TurbiniaThe irony is that this is all ignoring the fact that the real threat to mankind is the threat to life sustaining conditions on the planet and energy supply, something that is not a national issue but one for all of us. However, seems too many are obsessed with old fashioned cold war style politics.
TurbiniaI’m not an insider to the CVF design, but I’m guessing the ski jump is not a structural member of the hull, if it isn’t a structural member then it’s just a case of cutting it off and replacing it with a conventional deck, given that CVF and PA2 will share the same platform and CVF is designed for future conversion if required then I find it hard to believe the ski jump would be part of the hull load bearing structure.
On CVF/F35B vs. PA2/Rafale, an interesting question and one which can only be answered with reference to mission profile and intended tasking. I’m not really up to speed on French carrier doctrine so am not in a position to judge.
TurbiniaThe cost of the actual hull and fighters isn’t the point, in fact I think it is agreed that the cost of CTOL~STOVL were not the determining factor here, and the RN could have built the vessels CTOL for a similar budget. However the wider cost of expected operations and defence policy is a factor, it was these wider costs and how carriers best fit into UK defence policy that favour STOVL, not the actual vessel costs.
TurbiniaEngland as a single nation has become uncapable of doing many things and a decreasing population will also affect its technological capability.
I take it population figures and estimated growth trends for England and the United Kingdom aren’t a speciality of yours?:rolleyes:
TurbiniaWho didn’t rape and pillage in Europe? Germans first, then those victims joined the game… a game that everyone played. Poor Innocent Poland took a piece of Czechoslovakia when Germany invaded Czechoslovakia… who was really innocent?
After the communist revolution it was the communists that let the baltic states be baltic states… previously under the Tsars they were parts of Russia. Within the USSR they remained seperate republics.
And invaded the Baltic states and kept them in the USSR. By your insane logic the USSR victims of German aggression are not victims as the USSR invaded Finland, Estanio, Latvia and Lithuania then divided Poland with Germany, so they deserved all they got later:rolleyes:
TurbiniaIt was western europe that wrote the book on imperialism…
As opposed to Russia, wouldn’t want to think that Russian Asia, Central Asia and the Baltic were imperial conquests:rolleyes:
If Russia really was the imperial nation many claim here… which is hilarious considering the imperial history of most european countries… they would have scooped them up quickly… they didn’t… and are making no moves to do so.
So no “Imperial” war in Chechnya then?
You are so obsessed with defending Russia no matter what you are blind to anything that may prick your bubble.
TurbiniaAdd to that low aircraft numbers, with strengh diluted still further by the requirement to fly CAP missions because of the already noted absence of AEW. The Sea Harrier did excell in 1982, it established superiority over it’s opposition and performed superbly in air combat, it wasn’t the fault of the aircraft that there weren’t enough of them and that they lacked AEW support, these two factors were more important than the admittedly serious lack of BVRAAM IMO. Fact is, the Sea Harrier allowed the UK to fight the campaign, with no Sea Harrier then the RN could not have fought that war unless they could conjure up alternative carriers and fighters out of nowhere at a few days notice, and that to me means the aircraft deserves the plaudits it earned in the campaign.
TurbiniaCFE is a pointless treaty that was a throwback to a situation that changed beyond all recognition with the end of the Cold War. Truth is, nobody in Europe is bothered what Putin does in Russia so long as he doesn’t threaten Europe, and Putin knows it so see’s a good opportunity to curry favour at home with a bit of empty posturing. The Russian armed forces know where their strategic vulnerabilities and threats are, and it isn’t Europe.
TurbiniaCan you post a link for said articles?
And for the record, I think that LESS money should go on health and education. My logic is that both organisations are so grossly inefficient, with legions of unneeded bureaucrats, that some of the fat could be trimmed away and nobody would much notice. Its no good spending extra money if, like this govt does, you spend it on cr@p. We need proper reform, not money
Problem is, that argument applies with equal validity to the MoD, the forces should try spending the funding they already get efficiently and then we’ll see how much additional money (if any) is truly needed.
TurbiniaThis argument is revisited here all of the time and will run and run, it’s a fascinating argument but we tend to repeat the same points every few weeks with no real changes to justify re-opening the debate so often IMO. My take on it is;
-building a larger vessel allows growth potential, cost per tonne is lowered and operational costs (fuel, crew, machinery maintenance, hull maintenance etc.) don’t rise anything like in proportion to escalating the hull from say 30,000T to 55,000T or whatever the current figures are. Basically, three 30,000T carriers would cost a lot more over their life cycle with nothing like the growth potential or flexibility.
-the larger hull gives superior operational performance in areas like tank capacity, magazine size, crew accomodation and short time surge capability despite the oft quoted view that a much smaller carrier could achieve the same as CVF.
-the design gives the RN options, if the F35B fails, if it is retired early or if the RN does decide it needs CTOL aircraft then CVF gives them the option to change, they are not a hostage to the success or failure of the F35B
-on the aircraft choice, it is nothing like the simple argument of brochure figure comparisons between the STOVL and CTOL F35 variants and I’d suggest the over view of the argument on the Navy Matters page is a good page to read for those interested as it gives the different arguments far more eloquently and in greater detail than I can here
-if the RN had enough money, I’m sure they would love a USN style CVN, but they haven’t, they lack the funds to pay for the air group, the logistic chain, the crews, the escort groups for USN battle group ops and industrial base to attempt to do anything like that. We have a saying that you can only urinate with the penis you’ve got and with the CVF the RN have looked at what they are realistically capable of and the best way of maximising potential within those limits.
On the whole I think a F35B armed CVF is the best the RN could hope for and think it an excellent compromise between capability and affordability, but that’s just me.
TurbiniaOne F117 and 2 F16’s is a remarkably low loss ratio relative to the number of missions flown, hell any major air force would accept those losses as accident attrition when conducting ops at that level of intensity.
TurbiniaThe issue is CVulnerableF. Jonesy has it as “secure”; Phelgan has modern defences as better than 1960s’. So is modern offense. Are we now fit to float because nuke-incoming is improbable, and/or the scale of an attack would be manageable? How did CVF win support from the Party of Nott, scrappers of the Reserve Fleet and RNVR? How did Admiralty convert the Party that briefly kept just 1 Illustrious active after 1945, sold off Majestics, cancelled CVA-01, did not repair the mess fire in Victorious, or try to put F-4K on Eagle? They chose the land, not sea, for their spend on an East of Suez role. Now we seem to be buying both. What has changed?
If Galtieri had waited some weeks, even days, ’till Hermes was off to IN and an Invincible to RAN, Falklands today would be Malvinas. But what was bought in 1975 were to be Atlantic ASW assets. We can’t put up £Bn.N for the explicit purpose of holding (was it) “a bunch of rock”. Staffs “Wargame” so Ministers can define Force shape and size for a Primary Task: USN, 1922, had us debouching from Canada; RN had France uppity in Empire. UK’s 2005 SDR took Jonesy’s logic, of cohesion, to display CVF as cost-beneficial intervention solution. It did not brandish a name for a target – evidently littoral, as any regime ready to let our F-35s overfly onto a troublesome neighbour would let us transit their soil (See Uzbek and Talib-Afghan). So, are we to take Abadan unaided by Gulf States? That would, I suggest, be before 2015, in concert with a couple of CVNs. Why duplicate, late? Better to do minehunting, or piquet, or…and do it now
We’re buying CVF…to do just what? It’s not, again, that we think that only a big stick puts us at the policy-making top table…is it?
There is a legitimate argument for re-configuring our forces into a self defence force, we could then slash defence spending and mind our own business and leave others to be military powers and pay the expense that goes with it. That is an argument I have a lot of sympathy for. However, if we do want an out of area and force projection capability then we’ll need the CVF or equivalent carriers. However, if we go down the self defence force route the RAF could be slashed as much as the RN, as why do we need a major air force when our own defence requirement isn’t much more than intercepting Russian bears from time to time over the North Sea, for our own needs a SAR capability is more important than the military side of the RAF in the current situation for our own islands.
TurbiniaWith reference to Iraq, whatever the rights and wrongs of the war in the first place, in practice the US/UK occupation has been an unmitigated disaster and virtually the whole world sees us as more part of the problem than part of the solution. What the UK is doing in Basra is somewhat ignominious and a sign of failure, but it’s hard to find any argument about Iraq that doesn’t stink if failure for our countries and at some point you have to decide enough is enough and look for a way out. How many people here think the next US administration will hang around in Iraq with an open ended committment? As soon as GWB is out I’m guessing US troops in Iraq will start doing what the British are currently doing, a phased withdrawal, and they’d be crazy not to IMO.
TurbiniaOne of the things I find irritating is claims that vehicles like the Prius and G-Whizz are environmentally friendy, there is no such thing as an environmentally friendly vehicle, only environmentally less damaging ones. And given the carbon footprint of shipping materials around the world, car transporters carrying them from Japan to Europe, questions over the battery pack life and battery pack disposal etc. then the Prius and Lexus hybrids are absolutely not eco friendly, especially when in strictly oil consumption terms they’re worse than a diesel alternative. Another point is that since a huge % of the eco impact of a car is in manufacturing phase then we should be encouraging people to keep cars longer as even though older cars are less efficient and burn more fuel, it’s been shown that the efficiency gains from replacing cars regularly with new ones is nothing like the negative impact of all that extra production environmental impact if they’re well maintained. But no car company wants that as they need to keep new sales up. All of which is a long way from a 4×4 argument, but I guess I’m just saying that although I personally don’t like SUV’s for road use, in eco terms no car user is being helpful to the environment so should stop pretending that SUV drivers are the ones killing the planet.
TurbiniaOne of the things I find irritating is claims that vehicles like the Prius and G-Whizz are environmentally friendy, there is no such thing as an environmentally friendly vehicle, only environmentally less damaging ones. And given the carbon footprint of shipping materials around the world, car transporters carrying them from Japan to Europe, questions over the battery pack life and battery pack disposal etc. then the Prius and Lexus hybrids are absolutely not eco friendly, especially when in strictly oil consumption terms they’re worse than a diesel alternative. Another point is that since a huge % of the eco impact of a car is in manufacturing phase then we should be encouraging people to keep cars longer as even though older cars are less efficient and burn more fuel, it’s been shown that the efficiency gains from replacing cars regularly with new ones is nothing like the negative impact of all that extra production environmental impact if they’re well maintained. But no car company wants that as they need to keep new sales up. All of which is a long way from a 4×4 argument, but I guess I’m just saying that although I personally don’t like SUV’s for road use, in eco terms no car user is being helpful to the environment so should stop pretending that SUV drivers are the ones killing the planet.
Sign In
