Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History

Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/index.php)
-   Europe (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=311)
-   -   Britain Challenges China? (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=178636)

Mountain Man 28 Jul 17 12:38

Britain Challenges China?
 
Just saw this on OAN - Britain has announced that it will challenge China over control of the South China Sea, although its only major warship, the carrier HMS Elizabeth, is still undergoing sea trials.

Can one of our British colleagues give us some insight?

Half Pint John 28 Jul 17 13:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mountain Man (Post 3387277)
Just saw this on OAN - Britain has announced that it will challenge China over control of the South China Sea, although its only major warship, the carrier HMS Elizabeth, is still undergoing sea trials.

Can one of our British colleagues give us some insight?

It doesn't have an air wing yet. Basically a joke, a large target. Add to that does the RN have escorts for it? Or are they going to reenact the Repulse?:nuts:

Mountain Man 28 Jul 17 14:08

That's the question, plus I really have no idea what the overall status of the Royal Navy id these days, but China has good one.

Half Pint John 28 Jul 17 14:34

The PRC Navy is for the most part on new hulls. Other than the USN the rest should tread very carefully and even the USN would get bloodied.

Mountain Man 28 Jul 17 15:15

What I do "know" is that the oil-rich Sprately Islands are going to cause a war sooner or later, and China has the home field advantage.

JFKvsNixon 28 Jul 17 15:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half Pint John (Post 3387288)
It doesn't have an air wing yet. Basically a joke, a large target. Add to that does the RN have escorts for it? Or are they going to reenact the Repulse?:nuts:

The planes were ordered 11 years ago! I think we're having difficulties with our American supplier.

johns624 28 Jul 17 15:49

The UK signed an agreement a few months ago with the US and Japan saying that they would help with a naval presence in contested waters. Basically, it was for moral support since they can't do anything except maybe occasionally send a frigate or destroyer.

Half Pint John 28 Jul 17 16:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by JFKvsNixon (Post 3387464)
The planes were ordered 11 years ago! I think we're having difficulties with our American supplier.

No doubt where the MAJOR blame lies, then your MOD could have picked an other aircraft.

johns624 28 Jul 17 16:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half Pint John (Post 3387474)
No doubt where the MAJOR blame lies, then your MOD could have picked an other aircraft.

If they weren't too cheap to get catapults, they could've. Pennywise but pound-foolish.

JFKvsNixon 28 Jul 17 16:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half Pint John (Post 3387474)
No doubt where the MAJOR blame lies, then your MOD could have picked an other aircraft.

The beauty of hindsight eh? To late now, I think that the British tax payer has already invested over a billion Pounds into the F-35 project, before any military capability has been delivered.

Mountain Man 28 Jul 17 16:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by johns624 (Post 3387479)
If they weren't too cheap to get catapults, they could've. Pennywise but pound-foolish.

The deck of that carrier is ramped for VTOL fighters like the Harrier, not set up at all for standard carrier ops.

What aircraft was Britain seeking?

JFKvsNixon 28 Jul 17 16:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by johns624 (Post 3387479)
If they weren't too cheap to get catapults, they could've. Pennywise but pound-foolish.

I'm not sure that anything else on the market would have offered the capability that the F-35 was offering, along with ability to upgrade. So there we are.

Surrey 28 Jul 17 16:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by JFKvsNixon (Post 3387493)
I'm not sure that anything else on the market would have offered the capability that the F-35 was offering, along with ability to upgrade. So there we are.

The c version is better than the b. The ships should have had catapults.

JFKvsNixon 28 Jul 17 16:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surrey (Post 3387499)
The c version is better than the b. The ships should have had catapults.

Without the carriers having nuclear propulsion to provide the steam for the catapult?

From what I've read, by the time it became possible to consider electromagnetic catapults, the cost of installing the catapults would have doubled the original estimated cost of the ships. Installing the catapults would have added an estimated 2 billion for the HMS Prince of Wales and maybe 3 billion to the HMS Queen Elizabeth to the cost of building them.

Also when the decisions were made the C version was not as far along in development and testing, and it was then estimated that they couldn't enter service until after 2023 at the earliest.

johns624 28 Jul 17 17:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mountain Man (Post 3387491)
The deck of that carrier is ramped for VTOL fighters like the Harrier, not set up at all for standard carrier ops.

What aircraft was Britain seeking?

That's the whole point. If they had designed in catapults, they could have chosen from the Super Hornet, Rafale or F35C. With the skijump, they were locked into the F35B. The smaller carriers were only capable of operating the jumpjets but the QE-class is a full size carrier. It also limits them to helicopter AEW.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 21:14.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.