 | | |
| Quote: The Ark Royal, launched in 1985, will be decommissioned almost immediately, rather than in 2014, as previously planned | |
| | |
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11570593
| x404.co.uk http://www.x404.co.uk/forum/ |
|
| HMS Ark Royal to be scrapped http://www.x404.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=11063 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Spreadie [ Tue Oct 19, 2010 8:59 am ] | |||||||||
| Post subject: | HMS Ark Royal to be scrapped | |||||||||
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11570593 |
||||||||||
| Author: | EddArmitage [ Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:41 pm ] | ||||||||||||||||||
| Post subject: | Re: HMS Ark Royal to be scrapped | ||||||||||||||||||
And more importantly to me, personally, the Harriers are being retired sooner rather than later. |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Author: | jonlumb [ Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:48 pm ] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Post subject: | Re: HMS Ark Royal to be scrapped | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Are you hoping to buy one of them when they're decomissioned? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author: | paulzolo [ Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:03 pm ] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Post subject: | Re: HMS Ark Royal to be scrapped | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What else can land and take off on an aircraft carrier so well? I only ask because the decommissioning of Ark Royal allows us to afford two new carriers. We need something that can take off and land on them. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author: | HeatherKay [ Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:02 pm ] | |||||||||
| Post subject: | Re: HMS Ark Royal to be scrapped | |||||||||
Well, there are some helicopters. And I suppose money will still be thrown at the Joint Strike Fighter thing, which does supposedly do vertical landing, at least. |
||||||||||
| Author: | hifidelity2 [ Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:43 pm ] | ||||||||||||||||||
| Post subject: | Re: HMS Ark Royal to be scrapped | ||||||||||||||||||
The new carrier will have a catapult fitted so will be able to operate "normal" aircraft and not need VTOL aircraft |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Author: | HeatherKay [ Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:47 pm ] | |||||||||
| Post subject: | Re: HMS Ark Royal to be scrapped | |||||||||
How retro. Perhaps we ought to reintroduce the Supermarine Walrus as well. 
|
||||||||||
| Author: | JohnSheridan [ Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: HMS Ark Royal to be scrapped |
What I found really stupid is that we will have 2 new super-carriers but no aircraft to fly from them for like 8-9 years because the government (last lot) ordered the carriers first and then the planes at a later date instead of having them coincide with each other  Talk about not having joined-up thinking/planning. |
|
| Author: | Linux_User [ Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: HMS Ark Royal to be scrapped |
BBC News were stating this morning that this will leave us without a carrier until the new ones come into service. Now unless HMS Illustrious is also being retired, that simply isn't correct. |
|
| Author: | rustybucket [ Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:29 pm ] | ||||||||||||||||||
| Post subject: | Re: HMS Ark Royal to be scrapped | ||||||||||||||||||
Erm... ... it's VTOL that's retro. It was invented to solve an issue that no longer exists i.e. how to provide air cover if the Soviets destroyed all the forward air bases.. Conventional tailhook aircraft can land just as well on a carrier and don't need to to jettison unused fuel and ordnance before they do it. Add in higher top speed, heavier payload, longer range, lower purchase cost, easier maintenance, lower operating cost and shorter turn-around times and the supposed need for VTOL seems rather hollow. |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Author: | Amnesia10 [ Tue Oct 19, 2010 8:03 pm ] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Post subject: | Re: HMS Ark Royal to be scrapped | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yes but there is still need for a STOL aircraft. Afghanistan for one. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author: | Linux_User [ Tue Oct 19, 2010 8:38 pm ] | |||||||||
| Post subject: | Re: HMS Ark Royal to be scrapped | |||||||||
That particular problem only afflicted the FA2. Neither the GR9 nor the JSF have the same problem, and STOVL (or even STOL) allows the aircraft to operate out of areas where CTOL and CATOBAR just aren't possible. |
||||||||||
| Author: | EddArmitage [ Tue Oct 19, 2010 8:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: HMS Ark Royal to be scrapped |
The Harrier did need to mix water into the exhaust gases to perform VTOL, though. They managed to keep that pretty quiet, generally. |
|
| Author: | HeatherKay [ Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:32 am ] | |||||||||
| Post subject: | Re: HMS Ark Royal to be scrapped | |||||||||
Sorry, forgot the </sarcasm> tag and obvious smiley. I'm rather of the opinion that we don't actually need any of these big noisy toys any more, so why not just keep what we have until it wears out. Going by how long we've kept 1940s designed airliners in service with the RAF, we should be able to keep Ark Royal and the Harriers - good name for a rock band? No? Okay - going for another four decades or so. |
||||||||||
| Author: | jonlumb [ Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:38 am ] | ||||||||||||||||||
| Post subject: | Re: HMS Ark Royal to be scrapped | ||||||||||||||||||
I wonder if it's to do with the balance of effectiveness and running costs? Something like a 1940s airliner that is used for transporting troops or similar is going to be fine for the job until it wears out, as what it encounters doesn't really change. For something that takes a more active role, it's got to deal with the constantly updating technology of whatever is being perceived as a threat. |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|