TurbiniaI’m familiar with all those web sites, and to be honest I still don’t see much more than a Ro-Ro ferry in HMNZS Cantebury. What have I said that you seem to take as being in some way anti-New Zealand? I know plenty of New Zealanders who agree with my view that NZ defence policy has became something of an empty gesture since deciding they didn’t need a combat air force and no more than a token maritime combat capability.
TurbiniaExactly. For a ship like this all of the cost is going to be the missiles and radar, the hull is just a neccessary evil you need to get the missiles and radar from A to B. A simple commercial derivative hull would suffice.
TurbiniaI think I will sit on the sidelines and keep my powder dry; just in case around about 2015 the RN are forced to announce a similar delay to the CVF’s, due their “recent inexperience of building large warships and various issues of integration of its complex systems” ………….:diablo: I don’t think we could quite live that one down 😉 🙁
Very true, I hope I’m wrong but BAE’s recent history in managing large projects and the problems with the British ship building industry are a big worry with regards the CVF program. That said, the Type 45 does seem to be a huge improvement over the dreadful build of the two LPD’s, the LSD(A) was down to giving a big contract to Swanns re-incarnation expecting them to be able to run before they could walk (tell me that wasn’t a political bit of pork barrel) and the Astute is a special case as building a stae of the art SSN is always going to be problematic and BAE had to re-learn it all thanks to the government deciding to have a hiatus in submarine orders and BAE’s build teams dispersing and getting better jobs elsewhere. I really hope the CVF build goes smoothly but a delay of a couple of years won’t be unexpected, I will however be delighted to be proved wrong:)
TurbiniaLike this.
TurbiniaMaybe they’re talking of something like the proposed Harrier carrying Type 44 destroyer with a baby flight deck, ski jump and hangar for two Harriers:D
TurbiniaOn Arctic resources, there are already established international agreements for settling claims to resource fields outside territorial waters, Russia will have to claim what is theirs to claim and recognise other countries have claims too.
TurbiniaHas the Thai ship ever actually been used as a carrier or done any military service? I thought it was a big royal yacht for the king? I’m not trying to flame here or anything here, I’m genuinely curious to know if it’s ever actually served as a carrier as everything I’ve read about her says she’s a yacht.
TurbiniaIn some ways the quality of escorts was less important than just having escorts. In the first half of the war U-Boats were often used as motor torpedo boats that had limited underwater capabilities if needed, but they tended to be far more effective when operating on the surface, where an escort of any sort was a valuable deterrent or defence. The corvettes were slow, poor sea boats and had a limited weapons fit, in any rational analysis they’d be considered awful ships, but they could be built and were just enough to provide a minimum escort that could make the difference between survival and sinking for merchant vessels. The Hunts were similar, they were never the best ships, but they could be built in greater quantities than fleet destroyers and were capable enough to fulfill their roles. The USN DDE’s were excellent ships, the USN made the same mistake as the RN in ignoring previously hard learned lessons in the early days of their involvement in the Atlantic campaign which cost a lot of good men needlessly. The unsung heroes of the Atlantic campaign were the Canadians, in history it’s like the Canadians never existed in many British, American and German accounts yet the RCN was providing a huge proportion of Atlantic escorts by wars end and was the 4th. largest navy in the world by the end of the war (I think).
TurbiniaIn a way the RN neglect of trade protection and ASW vessels/tactics was just as stupid as the German Z plan. The RN appear to have believed that ASDIC (Sonar) had given them a silver bullet against submarines which was far from the case and their naval estimates in the years up to WW2 were dominated by rebuilding the battle fleet, carriers and fleet destroyers with virtually no escort destroyers or sloops despite the fact that it was sloops, escort destroyers and corvettes that Britain would rely on to stave off defeat in the Atlantic, the one theatre of war where Britain could have been defeated and taken out of the war. And in the early phase of the war the RN seem to have ignored everything they learnt in WW1 about convoys, the pointlessness of hunting groups etc. Luckily the Hunts were approved just before war and it was lucky for them that the German Navy wasn’t much better prepared for a U Boat campaign against merchant shipping.
TurbiniaSomething I’ve often wondered is what could the German Navy have done if the resources poured into the Z plan surface fleet had gone into U-Boats or even a small part of the resources? The Battle of the Atlantic was very finely balanced in the early days with the Germans managing to inflict massive losses with a handful of active boats. Tragically for Germany and luckily for the Allies by the time Germany did have a large number of boats available American ship building capacity and improvements in ASW tactics and technology combined with convoy air support had shifted the balance against the U-boats. The German surface fleet achieved little of value despite the immense cost of building it other than to tie down RN capital ships to cover possible German break outs and deprive the Eastern fleet of large units that may have been better used against Italy and Japan. The drain on crews, engineering and fuel of keeping ships like the QE’s and R class active to cover against the German fleet were undeniably a burden the RN could have done without, but nothing like the drain on the German Navy of keeping their large units active.
TurbiniaWhen common sense rules both parties will stick and share the cost for the CVF and Rafale M at hand already, when splitting the related workshare and demand.
Both parties will have advantages from that.
I think the Rafale (M) is a superb carrier fighter, but would be very surprised to see it in RAF/RN service for some pretty good reasons;
-arguments over technology transfer aside the UK forces still want the F35. Short of a program catastrophe it’s hard to see them abandoning the program now the technology fall out is settled and the UK is happy with their access. Even if the UK decides to fit catapults and arrestor gear I’d be amazed if they didn’t buy the USN carrier version of the F35.
-UK industry has a significant stake in the F35, small compared to the US I know, but not insignificant, and a small stake in a BIG program could well be a lot more lucrative than being project leader in a small one, so British industry is still behind the F35.
-if the F35 does suffer a catastrophe or there is another fall out, then the fall back option would either be “Sea Typhoon” or Rafale (M). The problems for Rafale (M) are both political and operational, for the UK government to spend that much on the Rafale would be extremely difficult politically (bearing in mind the aircraft side of the CVF contract will be more expensive than the carriers) and operationally it’d mean the RAF having two similar but totally different fighters which in itself would mean any cost savings to buy the Rafale(M) compared to paying for a navalised Typhoon development would have to be offset against higher operating and life support costs.
Hence, to me it is almost certain the CVF will fly the F35B with a navalised Typhoon an unlikely but not impossible alternative.
TurbiniaI only mention offshore energy fields because that was given as a reason for building carriers. When do USN CVN battlegroups sit off oil rigs? Why do Norway, Denmark, Angola, Nigeria, Egypt, Indonesia, Israel etc. see no need for aircraft carriers to protect their offshore interests? Especially since some of them are in higher threat areas than anything Russia faces at home. The UK and Brazil have or are building carriers but protecting energy fields is so low down their list of potential uses it can be written off as trivial. Same for submarines. The threat to offshore oil and gas rigs is mainly from hi-jacking by domestic insurgents or disgruntled people looking for some $$$$$’s, in a war they’re so vulnerable that they’d be virtually impossible to defend. Hence just about every country out there with such installations relies on OPV’s to Police them or as a secondary task for other surface vessels when convenient. If Russia wants carriers then as I say, fair enough, but don’t try and justify them by a need to protect oil rigs. Same for Venezvuelan submarines, there are 1001 uses for subs but sitting off an oil rig isn’t one of them.
TurbiniaSorry if I’m the odd one out here but I don’t see anything on HMNZS Cantebury that couldn’t be achieved by giving a modest refit to a second hand ferry. A lot of the modern amphibs are based on commercial designs, that’s one reason they’re so affordable and the LSD(A) and similar ships building or in-service elsewhere are a great way to boost capacity alongside much more militarised types like the two LPD’s the RN have and equivalents elsewhere.
TurbiniaOne thing nice about the 16DDH as they would provide excellent ASW Screens for Aircraft Carrier and Surface Action Groups. 😀
🙂 Indeed:)
TurbiniaMate it’s obvious you don’t know anything about the Kiwi’s or their military. The Canterbury that they have (which has now been delivered guys), is just the right size for their needs, They don’t have a big army, but what they do have is constantly in demand for UN duties. Had they have gone for the ship you mentioned, it would have turned into another “Charles Uppham” (Look that one up and make the comparisons).
I know the New Zealand armed forces are unlucky enough to have a government that even makes our British situation seem idylic, but even so I’m not sure why they bought a ferry when for not actually that much more they could have bought a far more versatile ship. The LSD(A) has limited amphib capabilities, but it does have them, and the ability to operate with no port infrastructure and stand off at sea would potentially be invaluable for humanitarian and disaster relief type ops around the Islands over there, and that is something that could be very useful for the RNZN. If they just want a ferry why not just take a commercial charter/lease? Or copy the UK Point class model of having ships available for commercial use when not needed by the military to reduce costs?
Sign In
