dark light

redreidy

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 181 through 195 (of 203 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Future dogfights #2434148
    redreidy
    Participant

    yea but then again when have americans pronounced anything right? yogurt any 1? or shud YO gurt

    in reply to: Pugachevs Cobra #2434187
    redreidy
    Participant

    i remember hearing some where that if you deployed this manouver in a dogfight, that unless the opponant is directly behind you and very close your as good as dead?? i can imagen for the chasing plane its just a case of nose up, gun burst, bye bye fighter?

    in reply to: Future dogfights #2434394
    redreidy
    Participant

    part 4 on you tube

    in reply to: Does the RN need SSBN's anymore? #2023141
    redreidy
    Participant

    I have to disagree with you about the nhs! the nhs is a great organisation and ok some times they don’t get things right, but the alternative is that the poor or needy don’t deserve healthcare and I strongly disagree with this. also you take the Mick out f the numbers that it employs but that’s the point as the biggest organisation in Europe it employs nearly 1 million employee’s I believe. the last thing this country needs is another million unemployed.

    in reply to: Does the RN need SSBN's anymore? #2023228
    redreidy
    Participant

    lol yea i know i was just messing about but i suppose if the moderators decided to change history……..

    in reply to: Does the RN need SSBN's anymore? #2023238
    redreidy
    Participant

    I don’t know why Wiki is actually really useful for stuff like this.

    lol I know but it was frowned upon in university and since then it sort of feels like a guilty pleasure to read and quote it lol. also I sort of fear it, its like George Orwell was saying in 1984, about what the ministry writes becomes the truth. sooner or later whatever wiki writes will become fact! because people will believe it! for example in 20 years Briton might have been conquered in 1069 by the Normans if wiki say’s it was!

    in reply to: Does the RN need SSBN's anymore? #2023247
    redreidy
    Participant

    Lets try the maths bit again.
    $9billion = £6billion. It takes about 7 years from keel laying to commisioning = < £1 billion per annum

    I don’t no what your point is about 1 billion per annum unless your suggesting building 7 carriers one at a time, each taking 7 years, therefore total production taking 49 years?

    also my point was if each carrier cost 9 billion DOLLERS each that would equate to about 68 billion DOLLARS for the 7 carriers u suggested! which is about 37.7 billion POUND.

    Carriers are now designed with a life span of 50 years hence the size for upgrades of equipment & not 20.

    Actually I think that you will find that HMS Ocean’s in service lifespan is 20 years because she was build to commercial standards, and is therefore cheaper. the lifespan is shorter because military builds are much more sturdy, not sure on the specifics of why I just know that they are!

    and just in case you don’t believe me. hate to quote Wiki again but even Wiki know this.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ocean_(L12)

    7 carriers would equate to only 2 at sea, using £’s. 2 in light reserve/ crew training ok using a few bob. @ in deep reserve manned by RNVR units costing little & 1 in refit maintenance only. This would only actually add £400M wages (RN FAA RM & service gangs) £140M ships fuel, 7 £100-150M aircraft fuel depending on sorties flown, totalling £640M -£690M per annum.

    I’m curious as to where u got these numbers from?? not that I don’t believe you! 😀

    in reply to: Does the RN need SSBN's anymore? #2023296
    redreidy
    Participant

    LOL a few extra billion lets do the maths! ok so you want 7 100,000 ton carriers. wiki the fountain of all knowledge states that the Gerald ford class will cost 9 billion each not including the research and development costs! so seven of those is 63 Billion dollars which is about 38 billion I think. then say if we make more ocean’s because there cheap today’s prices I think it was agreed on another thread of about 300m so 7 of those is another 2.1 billion and these only have a lifespan of 20 years. so to match the carriers you would need 14 of these produced plus the facilities to build such large number I would say a conservative guestimate of 5 billion pounds. which takes us to 43 billion pounds, not to mention the escorts, supply ships, construction facilities and massive increase in navy personnel required to man such a up taking. Although I am probably way off with the number but I have confessed many time imp no expert! I think even this prove how it would be impossible and any gov that tried it should and would be lynched! It would be interesting to have somebody who knows the numbers price this up though!

    in reply to: Does the RN need SSBN's anymore? #2023306
    redreidy
    Participant

    wait? did you just say you wanted 7 Large fleet carriers ala CVF, i take it that is what CVA means? and 7 LPH? for the royal navy? i didnt realise we where planning a war with america!

    in reply to: São Paulo #2024485
    redreidy
    Participant

    it seems to me that in the next 20 years the worlds oceans are going to be packed with carriers again! exciting i think 😀

    in reply to: São Paulo #2024615
    redreidy
    Participant

    I understand where your coming from but for the huge cost of deploying a carrier just for the sake of maintaining carrier doctrine seems like a massive waste to me, especially when there isn’t any plans (that I have heard of anyway) of a new Brazilian carrier on the way in the near future. and im not sure training for harriers carrier ops is more expensive than the constant training required to perform carrier traps?

    in reply to: São Paulo #2024750
    redreidy
    Participant

    i know it would mean going STOVL. for me it would make sense i imagen that a CTOL carrier will be much more expensive to maintain and what with the extra training i cannot see the point in keeping it ctol if alls your bringing to the fight is A-4! much better to have a cheaper to maintain and train carrier with harriers or maybe with the money saved invest in some F35b’s. but then again maybe there sumthing i have missed im no expert on carriers.

    in reply to: São Paulo #2024764
    redreidy
    Participant

    There arent any Harriers available unless they went for New Builds from BAe.

    maybe not right now but with the f-35 coming in the not to distant future I am sure some airframes will become available. although I don’t know what kind of lifespan they would have left but with the majority of harrier users moving to the f-35 spares shouldn’t be to hard to come by. also what about the royal navy’s old sea harriers I am sure I read on here sum were that there still about in storage?

    in reply to: São Paulo #2025102
    redreidy
    Participant

    Surely they have to buy new aircraft! I cant really imagine a scenario in which a compliment of A-4s is useful? other than a naval race role or fighting against very poor opponents. If I was them I would put a ski ramp on it and buy sum Harriers from sum were or AV-8B’s.

    although i do like the sound of using the goshawk as a light attack aircraft but i believe it only has 1 hardpoint under each wing but i have no idea how easy/hard it would be to convert a hawk into a decent attack plane ……. but thats another thread another time maybe.

    in reply to: Nations weapons types and quantities #2414240
    redreidy
    Participant

    yes telling the world these sort of numbers would be majorly stupid from a stratigic point of veiw. it would give any potential oppositions an idea of how long you could resist ect…

Viewing 15 posts - 181 through 195 (of 203 total)