|
Originally Posted by AtomKraft
The deal was that BAE Sys got paid the same amount whether they built them, or the ships got cancelled.
QED, may as well build them..... In Rosyth, which is in Browns constituency... I mean, what chance have we with cnuts like Brown running things? If the UK wants any aircraft carrier, it will have to sign a contract that is bullet proof from political interference.
Originally Posted by Glojo
however the Committee noted that Crowsnest will not become operational until 2022 at the very earliest.
Originally Posted by Glojo
It was also conceded that the only way the F-35B could return to the deck of the type of carrier we are left with is by carrying out a rolling landing.
|
glojo
Great rant. the Deputy chief of the Defence Staff and guess what? This very senior officer was not an able seaman, nor even an admiral, instead it was a very senior officer from the RAF (an Air Marshal who I will not name) I am sure that the Air Marshal in question would have asked for, and received, many detailed briefs from the relevant (expert?) Naval Staffs within Whitehall and CINCFLEET (and may well have had one or two sitting behind him whilst giving evidence at the committee ready to kick his chair if he said anything off the party line). And if they are anything like the ones I had to write for Army and Navy colleagues (on RAF topics) then they will no doubt have been written in very plain, and clear, language so that the person reading it can both understand it and put the message across to others. But lets not detract from the standard RN opening salvo - "It's all the RAFs fault" :E:ok: |
Glojo, well done man.
Glojo-that must be the longest post I've ever seen on here, when did you start writing it?!! Last year?! Well done man.
Flippancy aside, Lord we all hope and pray these things end up being worth the hassle and treasure and print and sweat expended on them, we really do.. Wonder how the FD training is getting on for the RN FAA (and more) lads, with these things anyway? And talking about wasting money I know where there's a full size wooden mock up of Flyco for this thing (or I did, it may have moved since 2012 -it was in a Hangar at Culdrose). Very impressive it was to (as a piece of carpentry). Mind you I never ever saw a single RN ATC softie show the slightest inclination to visit it or anything else with it...what was the point of it? Hope it wasn't a...what's the word>omen? |
peter we
Yup! Carriers are for anchoring off someone elses country, prior to bombing them. I think we've done enough of that, thanks! :rolleyes: With the money we're going to piss away on F-35 + these two flat tops we could have done....... Well. Bought an MPA? Or kept the MRA.4 Nimrod? Many Regiments of troops? Kept the Harriers? Bought some more of those excellent new Type 48s? And so on, ad infinitum. The key word is 'Defence'.....not the other one starting with 'O'. :ok: |
if you want to be pedantic - the UK is a series of Islands, the only land border we share with another state is Ireland. not only is the UK Irelands largest trading partner, but its offensive military capbility is not far off zero. not only that, but there are probably 3 states in the entire world with the amphibious capability to launch any kind of invasion of the UK, and all of them are our close allies. in which case, why would we possibly want 'Regiments of Troops' for defence?
if you wanted to design a purely defensive force for the UK, you probably take the Army down to around 10,000 men and spend the rest on air and sea power (remembering that the UK imports half its food and vastly more than half its oil and gas...). unfortunately, air and sea power is also easy to use offensively... |
Why am I not surprised that HMS White Elephant and HMS Titanic will now cost even more! Guess its worth spending Billions of £ to deploy a handful of short range F-35Bs to take on some developing nation in yet another disastrous intervention. For this amount of money we could have maintained squadrons and squadrons of combat aircraft, a maritime patrol aircraft and other surface ships.
|
Cokecan
I'm sure there's a point you are trying to press there, but what is it? Is it; 1. There's only three lots who can do us in, and we're all pals anyway- there fore... a). Build the carriers so we can harm others? b). Don't. No ones coming to invade us? 2. We don't need an Army as no-one is likely to invade, but we need a Navy (and the carriers) as we might want to invade someone else? 3. Let's build aircraft carriers to protect Eire? Oh, I'm baffled old bean! ;) |
Lets just face the facts!
These carriers are too expensive and we do not need them!! Like Trident replacement, they are only being procured to bolster the career prospects for naval officers. And at the expense of a balanced and effective future UK defence force!:ugh: |
Oil Tanker-Turned-Aircraft Carrier Is Key to American Naval Expansion
Giant dock ship can carry jump jets, copters, hovercraft—and for cheap On Oct. 11 the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford, the largest warship ever built—and the most expensive—was floated for the first time at Huntington Ingalls’ shipyard in Newport News, Virginia. The 1,100-foot-long Ford, under construction since 2009 at a cost of $14 billion, boasts a new electromagnetic catapult and facilities for more than 70 warplanes and helicopters, including next-generation drones and stealth fighters still in development. The sheer awe attending Ford’s progress towards front-line service, slated for 2016, has obscured a less visually impressive but arguably more important milestone for the world’s leading maritime force. On Sept. 15, shipyard workers at General Dynamics’ National Steel and Shipbuilding Company in San Diego floated the John Glenn, the second example of a new but little-known class of dock ship called a “mobile landing platform.” Few people appreciate it, but the innocuous-looking John Glenn is also a sort of aircraft carrier … in everything but name. But she’s a different kind of carrier than Ford. She’s less specialized and much less heavily armed and armored—and greatly cheaper as a consequence: just $500 million. Her construction, starting in 2012, represents an important trend in the U.S. Navy........ John Glenn, her predecessor Montford Point and two more planned platform ships are modified versions of an oil tanker, minus the oil tanks. The 840-foot ships are little more than vast empty storage and a sprawling deck. The Navy envisions buying various equipment kits that can be installed on the MLPs to help them perform different missions. “One could easily envision this ship serving as a repair ship, a hospital ship, an aviation depot-support ship, or a dedicated [Littoral Combat Ship] mothership in the future — given the appropriate mission capability package was developed and fitted. It’s 800 feet of ‘use your imagination,’” Adm. Mark Buzby, head of Military Sealift Command, told Breaking Defense. Even without a kit fitted, the baseline vessel has special features. By taking in seawater, John Glenn and the other MLPs can partially submerge, bringing their decks flush with the waves so that hovercraft can move on and off. In this way the MLPs are able to send troops and supplies ashore in the wake of a natural disaster or as part of an invasion or peacekeeping force. Future kits could include a hangar with extra aviation facilities. The next two dock ships after John Glenn, known as Afloat Forward Staging Bases, are going to be built with the flying gear already installed. The MLPs’ decks can support vertical-takeoff drones, helicopters, V-22 tiltrotors and Harrier and F-35B jump jets. Just two other U.S. ship types—carriers and big-deck assault ships—can launch fixed-wing planes.......... |
That's from the war is boring site, written by some journo student in his early 20s. It's charitably described as "b0ll0cks".
|
That's from the war is boring site, written by some journo student in his early 20s. It's charitably described as "b0ll0cks". Defense News Jan 2012: New Floating Base Ships Coming for U.S. Navy |
In ‘82, the MV Contender Bezant was taken from Trade for conversion, via numerous steel plates, ISO containers and much plumbing, into a HELO carrier and A/C recovery ship. When she was retained for conversion to RFA ARGUS, shed loads of money were needed for fire fighting, damage control and general survivability add-ons to make her a safe and credible not quite a warship.
In a time long ago, a large part of Naval Storage Ground Bedenham was taken up with modules to convert an Atlantic Conveyor type container ship into an “instant” aircraft carrier. The greatest expense over the various flight deck sections was the significant fire fighting and flight deck Party survival facilities to make her safe and sensible for her purpose. Converting an economically optimised sow’s ear into a safe and warlike silk purse is rarely cheap. |
What WiB missed is that an F-35B has an operational radius measured in centimeters from a VTO. (Nothing much wrong with that - a design feature.) Another point is that proliferating missile technology could make the concept of a stand-off unprotected logistics ship dodgy. It might have to stand off an inconveniently long way.
|
Originally Posted by Just this once
You seem to be quite bitter about the RAF glojo.
Anyway, the MoD is in the driving seat with the Treasury holding the fuel card and the map. The RAF do not have the ability to make the decisions you imply and attribute to the air marshal. The system is open to criticism but you have to know roughly what the system is before you go on a tirade. Others will pick apart your observations but I would start with the thought of the E2D; I ask when did it ever feature on our plans and just how would we pay for it? My post may well come across as a rant but it was what was asked by a Select Committee Meeting. I understand why this Air Marshal was giving evidence but answers were required about Royal Navy ships, and their deployment. The Committee were not convinced their questions were being answered and was not having a senior Royal Navy officer present along with the Air Marshal a deliberate, well thought out omission by the Ministry of Defence?. With a conventional carrier the E2D would be part and parcel of the whole package and why not? Would we expect the RAF to operate without this type of asset? Folks here are of the opinion that a carrier is merely an expensive mobile airfield and nothing anyone will say will alter these opinions, but if our country wants to be a player on the big stage then is a strike carrier battle group the way to project this power? Is anyone here going to deny that the F-35's will be owned by the RAF or these squadrons will have pilots in them from both services? I note how well this worked during the Falklands campaign and I am NOT suggesting this idea will not work but is the F-35B the ideal aircraft for the RAF? I am NOT having a dig at your service and I feel you deserve the best aircraft we can afford and if it is the 'B' then so be it but is it the best and is the A variant a cheaper and better aircraft?
Originally Posted by Peter We
Thats no longer true, its been accelerated to be available years sooner.
None of the dates regarding this asset are my rantings, they are all taken from the evidence given at that meeting. I am not pulling dates out of a hat and hopefully no one has given incorrect evidence to those MP's as they do not have a sense of humour. Folks here simply look on these ships as being mobile airfields that are only used to launch and recover aircraft, I would suggest however that this type of ship is also a significant deterrent asset. |
This extract is in regards to Crowsnest and if what you claim is true then that is reassuring but why would the Select Committee be told 2022 at the very earliest? |
Thanks Peter
|
CNO on AFSB
USN CNO take on the AFSB/MLP usage. Probably best to read all the blog post.
Afloat Forward Staging Bases 15 Oct 2012 JONATHAN W. GREENERT Admiral, U.S. Navy "...To provide an AFSB for the long term, we plan to convert one Mobile Landing Platform (MLP), currently under construction, and build another from the keel up that adds a flight deck, berthing, fuel storage, equipment storage, and repair spaces. Like Ponce, the MLPs (and future AFSBs) will have a rotating crew of civilian mariners and military personnel so they can operate forward almost continuously. AFSBs provide the nation with options. They can support patrol craft, auxiliary boats, helicopters, and special operations forces, providing a base of operations for everything from counter-piracy/smuggling, maritime security, and mine clearing to humanitarian aid and disaster relief. Although a port provides the potential for greater logistical capacity, they may not be readily available when or where they are needed most. AFSBs can operate globally in international waters, providing what may be the only way to support an important mission...." http://cno.navylive.dodlive.mil/file...re-300x191.jpg |
Quote: That's from the war is boring site, written by some journo student in his early 20s. It's charitably described as "b0ll0cks". Really? Defense News Jan 2012: New Floating Base Ships Coming for U.S. Navy |
Major Projects Authority annual report 2014
Red: Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable. There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project may need re-scoping and/or its overall viability reassessed. Torygraph: Aircraft carriers given 'red' warning in Government audit Two aircraft carriers costing taxpayers £6 billion are at risk of being late and over-budget, the Government has admitted. The delivery of the two Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers was given a “red” rating by the Major Projects Authority (MPA) for the second year in a row. It means the defence project, which has been heavily criticised, is at risk of failure unless action is taken. The MPA second annual report detailed the status of 199 schemes across Whitehall departments, rating them on a five tier traffic light system from green to red. The decision to release the report on the day of the local elections results will lead to accusations that ministers are attempting to bury bad news. Other projects including the High Speed 2 railway were rated as "amber/red" by the MPA. The “red” rating for the aircraft carriers project will embarrass defence chiefs. Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, last year suggested that he wants Britain to use both of the new aircraft carriers. Defence cuts had meant that one of the new £3 billion carriers would never enter active service with the Royal Navy. Under previous cost-cutting proposals, HMS Prince of Wales was set to be mothballed on completion and used as a reserve vessel. The final decision on the future of the carriers is due to be made in next the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) in 2015. MPs have previously warned that trying to rely on a single carrier would undermine the UK’s ability to cope with international crises. A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "In November 2013, the Defence Secretary announced that MoD and industry had renegotiated the contract for the QE Carriers. Based on a realistic cost structure for the first time, the contract now includes better cost sharing arrangements to help keep the programme on budget and on track. The Queen Elizabeth will be launched in July ahead of her sea trials in 2017 and flight trials in 2018.” |
Became a long story.
Even the newspapers are getting tired with this - its not a "new" story. Defence didn't seem to figure at all in the recent elections. I wonder why, when there is such interest in the military past, current Britons have such low interest in the present and future?>
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:16. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.