I assume therefore less stress on the airframes and longer service life. I wonder if the QEs will eventually end up with them. I can understand why they don't want to at present, although I think a better long term option.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
It would defiantly be worth looking at in 25-30 years.
Yes. The USN can afford to take a punt on it, & absorb any delay & extra cost. The RN can't, not when it's building new carriers which have to be in service: it has to be sure EMALS is working before it can risk committing the future of the the RN to it.
It would be interesting if there was an option for both. I don't know how many EMALS a ship the size of the QE would take 2-4? However if it was cost effective to consider the Hawkeye why not have a single waist EMALS (ie out of the way of the ramp).
Also I think the French have brought the design of the QE, has anyone heard any discussion on the flight deck arrangements on their ship or is this to far off?
On a separate note while reading up on the CV78, it did make me laugh the amount of justification on the naming Gerald Ford. Obviously not a USS Richard Nixon, but what happened to Jimmy Carter!
windscorpion
New Member
Jimmy Carter already has a submarine named after him
supermachiner
New Member
PA2, if they go with the design, has, as far as I've seen up to now, two cats and a slightly larger flight deck due to the angling. Pic is from beedals. you may be able to squeeze three cats in although the space would be pretty tight. EMALS is worth waiting for but i expect the wait to be long.
Well party lines are drawn for 6 May, with an SDR to follow later this year.
It does make sense to review the UK's defence spending at this time, the world today is very different to 1998. There is still the spectre of a potential superpower enemy (China), but now the possibility of more minor operations against states such as N.Korea and, more likely Iran - as well as potential operations countering NGO's in places like Somalia and Afghanistan - in addition to the old melting pots that are the Falklands and other potential resource rich areas of the globe.
It is, therefore, hard to see, from the RN's perspective, how much if any of its capability can be cut without it causing damage to UK interests. Naval vessels require a long time to develop and get operational, so cutting the capability of the RN would be foolish, even if such a crisis was to break-out.
Nevertheless, I am sure there will be some way the budget can be cut, or more got out of the current resource allocation.
It does make sense to review the UK's defence spending at this time, the world today is very different to 1998. There is still the spectre of a potential superpower enemy (China), but now the possibility of more minor operations against states such as N.Korea and, more likely Iran - as well as potential operations countering NGO's in places like Somalia and Afghanistan - in addition to the old melting pots that are the Falklands and other potential resource rich areas of the globe.
It is, therefore, hard to see, from the RN's perspective, how much if any of its capability can be cut without it causing damage to UK interests. Naval vessels require a long time to develop and get operational, so cutting the capability of the RN would be foolish, even if such a crisis was to break-out.
Nevertheless, I am sure there will be some way the budget can be cut, or more got out of the current resource allocation.
kev 99
Member
It makes sense to do this on a regular basis and in fact it should be a requirement for a defence white paper to be drawn up at the start of every parliament, even if it's just to reafirm the current direction and review current projects.
It was considered appropriate to name a Seawolf-class SSN after him, as he was not only the only US president ever to have been a submariner, but trained as a nuclear engineering officer at a very early stage in the USNs nuclear submarine programme, & was only prevented from serving on USS Seawolf, SSN-575, the USNs second nuclear submarine, by the death of his father, which led to Carter resigning his commission in order to take charge of the family farm.
Last edited:
kev 99
Member
Lewis Page is an idiot, the bits about the cheap Tomahawk armed merchentmen/helo carriers are a work of genius though, he should get a career in comedy. The comments are almost as entertaining, the one where a former RN with the full set of 'top trumps' puts him in his place is especially good.
windscorpion
New Member
I worked (a bit) on the original website for that lot, vile people to be honest and it baffles me how anyone takes any notice about anything they say!
Lewis Page served as a Royal Navy officer (non-aviator, non-Marine) for 11 years, but managed to stay out of frigates and destroyers almost the entire time. That wasn't going to last much longer, however, so he left rather than spend the next decade wasting his time and the taxpayers' money.
Guys i think this about sums up Lewis Page, obviously left the RN with a bit of bad karma, we have the same down under as well, his ideas sound very similar to the escort carriers used in WWII nothing new there at all.:nutkick
Mine clearance diver, wasn't he?
kev 99
Member
Yes, all sorts of rumours about him getting turned down for promotion to many times, I've read suggestions of him being forced out of the service as well: 'jumped beefore pushed', etc.
Wonder if he ever went for a job interview at BAE and got turned down as well?
I would rather not comment on the man, but I think his arguements are discredited by implying there is no role for frigates/corvettes/escorts of any type, but he has some points:
- It is probably better that helicopters are operated in numbers (greater than one) on larger ships, as someone pointed out the orginal WW2 escort carriers and the original concept behind the Invincibles.
- It is a valid point that frigates make a good target for shore batteries.
I know we have debated the Absalons at great length but I think for: independent partol, as ASW leader or in a LCS role they represent a great proposition and probably more cost effective than the T26. I don't see the T26 offers much over the T23.
I would rather not comment on the man, but I think his arguement are discredited by implying there is no role for frigates/corvettes/escorts of any type, but he has some points:
- It is probably better that helicopters are operated in numbers (greater than one) on larger ships, as someone pointed out the orginal WW2 escort carriers, the concept behind the Invincibles and the original concept behind the T23/RFA Fort II.
- It is a valid point that frigates make a good target for shore batteries.
I know we have debated the Absalons at great length but I think for: independent partol, as ASW leader or in a LCS role they represent a great proposition and probably more cost effective than the T26. I don't see the T26 offers much over the T23.
citizen578
New Member
Is it?
I struggle to think of many incidents in modern times of a shore battery striking a naval target, that isn't the result of nelgigence/short-cutting by the vessel's command. If anything, we are going in the opposite direction, with dual purpose missiles, stand-off weapons systems, remote targeted weapons, guided extended range gun ammunition.
All of which a 'modified merchant' could not perform to remotely the same proficiency as a dedicated keel-up warship.
I wasn't defending the merchantman concept. Agreed there have only been two incidents INS Hanit & HMS Glamorgan? I note your point about negligence. The captain may well have been, but then it’s easy to scapegoat an officer, the INS Hanit was hit bya small missile from a single launch. Generally a warship stands out on the sea, as a much easier target than a mobile battery firing multiple missile. Maybe when the warship is distracted on other tasks minesweeping/escorting.