La Royal Navy taglia l'F-35

[-{-Legolas-}-]

Forse come prevedibile, la RN cede sul numero di F-35 che non saranno più 138 ma solo 50, per avere i fondi per costruire entrambe le portaerei preventivate, la Queen Elizabeth nel 2016 e pa Prince of Wales nel 2018:

 

The Royal Navy has agreed to sacrifice one of its two new aircraft carriers to save about £8.2 billion from the defence budget.

 

The admirals, who have battled for a decade to secure the two new 65,000-ton carriers, have been forced to back down because of the soaring cost of the American-produced Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft due to fly off them.

 

...

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6888962.ece

[Ospite iscandar]

Forse come prevedibile, la RN cede sul numero di F-35 che non saranno più 138 ma solo 50, per avere i fondi per costruire entrambe le portaerei preventivate, la Queen Elizabeth nel 2016 e pa Prince of Wales nel 2018:

 

The Royal Navy has agreed to sacrifice one of its two new aircraft carriers to save about £8.2 billion from the defence budget.

 

The admirals, who have battled for a decade to secure the two new 65,000-ton carriers, have been forced to back down because of the soaring cost of the American-produced Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft due to fly off them.

 

...

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6888962.ece

 

 

il link non si apre...

 

e la traduzione del primo rigo è

La RN ha permesso il sacrificio di una delle sue due nuove portaerei per risparmiare circa £ 8.2 ecc.ecc..

 

e non parla, almeno in quello che hai inserito tu, di F-35

Modificato 27 Ottobre 2009 da iscandar

[-{-Legolas-}-]

Riporto l'articolo completo, oppure c'è un link alternativo qui:

 

----

The Royal Navy has agreed to sacrifice one of its two new aircraft carriers to save about £8.2 billion from the defence budget.

 

The admirals, who have battled for a decade to secure the two new 65,000-ton carriers, have been forced to back down because of the soaring cost of the American-produced Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft due to fly off them.

 

The move is a blow to the navy’s prestige and has come on the heels of Gordon Brown’s announcement last month that he was axing one of the navy’s four Trident nuclear deterrent submarines.

 

It is too late for the navy to renege on contracts to build the two carriers, the Queen Elizabeth, due to go into service in 2016, and the Prince of Wales, due to follow in 2018. Although the second carrier will be built, it will be used as an amphibious commando ship, with only helicopters on board instead of JSF aircraft.

 

The move will leave the navy without a carrier when the Queen Elizabeth goes into refit, leaving open the possibility that it might have to borrow one from the French navy. In a meeting with Brown last year, Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, had suggested that refits of French and British aircraft carriers should be co-ordinated.

 

The decision to have only one new aircraft carrier will cut the number of JSFs to be flown by RAF squadrons from 138 to about 50, saving £7.6 billion. At current prices, the aircraft will cost close to £90m each, but this could rise to more than £100m.

 

Using the Prince of Wales as a commando ship will save a further £600m, the amount that would have been needed to replace the amphibious landing ship Ocean, which is due to go out of service in 2018.

 

The decision to cut the number of JSF aircraft has been agreed by senior navy and air force commanders in discussions preparing for the strategic defence review.

 

Both Labour and the Conservatives are committed to conducting a strategic defence review after the general election, which must be held by the late spring.

 

A senior Royal Navy officer said: “We always knew that the real cost of the carrier project is the JSF fleet to go on them. It would cost us at least £12 billion if we bought all the aircraft we originally asked for. We are waking up to the fact that all those planes are unaffordable. More than half of the £5 billion contracts to build the two new carriers have been contracted, so it is too late to get out of building the ships. This way at least we are covered when Ocean goes out of service.”

 

Since both aircraft carriers will still be built, there are unlikely to be job losses at the Rosyth ship yards, close to Brown’s constituency. The JSF aircraft are being built in Fort Worth, Texas, with the involvement of BAE Systems.

 

The RAF, which had been due to replace its Tornado aircraft with the JSF, will now equip all its frontline squadrons with Eurofighter aircraft instead.

 

The Conservatives said any decision to axe a carrier would be “absolutely unacceptable” and typical of the government’s “chaotic, inconsistent and incompetent defence procurement policy”.

 

Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said the move exposed the government’s claim that it wanted a completely independent strategic defence review. “The government is saying it is fully committed to the carriers while at the same time forcing them to be cut,” he said.

 

“It is confusing for the navy, it is confusing for industry and it is completely inconsistent with the whole concept of running an independent defence review.”

 

The Ministry of Defence said Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, remained 100% committed to the carriers but “financial circumstances mean some difficult decisions will have to be taken to prioritise our forces’ efforts in Afghanistan”.

 

The Royal Navy currently has three smaller 20,600-ton carriers: Illustrious, Ark Royal and Invincible. Illustrious is on a visit to Liverpool. Invincible has already been mothballed.

 

-----

[Ospite iscandar]

BHe, usare la prince come nave d'assalto anfibio ne farebbe uan tra le più grandi al mondo

[Focke wulf]

il link non si apre...

 

e la traduzione del primo rigo è

La RN ha permesso il sacrificio di una delle sue due nuove portaerei per risparmiare circa £ 8.2 ecc.ecc..

 

e non parla, almeno in quello che hai inserito tu, di F-35

ma le due portaerei inglesi avranno uno sky jump?

Se non è previsto (come credo), penso che stiano pensando seriamente all' F 35 C...la stessa macchina che sarà la spina dorsale dell'us naval air force.

Magari ordineranno piu' in là una cinquantina di F 35 C quando questa cominciarà ad essere prodotta per la navy.

Tempo ne hanno...

Costruiscono portaerei da 60/65.000 tons e vi imbarcano aerei a decollo corto che tra l'altro hanno una minore autonomia ed un carico bellico inferiore rispetto alle versioni base?

Sono estemporanei gli inglesi ma non folli...non stanno mica costruendo la versione aggionata del Peppino da 15/20.000 tons...

Modificato 29 Ottobre 2009 da Focke wulf

[madmike]

E' tutto molto in divenire, ma mi sentirei di escludere l'F35C per quel piccolo problema di 'interforze' che e' alla base della filosofia inglese negli ultimi anni (e che ha portato anche al delirio di mantenere imbarcati glI Harrier GR9 radiando gli FRS2...).

 

L'f35B e' ancora oggi l'aereo scelto, quindi le portaerei saranno SENZA catapulte:

 

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactShee...raftCarrier.htm

 

Poi ci sara' da risolvere il piccolissimo problema della sostituzione del Sea King AEW, fra l'altro...

[Focke wulf]

E' tutto molto in divenire, ma mi sentirei di escludere l'F35C per quel piccolo problema di 'interforze' che e' alla base della filosofia inglese negli ultimi anni (e che ha portato anche al delirio di mantenere imbarcati glI Harrier GR9 radiando gli FRS2...).

 

L'f35B e' ancora oggi l'aereo scelto, quindi le portaerei saranno SENZA catapulte:

 

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactShee...raftCarrier.htm

 

Poi ci sara' da risolvere il piccolissimo problema della sostituzione del Sea King AEW, fra l'altro...

Penso che in linea di principio lei abbia ragione ma costruire portaerei da 65.000 tons senza catapulte e come tagliarsi in anticipo le...i testicoli.

La Royal Navy si precluderebbe la possibile interoperabilità coni velivoli della marine nationale e soprattutto con quelli dell'us navy, ci avete pensato?

[vorthex]

ma è una cosa risputa che le CVF saranno STOVL. è una scelta indubbiamente infausata, ma non siamo noi a decidere.

[VittorioVeneto]

Non si era detto che le portaerei saranno comunque convertibili in CTOL in futuro (se si vorrà) ?

[M-346 MASTER]

Secondo me è la scelta + giusta perchèè meglio 2 portaerei con buoni aerei ke averne una strapiena.

[vorthex]

cosa?

[Ospite iscandar]

Secondo me è la scelta + giusta perchèè meglio 2 portaerei con buoni aerei ke averne una strapiena.

 

 

Cucì... manca ½ frase, per capirci qualcosa