PDA

View Full Version : OT: UK to order 3.8bn Carrier



Realjambo
07-25-2007, 09:15 AM
As reported by BBC News Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6914788.stm)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v642/antsmith/carrier.jpg

Good to see some investment in our armed forces http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Celeon999
07-25-2007, 11:43 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

*phones a secret number*

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif "Double that u-boat production...fast!"

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

No,no its good to hear that the Royal Navy finally gets some new vessels.

I know that they had to endure a lot of financial cuts and mothballing in the recent years so that will make the Admirals smile again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kaleun1961
07-25-2007, 12:54 PM
Nice to see them retaining proper British names for their new toys: HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif UK!

Celeon999
07-25-2007, 01:08 PM
Im still longing for HMS Blair and HMS Thatcher ..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Maverick_U2007
07-25-2007, 02:46 PM
There is an Admiral who was quoted as saying

'I'll believe it when I see it'

Think I'll go along with him. If you read the article as to how the government has forced companies into partnerships to build these vessels it looks likely to fail. My understanding is that they are to be built by a british company, following a french design which will be overseen by an American company.

Doomed to failure!!!!. Even if it doesn't fail the costs will, as has happened in recent years, run way past it;s original budget and cost the British Tax Payers probably 3 or 4 times the projected cost.

Yes I believe in the concept and it is about time that we 'boosted' the Armed forces to show that we are a power to be reckoned with....I just have a gut feeling that things will go wrong.

geoffwessex
07-25-2007, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by Celeon999:
Im still longing for HMS Blair and HMS Thatcher ..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

I think only Churchill and one other Prime Minister have had RN ships named after them..... The chances of having a Blair or Thatcher are negligible.

Anybody care to have a guess at the other PM who had a ship named after him? Not quite a trick question, but......

Regarding the carrier - I joined the RN in 1967 and there were plans to build a couple of new ones even then. We finally got three tiny ones by initially calling them "Cruisers with big flight decks" or "Through-Deck Cruisers". Could only work because we had the Sea Harriers.

Goose_Green
07-25-2007, 11:17 PM
Here is a link from the UK Ministry of Defence website here (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/NewCarriersConfirmedInDefenceBudgetIncrease.htm)

And a comparison chart;

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n235/Goose_Green/Carrier3_761x437.jpg

Realjambo
07-25-2007, 11:42 PM
Thanks for the link Goose! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Celeon999
07-26-2007, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by geoffwessex:


The chances of having a Blair or Thatcher are negligible.




Hmmmm, if there would be a HMS Blair.....i would not be sure where she would take her orders from... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

HMS Thatcher would truly go her own way, no doubt , but.....

Somehow i have a feeling the orders for HMS Blair would come from him http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Admiral Michael Mullen CNO USN

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/Admiral_Michael_Mullen%2C_official_Navy_photograph .jpg/480px-Admiral_Michael_Mullen%2C_official_Navy_photograph .jpg

Goose_Green
07-26-2007, 05:18 AM
Originally posted by Maverick_U2007:
Yes I believe in the concept and it is about time that we 'boosted' the Armed forces to show that we are a power to be reckoned with....I just have a gut feeling that things will go wrong.

You are probably right, those bean counters in Whitehall are nasty people, many a time their cost savings have nearly caused a military disaster in the field.

AbleMaster
07-26-2007, 05:49 AM
Great comparison pictures, and a big leap forward, they look fab, not too keen on the queen elizabeth name buthey they look great.

M0ttie
07-26-2007, 03:00 PM
This has been on the cards for a couple of years hasn't it....
I seem to remember they were to be built in France originally but dont quote me.
I agree with Maverick, they'll cost at least double and probably come in late after they all fall out with each other.
I only hope that having built and paid for them we've got a fleet left equipped and capable of defending them properly. When old Gordon came out with the obligatory however, and I quote " However, he said the carriers could not be built without a change in the maritime sector" are we sure he means the contractors or sacrifices to the existing fleet to afford these?. I think both but no one will say whats got to go to balance the books......
Good to see if we get them both though I fear we may end up with only the one.....
I wonder if they'd been CVN's if the Scots would've been so pleased to have them bolted together in Rosyth?.

Goose_Green
07-26-2007, 03:07 PM
Here is another comparison with the UK's serving carrier class compared to the US Navy's Nimitz class - this time sailing together.

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n235/Goose_Green/980409-N-8890B-003.jpg

Realjambo
07-26-2007, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by Goose_Green:
Here is another comparison with the UK's serving carrier class compared to the US Navy's Nimitz class - this time sailing together.

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n235/Goose_Green/980409-N-8890B-003.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Kind of puts it into an instant perspective! Thanks Goose http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Goose_Green
07-26-2007, 04:17 PM
That's why they are called baby carriers I guess - they suited our purposes at the time, an excellent platform for the Harrier. With the Sea Harrier being replaced by Harrier GR7's from the RAF I guess the MOD had to rethink the carrier design for the future.

Messervy
07-26-2007, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by Goose_Green:
they suited our purposes at the time.

During the Falklands you'd be better off with an "adult" one. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Goose_Green
07-26-2007, 04:51 PM
A fair point Messervy, I had forgotten about that one. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif

If we still had the catapult style carriers that employed the Buccaneer and Phantom aircraft we would have had a better striking punch.

The only problem was the Harrier's short legs due to the extreme range the carrier group had to stay out of range of the Exocet missiles that were used to good or unfortunate effect (depending on your point of view http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).

Messervy
07-26-2007, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Goose_Green:
(depending on your point of view http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).

My point of view is clearly expressed in calling that windy desolate place "Falklands" and not "Malvinas". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Realjambo
07-26-2007, 05:08 PM
My point of view is clearly expressed in calling that windy desolate place "Falklands" and not "Malvinas"


Well put Messervy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Either way, It's pretty windy, and pretty desolate according to a good sailor friend of mine who was stranded there on Christmas day this year just gone, having to wait for Navy Aircraft to fly him home. There wasn't much left of the bar by the time he and his colleagues left!

Goose_Green
07-26-2007, 05:39 PM
I wasn't actually referring to the geo-political status of the islands. I was referring to the effects the exocet missiles had on the Naval fleet, I was taking into account of the varying points of view that some may have here.

Acunnon
07-27-2007, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by Goose_Green:
Here is another comparison with the UK's serving carrier class compared to the US Navy's Nimitz class - this time sailing together.

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n235/Goose_Green/980409-N-8890B-003.jpg

Ahh isn't that cute papa aircraft carrier and his little son http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Seriously though I am happy to here the Brits want to make new modern carrier. A modern carrier is the truest example of force projection. Another small note, I know the Brits like the ski jump but come on they practicly invented the steam catapult. Use it.

Goose_Green
07-27-2007, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by Acunnon:

Ahh isn't that cute papa aircraft carrier and his little son http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Funnily enough that's what I thought when I first saw that picture http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



Another small note, I know the Brits like the ski jump but come on they practicly invented the steam catapult. Use it.

You know, that's what i had always thought too, never really understood why the Royal Navy downgraded from the Phantom - I mean the US Navy really didn't withdraw their Phantom's till the mid 1980's or so http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Karl_Donitz_Jr
07-27-2007, 12:31 PM
Nice to see my taxes hard at work for once. That'll be paying my wages in a few years... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Well, I DO work for one of the companies that will be building them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Vosper Thornycroft, Portsmouth if you are wondering.

Personally speaking though, since the UK navy will be using the F-35 Raptor as the navy aircraft shortly I think that we should build 4 small carries - say slightly larger than the Invincible class we have now.

After all, the F-35 is VTOL capable, and therefore you DO NOT need a large carrier. Also, you get more for your money with 4 small carriers, and you can be in more places at once, and let's not forget the larget the ship, the larger the target, and the bigger the loss if you loose one.

Loose one of 2 large carriers = 50% loss
Loose one of 4 small carriers = 25% loss

Just my 2 cents there. Sorry if I sound crappy or anything - annoying day!!

andy3536
07-29-2007, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by Messervy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Goose_Green:
they suited our purposes at the time.

During the Falklands you'd be better off with an "adult" one. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know about that one, i thought at the time the harrier was the only Navy aircraft to use the Sidewinder missile system. Which more than made up for the lack of numbers.
It's not the size mate, it's how you use it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

geoffwessex
07-29-2007, 08:50 PM
Another small note, I know the Brits like the ski jump but come on they practicly invented the steam catapult. Use it.

You know, that's what i had always thought too, never really understood why the Royal Navy downgraded from the Phantom - I mean the US Navy really didn't withdraw their Phantom's till the mid 1980's or so http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif[/QUOTE]

Phantoms were the last strike aircraft on the pre-Invincible carriers i.e. Ark Royal, Eagle, and Hermes (until she had a ski-jump). A Phantom may just about have taken off from one of the small carriers, but they couldn't get back on again, so once the 'big' carriers went, so did the Phantom (and Scimitar, Sea Vixen, Buccaneer and Gannet).

The RAF, who hated the Buccaneer when it was offered to them in the 60s, still said, "Oooo Nasty, foldy wings", but they eventually took a starring role for the RAF in the Gulf War, where they were by far the best Coalition low-level bomber/target-illuminator. Not sure if the RAF also got the ex-RN Phantoms.

Goose_Green
07-29-2007, 11:01 PM
The RAF Phantoms were the ones from the RN, they were re-designated FGR2.

Goose_Green
08-04-2007, 12:06 PM
Taking the comparison discussion a bit further, I have found another carrier comparison, this time we have from front to back;

Spanish Principe-de-Asturius (R-11), US carriers USS Wasp (LHD-1) and USS Forrestal (CV-9) and HMS Invincible (R-05).

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n235/Goose_Green/800px-Principe-de-Asturias_Wasp_For.jpg

andy3536
08-04-2007, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by geoffwessex:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Another small note, I know the Brits like the ski jump but come on they practicly invented the steam catapult. Use it.

You know, that's what i had always thought too, never really understood why the Royal Navy downgraded from the Phantom - I mean the US Navy really didn't withdraw their Phantom's till the mid 1980's or so http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Phantoms were the last strike aircraft on the pre-Invincible carriers i.e. Ark Royal, Eagle, and Hermes (until she had a ski-jump). A Phantom may just about have taken off from one of the small carriers, but they couldn't get back on again, so once the 'big' carriers went, so did the Phantom (and Scimitar, Sea Vixen, Buccaneer and Gannet).

The RAF, who hated the Buccaneer when it was offered to them in the 60s, still said, "Oooo Nasty, foldy wings", but they eventually took a starring role for the RAF in the Gulf War, where they were by far the best Coalition low-level bomber/target-illuminator. Not sure if the RAF also got the ex-RN Phantoms.[/QUOTE]



Hmm, i think i'm going to have to take issue with your statement.
It would be completely wrong to say the royal navy 'downgraded' to the harrier from the phantom.
Although the RN downgraded to smaller carrier, for an airsuperiority fighter that was needed when the falklands came aroud no other RN fighter could match the Harrier.
The phantom was built for taking out heavy bombers with long range missiles and lacked what was nessesary for dogfighting (as shown in vietnam)
All the documentarys about the phantom in action show it as an inferior aircraft for dogfighting.

It could even be said that the older and less agile aircraft the RN had on thier larger carriers might have come up against alot more problems against the more modern 'conventional' aircraft of the argentine airforce.
I personnally wouldn't mind betting that had the RN kept thier large carriers then there would have been many more british casualties as the more modern A4's, and mirage aircraft would have had a much easier time. (more modern conventional aircraft)
The harrier with the sidwinder missile was by a long way the best the royal navy could field at the time just in small numbers.
When you here what the guys who flew the harrier talk about it and how they can turn tighter than any other aircraft by moving the nossles in a turn you start to realise what a formidable dogfighting aircraft it really is.
And although it was in such small numbers it was by far the best at the time for the job in hand.

Karl_Donitz_Jr
08-04-2007, 02:41 PM
Good point Andy3536

Additionally, as I recall, a pair of harriers took on the Arginitian (sp) fighters over the Falklands, and the Argi fighters had the drop on the Harriers.

How did the Harriers overcome this? Swivel nozzels from back to down. The Argi's were taken by surprise and flew under, and for their trouble recieved a pair of sidewinders.

Outcome:

UK: New manouvour
Argis: 2 Lost Fighters

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

That is one thing a VTOL fighter CAN do that a normal one can't. Change from horizontal to vertical flight. Very useful in combat at times - although NOT recommended!

Realjambo
08-05-2007, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by Goose_Green:
Taking the comparison discussion a bit further, I have found another carrier comparison, this time we have from front to back;

Spanish Principe-de-Asturius (R-11), US carriers USS Wasp (LHD-1) and USS Forrestal (CV-9) and HMS Invincible (R-05).

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n235/Goose_Green/800px-Principe-de-Asturias_Wasp_For.jpg

Great find Goose! Oh think of all that Tonnage and renown! All in the same place!

Goose_Green
08-05-2007, 10:28 PM
Thanks RJ - It's amazing what you can find on Wikipedia these days - I can spend hours at the site going from one subject to the next http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif