Model Boat Mayhem

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: RN Carrier U Turn  (Read 9798 times)

john s 2

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,184
  • Location: Southend on Sea Essex
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #50 on: May 10, 2012, 08:20:32 pm »

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.   
Logged

Bob K

  • Bob K
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,714
  • Location: Windsor
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #51 on: May 10, 2012, 08:31:24 pm »

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

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.
Logged
HMS Skirmisher (1905), HMS Amazon (1906), HMS K9 (1915), Type 212A (2002), HMS Polyphemus (1881), Descartes (1897), Iggle Piggle boat (CBBC), HMS Royal Marine (1943), HMS Marshall Soult, HMS Agincourt (1912)

Xtian29

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 511
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #52 on: May 10, 2012, 08:52:56 pm »

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
Logged

Bryan Young

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,893
  • Location: Whitley Bay
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #53 on: May 16, 2012, 10:31:45 pm »

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.
Logged
Notes from a simple seaman

Xtian29

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 511
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #54 on: May 16, 2012, 11:47:26 pm »

 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
Logged

dodes

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 738
  • Location: Hampshire
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #55 on: May 19, 2012, 09:08:24 pm »

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.
Logged

Bob K

  • Bob K
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,714
  • Location: Windsor
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #56 on: May 19, 2012, 09:23:23 pm »

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,
Logged
HMS Skirmisher (1905), HMS Amazon (1906), HMS K9 (1915), Type 212A (2002), HMS Polyphemus (1881), Descartes (1897), Iggle Piggle boat (CBBC), HMS Royal Marine (1943), HMS Marshall Soult, HMS Agincourt (1912)

dodes

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 738
  • Location: Hampshire
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #57 on: May 22, 2012, 10:01:05 pm »

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.
Logged

Bryan Young

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,893
  • Location: Whitley Bay
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #58 on: May 23, 2012, 07:57:10 pm »

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.
Logged
Notes from a simple seaman

dodes

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 738
  • Location: Hampshire
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #59 on: June 07, 2012, 10:37:41 am »

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.
Logged

Bryan Young

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,893
  • Location: Whitley Bay
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #60 on: June 08, 2012, 03:21:22 pm »

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.
Logged
Notes from a simple seaman

dodes

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 738
  • Location: Hampshire
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #61 on: July 02, 2012, 08:22:03 pm »

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.
Logged

Bryan Young

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,893
  • Location: Whitley Bay
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #62 on: July 02, 2012, 09:43:54 pm »

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.
Logged
Notes from a simple seaman

dodes

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 738
  • Location: Hampshire
Re: RN Carrier U Turn
« Reply #63 on: July 03, 2012, 03:34:57 pm »

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.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up