It looks like a cross between Ocean, Albion Class & the New LHD's that are being built for Australia.
Nice idea, but no funds available to pay for it....
SA :duel
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Nice idea, but no funds available to pay for it....
SA :duel
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
That would depend on how much they want for it wouldn't it?
And even if they ordered a pair tomorrow they wouldn't be able to start assembly until PoW is out of the dock.
Add in the fact that they could build them more slowly by using only the resources not tied up being T26 and possibly MARS ships (if built in the UK) and I don't think it would cost much if anything within the next 5 years or so.
Its an interesting concept. Blending a few roles and ideas together. But I would imagine such flexability eats into the ships internal spaces for cargo/troops. I think I like Natavias design better, but this would be idea if they could swing a couple of these in conjunction with the carriers. With 2 x 40mm, and point missile defence they would able to be fairly independant depending on the mission. Something like this would be very nice for anti priate work. Who knows how the budget will be in 2020.
It looks like what they should have built instead of Ocean and as a replacement of Interpid/Fearless. Not sure what it is offering over the Mistral/JC1.
Really nice, but can't be aimed at the RN can it?
if extra money does come availible for more ships beyond the current plans you would think it would have to go to more escorts .
For the RN - British.
For everyone else - just another contender in the international market, along with Dokdo, the LHDs Fincantieri is scheduled to build for Italy, & the TKMS design which has yet to find a buyer. IMO, unlikely to sell unless someone gives the RN enough dosh to buy one as an Ocean replacement. Navantia, DCNS & Hanjin can point to floating hardware, & Fincantieri should join their club soon. BAE is disadvantaged by lacking that.
i see that hms illustrious is coming back into service after her refit (i wasnt aware of this and thought she was up for sale)
at least as a helicopter carrier we will still have some force projection capability together with hms ocean.....
UK: HMS Illustrious in Service Again >> Naval Today
http://navaltoday.com/2011/06/21/uk-hms-illustrious-raring-to-go-after-usd-64-7-million-refit/
http://navaltoday.com/2011/07/08/hms-illustrious-returnes-home-to-portsmouth-uk/
hopefully,after such a refit,the govt will see sense and keep her on past 2014 and until the qe class carriers can finally take over.
at least as a helicopter carrier we will still have some force projection capability together with hms ocean.....
UK: HMS Illustrious in Service Again >> Naval Today
http://navaltoday.com/2011/06/21/uk-hms-illustrious-raring-to-go-after-usd-64-7-million-refit/
http://navaltoday.com/2011/07/08/hms-illustrious-returnes-home-to-portsmouth-uk/
hopefully,after such a refit,the govt will see sense and keep her on past 2014 and until the qe class carriers can finally take over.
Agreed as there is no RN requirement and it is very unlikely that such an unexceptional ship would secure any exports, you have to ask why bother?
The point I was trying to make was if something like this had been built instead of Ocean originally, the UK would have been ahead of the game and who knows may have secured a few exports.
On a completely different tack, it has occurred to me that what is happening to the RN at the moment is not that different to previous guttings in the late 60s and then again in the late 70s. I fully understand the need to cut costs but some of the decisions to cut capabilities or more to the point fully own platforms only to have to replace them, often with less capable platforms only a couple of years down the track defies logic.
Let me use the example of the Invincible Class light carriers, would it not have been cheaper and more effective to convert a number of the conventional carriers into helicopter and Harrier carriers during the late 60s / early 70s instead building the Invincibles. Imagine fighting the Falklands with HMS Victorious and Eagle complete with type 984 radar and an airgroup of 50 Helos and Harriers (beefing up the Seaharrier squadrons with Harrier GR3) leaving Hermes to operate as a Commando Carrier.
A larger more capable force for lower cost that could have been progressively replaced through the 1990s with ships incorporating the lessons of the Falklands.
Let me use the example of the Invincible Class light carriers, would it not have been cheaper and more effective to convert a number of the conventional carriers into helicopter and Harrier carriers during the late 60s / early 70s instead building the Invincibles. Imagine fighting the Falklands with HMS Victorious and Eagle complete with type 984 radar and an airgroup of 50 Helos and Harriers (beefing up the Seaharrier squadrons with Harrier GR3) leaving Hermes to operate as a Commando Carrier.
A larger more capable force for lower cost that could have been progressively replaced through the 1990s with ships incorporating the lessons of the Falklands.
Troothsayer
New Member
Similar, but not exactly the same. I know no-one should bet the mortgage on 'jam tomorrow' but at least these cuts are making things like CVF, Type 26, a 7th Astute, F35 affordable (or at least more affordable, with a defence budget increase post 2015).
Without the cuts now, MRA.4 may not have been the only future capability to be jacked.
If you were going to run Eagle and Victorious on, why go STOVL? We had Buccs and F4J's that were only retired in the early 90's and mid 80's respectively. I'd rather be shooting the opposition down with Sparrow at 20nm than 9l at 3...I don't know anything about Victorious at all but Ark and Eagle were both in rough condition by the mid 70's?
it was a political decision, dont forget ,to lose carriers in the 70's so retaining the big carriers wasnt an option....the invincible class werent termed as carriers but 'thru deck cruisers' by the rn to sneak them into the navy......there was then a slow but determined creep to them being classed as carriers...abet tiny ones.
and,re the prev post,the navy flew f4k's with rolls royce spey engines not j's....
and,re the prev post,the navy flew f4k's with rolls royce spey engines not j's....
Last edited:
Victorious had just completed a big refit and was in the best condition but had a minor engine fire at the wrong time and this was used as an excuse to retire almost immediately. Ironically Ark Royal was in the worst condition but stayed the longest.
Exactly..carrier? No carrier here...just some ASW kit..move along :innocent whistling:
Typo on the J, as you say, we got the K (ironically after all that effort, a run on order of about 20 F4J's was made for the RAF mind..you couldn't make it up!)
Ian
But the latest estimate for the 2 QE is c£10bn?
Although the F4 was a great aircraft and probably the best technically, it was a disaster for the UK defence industry and in retrospect a particularly bad option for the RN; as the F35, b or c is looking like being.
Last edited:
exactly.......funny how history continually repeats itself(esp in british defence spending/procurement) every 20 to thirty years.........we really dont seem to learn anything,its absolutely maddening..... and thats why bae tied the govts into the carrier/typhoon deals...you cant trust a british govt to keep its word
Sorry, there was an alternative to the F4 at the time the purchase decision was made? It was? Not the P1154 that was never going to be an aircraft of the capability of the Phantom and was years away from operational service, not the Vixen it was at the end of its development (and don't ask the lookers how they felt about flying in it), not the Scimitar also virtually at the end of the line, not the TSR-2 it was cancelled (and that's a different argument), what else was there?
I think it's fair to say the P1154 was an option for the RN and equally that they largely killed it and lead the way to the F4. It would have been a very different aircraft to the F4, I sure it would have been more agile; but a 60,000 lb v 40,000 lb and VSTOL design, load and range would be a lot less. But that's not the point, the F4K lasted 8 years in one operational sqn and was not available for the: Falklands/GW1, GW2 & Afghanistan. The P1154 would have been a far superior capability to the: FRS1, FA2 & AV8B. This is probably all hindsight but if you were armed with that, the P1154 was a much better offering for the RN than the F4K.
There’s a brief article about Phalanx 1B units being finally fitted to HMS Daring on the MOD website. The article includes a photo of the latest installation. Attached to the side of the Phalanx mounting is what looks like a thermal/IR weapons sight, is this part of the latest upgrade to allow for visual confirmation of incoming surface threats (fast attack boats, Jet Ski’s etc), or is it totally unrelated?
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operati...yers/hms-daring/news/daring_bolstered_by_.htm
HMS Diamond has formally joined the fleet, so three up, three to go.
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operati...yers/hms-daring/news/daring_bolstered_by_.htm
HMS Diamond has formally joined the fleet, so three up, three to go.