RE: HMS Prince of Wales: PH Meets
Discussion
Kccv23highliftcam said:
"The truth on the Navy carrier debacle?
Industry got away with murder
Sold 'adaptable' ships which couldn't be adapted"
Ref.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/06/defence_c...
Interesting read that, thanks. Industry got away with murder
Sold 'adaptable' ships which couldn't be adapted"
Ref.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/06/defence_c...
Piginapoke said:
It all seems a bit imperialistic to me. I recall a documentary on HMS Illustrious and it was clear that ship lacked clear purpose and, as a result, didn't seem to have much to do.
I'm not trying be negative, I'm just genuinely puzzled what these two ships will do apart from burn diesel oil across the seven oceans for the next 40 years.
Obviously, we all hope that they will do nothing except burn up diesel oil plying the seven seas for their entire operational life.I'm not trying be negative, I'm just genuinely puzzled what these two ships will do apart from burn diesel oil across the seven oceans for the next 40 years.
However, when Argentina invaded the Falklands, we were lucky to have a couple of usable aircraft carriers in service, because I'm fairly sure it would have been impossible to have freed the inhabitants from the Argentine military occupation otherwise. So that's one example of the kind of things aircraft carriers may be useful for.
It's also worth noting that Argentina only invaded the Falklands after we withdrew the Navy icebreaker that had previously been stationed there, showing how having ships in places can deter war from starting. Moreover, the decade prior to the war saw many commentators suggest that having aircraft carriers was unnecessary, which is why we had the 'mini' carrier Invincible with the Harriers, it was a compromise between a full size carrier and nothing. They were 'unnecessary' right up until they day they were suddenly indispensable.
Now, obviously one could argue that we wouldn't have needed carriers if we didn't hang onto overseas territories acquired during the colonial period, but it's tricky to be sure that we won't ever need them.
The diesel / nuke issue is an interesting one to me, why’d we(you/us) go derv instead of nuke?
My understanding of the nuke option is it’s good for ages (25yrs, Nimitz class?)
They should paint it royal blue with some gold trim, the grey simply isn’t going to fool anybody into thinking it isn’t anything else ie. is that a big f’off aircraft carrier, or a Russian oligarch?
My understanding of the nuke option is it’s good for ages (25yrs, Nimitz class?)
They should paint it royal blue with some gold trim, the grey simply isn’t going to fool anybody into thinking it isn’t anything else ie. is that a big f’off aircraft carrier, or a Russian oligarch?
socialistworker said:
these 2 new vessels have a massive flaw; they are powered by diesel and as such are reliant upon being close to a plodding RFA tanker at all times.
They should have been powered by nukes like our Tridents.
total mistake
Think about it. Other than being able to generate more power, just what has a nuke powered ship got over a diesel powered one?They should have been powered by nukes like our Tridents.
total mistake
You still have to feed the sailors, you still have to fuel the planes. So you are still required to supply the ship with supply ships, nuke powered or not.
Some of you may find this interesting.
Quote:-
"A new way to geolocate C-band air defense radars have been discovered by Harel Dan. Analyzing the synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) data generated by Europe’s Sentinel 1 satellites. He found out that the radars showed up as X-shaped marks in the images."
"Long story short, some of these are AN/MPQ-53/65 phased array radars that form a Patriot missile battery C². Looking at official documentation, the military G-band is the civilian C-band. Sentinel-1 central frequency is 5.405 Ghz, well within this range, hence my working hypothesis is that there is some sort of ground based interference with the Sentinel-1 signal.
So anywhere in the world these artifacts appear, they may point to a location of a patriot battery, or other early warning system, as I shall show."
Ref:-
https://medium.com/@HarelDan/x-marks-the-spot-579c...
and
http://alert5.com/2018/10/26/patriots-c-band-pesa-...
Isa Airbase MIM-104 Patriot battery
Al-Udeid MIM-104 Patriot battery
These example are with high confidence the result of the AN/MPQ-53/65 Radar. However, there are other sources for interferences, such as the Swedish STRIL array
the oceans not so big now..
Quote:-
"A new way to geolocate C-band air defense radars have been discovered by Harel Dan. Analyzing the synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) data generated by Europe’s Sentinel 1 satellites. He found out that the radars showed up as X-shaped marks in the images."
"Long story short, some of these are AN/MPQ-53/65 phased array radars that form a Patriot missile battery C². Looking at official documentation, the military G-band is the civilian C-band. Sentinel-1 central frequency is 5.405 Ghz, well within this range, hence my working hypothesis is that there is some sort of ground based interference with the Sentinel-1 signal.
So anywhere in the world these artifacts appear, they may point to a location of a patriot battery, or other early warning system, as I shall show."
Ref:-
https://medium.com/@HarelDan/x-marks-the-spot-579c...
and
http://alert5.com/2018/10/26/patriots-c-band-pesa-...
Isa Airbase MIM-104 Patriot battery
Al-Udeid MIM-104 Patriot battery
These example are with high confidence the result of the AN/MPQ-53/65 Radar. However, there are other sources for interferences, such as the Swedish STRIL array
the oceans not so big now..
Wozy68 said:
socialistworker said:
these 2 new vessels have a massive flaw; they are powered by diesel and as such are reliant upon being close to a plodding RFA tanker at all times.
They should have been powered by nukes like our Tridents.
total mistake
Think about it. Other than being able to generate more power, just what has a nuke powered ship got over a diesel powered one?They should have been powered by nukes like our Tridents.
total mistake
You still have to feed the sailors, you still have to fuel the planes. So you are still required to supply the ship with supply ships, nuke powered or not.
Nuke is way more expensive to build than diesel/kerosene....but how much is it going to cost over 40 years in fuel, and think of those emissions as well, burning all that nasty diesel by a Govt that expects all its citizens to get rid of its diesel cars that they encouraged it to buy
.But, UK plc have never build or operated a Nuke surface vessel before, and the Frenchie's didn't do too well with CdeG in this respect.
Also it was stated that many countries won't accept Nuke powered vessels to dock on visits, so limiting the venues that you can hold cocktail parties at no doubt.
But, with no propulsion fuel needed you'd have much bigger fuel tanks for just aviation fuel, so aircraft fuel replenishment not required as often, making that a much more sensible logistics for our small logistics fleet?
I can see and understand why they chose not to risk/try the nuke option, but at the same time, think they should have.
socialistworker said:
these 2 new vessels have a massive flaw; they are powered by diesel and as such are reliant upon being close to a plodding RFA tanker at all times.
They should have been powered by nukes like our Tridents.
total mistake
Couple of points....They should have been powered by nukes like our Tridents.
total mistake
The new Tide Class are fast supply ships and will form part of any future carrier task group. They have a top speed of 27 knots, so hardly plodding.
Refuelling at sea is vital and even without oil fuel they still need water/food/ammunition so your reasoning is at best flawed.
Wozy68 said:
Think about it. Other than being able to generate more power, just what has a nuke powered ship got over a diesel powered one?
You still have to feed the sailors, you still have to fuel the planes. So you are still required to supply the ship with supply ships, nuke powered or not.
Funny how Americans, Chinese and Russians all seem to go for nuke flat tops. These boats will be burning 100T plus per day and will need to RAS fuel every 3 or 4 days. Hit the tanker and the fleet is dead in days.You still have to feed the sailors, you still have to fuel the planes. So you are still required to supply the ship with supply ships, nuke powered or not.
Kccv23highliftcam said:
the oceans not so big now..
Still big enough that you can lose a whole airplane - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Fl...Hashtaggggg said:
Syria, as recently demonstrated.
My take on the logic is the threat is against smaller rogue nations
North Korea got particularly feisty last year. Things might have gone the way of needing an active aircraft carrier parked nearby. It's tricky to predict things like that 6 years out.My take on the logic is the threat is against smaller rogue nations
socialistworker said:
Funny how Americans, Chinese and Russians all seem to go for nuke flat tops. These boats will be burning 100T plus per day and will need to RAS fuel every 3 or 4 days. Hit the tanker and the fleet is dead in days.
Can I suggest you do some reading to inform your point of view rather than posting incorrect nonsense?Nanook said:
Housey said:
Couple of points....
The new Tide Class are fast supply ships and will form part of any future carrier task group. They have a top speed of 27 knots, so hardly plodding.
Refuelling at sea is vital and even without oil fuel they still need beer/fuel/food/ammunition so your reasoning is at best flawed.
The new Tide Class are fast supply ships and will form part of any future carrier task group. They have a top speed of 27 knots, so hardly plodding.
Refuelling at sea is vital and even without oil fuel they still need beer/fuel/food/ammunition so your reasoning is at best flawed.
MikeGalos said:
Well, that shows you should do more homework.
The F-35 has been sold to: United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Turkey, Israel, Singapore, Japan, South Korea.
There are also talks in place for sales to: Belgium, Finland, Germany, Greece, India, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, United Arab Emirates.
Didn't trumpy tell erdogan he couldn't have them? The F-35 has been sold to: United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Turkey, Israel, Singapore, Japan, South Korea.
There are also talks in place for sales to: Belgium, Finland, Germany, Greece, India, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, United Arab Emirates.
We should have named it Lady thatcher just to piss people off.
Nanook said:
socialistworker said:
Funny how Americans, Chinese and Russians all seem to go for nuke flat tops. These boats will be burning 100T plus per day and will need to RAS fuel every 3 or 4 days. Hit the tanker and the fleet is dead in days.
It's not funny.It's wrong. Neither Russia nor China have any nuclear powered aircraft carriers in service, or in build.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff