Posted on 07/05/2008 5:03:40 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Aircraft carriers: plane sailing
Britain is paying a high price, but not too high
If diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means, and if the art of diplomacy is to speak softly and carry a big stick, then no stick comes much bigger, or looks more intimidating, than a 65,000-tonne aircraft carrier. Except maybe two 65,000-tonne aircraft carriers. The tricky part of the equation is that big sticks do not come cheap.
The Government has signed a contract for two 65,000-tonne supercarriers for the Royal Navy. As big sticks go, these are the second-biggest of their kind. Only America's Nimitz class aircraft carriers come bigger.
Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, the First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff, called the order “a proud moment for the Royal Navy and a proud moment for Britain”. It would be understandable if many were wondering if it was also a sensible moment, both for the Navy and for Britain.
The cost of the two carriers is £3.9 billion. The jump-jet-style Joint Strike Fighters with which the two warships will be furnished will add £12 billion to the bill. Is this the smartest use of money from an already strained defence budget? Especially when we cannot be sure that the conflicts that may beset the world when HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales start patrolling the oceans will even be the sort that will need the support of aircraft carriers?
Are what Admiral Band calls “big-ticket” items even conscionable when Britain's Armed Forces are so stretched? The Army remains about 3,500 below strength. Servicemen can find themselves in battle with inadequate equipment. They sleep too often in dilapidated barracks.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
No arresting cables, either. It uses Short Takeoff/Vertical Landing aircraft. You don't need an angled deck for that.
By the time these two are launched and operational, will Britain have any escorts left to serve with them?
Yeah, but they'll have no missiles
And will there be any Englishmen left to sail them?
In fact, I think the United States does not have enough aircraft carriers and we aren't building them fast enough to even maintain what we have.
We should have at least 32 aircraft carrier groups with no more than eight of them in for maintenance at any one time with the remaining 24 actively plying the seas of the globe at all times.
Also interesting, the 2 tower stack versus the USN (and older Brit) single tower stack. I’m sure there are logical reasons but the single tower made for more room on the flight deck. The design does look ‘clean’ though, I wonder if it is to reduce (somewhat) the enormous radar shadow the standard current carriers have.
How about a dozen 100,000 ton aircraft carriers?
The author has reversed this famous dictum. Clausewitz stated that "war is a continuation of diplomacy by other means."
Are these oil burners or nuclear ?
How many more escorts would be required for a dozen pocket aircraft carriers.
>hmm, no angled (10 deg. left) deck?<
But it will have foot baths and numerous compasses denoting the direction to Mecca. Alcohol will not be permitted anywhere on board and pork will not be served in the galley.
>>How many more escorts would be required for a dozen pocket aircraft carriers.
Depends on the carrier’s speed. I served on USS Princeton, a WWII carrier. When the Marines took her over, we stripped her down for max speed. I was on board when we ran 30 knots for 7 straight days, rendevousing in mid-ocean with USS Hancock and transferring HMX-1(Presidential choppers). In 1961, futher weight reductions got max speed up to 33 knots.
At that speed and duration, only ballistic submarinesive can keep up. I don’t kmow that are any surface escorts that can keep up.
I was on board when we ran 30 knots for 7 straight days, rendevousing in mid-ocean with USS Hancock and transferring HMX-1(Presidential choppers).
That is MOVING!!
No conventionally powered escort could do that, not enough fuel onboard for that kind of run. And the oilers and ammo ships would be 3 days behind so no chance of refueling or rearming. A carrier battle group is really only as fast as it’s JP5 and bombs for ops that would last more than a few days.
Jack
oh. *smack to forehead* Duh!....sorry, I haven't had my morning coffee....my excuse for now ...well, @ least I admit it
These will be the F-35B — the STOVL version. I think there was a plan to look at catapaults & arresting gear at some future SLEP — that would allow the F-35C, or any other naval strike fighter for that matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.