No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?
"which means they now both seem destined to end up being more expensive than the USS George Bush..."
Yet less than half the price of USS Gerald R. Ford which is comparable as its being built today, not in ancient history.
Naval Air: Carrier Costs Climbing Considerably
$15billion ... so far
Yet less than half the price of USS Gerald R. Ford which is comparable as its being built today, not in ancient history.
Naval Air: Carrier Costs Climbing Considerably
$15billion ... so far
Last edited by peter we; 29th Aug 2012 at 22:14.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by skydiver69
How long will Ocean last and are the new carriers likely to be used to fulfill her role once she has gone?
Last I heard Ocean was to go after QE commissions and just before POW commissions... QE replaces Lusty and POW replaces Ocean.
Whether both will ever sail at the same time? That all depends on future budgets, international situation, British government, etc.
Supposedly, they were designed with use as LPH in mind... whether that was quietly neglected like the "space & weight reserved for catapults & arresting gear" part of the design was is anyone's guess.
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 30th Aug 2012 at 03:04.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet less than half the price of USS Gerald R. Ford which is comparable as its being built today, not in ancient history.
Yes the Ford is being built today, but that's where the similarities end, and at £6 billion per ship (ex. development costs) I'd rather buy one of those and use the saved money for a full compliment of aircraft than the 2 hulls and 12 jets we're getting at the moment.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I'd rather buy one of those and use the saved money for a full compliment of aircraft than the 2 hulls and 12 jets we're getting at the moment.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So its more or less a waste of time bothering! We are still spending a large ammount of money in the scheme of things to end up with two boats we cannot use against anyone who has a half decent air force or navy!!! It will be a VERY costly nothing we end up with!!!
Originally Posted by Bastardeux
...I'd rather buy one of those [nuclear-powered George Bush manned by over 5,000 personnel - $6.2 bn contract awarded Jan 2001] and use the saved money for a full compliment (sic) of aircraft than the 2 hulls and 12 jets we're getting at the moment.
Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan
...to end up with two boats we cannot use against anyone who has a half decent air force or navy!!!
Last edited by FODPlod; 30th Aug 2012 at 14:20. Reason: to correct attribution of quote.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well AEW will be limited to a helo, the aircraft cannot be tanked by anything embarked so the carrier is going to have to be close to the enemy due to limited range of the F-35B, you will need considerable surface vessals to protect the carrier itself.
Your point on the surge is a good one, but if carrier is already deployed to somewhere in the Pacific and has only around 12 jets on her as will be routine, will take a while to get the other F-35s to her.
I would say most major players in the world would easily get beyond 12x F-35s and a carrier with minimal surface escorts, if carrying a full air wing she does bring far more to the table. But my concerns also relate to to the comments of lack of armour and them not having the sophisticated defence systems required.
They are not going to be as good as an American carrier or the French carrier and I would be surprised if we had enough surface ships in the fleet to act as escorts!!!!
I could still see both being cancelled or sold before entering service, would be a shame at this late stage though as so much has already been spent on them!
If we really wanted a nice cheap/small carrier force might aswell have retained SHAR/GR9 with the Invincible class. But instead we will spend a lot of money to end up with something which is rather limited!!!!
Your point on the surge is a good one, but if carrier is already deployed to somewhere in the Pacific and has only around 12 jets on her as will be routine, will take a while to get the other F-35s to her.
I would say most major players in the world would easily get beyond 12x F-35s and a carrier with minimal surface escorts, if carrying a full air wing she does bring far more to the table. But my concerns also relate to to the comments of lack of armour and them not having the sophisticated defence systems required.
They are not going to be as good as an American carrier or the French carrier and I would be surprised if we had enough surface ships in the fleet to act as escorts!!!!
I could still see both being cancelled or sold before entering service, would be a shame at this late stage though as so much has already been spent on them!
If we really wanted a nice cheap/small carrier force might aswell have retained SHAR/GR9 with the Invincible class. But instead we will spend a lot of money to end up with something which is rather limited!!!!
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
$6 billion = £4 billion
Seeing as QE class are to cost £4 billion each, both classes cost about the same except one is going to be far, far more capable than the other
hence 1 George Bush would be a saving of 4 billion over 2 QEs
And you think a buy of 50 jets will be able to surge 36 to a combat zone?? I will be impressed if we are able to surge half that number. If 50 is the actual proposed buy, then at least 14 are going to be tied down by the OEU/OCU, which leaves probably around 15 - 20 for the front line, which means an even smaller [email protected] I don't forsee a situation where we are ever going to deploy our entire front line F35 force all at once. Neither do I see the marines coming anywhere close to buying the number that they intended, so I wouldn't count on them making up the shortfall.
Up against such a sparsely defended ship, I would say there are a lot of countries that could get a good lick at blowing a few holes in the side of it...seeing as it doesn't have any armour and is going to be relying on rotary AEW. And even if they don't actually pose a threat in reality, their strength on paper may well be too much of a risk to deploy it close enough for the Bs to make any meaningful contribution to the fight.
Seeing as the government are now talking about further cuts to some departments, I wouldn't count on a post-2015 surge in defence spending to help us out a bit.
Seeing as QE class are to cost £4 billion each, both classes cost about the same except one is going to be far, far more capable than the other
hence 1 George Bush would be a saving of 4 billion over 2 QEs
Good job we are ending up with two ships at least one of which will be able operate a surged group of 36 or so 5th Generation JSF, then. Incidentally, which "half decent" air force or navy do you have in mind that could beat such a combination?
Up against such a sparsely defended ship, I would say there are a lot of countries that could get a good lick at blowing a few holes in the side of it...seeing as it doesn't have any armour and is going to be relying on rotary AEW. And even if they don't actually pose a threat in reality, their strength on paper may well be too much of a risk to deploy it close enough for the Bs to make any meaningful contribution to the fight.
Seeing as the government are now talking about further cuts to some departments, I wouldn't count on a post-2015 surge in defence spending to help us out a bit.
Bastardeaux - Do you ever read the anti-CVF tripe you write?
For example, how much extra do you think it would cost to crew a nuclear-powered carrier manned by c.5,500 over a 40+ year period? Moreover, as a single ship couldn't provide continuous availability, we'd still need two of them.
For example, how much extra do you think it would cost to crew a nuclear-powered carrier manned by c.5,500 over a 40+ year period? Moreover, as a single ship couldn't provide continuous availability, we'd still need two of them.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you ever read the Anti-CVF tripe you write?
For example, how much extra do you think it would cost to crew a nuclear-powered carrier manned by c.5,500 over a 40+ year period? Moreover, as a single ship couldn't provide continuous availability, we'd still need two of them.
The main thrust of my argument was more to make a point that we are getting excessively poor value for money here, and the point still stands that the newest American carrier into service will cost about the same to buy, but I know which one I'd rather be on in a war zone.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And you can add this to the list of own goals.......
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...o-growler.html
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...o-growler.html
Originally Posted by Bastardeux
And the continuous availability question didn't seem that important when we were opting for 1 conventional carrier...the French seem to manage just fine.
2. Are you saying the French haven't experienced problems with carrier availability? You can't have read much about CdeG's operational record.
I'm still trying to work out whether you're trying to be ironic or simply generating nonsense to confuse the issue. Either way, there doesn't seem much point in further discussion.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ronald Reagan
"But my concerns also relate to to the comments of lack of armour "
This phrase alone shows that you are totally, utterly clueless in the realm of naval warfare.
"But my concerns also relate to to the comments of lack of armour "
This phrase alone shows that you are totally, utterly clueless in the realm of naval warfare.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe a poor choice of words on my part. However the point is valid, would the UK carriers be able to defend themselves aswell from an attack by enemy air or naval forces as an American Carrier Battle Group or even the French carrier?
Lets say an attack by around 20 to 30x SU-30s or any other combat aircraft?
The fact we are going for F-35 would indicate a desire to be able to take on sophisticated enemies, but will there be enough jets and will the ship be able to defend itself well enough. If we are only going to be up against primitive threats do we even need F-35?!
I feel strongly an island nation which depends on maritime trade needs a stronger navy more than any other service. BUT are these carriers value for money, are they right for the UK and will they be of real use or are they a costly gimic!!! I have never been convinced by the arguments for F-35B rather than going for conventional take off and landing aircraft either.
Lets say an attack by around 20 to 30x SU-30s or any other combat aircraft?
The fact we are going for F-35 would indicate a desire to be able to take on sophisticated enemies, but will there be enough jets and will the ship be able to defend itself well enough. If we are only going to be up against primitive threats do we even need F-35?!
I feel strongly an island nation which depends on maritime trade needs a stronger navy more than any other service. BUT are these carriers value for money, are they right for the UK and will they be of real use or are they a costly gimic!!! I have never been convinced by the arguments for F-35B rather than going for conventional take off and landing aircraft either.
Ah, happy days. In the Cold War I used to dream of a raid strength 20-30. Not sure what I'd have done with them all, of course!
I wonder if that's a realistic raid today. I suppose someone could raise a lot aof assets if they really wanted to go against a capital ship. I don't suppose David was planning on that.
I look forward to opinions on that one.
Courtney
I wonder if that's a realistic raid today. I suppose someone could raise a lot aof assets if they really wanted to go against a capital ship. I don't suppose David was planning on that.
I look forward to opinions on that one.
Courtney