|
She shouldn't need CVN manning levels (certainly not for the ship at any rate). However, as many more sorties (and roles we haven't done for many years) will be required, I fail to see how we will get a vastly increased number of sorties out of a CAG that will effectively be maybe 30-40% increase in manpower over the current one. When you think of the a/c servicing and arming activities involved in the likely flypro, never mind maintenance, then the number of bodies on the deck looks a bit sparse.
I know there are a lot of sortie-gen multipliers included in this design (the way the deckpark works), weapons generation, lack of steam cats and all that good stuff. However, there will be an awful lot of very tired folk out there toward the last recovery & respot, the cAG numbers quoted just seem very light compared to all other operators is all..... |
if the defence cuts being tallked about elsewhere on this and other boards happen manning won't be an issue cause they won't be built.
|
mmm given Gordo's announcment yesterday is he looking for fleet cuts using the jam tomorrow promise to implement the cuts today then hold of on the comittment to buy?
|
With so many Scottish shipbuilding jobs depending on CVF, could a Scottish politician risk pulling out?
There is an interesting debate over on ARRSE: Blue Water vs. Littoral Navy - which do we need nowadays? |
yes but what happens when the navy has to choose funding for CVF or SSN?
Then the winner of that V T22/23 Replacement then the winner of that against MCMV replacement and at each time funding earmarked for the previous programme is withdrawn and new savings have to be found. |
CVF must happen. If not we're all screwed.
|
Oh, the drama..............:yuk:
|
Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic
CVF must happen. If not we're all screwed.
|
Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic
CVF must happen. If not we're all screwed.
|
Here we go again :
Occasional AviatorQuote: Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic CVF must happen. If not we're all screwed. Yes, we might have to project our air power at 500 knots instead of fast walking pace... Yeah, provided some nice man gives us unlimited F34, unrestricted access to nice long runways, and those nice chaps in DTMA arrange some shipping to carry it all. Otherwise, you'll be projecting your air power to the West coast of Ireland or maybe Northern Spain if you're lucky..... |
Get your shovels out for CVF. Here.
|
Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic
CVF must happen. If not we're all screwed.
why are we? I think the Royal Navy would cope pretty well without any form of Aircraft Carrier. We have done before and we will cope again. ENVIRONMENTAL experts have been drafted in by naval leaders in Portsmouth to help pave the way for the arrival of the future carriers. HMS Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales will be the largest ships ever commissioned by the Royal Navy when they enter service next decade. More than £60m needs to be spent on infrastructure in Portsmouth Naval Base to accommodate the leviathans which are expected to displace around 65,000 tons apiece. (HMS Hood displaced 48,000 tons, Vanguard 51,000 tons and Ark Royal IV 53,000 tons fully-loaded.) Considerable work has already been carried out on surveying a potential route into harbour for the flat-tops – the existing main channel is neither deep enough nor wide enough to allow safe passage. An estimated four million cubic metres (141,258,667 cubic feet in old money) of material will have to be scooped out of the channel and also in the harbour itself. That dredging operation demands an Environmental Impact Assessment by a firm of engineering and environmental consultants, Royal Haskoning. The firm will talk to English Nature, the Environment Agency, English Heritage, the Mary Rose Trust and others to ensure that when the work begins it causes the minimum of disruption to marine life in the Solent and environs. As part of the study, scientific tests will be carried out, as well as archeological investigations, surveys of seabed sediment and analysis of fish and marine ecology. Complex hydrodynamic models will also be created to see what impact the dredging might have on the flow of water. The final survey will be made available for public consultation once completed. Apart from dredging, major work is needed to upgrade the berths and jetties in the dockyard to ensure that when the work begins it causes the minimum of disruption to marine life in the Solent ... How on Earth can dredging 141,258,667 Cubes of glug cause "minimum disruption to the environment" ? Or, you can bin the whole stupid, wasteful idea and spend the money on preserving the infrastructure around Pompey, spend some money on maintaining the historic buildings, spend the money on the environment....but don't waste money on this folly. 141,258,667 cubic feet of sludge is going to have to be shifted...whats that going to do for the environment? Where are they going to put it? Hey, maybe they could plonk it in the Solent and extend the IOW onto the mainland...cool |
New South Coast International
Infill to extend the Brambles for the new South Coast International Airport. :eek:
|
Vecvecevechooooochooochooo!Now I really believe that you have finally lost your marbles! Scrap a front line asset and spend the money on historic buildings! What planet are you on?
|
Maybe the historic building bit was a tadge tongue in cheek....but lets face it, its hardly a front line asset is it?
|
U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), Contracts. 5 p.m. ET June 27, 2006:
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Ft. Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $115,836,036 modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract. This modification provides for integration of the United Kingdom version of the joint strike fighter (JSF) air system with the United Kingdom carrier version future (CVF) under the JSF systems development and demonstration effort. Work will be performed in Warton, United Kingdom (57 percent), Fort Worth, Texas (35 percent), Orlando, Fla. (5 percent), and El Segundo, Calif. (3 percent), and is expected to be completed in October 2013. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity. |
My previous post was a quick effort to keep the topic going. However, I stand by the "if it doesn't happen we're screwed" comment. Many of the arguments have been discussed before on this thread, and others. But I will offer my views from my own (dark blue) perspective.
1. We have considerably less ships now than a few years ago. The aircraft that CVF will carry will hopefully make up the shortfall in capabilty that these cuts have caused. When the decision was taken 40 years ago to get rid of conventional carriers, a large proportion of the Fleet's striking power was going to be lost. The decision was taken to purchase the Exocet missile from France and fit it to RN ships to make up for the lose of Buccaneers etc. Today the reverse is true, we have lost shipborne firepower and need carrierborne aircraft to make up for the cuts. 2. If money is taken out of CVF, will it go on frigates, helicopters, or whatever? No, It'll be taken out of defence. 3. CVF Is VITAL to the Future Navy and Strategic Plan. From Janes: Advanced Hawkeye promises quantum leap in US Navy's AEW capability Indeed, the AHE's raison d'être is the provision of core enabling capabilities that are designed to meet the operational requirements enshrined in the US Navy's 'Sea Power 21' concept. AHE is designed for theatre air and missile defence (as set out in the 'Sea Shield' doctrine) and will shift the basis of the defence of carrier battle groups from the current combat air patrol approach to one where extended-range missile engagement is to the fore. Here, the AHE capability is expected to extend engagement range out to the maximum that is achievable with interceptor missiles, and to optimise engagement opportunities via the distribution of precision detection data through the Co-operative Engagement Capability network. Lastly, AHE will provide carrier-based battle management command and control for the 'Sea Basing' concept of mobile force projection from the sea, with improved sensor performance in open water and littoral environments as well as over land. MASC will be as important to the RN as AHE will be to the USN. No CVF means no MASC, which would reqiure the total scrapping of the Navy's various plans and concepts for the future. Hence we would all be screwed. |
Agreed. CVF needs to be launching strikes at 400nm+ distance. A helo is of no value at that range.
|
Originally Posted by Navaleye
Agreed. CVF needs to be launching strikes at 400nm+ distance. A helo is of no value at that range.
Errrrr...I think you will find that the RN already has that capability.... |
VVHA - if by that you mean the very small number of TLAM that can be chucked out of an SSN, followed by a reposition (you just left a flaming datum) / reload cycle of several hours, then you need to redefine the word strike........
TLAM is great for fixed point targets, but bog-all use for anything else (OCA, ground formations, area targets). Complementary to carrier air, NOT a substitute. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 22:57. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.