The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Rather than buy an Italian-designed ship built in India, why not build an Italian (or French, or British) designed ship in Brazil? They have docks big enough for anything they care to build.
Well thats a good point, they is no reason why they shouldn't. I suspect they do not have the commitment to build a 1st tier navy as India. Once India masters the construction then they will be a strong player in the market. The combination of cheap labour and a hi tech software development industry will make a compelling proposition for a lot of defence kit. I suspect Brazil wants a carrier not a carrier building industry, building one from scratch if you only want one is probably not that cost effective?
Many countries want local construction for employment reasons but others want it for security reasons. I suspect Brazil would be the former, so would be more agreeable to a low cost off the shelf option like a QE Class?
Many countries want local construction for employment reasons but others want it for security reasons. I suspect Brazil would be the former, so would be more agreeable to a low cost off the shelf option like a QE Class?
citizen578
New Member
For what purpose would we sell PoW?
It wouldn't generate that much cash in the short term, would leave us with a gaping capability gap in the medium term, and a financial nightmare in the long-term (considering the financing which has paved the way for the ships to be built).
Even the wrist-slitting, herbal-tea drinking, magnolia cardigan wearing fools down at the Guardian have stopped with the gossip about cutting the carrier programme. (though if today's papers are anything to go by, they're suddenly self-proffessed experts on submarine reactor valves :roll )
But back to reality for a moment... the US Navy are reputedly looking at the Sea Avenger (Predator C) for the Fords, to fulfill an ISR and precision strike role. It's a relatively modular design, is already being fitted with F-35 derived optics, an SA Radar, and other goodies.
Considering we've pumped in hundreds of millions into the SUAVE project and related developments, what do you guys think of the chances of overcoming STOVL and seeing a similar system on our flat tops? Before someone says it, I know they were designed from the outset to support UAVs, but probably not on this scale. For instance, an appropriately equipped long-loiter UAV seems a far better solution for MASC than a cut-and-shunt AEW helo.
Also (seeing as the British Army thread is closed), there's some interesting reports about re-opening the production line for CVR(T) hulls!
Jane's Login <---- requires login
It wouldn't generate that much cash in the short term, would leave us with a gaping capability gap in the medium term, and a financial nightmare in the long-term (considering the financing which has paved the way for the ships to be built).
Even the wrist-slitting, herbal-tea drinking, magnolia cardigan wearing fools down at the Guardian have stopped with the gossip about cutting the carrier programme. (though if today's papers are anything to go by, they're suddenly self-proffessed experts on submarine reactor valves :roll )
But back to reality for a moment... the US Navy are reputedly looking at the Sea Avenger (Predator C) for the Fords, to fulfill an ISR and precision strike role. It's a relatively modular design, is already being fitted with F-35 derived optics, an SA Radar, and other goodies.
Considering we've pumped in hundreds of millions into the SUAVE project and related developments, what do you guys think of the chances of overcoming STOVL and seeing a similar system on our flat tops? Before someone says it, I know they were designed from the outset to support UAVs, but probably not on this scale. For instance, an appropriately equipped long-loiter UAV seems a far better solution for MASC than a cut-and-shunt AEW helo.
Also (seeing as the British Army thread is closed), there's some interesting reports about re-opening the production line for CVR(T) hulls!
Jane's Login <---- requires login
kev 99
Member
I can't see how the QE class can operate a fixed wing UAV of the size of the predator C without cats, to be honest I'm not particularly hopeful of them being able to operate any fixed wing UAV until something new, comes along.
Selling one would be better than seeing it cancelled and the waste involved in that. It wouldn't create a gap as the 2nd one is to be used as a helcopter carrier. An Invincible/Ocean could do this for some time.
Something like this:
Endurance UAV + Small Deck = ?
Not necessarily fixed wing, but the picture is.
Although I think with such a strong UK UAV sector we should really be supporting it when it comes to long term (non-UOR) procurements.
My money would be on a fireshadow style UAV, launched by a rocket, wings open at altitude and then the Prop kicks in.
They've had stuff like that for years, what they really want to eliminates that silly "catch it in a net" recovery system. The greater likelihood right now is increasing the endurance and payload of a rotary wing UAV. If that could be done it might herald a better solution for MASC because it'll allow greater loiter time and higher operating altitude than a Merlin.
Now I am showing my ignorance but I just don't see the obsession in UAV. Taking it back a long way but look at DASH v MATCH. In a very hostile air enviroment then yes (I do like the Taranis concept). But everyone was laughing at General Dannat saying we could use Tucano's in Afghanistan but surely a Super Tucano (with a similar sensors fit) would be superior to a Predator?
Last edited:
When I say 45% complete, I don't mean 'a hull / ship' , I mean the relevant sections. I don't have any inside info,it's just what I've seen in the press & in passing by the sites where its being built.
After all, the ship is gonna be built up out of something like 1200 units (roughly 10 feet square), so when I say 45%, we know that the bow is complete & has been shipped to Rosyth, BAE on the Clyde is probably about 50% across 2 units they are building (& I don't mean they've finished one unit & started the next, the 2 are being built side by side). BAE Portsmouth has only recently started their section, so we'll estimate 10%. And as for the others, well your guess is as good as mine...
So 45% is a guess-timate, but it probably won't be far off that mark.
SA
UAVs have a long loiter time, are cheaper (especially when you factor in pilot training, pay etc) and are more expendable, which leads to other savings. And UAVs can have multiple uses in different war scenarios where as Tucanos are really only for COIN work, in any other battlefield they wouldn't be that useful. And on top of all that, everything a Tucano can do can already be done by assets we already have thanks to rocket pods and PGMs on fast jets/helos. Since we've already paid for them we may as well use them and they are a lot more versatile in other situations.
The man in the loop argument for CAS isn't reallyvalid either since the PGMs on a UAV are being fired by a man with a video feed.
The potential for UAVs is also massive.
For the thousandth time, NO!
I've explained this over and over again: it is not true! The idea that one CVF will only be used as a helicopter carrier is a myth, based on a misunderstanding.
The two CVFs will operate as the current two operational carriers do, in a cycle with the LPH. At any given time, two ships will be fully operational, with one in refit, repair, working up, or in reserve. When the two operational ships are both carriers, one will operate as a carrier, & one as an LPH. i.e. when QE is in dock, PoW will be a carrier; when PoW is in dock, QE will be a carrier; when both are at sea, one will be a carrier, one an LPH - & either could (& at times, will) take either role.
We will therefore always have one operational carrier. If we sell one off, then we will often have no operational carrier. It will create a gap.
kev 99
Member
I read this last week, what I really would like to see is a version of Mantis, but that looks far to large to operate without cats.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Better Idea would be to build a third as the Ocean replacement, Probably more expensive then a specialised Ocean replacement even adding in the cost of a one ship class and associated design costs, but it would give additional flexibility and operational depth, especially since it provides another ship with full fleet flagship facilities.
A lot more expensive than a specialised Ocean replacement. Probably about 4 times the cost. Not worth it when we're short in other areas.
A bare-bones LPH like Ocean is pretty cheap - and how many ships do we need with full fleet flagship facilities? I think the LPDs can probably do it if necessary: they're very well-equipped in that respect.
A bare-bones LPH like Ocean is pretty cheap - and how many ships do we need with full fleet flagship facilities? I think the LPDs can probably do it if necessary: they're very well-equipped in that respect.
That's got me thinking of vessels with flag facilitates the LPD are very well equipped a 72 odd workstations for C&C. The T-45 have flag functions because in Beddells site they were initially going to be commanding rather than the QE's. that's 10 ships with flag functionality (2 Invinsables then QE's, 2 Albion's 6 T-45's) I'm unsure about including T-22 although they often are used as a command vessel
Indeed. In fact when Ocean and Bulwark were deployed on Taurus '09 it was actually Bulwark that acted in the flag role rather than Ocean.
Well said.
It would be nice, and in the long run maybe even Taranis. Mantis does seem a better choice than Predator anyway, even if it only because it has a second engine and larger payload.
We can dream, you know or vote UKIP in. (I voted today, but UKIP told me to support the Tories in my constituency
). T22 has been used in the flag capacity before. It definitely has more C&C gear than a T23. Didn't they add the C&C stuff along with a hull plug to correct the sea keeping problems of the earlier T22's?
That's what i've heard anyway. Those extra 60 bed spaces have been advertised as for RM, or Flag staff. Can't link it, but i've certainly read it before now. Beedalls should mention it.
Out of interest: What happened to whoever ran Beedalls? It hasn't been updated since the end of '08. Shame really.
Richard Beedall. He's taking a break. It was interfering too much with the rest of his life, I think. He posts occasionally on the Warships1 forum, & probably others. IIRC he uses the name RichardB.
Let's keep our fingers crossed for a resumption of activity.