dark light

kev 99

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,171 through 1,185 (of 1,460 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Progress made in FSTA programme #2439222
    kev 99
    Participant

    UK’s first FSTA A330 tanker gets Royal Air Force colours

    The first Airbus A330-200 for the UK’s Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) programme has been painted in Royal Air Force colours, ahead of being delivered to Airbus Military’s Getafe site near Madrid, Spain, for role-conversion work.

    Pictured on 26 June at Airbus’s Toulouse site in France carrying its manufacturer’s civil registration, the aircraft is the first of 14 FSTA airframes to be produced. It made its first flight on 4 June.

    Structured as a 27-year private finance initiative deal, the UK’s FSTA project, worth roughly £13 billion ($20.9 billion), will be delivered by AirTanker, a consortium comprising Cobham, EADS UK, Rolls-Royce, Thales UK and VT Group.

    http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=29774

    Deliveries are due to take place from 2011, with the modified A330s to replace the RAF’s Lockheed TriStars and Vickers VC10s in delivering tanker/transport services

    http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/06/29/328962/picture-uks-first-fsta-a330-tanker-gets-royal-air-force-colours.html

    in reply to: HMS Invincible #2030381
    kev 99
    Participant

    4) The biggest problem for putting her back in service would probably not be her material state, but finding the crew to take her to sea.

    + aircraft.

    in reply to: HMS Invincible #2030389
    kev 99
    Participant

    HMS Invincible is dead in the water

    27 June 2009
    By Matt Jackson
    Defence correspondent
    The government claims she is part of the fleet, ready to be called upon to defend the country if needed.
    But today The News can reveal the truth about how HMS Invincible – supposedly in a state of ‘extended readiness’ – is in fact a warship far from ready for action.

    The Ministry of Defence claims she is available for action until September 2010, when she will leave the fleet.

    But a Freedom of Information request by The News reveals she is crewed by just four people as she languishes in Portsmouth’s dockyard.

    She has been raided for spares – her engines have been stripped out and her propellers have been seen lying on her deck.

    And far from being ready for service, navy sources say it would take around 18 months to prepare Invincible for use – a period which would take her well past the date she is scheduled to end her days in the Royal Navy.

    Her sorry state is a far cry from the description of her on the Royal Navy’s website which claims she can be counted among the navy’s finest.

    The description refers to her decommissioning in 2005 by saying: ‘This process is often mistaken for being withdrawn from service but we are still very much ‘part of the fleet’.

    ‘In fact Invincible will remain available to the navy until 2010.

    ‘This forms part of a long-term plan to assist with the introduction of the new CVF Aircraft Carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince Of Wales.’

    Portsmouth South MP Mike Hancock, who sits on the Commons defence committee, said: ‘Saying HMS Invincible is part of the fleet and available to the navy is the same as saying the Marie Celeste had a full ship’s company in healthy mood.

    ‘All of our ships bar submarines are visible to anyone and it doesn’t take a genius to work out that Invincible isn’t going anywhere.

    ‘The navy should be more open, and not claiming capabilities we don’t have.’

    Former naval officer and editor of Warship World, Mike Critchley, said: ‘As far as I’m aware she doesn’t even have her anchors, which tells you how likely the chances of her going to sea are.

    ‘She has been stripped of most valuable items for the other carriers, which makes sense, but that means the only time she is going to sea is when she leaves for the breaker’s yard.’

    Despite The News’s findings, the Royal Navy insisted the carrier was still available to the fleet.

    A navy spokesman said: ‘It is not Royal Navy policy to discuss the readiness state of any warship for operational reasons.

    ‘The position is that HMS Invincible remains within the Royal Navy fleet and remains available until the time that she leaves service.

    ‘Four navy personnel remain on the scheme of complement of HMS Invincible and act as a full-time caretaking unit.’

    http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/HMS-Invincible-is-dead-in.5407433.jp

    in reply to: Hot Dog Typhoon thread III #2439886
    kev 99
    Participant

    any word on the T3A signature. I thought it was supposed to happen before the end of June.

    I daresay Brown will drag his heals on that for as long as he can.

    in reply to: RN FSC – C1/C2 hull & armament proposals #2030570
    kev 99
    Participant

    I wonder how much it would cost to fill all those VLS?

    in reply to: RN FSC – C1/C2 hull & armament proposals #2030666
    kev 99
    Participant

    I’ve looked at these a couple of times, and have just realised C1 and C2 LOOK identical. What have I missed?

    Al

    C1 has a bow sonar, it took me a while to notice too.

    in reply to: RN FSC – C1/C2 hull & armament proposals #2030736
    kev 99
    Participant

    Ah, i only saw the US flag and thought “burke”, yeah, probably 500+ crew on that thing going on how the US crew the burkes which are probably less then half the displacement of that monster.

    Well I thought your post was a little odd, now it makes perfect sense.

    in reply to: RN FSC – C1/C2 hull & armament proposals #2030740
    kev 99
    Participant

    No thanks, they roughly duplicate the capabilities of the T45 destroyers however they require double the crew of the T45.

    I think you might be underestimating the crew requirement, also it appears to have 128 vls cells?

    in reply to: RN FSC – C1/C2 hull & armament proposals #2030745
    kev 99
    Participant

    I agree about the C2 Hull sizes you are probably right about it needing to be more like 4000 tonnes. I Know the T45 flight deck is pretty big I think it can take a Chinook if I’m not mistaken but it only has a single hanger because on either side of the hanger there is a space for the RHIBs couldn’t the RHIBs be moved and make a double hanger I’m sure some smaller vessels than the T45 such as the F124 have double hangers able to take a medium helicopter each. The Artisan is supposed to be pretty cheap and I expect it to be fitted on C2 and C3 but I thought C1 would get something a bit better a proper multi function radar so it can use the Aster 15 it doesn’t need to be anywhere in the same league as the SAMPSON which is from what I’ve heard a very very good system.

    Getting rid of the S1850 Radar should provide space to move the boats forward which would give increased hanger space.

    in reply to: Navies news from around the world #2030848
    kev 99
    Participant

    The article is a load of rubbish. I believe it’s a rehash of something old, without reference to events (e.g. the published revision of Type 22/23 OSDs) since it was first written. The postponement of FSC referred to appears to be the one which has already taken place.

    Couldn’t agree more.

    Lots of these older scare stories have started resurfacing again recently, the Harrier cancellation was reprinted in the Mail as well, the leakers in the MOD must be working overtime at the moment.

    in reply to: Royal Navy C3 #2030852
    kev 99
    Participant

    Swerve – OUCH!

    Jonsey- Good debate, enjoyed it!

    As for the new Coast Guard cutter, I have heard on the grapvine that it has all sorts of build quality and design issues that may have an impact on its planned lifetime. As an overall design it would fit into a similar sort of spec, but does need the venator adpatations to make it work for the RN how they want it.

    Yeah that’s the big one, the hull has some structural issues from various reports.

    in reply to: Royal Navy C3 #2030923
    kev 99
    Participant

    Better in this context than the Maritime Security Cutter, Large (WMSL, formerly the National Security Cutter) would be the smaller Maritime Security Cutter, Medium (WMSM, formerly the Offshore Patrol Cutter)

    That looks much closer to the mark.

    in reply to: Royal Navy C3 #2030928
    kev 99
    Participant

    I like this design a lot let’s just have this made for us

    http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x155/rwmesquite/SHIP_CGC_NSC_Bertholf_Machinery_Tri.jpg

    A Coast guard ship as big as many navies frigates and very expensive despite having next to nothing in armament.

    in reply to: Royal Navy C3 #2030992
    kev 99
    Participant

    Forget harpoon and just make sure there is a big enough magazine to carry a few Sea Skua 2’s.

    + LMM.

    in reply to: More bad news for the A400??? #2442306
    kev 99
    Participant

    * European nations split on conditions for A400M talks

    * UK financing proposal unlikely to be accepted -sources

    * Defence ministers to hold crucial meeting on Monday

    By Tim Hepher

    PARIS, June 19 (Reuters) – European nations are divided over conditions for a new round of talks on the delayed A400M troop plane and are racing to ease the deadlock ahead of a ministerial meeting on Monday, sources following the matter said on Friday. After threatening to pull out of the 20 billion euros ($27.84 billion) Airbus project, Britain has signalled commitment in principle to the European transporter but has put forward financial conditions that other partners are unlikely to accept, the sources said.

    “Britain has made a two-fold financing proposal which is highly unlikely to be acceptable,” a source familiar with the project said.

    Details of the proposals were under wraps, but a UK military source defended them as a “sign of commitment and pragmatism”.
    Britain has ordered 25 planes worth about 100 million euros each. It has said it needs the troop and equipment transport planes in Afghanistan but the UK’s Treasury is carefully vetting defence spending amid heightened pressure on public finances.

    The A400M dispute comes weeks after tough negotiations over the next phase of production of the Eurofighter Typhoon, which went down to the wire before the UK agreed to stay on board.

    “Britain has problems with its budget and others have their own problems too. There is a detailed negotiation going on,” a senior industry source said on Friday.

    Another described the talks as “touch and go”.

    Defence companies have warned Britain could lose thousands of high-tech jobs if its pulls out of the A400M and questions have been raised over how long Airbus, the world’s largest civil planemaker, would keep aircraft wings production in the UK.

    The A400M transport plane is designed to carry troops and equipment to combat zones like Afghanistan but has been delayed about four years. Facing losses on the plane, Airbus parent EADS (EAD.PA), has asked for a renegotiation of the contract.

    Buyers agreed a three-month moratorium preventing either side from taking drastic action over the project but this expires at the end of June with no sign of a common approach.

    Defence ministers from the seven European NATO nations that ordered the plane — Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg and Turkey — meet in Seville, Spain, on Monday to decide whether to extend the moratorium.

    France and Germany last week backed the A400M and called for a further freeze of six months to allow more negotiations.

    Often described as a laggard in European negotiations, Britain is anxious to avoid being boxed in and has surprised some partners by being particularly active on the A400M talks.

    But others accuse it of trying to impose pre-conditions on future talks that other nations will find difficult to accept. “They want to be able to get in front and preset conditions on which they will enter the next six months of talks. Others are saying no, we’ll have the six months first,” a source said.

    If the project collapses, EADS would be forced to repay 5.7 billion euros in advance government payments. It has said it has spent the money on development and is now burning some 100 million euros a month of cash to keep the project in readiness.

    Some 4,000 engineers are involved in keeping the project afloat pending a decision on its future, an industry source familiar with the situation said on Thursday. (Reporting by Tim Hepher, Editing by Andy Bruce and Benoit Van Overstraeten)

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/hotStocksNews/idUKLJ38890620090619?rpc=401&&pageNumber=3&virtualBrandChannel=0
    🙁

Viewing 15 posts - 1,171 through 1,185 (of 1,460 total)