|
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry
(Post 10069014)
I think both sides of this argument are pretty well aware of the directions we're both coming from - we both feel the other is wrong (and maybe deluded) - and neither side shows much sign of converting the other.
I would summarise as follows:- Pro's - a real upgrade/restoration of a major force multiplier that will enable performance of tasks we can't do currently and will also enable us to do some current tasks better Anti's - at best a nice-to-have but will have a really negative effect on the future overall force structure, operation and manning of the rest of the Navy Both would probably be happy if there was proper funding that allowed a decent sized and resourced navy that could include carriers You pays you money and take's your choice We've managed to keep the argument (relatively civilised)- certainly compared to some others but rather than loop round again ad-infinitum I suggest we await events............... Apart from that, the position is absurd, like arguing for a standing UK Army of 1,000,000 combat troops or an RAF with 1000 combat aircraft, it just doesn't fit the reality of the UK place in the world. However, for those who see the big skimmers as some sort of holy grail, they are great. To me, they represent a grave mistake in UK Defence procurement that has (and will) cost the rest of UK Defence dearly in terms of other important capabilities and in depth of resource or reserve capacity we might need if, God forbid, we get into another serious confrontation. :uhoh: OAP |
Can't quite see why the RN would want to show that film. Not a patch on Top Gun!
|
Originally Posted by Mogwi
(Post 10087932)
Can't quite see why the RN would want to show that film. Not a patch on Top Gun!
|
Dear WE branch fanatic, anyone with any knowledge of political matters would know that this is a massive Albatross around the neck of politicians. Trying to defend the cost of this shameful fiasco to voters who want to know why the NHS is broken is not going to soar above their heads like an F35.
Do you seriously think this Carrier/F35 crap is something the conservatives are going to flag up as a success story going into the next election? Corbyn under a coalition is the next likely occupant of Number 10 and I dont see him viewing your beloved carriers very kindly. |
Originally Posted by Bigpants
(Post 10088295)
... Corbyn under a coalition is the next likely occupant of Number 10 and I dont see him viewing your beloved carriers very kindly.
Trying to defend his shameful performances as a would-be-leader for this country is delusional crap...to coin your terminology. |
that is indeed true but doesn't alter the fact he has a reasonable chance of being the next PM - possibly as leader of a "Progresive Coalition" - LAb/SNP/Lib
|
So does Corbyn have bracing wires and a six-cylinder Mercedes engine?
|
Originally Posted by George K Lee
(Post 10089045)
So does Corbyn have bracing wires and a six-cylinder Mercedes engine?
|
"a defence posture that extends only as far as the white cliffs"
TBH I'd be happy if I thought we could actually defend that far................ |
Originally Posted by glad rag
(Post 10087110)
https://youtu.be/awc7Rp-f6HA
However it was disappointing, in this time of austerity, that they were throwing the excess from the mini gun over the side. As for the monetary value of the spent brass, it's usually not cost effective to reload military brass, which means its monetary value is the scrap value of the brass. And that means it's probably more expensive to recover it, store it, and recycle it than to just dump it overboard. |
Originally Posted by KenV
(Post 10090635)
That's for safety. A gatling gun can have a misfire/hangfire without a stoppage. A misfired/hangfired cartridge is a dangerous thing and best dumped overboard. That means immediately dumping overboard all the spent brass from the minigun.
As for the monetary value of the spent brass, it's usually not cost effective to reload military brass, which means its monetary value is the scrap value of the brass. And that means it's probably more expensive to recover it, store it, and recycle it than to just dump it overboard. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cartridge-case/ http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2009/03/surplus-us-military-brass-remains-available-mutilation-orders-reversed/ What's that you were saying? |
Combined helicopter flight trials speed up HMS Queen Elizabeth entry into service say Qinetiq
HMS Queen Elizabeth returned to UK waters last month following completion of Merlin and Chinook flying trials and this revised strategy has eliminated the need for separate trials, ensuring the time available on deck was used to maximum effect and avoiding a second voyage out to sea later in the year. The initiative will ultimately expedite the release of the carrier into service, say Qinetiq. The trials, conducted by QinetiQ and the Air Warfare Centre under the Air Test & Evaluation Centre (ATEC) partnership, brought the two aircraft together on deck for the first time as part of a cost-saving initiative negotiated between QinetiQ and the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD). The Merlin trial was originally contracted in April 2016, with Chinook added to the existing agreement at the end of 2017 under a new contract amendment. F-35B represents ‘significant leap in war-fighting capability’ says US Navy The US say that the aircraft is equally capable of conducting precision strikes inland, supporting Marines inserted ashore or providing air defence for the Expeditionary Strike Group. It’s no secret that the F-35 has had severe cost and schedule issues. The F-35 programme has gone through serious teething problems, problems also experienced by the majority of complex aircraft flying today such as the F-15, Typhoon or any other modern combat jet. The biggest issue for the project continues to be the fact it is the most expensive military weapons system in history owing to the sheer scope of the programme but that being said, aircraft costs are now coming down and will soon be similar to the cost of many aircraft it’s replacing. Today the programme is maturing rapidly, right now much of the activity around the jet is dealing with software bugs and testing to validate the software, with most of the physical testing being to do with weapons integration and the gradual scaling up of capabilities that comes with each new software block. The jet is a quantum leap in capability, able to give the pilot as much information as only theatre commanders have previously had. While the primary value of the jet is in its sensor and networking capabilities, it is also valuable in that it’s able to perform many tasks designed to increase the lethality of not only itself but other assets, such tasks include the ability to co-ordinate small fleets of unmanned combat aircraft, guide weapons launched from other platforms (even warships), launch a wide-range of its own weapons and use it’s own radar to conduct electronic attacks. |
"aircraft costs are now coming down and will soon be similar to the cost of many aircraft it’s replacing."
are they willing to pay for any difference? If not it's just PR smoke & mirrors................Avoiding a second sea trial is obviously good news but will they be delivering the ship early or will it just sit around Portsmouth?I worry about the word "ultimately" - sounds a long way away ...... |
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry
(Post 10097792)
"If not it's just PR smoke & mirrors................Avoiding a second sea trial is obviously good news but will they be delivering the ship early or will it just sit around Portsmouth?I worry about the word "ultimately" - sounds a long way away ......
MS Queen Elizabeth returned to UK waters last month following completion of Merlin and Chinook flying trials and this revised strategy has eliminated the need for separate trials, ensuring the time available on deck was used to maximum effect and avoiding a second voyage out to sea later in the year. "Later in the year" does not sound "a long way away" to me. |
No mention of crowsnest?
|
Well it sounds as if she's not going to sea again for at least 9 months Ken..........
I'd have though this would allow them to accelerate the program but it sounds as if they are sticking to the original schedule |
I think you'll find she's at sea in about three months time. Just after her upkeep period.
|
dervish,
Yes there was. Crowsnest is merely a radar fit on a Merlin HMA2, hence Merlin is now cleared. The Navy only have 30 HMA2's in the fleet, some will be fitted with Crowsnest, the majority won't. |
proone
Thank you :ok: |
QE will be sailing for the east coast of USA in June for fixed wing trials and the odd photo opp.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 13:50. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.