Jump to content


Photo

Hms Queen Elizabeth


  • Please log in to reply
645 replies to this topic

#641 Harold Jones

Harold Jones

    Shaken but not deterred...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,638 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor, History, Fishing and Beer

Posted 08 December 2018 - 0949 AM

...I mean no disrespect to all Americans here, but how do we know we can trust the US anymore to guarantee our security?

 

 

 

I figure you have until about a decade after Medicare for All or whatever our single payer health care scheme gets called is enacted.


Edited by Harold Jones, 08 December 2018 - 0950 AM.

  • 0

#642 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,379 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 08 December 2018 - 1007 AM

The Merlin has no really bigger footprint than the Sea King. In fact its main rotor diameter is one foot less, and while the fuselage is two-and-a-half meters longer, I believe it was designed to pretty much fit in the same space with the tail folded up; not least because it replaced the Sea Lynx on the Type 23 frigates. So it could just as well operate from an Invincible-sized platform. Of course the QEs will carry 14 vs. ten, but then there will be just two of them vs. three; and that's not a capability leap I'd consider worth the cost of doubling the total tonnage in class, with the associated cost. It's really more a case of you work with what you got and paid for. Of course you still got the extra capabilities for other mission types.


  • 0

#643 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,511 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 08 December 2018 - 1017 AM

Stuart, given that personnel are the biggest ongoing expense for armed services, the manpower v automation is a necessary balancing act; in fact, it's also a large driver in the integration of women into the military.  I'm pretty sure the RN has considered the problems of automation breakdown; it will be interesting to see how it's handled when it occurs.  As usual, the best solutions will likely come from the petty officers and bo'suns on-site. ;)


Edited by shep854, 08 December 2018 - 1017 AM.

  • 0

#644 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,760 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 December 2018 - 1018 AM

A prerequisite for an independent voice on the world stage is the power to back it.

 

Britain has the UNSC veto power, is an NPT-designated nuclear weapon state, and has a 2.6 trillion USD GDP. Yet, it has also allowed Washington to do Britain's speaking on the world stage for it since the Suez crisis.

 

The deployment of a British CVBG is a powerful statement anywhere in the world that Britain and the British have a voice and vital national interests of their own that are separate, and possibly divergent, from America and Americans.


Edited by Nobu, 08 December 2018 - 1206 PM.

  • 0

#645 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 48,698 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 08 December 2018 - 1118 AM

Stuart, given that personnel are the biggest ongoing expense for armed services, the manpower v automation is a necessary balancing act; in fact, it's also a large driver in the integration of women into the military.  I'm pretty sure the RN has considered the problems of automation breakdown; it will be interesting to see how it's handled when it occurs.  As usual, the best solutions will likely come from the petty officers and bo'suns on-site. ;)

 

I notice there was a mention in Clancy's Marine's book (ok, it was a moment of weakness...) that they had debates of a similar nature in the US Navy in the 1980s and 90's about manning and increased automation. Its perfectly true more people means better damage control.  That said, I can think of 2 cruisers we took out of service in the 1980's for no other reason than we could no longer afford 700 men to man a warship.


  • 0

#646 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 48,698 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 08 December 2018 - 1125 AM

The Merlin has no really bigger footprint than the Sea King. In fact its main rotor diameter is one foot less, and while the fuselage is two-and-a-half meters longer, I believe it was designed to pretty much fit in the same space with the tail folded up; not least because it replaced the Sea Lynx on the Type 23 frigates. So it could just as well operate from an Invincible-sized platform. Of course the QEs will carry 14 vs. ten, but then there will be just two of them vs. three; and that's not a capability leap I'd consider worth the cost of doubling the total tonnage in class, with the associated cost. It's really more a case of you work with what you got and paid for. Of course you still got the extra capabilities for other mission types.

 

Very true, but its still a hell of a big helicopter to fit on a Type 23, and I gather getting the hangar the right size to fit them was part of the delay for the first of the vessels. Ive yet to check whether we intend to fit them on the Type 26 and Type 31 when they enter service.

 

In the end, its the choice made 20 years ago we are working with. For our purposes, Id suggest 3 carriers in the invincible class would probably do us just as well. OTOH, its hard to argue with the amount of stores or the deckspace 60000 tons is going to give us, particularly the Commando capability.

Rather than looking at it as just a small enhancement to ASW or more fighters, really there are several advantages here.


  • 0




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users