Didn't Paul Grayson play rugby for England? And another one played cricket for England, didn't he?
|
BAE told the government that the only way they could start work on any MARS ships would be to delay work on POW & the T-26s, as there is no "spare" capacity in their yards.
In order for these ships to have been built in the UK, there would have needed to have been a regular set of additional ship orders over the last 15-20 years that would have preserved more shipyards. |
Didn't Paul Grayson play rugby for England? And another one played cricket for England, didn't he? |
Defense-Aerospace.com: France Could Loan Rafales to Royal Navy
PARIS --- The Anglo-French defense initiative announced last week did not mention bilateral cooperation on aircraft carriers because Britain still has to firm up its intentions in this field, according to France’s top weapons buyer. Lauren Collet-Billon, head of the Direction Generale de l’Armement, said during a Feb. 22 press conference here that Britain still has to finalize its aircraft carrier plans, including major technical options such as the kind of catapults it wants to fit to its new aircraft carriers, and what kind of aircraft these ships will finally operate. Initially, Britain wanted to buy the F-35B STOV/L variant to replace its Harriers, but subsequently shifted to the F-35C carrier variant which, like the entire program, has run into substantial technical difficulties. The F-35 “is an ambitious program, and like all ambitious programs it faces a number of challenges,” Collet-Billon said, adding that bilateral cooperation in the field of aircraft carriers will depend on how British programs. “If one day we have to lend Rafale Ms to the Royal Navy, why not? Personally, I’d find that very pleasing,” Collet-Billon said. .............. |
including major technical options such as the kind of catapults it wants to fit to its new aircraft carriers, and what kind of aircraft these ships will finally operate. In other words they are powered by gas turbines and they do not produce steam that is anywhere near suitable for operating conventional type catapults so what options do we have? :) |
glojo - It has been discussed on PPRuNe several times but the QE Class carriers (at least one, anyway) will employ the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) which has already been tested on land and is currently being installed in USS Gerald R Ford.
|
Good morning FodPlod,
MANY apologies if my post was in any way confusing... I was responding to the suggestion that we have a choice regarding type of launch system. I am in total and full agreement with your observations. The EMALS catapult is the system that will be used, there are no other systems being considered and it is not going to change. Did I read somewhere that the decision has been made to now fit BOTH carriers with the full kit to operate the F-35C? Apologies if I caused any confusion. John |
glojo - Fairy snuff. I didn't think you could be that far astern of the curve. :p
Good morning to you, too. |
I'm still coming to terms with not waiting for the ship to roll before firing off my broadside!! :ok:
|
Can't wait for the commissioning :(
|
Hi I am David Morgan's sister and although slightly biased, I would reccomend his book as being just a true account of the events the book was written about. I have read , well attemped to read, Sharkey's book but felt the real personal touch was not there!
|
Hello Fran,
I enjoyed your brother's book, but I have also made it through Sharkey's book a couple of times now and even subjected myself to 'RAF Harrier Ground Attack Falklands', which I found a little incoherent. My personal highlight in Sharkey's book was when he sensed insubordination on 801 so took the offender up for some ACM and won....quite what that proved I have no idea. A little weird in my opinion. Your brother's best bit is when he tries to float out of his cabin to see his disciple....I mean, you wouldn't lie about that would you!;) |
QE Build Progress
Just as a counter point to some of the doom & gloom. Progress on the build of QE at Rosyth.
Assembly phase reveals Queen Elizabeth scale | Opinion | The Engineer I must confess that I had not expected them to be at the point of locking off compartments yet. To put this in some sort of time perspective, the components of the superblock have arrived in Rosyth from August onwards, with some of the sponson blocks having been built in Rosyth earlier. |
I enjoyed your brother's book, but I have also made it through Sharkey's book a couple of times now and even subjected myself to 'RAF Harrier Ground Attack Falklands', which I found a little incoherent. Thread creep from the OP (and I apologise to all) but these books have to be read with respect for the perspective they were written from - the FI campaign was no success story in many many areas but if you want to understand the challenges involved in operating both RN and RAF aircraft from a carrier at war in the early 1980s, from an aircrew side, read all three! Regards, ICBM |
More progress: Giant hull sections of Queen Elizabeth carrier joined at Clyde yard - BBC
Also here from the Telegraph. Wait a minute - was Queen Elizabeth not meant to enter service in 2014 - and since she is not getting catapults and arresting gear, that should not have changed? Also of note (and also from the Telegraph): New delay over fighter jet choice If F35B is picked, then surely the RN Pilots sent stateside to fly would be better off flying Harriers - and we could do with embarking Harriers to maintain the skills of carrier crews? I wonder if the cost issue is the only one, or if training and skills (and current capabilities this decade) come into it? Issues which, of course, were discussed elsewhere on PPRuNe as well as on this thread. I realise that there is a thread discussing just this question, but thought I would put it here for completeness. |
Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic
Wait a minute - was Queen Elizabeth not meant to enter service in 2014 - and since she is not getting catapults and arresting gear, that should not have changed?
"Aircraft carriers delayed" Thursday, 11 December 2008 The Royal Navy's two new aircraft carriers are likely to enter service a year or two later than planned, Defence Secretary John Hutton has announced. In a statement to MPs, he added there would be no delay in construction - but work would continue at a slower pace, sustaining jobs for longer. The £4bn shipbuilding project is due to begin next spring. Peter Luff [holding answer 15 November 2011]: The planned in-service dates for HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are 2016 and 2018 respectively—however, these dates may change once our conversion investigations are complete and we have decided which ship will be converted. |
Originally Posted by WEBF
If F35B is picked, then surely the RN Pilots sent stateside to fly would be better off flying Harriers - and we could do with embarking Harriers to maintain the skills of carrier crews?
If F35B is chosen, the RN and RAF pilots need to be worked up on that, not a type we no longer have. Carrier crews will need to be worked-up once the new carrier is being introduced to service. Quite a way to go yet. |
Originally Posted by M2
The UK doesn't operate Harriers.
|
GK121
Interesting. Surely if the build was slowed for political reasons, then it can be speeded back up? Also I understand that there is nothing to stop Illustrious being retained post 2014 (until QE comes along). Even in a LPH role, having more than one flat top gives a margin of safety in case of accidents or other unexpected things (Lusty recently sustained some damage on exercise). Things do crop up - like this possible deployment to Somalia. Mach Two Perhaps this would be better discussed on the "No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B" thread? We don't have any to embark. The UK doesn't operate Harriers. If F35B is chosen, the RN and RAF pilots need to be worked up on that, not a type we no longer have. The Americans want to UK to have a decent carrier capability - seeing us as a very important ally. Carrier crews will need to be worked-up once the new carrier is being introduced to service. Quite a way to go yet. The lack of adequately training personnel could delay the carrier coming into service by another three or four years, the Navy commander has said. Another officer has told The Telegraph that the loss of carrier deck handling skills could prove "disastrous" with fatal accidents caused by inexperienced ratings. Or indeed the First Sea Lord: Loss of Carrier Strike Capability Top Concern of Royal Navy Chief F35B or F35C, we still have to get there. Current policy does not answer several key questions? How will we maintain and develop carrier related skills this decade? What will we do if we need to provide a task group with air defence beyond the range of ship based sensors and weapons, or if ROE demand positive ID before things can be engaged? How will we make up for the shortfall in maritime force projection, given that SSN numbers will decline this decade, so there will be less TLAM shooters, and Apache is limited in sped, range, and payload, and available only in limited numbers? These were (and still are) the issues discussed on the Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers" thread. In late 2009 I remember listening to a briefing by the Fleet Air Arm Command Warrant Officer, who emphasised the need to have more jets embarked as sea for longer periods, to build up both individual and corporate experience. Sometimes the whole ship aspects are forgotten about - but they are key to safe and efficient aviation operations. A lot of things have to come together, not just the chockheads being confident and experienced in handling jets on a moving deck, but also the OOW keeping the ship on the right course and speed and understanding the movement limitations ship and aircraft place upon each other, the watchkeepers in the Ship Control Centre keeping the deck trim and flashing up power when needed, operators and maintainers of various sensors, communications, and landing aids, the Cdr(Air) et al running things, etc. I am very reluctant to post an article by a politician who was described as a failure by those she was/is meant to represent (as their MP), but here we go: 'The government only has itself to blame for any carrier strike U-turn' |
WEBF,
I think you missed my point. I'm well aware of all the other threads discussing this issue, I only responded to you as you posted it here "for completeness." Whilst I admire your single-issue enthusiasm, the facts are quite plain. The Government have little appetite to pay for sea power at the moment and the next one will be even less on side. We are out of the VTOL/VSTOL/etc game and the carrier game. My comments reflect only how I read the mood of those that hold the purse strings. Perhaps we'd all be better off focussing on having essential future capability rather than worrying about what colour it is or whether it looks like a Harrier or not. M2 |
All times are GMT. The time now is 22:34. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.