Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Onceapilot
One thing about the vulnerability of these big ships is that if they are ever employed against a country that really requires the use of their hi-tech conventional weaponry, they become perfect targets for tactical-use of nuclear weapons against them
Do you think nuclear deterrence might work?
Do you think tactical ballistic missiles might be countered by oue own weapons?
Do you think there might be non nuclear adverseries?
Originally Posted by Arclite01
Lastly, everyone knows that these ships must be operated as a carrier group. None of which (tankers, supply ships, destroyer screen, aircraft etc.) appear to have been really considered..............(including the manning and costs)
As for destroyer screen - how many escorts do you think a US Navy CVN routinely deploys with? How many do you think QE and PoW will routinely need?
Thanks for your response WEBF. Unfortunately, your one-liner style questions would require degree thesis answers and, I rather thought you would understand those issues before adopting your opinion?
However, a point about the possible tactical-use of nuclear weapons (note, I did not say anything about "tactical ballistic missiles"- your simplistic mis-quote old chap) and this particular target is that, they could be targeted at sea where the possibility exists for their elimination without civilian casualties, with no collateral damage and with a high degree of ambiguity if done in certain ways.
Beyond that, they will always be huge soft targets in port for a satchel bag nuke in these days of asymmetric and suicide terrorist warfare. Hey, even drug cartels have mini-subs!
Overall, my opinion is that they are the wrong ships for the RN.
OAP
However, a point about the possible tactical-use of nuclear weapons (note, I did not say anything about "tactical ballistic missiles"- your simplistic mis-quote old chap) and this particular target is that, they could be targeted at sea where the possibility exists for their elimination without civilian casualties, with no collateral damage and with a high degree of ambiguity if done in certain ways. Beyond that, they will always be huge soft targets in port for a satchel bag nuke in these days of asymmetric and suicide terrorist warfare. Hey, even drug cartels have mini-subs!Overall, my opinion is that they are the wrong ships for the RN.
OAP
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 54
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thesis length answers? I'll give it a quick stab!
"Do you think any of these things could be said for land based air power?" Pretty much all of them. Land based Air Power tends to operate from non-mobile bases whose locations are well known and plotted decades in advance. Most lack any point defence missile capability, and have nothing even remotely duplicating the defences of a Carrier Battle Group in their vicinity.
"Do you think nuclear deterrence might work?" Any country that fires a nuclear weapon at the warships of a country which is nuclear armed like the UK is inviting their own destruction. That is how deterrence works. You fire just one, we take the gloves off. To do otherwise would mean a loss of face (by us) greater than if we hadn't responded to the Argentine Invasion of the Falklands. You either back up your promises/threats or you are done.
"Do you think tactical/ballistic missiles might be countered by our own weapons?" Theatre BMD is a developing capability within the RN at least, SAMPSON can do it, Sea Viper will do it and the T45s will have their engineering problems sorted before it truly becomes necessary.
"Do you think there might be non nuclear adversaries?" Most of the world falls into this category.
"Overall, my opinion is that they are the wrong ships for the RN." Tough. We are getting them. The time to whine about it is over and the time to make them the best ships we can is here.
"Do you think any of these things could be said for land based air power?" Pretty much all of them. Land based Air Power tends to operate from non-mobile bases whose locations are well known and plotted decades in advance. Most lack any point defence missile capability, and have nothing even remotely duplicating the defences of a Carrier Battle Group in their vicinity.
"Do you think nuclear deterrence might work?" Any country that fires a nuclear weapon at the warships of a country which is nuclear armed like the UK is inviting their own destruction. That is how deterrence works. You fire just one, we take the gloves off. To do otherwise would mean a loss of face (by us) greater than if we hadn't responded to the Argentine Invasion of the Falklands. You either back up your promises/threats or you are done.
"Do you think tactical/ballistic missiles might be countered by our own weapons?" Theatre BMD is a developing capability within the RN at least, SAMPSON can do it, Sea Viper will do it and the T45s will have their engineering problems sorted before it truly becomes necessary.
"Do you think there might be non nuclear adversaries?" Most of the world falls into this category.
"Overall, my opinion is that they are the wrong ships for the RN." Tough. We are getting them. The time to whine about it is over and the time to make them the best ships we can is here.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 54
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Onceapilot. Your inability to form a cogent rebuttal has proven mine. We can bandy personal put downs 'til the Bovines return to their Domiciles but I always thought this forum was better than that. Play the ball, not the man.
Thread Starter
Well now here is something that might make the "they will not carry aircraft" lot pipe down.
Yes, the new carriers will have aircraft
According to a source we spoke to at the heart of planning for the carriers, the vessels will usually deploy with around 20 F-35Bs as a minimum and a number of various helicopters.
In addition to the joint force of Royal Air Force and Royal Navy F-35Bs and their pilots, the air wing is expected to be composed of a ‘Maritime Force Protection’ package of nine anti-submarine Merlin HM2 and four or five Merlin for airborne early warning; alternatively a ‘Littoral Manoeuvre’ package could include a mix of RAF Chinooks, Army Apaches, Merlin HC4 and Wildcat HM2. We understand that vessel would still carry at least one F-35 squadron aboard in such circumstances to offer air defence as well as support to the helicopter assault activities.
The Crowsnest AEW&C aircraft will come from a number of the embarked Merlins (any of which can be fitted with the sensor package), the number being determined by requirements.
Yes, the new carriers will have aircraft
According to a source we spoke to at the heart of planning for the carriers, the vessels will usually deploy with around 20 F-35Bs as a minimum and a number of various helicopters.
In addition to the joint force of Royal Air Force and Royal Navy F-35Bs and their pilots, the air wing is expected to be composed of a ‘Maritime Force Protection’ package of nine anti-submarine Merlin HM2 and four or five Merlin for airborne early warning; alternatively a ‘Littoral Manoeuvre’ package could include a mix of RAF Chinooks, Army Apaches, Merlin HC4 and Wildcat HM2. We understand that vessel would still carry at least one F-35 squadron aboard in such circumstances to offer air defence as well as support to the helicopter assault activities.
The Crowsnest AEW&C aircraft will come from a number of the embarked Merlins (any of which can be fitted with the sensor package), the number being determined by requirements.
The expectation that the vessels will sail with around 20 F-35Bs is, according to an insider source we spoke to, because “It is not that they can’t do land based operations, just that there is a need to get the return on investment for the well found forward deployed bases that these aircraft carriers that form the centre of the CSG are” and that “the capacity of the F-35B force in the near years in particular is very limited and it is unwise to do other deployments”.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wonder if we bin F35B would the Donald let us mix and match a small batch of C's with super bugs and growlers with some trackers a couple of cods/tanker 22 thingies and cut us a deal on emals[?] if we say we'll play along and dismantle the BBC into a private tv company??
Could be a winner you know.
Could be a winner you know.
Last edited by glad rag; 12th Jan 2017 at 20:15. Reason: fingers
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Tough. We are getting them. The time to whine about it is over and the time to make them the best ships we can is here. "
No, they are not "here", they are not complete, there are no aircraft. Who knows what the shakedown trials will throw up...
In operational sense they are compromised by a number of factors:- ergo the choice of both aircraft launching and recovery systems, aircraft selected [both ship and aircraft from "same" manufacturing base!!!] lack of high altitude AEW cover, paltry self defence capability.
Do not consider operating another nations aircraft on-board as satisfactory, it's a disgrace.
We are an island nation, one that does not have the capability to monitor and defend it's coastline. The cost of this project, to the fleet, both surface and sub surface, in terms of numbers and capability is also a disgrace.
These ships are the product of both political and service hubris.
No, they are not "here", they are not complete, there are no aircraft. Who knows what the shakedown trials will throw up...
In operational sense they are compromised by a number of factors:- ergo the choice of both aircraft launching and recovery systems, aircraft selected [both ship and aircraft from "same" manufacturing base!!!] lack of high altitude AEW cover, paltry self defence capability.
Do not consider operating another nations aircraft on-board as satisfactory, it's a disgrace.
We are an island nation, one that does not have the capability to monitor and defend it's coastline. The cost of this project, to the fleet, both surface and sub surface, in terms of numbers and capability is also a disgrace.
These ships are the product of both political and service hubris.
Thread Starter
Total nonsense glad rag. Do you really think we would have more frigates/destroyers or submarines if there was no CVF? Really? How would that be justified to Ministers and the taxpayer? As for monitoring and defending the coastline that is a job for UK Border Force and the Police.
F-35B is in service with the USMC, and will be coming here soon. The CVF design has been designed to maximise sortie rate. Whilst I do agree to some degree about AEW, you seem to forget that there is a law of diminishing returns thing, so doubling the altitude of the platform does not double the radar range, and reduces resolution.
Self defence - what do you think they should carry?
F-35B is in service with the USMC, and will be coming here soon. The CVF design has been designed to maximise sortie rate. Whilst I do agree to some degree about AEW, you seem to forget that there is a law of diminishing returns thing, so doubling the altitude of the platform does not double the radar range, and reduces resolution.
Self defence - what do you think they should carry?
WEBF - spot on. There's also the point that carrier qualification will be a doddle with the B compared with CTOL options, while the B's range compromise is mitigated to some degree by less need for go-around reserves. It's a good fit for UK requirements given the reality of where we are and offers a much better real-world chance that we'll be able to generate and sustain a good capability. And as it happens the timeframe for UK IOC and FOC fits pretty well with the timeframe for ironing out the main bugs. No aircraft? IIRC current post-SDSR plans are that we'll have 42 airframes by 2023. Of course there's a balance of pros and cons, I don't deny that for a minute, which has been debated endlessly, and there's a range of views on that. As to organic defence, it's always been planned that the carriers won't deploy without escorts and the T45s were always planned with carrier AAD as their primary mission. The carriers themselves rightly have have good last ditch provision, as well as providing the outer layer, and this keeps things simpler onboard. As you rightly say, any suggestion that without the carriers we'd have far more escorts (escorting what?) is a fallacy. It's also valid to question the value of only having lots of escorts with little to escort and whose main ability is to defend themselves. The carriers will be in a different league in terms of their ability to deliver military effect, as well as in terms of the peacetime diplomacy signals they can send. Having said all that the navy does need more escorts, but canning the carriers isn't the right way to achieve that.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To add further to both WEBF and Frost's good posts, it's worth reminding folk that F-35B is not there to protect the fleet or the Carrier. Sure, if nothing else can provide AD then it will conduct DCA as a priority; in most circumstances it will be conducting strike, AI, CAS & ISR at range, and probably as part of a package.
Yes, you have to protect to project, but the protect function will be more logically covered by other fleet assets.
Yes, you have to protect to project, but the protect function will be more logically covered by other fleet assets.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Escorts? Since 1989 the escorts haven't escorted very much - they watch the Falklands, they chase drug fiends, rescue people, shadow the Red Peril through the channel, fire missiles at people who can't fire back at those ranges ....
The main use of the RN these days is a million miles from fighting another "hot" war with a Carrier Group
The main use of the RN these days is a million miles from fighting another "hot" war with a Carrier Group
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 54
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since 1989 the RN's 'escorts have only had, what three carriers, a commando carrier two LPDs and the rest of the ARG to 'escort. So, a million miles away from 'escorting' a CVBG then...
...of course prior to 1989 they were, doing much the same job of course.
...of course prior to 1989 they were, doing much the same job of course.
To add further to both WEBF and Frost's good posts, it's worth reminding folk that F-35B is not there to protect the fleet or the Carrier. Sure, if nothing else can provide AD then it will conduct DCA as a priority; in most circumstances it will be conducting strike, AI, CAS & ISR at range, and probably as part of a package.
Yes, you have to protect to project, but the protect function will be more logically covered by other fleet assets.
Yes, you have to protect to project, but the protect function will be more logically covered by other fleet assets.
And I suspect the clique that want to disembark at the earliest opportunity every time they see land may be a little disappointed.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alfred, not really. As I intimated, the F-35B will HAVE to fill any shortfall in the T45 protective AD shield, where it has the capability to do so, when sailing unescorted - um, when will that be? - or out with a Theatre Air Defence Plan, which is routinely covered by other AD assets like F-15, F-22, and Typhoon to name but a few. In other words, when the Carrier is 'in Theatre' the Air Defence of it WILL be covered by dedicated DCA assets which will not always be organic F-35B - in fact, I'd wager it wont be, because it wouldn't be a smart move by the CFACC to apportion when a better plan could be generated. Why? Well, the UK will not have the numbers of F-35B to put a 24/7 DCA cap over the ship let alone do the Strike missions it was designed to do - I.e project "Power", "Enabled" by the "Carrier". Oh hang on, what did CEPP stand for again...?!
Notions that QE will conduct multi-mission Ops on the scale of a CVN are preposterous. A 75+ CAW vs a 12-20 F-35B QEC doesn't equate, not at all. Those hard core Naval enthusiasts who believe otherwise are harking back to the days of yore of a blue water angled-deck Carrier equipped RN, and will be sadly disappointed.
Finally, the "clique" you speak of will not decide to step ashore. It will be the decision of those much higher up and only ever for a good reason - perhaps the Carrier has to RIP out of Th with a US CVN so it can go along side for essential maintenance, but the jets have to remain in Th to maintain CFACC's Air Tasking.
Stop living in past/fantasy and grasp the reality of what is and is not going to be possible. Or be prepared to live with disappointment.
In sum, if the DCA screen requires F-35B to help T-45 then it will be the priority. If it doesn't, which it won't when in a Th with a Theater Air Defence Plan, the few jets we have will be used for what they were designed for...Strike.
Notions that QE will conduct multi-mission Ops on the scale of a CVN are preposterous. A 75+ CAW vs a 12-20 F-35B QEC doesn't equate, not at all. Those hard core Naval enthusiasts who believe otherwise are harking back to the days of yore of a blue water angled-deck Carrier equipped RN, and will be sadly disappointed.
Finally, the "clique" you speak of will not decide to step ashore. It will be the decision of those much higher up and only ever for a good reason - perhaps the Carrier has to RIP out of Th with a US CVN so it can go along side for essential maintenance, but the jets have to remain in Th to maintain CFACC's Air Tasking.
Stop living in past/fantasy and grasp the reality of what is and is not going to be possible. Or be prepared to live with disappointment.
In sum, if the DCA screen requires F-35B to help T-45 then it will be the priority. If it doesn't, which it won't when in a Th with a Theater Air Defence Plan, the few jets we have will be used for what they were designed for...Strike.
Last edited by MSOCS; 14th Jan 2017 at 11:51.