dark light

kev 99

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 451 through 465 (of 1,460 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: CVF Construction #1998115
    kev 99
    Participant

    Liger30, that is as much confirmation as anyone should need.

    So we can now assume that they intend to operate fast jets off of both carriers and that this will have an impact on the numbers required…

    I will be interested to see how this colours the debate on the forum.

    I think you’re reading too much into it, it certainly does mean that both will be able to operate fast jets, it doesn’t mean that it should impact the number of fast jets bought however because as far as we know it will still be a case of only 1 active carrier at a time.

    in reply to: Tornado to live longer #2375442
    kev 99
    Participant

    Probably not and I would suggest they should definitely try not to, integrating the full range of kit on the Typhoon probably makes a great deal more sense and will leave more money available for F35C.

    in reply to: CVF Construction #1998186
    kev 99
    Participant

    if you ask me, there is a difference between what the government/liam fox are prepared to say they are funding and what they want in the long term.

    That’s been the case for years though, a cynical person might say there’s a great difference between what politicians say and do on a more general basis:rolleyes:

    in reply to: CVF Construction #1998598
    kev 99
    Participant

    That picture of the QE with Chinook and Merlin is at least a year old, it definitely pre-dates the SDSR.

    in reply to: CVF Construction #1998915
    kev 99
    Participant

    Probably yes to both.

    in reply to: CVF Construction #1999144
    kev 99
    Participant

    please read what im saying!

    im not saying that we dont need a FAA, in a ideal world a FAA is perfect. what i am saying is that with the small amount of airframes we cannot afford to have a large proportion of them soley dedicated to the navy. they need to be pooled together to try to cover the whole spectrum of needs. and the place to do this is the RAF.

    unfortunatly we are not in a position to have everything we want.

    We all have done already, you’re trying to recreate the FAA but as part of the RAF, others have already told you this has been tried before and it doesn’t work, you have also been told that RAF personnel don’t want to go to sea.

    Ok well in that case there an equal argument for both CVF to be put under the RAF control. You are obviously a naval fan, nothing anybody will say will change your opinion.

    Quite ironic this statement since it’s fairly obvious that you’re guilty of exactly what you’re accusing everybody else of.

    in reply to: Royal Navy, Fleet Air Arm and the age of the UCAV #1999226
    kev 99
    Participant

    I know, but it sounds rather too ambitious to me.

    in reply to: Royal Navy, Fleet Air Arm and the age of the UCAV #1999232
    kev 99
    Participant

    Personally I think it will just be yet another technology demonstrator programme, funding for keeping skills up, blah, blah, blah………

    in reply to: Royal Navy, Fleet Air Arm and the age of the UCAV #1999307
    kev 99
    Participant

    All a bit far away I would think, I would expect UK UAVs to be have catapuilt launch capability in the future, I would think it would be beneficial for the French as well so hopefully the joint venture would be capable of doing armed recon.

    in reply to: CVF Construction #1999870
    kev 99
    Participant

    hi
    just read on the lockheed martin website that we (uk) will still bebuying 138 f35,its got a bit about the 2011 paris airshow so must be up to date??? also in navynews magazine they have a we bit on the construction of hms queeny,interesting that they say she will be ready in 2016 & that pow a couple of years later,dont know if this is just pre SDSR dates or what,queeny as a LPH or cats n traps? if its cats n traps who would land on her first? better be british preferably royal navy! :rolleyes:

    I wouldn’t believe everything you read, there’s no way we’re buying that many.

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2000361
    kev 99
    Participant

    If the RN has a strike carrier, or indeed two, I would assume that it is there to give the UK the ability to provide air cover to UK or other troops who are in a combat situation that cannot be supported efficiently from a friendly airfield? So the UK needs an LHD to enable the ground troops to land on the required territory, or have I missed the point of the carriers?

    All fine and dandy but the politicians have decided that a replacement for Ocean is not needed, so I would suggest you try explaining that to them.

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2000367
    kev 99
    Participant

    The Mistral would provide an LHD replacement for HMS Ocean, and the Rafales would be a much more affordable option than the F-35C, especially if it was part of a barter deal for the second carrier.

    We aren’t getting a replacement for Ocean though, there’s no provision for it in the SDSR so therefore no budget for it that’s why people have expressed surprise about it’s mention above.

    Besides the second carrier is needed for when the first is in refit.

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2000413
    kev 99
    Participant

    Why? We don’t want a Mistral and we don’t want Rafales either.

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2000417
    kev 99
    Participant

    To be honest I get the impression that General Houghton and Bernard Grey are plucking ideas out of thin air.

    I’d use another well known phrase “Making it up as they go along”.

    in reply to: MORE UK defence cuts??? (Merged) #2383128
    kev 99
    Participant

    FFS how does the MoD keep getting into this mess where it regularly seems to find a huge gap in it’s budget?? Is it a case that they constantly go for “the best case” option in budget bids to the Treasury only to be forced to admit later that it’s going to cost a whole lot more? 😡

    Yes, it’s not just the case with the MOD though the public sector are suckers when it comes to negotiating contracts for infrastructure and equipement purchases, just look at how many IT projects are delivered late, vastly over budget and not fit for purposes.

    Companies bidding for these contracts deliberately low ball them in the knowledge that the contract isn’t worth the paper it is written on and won’t deliver what the customer (Government) wants, they do this in the sure knowledge that additional funds will be made available to put it right.

Viewing 15 posts - 451 through 465 (of 1,460 total)