Model Boat Mayhem

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length.
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Navy's New Carriers  (Read 12722 times)

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12,171
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Navy's New Carriers
« on: October 25, 2009, 11:48:16 am »

There is a report in today's Sunday Times which suggests that although both of the Navy's new carriers will be built, the second one, HMS Prince of Wales, will actually be completed as an amphibious helicopter assault ship to replace HMS Ocean when she is retired in 2018.

The reason given is that the cost of the air wings for the new ships using the Joint Strike Fighter is simply too great. One wonders if the RN are simply hoping that the decision will be reveresed in the future - through deck cruisers anyone?

Colin
Logged

Arrow5

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,873
  • Location: Scottish Highlands
Re: Navy's New Carriers
« Reply #1 on: October 25, 2009, 12:39:31 pm »

Has a familiar ring to it...a rose by any other name etc etc. {-)
Logged
..well can you land on this?

Bryan Young

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,883
  • Location: Whitley Bay
Re: Navy's New Carriers
« Reply #2 on: October 25, 2009, 04:46:34 pm »

How old will "Ocean" be in 2018? That seems to be a rather short lifespan for such a vessel. Or perhaps she wasn't all that good to begin with. But if (?) it's true that she was designed around a "commercial" hull then the Naval Constructors will have long harboured a built in antipathy to her (shades of "Arrow" etc). The "Through Deck Cruisers" are much older and can still "perform" when required...so whats up with "Ocean"?
Also (and being completely without malice) I'd like to remind Colin that I had a feeling from the very early days that this "project" was destined to be doomed for whatever reason could be thought up. Cheers. Bryan.
Logged
Notes from a simple seaman

Klunk

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,209
  • If you know who I am, please remind me!!
  • Location: luton, beds
Re: Navy's New Carriers
« Reply #3 on: October 25, 2009, 05:21:52 pm »

The problem here is that successive governments keep cutting the armed forces bill and the big projects always suffer, but then the government always wants our forces to be the best with minimal equipment which invariably is outdated before comes into service. The SA80, JSF, Clansmen are typical of government projects that have been overmanaged, over run and over budget. Don't even go there with TSR development, Polaris, or Nimrod.  The fact that during WWII we developed the Cromwell tank from design to production in under 9 months mean that it can be done. Look at the  AK47, a superb weapon designed by germany, improved by Russia and manufactured by mass production methods simply and cheaply around the world and shot by peasants! What needs to be done is a government that buys the equipment that is needed by the forces BEFORE they send them off to all corners of the earth to do a job that should have never been allowed to escalate to a situation where the forces need to be deployed!

The 2 carriers will be built, but will they have their airwings??? Probably, but my guess is they will do what they have done with the Harriers. A joint RAF/NAVAL strike force. Don';t forget that the Navy has no weapons dumps of its own, they are all run by the Army now, and all mu8nitions are delivered by Army trucks to the dockside for trans loading!!! Progress.
Logged
SECRETARY - LUTON AND DISTRICT MODEL BOAT CLUB
full time penguin

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12,171
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: Navy's New Carriers
« Reply #4 on: October 25, 2009, 05:39:50 pm »

Yes Bryan, you did warn us! Ocean was launched in 1995, commissioned in 1998 and construction was based on a combination of the old Ark Royal class and commercial car carriers. The hull suffered damage during the launch. With regard to longevity I suppose that if you build the ship partly to commercial standards and then operate her as a major naval unit then maybe she will not last as long as if she was built to full naval standards. The Americans expect 50 years out of their carriers!

I visited Ocean at the Plymouth Navy Days last month and she is an impressive and versatile vessel with a huge amount of space inside.

If the intention is really to complete the second carriers as a replacement for Ocean then they've got a bit of redesigning to do as, quite apart from the changes required for supporting the air component, you would have to build in vehicle storage and embarkation facilities, accommodation for 500+ troops and sling landing craft along the side. At the end of the day you will have a ship which is too big and overpowered for its intended function - a bad bargain I'd think.

In practice, if the two carriers were to be built as originally intended it is likely that for most of the time only one would actually be in commission while the other was being refitted etc. If the big problem is being unable to afford two JSF air wings then why not just buy one air wing plus some spares and swap it between the two ships until a cheaper aeroplane comes along? I'm told they could have bought French Rafales anyway at much less cost than the JSF.

I think the Navy just wants to ensure that they get the platforms they wanted and will live to fight another day on the question of the aircraft.

Colin
Logged

Bowwave

  • Guest
Re: Navy's New Carriers
« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2009, 04:11:12 pm »

The RN had the chance of the JSF     35 years ago it was called the Hawker  P1154 . The statistics of the aircraft are as good  , except for the avionics as the JSF. In fact the top speed was 20mph faster than the  F35 . The wing loading and take off weight of the P1154   exceeds that of the present GR9 and only marginally less than the  F35 .Only in range does the F35  become a much more superior aircraft ,   1200nm to 560nm
Bowwave
Logged

Bryan Young

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,883
  • Location: Whitley Bay
Re: Navy's New Carriers
« Reply #6 on: October 26, 2009, 06:11:05 pm »

The problem here is that successive governments keep cutting the armed forces bill and the big projects always suffer, but then the government always wants our forces to be the best with minimal equipment which invariably is outdated before comes into service. The SA80, JSF, Clansmen are typical of government projects that have been overmanaged, over run and over budget. Don't even go there with TSR development, Polaris, or Nimrod.  The fact that during WWII we developed the Cromwell tank from design to production in under 9 months mean that it can be done. Look at the  AK47, a superb weapon designed by germany, improved by Russia and manufactured by mass production methods simply and cheaply around the world and shot by peasants! What needs to be done is a government that buys the equipment that is needed by the forces BEFORE they send them off to all corners of the earth to do a job that should have never been allowed to escalate to a situation where the forces need to be deployed!

The 2 carriers will be built, but will they have their airwings??? Probably, but my guess is they will do what they have done with the Harriers. A joint RAF/NAVAL strike force. Don';t forget that the Navy has no weapons dumps of its own, they are all run by the Army now, and all mu8nitions are delivered by Army trucks to the dockside for trans loading!!! Progress.
Are you absolutely sure that the RN has no weapons dumps? If youare correct, then who runs the "spaces" in say Loch Long? (although I appreciate that they are primarily NATO....but "our" ammo ships still load up there). Interestedly yours, BY.
Logged
Notes from a simple seaman

Klunk

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,209
  • If you know who I am, please remind me!!
  • Location: luton, beds
Re: Navy's New Carriers
« Reply #7 on: October 26, 2009, 07:22:35 pm »

pretty sure. IT WAS ALL PASSED OVER TO THE ARMY A FEW YEARS BACK FOR CONTROL!
Logged
SECRETARY - LUTON AND DISTRICT MODEL BOAT CLUB
full time penguin

snowwolflair

  • Guest
Re: Navy's New Carriers
« Reply #8 on: October 26, 2009, 07:44:08 pm »

I dont think the Army look after the nuclear depth charges. 8)
Logged

Charlie

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 749
  • I spend far too much time on Model Boats Mayhem!
  • Location: Sussex
    • My Youtube Channel
Re: Navy's New Carriers
« Reply #9 on: October 26, 2009, 08:12:05 pm »

Whilst it would be a shame for the Navy not to have some new Carriers to play with, they are unlikkely to be useful assets in the future when all the defence experts seem to be saying that future conflicts are going to be counter insurgency type operations where Carriers would be useless. IMHO, they would be better off spending the money on equipment which can be used by our front line troops.

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12,171
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: Navy's New Carriers
« Reply #10 on: October 26, 2009, 08:24:25 pm »

While the present threats are certainly associated with insurgency, that doesn't mean that will be the case in future. Modern warships have a life of 30 years or more and need to anticipate possible threats in the future. The so called "experts"you read in the press have a very short term viewpoint and have little appreciation of historical precedents - blame it on our current education system! Conventional warfare capacity may well become a lot more relevant in the future with both China and Russia flexing their capabilities. Traditionally, serious warfare has been between the great powers playing for strategic stakes comparesd with which Iraq and Afganistan are just sideshows. Our senior military staff appreciate this but unfortunately our politicians are undeducated amateurs by comparison.

Having said that, MOD procurement processes are certainly wanting but unfortunately that has always been ther case.

Colin
Logged

Charlie

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 749
  • I spend far too much time on Model Boats Mayhem!
  • Location: Sussex
    • My Youtube Channel
Re: Navy's New Carriers
« Reply #11 on: October 26, 2009, 08:31:34 pm »

Hi Colin,
We have to face the fact that we are no longer a 'Great Power'. If we needed a reminder of this, it is the news that our economy is now smaller than that of Italy. Of course it would be a shame not to have some carriers in the fleet, but as a country we can only afford what we can pay for!

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12,171
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: Navy's New Carriers
« Reply #12 on: October 26, 2009, 08:40:42 pm »

The last economic statistics I saw didn't indicate that we were inferior to Italy - where did you get that from?

Colin
Logged

Charlie

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 749
  • I spend far too much time on Model Boats Mayhem!
  • Location: Sussex
    • My Youtube Channel

snowwolflair

  • Guest
Re: Navy's New Carriers
« Reply #14 on: October 26, 2009, 08:51:53 pm »

Its a statistical abberation that will go in a month or so misrepresented by politicians.


Bewar of politicians lies!

The ones in power lie to stay in power and the ones in opposition lie to show how good they would be at lying when they get into power. :police:
Logged

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12,171
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: Navy's New Carriers
« Reply #15 on: October 26, 2009, 09:19:58 pm »

The recent figures I have seen suggest that the GDP of the UK is 150% of Italy's. Last month I was in Italy and the standard of living in Sardinia was way below anything you would expect to find in the UK.

Colin
Logged

Bowwave

  • Guest
Re: Navy's New Carriers
« Reply #16 on: October 26, 2009, 11:41:03 pm »

Whilst it would be a shame for the Navy not to have some new Carriers to play with, they are unlikkely to be useful assets in the future when all the defence experts seem to be saying that future conflicts are going to be counter insurgency type operations where Carriers would be useless. IMHO, they would be better off spending the money on equipment which can be used by our front line troops.
Is it not  possible to view counter insurgency operation as to dangerous or  futile   to commit   regular  ground forces.?
Bowwave
Logged

Charlie

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 749
  • I spend far too much time on Model Boats Mayhem!
  • Location: Sussex
    • My Youtube Channel
Re: Navy's New Carriers
« Reply #17 on: October 27, 2009, 10:20:57 am »

Traditionally, serious warfare has been between the great powers playing for strategic stakes comparesd with which Iraq and Afganistan are just sideshows.

They may be just sideshows stategically, but they are extremely expensive sideshows. Latest estimates put the cost of the Afghanistan campaign at £5.7bn by the end of the year. That is a big chunk out of the annual defence budget of £38bn. Cuts have to be made somewhere to balance the books.

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12,171
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: Navy's New Carriers
« Reply #18 on: October 27, 2009, 11:07:34 am »

But if you are fighting a war you don't do it from the annual peacetime budget although I believe additional funds have been made available. The problem is the the politicians have been trying to fight both Iraq and Afganistan on the cheap. The reality is that if you want to fight a war you have to find a lot of additional money - not exactly easy to do at the moment. There is a lot of talk about diverting resources to the fronline and no doubt there are considerable efficiencies still to be made but you can't devote all your resources to the front line as some people seem to think, otherwiise you'd plonk your troops down on the beach and watch them fire off all their ammo and starve to death.

If you don't invest properly in new kit within an underlying peacetime budget then the stuff you have got wears out, becomes obsolete or suffers attrition and you have nothing to replace it with. The problem at the moment is that the underlying budget is being eaten into to meet immediate needs - it's called living off your capital.

Colin
Logged

Cklasse

  • Guest
Re: Navy's New Carriers
« Reply #19 on: October 27, 2009, 05:03:27 pm »

Some of the money has gone into purchasing the track amphibious vehicles from Singapore. These will be used in Afghanistan to provide better protection to the British troops.
Logged

Turbulent

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 402
  • Location: Norfolk
Re: Navy's New Carriers
« Reply #20 on: October 27, 2009, 06:31:17 pm »


I was once given this advice

"The Weapon you are using was built by the lowest bidder"

Rick Jones

  • Guest
Re: Navy's New Carriers
« Reply #21 on: October 27, 2009, 07:51:31 pm »

Just in case we do get two new carriers, we have 4 new tugs to push them about.
SD RELIABLE is the first and is due Nov 27
Logged

Bryan Young

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,883
  • Location: Whitley Bay
Re: Navy's New Carriers
« Reply #22 on: October 27, 2009, 07:56:36 pm »

This entire discussion seems to me to have missed the real main point. It all comes down to "our" present Governments' total lack of any interest, feeling, history or experience in matters military. They just do not want to know. Armed services are, in general, when "out of sight" they are also "out of mind"....so not many votes there. Much easier (and more vote catching) to "promise" better welfare benefits to all and sundry. It all seems very sad, really. BY.
Logged
Notes from a simple seaman

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12,171
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: Navy's New Carriers
« Reply #23 on: October 27, 2009, 07:59:20 pm »

have to agree with you there Bryan, the armed services are just an unwelcome distraction as far as our illustrious Prime Minister and his minions are concerned.

Not sure that the other lot will be much better though.

Colin
Logged

snowwolflair

  • Guest
Re: Navy's New Carriers
« Reply #24 on: October 27, 2009, 08:37:14 pm »

Not one current government minister has a military background.  At least in the Heath and Callahan governments they were well represented, for example Dennis Heally was a beach master.

In the Heath government (and here I quote Martin Bell) "they were all ex military except for Margaret Thatcher, and they all reconned she would have made a good machine gunner"
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.094 seconds with 21 queries.