gerboisebleueFrench horror as Joan of Arc to be ‘killed’ by English again
ARG ! ! ! ! :eek::mad:
Not “Joan of Arc”
But :
“Jeanne d’Arc” !
gerboisebleueWe have started building. 1SL and the Princess Royal attended the official first steel cutting ceremony a week or two back. The extra £1Billion cost is almost entirely due to the Government ordered extension of the building period. If they had kept to the original schedule we would only be hearing about a cost increase of £100-£200million by now, hardly worth reporting. Think about it, they are going to have to keep the yards and tens of thousands of skilled workers on this project for another two or three years over what they had budgeted for. Annual payments go down, but the overall cost goes up. Try the same thing with your mortgage and see what happens.:eek:
Even if the first of the two ships were nearly began to build (first steel cutting ceremony a week or two back)…With the budget cuts, it is possible to cancel the second ship ? :rolleyes:
gerboisebleueFitting docks to CVFs to turn them into LHDs would reduce their speed, increase their fuel consumption, & reduce their aircraft carrying capacity. Since we already have plenty of ships with docks, & plenty of other ships which can carry vehicles but not aircraft, we don’t need LHDs. We need replacements for the aircraft-carrying capacity of the Invincible class ships.
I agree…partially…(technicaly speeking)…but…
In this time of great financial restriction, “optimisation” of ships were very important. Because the big donwards in defense spending expected by british force in the 2010’s.
Build 2 big ships of 60000 tons with the risk of a ships with a partial complement of aircraft (donwards of F-35 order)……(I doubt that ever one of this ships take 30/36 F-35:rolleyes:)…were…nearly…usefullness…
And don’t forget the aircraft capacity of the Spanish (juan carlos) or south korean (Dokhdo) LHD…:rolleyes:
but this is only my opinion:rolleyes:
gerboisebleueRe hi gyus
(sorry for my bad english:p)
The Royal Navy has suffered from years of very dramatic budget cuts (and this cuts probably “continus” in the 2010’s).
It is known that the royal navy would:
– 2 large aircraft carrier
– 12 destroyers
– Around 16/22 frigates
– 10/11 SSN
but the reality is the budget constraint!
being given that the number of F-35 order will probably be revised downwards (150…>…75/80?….even minus ???:() and that the RAF is doing everything to weaken the Royal navy…
Does it not better to have large ships more modular & flexible, because large aircraft carrier….. take only aircraft & helicopters (& eventually troops) …
The LHD is more flexible, they take Aircraft, helicopters, troops……&…..tanks, others military vehicles & amphibious craft:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
For that, I think 2 large LHD would be more effective than 2 aircraft carriers for the royal navy…:rolleyes:
gerboisebleueFlexibility is the key to CVF, it’s not just about Lightnings. It will deploy with the CHF as well when required. Plenty of room for a mixed air group, say a sqn of 12 Lightnings for CAS, 4 MASC for AEW, 6 Merlins for ASW defence of the task group, and mixed bag of 12 Sea King HC4s, 6 Chinooks and 8 Apaches.
RESULT =
Cancel the pure CVF design (Good after the 1982 falkland experience but obsolete in the futur….because no flexible)…
…and build 2 Big LHD (of a radical new design….probably similar to the south corean Dokhdo design (Thales design 14/18000 tons)….but much bigger……32/40000 tons).
😉
gerboisebleuePeople, can anyone ID these torpedoes?
http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20090630_09
http://www.defence.lk/img/20090630_B04.jpg
http://www.defence.lk/img/20090630_B05.jpg
http://www.defence.lk/img/20090630_B06.jpg
http://www.defence.lk/img/20090630_B01.jpg
http://www.defence.lk/img/20090630_B03.jpg
http://www.defence.lk/img/20090630_B02.jpg
http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20090703_09 (Scroll to the bottom)
http://www.defence.lk/img/20090703_15.jpg
http://www.defence.lk/img/20090703_16.jpg
http://www.defence.lk/img/20090703_17.jpg
Hi
a probable indigenious torpedo device from the LTTE force (anti sri lanka movement).Photo probably taken during spring 2009 after the capture of LTTE base….
Probably two way:
– “human torpedo” (similar to german & japanese human manned torpedo of WW2)
or
– a very conservative torpedo design (same a russian torpedo of 1930-1950’s)
:rolleyes:
gerboisebleueIn Navires & Histoire N°54 is stated, that at least three destroyers are currently in construction.
Two 9000 t destroyers in Dalian, perhaps type 051D
A destroyer in Shanghai, perhaps type 052C or 052D
Does anyone knows more? Has photos?
probably speculation ?
gerboisebleueMake you wonder if India is considering the Aegis System for future Warships???
Maybe for the destroyer program 015B ???
gerboisebleuemaybe a drop from 11 to 10 in 2012……and 9 by 2020 ? :eek::eek:
extract from
http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/
Carriers Factor into Gates Decision Monday
The internet is buzzing with Monday’s impending announcement by Gates that will suggest the way ahead for the DoD. Among the rumors with credibility, the F-22 appears to be getting a reprieve from the budget hangman, while Future Combat Systems doesn’t. For the Navy, it is difficult to tell, with some reports suggesting the DDG-1000 is on the list, while other reports are not specifically citing the DDG-1000. The real Navy platform mentioned as part of the rumors flying around is the aircraft carrier.
Representative Gene Taylor, a Democrat from Mississippi and chairman of a House seapower subcommittee, said questions had emerged about whether a new system for catapulting planes off the next generation of carriers would work. If it does not, the Navy would have to return to a traditional system, delaying the new carriers by a year.
Meanwhile, he said, the Navy has been debating whether to spend $1.5 billion to refuel one of the oldest carriers. If it does not, that could lead to a temporary cut in the carriers below the 11 that Congress has required.
I think after we have beat around EMALS in the comments over the last few weeks, because nothing has emerged in the press regarding a showstopping type of problem with the system, the problem is specific to cost and schedule, not technology. There are simply too many reporters beating around on this issue for a technology problem not to be reported, so the technology itself does not appear to be the issue.
The way I read this, the Ford class will be delayed, and the main issues yet to be determined is the cost growth and schedule changes. Given the long term savings of EMALS, if I was the Navy I would stick with the EMALS technology and not revert to steam unless the cost growth is well over $1 billion, which it probably isn’t. As Vice Adm. Barry McCullough alluded to in testimony this week, the cost savings that will be gained long term from the Ford class over the Nimitz class is significant (many, many billions over the life cycle of the aircraft carrier), not just with the aircraft carrier but also for the aircraft that won’t get beat up as badly as the aircraft does with today’s launching and landing technologies.
As the rumor goes, the Navy will drop to 10, potentially 9 aircraft carriers. Well, I look at such a move like this.
With the Ford almost certainly delayed beyond 2015 any case made to extend the life of USS Enterprise (CVN 65) at this point is silly. There is simply no way the nuclear fuel will last on Enterprise until the Ford is built. We just pumped nearly half a billion dollars into Enterprise to get one, maybe two more deployments out of her. If cost is the primary driver here, early retirement for Enterprise makes a lot of sense.
This would reduce the number of aircraft carriers to 10. The question is, how would the number be reduced to 9? Well, most likely it would be done by skipping the nuclear refueling of USS Abraham Lincoln’s (CVN 72), which I believe is set to begin in the 2013 time frame. If the Ford is ready by 2016, and the decision is to keep the number of aircraft carriers at 9 instead of 10, the Navy could opt to skip the refueling of the USS George Washington (CVN 73) in 2016/2017 time frame. If the Navy was to build Ford class aircraft carriers at a rate of one every 5 years, as has been suggested, the Navy could get the number of aircraft carriers back up to 10 by 2020, and the third Ford class would be in position to replace the USS Nimitz (CVN 68) by 2025. The Navy actually has a lot of flexibility in terms of how they can reduce aircraft carriers, and that would actually help with any schedule delays with the Ford class.
My point is this. I don’t think we want to lose the industrial capability to build aircraft carriers. To support a fleet of 10 aircraft carriers, the national commitment is that we would build 20 per century. At this point, I think that is a very reasonable position the Navy can make a good case for with the American public and lawmakers. The advantages to a 10 carrier force are significant, while the impacts of reducing the force below 10 will become very apparent quickly.
Even at 10 aircraft carriers, the importance for the Navy to optimize the use of naval vessels for low, medium, and high intensity challenges at sea becomes important. I haven’t really seen anyone discuss operational optimization of forces in the force structure debate, although a real “debate” in public on force structure with the Navy doesn’t actually exist, since they don’t talk about it.
As for the other platforms, lets wait and see what Gates says.
One last thought. It is valid to raise questions regarding the defense priorities of the Obama administration under Gates, and whether they are consistent or not.
For example, how is it the political position of the Obama administration to suggest Sea Basing is a priority, which I actually believe is a legitimate position driven primarily on the idea of reducing political footprints in other countries for military bases, and at the same time he administration wants to reduce the number of aircraft carriers. Think about it. The strategic argument for sea basing supports aircraft carriers, particularly as the sea basing concept evolves without the aviation centric platforms originally called for in the sea basing program. It seems there is some inconsistency in the various decisions Gates is making. There is no question Gates has been good for managing the current wars, but when it comes to force planning, we would be wise to see if the guy is consistent before he is anointed brilliance in his future force decisions.
It is entirely possible Gates has inconsistent visions for forces just like Rumsfeld did, simply based on a different set of priorities. It will be interesting to see if he is making bean counter judgments, or has a real strategic vision guiding his approach consistently to big ticket programs he intends to cut.
gerboisebleueDDG-1000’s Cost Overstated in News Reports, Official Says
14:12 GMT, February 9, 2009 WASHINGTON | The projected unit cost of the next-generation U.S. Navy destroyer is much lower than the figures being cited in some news reports, a senior Defense Department official said here yesterday.
The DDG-1000 is a high-tech, guided-missile destroyer that is envisioned to eventually replace the Arleigh Burke class of warships developed 30 years ago.
The Pentagon would pay between $2.2 to $2.5 billion for each new DDG-1000 ship after the regular production line is up and running, John J. Young Jr., undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics told reporters at the Pentagon.
Young said he disagrees with news reports that say DDG-1000 vessels would cost up to $7 billion per copy. “There’s no basis for any [cost] projection that this ship is going to cost 5 or 6 or 7 billion dollars,” Young said.
The cost of a first prototype, or lead, DDG 1000 ship is about $3.3 billion because the government pays for the initial drawings and production set-up, Young said. The unit cost of follow-on ships would decrease due to industrial economies of scale, he said.
Conversely, unit production costs can rise if the number of items to manufacture is reduced from the original schedule, Young explained.
The DDG-1000 series is designated the Zumwalt class, named after late Navy Adm. Elmo Zumwalt Jr. The new ships feature computer-aided design, modular construction, high-tech armaments and radar, as well as a unique, streamlined hull design.
Originally, 32 DDG-1000 vessels were to be built at shipyards in Maine and Mississippi. Recent production plans called for two ships to be built.
However, the DDG-1000 is on hold for now, as Pentagon and interagency officials re-examine the project, Young said.
“Aside from the warfighting analysis, we do need to do some producibility analysis, manufacturing analysis and cost analysis,” he said.
Some officials suggest that modifying Arleigh Burke class ships would be a less expensive way to create a new vessel, Young said. That approach, he said, wouldn’t produce as much cost savings as imagined, and would result in a vessel possessing undesirable mass without the capabilities of the DDG-1000.
“You cannot do that without significant changes in that ship,” Young said of proposals to rework Arleigh Burke ships to create a new vessel. “You will have to add cooling capacity; you will have to add electrical generating capacity,” as well as upgraded radar equipment.
And, the Arleigh Burke class destroyer “has already gained weight because it is 30 years into its service life and ships are designed with a certain amount of weight-carrying capacity,” he said.
See also:
Lexington Institute: DDG-1000 Destroyer Is Not Needed
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/5417/
For full articl of under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics (AT&L), John Young see below:
DDG 1000’s Top Defender Speaks Out
gerboisebleuegerboisebleueand with a bigger CdG:rolleyes: ?
enjoy this study
or
today big aircraft carrier flight deck configuration
medium aircraft carrier configuration (study of 1990’s-2000)
medium aircraft carrier study (1970’s)
Futur CVN 78 flight deck configuration
all modern aircraft carrier of the world:D:D:D:D:D
:D:D:D
gerboisebleueWe’re probably getting too far afield from the point of this topic, which is about the carriers themselves.
YES OF COURSE !
THE MAIN THEME OF THIS TOPIC IS: US BIG CARRIER, TOO BIG
NOT BEST AIRWING OR NAVAL AIRCRAFT
How are moderators ?
lol, many post were to be deleted 😀
gerboisebleueI think the design for USS ford cvn class was only small changes compared to Nimitz. (different elevator, nuclear plant, island, ect…)
Even with crew reductions, the crew is still more than 4,000 men, which is enormous.
If naval history has shown that large aircraft carrier are more effective than small. But The changes mean that the current dominance of large ships disappears!
For Nimitz, their long life (50 years), is in my opinion, not a good thing, because their design is not flexible.
I really think that large ships are outdated, or at least the ships of the size of Nimitz
I prefer a more shorter design, with more flexible capability
gerboisebleueAre the ships in scale with each other???
P.S. Welcome to the Forum!
yes, in this picture, these ships were in scale (famous drawing in shipsbucket album)
Sign In
