Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Future Carrier (Including Costs)

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Future Carrier (Including Costs)

Old 4th Jul 2011, 08:53
  #2981 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Glad Rag,

I'm trying not to 'debate' what is in all probability a closed issue. I just don't think that myth should replace fact.

I could prove the SHAR/GR9 issue if you wanted, but over PMs if you wish. No fur on this one.

Yes, the RN signed up to losing SHAR - as I said, big error in my view. My info is that as far as SDSR went, canning Harrier was a late (very late) reversal of previous discussions, which was presented to 1SL as a PM decision following personal intervention from CDS.

The common thread here is that commitments made by the RAF to support a 'Joint' initiative (maritime strike capability) have twice been cast aside as soon as tough decisions were required. Having worked with the RAF for some time, I'm not surprised that Tornadoes and Typhoons would always take the budgets when it came to the crunch. And I fully agree that the RAF has had to eat its fair share of the nasty sandwich.

Happy to rest here, Best Regards as ever,

Engines
Engines is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2011, 10:26
  #2982 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: La Ciotat
Age: 83
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Having worked at various times (admittedly, some time ago now) as OOW of a carrier, a Flight Deck Officer and a front line jet pilot, can I add my tuppence worth?

OOW - no particular training required. The only things you need to learn that are different from other ships is a) to turn into the wind (easy-peasy), and b) what to do if someone rolls off the front of the ship (a good verbal briefing and perhaps a couple of practice goes should cover that one)

Flight deck handling - yes, more of a problem, but the basics can be learnt on a dummy deck and the rest worked up gradually. The sense of responsibility and airmanship already exists in helo operations.

Pilot. Deck landing requires training, obviously, but not perhaps as much as many think. When I were a lad, we practiced ashore for days doing MADDLS (Mirror Assisted Dummy Deck Landings) till we got sick of them; in some regards, they weren't that realistic anyway. Then, a massive briefing and off you went to try to land on. I, at least, had served on a carrier before, so I knew the whole unlikely business was possible, and some lucky bastards got a look at the deck in a Hunter first. But for many, turning downwind was the first time they'd seen a carrier in their lives. And this was in a Bucc which flew like a pregnant duck in the circuit, although it was quite gentlemanly on final approach. I think we can expect a FBW aircraft such as the F35 to be better mannered and (oh joy!) have a simulator capable of giving realistic carrier landing training.

Ten years to train for carrier ops seems to me to be something of an exaggeration, especially as we should have the assistance of the US and the French.

Where we will need the training is higher up the line, in finding experienced people for Little F, Wings and on the staffs. It used to be that anyone destined for high office would have to have had some experience in naval air, perhaps as the Captain of a carrier. It will take a long time to get back to those standards, but I'm sure it can be done if the will is there.
Schiller is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2011, 10:41
  #2983 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,807
Received 19 Likes on 15 Posts
Schiller

Agree to an extent, but don't inderestimate the value of corporate experience, and things like having senior rates with fixed wing experience and so on.

SFFP/P U G Wash

This page from the Naval Technology website might interest you:

The carrier is fitted with the SATRAP computerised, integrated stabilisation system designed to maintain stabilisation to within 0.5° of horizontal, allowing aircraft to be operated up to sea state 5/6.

As well as the carrier's two pairs of active stabilising fins and twin rudders, the system has two computer-controlled compensation units which consist of two rail tracks for trains carrying 22t of deadweight.

These tracks run transversely below the flight deck. This system is designed to compensate for wind and heel and control roll, yaw and surge.


I would go as far as saying a modern carrier can probably operate in worse weather than one in the past - due to advances in technology.

If there is any truth in this story then it suggests a technical fault somewhere - which the Mail reporter seems to have not been told about. Carriers are designed to operate at sea, including rough seas, for example during the 1980s the USN commited no less than eight carriers to the Atlantic Fleet. Not that this stops the anti carrier lobby jumping on the story like a tramp on chips.

Actually - this reinforces my point about carrier flying operations being a whole ship activity - as I mentioned previously (the same post also has a link to the sory about the last Minute Harrier decision). Also see glojo's remarks below about flight deck personnel.

Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 4th Jul 2011 at 19:39.
WE Branch Fanatic is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2011, 11:27
  #2984 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 45
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Given the failings of the F-35B and the proposed use of Rolling Vertical Landings as the solution, how much additional flexibility would a STOVL carrier provide over the Conventional deisgn when considering the Sea State?
Caspian237 is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2011, 12:21
  #2985 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
WEBF, I think you're correct - The CDG has had a number of down days due to technical faults during the campaign. I think the only sorties lost due to sea state have been AH off OCEA.

However, while we're on the subject, where are people getting their figures for CDG from? This figure of 30-40 sorties per day and 30% of the air power in no way stacks up with what we're putting on the ATO each day. Try about a sixth of each figure.
Occasional Aviator is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2011, 13:14
  #2986 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Schiller
Ten years to train for carrier ops seems to me to be something of an exaggeration, especially as we should have the assistance of the US and the French.
Hi Schiller
I enjoyed reading your post and I agree that ten years seems an exaggeration.

The conning of a carrier is certainly not rocket science, the taking off and landing are things that will come with practice, practice and more practice both on dummy decks and hopefully with the assistance of our NATO allies.

BUT..... are we forgetting those that do the highly skilled work of preparing these aircraft for launching and perhaps the recovery after landing.

I believe I have posted
before but it hammers home just what a dangerous place a flight deck will always be.. This is no place for making even the slightest mistake, there is no relaxing and incompetence is met with death.

During my time aboard a carrier most flight deck deaths were caused by being caught by jet exhaust, sometimes through not being aware of aircraft, or sadly aircraft that crept forward and caught out the unsuspecting sailor standing directly underneath it.

How will Royal Navy sailors train for this when the last carrier we had was retired some thirty plus years ago?

Will other Navies allow our untrained flight deck personnel to double up with their counter parts to get that experience? I very much doubt that plus the numbers we are talking would make accommodating them a 'challenge'.

Would it be more prudent to work the new carrier up in very slow stages with just a few aircraft aboard the ship and everything carried out in slow time?

If this is the option then it will certainly take a considerable period of time although not the period being suggested.

A crowded flight deck is NO PLACE for any untrained personnel to be allowed and at a speed needed to commence flying, it is even more hazardous. My I suggest that training these sailors might be more of a problem than some might think?

Respect to you for having walked the walk
glojo is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2011, 15:00
  #2987 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Maybe the French wanted a carrier operations timeout for some other reason - negotiations, perhaps. Maybe bad weather is merely a cover story.

I say again, what future is planned for the Queen E. upon completion?
Modern Elmo is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2011, 15:40
  #2988 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Elmo
Maybe the French wanted a carrier operations timeout for some other reason - negotiations, perhaps. Maybe bad weather is merely a cover story.
I personally believe you put any spin you want on this non story depending on what uniform you are wearing.

I agree with your points and it could also be possible that there was a weather front passing the area she was operating in and rather than go off station she might have suspended flying for an hour or two to allow the front to clear their area?

Never let the truth spoil a good story.

Regarding the Queen Elizabeth.... Your guess will be as good as anyone else's. If a politician tells me two plus two equals four then I will still get out my calculator
glojo is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2011, 06:06
  #2989 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: crewe
Age: 77
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hello Schiller and Glojo.... enjoyed reading your posts, having worked on a couple of strike carriers myself I have my doubts, where they are going to achieve a fully worked up and trained flight deck crew. For the Queen Elizabeth Carrier, along with the Officers, Little/F, FDOs, Pilots/Obs etc. Not forgetting the role of the SAR helo. For recovering downed aircrew.........now that the role of aircrewman diver, is no longer part of the FAA. Quote from Air Commodore Graham Pitchfork,in the back seat of Buccaneer XN951, piloted by Lt Chase USN. Landing on Hms Eagle for the first time..... As we taxied out of the wires for the first time, i was immediately, struck by the skill and precision of the deck party, as they marshalled us to within inches. From that day, i always considered the sight of a fully worked up deck party on an RN carrier, to be one of the most professional military operations, i ever witnessed in 36 years of RAF service.
david parry is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2011, 06:39
  #2990 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 2,083
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 7 Posts
Isn't it bad luck to rename a ship ?!
stilton is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2011, 09:35
  #2991 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
reading August Airforces Monthly there are comments from US DoD about F35 being unaffordable, shot across contractors bows, or serious problem. If the US govt pulls the plug what is plan B? will we see any of our money again to afford a plan B or did Blair sign us up to a donation to US Buissness scheme?
NURSE is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2011, 15:59
  #2992 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,807
Received 19 Likes on 15 Posts
It's all about teamwork...

I've just found the Naval General Training booklet I got as a Reservist at HMS Raleigh, a cut down version of the one given to regular trainees. It has a section on aviation safety.

Flight Safety relies on everyone in the Royal Navy, from the First Sea Lord downwards, working as a team. As an important member of this team it is vital that you understand the role you play in maintaining the highest possible standards. Your attitude towards Flight Safety can make the difference between whether people live or die!

Naval aviation is an inherently dangerous business, but the whole ship's company working together can minimise the degree of danger.....


How will Royal Navy sailors train for this when the last carrier we had was retired some thirty plus years ago?
Surely it was December? Sea Harriers/Harriers had similar issues with jetwash, FOD, noise, night flying etc as the old Phantoms and Buccaneers. Saying "30 years" plays down the skills loss post SDSR, unless we embark Harriers aboard Illustrious/Queen Elizabeth.

This is discussed on the Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers" thread:

Bismark (on page 1):

As I am sure has been said elsewhere, the aircraft and pilots just represent the front end of the carrier strike capability. The idiocy of the SDSR decision, which the PM is about to compound in the FR/UK Defence deal (FT Today), is that we risk losing the capability to operate jets off carriers. All of the expertise on the current CVSs will have gone (we are getting rid of the CVSs), the aircrew will have gone (either PVRd, redundant or moved to other aircraft types, the command experience will have gone (as will the met, ATC, FC, deck handlers, planners etc, etc).

In my many years in the Service and beyond it has been the most astonishing Defence decision made - I just hope the CAS (I understand the current CAS made a promise to the PM) at the time can deliver because the RN will have lost the ability. I presume the RAF will provide all of the manpower, including ship's company?
Not_a_boffin (on page 4):

ICBM - unfortunately, while your point re CV ops might be true, I'd put a fair bit of money that the guys who've done exchange tours have not done time in CATCC, Wings / Little F (Air & mini-boss in USN), handlers office or the squadron engineering and logs posts.

While they may be adept at doing the mission plan, launch, mission, recovery thing, they are unlikely to have a great understanding of how to spot a deck, arrange aircraft for servicing vice maintenance, weapons prep and bombing up and how all the various departments both in the squadrons and on the ship work to deliver the sortie rate. People thinking just about aircrew and (to some degree) chockheads are missing the point - it's the corporate experience of how to put it all together that is about to be lost. Nor can that be maintained at HMS Siskin - that just gives the basics of handling, not the fine art of pulling it all together.

As SDSR says "we need a plan to regenerate the necessary skills"- all I can say is it had better be a f8cking good one, cunning eneough to do more than brush your teeth with!
My bold.

Going from STOVL to CTOL would be a challenge, however SDSR implies going from NOTHING (no embarked fixed wing) to CTOL - which will be much more difficult for the reasons described in the above quotes.

Unfortunately I didn't put this last comment in before the reply from glojo (below).

Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 6th Jul 2011 at 22:55.
WE Branch Fanatic is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2011, 21:39
  #2993 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by WEB
Surely it was December? Sea Harriers/Harriers had similar issues with jetwash, FOD, noise, night flying etc as the old Phantoms and Buccaneers. Saying "30 years" plays down the skills loss post SDSR, unless we embark Harriers aboard Illustrious/Queen Elizabeth.
I'm not sure you will convince me regarding this issue..

The last real carriers we had with both catapults and arrester gear was in the last century and the core skills have gone the same way as the wardroom piano of the last real Eagle class Ark Royal.

I would guess the transition for a flight deck crew from a conventional carrier to an Invincible class would be fairly easy to achieve but .... Asking the crew of the Invincible class to man the deck of a conventional carrier would be met with blank faces.

Catapult connection was always down to stokers, getting the aircraft to the catapult was down to aircraft handlers. Not sure about arrester gear but I am guessing the wire on the upper deck would be the easy bit to play with The nitty gritty workings between decks is the complicated box of tricks.

Redesigning these new carriers to have the cats and traps is not a five minute job and I guess it will cost more than a fiver to have the plans redrawn, but it's only money and we all know how well of the Ministry of Defence is.
glojo is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2011, 12:01
  #2994 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,343
Received 2,546 Likes on 1,075 Posts
Hey hoo.....

Warning over aircraft carrier risks - UK News - MSN News UK

Warning over aircraft carrier risks

@import url("http://estc.msn.com/br/csl/css/23AA27A79E3687063673C2CD56F30E46/twtutility.css");




Ministers failed to understand the risks in leaving Britain without an aircraft carrier for almost a decade the National Audit Office said



Ministers have failed to properly understand the risks entailed in their decision to leave Britain without an aircraft carrier for almost a decade, the Whitehall spending watchdog has warned.
The National Audit Office said changes to the carrier programme in the Government's Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) had created "significant levels of operational, technical, cost and schedule uncertainty".
In a highly critical report, the NAO warned there were "major risks" surrounding its plans to reconstitute a carrier strike force from 2020 onwards.
It said the Ministry of Defence will not have "matured its understanding" of the consequences of its decisions for another two years, with the final cost of the programme now set to exceed £10 billion.
The NAO also disclosed that military chiefs had recommended axing the carrier programme altogether in favour of keeping more surface ships, such as frigates and destroyers.
However, they were overruled by the MoD on the grounds that it would have been "unaffordable" in the short-term due to the cancellation costs, even though it would have led to "significant" medium-term savings.
The release of the report provoked a furious row in Whitehall, with the MoD complaining that it had been published before they had agreed the final text, in contravention of normal practice.
The NAO, in turn, said that it had been denied access to crucial Cabinet Office papers which they needed to see in order to understand the decision-making process behind the SDSR.
Margaret Hodge, the chairman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee which oversees the work of the NAO, said the "lack of transparency" over such a costly and important programme was "not acceptable".
However, Defence Secretary Liam Fox insisted that the decisions in the SDSR had put the carrier programme "back on track" while cutting the overall costs by £3.4 billion.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2011, 15:19
  #2995 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have just been reading some Parliamentary Reports regarding our new aircraft carriers and what a pot mess it is..... I have NO IDEA who is advising our illustrious leaders (apologies for the play on words) but what I have read simply asks more questions than it gives answers.

First off it is intended to only have one carrier in commission and the second will 'likely' be kept in 'extended readiness' .... I am guessing that is political talk for saying in reserve!! The biggest joke is they are saying that it has not yet been decided which ship will be converted to the 'cat and trap' role.

I thought it had been decided that we were already going the conventional route??

My point is that if we do go down the conventional route then surely there is no decision to make!! We have to have both carriers capable of launching aircraft or am I missing something?

If we only have one carrier then it is going to be crazily expensive to continually train sailors to the level required to be an operational fighting unit. I am saying this simply because of manpower and the turnover, how long will it take to train the crew to handle aircraft aboard a carrier. Train them to a level where they can work unsupervised?

If a sailor remains aboard ship for a two year period then hopefully they MIGHT be able to do this after twelve months providing there are extended periods of sea time where they can learn their trade. For the next twelve months they MIGHT be able to work without any supervision but how much flying time will there be in that twelve month period. The government minister states that each operational carrier will need a minimum twelve week maintenance period each year!! So that goes some way to answer the question plus of course the ship will never be at sea for the rest of that time

After just a few months of actual flying time the manual workers will be moving off the carrier and taking up jobs elsewhere in the fleet and the cycle will have to start up with a fresh batch of sailors and how many years will it take before the first trained sailors will return and will they still be of the same rank to resume carrying out the task which they are proficient at.

The more I read this report the more questions I have but to me this is a disaster looking for somewhere to happen.

Forgot to mention that it is expected to take an extra three years to address the changes needed to install the catapults and arrester gear.

Joint Strike Fighter
To date the amount spent by the MoD on systems development, demonstration, production sustainment and follow-on development is £1825m..

I dread to think what will happen if the US pulls the plug on building this aircraft, will we get this money refunded?
glojo is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2011, 15:40
  #2996 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
glojo - the plan to only have one active has been going for a while. I think it was in SDSR but standby to be corrected. Clearly having one carrier is a little bit crap, but better than nothing (imho).

The problem with "which one to fit for cat/trap" is that the general belief before SDSR was that the ships were designed for, but not with cat'n'trap (ie had all the spaces etc) so a conversion would be relatively straightforward and could be done on the first one. It now appears that there were some porkies told, I don't know if that was by the RN or industry but I am sure it was the RAF's fault . The end result is that the first one may be too far advanced in build for cat'n'trap to be fitted, as there are some "issues", so it may have to happen on the second one. Of course that means that we will have to wait even longer for a carrier capability, which is bad.
Backwards PLT is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2011, 16:38
  #2997 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sutton
Posts: 47
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What if we do this?

if QE is too far in the build to convert to cat and traps,and we are still commited to buying at least 3 F35B jets. would it better to finish QE as fast possible as designed and comit to a FAA sqn of 12 F35( only 9added aircraft buy-training linked to USMC.) this could be up and runing by 2016, with PoW finished in 2020-2 with a then FAA/RAF buy of F35C (36aircraft at least)Training with RAF/RN.
So you will have comitted FAA sqn (F35B)with Q.E which can be attached with the PoW which could aslo have 2 sqn's off F35C(FAA/RAF) when ready.
so you would only be out of the carrier game by 4 years.

if you then decide to only to keep one you have a choice either to sell PoW (France)
keep QE with F35B.as the RAF most likey would not want to comitt a sqn for that . instead have a UCAS sqn instead.
or sell Q.E with a sqn F35 to another nation as a complete package. and have joint FAA/RAF sqns for carrier use.

or we might keep both as we have won the lottery!!!!!!!

what do you guys think?
cyrilranch is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2011, 16:52
  #2998 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi Backwards PLT,
I understand what you are saying and common sense would dictate the first carrier should be the one that gets converted. However I am merely the messenger repeating answers given during questioning of the Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology by Dr Julian Lewis MP.


Originally Posted by Peter Luff (Minister)
No decision has yet been made as to which ship will be converted for cat-and-trap or whether both ships should be converted
Dr Julian Lewis then asked if the second carrier would be sold:

Originally Posted by Peter Luff (Minister)
This was unlikely and that a more likely option was that the second ship would be placed into extended readiness. Each ship will require major maintenance every six years, including dry docking which would take about 36 weeks. In addition, the operational vessel will require up to 12 weeks of maintenance per year
With regard to where maintenance work will be carried out, Mr Luff said:

Originally Posted by Peter Luff (Minister)
This could be Portsmouth, Roysth, elsewhere in the UK or possibly overseas
I'm glad he gave a clear answer on that one.. I guess we can rule out the Moon!

I was always told that because of tidal conditions the old Ark Royal and HMS Eagle were Guzz based ships because of their size and the angled flight deck made them unsuitable for Pompey?? A refit up in Roysth would be hugely popular with most English based sailors and what if Scotland hopefully wins that referendum for independence?

Finally

Originally Posted by Peter Luff (Minister)
I expect up to three years of additional design and modification work on the carriers to address the changes needed to install catapults and arrester gear.
Please note the use of the plural wording 'carriers' as opposed to the singular.

All these questions were asked by Dr Julian Lewis MP who used to be the shadow Defence Minister for the Royal Navy.

Note that very craftily worded answer about the selling of the second carrier...

"This was unlikely"

There is talk about using some type of electro-magnetic catapult system and could that possibly be an easier conversion as opposed to a major redesign of the whole boiler room set-up and all the plumbing from the fire to the roof-top!

I agree with your points but this is what the Defence Minister has said at his latest grilling and to me is just like the perfect storm except this is more like the perfect 'male appendage vertical'
glojo is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2011, 19:18
  #2999 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 511
Received 155 Likes on 82 Posts
QE can be converted for catapult & trap - it's just that doing it right now is not possible because the detailed design work required to accommodate the systems has not yet been done. Any further delay in the programme for QE will add serious cost, given that large heavily outfitted chunks of the ship are all over the country at the minute, with armies of workers swarming over them.

That does not mean that space and weight in the right place was not allocated - that's relatively easy and it was. The riskiest bit as far as QE is concerned is modifying the power control system software to accommodate the transient loads and harmonics that are likely to be imposed by the EMALS system which is the obvious cat system. While steam is viable, it adds all sorts of risk in terms of legacy systems, design authority, training etc, whereas the EMALS system is currently throwing US aircraft down the runway at Navy Lakehurst. This way the US does a large chunk of derisking for us. I would not concentrate too much on the idea that only one will be fitted for cat n trap. I suspect the plan looks like - complete QE to trial the vessel and systems and spell as LPH, then into reserve for an upgrade to cats, while PoW operates having commissioned with cats. As PoW becomes due a refit, dig out QE and turn about, bit like CVS has operated, but not ideal.

Why did we go to F35C vice B? Well that was another risk reduction exercise. Had we proceeded with STOVL, we were locked into a one-trick pony (ie Dave B or nothing). Before anyone starts up the Harrier II+ or Harrier III argument just think how long and how much it takes to resurrect a production line that has been closed for over 12 years. There's a reason the USMC are buying the GR7/GR9 frames and it ain't because they want to make Call Me Dave happy. By going Dave C, we got away from the single solution (F18E, Rafale, SU33? or even a Sea Tiffy as fallbacks if we're feeling flush and ready to play risk). The USN cannot afford to lose Dave C without ceasing to exist as a force (look at the average age of their frames), but the USMC might be able to live without the fairly risky (RVL anyone?) Dave B.

As for maintenance, the Ark / Eagle debate of the 70s is past. No-one will take a 280m ship into Guzz, endex. However, QE will not fit (length, wl beam or overall beam) into any lock in Pompey, so any docking will need to take place in either Rosyth or if we're desperate Mr Harlands facility in Belfast.
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2011, 20:29
  #3000 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Are we 100% certain that the F-35C will ever be produced? These are extracts of what has been said regarding this aircraft along with exact quotes by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, I have done the underlining as I feel it highly relevant.:

But he said the Marine Corps variant of the plane, which offers short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) capabilities, was put on a two-year "probation," and could be canceled if Lockheed was unable to fix significant test problems.

Originally Posted by Defense Secretary Robert Gates
"If we cannot fix this variant during this time frame and get it back on track in terms of performance, cost and schedule, then I believe it should be canceled,"
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin
As for maintenance, the Ark / Eagle debate of the 70s is past. No-one will take a 280m ship into Guzz, endex. However, QE will not fit (length, wl beam or overall beam) into any lock in Pompey, so any docking will need to take place in either Rosyth or if we're desperate Mr Harlands facility in Belfast.
Excellent point and I have no idea of the size of the docks at Devonport. I note what you say about the 280 plus metre length and yes that right angle hand brake turn might well be a problem but is it a deal breaker? I am NOT disagreeing with you and am aware that Eagle did thump a rock as she approached Devils Point (It made the ground on the Hoe tremor) Would the modern warships have bow thrusters and perish the thought podded propulsion units

I was surprised to see these new carriers are not as wide as our older specimens

Boffin,
Do you believe the UK would fit the EMALS system before seeing it on any warship? I agree with what you are saying about the huge problems that would be involved in trying to install a steam catapult system after the ship has been built but how far advanced is the building of the first ship and have the boilers been fitted? I ask this because at flying stations both, or all boiler rooms will work in harmony to ensure steam pressure does not fluctuate. (Commander Air tends to loose all sense of humour if safety valves lift)

As an aside I must confess to watching Select Committee meetings as they are the only places where Ministers are compelled to answer questions that have been asked.. woe betide them if they try to tell woopsies as they just get recalled and asked to have another go at answering the relevant question. Hence my posting of what has been said since the SDSR.

I think our major problem regarding these carriers is actually Oliver Letwin MP... He is in the Cabinet Office and only wants these ships built to keep dockyard mateys employed.

He and his other cronies believes Foreign Aid is a far better investment than 'Fighting Aid' or defence of the realm. He is someone that believes that giving Somalia aid will stop them from committing acts of piracy on the high seas and we can all see how that is playing out. Plus of course someone should remind him of what happened when the United States tried helping those folks!

We desperately need the likes of Dr Julian Lewis MP to be promoted and maybe then we might get more sense out of our ministers regarding the future of the Royal Navy.
glojo is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.