Model Boat Mayhem

Mess Deck: General Section => Full Scale Ships => Topic started by: Colin Bishop on August 28, 2014, 07:37:47 pm

Title: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: Colin Bishop on August 28, 2014, 07:37:47 pm
Today HMS Illustrious paid off for the last time after 32 years service. Still serviceable but no longer wanted. At the same time we are seeing reports that Russia is effectively invading Ukraine after annexing Crimea. The Baltic states fear that they are next on the list and are members of the EU and NATO which, should Russia threaten them, we would be bound by treaty to get involved.

In the meantime our armed forces have been run down to desperately low levels on the basis of saving money and  on the assumption that there will be no need for a major military effort in the foreseeable future. History shows that such assumptions are foolhardy to say the least and we, and much of Europe, could be sleepwalking to disaster as President Putin has confirmed his status as an adventurer who is perfectly willing to ignore international law on the basis that he can get away with it. So far he is doing fine and there is no leadership on the part of the West to put a stop to it. The guy is clearly a loose cannon with nuclear capability which is not a good thing!

There is a lot of truth in the old adage that those who ignore history are condemned to re live it and the present generation of politicians appear to be particularly incompetent in that respect. I think there is a very real risk that things could get very serious much more quickly than anyone seems to appreciate and so history will repeat itself once again. Maybe our nuclear subs will come in useful after all despite Alec Salmond's posturings!

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: TheLongBuild on August 28, 2014, 08:04:45 pm
This reminds me of another leader 75 years ago.
can't think who !!!
 
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: Netleyned on August 28, 2014, 08:33:37 pm
Perhaps the Canadian Lanc could stay a bit longer?

Ned
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: Tug-Kenny RIP on August 28, 2014, 09:33:51 pm


        No replies of a Political nature please.


Ken



 
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: NFMike on August 28, 2014, 11:41:09 pm

        No replies of a Political nature please.


Ken

Tricky. Pretty much everything leading up to a war is political, so the OP is a bit of a honey trap  %)
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: Bob K on August 29, 2014, 12:22:00 pm
The day after HMS Illustrious is retired Ukraine applies to join NATO.  MOD forward planning less than 24 hours ?
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: unbuiltnautilus on August 29, 2014, 12:38:50 pm
That would not be a good thing....but steering away from the short sighted politicians, being led by short sighted civil servants, being influenced by military men with agendas, what hope for the future of Illustrious, post Royal Navy. The Portsmouth bid has just been kicked into touch.. better scrapped or sunk as a reef than rotting away in some backwater?
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: TheLongBuild on August 29, 2014, 12:43:10 pm
The day after HMS Illustrious is retired Ukraine applies to join NATO.  MOD forward planning less than 24 hours ?

Quote Taken from

http://dalje.com/en-world/russia-vows-steps-if-georgia-ukraine-join-nato/139527

Russia will take steps aimed at ensuring its interests along its borders," the agencies quoted General Yuri Baluyevsky as saying. "These will not only be military steps, but also steps of a different nature," he said, without giving details.

And I guess the steps taken will not be of a political nature   8)  ;) ;)
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: Shipmate60 on August 29, 2014, 01:16:51 pm
Another great forward thinking plan - NOT!!


Bob
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: Colin Bishop on August 29, 2014, 03:39:35 pm
Yes, defence policy and budgeting appears to inhabit a parallel but totally unconnected universe to world events (no matter which lot of politicians are in charge)

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: warspite on August 29, 2014, 04:14:30 pm
Perhaps the Canadian Lanc could stay a bit longer?

Ned

Well we don't have any other dedicated bombers do we, so sending our only one might mean having to 'borrow' the Canadian one when it gets shot down :D

Hey lads get the old biplanes out, we need to press them into service.

brush up those Chelsea pensioner uniforms lads - we're going to war  {-)

Do they have wifi in urals (I think that's spelt correctly), when they conscript the kids they will struggle to get a signal for the drones.
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: Netleyned on August 29, 2014, 04:41:37 pm
Lot of work going on the Fairey Swordfish at Yeovilton as we speak 8) 8) 8)


Ned
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: Jonty on September 06, 2014, 05:31:32 pm
  Wasn't it a German politician who said that war was far too serious a matter to be left the generals?
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: Colin Bishop on September 06, 2014, 05:54:36 pm
There is a report in today's Times that David Cameron has pledged to bring the second QE carrier into service - how times change!

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: TheLongBuild on September 06, 2014, 06:01:38 pm
  Wasn't it a German politician who said that war was far too serious a matter to be left the generals?

Was the leader of Germany in 1939-1945 a Politician ?.  If so some could say it might have been better to leave the War to the Generals and not the Political Leader at the time ! who thought he knew better.
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: Colin Bishop on September 06, 2014, 06:10:53 pm
What can you expect from a Corporal though....
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: TheLongBuild on September 06, 2014, 06:21:47 pm
 %) :}
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: dodes on September 06, 2014, 08:19:02 pm
I think you have the same problem with the Lusty as the new ones that are still being built, empty flight decks !!, plus she is 30 years old and her capacity if it was possible to fill is very small and limited, she was at best most useful for convoy escort, never a death star!!!!
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: McGherkin on September 06, 2014, 10:21:52 pm
I think you have the same problem with the Lusty as the new ones that are still being built, empty flight decks !!, plus she is 30 years old and her capacity if it was possible to fill is very small and limited, she was at best most useful for convoy escort, never a death star!!!!


Yup, this really.

That, and where a ship can go, a submarine can go, and do it completely undetected until it fires a tomahawk and obliterates the target just as effectively.
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: Colin Bishop on September 06, 2014, 10:38:35 pm
Subs can't normally land Marine land forces though as a helicopter carrier can. Nor can they carry out humanitarian missions.
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: McGherkin on September 06, 2014, 11:17:43 pm
Subs can't normally land Marine land forces though as a helicopter carrier can. Nor can they carry out humanitarian missions.

But that's carried out by Bulwark, Albion and Ocean. Humanitarian missions are generally carried out by whatever's in the area, for example Enterprise was used for the Libya extraction.
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: Jonty on September 07, 2014, 02:47:10 pm
  Just checked - I knew the quote was pre-WW1, but it was Frenchman, not a German. And I think Clemenceau qualifies as a statesman rather than a mere politician.
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: Mad Scientist on September 07, 2014, 08:24:47 pm
I wonder what  the projected lifespan is for the hull? 40 years, perhaps? This might have something to do with the decision.

(BTW, we have a 42-year-old destroyer in Halifax which won't return to sea, due to the condition of her hull.)

Tom
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: Paul Swainson on September 07, 2014, 10:09:47 pm
No politicians or civil servant should be aloud in government circles until they have serviced their country in the forces, then perhaps we may make decisions that actual work.
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: warspite on September 08, 2014, 09:58:13 am
Fruedian slip there - as all politicians service there country i.e. screw us  >>:-(, although I agree, only service men and women should be allowed as they then understand the needs for efficiency - with a small portion of those who are true representatives of the electoral.
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: Colin Bishop on September 08, 2014, 06:43:11 pm
Quote
although I agree, only service men and women should be allowed as they then understand the needs for efficiency

Not sure that history demonstrates that to be a true statement! Service people see things from their own perspective but it isn't necessarily the whole picture. For example, Alan Mallison the author has a distinguished record of service in the Army but basically sees the Navy as unnecessary!

Two rules:
1) Things are never as simple as people would like to believe.
2) The same mistakes are ALWAYS made over and over again.

It's called human nature I believe.

Colin
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: Victor Meldrew on September 09, 2014, 11:12:27 am
I personally think that Putin was installed as was Adolph as a front man controlled by many of the generals etc who didn't want to take a front seat just in case it all went wrong with a view to him  being removed when the time was right only now ( as with Adolph ) Putin has become a lot stronger and independent than expected. Let's just hope that as in history he doesn't become too greedy for power and land.
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: derekwarner on September 09, 2014, 01:12:16 pm
Guys..... in 1986....I walked on the deck of HMS Illustrious.........during our Australian 75th Naval Centenary at my work place.......

In a previous posting some years back.....I praised the helo pilots from Lusty  :-)) in defending the berthing of BB63 @ GID ..........

Lets leave this thread about the vessel HMS Illustrious & not world politics.........Derek
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDsQtwIwAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DQ05ErsQv9h8&ei=V-wOVJXRPIeSuASoh4GAAg&usg=AFQjCNE5GVBfAd_bHTRpe586lQGmcqSplA&sig2=8Sc_0VaI1ECuuujcyLzj_w&bvm=bv.74649129,d.dGc
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: dodes on September 09, 2014, 07:14:40 pm
Well here is one, not political etc. but concerns the new carriers being built, specifically their designed aircraft. I often read a mag called " Wonderpedia " as they often have some very good facts about various topics (usually what our politicians do not want us to know), anyway the latest edition for this month has an in-depth article on the F 35 fighter.  Anyway its leading headline on the subject is " The 1.5 Trillion Dollar Flop ", appears it could eclipse the infamous Starfighter of some years ago as expensive flop, for several reasons , but its manufacturer gives annually 15 million dollars in support to 45 US congress members.
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: McGherkin on November 03, 2014, 11:40:24 am
The F35 is actually a really good aircraft, certainly far better than the Harrier it replaces (as much as I like them!). It's the same old people complaining now, that were complaining about the F16s, F18s etc etc. And look how much love there is for them now.

The F35 is far stealthier than the harrier, and much faster, and furthermore its ability to detect and engage targets from a long range is far superior. These days a harrier is a bit of a sitting duck, the F35 isn't.

There's a few initial reliability niggles, but they've all had that.
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: Bowwave on November 03, 2014, 06:06:48 pm
The F35  has a chequered  history , initially the whole concept was based on the  Soviet Yak 141 project including  parts of the airframe    lift and propulsion system layout  and yes  the F35  should be better than the Harrier in so much as it is faster and stealthier yet there remains some  serious reliability concerns which need to be resolved.  the F35 is the most expensive procurement project  that the department of defence has undertaken  I just hope that  in the end   the project is successful.  But it is a sobering thought,  in the early 1960s  the then UK government  abandoned the 1154 project which was a supersonic VTOL fighter which was on the cusp of success . Had this program been completed then the chances are  the UK would have had an stealthier   VTOL aircraft much  sooner ,which may well have been more reliable,  at a much reduced cost to the tax payer  and an  aircraft  the Navy and RAF actually wanted .
Bowwave
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: dodes on November 07, 2014, 12:53:10 pm
Talking of stealth in being able to elude radar systems, I read that the Russians have now developed systems to beat it, in relation to their SAM battery control systems. One is they now can see them through a passive system which detects disturbance in the atmosphere and detects at 185 miles, plus they have beefed up their HF radar systems which they claim can detect them at 185 miles. So it seems like most military systems developed, rule supreme for a time until some one develops a counter acting system, you see it and read about ever since men have gone to war with each other. What's next in the technical advancement of warfare!!!!!!!
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: Bowwave on November 07, 2014, 01:25:08 pm
It could be said that if the Russians have a radar system capable of penetrating  the stealth features of US aircraft such as the F22 and F35  then I would  probably surmise the US military boffins had cracked the same technology  as soon as they built the F-117 way back in  1981. Which of course makes the new Russian Sukhoi T50   multi role stealth fighter  just as much a target.  This may bring into question the  value of the F35  when such aircraft are required in the tactical role  where  stealth , speed and high technology are not as important as  survivability  for the likes of  tactical  support for  troops on the ground where most battles are won or lost.   
Bowwave
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: dodes on November 10, 2014, 08:04:00 pm
I am not sure of its type number, but I did see that the US Navy have successfully trialled their new super stealth strike plane and it is now going into service. I came across some pics of it on a carrier with its chief test pilot, forget her name but she was not bad looking.
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: McGherkin on November 11, 2014, 07:31:59 am
That'll be the F35. They're using the C variant though, which can carry bigger payloads than the B.

I doubt many, if any SAM sites can lock onto the F35 in a real world scenario though, it's like saying a submarine has sonar sensitive enough to detect a ship in New York - it could, if it weren't for the other million ships, billions of fish, a few whales having a chat, underground seismic activity etc etc etc. Can it pick up something with the Radar Cross-Sectional area of a marble? Maybe. Can it detect that marble travelling at Mach 1.6, at 50,000 feet? Unlikely.

Likely as not they'll only get a lock when the payload bay doors open - which is about a second before the bomb/rocket is released. At which point it's a bit late.

Even if a SAM site could get a lock, it wouldn't matter because it'd probably have already been hit by Tomahawk by the time the F35s show up, like happened in Libya.
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: Bowwave on November 11, 2014, 10:37:55 am
In the closed world of  weapons programs ,    it would be a dereliction of duty to think that  a counter measure had not be developed alongside the original program .  The  U2 spy plane of the 1950s /60s was considered by some   to be  invulnerable  to any known missile because of its ability to fly  beyond the capability of  any Soviet air defence. the CIA  who operated the aircraft knew better and instructed all their pilots never to fly in a straight line  for prolonged periods . The  CIA were aware that the Soviets had the capability to down the U2 with their high altitude  SA-2  SAM missile.   The lesson of this incident of long ago is not to believe in invulnerability    and the F35 is no exception it is just another aircraft with a big price tag.
Bowwave 
Title: Re: HMS Illustrious - Redundant?
Post by: dodes on November 12, 2014, 07:14:46 pm
I do not think it was the F35, the cockpit arrangement was as I remember quite different to the F35, the co-pilot was sitting superimposed above the pilot. But never mind at least one of their new types is actually working, which is more than what can be said of this country.!!!!!