Coombe Barton Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 http://www.edisposals.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/Disposals-Public-Site/en_US/-/GBP/ViewProductDetail-Start;pgid=MieqQ4wkQg8000ArvQ_8K1sp0000cOhnTMH2?ProductUUID=eIDAqBIQIhQAAAEupZZcNt5o&CatalogCategoryID=VaLAqBELPagAAAED8GeasfoP&JumpTo=OfferList Part Number ARK001 - In Stock. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicester Thumper Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 if i could EVER afford it and get it in the back garden then yes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 Make a nice layout room. No need to pack up the layout to take it to a show, just sail it there... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coombe Barton Posted April 28, 2011 Author Share Posted April 28, 2011 Make a nice layout room. No need to pack up the layout to take it to a show, just sail it there... Yes, that flat bit at the top would make a good 12 in to the ft shunting plank. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold John B Posted April 28, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 28, 2011 .."selling England by the pound".. A sad reflection, really, of the decline of British sea power. After all those golden platitudes, all we're left with is a matchstick flotilla in place of a navy, while all we make is entertainment. (and if anyone spots all the song and album titles in that tirade, answers on a postcard please..) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbedford Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 .."selling England by the pound".. A sad reflection, really, of the decline of British sea power. Is it really so sad that there's no one left to fight? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dutch_Master Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 Well, it was inevitable really. Even Royal Navy ships don't have eternal life, so it's probably off to the scrappers... Sad, but that's life for'ya... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foulounoux Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 Carriers are irrelevant in todays warfare - hypersonic missiles will destroy them - too big a target and as Libya has proved we don't necessarily need them to mount operations. Hopefully todays announcement that the 2 new carriers will now be more expensive by 1- 2 bn will make someone think . So even if we were to have a Falklands conflict Mk2 the ability to use a carrier whilst welcome maybe proved to be too dangerous in practice because you can bet someone somewhere decided it was a good idea to sell Argentina or any potential enemy for that matter the technology to take out carriers. Nuclear powered subs with cruise missiles will do the job. We are no longer the worlds policeman so trying to pretend powerful enough to take action on our own is no longer credible. Even if we weer powerful enough to do so the procedures that we have to go through EU/UN/NATO etc to agree on action would make it difficult to take action - just look at Syria we basically are stopped from taking any action akin to Libya by Russia. I am not saying we should but just if we wanted to we couldn't. I have just spent 6 months working in the MOD trying to support the fleet so have learnt its not as easy as armchair pundits ( and thats not aimed at anyone here) think. Colin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 It said on the BBC that the second of the new carriers, HMS Prince of Wales, would be "held in reserve". Rather a good name in that case... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dutch_Master Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 So even if we were to have a Falklands conflict Mk2 the ability to use a carrier whilst welcome maybe proved to be too dangerous in practice because you can bet someone somewhere decided it was a good idea to sell Argentina or any potential enemy for that matter the technology to take out carriers. And that's exactly what the Argentinians had back in the early 80's, purchased from the French, the Exocet missile... Only by shear luck the Argentinian fleet (sea and air) didn't attack the UK forces more often or in more vulnerable situations. Casualties would have been much higher then. The sinking of the Belgrano was an important message to the Argentinians and kept their fleet well out of reach of the battlefields. It may have tipped the battle in favour of the British... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foulounoux Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 It said on the BBC that the second of the new carriers, HMS Prince of Wales, would be "held in reserve". Rather a good name in that case... Ie Sold off at the earliest opportunity !! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold John B Posted April 28, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 28, 2011 Is it really so sad that there's no one left to fight? And the award for the first person to miss the irony hidden within the album titles goes to... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Bayford Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 What about the dock crane they got going? make a good dockside layout with ark royal Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerr Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 Carriers are irrelevant in todays warfare - hypersonic missiles will destroy them - too big a target and as Libya has proved we don't necessarily need them to mount operations. Not so sure about that If Argentina invaded the Falklands again (unlikely, but hypothetical), then an aircraft carrier of some kind would be required Equally, in the current Libya conflict the MoD have already stated they would have benefited from the Ark Royal, even in a support role Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foulounoux Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 Not so sure about that If Argentina invaded the Falklands again (unlikely, but hypothetical), then an aircraft carrier of some kind would be required Equally, in the current Libya conflict the MoD have already stated they would have benefited from the Ark Royal, even in a support role If Falklands kicked off again Argies would have access to the sort of weapons that render carriers a liability - someone would sell them to them . I am not saying we wouldn't need a carrier to do the job just that a carrier wouldn't be able to do the job it once did because the weapons they face have changed - we saw in the original conflict the damage an Exocet could do - thats 30yr old technology now imagine what modern missiles would do to a large target like a carrier. It wouldn't be he same kind of conflict as the 80's where a carrier was the cornerstone of the task force - for a start we couldn't put a task force together - no good sending a carrier down there with no cover And we would probably be prevented from fighting them by politics!! Certainly we wouldn't have the USA support we had then - and we didn't have much support from them then but at least they didn't stop us taking action. As to Libya and the Ark - there is a vocal minority who have asked for Ark but these are the same people who would like the navy to be as big as it once was - it isn't they just haven't realised that. Again it would be nice to have such support but certainly its not necessary for the air operations. Colin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
asmay2002 Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 Carriers are irrelevant in todays warfare - hypersonic missiles will destroy them - too big a target Complete rubbish. Firstly you have to find a carrier before you can target it. It's still a very small object to find in a very big bit of sea. On the other hand the detailed coordinates of land airbases such as RAF Mount Pleasant are freely available on the internet and just require you to input the target cordinates into your rocket. They're sitting ducks which can be hit with 1950s technology like Scuds. And what hypersonic misiles are you talking about? Very expensive misiles are only available to very few countries and even then in limited numbers - and they can be shot down or decoyed. Modern navies have to be able to do this to defend anything on the surface whether it is a carrier or a merchant vessel (which are often bigger, less manouevrable and with no defences of their own whatever). Finally the bigger a ship is the more robust it is in the event of a hit. Size works in your favour not against you. and as Libya has proved we don't necessarily need them to mount operations. Libya showed exactly the opposite. Whilst a handful of RAF Tornados and most of the RAF's tankers were taking most of a day to fly from Marham and back USMC Harriers flying from USS Kearsage got in several sorties. An opportunity for early decisive action was missed because of the low sortie rate and the fact that forward deploying land based air takes time and a lot of diplomatic negotiation. You can sail a ship anywhere you like in international waters at any time. Nuclear powered subs with cruise missiles will do the job. Nuclear subs are about the least cost effective way of firing cruise missiles. They don't carry very many and cost a fortune for what they deliver. The US do it mostly from surface ships for good reasons. I have just spent 6 months working in the MOD trying to support the fleet so have learnt its not as easy as armchair pundits ( and thats not aimed at anyone here) think. It isn't as easy as people with only 6 months experience think either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ron Ron Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 The Ark (this last one, not the previous one) like it's two sister ships Illustrious and invincible, wasn't really a proper aircraft carrier. It's original description was "Through Deck Cruiser", designed to carry the V/STOL Sea Harrier and a small number of helicopters. The theory being that they were smaller and cheaper to run than proper carriers and that as Britain's global exploits had declined with the end of the Empire, that land based aircraft would provide the main capability. After all this was the 1970's with the Iron Curtain well and truly in place and global activities beyond Europe were expected to be very limited in future. Boy! how the world has changed! There was a big fuss when the RN's last proper aircraft carriers, HMS Eagle and HM Ark Royal (the previous one in a long line of Ark's) were retired in the early 1970's, to be replaced with these relatively tiny ships with their limited capability. Nearly everybody was against it; the Navy in particular IIRC. The good news is that the two new carriers will be more conventional than the three ships that have just been retired and will now be able to operate a wider range of more conventional carrier based aircraft. The bad news is the absolutely hyper inflated cost! I'm sure there's no way on @*d's Earth that they really should cost £7 billion. IMHO it's an even bigger case of government defence procurement costs going overboard, than anything else we've seen in recent times. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Brinkly Posted April 28, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 28, 2011 If I bought Ark Royal, I'd like a couple of Type 42 Destroyers and perhaps a couple of Type 22 Frigates to act as 'escorts'! Then I could be a real Bond villain with my battle squadron and raid merchant shipping! All joking apart £7 billion does seem like quite a lot of money, but when the bee are quoting that it will cost each tax payer £233 odd, I think it's not bad value really, but then I love the Royal Navy so I am a bit bias! (Shame we will only get 6 Type 45 Destroyers, not the 12 which were planned, they would look superb in Line Ahead formation!) Nick. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium skipepsi Posted April 28, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 28, 2011 I think this might be a small clue 'MOD procurement process'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicester Thumper Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 shouldn't have got rid of anything anyway! still perfectly good for use.... the only reason it's going as well as a lot of other MOD type things is that an already sqeezed Armed force is being tightened even more... which to me seems backwards.... anyway will stop there, don't want this to spiral too much Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tricky-CRS Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 Disgrace, keeper for the Nation as a museum or part of Porsmouth historic bockyards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollywoodfoundry Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Can't be much left of the Ark, as it only contains an estimated 10K tons of steel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyB Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Not so sure about that If Argentina invaded the Falklands again (unlikely, but hypothetical), then an aircraft carrier of some kind would be required Equally, in the current Libya conflict the MoD have already stated they would have benefited from the Ark Royal, even in a support role From recollection it was Admiral Lord West who stated on the news last night that an aircraft carrier would come in handy for Libya. MoD and the armed forces are notoriously partisan. It would have been amazing to hear a navy man say anything different. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Wintle Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 It's original description was "Through Deck Cruiser", designed to carry the V/STOL Sea Harrier and a small number of helicopters. That term was a political one used to hide the fact that they really were aircraft carriers (albeit small ones). It was, in no way, a description of their intended role. If you are going to have aircraft carriers, they need to be properly equipped. One of the reasons that the Argentinians didn't mount a carrier strike was that they needed the weather to cooperate by providing at least 25kts of wind in addition to the speed of the carrier and the force of the catapult so that they could launch a fully loaded strike - otherwise they had to chose between carrying bombs or carrying enough fuel to get to the target. If the previous Ark Royal had been available then Exocets (and the Argentinian Air Force and Navy strike aircraft) would have been even less of a threat than they were. Phantoms and proper AEW for top cover and Buccaneers for strike would have been a much more effective force (which is taking nothing away from the achievements of the RN and RAF with what they had). Adrian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohmisterporter Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 £7 Billion for two aircraft carriers is peanuts compared to the cost of the aircraft they will carry. The carriers have a projected life of 40 years. In that time they will probably use several times their own cost in F-35s, Merlin helicopters, and AWACs planes of the type the USN uses. Common sense would say that the RN and USN ought to operate the same aircraft types, but unfortunately there are politicians involved in decision making. I don't want this thread to be locked for becoming political so I will stop now. Geoff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.