Author Topic: UK to sign contracts for 2 new super-carriers...  (Read 2096 times)

Offline RTHolmes

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
Re: UK to sign contracts for 2 new super-carriers...
« Reply #60 on: July 04, 2008, 12:34:13 PM »
We gave the Brits all them old WWI destroyers

really? for gunnery practise presumably :)


btw I was working in Dublin in '95 when the USS John F Kennedy was moored in Dublin Bay. even a couple of miles away a big carrier is a VERY intimidating thing. as soon as I saw it I realised why Gunboat Diplomacy is so effective :uhoh
« Last Edit: July 04, 2008, 12:39:58 PM by RTHolmes »
71 (Eagle) Squadron

What most of us want to do is simply shoot stuff and look good doing it - Chilli

Offline 68Wooley

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 931
Re: UK to sign contracts for 2 new super-carriers...
« Reply #61 on: July 04, 2008, 01:48:15 PM »
really? for gunnery practise presumably :)

Nope - to try and stop the U-Boats starving us into submission during WW2.

To be honest, I think these boats are about right for us. A Nimitz class boat would require more personnel to man and there's no point in being able to carry 90 aircraft if you don't have the budget to purchase or operate them. 45 Lightning B's are still going to be up to the task of taking on whatever opposition they are presented with for the foreseeable future  - unless the Chinese get their hands on some F-22's.

As for the AEW concern - I guess its valid, but the Type 45 destroyers coming on line right now are the most advanced Air Defence ships ever put into service by any Navy and the only thing likely to change that is if the Americans build a new class sometime in the future.

Offline Furball

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15781
Re: UK to sign contracts for 2 new super-carriers...
« Reply #62 on: July 04, 2008, 04:28:25 PM »
They weren't given anyway, we paid for them.  IIRC the US navy sent a ship to South Africa to pick the gold up for them.
I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know.
-Cicero

-- The Blue Knights --

Offline Rich46yo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
Re: UK to sign contracts for 2 new super-carriers...
« Reply #63 on: July 04, 2008, 04:48:59 PM »
Well, Im still under the impression that the option of a steam catapult is one that will be kept open and no decision is needed as of now. The Lizzie could easily be fitted with one at a later date. And our advanced Hawkeye EWA aircraft, which wont be operational for a few more years anyway, will also remain a viable option. The Hawkeye has already been show to be capable of a carrier launch using non steam arrestor wires anyway.

The thing to keep in mind is that many of these decisions simply dont "need to" be made right now. The ships are being built with flexibility in mind and flexible options, do'able flexible options, with be there in the future. Even the aircraft wont be ready at launch and the Lizzy will probably start off her service with Harriers. It all looks like very sound planning, and a very sound design, to me.

The important thing is to get them building and to save a British naval shipbuilding industry from disappearing. Many of the big decisions just dont need to be made right now.
"flying the aircraft of the Red Star"

Offline LePaul

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7988
Re: UK to sign contracts for 2 new super-carriers...
« Reply #64 on: July 04, 2008, 04:51:07 PM »
I guess I'll ask the obvious...why not use nuclear power?


Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13958
Re: UK to sign contracts for 2 new super-carriers...
« Reply #65 on: July 04, 2008, 04:56:06 PM »
Because it's more "green " than using nuclear power. They'd rather burn hydrocarbons than have the bad old monster nuclear reactor and all of it's devious little radioactive collaborators anywhere near the country.
 :rolleyes:
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline Dowding

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6867
      • http://www.psys07629.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/272/index.html
Re: UK to sign contracts for 2 new super-carriers...
« Reply #66 on: July 04, 2008, 05:20:45 PM »
Quote
I guess I'll ask the obvious...why not use nuclear power?

Cost - both in construction and decommissioning.
War! Never been so much fun. War! Never been so much fun! Go to your brother, Kill him with your gun, Leave him lying in his uniform, Dying in the sun.

Offline Halo

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3222
Re: UK to sign contracts for 2 new super-carriers...
« Reply #67 on: July 04, 2008, 09:32:48 PM »
Why not just buy a couple versions of that huge new Chinese freighter that delivers goods to the U.S. at over 30 knots with a crew of 11?  Yes, ELEVEN. 
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. (Seneca, 1st century AD, et al)
Practice random acts of kindness and senseless beauty. (Anne Herbert, 1982, Sausalito, CA)
Paramedic to Perkaholics Anonymous

Offline Swoop

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9180
Re: UK to sign contracts for 2 new super-carriers...
« Reply #68 on: July 05, 2008, 07:14:02 AM »
 :huh

Offline john9001

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9453
Re: UK to sign contracts for 2 new super-carriers...
« Reply #69 on: July 05, 2008, 07:33:44 AM »
yes eleven, capt, 1st mate, 2nd mate, cook, engineer, 2-3 helmsman, 3 men to handle the lines when docking.  How many men did you think it took to run a modern computer controlled ship?

Offline Nilsen

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18108
Re: UK to sign contracts for 2 new super-carriers...
« Reply #70 on: July 05, 2008, 07:36:33 AM »
Because it's more "green " than using nuclear power. They'd rather burn hydrocarbons than have the bad old monster nuclear reactor and all of it's devious little radioactive collaborators anywhere near the country.
 :rolleyes:

Cost

Offline Furball

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15781
Re: UK to sign contracts for 2 new super-carriers...
« Reply #71 on: July 05, 2008, 11:14:34 AM »
yes eleven, capt, 1st mate, 2nd mate, cook, engineer, 2-3 helmsman, 3 men to handle the lines when docking.  How many men did you think it took to run a modern computer controlled ship?

11 is the perfect number, two five a side teams and a referee.
I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know.
-Cicero

-- The Blue Knights --

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13958
Re: UK to sign contracts for 2 new super-carriers...
« Reply #72 on: July 05, 2008, 12:14:57 PM »
Nilsen,
How much will the fuel oil for the ship cost over it's expected 30+ years of service? It's not free.
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline Furball

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15781
Re: UK to sign contracts for 2 new super-carriers...
« Reply #73 on: July 05, 2008, 12:16:40 PM »
Nilsen,
How much will the fuel oil for the ship cost over it's expected 30+ years of service? It's not free.

Depends on who they use the ships to invade  :devil
I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know.
-Cicero

-- The Blue Knights --

Offline Nilsen

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18108
Re: UK to sign contracts for 2 new super-carriers...
« Reply #74 on: July 05, 2008, 12:48:13 PM »
Nilsen,
How much will the fuel oil for the ship cost over it's expected 30+ years of service? It's not free.

That is a very good point maverick. I am not arguing in one way or another. You just had the rolleyes thingy and attempted to explain why they did what they did using a very ehm different approach and you know it ;)

However i suspect it is a "different" budget. One time huge cost vs long time running cost. Getting approval now for the cheaper option is often easyer because when they already have the ships they know they will get the funding to use them.

There is a similar debate in the us over nuclear vs conventional cruisers now. The pros and cons are pretty much the same, and were they land in the end is still not settled.