• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Ship Pron

Jump to latest Follow Reply
plum diamonds buckeye planet
Sort by date Sort by votes
Muck

Muck

Enjoy Every Sandwich
HMS Illustrious next to a hull section of the future HMS Queen Elizabeth.

1fhgjp.jpg


It's a shame she'll be gimped by only carrying STVOL birds.
 
Muck;2157443; said:
It's a shame she'll be gimped by only carrying STVOL birds.
Click to expand...

I thought they were going to configure them for F-35C's (and therefore other aircraft that could be launched with catapults) no?
 
Upvote 0
knapplc;2157465; said:
I thought the F-35C was going on the Illustrious Class.
Click to expand...

B is the STOVL variant...

C is the Carrier Variant (meaning tail hooks, I think it has foldable/sweepable wings, to some degree) basically the catapult/arrestor version you'd use on a Nimitz/Ford class carrier.

I don't know what the Illustrious class is, though, so, I'm not sure what fits on it, but, I'm presuming its a B.
 
Upvote 0
The MOD recently decided to switch back to F-35Bs over concerns on the price of the retrofit for catapults.

So now the RN is effectively building ships that won't be able to use their full potential & have little room for growth.

Large conventionally launched UAV/UCAB (X-45 etc)? Nope.
Interoperability with French & US carriers? Nope.
Cost effective interim alternative (Superhornet/Rafale) in case the F-35 program implodes? Nope.
Organic AEW&C capability (E-2). Nope.
Organic tanker capability? Nope.

Oh and while they're going to build both carriers but they're only going to use one. The other is going to sit dockside 'just in case'.

AKAK;2157470; said:
I don't know what the Illustrious class is, though, so, I'm not sure what fits on it, but, I'm presuming its a B.
Click to expand...

Lusty is the last remaining Invicible class carrier (Ark Royal being the third member) & is set to be decommissioned within the next couple of years.
 
Upvote 0
Aren't they also thinking that there isn't currently a major naval threat, and as such, building oversized ships is a bit of overkill?

Who's the major naval threat to NATO right now? Russia? I know China is ramping up their military, but we (and the UK) have the shipyards to at the very least keep up with their production, if not outstrip them entirely.

Who else is a threat? What need do we (or the UK) have of massive carriers?
 
Upvote 0
Muck;2157567; said:
Lusty is the last remaining Invicible class carrier (Ark Royal being the third member) & is set to be decommissioned within the next couple of years.
Click to expand...

Well, I'd think an F-35 of any type would be quite an upgrade over Swordfish, but, that's just me.
 
Upvote 0
knapplc;2157676; said:
Aren't they also thinking that there isn't currently a major naval threat, and as such, building oversized ships is a bit of overkill?

Who's the major naval threat to NATO right now? Russia? I know China is ramping up their military, but we (and the UK) have the shipyards to at the very least keep up with their production, if not outstrip them entirely.

Who else is a threat? What need do we (or the UK) have of massive carriers?
Click to expand...

Well, I'd say the real question is who is a threat to what.

Eh, nevermind, I'll wall of text this right into the poli-forum. But suffice to say, it's not - to me anyway - a question of "who is a threat to NATO" that's not, in my mind, the primary purpose of sea power. The question is, who is the threat to the international maritime system. And, in the right (bad) circumstances, the folks you mention certainly have enough resourecs to cause real problems. It's a big job to keep the sea lanes open. Look what a few jackass pirates can do. I'll leave it to the military guys to delve into the relative importance of Ford class Carriers vs. a bunch of Guided missile frigates or whatever. But, for me, it's a question of "Big and Scary"

Eh, long story short, even with the expense of Some of these ships, it's probably a positive sum game in that we benefit far more from the commerce the US Navy's presence protects internationally than we would with the ability of bad actors to influence that system.

The End. :wink:
 
Upvote 0
knapplc;2157676; said:
Aren't they also thinking that there isn't currently a major naval threat, and as such, building oversized ships is a bit of overkill?
Click to expand...

During the last equivalent of our QDR it was determined the UK needed a credible expeditionary and long range strike capability. Remember what matters isn't what matches NATOs strategic interests those are tertiary behind the interests of the UK itself and now those of the EU.

That was the major reason for the switch to the C model in the first place. The C has almost twice the combat radius of the B (720nm vs 380) and can take off with 3X the payload (13,900lbs vs 4,500).

The ships are getting built regardless of what happens to the air complement (they're really a government works project in a lot of ways).

So if the carriers are going to get built, is it really in your best interest to fit them with aircraft that are comparatively limited operationally and are also more cost & technically intensive over the long term?

In the event of a conflict (hey look Argentina is saber rattling again btw) why would you place your most expensive platform in a position where it will have to not only operate closer to the enemy but also have a smaller window in which to see potential threats?

Now that the Fleet Air Arm has been effectively neutered for the long term look for the RAF to push hard for a ground based long range strike platform.

Coincidentally the group that authored the paper claiming the exorbitant costs for EMALS (which doesn't match the numbers any one else is coming up with) is also heavily staffed by members of the RAF fraternity.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I hadn't heard that Britain's involvement in the EU superseded their military alliances. That's a new one on me, especially considering the level of integration of the NATO forces.

My understanding was that Britain was always more of an unwilling partner in the EU (and the EEC back in the day), as evidenced partly by their refusal to let the Euro replace the Pound, etc.
 
Upvote 0
knapplc;2157917; said:
I hadn't heard that Britain's involvement in the EU superseded their military alliances. That's a new one on me, especially considering the level of integration of the NATO forces.
Click to expand...

You still haven't heard that. No one in this thread used the word 'superseded'. A growing emphasis on meeting other treaty commitments doesn't render their NATO ones null & void.

The UK wasn't talking about sharing a carrier with the French in order to fulfill NATO commitments.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top