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 25th Feb 2012, 05:31
  #3121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Didn't Paul Grayson play rugby for England? And another one played cricket for England, didn't he?
Yes there were two Graysons, born in the same year, but as the former ministers name is Drayson it is yet another irrelevant bit of drivel like so much in this thread.
Harley Quinn is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2012, 07:29
  #3122 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,155
Received 1,461 Likes on 660 Posts
Defense-Aerospace.com: France Could Loan Rafales to Royal Navy

PARIS --- The Anglo-French defense initiative announced last week did not mention bilateral cooperation on aircraft carriers because Britain still has to firm up its intentions in this field, according to France’s top weapons buyer.

Lauren Collet-Billon, head of the Direction Generale de l’Armement, said during a Feb. 22 press conference here that Britain still has to finalize its aircraft carrier plans, including major technical options such as the kind of catapults it wants to fit to its new aircraft carriers, and what kind of aircraft these ships will finally operate. Initially, Britain wanted to buy the F-35B STOV/L variant to replace its Harriers, but subsequently shifted to the F-35C carrier variant which, like the entire program, has run into substantial technical difficulties.

The F-35 “is an ambitious program, and like all ambitious programs it faces a number of challenges,” Collet-Billon said, adding that bilateral cooperation in the field of aircraft carriers will depend on how British programs.

“If one day we have to lend Rafale Ms to the Royal Navy, why not? Personally, I’d find that very pleasing,” Collet-Billon said. ..............
ORAC is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2012, 08:32
  #3123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
including major technical options such as the kind of catapults it wants to fit to its new aircraft carriers, and what kind of aircraft these ships will finally operate.
Do we have any options regarding type of launch system. I must confess to assuming these carriers would have conventional steam powered propulsion but was soon put right and these ships have possibly stolen the engines from the scrapped Nimrod program!!

In other words they are powered by gas turbines and they do not produce steam that is anywhere near suitable for operating conventional type catapults so what options do we have?
glojo is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2012, 09:05
  #3124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The sunny South
Posts: 819
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
glojo - It has been discussed on PPRuNe several times but the QE Class carriers (at least one, anyway) will employ the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) which has already been tested on land and is currently being installed in USS Gerald R Ford.

FODPlod is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2012, 09:35
  #3125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Good morning FodPlod,
MANY apologies if my post was in any way confusing... I was responding to the suggestion that we have a choice regarding type of launch system. I am in total and full agreement with your observations.

The EMALS catapult is the system that will be used, there are no other systems being considered and it is not going to change.

Did I read somewhere that the decision has been made to now fit BOTH carriers with the full kit to operate the F-35C?

Apologies if I caused any confusion.

John
glojo is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2012, 11:47
  #3126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The sunny South
Posts: 819
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
glojo - Fairy snuff. I didn't think you could be that far astern of the curve.

Good morning to you, too.
FODPlod is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2012, 12:22
  #3127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm still coming to terms with not waiting for the ship to roll before firing off my broadside!!
glojo is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2012, 12:53
  #3128 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 80
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Can't wait for the commissioning
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2012, 22:47
  #3129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: london
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi I am David Morgan's sister and although slightly biased, I would reccomend his book as being just a true account of the events the book was written about. I have read , well attemped to read, Sharkey's book but felt the real personal touch was not there!
fran1678 is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2012, 00:31
  #3130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hello Fran,

I enjoyed your brother's book, but I have also made it through Sharkey's book a couple of times now and even subjected myself to 'RAF Harrier Ground Attack Falklands', which I found a little incoherent.

My personal highlight in Sharkey's book was when he sensed insubordination on 801 so took the offender up for some ACM and won....quite what that proved I have no idea. A little weird in my opinion. Your brother's best bit is when he tries to float out of his cabin to see his disciple....I mean, you wouldn't lie about that would you!
orca is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2012, 12:19
  #3131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 511
Received 155 Likes on 82 Posts
QE Build Progress

Just as a counter point to some of the doom & gloom. Progress on the build of QE at Rosyth.

Assembly phase reveals Queen Elizabeth scale | Opinion | The Engineer

I must confess that I had not expected them to be at the point of locking off compartments yet. To put this in some sort of time perspective, the components of the superblock have arrived in Rosyth from August onwards, with some of the sponson blocks having been built in Rosyth earlier.
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2012, 16:31
  #3132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back of beyond!
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I enjoyed your brother's book, but I have also made it through Sharkey's book a couple of times now and even subjected myself to 'RAF Harrier Ground Attack Falklands', which I found a little incoherent.
I too have read all three books and have found each perspective both interesting and unique to the person writing - exactly how one might expect a 'personal' account of the situation they found themselves in. I particularly enjoyed Harrier Ground Attack Falklands if I'm honest and can't really agree with Orca this time on its incoherence(?) Jerry was, in my humble opinion, rightfully frustrated by a rather boisterous RN carrier command chain at the time whose priority was certainly not launching ground attack and CAS sorties but instead seemed to purposefully ignore the very role they were there to carry out. This attitude smarted Sharkey as well - even their own FAA Sea Harrier pilots weren't spared the BS it would seem.

Thread creep from the OP (and I apologise to all) but these books have to be read with respect for the perspective they were written from - the FI campaign was no success story in many many areas but if you want to understand the challenges involved in operating both RN and RAF aircraft from a carrier at war in the early 1980s, from an aircrew side, read all three!

Regards,

ICBM
ICBM is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2012, 17:01
  #3133 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,807
Received 19 Likes on 15 Posts
More progress: Giant hull sections of Queen Elizabeth carrier joined at Clyde yard - BBC

Also here from the Telegraph.

Wait a minute - was Queen Elizabeth not meant to enter service in 2014 - and since she is not getting catapults and arresting gear, that should not have changed?

Also of note (and also from the Telegraph): New delay over fighter jet choice

If F35B is picked, then surely the RN Pilots sent stateside to fly would be better off flying Harriers - and we could do with embarking Harriers to maintain the skills of carrier crews? I wonder if the cost issue is the only one, or if training and skills (and current capabilities this decade) come into it? Issues which, of course, were discussed elsewhere on PPRuNe as well as on this thread.

I realise that there is a thread discussing just this question, but thought I would put it here for completeness.
WE Branch Fanatic is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2012, 20:51
  #3134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic
Wait a minute - was Queen Elizabeth not meant to enter service in 2014 - and since she is not getting catapults and arresting gear, that should not have changed?
That was changed even before construction of the blocks began.

"Aircraft carriers delayed"

Thursday, 11 December 2008

The Royal Navy's two new aircraft carriers are likely to enter service a year or two later than planned, Defence Secretary John Hutton has announced.
In a statement to MPs, he added there would be no delay in construction - but work would continue at a slower pace, sustaining jobs for longer.
The £4bn shipbuilding project is due to begin next spring.
"House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 21 Nov 2011"

Peter Luff [holding answer 15 November 2011]: The planned in-service dates for HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are 2016 and 2018 respectively—however, these dates may change once our conversion investigations are complete and we have decided which ship will be converted.
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2012, 08:54
  #3135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by WEBF
If F35B is picked, then surely the RN Pilots sent stateside to fly would be better off flying Harriers - and we could do with embarking Harriers to maintain the skills of carrier crews?
We don't have any to embark. The UK doesn't operate Harriers.

If F35B is chosen, the RN and RAF pilots need to be worked up on that, not a type we no longer have. Carrier crews will need to be worked-up once the new carrier is being introduced to service. Quite a way to go yet.
Mach Two is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2012, 18:40
  #3136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 5,335
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by M2
The UK doesn't operate Harriers.
You really shouldn't have told him that. I don't think he knew. Maybe that's why he hardly ever mentions it.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2012, 21:16
  #3137 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,807
Received 19 Likes on 15 Posts
GK121

Interesting. Surely if the build was slowed for political reasons, then it can be speeded back up?

Also I understand that there is nothing to stop Illustrious being retained post 2014 (until QE comes along). Even in a LPH role, having more than one flat top gives a margin of safety in case of accidents or other unexpected things (Lusty recently sustained some damage on exercise). Things do crop up - like this possible deployment to Somalia.

Mach Two

Perhaps this would be better discussed on the "No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B" thread?

We don't have any to embark. The UK doesn't operate Harriers.
I have noticed that. But other countries do, and their jets could be embarked. There was also talk at one time of an RN Hornet squadron - why not an RN AV8B squadron?

If F35B is chosen, the RN and RAF pilots need to be worked up on that, not a type we no longer have.
What about the guys flying the F/A18? The UK has never operated that, and I think the idea for RN guys to fly them was to build CTOL experience. If the future is not CTOL, but V/STOL, then perhaps training on AV8B will be more suitable for a future transition of F35B? An RN AV8B squadron has other attractions too (such as giving us back a task force capability this decade). The politicians (the PM mostly) looked into the crystal ball with closed eyes, and saw nothing unexpected this decade.

The Americans want to UK to have a decent carrier capability - seeing us as a very important ally.

Carrier crews will need to be worked-up once the new carrier is being introduced to service. Quite a way to go yet.
Hmm! I am not sure the Officers quoted here would agree:

The lack of adequately training personnel could delay the carrier coming into service by another three or four years, the Navy commander has said.

Another officer has told The Telegraph that the loss of carrier deck handling skills could prove "disastrous" with fatal accidents caused by inexperienced ratings.


Or indeed the First Sea Lord: Loss of Carrier Strike Capability Top Concern of Royal Navy Chief

F35B or F35C, we still have to get there. Current policy does not answer several key questions?

How will we maintain and develop carrier related skills this decade?

What will we do if we need to provide a task group with air defence beyond the range of ship based sensors and weapons, or if ROE demand positive ID before things can be engaged?

How will we make up for the shortfall in maritime force projection, given that SSN numbers will decline this decade, so there will be less TLAM shooters, and Apache is limited in sped, range, and payload, and available only in limited numbers?

These were (and still are) the issues discussed on the Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers" thread.

In late 2009 I remember listening to a briefing by the Fleet Air Arm Command Warrant Officer, who emphasised the need to have more jets embarked as sea for longer periods, to build up both individual and corporate experience. Sometimes the whole ship aspects are forgotten about - but they are key to safe and efficient aviation operations.

A lot of things have to come together, not just the chockheads being confident and experienced in handling jets on a moving deck, but also the OOW keeping the ship on the right course and speed and understanding the movement limitations ship and aircraft place upon each other, the watchkeepers in the Ship Control Centre keeping the deck trim and flashing up power when needed, operators and maintainers of various sensors, communications, and landing aids, the Cdr(Air) et al running things, etc.

I am very reluctant to post an article by a politician who was described as a failure by those she was/is meant to represent (as their MP), but here we go:

'The government only has itself to blame for any carrier strike U-turn'

Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 1st May 2012 at 17:43.
WE Branch Fanatic is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2012, 21:34
  #3138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
WEBF,

I think you missed my point. I'm well aware of all the other threads discussing this issue, I only responded to you as you posted it here "for completeness."

Whilst I admire your single-issue enthusiasm, the facts are quite plain. The Government have little appetite to pay for sea power at the moment and the next one will be even less on side. We are out of the VTOL/VSTOL/etc game and the carrier game. My comments reflect only how I read the mood of those that hold the purse strings.

Perhaps we'd all be better off focussing on having essential future capability rather than worrying about what colour it is or whether it looks like a Harrier or not.

M2
Mach Two is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2012, 05:48
  #3139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
WEBF... "The sky is falling" scare-tactic headlines and grandstanding by officers who should know better aside, the reality is that the RN has the situation well in hand.


The reality is that there are currently RN personnel assigned to the various flight deck divisions on some USN carriers, others attending the LSO (Landing Signals Officer) school in the US, and the USN is working with the RN (currently in the early stages) to establish a full training program for the RN's flight deck crewmen.

By the time PoW is ready to land her first aircraft (F-35C, T-45C, or whatever) there will be a fully trained flight deck crew of RN sailors aboard... most of whom will have spent at least a little time aboard a USN CVN flight deck, working beside the American flight deck crew.
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2012, 15:50
  #3140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That sounds really promising GK121, but the reality is that it only takes one small budgetary cut (over here) and that process you describe stops and all that "promise" turns into another, permanent, capability loss.


I'm not fully up to speed on all pages of this thread, but I think the fundamental questions are:
  1. Will we ever see either of the carriers in service with the RN?
  2. If one or both does go into service will they ever embark any UK owned FJ's (a la F-35B/C)?
And I don't think anybody over here can answer these questions with a definitive "Yes" at this time. We have a long history of our armed services agreeing capability holidays which turn into permanent losses.

All IMO.
andrewn 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.