So, there are two possible options:
– Martians pre-invasion:D
– US classified test (without official annoucement) :rolleyes:
Hmmm,:dev2:
2 easy questions for “RVFHarrier” & “Super Nimrod”
– Current World oil consumption per day (in million barrels)
– expected falklands oil reserve (in million barrels)
and check your source, again:D
I think you need to do the math again mate. Its massively higher than that based upon the potential reserves projected by the BGS 😮 The average life of an oil field is about 40 years.
Up to 60 million barrels….(ok, for you, up to 120 ? or even 180 ?……:rolleyes:)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/6708902/Falkland-Islands-oil-reserves-to-help-British-economy.html
yeah, with a current +/- 85 million barrels world consumption per day
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
😀
bof :rolleyes:
maybe only 60 billion (£ or $ ?) of oil reserve
likely to be “extracted” in the next 10/15 year, nothing more….
not a revolution for the british defence
and most of the € benefits taken by privates company….
In commission 20 years, so no, not that old. I think it’s a financial move. The MN would probably rather keep her. She & Siroco have huge docks, & complement the LHDs rather well. I hope for the sake of the MN that they keep both. That would enable them to have one LPD & one LHD in general service at any time, plus an LHD doing the training role of the old Jeanne d’Arc. They could reduce operational costs by keeping one of each mothballed.
Hmmm…
The Foudre/Siroco class were more expensive to operate (220 crew versus 160 for a Mistral LHD) and lack full flight deck.
The most ageing ship (Foudre) is expected to be retired soon as the third BPC (Dixmude) enter in service (around late 2012).
For “Sirocco”, the answer is more difficult because this ship is more younger (1998).
Tentatively, the french navy, to reduce operationnal cost, will be tempted to sold both ship at a another navy (maybe Argentine or ?Brazil? or Portugal or a south east asiatic navy ?)
Hmmm….
British Typhoon:
The initial 232 fighters hopped were now clearly a dream, with +/- 160 expected
Tranche 1: 53 delivered by 2003/2007
Tranche 2: 67 delivered by 2007 to around 2012 ?
Tranche 3A: 40 expected, delivered by 2013? To 2018 ?
Tranche 3B: 72 last british Typhoon initially expected, likely to be cancelled or drastically reduced (and deliveries seriously slowed…)
British F-35 B
150 originally planned, figure “+/- officially” reduced to 138 by 2009. Now the best optimistic view look around 80/90 aircrafts (the most pessimist around 25/30 or a pure cancellation).
The first 3 aircrafts (testing aircrafts) is likely to be delivered by 2012+
The first production aircrafts delivered by 2017+
When, around 2020, +/- 15/20 F-35B will be delivered, the most ageing Typhoon have +/- 17 years (not dramatically ageing)
My personnal scenario look around 160 Typhoon and +/- 40 F-35 (for a total of 200 combat aircrafts)
Wait & see, by mid/late october …
Don’t live in a happy world of light and colors where nothing bad ever happens either. October’s announcements are likely to shock us all. Deeply.
I agree 🙁
Geoff,
Mike. But we don’t need LHD’s, we already have the dock landing ships and we currently have Ocean.
Ocean expected to be retired by 2018, no ?
A LHD is more flexible than a LPD ! (full fight deck, for helico/UAV/STVOL ops !).
Current/Futur Royal Navy strength:
– 2 large carriers (+/- unaffordable)
– 1 Helico carrier (ocean), to be retired by late 2010’s and replaced by….?
– 2 LPD (albion)
– 4 Small LPD (bay)
“My ideal” futur royal navy strengh:
– 2 (or 3 ?) large 30 000+ tons LHD.
– 4 Small LPD (bay)
Better to replace Ocean/Albion/CVF designs with a large LHD.
More cheaper, more affordable, a single design to replace 3….
Don’t forget than even by 2004/2006 (Albion/Bulwark still in completion), the Royal Navy envisioned at the outset ! to put 1 LPD in reserve (ie.extended readyness). Simply because with 1 Ocean, 2 Albion & 4 Bay, the real requirement were nearly exceded (ie. surplus ships)
As our primary lift helo is the Chinook and they are not Navalised they therefore are deck cargo or deadspace in the hanger until they reach their restination. CVF has been designed to accomodate Chinook in both the Hanger and Lifts without folded blades and the flight deck size means they don’t interfer with flight deck ops. Plus how do your exert control of the airspace with just 9 -15 F-35s and what do you use for your Helicopters if the LHD is operating in carrier role.
Hmmm, since the late 1970’s the US expect to use their LHD in “sea-control” ops with a full complement of Harriers (+/- 7/15 I think :confused:)…..
Would you replace PA2 with a Mistral ? as thats what your effectivly suggesting.
French “PA 02” is now clearly a big joke, only a “political” tool for the french government. Unlikely to be build.
Yes, in the current & future financial constraint, better to have a third BPC.
When you see than even actually some small (cheap) older french warships (patrol-boats, OPV) were not replaced (France have one of the largest sea aera of the world……, with oversea territories). You think really that the french navy could afford a 3 $ billion carrier when at the same time she experienced difficulties to fund cheaper warships (1000 tons OPV, 100 $ million apiece) OPV*.:rolleyes:
*The futur OPV project is delayed until 2017.
The LHD is a jack of all trades but master of none, it can do a variety of roles but not as well as a dedicated ship, but as we already have the dedicated assault ships, it was the aircover and strike roles that we needed to replace and we know the smaller ships are just not upto the task. Plus you not taking into account the cost of cancelling the CVF, scrapping whats been built, developing a new requirement to determine what we need and what it should do, designing said ships be it from scratch or adapting an existing design and then building them. In the meantime the current CVS & harriers will have to soldier on until their new replacements are ready.
The main problem is the choices made by 1998 (two 60 000 tons carriers with F-35). When you make choices like that, you should see the future toward the 40+ years (the service life of the entire project)…1998/early 2040’s…
When you see the current/future problems of the Royal Navy (considerable cost-overruns, serious delays during warships procurement), it is clear that she can not afford 2 large carriers, 138 F-35B and 4 newer SSBN (+ 17 newer 6000 tons frigates, + 20 newer 2000 tons flexible warships (to replace mine-hunters/patrols ships), some fleet tanker & so…)
The problem in 1998, they did not understand that the power of the united kingdom in the world between 1998-2030 will only continue……to decline 🙁
But this is only my opinion.
The ship cost is £3.9 billion for the CVF’s… £1.3 billion was development costs (already spent & gone with no possibility of recovery).
Subtract the £1.25 billion already contractually obligated, and you get a maximum “savings” of £2.65 billion.
Then you spend ~£2 billion for your two LHD’s (actually more, as there would be a few detail changes for UK-specific equipment.
That is if they are built in Spain, as the RAN’s Canberra class is… which means virtually no taxes being returned to the UK Treasury… unlike now, where a lot of taxes are coming back on all the salaries & other “in-UK” purchases.
So you save at most £650 million and get two smaller, less-capable ships.
Not really much of a good deal, it seems to me.
Only 650 $ million saved and smaller/less capable ships ?
not totally true…..
I) YOU FORGET THE AIRWING (and their cost:rolleyes:)
At +/- 150 $ million per F-35 copy :rolleyes:, a CVF airwing (+/- 32 F-35) cost around 4,8 $ billion (AEW/ASW helico excluded…).
For a LHD, the additional cost include only a handfull (6/9) of F-35 (900 $ million to 1,3 $ billion), because usually the transports helico is taken from army/air force stocks
II Ships comparaison
Queen Elizabteh class
Lenght: 284 meters
Beam: 73 meters (max)
Draught: 11 meters
Displacement: 65/72 000 tons
Speed: 26 knots max on trials, 25 knots max operationnal
Autonomy: 8000 to 10 000 nm at 15 knots
Crew: 1450 (ship crew: 600; airwing : up to 850). Total possible accomodation for 1650.
Airwing (pure strike carrier ops): +/- 32 F-35; 4 to 6 AEW/ASW helico
Airwing (helico carrier ops): +/- 24 helico (transports/SAR/ASW/AEW) + 6/9 F-35.
Cargo capacity: Aviation hangar able to be modified if necessary to carry numerous vehicles, troops & others cargos (the famous helico carrier conversion), but at the expense of a major airwing (F-35) reduction.
Landing crafts: not capable, except if the ship is heavily modified (= additionnal cost), to receive crane/systems to deploy small LCM on davit.
Cost per ship: +/- 2,5 £ billion (R&D included)
Airwing cost pers ship: +/- 5 $ billion
Camberra/Juan Carlos I LHD design:
Lenght: 230 meters
Beam: 32 meters
Draught: 7,18 meters
Displacement: +/- 27/30 000 tons
Speed: 20,5 knots
Autonomy: 8000 nm at 15 knots, 9250 nm at 12 knots
Crew: 243 ship crew (+ 172 for airwing) and +/- 900 troops (+ 146 additionals). Total possible accomodation for +/- 1300.
Airwing (pure “sea-control” ops): up to +/- 9/15 F-35 and 6/9 helico.
Airwing (multi-purpose ops): usually +/- around 6/9 F-35 and 12/18 helico.
Cargos capacity: up to 46 heavy tanks, many vehicles & others cargos.
Landing crafts: 4 LCM or 1 or 2 LCT or LCAC
Cost per ship: +/- 500 $ million
Airwing cost per ship: +/- 1 $ billion max (transport helico no included, because already used by army).
Large LHD = more cheaper, more cheaper to operate, more flexible, more versatile than a STVOL carrier (not really the same case for a CATOBAR carrier….)
Expect these to go to Pakistan and, if not, then to Taiwan.
Yep !
and for Frigates
• Hawes: Dec. 10, 2010 — “Will be utilized as a logistic support asset primarily for remaining ships in the FFG 7 class.”
This ship is likely expected to be “canibalized” for spart for the others FFG…
+ 2 ships for Italian Navy 😉
this image of LHA-7 looks significantly different from the official rendering of LHA-6. i had always assumed that the second ship in the class was going to be identical to LHA-6. compared to the rendering below of LHA-6, the island of LHA-7 looks much smaller and pushed further astern for a much greater forward deck area. the island also looks like it’s been redesigned for low signature purposes. does anyone know if LHA-7 will be a modified design with a significant increase in deck area, or is the rendering associated with the article above just wonky and/or out of date.
The LHA picture with a “stealthy island” is a outdated view, from 2002-2006 study era’s
😉
I have my doubts about the Italian FREMM being cheaper as has been claimed by some sources. That said, Fincantieri badly needs work and may thus be able to underbid for the time being (if any of these are to be built in Italy they will take the place of Italy’s as yet unfunded FREMM 7-10).
Interesting
But in the end it’s a shame that like the fighter purchase politics is interfering with procurement and the navy is not given the opportunity to select the best option for the job.
same for each big $ contract…
Hmmm…
Guys, don’t forget than even actually, in south america, a handfull of gunboat river (in service since 1920-1930’s) are still in service:rolleyes:
😉
It looks similar to the Royal Navy’s Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier.
Maybe because with defense review coming and the next major cuts in the royal navy, the british sold the HMS queen elizabeth to the chinese 😀