Are we pricing ourselves out of the war business?

[Tsukiyumi]

Small numbers are great until the unexpected happens. Our two new carriers for instance; suppose you have a war and you have a carrier in dock for refit and one on duty. You send it, and it hits a mine just after it gets there. As things stand, that's it; you just lost the entire war.

We've got some pretty neat sonic mine defenses, and supercavitating anti-mine ballistics. Maybe we could share it with you guys...

Your point stands, though. Two carriers? I think four light/escort carriers would be a better use of the UK's resources, but like you said, Graham, what do I know? I'm just some civilian.

[Monroe]

Totally right GK, but the military is going for fewer soldiers that are more high tech. Look at the Land Warrior for example. The final model planned will be able to have invisibility. Freaking awesome graphite nanotubes and armor with spider silk to help protect against injuries. Sure they'll probably cost a fortune but they just kick so much ass its hard to say no from the joint chief's point of view.

[Tsukiyumi]

So we're going to have a bunch of Batman Beyond SF? Cool.

I pity the fool that f*cks with America's army of Batmen.

[Graham Kennedy]

Small numbers are great until the unexpected happens. Our two new carriers for instance; suppose you have a war and you have a carrier in dock for refit and one on duty. You send it, and it hits a mine just after it gets there. As things stand, that's it; you just lost the entire war.

We've got some pretty neat sonic mine defenses, and supercavitating anti-mine ballistics. Maybe we could share it with you guys...

The Royal Navy is a world leader in mine clearance. In some ways we're better at it than the US is. But there's no such thing as a 100% clearance, and there's not such thing as a 100% effective defence.

Your point stands, though. Two carriers? I think four light/escort carriers would be a better use of the UK's resources, but like you said, Graham, what do I know? I'm just some civilian.

The government wants a big stick to wave. When some crisis blows up they want to be able to "send in the fleet" and actually have it be able to accomplish something when it gets there. 40 F-35s should be quite a potent package to bring, but we're being typically penny-pinching about it. We should fund 40 per ship, we should fund three ships, and we should fund proper escorts for them.

But what the hell, we're fighting two wars on a shrinking peacetime budget. They need to money to waste on the NHS I guess.

[Aaron]

Totally right GK, but the military is going for fewer soldiers that are more high tech. Look at the Land Warrior for example. The final model planned will be able to have invisibility. Freaking awesome graphite nanotubes and armor with spider silk to help protect against injuries. Sure they'll probably cost a fortune but they just kick so much ass its hard to say no from the joint chief's point of view.

Mark my words, you'll never see half that crap. They already canned half of the project, like the individual PC's for soldiers thanks to the cost. And likely the FCS project will go boobs up as well (I won't shed any tears over that, fragging deathtraps).

Small numbers are great until the unexpected happens. Our two new carriers for instance; suppose you have a war and you have a carrier in dock for refit and one on duty. You send it, and it hits a mine just after it gets there. As things stand, that's it; you just lost the entire war.

Your going to be even more screwed than you think. There's a reason why vessels are usually bought in threes: one is typically in refit (a naval vessel spends aroound a third of it's life in dock), one on work-up training, and one on actual deployment. I fully expect your carriers to never see action.

[Graham Kennedy]

Your going to be even more screwed than you think. There's a reason why vessels are usually bought in threes: one is typically in refit (a naval vessel spends aroound a third of it's life in dock), one on work-up training, and one on actual deployment. I fully expect your carriers to never see action.

Allegedly these ships are designed so that they need significantly less time in refit than previous ships. The expectation is that one or both will be at sea at all times.

Whether that will work in practice remains to be seen.

[Aaron]

Allegedly these ships are designed so that they need significantly less time in refit than previous ships. The expectation is that one or both will be at sea at all times.

Whether that will work in practice remains to be seen.

Wow, somebody in the MoD is smoking some serious crack. I can't count the number of times that's turned out to be bupkiss.

[Captain Seafort]

Your point stands, though. Two carriers? I think four light/escort carriers would be a better use of the UK's resources, but like you said, Graham, what do I know? I'm just some civilian.

The problem with those is that is means we're reliant on helicopter AEW (which is slow and short-ranged) or surface picket lines (which is asking for another Sheffield incident). Plus, as Graham said, fleet carriers consitute the sort of stick that people would sit up and pay attention to.

[sunnyside]

Part of the issue is that to keep public opinion happy you've gotta run at almost no casualties. I think that's playing into many design decisions, specifically when building a small number of crazy expensive stuff instead of lots of cheaper stuff. And after the beating the Republicans took and will likely take again in a few months I don't think people are going to forget that.

However I do think we have a problem with not supporting our infantry as well as we could with not so flashy gear and support.

Though part of that is also the need to be able to bring the fight to a more potent nation. For example if we wind up fighting Iran. They've got some better missiles and planes than we've had to go up against yet. That's where the expensive toys would really come into play.

[Graham Kennedy]

Your point stands, though. Two carriers? I think four light/escort carriers would be a better use of the UK's resources, but like you said, Graham, what do I know? I'm just some civilian.

The problem with those is that is means we're reliant on helicopter AEW (which is slow and short-ranged) or surface picket lines (which is asking for another Sheffield incident). Plus, as Graham said, fleet carriers consitute the sort of stick that people would sit up and pay attention to.

Helicopter AEW isn't the best to be sure, but it's a damn sight better than nothing.

Would be lovely to see them put catapults on those ships and buy the F-35C and a few E-2Ds, though.

[Aaron]

They should simply have developed a naval version of the Typhoon, would have been faster than waiting for the F-35. And it would have got you more capable carriers.

[Graham Kennedy]

They should simply have developed a naval version of the Typhoon, would have been faster than waiting for the F-35. And it would have got you more capable carriers.

I've read that navalising the Typhoon would be exceptionally difficult, if not actually impossible. You have to uprate the structural strength significantly to navalise an aircraft; in the Typhoon's case this would involve replacing a lot of composite parts with metal ones, which would greatly increase the weight and so reduce performance.

Besides, the 35C is a stealth design, which has got to be a huge advantage.

Of course, we could buy Rafales. But I can't see the public liking the RN flying a French jet somehow.

[Aaron]

I've read that navalising the Typhoon would be exceptionally difficult, if not actually impossible. You have to uprate the structural strength significantly to navalise an aircraft; in the Typhoon's case this would involve replacing a lot of composite parts with metal ones, which would greatly increase the weight and so reduce performance.

I won't dispute that.

Besides, the 35C is a stealth design, which has got to be a huge advantage.

It is, though with the enemies we currently face it's like using a nuke to kill a fly. The F-35 is at least ten years from service, if it ever actually makes it. With the current cost overruns your going to be looking at an aircraft that costs as much as an F-22 (or more) with less capability.

Of course, we could buy Rafales. But I can't see the public liking the RN flying a French jet somehow.

You could, I hear it has short legs though. But then again so does the F-35 and the original Hornet, which didn't stop it from being a very successful design.

[Monroe]

However I do think we have a problem with not supporting our infantry as well as we could with not so flashy gear and support.

Yeah from what I've gathered the most new infantry tech has come from Israel lately. Lot of cool weapons on Future Weapons for the Infantry man coming out of there.

[Graham Kennedy]

Much as I like Future Weapons, a lot of the stuff the feature never makes it anywhere near the front lines.