RE: HMS Prince of Wales: PH Meets
Discussion
Europa1 said:
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.
Nice. 
CM954 said:
Interesting read that, thanks.
No it isn't, its Lewis Page being an idiot and as usual pontificating on stuff he knows nothing about.Industry didn't sell the MoD "adaptable" ships, neither of concepts developed by both Bae and Thales were adaptable, the MoD asked for it.
EMALS wasn't even on the drawing board during design for production, space was however provided for EMCAT which was also meant to be refitted to the NIMITZ class. EMALS is also causing the US Ford class a lot of problems to such an extent that the cost overruns for the first of class are bigger than the entire QEC project.
Basically the extent of adaptability was leaving some spare space around the ship, no detailed design for the CATOBAR conversion was ever performed as by that stage the labour government, MoD and navy were firmly committed to STOVL.
Europa1 said:
Indeed - it's not a personal gif:; it goes with the office, not the individual that sits in the office. I seem to recall that Jaguar provided a car to the captain of at least one of the Invincible class carriers.
Where it may differ from other civil servants is that this looks like a pure PR play by JLR, as opposed to a civilian civil servant who may have a contractual entitlement to a vehicle from the motor pool.
If the captain of a gigantiuc, shouty, in your face aircraft carrier gets a roughty-toughty Range Rover, what do we think would be appropriate for the captain of a Trident or hunter killer submarine?
Indeed.Where it may differ from other civil servants is that this looks like a pure PR play by JLR, as opposed to a civilian civil servant who may have a contractual entitlement to a vehicle from the motor pool.
If the captain of a gigantiuc, shouty, in your face aircraft carrier gets a roughty-toughty Range Rover, what do we think would be appropriate for the captain of a Trident or hunter killer submarine?
For this deployment, they supplied a F Type:
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/lifestyle/motoring/j...
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/hms-queen-elizabe...
Jaguar also supplied the Captain's chair for the bridge of HMS Queen Elizabeth.
https://twitter.com/HMSQnlz/status/978948505816502...
The Navy has always played a role in promoting international relations and trade.
MBBlat said:
No it isn't, its Lewis Page being an idiot and as usual pontificating on stuff he knows nothing about.
Industry didn't sell the MoD "adaptable" ships, neither of concepts developed by both Bae and Thales were adaptable, the MoD asked for it.
EMALS wasn't even on the drawing board during design for production, space was however provided for EMCAT which was also meant to be refitted to the NIMITZ class. EMALS is also causing the US Ford class a lot of problems to such an extent that the cost overruns for the first of class are bigger than the entire QEC project.
Basically the extent of adaptability was leaving some spare space around the ship, no detailed design for the CATOBAR conversion was ever performed as by that stage the labour government, MoD and navy were firmly committed to STOVL.
There are no place for facts here, only ill informed agendas. Take you facts away, this is for cutting and pasting soundbites only, facts have no place here. Industry didn't sell the MoD "adaptable" ships, neither of concepts developed by both Bae and Thales were adaptable, the MoD asked for it.
EMALS wasn't even on the drawing board during design for production, space was however provided for EMCAT which was also meant to be refitted to the NIMITZ class. EMALS is also causing the US Ford class a lot of problems to such an extent that the cost overruns for the first of class are bigger than the entire QEC project.
Basically the extent of adaptability was leaving some spare space around the ship, no detailed design for the CATOBAR conversion was ever performed as by that stage the labour government, MoD and navy were firmly committed to STOVL.
MBBlat said:
CM954 said:
Interesting read that, thanks.
No it isn't, its Lewis Page being an idiot and as usual pontificating on stuff he knows nothing about.Industry didn't sell the MoD "adaptable" ships, neither of concepts developed by both Bae and Thales were adaptable, the MoD asked for it.
EMALS wasn't even on the drawing board during design for production, space was however provided for EMCAT which was also meant to be refitted to the NIMITZ class. EMALS is also causing the US Ford class a lot of problems to such an extent that the cost overruns for the first of class are bigger than the entire QEC project.
Basically the extent of adaptability was leaving some spare space around the ship, no detailed design for the CATOBAR conversion was ever performed as by that stage the labour government, MoD and navy were firmly committed to STOVL.
I guess it depends what designs were required by contract and at what stage. Selling a "benefit" of potential adaptability without a design wouldn't be uncommon (I assume) or the wrong thing to do. Finding out at a later stage that actually implementing an adaptation would cost more than the whole ship is....well.... a bit embarrassing, non?
I genuinely have no idea of the background, just a vague recollection of hearing of the volte face re the F35B or C.
Edited by CM954 on Tuesday 30th October 16:47
CM954 said:
You seem quite firm in your views - any reference sources to quote?
I guess it depends what designs were required by contract and at what stage. Selling a "benefit" of potential adaptability without a design wouldn't be uncommon (I assume) or the wrong thing to do. Finding out at a later stage that actually implementing an adaptation would cost more than the whole ship is....well.... a bit embarrassing, non?
I genuinely have no idea of the background, just a vague recollection of hearing of the volte face re the F35B or C.
I spent 6 Years on the project going from concept to design for production, leaving in 2007, so just personnel opinion/recollection.I guess it depends what designs were required by contract and at what stage. Selling a "benefit" of potential adaptability without a design wouldn't be uncommon (I assume) or the wrong thing to do. Finding out at a later stage that actually implementing an adaptation would cost more than the whole ship is....well.... a bit embarrassing, non?
I genuinely have no idea of the background, just a vague recollection of hearing of the volte face re the F35B or C.
Edited by CM954 on Tuesday 30th October 16:47
MBBlat said:
CM954 said:
You seem quite firm in your views - any reference sources to quote?
I guess it depends what designs were required by contract and at what stage. Selling a "benefit" of potential adaptability without a design wouldn't be uncommon (I assume) or the wrong thing to do. Finding out at a later stage that actually implementing an adaptation would cost more than the whole ship is....well.... a bit embarrassing, non?
I genuinely have no idea of the background, just a vague recollection of hearing of the volte face re the F35B or C.
I spent 6 Years on the project going from concept to design for production, leaving in 2007, so just personnel opinion/recollection.I guess it depends what designs were required by contract and at what stage. Selling a "benefit" of potential adaptability without a design wouldn't be uncommon (I assume) or the wrong thing to do. Finding out at a later stage that actually implementing an adaptation would cost more than the whole ship is....well.... a bit embarrassing, non?
I genuinely have no idea of the background, just a vague recollection of hearing of the volte face re the F35B or C.
Edited by CM954 on Tuesday 30th October 16:47
Classic PH argument between someone who 'knows' about everything and wants detailed, referenced sources, and someone else who actually understands what he's discussing, complete with years of experience.
Piginapoke said:
Another white elephant
Care to predict future geopolitical developments for the next half century?Unless you know, then how can you possibly predict that it will be a white elephant?
How will you measure the success of otherwise of the ship?
For example Ark Royal 4 served for getting in for a quarter of a century. She never fired a shot in anger, or launched an aircraft in anger. A white elephant? Or did her very existence deter potential enemies?
The Ark Royal that followed clocked up a similar length of time in service. She however got involved in all sorts of operations. Is that a measure of her success? Was she a white elephant?
You need to understand that an aircraft carrier - especially revolutionary ones like the QE Class - are a lot more than a floating home for fast jets. Anti submarine, early warning surface search roles are carried out by her helicopters. She can accommodate troops and put them ashore in Chinook and Merlin helicopters and they can be supported by Apache helicopters.
The QE class are massive command control communications hubs. The centre for planning operations from high intensity war to humanitarian relief operations.
That's just some of the stuff I can be bothered to write about now. There's a lot more.
With all that capability and potential for future technology like UCAVs and network centric warfare, I very much doubt these ships will ever be white elephants.
ninja-lewis said:
Europa1 said:
Indeed - it's not a personal gif:; it goes with the office, not the individual that sits in the office. I seem to recall that Jaguar provided a car to the captain of at least one of the Invincible class carriers.
Where it may differ from other civil servants is that this looks like a pure PR play by JLR, as opposed to a civilian civil servant who may have a contractual entitlement to a vehicle from the motor pool.
If the captain of a gigantiuc, shouty, in your face aircraft carrier gets a roughty-toughty Range Rover, what do we think would be appropriate for the captain of a Trident or hunter killer submarine?
Indeed.Where it may differ from other civil servants is that this looks like a pure PR play by JLR, as opposed to a civilian civil servant who may have a contractual entitlement to a vehicle from the motor pool.
If the captain of a gigantiuc, shouty, in your face aircraft carrier gets a roughty-toughty Range Rover, what do we think would be appropriate for the captain of a Trident or hunter killer submarine?
For this deployment, they supplied a F Type:
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/lifestyle/motoring/j...
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/hms-queen-elizabe...
Jaguar also supplied the Captain's chair for the bridge of HMS Queen Elizabeth.
https://twitter.com/HMSQnlz/status/978948505816502...
The Navy has always played a role in promoting international relations and trade.
As it was effectively a JLR lease car I guess it was eventually sold on. There is someone running round in a ten year old Jag right now who has no clue that it's been all over the world - including very briefly my driveway! (Long story.)
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff