Noob Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 The woman lobbing the cat in the wheelie bin got more headlines... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 They've really got it arse about face, anyone can see that. Aircraft carriers with no jets for nine years? I'm a -ing peacenik, and even I think that's stupid beyond belief. What kind of carriers is the MOD building? I think two are currentl under construction. Will they be built for VTOL aircraft or regular take off and landing using catapult? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 We can buy tanks from the Russians on t'cheap... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11511886 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 Well I bought a snooker table today, I'll be getting some balls for it in ten years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 What kind of carriers is the MOD building? I think two are currentl under construction. Will they be built for VTOL aircraft or regular take off and landing using catapult? I think they're using the Lockheed Lightning and no catapult, just a ski jump. It was going to be Naval Eurofighters, not sure why they changed. However the deck isn't actually resilient enough to withstand the heat from the rear vectored thrust nozzle on landing allegedly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 If there were no penalty clauses, I suspect that the two carriers on order would've been scrapped. As it is, it seems that the cost of scrapping them is more than the cost of completing them, so they will be built. One will go into service (probably with helicopters on it) and the other will be moth-balled and sold off. Phanerothyme said: "And the Harrier has an operation lifespan of another 15 years, with fairly minor improvements on what's already a sophisticated platform." On what do you base that assessment? How many FI remain on the average Harrier airframe? What would be the cost of structural replacements? As for the Harrier being 'a sophisticated platform' it's a somewhat dated platform. It has done an excellent job, but I wonder whether it is a necessary component of the Air Force (or Navy) during the next 15-20 years? Without the Harrier, a new aircraft carrier won't be a lot of use - but does the Navy need a new carrier? What for? What is the threat? I've heard it argued that without carriers and Harriers, the British Armed Forces couldn't do a re-run of the Falklands conflict. They don't need to. There are Typhoons at Mount Pleasant and the airbridge from Brize Norton to the Falklands via Ascension is well established. Why would you need carrier-based Harriers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 They've really got it arse about face, anyone can see that. Aircraft carriers with no jets for nine years? I'm a -ing peacenik, and even I think that's stupid beyond belief. And the Harrier has an operation lifespan of another 15 years, with fairly minor improvements on what's already a sophisticated platform. I'm all for the military cuts, but I agree that keeping the newly built aircraft carrier without any aircraft for nine years is completely mad. I think the contract is written so that it's more expensive to scrap it than continue building it. Can't we sell it to Afghanistan or somewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 I think they're using the Lockheed Lightning and no catapult, just a ski jump... 'Lockheed Lightning? :hihi: What's wrong with the Spitfire? (Or preferably the Seafire) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 As for the Harrier being 'a sophisticated platform' it's a somewhat dated platform. It's not a modern platform, but before these cuts were announced, it's operational future (including avionics and other upgrades) was scheduled to end in 2025 It has done an excellent job, but I wonder whether it is a necessary component of the Air Force (or Navy) during the next 15-20 years? Without the Harrier, a new aircraft carrier won't be a lot of use - but does the Navy need a new carrier? What for? What is the threat? You don't defend with carrier groups, you project force. I've heard it argued that without carriers and Harriers, the British Armed Forces couldn't do a re-run of the Falklands conflict. They don't need to. There are Typhoons at Mount Pleasant and the airbridge from Brize Norton to the Falklands via Ascension is well established. Why would you need carrier-based Harriers? In war there are no re-runs, only surprises. What is always true is that defence cuts always get it wrong about the future requirements of the military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 'Lockheed Lightning? :hihi: What's wrong with the Spitfire? (Or preferably the Seafire) Not the P38, the F35 silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.