Model Boat Mayhem
Mess Deck: General Section => Full Scale Ships => Topic started by: Colin Bishop on April 17, 2012, 06:03:50 pm
-
Looks like the new carriers will be flying the vertical takeoff version of the JSF after all. Cats & Traps are apparently too expensive and the conventional version of the plane won't be available for agea (and that's of they manage to overcome the problem with the hooks).
Seems like Philip Hammond has looked at things a bit more objectively than Cameron. So, yet another government U turn, and once again because they don't really know what they are doing and hope that cleverness will see them through. But cleverness is no match for the Law of Unintended Consequences as they keep discovering.
Should have kept Ark Royal in service after all too.
Colin
-
Unless somethings been announced very recently {:-{
It was announced 4 weeks ago that they were having discussions about whether to go with the 35B of a cat, or the STOVL 35C.
This is nothing to do with Hammond thinking more clearly that Cameron, (that's just cobblers), but .....
I'll quote a friend who knows about these things
The options are being re-discussed, but it has to be said that the main reason is simply that the US ships for which the electro-magnetic catapault was being developed have been delayed to the point where the QECs would now be the lead platform for the technology. That involves a big increase in technical risk for the QEC programme and changes the criteria for the decision rather than any feeling that the original decision was "wrong" per se (this is why we do risk analysis, after all!).
There are two competing risks here - the risk that X35B won't achieve its weight-reduction targets, and the risk that the electric catapaults will have development issues. At the moment it hangs in the balance - BAES is trying to push a "rational" solution of having cats AND a ski-jump (running the cats up the ramp) so that the ship design can accomodate either aircraft and indeed have a flexible capability for a mixed air-wing, but the navy aren't convinced ATM.
The option of reverting to steam cats (being touted in the hecking press) simply isn't available as the these carriers are turbo-electric powered, and you need either steam turbine or nuclear power to run a steam cat.
The other thing he said was that the 'most likely option' was the ships would be 'catapult ready but not fitted'
Mark.
-
They could route the gas turbine exhausts into a boiler to get steam for cats if they had the space that is
-
They could route the gas turbine exhausts into a boiler to get steam for cats if they had the space that is
Steam catapults are now obsolete and not considered to be a viable option.
My reference was to the extensive press coverage over the last couple of days. It appears that the decision has been taken but won't be formally announced just yet although the RN is reported to have put out a press release.
Colin
-
Am i correct in thinking that work to alter the ships had started? If so how much has been spent? What will now be the cost of unconverting? John.
-
think the cost of putting the QE back to VSTOL is around £250m ( they'd already rebuild the stern section for cats I think ) work on PoW isn't as advanced so should be no cost in her build
-
Thanks Davie. What a lot of money wasted. Still it all makes work for the working man to do. John.
-
Am i correct in thinking that work to alter the ships had started? If so how much has been spent? What will now be the cost of unconverting? John.
Yes, but they won't be 'unconverted'
The last line of my post
'catapult ready but not fitted'
means that the ship will be structurally ready to accept a cat, but it won't be fitted - it's standard practice with modern military orders - it means that the future expansion won't cost as much as a complete retrofit, and in the mean time will still be capable of carrying and launching the F35B.
Trials have been carried out that demonstrate the cat would be capable of launching the F35C, but the UK isn't prepared to accept all the risks (mainly financial) in developing it on our own, (the new USN carriers will be ready after the QEC class carriers so their development is behind ours).
Mark.
Apologies, got my B and C mixed up :embarrassed:
-
CF-FZG,
The actual terminology is "Fitted for, not with".
These carriers were designed to have the catapult fitted to allow the use of a "Carrier converted" Eurofighter.
The other options would be left open.
To me it seems a far sighted decision to allow penalty clauses that would be as expensive to cancel the build.
As has been stated "Call me Dave" and co would have cancelled the project completely.
Not only leaving this country defenceless but ensuring the closure of several yards which would never be replaced.
The Scrapping of the Ark and her Harriers was a complete mistake. Losing operational capability and getting a few £million from the yanks for the Harriers as spares and the scrap value of the Ark.
Even having 1 Carrier operational, there will be a need for a Battle Group to defend them, therefore securing the Type 45 build programme and the development of the Type 46 or Future Frigate programme.
We might have a core RN left after this Financial Meltdown despite the horrendous reductions in our Armed Forces.
Bob
-
Looks like the new carriers will be flying the vertical takeoff version of the JSF after all. Cats & Traps are apparently too expensive and the conventional version of the plane won't be available for agea (and that's of they manage to overcome the problem with the hooks).
Seems like Philip Hammond has looked at things a bit more objectively than Cameron. So, yet another government U turn, and once again because they don't really know what they are doing and hope that cleverness will see them through. But cleverness is no match for the Law of Unintended Consequences as they keep discovering.
Should have kept Ark Royal in service after all too.
Colin
they should rename it as well, wot mite they name it mmmmmmmmmmmmm arrrrr yes ARK ROYAL dont let the name disappear in to the history books
-
CF-FZG,
The actual terminology is "Fitted for, not with".
These carriers were designed to have the catapult fitted to allow the use of a "Carrier converted" Eurofighter.
Bob,
Thanks, I couldn't remember the exact wording, but you knew what I meant :-))
There was never going to be a 'carrier converted' Typhoon, (there's another thread where I explain in detail why not), over it's lifetime it would have cost more than buying the F35. Which, incidentally, has an expected life of twice the Typhoon, never mind the Harrier which had reached the end of it's development, and would unlikely to have been in service when the F35 came into service.
Mark.
-
Mark,
When the carrier was FIRST designed the Eurofighter was the preferred option despite it not being developed then.
It takes years to finally design a naval ship.
The Future Frigate was started while I was in Bath in 1996.
A tri-miran hull was considered which led to the "Triton" being built and tested as a 1/3 Scale ship.
Bob
-
Bob,
Okay, checked with a friend at BAe .....
The Typhoon was designed in the '80s as a land based fighter.
In 1996 the requirements for the future carrier aircraft were released - the only place the Typhoon was mentioned was as a conventional short take off version with rhag equipment, (still a very costly conversion of an aircraft that was going to have a very short life compared with the JSF).
The preferred option was always the JSF, (BAe got into bed with both US competitors to make sure it was going to be involved), due to it's expected capabilities and life time expectations, and don't forget the JSF was the 'next generation fighter' compared with the Typhoon, Rafale, and FA18 :-))
Mark.
-
If the Harrier was at the end of its developement. Why did the Americans buy ours? What use do they have for them that we dont? Also what fuel does a ships gas turbine burn please? Im guessing a aero fuel type. If so how much more expensive is the vessel to run? Than a crude based diesel.Thanks John.
-
My reference was to the extensive press coverage over the last couple of days.
Colin,
I've looked and searched to no avail, I've asked around - and no-one can point me at any press coverage in the last few days never mind extensive, (even asked a manager at BAe :-)).
Do you have any links that we can look at??
Mark.
-
If the Harrier was at the end of its developement. Why did the Americans buy ours? What use do they have for them that we dont? Also what fuel does a ships gas turbine burn please? Im guessing a aero fuel type. If so how much more expensive is the vessel to run? Than a crude based diesel.Thanks John.
Why - mainly for spares,
What use - see above,
What fuel - usually kerosene, (Jet-A1) - but in an emergency can run on most fuels including diesel fuel oil - I don't know how much diesel fuel oil is so I can't comment, but aviation kerosene, (Jet-A1), is fairly cheap.
I take it by 'crude based diesel' you mean fuel oil or diesel fuel oil {:-{
Mark.
-
Thanks Mark. I know a bit more now. John.
-
I've looked and searched to no avail, I've asked around - and no-one can point me at any press coverage in the last few days never mind extensive, (even asked a manager at BAe .
Do you have any links that we can look at??
Well it was on the front page of The Times.... Plus if you Google 'carrier U turn' you will get quite a lot of hits including reports from several national and regional newspapers.
Colin
-
Here you go...
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=carrier+u+turn&hl=en&prmd=imvnsu&source=univ&tbm=nws&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=beuNT4qNMpTZ8QPk5JnWCw&sqi=2&ved=0CDEQqAIoADAA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=2796a8c17a3f92f4 :-))
-
Well it was on the front page of The Times.... Plus if you Google 'carrier U turn' you will get quite a lot of hits including reports from several national and regional newspapers.
Thanks Colin :-))
Reading the articles though suggests the expected u-turn is more for short term financial reasons than military reasons.
Don't forget that the F35B hasn't been signed off yet, it's still overweight for VSTOL performance and was still struggling to meet other requirements {:-{
Mark.
Oh, and this isn't directed at you Colin :-))
Someone suggested the Government's actions over the QE Class carriers aren't very good for the country - suggest he looks at who it was who cancelled the last large carrier project in 1966- and respectfully suggest he removes his foot from his cakehole and reconsiders his statement :kiss:
-
Mark,
No idea about BAe but from a MoD point of view.
The Eurofighter was to be developed as an interceptor, air superiority fighter, fighter bomber and carrier based fighter/bomber.
The development costs and time overun killed off the other varients.
At the time of the original contract tender the carrier was to operate the carrier version of Eurofighter and Harrier plus helicopters.
That is why the carrier was fitted for but not with the catapult.
I have no idea what BAe was finally tendered with but do know some of the history of the project as I used to visit the offices where the original tender was being drawn up.
The carrier was also designed with "empty" compartments to allow future equipment to be fitted (as in the Type 45).
She was being designed initially as HMS Ocean's concept was conceived ie a warship built more to commercial standards than the
usual Naval Engineering Standards which allowed a certain amount of battle damage but still remain operational.
I am glad to see that this concept didn't make it through to the final design.
Bob
-
Mark,
You have several things wrong with your posting.
Yes "Typhoon" is the land based aircraft, the other variants were to have other operational names rather than variant titles.
I have no interest who cancelled the last carrier (after building HMS Bristol as an escort)
That comment smacks of pure politics, not military capability.
The TSR2 was also cancelled in favour of the F111 which performed so poorly in Vietnam that the contract was cancelled but TSR2 never reinstated.
Bob
-
To do with the JSF, from Australian Parliamentary committee,
these committees are bipartisan
-
Reading the articles though suggests the expected u-turn is more for short term financial reasons than military reasons.
My reading is that it's not just a financial issue, although that does play a part, but equally because the timescale and uncertainties of the cats & traps option means that the ships would spend maybe a third of their lives with no planes available to to operate from them!
The Invincible class have been used for several different roles over their careers, there is no reason to suppose the QEs will be any different. Simply having a large mobile platform that can be used in a number of ways is an asset in itself.
Colin
-
To be honest guys, I've been involved with re-fuelling "gas-turbine" engined ships of many nationalities. Never once did we pump across 3,000 tonnes of "avcat" (I seem to recall that the Yanks call it JP4). The only Avcat we sent over was to fuel the aircraft....perhaps 500 cubes at a time. The "Ark", "Impossible" and "Indefensible" were all fuelled with diesel. Exactly the same stuff as you put in your (diesel) car. Sometimes....when needs must....the bottom dregs of the Avcat tanks would be mixed in with the diesel. Much better than the other way about. Similarly, when we had ships using FFO (heavy Furnace Fuel Oil), the Diesel could be used to sort of clean the pipes, mixing it with the FFO. Benefits all round. BY.
-
Does it really matter!? The carriers or should that be carrier, wont have any UK forces planes on the damn thing(s) for a number of years anyway!
Yet another cock up by HMG to compound many, many other cock ups.
-
Royal Naval gas turbines run on high grade diesel fuel, I know this for when I used to organise fuel barges for them, I remember the Arrow took on 250 ton in France, but on arrival in Devonport, it was all offloaded to sullage because it had a green dye in it, AVCAT is a higher grade fuel with it's own problems, But what annoys me is the lack of confidence and knowledge base in this country that we cannot afford to lead in new tech cats, this country once lead the world on innovative ideas and design with past carriers, not including the very small cvh's.
-
Dodes, couldn't agree with you more.
All this coming so soon after a "government Spokesperson" declared that the UK "had no provenance in building tankers".
The mind has ceased to boggle. BY.
-
High grade Diesal fuel must cost a lot more than bunker fuel. Can anyone confirm that the piston used in a catapult luanch was one off use? Being jettisoned after use? I was told these cost about £3000 each. Probably more now. Would the new system have reusable parts? Thamks John.
-
To be honest guys, I've been involved with re-fuelling "gas-turbine" engined ships of many nationalities. Never once did we pump across 3,000 tonnes of "avcat" (I seem to recall that the Yanks call it JP4). The only Avcat we sent over was to fuel the aircraft....perhaps 500 cubes at a time. The "Ark", "Impossible" and "Indefensible" were all fuelled with diesel. Exactly the same stuff as you put in your (diesel) car. Sometimes....when needs must....the bottom dregs of the Avcat tanks would be mixed in with the diesel. Much better than the other way about. Similarly, when we had ships using FFO (heavy Furnace Fuel Oil), the Diesel could be used to sort of clean the pipes, mixing it with the FFO. Benefits all round. BY.
Thanks for clearing my 'error' up concerning the fuel used by marine turbines, I'm used to putting Jet-A1 through turbines hence my comment.
JP5 is the NATO code for AVCAT - it's a high flashpoint jet fuel used primarily by Navies and is yellow in colour, (easier to see spillages on a deck), whereas JP4 is a gasoline/kerosene blend with a very low flashpoint and is a 'very dirty' burning fuel - hence the 'coal smoke' trails you see coming out of US aircraft in films.
But what annoys me is the lack of confidence and knowledge base in this country that we cannot afford to lead in new tech cats,
Dodes, the tech works, it's been demonstrated in a ground based installation - the problem is by being 'the lead' on any new tech that's introduced, we'd be responsible for all installation problems and putting them right - a serious amount of cash that we don't have. Now if the NextGen US carriers weren't so far behind us, it wouldn't be so much of a problem due to 'risk sharing', that's why (as far as I understand the current situation is) they will be 'fitted for, not with' the new cats, then when they're ready, it will be a simpler installation that trying to refit them.
Mark.
-
High grade Diesal fuel must cost a lot more than bunker fuel. Can anyone confirm that the piston used in a catapult luanch was one off use? Being jettisoned after use? I was told these cost about £3000 each. Probably more now. Would the new system have reusable parts? Thamks John.
John, the pistons were retained in the tube, the strops were jettisoned at first, but later on were 'caught' by the ship after launch, not sure if it was a shortage of them or the cost {:-{
As far as the bits you see on deck, there isn't really any visible difference between a steam cat and a rail gun.
Mark.
-
Once again, thanks Mark.What i was told was wrong. John.
-
Watching a US carrier launching things like Vigilantes and Phantoms from no more than 150ft away (during a RAS) I must admit it was a very noisy but very impressive spectacle. In those days (work it out for yourself by the aircraft types) the USN used a simple wire strop that simply dropped into the sea after launch. Cheap'n'cheerful and it worked. BY.
-
Bryan you used to drive the seagoing filling stations - something called avtur seems to ring a bell - used to fuel the Wasp helicopter
in the late 60s, or is my mind playing tricks (again)
Geoff
-
You can see the strop being dropped in this illustration of the Triang Minic Ships Naval Boxed Set - http://www.triangminicships.com/classic_edition/boxed_sets/rn_task_force_boxed_set.htm
I'm sure there was another illustration of a carrier launch in their catalogue which also showed the strop falling free. I distinctly remember reading somewhere at the time that these strops cost £7 each and felt quite shocked at the waste of money!
Colin
-
Bryan you used to drive the seagoing filling stations - something called avtur seems to ring a bell - used to fuel the Wasp helicopter
in the late 60s, or is my mind playing tricks (again)
Geoff
Avtur.....wow, that goes back a bit!
Not altogether happy about being called a nautical filling station though. The old adage "The Royal Navy Sails Courtesy Of The RFA" is really quite true. But as you well know, the role of the RFA has expanded far beyond what used to known as the "Grey Cap and Muffler Brigade".
"Avtur" was nasty stuff. More akin to nitro-glycerene than any recognizable fuel nowadays. Not so much for fuelling the Wasp...but I recall Whirlwinds using it. Regards, Bryan.
-
You can see the strop being dropped in this illustration of the Triang Minic Ships Naval Boxed Set - http://www.triangminicships.com/classic_edition/boxed_sets/rn_task_force_boxed_set.htm
I'm sure there was another illustration of a carrier launch in their catalogue which also showed the strop falling free. I distinctly remember reading somewhere at the time that these strops cost £7 each and felt quite shocked at the waste of money!
Colin
Colin. These strops were only about 3ft long with an eye at each end. Very disposable. But I suppose that "quantity" soon mounts up. Still, cheap for purpose.. Bryan.
-
You can't beat the smell of Avtur, especially burnt Avtur! All you Raf and Navy ground crews know what I mean :-))
I thought the little gas turbine in the Wasp was designed to run on any thing flammable, even whiskey, that was the story I was told!
We still use Avtur in the Raf probably a little more refined but still just as lethal.
Nick B
-
Seen on the BBC news this morning:-
"The government has changed its mind over the type of fighter planes it is ordering for the Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier, the BBC has learned.
David Cameron has signed off a decision to use the jump-jet variant of the US-built F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, as planned by the Labour government.
The coalition had wanted to switch to a variant using "catapults and traps" but costs are believed to have spiralled.
The government is expected to make the announcement on Thursday.
As part of its defence spending review in 2010, the government decided to "mothball" one of the two aircraft carriers ordered by Labour.
This followed a doubling of costs for the project."
More on the website.
-
The mention of Ark Royal as a laid up carrier, I think slightly wrong, she was converted into a helicopter/commando carrier not so long ago, the talk within the RN was the Ocean was a unreliable failure and she would be replaced by Ark Royal, but events have overtaken this. Though I am surprised that one of the CVH's now that they have no real purpose was not used to trial a cat, I would not be surprised if the yanks where approached for this trial they would lend or give some carrier borne tomcats, now they are obsolete to them. But I think that one classs of aircraft is a bit silly as we have seen in the past, a mixture of aircraft types where always carried for different tasks. As for the Typhoon it is still a very long way off from being able to even replace the Tornado, it is now a very old tech plane which took too long to get airborne and is now outstripped by new tech planes on the scene now.
-
Sorry guys, but after reading that on BBC News I am really confused. So, we are going back to using the jump jets - which no doubt will now incur massive additional costs as we cancelled on that project earlier. Why will it cost a reported an extra Billion Pounds to design catapults and arresters that are either already in use by France and the USA, or at least should be able to be adapted from their designs, especially if we were using the same aircraft as France.
What I can't get my head round is why have such a huge carrier at all, neccessary for cat/trap take off and landing, when reverting to a more Harrier-like aircraft that can be launched and landed on much smaller ships such as the ones we just got rid of ?
The projected enter service date of 2020 may now be put off even longer.
-
Hello
In French we are saying that this not weather vane this that rotates but the wind. Here with this carrier project : the wind is not rotating but the weather vane is turning like a wheel !
It's really impressive how your political people are managing this !
Don't be affraid, here we also have same political stupidy O0
Xtian
-
Hello Xtian:
France has a super aircraft carrier, the 'Charles de Gaulle' (R91). It may be nearly 10 years before Britain has one like her.
Perhaps your new President may kindly loan us the plans of of the 'Charles de Gaulle' steam catapult ?
It is a shorter version of the one used in the US Nimitz class ships.
Cheers ! Bob
-
Hum ... We can't loan the plan of the French carrier steam catapult as they are coming from US : Yep ! :embarrassed:
-
Excuse me
Why do we need a plan?
We invented it !
Ned
-
I was under the impression that the new catapult was to be an electric/magnetic thing rather than an old tech "steam" object. But the US have found building one is more difficult than they thought. Hence the original (mistaken) notion that going back to steam power would be easier, quicker and cheaper. Then it transpired that somebody realised that a steam catapult needs steam, and that means having either a boiler or a nuclear plant (same thing in the long run)...and a Gas Turbine doesn't make steam.
Makes you wonder what some of these so-called whizz-kids actually learned at school.
As far as keeping the "Ark" and her siblings is concerned, while I agree that scrapping them and the Harrier fleet was (to put it mildly) a little precipitate....have you ever been into the hangar area of "Ark" etc? For a ship that looks so large on the outside, the hangar area is really quite small. Hence only carrying 12 Harriers...and that at a push. BY.
-
That means 5 yank cabs
Ned
-
The new carriers were supposed to be fitted for but not with a new electro-magnetic catapult.
It requires a bit of development and there hadn't even been a decision taken as to use and recover the strops or just once only.
Bob
-
Poor British, excepted talking about it, you are far to have an operational carrier {:-{
-
That's as maybe, but when you have an occasional one in commission we will have two, more or less :kiss:
LB
-
Well we may, might, possibly, have two carriers. Which could be useful if we had any planes to suit and a way to launch them. John.
-
I've just found out where the MoD Procurement Executive figured out the catapult would cost an extra 2 Billion Pounds.
I found the high velocity catapult on E-Bay . . . £5.99
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/3x-Hi-Velocity-Catapult-Slingshot-Elastic-Rubber-Band-/300572976300?pt=UK_SportingGoods_Hunting_ShootingSports_ET&hash=item45fb8ba4ac (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/3x-Hi-Velocity-Catapult-Slingshot-Elastic-Rubber-Band-/300572976300?pt=UK_SportingGoods_Hunting_ShootingSports_ET&hash=item45fb8ba4ac)
Comes in packs of three, therefore the MoD would need to buy a third aircraft carrier so it would not involve exessive overspend on the unused catapult.
-
Tararata, you will never operate two aircraft carrier as said a RN Admiral, it's absolutly impossible to operate the two with only 39000 women and men serving the Royal Navy. You maybe operate the first one and when the second one will be ready, the first will be laid up with your finger crossed to found a customer to sold her !
Even as helo carrier the first one will be too heavy to operate with this 39000 people Royal Navy
Xtian
-
Xtian. Once again you make assertions without explanations.
For possibly diferent reasons, I may agree with you...but from a different viewpoint.
"Only" 39,000 people in the RN is insufficient. What do you base that figure on? Are all of these 39,000 people capable of going to sea? Or are you including "permanent" shore-based staff (many of whom are not, strictly speaking, pure RN personnel.
I argued a while ago that manning these 2 ships would be a problem. Crew roll-over" and so on. And the closure of various training establishments would come back to haunt the politicos.
In effect, I agree with you...but I sure wish you'd explain your reasoning a bit better.
Regards. Bryan Y.
-
In terms of people, the naval services - that's the Royal Navy, Royal Marines and RFA - have a combined strength of roughly 39000 members. Then this remark about not possible to sail this two large ships with this is coming from a RN Admiral, one or two months ago during a professional meeting I was.
Xtian
-
You are right Xtian, because every one is talking about 2 carriers and associated aircraft, no one has thought to mention the accompanying battle group required plus fleet train to keep it supplied at sea.
-
Interesting topic. Two carriers, one left in 'mothballs', means current personnel strengths allow for only one to be deployable. The same for any accompanying support group. One the one hand the ship will only spend part of ts time on deployment, and on the other hand length of deployments will require crew rotations. Perhaps in many projected deployments it may be envisaged that the carrier will form part of a combined international battle group.
However, should we end up in a scenario where two crisis situations in different world locations arise then both carriers, with UK support groups, may be required. In this case current Navy strengths may not be enough, either in crew or ships to support simultaneous deployments. I guess if the second carrier is activated then Navy personnel numbers plus training programmes will have to be increased,
-
I think also a point to remember is !, is there enough viable vessels extant and in the near future also enough fleet train to supply one battlefleet let enough two, plus I believe the fleet train for this carrier class at present does not exist.
-
Dodes....not quite true, but close. The actual fuel side of things may well be handled adequately by the 4 new Korean built vessels.
Most of the "Liquid Only" ships have always had a (small) capacity for the onward transmission of "spare parts" and other stuff...but not consumables (food, as opposed to paint).
Like everyone else I'm not aware of any "non-liquid" capability for the new ships.
At the moment "we" have "Fort Victoria", "Fort Austin" and "Fort Rosalie" to re-supply "non-liquid" stuff....such as food and armaments.
Will that be enough? "Austin" and "Rosalie" came into service in 1979 and despite multiple upgrades surely must be coming towards the end of their useful lives. Haven't seen or heard about any replacements for them as yet.
I do wonder if "Fort George" (sister of "Victoria") will have to be brought back into service. Cheers. BY.
-
If I remember right, the old train for carriers proper, had dedicated vessels such as Lyoness and pure ammo vessels, but the Fort George and Victoria are combo boats and when they came into service there was crictisims fom the CVS that they barely carried enough fuel for one ras plus they carry alot smaller amount of general stores and ammo than the previous generations did, so I think shortly there will be pressure brought to bear for new purpose built fleet train and more escorts for these very expensive investments.
-
Dodes, again you are almost correct.
"Lyness" (not "Lyoness") and her 2 sisters ("Stromness" and "Tarbetness") were built as part of the fleet train around the same time as "Resource" and "Regent"...and don't forget the 3 "Ol" class of tankers. But all these ships were built in the mid 1960s. Things have moved on a bit since then. The "one-stop" ships were (as far as I know) never envisaged as "stand-alone" ships. "One-stop", yes, but only as a final-deliverer. They were at the point of the pyramid so to speak. And the "point" isn't of much use if the pyramid base is removed. In a nutshell, the 2 latest "Forts" were (are) very capable ships, but only as good as the back-up train would allow. In the same vein, although the pic of Illustrious and one of the new "supercarriers" was a "fake", there was one design feature of the "new" ship that is interesting. The fitting of the side lifts on the starboard side. All the old large carriers had the side lifts on the port side. I imagine that this layout caused many aviation problems. But there's another factor. When replenishing a carrier the "tanker" would always operate on the stbd side of the carrier, and the "dry" ships would be to port....using the side lifts of the carrier to land their stores directly into the hangar space. But with the advent of the "one-stop" ships this arrangement is obviously an anachronism. Do everything from one side. BY.
-
Hi Bryan, I seem to remember when I was working in the MoD the 2 Forts in qusetion where supposed to have been motherships to the type 23's as originally envisaged at 1900ton frigates, so I and alot of the people where lead to believe at the time. But alas these two ships suffer a lot of design problems including weak tanktops in the cargo holds when first built, I remember loading the George's first load of seadarts, her side cargo crane was so slow and restricted in arc of movement I insisted on using my own cranes, otherwise I would have been there all week, the Chief Mate was not pleased, but thats life. Two weeks later she had a emergency deammo etc for an emergency docking and survey, she had hogged so bad that there was fears she may have broken her back. But the other ships you have named where excellent built and designed, no wonder the Yanks wanted some of them.
-
Dodes. Not much I can add to that.
I didn't know about the F.George "hogging" problem. I wonder what made the difference between the 2 ships. And is that at least part of the reason she was taken out of service so early in her life.
But...."one-stop" ships are not the be-all and end-all of a fleet train. Nor can they realistically be designated to look after (primarily) one ship. A nuclear-powered carrier could well free up a lot of replenishment space for the other ships. BY.
-
Hi Bryan,
I think the problem with the MoD is that with privatisation of most of its tech and advise departments and exit of the Dockyard system with all its relavent expertise etc, plus continual interference from politicians who think they know better, I really do not think there is much hope for the RN or the other two services. It appears what happens is what gives most profit to BAE and other private companies.