate, but that's how governments work.  I'm a believer in giving credit where its due and agree that the Sovs also produced some very able generals at the operational level.  But then I'm a mature adult.

 

So far all I've seen in reponse to reasoned arguments is abuse, bluster and distortion. 

All I've seen is an artilleryman way out of his specialized element leaping to erroneus naval conclusions and asserting history and speculation that doesn't fit observed FACTS. You are not my peer in this subject area, Neut. Nothing derogatory or personal about this at all AFAIAC except when confronted by something egregiously outrageous you write that you stubbornly maintain in the face of the most obvious negatio0n of proof. Like most FACTS, it just is.

Endit.

Herald. 

 
Quote    Reply

Enterpriser    Do, please, continue.... :)   6/15/2008 4:56:18 AM
 
 
It doesn't really matter.....
 
Everytime an argument, irrespective of the personal feelings involved, brings facts and sources to the topics of discussion here those of us will more limited knowledge learn an immense amount. Even if only one side is presenting the data much is learned. Obviously 2 parties in a socratic method is preferred, but one will do if necessary.
 
Brett.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Nichy reply   6/15/2008 5:18:18 AM
Intertio dictator et incidere per.

Take the dictator and cut [his] throat.

Very bad latin, and I mean very bad latin.

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

FJV    What I don't "get"   6/15/2008 7:25:00 AM
Everybody is already well into the design specs, while I'm still at square one. What I don't get is why you would want to have a carrier in the 1st place when you cannot have escorts for the carrier. (if I'm to believe posts on this board).

In my opinion no carrier will be able to survive in an hostile environment without proper naval escorts, no matter how much redundency is built in. Which means that if you wanna use the carrier and have it survive, you would have to ask another nation (the EU??) for help with providing escorts.

What good is a carrier if you have to ask another nation "pretty please" each time you want to actually do anything with it? It's like politically having one of your arms constantly tied behind your back.






 
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