quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

carbon fibre death providers???

I still don't understand the reference. And I'm sure that you can operate F-35B's (the RN/USMC model with the lift engines) off the Invincibles. Probably not many, as compared with say a LHA or LHD (on which it's palned to base 20). I'll guess the the Invincibles would probably carry 8-10, a similar number to the Harriers they usually carry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

carbon fibre death providers???

I still don't understand the reference. And I'm sure that you can operate F-35B's (the RN/USMC model with the lift engines) off the Invincibles. Probably not many, as compared with say a LHA or LHD (on which it's palned to base 20). I'll guess the the Invincibles would probably carry 8-10, a similar number to the Harriers they usually carry.

Harrier GR.7 is largely made from carbon fibre. And it bombs people. [:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

carbon fibre death providers???

I still don't understand the reference. And I'm sure that you can operate F-35B's (the RN/USMC model with the lift engines) off the Invincibles. Probably not many, as compared with say a LHA or LHD (on which it's palned to base 20). I'll guess the the Invincibles would probably carry 8-10, a similar number to the Harriers they usually carry.

Harrier GR.7 is largely made from carbon fibre. And it bombs people. [:)]

Thank you. I understand. And then I assume the VC-10 is the Aluminium Flying Petrol Station? [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

carbon fibre death providers???

I still don't understand the reference. And I'm sure that you can operate F-35B's (the RN/USMC model with the lift engines) off the Invincibles. Probably not many, as compared with say a LHA or LHD (on which it's palned to base 20). I'll guess the the Invincibles would probably carry 8-10, a similar number to the Harriers they usually carry.

Harrier GR.7 is largely made from carbon fibre. And it bombs people. [:)]

Thank you. I understand. And then I assume the VC-10 is the Aluminium Flying Petrol Station? [:D]

There are several names for the '10. None of them suitable for a family forum [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Found this comparison between different carriers:

[image]local://upfiles/7543/2650BCF1AA354B4FABD20F638491D010.jpg[/image]

They'll be the largest outside the US Navy. Ugly though. Also, with a ski-jump fitted how are they going to park the front few jets on the deck? [&:]

[image]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/images/cvf-thales-2005-stovl-image1.jpg[/image]

They could always get rid of the ramp, replace it with catapults and arresting gear and buy the USN version of the F-35 , instead of the RN/USMC vesion . That would give them all-around superior performance. [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


True, but the RN's not building many battleships these days , and previously those names did belong to ships of the line.

I also wonder how the EU feels about it's member states having ship types with agressive sounding names like "destroyers"? I wonder if the European navies will re-classify such ships as "Large Frigates" or "Large Escorts" . Sort of like "Through-decked cruisers".

**** 'em [image]http://www.e-goat.co.uk/forums/images/smilies/airforce/PDT_Xtremez_32.gif[/image]

I've heard all sorts of rumours about these carriers, mostly so bloody stupid they're unbelievable. We'll be sharing the actual carriers with the Froggies for example [:D][X(] How does that work? They run the mess decks while we run the fighting bits? [8|][:D]

There'll be JSF when QE enters service though, it'll be the carbon fibre death providers for a while. Hopefully I'll dodge that, Floggin the Oggin is not for me [image]http://www.e-goat.co.uk/forums/images/smilies/airforce/PDT_Xtremez_09.gif[/image]

As an aside, has anyone else noticed how ugly ships are getting these days?

[image]http://www.defencetalk.com/news/uploads/1/destroyer-type-45-uknavy_1.jpg[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


Yeah , but from a radar-cross-section point of view, they are beautiful. Maybe I have no poetry in my soul, but I'd rather sail in a less attractive , but stealthy ship than a beautiful ships that's also a missile magnet! I'd love to the the Sea-wraithe proto-type put into service.


carbon fibre death providers???

Harriers

quote:


And I must say , that having the French run the mess decks isn't a bad idea. As long the Brit's run the ships pub!

I thought that the French were going to simply buy a sistership instead of riding on yours? [&:]

That is the plan. There was a bizarre rumour a while back that we would be sharing the actual ships [8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

They could always get rid of the ramp, replace it with catapults and arresting gear and buy the USN version of the F-35 , instead of the RN/USMC vesion . That would give them all-around superior performance. [:D]

They are being built for catapults and arrestor gear, but not with them. IIRC they are being built as STOVL carriers, but will later be converted to a more conventional operation. I think the French design will have cats and wires.

EDIT: I wonder if it'll be possible to operate F-35s off of the Invincibles should they stay around for a bit longer? [&:]

quote:

The French built De Gaulle too small and it is causing problems. They are struggling to afford another CV, which is where the deck share rumour comes in. They would need a CTOL configured ship though...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve Yeah , but from a radar-cross-section point of view, they are beautiful. Maybe I have no poetry in my soul, but I'd rather sail in a less attractive , but stealthy ship than a beautiful ships that's also a missile magnet! I'd love to the the Sea-wraithe proto-type put into service. carbon fibre death providers???

Harriers

quote:

And I must say , that having the French run the mess decks isn't a bad idea. As long the Brit's run the ships pub! I thought that the French were going to simply buy a sistership instead of riding on yours? [&:]

That is the plan. There was a bizarre rumour a while back that we would be sharing the actual ships [8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

They could always get rid of the ramp, replace it with catapults and arresting gear and buy the USN version of the F-35 , instead of the RN/USMC vesion . That would give them all-around superior performance. [:D]

They are being built for catapults and arrestor gear, but not with them. IIRC they are being built as STOVL carriers, but will later be converted to a more conventional operation. I think the French design will have cats and wires.

EDIT: I wonder if it'll be possible to operate F-35s off of the Invincibles should they stay around for a bit longer? [&:]

Possibly, but the lifts might not be big enough. The Invincibles have age issues too. I think buying these without enough escorts and without taking care of the retention problem is pure folly. If we are going to have a Navy with grown-up CVs, we'll need to have everything else to match!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve They could always get rid of the ramp, replace it with catapults and arresting gear and buy the USN version of the F-35 , instead of the RN/USMC vesion . That would give them all-around superior performance. [:D]

They are being built for catapults and arrestor gear, but not with them. IIRC they are being built as STOVL carriers, but will later be converted to a more conventional operation. I think the French design will have cats and wires. EDIT: I wonder if it'll be possible to operate F-35s off of the Invincibles should they stay around for a bit longer? [&:]

quote:

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


True, but the RN's not building many battleships these days , and previously those names did belong to ships of the line.

I also wonder how the EU feels about it's member states having ship types with agressive sounding names like "destroyers"? I wonder if the European navies will re-classify such ships as "Large Frigates" or "Large Escorts" . Sort of like "Through-decked cruisers".

**** 'em [image]http://www.e-goat.co.uk/forums/images/smilies/airforce/PDT_Xtremez_32.gif[/image]

I've heard all sorts of rumours about these carriers, mostly so bloody stupid they're unbelievable. We'll be sharing the actual carriers with the Froggies for example [:D][X(] How does that work? They run the mess decks while we run the fighting bits? [8|][:D]

There'll be JSF when QE enters service though, it'll be the carbon fibre death providers for a while. Hopefully I'll dodge that, Floggin the Oggin is not for me [image]http://www.e-goat.co.uk/forums/images/smilies/airforce/PDT_Xtremez_09.gif[/image]

As an aside, has anyone else noticed how ugly ships are getting these days?

[image]http://www.defencetalk.com/news/uploads/1/destroyer-type-45-uknavy_1.jpg[/image]

The Darings are a complete ****up. They are top heavy and the box launcher for the main armament is too small and not flush. To make matters worse, the launcher we are buying lacks the flexibility of the launcher that the aother ASTER nations will use. Theirs will handle the long range version as well, while ours will only take the medium range missile. The main gun is out of date too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve They could always get rid of the ramp, replace it with catapults and arresting gear and buy the USN version of the F-35 , instead of the RN/USMC vesion . That would give them all-around superior performance. [:D]

They are being built for catapults and arrestor gear, but not with them. IIRC they are being built as STOVL carriers, but will later be converted to a more conventional operation. I think the French design will have cats and wires. EDIT: I wonder if it'll be possible to operate F-35s off of the Invincibles should they stay around for a bit longer? [&:]

Possibly, but the lifts might not be big enough. The Invincibles have age issues too. I think buying these without enough escorts and without taking care of the retention problem is pure folly. If we are going to have a Navy with grown-up CVs, we'll need to have everything else to match!

Were the elevators too small, they might consider adding a deck edge or stern elevator.

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG Tithe... [&o]

quote:

ORIGINAL: bobogoboom

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

They could always get rid of the ramp, replace it with catapults and arresting gear and buy the USN version of the F-35 , instead of the RN/USMC vesion . That would give them all-around superior performance. [:D]

They are being built for catapults and arrestor gear, but not with them. IIRC they are being built as STOVL carriers, but will later be converted to a more conventional operation. I think the French design will have cats and wires.

EDIT: I wonder if it'll be possible to operate F-35s off of the Invincibles should they stay around for a bit longer? [&:]

Possibly, but the lifts might not be big enough. The Invincibles have age issues too. I think buying these without enough escorts and without taking care of the retention problem is pure folly. If we are going to have a Navy with grown-up CVs, we'll need to have everything else to match!

Were the elevators too small, they might consider adding a deck edge or stern elevator.

prob was cramming to much complex machinery into to tight of a space the damn things break down all the time and are impossible to fix. plus the reactor has been an unmitigated disaster. plus the ship will struggle to keep a good compliment of aircraft onboard as the size of the airframes grow. it been a totoal disaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


I thought he said he was talking about De Gaulle.....[&:]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


It's bobo....confusion is the order of the day......heck, this is the guy that forgets to take pants to bars.......[:'(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: bobogoboom

I would like correct my above statement it wasn't the shaft that was the problem it was the props themselves