Carrier Order behind Schedule

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by PassingBells, Dec 21, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. BBC Website

    Reuters

    Well here's a surprise. Carriers due to enter service 2012 & 2015 may be delayed.

    If JSF is not available, what else is?
    Harrier 8O :lol:
     
  2. The alternatives are a navalised Eurofighter or the F/A-18 from our allies...
     
  3. I understood the CVF to be built around the STOVL capabilities of the JSF. If these aircraft are not available, then the only other STOVL aircraft that I am aware of is the Harrier.

    If the carriers are to be adapted for use by the F/A18 or Eurofighter, presumably this will mean adapting the design to incorporate Steam Catapult and Arrested Recovery Equipment, neither a quick or cheap redesign.

    Finally, if the carriers are capable of transporting conventional aircraft, why did we push for STVOL capability? (If I recall correctly)

    PB
     
  4. STOVL aircraft can be used on other platforms such as HMS Ocean unlike CTOL aircraft.

    Also STOVL carrier landings are less hazardous for the pilots as trapping wires with tailhooks is a very risky business. I think the Frogs still have to send their naval pilots to the US for carrier landing training if im not mistaken.

    STOVL is less hassle and less costly by comparison.

    I wouldnt worry too much though, I seriously doubt the JSF will be cancelled, not the STOVL variant anyway.
     
  5. Methinks I spot a 'cunning plan'
    Once we get out of Iraq, now that NI is 'fixed' and the thinking of us as part of EU force, there is no need of the sort of defence capability we need to fight 'Big Wars' on our own account. Yanks said they would have gone into Iraq regardless of our physical support or not. Such military forces as we have are being streamlined.
    So, (Brown's) government does not require so many soldiers, airmen or matelots. Only brushfire/UN type encounters envisaged. Peace and justice to, e.g. Uganda? Bribe them at half the cost of an armed operation.
    Once you do not have the people to put into assets, the existing kit can be made to hang on. Keep the weapons, aircraft and ships we have. Our allies have some nice kit but don't really know how to use it. Teach Germans low level flying. We could put some fibre into frogs on that bloody big carrier etc etc. Cancel anything we had on development. Spend the money on forced racial integration, teaching chavs Latin declensions, gold beds for Ghanian presidents u.s.w.
     
  6. And the Rafale....
     
  7. What a surprise. Is it me or does this Government not like making actual decisions until the last possible minute just in case? Everything they ahve done has been delayed, overrun, late, overbudget, and overeacted.

    If they'd had been able to make the decsison for GW2 sooner they would n't have had quite so many problems with kit that we did have.

    If they had acted sooner with Foot and mouth they wouldn't have had to overreact and spend more money than they needed to, Money they are trying to wriggle out of paying and are now being B*ttf**ked in court for being dicks.
     
  8. As the design is shared with the frogs, who are going to put a catapult and wires on theirs to operate Rafales, I would have thought the solution for Hornets/Sea Tiffies/Rafales would be simple. Bolt on froggy catapult, jobzagoodun.

    I still think we ought to "think VSTOL" generally - I'd much rather have a big pool of aircraft that don't need bases, especially as then we can go ahead with building amphibious warfare ships for the kind of war we expect in the knowledge that, in the event we're wrong and we need more decks to fight a deep sea war, we can redistribute the aircraft among the fleet to give us multiple mini-carrier groups.
     
  9. The carriers are fitted for, but not with steam catapults - not the hardest task in the world to square away.
     
  10. Of course, being a complete cynic, one could argue the main reason we went for the STOVL variant was because the vectoring engine is built by no other than Rolls Royce. Shorter range, less ordnance carrying capacity than the CTOL/CV variants. But of course HMG buys the best kit at the best price so that would never have been a major factor in the process. Marinised Eurofighter - I think not, its got enough problems as it is...
     
  11. The muppets should never have cancelled the twin-engined "SuperHarrier" project back in the seventies, with modern fly-by-wire systems such an aircraft would be a world beater.
     
  12. Odds on it will be cancelled and the savings from this would pay for all the money that Blair has promised to Europe
     
  13. What no-one has mentioned yet is the reason JSF might not be available.

    http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/52915.html

     
  14. The Yanks are replacing their steam catapults with an electromagnetic aircraft launching system or EMALS.

    Thats what we'll probably have in the future as well.
     
  15. Lord Nelson would turn in his grave!