Hms Queen Elizabeth

[DB]

Only if they're still RN bases.

 

However, Whilst there were dockyards, there were also bases in and around them with the actual HMS names.

[shep854]

Only if they're still RN bases.

 

However, Whilst there were dockyards, there were also bases in and around them with the actual HMS names.

Thanks

[Anixtu]

A dockyard itself would not be HMS Anything. Formerly Rosyth Dockyard and latterly HMNB Rosyth. The associated naval unit was HMS Cochrane. Sailors have to be attached to a ship, and often the name came from a hulk used in the base.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I remember when my mother was doing ancestry, she found a relative had been during WW1 in 'HMS Victory', which as it turned out was a shore based establishment at the time (wiki said there were as many as 8).

[Stuart Galbraith]

This documentary was on Sunday night, first part of three on the commissioning of HMS Queen Elizabeth. Interesting to compare back to back to 'Sailor' the documentary of the RN's last big Carrier, HMS Ark Royal. The accommodation at least looks light year's ahead.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G49DoxJL0s

Edited April 17, 2018 by Stuart Galbraith

[rmgill]

Accommodations come first. Weapons fit though...?

[Stuart Galbraith]

Lets get this straight, you are actually complaining about one of your major allies building two major surface assets? Really?

[Harold Jones]

Ask the Japanese about how well putting the crew last worked out.

[rmgill]

It's more a quibble at the capabilities being behind comforts. Don't get me wrong, having all your sailor stuffed into barely habitable spaces with no head room hanging from hammocks is less than ideal. There's the question of how much capability got built in for offensive and defensive systems vs the comfort. If it doesn't have enough offensive/defense kit, it's not going to be very comfortable if it's sunk is it?


I think it's a bloody tragedy that the UK is having to try to scrape up pennies to build 2 carriers which don't even have aircraft to fly off them when they used to have a whole fleet of them and supporting ships.

Edited April 18, 2018 by rmgill

[DougRichards]

It's more a quibble at the capabilities being behind comforts. Don't get me wrong, having all your sailor stuffed into barely habitable spaces with no head room hanging from hammocks is less than ideal. There's the question of how much capability got built in for offensive and defensive systems vs the comfort. If it doesn't have enough offensive/defense kit, it's not going to be very comfortable if it's sunk is it?

 

 

I think it's a bloody tragedy that the UK is having to try to scrape up pennies to build 2 carriers which don't even have aircraft to fly off them when they used to have a whole fleet of them and supporting ships.

 

Remember that Britain is actually not a large country, and no longer has an empire to pay the cost of having a large fleet of ships.

[rmgill]

The US has an $18.5 Trillion GDP. The UK is currently, $2.6 Trillion.

Scaling that, the UK should be able to afford a Navy 1/7th the size of the USN. Form a coalition navy with the Commonwealth nations. ie the bits of the Empire.

Canada's GDP is $1.5 trillion.
Australia is 1.2 Trillion.

There's another ~7th. It works out to being able to having a Navy that's a 1/3rd the size of the USN. So, what....4 carriers, 4 gator carriers support ships, etc. The priority was not having a navy. The country can afford it. It's whether the nations in question desire the existence of such a capability.

[shep854]

Britain knows she can count on the US Navy, which is fine unless we are caught up in crises elsewhere--remember, we are pretty stretched, too. A good goal for the UK would be securing the Atlantic with minimal US assistance. She may not be a world empire, but as an island, the essentials still have to come by sea, the Atlantic specifically.

[JasonJ]

The US has an $18.5 Trillion GDP. The UK is currently, $2.6 Trillion.

Scaling that, the UK should be able to afford a Navy 1/7th the size of the USN. Form a coalition navy with the Commonwealth nations. ie the bits of the Empire.

Canada's GDP is $1.5 trillion.

Australia is 1.2 Trillion.

There's another ~7th. It works out to being able to having a Navy that's a 1/3rd the size of the USN. So, what....4 carriers, 4 gator carriers support ships, etc. The priority was not having a navy. The country can afford it. It's whether the nations in question desire the existence of such a capability.

I won't go as far as saying that the UK is not be able to manage a larger fleet at their current budget, but I think it is not as simple in just ratio of GDP. One point is that very large economies have greater purchasing power combined with larger orders. So the factor of scale helps reduce unit costs with more orders. And 1,500 F-35s has a considerable lower unit cost than 150 F-35s. The same dynamic is surely true with naval vessels. Another point is that a very large economy is able to afford all the parts associated with the final product including all the associated R&D and testing for all parts, munitions, energy, etc. Smaller economies are less likely to have all of these supply lines all ready in place and thus would have to import the parts. That makes it difficult for the defense related company's in smaller economies to compete on the world stage among other defense related economies from bigger countries or countries with weak currency that makes exports competitive (Russia).

[Deltic]

Ask the Japanese about how well putting the crew last worked out.

 

Could you give a clue about their issues?

[Stuart Galbraith]

In fairness, WW2 RN ships were not exactly that great either. I read somewhere the RN crew were heady with excitement over the fittings from some of the US Supplied Escort Carriers. Namely the Laundry.

 

Look, Britain is under performing for its size, clearly. But before we write it off, lets remember what it has to do. its a nuclear power, and has to pay its share of developing the American nuclear deterrent. It has to develop and keep 8 SSN's in the fleet. It has to keep 19 warships available (not necessarily in service) it has to keep a brigade available for deployment in Europe AND buy a new generation of equipment including an MPA after 2 decades of neglect by a series of Governments. It has to fund the fix to the Daring class, at long last underway, but unlikely to be cheap. Id suggest the problem is not funding on social services thats the real issue, though it doesnt help. The real issue is, terrorist threat notwithstanding, we are surrounded by friends and find it hard to get over the fact we dont seem likely to be in threat from someone. An attitude that should have changed a decade ago, but what the hell, old habits die hard dont they. After Salisbury, I think they have, the problem is finding the money for it. Brexit has not helped any.

 

You are quite right though Jason. I might add, British Prime Ministers have made the problem worse than it needed to be. Cameron (Harrier murderer) actually didnt like the idea of a VSTOL carrier. So he started on a project to have the QE's completed as conventional carrier. So they did a renegotiation with the Americanss to get a greater workshare on the Naval fighter variant the F35C. Unfortunately, it turned out converting the ship to a conventional carrier was not quite as easy as envisaged, not least because it required the new US electric catapult system which did not seem to be on the table. So they went back to the F35B with as little fanfare as they could generate (considerably less than the fanfare of their new decision) after costing the MOD several million pounds just doing the design study and the renegotiation. Im not clear quite how much it was, but Im sure its not helped the buy of the F35 fleet.

 

And we still havent made our minds up fully yet. This article is 2 years old, but there are still debates whether we will or not actually get more than 48 B models. It really depends up to the Defence Secretary and his John Reese style powers of persuasion.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/raf-hints-that-uk-could-still-opt-for-mixed-f-35-fle-427136/

Edited April 19, 2018 by Stuart Galbraith

[DB]

One of the budget holes is that f-35 purchasing cost badis asdumes a 1.55 exchange rate.

 

That rate was very high. It's been much worse recently, but is back up to 1.43 in the last week. That's still a 10% shortfall.

Edited April 19, 2018 by DB

[Stuart Galbraith]

In retrospect its a shame we didnt take up BAE's option on a next generation Harrier in the mid 1980's, but its hard to see it would have had half the capabilities of the F35B. And it would probably have meant vacating any position in Eurofighter.

 

I think it will work out,Its a capability we clearly need, and I think that is going to end up driving the decision making not the cost. Call it blind optimism if you will, but one has to believe in something.

Edited April 19, 2018 by Stuart Galbraith

[DB]

If we committed 3% of gdp to defence, or even excluded pensions, we'd be in a far better position... To waste money on procurement.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Im all for cutting pensions out the defence budget. In fact I think it purely slight of hand to include it IN the defence budget. Unless we include the Chelsea pensioners as local defence volunteers anyway.

 

I think we have to bite the bullet and go to three percent. Ive been thinking that since Crimea personally.

[DougRichards]

In retrospect its a shame we didnt take up BAE's option on a next generation Harrier in the mid 1980's, but its hard to see it would have had half the capabilities of the F35B. And it would probably have meant vacating any position in Eurofighter.

 

I think it will work out,Its a capability we clearly need, and I think that is going to end up driving the decision making not the cost. Call it blind optimism if you will, but one has to believe in something.

 

Really, what the RAF needs is to contact the kin of Gerry Anderson and get the blueprints of the Angel Interceptor

 

http://www.militarymodelling.com/news/article/the-1-72-angel-interceptor-from-airfix/8792

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Ive been thinking Thunderbird 2 would be ideal for our strategic airlift purposes.

 

 

Anyway, part 2 of the documentary screening Sunday night, Ill link to a copy of it as soon as it upped.

Edited April 19, 2018 by Stuart Galbraith

[rmgill]

I won't go as far as saying that the UK is not be able to manage a larger fleet at their current budget, but I think it is not as simple in just ratio of GDP. One point is that very large economies have greater purchasing power combined with larger orders. So the factor of scale helps reduce unit costs with more orders. And 1,500 F-35s has a considerable lower unit cost than 150 F-35s. The same dynamic is surely true with naval vessels. Another point is that a very large economy is able to afford all the parts associated with the final product including all the associated R&D and testing for all parts, munitions, energy, etc. Smaller economies are less likely to have all of these supply lines all ready in place and thus would have to import the parts. That makes it difficult for the defense related company's in smaller economies to compete on the world stage among other defense related economies from bigger countries or countries with weak currency that makes exports competitive (Russia).

 

So buy the systems from the colonies/dominions/allies.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well much as im fond of the Commonwealth, I have to reflect on the fact that its military potential is limited. Yes, once upon a time the Commonwealth was a force to be reckoned with. There was a commonwealth armoured division made up of Kiwis and Australians (which is why the NZ's took the Unusual step of buying Centurion). Im sure there is cooperation in intelligence sharing, the occasional exchange and special forces involvement, but apart from that its dead.

 

And as far as military equipment, who? South Africa was a force to be reckoned with in Artillery, but that was 25 years ago. Their attack helicopter never got any orders and it stalled. Australia, New Zealand and Canada in most designs buy off the peg now, mainly from the united states. There is very little indigenous capability in any of them.

 

Get Australia, Canada and New Zealand together to develop a weapon system like a fighter plane, you could be lucky to push 300 copies. And that's before the US Defense industry starts calling foul and tries to pull the rug out from it, like the did with the Avro Arrow.

 

Id like to see it change, but I dont see it.

Edited April 19, 2018 by Stuart Galbraith

[Colin]

Canada is considering the Type 26 for it's CSC proposal. The only useful piece of military hardware we make now is the LAV, and it appears not to be on the MOD wishlist. We have a number of smaller companies producing software and Colt Canada with it's AR rifles.

[rmgill]

 

Id like to see it change, but I dont see it.

Opening the wallet comes first. Choosing what to buy comes second.

 

There's also US systems. Israeli systems. Singaporean kit. Etc.