Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 12/21/2005 10:11:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2005 10:15:50 AM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 10:12:54 AM EDT
Interesting!

Thanks for sharing Andy!
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 10:19:57 AM EDT
Pfft, a rusty A-4 with malfunctioning Exocets can take that out in one pass! Just kidding.

Looks nice, build it faster so it can sail with the US Navy when we invade commie China.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 10:21:14 AM EDT
I almost didn't see that boom/hoist piece of equipment. Nice camouflage! It works well in a nautical environment.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 10:24:07 AM EDT
What do the green and yellow lines on the deck layout mean?

I'm guessing black is the cats, and red is the landing path?
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 10:26:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2005 10:27:26 AM EDT by p331083]
How do you make something that is almost a quarter mile long have "stealthy" features?
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 10:28:31 AM EDT
Andy,

Are ya'll designing any new escort classes to guard her? I don't know if ya'll have anything equivalent to AEGIS, and carrier are tempting targets.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 10:29:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By p331083:
How do you make something that is almost a quarter mile long have "stealthy" features?



On radar it only looks an eighth of a mile long.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 10:34:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By p331083: How do you make something that is almost a quarter mile long have "stealthy" features?
You park the F-35's on the flightdeck in a herringbone pattern. Their paint will absorb the radar energy and make it stealthy.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 10:35:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By p331083:
How do you make something that is almost a quarter mile long have "stealthy" features?


You have to get closer to "see" it than another ship of similar size.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 10:38:05 AM EDT
You guys don't need that !

That sure is a pretty ship, glad you're getting them.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 10:39:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:
The Phrench are to buy and modify the design and build a sister ship of the same design for their Navy.

ANdy



What on earth will the French do with a ("Surrendeur Class"?) carrier? Launch themselves, clad only in berets & skivvies, lemming-like, off the sides in a futile attempt to evade capture?

Link Posted: 12/21/2005 10:39:36 AM EDT
Welcome back into the club, Mate!
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 10:42:17 AM EDT
The picture should have F/A-18Es in it, considering how the JSF program is going.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 10:46:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By p331083:
How do you make something that is almost a quarter mile long have "stealthy" features?


When it comes to stealth it's not the size, it's the shape.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 11:04:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2005 11:12:15 AM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 11:11:37 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 11:12:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By Tomislav:
The picture should have F/A-18Es in it, considering how the JSF program is going.



Don't start that! We have a delegation off to Washington next year to talk turkey. No source code for the FCS and now DoD wants to shut the alternate engine(Rolls Royce) = the F/A-18 could be back in the frame again. At the moment it's a mix of STVOL and CTOL F-35's.

ANdt



Will the CTOL's launch with the bow ramp, a la Kuznetsov?
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 11:13:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:
At the moment it's a mix of STVOL and CTOL F-35's.

ANdt



Why the mix?
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 11:16:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Spade:

Originally Posted By vito113:
At the moment it's a mix of STVOL and CTOL F-35's.

ANdt



Why the mix?



Probably because the STOVL F-35B is gonna suck big time in performance (payload and range).
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 11:19:00 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 11:19:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By Spade:

Originally Posted By vito113:
At the moment it's a mix of STVOL and CTOL F-35's.

ANdt



Why the mix?



Probably because the STOVL F-35B is gonna suck big time in performance (payload and range).



That's what I though, which begs the question of why have them at all over the conventionals.

Unless they're thinking about a Falkslands type situation where they then operated Harriers off the island itself.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 11:21:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Merrell:

Originally Posted By vito113:
The Phrench are to buy and modify the design and build a sister ship of the same design for their Navy.

ANdy



What on earth will the French do with a ("Surrendeur Class"?) carrier? Launch themselves, clad only in berets & skivvies, lemming-like, off the sides in a futile attempt to evade capture?




Sell the plans to Al Qaeda and provide engineers to assist in the construction of the HJS Osama and its brothers.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 11:25:27 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 11:29:30 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 11:30:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By Spade:
Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
Originally Posted By Spade:
Originally Posted By vito113:

That's what I though, which begs the question of why have them at all over the conventionals.

Unless they're thinking about a Falkslands type situation where they then operated Harriers off the island itself.



The carriers will have a joint RN/RAF air wing with the Royal Navy Pilots being the primary 'Fighter Jocks' and the RAF being the primary 'Bomber Boys'.

By using STVOL F-35's they can be flow ashore to provide CAS for expeditionary forces.

ANdy



Yeah, just like the USMC does.
Oh, what..... They never did that.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 11:31:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

By using STVOL F-35's they can be flow ashore to provide CAS for expeditionary forces.

ANdy




Ah, so it is a Falklands type thing. Okay. Makes sense.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 11:36:56 AM EDT
You name carriers as badly as we do. They should be the Furious and Courageous! Naming carrirs after battleships pfft!
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 11:37:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2005 11:38:23 AM EDT by Spade]

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Yeah, just like the USMC does.
Oh, what..... They never did that.




Yeah, but they could.

Over the Falklands the Harriers short legs meant they had a very limited patrol time over the fleet. So basically they had to hope they met an Argie attack. Once troops were ashore they started refueling Harriers at Port San Carlos, which allowed the Harriers to really protect things.


vito, why a joint RAF/RN thing? Why not just RN pilots? What's the theory there?
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 11:38:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By Spade:
Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
Originally Posted By Spade:
Originally Posted By vito113:

That's what I though, which begs the question of why have them at all over the conventionals.

Unless they're thinking about a Falkslands type situation where they then operated Harriers off the island itself.



The carriers will have a joint RN/RAF air wing with the Royal Navy Pilots being the primary 'Fighter Jocks' and the RAF being the primary 'Bomber Boys'.

By using STVOL F-35's they can be flow ashore to provide CAS for expeditionary forces.

ANdy



RAF pilots getting carrier qualed?
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 11:48:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Spade:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Yeah, just like the USMC does.
Oh, what..... They never did that.




Yeah, but they could.

Over the Falklands the Harriers short legs meant they had a very limited patrol time over the fleet. So basically they had to hope they met an Argie attack. Once troops were ashore they started refueling Harriers at Port San Carlos, which allowed the Harriers to really protect things.


vito, why a joint RAF/RN thing? Why not just RN pilots? What's the theory there?



Yes, they could, but that's already been proven impractical;

A fully-laden Harrier (even the US version) cannot VTOL. Coming back Winchester and Bingo makes a landing easily on a short runway or parking lot, but getting up ain't so easy.

Harriers in both Gulf Wars operated from much greater distances and still didn't forward deploy. At least I can give the Brits credit for trying to prove the concept.

Not to mention the obvious performance shortcomings of all current and projected STOVL aircraft.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 11:53:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LWilde:
Welcome back into the club, Mate!


+1

The Royal Navy is back!
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 11:55:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ASUsax:

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By Tomislav:
The picture should have F/A-18Es in it, considering how the JSF program is going.



Don't start that! We have a delegation off to Washington next year to talk turkey. No source code for the FCS and now DoD wants to shut the alternate engine(Rolls Royce) = the F/A-18 could be back in the frame again. At the moment it's a mix of STVOL and CTOL F-35's.

ANdt



Will the CTOL's launch with the bow ramp, a la Kuznetsov?


CTOL: Conventional Take Off and Landing. Catapults and arresting gear.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 11:56:13 AM EDT
Looking Good!
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 12:03:36 PM EDT
Wow....she's a beaut! So how many carriers does the UK currently have? Will you retire some once those new ones are ready for service?

Thanks
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 12:16:01 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 12:17:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/22/2005 5:10:32 AM EDT by arbob]

Originally Posted By Spade:

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Yeah, just like the USMC does.
Oh, what..... They never did that.




Yeah, but they could.

Over the Falklands the Harriers short legs meant they had a very limited patrol time over the fleet. So basically they had to hope they met an Argie attack. Once troops were ashore they started refueling Harriers at Port San Carlos, which allowed the Harriers to really protect things.


vito, why a joint RAF/RN thing? Why not just RN pilots? What's the theory there?





Damn! you`re fast!


The theory is basically one training and maintenance pipeline to streamline operations in the "joint" environment and most importntly -save money!
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 12:17:42 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 12:22:44 PM EDT
Carriers....Brits.....Pfffft!!

EVERYONE KNOWS that you should be building BATTLESHIPS!!!!!
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 12:25:07 PM EDT
Maybe we should buy these for LHA(R)s. One of the requirements for LHA(R) is to accept a detachment of 20+ JSFs.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 12:27:47 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 12:33:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By dport:
Maybe we should buy these for LHA(R)s. One of the requirements for LHA(R) is to accept a detachment of 20+ JSFs.



We were talking about the LHA(R) in work this week. So the Light Fleet Carrier is back?

ANdy


Just looking at the cost of CVN-21, I'm not sure how we can keep affording the carriers we're building now.

With tactical data links being what they are, I'm not sure it isn't wise to have 18 of your carriers vs 11 or 12 of the ones we have built.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 12:37:16 PM EDT
I wonder what the keel of the first one will ultimately become? I mean, you know it will be cancelled midstream once the F-35 is shitcanned.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 12:39:08 PM EDT
I think I'll tag this one
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 12:41:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmedAggie:
I wonder what the keel of the first one will ultimately become? I mean, you know it will be cancelled midstream once the F-35 is shitcanned.



Major export program.
Think F-16 on steroids.
No way this program is getting cancelled.
If they're smart, they'll cancel the STOVL version (big bucks, very limited interest and lackluster performance) and keep moving forward with USAF -A and Navy -C versions.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 12:44:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By ArmedAggie:
I wonder what the keel of the first one will ultimately become? I mean, you know it will be cancelled midstream once the F-35 is shitcanned.



Major export program.
Think F-16 on steroids.
No way this program is getting cancelled.
If they're smart, they'll cancel the STOVL version (big bucks, very limited interest and lackluster performance) and keep moving forward with USAF -A and Navy -C versions.



No one has any money to buy any substantial numbers, at that is before the inevitable 300% cost overruns. The only country that could afford to buy them is CHina, and they probably already stole the plans.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 12:44:49 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 12:47:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By dport:
Maybe we should buy these for LHA(R)s. One of the requirements for LHA(R) is to accept a detachment of 20+ JSFs.



We were talking about the LHA(R) in work this week. So the Light Fleet Carrier is back?

ANdy


Just looking at the cost of CVN-21, I'm not sure how we can keep affording the carriers we're building now.

With tactical data links being what they are, I'm not sure it isn't wise to have 18 of your carriers vs 11 or 12 of the ones we have built.



We're looking at US$3.2 billion a copy, how does that compare with CVN-21?

Andy


Last rumor I heard it was tipping $10 billion. Hell, our destroyers are $3 billion a copy now.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 12:49:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 12:49:36 PM EDT
Nevermind, we can buy four of your carriers for the cost of one CVN-21.
www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/06/92m-in-preparations-for-cvn-21-construction/index.php
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 12:52:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:
Nevermind, we can buy four of your carriers for the cost of one CVN-21.
www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/06/92m-in-preparations-for-cvn-21-construction/index.php



What are the manpower requirements to operate one of the new Royal Navy carriers compared to one of ours?

Can we man 4 of the smaller carriers with the crew from one of our carriers?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top