Comments by "David Houseman" (@davidhouseman4328) on "Aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales sets sail for NATO duties ⚓" video.

  1. The 3 give 360 degree coverage, so I'd go none.
    4
  2. Russia won't be, there carrier has been in refit for 5 years with no sign of coming out. A C&C would be a dream.
    3
  3. We don't just want a C4I platform, it's just part of its job.
    3
  4. It's literally deploying to an international task force, how on earth do you get we are the only country in NATO?
    3
  5.  @whya2ndaccount  It's limited in ships that could do as good a job, likely just Albion class and Type 45s. But they want to be using PoW to continue training up the crew to be match fit.
    2
  6. The decision of catapults was a close one. The one over nuclear wasn't, it makes no sense for the UK.
    2
  7. Cuts don't help but the F35 projects is years behind schedule and millions more per jet than planned.
    2
  8.  @turkey0165  your saying sure as you can't just check what I said. It not controversial, it's in the main F35 site.
    2
  9.  @turkey0165  The UK builds about 15% of each F35, it spent billions on the development and pays for every jet it gets.
    2
  10.  @turkey0165  yep it is, it just isn't very important. There are about half a dozen important issues but even those aren't stopping it be deployed, including on combat missions.
    2
  11.  @1chish  Yeah, I think we'd be 5 years behind where we are now. We made the right choice but it's just there is a lot going for EMALs too.
    2
  12.  @johnallen7807  they are a variety of reasons but it comes down to massive extra cost for little extra gain.
    1
  13.  @rayjames6096  stopping sales to the UK is never going to happen so it's moot. But the US couldn't stop Turkish production for a couple of years and the UK is much more crucial so if it stop it's parts supply F35 productions stops until new lines can be set up, thats not a quick process, though obvious it will happen eventually.
    1
  14. No, NATO is about preventing war.
    1
  15.  @rayjames6096  Its not what I say, it's the British government plans, QE/PoW are designed to be able to take Emals, and it was even plan between 2010-2012.
    1
  16.  @rayjames6096  look up the integrated electric propulsion of the QE class because you clearly have no idea what your talking about.
    1
  17.  @rayjames6096  You doubt the general point of Diesel/Gas set ups. Gas turbines are inefficient so can't be run all the time but they produce a lot more power so allow higher top speeds when needed.
    1
  18. @Drew Peacock the requirement for EMALs is variable, as I mentioned earlier they don't run direct from the power supply. You store up power (I think basically on a fly wheel) so less power is more a case of slower reuse than unuseabilty. It also depends on the number of launchers.
    1
  19. @Drew Peacock my claims comes from the ships being designed to be able to and planned to have them for two years. But asking for numbers when I just explained why it doesn't make sense just makes you look dumb.
    1
  20. @Drew Peacock you clearly haven't understood what I've written. Whats the power requirement to build up 500 MJ of energy? It could 1 or 1 million, it depends on how long your going to take.
    1
  21.  @rayjames6096  it has enough spare power for emals.
    1
  22.  @rayjames6096  They are built to be able to be refit for catapults, in the mean time they'd be helicopter carriers, so no, not scrap. And to do that you'd alienate an ally and stop F35 production for a few years as the UK build 15% of each.
    1
  23.  @ThatCarGuy  I doesn't help the UK in the slightest, it's a pile of scrap metal and radioactivity we'd never run.
    1
  24.  @johnallen7807  it nothing to do with long-term planning. Nuclear is more expensive throughout it's lifetime and that's without the substantial decommissioning costs.
    1
  25.  @johnallen7807  the point I was making was about nuclear, as that was what we were talking about, it is a lot more expensive regardless. Long term planning is of course crucial in general, but ship building the good long term plan isn't speed it consistent work flow. Slowing down the carrier construction added cost, but on the other hand with nuclear subs building too fast added a lot of cost because we finished one set before we started on the next leaving a gap and so a loss of staff and expertise that had to be rebuilt.
    1
  26.  @johnallen7807  the US runs 100k tonne carriers on nuclear, but 45k tonne helicopter carriers conventionally. The bigger the ship the more nuclear makes sense. But a key difference is the scale of the US operation, 11 carriers means with building and refits they have a continuous workload load for there shipyard, we would have create the building expertise and then lose it in the next decade without work and have to build it up again.
    1
  27.  @johnallen7807  2 has already skewed the fleet with too much carrier compared to escorts, 3 makes no sense. Nuclear subs are a different subject, they have a big advantage to justify the cost. The whole point is nuclear carriers aren't that much better to justify the cost.
    1
  28.  @johnallen7807  your point about escorts is one against nuclear carriers, if we had more money it would be spent on escorts not a marginal carrier upgrade. My point with the US carrier tonnage is we don't know what they'd use for carrier our size, only for there 100k tonne, 4000 crew behemoths, ships we aren't going to build. You can use sub reactors in a carrier, France does. But you get the CDG situation where it has been out for two 18 month periods already it's 20 year life.
    1
  29.  @johnallen7807  the total cost would have been a lot more, the extra ships would be a lot cheaper, maybe even half the price but that is still a lot. And build cost is the lesser concern, running cost end up as significantly more over the life time. With the carriers the situation is even more extreme as you have the air wing as well (which is more than the ship itself) plus escorts.
    1
  30. It's designed for the F35B.
    1
  31.  @turkey0165  Britain was never on it's knees, the flow of goods to the UK was never interrupted and the vast majority of months we produced more ships than were sunk without the US. That said I am very grateful for US help, less dead is always good. Britain has the wealth to operate a 5000 man carrier if it really wanted but it would be a total waste. We can run two with less crew and and they aren't obsolete.
    1
  32. We don't want them.
    1
  33. There's no insanity, we have limited numbers they can be doing other things if a mission doesn't require them.
    1
  34. Albion is commonly used as a command platform, it doesn't have aircraft.
    1
  35. @Drew Peacock F35s are avaible as they are. Valkyrie isn't production aircraft. If you think you can define anything about its capability your wrong.
    1
  36. @Drew Peacock PoW has access to the same air wing as QE, they aren't carrier specific. Drones to supplement F35s seems good to me. It is something be looked at, we have our own program, but buying would also be an option.
    1
  37. @Drew Peacock Yes phalanx isn't great. There are better alternatives but they are also limited it what they are good for. It's your misisle systems that are going to be doing any high level defending.
    1
  38. @Drew Peacock for a single job it doesn't need aircraft for!
    1
  39.  @craigbeatty8565  During it lifetime it needs aircraft, for a particular mission it doesn't. Restaurants can't run command and control for a fleet.
    1
  40.  @rayjames6096  the gas turbines don't power the propellers, they are surge power for when you want the propellers to go faster, ie all the turbine power can be used EMALs. Also EMALs doesn't work from direct power, you charge up storage and the storage powers the Emals.
    1