Future Carrier (Including Costs)

[Imagegear]

As previously stated, an attack on a UK asset of that magnitude will mean that the world is at war, and we are all in the "end" game. Who wins the last 10 minutes is irrelevant, the UK will have retaliated.

IG

[falcon900]

Returning briefly to the QE captain dismissal fiasco, what if he had already been warned about the use of the vehicle for "personal" purposes? Continuing to use the vehicle as described thereafter would be an altogether more serious matter, and would make his dismissal rather more understandable, even indeed reasonable. Just a thought.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

ASW is a carrier role. The carrier will provide helicopters for 24/7 dipping, working with frigates with towed array sonar. The predecessors of the Queen Elizabeth class were the Invincibles, which started life on the drawing board as through deck cruisers intended to embark up to ten ASW Sea Kings. The United Sates used to operate dedicated ASW carriers as well as attack ones, until the two roles were combined in the same ship and air wing in the seventies.

Back in the eighties, with less capable sonars aboard both ships and aircraft:

Our bread & butter was the so-called "Ripple 3"; 3 aircraft airborne all the time (2 on task, with 1 in transit to / from the scene of action) 100+ miles away from the carrier / convoy, sometimes for weeks at a time. I joined 820 NAS / Ark in late-86, and the first thing we did was a major NATO exercise escorting a convoy from Norfolk VA to Harstad in Northern Norway - we had 3 aircraft on task for over 3 weeks, non-stop. I shudder to think how many sonobuoys we "spat" in a 3000+ mile line across the Atlantic. [100+ miles away, by the way, because by then the Soviets had developed long-range missiles that they could fire from e.g. a Charlie class SSN, thus attacking the convoy without having to get all that close - targeting info coming from Russian aircraft, which was one of the original reasons for procuring the Sea Harrier]. It was tiring, but possible to keep it up almost indefinitely - we had 14 crews, and 9 aircraft, so even if you had, say, 4 cabs broken at any time (not uncommon!), there were enough to keep the Ripple going. You got into a rhythm: wake up; eat; brief an hour before take off; fly for 4 hours; debrief [& file your records if you'd come across any real Soviet boats]; go to bed... 6 hours later repeat... and repeat... and repeat...

But if it's an airborne frigate, why do you need 2 on task? Because it gives you much more flexibility; for instance, one of the Soviet tactics was so-called "sprint & drift" - if it thought it had been detected (and if you flew too low they would hear you), the SSN would wind up to 30kts and shoot off 50 miles or so, and then suddenly go completely silent; slow right down and use natural salinity / temperature layers in the water to interfere with sonar. If you only had one aircraft, he would have to be incredibly unlucky for you to keep up with that - effectively his boat simply disappeared. But with two, provided you were worked up and in good practice, one of you could track the boat while it was fast (& noisy) and direct the other to fly ahead... and then swap. If they [B]didn't know you were there, then over time it was possible to get a really accurate picture of where the boat was (all passively) - so one of you would run the plot, and use the other cab as the weapon carrier. Or, if in doubt, direct the other cab into a hover ahead of the target... ping... contact... weapon in the water within seconds before he has time to react.

At its worst, this was soul-crushingly boring. Stooging around for 4 hours at 6000'+ (nosebleed territory for helicopters) at maximum endurance speed (c.65 kts), in the dark so on instruments, spitting sonobuoys and finding... diddly squat. But when you were in contact - which was often with the real thing (e.g. on that 3 weeks crossing the Atlantic, we detected and tracked around 10 Russian SSNs [probably not 10 separate hulls, but 4 different types, so deffo not the same bloke 10 times!], since they were just as interested in watching us practice as vice versa) - it was 3-dimensional chess; it could be really exciting. Sometimes the SSN drivers would get bored, or decide to test their own tactics (we never knew), so they'd give up trying to be sneaky-beaky and stay silent, and instead try shaking us off with speed, big sudden changes in course, decoys etc. Tracking a fast nuke, in daylight, with 2 aircraft using both passive and active techniques - very, very demanding, but enormous fun.

From here (https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235036308-return-of-the-king-seaking-has5-ze419-of-820nas-hms-ark-royal-1988/page/3/&tab=comments#comment-3004205).

Things have changed since then - active dipping sonar is the main ASW sensor. NATO has conducted major ASW exercises with a carrier at the centre of the task group in 2014 (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2014/june/16/140616-exercise-deep-blue) and 2016 (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2016/july/20/160820-hms-ocean). NATO still depends on moving forces by sea, and having amphibious capabilities.

[Asturias56]

As previously stated, an attack on a UK asset of that magnitude will mean that the world is at war, and we are all in the "end" game. Who wins the last 10 minutes is irrelevant, the UK will have retaliated.

IG


Hmmm - not sure - are you sure that someone sinking a single British aircraft carrier would get the UK PM to press the button? I doubt it TBH - you aren't going to risk incinerating 65 million voters for that

[Chugalug2]

JTO, your excoriating post re official MT reminds me of similar blatant misuse of same. I was away defending Queen and Country in some 4 or 5 star hotel somewhere down route when Mrs C receives news from one of her brothers that their father has just died. The duty RAFP that has passed the message on is so alarmed at her distress (she was the youngest of five siblings) that he calls my boss. (all this at 0'C***** hundred am). What does she want to do? Go to Miami to meet brother and fly on to Lima (the family home). Right, get packed and I'll be there shortly (our OMQ being at Hullavington, his at Lyneham). Bundles her into his official mini and sets off at high speed across Wiltshire and Oxfordshire to a top secret airbase to catch the daily Washington VC10 (already booked compassionate for her). She remembers a large yellow flag on the car fluttering the whole way which enables him to drive straight onto the apron and to the foot of the airstairs. Quick goodbyes, ensures baggage on board, doors and hatches closed, start up, taxy out, and he's off to Lyneham having alerted Flight Commander to run the show in his absence.

More mis-use of official resources followed as he informed brother of her arrival at Washington and requested he arrange a ticket from there to Miami, and contacted BDLS Washington requesting her to be met and escorted between the two Washington airports. Resumes duties as CO only to remember me, sends signal informing me wife enroute LIM, and will meet me on arrival Lyneham. He is first onboard and looking worried. Did I get his message? Yes boss, thanks. And did he do the right thing? Well absolutely, Sir. Thank you!

Now not so sure and feel greatly relieved at this opportunity to reveal this scandal. I'm ready to give evidence, just as long as I don't get any blame for it of course...

[Imagegear]

Hmmm - not sure - are you sure that someone sinking a single British aircraft carrier would get the UK PM to press the button? I doubt it TBH - you aren't going to risk incinerating 65 million voters for that

Immediately?, Perhaps not, but we will be on a serious war footing and experiencing a major challenge to our very existence as a nation. I can see the situation deteriorating very, very rapidly, and no one to my knowledge has ruled out a first strike. That carrier is not a hunk of steel, it is a populated area of the UK that happens to be afloat.

IG

[Asturias56]

I agree that is the legal case - they are part of the UK and there would be a lot of reaction - but to use N weapons? I don't think so........

I don't think may people would see it as "a major challenge to our very existence as a nation". Now if the pesky Russians suddenly took a block booking on Eurostar and cross-channel ferry's ... maybe

You're not going to take the risk of killing 65 million people and turning the UK into a charred cinder over 1500 or so deaths I'm afraid - there'd be a lot of posturing and maybe a lot of cruise missiles fired off but, as ever, the poor bloody soldiers, sailors and airmen are likely to be sacrificed. It's the same the whole world over

You're right about First Use - from Wiki:-

In March 2002, British defence secretary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_state_for_defence) Geoff Hoon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoff_Hoon) stated that the UK was prepared to use nuclear weapons against "rogue states (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_state)" such as Iraq if they ever used "weapons of mass destruction" against British troops in the field.[28] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use#cite_note-28) This policy was restated in February 2003.[29] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use#cite_note-29) In April 2017 Defence Secretary Michael Fallon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Fallon) confirmed that the UK would use nuclear weapons in a "pre-emptive initial strike (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-emptive_nuclear_strike)" in "the most extreme circumstances".[30] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use#cite_note-independent-20170424-30) Fallon stated in a parliamentary answer that the UK has neither a 'first use' or 'no first use' in its nuclear weapon policy so that its adversaries would not know when the UK would launch nuclear strikes.[3 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use#cite_note-31)

[WE Branch Fanatic]

So why do you think the Russians would go for a pre-emptive nuclear attack?

Anyway, I stumbled upon this (https://www.public.navy.mil/airfor/cvn69/Pages/CARRIER%20STRIKE%20GROUP.aspx) from the US Navy whilst looking for carrier related stuff:

The Carrier Strike Group is a flexible naval force that can operate in confined waters or in the open ocean, during day and night, in all weather conditions. The principal role of the carrier and her air wing within the Carrier Strike Group is to provide the primary offensive firepower, while the other ships provide defense and support. These roles are not exclusive, however. Other ships in the strike group sometimes undertake offensive operations (launching cruise missiles, for instance) and the carrier's air wing contributes to the strike group's defense (through combat air patrols and airborne anti-submarine efforts).

Does a one of the escorts acting as Red Crown, carrying out interdiction operations with merchant shipping, or naval gunfire support count as offensive? The Strike Group could act as escort for a convoy or an amphibious force.....

[WE Branch Fanatic]

It appears someone has decided that it is a good idea to point out that when used in a defensive role, carrier based aircraft protect the entire task group (including amphibious forces, logistics convoys, etc being escorted):

https://twitter.com/RNASCuldrose/status/1143946879551639552

https://twitter.com/foreignoffice/status/1144155130922713088

[weemonkey]

As previously stated, an attack on a UK asset of that magnitude will mean that the world is at war, and we are all in the "end" game. Who wins the last 10 minutes is irrelevant, the UK will have retaliated.

IG

Do you know that London's annual benefit bill is larger than the MOD budget.

Now think again.

[Imagegear]

I have not studied the price of "eggs" but sooner or later the cost becomes irrelevant and you must break a few. I acknowledge it would be quite an omelette.

IG.

[Asturias56]

" an attack on a UK asset of that magnitude " but what magnitude of attack?

If someone sneaks up when she's in port and explodes a large change and sinks her? or an unidentified mine or drone from someone who doesn't claim the credit??

You're not going to fry a substantial part of the world on a guess

[Imagegear]

I am not referring to a terrorist strike but a major conventional war..By the time an attack on that ship has occurred, many other assets will have been destroyed including onshore bases.

I would suggest that frying a large part of ones adversary might well be in order.

IG

[WE Branch Fanatic]

https://twitter.com/HMSQNLZ/status/1145948643440189440

Hopefully somebody will have the good sense to say that carrierborne aircraft flying air defence sorties are protecting the entire task group, which includes things such as amphibious forces, a Ro Ro full of armoured vehicles, ASW or troop carrying helicopters being threatened by enemy MiGs, a Mines Countermeasures force trying to open up a port....

[NutLoose]

Carrier Captain relived of his post quits.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/former-big-lizzie-captain-50-quits-royal-navy-two-months-after-he-was-removed-from-%C2%A33bn-aircraft-carrier-for-using-his-official-car-for-non-work-trips/ar-AADQiLr

[Asturias56]

as per previous I'm sure there is a lot more e to this than anyone is saying..............

maybe we'll get his side of the story in a couple of years time when he's safely in anew job in civi street

[Asturias56]

Sprung a leak.................

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-48933881

The UK's new aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, has returned from sea trials early after a leak was found.

The Royal Navy's future flagship left Portsmouth Naval Base last month for five weeks of sea trials and training. A Ministry of Defence spokeswoman described the leak as "a minor issue with an internal system" on Britain's biggest and most powerful warship. The £3.1 billion ship returned to Portsmouth as a precautionary measure after the leak was found on Tuesday.

The water was pumped out and the 900ft (280m) long warship returned to port. The MoD said: "An investigation into the cause is under way."

This latest problem follows a number of other issues including a shaft seal leak (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42406138), which caused water to pour into the ship, and the accidental trigger of the sprinklers in the hangar.

[Asturias56]

Sounds like it was quite a big leak........ but then have the RN ever built a ship that didn't have a leak?


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-48947455

A leak which forced the HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier to return to port saw water rise "neck-high" in flooded areas, the BBC has been told. The biggest and most powerful warship ever built in Britain experienced the leak (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-48933881) during sea trials on Tuesday. It was believed to have come from a ruptured pipe which caused some internal damage, the BBC learned.

The Royal Navy described it as a "minor issue relating to water from an internal system" on the £3.1bn ship. On Wednesday a Royal Navy statement said the ship had returned early from sea trials as a "precautionary measure" with an investigation into the cause underway. It said: "At no point was there damage or breach to the hull. The issue was isolated as soon as possible and all water has now been pumped out. "

The BBC's defence correspondent Jonathan Beale said the leak was "more serious than most". He added: "A source told the BBC that in some compartments the water was neck high."

The BBC has contacted the navy for further details.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

https://twitter.com/RNASYeovilton/status/1151842959492624385

[Asturias56]

did he say anything about the leak?

[Asturias56]

I see what many forecast has come to pass - a Royal Navy with half its surface destroyers and frigates ships in repair/upgrade (list in today's "Times") and the QE "dehumidifying" leaving 9 serious vessels available world-wide

[Lyneham Lad]

The list (table) mentioned in #5526 is in this Times article:-

US ‘offered help in strait days before Stena Impero was seized’ (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/us-offered-help-in-strait-days-before-stena-impero-was-seized-pf7gwdg2t?shareToken=fc81c63b0746451d609b6e3392fbb1ec)

[Asturias56]

really depressing I thought

Didn't Nelson always say he could never have enough frigates?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Yes but Nelson did not live in an age of submarines, aircraft, guided missiles..... Ships were simpler then,sailors needed less training, and were less likely to walk for disruption to family life!

The management of news from HMS Queen Elizabeth has been terrible. In an information has been dreadful, but she was been shipshape enough for a families day and to be moved in port:

https://twitter.com/smrmoorhouse/status/1152547647137505285

https://twitter.com/HMNBPortsmouth/status/1154731245739401216

I believe most of the FOST objectives had been met - fire fighting and damage control exercises, casualty drills, machinery and steering breakdown drills, boat operations, a lot of rotary wing flying with Merlin HM2, Merlin HC4, Chinooks, and Apache, gunnery serials against both waterborne and airborne threats, and controlling fighters.

[andrewn]

The carriers strike me as the Defence equvalent to HS2.

Somebody, for all the wrong reasons, decides its a good idea to build two massive Carriers
Defence budget gets cut but the Carriers have gone too far to cancel
The carriers are built but there's nothing for them to do, no-on to man them and we cant afford to use them
The decision to buy the carriers has far reaching implications, meaning we've bought the least capable and most expensive version of the F35
The carriers are expensive to maintain and unreliable, spening more time in port than at sea
The second carrier will only make a bad situation worse
Meanwhile what's left of the RN stumbles on, starved of manpower and funds


You literally couldnt think of a worse, more catastrophic state of affairs, for what once was a Navy that ruled the waves.

[SamYeager]

The carriers strike me as the Defence equvalent to HS2.
<snip>
You literally couldnt think of a worse, more catastrophic state of affairs, for what once was a Navy that ruled the waves.

The word "cobblers" springs to mind but it's clear that you have already made up your mind.

[pr00ne]

WEBF,


.. Ships were simpler then, sailors needed less training, and were less likely to walk for disruption to family life!

Oh come on! I think that they were FAR more likely to 'walk" seeing as they had to be press ganged in the first place!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Untrue - the role of the press gang has been hugely exaggerated. Even in the days of sail most men were volunteers - of course life ashore in those day or aboard a merchant ship was not much fun. The exact phrase I was going to use was "log onto JPA and opt for six (or is it seven?) clicks to freedom."

[Easy Street]

The carriers strike me as the Defence equvalent to HS2.
<snip>
You literally couldnt think of a worse, more catastrophic state of affairs, for what once was a Navy that ruled the waves.

The word "cobblers" springs to mind but it's clear that you have already made up your mind.

I've got bad news for you, Sam. The PM's senior adviser is exercising firm control of the agenda across Whitehall and has the same view of the carriers as andrew (https://dominiccummings.com/tag/collison/)n:

...aircraft carriers are no longer safe from cheap missiles. I started making these arguments in 2004 when it was already clear that the UK Ministry of Defence carrier project was a disaster. Since then it has been a multi-billion pound case study in Whitehall incompetence, the MoD’s appalling ‘planning’ system and corrupt procurement, and Westminster’s systemic inability to think about complex long-term issues. Talking to someone at the MoD last year they said that in NATO wargames the UK carriers immediately bug out for the edge of the game to avoid being sunk. Of course they do. Carriers cannot be deployed against top tier forces because of the vast and increasing asymmetry between their cost and vulnerability to cheap sinking.

If he's wrong, someone needs to get him briefed PDQ before the next spending round. He's a disciple of Boyd so is probably clued-up enough about combat aircraft to ask awkward questions about F35 combat radius versus safe stand-off, tanker requirements, tanker basing and vulnerability, etc. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in No10 when the cost of protecting the boat against DF-21 type threats is added to the through-life bill for a capability that was considered only marginally cheaper to keep than to cancel just a few years ago. The problem the carriers now pose for Defence is that they're too prominent not to be used, and too valuable and symbolic to put in danger (imagine one being lost with 30+ aircraft and thousands of souls aboard). This creates an imperative to invest more and more in protecting something that is nowhere near central to our strategic requirement. That's politics...

[pr00ne]

Easy Street,



I've got bad news for you, Sam. The PM's senior adviser is exercising firm control of the agenda across Whitehall and has the same view of the carriers as andrew (https://dominiccummings.com/tag/collison/)n:


He really, really is not.

[Easy Street]

Easy Street,



I've got bad news for you, Sam. The PM's senior adviser is exercising firm control of the agenda across Whitehall and has the same view of the carriers as andrew (https://dominiccummings.com/tag/collison/)n:


He really, really is not.

Explain Penny Mordaunt's sacking, Steve Baker's refusal to take a ministerial post and the sea-change on Brexit then. Big decisions have always been the preserve of No10 and the Treasury but they're becoming ever more so. Do you really think the rush of policy announcements since Boris took over is a result of considered analysis by the departments concerned? Making SPADs report to No10 is not new, but the zeal with which it's being done is.

Edit: 'an Army of 82000' and the Strike Brigade concept are other recent examples of policy being made in No10 without MOD's endorsement.

this,

[weemonkey]

Easy Street,



I've got bad news for you, Sam. The PM's senior adviser is exercising firm control of the agenda across Whitehall and has the same view of the carriers as andrew (https://dominiccummings.com/tag/collison/)n:


He really, really is not.

I take it you both rub shoulders as you cross the road using the cenotaph as your pelican crossing then?

[pr00ne]

weemonkey,

Yep.

[pr00ne]

EasyStreet,

That takes absolutely no account of how and by whom Special Advisers are employed and paid, to whom they report, and how Government works.

Steve Baker did not want a repeat of his last Ministerial post and was open about that. He did not want to be a junior minister in a department that he saw as being usurped by Michael Gove and his 7 days a week Brexit committee meetings. The rush of announcements, or rather the list of emotional claims to be positive, are simply because the PM wants to leave when he campaigned to leave, 31st Oct, and has about 90 days to do it, all without seeming to weaken his hard line "do or die" leave goal as he knows that would result in him being engulfed in a Brexit Party revival that would be terminal for the Tories.

[Easy Street]

pr00ne,

Where there's Gove, there's Cummings. At least that's what the civil servants I know say! There's clearly a centralising focus because of 31 October, but if the Government survives beyond that date we should expect a similar way of doing business to pervade the annual routine. That's why I think Cummings's views on defence matters are interesting. Does anyone know if the PM has any?!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Easy Street

Perhaps Mr Cummings forgot to tell the US Navy and the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy these things? Now why is it the nation that produces DF-21 is building carriers? Why was it that NATO asked for the UK to commit a carrier to the NATO Response Force? Something to do with task group operations?

Thousands of souls aboard? Where? Perhaps a bit more attention detail?

Surely Col Boyd's work related (primarily) to aircraft fighting each other within visual range? Some hardcore disciples wanted the F-16 to have neither radar nor missiles!

Also you forget:

1. A carrier is not the only high value unit in a task group. There might well be amphibious forces, or important RFAs, or crisis response shipping. What is the best way to protect them from aircraft with anti ship missiles, that they can fire from beyond the range of any ship based surface to air missile? How do you protect them from submarines most effectively?

Perhaps this page from the USS Dwight D Eisenhower Strike Group (https://www.public.navy.mil/airfor/cvn69/Pages/CARRIER%20STRIKE%20GROUP.aspx) might be informative?

2. Once upon a time I was planned that the Royal Navy's main role in NATO would be to provide ASW. Large 'through deck cruisers' were intended to carry multiple ASW Sea Kings. Then of course there was a need to counter the Soviet Bear maritime patrol aircraft, and there was a conveniently sized V/STOL aircraft that could be navalised.

Just think about this - when HMS Hermes operated Sea Harrier FRS1, Harrier GR3, Sea King HAS 2 and a few Sea King HC4 in the South Atlantic in 1982, she launched and recovered jets in some pretty nasty weather. If she had still been operating Sea Vixens and Buccaneers - or a replacement (small) CTOL jet, could she have achieved this? Could the RAF have provided rapid reinforcement without a V/STOL aircraft?

weemonkey

Errr.... Not sure what you mean!

pr00ne

I wonder what great parliamentarians from the past like Churchill or Attlee would have thought of all these special advisers?

[Davef68]

Just think about this - when HMS Hermes operated Sea Harrier FRS1, Harrier GR3, Sea King HAS 2 and a few Sea King HC4 in the South Atlantic in 1982, she launched and recovered jets in some pretty nasty weather. If she had still been operating Sea Vixens and Buccaneers - or a replacement (small) CTOL jet, could she have achieved this? Could the RAF have provided rapid reinforcement without a V/STOL aircraft?


I beleive that had a direct influence in choosing the F-35B......

[Easy Street]

Perhaps Mr Cummings forgot to tell the US Navy and the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy these things?

China and the USA have very different geo-strategic priorities to the UK. Each has more ability to tolerate combat losses, for differing reasons. And the US has invested spectacular amounts of money in developing ballistic missile defence capability for its task groups.

Now why is it the nation that produces DF-21 is building carriers?

One, China's strategic priorities don't include poking around the fringes of US home territory. Two, it might previously have assumed that the INF treaty would prevent the US from fielding an equivalent. Things change!

Why was it that NATO asked for the UK to commit a carrier to the NATO Response Force? Something to do with task group operations?


Investing so much in a capability inevitably creates political pressure for it to be used for something. See also: fast jets doing 'drone' work in the Middle East.

Thousands of souls aboard? Where? Perhaps a bit more attention detail?

Fair enough, hundreds. But I'll pay attention the other way too and increase the number of aircraft to 40+. It's still a single point of strategic failure and its loss would deal a devastating blow to UK air power and national prestige.

Surely Col Boyd's work related (primarily) to aircraft fighting each other within visual range? Some hardcore disciples wanted the F-16 to have neither radar nor missiles!

Beyond aviation circles, Boyd is best known for the OODA loop, but fanatics who delve deeply into his works (presumably including Cummings) would gain awareness of debates over combat radius, loiter time, tanker requirements etc which are all applicable here. Boyd is also appreciated for his mantra “people, ideas, machines - in that order”, which tellingly is opposite to MOD thinking on most subjects and especially the carriers.


1. A carrier is not the only high value unit in a task group. There might well be amphibious forces, or important RFAs, or crisis response shipping. What is the best way do protect them from aircraft with anti ship missiles, that they can fire from beyond the range of any ship based surface to air missile?

With modern technology the best way is to ignore the launch aircraft and deploy an effective, sustainable counter-missile capability.

How do you protect them from submarines most effectively?
Perhaps this page from the USS Dwight D Eisenhower Strike Group (https://www.public.navy.mil/airfor/cvn69/Pages/CARRIER%20STRIKE%20GROUP.aspx) might be informative?


Which scenario are you envisaging?

[andrewn]

Webf, this whole thread is 278 pages of you espousing why carriers are the answer to the Nations defence woes. But it doesnt matter how many articles you dredge up or how many VADMs or 1SLs you quote, it doesnt make you any more right...

The carriers were and are a vanity project to protect Scottish Labour votes, nothing more, nothing less.

They are junk and will both be gone in 10 years time.

[weemonkey]

Webf, this whole thread is 278 pages of you espousing why carriers are the answer to the Nations defence woes. But it doesnt matter how many articles you dredge up or how many VADMs or 1SLs you quote, it doesnt make you any more right...

The carriers were and are a vanity project to protect Scottish Labour votes, nothing more, nothing less.

They are junk and will both be gone in 10 years time.
If hard reality sets in...

[Bing]

Talking to someone at the MoD last year they said that in NATO wargames the UK carriers immediately bug out for the edge of the game to avoid being sunk.

Not a lot of point being at the centre of the game if you've got aircraft to do that for you. It's an aircraft carrier not a frigate.

[orca]

I heard that in a recent NATO war game an airfield got attacked by infantry and a whole squadron destroyed and then another ceased functioning after a TLAM strike.

Oh no, my mistake - those weren’t war games it actually happened in Bastion and Syria.

If only these airfield things could move.

[Easy Street]

Not a lot of point being at the centre of the game if you've got aircraft to do that for you. It's an aircraft carrier not a frigate.

It is a problem when the game area and threat radius are so big that the aircraft can’t get to the fight without tanker support. Rather defeats the point.

I heard that in a recent NATO war game an airfield got attacked by infantry and a whole squadron destroyed and then another ceased functioning after a TLAM strike.

Oh no, my mistake - those weren’t war games it actually happened in Bastion and Syria.

If only these airfield things could move.

Did those attacks have lasting strategic consequences for the USMC or the Syrian regime?

[orca]

Don’t know, don’t work for either. In 1982 the Argentinians lost a capital ship and that didn’t seem to change their strategy. Are we saying that losing ships changes strategy but losing aircraft and airfields doesn’t?

[ShotOne]

Losing a capital ship didn’t change their strategy...really? Their remaining ships tied to the dockside until the end of the conflict!

[Easy Street]

Don’t know, don’t work for either. In 1982 the Argentinians lost a capital ship and that didn’t seem to change their strategy. Are we saying that losing ships changes strategy but losing aircraft and airfields doesn’t?

Neither airfield you refer to was 'lost'. Bastion barely missed a beat IIRC, not sure about Shayrat but a lesson of 1991 was that it was almost impossible to close large airfields for any significant length of time.

Aircraft losses having strategic impact? Depends. Loss of a Voyager-load of troops to enemy action was reckoned to be a campaign-ending risk in Afghanistan, partly reflecting the low stakes for the UK by the end. Loss of a squadron of fighters on the ground? Depends how many you have to replace them. Loss of 50% or more of a fleet in one action, which is the order of magnitude we'd be talking if a QEC went down with 36 Lightnings aboard, would certainly hurt but I still think the bigger impact would be the boat itself. There is just too much emotional investment and symbolism in it for its loss to be anything short of catastrophic for the nation.

The Argentines tied their remaining ships up, were roundly defeated and went on to depose their leadership in a state of national humiliation so I wouldn't say the events following the sinking of the Belgrano were great evidence of resilience to a symbolic loss!

[orca]

I often heard folk quote the fact that losing a heavy would lead to strategic failure in Afghanistan but always considered this to be perceived wisdom perpetuated by word of mouth as opposed to policy.

[Easy Street]

I often heard folk quote the fact that losing a heavy would lead to strategic failure in Afghanistan but always considered this to be perceived wisdom perpetuated by word of mouth as opposed to policy.

It was identified as a strategic risk. That's different to saying that it would lead to a specific outcome as a matter of policy. But to calibrate: take the response to the Nimrod loss, multiply the number of deaths by 10 and introduce a 'helpless squaddie passengers' factor, and you can see that we would certainly have had a grieving PM addressing the nation from the steps of No10 with very serious questions to answer about the campaign and whether the national interests at stake justified such a price in blood and prestige. Losing a carrier would be much worse.

[orca]

We agree entirely. Losing a carrier would be horrendous. But warfare isn’t a game of absolutes.

For example: I think that Typhoon gives the U.K. a reasonable capability, but I can think of a number of systems that would make it absolutely irrelevant in a very high end conflict. I don’t think we should can it because in the more likely scenarios it gives utility.

I think we should spend our time campaigning for things like an ARM for Typhoon or some form of (actually useful) MRAD/ GBAD for the British Army rather than knocking a basing option for F-35B that seems quite useful.

[Easy Street]

Yes, we agree on all of that. But the trouble many of us have with the carriers are that they (and their supporting capabilities) soak up so much of the Defence budget that we can't afford ARMs, Typhoon survivability enhancements, GBAD, a sizeable surface fleet etc etc. My view is that all of that is too high a price for a basing option that may be 'useful' but is certainly not 'essential'.

[orca]

As always - it’s simply human to take different views. I completely understand yours - just disagree. I am aware that I have certain biases as well!

We can’t possibly be out of money - we have four different helicopters for battlefield lift. When we only ever seem to use one!

FWIW - I think the Argentine strategy in 82 was to resupply infantry and artillery on the islands until the Brits got bored or the weather got too bad or the RN fleet reached min assets.

I don’t think that changed with the sinking of the Belgrano - but the tactics used certainly did.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

The Argentines planned to do a pincer attack against the RN task force - Belgrano and escorts (and lots of Exocets) from the South, and the Argentine carrier coming from the North with up to ten A-4Q Skyhawks. At the same time, two Exocet armed Super Eterndard would have sortied from Rio Grande. Plans to use submarines were frustrated by the fact that as the war started, two of four were out of service, and the Santa Fe had been disabled and captured close to South Georgia.

Then the Junta planned to stop British forces from landing, but did not expect a landing at San Carlos. Despite the ferocity of the attacks, they were unable to destroy the ships carrying the troops - the defence by frigates, destroyers, and Sea Harriers worked, but not without cost.. Then the planned to stop resupply, even resorting to using Hercules to drop bombs from the teat ramp against task group shipping. It was a race against time to stop the British advance gaining momentum.

They ran out of aircraft before we ran out of ships (which were mostly repairable).

[orca]

I don’t disagree with your explanation of two of the tactics used.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Easy Street

Take a look at this picture:

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/640x428/ea09smux4aan3xu_9d1063c98e6107bbd8455866cda83bc1594286d5.jpg

Some of these ships will act a STOVL carriers for AV-8B with F-35B replacing it, but others will not carry anything other than helicopters, landing craft/LCACs, and marines. Would you consider them to be high value units? Capital ships (not sure what the definition is)?

What do you consider to best the best way of protecting them for air attack by aircraft armed with multiple anti shop missiles (no one aircraft - one missile like the Super Eterndard), or from submarines?

[Easy Street]

WEBF,

Where are you expecting this task group to operate?

If it’s in the Pacific then yes, history tells us that carriers are practically essential, hence my earlier reference to American and Chinese strategic requirements. But the UK has no vital strategic interest in the Pacific that justifies the investment.

If it’s a NATO Art V scenario in Europe then I’d like to know where this task force is going to be employed. If the North Sea, Baltic or Mediterranean then there are airbases all around. If it’s the North Cape then there are some useful airbases, and if Northern Norway has been overrun then a) there are probably other priorities and b) it’s an obvious place to prioritise one or more of the US carriers to; it’s an Alliance effort and NATO is pushing a ‘Smart procurement’ agenda of avoiding unnecessary duplication. If it’s out in the open Atlantic then attacking aircraft have to run the gauntlet of fighters based in Norway, Iceland and the UK, plus the air defences of any screening surface vessels before they get into range. And there will probably be another American carrier out there somewhere too.

If it’s the Gulf then I would point to dozens of airfields and Patriot batteries...

There is also the slight problem that anti-ship missiles got longer in range while our fighters were getting slower. The timelines were already challenging in the days of Phoenix-armed Tomcats. F-35B is slower and has a shorter stick in AMRAAM. If your opponent starts to field low-observable aircraft, what had previously been a challenging timeline suddenly becomes impossible as the detection range shrinks. The carrier would need to be positioned up-threat (interesting...) and could be sidestepped.

But all this is beside the point. The decline of the high-speed interceptor and the rise of the close-in weapon system (in various forms) show that the game changed on this topic a couple of decades ago. Air defence of task groups rarely used to be pushed as one of the things we sought the carrier for. Why the particular interest now?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Easy Street

So carriers are too vulnerable as there is too high an air/missile/submarine threat, but are not needed to counter these threats as other assets will? Is it me?

I think that the RN has always has task group operations in mind. Carrier Enabled Power Projection is so much more than jets using the carrier as a launch pad for ground attack. Assuming that someone else will defend your task force is a recipe for ships sunk, dead people, and strategic failure. You say the decline of the high speed interceptor and the rise of CIWS..... but not in the minds of top tier navies.

1. Perhaps the US Navy and the PLAN are bad examples. What about France, Spain, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Singapore.....?

2. I posted the page from the Eisenhower Strike Group as it shows that ships other than the carrier provide capabilities in their own right, and the carrier provides fighters for air defence and helicopters for ASW.

3. The evidence suggests that without the carriers, that idiot Cameron would have demanded that another five frigates be cut. If same that idiot had not been a cowardly weasel and allowed the RN an uplift of 1500 or so bods as part of SDSR 1500, we would not be having many manpower issues. The argument that they have called the cutting of other ships, or personnel, does not hold water.

4. Is a carrier the only type of high value unit? Would losing an LPD full of marines, or a couple of STUFT/charted vessels full of troops and there equipment be any less shocking to the UK or NATO?

5. Your assertion that "With modern technology the best way is to ignore the launch aircraft and deploy an effective, sustainable counter-missile capability" does not make sense. It will get people killed. Ever heard of Kill the Archer, not the Arrows? Why on Earth do you think it is better to ignore the aircraft, and deal with a greater number of harder to hit targets, at closer range.

The former Maritime Warfare Centre Analyst I put your assertion to explained it more eloquently (https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/hms-queen-elizabeth-3-years-no-jets-then-scrapped.150888/page-36#post-9431791) (and diplomatically) than I could:

The earlier you can break the "kill chain" the better. What's often overlooked is the value of shipborne fighters for taking out enemy recce: when all they know is "there's a carrier out there somewhere, and our scouts don't come back from this general areas so it's probably around there..." it's not easy to launch a co-ordinated strike when you've got only a vague idea of where your target might be.

Similarly, a co-ordinated strike with scouts, SEAD, and strikers is a nasty threat - but if the scheduling's been spoiled because different groups were dodging Meteors on the way in, that helps the ships defending (and extra warning time means more chance to optimise ASMD stationing, course and speed, and to get confusion and distraction measures in place.)

Then, there's the point that (for instance) a Su-35 can handily carry four AS-17 missiles; I'd rather splash one aircraft than have four supersonic missiles to deal with (not that we can't, but it burns through the magazine faster than you'd like). Even a failed engagement where the enemy evades and escapes, means they've jettisoned their expensive ordnance and that's four fewer missiles reaching the MEZ.

The fighters aren't likely to obliterate the entire raid, but they can make it a lot easier to survive.

6. Anti Submarine Warfare is likely to be needed to protect things like amphibious forces and crisis response shipping. This demands ASW helicopters. Due to the lack of frigate/destroyers, the communications and coordination issues of helicopters operating from different ships in ones (or twos), and the operating limits of smaller hulls in heavy seas, you tend towards operating increasing number of them from a larger ship - very much like a carrier. The Royal Navy and United States Navy consider that task group ASW is one of the roles of a carrier.

This Cold War ASW tale (https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235036308-return-of-the-king-seaking-has5-ze419-of-820nas-hms-ark-royal-1988/page/3/&tab=comments#comment-3004205) may interest you:Our bread & butter was the so-called "Ripple 3"; 3 aircraft airborne all the time (2 on task, with 1 in transit to / from the scene of action) 100+ miles away from the carrier / convoy, sometimes for weeks at a time. I joined 820 NAS / Ark in late-86, and the first thing we did was a major NATO exercise escorting a convoy from Norfolk VA to Harstad in Northern Norway - we had 3 aircraft on task for over 3 weeks, non-stop. I shudder to think how many sonobuoys we "spat" in a 3000+ mile line across the Atlantic. [100+ miles away, by the way, because by then the Soviets had developed long-range missiles that they could fire from e.g. a Charlie class SSN, thus attacking the convoy without having to get all that close - targeting info coming from Russian aircraft, which was one of the original reasons for procuring the Sea Harrier]. It was tiring, but possible to keep it up almost indefinitely - we had 14 crews, and 9 aircraft, so even if you had, say, 4 cabs broken at any time (not uncommon!), there were enough to keep the Ripple going. You got into a rhythm: wake up; eat; brief an hour before take off; fly for 4 hours; debrief [& file your records if you'd come across any real Soviet boats]; go to bed... 6 hours later repeat... and repeat... and repeat...

But if it's an airborne frigate, why do you need 2 on task? Because it gives you much more flexibility; for instance, one of the Soviet tactics was so-called "sprint & drift" - if it thought it had been detected (and if you flew too low they would hear you), the SSN would wind up to 30kts and shoot off 50 miles or so, and then suddenly go completely silent; slow right down and use natural salinity / temperature layers in the water to interfere with sonar. If you only had one aircraft, he would have to be incredibly unlucky for you to keep up with that - effectively his boat simply disappeared. But with two, provided you were worked up and in good practice, one of you could track the boat while it was fast (& noisy) and direct the other to fly ahead... and then swap. If they [b]didn't know you were there, then over time it was possible to get a really accurate picture of where the boat was (all passively) - so one of you would run the plot, and use the other cab as the weapon carrier. Or, if in doubt, direct the other cab into a hover ahead of the target... ping... contact... weapon in the water within seconds before he has time to react.

7. Why do you assume that the only possible hot war will be against Russia or China - ie World War Three against a nuclear armed monolith? Plenty of third world nations are potentially hostile, and busy buying Kilo class SSKs or Russian jets with anti ship missiles. Theses are far more likely threats. The likes of Saddam Hussein would love to sink an LPD full of Marines, a chartered vessel full of tanks and troops, or splash a Chinook full of troops of to harass and threaten our naval helicopters dealing with submarine and small boat threats.

You might be interested in this commentary about the tanker war in the eighties, which led to international naval deployment. Both the United States and France had carriers deployed: The Tanker War 1980 - 88 (https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.co.uk/&httpsredir=1&article=1448&context=ils)

Anthony H Cordesman wrote this very analytical chapter with a look and offensive and defensive capabilities and tactics used both Iran and Iraq, and the efforts of the Western navies to counter the threat to shipping: THE TANKER WAR AND THE LESSONS OF NAVAL CONFLICT (https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/media/csis/pubs/9005lessonsiraniraqii-chap14.pdf)

andrewn

You do realise that most of the carrier build was in English (not Scottish) shipyards? It does not matter how times you stridently say non facts. Nor does using the word 'massive' (apologies if it was not you) change the fact that planning for CVF started in the nineties when RN carriers were operationally busy in the Adriatic and the Arabian Gulf, but their small size limited both the number of aircraft that could be operated and the sea conditions in which flying operations could be safely conducted.

Times are changing, and Western nations must once again look to protect their ability to protect both normal seaborne commerce and crisis response shipping. NATO still depends on trans-Atlantic resupply, the global economy depends of moving things by sea, and any response to a crisis will involve shipping.

[andrewn]

andrewn

You do realise that most of the carrier build was in English (not Scottish) shipyards? It does not matter how times you stridently say non facts. Nor does using the word 'massive' (apologies if it was not you) change the fact that planning for CVF started in the nineties when RN carriers were operationally busy in the Adriatic and the Arabian Gulf, but their small size limited both the number of aircraft that could be operated and the sea conditions in which flying operations could be safely conducted.

Times are changing, and Western nations must once again look to protect their ability to protect both normal seaborne commerce and crisis response shipping. NATO still depends on trans-Atlantic resupply, the global economy depends of moving things by sea, and any response to a crisis will involve shipping.

More BS as usual WEBF. Rosyth got major sub-assembly build and final assembly, launch, etc, plus Govan and Scotstoun, plus all the sub-letting and supply chain stuff the locals benefitted from. Gordon Brown became PM on 27 June 2007, the contract for the carriers was awarded on 25 July 2007!! What part of "job creation scheme for Scotland in order to protect Scottish labour votes" do you not understand WEBF?

As for small size and aircraft numbers the RN could barely man the existing 6 a/c SHAR squadrons, never mind any uplift. At least the Invincible class were in keeping with our ability to deploy, man, operate, maintain and protect them! These new behemoths are nothing more than a willy waving exercise, the very epitome of a "hollowed out" force.

Still I admire your resilience WEBF, against all opinion and facts to the contrary you keep dredging up theoretical guff to support your position, all credit to you :)

[Asturias56]

The problem for the RN is that if the carriers go anywhere OTHER than on NATO ops they will have to be supported totally by RN ships - so a substantial part of the active fleet will be in one place around the carrier. Right now you are stretched all which ways with individual ships scattered from the Falklands to the Gulf

As an absolute minimum (assuming that opposition aren't going to use subs) you'd want a T45 and a frigate and an oiler so that means at least 2 current locations can't be covered any longer.

It's not that the Carriers are useless it's just that they tilt the RN away from the bread & butter operations they carry out 98% of the time to cover a highly unlikely hot war in which (TBH) the life of any carrier is likely to be very very short. They skew the budget, the strategy, the manpower in teh wrong directions

IMHO the best thing now would be to park them at Portsmouth next to "Bristol" (another white elephant) and allow them the occasional sail around the Isle of Wight on high days and holy days................

[Easy Street]

WEBF,

I note you didn’t really engage with the important point that the timeline has favoured the attacker for some time. It’s very well for your analyst to say that it’s better to engage the launch aircraft - that’s obvious - the question is how without needing an unsustainable number of aircraft airborne on screening CAPs. Which navies have sustained a high-speed interceptor capability in the F14 mould?

So carriers are too vulnerable as there is too high an air/missile/submarine threat, but are not need to counter theses threats as other assets will? Is it me?

I think you’re misunderstanding my post, the point of which is to show that *in the scenarios which are of sufficient importance to justify potential UK investment in carriers*, air defence can be provided adequately by other assets which have fewer acute vulnerabilities or greater redundancy or shorter recuperation times. Saying that we couldn’t rely on allies in a NATO Art V scenario just isn’t going to wash.

1. Perhaps the US Navy and the PLAN are bad examples. What about France, Spain, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Singapore.....?

I don’t disagree that carriers are an effective statement of military strength, and most or all of those nations also have the same industrial imperatives as the UK. It doesn’t mean it’s the best use of their money, though, especially in the Europeans’ case (France can’t even meet its airlift requirement for national operations, which they rely on allies to fulfil through arrangements much less binding than Art V). And please don’t try to tell me that sluggish AV-8Bs provide an effective response time to incoming attackers!

3. The evidence suggests that without the carriers, that idiot Cameron would have demanded that another five frigates be cut. If same that idiot had not been a cowardly weasel and allowed the RN an uplift of 1500 or so bods as part of SDSR 1500, we would not be having many manpower issues. The argument that they have called the cutting of other ships, or personnel, does not hold water.

You won’t find disagreement here that the really big decisions are taken in No10 with the thinnest veneer of knowledge, more care for industrial politics than military capability, and maybe a few words of partial advice from a favoured Service chief acting outwith the MOD. That’s why I drew attention to the views of the PM’s senior adviser way back in the post which started our exchange.

Would losing an LPD full of marines, or a couple of STUFT/charted vessels full of troops and there equipment be any less shocking to the UK or NATO?

Yes, and more easily replaced than dozens of F-35 with crews and engineers. Indeed both of your examples happened to us in 1982. Sorry to be blunt but we are talking about a major war.

Times are changing, and Western nations must once again look to protect their ability to protect both normal seaborne commerce and crisis response shipping. NATO still depends on trans-Atlantic resupply, the global economy depends of moving things by sea, and any response to a crisis will involve shipping.

An interesting sign of the times is the US-China trade war. Trump has clearly identified asymmetric trading conditions as a threat to US national security in the widest possible (jobs/societal) sense and other western nations will have to face up to similar ideas in future as automation and AI increasingly undermine existing models of work and welfare. I think we will one day flip an old tenet of maritime security on its head and say to exporters “you want us to buy container-loads of your cheaply-manufactured products? YOU take responsibility for getting them safely to us then, and increase your prices accordingly”. That’s called alignment of incentives. Why should the West invest heavily to protect the ability of exporters to undercut its domestic industries? Building the costs of ‘delivery’ into retail prices (rather than hiding them in the Defence budget) would go a long way to levelling the playing field.

Incentives are admittedly slightly different with natural resources, but consumer nations acting globally to protect their economic interests risk conflict and avoid development of alternatives. The most obvious example is external military support to the GCC states, which has acted as a perverse incentive for tensions with Iran and dependence on Gulf oil to continue. A different strategy would encourage the GCC either to reduce tensions with Iran, to massively increase pipeline capacity bypassing Hormuz, or to invest more in its own navies. Yes, the price of oil would increase in the latter cases, which would be precisely what's needed to exploit other sources of energy (whether shale oil or non-fossil alternatives). More generally, we'd have to face up to the true geopolitical implications of dependence on resources such as Chinese rare earths. You want capable modern electronics, dear voters of the West? Then either learn to live with China's superpower status and its differing views on the world, or find ingenious (expensive) ways to make electronics with other materials, or be prepared to pay (and fight if necessary) to preserve the status quo. And I can't see the 'woke' modern West running an effective repeat of the colonial era with rare earth metals taking the place of tea, spices, silk and precious stones.

[pr00ne]

andrewn,

Huge great hulking chunks of the two aircraft carriers were built all over the UK not just Scotland. Yards in Livepool, Tyneside, Appledore, Falmouth and Portsmouth just off the top of my head.

[etudiant]

WEBF,
..... More generally, we'd have to face up to the true geopolitical implications of dependence on resources such as Chinese rare earths. You want capable modern electronics, dear voters of the West? Then either learn to live with China's superpower status and its differing views on the world, or find ingenious (expensive) ways to make electronics with other materials, or be prepared to pay (and fight if necessary) to preserve the status quo. And I can't see the 'woke' modern West running an effective repeat of the colonial era with rare earth metals taking the place of tea, spices, silk and precious stones.
Afaik, the problem with 'rare earths' is not that they are rare, but rather that their extraction leaves behind a mess of contaminated earth.
China was willing to accept perpetual pollution of many square miles of its territory to achieve 'rare earth' market dominance.
Thus far, no western enterprise has been willing to take on the environmental costs involved, but that could be changed.

[Asturias56]

Correct - there are loads in places like Chile but people aren't very supportive about trashing the environment to access them.

History shows that any "shortage" of a strategic material is quickly followed by the development & discovery of new resources and the development of alternative technologies (eg using AL rather than Cu)

A classic is the post war uranium "boom" - it was a rare mineral but by the late '50's so much had been found it led to a collapse in the price and closure of lots of mines.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Sorry for taking my time to reply - you know how it is....

andrewn

Like pr00ne says, most of the sections of the carriers were built the carrier were built in non Scottish yards. The components going inside the steel shell came from all over the UK.

The QEC take approximately the same manpower was an Invincible, and needs the same level of escorting and support. Why would they need more? Possibly less, as she can provide more air defence, and I assume will need replenishing less often - more efficient propulsion. Where does this idea come from? By the way, you seem to have forgotten about the squadron of ASW helicopters aboard the old CVS (which was their primary role), and the Harrier GRs...

Asturias56

Why? For the last few years we have been deploying LPH/LPD task groups and contributing frigates and destroyers to American and French carrier groups, so why not deploy our own carrier group? Even outside of NATO, allies may contribute ships. The Netherlands has said it will be part of the QE based task group.

The QEC will be busy - mostly as part of NATO, sometimes outside. Presence is a naval role, and one that helps maintain peace. Will deploying a carrier based task group be more or less demanding for the RN than an amphibious one? I understand that WestLant 19 will ne the RN's major depoyment this year, but that has not stopped Operation Kipion in the Middle East, BALTOPS (with UK LPD, LSD(A), and RFA Argus with 3 x Merlin HC4, and 2 x Wildcat AH1), NATO commitments like standing maritime groups, and national tasking?

Easy Street

Clearly maintaining a CAP is easier with a larger number of aircraft. An experienced RAF AWACS person suggested that this is not the best way of using fighters, if you have AWACS and/or organic AEW. As F-14 is no longer in service, and Sea Harrier/Harrier GR9 are no longer in UK service - a better question is how does the speed of F-35B compare with F/A-18 Super Hornet? You know the Super Hornet took on the Fleet Air Defence role from Tomcat? I am tempted to say a STOVL launch can put more jets in the air in a hurry than hooking them up to the catapult shuttle,raising the JBDs, then shooting it off and starting again?

Does the enemy have bases he can use that out nearer than the local friendly one? A speed/time/distance issue perhaps?

Not sure why you have ignored my point about task group ASW, but never mind

Do you really thinking losing something like an LPD and several hundred Marines will not be a huge strategic shock to the UK/NATO/free World? Really?. By the way, when did we lose an LPD in 1982? RFA Sir Galahad could not be counted as a capital ship, and by that stage of the conflict the landings had taken place, and the war was being won. Fearless and Intrepid were not just full of troops, but also provided the landing craft to get them ashore. Losing the requisitioned QE2 or Canberra.when they were full of troops prior to transferring to the LPDs and ashore would have meant ENDEX.

Militarily, the greatest setback for British forces was losing the SS Atlantic Conveyor. Three Chinooks, six Wessex, and Lynx, about 200 1000lb bombs, and various ammunition stores were lost. If the Chinooks had not been lost, it is unlikely the Welsh Guards would have been sitting aboard a ship in daylight during an air threat warning. The BOI (on the net) for RFA Sir Galahad and Sir Tristam state that the only thing that would have made a definite difference mas more air defence aircraft and being able to use them more effectively.

Likewise, when some of suggested that if a third Sea Wolf armed frigate has been part of the task forces, the answer has been "possibly..but...", however being able to use the Sea Harrier more effectively by having Airborne Early Warning could have countered the Argentine attack, low flying and coming from the North - an unexpected direction that meant the Super Eterndards need to top up with gas from a tanker twice.

It was lack of AEW that caused a new tactic to be devised by Woodward and others. Pairing a Type 42 destroyer with a Type 22 frigate. The T42 had longer range radar, and missiles, and could control Sea Harriers. The Type 22 had Sea Wolf, and had newer radar which suffered less from surface clutter. On 25 May 82 (minutes before Atlantic Conveyor was hit) four Skyhawks were out to sink them - as the Sea Harriers they had been controlling were achieving success. Coventry's radar detected them at long range and directed a pair of Sea Harriers onto them. However, due to concerns about encroaching into her missile engagement zone, the Sea Harriers were called off.

One ship with Sea Dart (medium range SAM) and another with Sea Wolf (short range but effective) against four old Skyhawks? No problem, apart the fact that Coventry's old radar could not get a lock on the targets, Broadsword's computer failed, and Broadsword got him - bombs did not explode. In a couple of minutes, they reset the computer, and are tracking targets. However, communications with Coventry had broken down, and as she was about to engage with Sea Wolf Coventry sloughed into her firing arcs....

Coventry was hit by three bombs, and sank quickly. Calling the Sea Harriers off was a mistake and has been acknowledged as such. Although most modern weapons are fired vertically, eliminating the problem with arcs, power and computer failures still happen. If the Sea Harriers had engaged the Argentine jets the sinking would not have happened. If the task group had had AEW there would have been no need to use the 42/22 combination like that.

In a major war the enemy would seek to destroy our centre of gravity. Are you really suggesting an amphibious task group, a mines counter measures force, or a collection of important vessels full of troops, MBTs, artillery, Typhoon spares, helicopters, field equipment, and so on, would be better off without the protection of organic fighters, the ability to hit enemy ships at range, and the means of 24/7 dipping and long range task group ASW?

In a limited war, or a non war intervention such as the eighties tanker war, an opponent may well still have submarines and jets, possibly with anti ship missiles. The ROE are likely to me more restrictive, and prohibit ships engaging targets at long range, due to the problem with getting a visual ID. Sinking or disabling any sort of Western warship, or auxiliary, is likely to seen as a coup by a third world despot.

[andrewn]

Thanks WEBF.

Each of the QECs has the ability to embark upto 50 aircraft and helicopters. We currently have 9 frontline F-35 jets with 617 Sqn, with the plan being for another 17 to arrive by 2023, in order to allow 809 NAS to reform.

Even with this ambitious plan to procure another whole squadron's worth of B's by 2023 it still doesnt allow for anything like enough jets to even fill the deck of a single QEC carrier!

The amount of real estate these carriers give us is completely disproportionate to our ability to fill it. Tell me again very simplistically why we needed two great honking carriers??

[pr00ne]

andrewn,

Now THAT is a post that tells it as it is and I cannot find fault with. Much as I think that the two carriers are a valuable asset, and the Lightning force will be truly stupendous in capability, there is no getting away from the fact that the Lightning build up is incredibly slow, and seeing as it has replaced the Tornado GR4 force as well as providing a carrier capability, we have a HUGE capability/force level gaping window that takes us back to the days of John Nott and his window opening tendencies.
617 with 9 aircraft now, 809NAS forming in FOUR years time, and the next frontline squadron not standing up until the 2030's just seems a ludicrously paced programme that makes a mockery of the carrier capability.

[Out Of Trim]

We also have 207 Training Sqn at RAF Marham now; that could embark if necessary!

However, I do agree the proposed build-up is too slow. :sad:

[andrewn]

Maybe if we hadn't spent so much of the capital budget on the carriers we could afford more F-35's? Even better we could buy the right version.

[weemonkey]

Maybe if we hadn't spent so much of the capital budget on the carriers we could afford more F-35's? Even better we could buy the right version.

Or, heaven forbid, have a "core" stealthy strike force supplemented with conventional "off the shelf" airframes! Or even VICE VERSA!!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I agree that the build up of the RN/RAF F-35B force is painfully slow! However, some of the most important carrier roles do not involve large numbers of jets, but are helicopter centric like Anti Submarine Warfare or Littoral Maneuvere. It would appear the UK has committed ASW capabilities to NATO, and we did provide the flagship for Exercise Deep Blue in 2014, and Deep Blue II in 2016.

On the other side of the World, ASW has been identified as a likely mission for JMSDF 'helicopter destroyers' - JMSDF 'carrier' to escort US supply ship (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/9815/japans-biggest-helicopter-carrier-to-provide-escort-for-us-supply-ship).

This is where the Izumo can be useful. The carrier is especially adept at working as a anti-submarine warfare platform, with the ability to create a large screen around the ships it protects via its embarked sub-hunting helicopters. It can also provide mine sweeping, surveillance, command and control and other capabilities in addition to additional fuel carriage—especially aviation fuels—which can be pushed to other assets like guided missile destroyers.

In future Japan will most likely have F-35B launching of their decks as well. Logistics are universal. Equally, they are universally at risk. Submarines and Air to Surface Missile armed aircraft are in the hands of many aggressors.

Land based forces, including aircraft operating from land bases, still depend on seaborne logistics. See: The RAF sets sail for Estonia (https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/the-raf-sets-sail-for-estonia/)

Can you imagine this type of conversation:

You just need a ship with lots of deck space and a squadron of helicopters....
Do you think that ship is going to be a bit like a carrier?
Well..... so what?
The enemy will see her as a priority target for air attack!
Give her an escort then.....
She could carry fixed wing aircraft, and stop the bandits long before any ship can! Which would have been a better plan anyway - archers not arrows.
But we do not need carriers - no use ever..
What about protecting ships full of spares or support equipment, or an LPD?
They are expendable, and cheaper to replace than jets...

God willing, we will not face a cataclysmic conflict with Russia or China, but the Geopolitical posturing and deterrence we saw in the violet peace of the Cold War, limited war such as the Falklands or Gulf, or actions to try to cool a conflict in the developing world that involves third parties (eg the eighties tanker war), or interventions on humanitarian grounds (Bosnia/Kosovo/Sierra Leone) or on behalf on UN resolutions (eg Iraqi no fly zones, Afghanistan post 9/11, or Libya).

Unsurprisingly, NATO has carrier related initiatives: Affirming and Preserving NATO Air Power from the Sea (https://www.japcc.org/where-are-the-carriers/)

[Asturias56]

According to the Public Perception thread Boris & friends are planning "cuts in out of control MoD programmes.."

His mad mate Cummings is not a carrier fan apparently.....................

[Davef68]

According to the Public Perception thread Boris & friends are planning "cuts in out of control MoD programmes.."

His mad mate Cummings is not a carrier fan apparently.....................

And SoS for Defence has a certain 'brown' leaning

[Asturias56]

There's a problem with searching through politicians backgrounds t see if they favour "brown" "blue" or light blue" as the only safe answer becomes to appoint someone who has absolutely no background, knowledge or interest in the armed forces- Mr Corbyn, Ms Abbott or Mr Gove say................ :uhoh:

[Davef68]

There's a problem with searching through politicians backgrounds t see if they favour "brown" "blue" or light blue" as the only safe answer becomes to appoint someone who has absolutely no background, knowledge or interest in the armed forces- Mr Corbyn, Ms Abbott or Mr Gove say................ :uhoh:

True. Although I think the current incumbent is the first to have served full time since Tom King in the early 90s. Be interesting to see if that makes an actual difference (It's interesting to note that all previous SOS with a military background served in the Army)

[pr00ne]

WEBF,

You say that a large element of aircraft carrier operations don’t involve fast jets.
Where on earth are these alternative aircraft to come from?
The RN has 30 Merlin HMA2’s, 25 Merlin HC4’s and 28 Wildcats.
Put all those on 1 RN carrier and the Navy has no more aircraft for any of it’s other ships. And another empty carrier.

Carriers of this size only make sense if you can embark aircraft in quantity.

With only 9 deployable Lightning’s they are a total waste of money.

When is the 3rd operational Lightning squadron to form, 2033?

And the Lighting’s aren’t just a SHAR replacement, they also replaced the 7 squadron Tornado GR4 force and the Harriers.

Cummings and co have a point about wasteful defence projects.

When they realise the facts re the deployable capability of the 2 carriers they must be first in the queue to be axed.

[andrewn]

WEBF,

You say that a large element of aircraft carrier operations don’t involve fast jets.
Where on earth are these alternative aircraft to come from?
The RN has 30 Merlin HMA2’s, 25 Merlin HC4’s and 28 Wildcats.
Put all those on 1 RN carrier and the Navy has no more aircraft for any of it’s other ships. And another empty carrier.

Carriers of this size only make sense if you can embark aircraft in quantity.

With only 9 deployable Lightning’s they are a total waste of money.

When is the 3rd operational Lightning squadron to form, 2033?

And the Lighting’s aren’t just a SHAR replacement, they also replaced the 7 squadron Tornado GR4 force and the Harriers.

Cummings and co have a point about wasteful defence projects.

When they realise the facts re the deployable capability of the 2 carriers they must be first in the queue to be axed.




Yep, if pr00ne, myself and others on here can do a bit of simple math, you can bet your bottom dollar others will be doing the same.

The only thing that could save one of them is some US/UK joint basing tie up, but assuming the US dont actually fund the upkeep of the carriers then they can bitch and whinge, but ultimately any decision to scrap them remains ours. And if we say we'll buy a load more 'A's I doubt they'll care that much anyway.

Much like HS2, we'll start to see the writing on the wall once the bad news leaks and corridor briefings start up....

[Asturias56]

Perhaps the Germans will buy them....... :E

[Asturias56]

"Much like HS2, we'll start to see the writing on the wall once the bad news leaks and corridor briefings start up...."

after the Tory Party Conference end September - tho'll they'll probably kick it down the road until November so they can blame the EU.....................

[Davef68]

It's already been announced that the first deployment of QE will see a USMC Squadron deployed alongside 617, and it's already operated both Chinooks and Apaches.

[cessnapete]

It's already been announced that the first deployment of QE will see a USMC Squadron deployed alongside 617, and it's already operated both Chinooks and Apaches.

Flew over it yesterday in Portsmouth. Didn’t look very operational, flight deck covered in big tents.!

[PeterGee]

Flew over it yesterday in Portsmouth. Didn’t look very operational, flight deck covered in big tents.!
Some real nonsense on this thread.

She is not yet operational! How long do you think it takes to dismantle a few tents? She sails in the next 2 weeks, with some UK F35s embarked.

[Asturias56]

A new helicopter carrier would have been a lot cheaper.....................

[PeterGee]

A new helicopter carrier would have been a lot cheaper.....................
so would a minesweeper, and that would not meet the requirement either

[Video Mixdown]

Some real nonsense on this thread.
She is not yet operational! How long do you think it takes to dismantle a few tents? She sails in the next 2 weeks, with some UK F35s embarked.

Looks like the tents are starting to come down today (check out the HMS Warrior live webcam). Anyone know what all the tents/plant/scaffolding etc. that have been on the flight deck for the past few weeks were for? Connected with rectifying the defect(s) encountered during FOST or perhaps some other maintenance/modification/upgrade in preparation for WESTLANT 19?
The webcam shows great live pictures of the ship when she undocks and sails out of harbour.

[SamYeager]

The webcam shows great live pictures of the ship when she undocks and sails out of harbour.

Which webcam? Any link?

[Video Mixdown]

http://www.hmswarrior.org/webcam

[Asturias56]

so would a minesweeper, and that would not meet the requirement either

You could do with a new set of minesweepers as well - pity you used all the money on the carriers

[Asturias56]

Looking at that Webcam ... has anyone made any plans in case either a ferry, or a larger ship or even some bad person sinks in that very narrow passageway? Looks like a single point of failure to me..............

Would be a bit embarrassing to have everyone bottled up next to HMS Victory in an emergency................

[PeterGee]

Looking at that Webcam ... has anyone made any plans in case either a ferry, or a larger ship or even some bad person sinks in that very narrow passageway? Looks like a single point of failure to me..............

Would be a bit embarrassing to have everyone bottled up next to HMS Victory in an emergency................
FFS Portsmouth Harbour has existed as a Royal Dockyard longer than criminals have been sent to Australia! Why is this a new issue?

As to helicopter carriers the requirement is force projection! I am afraid please let us hunt submarines or land marines without bothering us with your nasty jets doesn’t cut it! Whilst not expecting to refight the Falklands, how do you think that would have worked out without SHAR? Before bleating about Argentina’s lack of capability, the core objective to be flexible to react to whatever you need to do. That is what CEPP is all about. This project is on track and looking good, albeit paced by F35 development.

Now please spend time getting a life :-)

[Asturias56]

Force projection is great but how often do you need to fight the Falklands War or similar? It was 35 years ago for heavens sake.

Your Navy is bleeding to death day by day, every day from cuts and under-investment to the stage when the Iranians can do what the hell they like because you only have a single warship in the Gulf. Oh, yes - you're sending another so you'll have 2 there for 3 weeks....

The carriers are a straight vanity project - it'll be years before they can embark a serious number of UK F-35's (if they survive the forthcoming round of cuts)

[pr00ne]

PeterGee,

Ignoring your condescending and patronizing “now get a life” closing remark...

Sure the carriers are all about projecting power, and that is principally fixed wing airpower, but the point that myself and others here are making is that hardly any of this fixed wing airpower exists.
617 Sqn has 9 Lightning’s, and until 809 Sqn forms in 2023 that’s it! And even then 617 are not a full time embarked squadron, they are our entire non Typhoon strike force.
Those 9 Lightnings are carrying out the roles previously performed by the entire Tornado GR4, Sea Harrier and Harrier fleets.

So this is why I think they are extremely vulnerable to a Dominic Cummings attack of logic. That being they are incapable of carrying out their prime function.

[NorthSouth]

Meanwhile the CAA has told MoD to go back to the drawing board - again - with its proposals to expand the airspace around Holbeach and Donna Nook to accommodate F-35 weapons training. The new airspace was supposed to be in place this month. It now looks like they won't get a CAA decision on the airspace till spring 2021.

[PeterGee]

PeterGee,

Ignoring your condescending and patronizing “now get a life” closing remark...

Sure the carriers are all about projecting power, and that is principally fixed wing airpower, but the point that myself and others here are making is that hardly any of this fixed wing airpower exists.
617 Sqn has 9 Lightning’s, and until 809 Sqn forms in 2023 that’s it! And even then 617 are not a full time embarked squadron, they are our entire non Typhoon strike force.
Those 9 Lightnings are carrying out the roles previously performed by the entire Tornado GR4, Sea Harrier and Harrier fleets.

So this is why I think they are extremely vulnerable to a Dominic Cummings attack of logic. That being they are incapable of carrying out their prime function.
I find many topics on this forum interesting and informative. However, this thread seems to be a honey pot for ill informed unsubstantiated clap trap. I *assume* that is driven by a desire to retain control of a limited number of fast jet cabs, regardless of the requirements.

I agree all programs are subject to cancellation, particularly in these unusual times, but it would be odd to finish paying for.successful project and then pull the plug. of course you never know!

The programme plan of record calls for us to be where we are are, with 617 having 9 cabs gradually increasing. I know you know though we have more then 9 cabs though! The buy is ramped around F35 development. How many block 3 cabs do you want to upgrade? Of course CEPP is not build around one incomplete frontline squadron!

It is way too simplistic to say F35 replaces those fleets. Typhoon is also replacing tormado and harrier capability. What is required is far more flexibility from a more limited number of squadrons, based around Typhoon and F35.

[Asturias56]

I think you'll find looking back that almost everyone who is "anti-carrier" on here is very PRO RN - - the money is being spent on the wrong ships - they could have had another Astute, another T45 and some minesweepers and a bucket load of change for the cash spent on the QE - and manned them as well

[PeterGee]

[QUOTE=Asturias56;10551671]I think you'll find looking back that almost everyone who is "anti-carrier" on here is very PRO RN - - the money is being spent on the wrong ships - they could have had another Astute, another T45 and some minesweepers and a bucket load of change for the cash spent on the QE - and manned them as well[/QUOT

PRO RN maybe! However, understanding war fighting in the maritime / literal environment, no.

Aside from Germany and Japan (for good reason), which other peer nations think maritime air power is not required. Even Japan is now moving on that!

I suspect the real Anti Carrier sentient is not driven from being pro RN!

UPDATED and To be clear, 1 Astute plus 1 T45 plus some not yet designed minesweepers equals QE! So you really think the RN is better served adding further resilience to capabilities it already has, rather then rounding its capabilities properly!

Of course more DD/FF capacity would be welcome, just like for FJ squadrons. However the budget is the budget. The carriers provide a much more balanced force at an investment of £100 million or so per year, at very good value.

[weemonkey]

so would a minesweeper, and that would not meet the requirement either


Ahh but quantity has it's.........

[Asturias56]

PG - thank you - I couldn't have put my view better........

"So you really think the RN is better served adding further resilience to capabilities it already has,"

Absolutely - when EVERYONE agrees it is stretched to breaking point to fulfill those tasks more of the same has to be the first priority so it can do the jobs that have been loaded onto the force

you don't add another set of complex and expensive tasks to their burden and stretch the current force even further...........

[PeterGee]

PG - thank you - I couldn't have put my view better........

"So you really think the RN is better served adding further resilience to capabilities it already has,"

Absolutely - when EVERYONE agrees it is stretched to breaking point to fulfill those tasks more of the same has to be the first priority so it can do the jobs that have been loaded onto the force

you don't add another set of complex and expensive tasks to their burden and stretch the current force even further...........

I have no idea what your background is, but think this may not be subject expertise. This is like saying to a football team, as long as you have a good midfield, we won't bother with goal keepers or strikers. Two of the RN's primary tasks are anti submarine warfare and support of expeditionary activities. Trying to do that successfully without aircover is madness. Please refer to my previous note, imagine trying to fight the falklands without SHAR! That does not mean we expect to fight the Falklands again, it means we do not know what we will need to fight. Carriers provide flexibility to the RN to react what the UK requires. An extra T45 and Astute does no such thing.

Can you please provide evidence that everyone knows the RN is stretched to breaking point? Internet gossip does not count as evidence. The RN is going through transformation to rebuild a capability it should never have lost. There are lots of things going to restructure operations to support the new ask and operating rythm. Alongside significant upgrades to the FF and DD fleets this has taken a fair bit of planning, But right now there are now 7 RN / RFA units in the gulf, with two more heading eastwards. A Westlant deployment is about to start. Further, some research will reveal significant NATO activity with multiple units during 2019. Aside from the USN, which other navies can undertake that level of activitity?

I have no idea what your objective is. The RN is doing just fine. CEPP is a capability that is on track on the UK shoud be proud of. There are no massively cheaper options to provide the needed capability. (CVS sized carries will neither save enough money or meet the ask) Sadly for those that see Fast Air as a land based entity, those days are over. The watchword is flexbility. Typhoons that do AD and Strike, F35s that do land and sea, strike, EW and AD. If you join the RAF, you may find yourself at sea!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Talking of which, when is the next ASW exercise (such as Deep Blue (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/operations/old-operations/deep-blue) (in 2014 - nine Merlin HM2 aboard HMS Illustrious plus another aboard Westminster) or Deep Blue II (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2016/july/20/160820-hms-ocean) (in 2016 - with Ocean and a mixed group of aircraft)?

I find it annoying that the website does not press home the point that ASW is a carrier role - task group ASW means constantly having helicopters airborne, which means you need a big deck. ASW might be needed for say an LPD, or Crisis Response Shipping. Sadly there was no other HVA acting as the unit to be protected in those exercises. However, a pair of 2087/Merlin equipped Type 23s provided ASW for an American LHD during Trident Juncture last year, the same time as WESTLANT 19 and Saif Sareea III with Oman, with routine tasks continuing in the background.

The RN will be deploying a carrier based task group, instead of one centred around amphibious forces. The two can and do exist together. If all the ships committed to exercises in Norway and Oman were together, it starts to look like a capable task group. One that could do with carrier based ASW and air defence.

The UK has committed a carrier to the NATO response force. We have also agreed to provide ASW capabilities. In December last year, the Human Security Centre said (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/report-warns-russia-would-be-able-to-overrun-vulnerable-areas-of-nato-territory/):

The UK’s Royal Navy should take the lead in any early effort to counter offensive Russian submarine operations via a multi-national task group centred upon one of the new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers.

The full report is here (http://www.hscentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Fire-and-Ice-A-New-Maritime-Strategy-for-NATOs-Northern-Flank.pdf).

The fact that we were able to reinforce our presence in the Gulf in fairly short time should say something (like being able to deploy in response to other crises elsewhere), however building an extra Type 45 or two is not going to be practical, neither will building more SSNs as were are now committed to building news SSBNs with those construction facilities.

The idea that the Stena Impero was seized by the Iranians due to the carrier meaning the Gulf was not full of RN frigates/destroyers is just plain dumb. The tanker only gave the RN an hour's notice of a Strait of Hormuz transit (https://www.businessinsider.com/iran-seized-stena-impero-hms-montrose-short-notice-penny-mordaunt-2019-8?r=US&IR=T).

[Asturias56]

"Can you please provide evidence that everyone knows the RN is stretched to breaking point?"

I really don't know what to say except to ask what desert island you've been stuck on for the last 10 years...

Look at this thread - there are dozens of links to various studies and statement by experts, and RN officers.

Read the Times or the Telegraph - letter after letter, article after article........... same with the BBC

Read every edition of the annual "British Warships & Auxiliaries" for the last 15 years - or the annual authoritative "World Naval Reviews" - or "Janes"

In 2012 the Chief of the UK Defence Staff stated in a lecture at Oxford "One of my biggest concerns is the number of frigates and destroyers the Nay has" - at that point it had 24-26 vessels - you now have 19

[PeterGee]

"Can you please provide evidence that everyone knows the RN is stretched to breaking point?"

I really don't know what to say except to ask what desert island you've been stuck on for the last 10 years...

Look at this thread - there are dozens of links to various studies and statement by experts, and RN officers.

Read the Times or the Telegraph - letter after letter, article after article........... same with the BBC

Read every edition of the annual "British Warships & Auxiliaries" for the last 15 years - or the annual authoritative "World Naval Reviews" - or "Janes"

In 2012 the Chief of the UK Defence Staff stated in a lecture at Oxford "One of my biggest concerns is the number of frigates and destroyers the Nay has" - at that point it had 24-26 vessels - you now have 19
And you consider that evidence? Yes the RN could do with more hulls, just like the RAF would like more FJ squadrons and the army would like more battalions. Not news, but 2019. That does not main any of our services are ineffective and have gone home!

I am ex RN. I live overseeing Portsmouth dockyard. I socialise with serving members. Yes 100% there are challenges but the RN is still a first rate navy.

I pitched 2 questions you are not responding to.

1) Which other peer navies do not think they need aircraft carriers? (I will help you, those who do are, USN, China, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea, France, Italy, Spain. I would not be surprised to see you aussies join that list.

2) The RN will have 3 concurrent deployments in the rest of 2019. Aside for the USN who else could do that? (Plus Submarine ops)

These are far from vanity projects, but provide a rounded flexible capability the country should be very proud of! At a build cost of circa £100 million a year, for 2 ships they offer amazing value. (A T45 estimated
service life of 25 years is not so much cheaper at £40 million a year for each hull)

[Capt Kremmen]

As a former serviceman in No. 40 Commando, I've got more that a foot in the door of this particular discussion - for some who do not know we are subject to the RN disciplinary code.

The sheer cost of these military toys has always seemed to me to be on the far side of excessive. I write as someone who still thinks that £20 is a significant sum. Yesterday, tweaking my sense of incredulity and passing the point of ultimate stretch, I watched a program about the building and commissioning of the world's largest, most ostentatious and most expensive cruise liner displacing some 55,000 tons and delivered at a cost of approximately £250,000,000 which sum is, I believe, around a quarter of a billion.

The magnificence of this vessel, if you like Middle Eastern Arabic boudoir style, was almost beyond belief. I cannot help but try to draw some kind of equivalence between what can be bought and paid for in cruise liner terms and the cost of just one of our 'global reach' mobile airports costing what was it ? £3.5 billion ! Or, such sum thereabouts. Ten cruise liners of the type illustrated could be built for that amount.

I am aware that there are some modest differences between an advanced man of war and a cruise liner but, if my figures quoted are even nearly correct the disparity is to my understanding barely credible. Can it really be explained by the number and quality of the systems required for what looks like an admittedly impressive flat top ?

Perhaps one answer could be to build luxurious cruise liners on the 'cheap' and equipped with a flight deck. In other words dual purpose. We'd have a huge fleet of impressive touristy warships which, on account of their numbers would not be too much missed when one or two of Mr. Putin's guided torps began circling like tummy rumbling sharks !

[Video Mixdown]

Read the Times or the Telegraph - letter after letter, article after article........... same with the BBC


I’m with PG on this. That’s not evidence - it’s just noise. And when you resort to using the press and BBC as sources of accurate and unbiased information, many people in the UK will just laugh at you.
I’m genuinely curious about the motivation for your anti-UK defence equipment posts and the time and energy you seem to invest in them. You’re neither a UK taxpayer nor a recipient of the defence they provide, so why should it bother you?

[Asturias56]

VM

I can't see how calling for more T45's, more frigates, more SSN's and more minesweepers for the RN makes me "anti-UK defence"

As for laughing at using the press and the BBC as sources I'm sure you'd get a bigger laugh by suggesting people trust the MoD ....................... would you?

Why am I concerned (along with well over half the poster on this thread)? No man is an island - the decline of RN capability affects the whole of the Western military force. As one of the few remaining "blue water" navies it has an even bigger impact

[t43562]

I am aware that there are some modest differences between an advanced man of war and a cruise liner but, if my figures quoted are even nearly correct the disparity is to my understanding barely credible. Can it really be explained by the number and quality of the systems required for what looks like an admittedly impressive flat top ?

Perhaps one answer could be to build luxurious cruise liners on the 'cheap' and equipped with a flight deck. In other words dual purpose. We'd have a huge fleet of impressive touristy warships which, on account of their numbers would not be too much missed when one or two of Mr. Putin's guided torps began circling like tummy rumbling sharks !

People very often underestimate technical things, don't they? Isn't that why so many technical programmes are late and over budget? Obviously anyone who presents a realistic estimate won't get the contract because the people buying it, like you, think they can build once-off (or twice) bespoke things somehow for the same as things that are produced in volume (give or take some gold sink taps).

I mean, lets just be absurd and compare the price of a bulldozer and a tank? 200k for a bulldzer, lets guess, and 8 million for a tank. What a plan! "just" put a gun on a bulldozer and hey presto! I mean both have tracks so what's the problem?

[Lyneham Lad]

People very often underestimate technical things, don't they? Isn't that why so many technical programmes are late and over budget? Obviously anyone who presents a realistic estimate won't get the contract because the people buying it, like you, think they can build once-off (or twice) bespoke things somehow for the same as things that are produced in volume (give or take some gold sink taps).

I mean, lets just be absurd and compare the price of a bulldozer and a tank? 200k for a bulldzer, lets guess, and 8 million for a tank. What a plan! "just" put a gun on a bulldozer and hey presto! I mean both have tracks so what's the problem?

Well, JCB certainly managed to 'militarise' their backhoe loader and won a large contract with the US Army.

[Rhino power]

Well, JCB certainly managed to 'militarise' their backhoe loader and won a large contract with the US Army.
Whilst JCB do supply mil spec versions of their regular backhoe loaders, the US Army's HMEE requirement, which JCB won, was essentially a clean sheet design and is not just a 'militarised' regular, off the shelf backhoe...

-RP

[etudiant]

People very often underestimate technical things, don't they? Isn't that why so many technical programmes are late and over budget? Obviously anyone who presents a realistic estimate won't get the contract because the people buying it, like you, think they can build once-off (or twice) bespoke things somehow for the same as things that are produced in volume (give or take some gold sink taps).

I mean, lets just be absurd and compare the price of a bulldozer and a tank? 200k for a bulldzer, lets guess, and 8 million for a tank. What a plan! "just" put a gun on a bulldozer and hey presto! I mean both have tracks so what's the problem?

That discrepancy in price only buys big gains at the corners of the envelope. It does not translate to nearly proportionate increase in effectiveness,
Otherwise a group of poorly equipped guerrillas using technicals would not be more than holding their own in places such as Mali or Afghanistan.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

In 2012 the Chief of the UK Defence Staff stated in a lecture at Oxford "One of my biggest concerns is the number of frigates and destroyers the Nay has" - at that point it had 24-26 vessels - you now have 19

How odd! Frigate and destroyer numbers were cut from 23 to 19 as part of SDSR 10, and without the carriers Cameron would have wanted to cut another five frigates, I think you might must be thinking of the wrong year. Also why ignore the role the commitment to Iraq and Afghanistan had on defence budgets, and the financial crisis?

As for NATO strength, have been looking in more detail at the HSC paper: Fire and Ice - A New Maritime Strategy for NATO's Northern Flank (http://www.hscentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Fire-and-Ice-A-New-Maritime-Strategy-for-NATOs-Northern-Flank.pdf).

On page 39 the Cold War role of the Invincible class (with Sea Kings and Sea Harriers) is discussed, along with the advantages of the larger Queen Elizabeth class, regarding the Atlantic and GIUK gap.

On page 57 there is map of a UK carrier task group in the GIUK gap, with other NATO forces escorting shipping and moving forward towards the Russians. The description is on the following page:

By 2024, the UK will be well placed to take charge of this effort through acting as the lead nation of a rapid response ASW task group, potentially featuring:
•1 x Queen Elizabeth class carrier
•2 x Type 45 class AAW destroyers
•2 x Type 23 class ASW frigates
•5 x German/French/Dutch/Norwegian frigates and destroyers
• SSN and SSK support as required

This model would essentially represent a resurrection of the Royal Navy led ASW Striking Force of the 1980s.

Page 62 of the report discusses pushing (US) carrier groups and other forces North of the GIUK gap to engage missile platforms before they break out into the Atlantic.

Page 68 puts NATO carrier groups into the Barents Sea for offensive operations.

Page 71 mentions French and Italian carrier groups in the Mediterranean.

[ORAC]

The Times.......

“NOW EAR THIS

HMS Queen Elizabeth, the jewel in the Royal Navy’s fleet, sets sail to the US today for sea trials. Penny Mordaunt, who was scuttled as defence secretary during the recent purge, used to refer to the aircraft carrier as “Big Lizzy”, which upset some of the braided bunch, though not as much as the nickname that her sister ship has been given. HMS Prince of Wales has two towers on its flight deck, which give it a striking silhouette. Navy wags, with a nod to Prince Charles’s aural protrusions, call it “HMS Big Ears”.........

[Lyneham Lad]

HMS Queen Elizabeth's departure from Portsmouth will commence circa noon today. Some glimpses of the manoeuvres can be viewed via HMS Warrior's webcam (http://www.hmswarrior.org/webcam).


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1471/hmswarriorview_caa3a0b417724a216e04f45d415380bd8370479c.jpg

[Hot 'n' High]

Thanks for that Lyneham Lad!

Nice to put all the arguments re suitability etc behind for a while and just watch her head out to sea. Brings back memories of the CVS-days for me. Certainly there was a bit more of a gap between Southsea - ship - HMS Dolphin when going in or out back then IIR! Happy days!

Cheers, H 'n' H

[Easy Street]

Off topic, but in the light of recent events I feel entitled to a smug rebuttal:



I've got bad news for you, Sam. The PM's senior adviser is exercising firm control of the agenda across Whitehall and has the same view of the carriers as andrew (https://dominiccummings.com/tag/collison/)n:


He really, really is not.

Oh, he really, really is.

[weemonkey]

Apart from the quote below the article did keep one's interest going and was for the whole very well written.

"perhaps because of collapsed command and control empowering some mentally ill / on drugs local commander (America has had plenty of those in charge of nukes) "

Unnecessary yank bait.

[pr00ne]

Off topic, but in the light of recent events I feel entitled to a smug rebuttal:



Oh, he really, really is.


Easy Street,

Well, if you think that sacking a day rate contractor for lying is "exercising firm control of the agenda across Whitehall", then you have just proved that you know nothing about how a Cabinet Government operates or how Special Advisors (Spads) working for Ministers are employed.

So, he really really REALLY isn't!

[Easy Street]

Easy Street,

Well, if you think that sacking a day rate contractor for lying is "exercising firm control of the agenda across Whitehall", then you have just proved that you know nothing about how a Cabinet Government operates or how Special Advisors (Spads) working for Ministers are employed.

So, he really really REALLY isn't!

You appear to be confusing ‘control of the agenda’ with ‘decision-making’. And following a speculative ‘if’ with a definitive ‘then’ and a concluding ‘so’ makes for a very poor straw man indeed. Of course I was referring to the reinstatement of the spending review, the prorogation and the announcement of billions in additional funding for schools... and if you don’t think that Cummings is orchestrating all that according to his own intricately-wargamed plan* then I’d suggest it’s you who’s ill-informed.

* Yes, his plan needs Cabinet approval, but you can see the extent to which they’re involved with or understand it when our Secretary of State gets slapped down by No10 for ‘mis-speaking’ about the prorogation while on a hot mic...

[pr00ne]

You appear to be confusing ‘control of the agenda’ with ‘decision-making’. And following a speculative ‘if’ with a definitive ‘then’ and a concluding ‘so’ makes for a very poor straw man indeed. Of course I was referring to the reinstatement of the spending review, the prorogation and the announcement of billions in additional funding for schools... and if you don’t think that Cummings is orchestrating all that according to his own intricately-wargamed plan* then I’d suggest it’s you who’s ill-informed.

* Yes, his plan needs Cabinet approval, but you can see the extent to which they’re involved with or understand it when our Secretary of State gets slapped down by No10 for ‘mis-speaking’ about the prorogation while on a hot mic...

Easy Street,
Ignoring your grammatical pedantry, I think you'll find that I am a leeeetle bit closer to this than you are...

[ORAC]

https://twitter.com/hthjones/status/1170647421988327425?s=21

[Asturias56]

"Super Carriers"..........

as in soopah, nice to see yah, loverlyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

or Super as in "Ford Class"?

[Asturias56]

I see they plan to announce the purchase of 5 new T31e's today - about time too.............

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-49670332

[weemonkey]

I see they plan to announce the purchase of 5 new T31e's today - about time too.............

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-49670332


good. now about the manning...

[Asturias56]

I see they will be based on the Danish "Iver Huitfeldt" class which were being offered to the Indonesians at around US$ 360 million a vessel.

Now IF the RN can just let them build it and not keep adding and tinkering with the spec you might, just might, get them for the £ 250 million target price

I think the Danes crew there's at around 100 men - so quite good for the manning issue.

[FODPlod]

I see they will be based on the Danish "Iver Huitfeldt" class which were being offered to the Indonesians at around US$ 360 million a vessel.

Now IF the RN can just let them build it and not keep adding and tinkering with the spec you might, just might, get them for the £ 250 million target price

I think the Danes crew there's at around 100 men - so quite good for the manning issue.
The RN probably expects the ships to be built to the specs DE&S has mandated in the contract to meet the UK's purposes.

[Not_a_boffin]

I see they will be based on the Danish "Iver Huitfeldt" class which were being offered to the Indonesians at around US$ 360 million a vessel.

Now IF the RN can just let them build it and not keep adding and tinkering with the spec you might, just might, get them for the £ 250 million target price

I think the Danes crew there's at around 100 men - so quite good for the manning issue.

Who, precisely (by which I mean builder) was offering them to the Indonesians? You are aware that the designer (OMT) no longer has a shipyard with which to build them? The price is affected both by the specifications - from memory Iver Huitfeldt was built to DNV rules, T31 will be built to Lloyds Rules for Naval Ships and the UK safety standards applied to ANEP77 - and the efficiency and cost base of the build yard..

Of course, Rosyth isn't a shipyard either. It has built precisely zero ships. It has assembled two very large carriers from large blocks fabricated and outfitted elsewhere, simply because there was nowhere else to build them in a oner. Building T31 from little blocks nailed together in pseudo-shipyards (H&W haven't built a ship in nigh-on 20 years and Fergies haven't built any warships) is not going to be efficient. It will be interesting to see how well Babcocks control the programme and commercial risk here.

[Asturias56]

https://www.janes.com/article/87175/indonesia-leans-towards-iver-huitfeldt-class-for-frigate-acquisition

Apparently OMT also offered them to the Australians - sounds like its management and design that are on offer rather actual hulls which will be built locally

The IH class is built from standard blocks - a lot of them similar to the Absalom Class destroyers. There's a long and detailed article in the 2014 edition of World Naval Review

Actually building from pre-assembled blocks IS efficient - that's the way most large vessels are build these days - and things like oil rigs and offshore processing centres - you can have a lot of people working and not getting in each others way as you get on a traditional slip or dockyard - same way as we build aeroplanes or cars...............

[Not_a_boffin]

https://www.janes.com/article/87175/indonesia-leans-towards-iver-huitfeldt-class-for-frigate-acquisition

Apparently OMT also offered them to the Australians - sounds like its management and design that are on offer rather actual hulls which will be built locally

The IH class is built from standard blocks - a lot of them similar to the Absalom Class destroyers. There's a long and detailed article in the 2014 edition of World Naval Review

Actually building from pre-assembled blocks IS efficient - that's the way most large vessels are build these days - and things like oil rigs and offshore processing centres - you can have a lot of people working and not getting in each others way as you get on a traditional slip or dockyard - same way as we build aeroplanes or cars...............

Hmm. One of us has built ships for a living and one of us hasn't. Your description above misunderstands what I said - and the analogy with aircraft and car production lines is inappropriate.

Building large pre-outfitted blocks is efficient. Building small ones in multiple places is not, simply because you can't actually get a meaningful quantity of outfit installed early. There are also a number of commercial and QA interfaces that drive additional overhead into the build process.

[etudiant]

A warship is usually densely stuffed with gear, so building it in small sections, even if really accurate dimensional fit is achieved, does multiply the the joints and connections...
These are usually the first to fail, at least in electronics.
Still, the US Navy builds subs by the sausage slice, so the concept has been proven.

[Bing]

The carrier blocks are a bit of a red herring. Apart from the islands each one was bigger than a Type 31 so you're looking at a completely different scale of build.

[Asturias56]

But every ship is built from hundreds of pieces of kit built off site - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_26_frigate - very little is actually done on site these days

"According to Gary McCloskey, head of Type 26 supply chain at BAE Systems, by March 2017 between 40 and 50 suppliers were engaged in the Type 26 programme, and about 33 had full contracts.[73] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_26_frigate#cite_note-73)

On 5 April 2017 Raytheon Anschütz announced successful integration of Warship Electronic Chart Display Information System (WECDIS) into their Integrated Navigation and Bridge Systems (INBS) for the Type 26.[74] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_26_frigate#cite_note-74)

In July 2017 BAE Systems stated that the Type 26 programme currently employs more than 1,200 people in the UK supply chain, and in the future the programme would secure more than 3,400 jobs across BAE Systems and the wider UK maritime supply chain.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_26_frigate#cite_note-BAE_Systems-3) It was also stated in July 2017, that coinciding with the announcement of additional contracts, total investment in the Type 26 supply chain had reached £500 million. The 14 companies awarded contracts in the July announcement include Babcock for the helicopter landing grid, MSI Defence Systems for the small caliber gun, and Thales for the towed array system. The largest of the July-announced contracts are for the procurement of structural steel for the first three ships from UK and European steel mills by Dent Steel Services Ltd."


Still - THE important thing is that they have awarded the contract - lets hope they buy more than 5 and it doesn't turn into yet another "aspiration"

[Not_a_boffin]

But every ship is built from hundreds of pieces of kit built off site - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_26_frigate - very little is actually done on site these days

"According to Gary McCloskey, head of Type 26 supply chain at BAE Systems, by March 2017 between 40 and 50 suppliers were engaged in the Type 26 programme, and about 33 had full contracts.[73] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_26_frigate#cite_note-73)

On 5 April 2017 Raytheon Anschütz announced successful integration of Warship Electronic Chart Display Information System (WECDIS) into their Integrated Navigation and Bridge Systems (INBS) for the Type 26.[74] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_26_frigate#cite_note-74)

In July 2017 BAE Systems stated that the Type 26 programme currently employs more than 1,200 people in the UK supply chain, and in the future the programme would secure more than 3,400 jobs across BAE Systems and the wider UK maritime supply chain.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_26_frigate#cite_note-BAE_Systems-3) It was also stated in July 2017, that coinciding with the announcement of additional contracts, total investment in the Type 26 supply chain had reached £500 million. The 14 companies awarded contracts in the July announcement include Babcock for the helicopter landing grid, MSI Defence Systems for the small caliber gun, and Thales for the towed array system. The largest of the July-announced contracts are for the procurement of structural steel for the first three ships from UK and European steel mills by Dent Steel Services Ltd."


Still - THE important thing is that they have awarded the contract - lets hope they buy more than 5 and it doesn't turn into yet another "aspiration"

Random quotes from t'internet are not a good supporting argument - you are presumably aware that integrating a piece of software into an INBS is not a shipyard task and hardly of relevance?

The supply chain has always been diverse - it means individual equipment items are built by individual companies and then delivered to the shipyard for installation to the ship (this is what "outfitting" means). Sometimes those items are installed on units / blocks (this is known as pre-outfitting or advanced outfitting), sometimes they are installed in the ship when it is erect on the berth or in the building dock. The supply of the item to the shipyard does not include the labour required to install it, connect it to the relevant services (power, cooling system, fuel, lub oil, control cabling etc - or indeed manufacture and install those services), inspect it in situ and then test commission and set to work that individual item or system. That labour is almost exclusively shipyard (sometimes contracted in subbies) but always requires more manhours the later in build you attempt the task.

"Very little done on site these days" is a very long way from the truth.

[Not_a_boffin]

Seems like today's the day for PoW. High tide ~17:00-ish.
http://www.forthports.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Notice-to-Mariners-No-34-of-2019-Large-Vessel-Movement-Forth.pdf

[WE Branch Fanatic]

https://twitter.com/HMSPWLS/status/117470739871349964

[Imagegear]

For interest:

Forth Bridge Webcam showing POW lying just west of the bridge on the opposite bank. On a 10 minute refresh. May need the tide to drop before passing the bridges.

Better when zoomed in:

Forth Bridge Webcam (https://www.theforthbridges.org/plan-your-journey/webcams/)

IG

[Davef68]

For interest:

Forth Bridge Webcam showing POW lying just west of the bridge on the opposite bank. On a 10 minute refresh. May need the tide to drop before passing the bridges.

Better when zoomed in:

Forth Bridge Webcam (https://www.theforthbridges.org/plan-your-journey/webcams/)

IG

Local scuttlebut is that she'll sit off shore for a day or two testing systems then leave on low tide Monday

[PeterGee]

good. now about the manning...
less crew than the ships they are replacing. What am I missing?

[weemonkey]

less crew than the ships they are replacing. What am I missing?


So this is the one we're keeping?

[PeterGee]

So this is the one we're keeping?

very funny. My response was for the “how do we man the 5 new T31 frigates”

assuming you think we are only keeping one carrier, public record is we are keeping 2. One operational and deplorable, the other home based and used for training. They will of course rotate. Pretty wise I think.

[flighthappens]

One operational and deplorable,


Surely it’s not that bad?

[Obi Wan Russell]

My response was for the “how do we man the 5 new T31 frigates”
We man them using the crews from the 5 T23 frigates they are replacing one for one. With some personnel to spare...

[weemonkey]

We man them using the crews from the 5 T23 frigates they are replacing one for one. With some personnel to spare...

I seem to remember that was the line of thinking the German army staff tended towards at the end of WW2...

[Obi Wan Russell]

I seem to remember that was the line of thinking the German army staff tended towards at the end of WW2...

I wasn't aware the German Army in WW2 had the use of any T23 Frigates...

You learn something new everyday!

[ORAC]

https://twitter.com/c_nhenderson/status/1175761617197379585?s=21

[WE Branch Fanatic]

One of the roles of a carrier is providing task group ASW with multiple ASW helicopters:

https://twitter.com/RNASCuldrose/status/1179628111811530752

The pictures show the frigate working with the aircraft from the carrier.

[Asturias56]

She can certainly change direction........

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-49919669

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/660x371/_109085121_carrier_886719f1b6e9062ba55b2e4cce255324e73e429b. jpg

[Rhino power]

First UK F-35s aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/first-british-f-35-jets-land-on-hms-queen-elizabeth/?fbclid=IwAR02xYlFTmk6LxMoNHpoJMEhWPoxDvQGo3fdVDMtRGwW8vUy87 t2WYsygrw)

-RP

[FODPlod]

An excellent set of images in this Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/hthjones/status/1183428909330812928?s=20

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/680x453/hms_qe_with_hms_dragon_e81b1d37aa88908fb13f5e484d0b28fb7c7ca 388.jpg

[Jimbo2Papa]

First UK F-35s aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/first-british-f-35-jets-land-on-hms-queen-elizabeth/?fbclid=IwAR02xYlFTmk6LxMoNHpoJMEhWPoxDvQGo3fdVDMtRGwW8vUy87 t2WYsygrw)

-RP


Yes!

Nice one Centurions...


https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1290/br190037015_fe808f75fec7b91f96b8a15f644bf45917fc8ff4.jpg

[RAFEngO74to09]

Videos here:

Ship Engineering Control 00:48 / Automated Weapon Handling System 00:56

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-gmjgXJI1g&

RN Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNYkbqFseYw

[ORAC]

https://twitter.com/pinstripedline/status/1184517971693039616?s=21

[ORAC]

AW&ST:

”.....Meanwhile, the UK is beginning to consider how it can further the capability of the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers using the unmanned capabilities being developed for the UK’s Future Combat Air System. “The planned service life of 50 years will naturally require us to embrace autonomy, technological innovation and maturation of remotely piloted systems, including those from within our future combat air strategy,” said Connell.

“The intent is to affordably complement our manned strike fighters and rotary-wing assets and make them more effective and lethal,” said Royal Marines Col. Phillip Kelly, chief of staff for UK CEPP, also at DSEI.

He said the first priority for any future carrier-borne UAV will be the provision of aerial refueling—similar to the U.S. Navy’s need for the MQ-25 unmanned refueling platform—extending the range of the F-35 but also supporting the recovery to the ship. Other capabilities foreseen are the ability to carry weapons and sensors, as well as electronic warfare systems to complement them. Other roles could be airborne early warning and even persistent sonobuoy dispensing and monitoring.

Kelly said the Defense Ministry prefers a platform with the same outer mold line to perform all three tasks and reduce the cost of ship-air integration. One solution could be carrier-launched versions of the Lightweight Affordable Novel Combat Aircraft/Mosquito being developed by industry, which aims to provide a reusable but attritable multirole platform at 1/10 the cost of a manned fighter, but also the Royal Air Force’s plans for swarming UAVs to confuse enemy air defenses.......

Conventional fixed-wing platforms are already more than capable of operating from a ship using a ski jump, and UAVs can be rail- or vertically launched if needed, but the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers lack arrestor gear for recovery. Kelly called on industry to consider a high-energy recovery system, rather than parachuting UAVs into the water, while vertical recovery comes with thrust and payload penalties.

“Arrested landing on the carrier allows optimization of the aircraft for range and endurance, as does inflight capture on an escort,” he said.........

https://youtu.be/ITawKXPt3MI

[Engines]

ORAC,

Thanks for an interesting post. There are a couple of points arising from the statement from Col Kelly that I'd like to offer some thoughts on.

1. Apparently he said that: 'Conventional fixed-wing platforms are already more than capable of operating from a ship using a ski jump,..' I don't think they are. A conventional fixed wing aircraft can launch from a ski jump, but only at weights well below normal land based MTOWs. That's because the design basis for most ski jumps (to date) is that the STOVL aircraft they support can use their vectored lift systems to generate an optimal flight profile after ramp exit. They leave the ramp at BELOW flying speed, but at a high positive rate of climb generated by the ramp profile. After ramp exit rate of climb starts to fall, but is still positive. Because they're STOVL aircraft, they set their thrust vector independently of angle of attack to optimise acceleration while ensuring a positive (albeit falling) minimising rate of climb. As speed builds up, wing lift increases, and thrust is vectored further aft. At a known distance out from the ramp, the rate of climb stops falling and starts to increase again. This is known as the 'inflection point', and for a Sea Harrier it was about a kilometre out. Effectively, the ski jump has generated a 'runway in the sky'. This delivers a very significant increase in launch weight. The same happens with the F-35B.

Conventional aircraft can't do this. Their thrust vector is fixed relative to the aircraft axis and when they leave the ramp they have no option but to adopt a high angle of attack to generate as much wing lift as they can, and also get some lift from their (fixed) thrust system. However, that generates very high drag, so more thrust is needed to accelerate the aircraft. The result is a significant reduction in available takeoff weight. I know that some launches from the Chinese and Russian carriers involved the aircraft climbing then descending back towards the sea as they built up airspeed, before climbing away. Pilots tell me that's not an optimal situation. (I'm paraphrasing to remove the more agricultural language most of them used). The Chinese are working on catapult carriers for a reason. It's all about the physics.

2. He said that 'UAVs can be rail or vertically launched'. Well, yes, they can - the usual term is a 'catapult'. These are found on most aircraft carriers, but not on the QE class. Unless he's talking about some smaller system. He is undoubtedly aware that any vertical launch requires a very high thrust/weight ratio to enable the UAV to fly away carrying anything resembling an operational payload. Or a reduced payload. Again, it's all about the physics.

3. Lastly, he refers to the 'LANCA' concept being worked by Dstl and industry as a possible candidate to carry out AAR, weapons delivery, sonobuoy drops, EW missions and even AEW, all with a common outer mould line. Nothing I've seen to date on the LANCA concept looks remotely suited for any of these tasks, especially AAR which involves a hefty payload of fuel. The LANCA teams seem to be looking for a small, fast, smart, cheap air vehicle to accompany F-35s and Typhoons. If they are about one tenth the cost of an F-35, a reasonable first guess is that they would be one tenth the weight. That would make them about 6,000 pounds in weight. Even that would need a hefty catapult, especially if they have small wings for high speeds. The MQ-25 drone for the USN, with AAR as its (current) primary mission, weighs in at lots more than 6,000 points. So does the Kratos XQ-58, which seems to be the USAF's 'Loyal Wingman' concept, and they're not even remotely interesting in ship operations.

If the UK wants to develop a next generation of air systems to operate from the QE class ships, my suggestion (and that's all it is) is that they had better start developing a realistic and achievable set of requirements for them to do that, so that the design can be driven the right way. Going 'shopping' around the RAF's future systems concepts like Tempest and Mosquito (none of which appear to be remotely considering operating from ships) and hoping that they will be able to operate effectively from a ship is, in my opinion, a bit risky.

Best regards as ever to all those smart industry and Dstl people trying to work out what the MoD wants and how to get there,

Engines

[Video Mixdown]

HMS Queen Elizabeth

Tune in to BBC2 at 2000 (UK) this Sunday to see the first of the three-part series, 'Britain's Biggest Warship Goes to Sea' by award-winning producer/director @ChrisTerrill. The programme follows us during first of class flight trials with F-35B during #WESTLANT18 #QNLZatSea

https://youtu.be/vZdfWbVSs2o

[pettinger93]

I am curious: when hovering, the F35 has a large almost vertical panel projecting from the top of the aircraft. This is presumably open to uncover the vertical air intakes , and is closed in fast horizontal flight. In the above videos I note that it also remains open as the F35 takes off from the 'ski jump', as the aircraft has to use downward vectored thrust. However, the extended panel must also produce enormous drag at a time when rapid acceleration was most needed. At what speed is this retracted? The force of the air on the panel must also be considerable by this time.

[Engines]

Pettinger,

Happy to help explain here.

The F-35B's powered lift system has two 'propulsors'. One is the main engine in the rear of the aircraft - it delivers thrust downwards via a swivelling nozzle at the rear of the aircraft. Two large doors open up under the rear of the aircraft to allow that nozzle to swivel down. There are also two doors on top of the aircraft, located just aft of the large 'vertical panel' you described, which open to form an auxiliary air intake for the main engine at zero and low airspeeds, when the normal engine air intakes would not be sufficient.

The 'large vertical panel' is the intake door for the second 'propulsor', which is a shaft driven lift fan mounted vertically just aft of the cockpit. There is a pair of doors under the lift fan, just aft of the nose landing gear doors, through which the lift fan exhaust exits.You're quite correct - the lift fan door does create significant drag, and its opening angle is automatically adjusted from fully open (around 85 degrees by memory) to part open (around 35 degrees) as the speed builds up. And yes, there are significant forces on that door. Design of the door was a huge challenge: the original 'bifold' system used on the X-35 had some serious problems, and a large number of options were looked at before settling on the eventual design. There were also a number of almost invisible but very significant changes to the shape of the lift fan intake lips and duct.

Development of the lift fan, its intake and exhaust system, and the vectoring system for it (a vane box located just under the lift fan) was a tremendous technical challenge. Between the X-35 and the F-35B, the lift fan system was almost totally redesigned, and called on a huge range of technical skills including advanced aerodynamics, propulsion design, software driven flight controls, acoustics, advanced structural design and so on. PPrune readers should know that this magnificent effort was led by extraordinarily talented UK engineers. It was my privilege to be able to watch them at work.

Best Regards as ever to all those talented Brit engineers still working hard on the programme,

Engines

[Imagegear]

Engines

Thanks for the description however was the possibility of a powered slide and lift hatch evaluated and what were the design influences that prevented it's integration?

IG

[pettinger93]

Thank you, Engines. Fascinating and am gratified that the British experts are so involved. It's amazing that the huge amount of drag that the lift fan door incurs (even at a lower 35 deg angle) is acceptable during such a critical part of the flight envelope, and the force to close it against the airflow must be huge. I assume the there must be very good reasons that it isn't hinged at the forward end of the door?

[Bing]

I assume the there must be very good reasons that it isn't hinged at the forward end of the door?

They want air to go through the lift fan, hinging it at the front isn't going to help with that.

[Easy Street]

Also the drag of the door is less than it would appear because suction causes the airflow to curve down into the fan rather than impinge directly on the door. The airspeed scheduling of door angle reflects that phenomenon.

[RAFEngO74to09]

OC 17 Sqn explaining how the balancing act between the main engine and the lift fan works on the F-35B during take off and landing (in simple terms) and good video of all the various doors:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0XcdSaz5jE

[pettinger93]

Thank you Bing, Easy Street and RAF Eng for the explanation, and the video clip makes it obvious. Its not just a lid, but a scoop as well. Clever stuff.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Some nuggets to post:

1. Another documentary by Chris Terrill coming up. I expect it will also be on BBC iPlayer.

https://twitter.com/HMSQNLZ/status/1187496679261556736

2. F-35B fully loaded (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2019/october/24/191024-f-35-fully-loaded)

Loaded on to this state-of-the-art jet from 17 (Test and Evaluation) is the weaponry it would typically carry on a strike mission: 22,000lb of destructive and defensive power.

n this case the ‘bombheads’ on HMS Queen Elizabeth – red-surcout-wearing air engineer technicians – carefully loaded inert Paveway laser-guided bombs and ASRAAM air-to-air missiles (for taking out aerial threats) on to the external pylons and bomb bay.

Fully-loaded, it’s known as “beast mode” by crews because of the firepower it delivers – nearly three times more than a Harrier, and as much as the heaviest payload carried by a WW2 Lancaster bomber (a Grand Slam or ‘earthquake’ bomb.

3. Junglies at the heart of the Carrier Strike Group (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2019/october/25/191026-navy-fliers-part-of-carrier-strike-group)

During Westlant, off the east coast of the United States, the Commando Merlin pilots and aircrew’s day to day work involves them flying stores around the Carrier Strike Group’s (CSG) warships and ashore, keeping everything ticking over on the mammoth operation.

In the old CVS days - how many sorties by the nine ASW Sea Kings onboard would be utility roles such as HDS or VERTREP? If freed of these tasks, does a squadron of six Merlin HM2 provide the same level of ASW coverage as nine Sea King HAS 5/6 - considering things like the increased range and endurance, and the much more capable radar and sonics?

4. I found this Corbett Paper online - I cannot recall having seen it before:

The interoperability of future UK air power, afloat and ashore: a historical analysis (https://www.kcl.ac.uk/dsd/assets/corbettpaper13.pdf)

Points to note:

a. To make carrier aviation viable, the aircraft have to get used to embarking and the carrier has to be up to speed with having jets aboard.

b. V/STOL makes it possible for aircraft not solely dedicated to carry operations to embark.

c. Even a V/STOL aircraft needs to be designed or modified to operate from a ship.

d. Post Falklands, nobody thought of a Joint RN/RAF force until the nineties.

e. The Invincible class carriers were busy in the Adriatic in the early nineties, and later in the late nities and beyond in the Gulf - and RAF Harriers joining the Sea Harriers.

f. The loss of Sea Harrier meant having jets embarked less often, meaning the carriers' personnel lost skills.

g. In 1982 the RAF Harrier GR3 had been able to embark aboard Hermes as she was used to having Sea Harrier aboard and fully up to speed with supporting fixed wing aircraft.

h. Points a to g were ignored by Cameron prior to SDSR 10. The STOVL-CV-STOVL debacle did is no favours and the politics made mitigating the loss of having our own jets on deck a lot harder than it would have been. This is one of the things I highlighted from that article - the embarkation of 1 Sqn with Harrier GR3 aboard HMS Hermes in 1982 and the embarkation of Harrier GR7 in the nineties was only possible as the carrier was fully swept up with having fixed wing aircraft embarked.F-35B was the correct choice, perhaps the only choice given the way the UK intends to operate a joint force and one that is not solely carrier based. It also means no need for catapults or arresting gear, and the manpower needed for them. Theoretical best is often the enemy of good enough AND feasible.

It would be interesting to see a documentary covering all the measures taken to maintain and recover skills, but think it very unlikely - not everything is public. Sometimes there were hints (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/517553-sharky-watch-live-6.html#post7909736), sometimes one heard rumours and made logical deductions...

[LowObservable]

An F-35B with 22,000 pounds of weapons could carry 6,000 pounds of fuel and would have an effective range of ~the other end of the runway, even if 22,000 lb could be carried (with only four stations rated above 1,000 lb, and four of the rest rated for AAMs-only). Enough of this "beast mode" idiocy.

[Easy Street]

Loaded on to this state-of-the-art jet from 17 (Test and Evaluation) is the weaponry it would typically carry on a strike mission: 22,000lb of destructive and defensive power.

n this case the ‘bombheads’ on HMS Queen Elizabeth – red-surcout-wearing air engineer technicians – carefully loaded inert Paveway l@ser-guided bombs and ASRAAM air-to-air missiles (for taking out aerial threats) on to the external pylons and bomb bay.

Fully-loaded, it’s known as “beast mode” by crews because of the firepower it delivers – nearly three times more than a Harrier, and as much as the heaviest payload carried by a WW2 Lancaster bomber (a Grand Slam or ‘earthquake’ bomb.

What on earth is this on about and why is it being reposted here? Assuming there are 2 bombs internally, the so-called ‘beast mode’ carries 3000lb of weapons plus 2 ASRAAM. Which is one-seventh of the load of a Lancaster and could easily have been lifted by a Harrier.

Very few seek to argue that the F-35B is not a significantly compromised machine, least of all the USMC who announced back in the spring that they were accelerating deliveries of C-models in preference to Bs...

[Lonewolf_50]

Very few seek to argue that the F-35B is not a significantly compromised machine, least of all the USMC who announced back in the spring that they were accelerating deliveries of C-models in preference to Bs... That would be the USN speeding up delivery of C's, as that's the carrier variant, would it not? (Granted, the USN pays for all of the Marine's aircraft since all of the contracts are under the umbrella of NAVAIR ... but that's getting into the beans not the bullets)

[Easy Street]

That would be the USN speeding up delivery of C's, as that's the carrier variant, would it not? (Granted, the USN pays for all of the Marine's aircraft since all of the contracts are under the umbrella of NAVAIR ... but that's getting into the beans not the bullets)

I was only going by what the Corps Director of Aviation reportedly (https://news.usni.org/2019/04/04/marines-accelerating-f-35c-procurement-support-carrier-deployments-f-35b-buys-slow) told Congress in April...

(I heard that General Rudder's callsign is 'Stick' :))

[PhilipG]

Possibly accelerating delivery of C's as the USMC's F18s are so maintenance intensive, the USN is now all Super Hornet and F35C.

[orca]

The USMC programme of record is for 353 B models and 67 C models.

[Engines]

Orca, other contributors,

I hesitated to post this, but I thought it would help put the F-35B and its performance in context. Please feel free to disagree and criticise anything - that's how we all learn stuff.

All aircraft designs are 'compromised' in one way or another. No one aircraft can do everything that any aircraft could do. The Lancaster was a superb bomber, but probably not a good fighter. The Typhoon is an awesome air combat aircraft, but not much good at hauling cargo. All aircraft are designed to meet requirements: some don't drive the basic airframe design (example - digits of cockpit displays must be at least 3.4 mm high, or something). But some DO drive the whole design (example - 'combat range of 1000 miles at low level at high speed' drove the TSR2 design).

So what drove the F-35 design? The requirements were driven by years of studies that showed a need to balance out and out airframe performance against required strike mission loads while exploiting low observability and more advanced sensor and communications capabilities. Internal weapons bays would be required to support a reduced signature. LO ruled out external fuel tanks as a solution to achieving desired ranges. All that would place pressure on aircraft internal volume, and that in turn meant that F-35 would never be a 'lean and mean' 9g dogfighter. The Key Performance Parameters (KPPs - JSF speak for key requirements) were carefully chosen to reflect those basic objectives.

The F-35B design was also driven by two key requirements that were particular to STOVL. These were to perform a STO for a given mission in a certain length - this figure was driven by the size of USN LHD flight decks. The second requirement was the vertical landing bring back (VLBB), calling for the aircraft to be able to land vertically with a specified internal weapon load. These two requirements absolutely drove the design of the F-35B. They could only be met by a powered lift aircraft that had enough powered lift capability and internal weapons bay volume. ( The F-35B team also had to meet a number of 'joint' KPPs, but the only performance related 'joint' KPP was that for mission radius. )

The choice of these two KPPs was deliberate and informed. The people drawing them up back in the 90s had realised that any powered lift aircraft design would experience huge pressure on internal volume (lift fans take up space). As a result, they only asked for the STOVL aircraft to bring back (or carry) 1,000lb class weapons, to give the design team some margin on both volume and wight. Unfortunately, in the early days of the development programme, the LM JSF team had a poor handle on airframe weight and internal design. Really poor. That led them to believe that they could produce a 'common weapons bay' design for all 3 variants, giving the STOVL variant the ability to carry 2,000lb weapons internally. They couldn't. LM then had to redesign the STOVL aircraft more or less completely, with the big change being reducing the size of the weapons bays back to the 1,000lb weapon size originally envisaged. (By the way, at that time, all three variants were grotesquely overweight and unable to meet any performance related KPPs - the B variant led the subsequent redesign effort, but all three aircraft were extensively changed).

The F-35B is not 'significantly compromised'. Its design is deliberate and aimed at meeting KPPs that supported operation from ships. It's damn near the size of an F-4. It can launch from a ship at higher weights than the F-4 could from UK ships. It can land on with 3,200lbs of internal weapons. Its sensor and comms capabilities are way ahead of anything else out there. And it can operate from ships that have got around 600 feet of deck. It's the future of maritime air power for those countries that can't afford, or don't know how to build, CVN type carriers and the aircraft to go on them. (Right now, only the US can do that).

My view (and that's all it is) is that the next few years will see more and more countries putting F-35Bs on a variety of ships, some called 'aircraft carriers'. The Japanese, South Koreans and Italians are al moving that way. The UK seems to be planning a joint UK/USMC air wing for the QE's 2021 deployment, with somewhere about 24 aircraft embarked.

Final point. I'm not an LM shill. I'm not an F-35 fanboy. I'm just an old naval aircraft engineer who has a little understanding of just how damn hard it is to design, make, test and deploy a supersonic STOVL strike aircraft to sea. I admit to getting a bit miffed when the efforts of extremely fine and clever people (not including me, by the way) are disparaged, especially when lots of those clever people are excellent Brits.

Best regards as ever to all those who are working hard right now to give the UK an outstanding maritime strike capability, and to those who are getting ready to deploy it.

Engines

[BossEyed]

I admit to getting a bit miffed when the efforts of extremely fine and clever people (not including me, by the way) are disparaged, especially when lots of those clever people are excellent Brits.
Very well said, Engines. This stuff is hard!

[FODPlod]

Thank you, Engines, for bringing your usual grasp of detail, balance and not a little common sense to the forum.

[Video Mixdown]

Thank you, Engines, for bringing your usual grasp of detail, balance and not a little common sense to the forum.

And beautifully written, may I add. Anyone thinking of posting questions about the F-35B/QNLZ combination would do well to read Engines' posts first.

[just another jocky]

Yet again Engines, you put many other posters to shame with an intelligent and informed post.

[Tech Guy]

Ignoring the obvious stealth advantages, how does the Gripen compare to the F35?
Would there be a benefit in having additional simpler & lower cost aircraft on board to supplement a tier 1 aircraft on missions that would support its operational capabilities?

[hulahoop7]

I haven’t seen any mention of SVRL in this deployment. I was expecting that to be an area where more progress would be made. I wonder if the risks associated with that type of landing have been reviewed and it’s become out of appetite?

[Engines]

Tech Guy, Hula,

Perhaps I can help a little here.

Tech, your question helps illustrate the difficulty in comparing aircraft that were designed against different requirements. The Gripen is, in my view, a very good medium weight fighter bomber, with some excellent supportability features and good performance. However, it's not a very good naval aircraft, as it wasn't designed to operate from ships. Actually, it's a really poor naval aircraft, as it can't operate from a carrier at all.

Some help here - a conventional naval aircraft that uses catapults and arresting gear needs a range of special design features. The main aerodynamic features are an ability to carry out approach and landing at much lower speeds than land based aircraft, to allow the arresting gear to bring it to a halt, and special aero design to allow it to get airborne safely at the end of the catapult launch. These drive large wings and control surfaces, plus a ton of other stuff. The main airframe feature is the extra strengthening to handle the launch and arresting loads, as well as the far higher landing loads caused by the 'no flare' landing required to accurately engage the arresting gear. This last one is really significant. The Gripen has none of these. They are very, very major and significant, and add a LOT of weight to the aircraft.

Very few land based aircraft have made the transition to a flight deck. The only ones that jump out of my aged brain are the FJ-1 to FJ-4 Fury of the 1950s, and the T-45 Goshawk of the 1980s. The T-45 was just a trainer, and didn't have to carry weapons, but even so it had to have major changes made to operate from the deck, adding more than a ton to its empty weight. The FJ-1 Fury was a minimum change from the Sabre, but it rapidly grew into the totally different FJ-4 to be combat effective. Of course, the STOVL Harrier made the transition with not too many modifications, but that's not a cat and trap aircraft.

Hula, as far as I know, the current deployment of QE with the embarked F-35Bs is planning to extend the envelope of SRVL operations to higher weights and also more demanding deck conditions. I'd expect that they would want to clear night ops as well. Yes, the risks associated have certainly been thoroughly reviewed, and would have been reviewed again before the trials plan was approved. I don't believe there's any loss of 'appetite' - SRVLs are very important to the UK to give greater flexibility and more bring back to F-35B operations. However, I'm not 'in the loop' these days, so I'm prepared to be proved wrong in my assumptions.

Hope this reply helps everyone get a better understanding of the challenges and the solutions that the teams have to develop to get aircraft to sea and operate effectively. I know that this is a specialist area of knowledge, and I'm always happy to help where I can.

Best Regards as ever to all those Fleet Air Arm people who are, once again, showing the world new ways of operating aircraft at sea.

Engines

[LowObservable]

It might be reasonable at this point to remind everyone of Rafale, which aside from the F-111 (I believe) is the only high-performance aircraft to have been designed from the egg for CTOL and CV. They did a nice job (inventing CATIA in the process) and Rafale M has a much lower OEW than F-35B or F-35C, and can definitely beat the former in everything except LO, and (I suspect) can haul as much as far as the latter also.

This brings up an interesting viewpoint on carrier STOVL. When you operate a jet fighter from an 800-1000 foot deck, you need some assistance in acceleration and deceleration. On a conventional carrier, this is provided by catapults and arrester gear that (speaking hypothetically as an aviator) I leave behind on the boat. When I go STOVL, I take those functions off my >50,000 ton ship and put them on my airplane, where I carry them around all the time, even when I'm pulling 7 g. Note the OEW delta between the F-35A and F-35B, even though the latter has no internal gun and an aggressively lightened structure.

Long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away, one could say "but wait, STOVL lets me operate from mini-carriers". But when you define your carrier-air mission such that you want to do defensive CAP and air-to-ground missions concurrently, and your airplane is F-4-sized, this no longer applies.

[tdracer]

Long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away, one could say "but wait, STOVL lets me operate from mini-carriers". But when you define your carrier-air mission such that you want to do defensive CAP and air-to-ground missions concurrently, and your airplane is F-4-sized, this no longer applies.

I recently watched a 3 part series on the QE ("Rise of the Supercarrier) on the Smithsonian channel - I suspect it's the same thing you got in the UK earlier as it was created by the BBC. Interesting and informative - we've really not heard all that much about the two new British carriers on this side of the pond.
But it does beg the question - the primary advantage of STOVL is it allows for a much smaller carrier. But the Queen Elizabeth is huge - even by aircraft carrier standards. Yea, it's smaller than the American Nimitz and new Ford class, but it's much larger than the WWII vintage carriers. So why not provide it with cat/trap capabilities?

[NWSRG]

So why not provide it with cat/trap capabilities?

Good question! Initially, the plan was to operate the F35B, and hence no need for cats and traps. However, the carriers were to be designed for future conversaion to cats and traps, to future proof post F35B.

Then, F35C began to come into the picture. The defence review in 2010 proposed that we might sell one carrier (after the global financial crisis) and fit the other one with cats and traps for F35C.However, this was to utilise the EMALS from the Ford, which was proving troublesome and expensive. So before long, the idea began to falter.
The 2016 defence review reverted to F35B, and retention of both carriers, albeit with the second having enhanced amphibious (read Royal Marines) capability. So back to STOVL.

Theoretically, both could go CATOBAR in future if required, although it sounds like open-heart surgery!

[Easy Street]

The F-35B is not 'significantly compromised'.

Engines, you won’t find any disagreement from me on 99% of your excellent post. The B is a magnificent piece of engineering, in particular the flight control system that does so much to reduce the training burden associated with carrier ops. I take my hat off to those who turned the requirements into reality.

My 1% disagreement is quoted above and ultimately stems from the CONOPS* and the requirements, not the engineering. The B carries less payload, less far and less quickly than the other variants. Speaking as an aviator, that is a significant compromise.

Now, I recognise that the carrier strike concept is about more than just the aviation which occurs at the end of it, but here’s the thing. The UK is unique among B operators in not having any As or Cs and having no plans to acquire any, at least not publicly (and there are those who would have us believe that we’ll have 69 Bs to take us to QEC mid-life and then another 69 as fatigue and attrition replacements).

By settling exclusively for the B, our entire 5th generation fleet bears the compromises made to enable a basing option which is useful for much of the time, but not so useful in the scenario which for the UK ultimately justifies the huge expense of 5th generation capabilities: Article V operations on NATO’s eastern flank. Sure, the carrier group can be employed on blue water ops with the Bs on air defence duties, but is that really what we acquired them for? There lies the significance of the compromise, in my estimation at least.

[* Digression: my issue with the CONOPS is the question of tanker support, firstly when the carrier is forced to stand off in an environment where 5th generation capabilities are needed, and secondly when exploiting the carrier group’s primary advantage of being able to operate free from the constraints of land basing rights. Neither aspect has been adequately addressed at any stage of the UK programme, and both aspects are aggravated by the B’s shorter range.]

[wondering]

So why not provide it with cat/trap capabilities?

Was thinking the same. The French PA2 using the same hull would have been a conventional design. For that kind of money and size why limit yourself to STOVL? Let alone the performance trade off between the F35B and the F35C?

[Engines]

Dear All,

Thank you for your positive comments - it's nice to know that my posts help a little here and there. Also thank to those who responded with their posts - exchange of ideas is always a good thing. I'd like to respond to those, and hopefully help the thread along.

LO raises the very good examples of Rafale and the F-111 as aircraft designed from the outset to be both CTOL (land based) and CV (cat and trap carrier based). The F-111B CV variant proved to be unsuccessful, and when I worked at Fort Worth it was frequently quoted as an example of how not to put an aircraft to sea. It couldn't 'thread the needle' of being able to get a reasonable payload off the catapult (very high empty weight) or get back on board at a feasible speed (not enough wing). It shows what an excellent job the French made with Rafale, although I would like to know just how common the airframes are between the land based variants and the 'M'.

The reason I mention that is to pick up on LO's point about empty weights, and the effect on them of going STOVL. He is absolutely right that the empty weight of the F-35B is higher than that of the F-35A, and he is also right that the 'B' has to carry around the weight of the equipment to get it on and off the ship. However, I would gently point out that the F-35C also carries some weight to allow it to use the launch and recovery gear (the cats and traps) on the ship. Using the 'empty weight' figures from the 2016 OT&E report, the three variants come out as follows (figures slightly rounded to make the mental maths easier):

F-35A - 29,000 pounds
F-35B - 32,400 pounds
F-35C - 34,580 pounds

From these, the F-35B's 'STOVL weight penalty' is around 3,400 pounds, The F-35C, however, has a weigh penalty of 5,580 pounds. This is due to the factors I highlighted in an earlier reply, where the unique loads generated by cat and trap operations generate massive additional stresses that have to be managed by additional or much beefier bits of metal. The F-35C also has to have larger wings, fins and tailplanes to be able to do that slow precision approach and landing stuff as well as flying away from a catapult launch. Plus a landing gear system that weighs well over twice that of an A. These all add many pounds. The designers I worked with told me that the 'C' model was the least 'common' of the three variants. I freely admit that this isn't a straight comparison - those bigger wings on the 'C' do translate into increased internal fuel capacity and longer range. However, they also mean lower speeds and reduced turn performance - the 'C' model bleeds energy in the turn faster than the A or the B. Horses for courses, as ever. By the way, the 'C' also lacks an internal gun and has, I can assure you all, a very aggressively lightened structure, just like the other two variants.

To pick up on LO's last point - yes, STOVL does let you operate from smaller ships. I can't quite follow the rest of his argument (which is my fault, not his), but I would gently offer the observation that the USMC have a bit of a handle on what they are doing (just like the USAF, the USN, the RAF, the RN and other F-35 operators) and they are not putting 12 or 13 F-35Bs on an LHA and sending it out east for the look of the thing.

As an engineer, I would not want to get too far into CONOPs matters such as raised by Easy Street. I do think, though, that he raises a valid point about UK F-35 force structure, and the fact that we are planning for an 'all B' force with consequent effect on our F-35 ops from land bases. I've previously posted my opinion that a split A/B force could be a better option for the UK. There is quite a bit of commonality between the A and the B, especially where many of the normal support related costs drivers apply (e.g. training, avionics spares and sustainment, systems components), and a split A/B force, working off a common training and support system would, in my view, be worth looking at. Along with that, I would suggest that the 'Forward' A and B aircraft could then be returned to their proper Force Command HQs (Air and Sea), thus restoring the proper chains of responsibility for operational development and not least air safety responsibilities.

Finally, (and sorry for the long post) a gentle reminder (at least from my addled memory) of the CVF/F-35 historical relationship and SDR 2010. The F-35B STOVL variant was, up to that time, the UK's focus, coming out of the initial Naval Air Staff Target for a Sea Harrier replacement to operate from 'Invincible' class ships, and also because STOVL expertise was the UK's main bargaining chip to get full 'Tier 1' partner status on the JSF programme. (The formal UK/US document that got the UK on to JSF was actually titled the 'STOVL MoU'). However, from the outset, the UK wanted to keep all options open for the CVF future carrier, and mandated a ship large enough to be converted to cat and trap. This led to two very large carriers, almost as big as the USN's 'Forrestal', which was the first of the 'super carriers'. This decision was also influenced by the view (not at all wrong) that much smaller carriers (like the 20,000 ton Invincibles) suffered from serious constraints on internal space for fuel, weapons and hangarage. However, with over 40 years' since the last time anyone in the UK had tried to design a ship of this class and size, the MoD had a few gaps in their technical expertise, especially at higher levels.

That mattered, because when SDR 2010 came around (and I know quite a few people of all 3 services who tell me that the 2010 SDR was one of the most fouled up Defence Reviews of all time), the problems the F-35B was then having caused what I can only call a 'panic'. This led to high priced people in Mod Main deciding that the UK should go 'cat and trap' - after all, how hard could it be to convert the (already designed) CVF? They'd watched the spiffing Carrier Alliance videos showing how you could just peel off the deck and install the cats, after all. I know for a fact that this decision was taken without input from the Carrier team - the two star in charge was given under 48 hours (over a weekend) to come up with the costs to justify the decision.

In the event, when reality dawned, including the actual state of progress on EMALS at that time and the complexity of a conversion of CVF back to cat and trap (NWSRG is exactly right when he calls it 'open heart surgery'), the decision was reversed in 2012, I think. Was it the right decision to go back to STOVL? Time will tell, but I think (my view only) it was. When you start to add up the real costs of operating an effectively sized cat and trap fleet of aircraft including the need for tankers (not so much for strike range, but as essential safety measures to refuel aircraft waiting to recover while a fouled deck is cleared), the long range AEW, special personnel to man and operate and repair the cat and trap gear, the training load for the pilots, and so on, I honestly believe that the UK can't get into that game and do it properly. It's only the USN that can do it, at present. But hey, I'm just an old engineer.

Thanks to all those who have helped this become such an informative and enjoyable thread. And who have put up so kindly with my ramblings. I'll go quiet now for a bit.

Best regards as ever to our young men and women who are out right there now on land and at sea working hard and professionally to give the UK the defence capability it needs and deserves.

Engines

[weemonkey]

of the Russian navy hunting Big Liz down.

X10 submerged assets on their way from Kola..

[safetypee]

Engines, thanks for the education.

Re U.K. all F35B, land and sea use, presumably this should enable the aircraft to ‘ski’ off road bridges and ‘land’ in the hole in the woods if future land strategy requires. i.e. a more flexible aircraft against increased wt, aka Harrier.

Also we tend the think that more weapons = more weight, which could be changing with new lighter technologies, except someone requires more range, more weapons, more … , or even a mini stealth AEW.

[ORAC]

https://twitter.com/hmsqnlz/status/1190258295661047808?s=21

[ORAC]

Engines, you omitted the other main drawback of that fat wing on the F-35C, the much slower acceleration.

The acceleration of the F-35C from M0.8 to M1.2M is 27 seconds slower than the B and 35 seconds slower than the A; and acceleration up to M1.6 consumes almost all internal fuel.....

[Engines]

ORAC,

Breaking my 'go quiet' rule only to say thank you. Yes, you are quite right, the F-35C is really a lot slower to go supersonic and it does burn fuel - bigger wings and tails will do that. (Curse those pesky laws of physics). Incidentally, as part of the 2004/5 weight reduction effort, I believe that LM were looking at removing some internal fuel tank capacity from the C, as it was showing a predicted range way above the KPP figures. I don't know if that went ahead, though. If they did, that would be quite an unusual design decision - but it shows how important the weight reduction programme was for all 3 variants, not just the B.

One lesson I've learned on my journey through aircraft engineering is this - getting aircraft to be able to do 'cat and trap' operations is way, way harder than the USN makes it look. Getting aircraft to do it and be operationally effective is even harder than that. Being operationally effective at sea at night in bad weather is even harder than THAT.

Best Regards as ever to all those doing just that right now.

Engines

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Just a few quick points:

tdracer/Wondering

The UK intends to operate a joint RN/RAF force, this is not tied exclusively to the carriers. For conventional CV aircraft that would mean a high training burden to keep everyone carrier qualified. In 1982 1 Sqn RAF were able to embark Harrier GR3 aboard HMS Hermes because they are V/STOL aircraft, and because the ship was up to speed with operating jets.

Additional catapults and arresting gear mean more expensive equipment to be integrated and maintained, and more manpower. The SDSR 10 cuts slashed naval manpower without much thought, Cameron wimped out of increasing RN (and RAF) manpower in 2015.

Lastly, STOVL carrier operations are less sensitive to whether than old style CV ones. The QEC design is smaller than the US carrier and would have not had the same operating limits with F-35C, however with F-35B they probably can.

Easy Street

One possible NATO scenario puts a UK carrier based ASW task group (with NATO frigates and SSKs) in the Eastern Atlantic and/or GIUK gap to conduct task group ASW (Merlins with dipping sonar, frigates (and destroyers) with towed array (and hull mounted) sonar and submarines as part of the task group. Meanwhile the F-35B can counter Bears, Backfires, and so on.

See: Fire and Ice - A New Maritime Strategy for NATO's Northern Flank (http://www.hscentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Fire-and-Ice-A-New-Maritime-Strategy-for-NATOs-Northern-Flank.pdf)

The UK has committed a carrier capability to NATO, and this seems similar to the Cold War and the roles of CVS/Sea Harrier/Sea King.

[ex-fast-jets]

Hi Engines - you seem to know what is going on in this programme - (program for our cousins!)

I emerge from hibernation because you have offered information that was unknown to me before.

I had previously believed that we (the UK) should have bought the C and put launch and arrester gear on the QE/PoW. That way we could have operated from land or afloat without major penalty.

The B/STOVL version was, in my opinion, a Harrier/Invincible legacy that was inappropriate for current requirements.

The Harrier austere landing site concept was brilliant and worked well in its time, but it required essential and substantial support from the Royal Engineers, Signals folk and many others. That infrastructure worked really well in Germany in the 70's/80's but it has now all gone. I know the USMC position and fully understand and support their need for the B and its austere potential, but I am not sure that we either need or could afford that option.

So if the value of STOVL is now just to allow aircraft to operate from QE/PoW, then perhaps the C might have been better.

But the variations suggested about the C might make me think that my views that we should have bought the C rather than the B are wrong. Interoperability with the USN and French notwithstanding.

It all doesn't really matter now as things are well down the track, but it would make me feel better to know that my prejudices are wrong and that our esteemed politicians and their advisers were right all the time!

I would much appreciate your views.

[Easy Street]

One possible NATO scenario puts a UK carrier based ASW task group (with NATO frigates and SSKs) in the Eastern Atlantic and/or GIUK gap to conduct task group ASW (Merlins with dipping sonar, frigates (and destroyers) with towed array (and hull mounted) sonar and submarines as part of the task group. Meanwhile the F-35B can counter Bears, Backfires, and so on.

The UK has committed a carrier capability to NATO, and this seems similar to the Cold War and the roles of CVS/Sea Harrier/Sea King.

Yes, I know that this is now the favoured narrative among carrier supporters, hence my comment about 'blue water ops'. And it's absolutely not what the Government had in mind when it agreed to invest billions in the carrier strike concept. Sure, the strategic picture has changed since the late 2000s and CONOPS have to evolve. But the idea of committing the UK's 5th gen effort to countering Bears and Backfires instead of exploiting its capability to operate in defended airspace is an odd one.

You need speed, good range and endurance, large numbers of air-to-air weapons, early warning and ideally tanker support to make a good fist of the air defence role. None of those are strong suits of the QEC air wing. In the NATO context, it has to be said that the USN air wings are much better-suited to it.

I'm ready for the 'party line' response to that, too: that the UK carrier group's availability lets the US do something else with one of theirs. But one of the aims of NATO is famously to 'keep the Americans in' and offering them an off-ramp seems an odd way of going about that. Besides, you only have to follow the news to wonder whether the 'something else' would always be aligned to British interests.

It's not a compelling narrative, IMHO. If there is a SDSR next year (which looks all the more likely now that we'll have a new government as the 5-year point since SDSR15 approaches) then there will be some interesting debate about how to beef up QEC group capabilities so that it can do more under Article V than simply relieve the US of an Atlantic commitment. Where would the cuts fall to make that happen? Or might it be decided that QEC will stay ocean-bound in any Article V plans, leading to announcement of the first UK A-model acquisitions? An interesting year beckons, for sure.

[ORAC]

The Role of the Invincible class in the Cold War was as part of the outer screen for a CBG with the Shar able to launch and “hack the shad” as Bear-Ds Tracking the fleet slipped in and out of long range radar cover outside CAP range. Not a role the F-35B will be suitable or able to perform from the centre of its own CBG, and far less capable at the CAP role than the F-14/F-18s if the era.

The threat itself also having been retired and replaced by satellite surveillance. Regardless I cannot see the RN being willing to use the QE as a sacrificial goat to protect a USN carrier.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

The primary role of the Invincible class was to operate nine or so ASW Sea Kings for task group ASW in the Atlantic and GIUK gap. The Sea Harrier came later (and the anti Bear role existed because the Bear provided long range targeting for Soviet submarine launched missiles) - and the AEW Sea King after that. I have no idea what the party line is today - but I assume were are still in the business of maritime task groups, and crisis response shipping -and they are major exercises planned such as DEFENDER 2020. (https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/10/07/reforger-redux-defender-2020-exercise-to-be-3rd-largest-exercise-in-europe-since-cold-war/)

The carrier will not always have to have as many jets aboard as possible. This was one of the reasons for acquiring the B, as the C version would mean constant deck landing training. For some reason people overlook this, like they ignore the manpower needed for cats and traps..

This looks like a tooled up jet to me:

https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1190540394041430017

[LowObservable]

The F135 STOVL propulsion system weighs almost 4,000 lb more than the CTOL version. I would guess that this number includes only the bits for which P&W as prime is responsible, which would not include doors and actuators.

The difference in OEW is less, as Engines correctly points out, but that is due to the omission of the gun and its feed system and an aggressively lightened airframe.

As for the F-35C: It was the last version to close and the wing area and OEW continued to grow through 2006. 35 per cent bigger wing than a Super Hornet, because it lacks an effective high-lift system. I don't think it's a great example of a CV penalty at work.

On the Rafale commonality: I don't have any parts-count numbers, but I do know that Dassault employed and improved CATIA with the aim of getting the best balance between eliminating "scar weight" on the CTOL and maintaining commonality. Some of this involved the idea of "cousin parts" - differing in weight and strength but fitting together in the same way - and the idea of concentrating the difference in the smallest possible number of parts. This was a JSF goal but I think a lot of it went out of the window in the Great Weight Panic.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/496x648/f135_brochure_2_c1045064cebbe826395a65e00a3e5387ca6a61b7.jpg

[Engines]

LO,

Sorry, I think I could helpfully respond here:

The empty weights I quoted were actual 'as weighed' from the 2016 OT&E report. Once again, for clarity, all three variants (that's A, B and C) have 'aggressively lightened airframes'.

Yes, the B and C don't have an internal gun, but the point I was trying to get over (and clearly not doing very well ) is that the B and C both have substantial 'penalty weights' for ship operation. (I suppose I could make the argument that the A model carries a penalty weight for having to have a gun - I believe that it was the only variant for which an internal gun was specified in the System Requirement Document). The B and C also lack the heavy boom refuelling receptacle that the USAF demanded for the A. Apples and oranges and all that....

LO is correct that the C was the last variant to be designed, but I'm not sure that this is relevant to the weight issues. For clarity, the original 'batting order' for the programme was A, then B, then C. Once the weight problem was realised around 2004, the weight reduction effort was focussed first on the B, as that was the variant most severely affected. From then on, the batting order ran B, A, then C. Almost all of the weight saving measures developed for the B were moved over to both the A and the C. What is true is that the C was able to exploit most of the B's weight saving changes earlier in its design cycle than the A, so there was less rework than on the A. One big measure it couldn't adopt, though, were the reduced size tail fins - the C had to keep its big fins for the low speed approach.

Yes, the F-35C does lack the F/A-18's slotted flaps, but that was driven by LO issues and known at the outset when the wing was sized. I have to gently disagree and say that, for my money at least, the F-35C's design is a perfectly valid example of a 'CV penalty'. I had some involvement in some of the CV specific design work and I can confirm that deck ops exacted a significant penalty in weight. The main thing I took away was that the DOD's selection of carrier approach speed (Vpa) as a Key Performance Parameter (KPP) was absolutely on the nail - it was the parameter that drove much of the C's design.

LM used CATIA, not always as well as other companies I worked with, but they got better as time went on. Yes, they wanted to limit the number of differences between variants, but during the weight reduction effort they had to make more compromises than they originally wanted. In some cases, it was found that 'commonality' was imposing severe weight penalties, and variant specific changes were essential. As to 'cousin parts', LM used the idea frequently, and had been for some time - McDonnell Douglas were certainly using them in the 1970s and 80s. As I've posted a number of times, LM made a poor job of the airframe design and, unforgivably for any combat aircraft but especially for a power lift aircraft, failed to keep control of airframe weight. In my view (and just opinion) it cost the programme at least two years and a ton of money.

I hope these posts help people understand that getting the F-35 programme across the line has been a massively difficult undertaking. Yes, one can pillory LM for not doing better. One can also recognise that they (and NG and BAES) have made some towering technical achievements along the way to get the programme to where it is now. And those achievements rest on sheer hard work and brilliance from thousands of dedicated people.

Best regards as ever to my friends at LM and BAES,

Engines

PS: and now I really will go quiet for a bit.

[Thrust Augmentation]

PS: and now I really will go quiet for a bit.

No, please don't do that!

Some of the technical aspects & more so the reasoning behind them make for vey interesting reading.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

The second part of Chris Terrill's documentary about HMS Queen Elizabeth and last years WESTLANT 18 deployment is in BBC2 at 2000 GMT tonight. Last week focused a lot on the first F-35B landing and take off, but also mentioned the ASW role of the Merlin HM2.

I believe it is on BBC iPlayer too.

When the replacement for the Invincible class CVS (ASW carrier) was first studied in the nineties, it was apparent that larger carriers were needed. The 20 000 size of the Invincibles was a legacy of their origin as platforms for ASW in the NATO theatre, operating sufficient helicopters for constant dipping (sonar in water). It just so happened they making them just a little larger allowed a Harrier sized aircraft to be operated. This was useful as the Soviet submarines often carried missiles with guidance provided by Bears, so Harrier became Sea Harrier to 'hack the shad'. The addition of an AEW capability post Falklands meant that the jets could be used more effectively than standing constant CAP.

In the nineties, the small size of the CVS limited our ability to carry a meaningful number of jets, both Sea Harrier (primarily air defence) and Harrier GR7/9, plus the ASW and AEW helicopters. Post Cold War, the assumption was made that Cold War type missions such as ASW, fleet defence, protecting sea lines of communication and so on were things of the past, as we opted to fight campaigns in landlocked (or nearly landlocked), so the politicians, and public bought into the carriers = attack only type thinking.

F-35B was the only V/STOL successor to Sea Harrier/Harrier, and was intended to be capable of the full range of missions including Defensive Counter Air and Offensive Counter Air. Even without security and Geopolitical issues with Russia, it should have been clear that after Iraq and Afghanistan, the next conflict would most likely involve an adversary with naval and air capabilities such as submarines or MiGs.

Part of the problem (for the RN) is that no record was kept of why STOVL was the preferred option (cost of equipment, the training burden, manpower, and operating limits for smaller carriers in higher sea states) to inform the politicians, nor were the whole ship aspects of fixed wing flying properly articulated.

[BEagle]

The second part of Chris Terrill's documentary about HMS Queen Elizabeth and last years WESTLANT 18 deployment is on BBC2 at 2000 GMT tonight.

And very good it was too!

[LowObservable]

Peace, Engines...

We seem to be mostly in factual agreement. The interesting thing is that discussing "penalties" or "scar weight" in the A/B/C context depends on which version is considered as the baseline - but thinking about it some more, this may be misleading, since none of the versions is the baseline.

The key to understanding the aerodynamic, structural and propulsion elements of the F-35 design is that no aircraft in history, that I can think of, has had such diverse and competing requirements imposed on it, along with a battery of non-negotiable constraints.

t was much more than what the late George Muellner described as "three versions differing only in how they took off and landed". CV requirements meant (eventually) quad tails and either a large wing, or the ability to accommodate two wing sizes. STOVL mandated a single large engine, located close to the CG, along with minimal OEW. Compatibility with different ships imposed limits on span and length. LO demanded large internal volume, translating into a rather broad body and an unusual relationship of net to gross wing area, and was unforgiving regarding changes to the mold line - all versions had to have the same wing sweep.

It would all have been hard enough, even without the USAF's willingness to die on the barricades to protect sustained 9g. For what it's worth, I don't think any of the designs submitted in 1996 would have done any better than the F-35. The engineers did their best, but there was no elegant solution to the problem enshrined in the JORD.

[Tech Guy]

Thanks for your reply Engines. :D

[Union Jack]

And very good it was too!

Much enjoyed, although rather sad to see the tribute at the end in memory of Nimali Amaratunga-Brearley, the young civilian engineer seen earlier in the programme testing the flight deck coating.

Jack

[MPN11]

Much enjoyed, although rather sad to see the tribute at the end in memory of Nimali Amaratunga-Brearley, the young civilian engineer seen earlier in the programme testing the flight deck coating.

Jack
indeed a good episode, but a rather unpleasant shock during the credits that the lady had died. A quick search on google implies it may have been cancer - what a very sad event.

[Video Mixdown]

Also the drag of the door is less than it would appear because suction causes the airflow to curve down into the fan rather than impinge directly on the door.

Graphically illustrated in last-night's programme by the unfortunate small bird that was sucked down into the lift fan.

[MPN11]

Graphically illustrated in last-night's programme by the unfortunate small bird that was sucked down into the lift fan.
1. Close to shore increases small bird risks.
2. Deploy resident on-board Falcon and Handler?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

https://twitter.com/HMSQNLZ/status/1193133173548433418

The third episode of the documentary is on tonight at 2000 on BBC 2, including the first SRVL landing.

Carriers are not all about jets. The CVS (Invincible class) was originally designed to operate nine or so ASW Sea Kings to protect task groups and convoys, to which the Sea Harrier was later added to deal with Bears providing long range guidance for submarine launched missiles. Later, post 2000 ir so, squadrons of six Marlins would embark.

Given the greater range and endurance, can they achieve the same level of coverage with six aircraft? Against a limited threat, perhaps three cabs an a towed array frigate (with extra Merlin) is enough? Or at least enough to protect the carrier (only)?

https://twitter.com/RNASCuldrose/status/1192449380437155841

Even with a limited threat, perhaps a couple of SSKs, you would still want to use things such as helicopters with dipping sonar AND frigates with towed array. It is a carrier role - and wonder if any carriers will take part in next year's Exercise Defender 2020?

Back to the jets, this Corbett Paper (https://www.kcl.ac.uk/dsd/assets/corbettpaper13.pdf) makes the point that have carriers up to speed with having jets embarked, they need to be embarked regularly.

[NWSRG]

Folks,

Loving this thread, as a mere enthusiast. Brought a question to mind, given the joint RN/RAF deployment of F35s planned.

Back in the Falklands, the RAF deployed Harriers onto the RN carriers...presumably this was something that was trained for in advance? Or was it concieved specifically to tackle the Argentines in 1982?

[ORAC]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boost-for-shipyard-as-deal-for-five-frigates-is-signed-5l97th9jbBoost for shipyard as deal for five frigates is signedThe government has signed a £1.25 billion deal with a defence giant to build five Type 31e frigates (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/21bn-hole-in-defence-spending-plan-after-fleet-of-frigates-was-overlooked-3nnj22xqr) at a Scottish shipyard.

A consortium led by Babcock (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/babcock-sets-shareholders-minds-at-rest-6qbz2cppc) beat two rival bids to build the cut-price warships, which are 140m long. The Ministry of Defence had set a ceiling of £250 million per ship, which critics initially decried as unrealistic. The new fleet of general purpose “budget” frigates are set to be delivered by 2028, with the first entering the water by 2023.

Questions were raised over the timing of the announcement during the election campaign. Announcements of a political nature are banned under purdah rules.

Boris Johnson has pledged to “bring shipbuilding home” and the deal will help to make the domestic industry viable. The “e” in the Type 31e’s name stands for “export” because the plan is for the ships to be sold overseas.

The firm said that the ships would be assembled at its Rosyth facility and involve supply chains throughout the country, in line with the UK’s shipbuilding strategy.

It is understood that the decision to sign the contract fell to the ministry’s permanent secretary, Sir Stephen Lovegrove, who in his capacity as the accounting officer made the decision to proceed on cost grounds.

Archie Bethel, chief executive of Babcock, said that the Arrowhead 140 design on which the Type 31es would be based was a “modern warship that will meet the maritime threats of today and tomorrow with British ingenuity and engineering at its core”.

[Asturias56]

Well thank God for that. Let's hope they order more than 5 eventually - the RN needs these more than it needs the carriers TBH.

The great risk is that of creeping add-ons but if they can build them fast enough there won't be enough time for people to dream up some nice expensive modifications.

[Asturias56]

Big splash in this weeks "Economist" with an oped and a 3 -4 page Briefing on Carriers in general and the USN v China in particular. You'll have to pay to buy the magazine and its pay-walled the website

Fairly balanced - points out the horrendous cost and the increase in defensive systems are pushing them further and further offshore and increasing the need for IFR in the USN/China case.

In general they see that (for everyone except the USN)

"The result of all this is that carriers will only be fully effective against military minnows. “Most of the time, nations aren’t in a high-end fight with a peer competitor,” says Mr Kaushal, “but are competing for influence in third states, perhaps a civil war like Syria.” China appreciates that its own carriers would not survive for long in a scrap with America—but they might come in handy for cowing an Asian neighbour into submission or bombarding irksome rebels on some African coast."

[Torquelink]

Well thank God for that. Let's hope they order more than 5 eventually - the RN needs these more than it needs the carriers TBH. It needs more BECAUSE of the carriers . . .

[Asturias56]

That is true - and another issue much debated here over the last few years.

If you are not careful you have the whole of the RN sailing around in one bunch with a carrier in the middle. With only 2 carriers there is a risk they are so "iconic" (and expensive) the politicians won't risk them in harm's way at all - and, like the Argentinian Navy, you finish up with them parked at home for safety.

[FODPlod]

BRITAIN’S LARGEST WARSHIP VISITS ANNAPOLIS (https://chesapeakebaymagazine.com/britains-largest-warship-visits-annapolis/)

There’s something unusual anchored in Annapolis this week: a British Royal Navy aircraft carrier, the largest and most powerful warship the UK has ever had. And it created quite a buzz traveling up the Bay...

This is the first time a Royal Navy ship has officially visited Annapolis in more than 60 years, since the HMS Bigbury was at the port. There have been no other Royal Navy visits in the past century. While in town, the carrier will host international leaders to plan cooperative defense strategies...

While Queen Elizabeth is anchored off Annapolis, it will host a Defence and Security Trade exhibition Wednesday, and on Thursday, the Atlantic Future Forum (AFF). The AFF brings together US and UK military, government, and private industry leaders to discuss Artificial Intelligence, technology, and robotics, known as the “fourth industrial revolution"...

[Asturias56]

Pity Prince Andrew in't available..............

[RAFEngO74to09]

Due to the UK's slow purchase rate of F-35Bs, in the interim this former RM chap will be undertaking CAS missions using a hand held minigun !

https://twitter.com/HMSQNLZ/status/1197227438775918594

[Archimedes]

Folks,

Loving this thread, as a mere enthusiast. Brought a question to mind, given the joint RN/RAF deployment of F35s planned.

Back in the Falklands, the RAF deployed Harriers onto the RN carriers...presumably this was something that was trained for in advance? Or was it concieved specifically to tackle the Argentines in 1982?

There had been a few trials run using RAF Harriers on the old Ark Royal, but there was no plan for RAF Harriers to go to war embarked on carriers - it was an answer to a 'what happens if we start losing Sea Harriers?' question during the early planning stages of Corporate. The answer was to fit the GR3 with AIM-9 and use the GR3 as an attrition reserve. Although the USMC AV-8A/C carrier AIM-9, these had to be integrated onto the RAF Harriers at short notice, a further hint that there was no 'cunning plan' for the Harriers to operate alongside the SHARs.

Training for the GR3s, was carried out in the UK while the Task Force headed south, and the GR3s then flew out to Ascension and thence onto Atlantic Conveyor. After a 12-day trip on that ship, they flew off to Hermes, with six being aboard by 20 May 1982. The planning scenario in which the GR3s would be used alongside the SHAR for air defence after losses to the SHAR force reached a certain level didn't transpire, so the GR3s were used in their normal role.

[Imagegear]

It crosses my mind that the possibility of a couple or more of these units and a few well trained marines embarked could provide some very useful capability. (RAS/L, RAS/S etc.)
I am aware that this may be associated with the WESTLANT show and tell, but have any trials occurred?

IG

[FODPlod]

QNLZ has started earning her keep with a bit of soft power:

U.S., U.K., Japan Navies Reaffirm Commitment to Increased Cooperation (https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=111482)

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (NNS) -- Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Mike Gilday joined First Sea Lord, United Kingdom Royal Navy Adm. Tony Radakin and Chief of Staff of the Japan Maritime Self-Defence Force Adm. Hiroshi Yamamura for a trilateral maritime discussion onboard HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08) anchored outside Annapolis, Nov. 20. During the meeting, the three leaders signed a trilateral cooperation agreement reaffirming their commitment to increased collaboration and cooperation...


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/600x400/top_brass_on_board_hms_queen_elizabeth_off_annapolis_20_nov_ 2019_3cf336802d94c9f17e5a79c84385438b9cea9887.jpg
Chief of Maritime Staff Adm. Hiroshi Yamamura, left, First Sea Lord Adm. Tony Radakin, and
Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Mike Gilday sign a Trilateral Head of Navy Joint Statement
aboard the Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08).
(U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Raymond D. Diaz III/Released)

[hulahoop7]

Still not seen any evidence of SVRL on this deployment.

[Kiltrash]

Heads up on Smithsonian Channel (UK) Thursday 28th @22.00 US FORD Ultimate Warshio says it's New

[Video Mixdown]

Still not seen any evidence of SVRL on this deployment.

So what? I imagine the aim was to safely carrier-qualify a group of squadron aircrew and groundcrew who were entirely new to shipboard operations. You walk before you run.
youtu.be/wXmnnFcGVSE

[Hot 'n' High]

Agreed Video Mixdown! And really liked the vid clip. Worked the deck on the CVS's and never forget the night watching a poor SHAR-jock try to sign out his jet for his first night sortie which, in them days, was "routine". His hands were shaking so much his sig on the 700 was completely illegible (compared to his normal one - it more resembled the one on his Bar Chits after several pints of CSB - not that he'd been to the bar before hand I hasten to add!!!!). The flight went well IIR, and us pinger-pukes didn't half take the mickey out the Stovies as routine (I think they call it a "target-rich environment" :}) but, having scared myself a few times in a subsequent ultra-benign civvie career flying..... ....... You walk before you run.

[Imagegear]

I recently watched the last episode of the QE and there were trials involving a Civvy, ex-RAF/RN test pilot doing SRVL. A first wave off, followed by a very precise SRVL and stopping within the distance. Views from the cockpit as well as from Flyco. Later they indicated that trials were to continue using a weapons load.

Very, very impressive and a world first for the RN/QE .

SVRL (https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defence/hms-queen-elizabeth-video-shows-british-f-35-pilot-carrying-out-revolutionary-first-rolling-landing-on-3bn-carrier-1-8668370)


IG

[Hot 'n' High]

...... and there were trials involving a Civvy, ex-RAF/RN test pilot doing SVRL. A first wave off, followed by a very precise SRVL and stopping within the distance......IG

Prolly "Whizzer" Wilson! I think he's been the lead BAE TP for the UK Embarked Ops F35 programme for some time. I'd hope he was good as he has lived and breathed F35 RN Ops for a while now as you can see from links such as https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2015-06-24/first-ski-jump-takeoff-flight-test-f-35b

It's working up the Ship/Sqdn "Shag" capability that may take more time ... but probably not much more time. Depends when the capability itself is cleared for use operationally and then the massed Stovies can let rip to individually qual in the SRVL (I think "V"s and "R"s have been mixed up in some posts - it's "Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing" (I had to check that myself!)). Anyway, I believe that will be the route.

As for the first use, and someone will correct me, I'm sure I recall a sort of SRVL which the SHARs could use if push came to a shove in an emergency. My memory is a bit (OK, very!) hazy but I seem to recall Step 1 of the procedure was to clear the flight deck of everything else given how small the CVSs were. You could leave something spotted directly ahead of the island but all the rest had to be clear, either downstairs or in the air. Now, those familiar with the CVS will testify that could be quite an undertaking given the lack of space down below. And it was a "last resort" "cunning plan" IIR. How quickly the memory fades - so I could be talking rubbish ... again. But happy to call the F35 "SRVL" a first as far as a "routine" process which I understand it will be.

Finally, as an aside, I still cringe when I hear the "Top Gun" use of things like "Whizzer" tho! It's so ... erm ... 1986! If you have to, but "Whizzer"??? There must be a more "appropriate/gung ho" play on the name "Wilson"! You get young boys (and girls too - just to remain PC) shooting "Whizzers" found in cheap Christmas Crackers across the dining room on Christmas Day. Hardly a "daring-do" TP image! Probably a really great guy and undoubtedly a spot-on TP - but "Whizzer"? Still beats what I suspect most people would call me.......!

And on that note ...... hat, coat .... :ooh: H 'n' H

[Imagegear]

...and short clip showing the actual:

Just watch out for the musical din...

SRVL and the usuall suspects

From 3:30 onwards

Interesting that the bring back with vertical is 5000 lbs, while with rolling it is 7000 lbs + additional fuel.
It does not seem to me to be such a significant difference?

IG

[Not_a_boffin]

Translate one ton of expensive complex weapons into financial value and you might have a different PoV.

[Bengo]

...and short clip showing the actual:

Just watch out for the musical din...

SRVL and the usuall suspects (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6wGN8PK9u4)

From 3:30 onwards

Interesting that the bring back with vertical is 5000 lbs, while with rolling it is 7000 lbs + additional fuel.
It does not seem to me to be such a significant difference?

IG
It is not only the cash benefit, but the non- loss of an item of which the ship has a limited supply. If we were still reliant on iron bombs and had several magazines full of them then maybe throwing them away is tolerable. The same is not true of, say, AIM 120 or something even newer.

N

[Video Mixdown]

It's working up the Ship/Sqdn "Shag" capability that may take more time ... but probably not much more time. Depends when the capability itself is cleared for use operationally
The aircraft used for the tests were instrumented. Perhaps it’s not unreasonable to speculate that the data gathered will be used to develop an SRVL version of Raytheon’s JPALS.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-us-navy-precision-landing-system-to-enter-457458/

[Mogwi]

I recently watched the last episode of the QE and there were trials involving a Civvy, ex-RAF/RN test pilot doing SRVL. A first wave off, followed by a very precise SRVL and stopping within the distance. Views from the cockpit as well as from Flyco. Later they indicated that trials were to continue using a weapons load.

Very, very impressive and a world first for the RN/QE .

SVRL (https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defence/hms-queen-elizabeth-video-shows-british-f-35-pilot-carrying-out-revolutionary-first-rolling-landing-on-3bn-carrier-1-8668370)


IG

For the sake of historical accuracy, the first ever SRVL was carried out onboard HMS Hermes on 1st May 1982 after a Sea Harrier had suffered enemy 20mm HE damage to the fin and tailplane area and the pilot did not know if the reaction controls were still functioning. It proved to be a non-event - and I have the damaged part of the fin on my study wall!

"I counted them all out - and I counted them all back again!"

BZ for the F35 team though.

mog

[Asturias56]

When is the first full naval squadron of F-35's going to be ready?

[FODPlod]

When is the first full naval squadron of F-35's going to be ready?
The result of 5 seconds Google-Fu:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/809_Naval_Air_Squadron
In September 2013 it was announced that the first Royal Navy squadron equipped with the F-35 Lightning II would be named 809 Naval Air Squadron with the nickname "Immortals". It will re-commission in April 2023 as the UK's second operational F-35B squadron after 617 Squadron RAF...

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation/the-fighting-arms/fleet-air-arm/future-aircraft/809-naval-air-squadron

[Not_a_boffin]

When is the first full naval squadron of F-35's going to be ready?

If you're talking about the UK, no such thing. The plan AIUI is for all squadrons to be joint-manned irrespective of numberplate.

If you're talking about "Navy" squadrons VFA101 has been and gone.

[Timelord]

if the RAF and RN can magic up some pilots between them!!

[Hot 'n' High]

For the sake of historical accuracy, the first ever SRVL was carried out onboard HMS Hermes on 1st May 1982 ........

Cheers Mogwi! I was not dreaming it then! :ok: Phew! I was starting to think I'd lost the plot (even more than usual!) and was making that up in my post at #5725! I was fairly sure it was talked about as an option which could be used if required but I don't recall it being needed, at least not during any of my times on the CVSs.

[FODPlod]

if the RAF and RN can magic up some pilots between them!!


Sad but true, apparently, particularly in the wake of the black hole induced by the carrier gap (remember the late Kristian Ward's altercation with David Cameron in Oct 2010 about being 'sacked'?).

UK Military Flying Training – heading for the cliff-edge? (https://www.aerosociety.com/news/uk-military-flying-training-heading-for-the-cliff-edge/)


There are approximately 350 trainee pilots from the Royal Navy, Army and RAF in the military flying training pipeline and they are currently waiting for an average of 58 weeks between Elementary Flying Training and fast jet training...

The FOI response stated that a future pilot graduating from RAF Cranwell after Initial Officer Training can expect his combined holding and training to get to a frontline Operational Conversion Unit to take up to 90 months. That is seven and a half years. Now some of that is taken up with the training itself but several years of that will also be holding. That officer then has to qualify as combat ready before they enter the formal system of operational tours and annual appraisals as aircrew...

[Asturias56]

Thanks guys - over three years then - assuming as you say they can train enough pilots

[Asturias56]

The latest " World Naval Review" repeats that the RAF are aiming to stop F-35B numbers at 48 and order F-35A for the bulk of the remaining "requirement"

[cokecan]

The latest " World Naval Review" repeats that the RAF are aiming to stop F-35B numbers at 48 and order F-35A for the bulk of the remaining "requirement"

i think the most remarkable thing about that old chesnut is the clear deliniation between the RAF/MOD, where you never hear it from anyone above Leading Cadet in the ATC, and the internet warrior world where you hear it all the time.

in land based operations the A has a number on undeniable advantages over the B - but in the defence bigger picture, the advantages than an all B fleet has: training and logistics, as well as the ability to surge an almost endless number of B's and B air and ground crew to/through the carriers - massively outweigh the advantages (range and internal carriage of a 2000lb class weapon) that the A has over the B.

everyone in the RAF understands that, and has understood that for years.

[Asturias56]

WNR is a pretty respected annual publication - I'm sure they talk to people above Leading Cadet in the ATC, and the internet warrior world.............

[Video Mixdown]

For the sake of historical accuracy, the first ever SRVL was carried out onboard HMS Hermes.......

Is there a specific reason why SRVL was only used on Sea Harrier in an emergency, rather than as a routine procedure as is planned for F-35B? Was it just unnecessary, or was it thought about but aircraft/ship were unsuitable?

[Hot 'n' High]

Is there a specific reason why SRVL was only used on Sea Harrier in an emergency, rather than as a routine procedure as is planned for F-35B? Was it just unnecessary, or was it thought about but aircraft/ship were unsuitable?

While not involved in formal discussions on the topic (being a simple humble Spanners) I think it was down to deck logistics. The aft end was always full of SHARs ranged round the aft deck, tails over the oggin. To do a SRVL would, from my memories, have involved clearing the deck. The new carriers are much wider, presumably designed with SRVL or even CTOL in mind. Don't forget, IIR, the CVS was originally to support RW only. The fact the SHAR appeared was one of those decisions back in the early '70's when the full impact of the demise of the old Ark Royal with the F4 was realised. Before my time that discussion! Others may/will know more! Once at sea with the SHAR, the practical limitations vis-a-vie returning to Mum with any payload were fully realised and the F35 SRVL requirement was probably derived from that experience. Lesson learned? For once, looks that way! Cheers, H 'n' H

[Davef68]

The new carriers are much wider, presumably designed with SRVL or even CTOL in mind.

Definitely, the deskspace was designed to allow for an angled deck if they had pursued the CATOBAR option

[Asturias56]

Continuing to delve into the latest World Naval Review in their review of the future of the USN CVN 's they point out that it costs as much to refuel a Ford as it would have cost to buy a QE - thus the proposal in Feb 2019 (rescinded) not to extend the life of the Harry S Truman and use the money elsewhere.

A QE could operate a small airwing and if equipped with drones could have a similar reach to a Ford - which has all the bells and whistles but operates aircraft of limited range

[Mogwi]

Is there a specific reason why SRVL was only used on Sea Harrier in an emergency, rather than as a routine procedure as is planned for F-35B? Was it just unnecessary, or was it thought about but aircraft/ship were unsuitable?

Yes, the manoeuvre was deemed to carry unwarranted risk because of the restricted deck width and poor braking ability of the SHAR on a wet (slippery) deck. It was therefore not cleared for use aboard CVS. However - needs must and yes, the deck was cleared of all aircraft except in the "graveyard" forward of the island for my landing. Actually managed to stop the jet just short of the ramp!

Mog

[Video Mixdown]

Yes, the manoeuvre was deemed to carry unwarranted risk because of the restricted deck width and poor braking ability of the SHAR on a wet (slippery) deck. It was therefore not cleared for use aboard CVS. However - needs must and yes, the deck was cleared of all aircraft except in the "graveyard" forward of the island for my landing. Actually managed to stop the jet just short of the ramp!

Mog
Thanks, and much respect. Certainly the deck of Invincible Class looks tiny compared to QE Class. I guess F-35B has better brakes too!

[Thrust Augmentation]

Due to the rising price of the F-35, MOD have been studying an alternative aircraft that's substantially more affordable & easily guarantees that a full compliment of aircraft can be carried aboard it's QE class carriers at all times. "Surge" capacity of the aircraft is expected to be around 678 airframes (captain has to stay onboard..) which is considerably better than the F-35's apparent 70. Other benefits over the F-35 are considerably better range, improved engine redundancy, lower surface / paint maintenance costs (plane & deck!), cheaper helmet, zero IP costs or consideration, ability to launch / recover directly from both hanger & head & even an integrated flag post!

It's rumoured that the alternative aircraft is being looked at favourably as it uses a similar adjustable four nozzle propulsion system to RN's proven but now retired SHAR aircraft.

Insiders have suggested that plans are already underway to replace 10 F-35's per carrier with the alternative aircraft & utilise the small change to procure an additional two Daring Class destroyers for additional carrier group protection.

The video is pretty good but I can't get it working..., so;

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/620x378/1574468478916_ad3951a7a2219db8eab7a3465572e18c0d795592.jpg

https://youtu.be/xL02e4L-RQo

[ORAC]

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1124/image_66fa5aa8b23c75f25d3ef28165231f9f0fd6e8db.jpeg

[Asturias56]

I suspect that will be quite a common sight in Portsmouth.

[Background Noise]

I suspect that will be quite a common sight in Portsmouth.

Very good!

ORAC, did you see the caption for that picture in The Times - 'HMS Queen Elizabeth, right, arrives at Portsmouth naval base before docking next to its identical sister ship, HMS Prince of Wales, for the first time. Each carrier can support 70 fighter aircraft'

[ORAC]

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x2000/image_17eb7ef16a11bba9a18506d28202bce97eef9250.jpeg

[Asturias56]

You can see the F-35 special deck coating areas clearly in that shot

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I suspect that will be quite a common sight in Portsmouth.
As their home port, yes from time to time. However both carriers are going to be busy in various roles. Not only did the WESTLANT 19 deployment involve normal RN/RAF Pilots operating F-35B from from the deck (and embarked USMC ones) from the deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth but a range of missions were rehearsed. Three embarked Merlin HM2s did ASW in conjunction with the towed array sonar equipped HMS Northumberland (which also had a Merlin) and proved the ability to do continuous ASW. The embarked Jungly HC4s and the embarked Royal Marines exercised their skills.

Both carriers are now in commission and flying the White Ensign.

Commissioning Day for HMS Prince of Wales (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2019/december/10/191210-hms-prince-of-wales-commissioning)

[BVRAAM]

I love those jet exhaust carbon deposits on the deck of Queen Liz.

It brings the ship alive.

[andrewn]

Very good!

ORAC, did you see the caption for that picture in The Times - 'HMS Queen Elizabeth, right, arrives at Portsmouth naval base before docking next to its identical sister ship, HMS Prince of Wales, for the first time. Each carrier can support 70 fighter aircraft'

I feel sure the Indian Navy will have no problem filling the deck with 70 aircraft.