Reality is what is this kit designed for? I'd say it's primarily for self defence, along with a limited offensive capability. Even with all this apparently dreadful kit, we'd still outgun most countries if required and we'll will never take on the Russians or Chinese in a direct war, so what they do or don't have is moot point.
Okay I do find some decisions slightly baffling like the whole maritime patrol plane fiasco, but there must have been some reasons no matter how flawed.
but there must have been some reasons no matter how flawed.
Hmm, after Brexit = we must leave the Common market, I don't think the case for reason can be made when government decisions are being examined.
He believes he'll be part of the last generation of fixed wing combat pilots; everything will be drone / AI from here on in.
That was the view of another pilot I met too - he claimed pilots will be on board domestic/people carrying for the foreseeable, but that military will go remote/droned pretty quickly.
Someone already mentioned the Gordon Brown influence, but there is a legitimate argument to fund these projects, even if the end result is suboptimal - it keeps the relevant technical and engineering skillsets within the UK.
Accepting that government procurement needs to improve, I still think its worth shelling out to keep developing our technology as a sort of insurance contract. It generates the opportunity to sell your skills and technology, and it also means you are less likely to be left up ****creek in 50 years time when everyone else has developed nano-drones and you've regressed to Bren guns.
Someone already mentioned the Gordon Brown influence, but there is a legitimate argument to fund these projects, even if the end result is suboptimal - it keeps the relevant technical and engineering skillsets within the UK.Accepting that government procurement needs to improve, I still think its worth shelling out to keep developing our technology as a sort of insurance contract. It generates the opportunity to sell your skills and technology, and it also means you are less likely to be left up ****creek in 50 years time when everyone else has developed nano-drones and you've regressed to Bren guns.
Current doctrine is all over the place, you can't win an asymmetric war with big capital assets as that investment naturally draws the numbers down which means space can not be held. No matter how good your top trump air assets are you still need boots on the ground to hold it. The threat is not a mono doctrine of Russian motor rifle regiments storming through Europe any more.
That threat still exists but so do so many other ways of war fighting, but the key issue is the political will to fight, that's what will get tested the most as it's the soft underbelly of the NATO democracies. The political class shun the military for their children and their credibility to send troops into danger declines with each botched conflict.
For examples of those who will fight look at what Finland and the Baltic states are doing to prepare themselves. Really can't see our millennials going for that.
Really can't see our millennials going for that.
Well, in the danger of further thread drift it depends if they feel they have a choice or not. For those on Putins doorstep they might feel that the risk is valid, for those that feel sheilded by geography, NATO or just have no awareness that not all countries see things the same way, they won't.
For all the talk of millenials, the youngsters who served in Iraq and Afgan handled themselves well - which is more than can be said for the poltical class that has (mostly) never worn uniform which sent them there.
I suspect that we are pretty much already pouring treasure into fighting the Russians, just not in this realm. I would be even less surpised if a few negative comments on this thread came from a MTB'er who's usual trails are close to St Petersberg 😀
He believes he'll be part of the last generation of fixed wing combat pilots; everything will be drone / AI from here on in.
I'm sure it's an aspiration of some, but I'm not sure that it will be reality. Read Apache over Libya; rules of engagement meant that for good ground attack operations, they often still needed a person in the seat rather than a guy watching a tv screen back at home. However, fast jets aren't very good in that role, you need something slower like an A-10, Harrier, Apache etc.
Also the USAF are still flying U2's in Asia over drones, due to so pluses of having a pilot being able to make on the fly decisions, particularly when it comes to avoiding storms etc.
So yes drones will take over in a lot of areas, but I can't see planes with pilots disappearing for a good while yet. They are complementary rather than replacements.
Some great points expressed so far.
Warfare is constantly evolving, with the capital expense involved in putting an aircraft carrier at sea, plus the costs of procuring £100m apiece jets, it's no great surprise that potential adversaries are finding other ways to engage in conflict.
A Trident sub is of no use when we're engaged in an armed insurrection with low-tech, highly mobile and dispersed adversaries. In fact, spending billions on a nuclear deterrent ensures that there's less money to effectively fight a guerrilla war effectively.
An aircraft carrier is good for projecting power, but if you cannot supply the carriers with fuel, food and consumables and provide an effective screen against attack when it's in the South Atlantic for example, then it's worse than useless.
Likewise, a fleet of 138 F-35 jets aren't much good at preventing a canny state from subverting your political discourse via social media.
The trouble is that the three examples I've given have extended lead times for development and design. Our carriers were conceived in the wake of the Falklands, the F-35 was conceived in 1996 and our Trident subs appeared in 1992/3 having been in development for fifteen years.
Point of order - I believe that the Vanguard class subs are capable of launching cruise missiles through their torpedo tubes so technically could be of some use outside of nuclear warfare. 🙂
Point of order - I believe that the Vanguard class subs are capable of launching cruise missiles through their torpedo tubes so technically could be of some use outside of nuclear warfare.
I would be amazed if the Defnce Chiefs allowed the bombers to be used for any strike role other than what they were intended for. For one thing nothing shouts "cooeee, I'm over here" than launching a bunch of TLAM's.
If that kind of thinking breaks out in Whitehall we might as well not bother going through the expense of building the new Dreadnought class and just build another 7 Astute class subs - which day-to-day are far more useful.
Personally, I think the MOD should remove the nuclear bomber subs and their weaponry from the defence budget and fund them differently. They are political pieces - the kings on the chess board. If you actually have to use them, you have probably already lost.
So yes drones will take over in a lot of areas, but I can't see planes with pilots disappearing for a good while yet. They are complementary rather than replacements.
I believe that's why he specified fixed wing (or, more specifically, fast jets). Agreed – slower aircraft taking on ground-based targets will still have to adhere to rules of engagement. My understanding behind the getting rid of human pilots in fast jets is that it opens up a whole new world of fast aeronautics, the g-force of which would kill a person (not to mention dogfight reaction speeds).
The Radio 2 news bloke who mentioned the leaky carrier earlier reckoned it has a 7m diameter prop shaft!
Pretty impressive top trump stat, that one!
...I should probably also say, I think he might have got his figures wrong, in case that wasn't clear from my post above...
I believe that's why he specified fixed wing (or, more specifically, fast jets). Agreed – slower aircraft taking on ground-based targets will still have to adhere to rules of engagement. My understanding behind the getting rid of human pilots in fast jets is that it opens up a whole new world of fast aeronautics, the g-force of which would kill a person (not to mention dogfight reaction speeds).
Future missiles will always be able to pull more Gs than UAVs - simply due to weight.
I'm not so sure that is the reason tbh. I think the best argument for UAVs comes in the economics of warfare, loitering capability, reduced radar signature and the cost of losing pilots.
Dogfight reaction speeds is an interesting one, you'd have to build a UAV that can replicate the MK1 human eyeball and the ability to derive tracking information and make predivtions based on it.... when all the sensors you need to track a target in a knife fight invariably get jammed.
On the subject of AEW I'm surprised that nobody's tried to plug the V-22 Osprey as a potential STOVL AEW platform
Because the V-22 is an even worse aeroplane than the F35.
He believes he'll be part of the last generation of fixed wing combat pilots
My dad was told that in the early 60's when he joined, for more or less the same reasons as today's pilots are being told it.
CIWS and high-powered lasers will deal with hypersonic missiles. People are talking up the conventional warfare threat from Russia, they're managing fine using cyber and distraction techniques. The likes of Putin is more concerned about protecting his billions and his mates in power and whilst the EU is distracted restoring former Russian territories. Sadly, MOD is pretty screwed too, to the tune of 20Bn and no realistic means of paying without losing more capability and people are leaving quicker than they can hire them.
CIWS and lasers can only cope with so many missiles at once - not saturation attacks. CIWS currently consists of a couple of 30mm gattling guns. They'd need to be bristling with them like a ww2 battleship to survive once the T45s ran out of Asters (which cost a fortune and may not be tgat effective against newer russina missiles) .
Point of order - I believe that the Vanguard class subs are capable of launching cruise missiles through their torpedo tubes so technically could be of some use outside of nuclear warfare.
[url= https://www.gov.uk/government/news/navy-sub-fires-first-tomahawk-missile ]The Astutes certainly can[/url].
We need this baby to make some money when not on active duty.
Celebrity Carrier Landing with Alan Tichmarah and Julie Covington?
Live from the middle of the Atlantic, see who comes down with a bump as Piers Morgan, Jeremy Clarkson, Michael Gove and Nicky Campbell are strapped into a fully fuelled Harrier...
as Piers Morgan, Jeremy Clarkson, Michael Gove and Nicky Campbell are strapped into a fully fuelled Harrier...
Are you planning on fitting it with some of these?
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
For all the talk of millenials, the youngsters who served in Iraq and Afgan handled themselves well - which is more than can be said for the poltical class that has (mostly) never worn uniform which sent them there
The poor have always fought since before the fyrd, going to war abroad as professional soldiers since before the archers of the 100 years war. The lads and lasses who sign up these days are hardly the modern millennials they are the exceptions
Thats a bad thing? Are millenials worse because they wouldn't be so stupid as to allow themselves to be drafted into the meat grinder of the trenches to fight a pretty pointless war? They don't care for patriotism or deference to authority, they care for toys and baubles.... and those are infinitely less dangerous than ideology, populism and nationalism.
Thats a bad thing? Are millenials worse because they wouldn't be so stupid as to allow themselves to be drafted into the meat grinder of the trenches to fight a pretty pointless war? They don't care for patriotism, they care for toys and baubles.... and those are infinitely less dangerous than ideology, populism and nationalism.
What is more dangerous is a top trumps view of war based on Tom Clancyesc war gaming
As for ideology and populism and nationalism is Momentum dangerous? They expose all three (although the nationalism seems to be for other countries)
Anyway back on topic. The issue you also miss is competence, or sometimes the lack of it
And
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/11/politics/navy-ships-training-expired/index.html
The best equipment in the world still has a human in the chain from design to manufacture to operation
What is more dangerous is a top trumps view of war based on Tom Clancyesc war gaming
Which is what the MOD does all the time and what every country that has lost a war due to facing new technologies and/or tactics have failed to do. No matter how tough their working class heros on the ground were.
Momentum aren't half as bad as what Britain has produced in the past, genocidal governments who bent backwards for corporates backed up by private militias (see East India Company) and later Oswald Mosley etc.
To add to my last post, there's a great article on momentum by Spiked, a bastion of centre-right libertarianism.
As pointed out, hardly symptomatic of a millenial Soviet insurrection are they.
Blimey, started this thread early in the morning expecting about 2 replies!
Has it defended into an argument yet? 🙂
Goes off to read the posts.....
Just read the thread.
You lot know a lot more about aircraft carriers than me is fair to say.
Another question guys...
The French are building 2 (?) Identical carriers (?) or are their carriers modified to incorporate catapults etc?
If so that's a massive/interesting divergence of, initially, identical designs.
That's if they have fitted cats etc obviously?
EDIT: Ahhh I see the hench cancelled the building of a carrier based on the RN design. Doh! Now I know at least!
All kit ever procured has its issues and limitations, especially at the beginning of its service life. Once it beds in and develops, however (and assuming the funding is there to keep developing F35), we usually make a success of it. The Tornado F3 is a good example! As I understand it, F35 is such a game-changer that the US and other partners are still figuring out how the tactics etc are going to work. Regarding the asymmetric warfare/COIN argument, I guess you can argue that, with resources constrained, a F35 does COIN better than a Reaper does when the other team has an Air Force?
Poopscoop, the Rafale (the French maritime jet) is cats and traps only, there is no STOVL variant. There’s lots more to the operation of useful air power off a carrier than how many jets you’ve got and how sexy they are. There are pros and cons to every approach. I believe the Admiral Kuznetsov is quite compromised by its short deck, so despite being cat and trap equipped, the jets’ load has to be low to enable them to get off the deck!
ChrisL - MemberI don't know, but they're always expected to be escorted by a Type 45 destroyer and that's pretty much its entire reason for existing.
Oh right, well let's hope they get the engines working properly then.
the Rafale (the French maritime jet) is cats and traps only, there is no STOVL variant. There’s lots more to the operation of useful air power off a carrier than how many jets you’ve got and how sexy they are. There are pros and cons to every approach. I believe the Admiral Kuznetsov is quite compromised by its short deck, so despite being cat and trap equipped, the jets’ load has to be low to enable them to get off the deck!
The French carrier was plagued by teething problems, and in many ways has too many comprises: It is nuclear powered - but uses a smaller submarine reactor. It has catapults but they had to be chopped down to fit.
So the French have catapults and arrestor gear but can't launch fully loaded aircraft or recover at the same time as launching. The Russians use ski-jumps instead of catapults and their aircraft have to launch with even less. The only way to get the capability the US supercarriers have is to build a super carrier. Even at 65,000 tons the QE is too small to be fitted with catapults and be as effective as the Ford. Compromises have to be found and given the RN's past 30 year history of STOVL the chosen compromise seems sensible.
I'm interested to see if the proposed short rolling landing instead of vertical landing works out as expected. Being able to land with more unused stores and less stress on the airframe and deck would be a big win.
retro83 - Member
I don't know, but they're always expected to be escorted by a Type 45 destroyer and that's pretty much its entire reason for existing.
Oh right, well let's hope they get the engines working properly then.
Indeed. But the alternative would be to fit the necessary radar, missile launch equipment and missile storage to the carriers, which would reduce the space they have available for their intended purpose of operating aircraft.
As in all things, ship design involves trade-offs and for large ships many navies prefer to specialise vessels rather than operate jack of all trades. The Invincible class aircraft carriers were initially fitted out with Sea Dart surface to air missiles, but these were eventually removed to make space for a larger flight deck and to increase the space in the magazines for aircraft weapons.
Aircraft carriers operate in battlegroups so that the group's other ships can handle other tasks while the carriers get on with the job of providing air power.
Which is what the MOD does all the time and what every country that has lost a war due to facing new technologies and/or tactics have failed to do. No matter how tough their working class heros on the ground were.
how many wars have been lost/ not won (the new end game) as a consequence of Tom Clancyesc war gaming of superior tactics and technology?
war is a battle of logistics and hearts and minds, tactical and technological superiority is nothing if you can't sustain it in the field and maintain the will to fight
the boots on the ground you dismiss (not sexy enough for you? can't play top trumps?)are only one aspect, they are part of the capability jigsaw, not the complete answer but part of the whole picture.
They can still outwit the best tactics and technology https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/mar/09/balkans1
To whoever was ranting about the stern tube seal, yes it is that difficult.
We have a 50odd year old standard Parsons 650MW turbine at work that had a new generator seal go last year. All it takes is a new material or seemingly insignificant tweak and it can go wrong.
I've been on a couple of ships with leaky shaft seals, its not that uncommon a fault (though they did leak out the way).
Oh right, well let's hope they get the engines working properly then.
You make it sound so easy! The propulsion systems on those destroyers are state of the art and very different from anything that has gone before. The move to the more sophisticated propulsion system is to improve the operational performance of the destroyer - quieter, less vibration, stealthier, more efficient etc. so its a development programme pushing the technology to its limits so there are bound to be problems and they are expected..... but they will be fixed. It's easier to fix an engineering problem when you have lots of examples all testing the technology, but In these cases you've only got a handful of ships, so the development cycle occurs much more slowly...but it happens.
So calm down dear...don't panic these things happen it's all part of the process and the issues are being worked and will be addressed.
All the hullaballoo you read in the press and hear from a mate of a mate who's a mechanic on a Type 45 Destroyer are almost always false news.
bigearedbiker, you missed that they accidentally put too small and flight deck on it (Now fixed) and it’s still blooming noisey!
I've been on a couple of ships with leaky shaft seals, its not that uncommon a fault (though they did leak out the way).
Out the way? How’d that work?
is it just me, or are some of the posts on this thread heavily influenced by watching Star Wars recently.
nobody in particular, but P.1 just shows STW readership in a pretty poor/dumb light.
ChrisL - MemberIndeed. But the alternative would be to fit the necessary radar, missile launch equipment and missile storage to the carriers, which would reduce the space they have available for their intended purpose of operating aircraft.
Yes, totally. It makes good sense. I only asked as I remembered reading a while back that there was an anti-missile system to be fitted but I hadn't seen any mention of it online since.
wobbliscott - MemberYou make it sound so easy! The propulsion systems on those destroyers are state of the art and very different from anything that has gone before. The move to the more sophisticated propulsion system is to improve the operational performance of the destroyer - quieter, less vibration, stealthier, more efficient etc. so its a development programme pushing the technology to its limits so there are bound to be problems and they are expected..... but they will be fixed. It's easier to fix an engineering problem when you have lots of examples all testing the technology, but In these cases you've only got a handful of ships, so the development cycle occurs much more slowly...but it happens.
So calm down dear...don't panic these things happen it's all part of the process and the issues are being worked and will be addressed.
All the hullaballoo you read in the press and hear from a mate of a mate who's a mechanic on a Type 45 Destroyer are almost always false news.
I think you're countering a point I didn't make 🙂 I'm under no illusion it will be easy. Last I heard they were fitting additional diesel generators to them so presumably getting the issues resolved with the main engines is some way off.
The history of the French Navy's [i]Charles De Gaulle[/i] carrier is well worth reading up on for some eye-opening issues encountered during design and production, some expensive re-engineering has been required as the carrier's construction stopped numerous times before it was finally completed.
In spite of the noted difficulties, it's worth remembering that France had not attempted to design and construct an aircraft carrier in two decades before the De Gaulle was conceived. The French managed to design and build a completely new (and unique) carrier with domestically designed nuclear propulsion AND cats and traps, with capacity for forty aircraft. To give them credit, that's a monumental achievement, both China and India have invested heavily in interim carrier designs which are conventionally powered and also lack catapults.
France was also interested in purchasing the design for the QE and serious studies were undertaken to build two of these carriers with cats and traps, but with conventional propulsion. Thales has been involved in the design and construction of the QE with this in mind.
However, the two proposed carriers were finally cancelled in 2013, in part because of the recent treaty between Britain and France which allows both nations to share their carriers.
Out the way? How’d that work?
Two part seal system with the intermediate space filled with oil at higher pressure than outside (or at least high enough to keep water from entering via labyrinth seals).
[quote=PJM1974 ]However, the two proposed carriers were finally cancelled in 2013, in part because of the recent treaty between Britain and France which allows both nations to share their carriers.
Useful for Britain - we'll be able to fly our planes (when we have any) off their carriers - not so useful for France. Unless supply of aircraft is an issue, in which case I suppose it's the other way round.
Useful for Britain - we'll be able to fly our planes (when we have any) off their carriers - not so useful for France. Unless supply of aircraft is an issue, in which case I suppose it's the other way round.
Or... more sensibly deployments will be coordinated so that at least one of the CdG, PoW or QE are availble to support operations. The RAF have been providing heavy lift for French operations for a while now.
is it just me, or are some of the posts on this thread heavily influenced by watching Star Wars recently.nobody in particular, but P.1 just shows STW readership in a pretty poor/dumb light.
Yes and/or no, but I'm going to say 'cats and traps' so people [i]might[/i] think I knew what I was talking about.
Oh, and 'sustainability'.
how many wars have been lost/ not won (the new end game) as a consequence of Tom Clancyesc war gaming of superior tactics and technology?
Let me see, battles and actions where the enemy lost to unforeseen technological and tactical advances driven by engineers or the brass.
1588 Spanish Armada
Battle of France
Battle of Midway
Battle of Taranto
Pearl Harbour Strike
Battle of the Atlantic
Battle of Britain
List goes on.
Russia and China have spent the last 20 years working out ways to try and sink western navies at less cost than building blue water navies themselves. They seem to have worried the RN enough that as the mod finally got their act together and ordered the development of the Perseus missile... with an in service date of past 2030...lol.
Keep scoffing at how China and Russia are playing the game though...
Pearl Harbour was an intelligence cock up, a lot of the US fleet was out. Plus battle may have been won but the war was lost.
Battle of Britain was lost by the Germans due to poor decision making in not prioritising the taking out the radar which they were aware of, not technology.
They didn't take out the radar because they ubderestimated it's usefulness, Goering was still fighting WW1 in his head. Whilst the Americans didn't take their intelligence seriously enough, partly because no one had fully exploited the capabilities of carrier warfare except the British at Taranto.... which they failed to fully take heed of.
Again, they were all failures in understanding how adversaries were exploiting technological advances.
A lot of their fleet was out, but that wasn't a cock up, that was luck. Had the carriers been in port, the Japanese would have refuled and rearmed for their planned second wave and those carriers would have been toast as well - Midway would have followed shortly.
wobbliscott - MemberWhy on earth would you want to disperse your aircraft from an aircraft carrier and onto land
It'll be quite useful [s]if[/s] when it turns out that you can't adequately defend the carrier against current threats let alone tomorrow's drones.
It would be highly amusing to program a cheap drone to go spray paint “bang bang you’re dead” on the side of the carrier. I genuinely don’t think they would be able to stop it quickly enough. Especially if you used a dozen or so simultaneously
Rachel
That would be the same for pretty much any warship. I doubt the Phalanx radar would pick up a small drone and I doubt the camera is programmed to see them as a threat yet
I flew over it the other day and I know I could get an Auster on and off that deck. Very keen to try, will they let me....
A guy in Inverness landed his drone on the deck when it was at Invergordon.
These little drones; have they got the range and payload to reach it and do some damage while it’s standing off in blue water?
It'll be quite useful if when it turns out that you can't adequately defend the carrier against current threats let alone tomorrow's drones.
Not sure that is much of a risk or any more than before. The carriers are well defended by multiple layers of a defence network. The carriers managed to avoid the Exocet risk in the Falklands with far less sophisticated defence measures. Anyway if the carrier is hit you're not going to be able to deploy all your aircraft with enough fuel to make land. If the carrier is hit it's going down with all the planes on board. No need to compromise the aircraft performance and capabilities to give it a the capability to land on rough landing strip just in case.
Battle of Britain was lost by the Germans due to poor decision making in not prioritising the taking out the radar which they were aware of, not technology.
But they were taking out our radar masts, but we could build them quicker than they could take them out and most attacks were failed because of the radar. The radar didn't win the B of B, that was just one piece in the jigsaw. It was the Operations room and the genius organisation of our resources and tactics that won the B of B for us. So we won if fair and square and not by a happy misfortune on the Germans side. The Germans did underestimate a couple of things though - the size of our airforce and ability to replace lost aircraft, it was larger than they thought due to a nice bit of intelligence deception on our part, they underestimated the capabilities of our aircraft. The climb performance of the Spitfire married to the capabilities of the radar gave us a significant advantage over the attacking Luftwaffe. So, so many technological, tactical, strategic and basic capabilities were superior to our adversaries. It was no fluke we won the B of B. We never lost air superiority over our skies.
You make it sound so easy! The propulsion systems on those destroyers are state of the art and very different from anything that has gone before. The move to the more sophisticated propulsion system is to improve the operational performance of the destroyer - quieter, less vibration, stealthier, more efficient etc. so its a development programme pushing the technology to its limits so there are bound to be problems and they are expected..... but they will be fixed. It's easier to fix an engineering problem when you have lots of examples all testing the technology, but In these cases you've only got a handful of ships, so the development cycle occurs much more slowly...but it happens.
Sounds very much like the best is the enemy of the good.
So after 7 years of service, which was delayed by 3 years, they still keep blacking out.
And you think that's OK?
I wonder how they're getting on with the Windows 2000 based software systems?
The carriers are well defended by multiple layers of a defence network. The carriers managed to avoid the Exocet risk in the Falklands with far less sophisticated defence measures.
Yes basically by staying out of range of Exocet which meant the Sea Harrier’s already limited range was further handicapped meaning air superiority wasn’t a possibility (combined with lack of AEW).
A lot of those issues still persist.
We also won the B of B due to a cock up by a German pilot, instead of bombing Kenley he bombed Croydon airport and killed a load of civilians. Churchill had to be seen to be doing something about this so we bombed Berlin, Hitler was outraged at this and decided that the Luftwaffe should switch from RAF bases as the primary targets to blitzing the cities. At this point it was expected that the RAF would be destroyed within 3 weeks!
The switch to the cities bought the RAF valuable breathing space.
Churchill had to be seen to be doing something about this so we bombed Berlin
Yes, this is quite true.
However, the early days of city bombing proved to be more difficult than expected, the only casualty of the RAF's attack on Berlin was an unfortunate elephant in Berlin's zoo.
Sounds very much like the best is the enemy of the good.So after 7 years of service, which was delayed by 3 years, they still keep blacking out.
And you think that's OK?
I wonder how they're getting on with the Windows 2000 based software systems?
I said it was difficult, not OK. But it's also part of the development programme and 7 years isn't a lot. These things are not off the shelf products. Don't blame the engineers, blame the specification. The engineers design and deliver against a spec. if the spec is challenging then who do you blame? There is risk in all these big engineering programmes and how risk is managed is subject to the contract. The press love to go on about these programme that run over cost and budget with no knowledge of what's in the contract and how risk is managed, but the blame for that is often a complicated and difficult issue. Most of these government programmes push the technological boundaries as it means as part of the programme the new technology is developed and proved, which has knock on benefits for the nation. We could always go back to 'good old' diesel and steam power if we want to play it safe.
I'm sure the Windows 2000 software is doing much better than the crap MS pumps out today. IT's certainly so old it's probably un-hackable by the North Koreans and Russians.
Yes basically by staying out of range of Exocet which meant the Sea Harrier’s already limited range was further handicapped meaning air superiority wasn’t a possibility (combined with lack of AEW).
A lot of those issues still persist.
Well the Harrier was a creaking old thing even back in 1982 with severely limited capabilities even by the standards of the day back then. I love the Harrier as much as the next guy, but it clung on in service a good 40 or so year too long.
[i]far less sophisticated defence measures.[/i]
Parking half way to Cape Town?
Not sure that is much of a risk or any more than before. The carriers are well defended by multiple layers of a defence network. The carriers managed to avoid the Exocet risk in the Falklands with far less sophisticated defence measures. Anyway if the carrier is hit you're not going to be able to deploy all your aircraft with enough fuel to make land. If the carrier is hit it's going down with all the planes on board. No need to compromise the aircraft performance and capabilities to give it a the capability to land on rough landing strip just in case.
Don't think they're going to be able to protect it from Mach5+ land based ship killers which China and Russia/ India are both developing.
BrahMos-II (K) - Mach 7!! The Russians are going to be putting 80 cell launchers on their Kirovs. What is the anti-missile capability of a T45? Max 48 Sea Vipers... T26 has up to 48 Sea Ceptors...
DF21-D carrier killer - a Mach10 ballistic missile
DF26 has a range of 2,500 miles - the carrier's F35s won't even be able to respond to that because the ship will be dead before they get even into range