Giant Carrier Deals To Be Signed

Giant Carrier Deals To Be Signed

news.bbc.co.uk

The Ministry of Defence is expected to sign contracts for the creation of the UK's biggest ever aircraft carriers.

The 65,000-ton ships, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, will cost a total of £4bn.

Work on the two vessels is to go to shipyards at Govan in Glasgow and Rosyth in Fife, as well as Barrow in Furness and Portsmouth.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 3/7/08 by stumason]

Finally! It's been a long time coming, but finally the MoD is about to sign off the contracts for the Royal Navy's biggest ever warships.

There are some problems though..

With the £4 Billion project, other area's of the defence budget are being squeezed. It is ironic in that the Navy, with these two new carriers on the way, may not be able to field enough frigates and destroyers to effectively protect them.

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Nice find. What advantages would this new weapon bring to the table in joint US actions?

How many mouths would that feed in third world countries? Alot I would imagine.

reply to post by jpm1602


Yes, I would imagine. As someone who lives in a "Least Developed Country", I can tell you that US$8,000,000,000 would actually feed a lot less than you think. But if would feed them really, really well.


Say the word and I'll be fed
Say the word and you'll be dead
Say the word, but not out loud
Have you heard? The word is gelt
It's so fine, it's by design
The word is "Corruption"

- definitely NOT Lennon-McCartney

As opposed to the shipyard workers it will feed, the miners, smelters and shippers who get the steel to the yard. The customs agents, the Rolls Royce fabricators, the Bofors techs...

Education feeds people and if the proper investments were put there no one would ever have to starve.


As far as the carrier goes! Go UK, it's about time, sorry 8 Bil US$ what's that what JK has on hand after the last Hary Potter Movie finishes? Not bad to protect a nation...

Besides the US may loose a couple here... better get building

Besides LOL this means GW Bush will be ordering an Imperial Star Destroyer before his term ends to one up you... Sweet!

Its good to see that the Royal Navy is finally going back to Aircraft Carriers ....... its been a long time coming.

Its just a shame that the name HMS Ark Royal is already in use as the world's very first true 'flat-top' carrier was named this.

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
Besides LOL this means GW Bush will be ordering an Imperial Star Destroyer before his term ends to one up you... Sweet!

No, we've already got a few of those.

Besides, the President doesn't have squat to do with the military, anymore. It's all controlled by Congress. The only thing the President does with the military is award fancy medals, anymore. Otherwise, he/she would have to go to Congress to get much else done.

Anyway, it's good to see that the Royal Navy is getting back on the ball. Though if the artist's depiction of that carrier is truly what it will look like, then I do have some concerns with the design (namely the single catapult, unless they did some magic to put a second one in there somewhere). Though if it is of an electromagnetic design, then it isn't as big of an issue - but it would still be a "weak spot" simply because a malfunction would pretty much take the carrier out of operation until it could be fixed (spare VTOL craft... but those will likely be on LHDs).

Originally posted by Aim64C


I do have some concerns with the design (namely the single catapult, unless they did some magic to put a second one in there somewhere).

What catapault?

This is an RN flat-top, that means ski-ramps, not cats, and VTOL F-35s to go with them.

Single ski-ramps and variable thrust can put more jets in the air faster than twin catapaults can.

I suggest you look at the picture and read the article. They are going to have ski-ramps as well as a catapult.

VTOL is okay but it uses up too much fuel as a take-off procedure for longer range use. Most of the time the RN will use their Harriers in the STOL procedure on take-off and VTOL on landings.

The addition of the catapult would give them more options and possibly make them more 'inflation proof' as other aircraft could be converted to carrier use or newer aircraft could incorporated onto them.

You are correct. I typed too fast and didn't check. Where I put VTOL I meant to put STOL.

Of course VTOL uses way too much fuel to give meaningful performance. And it seriously limits the load-out.

No, I meant to say that STO off a ski-ramp using vectored thrust is faster than catapault operations. VTO would be faster still, all can take-off at once, but, as you said, limitations apply.

Vertical Landing, however, offers a faster cycle than trapping. But, again, fuel...

All of those methods ridiculously limit the payload.

They also restrict deck operations quite a bit because they require more deck space and less predictable aircraft behavior than catapults.

I guess it's more of an issue of preferences, but I would rather have a deck with a few more catapults on it. STOL and VTOL can be carried out, but you always have the option to use heavier configurations - which goes hand-in-hand with deep-strike operations.

Though perhaps this is the difference between utility. The U.S. has always been operating well outside of its borders - thus, a U.S. carrier is designed to project as much power as possible and make the Chair Force look bad. We've always been operating offensively, thus our naval aircraft and carriers have been designed around that.

Britain/UK/the guys that speak a strange form of English have usually been fighting defensively or performing operations much closer to home and without the need for carrier-borne penetrating strike craft like the U.S. does - this is performed by their Air Force.

Ok, I'll bite...

I'm yet to see figures for a "ridiculously reduced payload" as a result of ski-ramp launch. Marine AV-8Bs operating without a ski-ramp may have ridiculously reduced payloads. SHAR FRS1 and FA2 may have had reduced payloads, they also had a different engine to AV8B.

Don't confuse the air-frame's performance with the system's performance. Remember, Aden Cannon was a hardpoint mount on the Harrier.

Aircraft behaviour likewise. Just because Rhino pilots aren't allowed to fly their own planes, doesn't mean the rest of the world is incompetent.

The point about ski-ramps is that they are STO, not VTO and therefore do not (to use a "normal" English phrase) "impact" on the take-off weight the way a fully vertical take-off does. Because the wings are in use.

Yes, more deck-space is required for the bird to get up to speed, but ski-ramps do not have to be reset, they do not require steam systems and they cannot break down. Birds do not have to wait for catapaults to be reset and hooked on. When the ramp is clear, they can go.

You lose your catapaults and how big a CAP do you have?

As for requiring "more" deck space, have you looked at a comparison of the Invincible and the Nimitz? HMS Invincible has a length of 200-odd metres and a 170-metre flight deck, USS Nimitz is 120 metres longer. As for width, the through-deck cruiser is less then 40 metres wide, the super-carrier has more than double that fat.

The Falklands are close to home? On what map?

And, on the subject of the deliberate provocation, perhaps you can explain how it is that the English (the majority of the British) can speak a strange form of English.