sealordlawrenceToday is “Day 1” for the American Republicans (conservatives) to start
working towards taking back America. Beginning 2009, democrats (liberals)
will control Congress and the White House. More than 56 million USA voters
(47% of all USA voters) voted against Obama. Republicans still have enough
members in Congress to filibuster (talk, read, object, etc to delay or end
legislative bills).Obama wants to cut the USA defense budget by 25%. He wants to cut and
run from Iraq as soon as possible. Terrorist jihadists and attacks could
increase at least until 2012. Expect to see cuts in new military aircraft.
He will try to stretch the F-16, F/A-18 for extended service. F-22 could
see dozens cut during this period. If the F-35 is cut, and/or foreign
partners bolt it could see major cuts, or program be halted until 2012, or
2016 when Republicans may take back the federal government.On the good side, he wants to cut USA jobs going overseas. So, I guess
Americans will be making windmills, Toyota and Honda hybrid cars…:confused:
The above is also nonsense.
Obama should be an OK president but nothing special. His primary objectives need to be two fold, however they are inextricably linked. Fiscal common sense (restraint) needs to be introduced, the deficit wound down and debt paid off. The second is sort out the American state, both federally and below. In its current form it is a highly inefficient quagmire into which money simply disappears for little tangible effect. This situation has to be corrected as soon as possible and is the real reason why George Bush should be regarded with such disdain.
As for the economy, the brutal reality is that it is going to take a pounding, the best that can be done is to increase competitiveness, things that would help would be deregulation and doing something about the absurd healthcare system.
sealordlawrenceToday is “Day 1” for the American Republicans (conservatives) to start
working towards taking back America. Beginning 2009, democrats (liberals)
will control Congress and the White House. More than 56 million USA voters
(47% of all USA voters) voted against Obama. Republicans still have enough
members in Congress to filibuster (talk, read, object, etc to delay or end
legislative bills).Obama wants to cut the USA defense budget by 25%. He wants to cut and
run from Iraq as soon as possible. Terrorist jihadists and attacks could
increase at least until 2012. Expect to see cuts in new military aircraft.
He will try to stretch the F-16, F/A-18 for extended service. F-22 could
see dozens cut during this period. If the F-35 is cut, and/or foreign
partners bolt it could see major cuts, or program be halted until 2012, or
2016 when Republicans may take back the federal government.On the good side, he wants to cut USA jobs going overseas. So, I guess
Americans will be making windmills, Toyota and Honda hybrid cars…:confused:
The above is also nonsense.
Obama should be an OK president but nothing special. His primary objectives need to be two fold, however they are inextricably linked. Fiscal common sense (restraint) needs to be introduced, the deficit wound down and debt paid off. The second is sort out the American state, both federally and below. In its current form it is a highly inefficient quagmire into which money simply disappears for little tangible effect. This situation has to be corrected as soon as possible and is the real reason why George Bush should be regarded with such disdain.
As for the economy, the brutal reality is that it is going to take a pounding, the best that can be done is to increase competitiveness, things that would help would be deregulation and doing something about the absurd healthcare system.
sealordlawrenceOr…if US withdraw from Iraq and starts showing bit less arrogant foreing policy, displeassure and blatant hatred towards US will decrease and reduce the base for terrorism….
Nonsense, the ideological backdrop to Islam inspire terrorism is as such that it will likely remain a constant for the next few years plus. On the specific issue of Iraq, following the complete failure of planning followed by gross incompetance that occurred up to 2007 that is a tight rope. Stay too long and you look like imperialists, leave to soon and watch either a collapse or a highly unfavorable regime emerge, both potentially increasing terrorism and not just from Iraq. The last thing the Islamic street (mainstream) needs to see is America pull out of Iraq just to watch slip back into misery.
sealordlawrenceOr…if US withdraw from Iraq and starts showing bit less arrogant foreing policy, displeassure and blatant hatred towards US will decrease and reduce the base for terrorism….
Nonsense, the ideological backdrop to Islam inspire terrorism is as such that it will likely remain a constant for the next few years plus. On the specific issue of Iraq, following the complete failure of planning followed by gross incompetance that occurred up to 2007 that is a tight rope. Stay too long and you look like imperialists, leave to soon and watch either a collapse or a highly unfavorable regime emerge, both potentially increasing terrorism and not just from Iraq. The last thing the Islamic street (mainstream) needs to see is America pull out of Iraq just to watch slip back into misery.
sealordlawrencePolitically speaking, probably, but from a material point of view she would have been viable into the mid 80s without any difficulty.
If the political will is gone the material state of the ship is irrelevant.
sealordlawrenceDissapointing that it wasn’t seen through it is a different ship say to other carriers, not a fan of the island in the middle for taxing on both sides but i’m not qualifiied to criticise.
There may have been a 2nd oppertunity to see these made and that would have been in the mid 80’s, only one thing would have needed to have been changed.. this is alternative history but if RN had phantomised Eagle instead of Ark royal and used Ark Royal for parts Eagle because of the fact she had about 10 years more life in her could have served into the mid 80’s and if the RN had a conventional carrier in 1982 theres no chance in hell they’d have given up that capabilty, which would have resulted in a 2nd chance of the RAN getting a Vincy and SHar’s aswell
edit: i know Eagle was a fair bit older, but she was in better nick.
Eagle would still likely have gone at the same time as Ark Royal.
sealordlawrenceI’m not so sure, but can we give it a rest? It’s kind of irrelevant to the debate anyway.
Not irrelevant at all, iy was never intended to be carrier launched.
sealordlawrenceIt is a myth that the Antonov was designed for the Ulyanovsk, utter nonsense. the line drawings that show such a thing are not official.
sealordlawrenceThe more I think about it the more Ikara for RN escorts makes sense. The helicopter cruiser/Type-82 concept provides for both rapid stand-off all weather long range engagement capability and the helicopter stand-off hunter capability. It is with the frigates that problems arise. Here a better solution may have been a split build program, half with Ikara but based upon the Australian ships and half with Wessex as was originally planned anyway.
sealordlawrenceThe intent is not to belittle the CVA-01’s design effort, but it is fair to criticise design characteristics that even at the time were of questionable merit. The US Navy was fitting Tartar launchers to it’s carriers, but the reality is that fitting a long-range system to the CVA-01 simply compromised it too much. I fully understand the concept behind arming the carrier to the teeth, but arming it with Ikara and Sea Dart was a step too far. Also, it is worth noting that the armour was cut back to the point were it really defended little more than the CIC and the magazine.
I do agree that the carrier needed good defences, though, I just feel that the best defence is by airpower. This is especially true by the 1960s, when the carriers were not facing just the prospect of a 6in armed Sverdlov, but rather the worrying prospect of nuclear-tipped missiles!
The idea was to provide both, and one does suspect that had a better missile than Sea Cat been available the ships would not have got Sea Dart, but it is a difficult judgement call. The fact is that the ships were expected to be right in the middle of any action and consequently were expected to contribute to their own defence.
As for the escorts, I would argue that, with the modifications to the design I outlined, it could actually have carried out at least some of the role intended for the helo-carrying cruisers. With a slight stretch, this sort of modified T82 conceptual design should have been able to take as many as four Sea Kings, so with two assigned to escort the CVA-01, you have plenty of aviation capacity.
What you have just described is the helicopter carrying cruiser.;) However CA-01 was not expected to carry a significant ASW compliment in order to make room for the aircraft you mention above.
Another possible benefit would have been to build the Type 22 with the aviation facilities of the Canadian Iroquois class, i.e. a pair of Sea Kings. This wouldn’t be much of a stretch, since the Iroquois class was only slightly beamier, at 15.2m versus 14.8m. An escort fleet made up of Sea King carrying Type 82s and Type 22s would have been pretty impressive! An obvious alternative might have been a common base-hull, perhaps slightly smaller than the Bristol class, used for both the ASW role (without the AAW gear) and AAW role (without some of the ASW gear). The common design would then be pursued instead of all of: T82, T42 and T22, which then gets the benefit of commonality, and a longer construction run.
The Type 22 does not come until later.
sealordlawrenceI understand the requirement to b*tch on the CVA-01, but she was designed for a very different time compared to CVF. The ship had armour as well as Sea Dart and early designs had Ikara as well. They were intended to be escorted by Type-82’s, also with Ikara and Sea Dart and a slightly larger vessel carrying multiple ASW helos and Ikara and Sea Dart. the RN expected such a group to operate in an extreme threat environment where they would be engaged by ships, planes and submarines as part of a wider naval action. CVF on the other hand is intended simply as a floating air base. Also remember that the navy that was planning for this armageddon vision was the same that had been scarred by the war in the Med (including the blood bath at crete and the Malta convoys), the loss of the Prince of Wales and Repulse, and the slog in the Atlantic.
These ships were designed to fight, while the Sea Dart installation was an awkward one it was the most effective SAM in the RN arsenal at the time. The sea Cat launchers were never officially authorised which is why they do not appear on the schematics.
The brutal reality about Britain’s carrier fleet at this point was that the ships were too small for the next generation combat aircraft. Even the largest vessels required some uncomfortable modifications to the Phantom design. In the ideal world where money was no object Britain would have built the 1952 carrier and then evolved towards CVA-01. Two combat aircraft programs would have provided aircraft, P.1154 for everything smaller than Ark Royal and Eagle and the Type-583 for everything else. Obviously this is not the real world. I am not that down beat about about the legacy ships the RN was operating, Eagle, Hermes and Victorious were very powerful ships after their reconstructions they were just not given the right aircraft and their hulls were too small.
On the issue of the Type-82’s and helicopters. It needs to be remembered that that the wasp did not have its own Sonar, its sole purpose was as a weapons carrier, in effect it was a slower and less numerable Ikara and whilst Ikara’s could be launched one after another a Wasp, having dropped its diminutive load would have to return to the ship (probably in foul Atlantic weather) to rearm……and in this time the Submarine is doing what? To truly justify a helicopter the type would have to be a true hunter killer platform and this required a larger helo, Whirlwind, or rather two Whirlwinds as the type could not carry both the attack torpedo and the hunter sonar simultaneously. So even two onboard ship does not provide a certain simultaneously stand-off hunter and killer combination. Hence the dedicated helicopter cruiser that could provide this combination. Even if you do build a ship with two large helicopters you still have the rearming problem.
Remember to look at the scenario and doctrine before the design.;)
sealordlawrenceWilhelm, excellent posts, whilst we have a Rooikat chassis in a thread I must just ask if anybody has any information or pictures about the proposed and apprently prototyped ICV version?
Thanks in advance sealordlawrence.
sealordlawrencePoorly trained? I would not have said that, when US and Israel “special forces” involved full time. But then again you may be right!!!
Ill equipped??? Hmm .. the artillery pieces, the weapons on display does not give that impression.
Poorly defined task?? When they were Spying with best of UAV from Israel, they should have known the task.
Premier Russian combat unit?? Do you know anything about the conflict?:confused:
Is Russia attacked poor small Georgia…still in vague on your telly:D
An M4 and a T72 is not ‘well equipped’ when one is planning to engage the Russian Army.
A few weeks on officers courses does not make a unit well trained.
Poorly defined referring to their intended strategic objective, a couple of UAV’s does not constitute excellent intelligence.
The 58th Army consists of the most professional and combat experienced units in the Russian Army.
sealordlawrenceThe reason by the way that this nomenclature wasn’t applied to the Invincible class was political as by giving the lead ship a cruiser name it might slip under the anti-carrier lobby’s nose
Indeed they were originally refered to as “Through deck cruisers”.
They were through deck cruisers, the nomenclature had as much (if not more) to do with their design lineage than any desire to hide their true capability.
sealordlawrenceThat’s true. Saakashvili is a nutter. Should never have tried to pull off an invasion of South Ossetia – and certainly not when the Russians had all their chess pieces in place.
Exactly, he sent poorly trained, ill-equipped troops to undertake a poorly defined task with the premier combat units of the Russian Army just a few miles northe having only just exercised for just such a scenario. it does not get much more stupid than that.
Sign In
