dark light

AE90

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 241 through 255 (of 272 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: CVA-01 Opinions? #2058457
    AE90
    Participant

    How similar this is to (what must be current) discussions on affordability/task of CVF. If those 2 Task Forces consume £6Bn. in acquisition over 10 years, that is £200 (=£20p.a/50p. p.week) for each of 30Mn. economically-active Brits. who know they are facing 1929-style pain. Most would prefer to spend that 50p any other way.

    So: tell us here why the National Interest of UK, a willing coalition partner, requires more Power Projection in 2020 than we have ever deployed.

    While you’re at it, explain to unemployed septics why they need 12 CV Groups. USN (and the Imperial Japanese Navy) went to floating bases because they had no (colonial) ports from which to spring. Now US does, in willing coalition partners. Inconceivable to try to assault someplace with no nearby haven. Naval Aviation is grotesquely expensive; land-based Air can cover any invasion and convoy protection task, if so prioritised. If carriers had not yet been invented, we would not do so now.

    the figures divide better than that. about 47,000,000 x £24,000 P.A which i work out as less than 25pence a week. you’d struggle to buy a bog roll on that. or is 25pence of gas going to make a difference?

    and any military aviation is immensely expensive (£21bn EFA project anyone?) in terms of just unit costs of a carrier and it’s air wing. The carrier would cost 40% if not less of the total sum, before you even start on R&D

    in reply to: CVA-01 Opinions? #2058802
    AE90
    Participant

    im just taking the **** as you said i was completely wrong, The Ark was a very useful ship in the 70’s.

    she had the capability to be a useful ship in the 70’s if her sister was still around(although what has already been established that 3 is desirable) but as eagle was scrapped Ark royal spent more time on tele than on ops:( and when it comes down to it, when she did eventually reach the knackers yard she was WELL past her best before date.

    i am well aware that the RN’s task in the cold war didn’t require any carriers and just having them in the drink would be counter-productive and i agree that she’d been more geared up for hunting down the red banner submarine fleet without the burden of carriers, However i also believe that it is certainly viable for a navy the size of the RN should operate 2 or 3 carriers for a contingency (not quite kitty hawk stuff but enough for any foreseeable needs)

    there was really 2 better options, the first was to bin the carriers and maintain a much larger ASW fleet, the 2nd was to accept a large cut in ASW assets and maintain a couple of carriers and their escorts. what was NOT a good option was Vincy class flattops kitted out like mini-carriers worst of both options. (i also accept the politics behind this isn’t simple to say the least)

    as for the Falklands, closer to the item with the Argie government loosing favour[and prior warning] there should have been a battalion of boots on the ground and a flight of Phantoms (i know that’s not going to stop several thousand Argie conscripts but when the back door isn’t open you’re less likely to get burglars)

    in reply to: STOVL Carriers compared #2060593
    AE90
    Participant

    i thought that vincy and lusty had their Phalanx’s removed and replace with 3 goalkeepers? and only ark royal retained the phalanx (for unknown reasons to me MOD has 15, 4 on the T22B3, 6 on 2 carriers 1 for training.. so there are the numbers however i digress)

    in reply to: Type 45 launch website #2060596
    AE90
    Participant

    Edit: My god i didn’t realise i was posting on a dead thread.

    in reply to: Should the UK get the F35C? #2488929
    AE90
    Participant

    I’ve got more pdfs. 😀
    The Navy League briefing from April 2007 says bring back weight is 4940lbs which is enough for ~1000lbs of fuel.
    The JSF Range & Airspace Requirements briefing says empty weight is 29,695 lbs which is around 2500 less than those 14.5 tons (as stated in earlier reports too). Guess thats the result of the weight saving.
    Of course, it remains to be seen how accurate those numbers turn out. But obviously 14.5 tons empty weight and 180 kn vertical thrust would result in very poor and imho unacceptable STOVL performance.

    almost definitely, what are the prospects of future upgrades to the engine?/does the RR/GE engine produce more thrust?

    in reply to: How would you form the European Air Force? #2489315
    AE90
    Participant

    # Maritime Patrol/ASW — BAMS, a Nimrod version, the future HTH

    noooo a new A320 based MRA please..

    in reply to: British nuclear sub incident #2061476
    AE90
    Participant

    Yeah, you’re right.
    The problem is that the last time some shipyard worker at Sevmash ignited a cleaning cloth, all Western newspapers (and Russian news as well, to be fair) titled “Fire aboard a Russian nuclear sub”. Whereas when HMS Tiresome suffers real powerplant failure in the middle of the Med, or when USS Blind Rouge hits the bottom and maims a few crew members, no one is crying havoc.

    do you mean HMS Tireless!? or is that a nickname that i’m blissfully unaware off 🙁

    in reply to: British nuclear sub incident #2061552
    AE90
    Participant

    Yup, would be reduced to unmeasurable concentrations within hours, days max. And there would be no long term effects as it has a half-life of only ~12 years. Oh, and if it was badly radioactive it wouldn’t be used on gun sights.

    definitely, rather be playing around with tritium than hydraulic fluid and the latter’s not caused me any harm yet apart from minor irritations and discoloured hands for a while.

    in reply to: How would you form the European Air Force? #2489800
    AE90
    Participant

    Any joint european CAS airplane in the a-10/su-25 class?

    Any way, i would leave;

    The french to build fighters
    The brits, attack planes
    The italian, radars….and helos
    The germans maybe for weird stuff…

    sod that, us brits’ll build the engines for anything and everything the rest can fight it out between themselves

    in reply to: British nuclear sub incident #2061599
    AE90
    Participant

    Tritium is marginally radioactive no major damage can be caused by that amount either unless exposed to it for prolonged periods and it would dissapate before that time. too much media hype here.

    in reply to: How would you form the European Air Force? #2490413
    AE90
    Participant

    the AAC have 67 (WAH-64)Apache AH.1’s not AH-1 Cobra’s
    and the RN have 30odd Merlin HM.1’s aswell aswell as the RAF’s 30 odd HC.3’s, rather than all HC.3’s

    and bloody hell i knew there was only a few FLynx’s to replace many more old lynx’s but i didn’t know it was that bad.

    in reply to: Should the UK get the F35C? #2490421
    AE90
    Participant

    Eurghh no.

    and as for crab air ruling the new carriers (not so Joint Force Lightning?) the Lightning procurement seems to be going **** up, last i read about it gave me the impression that the order would be dropped to 80ish and those would be purely FAA aircraft and the RAF would make use of the Tranche 3 Typhoons they don’t know what to do with. and rearm the old harrier squadrons with them.

    in reply to: Just an awesome Super Vita Mk 2 idea. #2061976
    AE90
    Participant

    Frankly I think the likes of this are beyond Georgia right now. Mobile land based AShM’s would be a good bet along with KAAN 33 type missile boats (120 tons full load) from Turkey. Midget submarines might be useful but I cant think of anybody who makes decent ones right now.

    you’ve found yourself a niche market then!! haha

    Missile boat looks bloody capable.. who do you work for!? :p

    in reply to: How would you form the European Air Force? #2491148
    AE90
    Participant

    How would the TSR-2 fare against modern types if it were to be ‘reborn’?

    IIRC it was looked at in the 80’s.. well the conclusion you can draw from that is that it’s not in service now and if it wouldn’t work then it’s certainly not going to now.

    Regarding European Air Farce: deal with it in the context of how european federation air force might look

    will look at seriously later perhaps

    in reply to: NCL Recently – Various Dates #485136
    AE90
    Participant

    i saw the red arrows take off from ncl on the monday after they did the flypast over the great north run, bloody posers walked out and timed it so they all got in an aircraft at the same time.. and i never realised they took off 3/3/4 at a time

    There had to be a Sleazyjet in the pics about 4/5 of the TO/Landings are Sleazyjet or Emirates.

Viewing 15 posts - 241 through 255 (of 272 total)