It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

French carrier in Norfolk

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   
CdeG to be dwarfed by new UK carriers

"The new UK CVF Royal Navy aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, are expected to enter service in 2012 and 2015.

The design continues to evolve but CVF is expected to displace 55,000t to 65,000t, a size between the USA's 100,000t Nimitz class and France's 43,000t Charles de Gaulle class aircraft carriers, and three times larger than the 20,000t UK Invincible class carriers."


www.naval-technology.com...




posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   
No problem Jet setter..thanks

Orangetom



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   
More pics






posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by CTID56092
CdeG to be dwarfed by new UK carriers

"The new UK CVF Royal Navy aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, are expected to enter service in 2012 and 2015.

The design continues to evolve but CVF is expected to displace 55,000t to 65,000t, a size between the USA's 100,000t Nimitz class and France's 43,000t Charles de Gaulle class aircraft carriers, and three times larger than the 20,000t UK Invincible class carriers."


www.naval-technology.com...

At last!
A carrier! Not a floating pontoon....



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 10:09 PM
link   

At last!
A carrier! Not a floating pontoon....


I suppose so, but only 2? Better keep the pontoons ready just incase the high seas get shaky.

[edit on 9-6-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Westpoint, I don't believe you understand the actually cost it takes to build and actually run a large carrier. It cost billions apon billions. I am suprised they got two.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I suppose so, but only 2? Better keep the pontoons ready just incase the high seas get shaky.
[edit on 9-6-2005 by WestPoint23]


::Groans::

Some days Westpoint, ::shakes his head::

As Jetsetter as already mentioned, quite a few times, Carriers are not cheap to run nor are they simple to build nor do every nation on the planet need a carrier in the same scale or class as the american vessels.

At present the UK doesn't need 12, 100,000 ton carriers to cruise the worlds oceans, the two carrier designs are being built to RN specs for future operations around the world, I suppose you could use the term that the US Army have borrowed off us "Smaller, Faster more Lethal".

It should be noted Westpoint, many of the people on these thread know what they are talking about, the RN was cruising the Worlds Oceans long before the United States was even born, not even to mention the fact that the US wouldn't HAVE carriers of that size with out British know how, Stream powered Catapults, Arrester hooks, The Lense thing, I apologise for not knowing the correct name.

Have Some respect.

- Phil



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Its not about respect or the know how, I'm just questioning your governments decision to only build two. Maybe UK doesn't need more like you guys have said but I'd just though I’d raise the question.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I suppose so, but only 2? Better keep the pontoons ready just incase the high seas get shaky.

[edit on 9-6-2005 by WestPoint23]

2 carriers alone can cause more damage than 30 frigates.
Ever heard the saying "One man is more dangerous than an entire platoon"?
Same idea, besides, with the best crews avaible and the type 45 and the FSC the RN will increase its surface fleets power.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Its not about respect or the know how, I'm just questioning your governments decision to only build two. Maybe UK doesn't need more like you guys have said but I'd just though I’d raise the question.


Respect is an important factor, the UK does not require more than 2 carriers for the fleet because it does require more than two, the RN doesn't require having to support a vast army in many different regions or contients nor does it need more carriers to act as "reminders" of whos boss in other regions.

The Roles that the UK use its "Through Deck" Carriers are similar to US carriers but employ different tactics to get the job done.

As it has already been mentioned, I was surprised that they even got 2.

- Phil



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Large aircraft carriers of the type fielded by the United States are not for every nation. Correct...even conventional carriers are a very expensive drain on a nations economy.
One of the conventional carriers making news here in America is the USS John F Kennedy. Though she was build after the USS Enterprise...the nations first nuclear carrier...the Kennedy is just plain worn out ...as is the Enterprise. Costs of maintaining her are more than the navy is willing to spend verses acquiring the next Nimitz class carrier a few years down the road. The USS George H. W. Bush. As any ship/plane/tank / vehicle ages ....they spend more time in maintnance and less time on the road/sea/air...etc . Meaning more costs to get them ready for service.
The other thing under dispute is taking one of the Nuclear carriers from here at Norfolk to Jacksonville, Florida when they retire the Kennedy. Problem is the Kennedy is conventional and the replacement would be nuclear. Nuclear ships require some pierside services not available currently at Jacksonville without further modifications/expenditures. The loss of jobs at Jacksonville, Florida will be devastating if they do not replace the Kennedy.
So you see....it is not only costs for acquiring them but also costs to maintain all this wonderful high tech.
Most peoples havent a clue about the costs of maintaining a carrier fleet..even conventional for any nations navy. All these things are carefully considered in a carriers life expectancy. Part of the overall plan so to speak..especially in a money conscious economy.

Correct too about the catapult system ..Goose. I learned this intresting trivia when shipping out from the submarine program to carriers. Same thing witht he lens system for approaching the deck in landings. All of these came from the Brits and has been incorporated into our systems.

Thanks, Orangetom



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   
For once i have to agree with Westy, There has been a lot of debate in Naval and marine Design circles about the decision to only procure 2 carriers. Under the current plans one will be in drydock and the other on active service, and then they sawp over from time to time. This means that it will be a rare event when the UK will actually be able to deply 2 carriers at short notice. The new carriers are projected to cost £2billion to build (quite a steal in carrier terms, how much does a nimits cost now?????).

The UK has just spent £15billion buying JUST 12 new aircraft (Nimrod, maritime patrol) and yet say another couple of billion for a 3rd carrier is too much!!!!!

I was chatting to one of the guys doing the detailed design work recently too and it is progressing nicely though weight is still an issue (so from the previous post of 55-65000 it is more like;y to be the 65,000 mark).



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by paperplane_uk
The UK has just spent £15billion buying JUST 12 new aircraft (Nimrod, maritime patrol) and yet say another couple of billion for a 3rd carrier is too much!!!!!


Greetings,

This is one of the easier replies, its simple, different operational requirements. Its that simple, the UK has a large coast line, not to mention fishing grounds and security requirements for the North Sea Oil Fields, do you honestly see them deploying a Carrier Battle group to protect a stationary tower block in any thing other than a terrorist incident? Not to mention having to reduce operational capability while a carrier floats off the UK coast line doing nothing.

These aircraft are latest in maritime patrol, strike [They can fire a wide range of weapons, including Sidewingers a requirment from the cold war] not to mention ELINT work. These aircraft can be deployed in minutes to hours compared to days or weeks for carrier fleets or naval vessels. Plus in the long run you won't have to spend AS much to keep them running, not to even start talking about CREWING them.

- Phil



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Your outline is basically correct. Even a nation like the USA with a 12 carrier fleet has difficulty getting them all out and available at any one time. This was explained to me awhile back by a co worker during one of these political debates over funding that keeps making the news. What he explained to me is that at any one time you have one to two carriers ..just plain olde worn out ...to the maximuim. Leaving ten. Two in for major refits and overhauls somewhere in the country..leaving 8. Two in for minor repairs at any one time..thats 6....so you have to do the job at any one time with 6 remaing carriers. What my co worker explained to me was that all these congressional debates over carrier funding were was cheap posturing on the part of politicians to keep their names out there on an issue they already knew would pass and get approval. What was outlined for me was the clarity that to keep up with all the dynamics..the country had to be building one carrier at all times...always...no matter what our wimpy posturing politicians say. Its either that or reduce your maritime commitments.

This co worker..also showed me ..in tables of the german records of submarines built around WW2 ..about 400 of them. At any one time they were only able to muster between 18 to 25 submarines...to do the damage they did in the Atlantic. It was just to difficult to get more on line and combat ready at any one time.
This is another view the average citizen never thinks of when viewing events. I didnt myself for a long time.
Great that you also bring up this perspective ..Paperplane.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Greetings,

I found a rather good site with a VAST information base on the new British Carriers. Thought I would share.

Navy Carrier



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by gooseuk
Greetings,

I found a rather good site with a VAST information base on the new British Carriers. Thought I would share.

Navy Carrier


awesome goose, thanks for the info i appreciate it. have they finally decided which type of carrier the British have picked yet?



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   


Nice to see the navies working together.


Not so sure...I seem to remember a little news item about fighters from the French carrier not being allowed to gas up at a US military base...


I imagine their reply was something like...

"Go and boil your bottoms!....Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!"

(Monty Python fans will get it...)



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   
There was a good explanation of that incident by one of the members in the ATSNN area.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jetsetter
More pics



heeeey!! which ones our carrier
. jus kiddin in ani case lets hope nobody in the future can build a carrier as big as ours or even bigger than ours except maybe China..........hmmm (went to get a book).



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   
China will not be building a carrier the size of the US Nimitz class for a long, long time if ever.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join