UK to get 2 new Aircraft Carriers

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 03:48 AM
link   
The two islands have separate functions according to the naval-technology site.

As for carriers as opposed to flood relief.
Gosh; if this is what youg guys think about the UK, then you must be really pissed off at countries like India and China who have defence budgets in the 20billion$ range!

Loads of scope for social/infrastructural upliftment there innit?


I am not a British national. I live some 6000km from the UK.
And if the UK goes ahead and reduces its fleet to a bare minimum then I(my country) would be tempted to bully it around and get my way it.
You know, slap sanctions, deport nationals; basically have my way with them and the best they would be able to do is whine.
And that's just my country. No hard feelings.. really
Does that make me and my country bad? evil?
hec no..
Then why would I want to something like that? I may have my reasons and thats all you need to worry about. And thats just my country.

There are others which would even fantasize about invasions and the likes.
You can never compromise sovereignity for anything else.
Sovereignity and related ideals are paramount.
Thus the tools to keep them are paramount as well.
Everything else is secondary. That is the ethos of a successful nation with a bright future.
Floods will come and go. Invaders will come, though they will not plan on leaving..




posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   
About high time they announced this, thought they were never going to place the orders. Now all we need is for the guys n gals who are serving right now in Iraq and Ahganistan, is to be supplied with the right equipment.


The future is certainly looking bright for the Royal Navy...



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Dear All

I hear references to size and they will be 2/3 the size of a Nimitz etc. What you are refering to is gross tonnage not size. The sizes will not be massively different.

Nimitz
Length, overall 1,092 feet (332.85 meters)
Flight Deck Width 252 feet (76.8 meters)
Beam 134 feet (40.84 meters)
Displacement Approx. 97,000 tons (87,300 metric tons) full load

New UK Carrier


Overall length 265m
Beam 70m
Draft 10.3m
Length at waterline 250m
Beam at waterline 36.6m
Full load displacement 55,000t

I believe the displacement figures will increase for the vessel to 65K tons
enjoy



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 06:42 AM
link   
I really can't believe some people on here.

Face it, the world isn't a fairy land where people hold hands and sing kumbayar. The fact that other nations have carriers and other advanced weapon systems means that the UK has to do so too.

Okay, maybe the threat of conventional war is at an all time low in comparison to years gone by, however that can change in the blink of an eye.

The fact of the matter is WE ARE CUTTING BACK ON THE ARMED FORCES. Several ships are going to be decomissioned without replacement. The force is being streamlined to face current threats (personally I think it is short sighted, considering how many potential conflicts that are looming)

We are cutting half of our Challenger 2's, the whole of the RAF's frontline jets will be replaced by the Eurofighter, which will be required to multi-role.

Carriers are the most powerful and flexible war machines on earth. Considering the UK has obligations with both NATO the UN (seat on the security council), and the WEU to respond to flashpoints across the globe, than we need ships that can project strike power (and intimidate) anywhere on the planet. Carriers are also very helpful in humanitarian missions.

WE NEED new carriers because the current crop are inefficient and will start to fall apart. Plus the Sea Harriers that used to occupy them have been retired. Sea Harriers were the only jets capable of using them. The British armed forces will be seeing alot more of the Eurofighter and the JSF, so of course Carriers need to be built to accommodate them.

The MoD is given a set budget, they can do what they like with it. Its up to the government to allocate enough money to flood recovery.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 07:50 AM
link   
These Carriers will indeed launch the UK back up the World Naval ladder and quick. Quite a few innovations not used before as well as more useable deck area. Plus if their was ever a mass flooding the Carriers could be used to shelter many thousands of victims. Far reaching I know but not uncommon for a Carrier or Carrier group to ferry thousands of victims of Extreme weather catastrophes.
My father was on the CV-33 in the late 50's and their carrier and group in fact helped and sheltered many thousands off one of Japans islands and too safety.
They arent just for killing btw.
And no shame in Brits taking pride is this at all. Its definately a win win situation for all.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
news.bbc.co.uk...



Orders for two new Royal Navy aircraft carriers have been confirmed by Defence Secretary Des Browne.
He said the £3.8bn contract would lead to the construction of the largest vessels ever sailed by the Royal Navy.

The new 65,000-tonne carriers - HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales - will enter service in 2014 and 2016.

Mr Browne said the work would support and create 10,000 jobs across the UK, including those at yards on the Clyde, Rosyth, Portsmouth and Barrow.



Good. The future was a bit shaky recently - but the order being placed today for both carriers - and i have suspicions that the french might be involved for there new carrier as well to bring down costs is damn fine news indeed.


with the provison of mag cats and the angled deck - IF the F35B is cancelled then a replacement (naval typhoon or rafale) could be used instead.

[edit on 25/7/07 by Harlequin]



Now... you do realize that we (the U.S.) are going to have to consfiscate those from ya...can't let you play with the big toys just yet...especially since Mr. Blair is not around anymore...hand 'em over play nice it's all fun and games 'till someone pokes an eye out.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deharg
I hear references to size and they will be 2/3 the size of a Nimitz etc. What you are refering to is gross tonnage not size. The sizes will not be massively different.


Interesting stuff... so basically, the biggest difference is the number of planes they can hold?


Originally posted by darkheartrising
Now... you do realize that we (the U.S.) are going to have to consfiscate those from ya...can't let you play with the big toys just yet...especially since Mr. Blair is not around anymore...hand 'em over play nice it's all fun and games 'till someone pokes an eye out.


Eh?


If the US wants to buy some I'm sure we'd be only too happy to sell a couple
(Though the US is designing a new carrier of its own, too)



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   
seems that my country isnt the only one that expieriences severe cuts for the armed forces
(i live in the netherlands)

On topic: Finaly the brits get what they deserve and need to have: A aircraft carrier that will enable them to stay in the top 6 off the worlds strongest navy`s. And it is not 1 but 2 off them!!!

Good job my fellow british neighbours!!!

And about the floodings: I find it terrible that those people have to suffer!! why dont they come over here and learn some dutch expertise on water managment


Cheers my british ATS "Brothers"



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   
The off topic post's and snipes cease now.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ste2652
f... so basically, the biggest difference is the number of planes they can hold?


There is another major difference in that the CVF class (like the Type 45) will have a very low crew compliment and a high level of automation.

Including air-crew, the CVF will house less than 1,500 crew in some comfort. The US Nimitz class has 5,700 crew (3,200 crew + 2,500 air-crew) and the new Ford class is apparently c. 4,700.

Regards



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi
Including air-crew, the CVF will house less than 1,500 crew in some comfort. The US Nimitz class has 5,700 crew (3,200 crew + 2,500 air-crew) and the new Ford class is apparently c. 4,700.


Interesting - for a comparison, do we know the dimensions and displacement of the Ford class carriers?

I know the Nimitz class carriers are coming up to forty years old now, but there must be a reason for the lower amount of automation on the new Ford class carriers when compared to the Queen Elizabeth class. Number of planes carried? Something to do with the fact that the Ford class will probably be nuclear powered whereas the Queen Elizabeth class will be powered by conventional fuel (not quite sure how many extra personnel will be required to monitor and maintain a nuclear reactor, but surely it's not too many these days)? Or maybe just because the US Navy is simply larger in terms of man power than the Royal Navy, so the US sees less value in investing in greater automation?

Any ideas on that?



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   


Now... you do realize that we (the U.S.) are going to have to consfiscate those from ya...can't let you play with the big toys just yet...especially since Mr. Blair is not around anymore...hand 'em over play nice it's all fun and games 'till someone pokes an eye out.


And do you realise, that we the British wont let you lot ever have them?, They wil be british built, with the help of the french off course, (merde). Anyhooooo with the New type destroyers comming into this as well impressive forces dont yall thinks....

Would like to know, what if they decide to do so, The New US Carriers will look like by the year 2014 or 2016 in comparrison with the UK Carriers, I say lets build 2 more....

[edit on 27-7-2007 by spencerjohnstone]



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   
well all americas 'toys' are developed in britain (europe).



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 12:48 PM
link   
back to the point of this thread, as other people have said, id rather it be spent in-house (nhs, prisons, nurses, hospitals, schools) instead of some worthless ships sailing the seas for no particular reason for 50 years.

its not so much these ships though, its spending £60 billion on a new atom bomb that makes me go



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
well all americas 'toys' are developed in britain (europe).


Excuse me?

Anyway, I for one have to agree with the argument that these carries are indeed needed. Given the naval challenge rising in the East that will eventually compete with the US it's comforting to have a close ally with capable carriers able to perform combined ops. And if you look at the design process this was a major reason for choosing the size of these new carriers... Now if only Japan and Australia could get a few...



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Australia getting an aircraft carrier wouldn't be too bad of an idea for them. Considering that Australia is surrounded by water on all sides it's important for them to have a strong naval force, and having an aircraft carrier would give a lot of options.

The Japanese however, I doubt they could obtain one. Not that they don't have the resources or the knowledge for one, it's just that I doubt it'd fly under their constitution. Having an aircraft carrier grants both offensive and defensive capabilities, so it's questionable as to if they could have one. But I suspect that the operational range granted by such a ship would cause it to be classified as an offensive weapon.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 03:14 AM
link   
SpencerJohnstone,

I can tell you this having been up to the drydock where all our Yank Nuclear Aircraft Carriers are born. There are very early pieces of steel being lowered into the drydock and laid upon the blocks. Out on the plattens there are also pieces of steel being laid out for early construction work on the USS Gerald Ford. Lots of work going on in the shops and by planners ..ordering materials, equipment, and scheduling etc etc.

This carrier is to be more automated than the previous Nimitz class ships although some automation is being refitted into them as they come in for repairs and overhauls/updates. It is the same with other surface ships...fast frigates, helo class amphibiouis carriers, etc. Also with submarines.

The future of all ships will be more twoards automation.
This became obvioius to me when I did some work on an ocean liner equipped with these aziopods type thrusters. More automation on the new class of ocean liners too. You dont need as many people walking around like in the olde days with clipboards taking logs on paper. Today it is done on a terminal, often a distance from the actual equipment itself, and stored on computer. What is on computer can be put to disc.

Be of good cheer about this you naysayers....think of all the trees you will be saving!! You should be happy.

YOu know it is a initresting thing about Brit history. There were always people, politicians, generals and admirals who constantly wanted to fight the next war with the last wars equipment and thinking.

Wellington ..."We won at Waterloo with musketry!!" Except that at the Crimea the rifle had come into age. They got slaughtered in the Crimea using musketry.

A army general speaking to Charles Lindburg betweem wars when Lindburg explained to him the awsome power of the airplane.

"It was artillery on the line in the Great War...laddie!!"

THe Brits barely got into the war with the just suitable Hurricanes and barely enough Spitefires...backing up all the way to merry olde England.

Thinking with the last wars thinking..and equipment!!

But you know what is even more sad than Brit thinking...we have politicians and generals/admirals positioned by politicians who think the same way ...and do so at the expense of our finest blood.

The USS Cole incidenet is a textbook example of such stupidity for political advantage...ie good will and good "feelings " "Love Love Love"
Kumbaya. Well... they got a group hug in Aden harbor. But that is not how the media read it to us. They knew up in high circles that Aden harbor security was questionable. They did it anyway...Kumbaya...group hug.
Must be the same bunch of dummys who planned security in Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941.
Ive been in the engine rooms on several of those fast frigates..they are really thin skinned. How do you think they got them to go so fast?? Thin the skins!!
The technique for years has been goodwill tours of US Navy ships to harbors around the world to spread US Dollars into these economys.
Some politician made a goodwill decision in Aden harbor.

You Brits got caught with your pants down in the Falklands with aluminum superstructure ships. These ships were yesterdays design. Hope your leaders and politicians have seen far enough to phase them out so they dont melt down on the crews in the next war. Did they?? Or are they still using the last wars equipment/thinking??
Sad truth is we built some on the same designs..aluminum superstructures..and they were nuclear powered too. All of them have been retired as of now.

You Brits keep up the good work..running social programs while whining about your military expenditure. What you really want is just like our whorish politicians ..to buy votes to remain in office through social give aways. The military expendatures crimps the styles of career politicians and political partys whose stock in trade is policical continuance in perpetuity on the public purse...ie ..social give away programs.

We have the same sorry caliber of politician here. Its like they are copies made on a xerox machine. Playing politics with the lives of our soldiers and sailors to keep themselves in office on the public purse. Second hand equipment/last years equipment.

Did the Romans have this problem??? Et tu Brute?? Were they too fighting the battle of the budget and deficits?? Whorish politicians??
Could this be proof that evolution is not happening??

LOL LOL LOL...Im being facetious of course...but sometimes to those of us who study history there seems to be a rhythm to this insanity.

YOU Brits keep up your feel good policys. You will do well under them....just like your soldiers and sailors.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   
^^ someone has been more than a little rattled so it would seem.

hypothesis - thin skinned warships might well be the best defence to the `unstopable`(sic) Sunburn/moskit/kickintheass super missile - they pass straight through without exploding


but it IS the position of all politicians around the world - to fight the next war with the last wars equipment.

i do take a point on you position of `barely capable hurricane` - the hurricane won the battle of britain - it was very very good and in many respects better than the spitfire



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
`unstopable`(sic) Sunburn/moskit/kickintheass super missile - they pass straight through without exploding


They have never been used in combat let alone against a half decent force, and there are no public or published test/exercise reports(results).



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
YOu know it is a initresting thing about Brit history. There were always people, politicians, generals and admirals who constantly wanted to fight the next war with the last wars equipment and thinking.


I’m not actually sure I agree with you on this statement. The British have always had a small, professional military. Like all democracies, Britain was unprepared to tackle the military presented by the Central Powers in WW1 and the fascist dictatorships of Italy, Nazi Germany and militarised Japan. This was the case for all democracies many of whom fell under the jack boot of tyranny. It took time for Britain to build and overcome and this included the development of military doctrines to counter, neutralise and better new threats.

The same learning process was something the US had to go through – take for example the use of mass frontal attacks by the American Expeditionary Force late in WW1 (when they joined the fight for freedom) – a tactic long since stopped by the British and French commanders due to the loss of life. Also, in WW2 the first engagements in North Africa by the US (e.g. Kasserine Pass) demonstrated the need for a steep learning curve – a curve that the British and Commonwealth had already gone through.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
THe Brits barely got into the war with the just suitable Hurricanes and barely enough Spitefires...backing up all the way to merry olde England.


I think it is widely recognised that the hurricane was a good aircraft. Also, you fail to appreciate that the British had developed a highly complex and intricate information system – aka Fighter Command – which demonstrated extraordinary foresight and preparation.


Originally posted by orangetom1999
You Brits got caught with your pants down in the Falklands with aluminum superstructure ships. These ships were yesterdays design. Hope your leaders and politicians have seen far enough to phase them out so they dont melt down on the crews in the next war. Did they?? Or are they still using the last wars equipment/thinking??
Sad truth is we built some on the same designs..aluminum superstructures..and they were nuclear powered too. All of them have been retired as of now.


I think you are wrong here. I believe that the US and the UK abandoned aluminium superstructures in the 1970s. By the time of the Falklands the UK ships which were lost which had aluminium superstructures would probably have been lost anyway due to the nature of the incidents. HMS Ardent a Type 21 frigate was hit by 11 bombs! The superstructure of the T42 is all steel (HMS Sheffield).

What did happen was a revision of damage control and the adoption of better crew protection. These lessons would have been adopted by other navies.

Back to topic.

Britain has been significantly innovative in aircraft carrier design since WW2, developing many "firsts". Off-the-top-of-my-head… Angled deck, steam catapult, glide slope indicator, ski jump, well stocked bar. I wonder what innovation CVF will bring to the table...

Regards





top topics
 
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join