Warship Channel 4

[Welsh wheels]

I thought this was a very interesting documentary, looking forward to the rest of the series now! But then I do love the navy. I found it interesting how, if they were to go into combat, the few under 18-year olds onboard would have to be sent home.

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

I thought this was a very interesting documentary, looking forward to the rest of the series now! But then I do love the navy. I found it interesting how, if they were to go into combat, the few under 18-year olds onboard would have to be sent home.

In a perfect world maybe but there was at least one 17 yr old went down with the Task Force to the Falklands to my certain knowledge. There were also two 17 yr old soldiers killed on Mt Longdon IIRC.

 

[Flick of the Elbow]

Personally I think it should be mandatory that any RN warship documentary uses Rod Stewart's Sailing as its theme tune.
Other than that, I enjoyed it.

 

[Drago]

Ocean is a funny old thing. A design derived from the old invinvible class, but built to civilian standards to save a few quid, and then painted grey. As a result its always breaking and its lifespan is expected to be about half that of then older invincible cousins.

New even seen Ocean, but been aboard the similar lusty and it seemed huge, though in the grand scheme of such things it was pretty tiny.

 

[Flick of the Elbow]

Ocean is a funny old thing. A design derived from the old invinvible class, but built to civilian standards to save a few quid, and then painted grey. As a result its always breaking and its lifespan is expected to be about half that of then older invincible cousins

Isn't it about to be scrapped ?

 

[Drago]

Yes, thinknits going to the knackers yard in a year or so when HMS Queen Elizabeth approaches operational status.

 

[Welsh wheels]

Isn't it about to be scrapped ?

Seems to me that all the work they were doing preparing for potential war is a bit of a waste, when chances are it won't see any more action before it is scrapped. It's a bit like giving a bike a new chain weeks before you are going to take it to the tip.

 

[Welsh wheels]

Yes, thinknits going to the knackers yard in a year or so when HMS Queen Elizabeth approaches operational status.

Looking forward to when the new carriers come out. Should restore some of the navy's sadly diminished prestige.

 

[Drago]

A big warship like that will spend more of its life at the dockside undergoing a lesser or greater degree of maintenance or refitting, than it will on patrol. More so with Ocean as it was built on the cheap.

 

[Welsh wheels]

A big warship like that will spend more of its life at the dockside undergoing a lesser or greater degree of maintenance or refitting, than it will on patrol. More so with Ocean as it was built on the cheap.

Let's hope the new carriers won't break down as soon as it gets a get warm, like the new destroyers have.

 

[Drago]

They're already a compromise. Binned the reactors from the design to save money, but when there's a war and you have to send tankers to feed it with other armed escorts to protect the tankers its not going to be a saving.

That said, better than anything we've had up until now, although the F35 is reckoned to be less combat effective than the old Harrier - again, saving money by not having a CATOBAR design is a false economy. An enemy doesn't care about your shrinking budget.

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

although the F35 is reckoned to be less combat effective than the old Harrier - .

That's simply not true.

 

[Drago]

I'm not a pilot, and much of the detail is classified, but I know lads from the Royal Spanner Monkeys who went onto private industry, and one who now works for Lockheed has confided in me that this is very much the case.

"Can't climb, can't turn, can't run" as stated in one Pentagon report. It has less kinematic visual-range combat ability than any other jet combat aircraft in production.

Selectively quoted performance claims give it a 400% increase in combat effectiveness of a typical previous generation fighter. On paper, perhaps, but to carry any fuel worth a damn and thus have a meaningful combat radius for either fleet defense or offensive operations, it requires pylon tanks fitted under the wings, which completely negates its stealth characteristics. Ditto weapons load. So its a double deficiency, poor airframe performance coupled with stealth performance that is virtually unusable in the combat role.

So the variant we've bought is slow, not terribly agile, and has stealth characteristics that can't be exploited when going to war. Nice.

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

There's been a lot of guff talked about F35 - a lot of it originating from Boeing who are still pushing hard for the F18. Like the F117 and F22, it's very reliant upon software. The initial testing on Block 1 software had it set up specifically to operate within certain parameters which made it look bad in dogfights - which spectacularly misses the point that it's not a dogfighter, it's a light bomber. In fact it's more than that. The way it will operate is as a control for bomb trucks. Basically F35 in stealthy mode will fly high and far forward of a number of Typhoon/F16/F15 which will be heavily loaded with missiles. F35 will remotely launch and/or control the missiles in flight and guide them onto target, thus enabling unstealthy aircraft to attack defended airspace. It's not about what F35 can carry itself but what it can control.

Comparing it to Harrier doesn't work. Harrier had a combat range of 600nm, F35B is 900nm. Harrier could carry 8000lb payloads, F35B 15000lb. Harrier top speed was 700mph, F35B 1200mph

You might find this useful - http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/03/making-f35b/

 

[Chris S]

I found it interesting how, if they were to go into combat, the few under 18-year olds onboard would have to be sent home.

A good thing too. Not only were they still children but they were acting like it. They could have been a liability in a war zone.