|
No idea on the truth regarding this so the usual caveats apply.
"Pres. Donald Trump has weighed in on the future configuration of the U.S. Navy’s aircraft carrier fleet. Trump is insisting that the service return to installing steam catapults in place of the state-of-the-art Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, or EMALS, that was developed for the Gerald R. Ford–class super carriers. The president is explicit in his directive—all future U.S. Navy carriers will revert to steam catapults. ..." Trump Said All Future U.S. Navy Carriers Will Use ?Goddamned Steam? Catapults | War Is Boring |
Probably true. After all, Trump knows more than the Generals, oh, and Admirals, too!
|
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...
|
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 |
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? |
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. 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..... |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 9773692)
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, .
|
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 9773692)
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..... |
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 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"........ |
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! :ok: OAP |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 9773844)
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"........ 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. |
I didn't know the British had carrier-killer missiles Ken...................
|
Underwater missiles 😈
|
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.” https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/hms-...aining-cruise/ |
reminds me of the TSR-2 - desperate race to fly with the politicians and the Treasury clsoing in..............................
|
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry
(Post 9800093)
reminds me of the TSR-2 - desperate race to fly with the politicians and the Treasury clsoing in..............................
|
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...) |
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry
(Post 9800239)
Two of each, both very expensive and arguments over usefulness
|
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) :) |
Originally Posted by Frostchamber
(Post 9800298)
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) :) BTW, slagging other contributors on here is poor form, old chap.:= OAP |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:31. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.