Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko
Jacko thinks that if he says the same thing many many many times it will somehow make it right. Wrong!
Frankly, when the services are facing a true D Day in funding I amazed that someone would find it necessary to stoke intra service squabbling. I guess that just shows where the journos loyalty lies.
Frankly, when the services are facing a true D Day in funding I amazed that someone would find it necessary to stoke intra service squabbling. I guess that just shows where the journos loyalty lies.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly! Inter Service backstabbing will achieve nothing but a long disguised Government aim. If the CVFs have an adverse impact on any Service, it will be the Navy. Another foot closer to a 10 ship surface flotilla capable of nothing more than "projecting" the Army and the Air Force to beastly places.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: berkshire
Age: 43
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These carriers are nessecary for the UK and France, they are probably 1 of the most important projects atm. It is vital for europe to build up forces...especially their navies so they can project their power and help their interests. Carriers are a key element to power projection and we can't always rely to be under the US's wing and just let them do the work....what happens if the Falklands are invaded again or Brazil decides to invade french guiana...without carriers it would be impossible for the UK and France to protect their interested without the help of the US.
I have another point of which i would like to ask your opinion which is who do you think will buy the old RN carriers if the new carriers are produced
I have another point of which i would like to ask your opinion which is who do you think will buy the old RN carriers if the new carriers are produced
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who would buy CVS?
Umm, unless we were giving them away (always a possibility), why would anyone want them - they've got to be tired ships come 2012/2020 or whenever they pay off, and despite the RN's heroics, they're really quite small and of relatively limited power projection value (hence why CVF is getting on for three times the size).
Besides, ignoring (as the RN seem to be doing at the moment), the importance of a balanced naval force to protect the carrier - what would anyone operate off of them? AV-8B Harrier II+? Dave-B?
Actually, have no idea how many Dave-Bs a CVS could embark - anyone any idea? NaB? Presumably 6-8? And what's the point of that?
S41
(Edited for cr*p typing and cr*p VBasic)
Besides, ignoring (as the RN seem to be doing at the moment), the importance of a balanced naval force to protect the carrier - what would anyone operate off of them? AV-8B Harrier II+? Dave-B?
Actually, have no idea how many Dave-Bs a CVS could embark - anyone any idea? NaB? Presumably 6-8? And what's the point of that?
S41
(Edited for cr*p typing and cr*p VBasic)
Suspicion breeds confidence
The answer is zero. Originally it was the intention to operate Dave-B off the Invincibles. That requirement was dropped 10 years ago. The CVS lacks the flight deck strength, JBDs, plus about 200ft of usable flight deck length to handle a Dave-B at anything approaching AUW. It been a non starter for years.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about using them as helo carriers, and pair them with CVFs carrying Daves?
They might be old, but at least it'd give a task force some extra AH/SH support, plus an emergency landing deck for the F35s...?
They might be old, but at least it'd give a task force some extra AH/SH support, plus an emergency landing deck for the F35s...?
Squirrel
Navaleye beat me to it. Inadequate deck strength, too little room to operate anything like a useful TAG, lift issues, not to mention the noise impact that Dave B brings with it on the recovery.
By the time they go OSD they'll be 30+yrs old (albeit with Reduced Readiness time in that), but have been worked pretty hard in comparison with their predecessors. The biggest argument against retaining them as some sort of Merlin farm is that there won't be enough bodies to man them. 600+ (ex TAG) apiece give or take. That's why all this knobbing about trying to shift the cabs onto tankers to save a few bob on CVF is pointless. If one squadron complex (RR, offices, SE etc) and an operating spot or two on the ship is really going to save you vast amounts of money then fair play - but I'd love to see the design study........
Navaleye beat me to it. Inadequate deck strength, too little room to operate anything like a useful TAG, lift issues, not to mention the noise impact that Dave B brings with it on the recovery.
By the time they go OSD they'll be 30+yrs old (albeit with Reduced Readiness time in that), but have been worked pretty hard in comparison with their predecessors. The biggest argument against retaining them as some sort of Merlin farm is that there won't be enough bodies to man them. 600+ (ex TAG) apiece give or take. That's why all this knobbing about trying to shift the cabs onto tankers to save a few bob on CVF is pointless. If one squadron complex (RR, offices, SE etc) and an operating spot or two on the ship is really going to save you vast amounts of money then fair play - but I'd love to see the design study........
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't mind putting a bob on the Indian Navy ending up with a CVS or two; their plans for a big carrier are known but seems to be suffering the inevitable delays - as mentioned recently their Sea Harrier numbers would need bolstering, either by grabbing our old FA2's & updating them or their FRS51's - or both; I somehow doubt the cost of Harrier 2 would appeal, especially as they would probably still have to use Israeli / Russian BVR kit rather than 2+ with AMRAAM.
Otherwise they'l be stuck with 1 ( ? ) carrier, eventually, with navalised Sukhoi's - having the Seajet force going as well / in the meantime must be very attractive to them, and keeping old kit going is something they're very good at...
Otherwise they'l be stuck with 1 ( ? ) carrier, eventually, with navalised Sukhoi's - having the Seajet force going as well / in the meantime must be very attractive to them, and keeping old kit going is something they're very good at...
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NaB; Navaleye
Many thanks for that - very interesting. Easy to forget the size of Dave-B, and the consequent weight issues when you try and VL it.
Double Zero - think that the Indians are getting navalised MiG-29s? But Jane's seems to think that the whole project is further delayed. So who knows? Bombay Duck, over to you.
S41
Many thanks for that - very interesting. Easy to forget the size of Dave-B, and the consequent weight issues when you try and VL it.
Double Zero - think that the Indians are getting navalised MiG-29s? But Jane's seems to think that the whole project is further delayed. So who knows? Bombay Duck, over to you.
S41
Suspicion breeds confidence
DZ,
I think the Gorshkov plan may come to nothing unless Mr Putin is willing underwrite the 100% cost over run on the original estimate. The Indians won't want Invincible or her sisters for no other reason than the lack of enough suitable a/c to fly off them. They are designing two indigenous 40,000 ton carriers with the help of the Italians. I believe the keels for these ships have already been laid. I think they are too small at sub 40,000 tons to be useful.
Much of the ops, comms and aviation equipment put into Ark and Illustrious at their last (and recent) refits is being removed and re-installed into CVF prior to launch. What is left won't be worth buying. Invincible had none of these and is already destored. All she needs is a visit from the Fleet Maintenance Group (is it still called that?) with sledge hammers and she's on a one way trip to the scrap yard. Personally, I think a good sinkex is in order. Just my 2p. Have a good new year everyone.
I think the Gorshkov plan may come to nothing unless Mr Putin is willing underwrite the 100% cost over run on the original estimate. The Indians won't want Invincible or her sisters for no other reason than the lack of enough suitable a/c to fly off them. They are designing two indigenous 40,000 ton carriers with the help of the Italians. I believe the keels for these ships have already been laid. I think they are too small at sub 40,000 tons to be useful.
Much of the ops, comms and aviation equipment put into Ark and Illustrious at their last (and recent) refits is being removed and re-installed into CVF prior to launch. What is left won't be worth buying. Invincible had none of these and is already destored. All she needs is a visit from the Fleet Maintenance Group (is it still called that?) with sledge hammers and she's on a one way trip to the scrap yard. Personally, I think a good sinkex is in order. Just my 2p. Have a good new year everyone.
Last edited by Navaleye; 31st Dec 2007 at 00:51.
The IN Air Defence Ship (or ships) are supposdly being built by Cochin SY, and steel was suposedly cut a couple of years ago. Doesn't seem to be much activity at the actual shipyard though.
As for sinkex's, try this - the yanks are taking their inventory control / reserve ships issues very seriously.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...ad.php?t=88408
And indeed HNY and good luck to livers.
As for sinkex's, try this - the yanks are taking their inventory control / reserve ships issues very seriously.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...ad.php?t=88408
And indeed HNY and good luck to livers.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think prison ship would be just the job for their retirement. Some money would need to be spent improving the accommodation, though. It would be inhumane to subject criminals to those conditions.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember reading a certain pilot's description of life aboard Invincible; " there were two sorts of pilots, those who peed in the sink, and liars " - so if thats the officer accomodation...presumably no I-pod sockets either - and no catapult to fire the piano off with, so thats useless for entertainment.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Presumably the prison offers would get the officers accomm, complete with Clamshell sofabeds. I've not been aboard a CVS for longer than a day, so I don't know what the other accommodation is like. Can't be any worse than a T42, at least that had plumbing of sorts.
Dave is F-4-plus-sized, similar to the Super Hornet or Typhoon.
One question not answered in the literature is the STOVL MTOW of the B from the nominal 550 foot deck run. Point being, that if you want to exercise your non-stealth options to carry external stores, how much can you actually get off the boat? Clean MTOW is about 50,000 pounds, with full internal fuel, AMRAAMs & 2 x 1000 lb bombs...
One question not answered in the literature is the STOVL MTOW of the B from the nominal 550 foot deck run. Point being, that if you want to exercise your non-stealth options to carry external stores, how much can you actually get off the boat? Clean MTOW is about 50,000 pounds, with full internal fuel, AMRAAMs & 2 x 1000 lb bombs...
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Age: 66
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having being on the bridge of Illustrious last year the actual bridge systems seem as built old tech panels im sure the radar etc is new but the basic systems must be near the end of there life. Also by the look of the wiring they will need a complete rewire soon.