Good News for the RN!

[Patroklos]

Good. That, IMO, is different than designing the next gen tank (which I believe, at this point, to be unnecessary - or at the very least less necessary than other procurement goals).

At the very least in 30 years (well before that actually) computers/electronics/comms will make whatever we have now obsolete even if the armor is still thick enough.

And most importantly the Army is trying to move away from oil fuels. Most new vehicles in development are at least being considered for hybrid or other non-gas engines. Gas requires alot of logistics.

They obviously won't do this overnight, but its going to happen.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Considering much of the cost of a ship these days goes into electronic systems, the marginal cost of a large ship goes down considerably for each extra ton of displacement.

I was particularly appalled to read in Wiki (god knows how accurate that was though) that they were only going to be able to carry 36 fixed-wing aircraft. 65,000 tons of ship for 36 aircraft? That's insanely low: a Nimitz carrier can carry over 80 fixed-wing aircraft for its 100,000 tons.

Heck, even the Charles the Gaulle can carry 36 aircraft and it's only 40,000 tons.

The new carriers have a really small crew though; only six hundred, versus the thousands on the Nimitzes and the Charles De Gaulle. Dunno if that's good or bad.

[Patroklos]

The new carriers have a really small crew though; only six hundred, versus the thousands on the Nimitzes and the Charles De Gaulle. Dunno if that's good or bad.

They always say that, the Arleigh Burkes were supposed to have a crew of 150, yeah right.

[Master Zen]

She would have been a much better, more capable ship if she'd been designed as a dead dinosaur powered STOVL carrier but that would mean the French buying Harriers.

I doubt it. I'd take 30+ Rafales over 30+ Harriers any day...

[thesilentone]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Exactly, the 40,500 ton Wasp class LHD can carry 20 fixed wing aircraft, and that is as an non-carrier with a battalion of marines onboard!

I'm no navy man, but your maths seem a bit strange there. a 65,000 carrier with 36 aircraft is somehow worse than a 40,500 with 20 aircraft?

We have no intention of being as powerful as the US any more, and nor could we ever be with 1/5 the population. I was initially nonplussed with this announcement, maybe even a little dissapointed we'd bothered. I'm happy with the engagements we've had recently, sierra leone, serbia, hell I was even pro-iraq at first, we've got enough capability right now for those engagements and we have enough friendly nations that a carrier fleet isn't necessary but oh well. I just hope future governments don't feel the need to use those carriers in future unless absolutely necessary.

Edit: just adding for the funnies. I've noticed a very consistent trend in your posts (not related this thread), you can always be counted on to defend whatever viewpoint is the status quo in america.

[Patroklos]

I'm no navy man, but your maths seem a bit strange there. a 65,000 carrier with 36 aircraft is somehow worse than a 40,500 with 20 aircraft?

It is when that 40,500 ton vessel is not a carrier, but an amphib, and can still carry more aircraft ton for ton than your dedicated carrier even with a well deck with 2 LCACs and 1,800 marines onboard. Not to mention the 1 1/2 dozen helicopters onboard.

[Patroklos]

We have no intention of being as powerful as the US any more, and nor could we ever be with 1/5 the population.

Thats why you only have 1/5 the carriers

and we have enough friendly nations that a carrier fleet isn't necessary but oh well.

Alliances are joint things, you are not our vassal.

Plus, our carriers didn't do you to much good in the Falklands. The UK does pursue its own initiatives every now and again.

Edit: just adding for the funnies. I've noticed a very consistent trend in your posts (not related this thread), you can always be counted on to defend whatever viewpoint is the status quo in america.

On some things, yes. But you should take a look at the immigration threads form June

[Kuciwalker]

Lonestar, your story made me cry

[Mr. Harley]

Cutting your crew saves money, increases range (less provisioning = more room for other things), and more space/payload for things other than people.

Then when the first major attack gets through the task force, the small crewed ship, whose automation just went belly up in the fire, has insufficient bodies (especially if there are substantial casualties) to fight the damage. The ship with three times as much crew pulls a Bunker Hill - that ship should NEVER have survived the amount of damage she did.

[thesilentone]

Where did you infer anything I said to the effect of the US being our vassal? I would've taken it as read that we'd never need to use american (continental) airstrips. South america is your domain if anything threatening to the western world happened, uk would never get involved and don't be fooled that we'd need your permission to based anywhere in eurasia/africa.

And surely you can admit that right now, assuming the status quo your carrier fleets are severely under-utilised. We're just being cost effective, after all we're not the super-power anymore and I think most of us are glad. I just wish we weren't pissing off the muslims so much that we weren't target number 2 for terror attacks. But then you don't really need carriers or huge conventional armies for that.

[Patroklos]

Cutting your crew saves money, increases range (less provisioning = more room for other things), and more space/payload for things other than people.

Then when the first major attack gets through the task force, the small crewed ship, whose automation just went belly up in the fire, has insufficient bodies (especially if there are substantial casualties) to fight the damage. The ship with three times as much crew pulls a Bunker Hill - that ship should NEVER have survived the amount of damage she did.

QFT

Thats why the Zumwalt will not sport a cre of 100, no matter how many times they say it.

[Patroklos]

Where did you infer anything I said to the effect of the US being our vassal?

I took that as in you have enough freinds with guns why do you need your own? The fact is your a member of NATO, are committed to various law of the sea treaties and access the seas.

You guys, and NATO members in general, see the alliance as a free lunch when in fact your supposed to be partners. This has changed slightly since 9/11 but given population and GDP you're not pulling your weight.

And when I say alliance I am not just talking about NATO. There is alot that holds us together beyond paper and rhetoric.

South america is your domain if anything threatening to the western world happened, uk would never get involved

Falklands?

and don't be fooled that we'd need your permission to based anywhere in eurasia/africa.

You don't need permission, but you do need bases or carriers and planes. As it is your boys in Iraq subsisted off of American air support for the most part, and still do now.

And surely you can admit that right now, assuming the status quo your carrier fleets are severely under-utilised.

Tell that to the 15,000 carrier sailors currently deployed, and the 10,000 underway doing other things right now (thats just the carriers).

This is an odd assertion from you

Our carrier fleet, and the whole fleet period, is operating at the max tempo it can on a peace footing. Hell, there are 7,000 sailors ground pounding right now in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait and Dijibouti.

We're just being cost effective, after all we're not the super-power anymore and I think most of us are glad.

Which is why your not building 11 super carriers, only two measily midget carriers.

I just wish we weren't pissing off the muslims so much that we weren't target number 2 for terror attacks.

They piss themselves off, don't get it twisted!!!

But then you don't really need carriers or huge conventional armies for that.

Actually, that is exactly what you need.

[Lonestar]

Silent Stone, has it occurred to you that the scorn a lot of Americans feel for Europe is due in part to the astonishingly small militaries? Most of the big Euro countries have armies in the hundreds of thousands...but have difficulty mustering large forces for military action abroad. There is a perception in the States that Europeans don't pull their weight and will just expect the US to do something. No one screams for the EU to deploy peacekeepers to Darfur, it's always the US.

[thesilentone]

You're being overly defensive as usual.

I took that as in you have enough freinds with guns why do you need your own? The fact is your a member of NATO, are committed to various law of the sea treaties and access the seas.

You guys, and NATO members in general, see the alliance as a free lunch when in fact your supposed to be partners. This has changed slightly since 9/11 but given population and GDP you're not pulling your weight.

And when I say alliance I am not just talking about NATO. There is alot that holds us together beyond paper and rhetoric.

No, I simply meant we could make our own arrangements with friendly nations if any peacekeeping/united nations actions were needed with our support, which is all the military action i see/hope us taking in the future. I value the link between america and britain, the hyper nationalists like you, i could do without.

Falklands?

As long as noone invades falklands again, yes, south america is not our interest. But I can see this falling out of our interests too, if not for the british people there, we wouldn't care.

[QUOTE]You don't need permission, but you do need bases or carriers and planes. As it is your boys in Iraq subsisted off of American air support for the most part, and still do now. /QUOTE]

Hardly relevant, america is the nation with the biggest interest in the iraq war, is getting the most gains from it and frankly should be grateful for the support britain has given, god knows it's done us no good being there (as stated before I was pro iraq and being pro starting the war is all that really matters but I do regret us being there). We are a bit player and we know it, the fact you are providing most of the air support is a given.

Tell that to the 15,000 carrier sailors currently deployed, and the 10,000 underway doing other things right now (thats just the carriers).

This is an odd assertion from you

Our carrier fleet, and the whole fleet period, is operating at the max tempo it can on a peace footing. Hell, there are 7,000 sailors ground pounding right now in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait and Dijibouti.

How is it an odd assertion coming from me? Fact is you have more air power now than in the second world war, you're telling me the insurrections in iraq need more than that? Much of your carrier fleet is either idling or doing training exercises.

Which is why your not building 11 super carriers, only two measily midget carriers.

Not sure what your point is here

They piss themselves off, don't get it twisted!!!

True, i'm not excusing them but the fact is we are number 2 and I don't like it. Not suggesting we kow tow.

Actually, that is exactly what you need.

This is where you really show yourself to be clueless, carrier fleets, fighter squadrons and the like are nice and all, but they don't do a thing to stop insurrections.

[thesilentone]

I too am unhappy we aren't getting involved in darfur, that is exactly what we should be using our military forces for, carrier groups wouldn't do much there. Sure we could bomb sudan into submission like serbia but I get the impression the mujihadeen groups are semi-independent warlord types who wouldn't stop just because their weak govt (currently sponsering them) told them to.