|
Post by Clem Fandango on Nov 6, 2013 20:31:47 GMT
How the hell did the government forget the VAT when they signed up for two aircraft carriers??? Balls UpIts a complete joke how many idiots are involved in running our country.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Nov 6, 2013 20:54:00 GMT
Having been in the Navy for over 30 years I saw 3 class of Carriers. What strikes me as wrong with the new carriers is that there will only be two or even possibly one. Previous classes of relatively recent carriers have been built in threes, which meant one in service one in refit and one in reserve or working up to being front line. Invincible, Illustrious and Ark Royal, Eagle, Ark Royal and Victorious, Hermes, Bulwark and Albion. With only one or even two carriers it will be impossible to maintain a constant carrier task force.
|
|
|
Post by Clem Fandango on Nov 6, 2013 21:23:21 GMT
Having been in the Navy for over 30 years I saw 3 class of Carriers. What strikes me as wrong with the new carriers is that there will only be two or even possibly one. Previous classes of relatively recent carriers have been built in threes, which meant one in service one in refit and one in reserve or working up to being front line. Invincible, Illustrious and Ark Royal, Eagle, Ark Royal and Victorious, Hermes, Bulwark and Albion. With only one or even two carriers it will be impossible to maintain a constant carrier task force. Lawry I was just reading the exact same thing on Wikipedia if we couldn't afford three new ones you'd at least think we'd have kept one of the older ones going for a while to assist. It always strikes me as odd that we picked the B variant of this aircraft when the C would have allowed us to have American and French jets landing on them which makes co-operation at lot easier. Very very short sighted in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 21:34:04 GMT
Having been in the Navy for over 30 years I saw 3 class of Carriers. What strikes me as wrong with the new carriers is that there will only be two or even possibly one. Previous classes of relatively recent carriers have been built in threes, which meant one in service one in refit and one in reserve or working up to being front line. Invincible, Illustrious and Ark Royal, Eagle, Ark Royal and Victorious, Hermes, Bulwark and Albion. With only one or even two carriers it will be impossible to maintain a constant carrier task force. It's seems more than likely it will be only one doesn't it mate ? One will go straight into reserve I think
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Nov 6, 2013 22:21:13 GMT
Having been in the Navy for over 30 years I saw 3 class of Carriers. What strikes me as wrong with the new carriers is that there will only be two or even possibly one. Previous classes of relatively recent carriers have been built in threes, which meant one in service one in refit and one in reserve or working up to being front line. Invincible, Illustrious and Ark Royal, Eagle, Ark Royal and Victorious, Hermes, Bulwark and Albion. With only one or even two carriers it will be impossible to maintain a constant carrier task force. We do have the 2 helicopter carriers, one which is Illustrious which could be converted easily, and the Ocean, plus the tow assault ships Albion and Bulwark. Not ideal but its something until the 2 carriers come online.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 22:38:20 GMT
Having been in the Navy for over 30 years I saw 3 class of Carriers. What strikes me as wrong with the new carriers is that there will only be two or even possibly one. Previous classes of relatively recent carriers have been built in threes, which meant one in service one in refit and one in reserve or working up to being front line. Invincible, Illustrious and Ark Royal, Eagle, Ark Royal and Victorious, Hermes, Bulwark and Albion. With only one or even two carriers it will be impossible to maintain a constant carrier task force. We do have the 2 helicopter carriers, one which is Illustrious which could be converted easily, and the Ocean, plus the tow assault ships Albion and Bulwark. Not ideal but its something until the 2 carriers come online. Isn't Illustrious being de-commissioned as well next year as well mate , and put up for sale or possible scrapping ?
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Nov 6, 2013 23:39:02 GMT
Sod the VAT.
What I want to know is why we're buying the inferior version of the F35 and haven't equipped the carriers with catapults.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2013 0:00:13 GMT
Sod the VAT. What I want to know is why we're buying the inferior version of the F35 and haven't equipped the carriers with catapults. I agree ...it solely down to money why sell the entire Harrier force to America if the Illustrious was being kept in service for another two or three years ? Surely it would have made sense to retain a dozen or so aircraft to operate from her deck in the meantime ?
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Nov 7, 2013 7:44:15 GMT
The catapult and arrester gear to operate the F35B conventional fighter would be very expensive because the new carriers' primary propulsion is gas turbine. On older steam driven carriers and the American/French nuclear carriers catapults are powered from the primary steam plants. Therefore the catapults would have to have been a revolutionary hydraulic system which would have been very expensive but, more importantly, delayed the programme by several years. But my argument is that if we are spending billions to develop and build these ships to be our main conventional strike force until mid 21st C, then we have to get it right to avoid expensive modifications later in the ships life.
|
|
|
Post by Clem Fandango on Nov 7, 2013 8:30:34 GMT
The catapult and arrester gear to operate the F35B conventional fighter would be very expensive because the new carriers' primary propulsion is gas turbine. On older steam driven carriers and the American/French nuclear carriers catapults are powered from the primary steam plants. Therefore the catapults would have to have been a revolutionary hydraulic system which would have been very expensive but, more importantly, delayed the programme by several years. But my argument is that if we are spending billions to develop and build these ships to be our main conventional strike force until mid 21st C, then we have to get it right to avoid expensive modifications later in the ships life. I didn't think it was as big an issue when the aircraft carriers were in design stage i.e. the project could have factored in the new hydraulic system and the carriers would have been delivered pretty much on schedule. Obviously the new system would have probably been more expensive but in terms of the ability to land American and French aircraft would have probably paid for itself. Its seems to me like we've scored a massive own goal. I can understand that it was too expensive to do this when the coalition came in my main beef is with the initial decision. The decision to scrap the previous carriers and sell all the harriers and then go and attack Libya- the mind boggles.
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Nov 7, 2013 8:38:25 GMT
The catapult and arrester gear to operate the F35B conventional fighter would be very expensive because the new carriers' primary propulsion is gas turbine. On older steam driven carriers and the American/French nuclear carriers catapults are powered from the primary steam plants. Therefore the catapults would have to have been a revolutionary hydraulic system which would have been very expensive but, more importantly, delayed the programme by several years. But my argument is that if we are spending billions to develop and build these ships to be our main conventional strike force until mid 21st C, then we have to get it right to avoid expensive modifications later in the ships life. The new generation American carriers are being built with electromagnetic catapults, which are more efficient and easier to maintain than steam catapults. There was an option to buy that technology. Over the lifespan of the carrier the cost would have been minimal, but obviously the government didnt want the initial development cost ruining their figures so chose to kick the can down the road.
|
|
|
Post by Yorkshirepotter on Nov 7, 2013 10:02:17 GMT
Maybe wencan just go India with a begging bowl, they can afford aircraft carriers easily.
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Nov 7, 2013 10:57:53 GMT
Am I missing something here ?... if the ships are being built over here then VAT is paid to the government, who are paying for the ships - so is it not irrelevant ?
ps...balls is still a useless twat though...
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Nov 7, 2013 12:25:53 GMT
Maybe wencan just go India with a begging bowl, they can afford aircraft carriers easily. Ironically the Indian Navy is still operating HMS Hermes which they bought of us in 1987. It operates as INS Viraat and is scheduled to be taken out of service in 2020 when it will be over 60 tears old or over twice it's designed operating age of 25 years. British Ship building at its best?
|
|
|
Post by mrcholmondleywarner on Nov 7, 2013 13:37:27 GMT
How the hell did the government forget the VAT when they signed up for two aircraft carriers??? Balls UpIts a complete joke how many idiots are involved in running our country. So, I don't quite understand the point? The Govt. are paying VAT to errr The Govt. ?? Viz no VAT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2013 14:40:33 GMT
Maybe wencan just go India with a begging bowl, they can afford aircraft carriers easily. Ironically the Indian Navy is still operating HMS Hermes which they bought of us in 1987. It operates as INS Viraat and is scheduled to be taken out of service in 2020 when it will be over 60 tears old or over twice it's designed operating age of 25 years. British Ship building at its best? And still operating Sea Harriers
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2013 14:46:06 GMT
The catapult and arrester gear to operate the F35B conventional fighter would be very expensive because the new carriers' primary propulsion is gas turbine. On older steam driven carriers and the American/French nuclear carriers catapults are powered from the primary steam plants. Therefore the catapults would have to have been a revolutionary hydraulic system which would have been very expensive but, more importantly, delayed the programme by several years. But my argument is that if we are spending billions to develop and build these ships to be our main conventional strike force until mid 21st C, then we have to get it right to avoid expensive modifications later in the ships life. They would need to decide if both ships were going to enter service though before going down that avenue Lawrie , there would be no point in fitting that system if both ships were not going to be in service .....personally I think it should have been fitted
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2013 6:17:57 GMT
How the hell did the government forget the VAT when they signed up for two aircraft carriers??? Balls UpIts a complete joke how many idiots are involved in running our country. The VAT of grease to oil the palms of the main contractors you mean...
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Nov 9, 2013 7:17:35 GMT
How the hell did the government forget the VAT when they signed up for two aircraft carriers??? Balls UpIts a complete joke how many idiots are involved in running our country. So, I don't quite understand the point? The Govt. are paying VAT to errr The Govt. ?? Viz no VAT Correct, all forms of tax are irrelevant where Government contracts are concerned. VAT, income tax, corporation tax, National Insurance, Insurance premium tax etc. etc. - where payable on Government contracts, they eventually end up back in Government coffers. It is one reason why there should be a bias in favour of large contracts being placed with British firms. If a foreign contractor were to build our warships the various taxes payable would end up in the coffers of the foreign country. It is also another reason why, if Scotland were to get its independence, it would be very unlikely ever to build a British warship again - whatever Alex Salmond says!
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Nov 9, 2013 15:08:39 GMT
How the hell did the government forget the VAT when they signed up for two aircraft carriers??? Balls UpIts a complete joke how many idiots are involved in running our country. So, I don't quite understand the point? The Govt. are paying VAT to errr The Govt. ?? Viz no VAT Sort of. The MOD will pay 500 million or whatever the figure may be in tax, but that goes to a different department. The government will get it back but the MOD may never see it again.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2013 15:47:39 GMT
So, I don't quite understand the point? The Govt. are paying VAT to errr The Govt. ?? Viz no VAT Sort of. The MOD will pay 500 million or whatever the figure may be in tax, but that goes to a different department. The government will get it back but the MOD may never see it again. Yes that's almost certain
|
|
|
Post by Clem Fandango on Nov 9, 2013 17:31:30 GMT
So, I don't quite understand the point? The Govt. are paying VAT to errr The Govt. ?? Viz no VAT Sort of. The MOD will pay 500 million or whatever the figure may be in tax, but that goes to a different department. The government will get it back but the MOD may never see it again. its almost like an internal recharge. Fundamentally the tax payer wouldn't see a difference however the its 500 million that MOD would be short for other projects and given the fact that kit and bodies are needed in the all the forces its a decent hit to the MOD budget.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2013 3:33:43 GMT
Found this on a site listing military euphemisms, like the term "collateral damage" for dead people.
I don't if it's true or not, but I'll post it for all you salty seadogs anyway.
> This is the transcript of an ACTUAL radio conversation of a US naval ship with Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October, 1995.
> Americans: > Please divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a collision.
> Canadians: > Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.
> Americans: > This is the Captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR course
> Canadians: > No. I say again, you divert YOUR course.
> Americans: >THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS LINCOLN, THE SECOND LARGEST SHIP IN THE UNITED STATES' ATLANTIC FLEET. WE ARE ACCOMPANIED BY THREE DESTROYERS, THREE CRUISERS AND NUMEROUS SUPPORT VESSELS. I DEMAND THAT YOU CHANGE YOUR COURSE 15 DEGREES NORTH, THAT'S ONE FIVE DEGREES NORTH, OR COUNTER-MEASURES WILL BE UNDERTAKEN TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THIS SHIP.
> Canadians: > We are a lighthouse. Your call.
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Nov 10, 2013 6:35:43 GMT
I doubt it's true There is no USS Lincoln for starters, and if they mean USS Abraham Lincoln, its not the second largest in the fleet, nor has it ever worked the Atlantic.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Nov 10, 2013 7:22:31 GMT
I doubt it's true There is no USS Lincoln for starters, and if they mean USS Abraham Lincoln, its not the second largest in the fleet, nor has it ever worked the Atlantic. Tut tut letting the truth get in the way of a good story again. This is not allowed on the Oatie you know this.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Nov 10, 2013 8:26:25 GMT
We do have the 2 helicopter carriers, one which is Illustrious which could be converted easily, and the Ocean, plus the tow assault ships Albion and Bulwark. Not ideal but its something until the 2 carriers come online. Isn't Illustrious being de-commissioned as well next year as well mate , and put up for sale or possible scrapping ? I think so, we will have to rely on the other 3 large vessels and our nuclear subs until then
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Nov 10, 2013 21:11:26 GMT
Just read about the new USA aircraft carrier which was named recently. Unfortunately described as the new Ford Class Carrier named after President Gerald Ford. There will be 10 of them displacing 100,000 tonnes and costing $13b each. The first should be conducting sea trials in 2016.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2013 23:47:17 GMT
Just read about the new USA aircraft carrier which was named recently. Unfortunately described as the new Ford Class Carrier named after President Gerald Ford. There will be 10 of them displacing 100,000 tonnes and costing $13b each. The first should be conducting sea trials in 2016. You know how the Americans love their Fords Lawrie .....let's hope they don't call it the USS Model T ? .........Laurel and Hardy your comeback will be assured
|
|