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.

 

UK to get 2 new Aircraft Carriers

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

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).


thats why if you actually quote me correctly i started off the sentance with the word


`Hypothesis`

which of course means - to suppose a possible explanation for why the ships now have thin skins. And nothing about `half decent` or `any decent` force.




posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
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



I think the object of the exercise is to avoid being hit in the first place! A CVF would be escorted by one or more T45 destroyers and these are equipted to deal with multiple supersonic sea-skimming missiles.

Modern naval ships are designed with system redundancy, sectioning to isolate damaged areas and decent damage control and crew training. I would also speculate that sensitive parts of CVF and other ships have some localised protection. In addition, although CVF is not stealthy per se, it does have a radar return of a medium sized trawler. I need to check where I read that.

Regards



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Harlequin,
My time has been at a premium of late so I must post this in haste and hope I get the gist of it.

Concerning the Hurricane as an aircraft. Yes this bird had its day. I speak of the overall picture of how long it spent in front line service through the war. It was quickly eclipsed by the Spitfire in all its variants and other aircraft which came on line.
THe British aircraft of this era which I have always admired for its cutting edge design was the De Haveland Mosquito and its numerous variants. It stayed in service with numerous nations till the advent of the jet. This design went on to the Hornet...also of clean design and very high performance for this type of aircraft. Alas the jet soon superceeded all of these.

The Hurricne was quite capable in 1940.However the leadership was not. Also the German Aircraft like the Spitfires were to undergo many updates and modifications through the war as is also the trend with todays aircraft.
Not that much was done with the Hurricanes as newer aircraft came on line. While this is not mentioned in the history books it is obvious to those who can see the trend line in history.

And yes...it is the position of almost all politicians around the world to use the last wars thinking and equipment. This is not always wise.

Paraphi,

Correct in that the British have always had a small professional military...quite correct. However ..your problem and ours too for that matter has always been leadership. Real leadership verses professional political military appointees. In leadership I also mean leadership in the purchase and maintenance of equipment. Much of this arena is political and below the visibility of the average citizen or soldier/sailor.

As to the facist dictatorships and WW1 et al....these were direct outcomes of the failure of WW1 and policys of that "Great War." This was easily predictable. Even David Loyd George was to say when leaving the Versaille Treaty signing and being asked by reporters.."What has been accomplished here today." His reply was "We have signed the document to gaurantee war in twenty years." 1919 to 1939. David Loyd George hit it pretty close to the mark. They had plenty of time to prepare.

As to frontal attacks I am reminded of this British General Haig in WW1 who got such a bad reputation after such horrible frontal attacks and huge casualtys.

England has never been able to field a large land army. This is why they had such a difficult time with a Empire around the world against armys much larger than they. They have always relied on strategy and maneuver at the diplomatic table. Even the Germans admitted this.
" We can defeat them on the battle field but they always outmaneuver us at the peace table."
England as a Island has always been able to field a navy..but never that large a land army. They have relied on allys to carry them against larger militarys in modern times.
Sad thing for most of us Yanks is that so many of us are ignorant of this history and also it will never be taught in our public schools.

America too has fallen under this ignorance...with our hack politically appointed military leadership. The difference in us and England is that we have a larger population and a larger industry and therefore can afford more industrial losses./waste. Translation of this in non politically correct terms ....more cannon fodder.

As to the mass frontal attacks...by Americans ...no one does this anymore. However I submit that under todays PC type leadership trends with American troops under foreign leadership this might be coming back.
I am not sure and you dont specify if this was the case in the Great War.
US troops under orders of other nations on the front.
No thinking soldier does "Pee diddle diddle ..right up the middle anymore."

IN north Africa...it was a case of very bad leadership...also green troops. These leaders were replaced.

Yes there is a learning curve...and one does not forget this lesson today. It would be fatal as it always was. This changed very quickly as the war progressed.

As to carrier design..yes I am aware of British contributions to the functioning of carrier design. I have worked catapult/jet blast door systems in the yards. I am also aware that not many nations can build and maintain a system of such complexity as this. Hence the switch to this jump type ski ramp system.

The standing joke here in this yard was that the Russians could never build and maintain the steam catapult systems ...hence the jump jet usage on their carriers and today the ski type ramps to get around this inability. Costs too are a factor here. A steam catapult is a very expensive system to maintain.

I am curious as to how well this magnetic catapult system slated for the CVN 21 carriers here will work??

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Yeah, the Brits are the first after the United States to get "super-carriers". What with the us (USA) getting the new CVNX's, the French with theirs, the new Chinese but old *cough* terrible carrier, and with the Russians building the supposed new 21st century ones soon they are gonna need them to stay a major international carrier power. The world is all starting to join the "Carrier Club" as an alternative to the nuke club. Speaking of nukes, does anyone know if these are nuke powered?



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 12:19 AM
link   
I hate to be a dick but the term "supercarrier" is not an official designation or class but as Wiki explains a carrier has to generally displace more than 75,000 tons in order to fit into this category. The new British Queen Elizabeth class carriers will displace around ~65,000 tons. No other country apart from the US has ever built an operational "supercarrier". The Soviets designed and started building several classes of "supercarriers" (still would have been considerably smaller than their US counterparts) but none were ever completed or launched. Currently the French future carrier is estimated to displace a total of 70-75,000 tons when fully loaded, so they may just technically qualify as "supercarriers". We'll have to see how the design progresses, still, no country in the world is currently planning to build a ship approaching the size of US carriers (100-104,000 tons) not to mention building them on such a large scale.

And no the new Queen Elizabeth class and the French future carrier will not be nuclear powered.

Supercarrier



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 07:43 AM
link   
supercarrier or not westpoint, if we are at war with a country and they see the carriers from a distance i don't think they are going to go "phew, don't worry boys that is not a supercarrier its 10,000 tons lighter so we are ok"

(summary) who cares.

[edit on 5-10-2007 by st3ve_o]



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Good one steve..


The Soviet Ulyanovsk nuclear powered carriers would have also fit the +75000 ton supercarrier definition in fully loaded config.



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by st3ve_o
 


Never implied that at all, and indeed several people care... In any event in this case size does matter, not only practically in terms of available firepower and survivability etc… but psychologically as well. The latter is one of the reasons why the UK decided upon the 65K ton figure; they wanted to be able to support the USN (if need be) fully with having a carrier that would be of similar capably, interoperability.

As the First Sea Lord (at the time) Admiral Sir Alan West explained… "…for a deep strike package, we have done …quite detailed calculations and we have come out with the figure of 36 joint strike fighters …that is the thing that has made us arrive at that size of deck and that size of ship, to enable that to happen.

I have talked with the CNO (Chief of Naval Operations) in America. He is very keen for us to get these because he sees us slotting in with his carrier groups. He really wants us to have these, but he wants us to have the same sort of clout as one of their carriers."



posted on Oct, 17 2007 @ 06:27 AM
link   
Just to support West Point here, If you go look at the projected dimensions of the future UK carriers, not the fully loaded displacement, you will see that they are not that different (10-15% or so).

Don't forget a nuclear powered boat has a lot of shielding (extra weight) and the reactors themselves are very heavy items, especially with enough turbine power to push 100,000 tons though the water at 30+kts.

The UK boats will not have any heavy steam catapult tec on board, provision for the electromagnetic version though (can't wait to see that).

West Point can confirm but I was under the impression that the 2nd boat was being designed with the electromagnetic catapult in place ( unlike the first boat)..

The Artists impressions are fine but a little boring. (IMHO)

Anyway whenever has a UK contractor building anything made it smaller, lighter or faster than requested. Yup they will get fatter heavier and slower as the project progresses. Or am I just cynical...



posted on Oct, 17 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   
I think its good the UK is getting these. It shows they are still strong on defense and will be able to defend themselves until an ally gets ther or by themselves. They will also be able to help others when needed and project their power better.



posted on Oct, 17 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Looking at the designs, the new carriers seem to be stuck in the same 60 y.o. design strategy.

With the advent of the new generation of multi-role UAVs that BAe are producing, I'm surprised that at least one of the proposed ships hasn't been designed around this new form of aerial combat capability.

For the size of the average carrier-borne airplane, you could have the capability to perhaps carry and launch 3-4 UAV craft, the smaller size and payload limitation in comparison to say, a Typhoon, would be offset by a greater number of smaller craft...akin to comparing a flock of birds to a hive of wasps.

If UAV models were designed with this aerial strategy in mind (such as folding/concertina wings), they could even be launched in the same fashion as current ship-borne missile systems...several dozen launch tubes capable of boost-assisting a whole battle-capable swarm at the flick of a switch and piloted from the ship!



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   
The decision for the second carrier to have either Ski ramp or catapult is still open, waiting on the decision to go for the F35B(STOVL version), F35C(carrier version, catapult launch) or some other aircraft. There is still a concern the F35B project might get cancelled. If the F35B gets cancelled or delayed the first carrier will have Harriers.

The catapult we be steam, the UK wants to wait for the US to try out electromagnetic first. The electromagnetic will be for a midlife upgrade when the F35B goes out of service. Yes the UK is hopeing the carriers will last that long.

Which brings on to a reply to citizen smith. The carriers have been designed for what will be available when they come into service the UAVs aren't there yet, also a carrier aircraft also has to perform defence for the battle group and I believe all the UAV effort have been on the strike mission so far.

Although in a way we already have some navy UAV in the form of crusie missles.



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by citizen smith
 


It seems that BAE/the MoD are starting to catch on to that idea, albeit in a different way. Instead of an aircraft carrier full of UAVs, they've gone for a smaller 'automatic' stealth ship equipped with a handful of UAVs. There's a thread about it here.

It's a good idea, however, to create a few UAVs that'd work from a carrier. I'd be surprised if the next set of carriers the UK builds weren't primarily for use of UAVs - by that time (30ish years into the future), UAVs may well be the backbone of many air forces around the world... certainly those of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, anyway.

[edit on 19/10/07 by Ste2652]



posted on Nov, 3 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   
It seems to me, that in a naval role UAVs are not going to be able to replace manned aircraft for the majority of missions that manned aircraft would traditionally be employed for. Any control link other than a tether is just too susceptible to interference. However I do believe that UAVs, with their potentially high endurance and very long 'loiter' times, will be used for reconnaissance, augmenting ship borne systems and increasing detection radius. I can also envisage UAVs, possibly with a semi-autonomous mode, being used to augment CIWS, interdicting incoming munitions.
I doubt any autonomous systems would ever be employed for CAP or strike missions, as the perceived risk of having a unit or units 'go wild' with live weapons is too great, even if current artificial intelligence technology could progress far enough to make such a thing feasible in the timeframe of the carrier's operation.

As for the actual purchase of these carriers by the UK, I feel that certain person's assumptions of global harmony forget that peace in Europe is a relatively recent occurrence, 60 years of peace after about a thousand years of intermittent and occasionally intense warfare. Not accounting that is, for the cold war that existed for much of that peace, or the recent conflict in the former Yugoslavia, or the ongoing conflict in Chechnya. Purchasing these items is a much needed increase in capability for the Royal Navy, a recently neglected but traditionally strong service.

The projection of power that these ships will bring, over a greater distance, with a greater flexibility of mission profiles will add to the Royal Navy an element that has been missing since the UK devolved to mainly helicopter carriers, when the expected mission for the Royal Navy was anti-submarine warfare in the Atlantic. With all respect to Invincible and the former Ark Royal, they were never designed as aircraft carriers. Although the Harriers they deployed were superb aircraft, it is arguable that their use as support for expeditionary forces, such as in the Falklands, was limited.

With the increasing range and accuracy of guided missile systems, there are arguments to be made whether large carriers will be viable in the future. However I feel the aircraft carrier, for all it's potential vulnerabilities, is an essential item for any country hoping to support overseas operations. Even though the large high intensity conflict scenarios of the Cold War thankfully never materialised, the utility and scope of an aircraft carrier should not be underestimated for the peace keeping and counter-insurgency missions our millitary is being tasked with.

Sorry for the wall of text on my first ever post, but I felt I had to chime in.



posted on Nov, 3 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Good read and good post! Now that your first one is out of the way and you've lost your "P" plates, lets see some more



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   
I think it is fantastic news that at last we will be able to have moden aircraft carriers that can deploy conventional planes in times of need when our defence is requied across the glob and it will secure thousands of jobs building them and for our young sailors of the future

mark b



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
AN I THE ONLY 1 who is worried by the specs for these new ships i mean a modern carrier that needs to be replenished every7 days that means you better have 1 hell of a logitical support in place. what happens if your suppl;y lines are cut those she hed for port can she make before food runs out.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by proteus33
AN I THE ONLY 1 who is worried by the specs for these new ships i mean a modern carrier that needs to be replenished every7 days that means you better have 1 hell of a logitical support in place. what happens if your suppl;y lines are cut those she hed for port can she make before food runs out.


Being an ex RN bunting tosser (Radio Operator Tactical) i have many a time been in flotillas of ships. All Carrier strike groups have amongst them logistical ships as part of the group and have done for many years. Razzing as it is known (Replenishment at Sea) is part and parcel of every day RN life. Incidently, razzing is done by all NATO Navies and to all ships within the fleets, so a USN Tanker could replenish a RN Carrier.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 06:04 AM
link   
I've read time after time here from a number of people who think such carriers and miltary spending just isn't justified
The fact is simple, with global warming,rising sea levels and increasing population and energy reserves such as oil,gas in decline as well as water and food, these will be the new factors which i can see triggering conflicts around the world for such resources, and other countries race to obtain the bomb etc will only increase to protect there interests(India & Pakistan) and of course there are the so called rouge states like North Korea and Iran with the possiblity of future issues with countries such as China and Russia
I believe we are on the verge of very dangerous times.



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 06:30 AM
link   
It would appear dear friends, that the Prime Minister of this once proud sea-faring nation, is not only borrowing £75B to keep our financies afloat, but has - through the back door, scuppered our two new carriers.

When pressed on BBC2's 'Daily Politics' programme today, the government minister refused to confirm that once the financial crisis is over, the two carriers would be built.

I guess friends, that the two carriers were just a dream in the Royal Navy's pipe and goes to show that
Gordon Browne had no intention of ever building the ships in the first place!



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join