[wigger]

Its certainly going to be interesting to see what will eventually fly off the carriers and I can see pros and cons for the large vs small ships arguments. With a smaller platform do you limit the number of aircraft types that are availiable for use? The Harriers are a great loss and had a few more years left at least, but if they had survived, when they eventually were disposed of sometime in the future, what would be around to fly off a smaller carrier?

[Phill]

I found this site elsewhere on ships Nostalgia, a spherical panorama of the construction of the Queen Elizabeth well under way at Portsmouth. Worth a look.
Phill

http://www.360cities.net/image/hms-q...4.24,0.21,99.6

[chadburn]

Looks like it's all going wrong, the arrestor hook version of the F-35C which this Government decided to go for rather than the VTOL has now got serious design problem's with the positioning of the hook which will delay it's entry into service and we may have to go back to the VTOL version as the best option.

[Duncan112]

Originally Posted by chadburn

Looks like it's all going wrong, the arrestor hook version of the F-35C which this Government decided to go for rather than the VTOL has now got serious design problem's with the positioning of the hook which will delay it's entry into service and we may have to go back to the VTOL version as the best option.

Maybe we should just keep the Harriers?

[chadburn]

Never heard as yet as to whether the Harrier's have actually been shipped to the State's, I do know that the F3 Tornado's are kept "alive" until they are placed into the scrapping rig.

[Pat Kennedy]

Apparently the 'cats and traps' plan has become an absolute shambles with costs soaring out of control to asn estimated 2 billion, and the programme delayed by a further 7 years until 2027.
An embarrassing 'U' turn is on the cards.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...?newsfeed=true


Pat

[jamesgpobog]

You don't maintain ships of that sort for the purpose of dealing with current, expected military contingencies, but for the purpose of dealing with future, unexpected military contingencies. If you wait until you actually need such ships before you begin to build them, then it will be too late.

^^^This^^^

It is the exact same reason that airline pilots are not paid big money to fly the planes. They are paid big money to know what to do when everything goes pear-shape...

[DAVID ALCOCK]

did you see the two sections being moved on the news last night 4000 tons each 6 decks high being moved like a pair of containers!!quite impresive,more impresive will be moving the combined lump righ round scotland!!

[gordy]

I saw a news report on the move of the sections and was slightly puzzled when a shipyard boss was asked about the tolerance involved in joining them.
20mm he declared.
Eh?
Shurely some mistake.

[DAVID ALCOCK]

i sailed on NORWEGIAN WIND after she was streched and the hull was virtualy smooth 1 or 2 mm at most . if it is 20mm the sections will hardly meet and i hope they get it better for the prop shafts

[LouisB]

Originally Posted by chadburn

Never heard as yet as to whether the Harrier's have actually been shipped to the State's, I do know that the F3 Tornado's are kept "alive" until they are placed into the scrapping rig.

Hi Chadburn,

I think that the various permutations of aircraft for either carrier use or as land based assets is more flexible than is generally disseminated by the media. It seems to be that military tacticians base threat levels on the weapons fitted to the various delivery platforms. Yes, the carrier business is a right cock-up, however with our own meagre supply of up to date ordinance and what we can 'borrow' off the U.S. we should be ok until the carrier/s are completed and fitted out.

Fingers crossed chaps. Pax Britannica


LouisB

[chadburn]

We can only hope Louis that while the "gobby" Hilary Clinton is providing the rhetoric to the South American's we have a committed Anglophile like Casper Weinberger in the present American Government as it was on his permission we were allowed to "raid" their stock's of military equipment. God Bless him and of course Reagan.

[LouisB]

Originally Posted by chadburn

We can only hope Louis that while the "gobby" Hilary Clinton is providing the rhetoric to the South American's we have a committed Anglophile like Casper Weinberger in the present American Government as it was on his permission we were allowed to "raid" their stock's of military equipment. God Bless him and of course Reagan.

Totally agree Chadburn. Unfortuately the average uninformed punter either doesn't know or couldn't give a proverbial - it's all me me me these days - don't care as long as I get my i-pod. This is what we have spawned I'm sad to say.


LouisB.

[DAVID ALCOCK]

According to the bbc its back to INFERIOR PERFORMANCE STOVL F35 due to cost of cats; i bet we still have to pay for cats because the contract has been sined(deliberate miss spell)

[LouisB]

Originally Posted by DAVID ALCOCK

According to the bbc its back to INFERIOR PERFORMANCE STOVL F35 due to cost of cats; i bet we still have to pay for cats because the contract has been sined(deliberate miss spell)

It appears that the whole thing is on hold - somebody has quoted performance figures and maintanence costs from each aircraft and found the STOVL lacking in certain things - others deny that this is the case. Meanwhile the shipbuilders have reached the stage of having to know what to build for.

Type 45's as well have been built to a strictly cost saving spec. Could have been somewhat more potent and flexible in available missile types for the same hull layout - also last minute fitting of Phalanx 1B. Somebody with a bit of warship knowledge must have suddenly twigged !

The whole thing, carriers and type 45's seem to have a slightly Alice in Wonderland feel about the forward planning and last minute realisations of what is required.


LouisB.

[DAVID ALCOCK]

who was the twit who signed the contracts in the first place in order to win scotish votes ???
oh it was TONY B LIAR now ex pm and full time counter of his own money

[chadburn]

Originally Posted by DAVID ALCOCK

According to the bbc its back to INFERIOR PERFORMANCE STOVL F35 due to cost of cats; i bet we still have to pay for cats because the contract has been sined(deliberate miss spell)

It's not just that, but the American's have found that the hooked version has serious design problem's in regard's to the positioning of the hook!!. This will set the whole build programme back year's apparently. Still curious to know as to whether the Harrier's have been shipped to America yet or is their some agreement that they will stay here for the moment.

[LouisB]

Originally Posted by chadburn

It's not just that, but the American's have found that the hooked version has serious design problem's in regard's to the positioning of the hook!!. This will set the whole build programme back year's apparently. Still curious to know as to whether the Harrier's have been shipped to America yet or is their some agreement that they will stay here for the moment.

I know that as a none professional outsider it is easy to criticise but the whole MoD procurement system reminds me of a quote from a book about the Titanic sinking, when it became obvious that all was lost : "and the band played on".

Years ago, when I was involved in minor warship building, the costing always seemed very flexible and overuns seemingly never used to worry the companies directors all that much. It would appear that at least in part, the old 'flexible' system of management still exists but the bottomless financial barrel has been removed causing some consternation and puzzlement amongst older civil servants.



LouisB.

[Arkroyal]

When the erestor gear is finaly in operation, the ships will be alot better than if they VTOL.

[DAVID ALCOCK]

problem with f????35 vstol can only lift about 10 min fuel(allegedly)
cat version f35c c=carrier cant land on carriers (allegedly)
oooooopppsssss

[FG86]

The maths are quite simple, unfortunatley its not only the polititions who are causing confusion, the RAF remain anti carrier, the thought of the FAA returning to full strike capability and deploying world wide worries them, they feel threatened hence the fantastic PR machine they maintain feeding posion against Naval aviation, it was the RAF who insisted that the FAA Harrier FRS2was scrapped ahead of the creation of the joint Harrier wing equipped with only the GR7/9, hence we lost our fleet defence & fighter long before the present harriers were sold, at the time even the US attempted to stop the FRS 2 scrapping all to no avail, The RAF convinced the politians of the day that the GR7/9 was sufficent to act as a fleet fighter / strike aircarft.
As for the F35, well the C variant is superiour in all aspects, larger range, loiter time, weapon load and airframe strength. The F35B is more expensive, slower, more fragile and still has serious doubts about the engine / lift reliability, yes it can operate from smaller decks and land vertically however it is far more complex. The big issue here is why it costs so much to fit catapults and arrester gear as the carriers were designed for it however not initially intended for it to be fitted. Both carriers are still in build stage without the flight deck even constructed, surely it cannot cost 2 Billion to alter the build at this early stage? the Electro magnetic catapulkty system has been designed and is presently under test in the states, so again there is less R&D required.

[wigger]

The US have also cast suspicion over the supposed Cat price, they fail to see how it can be so expensive!

[DAVID ALCOCK]

we could alsobuy the french

[LouisB]

Originally Posted by wigger

The US have also cast suspicion over the supposed Cat price, they fail to see how it can be so expensive!

It seems that there is some underlying and powerful political interference going on to sway decisions that had been made. If we end up with a carrier/s with aircraft that will not do the job required fully or will not stand up to the rigours of maritime operation then it should be openly and publicly stated by the Government commitee responsible.

If on the other hand the whole carrier concept - including the best suited aircraft - is beyond affordability then that also should be publicly stated. The alternative is that we end up with totally unsuitable kit that has cost a fortune and could help bankrupt the country with no real military or strategic gain. It's no good going to a wedding in your best suit if the backside of your trousers is hanging out.



LouisB.

[DAVID ALCOCK]

TRY warship projects discussion boards 3.0 minor navies for a Brazilian project which gives the choice of cats and skijump