Reply With QuoteYes, journalistic license to the max.Originally Posted by ZiggyMac
Mmm if the article has any substance it might be the price the UK has to pay for all the US help we are getting. The US is prepared to underright the costs of EMALS and AAG, again if true that's a very significant statement to make.
My own take is someone or some company has tried very hard to get the MOD to revert back to Dave B and came up with this ridiculous 1.8 billion sum for conversion. I would love to know what makes up that figure, I suppose we'll never know.
Yes, journalistic license to the max.
If the US-only section is correct, I for one think that's a brilliant idea and a price I'd be happy to pay. Gets the best use out of our carrier and US air resources.
I agree CJ, someone with an agenda is quoting those figures and leaking them to the media. May never know who, but the civil service does have people with their own agendas, who'd happily see money clawed back from CVf to fund their own priorities.
Let not forget that the USN wants to constrained on the Chinese uprising in the Pacific and want's Europe to take up gap left over.
Also we do have area which is British owned in which the US has deployed it forces ,a certain island in the Pacific.
I just can't get my head around the 1.8 billion conversion costs either.Having read (can't remember were) that the build cost of POW will be around 950 million,how the hell do we get into the billions for conversion.This is a hull that has supposably been designed for easy conversion from the start.
Just ignore you know who CJ.He's not worth getting wound up about.
This is the Telegraph at its absolute nonsensical best,A permanent squadron of US aircraft embarked,cobblers. As for a Comms dept classed as US Eyes Only, that is more or less saying that on a British Warship you have a 'No Go Area' for British personel. Not going to happen.
To you know who,please try and mind your own business.Perhaps in future before making such unsolicited comments you may like to look back,at an excerpt from one of your first posts on here,and I quote:-
SO carrierfan2006 or anybody else please don't bother replying because like Conquerer i'm not interested in your pc drivel.
I was going to apologize for going off topic but thinking about it i just could not give a s**t.
Last edited by jonas; 03-24-2012 at 08:26 AM.
Cheers Briani,
A guy on another forum came up with an interesting statement, that the reasoning behind CVA01 being cancelled was the associated cost of the 4 Type 82 destroyers that came with it. This was the argument Healey (I think it was) put forward the overall total cost. I'm not saying for one minute QE or POW are going to be cancelled but as Blue Peter says someone has an agenda. I quite like Philip Hammond, I feel he's honest enough but I don't think he's as pro CVF as Liam was, I hope i'm wrong though.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...816&do=discuss
"The British are coming"
Not a bad place to discuss the off topic nonesense and tit fer tat tittle tattle that's been infecting this thread. Just request that you'd like to join to the group mod (it's not me).
Back on Topic: If the UK does end up with F35B then a typical airgroup would/could consist of:
24 F35B (2 SQN's): Swingrole STOVL Fighter
4 Seaking/Merlin ASaC: C4ISR
10 Merlin HM2: ASW/SAR
2 Merlin HC3: Utility/SAR
Compared to the Invincible class, that's still a giant leap in capability.
I'm not lowering my expectations though - F35C's please !!! Maybe the US Govt could loan the finances for EMALS and Arrestor gear ?
The US are obviously very keen on a UK C&T carrier for the European theatre, but that would need one operational and one in near readiness, not mothballed.
This may explain why the US are keen to get their hands on our carriers, it kind of backs up whats been discussed already @3 mins on the video "Big E's final deployment" the presenter asks the question that the US Navy is failing to meet it's targeted 2 carriers at sea posture and is only averaging 1.7 carriers at sea (got to love these stats, what does point 7 of a carrier look like Lol
I feel that the USN see the CVF's as an extension of their own fleet IMO but ONLY if they are converted to CATOBAR.
http://www.defensenewstv.com/index.php
If you haven't read the article, you will find it on:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ministers.html
Two carriers at sea let alone 1.7 really is very poor when they've got 11.If we can hit 50% with ours i'm sure we'll all be very happy.This may explain why the US are keen to get their hands on our carriers, it kind of backs up whats been discussed already @3 mins on the video "Big E's final deployment" the presenter asks the question that the US Navy is failing to meet it's targeted 2 carriers at sea posture and is only averaging 1.7 carriers at sea (got to love these stats, what does point 7 of a carrier look like Lol
I feel that the USN see the CVF's as an extension of their own fleet IMO but ONLY if they are converted to CATOBAR.
http://www.defensenewstv.com/index.php
I once thought that the carrier programme would be good for our escort fleet.My thinking was that we would need to keep enough escorts free for a carrier group so overall this would increase the total number because our current fleet is already overstretched.So much for that theory.
Not sure about Philip Hammond.Like a lot of people have said he's a bean counter first and formost and defence minister second.Not looking forward to Monday.I think we'll be going back to plan B.
..the phrase "knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing" was invented for politicians like him.
I think the 2 carrier average was solely related to the 5th fleet Briani, which if I remember correctly is the one that hangs around very sandy places that produce lots of oil
The MOD have needed a bean counter for nearly 4 decades, so in theory balanced books should equal money for new toys, that will be the main question for me, will he spend it when that happens.
Looking at this from across the Pacific, it certainly seems that there is a lot of hysteria if god forbids MOD has to return to the idea of F35B. I am not playing devils advocate just that the RN is not going to fall down if the government of the day returns to a STVOL aircraft. I believe that the 2 million figures thrown around is made from either some inside treasury or an advocate from within RN itself remembering the glory days of the Falkland’s conflict, but sometimes you need to have a short term pain for a long term gain and I see that with the current debate on wether the Queen Elizabeth carriers should be STOVL or CATOBAR carriers. I believe a lot of the disservice for the RN is coming about because of the impending nature of aircraft to be part of Joint service Combat Aircraft for both RN/RAF aircraft and pilots the line are becoming blurred on the very role that the aircraft are to perform under a joint program for the RN/RAF. From my perspective their should be a distinct difference of the role similar the USAF/USN or Marine Nationale/French Air Force in regard to maritime operations and who operates the aircraft for the UK, in saying that it would mean a complete revision on the operating budgets for both service for fast fixed wing aircraft.
Their is no doubt that F35B will have a small advantages over a CATOBAR carrier if you have a small amount of aircraft on board, which the Queen Elizabeth class do compared to a Nimitz/Ford class carrier. Aircraft regeneration is in fact better with the F35B over a F35C, don’t forget that USN Conops for sustained 24/7 operations calls for 2/3 carriers working together. With a CATOBAR carrier aircraft operations are in cycles either launching aircraft or recovering they cannot do both at the same time which a STVOL aircraft carrier can do. But realistically unless the RN is going into a Battle of Midway type scenario where aircraft are will be needed to regenerate aircraft quickly to attack a red fleet carrier before a counter attack could be launched upon them, RN will not have that many aircraft in the air at any one time so the slower cycle rates will not have much of an impact on the Conops for the RN.
In either configuration STOVL/CATOBAR the carrier will have the same amount of interoperability from either the Italians/Spanish/USMC (STOVL) or USN/MN/BN (CATOBAR) in either strike or CAS operations. The RN CVF is not designed to be USN Super carrier, designed to swing between the role of an LHA and a strike carrier, a flexible ship that can do it all that is comparable to an America class LHA. I would expect that the QE would have a service life of 40/50 years, when it comes time to replace Albion class ships hopefully a true LPH would be on the cards having a vessel like the Canberra Class that also can take aircraft from Queen Elizabeth class carrier gives the RN more flexibility on how it deploys and sustains the FAA. Where do people see the long term viability of the RN going after 2025?
Posting Permissions
