landaftaf
Well-Known Member
the entrance to guzz is too tight for these monsters, so it has to be pompey /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
Navy gets big boats to play with...
- Thread starter Twister_Ken
- Start date
Judders
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
the entrance to guzz is too tight for these monsters, so it has to be pompey /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
Are you quite sure?
the entrance to guzz is too tight for these monsters, so it has to be pompey /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
Are you quite sure?
Andrew_Fanner
Well-Known Member
The Iowas could get in to Portsmouth, went round one in 1986, but the CVNs have to sit on a hook outside. 65000t is no instant guide to draught. Doubt they would enter or leave without tugs and as it would be fairly preplanned a temporary NTM closing the SBC except for emergencies would not be too hard to arrange. Getting in and out of the Basin may be more exciting though ditto drydock capacity.
pessimist
Well-Known Member
Gonna make a bigger dent in Australia when they hit it with one of these.
bilbobaggins
N/A
[ QUOTE ]
basic briefings on some of the JSF maintenance prep that will be required.
[/ QUOTE ]
I hope that doesn't include 'washing down the turbine inlets with salt water' as in Operation Eagle Claw.....
/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
basic briefings on some of the JSF maintenance prep that will be required.
[/ QUOTE ]
I hope that doesn't include 'washing down the turbine inlets with salt water' as in Operation Eagle Claw.....
/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
landaftaf
Well-Known Member
I am sure thats the reason I was told thats why pompey was chosen as their base port /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
HoratioHB
Well-Known Member
Sorry - come in late as usual - have to work some time. However I worked on this programme a few years ago and my company is still involved.
Devonport - they can't get round the corner into the Hamoaze - even the old Eagle ran aground one year trying it.
Portmsouth - yeah right. After they have dredged the main channel significantly they still have the problem that if there is the slightest cross wind they will need tugs pulling at such an angle the whole lot won't fit through the gap. The orginal design had a bow thruster and Queen Mary type rotatable electric pods so the ship could get in without tugs, but they took them off to save money.
The feeling on the streets is that they will never go alongside during normal ops and only the dock at Rosyth is big enough to get them out of the water. So Portsmouth may well be their base but they will be anchored off like the yanks.
As for size they may well be 60,000 tons compared to the US 96,000 but in volume and length terms they will very little smaller as new building materials give you more boat for your displacement.
As for why buy them - admittedly I'm biased but the usual argument is that 90% of the worlds population lives within 100 miles of a coastline. So having a flexible movable airfield which is not tied to the limits of any country is a tad handy. The US, French, Russians, Chinese, Indians all seem to think so to.
Devonport - they can't get round the corner into the Hamoaze - even the old Eagle ran aground one year trying it.
Portmsouth - yeah right. After they have dredged the main channel significantly they still have the problem that if there is the slightest cross wind they will need tugs pulling at such an angle the whole lot won't fit through the gap. The orginal design had a bow thruster and Queen Mary type rotatable electric pods so the ship could get in without tugs, but they took them off to save money.
The feeling on the streets is that they will never go alongside during normal ops and only the dock at Rosyth is big enough to get them out of the water. So Portsmouth may well be their base but they will be anchored off like the yanks.
As for size they may well be 60,000 tons compared to the US 96,000 but in volume and length terms they will very little smaller as new building materials give you more boat for your displacement.
As for why buy them - admittedly I'm biased but the usual argument is that 90% of the worlds population lives within 100 miles of a coastline. So having a flexible movable airfield which is not tied to the limits of any country is a tad handy. The US, French, Russians, Chinese, Indians all seem to think so to.
landaftaf
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
As for why buy them - admittedly I'm biased but the usual argument is that 90% of the worlds population lives within 100 miles of a coastline. So having a flexible movable airfield which is not tied to the limits of any country is a tad handy. The US, French, Russians, Chinese, Indians all seem to think so to.
[/ QUOTE ]
quite
power projection
we need organic air cover to protect our expeditionary forces - we have built up our amphib fleet and are increasing our amphib forces ......... thats why we need them.
As for why buy them - admittedly I'm biased but the usual argument is that 90% of the worlds population lives within 100 miles of a coastline. So having a flexible movable airfield which is not tied to the limits of any country is a tad handy. The US, French, Russians, Chinese, Indians all seem to think so to.
[/ QUOTE ]
quite
power projection
we need organic air cover to protect our expeditionary forces - we have built up our amphib fleet and are increasing our amphib forces ......... thats why we need them.
Judders
Well-Known Member
Back in the day, when discussing the needs and suitable ports with an Army types years ago, they asked me why the Navy didn't simply take over Marchwood as a deepwater base for the new carrier fleet.
Judders
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
we need organic air cover to protect our expeditionary forces - we have built up our amphib fleet and are increasing our amphib forces ......... thats why we need them.
[/ QUOTE ]
Indeed. We have probably never been better placed to effect an amphibious assult, not since VJ-Day anyway.
That said, whether the fleet will have the surface borne air defence capability to make the risk acceptable, I am not sure and our AEW is still helo-bound which I don't think is ideal.
we need organic air cover to protect our expeditionary forces - we have built up our amphib fleet and are increasing our amphib forces ......... thats why we need them.
[/ QUOTE ]
Indeed. We have probably never been better placed to effect an amphibious assult, not since VJ-Day anyway.
That said, whether the fleet will have the surface borne air defence capability to make the risk acceptable, I am not sure and our AEW is still helo-bound which I don't think is ideal.
landaftaf
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Portmsouth - yeah right. After they have dredged the main channel significantly they still have the problem that if there is the slightest cross wind they will need tugs pulling at such an angle the whole lot won't fit through the gap. The orginal design had a bow thruster and Queen Mary type rotatable electric pods so the ship could get in without tugs, but they took them off to save money.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was led to believe they are/were going to dredge a new channel across spit sand, that is why more diving ops around the mary rose site intensified a couple of years ago.
taking out the dog leg near southsea castle would assist the pilotage.
and the entrance channel is wide enough, just not much room for error .......... tugs can be standing by inside the entrance to push from either side as necessary.
imo of course /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
Portmsouth - yeah right. After they have dredged the main channel significantly they still have the problem that if there is the slightest cross wind they will need tugs pulling at such an angle the whole lot won't fit through the gap. The orginal design had a bow thruster and Queen Mary type rotatable electric pods so the ship could get in without tugs, but they took them off to save money.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was led to believe they are/were going to dredge a new channel across spit sand, that is why more diving ops around the mary rose site intensified a couple of years ago.
taking out the dog leg near southsea castle would assist the pilotage.
and the entrance channel is wide enough, just not much room for error .......... tugs can be standing by inside the entrance to push from either side as necessary.
imo of course /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
Woodlouse
Well-Known Member
The RN needs the new carriers because the government has gone and scrapped all the Sea Harriers and it's replacement, the F35, cannot operate from a through deck cruiser.
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
>Indeed. We have probably never been better placed to effect an amphibious assult, not since VJ-Day anyway.<
Ah, so we haven't learned the lesson that invading foreign countries is not a frightfully good idea? Biffing the natives is not as easy as it once used to be.
Ah, so we haven't learned the lesson that invading foreign countries is not a frightfully good idea? Biffing the natives is not as easy as it once used to be.
Judders
Well-Known Member
So far as I can tell from the capability that the Broons are going for, we will only be invading countries who have small airforces and no submarines.
HoratioHB
Well-Known Member
Of course that is the biggest risk - not the navy or the ships but some jumped up, self important, lying, Yank loving twat of a politician misusing them. IMHO
Slow_boat
Well-Known Member
I know I'm going to get flamed but here goes;
We only need these floating airbases for offensive operations. Defensively we would use our own land based planes.
Do we really intend attacking anyone or is it about time that we admitted that Britains days of empire are well gone, the Commonwealth want nowt to do with us and we should stop trying to punch above our weight, looking after our home problems instead of 'liberating' other countries (providing they have no navy or air force)?
Rant over.
Let the flaming commence.
We only need these floating airbases for offensive operations. Defensively we would use our own land based planes.
Do we really intend attacking anyone or is it about time that we admitted that Britains days of empire are well gone, the Commonwealth want nowt to do with us and we should stop trying to punch above our weight, looking after our home problems instead of 'liberating' other countries (providing they have no navy or air force)?
Rant over.
Let the flaming commence.
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
Well said, that man!
Woodlouse
Well-Known Member
Well, we still have assets and territory overseas. The Falklands and Gibraltar for example.
alan006
Well-Known Member
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding here as to what is possible to achieve with 2 aircraft carriers. It is simply wrong to imagine that in todays world this is a serious global attaching force... it is not. Since world war 2 history has shown that ships at sea without air cover are extreamly vunerable. If you read about the Falklands war Admiral Woodward said that if he had lost one of his carriers he would have had to withdraw. We were able to cope with small carriers as the Harriers were in service. I think I am right when I say there are no Sea Harriers in service and so RAF Harriers would have to be borrowed to provide air cover.
If the RN is serious about operating on a global basis it must have air cover and carriers are the only way of doing it.
The RN has shown over and over again how it can help other countries for example after the last Tsunami and is a great ambassador for us, and respected worldwide. It would be crazy to let it dwindle to an ineffective coastal force. Unfortunately history shows us that when the services are not supported and allowed to wither it always costs us dear.
If the RN is serious about operating on a global basis it must have air cover and carriers are the only way of doing it.
The RN has shown over and over again how it can help other countries for example after the last Tsunami and is a great ambassador for us, and respected worldwide. It would be crazy to let it dwindle to an ineffective coastal force. Unfortunately history shows us that when the services are not supported and allowed to wither it always costs us dear.
landaftaf
Well-Known Member
with little or no resistance, who are unable to conduct guerrilla warfare ............
