KKBUK - post 196 - Nuclear propulsion
 

Thanks for the memory jog re the Trident boats being Roller powered, I had forgotten that. So that leads to an image of the CV hulls being stepped, 4 x Rollers stacked two high; when the hull is on the step - no worries about STOL or Ski Jumps - lots of problems solved - maybe creating a few more!! - but still leaving the F/A 18 the winner and more reduced costs. :D

As an aside and an example of where leading technology can lead you ;

A few year back I went on board a Trident boat at Faslane, walked along the deck to the large hatch, where to my surprise, the hole in the deck was surrounded by a fence of scaffold tubes to stop anyone falling in, with a wooden builders ladder to climb up, then reverse position and descend down via another longer wooden ladder to get onboard, all secured by ropes. :ugh:

In the meantime, yes, as usual with Rolls, those engines are magnificent and would be ideal for the CV's with minimal expense in design - or did the last lot sell off the division involved when they got rid of all our nuclear design and manufacturing capability to the rest of the world, before placing requirements for same, out for bidding. (Thank God they hav'nt tried to nationalise and produce our Beer yet - but keep looking, some bright s*d might).

However, and with apologies to Mods for major thread creep, but, if a boat can be carried on a ship - but not a ship on a boat - it'll take a hell of a ship to carry a Trident Sub. :E

It seems the RN (FAA) are already pushing guys to the F18 on exchange. Even the new guys coming out of Valley are getting slots across there (USN). I wonder if they already know something????

I feel like its time for a gratuitous piccy of our new ones... It's no Pig, but I still sleep well at night! :ok:

http://www.williamsfoundation.org.au...mg/Growler.jpg

If they wait just a little bit longer won't there be lots of earlier F-18s going cheap? Think of the money saved. After all if it is a need to put wings on a new carrier and then parade off some snitty Third World country whose inhabitants won't know the difference between an early [very cheap] and late [much more expensive] model F-18. Let's face it with the reduction in hours flown, why buy anything flyable at brand new prices! They will never reach anywhere near their time-expired/weary wings date.
In fact seeing as the Royal Navy has been told not to upset those naughty pirates why not build some Pinewood Studios replica battleships [all phoney but looking authentic] at a fraction of the normal cost and save even more money?

I just do not understand why we shell out billions in aid to third world countries and decimate our own armed forces [ who are essential for our well being].

aviate1138:

If they wait just a little bit longer won't there be lots of earlier F-18s going cheap? Think of the money saved. After all if it is a need to put wings on a new carrier and then parade off some snitty Third World country whose inhabitants won't know the difference between an early [very cheap] and late [much more expensive] model F-18. Let's face it with the reduction in hours flown, why buy anything flyable at brand new prices! They will never reach anywhere near their time-expired/weary wings date.

The USN/USMC F/A-18 As/Bs and Cs/Ds won't be of any use to anyone, they may not have reached the end of their airframe hours but they have used up their allotment of cat/trap cycles and cannot be flown from the deck anymore. Useful for spare parts mainly but not much else.

In fact seeing as the Royal Navy has been told not to upset those naughty pirates why not build some Pinewood Studios replica battleships [all phoney but looking authentic] at a fraction of the normal cost and save even more money?

In the same vein, why doesn't the RAF just make do with lots of wooden/plastic Typhoon mockups on their airfields? That way they can make do with just the real Tiffies they have now and save a fortune on operating costs. Alternatively since the Russians only seem to send relics from the fifties to probe our airspace, how about we reply by intercepting them with Hawker Hunters? They might take the hint... I hear we have some back in service at the moment anyway, why not task them with northern QRA? And the army can buy lots of inflatable tanks like they did in WW2. Fooled the nazis in '44...:ok:

There is no way in this or any other world that the Royal Navy is going to go to the hassle & expense of using F-18's, new or old, or Rafales for that matter; the only reason the CVF's are being made 'easy' to fit cat n' trap' is so that they are easy to sell off, once the labour governments' committment to provide jobs has worn off.

I am not pro-labour by any means, but I do do think of history in my short span; wasn't it a certain M.Thatcher who all but sold 'Invincible' a fraction before the Falklands War ?

If you thought Bliar & co. were bad, wait 'till you see the Tories in action; savaged any good project 1960's onwards, ( I don't think the TSR2 was a great idea in hindsight, and just take a look at the thing without rose tinted glasses ).

It would be amazing if the CVF and F-35 both get through cuts, but the F-35B and British Fleet protection / power projection is useless without the carrier.

If we have to go ( relatively ) cheap, let's keep the carriers as they are multi-purpose, and, yes I've said it before, for Christ's Sake get some AMRAAM equipped Harrier 2+ !!!

TSR.2 was cancelled by a Labour Govt. as was the P.1154 'supersonic Harrier' ;)

Only after being stuffed by Conservative and American moves; even the fairly far left Tony Benn ( thought little of him until moderately recent interviews, now have a high opinion, this chap needs a serious listening to ) fought for the British Defence Industry & for that matter Concorde;

Rather different from Thatchers' attitude, 'you Mark have this bit, X, have the train system, etc...

And I don't vote Labour !

DZ

And that stunning statement way well, however inadvertently, detail the eventual reason for the demise of RN fixed wing aviation, because if you think F18's are too expensive.....

Anyway, Hook Down, Wheels Down, proper Naval Aviation...YouTube - Hook Down, Wheels Down - The Story Of The United States Navy's Aircraft Carriers (ca 1970's)

10/10 for arthimetic. 0/10 for missing the point that the army ends of with a lousy tank. (something about knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing?)

0/10 for not reading the question properly, especially where it said......"the actual performance of each tank is broadly similar".

Or for not reading that it was a hypothetical situation where I deliberately removed performance of the item (tank) as an issue in order to discuss the purely financial aspects!


Or are you just saying that all British kit is crap........?

No, but I agree, this bit makes your proposition totally hypothetical:

So where do you think they will spend £6M sterling?

Loan/give it to Greece...... ;)

Who will spend it back with us.

The US Navy consider the F18 E/F to be good enough as an air defence aircraft. It should probably therefore be good enough for us as well, in this post-"gold plating" era.

Having just 1 multi-role type embarked gives massively increased flexibility, allowing the proportion of aircraft assigned to DCA / OCA / CAS / AI etc to be varied according to the situation and not the availability of assets. This was one of the reasons why they tried strapping bombs to F14s and eventually retired them. We are also trying to reduce the number of different types we operate to economise on logistic support.

I hadn't realised the F18 was used in the air defence role. In that case makes sense to buy the one type.

The USN uses the single-seat F/A-18E as its replacement for the F-14 tomcat as "fleet defense fighter" and the two-seat F/A-18F as its replacement for the A-6E Intruder as "all-weather medium attack" aircraft.

However, both aircraft are nearly as proficient in each other's roles as in their prime role, so either one is often found performing either role.

How much were you guys quoted again???

Stealth fighters cheap at $140m

• Ian McPhedran
• From: Herald Sun
• August 25, 2010 12:00AM

http://resources2.news.com.au/images...6-f35-jets.jpg
The F35 Joint Strike Fighters are fifth-generation jets. Source: Supplied



AUSTRALIA will pay a "fly away" price of less than $60 million each for up to 100 of the world's most advanced stealth fighter jets.

But the total will be more than double that for a package that includes weapons, sensors, training and lifetime support for the F35 Joint Strike Fighter.
At $140 million, the single-seat jets will be cheaper than the 24 two-seat Super Hornets bought by the Howard government for $6.6 billion or more than $220 million each.
The multi-role jet is powered by the biggest fighter engine ever built, which propels it at almost twice the speed of sound and it is virtually invisible to radar.
In addition to stealth, the aircraft is completely fly-by-wire with electric controls, fully networked with pilot voice recognition and a helmet mounted display offering "see through" features that enable the pilot to even look down through the jet.
Australia is buying up to 100 jets from the US Air Force under a so-called foreign military sales deal.
For the first time the aircraft maker, Lockheed Martin, has provided a "firm" price to Australian taxpayers in 2010 dollars.
During a briefing at Lockheed Martin's huge state-of-the-art JSF factory at Fort Worth in Texas, project chief Tom Burbage revealed that Australia, as one of nine global partners, would pay less for its planes than Israel, which has ordered 20 of the fifth-generation fighters.
"Your average cost of buying your fleet of aeroplanes will be at that number ($60m) or maybe slightly below it," Mr Burbage said.
Israel last week said it was buying 20 JSFs for a total outlay of $2.75 billion or about $140 million each based on an initial fly-away cost of $92 million, the same figure as early Australian aircraft.
Mr Burbage also revealed that the hourly flying cost of the JSF would be about 20 per cent below the RAAF's fleet of F/A-18 Hornet fighters.
"That has been fairly stable for the past two or three years," he said.
The first two RAAF jets will be delivered in 2014 when pilots will train on them at Eglin air force base in Florida.
The initial operational squadron of 14 planes is due in service by 2018.
Mr Burbage said the biggest challenge for the program was managing the global supply chain for aircraft components.
Up to 70 per cent of costs come from the supply chain that includes manufacturing centres in many countries, including $120 million for 180 projects in Australia so far.