One intriguing concept for transporting equipment and materiel fromthe Seabase to the action ashore is the UHAC. Same footprint as a LCAC or but with 3X the load capacity and twice the range while estimated at half the cost to buy and operate. UHAC is slower than LCAC but 20knots isn't too,shabby and it trumps LCAC 10-ft. seawalls. Just looks like a giant,goofy kid's toy with it's foam paddles.
A third ship, if ordered soon, should be cheaper. There are fixed costs (e.g. the rebuilding of a dock at Rosyth) which were bundled up into the cost, & the stretching out of the build, playing around with switch to F-35C/back to F-35B, etc. added a lot.of cost. Without those, a third ship could be a few hundred million cheaper, if ordered while the workforce & the facilities round the UK are all still in place.
Official reason: losing a helicopter spot compromises their primary function, which is amphibious assault. Their primary function must not be compromised.
Well hopefully it won't take too long for the Australian government to work out that our LPDs are better off being left as is to fill their intended mission rather than converting them into carriers and that the best way forward if they want a carrier is to buy a purpose designed oneA third ship, if ordered soon, should be cheaper. There are fixed costs (e.g. the rebuilding of a dock at Rosyth) which were bundled up into the cost, & the stretching out of the build, playing around with switch to F-35C/back to F-35B, etc. added a lot.of cost. Without those, a third ship could be a few hundred million cheaper, if ordered while the workforce & the facilities round the UK are all still in place.
But a delayed order could generate fixed costs to replace things which will be shut down when PoW work ends.
Yes would be an interesting proposition with either the Queen Elizabeth or America class both are being built as we speak, but we are talking about the goverment nothing ever moves fast by the time the report comes out in regards to F35B they will need another report to validate the original report.Well hopefully it won't take too long for the Australian government to work out that our LPDs are better off being left as is to fill their intended mission rather than converting them into carriers and that the best way forward if they want a carrier is to buy a purpose designed one
Well I would hope that someone deals with the Govts thought bubble and reinforces that the phatships are not the same internally as the JC-1Well hopefully it won't take too long for the Australian government to work out that our LPDs are better off being left as is to fill their intended mission rather than converting them into carriers and that the best way forward if they want a carrier is to buy a purpose designed one
Exactly, it would be major scope creep on the Canberra's and will actually take away a much needed capability that we need. Dare I say it but Singapore could be looking for a partner ? Big IF though, not long to wait for the DWP, but either way I do not see a QE or LHA6 as a viable option
A modified Canberra class could be the basis for a carrier though.
Yes wasn't Singapore looking into using the Endurance class hull and making a carrier from it, I know their is interst in Singapore regarding F35B, haven't heard anything for a while if it's still on the cards or not.
Well there was this article
They'd need to enlarge it. It's only 140 metres or so long. Ships designed to operate F-35B are all well over 200 metres long, & about four times the tonnage. Even the enlarged Endurance 160 with a through deck is only just over 160 metres, i.e. much smaller than any F-35B carrier out there.
One intriguing concept for transporting equipment and materiel fromthe Seabase to the action ashore is the UHAC. Same footprint as a LCAC or but with 3X the load capacity and twice the range while estimated at half the cost to buy and operate. UHAC is slower than LCAC but 20knots isn't too,shabby and it trumps LCAC 10-ft. seawalls. Just looks like a giant,goofy kid's toy with it's foam paddles.
While both of our political parties fuss over defense appropriations, neither party fusses over closing the Newport News or Ingalls shipyards. So much has been invested into both shipyards there isn't any thought about closing them. Congress keeps both shipyards open with just enough business to do so. The same applies to the Electric Boat shipyard concerning submarines, and Bath Iron Works with destroyers and frigates. The latest shipyard to close was Avondale after they messed up the first of the San Antonio LPDs.
I honestly don't know why the US continues to waste money supporting inefficient shipbuilders when they could quite clearly get much better value for money building their ships in South Korea. Just think of the savings to be made and the beneficial effect this would have on the budget bottom line.
The Virginia program is the poster child for how military shipbuilding should be run with units being built under budget and months ahead of schedule.