Carriers Overbudget!!!!!!

[qprdave]

Is this the beginning of the end for the two Carriers?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8125449.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8125466.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8081969.stm

[astraltrader]

You beat me by about 30 seconds Dave - so I deleted mine!

Sadly I have been predicting a U-turn over these carriers for some months now and I am convinced that this is the begining of just that.

The need to cut back on public spending to reclaim some of the massive sums poured in to shore up our corruptand greed driven banking system make these two carriers top of the list for the axe.:(

[FTM127]

I would like to now restate the obvious. The US and GB cannot afford to continue developing separate defense systems. We need to co-operate for mutual benefit. We ought to help with your short term needs by offering equipment to fill the breach and then force partnership and standardization upon our procurment organizations. It's a win/win, if we can just get the politics out of it up-front and cut the bullsxxt that will have to be overcome in the design and construction.

Fred

[chris westwood]

of course they are over budget
these things always are
the issue for me is whther they are what the country needs.

FTM127 makes a valid point, although thje Jont Strike fighter is an example of such a project and that's delayed and over budget as well.
the UK might have been better of ordering three maybe four Essex/wasp type ships from the US. They are p[roven, fit for the UK's purpose and woiuld be cheap because there would be fewer 'lead' costs.

[TCC]

I would like to now restate the obvious. The US and GB cannot afford to continue developing separate defense systems. We need to co-operate for mutual benefit. We ought to help with your short term needs by offering equipment to fill the breach and then force partnership and standardization upon our procurment organizations. It's a win/win, if we can just get the politics out of it up-front and cut the bullshit that will have to be overcome in the design and construction.

Fred

Well can I play 'British PM' in this game and insist that we [UK industry] share in any research grants and production runs?

I mean, if we were to just buy US weapons & systems, where's the positives for our economy in that? We can't be spending our tax just to keep americans shareholders happy and their workers well-fed, no offense.

And there I go, adding political bullsxxt.

Fred, as soon as the UK stops making our own weapon systems, that's when we loose the ability to make and sell ours to our 3rd (or 2nd) world customers of choice... we also loose jobs.

Politics and bull* is entwined in arms procurment like sausage goes with mash.

[TCC]

Is this the beginning of the end for the two Carriers?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8125449.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8125466.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8081969.stm

The navy gave up several small ships for these, the brass agreed to a smaller fleet as long as the savings went towards these 2.

So I can see the Admirals sharpening their swords and leading a boarding party against HMS Whitehall after the blood of those who reneagued on their promise!

The fun will be watching as excocets are fired at the pirate ships in Downing street, they'd be after No11 while not caring if No10 had collateral damage.

[chris westwood]

Politics is entwined in arms procurment like sausage goes with mash.
and quite rightly so
we aren't talking about toys here
what would be your way of goiung about it?
also
adding UK components to american products is a false economy
for instance putting Rolls Royce Engines into phantoms made them vastly more expensive.

[chris westwood]

The navy gave up several small ships for these, the brass agreed to a smaller fleet as long as the savings went towards these 2.


well more fool them

[TrotOneLower]

and quite rightly so
we aren't talking about toys here
what would be your way of goiung about it?
also
adding UK components to american products is a false economy
for instance putting Rolls Royce Engines into phantoms made them vastly more expensive.

Not only that, but the engines were too powerful for the airframe, and caused countless problems.

[TrotOneLower]

well more fool them

Absolutely, what kind of retard would believe the "promises", "guarantees", or whatever else, issued by a politician.

[davep]

yes we gave up a number of small ships as part of the cuts so that we could get the carriers, i remember it well i was on one of them and she was only 7 years old.
after 12 years you would of thought that the top brass would of cottoned on by now that we had been well and truly conned. any government serious about ship building could of had those ships in production within a couple of years.
they worked a con with the type 45s saying we would get 8 to replace the 12 type 42s but what they didnt say was that they had only contracted for 6! that fact didnt come out till later.
now that its nearly time to cut steel for the carriers its time for the politicians to suddenly come up with an excuse to scrap the idea.
As for any member of the admiralty board going to seek revenge for being lied to! dont make me laugh they havent got the back bone they are all yes men in uniform till they leave then they suddenly want to tell everyone how much stretch and ill equipped we are. pity they arent down with the rest of us having to make do rather than just passing the problem along.
rant over chiefs of to the mess for a pint its very hot here in Faslane, must be getting to me!!:)

[TrotOneLower]

Ah, Faslane, I remember that, I think.

Right from the start, I said we will never see these ships. Son-in-law, still serving said I was wrong, that having given up some ships, they would not back out. Yeah, right.

[CGRET]

It's funny the article call's the carrier that the Navy wants a cold war relic, but every small country on the globe that has a navy is building a carrier or planning for one. So is it a cold war relic for the RN? How is power projection a cold war relic, when it's been in the Naval history of the Royal Navy? Moreover where in the planning and building of this carrier does it state it's for a cold war foe?

I think it's polictical football!

Regards
Charles

[qprdave]

It's funny the article call's the carrier that the Navy wants a cold war relic, but every small country on the globe that has a navy is building a carrier or planning for one. So is it a cold war relic for the RN? How is power projection a cold war relic, when it's been in the Naval history of the Royal Navy? Moreover where in the planning and building of this carrier does it state it's for a cold war foe?

I think it's polictical football!

Regards
Charles
I suppose, If you were in the Army or R.A.F. You would say anything to protect your assets and ensure that future aquisitions remained on the list.

[TrotOneLower]

It's funny the article call's the carrier that the Navy wants a cold war relic, but every small country on the globe that has a navy is building a carrier or planning for one. So is it a cold war relic for the RN? How is power projection a cold war relic, when it's been in the Naval history of the Royal Navy? Moreover where in the planning and building of this carrier does it state it's for a cold war foe?

I think it's polictical football!

Regards
Charles

Bearing in mind that these had not even entered the discussion stage when the Cold War ended, how could they be?
It's politics from a Government on the run, and determined to depart following a "Scorched Earth" policy.
Bstds..

[jbryce1437]

Looks like we will end up with a fleet of River Class patrol boats, painted in Coastguard colours and operated by the Salvation Army;)

[Harley]

Bearing in mind that these had not even entered the discussion stage when the Cold War ended, how could they be?
It's politics from a Government on the run, and determined to depart following a "Scorched Earth" policy.
Bstds..

And one hell of a scorched earth policy it will be. If the project is scrapped, I doubt that the good Doctor Fox would be able to reinstate such a vast project in the face of parliamentary opposition and a public wondering where their tax-money is going to.

What of the shipbuilding industry though, such as it is? The carriers were delayed partly because of "restructuring" of the industry, i.e. knocking them together and making them smaller. What the hell will they do without these contracts?

Bah...

Simon

[tim lewin]

Dearv All, the potential for second hand or even shared build with the USA for carriers was deeply but deeply explored in the 70s and found that the huge number of detail differences and spares availability made the "on the surface" super attractive deal actually unworkable in reality. This is covered admirably by Richard Hill in his book about the life of good old dad (GOD in short, as he was known in family circs) whichich for those acutely interested in the minutae of the debate i am happy to forward the relevant chapter. In theory of course its madness to pursue our differences, NATO should have standardised everything down to the last brass tally decades ago, but what have we actually got? boots? rifle ammo? fuel? not much else to show for the moneeey. Blame the politicians, everyone else does....
tim

[chris westwood]

Absolutely, what kind of retard would believe the "promises", "guarantees", or whatever else, issued by a politician.

calling people 'retards' is well out of order.
we are either having a discussion here or we aren't. I spent many years working with people with learning difficulties: the word retard is as bad as calling black people the N word.

the navy exists to do a job and needs the equipment and personnel to do it.
It needs the right equipment:It does not exist as an autonomous nationalistic vanity project.
the whole point of having defence forces is that they do what the people running the government see fit.
As such they have the respopnsibility to give the people the right stuff to do that job with. Sometimes, often even this responsibility is not seen through by governments of whatever peruasion you care to mention, but that doesn't mean the system is wrong.
What would you have the government(any government) do, say to the military/naval top brass here's all the money you want get what you like with it? I shudder to think.

[chris westwood]

Bearing in mind that these had not even entered the discussion stage when the Cold War ended, how could they be?
It's politics from a Government on the run, and determined to depart following a "Scorched Earth" policy.
Bstds..
the design philosophy coild be said to be rooted in the cold war.

[qprdave]

Chris

I have a feeling that you are thinking of running for office and getting some practise in on this website.

[chris westwood]

Chris

I have a feeling that you are thinking of running for office and getting some practise in on this website.
sorry for sounding up tight-apologies to everyone

[qprdave]

Just kidding Chris.

Say what you want. We don't care

[astraltrader]

-especially if you fill out your profile section!;)

[harry.gibbon]

No profile completed yet then Chris.. must be operating undercover:eek:
little h

[astraltrader]

Thats what worried me Harry!

[harry.gibbon]

I've stayed out of this carrier one so far, but in recent threads the Battles were crap... the County's were crap... now now this!!! I think for someone to hold such contradictory views to those who have to man these vessels and who have families at home warrants something of a 'declared interest'

Litttle h

[FTM127]

Gents,

Not to toss a red hering into the sea, but just because one study concluded that sharing could NOT be done, that it was correct. A proper study is scuttled for lot's of reasons. The real issue is identification of obstacles and strategies to overcome them. Any problem can be solved. For example, products are made from components manufactured from all over the world every day from automobles to washing machines. Cerainly, systems and components, not to mention ships can be engineered in both countries to proper specifications. In fact, I believe it has already been done with civilian ships (different countries perhaps). In the Navy, you learned that many hands make light work of many tasks. So too, can dividing up a project generate skilled jobs in more than one country. Too often, those that have vested interests are the consultants called upon to do the analysis, thereby resulting in misleading conclusions that defy common sense.

Fred

[chris westwood]

I've stayed out of this carrier one so far, but in recent threads the Battles were crap... the County's were crap... now now this!!! I think for someone to hold such contradictory views to those who have to man these vessels and who have families at home warrants something of a 'declared interest'

Litttle h

they were poor designs

are you saying that the battle class were superior to say the gearings?
or that the main armamament of the counties was any use? It was obsolete before it entered service. What must it have been like to maouevre a wessex helicopter along that narrow oassage way to get it onto the flight deck?
MY interest has been declared. The royal navy has been poorly served(for differenmt reasons) in the design of its vessels and the equipment mounted in them
Why do you think the battles enterd service with an american fire control system?(the same one as on the flethchers, gearing and summner classes)-look at the photos.

[harry.gibbon]

Chris, thank you for completing your profile, much appreciated and for what its worth I am the father of a coal miner and ex RN.

I can not say that the RN has been well served by its ship designers or equipment designers/procurement depts.

I can say that I served on two Battle Class destroyers and yes they had failings, but I can't admit knowing of them being pitted against a Gearing Class, in a serious head to head exercise to prove any kind of superiority one over the other. We had the William R. Rush in company with us on exercises and the ships in our sqdn acquitted themselves admirably in the serials allotted to them.

The County Class fitting the Seaslug system.. well... enough said ... but a Falklands veteran on the forum will have to respond to how they performed down there, rather than me pulling info from accounts that have been written.
For me, they were nice ships to the eye but a tad too luxurious.
The helo/hanger ops; I wonder how it compared with that on the Tribal class frigates Nubian etc?

I shall only say that I really would not like to see our Navy buy wholesale from across the pond and would prefer the joint european approach.

Little h

[chris westwood]

thanks for that
the gearings had a reliable dual purpose main armament that was well disposed and a wider radius of actiopn. YThe Battles adopted the gearings/fletchers fire control systems
I said they were beautiful 'proud vessels', but that's beside the point really
the counties operated as fire support ships in the falklands they never (thankfully) were called upon to use their hopeless main armament(the seaslug) in the aa role. The tribals again another poor design.
the best post world war 2 class of UK naval vessel was the Leander class-absolutely fit for purpose, they had long careers and served the country well.

[TCC]

Someone above broached on their role of 'power projection' which makes me ask.

'Why do we need the carriers?' They are offensive weapons and as we don't really have a empre anymore, do we seriously expect a re-run of a falklands-type engagment?

I've often nursed a secret suspicion tht we have these 1st-world power weapons (Trident, et al) just so's our PM gets to sit at the big table with the proper big superpowers. That's gotta be good for the ego of the ex-solicitor/ex-poly lecturer who's now reading the red boxes.

The role I envision for the QE2 class will be as part of a coalition fleet with the carriers inter-changable with US versions. Blair makes that vision easier, Brown seems to be made of different stuff and is not as gung-ho.

I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't see them launched. That's a hell of a lot of £ brown has just spent keeping the banks solvent.

[TCC]

what would be your way of goiung about it?
.
Chris, I don't know whether we need them.

[chris westwood]

Someone above broached on their role of 'power projection' which makes me ask.

'Why do we need the carriers?' They are offensive weapons and as we don't really have a empre anymore, do we seriously expect a re-run of a falklands-type engagment?

I've often nursed a secret suspicion tht we have these 1st-world power weapons (Trident, et al) just so's our PM gets to sit at the big table with the proper big superpowers. That's gotta be good for the ego of the ex-solicitor/ex-poly lecturer who's now reading the red boxes.

The role I envision for the QE2 class will be as part of a coalition fleet with the carriers inter-changable with US versions. Blair makes that vision easier, Brown seems to be made of different stuff and is not as gung-ho.

I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't see them launched. That's a hell of a lot of £ brown has just spent keeping the banks solvent.
exactly
although there's nothing wrong with being an ex poly lecturer or solicitor. peoples' background is irrelevant: and no I'm not supporter of Brown.
he air complement of these behemoths will be interchangeable
but flexibility of employment IMHO is a major flaw and there is only two
not quite as bad as France with one I guess.
Your 'sitting at the top table' comment was bang on, and I guess that goes for senior naval/army and airforce officers as well.

[chris westwood]

Chris, I don't know whether we need them.
me neither

[CGRET]

I'm the one who brought up power projection as it relates to carriers. The RN and USN as well as other navies have sent there Carriers into troubled regions of the world for that sole purpose, or you could call it "Showing the Fag" either way your projecting power by sending warship/carrier to the effected region.

As for the RN, USN countries cooperating on warship design and or ship building programs, that may very be the future for these 2 nations.

To pit a RN ship against a USN ship is not productive and really serves no purpose other than to say I'm big boy on the high seas now. Whether the ship is Royal navy or not, all ships have a flaw in the design,electronic's,weapons, another words a weak point that normally is NOT made public for that very reason.

In the end these 2 carriers, whether built or not will have an effect on the Royal Navy for years.

Regards
Charles

[chris westwood]

I'm the one who brought up power projection as it relates to carriers. The RN and USN as well as other navies have sent there Carriers into troubled regions of the world for that sole purpose, or you could call it "Showing the Fag" either way your projecting power by sending warship/carrier to the effected region.

As for the RN, USN countries cooperating on warship design and or ship building programs, that may very be the future for these 2 nations.

To pit a RN ship against a USN ship is not productive and really serves no purpose other than to say I'm big boy on the high seas now. Whether the ship is Royal navy or not, all ships have a flaw in the design,electronic's,weapons, another words a weak point that normally is NOT made public for that very reason.

In the end these 2 carriers, whether built or not will have an effect on the Royal Navy for years.

Regards
Charles
as far as Im aware nobody has pitted anything against anything and certainly not for that reason

these two behemoths are a very labour intensive and expensive vehicle for showing the flag.
some ship designs are better than others and that includes their designphilosophy and their equipment. The thing is there to do a job

[CGRET]

Chris,

The reason I made that statement is in one of the earlier post that mentioned about a Battle Class verses a Gearing class DD as being pitted against each other.

And you are correct, building a carrier is labor entensive and takes a vast amount of money.

Regards
Charles

[TrotOneLower]

We did get one design right, albeit on the third attempt, and that is the batch III type 22 frigate. But four ain't a lot of use, and they are getting old now.

[astraltrader]

Sadly with no replacement in sight they will have to last a bit longer yet.

[TCC]

exactly
although there's nothing wrong with being an ex poly lecturer or solicitor. peoples' background is irrelevant:

Well it's their seemingly lack of previous PM or Govt. related work that makes their old vocation seem to sit badly now they have their finger on our nuclear button. That's all I was saying...

This labour lot make me look back whistfully at the tories... and that's is saying something.

and no I'm not supporter of Brown.
That last reshuffle that wasn't just showed him as a 'weak' 'do everything to stay in power' type of man.

he air complement of these behemoths will be interchangeable
but flexibility of employment IMHO is a major flaw and there is only two
not quite as bad as France with one I guess.

Yes, but what will we use them for? Are we going to start (carry on) pillaging lesser countries just to get their mineral reserves or territory to suit out strategic needs, re: oil, bases, etc?

If that's what they're for, fine. They're right for that role, though I have issues* as to our being so 'bully-ish' about it [ask me about my 'issues' when petrol is £10 a gallon, or heating or power to my home is rationed]. But at least our govt. are being pro-active and are planing to source our countries needs into the 21st C.

I can't believe I'm being so cavalier about the UK "doing an Iraq" on several more 2nd/3rd world countries but it's quite heartening in a way to think of the powers-that-be actually thinking about the future where fossil fuels will be scarce and possibly the cause of conflict. But this is the role of armed forces, isn't it? To force our Govt.s will on other govt.s and it tends to be about money. [Please don't be lining up to jump on my head. :-)]

I'm probably being to dire here and they'll simply slot in to any US-led fleet as interchangable units.. what with their shared air-arm.

[debate?]

[There was a bit on the news about them last night, how the shipyards lined up to build them will have no other work come completion and thus will close.

An over-zealous shipyard PR-man hitting the fax button with the latest fart from the boardroom?]

[Kevin123]

To keep everyone happy, including ship workers, navy and government, wouldn't it be worth building just the one carrier and perhaps another one at a later date. Would there be any chance of keeping one of the ageing invincible class carriers to serve along side her. Kevin.

[chris westwood]

Yes, but what will we use them for? Are we going to start (carry on) pillaging lesser countries just to get their mineral reserves or territory to suit out strategic needs, re: oil, bases, etc?

If that's what they're for, fine. They're right for that role, though I have issues* as to our being so 'bully-ish' about it [ask me about my 'issues' when petrol is £10 a gallon, or heating or power to my home is rationed]. But at least our govt. are being pro-active and are planing to source our countries needs into the 21st C.

I can't believe I'm being so cavalier about the UK "doing an Iraq" on several more 2nd/3rd world countries but it's quite heartening in a way to think of the powers-that-be actually thinking about the future where fossil fuels will be scarce and possibly the cause of conflict. But this is the role of armed forces, isn't it? To force our Govt.s will on other govt.s and it tends to be about money. [Please don't be lining up to jump on my head. :-)]

I'm probably being to dire here and they'll simply slot in to any US-led fleet as interchangable units.. what with their shared air-arm.

[debate?]

[There was a bit on the news about them last night, how the shipyards lined up to build them will have no other work come completion and thus will close.

An over-zealous shipyard PR-man hitting the fax button with the latest fart from the boardroom?]

absoluitely
but there isn't much of a likelihood of the UK entering into such an adventure unilaterally, and I doubt whether these vesels would be the best for the job, or any other job for that matter.

[chris westwood]

Chris,

The reason I made that statement is in one of the earlier post that mentioned about a Battle Class verses a Gearing class DD as being pitted against each other.

And you are correct, building a carrier is labor entensive and takes a vast amount of money.

Regards
Charles

no worries
it isn't a question of one being 'pitted against the other'
the gearings- a development of a classic design(the fletchers IMHO easily the best destroyer design of WW2) good sea boats with a well balanced effective reliable armammant with good fire control, The ability to beupgraded(this happened with the FRAM) programme

the battles: an unreliable main armamant most of which (all of which originally) was sited forward. Designed to operate in the meiterranean, but completed so long after that only a few saw service in the pacific toward the end. Their radius of action was not as good as the Gearings. No suitable fire control system available so initially an american system(same as the gearings and fletchers) used instead. Short lioved(apart form the long laid up matapan) with little scope for upgrading although some saw service as radar pickets.
Beautiful to look at though

[chris westwood]

To keep everyone happy, including ship workers, navy and government, wouldn't it be worth building just the one carrier and perhaps another one at a later date. Would there be any chance of keeping one of the ageing invincible class carriers to serve along side her. Kevin.
the invincibles aren't ageing, they are old
even one carrier woiuld be a waste of manpower and resources.
you can keepthe shipyards going by building vesels that the country actually needs.

[chris westwood]

Chris,

The reason I made that statement is in one of the earlier post that mentioned about a Battle Class verses a Gearing class DD as being pitted against each other.

And you are correct, building a carrier is labor entensive and takes a vast amount of money.

Regards
Charles
I didn't say building a carrier was labour intensive.
I said operating one was especially one as large and as complex as this.
where are the sailors, and thir various skills going to come from?

[Kevin123]

Who actually wanted the carriers to begin with. If it was the brass then they must have known they would face cutbacks in other areas of the fleet. Kevin.

[CGRET]

Assuming the design of the carrier is highly automated, the need for a large crew would not be needed.

If not then your right, where?, that remains to be seen.

Regards
Charles

[chris westwood]

Assuming the design of the carrier is highly automated, the need for a large crew would not be needed.

If not then your right, where?, that remains to be seen.

Regards
Charles
it's all relative
these ships are huge, and their air group will be large and all that goes with it.
good point all the same.
edit: the complement is isted at 1,500 including air group crew, which does represent a much smaller complement than woiuld have been the case in the past. But when you consider the strength of the navy, and the size of complement of other ships in the service, it is quite a large proportion of that strength.

[CGRET]

Chris,

I do not know much about the RN, but maybe you could help understand this. Does the service have reserves who serve active for a certain period each year? If so are they called up to help fill shipboard personel shortages.

Is the RN going through cut-backs on the ratings?

Regards
Charles

[chris westwood]

Chris,

I do not know much about the RN, but maybe you could help understand this. Does the service have reserves who serve active for a certain period each year? If so are they called up to help fill shipboard personel shortages.

Is the RN going through cut-backs on the ratings?

Regards
Charles
I don't think so
but there are people on here far better able to answer that question than I.
the army has the 'territorial army who are called upon to do active serevice including afghanistan. Naval reserve organisations I think are different.

[tim lewin]

Dear All,
I think the debate over the merits of different ship designs supposes that someone sits down with a clean sheet and says "lets draw a new ship"; this is clearly not the case, all ship design is evolutionary and pulled in different directions by the customs and practice of the known past and the predictions, often wrong, of what to expect in the future. The USN destroyers so praised in the earlier posts were designed for long range service in a mainly pacific theatre and thus followed a well trodden Pacific fleet path. The Battles were based firmly on the Atlantic/Med experiences of the RN but deliberately scaled up for Pacific service as from 1943 that was clearly going to be where they would serve. All of the heavier gunnery was at the pointy end because the principal threat in the Pacific came from above. The gunnery control was a joint design, yes, perfected by the Americans who had much more capacity at the time, but easily servicable by their fleet train in the Pacific which was vastly superior to ours in both numbers and effect. The turrets of the Battles were proper turrets and tried out in some of the Ms first I think, and were an efficient enough weapon which lead on to the more efficient box-turret of the type 12s and earlier Leanders. The Leanders as was pointed out by one member were probably the most successful design for that size of ship ever, especially if their direct hull-family members such as type 12s etc are included. Didn't work so well in type 14s tho! even this design owes something to the type 3 (??) Hunts (Brecon/Brissenden from memory). Materials technology makes a huge difference in modern ship design, as does the bits that go into the hull, it is important not to have a single source as this way competition is stultified and progress slowed. Access to spares is also critical, its no good buying all your bits of kit from a source that might end up on the opposite side of a dispute to you and leaves you without that vital gadget, or ammunition!
Consider just for a moment HMS Hermes; Designed during the WW2 in the age of the Swordfish biplane. Still serving effectively in the Falklands conflict in 1982 equipped with VSTOL fighter bombers that could only have been imagined in science fiction at the time of her first, much delayed, commission, and still in useful service with the Indian Navy. Flexibility of purpose and adaptability of mind are the most important drivers of any succesful design.
tim

[chris westwood]

Dear All,
I think the debate over the merits of different ship designs supposes that someone sits down with a clean sheet and says "lets draw a new ship"; this is clearly not the case, all ship design is evolutionary and pulled in different directions by the customs and practice of the known past and the predictions, often wrong, of what to expect in the future. The USN destroyers so praised in the earlier posts were designed for long range service in a mainly pacific theatre and thus followed a well trodden Pacific fleet path. The Battles were based firmly on the Atlantic/Med experiences of the RN but deliberately scaled up for Pacific service as from 1943 that was clearly going to be where they would serve. All of the heavier gunnery was at the pointy end because the principal threat in the Pacific came from above. The gunnery control was a joint design, yes, perfected by the Americans who had much more capacity at the time, but easily servicable by their fleet train in the Pacific which was vastly superior to ours in both numbers and effect. The turrets of the Battles were proper turrets and tried out in some of the Ms first I think, and were an efficient enough weapon which lead on to the more efficient box-turret of the type 12s and earlier Leanders. The Leanders as was pointed out by one member were probably the most successful design for that size of ship ever, especially if their direct hull-family members such as type 12s etc are included. Didn't work so well in type 14s tho! even this design owes something to the type 3 (??) Hunts (Brecon/Brissenden from memory). Materials technology makes a huge difference in modern ship design, as does the bits that go into the hull, it is important not to have a single source as this way competition is stultified and progress slowed. Access to spares is also critical, its no good buying all your bits of kit from a source that might end up on the opposite side of a dispute to you and leaves you without that vital gadget, or ammunition!
Consider just for a moment HMS Hermes; Designed during the WW2 in the age of the Swordfish biplane. Still serving effectively in the Falklands conflict in 1982 equipped with VSTOL fighter bombers that could only have been imagined in science fiction at the time of her first, much delayed, commission, and still in useful service with the Indian Navy. Flexibility of purpose and adaptability of mind are the most important drivers of any succesful design.
tim
cracking stuff

although the battles were desiged for operation in the med, it's a myth that they were dsigned for pacific operations. If having all the main armament at one end of the ship was such a good idea, why was a rather lonely and in any case unsatisfactory 4'5 gun added with a rear firing arc later?
the guns themselves were unreliable and slow compared to the 5" american weapon, the orginal ducth hazemeyer bofors aa system was fragile also.

[tim lewin]

The 4.5 single gun in a shield abaft the funnel of the Battles was the starshell gun intended for target illumination leaving the frwd weapons to fire real steel; this is an example of past and present and you may well ask why in the rapidly advancing age of radar would you need starshells anyway? there was a very powerful move in the seventies to junk all kinds of gunnery and replace it with missiles 100%, tradition and fear of the new held them back altho not in all cases until the Falklands when it was made painfully clear how jolly handy a quick-firing gun can be. Even as late as the seventies the old 4" HA/LA gun was in use, now this is about a complex an an Austin 7 but with a good gun crew has a rate of fire or 10 rounds a minute from each barrel. In retrospect the Staags and Hazemayers were too delicate and fiddley as was their tachymetric guidance but this needs to be though of a "a step along the road", there were lots of other guns that were tougher, more reliable and cheaper but the Admiralty chose these! fortunately no one really ever had to use them in anger.

[chris westwood]

The 4.5 single gun in a shield abaft the funnel of the Battles was the starshell gun intended for target illumination leaving the frwd weapons to fire real steel; this is an example of past and present and you may well ask why in the rapidly advancing age of radar would you need starshells anyway? there was a very powerful move in the seventies to junk all kinds of gunnery and replace it with missiles 100%, tradition and fear of the new held them back altho not in all cases until the Falklands when it was made painfully clear how jolly handy a quick-firing gun can be. Even as late as the seventies the old 4" HA/LA gun was in use, now this is about a complex an an Austin 7 but with a good gun crew has a rate of fire or 10 rounds a minute from each barrel. In retrospect the Staags and Hazemayers were too delicate and fiddley as was their tachymetric guidance but this needs to be though of a "a step along the road", there were lots of other guns that were tougher, more reliable and cheaper but the Admiralty chose these! fortunately no one really ever had to use them in anger.
this weapon replaced the starshell gun
the 4 inch dual purpose weapon in its characteristric mount was a ubiquitous and useful weapon in ww2. I think the last 'new' ship it was mounted on(obviously second hand) was HMS Mermaid, which started out as Nkruma's yacht and had a short period on fishery protection duties. I tink she is now a training vessel for the malaysian navy.

I woul suggest that fortunately no one had to use the battle class as a whole in anger. Fine looking ships though.
even more dubious were their progeny the darings and the weapon class.

[tim lewin]

I understood that the thinking behind the 4.5 starshell gun was to use the same cal of ammunition; I remember my father telling me that they did actually use it quite a lot on Cyprus patrol in 56/7 when they used to chase up and down the coast looking for gun-running EOKA caiques, I think the drama of the bang, flash and snowy seascape was more of a deterrent than having a big destroyer whoosh up out of nowhere having spotted you on radar, or more probably not, in those days!
tim

[chris westwood]

I understood that the thinking behind the 4.5 starshell gun was to use the same cal of ammunition; I remember my father telling me that they did actually use it quite a lot on Cyprus patrol in 56/7 when they used to chase up and down the coast looking for gun-running EOKA caiques, I think the drama of the bang, flash and snowy seascape was more of a deterrent than having a big destroyer whoosh up out of nowhere having spotted you on radar, or more probably not, in those days!
tim

you may well be right Tim, although a 'proper' gun could probably fire starshell anyway
which still leaves the battles with a poorly disposed armament.

[qprdave]

Have a look at this site Cgret. I should answer a lot of your questions

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/royal-naval-reserve/

[tim lewin]

Very briefly before I knock off for the week; the idea of sticking all of the HA AA weaponry on the afterpart of the ship grew out of the lessons learned in convoy escort, this saw a lot of destroyers lose their standard fit of same cal guns fore & aft in favour of HA or quick-firing weapons concentrated aft whence the airborne threat generally came. one of the first group were the Tribals which were not unlike the Battles in scope where the X mounting of twin 4.7 were quickly replaced by HA 4" when they found themselves very lacking in HA protection, others followed, the Dutch Isaac Sweers was particularly well equipped in this respect. The point being, it wasn't just whimsy that divided the weapons fit fore and aft, there was a lot of painful experience behind it; so the legend goes!
All best
tim

[chris westwood]

Very briefly before I knock off for the week; the idea of sticking all of the HA AA weaponry on the afterpart of the ship grew out of the lessons learned in convoy escort, this saw a lot of destroyers lose their standard fit of same cal guns fore & aft in favour of HA or quick-firing weapons concentrated aft whence the airborne threat generally came. one of the first group were the Tribals which were not unlike the Battles in scope where the X mounting of twin 4.7 were quickly replaced by HA 4" when they found themselves very lacking in HA protection, others followed, the Dutch Isaac Sweers was particularly well equipped in this respect. The point being, it wasn't just whimsy that divided the weapons fit fore and aft, there was a lot of painful experience behind it; so the legend goes!
All best
tim
thanks Tim
adding the 4inch on x mount in the tribal was a bit of an indictment of the supposedly dual purpose nature of her 4.5" guns.
Isaac sweers wasn't intended to mount those weapons, they were added in the uk when she escaped the germans when they invaded holland: pretty much an ad hoc arrangement. The J and K vessels were similarly armed, although with no Y turret and x turret only trainable forward-as you'll see on any picture of these vessels.

naval weaponsry after world war one, was with exceptions pretty mediocre and didn't keep up with developments
the 15 inch guns of the queen elizabeth class, the twin 4 inch mountings we've talked about were the exceptions
but just about every weapon and most ships didn't match up to what other nations, particularly the americans were building.
for instance: the hood and repulse class were dangerous white elephants, although nice to look at.
the KGVs were nowhere near as capable as the South dakota class
german S boats outnmatched the vulnerable british mtbs
the nelsons were a fudge to conform to a treaty.
and so on.
I didn't think it was whimsy: just a bad design-although a bonny looking one.
as I've said before the black swan class and their associates, the county class cruisers(apart from their main armamament), the illustrious/implacable class carriers and the river class frigates were superb designs-spot on for the job they had to do.

[qprdave]

I imagine that after WWI, what with the Navy cutting agreements and the financial state of the country meant that little attention was paid to mass development programmes. By the time that WWII loomed, No time was given to develop the "Perfect Ship" or "Perfect Guns". As they were building, in effect, "Hostilities only" vessels it was more of. Put any guns on them. Besides, I suspect that most of the money had to go on R.A.D.A.R. and A/S Ships/Equipment. Too much equipment required in too shorter time.

[chris westwood]

I imagine that after WWI, what with the Navy cutting agreements and the financial state of the country meant that little attention was paid to mass development programmes. By the time that WWII loomed, No time was given to develop the "Perfect Ship" or "Perfect Guns". As they were building, in effect, "Hostilities only" vessels it was more of. Put any guns on them. Besides, I suspect that most of the money had to go on R.A.D.A.R. and A/S Ships/Equipment. Too much equipment required in too shorter time.

that's a very good point
but what woiuld it have cost to ghive the KGVs a bow that kept the water out, instead of having the ridiculous notion of the main armamanet having to be able to fire at point blank direct ahead? the 5.25 dp guns, the 14 inch main armament were complex and expensive-a lot of costly work went into them, but they were nowhere near as good as say their american equivalents. These thing were designed pre war. The navy and the government realised that ships woiuld have to face an air threat-the result was the hopelles quad barrelled .5 mounting. It wold have been just as easy to have produced something that worked, especially since it was a vickers design-the creme de la creme of automatic weapon design, ame with the 2 pounder pom pom (both weapons a development of the companiy's machine gun)
the financial state of the country threw up the county class cruisers, and the A-I destroyers.
excellent peace time vessels the A-Is were a development of the V&W destroyers. Simple to make, reliable, but ith an already obsolete main armmnet. The couty cruisers were given a very expensive main armament of 8 inch guns, weapons that were supposed to have an anti aircraft capability-this inevitably built flaws into the design. This had nothing to do with the nation's economy.
some of the UK's 'war built' vessels were superb(see previous post). The 'war emergency' destroyers were essentially an enlarged 'A-I with different engine room arrangements, no effective dp main armament with that armament mouted in open gun houses. There was I know a massive shortage of destroyer type weapons that's why the P class had obsolete 4 inch guns, but most were equipped with a modern weapon that was needlessly obsolete(although this disn't stop them being mounted in the post war tribal class, but that's another story and Super League is on soon: shouild be a good game.

[CGRET]

qprdave,

Thank You for the link and education on the RNR!

Regards
Charles

[oldsalt]

The perfect guns were probably in the Tiger, Lion & Blake but by that time the missile age had arrived. Tiger's 6" guns could fire 20 rounds per min., the 3" up to 120 rounds per min. Anyone know the rate of fire for the present main gun armament are they 4.5 "?

[oldsalt]

This thread seems to have strayed into gunnery, the new carriers were bound to be over budget, the original guesstemate was so far in the past it's got to be unrealistic, they also take so long to build that new equipment being designed is wanted in the ships, there has to be a point when ship builders have to say " no more alterations"

[chris westwood]

The perfect guns were probably in the Tiger, Lion & Blake but by that time the missile age had arrived. Tiger's 6" guns could fire 20 rounds per min., the 3" up to 120 rounds per min. Anyone know the rate of fire for the present main gun armament are they 4.5 "?
the 4.5 used by the royal navy is a navalised version of the Abbott self propelld gun.

the water cooled 6 inch guns of the tiger suffered fromreliabilitybproblems.
the 3 inch was inferior to its US equivalent to the extent that the Royal nvy mounted ther americn version in the victorious.