The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:48 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 7:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1911
can a E-2 aircraft or a tanker be launched using a ramp like on the QE class?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 475
The UK intends to use Merlin as an AEW platform, much like Invincible saw the Seakings with the Searchwater Radar.

http://defense-update.com/20170118_crowsnet.html

So no E-2.

The E-2 Hawkeye is a rather space demanding aircraft on a carrier deck, as the French found out onboard DeGaulle. And, of course, the E-2 requires catapult and arestor hook systems. It would certainly work if they had gone CATOBAR, but they did not.

I am not aware of any discussions on tanking - I imagine they would look to their new Airbus MRTTs from land bases and allies for tanking.

Nothing says we will not later see drones from QE2, but I am not aware of any formal plans for that at this time.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 3:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 2650
Location: UK
SumGui wrote:
I do wonder how much more capability the RN and UK in general would have by allowing the more non-British systems and design.

The Type 45s certainly have some impressive capabilities, but what if the Type 45 was built in the UK, with AEGIS and Mk41 instead, saving the development and integration costs of a low production number of systems? Is there reason to not switch over to a 127mm gun from wither the US or Italy?

SeaCeptor is looking very appealing right now - no reason that could have have carried on for integration with Artisan and AEGIS, but there are so many British versions of systems and weapons that I feel the UK could have much more capability if some of those items were let go. PAAMS was a joint venture - but a joint venture that only produced 10 systems - six of them British - no economy of scale there. I am not admonishing the performance of the system - just the economic affordability and future supportability of it.


A good example of the over-reach for pride is all the money put into various programs and overlong support to Nimrod. Excellent birds in their time - but did the UK need a Nimrod AEW when AWACS was already there? did the older Nimrods need to keep flying when economic replacements were at hand in other platforms? These strike me as pride decisions - trying to keep every capability in-house, and in the end they did go to the other viable alternatives out there but only after much of the Crown's money had already been thrown into a black hole.

I don't advocate buying everything from overseas - and the UK certainly already does a good job in some areas - but having domestic full capability in everything is simply untenable in an economic sense for a 'Medium Plus' size military force.

The UK is not a superpower - and that's not a bad thing - it tends to mean less trouble comes looking for you - but is is an economic reality.

I believe the UK defence budget could go farther with a broader consideration of the origin of certain capabilities, and allowing the defence development dollars to be focused on decidedly British items and what is done well (and is exportable) within the UK.


The first thing to note about UK defence spending is that defence is not the priority. That is how we have come to be in this mess. Political considerations are what is important. That means safeguarding jobs. For several years BAE had a government contract (which they have now agreed to drop in return for Type 26 orders) which earned them £250 Million a year whether or not they built anything!

As noted in the comedy Yes Minister, the point of the UK defence policy is not to defend the country ("the Russian's know it is not") but rather to make it look as though Britain is defended.

The Type 45 came out of the Horizon frigate project which was meant to provide a common hull for UK/France/Italy. In fact if you look at the Type 45 and the Horizons in French and Italian service you can see the similarities. The RN had slightly different requirements from the other two nations and so the Type 45 was born.

However, I agree that a lot of money could be saved if the UK would buy ships from overseas. The first three Type 26 frigates are going to cost £1,233 Million each. If we got DCNS or Fincantieri to build them I suspect it would be much cheaper.

The Type 26 will be armed with the US 127mm gun.

Nimrod was a typically British mess. How can we produce a good maritime patrol aircraft very cheaply? Use an existing airframe and pack it with state of the art electronics of course! Well the electronics were beyond the capability of the company producing them and the airframe was obsolete. So something cheap becomes a ridiculously expensive matter of pride (political and national) and the whole thing ends up in the toilet.

All UK governments are obsessed with saving money and if they have to spend a fortune to do it then they will!

_________________
In 1757 Admiral John Byng was shot "pour encourager les autres". Voltaire


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 3:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 2650
Location: UK
DavidP wrote:
can a E-2 aircraft or a tanker be launched using a ramp like on the QE class?


As Sumgui has said the Crows nest system will be the AEW for the carriers. However, in typically British fashion it comes as a kit so you either have ASW or AEW. It takes about 12 hours to convert an airframe by pulling out all the ASW consoles etc and fitting the AEW equipment. Given the reduction in Merlins, this will be another example of MoD stupidity.

But at least they have saved a few pennies.

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-roy ... eavy-load/

As to tankers, I think the F-35 will have some tanker capability in the future? But here is another brilliant decision by the MoD:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... craft.html

The Airbus tankers are not fitted with the boom system so none of the F-35s will be able to refuel from it. I assume they will address this issue (at vast expense of course) as it must be a problem for NATO commitments.

_________________
In 1757 Admiral John Byng was shot "pour encourager les autres". Voltaire


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 9:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 6401
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
carr wrote:
That would make the UK a nation of cowards who have not the courage to defend their freedom and protect and promote the freedom of others.

That's a bit harsh.

Let's remember to keep it civil, gents. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Please discuss like adults.

_________________
Martin

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne

Ship Model Gallery


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 9:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1911
I didn't do it, I'm innocent!!!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 9:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 475
Admiral John Byng wrote:
DavidP wrote:
can a E-2 aircraft or a tanker be launched using a ramp like on the QE class?


As to tankers, I think the F-35 will have some tanker capability in the future? But here is another brilliant decision by the MoD:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... craft.html

The Airbus tankers are not fitted with the boom system so none of the F-35s will be able to refuel from it. I assume they will address this issue (at vast expense of course) as it must be a problem for NATO commitments.


F-35B (and C) use drogue, so it will work for them. F-35A is boom only at this time. As far as I have read, the UK is only ordering F-35B for now.

https://www.f35.com/media/videos-detail ... -refueling


As the article states, though, the P-8 is currently only fit for Boom refueling. I think the UK needs to look at boom for the Voyager not just for P-8, but C-17 and RC-135 as well.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 12:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 1:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 3:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 6401
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
carr wrote:
Harsh does not necessarily mean it's untrue. Some truths are harsh.

Indeed they are.
carr wrote:
Apparently, you mean that everyone is entitled to their opinion as long as it's a meek, mild opinion.

Anyone can take a stand and get their point across without insulting or belittling people. My comment was actually meant for everyone - not just you.

I happened to pop into this thread, saw your somewhat dramatic comment, and made mine. I didn't feel like posting twice, so I included my admonishment for everyone to play nice with my original comment.

If you think my moderating is biased, please feel free to take it up with Cadman.

_________________
Martin

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne

Ship Model Gallery


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 3:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 2:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 2650
Location: UK
SumGui wrote:

As to tankers, I think the F-35 will have some tanker capability in the future? But here is another brilliant decision by the MoD:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... craft.html

The Airbus tankers are not fitted with the boom system so none of the F-35s will be able to refuel from it. I assume they will address this issue (at vast expense of course) as it must be a problem for NATO commitments.


F-35B (and C) use drogue, so it will work for them. F-35A is boom only at this time. As far as I have read, the UK is only ordering F-35B for now.

https://www.f35.com/media/videos-detail ... -refueling


As the article states, though, the P-8 is currently only fit for Boom refueling. I think the UK needs to look at boom for the Voyager not just for P-8, but C-17 and RC-135 as well.[/quote]

Thanks for the correction. I read somewhere else (forget where) that all F-35s operated the same refuelling system so it is good to know that it is not as bad as I thought.

_________________
In 1757 Admiral John Byng was shot "pour encourager les autres". Voltaire


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 2650
Location: UK
I am not offended by the idea that the UK might be accused of cowardice. It is certainly a potentially valid point of view. However, I suspect that hypocritical and cheap might be better adjectives to describe us. :)

It is very difficult to recover the ability to engage in warfare once it has been lost. It is not simply the lack of equipment and personnel but the aggressive spirit that is allowed to evaporate. It is hard in a modern society to nurture that pugnacious quality which is out of place among peaceful civillians but so essential to fighting (and winning!) wars.

As to defending freedom, it is a word that is used so much and so vaguely that it has become almost meaningless. I am sure a certain person (whom I shall refrain from naming) feels that his actions in the Ukraine, Crimea and Syria are all justified in defence of freedom. He is certainly free to do as he pleases at the moment.

_________________
In 1757 Admiral John Byng was shot "pour encourager les autres". Voltaire


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 2:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 2:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 2650
Location: UK
carr wrote:
Admiral John Byng wrote:
I am not offended by the idea that the UK might be accused of cowardice. It is certainly a potentially valid point of view. However, I suspect that hypocritical and cheap might be better adjectives to describe us.

You, apparently, are free to criticize the US and UK at will. I, however, am not. I may have to hire you to ghost write my comments!


I think you are taking Martin's comment too much to heart. He said that you were "harsh" in saying the UK could be accused of cowardice. I do not think you were harsh, it is a point of view that has some merit. I did not insult the US or UK, they are nations and therefore incapable of being insulted.

I am not a patriot, nor do I believe in "my country right or wrong". That is why I think the UK needs to either provide its armed forces with the proper equipment and personnel needed for the most extreme of their duties (i.e. fighting a war) or it should accept that it no longer has the capability or will to do so and should withdraw gracefully from the global powers.

Being a puppet of the US as you suggest is not a third alternative, not least because there is no way that the US would tie itself to a lost cause. You referred to cowardice, how do you think it would be seen in Washington if we asked to be taken under your protection because we don't want to pay for our own defence?

There is a third road and that is the one that the UK government is treading. It is "The Emperor's New Clothes". We strut and posture and make fine speeches, but in fact we are naked.

_________________
In 1757 Admiral John Byng was shot "pour encourager les autres". Voltaire


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group