CVF and Carrier Strike thread

That would be much like the T26 sales to Canada and Australia then. UK companies however would be well positioned to supply many of the components in the ship as their products would already be designed in. The major headache in dealing with India would be the extent to which India would want to re-design it to have those components replaced by Indian made ones while still having the UK designer be responsible for the result.
This has always been a case with the country - probably why the reason a Rafale 100+ deal of building in-country turned into a 36 deal of built in France deal.
 
Unless the Indians buy
Plus they have the ops experience of Sea Harrier - could nicely transition into F35Bs.
Alternatively, the US could deliver a sqn straight to Russia and cut out the middle-man.

I cannot see any conceivable way that India will even be briefed on the jet!

Regards,
MM
 
I think the bigger worry is Turkey, in any case.
Despite the Xenophobic comments of some, I would consider India far higher up the threat ladder than Turkey.

When India ordered the Rafale instead of the Typhoon, BAeS sales executives lamented...RAF officers were delighted!

Regards,
MM
 
This has always been a case with the country - probably why the reason a Rafale 100+ deal of building in-country turned into a 36 deal of built in France deal.
Im sure reading the articles - recriminations and Dassaults press release that's an exactly what happened rather than a probably
 
The ship has so many flat surfaces. Aren't they highly reflective to enemy radar? Shouldn't it be curvier, so as to disperse radar impulses, and also deflect missile strikes?
The whole image looks rather strange. Like a ship made partly of Lego bricks.
Is that because it had to be made as cheap as possible?
One of the biggest reflectors at sea used to be the ‘curvier’ 4.5 turrets.... see Kryton gunhouse.
 
Forgive my pedantry but isn't it only the same size as t'other one?
Nope, apparently it's very slightly bigger / heavier.

I don't know if it's a "lessons learned" thing as people built the second version of their block; or whether it's just variation within tolerance, and it just "varied" to heavier overall (i.e. some blocks were slightly lighter, but more were slightly heavier).

Similarly, the Nimrod MR.2 apparently varied in length by several inches across the fleet (one of the many problems which screwed up the MRA.4 project). If you imagine that individual aircraft varying by inches in length, why not two ships? PoW only has to be a millimeter longer or wider...
 
Last edited:
I would suggest that the basic design is ideal for India's needs although production would presumably be in one of their shipyards.
Almost certainly Cochin - which has had one or two little issues building the much smaller Vikrant.

cochin-ship-yard_jpg_image_784_410.jpg


Not that we could build it here either, at the minute.
 
Forgive my pedantry but isn't it only the same size as t'other one?

Lord save us from bollocks headlines...
its a bit wider, a bit longer, and 3,000 tonnes heavier.

QE will play catch up on her first refit.
 
(...) Alternatively, the US could deliver a sqn straight to Russia and cut out the middle-man.

I cannot see any conceivable way that India will even be briefed on the jet! (...)
From what I've read so far the Indians are looking at one of two alternatives. One is to continue flying more of the same MiG-29Ks they are currently using. This takes off from a ramp and uses an arrestor hook for braking.

The other is to use a newer version of the naval variant of the Tejas. This too takes off using a ramp and lands using an arrestor hook. The current naval Tejas is too underpowered to carry a useful load off a ramp and is only used for R&D purposes. They are working on two options to address this, either upgrading the engine to a more powerful one or to design a twin engine version. The more powerful engine would be based on the Tejas 2, which is the follow-on project to the original Tejas with a more powerful engine and more advanced avionics and sensors.

They just very recently tested landing the naval version of the Tejas 1 using an arrestor hook on a land based test strip simulating a carrier deck and was reportedly successful.

I don't believe there have been any definite decisions so far, but this seems to be the direction they are taking so far.
 
Despite the Xenophobic comments of some, I would consider India far higher up the threat ladder than Turkey.

When India ordered the Rafale instead of the Typhoon, BAeS sales executives lamented...RAF officers were delighted!

Regards,
MM
Can I ask the logic behind your reasoning?
 

Boxer96

Old-Salt
There is a very interesting article in today's Times (paywall) by Sir Max Hastings who is severely critical of the decision to build and commission HMS QE & PoW.

"Giant carriers are symbols of our national delusions"
(partial extract from overlong article below)

"Sailors who disagree with the above will demand: “If what you say is true, why is the US navy still wedded to carrier task groups? Why are the Chinese building platforms to emulate them? Why do the French still have the Charles de Gaulle?”
The first explanation is that the superpowers are incomparably richer than ourselves. The $17 billion capital cost of the USS Gerald R Ford, commissioned in 2017, represents less than 2 per cent of America’s defence budget, while Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales cost £6.2 billion, which is 15 per cent of Britain’s budget. America and China can shield their ships with escorts and satellite-based electronic shields that are way beyond our means.
As for lesser countries, the French and even the Russians maintain their carriers for the same reason we have built ours: to show off their hairy chests at sea. The Russians’ creaky carrier Admiral Kuznetsov is an international joke; their fast, quiet submarines are the real menace."

Sir Max states that the two carriers eat up 15% of the UK defence budget (he does not mention the effect on Navy manpower on crewing the ships).
F35 also gets a slating.
 
The Russians’ creaky carrier Admiral Kuznetsov is an international joke; their fast, quiet submarines are the real menace."
Hes right about that - and that's exactly what we should concentrate on or more precisely keeping Britains sea lanes open .

Therefore we need Frigates, Destroyers and the all important helicopters

In fact with ships being at a disadvantage to submarines we should probably have more helicopters than ships

There would be several benefits to co locating a number of them on a single hull - So some sort of Helicopter base ship would be in order - Of course as its not an aircraft carrier bit is significantly larger than a destroyer so lets call it a cruiser - Obviously to better enable aircraft operations it would be best if it had a clear Flat upper surface that ran the length of the ship and a large hanger beneath it. So a through deck cruiser it is then.

Equally submarines often receive lots of help from searching aircraft - so perhaps a way of keeping these at bay would be I order - I suspect in todays health and safety conscious world CAM ships would not be acceptable - So we need a platform that can carry fighters to intercept MPA. Seems pointless to have an occasionally needed fighter carrier - so why not do the sensible thing and stick them on the Through deck cruiser.

At this point lets consider Russian Naval aviation beyond MPA - they do have a large number of bombers (which could be cued in by submarine as well) Which could if not close sea lanes could at least cause crippling damage to our merchant fleet - so a good weapons fit to defend against ASM would be in order - Or perhaps the more optimal solution would be to perhaps carry a few more fighters and perhaps shoot down the aircraft before launch rather than the missiles.
Ah I see that now we need to be thinking about looking over the horizon when it comes to detecting aircraft - so perhaps a small AEW platform would boost capability here far beyond the use of picket ships.

Seems our through deck cruiser is now carrying a number of Aircraft types and lets be honest is starting to look like a White elephant vanity project Aircraft carrier which we dont need.

Im not sure how I got here from simply trying to optimise the RN for Sub hunting and keeping the sea lanes open - but as I look across the globe I see Japan coming to similar conclusions and I cant help but wonder if its Sir Max l who has got it wrong
 
Ah, the liberator of Stanley, and the one who insisted that in future every CDS should be a Pongo because HERRICK.
 
And the C130Js, and the C17s and the other bits and bobs....

Truck sales don’t really compromise much.

However, it’s VERY unlikely the US will allow the Indians access to the F-35, even allowing for the fact that not all of the jets are equal.

Regards,
MM
 

Latest Threads

Top