HMS Queen Elizabeth forward island lift

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 17 2013 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by 74Templar
reply to post by justwokeup
 


I'd have to agree the Rafale M is the tried and true alternative, or even the better option than the F35B. Is there even a navalised version of the Typhoon? I thought they were Air Force only at this stage. You're also right in saying it's not just a simple matter to navalise any aircraft. Most naval aviators regard carrier landings as a controlled crash, so the airframe has to be up to the stress of carrier life if it is going to even qualify.

The funniest part would be to see French, or even US (the FA18E or even the F as an option) with Royal Navy markings though, considering the British heritage of many of the past aircraft.

Despite all this, I don't think the Royal Navy will shy away from the F35s unless something goes completely awry, the UK has far too much money invested to throw it away on alternative aircraft, even if the F35 winds up being way behind schedule.


Navalised Typhoon is a paper (or CATIA file these days) aeroplane. It only exists as a Bae concept. Last I heard they were touting it to the Indian navy. It needs the new (never fielded) Eurofighter Thrust Vector Control (TVC) system to make it controllable in the slow approach to the deck. That right there tells you its the wrong airframe.

I can see the F-35B being cancelled forcing the UK government to do another U turn and order catapults again (which they probably should have done in the first place). Any of the options (F-35C, F-18, Rafale M) would give the UK a carrier strike aircraft it hasn't had in decades. To be honest i'd be happy with either, given the capability the FAA wrung out of the Sea Harrier by the end they'll make any of those very effective indeed.

Catapults bring other advantages, it means we can use the E-2D for a proper persistent fleet AEW platform rather than another wheezing helicopter AEW. If you are going to have a big carrier you should do it properly.




posted on Mar, 17 2013 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 





The only suspects. All our shipyards were owned by these two companies, so it was always going to be them. And I also think, again, you are being terribly naive by saying that only "they really benefit". Of course they do, along with the tens of thousands of jobs supported by these companies. People, when railing against "corporations" forget the people they employ........ Would you have rather we give the contract to someone else, like a foreign company and lose all those jobs and skills?


I'm not being naive in the slightest. I point you to this book which is rather enlightening and informative. The jobs aspect is often put forward but when it's scrutinized in detail it doesn't hold up. I would look for the extracts but my copy is an e-book so it's lot a harder to just flick it through and find a particular part I'm afraid.

I stand by my original statement that these carriers are an unjustified waste of money.



posted on Mar, 17 2013 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 





You underestimate just how much influence we have, in fact I think you being somewhat naive. Just because we don't go round shouting about it like the Yanks, that doesn't mean we're pussy cats and not respected around the globe. I'm not sure what the 19th century quip was about though. If you're referring to interventions in LIbya or Mali, for example, or even Afghanistan then this is the sort of thing that the West is damned if they do and damned if they don't. We got immense amounts of stick for not intervening in Bosnia, or Rwanda, but when we do get involved we're accused of being imperialists. What is it you want?


On the contrary I think it is you being naive. You seem to be viewing this country through rose-tinted glasses. I didn't outright say we have no influence in the world, but it's not like it used to be.

My reference to the 19th century was just referring to the British Empire and when we were at the height of our power in the world. The fact is the west doesn't really intervene for humanitarian reasons. Obviously there are often underlying political reasons for not intervening but often times we've turned a deliberate blind eye to things going on in the world.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Rear island lift has been completed now which is the final piece of the major infrastructure. The silhouette is complete.

Some images here www.facebook.com...





 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join