Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 JEB_Stuart wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Why?

If I remember correctly, the two carriers are part of the SDSR with the intention of transitioning the Royal Navy from a regional, North Atlantic, USSR containment vessel to a true, blue water navy. I for one welcome the change, and see it as a positive step for a European ally to shoulder part of the defense load with the US.

I'd welcome the change if we could break them from their, "one launch at a time, ski jump only," obsession.

Seriously, Brits, we're pretty damn good at carrier ops. Take a page or two from our book. We'll be over here doing four ship launches and night traps any time you'd like to learn how.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 purplefood wrote:
Depends what the helos are carrying...

Not really.

Anyone who thinks that boats are a thing of the past needs their heads examined. A nation with any intention to protect its interests or engage in any kind of overseas commerce needs a real navy. Without it you will always be beholden to other states. Its no coincidence that the rise of states as world powers is closely linked to their navy. Rome: wrested control of the seas from carthage and turned the Mediterranean into their lake, allowing grains shipments to flow uninterrupted to Rome. Britain: by degrees established Naval superiority over the much richer and more populous French (serious 18th century France had almost 5 times the population of britain) and eventually became a near global hegemon because of it. Today the US has command of the seas whcih allows them to defend their interests and enforce tbheir will where they please. While planes are missiles in this day and age are theoretically more powerful think about this. Planes and missiles are limited by range and fuel. For all their land based SSMs systems china has its purely a defensive force, they can defend their coast but not project that power. the US can bring that same amount of missiles to your backyard and keep them there for as long as they like. That's true power projection.

"For whosoever commands the sea commands the trade; whosoever commands the trade of the world commands the riches of the world, and consequently the world itself."

Sir Walter Raleigh

日本万歳！

万歳！万歳！万歳！

 Khornholio wrote:
日本万歳！

万歳！万歳！万歳！

Thanks for your contribution

edit: google translate must be off, did you type

"Japanese ten thousand years old!

Ten thousand years old! Ten thousand years old! Ten thousand years old"

double edit: now a different translator has given me this

"A Japanese banzai! A banzai!A banzai!A banzai"

So confused. Try english?

 motyak wrote:

 Khornholio wrote:
日本万歳！

万歳！万歳！万歳！

Thanks for your contribution

edit: google translate must be off, did you type

"Japanese ten thousand years old!

Ten thousand years old! Ten thousand years old! Ten thousand years old"

double edit: now a different translator has given me this

"A Japanese banzai! A banzai!A banzai!A banzai"

So confused. Try english?

Literally, "Japan banzai! Banzai! Banzai! Banzai!"
Less literally "Long live Japan. Huzzah! huzzah! huzzah!"

JEB_Stuart wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Why?

If I remember correctly, the two carriers are part of the SDSR with the intention of transitioning the Royal Navy from a regional, North Atlantic, USSR containment vessel to a true, blue water navy. I for one welcome the change, and see it as a positive step for a European ally to shoulder part of the defense load with the US.

The UK has had a Blue water navy since before we coined the term and continues to do so.

Seaward wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Why?

I'd welcome the change if we could break them from their, "one launch at a time, ski jump only," obsession.

Seriously, Brits, we're pretty damn good at carrier ops. Take a page or two from our book. We'll be over here doing four ship launches and night traps any time you'd like to learn how.

That would be the book that the Royal Navy wrote prior to WW2, then revised for all the modern equipment we invented to make carriers viable in the jet age that we then let you have/take. I don't remember us having any problem we couldn't handle on our own - how about you?

Like the man said look at the Queen Elizabeth Class that is in production - all we need now is a decent bird to fly off of it.

 notprop wrote:
That would be the book that the Royal Navy wrote prior to WW2, then revised for all the modern equipment we invented to make carriers viable in the jet age that we then let you have/take. I don't remember us having any problem we couldn't handle on our own - how about you?

Like the man said look at the Queen Elizabeth Class that is in production - all we need now is a decent bird to fly off of it.

Caaaaaaan't flyyyyyyyyyy aaaaaaaat niiiiiiiiiiiight. And STOBAR sucks.

To hard for the mighty USN or never had a Brit work it out for you?

If I remember right, the carriers we're building now are due to be finished 2015 but they won't get any planes until at least 2018 What's the fething point in having an aircraft carrier with no aircraft?

I may have the dates slightly off, but that's the gist of it

There was talk of borrowing planes from France or some such for use on the carriers IIRC

Planes in 2018, active service 2020.

Like I say, hush hush we don't want Gerry finding out till we have them. God forbid the yanks have to save our Azzs again - assuming they turn up on time anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuxhaven_Raid

Tibbsy wrote:
If I remember right, the carriers we're building now are due to be finished 2015 but they won't get any planes until at least 2018 What's the fething point in having an aircraft carrier with no aircraft?

I may have the dates slightly off, but that's the gist of it

They may be aircraft carriers, but they can still ram other ships

On the same day this was announced, the Philippines announced an upgrade to some of their destroyers as well. Interesting (strokes chin)

Tibbsy wrote:
If I remember right, the carriers we're building now are due to be finished 2015 but they won't get any planes until at least 2018 What's the fething point in having an aircraft carrier with no aircraft?

I may have the dates slightly off, but that's the gist of it

As someone once pointed out, no ship can survive a direct hit from a parliament-class budget cutter!
We could be lucky to own both hulls by the time the planes are ready. I wonder if it's worth looking into the French navalised Rafales as a stop gap measure - iirc India have chosen that option so it might be worth keeping tabs on that.

 RossDas wrote:

Tibbsy wrote:
If I remember right, the carriers we're building now are due to be finished 2015 but they won't get any planes until at least 2018 What's the fething point in having an aircraft carrier with no aircraft?

I may have the dates slightly off, but that's the gist of it

As someone once pointed out, no ship can survive a direct hit from a parliament-class budget cutter!
We could be lucky to own both hulls by the time the planes are ready. I wonder if it's worth looking into the French navalised Rafales as a stop gap measure - iirc India have chosen that option so it might be worth keeping tabs on that.

Maybe one of the Brits here could explain why your parliament seems so set on budget cutting your military out of existence?

 EmilCrane wrote:

 RossDas wrote:

Tibbsy wrote:
If I remember right, the carriers we're building now are due to be finished 2015 but they won't get any planes until at least 2018 What's the fething point in having an aircraft carrier with no aircraft?

I may have the dates slightly off, but that's the gist of it

As someone once pointed out, no ship can survive a direct hit from a parliament-class budget cutter!
We could be lucky to own both hulls by the time the planes are ready. I wonder if it's worth looking into the French navalised Rafales as a stop gap measure - iirc India have chosen that option so it might be worth keeping tabs on that.

Maybe one of the Brits here could explain why your parliament seems so set on budget cutting your military out of existence?

They want to budget cut everything out of existence But I think it's mainly because the military is such a big, easy target for budget cuts.

They don't have any money to pay for allot of blokes and expensive kit to stand about and even less money or desire for them to actually use it.

Its nothing new though, the MoD budget get hit every time there is a recession or prolonged period of peace.

Its sensible but a shame as the MoD does have some very cool stuff!

 EmilCrane wrote:

 RossDas wrote:

Tibbsy wrote:
If I remember right, the carriers we're building now are due to be finished 2015 but they won't get any planes until at least 2018 What's the fething point in having an aircraft carrier with no aircraft?

I may have the dates slightly off, but that's the gist of it

As someone once pointed out, no ship can survive a direct hit from a parliament-class budget cutter!
We could be lucky to own both hulls by the time the planes are ready. I wonder if it's worth looking into the French navalised Rafales as a stop gap measure - iirc India have chosen that option so it might be worth keeping tabs on that.

Maybe one of the Brits here could explain why your parliament seems so set on budget cutting your military out of existence?

Well I can't speak for those wielding the proverbial axe, but perhaps since we're practically joined at the hip to the military powerhouse that is US they feel they can neglect our armed forces when difficult budget decisions are being made.
As an British islander and fan of sea power I am bias towards strengthening the Royal Navy, however since it's the army that is generally being put in harms way I feel we should either give them whatever support they need or otherwise stop meddling overseas.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
They may be aircraft carriers, but they can still ram other ships

Orky tactics!

I wonder what "Shoot the fighty stuff and fight the shooty stuff" is in latin. It'd be a great new motto for the RN.

 George Spiggott wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
They may be aircraft carriers, but they can still ram other ships

Orky tactics!

I wonder what "Shoot the fighty stuff and fight the shooty stuff" is in latin. It'd be a great new motto for the RN.

According to Google Translate
Bellandum bellum dirigentes et mitterent effercio effercio

 George Spiggott wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
They may be aircraft carriers, but they can still ram other ships

Orky tactics!

I wonder what "Shoot the fighty stuff and fight the shooty stuff" is in latin. It'd be a great new motto for the RN.

According to good ol' Google translate:

Sagíttent in fighty effercio, pugnare shooty effercio.

I don't think it works so well, personally Although maybe someone who can actually speak Latin will translate it better

EDIT: Just tried it a second time and got Et expugnavit shooty effercio effercio mitterent fighty.

Methinks Google translate is making gak up

Well this thread was dissapointing. I was fully expecting the Yamato Cruiser MK.II. WHERE ARE MY SCI-FI WEAPONS?!

 EmilCrane wrote:
Anyone who thinks that boats are a thing of the past needs their heads examined. A nation with any intention to protect its interests or engage in any kind of overseas commerce needs a real navy. Without it you will always be beholden to other states. Its no coincidence that the rise of states as world powers is closely linked to their navy. Rome: wrested control of the seas from carthage and turned the Mediterranean into their lake, allowing grains shipments to flow uninterrupted to Rome. Britain: by degrees established Naval superiority over the much richer and more populous French (serious 18th century France had almost 5 times the population of britain) and eventually became a near global hegemon because of it. Today the US has command of the seas whcih allows them to defend their interests and enforce tbheir will where they please. While planes are missiles in this day and age are theoretically more powerful think about this. Planes and missiles are limited by range and fuel. For all their land based SSMs systems china has its purely a defensive force, they can defend their coast but not project that power. the US can bring that same amount of missiles to your backyard and keep them there for as long as they like. That's true power projection.

"For whosoever commands the sea commands the trade; whosoever commands the trade of the world commands the riches of the world, and consequently the world itself."

Sir Walter Raleigh

"Aircraft sink boats."
-That Nimitz guy


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tibbsy wrote:
If I remember right, the carriers we're building now are due to be finished 2015 but they won't get any planes until at least 2018 What's the fething point in having an aircraft carrier with no aircraft?

I may have the dates slightly off, but that's the gist of it

Golf course. Come on, I thought you guys were British.

 notprop wrote:
To hard for the mighty USN or never had a Brit work it out for you?

I meant the Brits can't do it.

The USN's the only navy in the world that routinely night traps. The French and the Brazilians got on the right track with CATOBAR boats, but they've still got a long way to go before they're truly a sea-air power.

Ski jumping just ain't the way to do it, for a variety of reasons. Amphib carriers like the Japanese have apparently decided on are great for certain things, but not for real power projection.

 EmilCrane wrote:

 RossDas wrote:

Tibbsy wrote:
If I remember right, the carriers we're building now are due to be finished 2015 but they won't get any planes until at least 2018 What's the fething point in having an aircraft carrier with no aircraft?

I may have the dates slightly off, but that's the gist of it

As someone once pointed out, no ship can survive a direct hit from a parliament-class budget cutter!
We could be lucky to own both hulls by the time the planes are ready. I wonder if it's worth looking into the French navalised Rafales as a stop gap measure - iirc India have chosen that option so it might be worth keeping tabs on that.

Maybe one of the Brits here could explain why your parliament seems so set on budget cutting your military out of existence?

The matter admits of no possible rational explanation.

 RossDas wrote:
We could be lucky to own both hulls by the time the planes are ready. I wonder if it's worth looking into the French navalised Rafales as a stop gap measure - iirc India have chosen that option so it might be worth keeping tabs on that.

They've flown off our boats a couple times, and they're not bad fighters, but I wouldn't think so. While they can handle a STOBAR deck, they're not truly designed for it.

 notprop wrote:
Planes in 2018, active service 2020.

Like I say, hush hush we don't want Gerry finding out till we have them. God forbid the yanks have to save our Azzs again - assuming they turn up on time anyway.

*cough* Ahem...

Here's an interesting thought regarding this new Japanese ship: in the event of a major change in their maritime self defence policy, what if it were possible to refit her extending the runway with an angled flight deck and ski-jump, allowing her to cater for fighter jets? That would represent a nice piece of forward planning by Japan ahead of indigenous 65,000 tonners rolling off the yards, and giving them a functional escort carrier and some experience in carrier ops in the meantime.

Ain't big enough.

Yet larger than the preceding Hyuga class. I'm certainly no expert, but if the reported near 250m length is correct then that would put this new ship as being longer than both the Invincible class escort carrier, and HMS Hermes, the latter still being operated by the Indian navy.

Of course it could just be nothing more than a large copter-carrier with extra space for ground force projection.