Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[redelitev6]

  If you like proper planes with proper engines you can't beat this bit of film http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aED7xvYbMfw

[Kevin Wood]

Don't forget "Those magnificent men in their flying machines".

I was privileged to go to a showing of that narrated by one of the pilots who did stunt flying in those old machines. Now in his 80's and still competing in gliders. He had some stories to tell.

He said there wasn't an aircraft in that film that wasn't a total deathtrap. One of them apparently was so under powered that it would do a take-off and a quick circuit of the airfield, all at full throttle, and just as you were reaching for the throttle to descend on your approach to land, it would seize up solid! He said they just learnt to leave plenty of height for the inevitable "dead stick" landing and, once on the ground, a squirt of WD40 in each cylinder to free it up and it was off again.

[tigers_gonads]

I believe the Americans were developing one/did develop one,if I remember rightly it had twin fins and a single exhaust nozzle at the rear which swivelled from the horizontal to vertical.Can't recall the model designation though.

Indeed, tis the F22 Raptor...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor

Tipped to be used on our new carriers IIRC

Nup 

The aircraft in question is the F35B Lightning 2 

The RAF should be getting a few of them if they ever get it working properly or if it doesn't get binned due to the crazy cost of the sack of shite  thing 

[steve6367]

This one really gets me - we invent the thing, sell it to others. Then we scrap it, sell off what we have to the US and hatch a plan that the best thing to do would be to buy the tech back in the shape of a US aircraft!

Oh and while we wait for them to make it work we must be the only country with an operational aircraft carrier and no aircraft we can fly from it!

[Rods2]

I hate most aviation films where they are so unrealistic. Hollywood has yet to discover when filming that most dogfights take place in three dimensions, not the flat maneuvering rubbish they show in most films. 

[Lizzie_Zoom]

This one really gets me - we invent the thing, sell it to others. Then we scrap it, sell off what we have to the US and hatch a plan that the best thing to do would be to buy the tech back in the shape of a US aircraft!

Oh and while we wait for them to make it work we must be the only country with an operational aircraft carrier and no aircraft we can fly from it!

Yep, and Britain invented the aircraft carrier, only to let the Americans and Japanese develop it as a major weapon during WW2, with then Britain inventing the angled deck. The USA still went on to build more aircraft carriers, whilst Britain scrapped all but a handful!  

Britain still has not learnt the lessons of the past and kept a full aircraft carrier fleet, even though the land bases available to the Fleet have reduced significantly.

[Rods2]

This one really gets me - we invent the thing, sell it to others. Then we scrap it, sell off what we have to the US and hatch a plan that the best thing to do would be to buy the tech back in the shape of a US aircraft!

Oh and while we wait for them to make it work we must be the only country with an operational aircraft carrier and no aircraft we can fly from it!

Yep, and Britain invented the aircraft carrier, only to let the Americans and Japanese develop it as a major weapon during WW2, with then Britain inventing the angled deck. The USA still went on to build more aircraft carriers, whilst Britain scrapped all but a handful!  

Britain still has not learnt the lessons of the past and kept a full aircraft carrier fleet, even though the land bases available to the Fleet have reduced significantly.

Sadly this farce started in the 1960's under the Wilson Government, where the Navy was banned from having any new aircraft carriers, hence the Invincible class being designated through deck cruisers. The same Government that cancelled TSR2 and the Supersonic Harrier. Don't even get me started on the evisceration of our dynamic aircraft industry through nationalization. 

[Lizzie_Zoom]

This one really gets me - we invent the thing, sell it to others. Then we scrap it, sell off what we have to the US and hatch a plan that the best thing to do would be to buy the tech back in the shape of a US aircraft!

Oh and while we wait for them to make it work we must be the only country with an operational aircraft carrier and no aircraft we can fly from it!

Yep, and Britain invented the aircraft carrier, only to let the Americans and Japanese develop it as a major weapon during WW2, with then Britain inventing the angled deck. The USA still went on to build more aircraft carriers, whilst Britain scrapped all but a handful!  

Britain still has not learnt the lessons of the past and kept a full aircraft carrier fleet, even though the land bases available to the Fleet have reduced significantly.

Sadly this farce started in the 1960's under the Wilson Government, where the Navy was banned from having any new aircraft carriers, hence the Invincible class being designated through deck cruisers. The same Government that cancelled TSR2 and the Supersonic Harrier. Don't even get me started on the evisceration of our dynamic aircraft industry through nationalization. 

Yes, that was a political play on words with the "through deck cruisers"  being recognised by all in the Navy as aircraft carriers, but designed for Harriers!  It was meant to be Wilson and the Labour Government attempt to honour their commitment to reduce the size of the Navy and rid it of the carriers!  It was all a load of political nonsense!

[steve6367]

This one really gets me - we invent the thing, sell it to others. Then we scrap it, sell off what we have to the US and hatch a plan that the best thing to do would be to buy the tech back in the shape of a US aircraft!

Oh and while we wait for them to make it work we must be the only country with an operational aircraft carrier and no aircraft we can fly from it!

Yep, and Britain invented the aircraft carrier, only to let the Americans and Japanese develop it as a major weapon during WW2, with then Britain inventing the angled deck. The USA still went on to build more aircraft carriers, whilst Britain scrapped all but a handful!  

Britain still has not learnt the lessons of the past and kept a full aircraft carrier fleet, even though the land bases available to the Fleet have reduced significantly.

Sadly this farce started in the 1960's under the Wilson Government, where the Navy was banned from having any new aircraft carriers, hence the Invincible class being designated through deck cruisers. The same Government that cancelled TSR2 and the Supersonic Harrier. Don't even get me started on the evisceration of our dynamic aircraft industry through nationalization. 

Yes, that was a political play on words with the "through deck cruisers"  being recognised by all in the Navy as aircraft carriers, but designed for Harriers!  It was meant to be Wilson and the Labour Government attempt to honour their commitment to reduce the size of the Navy and rid it of the carriers!  It was all a load of political nonsense!

What was the logic here? Why was it seen as a good thing to do at the time? Was WW2 not still very big in political memory? Genuine question, as I assume they did think they were doing the best thing for the county......

[Lizzie_Zoom]

This one really gets me - we invent the thing, sell it to others. Then we scrap it, sell off what we have to the US and hatch a plan that the best thing to do would be to buy the tech back in the shape of a US aircraft!

Oh and while we wait for them to make it work we must be the only country with an operational aircraft carrier and no aircraft we can fly from it!

Yep, and Britain invented the aircraft carrier, only to let the Americans and Japanese develop it as a major weapon during WW2, with then Britain inventing the angled deck. The USA still went on to build more aircraft carriers, whilst Britain scrapped all but a handful!  

Britain still has not learnt the lessons of the past and kept a full aircraft carrier fleet, even though the land bases available to the Fleet have reduced significantly.

Sadly this farce started in the 1960's under the Wilson Government, where the Navy was banned from having any new aircraft carriers, hence the Invincible class being designated through deck cruisers. The same Government that cancelled TSR2 and the Supersonic Harrier. Don't even get me started on the evisceration of our dynamic aircraft industry through nationalization. 

Yes, that was a political play on words with the "through deck cruisers"  being recognised by all in the Navy as aircraft carriers, but designed for Harriers!  It was meant to be Wilson and the Labour Government attempt to honour their commitment to reduce the size of the Navy and rid it of the carriers!  It was all a load of political nonsense!

What was the logic here? Why was it seen as a good thing to do at the time? Was WW2 not still very big in political memory? Genuine question, as I assume they did think they were doing the best thing for the county......

There was no logic, the Royal Navy really needed those carriers. However, the Socialists wanted to scale down the British military to have more money to spend on socialists policies.  Carriers were considered unnecessary as the RAF could use bases around the key parts of the world even after the countries concerned had been granted their Independence.  Yes. WW2 should have taught everyone how air power was key, and would be most necessary in further conflicts, including sea based air power.  But certain politicians, Wilson and his left wing cronies, in particular  did not listen, or chose to ignore lobbying by senior military leaders, and decided to press ahead with their policy.

Subsequent Conservative governments regretfully did not reverse those decisions and find the money in by then a very rocky financial situation.

The two Elizabeth class of carriers being built may start to reverse that policy and mean we can defend ourselves with carrier borne aircraft.

What I still fail to see is how we can successfully screen those ships at sea given the shortage of surface ships.  Old style carriers, and all the capital ships as well, required full destroyer screening to defend them from surface and sub-surface attack.  The new carriers, unless I have missed something, do not seem to have this protection afforded to them given what is available now.

[Entwood]

Interestingly, there was a paper written about that time that stated, in simple terms, that a single aircraft carrier was so important an asset that it could not actually be deployed tactically, but could only be deployed with a task force to protect it.

The projections actually "proved" (in the authors eyes) that the UK did not possess enough support craft (minesweepers/ASW/battleships/submarines etc etc) to defend such assets.

Given the fact that we have "lost" even more ships from the fleet, as well as the airborne Maritime Patrols, my guess is those ideas would be heavily reinforced right now !!!

I don't know who wrote it it, but it was compulsory reading/debating matter whilst on courses

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Interestingly, there was a paper written about that time that stated, in simple terms, that a single aircraft carrier was so important an asset that it could not actually be deployed tactically, but could only be deployed with a task force to protect it.

The projections actually "proved" (in the authors eyes) that the UK did not possess enough support craft (minesweepers/ASW/battleships/submarines etc etc) to defend such assets.

Given the fact that we have "lost" even more ships from the fleet, as well as the airborne Maritime Patrols, my guess is those ideas would be heavily reinforced right now !!!

I don't know who wrote it it, but it was compulsory reading/debating matter whilst on courses

No, and that is my point, with actually not even the aircraft to provide a vital screen!

Just a point, "Battleships" as you quoted also needed full screening, and the destroyer was the vital element of that process, as it would be with carriers today. Frigates could fulfil that role, but they are so much less agile than the old destroyers!

[steve6367]

We do have the Type 45's - which is about as good a destroyer as currently exists anywhere. Unfortuantly we only seem to have 6, so maybe 4 in service at any one time. Which maybe fits with 1 of the 2 new carriers being imediatly mothballed anyway once finished. 

[Lizzie_Zoom]

We do have the Type 45's - which is about as good a destroyer as currently exists anywhere. Unfortuantly we only seem to have 6, so maybe 4 in service at any one time. Which maybe fits with 1 of the 2 new carriers being imediatly mothballed anyway once finished. 

Ok.

But this is my idea of a destroyer:




and as a flotilla, as I remember from my childhood:



 

[Rods2]

Type 82 Destroyers were designed as area defense ships for the next generation carriers, but when the Wilson government cancelled them so were the type 82 destroyers, although one was built HMS Bristol.

When the last RN carrier was scrapped with catapults along with the Gannets that provided airbourne early warning radar, their was much criticism saying they would be missed and so it proved in the Falklands conflict with HMS Sheffield and HMS Coventry both being lost in their role of early warning defense pickets. There was the emergency development of Sea King helicopters with a search water radar in a dome of the left hand side of them. they were developed very quickly during the Falklands conflict but weren't operational before it ended.

The future with only having two carriers is that it will be difficult to always have one available, which is why you really need three. As you will typically have one operation, one undergoing a major refit and the third in port and probably undergoing a minor refit.

The problem with the type 45 destroyers is that we don't have enough of them and they currently have no sea defense capability, where they were designed to be fitted with US Harpoon anti-ship missiles but they ran out of money so they have never been fitted. 

If you look at the procurement of most weapons systems these days because it is so political with attempts to share development with other nations especially in Europe, the whole system is an expensive dogs dinner, littered with cancellations and disasters.

The problem with fitting the Elizabeth Class carriers with catapults and arrester gear is a case in point. They are big systems that you just can't add on willy nilly to a party built ship and the latest electric catapults would have required the redesign and upgrading of the ships main generators.

So we are stuck with the VTOL F35 with all of its payload and range limitations. It is going to be interesting to see how the F35 performs is real combat as it is not a mix it fighter like the F16 and F18 it replaces with a relatively slow turn rate, where it relies on stealth and missiles for the upper hand.