By: Witcha
- 16th July 2010 at 19:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You did not get a single concept of my reasoning, man about Pakistan and India's matter. You are making your own conclusions bending at your will what i said. In this way, you could pretty much make me say anything.
Your 'reasoning' was pretty transparent, and here you're merely continuing your 'attack the arguer' idealogy. The PAF thread should be updated with the new F-16s in a few days time. Don't miss it, after all you couldn't bear to see a single plane axed instead of Indian economic aid.
By: Liger30
- 17th July 2010 at 10:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Your 'reasoning' was pretty transparent, and here you're merely continuing your 'attack the arguer' idealogy. The PAF thread should be updated with the new F-16s in a few days time. Don't miss it, after all you couldn't bear to see a single plane axed instead of Indian economic aid.
Are you still going on? Gods, you are annoying for real.
Luckily, there's already been someone in the conservative government calling for a reduction of aid given to India, which means that they saw the absurd of giving money to a superpower with a space program without getting any advantage in exchange.
For the people like you who did not get it yet, the Afghanistan operation we are all tangled in, will be ultimately won or lost in the South-Afghanistan/North-Pakistan region, teh sanctuary of talibans and the red-alert area, since it reaches all the way close to Pakistani nuclear facilities.
Aid to Pakistan is strategically relevant because of this simple fact. If you have evidence of the money of the aid being used for other military programs unrelated to the struggle in northern-pakistan, i could even believe it, pretty easily in fact. But it does not change the fact that we need Pakistan to work in the fight against talibans, and we unfortunately have to pay in some way for it.
As to budget aid, what has no strategic relevance for me should be immediately cut, in this times of crisis. When you have problems at home, you have to fix them before you can play nurse with the world.
If you still don't get it, cut it short anyway. Because you have grown annoying for real. And you keep forcing people to go out of topic. End it once and for all.
"Bilateral trade between the UK and India was worth £12bn in 2008 and this is likely to increase to almost £30bn by 2015. Meanwhile, the value of Indian investment in the UK is estimated to be £9bn"
Can we move on from the absurd question of the value of generating good will with a major trading partner?.
By: Witcha
- 17th July 2010 at 15:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Are you still going on? Gods, you are annoying for real.
Luckily, there's already been someone in the conservative government calling for a reduction of aid given to India, which means that they saw the absurd of giving money to a superpower with a space program without getting any advantage in exchange.
For the people like you who did not get it yet, the Afghanistan operation we are all tangled in, will be ultimately won or lost in the South-Afghanistan/North-Pakistan region, teh sanctuary of talibans and the red-alert area, since it reaches all the way close to Pakistani nuclear facilities.
Aid to Pakistan is strategically relevant because of this simple fact. If you have evidence of the money of the aid being used for other military programs unrelated to the struggle in northern-pakistan, i could even believe it, pretty easily in fact. But it does not change the fact that we need Pakistan to work in the fight against talibans, and we unfortunately have to pay in some way for it.
As to budget aid, what has no strategic relevance for me should be immediately cut, in this times of crisis. When you have problems at home, you have to fix them before you can play nurse with the world.
If you still don't get it, cut it short anyway. Because you have grown annoying for real. And you keep forcing people to go out of topic. End it once and for all.
You keep rambling and rambling without getting the message that was clear several posts ago; or more likely you realised how fundamentally flawed your main argument is and are ignoring it out of pride. Either way I'm done with you. I'll just give you this one line to think about:
If you cut 4 F-16s out of Pakistan's military aid package they'd still be happy, there would be no difference whatsoever to the Taliban cooperation(since F-16s aren't going to be deployed there anyway), and you would free up that 250 million you're so desperate for, without any harm done to needy people in any country.
Returning to the thread, are there any plans to include armor plating on the CVF or do they remain dropped due to cost? At that size it'd be a shame if they didn't use some of the space to ensure it didn't sink with one AshM.
By: kev 99
- 17th July 2010 at 16:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Returning to the thread, are there any plans to include armor plating on the CVF or do they remain dropped due to cost? At that size it'd be a shame if they didn't use some of the space to ensure it didn't sink with one AshM.
You can't sink a warship that size with one AshM unless it's got a nuclear warhead or it's exceptionally badly designed.
By: Liger30
- 17th July 2010 at 20:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You keep rambling and rambling without getting the message that was clear several posts ago; or more likely you realised how fundamentally flawed your main argument is and are ignoring it out of pride. Either way I'm done with you. I'll just give you this one line to think about:
If you cut 4 F-16s out of Pakistan's military aid package they'd still be happy, there would be no difference whatsoever to the Taliban cooperation(since F-16s aren't going to be deployed there anyway), and you would free up that 250 million you're so desperate for, without any harm done to needy people in any country.
Returning to the thread, are there any plans to include armor plating on the CVF or do they remain dropped due to cost? At that size it'd be a shame if they didn't use some of the space to ensure it didn't sink with one AshM.
The F16 you ramble about aren't Uk related to start with. It is a contract in place between Pakistan and USA that dates back to 2006 and builds on even older "Peace Gate III" and IV agreements in the late 80' and in the 90' that saw Pakistan ordering F16 fighter planes but never got them because US embargoed the country because of its nuclear program.
Even assuming they pay the F16 now with the same money the US give them in military aid (and it is higly unlikely that the US are SO stupid to seek no evidence of the use that Pakistan makes of its aid), the UK has nothing to say about it. The UK is not giving them Typhoons.
If you are trying to say that UK paid those F16, you are most likely wrong. If the government is stupid enough to hand them money without checking how it is indeed used, it is its own stupidity it must tackle.
And ultimately, Pakistan fights the talibans in the border region. It does what we need it to do, and this justifies the aid.
India could very well CUT A FEW OF ITS OWN PLANES and sustain its own people, instead of requiring the UK to cut its own investments to help indian villagers.
By: Grim901
- 17th July 2010 at 21:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F16 you ramble about aren't Uk related to start with. It is a contract in place between Pakistan and USA that dates back to 2006 and builds on even older "Peace Gate III" and IV agreements in the late 80' and in the 90' that saw Pakistan ordering F16 fighter planes but never got them because US embargoed the country because of its nuclear program.
Even assuming they pay the F16 now with the same money the US give them in military aid (and it is higly unlikely that the US are SO stupid to seek no evidence of the use that Pakistan makes of its aid), the UK has nothing to say about it. The UK is not giving them Typhoons.
If you are trying to say that UK paid those F16, you are most likely wrong. If the government is stupid enough to hand them money without checking how it is indeed used, it is its own stupidity it must tackle.
And ultimately, Pakistan fights the talibans in the border region. It does what we need it to do, and this justifies the aid.
India could very well CUT A FEW OF ITS OWN PLANES and sustain its own people, instead of requiring the UK to cut its own investments to help indian villagers.
End.
Right, just shut up now. Others in the thread had finally managed to move on. I'm sick of having to sift through this argument to find posts on topic. If you want to carry on take it to PMs or another forum.
Jesus this board needs more moderators.
Back to topic: Interesting on the armour front. Are all our front line warships armoured to some degree still?
By: Liger30
- 17th July 2010 at 21:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Right, just shut up now. Others in the thread had finally managed to move on. I'm sick of having to sift through this argument to find posts on topic. If you want to carry on take it to PMs or another forum.
Jesus this board needs more moderators.
Back to topic: Interesting on the armour front. Are all our front line warships armoured to some degree still?
Sorry, wasn't my intention to see it drag this long. But i couldn't just let go.
Anyway, modern warships are normally not armored. I doubt Type 23 have "armor", in fact, and even Type 45 does not have armor in the literal sense of the word. There are compartments and other passive-protection features. The SURVIVE software mainly determines how to place instrumentations, locals and machinery to create the safest and most resistant structure possible.
Anyway, from that article the CVFs seem to have some degree of armor, probably protecting the vulnerable fuel and weapon storage locals, and probably designed more to protect against slivers and blasts than from hits.
However, Navy Matters had a page about survivability and protection of the ships, where it was stated that most, if not all, the active protection (kevlar armor plates and such) had been dropped as a cost saving measure, and the safety of the ships based mostly on passive-protection and survivability measures.
With details being classified (wisely) it is hard to tell where armor may be, and what effective consistence it could have.
By: pjhydro
- 17th July 2010 at 22:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Right, just shut up now. Others in the thread had finally managed to move on. I'm sick of having to sift through this argument to find posts on topic. If you want to carry on take it to PMs or another forum.
Jesus this board needs more moderators.
Back to topic: Interesting on the armour front. Are all our front line warships armoured to some degree still?
As it happens I think that only HMS SAbre and Scimitar are armoured.
I laughed at the comments. Idiots comparing it to cruise ships and saying that because it takes longer to build and is smaller that is therefore only a medium sized ship and must be procurement **** up.
By: LordJim
- 18th July 2010 at 16:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think it it starting to look like the two carriers will never be at sea at the same time. This would allow the number of aircraft purchased for them to be reduced significantly with only one full strength air wing available plus training units, so around 40-50 airframes for the RN, with a smaller number 20-30possibly for the RAF to suppliment the air wing in an emergency. Both serviced would use the same training/evaluation units.
By: nocutstoRAF
- 18th July 2010 at 17:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Assuming the price per plane would be about the same as the price Canada just agreed to pay for 65 F-35 for delivery 2016, LordJim's upper range suggestion of around 80 F-35B would see a cost of ~$11.077 billion or £7.24 billion based on today’s exchange rate (based on 65 F-35's costing $9 billion for the planes and ignoring the $7 billion support and maintenance contract as reported in the "Military Aviation News from around the world - V" thread) - does anyone else know is this the sort of money the UK has budgeted for or if the budget for the F-35B is likely to be lower (or higher)?
I swear I have read that the UK anticipated spending £6 billion on its intial purchase of the F-35 but I cannot find the story again - which if it is true would mean the UK would be looking at an initial purchase of around 65 as well.
By: StevoJH
- 18th July 2010 at 18:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think it it starting to look like the two carriers will never be at sea at the same time. This would allow the number of aircraft purchased for them to be reduced significantly with only one full strength air wing available plus training units, so around 40-50 airframes for the RN, with a smaller number 20-30possibly for the RAF to suppliment the air wing in an emergency. Both serviced would use the same training/evaluation units.
So you want to have a single airgroup deployed 100% of the time? The airframes will not last long at all, and you wont be able to get volunteers to fill out the units, because as soon as they get families, they will resign or transfer to another part of the Navy/RAF.
By: Stryker73
- 18th July 2010 at 18:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think it it starting to look like the two carriers will never be at sea at the same time. This would allow the number of aircraft purchased for them to be reduced significantly with only one full strength air wing available plus training units, so around 40-50 airframes for the RN, with a smaller number 20-30possibly for the RAF to suppliment the air wing in an emergency. Both serviced would use the same training/evaluation units.
I think the RN would bite your hand off for that scenario right now though I was of the understanding that it was always going to be one at sea at any given time unless at war.
So you want to have a single airgroup deployed 100% of the time? The airframes will not last long at all, and you wont be able to get volunteers to fill out the units
Highly doubtful either carrier will carry an airwing of 36, more likely rotating 36 aircraft for a wing of no more than a dozen. Which still gives the RN a bigger punch than they currently have and keeps naval air power alive in these times of austerity.
By: Fedaykin
- 18th July 2010 at 19:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In peace time CVF will probably deploy with no more then 12 F35 which is similar to the Invincible class. Enough to wave the flag, maintain currency and participate in exercises.
The RAF will provide the surge airframes and crew in the event of something going up. With modern flight simulators and the F35b's automated benign landing characteristics should be fairly easy for the light blues to jump onto ship if required.
Lets face it the GR3 crews who operated off Hermes during the Falklands had barely any chance to work up for the task and nothing like the modern training aids.
By: Fedaykin
- 18th July 2010 at 19:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I laughed at the comments. Idiots comparing it to cruise ships and saying that because it takes longer to build and is smaller that is therefore only a medium sized ship and must be procurement **** up.
Yep the ignorant of millitary ship building always make me laugh!:D
Posts: 1,240
By: Witcha - 16th July 2010 at 19:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Your 'reasoning' was pretty transparent, and here you're merely continuing your 'attack the arguer' idealogy. The PAF thread should be updated with the new F-16s in a few days time. Don't miss it, after all you couldn't bear to see a single plane axed instead of Indian economic aid.
Posts: 902
By: Liger30 - 17th July 2010 at 10:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Are you still going on? Gods, you are annoying for real.
Luckily, there's already been someone in the conservative government calling for a reduction of aid given to India, which means that they saw the absurd of giving money to a superpower with a space program without getting any advantage in exchange.
For the people like you who did not get it yet, the Afghanistan operation we are all tangled in, will be ultimately won or lost in the South-Afghanistan/North-Pakistan region, teh sanctuary of talibans and the red-alert area, since it reaches all the way close to Pakistani nuclear facilities.
Aid to Pakistan is strategically relevant because of this simple fact. If you have evidence of the money of the aid being used for other military programs unrelated to the struggle in northern-pakistan, i could even believe it, pretty easily in fact. But it does not change the fact that we need Pakistan to work in the fight against talibans, and we unfortunately have to pay in some way for it.
As to budget aid, what has no strategic relevance for me should be immediately cut, in this times of crisis. When you have problems at home, you have to fix them before you can play nurse with the world.
If you still don't get it, cut it short anyway. Because you have grown annoying for real. And you keep forcing people to go out of topic. End it once and for all.
Posts: 4,875
By: Jonesy - 17th July 2010 at 10:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry to interrupt you guys here....but just to point out the glaringly obvious for you:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6599693.stm
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/biz/india-business/India-emerges-as-a-leading-investor-in-UK/articleshow/6165350.cms
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/globalbusiness/7870028/Cameron-bets-future-on-Indias-meteoric-rise.html
"Bilateral trade between the UK and India was worth £12bn in 2008 and this is likely to increase to almost £30bn by 2015. Meanwhile, the value of Indian investment in the UK is estimated to be £9bn"
Can we move on from the absurd question of the value of generating good will with a major trading partner?.
Posts: 5,267
By: Fedaykin - 17th July 2010 at 12:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Totally agree Jonesy!
This has got silly for a thread about CVF construction.
If people want to talk about the UK aid budget why not do it in the general forum.
Posts: 1,240
By: Witcha - 17th July 2010 at 15:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You keep rambling and rambling without getting the message that was clear several posts ago; or more likely you realised how fundamentally flawed your main argument is and are ignoring it out of pride. Either way I'm done with you. I'll just give you this one line to think about:
If you cut 4 F-16s out of Pakistan's military aid package they'd still be happy, there would be no difference whatsoever to the Taliban cooperation(since F-16s aren't going to be deployed there anyway), and you would free up that 250 million you're so desperate for, without any harm done to needy people in any country.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Returning to the thread, are there any plans to include armor plating on the CVF or do they remain dropped due to cost? At that size it'd be a shame if they didn't use some of the space to ensure it didn't sink with one AshM.
Posts: 1,533
By: kev 99 - 17th July 2010 at 16:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You can't sink a warship that size with one AshM unless it's got a nuclear warhead or it's exceptionally badly designed.
Posts: 366
By: harryRIEDL - 17th July 2010 at 19:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
if I can quote from another forum their is going to be some armor the Warship1 board has a link from a company testing the armor system
http://www.qinetiq.com/home/defence/defence_solutions/sea/survive/cvf_case_study.html
'we helped optimize the armor level' seem pretty clear to me
Posts: 1,533
By: kev 99 - 17th July 2010 at 20:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Quite, apparently details are classified though, there doesn't seem to be any information in the public domain.
Posts: 902
By: Liger30 - 17th July 2010 at 20:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F16 you ramble about aren't Uk related to start with. It is a contract in place between Pakistan and USA that dates back to 2006 and builds on even older "Peace Gate III" and IV agreements in the late 80' and in the 90' that saw Pakistan ordering F16 fighter planes but never got them because US embargoed the country because of its nuclear program.
Even assuming they pay the F16 now with the same money the US give them in military aid (and it is higly unlikely that the US are SO stupid to seek no evidence of the use that Pakistan makes of its aid), the UK has nothing to say about it. The UK is not giving them Typhoons.
If you are trying to say that UK paid those F16, you are most likely wrong. If the government is stupid enough to hand them money without checking how it is indeed used, it is its own stupidity it must tackle.
And ultimately, Pakistan fights the talibans in the border region. It does what we need it to do, and this justifies the aid.
India could very well CUT A FEW OF ITS OWN PLANES and sustain its own people, instead of requiring the UK to cut its own investments to help indian villagers.
End.
Posts: 1,142
By: Grim901 - 17th July 2010 at 21:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Right, just shut up now. Others in the thread had finally managed to move on. I'm sick of having to sift through this argument to find posts on topic. If you want to carry on take it to PMs or another forum.
Jesus this board needs more moderators.
Back to topic: Interesting on the armour front. Are all our front line warships armoured to some degree still?
Posts: 902
By: Liger30 - 17th July 2010 at 21:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry, wasn't my intention to see it drag this long. But i couldn't just let go.
Anyway, modern warships are normally not armored. I doubt Type 23 have "armor", in fact, and even Type 45 does not have armor in the literal sense of the word. There are compartments and other passive-protection features. The SURVIVE software mainly determines how to place instrumentations, locals and machinery to create the safest and most resistant structure possible.
Anyway, from that article the CVFs seem to have some degree of armor, probably protecting the vulnerable fuel and weapon storage locals, and probably designed more to protect against slivers and blasts than from hits.
However, Navy Matters had a page about survivability and protection of the ships, where it was stated that most, if not all, the active protection (kevlar armor plates and such) had been dropped as a cost saving measure, and the safety of the ships based mostly on passive-protection and survivability measures.
With details being classified (wisely) it is hard to tell where armor may be, and what effective consistence it could have.
Posts: 887
By: pjhydro - 17th July 2010 at 22:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As it happens I think that only HMS SAbre and Scimitar are armoured.
Posts: 5,267
By: Fedaykin - 18th July 2010 at 14:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A rather unexciting article but it does have a newer picture of the Superblock in construction at Govan:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/7896349/Britains-biggest-warship-uncovered.html
Posts: 1,142
By: Grim901 - 18th July 2010 at 15:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I laughed at the comments. Idiots comparing it to cruise ships and saying that because it takes longer to build and is smaller that is therefore only a medium sized ship and must be procurement **** up.
Posts: 338
By: LordJim - 18th July 2010 at 16:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think it it starting to look like the two carriers will never be at sea at the same time. This would allow the number of aircraft purchased for them to be reduced significantly with only one full strength air wing available plus training units, so around 40-50 airframes for the RN, with a smaller number 20-30possibly for the RAF to suppliment the air wing in an emergency. Both serviced would use the same training/evaluation units.
Posts: 956
By: nocutstoRAF - 18th July 2010 at 17:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Assuming the price per plane would be about the same as the price Canada just agreed to pay for 65 F-35 for delivery 2016, LordJim's upper range suggestion of around 80 F-35B would see a cost of ~$11.077 billion or £7.24 billion based on today’s exchange rate (based on 65 F-35's costing $9 billion for the planes and ignoring the $7 billion support and maintenance contract as reported in the "Military Aviation News from around the world - V" thread) - does anyone else know is this the sort of money the UK has budgeted for or if the budget for the F-35B is likely to be lower (or higher)?
I swear I have read that the UK anticipated spending £6 billion on its intial purchase of the F-35 but I cannot find the story again - which if it is true would mean the UK would be looking at an initial purchase of around 65 as well.
Posts: 1,025
By: StevoJH - 18th July 2010 at 18:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So you want to have a single airgroup deployed 100% of the time? The airframes will not last long at all, and you wont be able to get volunteers to fill out the units, because as soon as they get families, they will resign or transfer to another part of the Navy/RAF.
Posts: 272
By: Stryker73 - 18th July 2010 at 18:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think the RN would bite your hand off for that scenario right now though I was of the understanding that it was always going to be one at sea at any given time unless at war.
Highly doubtful either carrier will carry an airwing of 36, more likely rotating 36 aircraft for a wing of no more than a dozen. Which still gives the RN a bigger punch than they currently have and keeps naval air power alive in these times of austerity.
Posts: 5,267
By: Fedaykin - 18th July 2010 at 19:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In peace time CVF will probably deploy with no more then 12 F35 which is similar to the Invincible class. Enough to wave the flag, maintain currency and participate in exercises.
The RAF will provide the surge airframes and crew in the event of something going up. With modern flight simulators and the F35b's automated benign landing characteristics should be fairly easy for the light blues to jump onto ship if required.
Lets face it the GR3 crews who operated off Hermes during the Falklands had barely any chance to work up for the task and nothing like the modern training aids.
Posts: 5,267
By: Fedaykin - 18th July 2010 at 19:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yep the ignorant of millitary ship building always make me laugh!:D