Dunfermline Press: "Carriers Project Could Be Hit By Strike"

Discussion in 'The Fleet' started by soleil, Aug 19, 2010.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Well that will make the Governments mind up then, 1 carrier is the most we can hope for.
     
  2. Re: Dunfermline Press: "Carriers Project Could Be Hit By Str

    Ah, once more in the late Summer evening, we hear the call of turkeys voting for Crimbo. [​IMG]

    PS

    WTF?

    I thought it was just Hussars; or am I thinking of brazen Hussars?

    Some of the post Post adverts on here are bloody amazing.
     
  3. Re: Dunfermline Press: "Carriers Project Could Be Hit By Str

    THE PLANNED 'BIG DECK' AIRCRAFT CARRIERS ARE SO BADLY DESIGNED- DUE TO PREVIOUS LABOUR GOVT INTERFERENCE- WHO BUT MOST INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST & WILLFULY BLIND TO RISKS WOULD ENDORSE THEIR COMPLETION??



    Other countries with aircraft carriers such as the US, France, Italy, Japan and even Brazil fit their aircraft carriers and similar classes of vessels with up-to-date missile-based anti airborne threat defensive systems...

    In most cases these countries also fit their aircraft carriers and similar classes of vessels with armour, armoured bulkheads and other damage control type systems...

    Why doesn't the UK do this??

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mos...-Behind-scenes-Britains-biggest-warships.html :

    "... Money has also been saved in side armour protection, though Knight insists this was a strategic rather than a budgetary issue. The CVF's first line of defence is the frigates and the new Type 45 destroyers around us,' he adds. 'Our only self-defence is close-in weapons systems and small guns.

    "Instead, what you have on the ship is 36 of the most lethal aircraft*** ever made.'..."

    *** aircraft whose designed-capabilities DO NOT include protecting warships from incoming anti-ship missiles...

    http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/ :

    ".... A number of protective measures such as side armour and armoured bulkheads proposed by industrial bid teams have been deleted from the design in order to comply with cost limitations...."

    "MBDA'S SAAM-FR NAVAL AIR DEFENCE SYSTEM SUCCESSFULLY CARRIES OUT FIRST SALVO FIRING", 30_05-2005:

    http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/ref/scripts/newsFO_complet.php?lang=IT&news_id=138

    note:
    (a) the above Aster-15 missile test firing was from France's Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier; AND
    (b) the UK's presently in-service aircraft carriers were stripped of their obsolescent 'Sea Dart' anti airborne threat (AAW) missile systems in the late 1990's; AND
    (c) the UK Labour govt refused to fund a replacement AAW system to be fitted 1998-2010; AND
    (d) in order to save money, the planned aircraft carriers won't have any anti airborne threat missile systems whatsoever...

    The US, Italy, France, Japan and even Brazil fit and are retrofitting their carriers with technologically up-to-date anti ASCM/anti-airborne threat (AAW) weapons: for the UK to not be doing the same for its existing and planned carriers is gross negligence....

    Even Brazil makes sure that its nearly 50-year old Aircraft Carrier is fitted with up-to-date, missile-based anti airborne threat defence systems:

    08_01-2010 Janes article- "Refitted Sao Paulo returns to sea":

    http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/idr/idr100108_1_n.shtml -

    ..."(As a result of the refit, the Sao Paulo has) three new twin-Mistral surface-to-air missile launchers "...

    For the previous UK Labour govt to have not funded the same for the Royal Navy's 3 aircraft carriers that were in-service in 1998; the 2 that remain in-service today AND the now-planned 2 'big-deck' aircraft carriers is overt evidence of a political party that is either pathologically incapable or unwilling to make hard choices in terms of priorizing allocations of public monies....

    http://www.military-today.com/navy/improved_nimitz_class.htm :

    "... These (US Navy Nimitz class supercarriers) were completed with Kevlar armour over their vital areas and have improved hull protection arrangements...

    "The Kevlar armour has been retrofitted to the earlier carriers, as have many of the advanced systems built into the newer ships..."


    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/uss-theodore-roosevelt-headed-into-midlife-overhaul-02810/ http://www.news.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/lhd-8.htm

    http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/

    http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/cvn-213.html

    http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/cvn-214.html

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvn-78-specs.htm

    http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003686.html :

    "... The Hyuga... will carry an Aegis-type air defense system, with the U.S.-developed AN/SPY-1 multi-function radar; her principal "weapons" armament will be 64 advanced ESSM-type missiles... "

    "... She will also be fitted with two 20-mm Phalanx (radar guided) "Gatling" guns for close-in defense against anti-ship missiles, and she will have six tubes for anti-submarine torpedoes...."


    http://defense-update.com/products/h/hyuga_250409.html -

    "... Hyuga is equipped with 16 Mk41 VLS (Vertical Launch System) cells (each cell carries and can launch 4 ESSM-type missiles- rvl) for anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles and accommodates two 20mm Phalanx (radar guided) anti-missile cannon and two triple 12.75-inch torpedo mounts for self defense...."
    -----------------------
    -----------------------

    1a) "why do ALL of the US Navy's in-service 'big deck' Nimitz and Improved Nimitz class aircraft carriers as well as the LHA and LHD classes of ‘medium sized aircraft carriers’ have armour and armoured bulkheads?" and

    1b) WHY ARE THESE VESSELS FITTED COMPREHENSIVELY WITH ANTI AIRBORNE THREAT MISSILE SYSTEMS & THE ADVANCED RADARS + COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS REQUIRED TO OPERATE THEM?"

    - http://www.military-today.com/navy/improved_nimitz_class.htm -

    2) "why are the US's newest 'big deck' carriers- such as the recently commissioned G Bush and the undergoing-design "Gerald Ford†class- built with extensive amounts of armour and fitted with armoured bulkheads and/or being designed to be fitted extensively with armour and with armoured bulkheads?"

    3) "why are the US's newest 'big deck' carriers- such as the recently commissioned G Bush and the undergoing design Gerald Ford class built with and/or designed to be fitted with anti airborne threat missile systems and the advanced radars required to operate these systems?"

    4) The same questions could be put to persons serving on, overseeing and/or involved in the design of the US Navy's 10 'medium sized' (LHA and LHD class) aircraft carriers... (each about twice as big as the UK's Invincible class carriers (HMS Illustrious & HMS Ark Royal)) such as the USS Makin Island:


    http://www.navy.mil/local/lhd8/ -

    http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&ct=4&tid=400 -

    http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/amphibiousassault/lhd1Wasp.html -

    http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/amphibiousassault/lha1tarawa.html -

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lhx.htm

    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/uss-theodore-roosevelt-headed-into-midlife-overhaul-02810/

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvn-78-specs.htm -

    ... and the above questions could be put to designers of the US Navy's Makin Island successor class of 'medium sized aircraft carriers', due to enter service in 2014 or thereabouts...
    ----------------

    Why are the UK's planned 'big deck' aircraft carriers designed- and being built- without anti airborne threat missile systems and the advanced-technology radars required to operate these weapons????

    Considering that anti airborne threat missile systems are integral to aircraft carriers belonging to ALL other countries' navies world-wide, why isn't the UK govt enabling the UK's planned new carriers to be fitted with these weapons and the radars required to operate them?

    Why are the UK's planned 'big deck' aircraft carriers designed and being built without aircraft-launch catapults??


    Catapults are necessary for aircraft carriers to be able to embark, launch & recover a variety of the most versatile & capable types of fixed-wing aircraft, such as Airborne Early Warning & Control (AWACS) types:

    E-2D Hawkeye: The (U.S.) Navy's New AWACS-

    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/e-2d-hawkeye-the-navys-new-awacs-03443/

    The RN's new carriers will be restricted to Harrier type (short/vertical take off & land) fixed-wing aircraft & helicopters- that can not duplicate even remotely the capabilities of modern, fixed-wing AWACS...

    http://www.janes.com/news/defence/systems/jni/jni091020_1_n.shtml
    http://www.janes.com/news/defence/idr/idr080611_1_n.shtml :

    "... In 1982 the Falklands conflict provided a stark reminder of the vulnerability of surface forces operating in a hostile air environment without (AWACS) AEW support..."

    "... The absence of such a capability in the face of sustained air attack gave the UK Royal Navy (RN) insufficient warning to counter threats at long range, & directly contributed to the loss of several ships...."


    THE UK'S DESIRED WORLD-PROFILE ALONG WITH ITs FORESEEN FUTURE ROLES & POTENTIAL DUTIES OUGHT TO BE PARAMOUNT IN THE UK's DEFENCE MEGA-PROJECT DECISION-MAKING!!!

    SOLUTION TO THE UK's DEFENCE-FUNDING CHALLENGES: REACTIVATE LEND/LEASE??


    Both the United States' Senate and House of Representatives Defence and budget-related committees are deliberating proposals to substantially downsize their country's navy and how budget reductions can be implemented in all of their armed forces branches...

    This while the UK is struggling to find ways of financing major- but very needed- military acquisition programmes, particularly for the Royal Navy and ancillary services...

    Could a productive strategy to perhaps partially meet both countries' objectives be the US 'gifting to the UK' several of its most recently built fighter aircraft & helicopter carrying naval vessels (along with their aircraft + weapons) that could be inducted into the RN in place of the UK's planned- but, due to budget constraints- enormously counterproductively lacking in capabilities- new 'big deck' aircraft carriers??

    The UK could sell its 2 partially completed, impractically-designed 'big deck' aircraft carriers to reliable countries such as India, S. Korea or even Brazil; work with the buyer(s) to 'custom fit' these vessels with radars, communications, armaments, etc; and could commit future years' funding to a 're-design' of the botched-by-the-previous-Labour-govt' big deck' aircraft carrier programme...

    COULD THE US LEND/LEASE TO THE UK


    1) http://www.navy.mil/local/lhd8/ -

    2) http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&ct=4&tid=400 -

    3) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/lhd-8.htm

    4) http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/

    5) http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/cvn-213.html

    6) http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/cvn-214.html

    7) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvn-78-specs.htm

    _________________
    Roderick V. Louis,
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
     
  4. Hmmm, that's "convenient" ....
     
  5. Re: Dunfermline Press: "Carriers Project Could Be Hit By Str

    And of no value whatsoever to the rest of the UK.

    He's cutting and pasting his shit in here as well - Haven't you got a dog to take for a walk
     
  6. Re: Dunfermline Press: "Carriers Project Could Be Hit By Str

    I've just dozed off to this on another thread
     
  7. Re: Dunfermline Press: "Carriers Project Could Be Hit By Str

    Those that say "all Britain really needs is a small navy sufficient for defence and protection..." are not that wrong....

    A 25 or 35 warship navy is 'small' when compared to the past navies of many nations- and many, many countries' the UK's size today, and to today’s 300-ship US Navy...


    Part of protecting the UK's interests rests with its armed forces being able to project 'the appearance' of overwhelming competence and capabilities- albeit for their small size- to potential adversaries...

    If the UK's armed forces are not only small, but outdated and not-up-to-current-mission-demands, countries that otherwise would not initiate conflict- will do so.

    Considering the pivotal, central position that the UK still plays in the world- in terms of its leading role membership on financial/trade, legal and political bodies- the result of hostile countries initiating conflict with the UK can and likely would have world roiling negative effects....

    The UK ought to be taking every step that is reasonably possible in order to retain the competence and capabilities of its armed forces... and to maintain its 'world-leading technological advantages' over possible adversaries….

    Building 'make-work-project', virtually empty-of-weapons-&-sensor systems warships- such as the big deck aircraft carrier and Type-45 Destroyer programmes- don't fit this objective...

    Roderick V. Louis,
    Vancouver, B.C., Canada,
     

Share This Page