britannia rules the waves

[Danllan]

Oh, I thought there were 17 odd million in the uk going cuckoo

You aren't a loony if you are in the majority.

 

[wanton dwarf]

The sizing of the Iranian tanker by UK forces has nothing to do with Syria and everything to do with US pressure on the EU to abandon Obarma's nuclear deal with Tehran and take a more aggressive stance against the regime. The Trump has also issued veiled threats against other countries who are taking Iranian oil, notably India, China, Japan, South Korea, Italy and Turkey. The current evidence points to the White house first asking the Spanish government to enact the the EU policy on Syria, when this was declined they approached the government in Gibraltar who agreed, they then asked the RN for help to apprehend the tanker.

Meh .. you know when Trump spent $1.4 Trillion on renewing the USA military over 2 years.

Did you not notice ? Or that Trump appointed a military strategist who hates Iran ?

Trump has probably checked how a war with Iran will affect his ratings.

I'll remind you of another quote Trump made .. What's the point in having Nuclear Weapons if you're not going to use them ? Whilst I doubt Trump will Nuke Iran in the short term .. he has spent $1.4 Trillion .. so I expect him to use that military hardware on something.

 

[Hindsight]

I am in no way a military man. Goodness no. But broadening out this topic are the elephants in the room two recently launched aircraft carriers and accompanying F35 airplanes. And the Trident nuclear deterrent. As a non naval casual observer the UK government seems to have reduced the fleet of frigates and destroyers in favour of in effect vanity projects - the aircraft carriers. Comments / observations welcome.

 

[Muck Spreader]

I am in no way a military man. Goodness no. But broadening out this topic are the elephants in the room two recently launched aircraft carriers and accompanying F35 airplanes. And the Trident nuclear deterrent. As a non naval casual observer the UK government seems to have reduced the fleet of frigates and destroyers in favour of in effect vanity projects - the aircraft carriers. Comments / observations welcome.

The carriers are a legacy of the Gordon Brown government nearly a decade ago. Personalty in a post Brexit world with a BoJo mentality, a couple of state of the art carriers could actually be a good thing to help maintain the UK's global presence. I think.

 

[Hindsight]

The carriers are a legacy of the Gordon Brown government nearly a decade ago. Personalty in a post Brexit world with a BoJo mentality, a couple of state of the art carriers could actually be a good thing to help maintain the UK's global presence. I think.

Well I am no military man. But my limited understanding is that an aircraft carrier is absolutely fine sent to a friendly place where no one is thinking of hurting it, but is a liability when in a place where another nation might want to damage it and thus requires an immense amount of protecting vessels. But the UK has reduced the fleet of frigates / destroyers to provide that function. A big tractor small cultivator type of syndrome, to have an agricultural perspective. To add anti EU spice to the thread is this a New Labour conspiracy for UK to provide the carriers for an EU navy and the other smaller countries to provide the smaller frigates. I think we should be told!!

 

[Danllan]

I am in no way a military man. Goodness no. But broadening out this topic are the elephants in the room two recently launched aircraft carriers and accompanying F35 airplanes. And the Trident nuclear deterrent. As a non naval casual observer the UK government seems to have reduced the fleet of frigates and destroyers in favour of in effect vanity projects - the aircraft carriers. Comments / observations welcome.

Carriers are great, they look cool and can be really useful for projection when needed. But you've hit the nail on the head in re' needing protection. Also, you really need at least three carriers to maintain a practical and credible presence in any given theatre. I'm keen on all this being a capability, but it needs the money to make it happen and that just hasn't been forthcoming under Blair / Brown or Cameron / May.

UK carrier deployment, up until say 2025, will rely on US assistance, full stop. This is because, with the best will in the world we really can't expect e.g. a Dutch frigate to sacrifice itself for a British carrier if push comes to shove. If BJ wants to be taken seriously in defence matters, we can expect to see at least four or five new surface ships - probably frigates, dual purpose - ordered as a first tranche of Royal Naval reinvigoration.

(Where will the money come from? Best bet is 'Aid' being cut back and given for long term political reasons and disaster relief only, Type 31s will probably end up costing a bit under £350m a piece good to go, which means just cutting the 'Aid' budget by 10% pa will mean saving enough for four new ships...!)

 

[Hindsight]

Carriers are great, they look cool and can be really useful for projection when needed. But you've hit the nail on the head in re' needing protection. Also, you really need at least three carriers to maintain a practical and credible presence in any given theatre. I'm keen on all this being a capability, but it needs the money to make it happen and that just hasn't been forthcoming under Blair / Brown or Cameron / May.

UK carrier deployment, up until say 2025, will rely on US assistance, full stop. This is because, with the best will in the world we really can't expect e.g. a Dutch frigate to sacrifice itself for a British carrier if push comes to shove. If BJ wants to be taken seriously in defence matters, we can expect to see at least four or five new surface ships - probably frigates, dual purpose - ordered as a first tranche of Royal Naval reinvigoration.

(Where will the money come from? Best bet is 'Aid' being cut back and given for long term political reasons and disaster relief only, Type 31s will probably end up costing a bit under £350m a piece good to go, which means just cutting the 'Aid' budget by 10% pa will mean saving enough for four new ships...!)

Hi, thank you for providing the cost of a new frigate - was going to Google that information. Why. Well I find it amusing that in the run up to the new Premier League football season it is the transfer madness season and the time I pick my Fantasy Football team!! And there was a timely piece about player valuation in the paper a few days ago. So we have a player such as Leicester City's Harry Maguire valued at £90million. And many a player now priced at around £50million. So, how bizzare that a frigate is cheaper than middle ranking Premier League or top Championship starting 11.

World I find bemusing.

By the way this foreign aid budget has already been 'spent' on 'our' NHS! Along with the £350m Now there's a sume - one weeks contribution to the EU pays for a frigate - catchy line that.

Cheers,

PS mention of Leicester City should encourage a bit of France based reply!

 

[Danllan]

'Football', as has recently been demonstrated, is for girls.

I refer you to the quiche-free zone that is RUGBY!

 

[Ley253]

Carriers are great, they look cool and can be really useful for projection when needed. But you've hit the nail on the head in re' needing protection. Also, you really need at least three carriers to maintain a practical and credible presence in any given theatre. I'm keen on all this being a capability, but it needs the money to make it happen and that just hasn't been forthcoming under Blair / Brown or Cameron / May.

UK carrier deployment, up until say 2025, will rely on US assistance, full stop. This is because, with the best will in the world we really can't expect e.g. a Dutch frigate to sacrifice itself for a British carrier if push comes to shove. If BJ wants to be taken seriously in defence matters, we can expect to see at least four or five new surface ships - probably frigates, dual purpose - ordered as a first tranche of Royal Naval reinvigoration.

(Where will the money come from? Best bet is 'Aid' being cut back and given for long term political reasons and disaster relief only, Type 31s will probably end up costing a bit under £350m a piece good to go, which means just cutting the 'Aid' budget by 10% pa will mean saving enough for four new ships...!)

These "carriers" are white elephants! Due to the lack of catapults,( which is due to the propulsion system, you need steam for catapults) the aircraft able to operate are severely restricted in both fuel load(range) and weapons load (use). They would also be submarine magnets, and so likely to be on the bottom within a few weeks of deployment! That`s if they havent sunk by them selves first, which the first seems to trying to do at every opportunity!

 

[Danllan]

These "carriers" are white elephants! Due to the lack of catapults,( which is due to the propulsion system, you need steam for catapults) the aircraft able to operate are severely restricted in both fuel load(range) and weapons load (use). They would also be submarine magnets, and so likely to be on the bottom within a few weeks of deployment! That`s if they havent sunk by them selves first, which the first seems to trying to do at every opportunity!

I disagree, they could be very good as are, with the right back-up. But I do think that nuclear power would have been better, and would have allowed catapults. Progress eh...?

 

[Qman]

Before an Aircraft Carrier can go to a war zone it need aeroplanes and several Frigates and Destroyers. Our two Gordon Brown class carriers have neither, I think they are white elephants and like HS2, should never have been built.

 

[Ncap]

Before an Aircraft Carrier can go to a war zone it need aeroplanes and several Frigates and Destroyers. Our two Gordon Brown class carriers have neither, I think they are white elephants and like HS2, should never have been built.

Exactly. A case of all mouth and no trousers

 

[Muck Spreader]

Before an Aircraft Carrier can go to a war zone it need aeroplanes and several Frigates and Destroyers. Our two Gordon Brown class carriers have neither, I think they are white elephants and like HS2, should never have been built.

The first one (Queen Elizabeth) is not due to enter operational service until next year that's assuming the Americans get their finger out and supply the F35B's on time. A carrier is a mobile airfield and essential for any modern conflict, for example the retaking of the Falklands would have been a total none starter without a carrier fleet as would supporting almost all ground engagements.

 

[Ley253]

I disagree, they could be very good as are, with the right back-up. But I do think that nuclear power would have been better, and would have allowed catapults. Progress eh...?

With the short take off and vert landing, the aircraft they will carry can do little more than protect the fleet, they have next to no range. This was exhibited in the Falklands, the carriers had to be well out of range of enemy aircraft, but this meant that most of the harriers fuel was used in transit, and left many holes in the cap (combat air patrol). This resulted in the loss and damage of several ships.It is quite likely, that with even ww2 aircraft, the Sheffield would not have been lost, the patrol range of catapult launched aircraft is much greater, and the Argentine aircraft would have been found before they could attack.Check the range and weapons fit of a buccaneer, compared with a harrier.

 

[Qman]

If only the Callaghan government hadn't scrapped the old Rod Stewart Ark Royal. It had Phantoms and Buccaneers, they would have stopped the Argies sinking our ships.

 

[Danllan]

With the short take off and vert landing, the aircraft they will carry can do little more than protect the fleet, they have next to no range. This was exhibited in the Falklands, the carriers had to be well out of range of enemy aircraft, but this meant that most of the harriers fuel was used in transit, and left many holes in the cap (combat air patrol). This resulted in the loss and damage of several ships.It is quite likely, that with even ww2 aircraft, the Sheffield would not have been lost, the patrol range of catapult launched aircraft is much greater, and the Argentine aircraft would have been found before they could attack.Check the range and weapons fit of a buccaneer, compared with a harrier.

Spot on, but you could also argue that sending in a swarm of cruise missiles would be more effective and more cost effective. The US has a great carrier fleet, but it can't use them against a first or even second rate military power because they'll be taken out. The future lies in drones and cruises etc., I have heard there is a program of mini aqua-drones, slower but just as deadly as a cruise when successful.

 

[Muck Spreader]

Spot on, but you could also argue that sending in a swarm of cruise missiles would be more effective and more cost effective. The US has a great carrier fleet, but it can't use them against a first or even second rate military power because they'll be taken out. The future lies in drones and cruises etc., I have heard there is a program of mini aqua-drones, slower but just as deadly as a cruise when successful.

I believe there is a MOD/Bae programme developing drone boats that would patrol the UK coastal waters semi-autonomously.

 

[Ball acre]

With the short take off and vert landing, the aircraft they will carry can do little more than protect the fleet, they have next to no range. This was exhibited in the Falklands, the carriers had to be well out of range of enemy aircraft, but this meant that most of the harriers fuel was used in transit, and left many holes in the cap (combat air patrol). This resulted in the loss and damage of several ships.It is quite likely, that with even ww2 aircraft, the Sheffield would not have been lost, the patrol range of catapult launched aircraft is much greater, and the Argentine aircraft would have been found before they could attack.Check the range and weapons fit of a buccaneer, compared with a harrier.

It's unlikely a big cat and trap carrier would have been able to get planes in the air, let alone retrieve them on many days during the Falklands conflict. The weather was crap. Once the strip was built at San Carlos endurance improved. HMS QE is new and will go through lots of problems, that's what sea trials are for.

 

[Ley253]

It's unlikely a big cat and trap carrier would have been able to get planes in the air, let alone retrieve them on many days during the Falklands conflict. The weather was crap. Once the strip was built at San Carlos endurance improved. HMS QE is new and will go through lots of problems, that's what sea trials are for.

Carriers can, and do fly of and land on aircraft with the deck pitching sixty feet or more! Though the term land on is more of a controlled crash!Read the Bismark story, the torpedo strike was flown off in weather as I have just described, they do retire from flying stations when the oggin is coming in green over the flight deck though!
I am well aware of the purpose of sea trials, having spent twelve unpleasant years in the RN 1963 to 75,and have experienced the slap dash work of some dockyard mateys! When Blake was supposed to be floated out of dock on completion of her refit, flooding the dock was abruptly stopped as both engine rooms were also flooding! Turned out, that some one way valves in the prop shafts had been fitted reversed!Four very expensive air compressors, which were installed to force air out though the prop blade tips, and so silence them, were scrapped by contact with sea water during this incident, before they had even run!
Oh and I have also been to the Falklands, two years in the ice patrol ship, HMS Protector.

 

[Muck Spreader]

HMS Prince of Wales due to sail under the Forth Bridges tomorrow (Sunday) probably lunchtime and commence sea trials.

Navel News