daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > General Developments and Discussions > Maritime

Maritime Harbours and ships



Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old December 14th, 2005, 07:41 PM   #1
Nick in Atlanta
Registered User
 
Nick in Atlanta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,156
Likes (Received): 1

UK building new aircraft carriers

Here is the article about the development of various naval ships for the British Navy. I know Britain has a few aircraft carriers, but they have ramps at the end and are used mainly for Harrier landings and takeoffs. Does anyone know if these new aircraft carriers will be similar to US carriers that launch and capture fighters/bombers with hydraulic powered systems?

http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuot...4750493_newsml
Nick in Atlanta no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old December 14th, 2005, 08:38 PM   #2
MVL318
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Antwerp
Posts: 203
Likes (Received): 0

The Royal navy is very ambitious is looks..

I found this on "the royal-navy" site:

the new type 45 destroyer.


Future Aircraft Carrier



Offshore Patrol Vessel


Large Amphibious Landing Ships


Royal-navy
MVL318 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2005, 11:42 PM   #3
Nick in Atlanta
Registered User
 
Nick in Atlanta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,156
Likes (Received): 1



I can see that this carrier still has the ramp at the front of the flight deck. I wonder if they will use catapulted fighters/bombers or will stick with the Harrier Jump-jets?

Regarding the increased ambitiousness of the British Navy, I think it has to do with the ability of aircraft carriers and other vessels capable of firing cruise missiles and other "smart" weapons to project power all over the world. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the protection received from British based ICBMs and long-range bombers doesn't make much sense when it comes to deterrence of new threats. New threats from rogue stateless enemies (e.g., Al Qaida) often require a highly mobile, yet stationary, form of power projection.

Is it me or do I sound like someone speaking from the Pentagon or what? I'm actually a very pacifistic Christian, but I'm just trying to analyze this info properly.

Last edited by Nick in Atlanta; December 16th, 2005 at 08:57 PM.
Nick in Atlanta no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 26th, 2005, 06:12 PM   #4
Iain1974
Registered User
 
Iain1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Longvieew
Posts: 950
Likes (Received): 0

The point of the ramp is that on light carriers like the old Invincible class vessels it allows heavier aircraft to take off from a relatively short runway. In face they make perfect sense so I wonder would a better question be why don't other countries use them?

The new carriers (Queen Elizabeth class) will use the JCA, F-35 fighters but will not require catapults. The plan is to use magnetic catapults eventually.

It's been a very long, slow process to even get a design. This is a good site about the Royal Navy and it's future.

Royal Navy
Iain1974 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 26th, 2005, 06:18 PM   #5
Lee
BANNED
 
Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Miami
Posts: 1,443
Likes (Received): 1

Isn't the U.S. also building new aircraft carriers? How many are both countries building for the future? I believe the U.S. has more than the rest of the world combined.
Lee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 26th, 2005, 10:48 PM   #6
kronik
Registered User
 
kronik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: DED, PHL, MUM
Posts: 4,416
Likes (Received): 24

heres a good site to get started.....

World-wide Aircraft Carriers

It doesnt say anything about the Royal Navy's future AC though.

oh here it is....

CVF - ROYAL NAVY FUTURE AIRCRAFT CARRIER, UNITED KINGDOM

The last one is a good site for lots of info.
kronik no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 26th, 2005, 11:05 PM   #7
Meepy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Miami
Posts: 215
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
Isn't the U.S. also building new aircraft carriers? How many are both countries building for the future? I believe the U.S. has more than the rest of the world combined.
The U.S. has the largest carrier fleet in the world, but not more then the whole world combined. North Korea has the largest diesel Submarine fleet in the world, the U.S. has the most military planes in the world, and the U.S. has the most Nuckelear submarines in the world more then all of the worlds nuckelear submarines combined. U.S. also has the largest nuckelear detergence weapons which include, Ballistic Warheads, Atomic bombs, Hydrogen bombs, and Nukelear bombs.
__________________
I cant decide on one yet...
Meepy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 15th, 2006, 03:23 AM   #8
TOCC
Registered User
 
TOCC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Heaven
Posts: 5,250
Likes (Received): 282

yet all this still cant deter a terrorist!
TOCC no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 15th, 2006, 03:30 AM   #9
TallBox
Registered User
 
TallBox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,763
Likes (Received): 128

^Well duh, they're not designed to fight terrorists.
__________________
  
TallBox loves this post
TallBox no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 15th, 2006, 03:31 AM   #10
centralized pandemonium
Satyameva Jayate
 
centralized pandemonium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Can-duh-a
Posts: 2,873
Likes (Received): 13

Unless they are gonna fight WW3, I think most of these costly toys r gonan be uselss. WHo are UK's enemies? I mean as in conventional war enemies, not the AQ type.
__________________
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he gets drunk and sunburned every weekend.

www.ironaddicts.com
centralized pandemonium no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 15th, 2006, 03:37 AM   #11
Nick in Atlanta
Registered User
 
Nick in Atlanta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,156
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by TOCC
yet all this still cant deter a terrorist!
The world's navies are not just at sea because they are scanning the world for terrorists. They perform activities like keeping major sea lanes open for maritime traffic, protect maritime traffic against pirates, which still exist and pose a great danger to international trade. The Straits of Malacca between Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, and the South China Sea are two major sea lanes where 1 in 20 ships are attacked by pirates.

Nobody is under the illusion that they are going to find Osama Bin Laden floating in a rubber raft in the Indian Ocean!!
Nick in Atlanta no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 15th, 2006, 03:37 AM   #12
TallBox
Registered User
 
TallBox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,763
Likes (Received): 128

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick in Atlanta


I can see that this carrier still has the ramp at the front of the flight deck. I wonder if they will use catapulted fighters/bombers or will stick with the Harrier Jump-jets?
Well basically, the design of the carriers will be a STOVL one - allowing the F35B to take off and land vertically. So it means that the organic airborne early warning is unlikely to be an E2D - more likely an EH101 or V22 Osprey.

Projected lifespan of carriers = 50 years. Projected lifespan of aircraft = 35 years. What to do for the latter 15 years of the carrier's life? The idea is that the next naval fighter after the F35 will require catapult launch, so the design is such that the ski-jump can be removed and emcats installed later.

Quote:
Regarding the increased ambitiousness of the British Navy, I think it has to do with the ability of aircraft carriers and other vessels capable of firing cruise missiles and other "smart" weapons to project power all over the world. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the protection received from British based ICBMs and long-range bombers doesn't make much sense when it comes to deterrence of new threats. New threats from rogue stateless enemies (e.g., Al Qaida) often require a highly mobile, yet stationary, form of power projection.
It's not really 'ambitiousness' - it's basically our Cold War dividends catching up... we no longer require a large surface of subsurface fleet. Other countries started reconfiguring their armed forces in the early 90s, ours is only just happening now.

And yes, the general focus is towards smart weapons and "plug and play" with US forces... the Navy is increasingly expeditionary (with 3 new marge amphibious ships, 2 strike carriers, and upto 8 cruisers). The cruisers are proposed Type 45 variants with either Sylver A70 for Naval SCALP or Mk41 VLS for Tomahawk. Even the aircraft on board the carriers are increasingly smart... a test was done a few weeks ago, where a Paveway II bomb dropped from an RAF GR4 was sent target-coordinates and corrections while in-flight.
__________________
  
TallBox loves this post
TallBox no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 15th, 2006, 03:40 AM   #13
centralized pandemonium
Satyameva Jayate
 
centralized pandemonium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Can-duh-a
Posts: 2,873
Likes (Received): 13

Wait, will the JSF be used or the N-Typhoon??
__________________
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he gets drunk and sunburned every weekend.

www.ironaddicts.com
centralized pandemonium no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 15th, 2006, 03:43 AM   #14
TallBox
Registered User
 
TallBox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,763
Likes (Received): 128

Most likely JSF....

The US Govt is refusing to give the UK certain access codes to the JSF, despite being a tier 1 partner, which would allow us to upgrade the aircraft systems independently. Without the codes, the aircraft would have to be sent to the US for updating every piece of avionics - making it very expensive.

Anyway, the Govt are taking it as an insult that these codes aren't provided to us, and are threatening to pull out of JSF... which would mean an alternative aircraft would be needed for the carriers.... a contender is the N-Typhoon. Problems: expensive, too few numbers, expensive.

We'll probably get the codes to JSF in the end anyway.,
__________________
  
TallBox loves this post
TallBox no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 15th, 2006, 03:57 AM   #15
Nick in Atlanta
Registered User
 
Nick in Atlanta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,156
Likes (Received): 1

If your talking about the Joint Strike Fighter, that hasn't even gotten the green light from the Department of Defense and Congress to begin production, due to its high price tag. If you mean the F-22, I believe the DOD has purchased only 180 of these planes.

I may be wrong on this info, but I believe this is what I've read. By the way, one of Lockheed's main plants is just five miles away from me at Dobbin Reserve Base in suburban Atlanta.
Nick in Atlanta no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 15th, 2006, 03:59 AM   #16
centralized pandemonium
Satyameva Jayate
 
centralized pandemonium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Can-duh-a
Posts: 2,873
Likes (Received): 13

Wait, wasn't one of the JSF varients sorta ditched? DOn't remember which one tho.
__________________
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he gets drunk and sunburned every weekend.

www.ironaddicts.com
centralized pandemonium no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 15th, 2006, 04:14 AM   #17
Nick in Atlanta
Registered User
 
Nick in Atlanta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,156
Likes (Received): 1

Boeing and Lockheed were competing for the JSF contract, but Boeing couldn't build a plane that met all the specifications that the DOD asked for. Lockheed's design won, but that didn't guarantee a contract to build a lot of them. As a plane that's supposed to be tough enough to handle the landings and take-offs from an aircraft carrier, take-off vertically for the Marines, and fly for the Air Force, it had a high price tag. It also had to be stealthy and be the first plane to fly faster than Mach One without using its afterburners.

Lockheed built it at their "skunk works" at Edwards Air Force Base in the Southern California desert (there was a TV show on the Lockheed/Boeing contest), but it has a high price per plane because of these extreme qualifications.
Nick in Atlanta no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2006, 07:01 AM   #18
rantanamo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 3,183
Likes (Received): 100

The first production JSF is nearing completion in Fort Worth. The stealthy F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role, 5thgeneration fighter designed to replace aging AV-8B Harriers, A-10s, F-16s, F/A-18 Hornets and United Kingdom Harrier GR.7s and Sea Harriers. First flight is planned for fall 2006. Didn't realize it would be replacing the A-10s. That is actually pretty sweet.

rantanamo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2006, 07:02 AM   #19
rantanamo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 3,183
Likes (Received): 100

http://www.jsf.mil/gallery/gal_video.htm#x35

and this page is just plain cool
rantanamo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2006, 08:42 PM   #20
Nick in Atlanta
Registered User
 
Nick in Atlanta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,156
Likes (Received): 1

The A-10 is a hard plane to replace. It's not a fast plane or a stealthy plane, and it has been flying since the Vietnam War. But it has a large number of guns that can fire very large ammunition. It can take out tanks and lesser vehicles. It just proves that you don't need speed or stealth for a lot of missions. Just an unbelievable amount of continuous and heavy firepower.
Nick in Atlanta no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu