Tango01  | 26 Jun 2017 3:38 p.m. PST |
"The £3.50 GBPbn cost of the vessel is so high that doubts have been raised over whether the Royal Navy can afford enough fighters for it Captain Jerry Kyd seems remarkably relaxed given he is scheduled on Monday to take to sea for the first time one of the biggest and most expensive defence projects in British history, the aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth. To reach open sea, he will have to conduct two complicated manoeuvres, firstly to take it from the Rosyth dockyard basin where the carrier was built and then under the three Forth bridges. The calculations are fine but the prospect of miscalculation does not appear to scare him. As well as all the electronic devices available to him, he will make a gesture towards tradition, conducting a final check with an instrument used by mariners since at least the 18th century, a sextant, before heading under the bridges…"
Main page
link
Amicalement
Armand
|
| 15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 26 Jun 2017 3:44 p.m. PST |
The Royal Treasury just isn't what it used to be. |
| SBminisguy | 26 Jun 2017 6:06 p.m. PST |
I wonder why x2 islands on the CV? |
| TheWhiteDog | 26 Jun 2017 7:46 p.m. PST |
I believe one is for the Air Group and one is for command of the vessel. |
| bsrlee | 27 Jun 2017 1:30 a.m. PST |
Hopefully he does not follow in the path of a previous Captain Kidd. |
| Paul B | 27 Jun 2017 5:26 a.m. PST |
What should you call an aircraft carrier with no aircraft? |
| GurKhan | 27 Jun 2017 5:52 a.m. PST |
And apparently the whole thing runs on Windows XP – link |
| Jcfrog | 27 Jun 2017 8:35 a.m. PST |
65000t for 24 dubious planes? |
| Andrew Walters | 27 Jun 2017 9:12 a.m. PST |
What should you call an aircraft carrier with no aircraft? A target. I'm sure they'll find the planes, though. Britain does need to project power. |
| 15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 27 Jun 2017 9:32 a.m. PST |
We can joke and ridicule all we want, but Britain is forced to build carriers without planes due to budget reasons. The costs of the carriers and the F-35's to be based on them are so high that she cannot afford them concurrently. Like it or not, this is the sad reality of modern weapon development. Therefore they must be acquired in a phased manner. Had Britain chose to acquire the planes before the carrier, she would be putting the cart in front of the horse. |
| Vigilant | 27 Jun 2017 9:52 a.m. PST |
Still seems to have been a strange decision to retire the Harrier fleet before the replacement was ready. At least we could have fielded something useful for a while rather than an expensive target. Hopefully it won't have the same power problems that the type 45s have and it will be able to operate outside UK waters. |
| 15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 27 Jun 2017 10:28 a.m. PST |
The USMC will be operating F-35B squadrons on the British carriers in the meantime. Keeping Harriers operational in the interim would be costly and could divert funds earmarked for other needs. There's an opportunity cost to everything. |
| Lion in the Stars | 27 Jun 2017 3:31 p.m. PST |
Any submariner will tell you that you call all aircraft carriers "targets", regardless of presence of aircraft. Good news with having USMC F35s onboard is that the Marines are guaranteed to fight to keep the carrier safe, regardless of US desires. |
| Tgunner | 28 Jun 2017 10:14 a.m. PST |
Had Britain chose to acquire the planes before the carrier, she would be putting the cart in front of the horse. Interesting. I would argue that the F-35 is the horse while the carrier is the cart. You don't really need the cart because you can use the horse to take you and your stuff from place to place. The cart just makes the horse more efficient. I believe the same is true for the carrier. You don't need it to have the carrier, but it certainly makes the jet more useful. Unfortunately, like a cart missing its horse, the carrier is pretty useless without its planes. Perhaps the USMC/USN will chip in and at least get the process started with training her air group and get the flight deck teams up to stuff. |
