Author Topic: UK to sign contracts for 2 new super-carriers...  (Read 2068 times)

Offline Trikky

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 370
Re: UK to sign contracts for 2 new super-carriers...
« Reply #75 on: July 05, 2008, 01:03:10 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. 
AFAIK the biggest was/is the  Emma Maersk? Not sure China have ever built anything even close...of course they fill them all with their exports but I'm sure that doesnt count.

Offline Rich46yo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
Re: UK to sign contracts for 2 new super-carriers...
« Reply #76 on: July 05, 2008, 02:26:14 PM »
I dont think theres any debate anymore between nuclear and conventionally powered CGs. The ultimate evolution of the CGN was the Virginia class ships and they, along with the others, are long retired. And maintaining, keeping fueled, nuclear propulsion systems is no piece of cake either. Nor is it cheap. Look at the disaster the Russians are faced with having all those nuclear cores retired, having to be dissembled and stored forever.

And with a CGN came the added risk that its reactor would be blowed up while it fulfilled ones of its roles. That of bullet catcher for the CVs. I'd hate to be downwind of that one. Where'as a supercarrier, most of all when surrounded by its screens, is as unsinkable as man can make a ship.

So while a navy that operates a dozen 100,000 ton CVs might find it makes sense to use nuclear propulsion would it make sense to use it for two 65,000 ton ships that are probably going to operate STOVL aircraft? Probably not.

The RN is also in the middle of their Astute class SSN upgrade program. They operate four very capable, and expensive, SSBNs that carry the same Trident SLBM our own Ohio class boats carry. Their nuclear submarines are armed with Tomahawk too. Due to our "special relationship" they are the only other country we sell these systems to.

This is no "Little Navy". But "it do cost".



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.
"flying the aircraft of the Red Star"

Offline Nilsen

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18108
Re: UK to sign contracts for 2 new super-carriers...
« Reply #77 on: July 05, 2008, 02:31:38 PM »
I seem to read on defenceindustrydaily, jane's and subsim that the discussion is not really over, but i could be mistaken.

I would prolly not go nuclear with those cvs either, but as far as i have read the reason for the UK not going down that routed is cost.

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13958
Re: UK to sign contracts for 2 new super-carriers...
« Reply #78 on: July 05, 2008, 10:27:11 PM »
I look at it from the stand point of having the most flexible weapons system available and the long term aspect of having it functional. I just have a hard time getting my head wrapped around two main limitations for the ship. The first being the limitation of vtol aircraft and then short legs on the CV. The CV may have large tanks but it will take a substantial amount of fuel to keep it steaming in action. I understand that dealing with the reactor later on will be an issue but that at least will be 3+ decades minimum for a capital ship like that. To me the war time function is paramount for a warship and logistics can be a stone cold beyotch when you are expressing your nations influence half way around the globe. Again to me it looks like short term considerations are going to be limiting the capabilities of the ship. Just my opinion on it.
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 Getback

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6464
Re: UK to sign contracts for 2 new super-carriers...
« Reply #79 on: July 06, 2008, 01:10:05 AM »
WTG Brit. I heard on he Paul Harvey Show a couple of years ago that then administration was going to shuttle the navy for the part. He also mentioned that Brit's enemies were taking notice. I think this is just a great great move. It sends a message.

 :salute Britain.

  Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter

Offline Rich46yo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
Re: UK to sign contracts for 2 new super-carriers...
« Reply #80 on: July 06, 2008, 05:09:25 AM »
The only real disappointment with the STOVL variant of the F-35 is the reduced internal weapons load. If its going to attack with a 2,000lb standoff weapon like JSSM or JDAM it will have to load it on wingpoints. There is a 1,000 lb standoff weapon available but I dont believe the Brits have bought it, or are going to.

On the other hand even the Yank CTOL and C versions will probably very likely carry standoff weapons on the outside with the exception of very high priority targeting such as air defense targets. Even then we send in strike teams with electronic warfare airplanes along. Currently converted F-18 "Growlers" are coming on-line. I dont know what a hardpoint 2,000 lb weapon will do to a stealth F-35s LOS but it cant do nothing good. On the other hand some of the standoff weapons it will carry, such as Stormshadow, are very stealthy their ownselves. And have a respectable range.

And On the other hand STOVL aircraft are extremely versatile. The Brits are very experienced in operating them, having written the book themselves. Dont forget Yanks fly them too and they are one of only a handful of foreign airplanes we have bought during our military history. The bloody things can about operate anywheres.

And no matter how you look at it the new Lizzies and F-35Bs are going to be a revolutionary step up in capability. Their is no new limitations regarding STVOL because they already have them, and only them, and the F-35B is going to be a big step up from the AV-8s. Far more range, far bigger payload, far better LOS, far better performance all around.
"flying the aircraft of the Red Star"

Offline Swoop

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9180
Re: UK to sign contracts for 2 new super-carriers...
« Reply #81 on: July 06, 2008, 01:55:34 PM »

Offline thrila

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3190
      • The Few Squadron
Re: UK to sign contracts for 2 new super-carriers...
« Reply #82 on: July 06, 2008, 02:03:29 PM »
Notice the scottish flag, i'm some what dissapointed that no contracts were awarded to Devonport, the majority went far north to appease Gordon brown's supporters. :( 
"Willy's gone and made another,
Something like it's elder brother-
Wing tips rounded, spinner's bigger.
Unbraced tailplane ends it's figure.
One-O-nine F is it's name-
F is for futile, not for fame."

Offline john9001

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9453
Re: UK to sign contracts for 2 new super-carriers...
« Reply #83 on: July 06, 2008, 02:16:36 PM »
thats not the scottish flag,thats the signal flag for "M".

Offline Nilsen

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18108
Re: UK to sign contracts for 2 new super-carriers...
« Reply #84 on: July 06, 2008, 02:42:59 PM »
merit badge for John :D

Offline CptTrips

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8637
Re: UK to sign contracts for 2 new super-carriers...
« Reply #85 on: July 06, 2008, 03:10:02 PM »
thats not the scottish flag,thats the signal flag for "M".

Interestng.  Why don't they just have a flag with an "M" on it?

 :huh,
Wab
Toxic, psychotic, self-aggrandizing drama queens simply aren't worth me spending my time on.

Offline 68Wooley

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 931
Re: UK to sign contracts for 2 new super-carriers...
« Reply #86 on: July 06, 2008, 03:26:15 PM »
BAE Govan gets the lions-share of the construction work because BAE are the primary contractors. Its also has the UK's most experienced workforce in the construction of surface warships (HMS Ocean, Type 45 destoyers etc). Its debatably the only yard left in the UK capable of such a project.

Devenport and Rosyth are owned by Babcock - a subcontractor. The decision to use Rosyth for the fit-out rather than Devenport is partly based on capability, and partly an effort to spread UK military spending throughout the UK. A Newcastle yard also got a chunk of work did it not? And without this contract, Rosyth would likely be closing.

And last time I checked, Scotland is still part of the UK - why shouldn't Scottish yards get the contract to build British (not English) warships?
  
« Last Edit: July 06, 2008, 03:48:04 PM by 68Wooley »

Offline 33Vortex

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4754
      • Dirac's equation (non truncated)
Re: UK to sign contracts for 2 new super-carriers...
« Reply #87 on: July 06, 2008, 03:45:39 PM »
What was the reasoning for gas-turbines instead of nuclear power? I don't relly get that one.  :huh

GameID: Turner
Truth has no agenda.

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 #88 on: July 06, 2008, 04:16:57 PM »
Quote
And last time I checked, Scotland is still part of the UK - why shouldn't Scottish yards get the contract to build British (not English) warships?

Because, last time I checked, most Scottish people have a habit of constantly whining on about the English and how they'd be better off going it alone?  Despite having better standards of health-care, free university education etc etc etc? :P

Perhaps porportional representation should be used, on the basis of tax contributed and population. That would be fair. Perhaps Scotland could build the propellers under such an arrangement?  :aok
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 Nilsen

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18108
Re: UK to sign contracts for 2 new super-carriers...
« Reply #89 on: July 06, 2008, 04:26:14 PM »
What was the reasoning for gas-turbines instead of nuclear power? I don't relly get that one.  :huh

cost