Forum-Sicherheitspolitik

Invincibles:
Vermutlich werden diese nicht weiterverwendet, da sie zum Zeitpunkt ihrer geplanten a.D. schon relativ alt sein werden, und eine survey der RN aus den späten 90igern zum Ergebnis kam, dass eine Indiensthaltung dieser Schiffe für länger als 30 Jahre eine (sehr) teure Modernisierung erforderlich machen würde.
Und als LPH's sind sie, im Vergleich zur Ocean, nur ein schwacher Ersatz. Ihnen fehlen die Unterkünfte für die Marines.
Bisher war es so, dass, wenn die Ocean nicht zur verfügung stand/steht, eine der drei Invincibles als temporärer LPH fungierte, dabei aber weniger Soldaten und Material mitführen konnte, und das bei qweit eingeschränktem Komfort.

Die Ocean hat zwar gewisse Ähnlichkeiten mit den Invincibles, ist aber ein doch sehr anderes Design im Aufabu. Zudem war sie ein, für Marine-Schiffe, sehr billiges, aber trotzdem sehr erfolgreiches Program. Mich hat es immer gewundert, dass die RN kein zweites hat bauen lassen, aber das kann ja noch kommen.

Wieso sollte Indien die Invincible wollen? Davon hatte ich ja noch nie gehört.
Die Inder sucher versuchen verzweifelt einen "echten", grossen Träger zu bekommen, und keinen kleinen VSTOL-Träger wie die Invincible.

Zitat:Rob postete

Zitat:Ich glaube die größte Niederlage der Royal Navy war in den Dardanellen(1918) und bei den Falkland Inseln. Die Royal Navy dachte es währ eine Sonntags fahrt in Atlantic wie viel Schiffe haben die Argentinier versenkt ??
Das war ein schock für die unbesiegbare Royal Navy

Aber diesen Titel haben sie schon lange den Trägerverbände der US-Navy übergeben.

Warum heißt sie Royal ? Was bedeutet das ? Warum nennt man Sie nicht „British“ Navy so die dei andern Flotten der Welt.
royal TS

Kommt diese Titel noch von Kolonialzeit ???

Du wirst fest stellen das fast jedes Land das eine Monarchie hat ihre Marine ein Royal voranstellt.

Die Dardanellen waren 1915 und da war die Landung um Gallipoli viel schlimmer, hat übrigens Churchill mit verbockt (hat sich dann so zu sagen im 2. Weltkrieg rehabilitiert.).

Wieso waren die Falklands eine Niederlage ?
Ein paar Schiffe verlieren bdeutet nicht den Krieg zu verlieren, immerhin hat die Royal Navy bewiesen das sie immer noch die nummer drei der Welt war.


Das Royal wird vergeben, nur die Armee hat als ganzes kein Royal sondern nur einzelne Regimenter.

sorry es war 1915

ich habe eben gelesen das dass osmanischereich hatte nur ein einziges kleines schiff, gegen die ganze flotte(Panzerkreuzer) der briten und franzosen...
das war wirklich ne niederlage..


aber kannst du mir mal den verlauf des falklandkriegs schildern ?? würde mich mal interessieren, stimmt es das us flotten verbänden den engländer zu hilfe kamen ? oder ist das nur eine spekulation ?

@mg 42:
Falklandkrieg:
Hier im Forum unter:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.forum-sicherheitspolitik.org/showtopic.php?threadid=96&time=1079522502">http://www.forum-sicherheitspolitik.org/show ... 1079522502</a><!-- m -->
Und hier im Netz:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/index.html">http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/index.html</a><!-- m -->

Das osmanische Reich hatte mindestens 2 grössere Kreigsschiffe: Einen leichten Kreuzer und einen Schlachtkreuzer, der auch mal den Namen Goeben trug.

Tja, es scheint als ob es momentan keine wirklichen Absichten gibt den T45 mit TLAM oder einer 155 mm Kanone auszurüsten, dabei ist jedoch zu erwähnen, dass sie sich darüber Gedanken machen.Ich denke irgendwann wird es klappen.




<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.parliament.the-statio...html_sbhd6">www.parliament.the-statio...html_sbhd6</a><!-- w -->

Zitat:Type 45 Destroyers

Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what increase in capability would result from the upgrading of the gun turret on a Type 45 destroyer to house (a) a 127 mm and (b) a 155 mm gun, instead of a standard 115mm gun. [158141]



Mr. Ingram [holding answer 4 March 2004]: The overall capability offered by the Type 45 destroyer's gun is not related simply to the calibre of the barrel, but to the ammunition which could be used.

The standard 115 mm (4.5) gun is capable of delivering conventional munitions to a range of up to 27 km. 127 mm and 155 mm guns would be capable of firing munitions to a range of 75–80 km. They would also be capable of firing modern guided munitions and, in the case of the 155 mm gun, these would be considerably heavier than the 115 mm gun's conventional munitions.

The design of the Type 45 includes space and weight margins which would allow for the fitting of an improved Medium Range Gun, should such a requirement emerge. There is no such requirement at present. In the case of a 155 mm gun, this would also depend on the maturity of its technology, as there are no such naval guns yet in service world-wide.

www.parliament.the-statio...html_sbhd4

Zitat:Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) for what reason it is not proposed to arm the new Type 45 destroyers with Tomahawk cruise missiles; [158139]


(2) how many Tomahawk cruise missiles he estimates could be mounted on a Type 45 destroyer. [158140]


Mr. Ingram [holding answer 4 March 2004]: The principal role of the Type 45 destroyer will be Anti-Air Warfare. There is currently no requirement for the Type 45 to be fitted with Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAM). If a requirement for TLAM arises in future, the Type 45 has been designed with substantial space and weight margins to enable its capability to be upgraded through life. We currently estimate that up to 16 TLAM missiles could be mounted on a Type 45 Destroyer.

Zum Thema TLAM:
Wenn der T45 TlAM erhalten sollte, wird es einen teuren Umbau brauchen. Das VLS der T45 ist nicht TLAM fähig, sie müssten Mk41 VLS einbauen und die entsprechende Elektronik integrieren.
Es wäre vermutlich einfach und billiger gewesen, ASTER 15/30 fit fürs Mk41 zu machen, als umgekehrt. (was ja eine zeitlang zur Debatte stand.)
M.E. war das eine der idiotischeren Entscheidungen der Briten. Aber leider war wieder mal Industriepolitik wichtiger als Nutzen. Mk 41 hätte in den USA gekauft werden müssen, das jetztige wird von GB-Firmen (mit)gebaut).

Zitat:Carrier is high and dry
This is HMS Illustrious as you have probably never seen her before – from below.
And you won’t see her like this again for some time to come, either.
In a 270m-long dry dock at Rosyth dockyard in Scotland, the 26-year-old carrier awaits the moment the sluice gates are opened and she is afloat once more as the latest stage of her refit is completed.

http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2004/...032901.asp

Zitat:UTVÆR: A single Norwegian submarine prevented Bluelands landing operation. The crew of KNM Utvær did infact do so well that they were removed from the exercise for 72 hours.

The mood was good on KNM Utvær, even though they were taken out of the exercise Joint Winter for three days. They simply did too good a job and was removed to let the landing and field operations part of the exercise begin. The commander of the boat, Øistein Helge Jensen, gave stealth the highest prority and got so many British kills that they lost count in the end.

Zitat:- I have seen much I have never seen before. We have been moving more in the littorals and the navigation has been more demanding than I'm used too. It has been a great experience and I hope I can get a CD-Rom with periscope pictures of Albion, Invincible, the destroyers and the frigates we sunk and the bridges we have sailed under. Vi have done things that is every submarines dream, says Clarke.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.mil.no/fol/jw04/start/article.jhtml?articleID=71815">http://www.mil.no/fol/jw04/start/articl ... leID=71815</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/thread?forumid=211833&messageid=1080651456&lp=1080652787">http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/thr ... 1080652787</a><!-- m -->

Inweit das der Wahrheit entspricht, oder ein Aprilscherz ist, weiss ich nicht:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/01/navy01.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/04/01/ixhome.html">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... xhome.html</a><!-- m -->

"Navy to 'lose two carriers' in cutbacks
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 01/04/2004)

The Royal Navy is to lose two aircraft carriers after
Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, lost his argument
with the Treasury, defence sources said last night.

The ships will be "withdrawn from operational service"
amid attempts to cut the defence budget. They will be
moored at Portsmouth before being sold, the sources
said.

"We will stand them down, which means they'll be held
in operational reserve," one said. "They are not going to
be scrapped, they can be up to full readiness within 50
days. In the long-term they will be sold but in the
short-term they could still be needed."

The two vessels to be withdrawn are Illustrious and
Invincible. Ark Royal, the newest of the carriers, is to
undergo routine maintenance. It will be kept on,
contrary to reports that it is to be permanently
mothballed.

The carriers are just the first of a series of cuts, the
sources said. A number of other pieces of equipment
will go as the MoD seeks to save up to £1 billion to
address cash problems caused by a new accounting
system and the Iraq war.

Despite assurances from the Treasury that the war will
be funded in full, the MoD had to borrow £500 million
from budget funds due to be paid out on the Eurofighter
programme to cover short-term costs.

The money was borrowed in the belief that the
Eurofighter programme would be delayed but there
were no delays and the MoD now needs to find the
money. The MoD dismissed any suggestion that two
carriers were to be removed from service. But the
sources said there was an urgent need to cut some
existing equipment to save new programmes.

Mr Hoon told the Commons Defence Committee
yesterday that "difficult choices have to be made
between existing equipment and equipment we will
need in the future."

He also refused to rule out any cuts in the number of
infantry regiments, amid widespread rumours that
Scottish regiments, including the Black Watch are to be
scrapped.

There would "inevitably have to be adjustments in
numbers" and to give "an absolute blanket assurance
would not make sense", he said. It also emerged during
the hearing that the new £200 million Defence Medical
Centre in Birmingham is to be scrapped.

Sir Kevin Tebbit, the head of the MoD, told the MPs
that this was "the result of a reprioritisation of defence
medical services" and not a result of the need to make
cash savings.

Discussions with the Treasury on the MoD's budget
shortfall were continuing, he said. However, defence
sources said that there was no sign of any new money
rather than a continued commitment to extra funding
announced two years ago and already taken into
account."

Offensichtlich gibt es Verzögerungen beim Bau der Astute-Klasse:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.marineforum.info/HEFT_4-2004/MaaW/maaw.html">http://www.marineforum.info/HEFT_4-2004/MaaW/maaw.html</a><!-- m -->

Zitat:Wegen Verzögerungen im Baufortschritt der neuen U-Boote der ASTUTE-Klasse - mit Zulauf des Typbootes absehbar frühestens im November 2007 - müssen ältere U-Boote der Royal Navy länger in Dienst gehalten werden als bisher geplant.

Laut dem Artikel sollen noch einige SSN der Swiftsure-Klasse bis 2006 im Dienst bleiben.

[/quote]During the exercise, a landing force shall take back a land area. The landing force consists mostly of British naval units :

COMATG Headquarters
HMS Albion
HMS Invincible
HMS Iron Duke
HMS Manchester
HMS Sir Galahad
HMS Sir Tristram
HMS Sir Percival
HMS Fort George
HMS Fort Rosalie

Commando Helicopter Force Headquarters
845 squadron Naval Air Station (NAS) (Sea-King)
846 squadron NAS (Sea-King)
847 squadron NAS (Lynx- and Gazelle)
849 Bravo Fleet
Special Boat Service Task Group Headquarters
17 Port & Maritime Det RLC
Brambleleaf
Oakleaf
Naval Home Guard AREA 1592: 4 Cutters[/quote]Link:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://pub165.ezboard.com/fwarships1discussionboardsfrm19.showMessage?topicID=391.topic">http://pub165.ezboard.com/fwarships1dis ... =391.topic</a><!-- m -->

Das ist die Britische Flotte und deren Hubschrauber, die bei der von mir oben erwähnten Übung teilgenommen hat, davon wurden unter anderen:

HMS Albion, Invincible, Manchester und Iron Duke versenkt!

Ist so etwas "normal" für eine Übung?

News zum möglichen Ocean LPH Nachfolger

Zitat:In 2003 the Royal Navy started preliminary (pre-concept) studies investigating options for a replacement for HMS Ark Royal in her secondary CVS role from 2014/15, and HMS Ocean in her primary LPH role from 2018. A relatively low-cost, medium displacement (20-30,000 tonnes) Landing Platform Helicopter (LPH) or Landing Platform Helicopter and Dock (LHD) is the most likely outcome. A co-operative project with another European country such as the Netherlands is an option.

Link1: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/schelde_enforcer_lhd_30000.htm">http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/sche ... _30000.htm</a><!-- m -->

Link2: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://frn.beedall.com/lphr.htm">http://frn.beedall.com/lphr.htm</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.marineforum.info/AKTUELLES/aktuelles.htm">http://www.marineforum.info/AKTUELLES/aktuelles.htm</a><!-- m -->

Zitat:Als die 16.000 ts große MOUNTS BAY bei der zu BAe-Systems gehörenden Govan-Werft ins Wasser glitt, kam sie vom vorgesehenen Kurs ab und rammte mit ihrem Heck eine Holzpier am gegenüberliegenden Ufer. Die Beschädigungen am Schiff werden von der Werft allerdings als "nur oberflächlich" bewertet.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8209-1089477,00.html">http://business.timesonline.co.uk/artic ... 77,00.html</a><!-- m -->

Zitat:MoD rejects BAE as lead contractor in £3bn carrier deal
By Russell Hotten
April 27, 2004

BAE SYSTEMS, Britain’s biggest defence group, has been dropped as lead contractor on a £3 billion aircraft carrier project, it emerged yesterday, sending relations between the company and the Ministry of Defence to new lows.

Whitehall officials are incensed by BAE’s announcement that it is considering the sale of its shipbuilding operations, seen by the MoD as an attempt to “strong arm” it over the deal. One official said: “It’s irresponsible. They are trying to stir up a storm among the defence lobby.” Another added: “They’ve thrown their toys out of the pram.”

If BAE were to sell its shipbuilding operations, the MoD may be forced to renegotiate the aircraft carrier deal. BAE was told two weeks ago that the project would be run by an alliance rather than a single company, a system proposed by Amec, the project engineering group advising the MoD.

The MoD decided that BAE could not be trusted with the project after the defence group indicated that delivery of the first carrier may be delayed by two years. BAE also told the MoD that the proposed cost of the vessels would have to rise £1 billion to £4 billion. “It won’t happen,” said a defence official. “There will be no compromise on price.”

Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, has informed BAE that he will not be held to ransom over the cost and timing of the carrier programme. A defence source said: “Trying to threaten ministers with a withdrawal from shipbuilding could be a catastrophically stupid move.” BAE denied that its announcement on the future of shipbuilding was linked to the carrier.

BAE owns two shipyards in Glasgow, and a site at Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, making three nuclear submarines. Britain’s VT Group and America’s General Dynamics are tipped as possible buyers, but the Government may balk at strategic defence businesses being sold to foreign companies.

As prime contractor on the carriers, BAE would have been in charge of the most lucrative part of the project, integrating the various elements, such as the defence and computer systems. But BAE’s poor record on delivering major projects, such as the Nimrod aircraft, made the MoD look at alternative ways of working. The MoD was criticised in January by the National Audit Office for allowing projects to spiral out of control. And Lord Bach, the defence procurement minister, was determined to find a new way of working, seeing the carrier programme as a test case.

The project will be run by an alliance of companies, including Thales, VT Group, Babcock, and BAE, each with representatives on a board, with the Defence Procurement Agency acting as chairman. Each company will share more of the risk and reward for building the vessels on time and budget.

ALVIS INQUIRY

The Office of Fair Trading is to investigate the proposed £309 million takeover of Alvis, the UK armoured vehicle maker, by General Dynamics, the US defence group. The Department of Trade and Industry said the takeover, the first major bid by a US company for a UK defence firm, had national security implications. BAE Systems owns 29 per cent of Alvis, and was due to decide soon whether to sell its stake. GD is tipped as a potential buyer of BAE’s submarine business.

Leider nur in englisch - sieht aber nicht gut aus für die beiden britischen CVF. Am Ende gibts ne zweite konventionell betriebene CdG und die Briten dürfen bei Thales anstehen :evil:

Das war irgendwie zu erwarten, das BAE den Auftrag nicht bekommt. BAE hat in der letzten Zeit einfach zuviele Böcke geschossen, speziell in finazieller Hinsicht.


Ist für die Birten wahrscheinlich auch besser. Die Franzosen haben bei der CdG gelernt, was man alles falsch machen kann, und werden viele dieser Fehler sicher nicht wiederholen.

Grossbritanien beschafft 64 neue Tomahawks.Diese sind vom neusten modell,
dem Modell 'Block IV' TLAM

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.3716057.1083220698.QJCi2sOa9dUAAGsTK-s&prod=37563&modele=release">http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bi ... le=release</a><!-- m -->

Zitat:Ministry of Defence Purchases Updated and Enhanced Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles


(Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued April 21, 2004)


The Ministry of Defence has reached agreement with the United States Government, under the terms of a Foreign Military Sales case, to purchase 64 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAM), Lord Bach, Minister for Defence Procurement, announced today.

These conventionally armed land attack missiles are the new 'Block IV' TLAM (also known as TacTom), which have a higher specification than our existing - 'Block III' - missiles. As such, they will provide the added ability to retarget or abort mission in flight and will have a Battle Damage Indication capability. They will be capable of being fired from our current Trafalgar Class submarines as well as from the new Astute Class submarines when they enter service.
....

und
Auch die Royal Marines bekommen neues Material.
108 Vikings werden innerhalb des nächsten Jahres beschafft.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.3716057.1083220698.QJCi2sOa9dUAAGsTK-s&prod=37127&modele=release">http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bi ... le=release</a><!-- m -->

Zitat:New Vehicle for Royal Marines Arrives on Time and to Cost


(Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued April 13, 2004)


The UK's elite Royal Marine Commandos have started taking delivery of Viking - a new armoured, all-terrain vehicle capable of moving troops over almost any type of ground.

For the next 12 months the new vehicles will be put through their paces by the Royal Marines for training and familiarisation before they are declared ready for operational use.

The £60m contract saw the 'go-anywhere' vehicles manufactured by Alvis Hagglunds on time and to cost. A total of 108 Vikings will help ensure that the Royal Marines are suitably equipped as a key element of the UK's rapid reaction force for the next 20 years.
....

Passend dazu auch dies
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.mod.uk/dpa/new_vehicle_for_royal_marines/">http://www.mod.uk/dpa/new_vehicle_for_royal_marines/</a><!-- m -->

Und dies
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://news.mod.uk/news/press/news_headline_story.asp?newsItem_id=1185">http://news.mod.uk/news/press/news_head ... em_id=1185</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.marineforum.info/AKTUELLES/aktuelles.htm">http://www.marineforum.info/AKTUELLES/aktuelles.htm</a><!-- m -->

Zitat:GROSSBRITANNIEN

Erstmals seit 1996 verlegt wieder ein britischer Minenabwehrverband über den Atlantik an die US-Ostküste.

Zur Task Group Aurora gehören die Minenjagdboote PEMBROKE, WALNEY und SANDOWN (SANDOWN-Klasse) sowie MIDDLETON (HUNT-Klasse), begleitet von einem Flottenversorger und dem diesmal als MCM-Führungsschiff fungierenden amphibischen Unterstützungsschiff (Landing Ship Logistic - LSL) SIR BEDIVERE.