HMS Ark Royal to be scrapped

The Basket said:

What about scrapping the Harrier...we invented the thing...

Click to expand...

Getting rid of Harrier makes sense because, frankly, we have no need for a STOVL capability. That said, the timing of the cut seems a tad precipitate and I really hope the powers-that-be have ensured that the Typhoon and the venerable Tonka can do everything from a CAS/OS perspective that the Plastic Puffer Jet could do because we're fighting a war in Afghanistan and we need to ensure the troops on the ground get the best air support possible.

As for the carriers, if they are delivered on time (yeah, right!) then they'll be 3 years ahead of the JSF. What will be interesting to see is whether the UK sticks with the F-35B (STOVL) or takes the logical decision of getting the CTOL variant with its longer range/endurance, greater payload and much simpler maintenance and logistics.

I think the UK needs the 2 carriers. Basing our forces in other people's countries for sustained periods is hugely expensive (something previous Governments have never fully covered with their much-vaunted but seldom-used "War Chests"). There are numerous smaller-scale, less enduring operations for which a large carrier would be ideal - remember the Sierra Leone operation? However, these capital ships must be adequately supported with other vessels.

For my money, we should have ditched Trident and the boomers - too expensive and of no practical use.

Just my two penn'orth!

Cheers,
Mark

buffnut453 said:

Getting rid of Harrier makes sense because, frankly, we have no need for a STOVL capability. That said, the timing of the cut seems a tad precipitate and I really hope the powers-that-be have ensured that the Typhoon and the venerable Tonka can do everything from a CAS/OS perspective that the Plastic Puffer Jet could do because we're fighting a war in Afghanistan and we need to ensure the troops on the ground get the best air support possible.

As for the carriers, if they are delivered on time (yeah, right!) then they'll be 3 years ahead of the JSF. What will be interesting to see is whether the UK sticks with the F-35B (STOVL) or takes the logical decision of getting the CTOL variant with its longer range/endurance, greater payload and much simpler maintenance and logistics.

I think the UK needs the 2 carriers. Basing our forces in other people's countries for sustained periods is hugely expensive (something previous Governments have never fully covered with their much-vaunted but seldom-used "War Chests"). There are numerous smaller-scale, less enduring operations for which a large carrier would be ideal - remember the Sierra Leone operation? However, these capital ships must be adequately supported with other vessels.

For my money, we should have ditched Trident and the boomers - too expensive and of no practical use.

Just my two penn'orth!

Cheers,
Mark

Click to expand...

And a pretty good two penn'orth.

Working on the basis that the UK has to have to two carriers because the previous government tied up the contracts so it was more expensive to cancel them than to build them. Then you choose, a) do you delay the building which will increase the costs significantly, or b) build them to schedule reducing the cost and getting some benefit. The Planes will not be ready in time so you may as well build the first one as a Helicopter Carrier as thats all you have, and the second one as a traditional carrier as the aircraft will be ready by then.

The decision has been taken (correctly IMHO) to go for the USN version of the F35 not the STOVL B version as that gives you a better aircraft and operational flexibility. What happens then I suggest will depend on the economics, with luck, refit the first one as a traditional carrier and you have the solution you wanted in the first place.

CharlesBronson said:

Thanks for the info. Organic pig farmer ? , that I think is not that bad if we mention his dobious taste at the time to choose a mistress.

Click to expand...

The strange thing about Charles is that Diana was really the mistress. Charles fell in love with Camilla when they were young but was prevented from marrying by the "royal houshold" (whoever they are) to avoid a scandal (well that really worked didnt it) because Camilla had had previous lovers. I was not casting a slur on the lovely Camilla . Camilla was actually quite pretty a long long time ago, if Charles had been a real man he would have told the various advisors to go to hell and married her everyone would have forgotten the previous lovers by the time he became king if he ever does. Charlies grandmother lived to well past 100 afte all.
Since Charles doesnt have a job he tends to set forth on organic ways to save the planet when he isnt having an employee drive his Aston Martin across Europe so he can have a drive in the Czech republic.

If we do proceed with naming one of the carriers Prince of Wales, one hopes it doesn't emulate the last warship to carry that name!

I hate that the US carriers are becoming named after US Presidents, instead of famous battles, ships, or war heros. Some I understand like Lincoln, but the Gerald Ford Class? I'd take Prince of Wales over that any day

buffnut453 said:

If we do proceed with naming one of the carriers Prince of Wales, one hopes it doesn't emulate the last warship to carry that name!

Click to expand...

HMS Invincible did better in the Falklands than her WW! namesake

Glider said:

HMS Invincible did better in the Falklands than her WW! namesake

Click to expand...

True enough. I just worry that the WWII PoW was sunk because she was part of an unbalanced fleet which lacked an aircraft carrier. I truly hope the situation doesn't get reversed and we put the new PoW at risk because we don't have the surface combatants to protect her adequately (ie another unbalanced fleet).

Glider said:

And a pretty good two penn'orth.The decision has been taken (correctly IMHO) to go for the USN version of the F35 not the STOVL B version as that gives you a better aircraft and operational flexibility.

Click to expand...

You're right, Glider. I finally read through the SDSR document today and it seems we have finally made the right choice about which aircraft to put on the carriers. There was absolutely no logic to the previous "flexible" design and the STOVL F-35 was simply a push by the Harrier mafia to retain a capability which we no longer require.

vikingBerserker said:

I hate that the US carriers are becoming named after US Presidents, instead of famous battles, ships, or war heros. Some I understand like Lincoln, but the Gerald Ford Class?

Click to expand...

I've often thought the same thing. I'd like to know the decision process behind that shift in thinking.

As long as the US has carriers, there should be a Lexington, Yorktown and Enterprise.

.

VB and Comis, I agree 100%. The US carriers should be named, as they were in WW2, for former USN ships. Aside from tradition, naming carriers for presidents gets into politics which we need less of, not more.

renrich said:

VB and Comis, I agree 100%. The US carriers should be named, as they were in WW2, for former USN ships. Aside from tradition, naming carriers for presidents gets into politics which we need less of, not more.

Click to expand...

Although I'm all in favour of naming more USN vessels after British Prime Ministers - The Empire Strikes Back!!!!

buffnut453 said:

Although I'm all in favour of naming more USN vessels after British Prime Ministers - The Empire Strikes Back!!!!

Click to expand...

To me naming any combat vessel after a woman is a bit strange the Queen Elizabeth II was a luxury liner not a machine of war and the "Prince of Wales" is a title like "President" when the Queen dies Charles becomes King and there is no Prince of Wales until William is invested if he ever is. Personaly I dont think I like the idea of several thousand men being on a warship named after a very very old woman who may well be still alive if it is ever used for real.

Naming a vessel after a famous admiral or battle is normal or an aspiration but political leaders is a bit strange. I dont know about the USA but there are more streets named after Churchill in France than in the UK.

Ford was one of very few presidents not to be elected is there any reason why his name was chosen for those ships ?

The strange thing about Charles is that Diana was really the mistress. Charles fell in love with Camilla when they were young but was prevented from marrying by the "royal houshold" (whoever they are) to avoid a scandal (well that really worked didnt it) because Camilla had had previous lovers. I was not casting a slur on the lovely Camilla . Camilla was actually quite pretty a long long time ago, if Charles had been a real man he would have told the various advisors to go to hell and married her everyone would have forgotten the previous lovers by the time he became king if he ever does. Charlies grandmother lived to well past 100 afte all.
Since Charles doesnt have a job he tends to set forth on organic ways to save the planet when he isnt having an employee drive his Aston Martin across Europe so he can have a drive in the Czech republic.

Click to expand...

Probably that was too much information on british royalty for me, but thanks aniway.

A question: Did ever the british considerered to have a conventional, steam catapult equipped carrier again ?

it doesnt need to be a monster like the american Nimitz class or so, with 30.000 tons for the F-35, E-3 would be okay.

Well, she's made it onto E-Bay!

Aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal - No Reserve !: eBay Motors (item 280578031151 end time Oct-27-10 12:07:05 PDT)

She's only worth $4,000 USD?! Wow....... Anyone wanna raise the funds?

LMAO, what a great sense of humor that Queen has

Love the Tracker picture CB.

What happened to the Venticinco de Mayo?

The Argentina threat has been greatly over cooked to justify conventional weapons. You need an enemy to justify those billions.

Nothing personal CB.

Don't like the Harrier slagging. The Falklands showed the Harrier to be a very useful machine. It can also use some of the poor runways in Afghanistan. It representing the finest in British engineering when that phrase meant something.

The Basket said:

What happened to the Venticinco de Mayo?

Click to expand...

She was scrapped in the late 90's or Early 2000.

vikingBerserker said:

She was scrapped in the late 90's or Early 2000.

Click to expand...

What a sad ending of our HMS Karel Doorman

Love the Tracker picture CB.

What happened to the Venticinco de Mayo?

The Argentina threat has been greatly over cooked to justify conventional weapons. You need an enemy to justify those billions.

Nothing personal CB.

Don't like the Harrier slagging. The Falklands showed the Harrier to be a very useful machine. It can also use some of the poor runways in Afghanistan. It representing the finest in British engineering when that phrase meant something

Click to expand...

No offense at all, I am kind of agree with you. Here the need for regain the Malvinas has been overcooked as well, unfortunately that doesnt mean anything in defense expenditures, absoluty nothing has change and the resources continued to be unsuficients for a country who has 4350 km of sealine and 9,000 km of borders.

Beside that I think every country of the wolrd has the right to be well armed and with a decent, sufficient and modern military, the Uk is one of them.
Heher the resources were not enough in the times of military Goverments and continue to be less than enough in more democratic times, nothing has really changed. The only change for good was deletion of the compulsory service wich bringed better training for the army.
If you like that picture you might like this one.

Photos: Grumman S-2T Turbo Tracker (G-121) Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net

Surely in the post cold war era force projection is the raisson detre of the armed forces? I believe one of the new carriers shouild be named Ark Royal, I also believe to build aircraft carriers without a full CAG (sorry Carrier Air Group) is absolute madness. The JSF would be the ideal choice (I believe that was originally the plan) surely this country deserves to be at the cutting edge of technology? What is the point of building two hugely expensive vessels without their main component - indeed the whole reason for their existance at all. I read somewhere that one of the new carriers is to be redesigned to be able to operate normal ground launched aircraft. I dont know enough about this to really comment but I cant help thinking that the vessels designers optimised the capabilities of the vessels to the aircraft type it was designed to field! In the modern military enviroment small conflicts are the norm, peacdekeeping missions and the like. All operations in which the projection of a fully equipped CAG on a carrier would be a major force multiplyer and useful deployment. Perhaps without the Soviet Union gone, the US Super Carriers may be overkill and our planned smaller carriers could actually prove to be the perfect solution to a whole range of operational requirements. Dont worry America, China is growing into possibly a far more dangerous opponent than Soviet Russia ever was, and lets face it, if the former Soviet Union doesnt find a solution to its current predicament then a revanchist, resurgent, nationalist Great Russia wouldnt I feel, be that much of a surprise - if you want to unite a country well it may be a cliche but a war is always a good way (perhaps beginning with the re-occupation of the Ukraine, which I cant believe we would sit back and watch) but I digress. I just feel that if we complete our carriers and then even find the money for a modern CAG (JSF) by the time the aircraft will be ready what with construction, training, operational conversion it would be yrs before the carriers aircraft catch up with their carrier which will have been becoming less and less state of the art all the while. I cant help feeling that the collapse of the Soviet Union and the loss of the GREAT ENEMY seems to have made the world a more dangerous place rather than a safer one and sacrificing Defence Capability in a world of such uncertainty and a world were we have more over-seas deployments than (excluding the BAOR) we have had anytime since world war two is short sighted and lets hope not fatal. (I am also against reducing the deployment of the Euro-Fighter (Typhoon) for the same reasons and economic ones too but that is for another post.