Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Future Carrier (Including Costs)

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Future Carrier (Including Costs)

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12th May 2017, 19:23
  #4161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Trump's suggestion is impractical. Sadly, a lot of the public reactions to his EMALS outburst read as if Trump's critics find the idea of steam catapults inherently ridiculous. Wait until they find out that the Ford is actually (ZOMG!) propelled by steam...
George K Lee is offline  
Old 15th May 2017, 05:08
  #4162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes on 45 Posts
F-35B Initial Ski Jump Testing 16 May 2017
No.4 Hamilton Place, London | Lecture 18:00 - 19:00
"Speaker Details Gordon Stewart MRAeS, Flight Test Engineer, QinetiQ
https://www.aerosociety.com/events-c...-jump-testing/
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 17th May 2017, 07:46
  #4163 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,811
Received 19 Likes on 15 Posts
OAP Some pages back you insisted carriers were no good as they were vulnerable to ballistic missile and other types of attack. When I asked a rhetorical question about whether airfields were at any such risk, you claimed it would require in depth analysis to answer that question.

Now I state the UK has commanded what is normally a carrier task group (ie the sore of thing a carrier does) and that carrier based aircraft may have a role to play in countering the influence of an increasingly belligerent Moscow, and claim it is simplistic and bears no weight.

Why? Are you unwilling to provide any explanation to your extortions?

As for Floating Gin Palace - would you use this term to describe the American and French carriers hitting terrorist targets in Iraq and Syria? Would you use that term for Ocean during her time as flagship of CTF 50? What about carriers deployed in previous conflicts and crises?
WE Branch Fanatic is online now  
Old 17th May 2017, 09:03
  #4164 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,387
Received 1,583 Likes on 720 Posts
OAP Some pages back you insisted carriers were no good as they were vulnerable to ballistic missile and other types of attack. When I asked a rhetorical question about whether airfields were at any such risk, you claimed it would require in depth analysis to answer that question.
The answer is yes, but with a good BDR Sqn along with a load of aggregate and steel matting an airfield can reopen in a few hours, something much less likely with an aircraft carrier.

http://fauntrackway.co.uk/wp-content...age_repair.pdf

American and French carriers "gin palaces"? Of course not - the USN is dry and people visit them for their steak and ice cream; and for the French obviously the wine.....
ORAC is online now  
Old 17th May 2017, 11:41
  #4165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC
The answer is yes, but with a good BDR Sqn along with a load of aggregate and steel matting an airfield can reopen in a few hours, .
Really? That's interesting. The Syrian airfield that got hit with 59 Tomahawks (with NONE hitting the runway) was able to "reopen in a few hours". Nice to know.
KenV is offline  
Old 17th May 2017, 11:50
  #4166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: front seat, facing forwards
Posts: 1,156
Received 12 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC

American and French carriers "gin palaces"? Of course not - the USN is dry and people visit them for their steak and ice cream; and for the French obviously the wine.....
I can categorically assure you that the USN is not dry. Their carriers most definitely have alcohol on board!
just another jocky is offline  
Old 17th May 2017, 12:00
  #4167 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,387
Received 1,583 Likes on 720 Posts
Really? That's interesting. The Syrian airfield that got hit with 59 Tomahawks (with NONE hitting the runway) was able to "reopen in a few hours". Nice to know.
Syrian warplanes take off once again from air base bombed by US Tomahawks

"Syrian warplanes took off from the air base hit by US cruise missiles yesterday to carry out bombing raids on rebel-held areas, in a defiant show of strength. Just hours after the al-Shayrat airfield was bombed with 59 US Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from warships in the Mediterranean, aircraft struck targets in the eastern Homs countryside, according to a monitoring group"........
ORAC is online now  
Old 17th May 2017, 12:55
  #4168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Hi again frantic.
Please do not expect me to waste my time arguing points that are well understood, have already been stated or, are limited on this forum to a matter of opinion.
BTW, I think you will find lots of gin on board!

OAP
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 17th May 2017, 19:58
  #4169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC
Syrian warplanes take off once again from air base bombed by US Tomahawks

"Syrian warplanes took off from the air base hit by US cruise missiles yesterday to carry out bombing raids on rebel-held areas, in a defiant show of strength. Just hours after the al-Shayrat airfield was bombed with 59 US Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from warships in the Mediterranean, aircraft struck targets in the eastern Homs countryside, according to a monitoring group"........
Runway (which was not even targeted) open? Certainly. Airfield open? Well, that's a matter of opinion/interpretation. But your point is well made.

That aside, it's interesting to note that the countries that have or claim to have carrier killer missiles that make carriers obsolete are all hard at work developing and building carriers of their own.
KenV is offline  
Old 18th May 2017, 06:54
  #4170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I didn't know the British had carrier-killer missiles Ken...................
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 18th May 2017, 07:03
  #4171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North East
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Underwater missiles 😈
onion is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2017, 18:41
  #4172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes on 45 Posts
HMS Queen Elizabeth begins initial ‘Training Cruise’ 09 Jul 2017 George Allison
"Over the next week, HMS Queen Elizabeth will be manned and ready as her crew operate the ship 24-hours a day as though she’s at sea, except for one detail: the carrier will not leave the pier at Rosyth.

The Training Cruise (also known as a ‘fast cruise’) commenced today and its purpose is to exercise a number of scenarios which the Ship’s Company may experience at sea. You’re right that the Training Cruise commenced today....

...The training provides the opportunity to measure the ship’s preparedness and is designed to get the crew into an operational mindset. Each department will accomplish this task in their own way, but all training will simulate at-sea conditions as closely as possible.

Coinciding with the tides and the booking of various tugs, it’s estimated that HMS Queen Elizabeth will sail between the 21st and 24th of this month. This has not been confirmed by the Aircraft Carrier Alliance.

According to a source at Rosyth, the rumour mill supports this:
“Obviously most of us don’t know the exact time as that’ll depend on a multitude of factors but as far as I’m aware from what I’ve been told, Queen Elizabeth will sail in around two weeks.”
Another source tells us that the plan is for the vessel to depart on the 21st at noon and anchor in river. All going well, the supercarrier will sail under the bridges around 18:00, weather permitting. Again, this has not been confirmed...."

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/hms-...aining-cruise/
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2017, 11:54
  #4173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
reminds me of the TSR-2 - desperate race to fly with the politicians and the Treasury clsoing in..............................
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2017, 13:47
  #4174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 343
Received 9 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry
reminds me of the TSR-2 - desperate race to fly with the politicians and the Treasury clsoing in..............................
Except with TSR-2 they hadn't started the production run and with the carrier they've almost finished. So essentially a completely different situation.
Bing is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2017, 14:26
  #4175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Two of each, both very expensive and arguments over usefulness

Both with opponents in their own services, other services and the Civil Service

Both coming up to testing programme in a time of political and financial uncertainty (and with a possible Lab. Govt in the wings...)
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2017, 14:48
  #4176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 343
Received 9 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry
Two of each, both very expensive and arguments over usefulness
Except there were more than 2 TSR-2 and they planned to build lots of them. I don't think they're planning on building any more QE Class carriers.
Bing is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2017, 15:28
  #4177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 327
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
So some appear to be suggesting that we should can two major naval assets capable of delivering substantial military effect, and of providing a powerful presence as part of peacetime diplomacy, despite the fact that they're largely paid for; and that instead we should just have a fleet of escorts whose main capability is defending themselves (when deprived of a major asset to defend).

If the Tories cling to power I really can't see them countenancing such a humiliating act that would point so strongly at national decline. With Corbyn, on the other hand, all bets would be off.

I guess I should remember that Pprune is home to some who are not instinctive supporters of carrier aviation, hence the wish perhaps being the father of the thought in some cases - although there are also some honourable exceptions. There are also one or two around here who, if they fell on hard times, could find a ready home as part of the RT editorial team (if they haven't already)
Frostchamber is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2017, 18:15
  #4178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Frostchamber

If the Tories cling to power I really can't see them countenancing such a humiliating act that would point so strongly at national decline. With Corbyn, on the other hand, all bets would be off.


There are also one or two around here who, if they fell on hard times, could find a ready home as part of the RT editorial team (if they haven't already)
Firstly, Frosty, you "can't see" because you are blind to the reality that allowed a moron like Corbyn to almost get elected by promising a "free for all" (a bit like DT!).

BTW, slagging other contributors on here is poor form, old chap.

OAP
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2017, 20:06
  #4179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 327
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Hmm - I'd venture to suggest that "slagging off" is perhaps a bit harsh - certainly compared with a lot I've seen on here . And certainly nothing ad hominem. I just find it a little wearisome the way one or two seem to seize on any pretext to argue that the carriers should be binned...
Frostchamber is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2017, 20:32
  #4180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Frostchamber
I just find it a little wearisome the way one or two seem to seize on any pretext to argue that the carriers should be binned...
OK, Let us just suppose that GDP is stagnant or will shrink, cutting the 2% in real £, various administrative ways will be found to claim the 2% from less real spend £ and, the value of the £ continues to fall, increasing cost of UK Mil procurement from the USA. So, a reducing Mil budget. Just what would you cut before the carriers?

OAP
Onceapilot is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.