Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 11 of 13  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page « 19 10 11 12 13 »
Author Message
Philbob
Post subject: Re: R.N. Carriers, will they be built?Posted: October 22nd, 2010, 12:36 am
Offline
Posts: 586
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 3:45 am
after reading most of the SSDR it could of been much worse i would of liked to see a smarter mix of escort and auxilary ships, but i think they are making big mistake changing to CATOBAR, even though most of the theoretical work is done that is probably just going to eat up space that could of been used for future expansions and increase the ships crew compliment.

_________________
Supreme Commander of the Astrofleets


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
rifleman
Post subject: Re: R.N. Carriers, will they be built?Posted: October 22nd, 2010, 2:51 am
Offline
Posts: 501
Joined: September 4th, 2010, 8:44 am
Philbob I would disagree the biggest mistakes in SSDR are:
1: Scrapping of Nimrod MRA4
2. The reduction in the fleet air arm

_________________
"There was nothing wrong with Titanic when she left the Shipyard" Tim McGarry Belfast Comedian


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Philbob
Post subject: Re: R.N. Carriers, will they be built?Posted: October 22nd, 2010, 4:07 am
Offline
Posts: 586
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 3:45 am
too be fair the whole thing shouldn't of happens and the UK should be capping its NHS and civil services to ungrateful muslims and reinvesting that money into national infrastructure and maintaining a military for the global aspirations there politco's claim to believe in and for the position that they have on the UN security council.

_________________
Supreme Commander of the Astrofleets


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Portsmouth Bill
Post subject: Re: R.N. Carriers, will they be built?Posted: October 22nd, 2010, 7:39 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3220
Joined: August 16th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Cambridge United Kingdom
Quote:
too be fair the whole thing shouldn't of happens and the UK should be capping its NHS and civil services to ungrateful muslims and reinvesting that money into national infrastructure and maintaining a military for the global aspirations there politco's claim to believe in and for the position that they have on the UN security council.
I don't know even where to begin with this one :roll: Well, I do recall some time back, when I made a comment on a domestic U.S. topic; and (Colosseum it think it was) suggested I 'butt out' - good advice at the time and since I've tried to refrain (and beleive me that isn't alway's easy). Considering that this thread began (and is supposed to continue) with the subject of scrapping the R.N. carriers, and we are now in the twilight world of disenfranchising folk on the basis of their religion - I believe we may have lost the plot ;).


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
rifleman
Post subject: Re: R.N. Carriers, will they be built?Posted: October 22nd, 2010, 1:01 pm
Offline
Posts: 501
Joined: September 4th, 2010, 8:44 am
PB its not even worth commenting on!

The SSDR has thrown up some interesting projects we can play with the Type 26/83, The OPV/MCMV/Hydrography, the Ice Patrol vessel and new support ship programs added to the change to the CVF many months of fun.

_________________
"There was nothing wrong with Titanic when she left the Shipyard" Tim McGarry Belfast Comedian


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: R.N. Carriers, will they be built?Posted: October 22nd, 2010, 2:16 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
rifleman wrote:
Philbob I would disagree the biggest mistakes in SSDR are:
1: Scrapping of Nimrod MRA4
2. The reduction in the fleet air arm
I've heard the point made that scrapping the MRA.4 was a good thing, because it forces the UK to face the fact that they have no LRMPA worth anything in the pipeline. My guess is that the end up with ex-USN P-3s, P-8s, or an LRMPA from Airbus. Cost wise the P-3 might be the cheepest, followed by P-8s, with the politically expedient Airbus LRMPA being the most expensive.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
rifleman
Post subject: Re: R.N. Carriers, will they be built?Posted: October 22nd, 2010, 3:19 pm
Offline
Posts: 501
Joined: September 4th, 2010, 8:44 am
Why P3's are less capable than the MR2. If we need a LRMPA Bae still has 9 of the most advanced in the world. With great cruise and loiter times. From what is being discussed in other forums P8 isn't going as smoothly as USN thought. Still another option when A400m comes online C130J airframe will be retired with plenty of life left in them so there's an option

_________________
"There was nothing wrong with Titanic when she left the Shipyard" Tim McGarry Belfast Comedian


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Finfan
Post subject: Re: R.N. Carriers, will they be built?Posted: October 22nd, 2010, 3:59 pm
Offline
Posts: 64
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:32 pm
rifleman wrote:
2. The reduction in the fleet air arm
tbh the RN has not had a proper fleet air arm since 2006, retirement of Sea Harrier, so the "reduction" right now is pretty meaningless.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: R.N. Carriers, will they be built?Posted: October 22nd, 2010, 5:00 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
rifleman wrote:
Why P3's are less capable than the MR2. If we need a LRMPA Bae still has 9 of the most advanced in the world. With great cruise and loiter times. From what is being discussed in other forums P8 isn't going as smoothly as USN thought. Still another option when A400m comes online C130J airframe will be retired with plenty of life left in them so there's an option
I've also heard that the systems integration on the MRA.4s isn't finished yet.

The MRA.4 took the old fuselages and put new wings on them. That's an expensive proposition in the first place. And with the Nimrod force now dead, any LRMPA would be better than what the UK has now.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Philbob
Post subject: Re: R.N. Carriers, will they be built?Posted: October 22nd, 2010, 6:55 pm
Offline
Posts: 586
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 3:45 am
Portsmouth Bill wrote:
Quote:
too be fair the whole thing shouldn't of happens and the UK should be capping its NHS and civil services to ungrateful muslims and reinvesting that money into national infrastructure and maintaining a military for the global aspirations there politco's claim to believe in and for the position that they have on the UN security council.
I don't know even where to begin with this one :roll: Well, I do recall some time back, when I made a comment on a domestic U.S. topic; and (Colosseum it think it was) suggested I 'butt out' - good advice at the time and since I've tried to refrain (and beleive me that isn't alway's easy). Considering that this thread began (and is supposed to continue) with the subject of scrapping the R.N. carriers, and we are now in the twilight world of disenfranchising folk on the basis of their religion - I believe we may have lost the plot ;).
If a nation thinks and acts that is a main global power especially one that feels it must conduct military expeditionary based interventionism whether for peace keeping or humanitarian reasons then it must maintain certain things, simple as that; the UK thinks and acts that it is a main global power where in reality its like pulling teeth to try and get them to maintain military that can pursue their national strategic objectives and goals.

The triumvirate of politics, economics, and military strength are all closely related and you cannot have a honest debate on the issue unless you are willing to addresses all three subjects

Lastly on the"disfranchised" anyone can access any media medium and find an increasingly unassimilated, belligerent, radicalized, and growing Muslim population in the UK (as well as Europe.) There is nothing wrong in speaking the truth in that regards.


in regards to the lack of a long Rang MPA this might be the time to go risky and turn that role over to a large UAV (the Tanarais anyone) The biggest problem western military's have going for them is that they are attempting to execute unit to unit replacements for WWII and Cold War Era force structures while ad hocly tacking on new technologies and concepts (unmanned systems) to the existing force, despite changing technologies, threats, and economic realities... the high-low mix that has been how western Airforces and navies have been operating for years is no longer relevant because the High-Low technology differences have diverged so much.

_________________
Supreme Commander of the Astrofleets


Last edited by Philbob on October 22nd, 2010, 7:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 11 of 13  [ 124 posts ]  Return to “Off Topic” | Go to page « 19 10 11 12 13 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]