PDA

View Full Version : OT: New RN carriers, ugly or what?



Kielhauler1961
07-03-2008, 08:34 AM
I can't believe 3.2 billion is being spent on something as hideous as this. There used to be a time when warships had "lines", and were creations of beauty as well as power. Not any longer.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7486782.stm

Instead of their projected names: Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales, I think they should be named HMS Blockhead and HMS Boring!

Celeon999
07-03-2008, 09:02 AM
Well, in the end it doesnt matter if britons like their design.....it matters if Sarkozy likes the design http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Article (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,559702,00.html)

At least one cannot claim that he is a boring man without spontaneous ideas. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Im sure the british press showed "great enthusiasm" for this proposal http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

klcarroll
07-03-2008, 09:16 AM
@Kielhauler1961;

Yup! .....I have to agree: ....They're Butt Ugly!!!

klcarroll

Kielhauler1961
07-03-2008, 10:13 AM
Apparently, Sarkozy has been hinting at France rejoining NATO. Otherwise we will have NATO, the WEU (Western Europen Union) as well as individiual national armed forces (are there any other levels I've missed?). Just how many seperate tiers of armed forces are we Europeans expected to pay for?

Back to topic, these monstrosities are both going to be built in Scotland (one on the Clyde and one on the Forth). With the current rumblings going on "north of the border" (nothing to do with the food I'm told), I wouldn't be surprised if Scotland was to break-away from the Union in 2013-14 and claim these two ships as reparations. They're welcome to them! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

andy3536
07-03-2008, 11:10 AM
All modern ships are extreamly ugly, it's more of a form follows function now.
Although not nessesarily designed for stealth all ships are designed to limit the radar reflection.

What with the price of steel on the rise they'll probobly end up costing 7 billion a piece. (a proper billion, not a tiny US one)

Celeon999
07-03-2008, 11:24 AM
I dont think its that ugly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif


It just looks unusual with that two-islands design instead of bigger single one.

http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/3108/cvfstovl1highda4.jpg

klcarroll
07-03-2008, 11:53 AM
Although not nessesarily designed for stealth all ships are designed to limit the radar reflection.

Hmmm.....

It's big enough to be easily seen with the naked eye from orbit, ......and it has a sound signature that even MY hydrophone operator could hear from 200 miles away.

I can see why limiting radar reflectivity would be important! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Big carriers are the last gasp of "Gunboat Diplomacy"! .....If a really serious "Shooting War" ever breaks out, ...they will be "The First Against The Wall"!

In 2008, the seas belong to the "Swimmers", ...NOT the "Skimmers"!

klcarroll

andy3536
07-03-2008, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by klcarroll:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Although not nessesarily designed for stealth all ships are designed to limit the radar reflection.

Hmmm.....

It's big enough to be easily seen with the naked eye from orbit, ......and it has a sound signature that even MY hydrophone operator could hear from 200 miles away.

I can see why limiting radar reflectivity would be important! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Big carriers are the last gasp of "Gunboat Diplomacy"! .....If a really serious "Shooting War" ever breaks out, ...they will be "The First Against The Wall"!

In 2008, the seas belong to the "Swimmers", ...NOT the "Skimmers"!

klcarroll </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Limiting the radar reflection is vital due to radar guided anti shipping missiles.

It's also much easier to tempt the missile away if the target it's locked to appears that much smaller. And Radar aciusition is needed to fire in the first place, and they might be put off from firing if the signiture is only that of a small boat.

An important lesson from falklands.

Realjambo
07-03-2008, 12:50 PM
I agree about the anti-radar / stealth design, and as andy3536 says, the Falklands taught us a LOT of lessons about anti-ship missiles.

I think it's like some new cars in a sense. Some you see launched and you think 'Dear God - did they build that with their eyes shut? It's horrible! But after a while that design becomes easier on the eye and you accept it as the norm.

That said, however 'Butt Ugly' it is, if I'm on finals on a stormy night with bingo fuel I ain't going to complain what my home plate looks like! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

klcarroll
07-03-2008, 12:58 PM
An important lesson from falklands.

The Falklands War was 26 years ago: ....And it was a war against a third rate power.

"Smart" weapons have gone through three generations since then.

Any lessons learned there are now, in 2008, ....ancient history!

As I said earlier:

Big carriers are the last gasp of "Gunboat Diplomacy"! .....If a really serious "Shooting War" ever breaks out, ...they will be "The First Against The Wall"!

In 2008, the seas belong to the "Swimmers", ...NOT the "Skimmers"!

klcarroll

Celeon999
07-03-2008, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by Realjambo:


That said, however 'Butt Ugly' it is, if I'm on finals on a stormy night with bingo fuel I ain't going to complain what my home plate looks like! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Not if you are Nikki "Bling Bling" Sarkozy !

"Wat is sis Eh ? " "Daas se brituons trai tu make fun aut of me eh ?" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif ..

"Iht luuks 'orrible" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

--*Tricolore one , you are cleared to land*--

"Nevar i ville lant on sis inglish eyesore !"

"I voult raser praefaer tu draun !" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif


Sorry i couldn't resist http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Realjambo
07-03-2008, 01:15 PM
The Falklands War was 26 years ago: ....And it was a war against a third rate power.

"Smart" weapons have gone through three generations since then.

Any lessons learned there are now, in 2008, ....ancient history!

Let me clarify what I meant, perhaps I should have said ' immediately afterwards, the Falklands taught us a LOT of lessons about anti-ship missiles.'

... Like not installing melamine faced compartment partitions inside our ships that splintered into deadly shards and causing all manner of injuries when a missile hit, for example.

@ Celeon - Your French accent is uncanny! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

... Carry on! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kielhauler1961
07-03-2008, 02:18 PM
I think there is more to this design than meets the eye. Officially, the forward island is for ship operations and the 'midships island for air ops.

From what I have read the two-island superstructure doesn't have much to do with low radar signatures, it's more to do with separation of responsibilities to improve efficiency: ship handling is better done from the bow section while air ops. require a complete field of view of the flight deck, best done from amidships.

However, it brings to mind a phrase my father used (he was ex-FAA, 854 squadron, HMS Illustrious, 1944-45): "Fish-heads" is how the FAA refer to their non-flying RN cousins. Maybe this physical seperation is a sign of how bad relations have become between the two branches of service!

Also, the VSToL version of the F-35 (joint strike fighter), which is the intended air-arm of these ships, is behind schedule, suffering huge cost overruns amd might even be cancelled

The RN has a contingency plan to use Harrier GR7's as a stop-gap, but by 2014, when the first of these "ugly sisters" is due to enter service, only two squadrons of these planes will still be airworthy. A lot of ship for so little strength...

klcarroll
07-03-2008, 02:49 PM
The RN has a contingency plan to use Harrier GR7's as a stop-gap, but by 2014, when the first of these "ugly sisters" is due to enter service, only two squadrons of these planes will still be airworthy. A lot of ship for so little strength...


Wow! .....That sounds like the sort of un-coordinated mess that I had previously thought was the exclusive prerogative of Washington D.C.!!


klcarroll

BTOG46
07-03-2008, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by klcarroll:
Wow! .....That sounds like the sort of un-coordinated mess that I had previously thought was the exclusive prerogative of Washington D.C.!!

klcarroll

You forget, we in England have had 700 years longer than the US to perfect the fine art of making bureaucratic balls ups..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Kielhauler1961
07-04-2008, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by andy3536:
What with the price of steel on the rise they'll probobly end up costing 7 billion a piece. (a proper billion, not a tiny US one)

The MoD bought the steel for the basic hulls some months ago (65,000 tonnes of it). I suppose if they don't complete these ships we could sell it to the Chinese at a profit.

Realjambo
07-04-2008, 01:29 AM
Originally posted by Kielhauler1961:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by andy3536:
What with the price of steel on the rise they'll probobly end up costing 7 billion a piece. (a proper billion, not a tiny US one)

The MoD bought the steel for the basic hulls some months ago (65,000 tonnes of it). I suppose if they don't complete these ships we could sell it to the Chinese at a profit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very true! The rate at which China is allegedly consuming steel and wood is quite alarming. Of all things, wooden fence panels are scarce in the UK currently - and China is being blamed for that too! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

If it isn't oil pushing up prices of general commodities, it's the China's huge expansion efforts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Kielhauler1961
07-04-2008, 03:12 AM
The economic explosion of China, and other developing Asian countries, in the last ten years is phenomenal. I spend a fair bit of each year in the Far East and from my own observations, and talking to ex-pats, the "middle-class" over there has mushroomed, and with it the demand for consumer goods and a "western" lifestyle.

Where people used to ride bicycles, they now ride scooters; those that had scooters now drive cars. This is just one of the factors pushing up oil prices.

I have a house in Chiang Mai, Thailand, and 98% of the traffic there is comprised of Toyota, Mitsubishi and Nissan 4x4's, all brand new! Neon lighting floods the streets to a level that we, in England, would only find acceptable in Soho or Leicester Square!

It's all very well the west making efforts to cut its carbon footprint, the east is more than taking up the slack.

Anti_Ship_Fella
07-04-2008, 04:38 AM
geez.....those should be out of comission.....http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif lok at the F/A 18 E or C

And spitfire,Fletcher class,Arizona? they should stop making up new stuff.....

klcarroll
07-04-2008, 06:31 AM
.........the "middle-class" over there has mushroomed, and with it the demand for consumer goods and a "western" lifestyle.

Hmmmm........

RE: China

That sounds like bad news for a government that is still intent on following the "enlightened" teachings of Marx, Lenin and Mao! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

klcarroll

Kielhauler1961
07-04-2008, 06:53 AM
Can you imagine what it will be like in 20 years, 1.4 billion capitalist Chinese? We won't even be able to afford socks, let alone gas! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

klcarroll
07-04-2008, 07:19 AM
We won't even be able to afford socks, let alone gas!

I have a terrible feeling that you are 100% correct! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif


klcarroll

Kielhauler1961
07-04-2008, 07:35 AM
In 20 years' time, I intend to be one of the following:

1. Dead
2. Retired
3. Chinese

Which is the best option?

Kielhauler1961
07-04-2008, 07:59 AM
Just found the UK government's steel stockpile for the new ships
http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk295/kielhauler/ScrapIronandSteel1.jpg

andy3536
07-04-2008, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by klcarroll:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">An important lesson from falklands.

The Falklands War was 26 years ago: ....And it was a war against a third rate power.

"Smart" weapons have gone through three generations since then.

Any lessons learned there are now, in 2008, ....ancient history!

As I said earlier:

Big carriers are the last gasp of "Gunboat Diplomacy"! .....If a really serious "Shooting War" ever breaks out, ...they will be "The First Against The Wall"!

In 2008, the seas belong to the "Swimmers", ...NOT the "Skimmers"!

klcarroll </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Saying it louder doesn't make you right.

Don't forget any future war would be with a third rate power, and most newer missiles still use radar guidance.

Argentina ma have been a third rate power but the french missiles and the US jets were very modern for the time.

These carriers are still tiny compared with other nations carriers around the world too.

Messervy
07-04-2008, 08:32 AM
These carriers are still tiny compared with other nations carriers around the world too.

Nations? Plural? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

klcarroll
07-04-2008, 09:06 AM
Saying it louder doesn't make you right.

I wasn't saying it louder: ....I highlighted it to distinguish it as a quote of a previous statement.

.....And you have produced no evidence that shows anything in my statement to be untrue.

Personally, I believe that producing huge, expensive targets for use in future "Gunboat Diplomacy" actions is an illogical waste.

Any vessel capable of launching a TLAM-E, or un-manned drone can provide a similar strike threat without requiring a "Carrier Task Force" that costs more than some small countries!

....And as you well know, "Swimmers" have gotten very good with TLAMs!

klcarroll

Anti_Ship_Fella
07-04-2008, 11:02 AM
i just recieved news from my spy ( Secret Link To His Secret Pic (http://streetknowledge.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/austin_danger_powers_mike_myers.jpg))
That tell that SLOVENIA is building a naval,nuclear task force to take ZERP!

andy3536
07-04-2008, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by klcarroll:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Saying it louder doesn't make you right.

I wasn't saying it louder: ....I highlighted it to distinguish it as a quote of a previous statement.

.....And you have produced no evidence that shows anything in my statement to be untrue.

Personally, I believe that producing huge, expensive targets for use in future "Gunboat Diplomacy" actions is an illogical waste.

Any vessel capable of launching a TLAM-E, or un-manned drone can provide a similar strike threat without requiring a "Carrier Task Force" that costs more than some small countries!

....And as you well know, "Swimmers" have gotten very good with TLAMs!

klcarroll </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


And your evidence is ........


But still, it doesn't matter how much you argue the piont carriers are the capital ships of any navy that has them and give the best offencive fire power of any ship. And the improvment in anti shipping missiles has also seen an improvment in counter measure such as anti missile missiles (sea sparrow i belive is the UK version) and others.


It's all very well saying there vunrable and shouldn't be made as they'll be targets, but when was the last time a carrier was sunk?

And the Argentines did make attacks on British carriers with exocet missiles over the falklands but the counter measures worked.


Although the cost is high and more than that of 'some small countries' it's stil going to be a smaller GNP that that the small countries spend on defence.

klcarroll
07-04-2008, 12:37 PM
....it doesn't matter how much you argue the piont carriers are the capital ships of any navy that has them and give the best offencive fire power of any ship.

This is the very same argument that was being offered in the 1930s by proponents of the Battleship.

klcarroll

Kielhauler1961
07-04-2008, 12:57 PM
Large warships are, and have always been, "status symbols", a source of pride and a statement of intent by the owning power. "Swimmers" have their role but only a carrier can project flexible airpower, independent of land bases. A modern navy requires a balance of ship types.

It's a pity that to fund these two ships, the RN has had to cut back on the required number of escort vessels: Type 45 frigates IIRC, from nine originally to only six.

The greatest stupidity is that there is NO definite air weapon for them, apart from ageing Harriers. By 2014, all remaing GR7's could be accomodated on one ship with room to spare. As for adapting the Eurofighter/Typhoon for shipboard operations, this springs to mind...

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk295/kielhauler/Seafire3.jpg

My father served on HMS Unicorn off Salerno in 1943. They started with two squadrons (about 24 aircraft) of Seafires and by the end of the first week had only a handfull left, all the rest were written-off in deck landing accidents, none to enemy action.

klcarroll
07-04-2008, 01:10 PM
I appreciate the value of "Status Symbols" and "Intimidation Factor" as much as any student of military affairs would.

But these things run in cycles, and "Ultimate Weapons" fall by the wayside as more effective ways of waging war emerge.

My reference to the Battleship was very much to the point: ....In the late 1930s, many "Naval Experts" were still betting on the Battleship to be the decisive factor at sea. In the IJN, this belief persisted until sometine around 1942 or 1943; .....Much to their discomfort! (RE: The Yamato!)

Wouldn't it be nice to go into the next major conflict (..and there WILL be one!) "one-up" on the competition, rather than playing the sort of "catch-up ball" we have traditionally resigned ourselves to???

klcarroll

andy3536
07-04-2008, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by klcarroll:
I appreciate the value of "Status Symbols" and "Intimidation Factor" as much as any student of military affairs would.

But these things run in cycles, and "Ultimate Weapons" fall by the wayside as more effective ways of waging war emerge.

My reference to the Battleship was very much to the point: ....In the late 1930s, many "Naval Experts" were still betting on the Battleship to be the decisive factor at sea. In the IJN, this belief persisted until sometine around 1942 or 1943; .....Much to their discomfort! (RE: The Yamato!)

Wouldn't it be nice to go into the next major conflict (..and there WILL be one!) "one-up" on the competition, rather than playing the sort of "catch-up ball" we have traditionally resigned ourselves to???

klcarroll

How much will those ships cost http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

It's completely irrelavant if a new ship surpasses a carrier. The only countries with the finaces and technology available are the US and Russia. Niether of who have any chance of declairing war on the UK.
There will be no great war between superpowers ever again, the consequences are so great and we live in a much different world now.

klcarroll
07-04-2008, 01:54 PM
There will be no great war between superpowers ever again, the consequences are so great and we live in a much different world now.

Wow! .....I am so glad you made that clear!! Now I can sleep at night in the secure knowledge that the world is a better, safer place!!

klcarroll

Ronin_32
07-04-2008, 02:37 PM
No disrespect but the countermeasures were effectively to ring the carriers with various ships as a defensive measure. The only reason a carrier was not hit by an exocet was due to the exocet picking up the signature of the Sheffield instead of the Carriers. Furthermore if France had supplied Argentina with all the exocets they had wanted I would have hated to see the results.

Britain needs to spend money on carriers like the U.S. needs to spend money on a missile shield.

klcarroll
07-04-2008, 02:42 PM
@Ronin_32;

Well said! ....Well said indeeed!

klcarroll

Realjambo
07-04-2008, 02:54 PM
No disrespect but the countermeasures were effectively to ring the carriers with various ships as a defensive measure. The only reason a carrier was not hit by an exocet was due to the exocet picking up the signature of the Sheffield instead of the Carriers. Furthermore if France had supplied Argentina with all the exocets they had wanted I would have hated to see the results.

Spot on. Any country with a CVG would do the same - surround their Carrier with ships that to all intents and purposes would be 'Bullet Catchers'- and hoping that scenario wouldn't happen. Without getting too political, the British should be relieved that France declared themselves 'Out of Stock' and shut up shop.

As far as Battleships go, let us not forget the reliance that was paid on the Bismarck by Germany. Then ask yourself what crippled the Bismarck - the pride and great white hope of the German Kriegsmarine.... A carrier borne aircraft delivered torpedo.

Kielhauler1961
07-04-2008, 03:07 PM
klcarrol, I think that you have just fallen victim to a case of British irony!. As Ronin_32 has classic Blackadder as his sig., this gives a clue...

The funds intended for these ships would be be better spent on social matters in the UK.

andy3536
07-04-2008, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Ronin_32:
No disrespect but the countermeasures were effectively to ring the carriers with various ships as a defensive measure. The only reason a carrier was not hit by an exocet was due to the exocet picking up the signature of the Sheffield instead of the Carriers. Furthermore if France had supplied Argentina with all the exocets they had wanted I would have hated to see the results.

Britain needs to spend money on carriers like the U.S. needs to spend money on a missile shield.


Actually the carriers although the target for that mission were never detected or targeted by the aircraft, HMS Sheffield was miles away when the missiles were launched. She was in effect on her own far out in front of the task force and the aircraft detected her out on her own and fired.

As to weather we need them or not thats not the origional piont, we almost certainly don't need them. The piont is the ships will have awsome firepower and will be amoungst the most powerfull ships in the world for many years.

M0ttie
07-04-2008, 03:10 PM
I said this in a thread many months ago when these carriers were first proposed and were then reportedly going to be built in France.

Firstly we'll be lucky to see 2, probably one,which I have no doubt will be way over budget and late.

Secondly we wont have the right ships or enough of them to protect them adequately.

Sorry but we dont have the fleet to escort them and I dont think we have Aegis type AA capability on any of our ships so if we do pick a fight it had better be against a third rate country or we wont have carriers for too long if we send them in harms way.
Hell we cant equip our foot soldiers properly - what chance decent defences for these 2 .....

A 'capital' ship capable of taking out a small country is great but not if someone can manage to put holes in it.................

M0ttie
07-04-2008, 03:13 PM
Forgot to add...........
Practical the layout may be......
Butt ugly they are.......

Ronin_32
07-04-2008, 03:24 PM
Sorry Andy my mistake I meant the Atlantic conveyor.

klcarroll
07-04-2008, 03:29 PM
klcarrol, I think that you have just fallen victim to a case of British irony!. As Ronin_32 has classic Blackadder as his sig., this gives a clue...

@keilhauler;

Please don't loose sight of the fact that we can come to the same conclusion for different reasons!

...and @M0ttie;

Thank you for returning to the original point: ...Butt Ugly they are!!!

klcarroll

Ronin_32
07-04-2008, 03:39 PM
The only problem I have with these carriers is exactly what Mottie has alluded too, the British government specialises in doing things half-assed and I really hope we are not funding two massive and expensive white elephants. That money could be spent on many better naval projects. The days of Britania ruling the waves are over and we should be focusing on other projects.

NaKacu
07-04-2008, 06:50 PM
I just couldn't help myself to notice the resemblance to imperial star destroyers complete with shield generators on each side of the tower....

(ugly! true dat!)

Kielhauler1961
07-06-2008, 09:12 AM
This has to rank as onee of the ugliest ships of all time, French pre-dreadnought Bouvet.
http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk295/kielhauler/fr_bouvet_overvue_lo1.jpg

And if anyone comes across this hideous pile, please sink it!
http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk295/kielhauler/Ad_3086_101.jpg

klcarroll
07-06-2008, 11:01 AM
And if anyone comes across this hideous pile, please sink it!

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk295/kielhauler/Ad_3086_101.jpg


I certainly will! .....But I can promise you that I won't claim the tonnage:

.....How do you log sinking a 104,000 ton, butt-ugly, floating apartment building?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

klcarroll

Ronin_32
07-06-2008, 03:39 PM
I was in Cape Town when The World was docked there, maybe I am nuts but I just can not find any ship ugly, for me they all have a certain allure.

Bronzewing
07-20-2008, 01:11 AM
agreed that's an ugly ship that started this thread. But ugly carriers are hardly anything new. I mean has anyone SEEN HMS Furious?
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h60000/h60973.jpg