England's New Super-Carriers

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 02:26 PM
reply to post by Geemor

This is the "weaponry" forum. Perhaps you missed that? Weapons are undoubtedly what will be talked about here. If you do not like it, do not post here. Its pretty simple.

posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 02:27 PM
You're not an idiot, or you weren't being an idiot I don't think. You're opinions remain valid of course, my point was that you came to the wrong place to share them is all I'm saying.

We are discussing something factual and even though what we are discussing is of Military Use, we are not discussing the actual killing of people.

At least I find a distinct difference between those.

Shattered OUT...

posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 03:28 PM

Originally posted by Geemor
all right, it is always so discouraging to see people drooling over these monstrous killing machines. yay to the aircraft fleets that can takeoff and land to these carriers after they have bombed some terrorists and civilians. does britain (or any other country) need these kinds of stuff? who is going to attack them? or are they perhaps build for attack purposes?

i gonna lol when i see one of these or other carriers that have costs millions of people's money to sink just because they collide with the tanker when docking. or one of those planes accidentally explode under deck sinking the whole crap. why do you people support building these things? honestly?

I detect just the faintest whiff of hypocrisy here. You claim that it's 'discouraging' to see people 'drooling' over killing machines, and yet you have no ethical or moral qualms about being delighted when people die in particularly ugly ways? That assumes that "I gonna lol" actually translates into English as "I will be amused to the point of laughter". If I mis-translated, please supply a correct text.

As for the twin questions "Who needs ships like these" and "Who will attack them", you might devote a few hours to a study of history, and of economics. Any nation that depends on imports for its basic necessities, or relies on foreign trade for a major fraction of its economy has a vested interest in maintaining the ability to control the sea lanes. In the modern age, that means carriers of some form.

If it will soothe your offended sensibilities, try thinking of it this way....all of the money spent on those ships went to pay wages to working men in the shipyards, and engineers and draftsmen in the design bureau. It went to purchase steel and aluminum, which guaranteed jobs for mill workers, truck drivers, and payroll clerks at the mills. In short, it wound up in the pockets of people who invested it, spent it, and in general made the economy stronger.

posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 04:15 PM
The new UK carrier is a pretty nice looking ship. It will be good to have that sort of back up behind future joint nato backed operations.

However. I gotta admit that the US carriers still look more imposing and impressive even if they're older.

Hey orange tom,

What can you tell us about the next generation carriers that the US are building.

posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 04:30 PM
I have no doubt that these proposed supercarriers will be be excellent replacements for the old carriers, and also appreciate the the contribution to our economy, but strategically, I wonder if in these changing times, it might be worth considering building a large fleet of much smaller craft, like the MTBs MGBs of WW2.
I feel that this type of Capital Ship is for Offensive Deployment, [oil wars] rather than Defending the Realm.
If you could walk around the Coast of Britain, you would cover some twelve thousand miles, with illegal immigrants walking up our beaches every morning, it would be prudent to enable The Royal Navy to guard our coast.
Very interesting post nonetheless,

posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 05:10 AM
That horsegiver, was one of my points from a previous post.

Unless this country is following a policy of continuing to support the United States of America and its foreign policy, I can see no need for this type of offensive capability.

Yes we need to replace our existing through deck cruisers and let's be honest, that is what our 'carriers' are but, what the hell are we waiting for the F35 for?

The JSF is purely an offensive weapon only. We have a perfectly good aircraft for carrier operations in the Typhoon and, as I understand it, the carriers will have catapult launch capabilities and arrester wires, so there should be no problems recovering the typhoons.

This all smacks to me of pandering to the American defence industry at a greater cost to our own - notwithstanding the order for the Airbus tankers.

The building of the Astute class of submarines is an excellent example of modular construction and I believe this is the type of build [modular] when constructing ships of the line.

It would be very easy to build a small fleet of Coastal Protection Vessels using the modular production methods and by doing so, you can indeed vary operating and weapon systems at the touch of a button - depending on your needs.

Whilst I do agree with you Horsegiver that our coastline does need protecting and patrolling, we also need to project our power [such as it is] so that potential enemies - real or imaginary can see that our scabbard is not empty when we rattle the sabre.

posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 10:19 AM

Originally posted by fritz
The JSF is purely an offensive weapon only. We have a perfectly good aircraft for carrier operations in the Typhoon and, as I understand it, the carriers will have catapult launch capabilities and arrester wires, so there should be no problems recovering the typhoons.

Surely the Typhoon would take rather a lot of work to make it carrier capable, such as strengthening the undercarriage etc... This would all add weight etc...

However, had the UK armed services and the politicians worked together then maybe (just maybe) the Typhoon could have been designed with carrier features in mind, but I suppose at the time that was never part of the equation. I have always questioned the appropriateness of having the RAF and the RNAS as separate entities fighting for funds.

You can imagine the discussion...

RN - "We could take a Typhoon and modify it for a carrier"
RAF - "But it's an RAF plane"
RN - "But we could take it over and modify it"
RAF "But it's an RAF plane. It's ours dammit"
RN - "But..."
RAF - "I said it's is ours, so sod off"


posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 07:19 PM

You do know that one of the US nuclear carriers was involved in sending aid to the tsunami areas in the orient a few years back correct? They stripped her of most of her aircraft and loaded on board supplies, specicalized personel, and helicopters to transport these supplies to the remote areas struck by the tsunami. This type of ship, quickly reconfigured , is ideal for this type of work on short notice as it can hold alot of supplies and such rotary winged aircraft. This carrier was resupplied from other ships and the supplies delivered by helicopter. This tsunami is not the first time a full sized nuclear aircraft carrier was reconfigured for humanitarian uses.
Be very careful before you make such judgements.

I am in the buisness of building these "monstrous Killng machines." Both aircraft carriers and submarines. I find it very gratifying to know that they are used for good work and other than thier intended purposes. So do the people who serve upon them.
I suggest you do not sell your countrymen short in such a manner.

You should also know that submarines are usually used in the buisness of intelligence gathering/spying ..more in line with preventing the next conflict than in actual killing. This is not informations usually made public.

THis world is not the nice place most of us take for granted while having a brew at the local pub or sitting in front of our televisions. It definitely is not. Some of us have been out here and tasted the real world and it is not a nice place.
Much as most of us would like it to be different ...we must often look the opposition squarely in the eye and have them know clearly that we will not blink. That we have the capability to make life very very expensive for them. I wish it could be different but human psyche being what it is, it is not and never will be a nice place. The History of men is replete with this evidence.

The UK has for years now ..needed very badly to replace Her Majestys carriers. They are just plain olde worn out. They have become a danger to put to sea. A danger to the crews..they have also become a huge expense to maintain the older they get. We here in the US have had this problem with the USS Enterprise. She uses up about forty percent of the nations carrier budget to keep her at sea. This is really stupid of our leadership.
The USS Kennedy was in the same or worse shape before they decomissioned her.
Nations have found historically that they need to protect their trade routes/commerce or lose out to those who are stronger and more capable.
This means ,for a seafaring nation, up to date as well as reliable equipment.

I can find no fault with the rationale of Brother Stormhammer or Fritz in thier posts. They have it correct.

By the way ..there is some debate here too about smaller less expensive carriers. There is currently only one yard in this nation capable of building the large full sized nuclear carriers.
The matter at issue here is would these smaller carriers be conventionally powered or nuclear. I believe we have the same problem here as in the UK...only a few yards capable of handing such extensive nuclear material or having the license ,training, and facilities to so do.

Work on the CVN 21 series is continuing with the Gerald Ford. Lots of pieces being constructed at different areas and will be transported to a single location for assembly. Only a few small pieces set aside in the drydock as of yet. Lots of work to do.
I have not heard what is the latest status of the Magnetic catapults projected to be installed on this new class of carrier. I heard that they were having some problems with the design and operation of them but no more followup. Perhapsed some others are more abreast of this development than am I.

Last of the Nimitz carriers projected to be finished and delivered by the end of the year.


[edit on 2-3-2008 by orangetom1999]

posted on Mar, 4 2008 @ 10:25 AM
reply to post by fritz

I think there is a need for these carriers regardless of whether Britain supports US policy or not.

Remember that the UK has overseas territories all over the world, and these may be threatened by foreign powers in the future (as the Falklands were in 1982). How can we defend them or retake them if we don't have aircraft carriers? Without HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible, the liberation of the Falkland Islands from the Argentine military junta would have been impossible. Considering we have fourteen of them all over the world (you can see a map here) with almost a quarter of a million people relying on the UK to defend their right to self-determination, the carriers are essential for this task alone. And remember that these territories are voluntarily under the UK's protection; they have the right to self-determination under an act of the UK Parliament and may leave at any time. I for one do not want to see Britain betray a quarter of a million people who want to retain their links to the United Kingdom by declaring them 'not our problem anymore' because we won't spend money to defend both them and us.

In addition, orangetom makes some excellent points about carriers being used for non-military purposes. When British citizens had to be evacuated from the Middle East in 2006 due to the conflict between Israel and Hamas, one of our carriers was involved in that too. They are extremely versatile ships.

Oh, and they're the UK's carriers, not England's alone - they'll be partly constructed in Scottish shipyards and it's possible that the only dock large enough to accommodate them will be in Northern Ireland, so they encompass a lot of the UK in their design, construction and maintainance

posted on Mar, 4 2008 @ 03:28 PM
Looks like Corus has won the cobtract to supply 80,000 tons of steel for these ships.

Corus has won a contract to supply 80,000 tonnes of steel to the Royal Navy for its two new aircraft carriers.


[edit on 4-3-2008 by solidshot]

posted on Mar, 4 2008 @ 10:07 PM

Thanks for reminding me about the evacuation in 2006. As I recall it was in Lebanon when that buisness accelerated quickly and unexpectedly.
As I recall the US Navy was also involved in the evacuation of American personel. Some of my fellow Americans were very disappointing in that buisness. As I recall these people were upset that the Navy did not give them personal FIVE STAR accomodations. They gave some of them MREs to eat and these people were upset and ungrateful. Makes me think of similar as happened in New Orleans ,after the hurricane, when handing out MREs also to these people. Very ungrateful..some of them.
I swear... STE2652...some of our people here seriously need an enema five times a day to clear thier brains out of the rubbish and beliefs that are in there. Pardon my ire but that is how a feel about many of them. Even then I suspect some of them hopeless.

Nonetheless it was a quick and successful evacuation sort of on the spur of the moment by UK and US Navys. I expect to see more of this sort of thing in the future.


I had not heard that news and info about the steel contract being won. 80,000 tons ..that is alot of steel. Thanks for this tidbit of information.
I have questions running amok in my mind about construction details but that best kept to ourselves for now as much of that is still in the design stage and I am sure some confidential/classified.


posted on Mar, 5 2008 @ 01:52 AM
hmmmm the long lead items are now being ordered -the question is - is 80,000 tons for 2 or 3 ships? and has france also started ordering for her new ship?

and the engines - any news on whether france are happy with going the same route as the royal navy or are they still pushing for more speed? this one was up in the air last i heard as the uk ship was pegged at 26knots , whilst france wanted 29

[edit on 5/3/08 by Harlequin]

posted on Mar, 5 2008 @ 11:14 AM
reply to post by Harlequin

I really don't see how the French carrier can be significantly more powerful/faster than UK's CVF due to the commonality of the design. Add in increased steam or electric load from the catapults, the increased weight and speed during flight ops would theoretically be even lower than the UK's version, right?

How is it that 2500-ton LCS-1 is to have the same pair of turbines as the 75,000-ton French and UK carrier?

posted on Mar, 5 2008 @ 11:33 AM
they are looking at different engines for the PA2 - unless RR can squeeze more speed out of the ones submitted for the UK

posted on Mar, 5 2008 @ 11:53 AM
reply to post by Harlequin

That Rolls Royce MT30 engine design is pretty mature and established. Just my personal opinion, but I don't see a significant power increase coming out of that engine without a very large redesign. Even then, it's not just about getting more powerful turbines. A new engine require redesign/analysis of the mounts for strength and vibration characteristics. The generators to be coupled to this need to be larger, necessitating more room in a machinery space and the propulsion motors themselves need to be larger or they would need more of them in a reduction gear arrangement. Best of luck to France at giving the CVF a bump in speed, but it is honestly not going to be a simple matter of put in 10%, 20% or whatever amount more powerful turbine engine.

posted on Mar, 5 2008 @ 12:27 PM
aye - and i`ve heard that france are looking at an italian outfit for the engines for the PA2; they simply want more speed than the UK carrier can offer as of now , so same baseline but they want more power

posted on Mar, 5 2008 @ 03:12 PM
reply to post by Harlequin

Fair enough. Everything I've found on the CVF Fr says they're "considering" the Rolls Royce engines but have not selected it yet.

It just seems odd to me that the US Navy's LCS, DDG-1000 and this UK carrier all have the same propulsion system despite weight differences greater than an order of magnitude. Wouldn't the Royal Navy want to at least double the number of turbines? Is this ship going to have an oiler alongside at all times?

posted on Mar, 5 2008 @ 04:55 PM

Rolls-Royce has been made responsible for the UK CVF propulsion system, and its solution is centred on 2 MT30 gas turbines and electric motors driving two conventional shafts. However the French Navy is unhappy about the resulting maximum speed of under 26 kts for its 70,000 tonnes PA2 - 5,000 tonnes heaver than the UK's CVF variant. The original requirement for PA2 was 29 kts. Aker Yards, DCN Propulsion and Alstom have been talking with American company General Electric and have developed an alternative solution for PA2 which is based on 4 LM2500+G4 gas turbines - attractively the same engine as being fitted to the Franco-Italian FREMM frigates - powering a centre shaft and two propulsion pods. This solution will give about 28 kts and bring associated benefits such as better hydrodynamic efficiency (i.e. more speed for less power), increased space within the hull and improve ship manoeuvrability. At the beginning of November 2006 GE made a preliminary offer to DCN for the 4 gas turbines based upon its standard catalogue price, negotiations and discounts can be expected to follow.

unless RR can do something then FR will go elsewhere i think

posted on Mar, 5 2008 @ 05:05 PM
reply to post by Harlequin

No surprise that GE would be the next most logical choice. How are 4 LM2500's going to be smaller than 2 MT30's? This all sounds like some fuzzy math to me.

posted on Mar, 5 2008 @ 05:22 PM

Originally posted by Harlequin
hmmmm the long lead items are now being ordered -the question is - is 80,000 tons for 2 or 3 ships? and has france also started ordering for her new ship?

and the engines - any news on whether france are happy with going the same route as the royal navy or are they still pushing for more speed? this one was up in the air last i heard as the uk ship was pegged at 26knots , whilst france wanted 29

[edit on 5/3/08 by Harlequin]

You know Harlequin..I was wondering the same about the quantity of steel ordered. I think this is for one ship..the first of the order for carriers. Out of the 80.000 tons there will be alot of scrap..unusable portions to be used or scrapped for remelt. I am sure also that this 80,000 tons includes different grades of steel. I think the initial design was for some 60,000 to 70,000 tons displacement ship.

You know I had forgotten that these ships used the jump ramp type launch to get the planes off.
I am not that familiar with this system in that I dont know if they can get a plane off with no foreward speed on this type of ship. I am sure also that it depends somewhat on the load out of the plane..weapons, fuel, etc.

Also do these type ships ...take off thier aircraft light on fuel and heavier on weapons to get them off the deck and then quickly tank up once airborne as do many of ours??

I have just never heard how effecient these jump ramps are verses the steam catapult.
I do know that steam catapults are more difficult and expensive to maintain than are jump ramps.. This is obvious.

Speed on our large carriers is not an issue. However the systems needed to maintain this are very expensive and also high maintenance. This high maintenance also includes the cost of parts and training of personel.

I suspect alot of the appeal of these other systems is purchasing, design, and maintenance costs. A huge but also a very important consideration to governments.

Our systems of this nature are well over half the cost of a capital ship of this type. For some reason our Navy is stuck on the concept of Nuclear Power.


top topics
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in