Best, I am sure you are right about the possibility to be able to armour or fit extra armour at a later date but obviously it would have been better to do it in the first place. Of course this is nothing new as Admiral Sir John Jellicoe as CinC Grand Fleet sent the new and inadequately armoured battlecruisers RENOWN and REPULSE straight back to the dockyards to have extra armour fitted. Both they and HMS HOOD had further armour fitted during their refits in the interwar years. Just out of interest what is the armoured position in the NIMITZ and FORD class aircraft carriers?
I couldn't agree more! IMHO the CVF design is quite simply a brilliant piece of packaging. The location of the GTs solves so many problems and the adoption of IFEP and a twin island design very neatly resolved the associated issues...Originally Posted by Naval Oldie
Whilst I am sure we would have liked the ships to be built in the UK, it looks as though we have the best of both worlds with South Korea building the basic hull while the UK provides the design, all the specialist equipment and servicing and of course the RFA gets 4 new tankers at a much better price. I seem to remember that there was some discussion that it would have been considerably cheaper if the QE carriers had been fabricated abroad but then fitted out in the UK. Given the complexity and the unique nature of the aircraft carriers, unlike tankers built to Lloyds standards, I am not sure that this would necessarily have been the case.
From a couple of different sources.
"The CVN armor belt is 8" (203mm) aluminium. Aluminium armor is 1/2 the protection of rolled steel, but only 1/3 of the weight for the same thickness. However, there were unexpected big problems with Alu armor body of M113 vehicles in Vietnam (not punctured but ripped apart all along when hit with RPG-7). So I would say the CVN belt protection is marginal against established navy and air force weapon hits. Maybe the jihadist TNT rubber dingy would bounce off it."
"USS Theodore Roosevelt and those completed after her have slight structural differences from the earlier carriers such as improved protection for ordnance storage in their magazines. Other improvements include upgraded flight deck ballistic protection, first implemented on USS George Washington, and the high-strength low-alloy steel (HSLA-100) used for constructing ships since USS John C. Stennis.[7][32] More recently, older ships have had their flight decks refitted with a non-slip material fitted on new-build ships, to improve safety for both crew and aircraft.[33][34]"
Doesn't sound as if they have much better protection (besides sheer mass, double hulls, and compartmentalizing). We'll probably have to learn the hard way again...
Best Regards
Aluminium armor!?!?!?!, that’s not something I would trust my life on ,are you sure it’s not an aluminium alloy?
Last edited by Jdam1; 02-22-2012 at 06:12 PM.
Hi CJ,Hi folks, just bought a x2 zoom lens for my camera which now means i have 20 times zoom on it, however i've just taken these pics and I'm disappointed to say the least. It is closer than before but there is blurring round the edges, does anybody know if this is normal or have I bought a lemon? All opinions welcome on this
Possibly a little belated on this post, but...
I purchased a 2x tele-converter for my old 35mm SLR camera some years ago and the basic rule was that it "sucked" 2 F-stops of light. Presumably digital cameras are the same?
Consequently a tripod was needed in lower light conditions.
Hopefully you have it sorted out by now though!
It probably is Jdam - brings to mind the RN's less than pleasant experience at the Falklands...
best
What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon!?
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf1-26.htmBased upon the results of the threat studies, side armour and blast resistant bulkheads were incorporated in to the 2002/3 Thales CVF Alpha design in order to protect important compartments such as the Operations Room, resulting in a very tough ship. However as part of the cost cutting trade-off's made during the second half of 2003, many of these protective measures apparently had to be deleted.
So it looks like only a few spots are armoured, an aircraft carrier that can be disabled with RPGs?
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf1-26.htm
So it looks like only a few spots are armoured, an aircraft carrier that can be disabled with RPGs?
Figures...
Isnt aluminum easily ignighted? It will have to be an alloy if they are to use aluminum
Cheers for this swoop, i've not had the chance to mess around yet but i'm grateful to yourself, Briani and Eoin for the help.Hi CJ,
Possibly a little belated on this post, but...
I purchased a 2x tele-converter for my old 35mm SLR camera some years ago and the basic rule was that it "sucked" 2 F-stops of light. Presumably digital cameras are the same?
Consequently a tripod was needed in lower light conditions.
Hopefully you have it sorted out by now though!
Cheers Lads
Flying from our new Carriers – The RN or the RAF Ethos
http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/2011/05/flying-from-our-new-carriers-–-the-rn-or-the-raf-ethos/
Hi chaps for those of you who do not know about the Phoenix think tank, it is my naval bible and is probably best described as a pro RN lobby but from an academic perspective. However two of its main contributors are Sharkey Ward and Admiral Sandy Woodward, who to us Brits need no introduction, however to those who do not know them- Sharkey was a Harrier pilot in the Falklands War and Admiral Woodward was the task force commander. There opinions are the benchmark for me and not merely speculation please enjoy.
@Alabama these guys think the F/A 18 is the way forward too mate. This is a paper by Alexander Clarke, I understand that having 2 different types of aircraft is inherently going to be out of our price range at the moment however if the UK government is serious about carrier strike regeneration then you are absolutely correct, this is the best off the shelf solution we can get for the money. In one package we get:-
A) Earlier aircraft procurement and carrier aircraft trials
B) An ECM aircraft
C) A buddy buddy refuelling aircraft.
D) An AESA aircraft before Typhoon is upgraded or F35 is inservice
E) A massive savings offset that could possibly pay for E2C or the conversion of QE
F) Easy integration with current weapons AIM 120 for example
http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/2011/05/a-better-option-for-britain’s-security/
The government is committed to the F35 and rightly so it means British jobs at the end of the day but there is nothing to say that we can’t operate both. We do not have to gold plate everything and after all the MOD has recently announced the greater use of off the shelf purchases.
CJ
Just found this while wandering around the internet, http://nearyou.imeche.org/eventdetail/19/5849 I wish I lived a bit closer, I would love to go!
Some old photos I posted on my last forum, I think to be fair I wont be able to top these but who knows, enjoy lads,
CJ
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
