Stone Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 I agree with you, but the plan was to have retired Harrier by the in-service date anyway so we had to have F-35B. At least now they've accepted we should use the carriers conventionally (or one of them at least!) we can get the cheaper, better version. Thanks for the Janes link, I knew about our fledgling railgun but not the catapult. You're right, it'll be really interesting to see which way the MoD jump :-) I can't see much going to Witham's with the cuts, they'll just store them for the inevitable life extension programmes. Why refurbished everything when you can break a brand new unit out of Ashchurch? Stone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timbo Posted October 20, 2010 Author Share Posted October 20, 2010 The CVFs were always designed with conventional aircraft in mind, that's why they're as big as they are. The ship size is determined by the length of flight deck, which in turn is determined by simple schoolboy mathematics given a known takeoff speed and the maximum force you can apply to the airframe without it breaking. The carriers are currently fitted "for but not with" catapults and arrester gear. It would seem rather retrograde in an All-Electric Ship to fit boilers to generate steam for conventional catapults, but will MOD take the risk to go for electric catapults? There's already a UK electric catapult under development, by the way, so we don't need to buy American: http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jni/jni100726_1_n.shtml Andy What was the last Brit carrier to be fitted with a catapult ? Must be a long time ago.. Puts me in mind of the Airfix game which I think was called 'Flight Deck' though strictly that was about landing rather than taking off. I yearned for one of these as a kid but never got one. Then a colleague the other week mentioned that he still has one in his mothers attic - refused to sell it though.. He said it was actually pretty rubbish in reality..! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 What was the last Brit carrier to be fitted with a catapult ? ! The previous Ark Royal, but don't forget who invented the steam catapult in the first place and then handed the idea over to the US .... Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Ark Royal the one that paid off in Feb 1979 had 2 steam catapults at its completion whereas it would have had 2 hydraulic accelerators if completed to its first build (wartime) spec. Hermes which outlived the Ark Royal had 2 steam catapults until 1971 when it began reconfiguration as a helicopter carrier Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 timbo Yes I'd heard the Chally 2's were going to storage. The plan I heard was to mothball the redundant tanks but keep the ability to redeploy them if the situation demands it which seems to assume that the human assets will not age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoggyDriver Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Another ill thought out Defence Review. At least the Air Force hasn't been scrapped like some rumours were saying. Scrapping tanks makes sense as i can't see us ever needing as many again. However scrapping Harrier before the new JSF is ready for the new carriers is unbelievable. So we are going to have a "new" carrier that will be 10 years old before it even gets to see a UK plane. They are going to make them compatible with the US and French Navy's planes. No prizes for guessing who is going to be begging the US to supply some planes for our new carriers. The most important thing for me is regarding Trident. I'm not too happy that they have postponed the decision until after the next election. I'm also not happy they have reduced the warheads from 160 to around 120. Not happy. With Iran and North Korea in this world, we need to be ready for anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 andym It would seem rather retrograde in an All-Electric Ship to fit boilers to generate steam for conventional catapults, but will MOD take the risk to go for electric catapults? There is always hydraulic and cordite:-D:-D I'm sure some design facility could milk the public purse with these from now until doomsday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 LoggyDriverAnother ill thought out Defence Review.......Scrapping tanks makes sense as i can't see us ever needing as many again. However scrapping Harrier before the new JSF is ready for the new carriers is unbelievable. Yes that puts it succinctly, -you should write for the Telegraph -seriously:D. I do worry whether the Harrier airframes could last for the protracted time span before JSF turns up -probably late- even allowing for a probably pedestrian carrier build time. So we are going to have a "new" carrier that will be 10 years old before it even gets to see a UK plane. Trouble is JSF F35B which seems to be the prefered option is American. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 (edited) Do either of these countries believe in M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) and does this ideology have any effect on what they might or might not do? Edited October 20, 2010 by antarmike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoggyDriver Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Trouble is JSF F35B which seems to be the prefered option is American. Sorry, I meant planes that are owned by the UK Government, not where they are manufactured. Making them compatible with US assets makes me think maybe they have offered to "carry" their planes on our carrier??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveo578 Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Loggydriver Making them compatible with US assets makes me think maybe they have offered to "carry" their planes on our carrier??? That's exactly what they are talking about, in their mind the only thing that prevents U.S. and French aircraft landing on RN ships is the arrester gear, that we have different systems of flight deck control etc etc, and never mind the french:-D, hasn't crossed their non military straight from public school/university to full time politicians minds-:-(. It would probably require an act of Congress to do it as who would give orders to U.S. personnel on a British ship:shocked:. I think I need to lie down in a darkened room:-(. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marmite!! Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 . It would probably require an act of Congress to do it as who would give orders to U.S. personnel on a British ship:shocked:. I think I need to lie down in a darkened room:-(. Ain't all US airbase in the UK under British rule? that's why they have for example "RAF Mildenhall" at their official title.. they can not fly without our permission.. surely the same rules would apply to a British ship. Isn't a ship at sea considered as sovereign territory?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevpol Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Ain't all US airbase in the UK under British rule? that's why they have for example "RAF Mildenhall" at their official title.. they can not fly without our permission.. surely the same rules would apply to a British ship. Isn't a ship at sea considered as sovereign territory?? Inside those bases, it is considered a piece of America. We only lease them to the americans I think? Once took my ex USAF police car to mildenhall, after going past the petrol station on base, I was told that I couldnt buy any fuel off them as I would have to pay british tax on it. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Burley Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Ain't all US airbase in the UK under British rule? that's why they have for example "RAF Mildenhall" at their official title.. they can not fly without our permission.. surely the same rules would apply to a British ship. Isn't a ship at sea considered as sovereign territory??Once on the U.S base,regardless of the RAF title,you are on American soil.The bases are leased from the crown. Once inside the fence you are under American rule. And even have there own police force.The permission to fly rule is very bendable to say the least. The 9th SRW Det (SR 71) used to be based at Mildenhall and many covert flights were flown deep over the old Soviet Union from there. Not many bods in the U.S goverment knew what they were getting up to. Let alone notifying the British goverment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 This may happen A island of GB is invaded by a other nation we ask the US and french if we can use there aircraft on our carrier thay both say yes but we want all the rights to oil ect! This may/will happen! or the answer is we dont agree with your actions so no. You may as well name GB just Brition from now on because we will not be able to defiend it without any help like we have done in recent history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoggyDriver Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 This may happenA island of GB is invaded by a other nation we ask the US and french if we can use there aircraft on our carrier thay both say yes but we want all the rights to oil ect! This may/will happen! or the answer is we dont agree with your actions so no. You may as well name GB just Brition from now on because we will not be able to defiend it without any help like we have done in recent history. Your right there. Take the Falklands. If Argentina decides to launch another attack when we have no carrier force were stuffed. The Americans didn't even side with us when it happened the first time. And don't think that the French are going to come to our aid. I'd feel safer moving to Israel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 I attended a passing out parade at Pirbright last Friday. My son was one of the TA recruits who passed out. Once agin I wonder do our soldiers deserve their political masters? Or more importantly do the Politicians deserve those who are willing to give their health and lives for the vaunted ambitions of westminster? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marmite!! Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 (edited) QUOTE=timbo;219175]Ignoring the wisdom or otherwise of these cuts (no politics please !) Yes no politics please, already had to clean up the thread several times.. Let's get back on topic which is.. What would your choices be...? Edited October 21, 2010 by Marmite!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Cutting equipment is one thing, but manpower? Your back to the oldest military rule in history. If you don't have enough boots on the ground you achive nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marmite!! Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Cutting equipment is one thing, but manpower? Your back to the oldest military rule in history. If you don't have enough boots on the ground you achive nothing. Tony read post 43... lets get back on topic please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marmite!! Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 Thread cleaned up AGAIN!! if members continue to bring politics into the thread despite being asked not to then the thread will be locked. If you are not sure what the thread is about then read post 1 Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 Thread cleaned up AGAIN!! if members continue to bring politics into the thread despite being asked not to then the thread will be locked. If you are not sure what the thread is about then read post 1 Thank you. What the heck was political about the last two posts I made? both have been removed and I fail to see why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marmite!! Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 What the heck was political about the last two posts I made? both have been removed and I fail to see why? Becuase it was out of context with the other posts being removed.. Trying to bring the thread back on topic but it seems members are not reading the original question... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 It was in direct reply to post #41 that still remains.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marmite!! Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 It was in direct reply to post #41 that still remains.... It was in reply to the previous post that was deleted. I've got better things to do than go another 10 rounds with you Mike, end of, if you have a problem take it to PM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Scimitar.thumb.png.7060ea2f7e20c3d81b2c0025778aad9f.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.